# Cheap bike challenge



## Frozenspokes (May 26, 2004)

This came up in another thread, but I don't want to hijack, so I started this one.

We have all read the "debates" about how well a department store bike would hold up to "real" trail riding versus our much pricier "quality" bikes. But has anyone ever actually done some "real world" testing? I have never seen anything in a magazine. All of the "evidence" pointing to the inability of dept. store bikes to handle the rigors of "real" trail riding I have seen is purely anecdotal, and usually secondhand information. This makes it rather suspect.

So, I thought that maybe we could do a real world test of our own. My suggestion is simple. Any one interested in doing a real world test at MTBR would be given a budget of up to $200.00 (The $$ would come from donations from MTBR members) to buy a bike at one of the big box stores. They would be responsible for posting on the condition of the bike at purchase. They would have to ride the bike on trails for at least 1 hr every week for a period of three months (a total of 12 rides of at least 8 miles in length). At regular intervals during the testing period our intrepid tester would give a report on the condition of the bike and on how well or badly it rides. At the end of the period, our tester could write a full report on the bike and then we could have a definitive answer to this ?

MTBR members could make donations to the tester to defray the cost of purchasing the dept store bike. I won't be the tester as I am 5' 6" tall and weigh less than 130lbs. I really don't think that I would make the best test subject.

Any volunteers?


----------



## Guyechka (Jul 19, 2005)

*done already*



Frozenspokes said:


> This came up in another thread, but I don't want to hijack, so I started this one.
> 
> We have all read the "debates" about how well a department store bike would hold up to "real" trail riding versus our much pricier "quality" bikes. But has anyone ever actually done some "real world" testing? I have never seen anything in a magazine. All of the "evidence" pointing to the inability of dept. store bikes to handle the rigors of "real" trail riding I have seen is purely anecdotal, and usually secondhand information. This makes it rather suspect.
> 
> ...


Dirt Rag did a test of two $100 bikes from department stores last year. I forget the issue number, but you can go through the old issues at dirtragmag.com. Basically, both the bikes fell apart within a few hours. The worst thing was that one of the bikes was assembled so poorly that the wheels wouldn't spin! They had to completely disassemble and correctly reassemble the bikes before taking them out to test.


----------



## pacman (Jan 16, 2004)

*Liability*

And what's the budget for insurance?


----------



## CdaleTony (Jun 21, 2005)

pacman said:


> And what's the budget for insurance?


Yea, I have a family


----------



## brianthebiker (Nov 1, 2005)

Guyechka said:


> Dirt Rag did a test of two $100 bikes from department stores last year. I forget the issue number, but you can go through the old issues at dirtragmag.com. Basically, both the bikes fell apart within a few hours. The worst thing was that one of the bikes was assembled so poorly that the wheels wouldn't spin! They had to completely disassemble and correctly reassemble the bikes before taking them out to test.


I am very skeptical of those results. Lasy year, more than 20 Million bikes were sold in the USA.....the overwhelming majority of them were cheap department store bikes. Does anyone honestly think they would continue to sell year after year if they simply fell apart within a week?

A side note.....Bicycling magazine did a similar "study" last year looking at these bikes, and they found them reliable for street commuting purposes, which is essentially what they are made for. Anyone who honestly believes $150 bikes are made to bomb down mountains needs to go and have their head checked......they are selling these cheap bikes as mountain bikes because that is what is "cool"

IMO, there is way to much emphasis on what people ride and not enough on why people ride. I would much rather see someone who is excited about the sport and who rides a lot than someone with a $3000 bike who is merely a poseur.

My .02


----------



## McDowell_Matt (Jan 31, 2006)

And what about a budget for replacement parts???


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

MBA did one of these tests a few years ago and the bike fell apart, too.

The fact of the matter is we know these bikes are not trailworthy, so what's the point in driving that home and preaching to the choir about it? Furthermore, it's a safety issue. Why would you intentionally want to ride down tech descents on a POS that weighs 42 pounds and uses cheap vee brakes?


----------



## JimC. (Dec 30, 2003)

*Consumer Report test here*

it's been done by at least 3 mags.

If the link fails, it's a sticky (1st post) in"Beginners" forum.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/travel/bikes-cheap-bikes-no-bargain-705.htm

Jim


----------



## JM01 (Mar 29, 2005)

still looking...but getting close

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=168896


----------



## ArroyoBomber (Oct 3, 2005)

I think the idea of (re)testing some cheap bikes is a great idea, but with a few controls put in to prevent overly-strong biases and in order to keep expectations realistic.It would be cool to have a few test subjects from various cycling and MTB backgrounds of various skill levels.Think about it: take even just an o.k. DH'er off of his/her 50lb usual rig and put em on the "toughest" of cheap bikes, and yeah, they're gonna beat it like a runaway slave and break it like a cheap toy in under half an hour.What I personally would be interested in hearing are opinions from everyday Joes at a novice/intermediate skill level and riding experience level (i.e.-# of bikes ridden) allowed to test the cheapies alongside some quality bikes.Perhaps that would yield less ego-involved attempts at justifying their $4500 bikes (hey,if I dished that much out, I'd want to reiterate my "great choice" all the time too  ), which is how the whole Dirt Rag test seems to me.Of course I am aware that cheapies are in fact, well, cheap, and overall, tend to suck. But I agree with Brian 100%.Be realistic, they apparently do the job for a great many people, most likely at the beginner skill level.Why not let the testing be done by an average cheapie bike customer?

p.s.-I'm not trying to discount the credibility or valuable input of actual skilled riders with years of experience.I just think that you should stay on your FOES/Intense/SC and leave this one to the Huffy folks  ...some of 'em really don't NEED a bulletproof bike; they generally only take it off of pavement in the parks or alleys anyhow.


----------



## JM01 (Mar 29, 2005)

ArroyoBomber said:


> What I personally would be interested in hearing are opinions from everyday Joes at a novice/intermediate skill level and riding experience level (i.e.-# of bikes ridden) allowed to test the cheapies alongside some quality bikes.Perhaps that would yield less ego-involved attempts at justifying their $4500 bikes (hey,if I dished that much out, I'd want to reiterate my "great choice" all the time too  ), which is how the whole Dirt Rag test seems to me.Of course I am aware that cheapies are in fact, well, cheap, and overall, tend to suck. But I agree with Brian 100%.Be realistic, they apparently do the job for a great many people, most likely at the beginner skill level.Why not let the testing be done by an average cheapie bike customer?
> 
> p.s.-I'm not trying to discount the credibility or valuable input of actual skilled riders with years of experience.I just think that you should stay on your FOES/Intense/SC and leave this one to the Huffy folks  ...some of 'em really don't NEED a bulletproof bike; they generally only take it off of pavement in the parks or alleys anyhow.


OK...from my experience riding my home trails on cheap (and inexpensive), intermediate, and stupid priced bikes (Raleigh Matterhorn, a Sear's Free Spirit 18 spd, and a CCM 18 speed, as well as a Marin HT, and an Ellsworth FS), i can confirm that the difference at my riding level does not justify the price, especially at the very high end. I doubt if 1% of the riders would take advantage of the qualities of a boutique bike and i'm sure they would be happy with a well built and fitted bike from a tier 1 or 2 mfg

yes, there is a difference, but is it worth the extra $3K-$4K? for the average rider?...probably not


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

JM01 said:


> OK...from my experience riding my home trails on cheap (and inexpensive), intermediate, and stupid priced bikes (Raleigh Matterhorn, a Sear's Free Spirit 18 spd, and a CCM 18 speed, as well as a Marin HT, and an Ellsworth FS), i can confirm that the difference at my riding level does not justify the price, especially at the very high end. *I doubt if 1% of the riders would take advantage of the qualities of a boutique bike* and i'm sure they would be happy with a well built and fitted bike from a tier 1 or 2 mfg
> 
> yes, there is a difference, but is it worth the extra $3K-$4K? for the average rider?...probably not


Well, I would dispute that because it usually takes an effort to seek out the particular boutique brand and then decide, sometimes without riding, which model is good because they tend to be more specific in their applications. Lots of research is done before the purchase, including justification for the upcharge the first time around. Go to the Turner board, for example and you'll see a fairly accurate representation of most owners there.


----------



## forkboy (Apr 20, 2004)

*Bike Snob.*

There are millions of the disenfranchised doing this test every day on the way to their jobs.

I guarantee that there are people putting more miles on a Roadmaster every month than many posters to MTBR ride in a year.


----------



## brianthebiker (Nov 1, 2005)

JM01 said:


> OK...from my experience riding my home trails on cheap (and inexpensive), intermediate, and stupid priced bikes (Raleigh Matterhorn, a Sear's Free Spirit 18 spd, and a CCM 18 speed, as well as a Marin HT, and an Ellsworth FS), i can confirm that the difference at my riding level does not justify the price, especially at the very high end. I doubt if 1% of the riders would take advantage of the qualities of a boutique bike and i'm sure they would be happy with a well built and fitted bike from a tier 1 or 2 mfg
> 
> yes, there is a difference, but is it worth the extra $3K-$4K? for the average rider?...probably not


If someone said to you that you MUST drive a Ferrari and any other car is unridable.....you would laugh in their face. Yet this is the precise argument many here make when they argue that you can only have fun on a bike costing nearly as much as some cars.

IMO, they are forgetting that the true meaning of the sport.....to get out, get dirty and be at one with nature and the world around you.


----------



## ferday (Jan 15, 2004)

ArroyoBomber said:


> Perhaps that would yield less ego-involved attempts at justifying their $4500 bikes





> someone with a $3000 bike who is merely a poseur


seriously guys, i've never met these people. you keep bringing them up, and they sure draw a lot of hate on these boards...but i've never seen one! most people on the trail have average $ bikes, and those with high $ bikes are out riding, every time i've seen one.

where are the mysterious poseurs?


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

There are $3000 Treks, Cannondales, Specialized, and Giants out there. There was even a time I remember vividly where GT's were even more epensive than boutique brands of the era. 

It's true, biking is pricing many people out of it, including myself, but equipment costs money. Ridiculous or not, it costs money. A few years ago, a top-line XTR race bike was at the magic $3000 number. Now we're talking $5000. 3k doesn't seem like such a stretch anymore for a mid line bike. A poseur is someone who doesn't use their equipment, such as those that go to get coffee with a full XTR bike while wearing docksiders in NYC. A poseur is NOT anyone who uses their equipment, regardless if it's a Fisher, Trek, Turner, Ventana, of GT. From what I've seen, people who do research and spend the extra dollars are the ones looking to get the most riding out of the bike and perhaps they have a bit of a compulsion to get rides in, as is my case.


----------



## JM01 (Mar 29, 2005)

Jerk_Chicken said:


> There are $3000 Treks, Cannondales, Specialized, and Giants out there. There was even a time I remember vividly where GT's were even more epensive than boutique brands of the era.
> 
> It's true, biking is pricing many people out of it, including myself, but equipment costs money. Ridiculous or not, it costs money. A few years ago, a top-line XTR race bike was at the magic $3000 number. Now we're talking $5000. 3k doesn't seem like such a stretch anymore for a mid line bike. A poseur is someone who doesn't use their equipment, such as those that go to get coffee with a full XTR bike while wearing docksiders in NYC. A poseur is NOT anyone who uses their equipment, regardless if it's a Fisher, Trek, Turner, Ventana, of GT. From what I've seen, people who do research and spend the extra dollars are the ones looking to get the most riding out of the bike and perhaps they have a bit of a compulsion to get rides in, as is my case.


true...but i also see a lot of very expensive mtb's being used on paved roads, by professionals and their kids who looked at the price tag before they saw what it was attached to. Sometimes its funny to see a kid on a Banshee Scream or Orange DH rig riding down Main Street, especially if they have to climb a small hill

around our trails, its a status thing, and there is a definite penis envy syndrome with some of the people who ride the mass produced bikes


----------



## brianthebiker (Nov 1, 2005)

ferday said:


> seriously guys, i've never met these people. you keep bringing them up, and they sure draw a lot of hate on these boards...but i've never seen one! most people on the trail have average $ bikes, and those with high $ bikes are out riding, every time i've seen one.
> 
> where are the mysterious poseurs?


Look a little harder.

Seriously, there are a heck of a lot of commuters who use bikes such as Huffy's not because they want to, but because of economic necessity. These people ride everyday, rain or shine, and log more miles than most here on mtbr I would venture to guess. And at the same time, they are constantly ridiculed for riding these very same bikes they are forced to ride, again, because of economic necessity.

And you surprised that this draws people ire????.......I would worry if it did not!


----------



## JM01 (Mar 29, 2005)

ferday said:


> where are the mysterious poseurs?


here

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=125892


----------



## endurowanker (Mar 22, 2004)

brianthebiker said:


> I am very skeptical of those results. Lasy year, more than 20 Million bikes were sold in the USA.....the overwhelming majority of them were cheap department store bikes. Does anyone honestly think they would continue to sell year after year if they simply fell apart within a week?
> 
> A side note.....Bicycling magazine did a similar "study" last year looking at these bikes, and they found them reliable for street commuting purposes, which is essentially what they are made for. Anyone who honestly believes $150 bikes are made to bomb down mountains needs to go and have their head checked......they are selling these cheap bikes as mountain bikes because that is what is "cool"
> 
> ...


as a former full time wrench, i can say confidently, that YES, they all fall apart within a month or so. even IF your budget is 150 dollars, there are many many used bikes that will give you literally years of faithful and enjoyable service as a commuter/recreation bike. cheap dept. store bikes are a hazard to the very sport of cycling.


----------



## JM01 (Mar 29, 2005)

brianthebiker said:


> Look a little harder.
> 
> Seriously, there are a heck of a lot of commuters who use bikes such as Huffy's not because they want to, but because of economic necessity. These people ride everyday, rain or shine, and log more miles than most here on mtbr I would venture to guess. And at the same time, they are constantly ridiculed for riding these very same bikes they are forced to ride, again, because of economic necessity.
> 
> And you surprised that this draws people ire????.......I would worry if it did not!


that's me

i do about 12,000km/yr just commuting on mid-range hydrids but paint them black and make sure they look like crap and have good locks because of the theft problem in Toronto.

in the winter i try to find MTB's <$100 because of the salt and rust...economic necessity yes, but also practability...i find that usually the cheapest bikes work best for riding in snow. They're heavy, components have looser tolerances, and parts are cheaper to replace


----------



## endurowanker (Mar 22, 2004)

brianthebiker said:


> If someone said to you that you MUST drive a Ferrari and any other car is unridable.....you would laugh in their face. Yet this is the precise argument many here make when they argue that you can only have fun on a bike costing nearly as much as some cars.
> 
> IMO, they are forgetting that the true meaning of the sport.....to get out, get dirty and be at one with nature and the world around you.


fair enough, but why buy a ford when you can have a honda for similar money?


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

There was a time I was riding through NYC, thinking I'm the biking king, when a delivery boy on this heavy as **** bike with groceries in it blows by me on Broadway in front of Columbia GOING UPHILL. We couldn't even keep up with him, he was so fast.

Never underestimate any rider because of their bike.


----------



## ChipV (Jun 6, 2005)

Posers....who cares. I know plenty of guys that ride Ellsworths that are definatley not posers, just like I know folks on Haros that are. Wal-Mart bikes have there place in the food chain- nothing wrong with them for cruising to class or rolling around town. I mostly just get sick of all the finger pointing these days about what is or isn't "cool". It used to be that if you were on a bike that was enough.


----------



## brianthebiker (Nov 1, 2005)

JM01 said:


> that's me
> 
> i do about 12,000km/yr just commuting on mid-range hydrids but paint them black and make sure they look like crap and have good locks because of the theft problem in Toronto.
> 
> in the winter i try to find MTB's <$100 because of the salt and rust...economic necessity yes, but also practability...i find that usually the cheapest bikes work best for riding in snow. They're heavy, components have looser tolerances, and parts are cheaper to replace


Not to mention the fact that it would be silly to use an expensive bike for commuting, as it is probably out of your line of sight for several hours a day. Kind of like having a cheap car.....you don't worry as much about the small dings.

PS. Your mileage is in the top 1% of riders here I would venture to guess......certainly well above mine.


----------



## ferday (Jan 15, 2004)

brianthebiker said:


> Look a little harder.
> Seriously, there are a heck of a lot of commuters who use bikes such as Huffy's not because they want to, but because of economic necessity. These people ride everyday, rain or shine, and log more miles than most here on mtbr I would venture to guess. And at the same time, they are constantly ridiculed for riding these very same bikes they are forced to ride, again, because of economic necessity.And you surprised that this draws people ire????.......I would worry if it did not!


i don't disagree with you (although i find more humor than ire in posers), but having a high $$ bike does not make you a poser, and having a huffy does not make you an awesome rebel biker. it's this "ridiculing" that i have never seen before, why would anyone care how much your ride cost? even on these forums, full of spite as they are, i've never really seen anyone dissing cheap bikes or their riders. in fact, the beginners corner and what bike to buy? forums are full of great advice for people to buy cheaper bikes to enter the sport. i sure see a lot of posts dissing the "posers" and their high $$ bikes, though.

*the hate goes both ways*, i didn't spend 6 years in university so i could ride a huffy, but i sure as hell don't care one iota if you ride one. i'm hella glad i don't ride JM01's trails, where your bike is


> a status thing


. i just wanna ride, don't you?


----------



## JM01 (Mar 29, 2005)

brianthebiker said:


> Not to mention the fact that it would be silly to use an expensive bike for commuting, as it is probably out of your line of sight for several hours a day. Kind of like having a cheap car.....you don't worry as much about the small dings.
> 
> PS. Your mileage is in the top 1% of riders here I would venture to guess......certainly well above mine.


yep...locked up under my window


----------



## brianthebiker (Nov 1, 2005)

Re: _as a former full time wrench, i can say confidently, that YES, they all fall apart within a month or so_

If this was true, they would be sued out of business. The vast majority of the 20 Million bikes sold annually in the USA are in fact dept store bikes. How many of the 20 Million bikes sold each year would you venture to guess cost $3000 and more? Not too large a part of the pie at all.

Re: _cheap dept. store bikes are a hazard to the very sport of _

I think you need to define "cycling".....riding the pavement to work will make these bikes fall apart?


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

They have fallen apart on pavement. For most people, returning them back to the dept store and getting a refund is enough.

There are plenty of lawsuits, large recalls, and injuries that are available on the CPSC website and they are frequently posted here. There was one last month, in fact. can't remember the manufacturer, but I think the lawsuit involved Wally world?


----------



## brianthebiker (Nov 1, 2005)

Nice......I have often thought about buying a cheap bike and beating the hell out of it, just to see how much abuse it can take.


----------



## JM01 (Mar 29, 2005)

brianthebiker said:


> Nice......I have often thought about buying a cheap bike and beating the hell out of it, just to see how much abuse it can take.


not really that cheap...just looks like crap

it's a U.S. made Schwinn Sierra 700 GSX, Scram 5.0 RD & shifters, XT FD (with a Shimano chain ring and Shimano 34-11 cog set), Schwalbe Marathon Plus tires, and more...it has to stand up to 50km/day


----------



## brianthebiker (Nov 1, 2005)

ferday said:


> i don't disagree with you (although i find more humor than ire in posers), but having a high $$ bike does not make you a poser, and having a huffy does not make you an awesome rebel biker. it's this "ridiculing" that i have never seen before, why would anyone care how much your ride cost? even on these forums, full of spite as they are, i've never really seen anyone dissing cheap bikes or their riders. in fact, the beginners corner and what bike to buy? forums are full of great advice for people to buy cheaper bikes to enter the sport. i sure see a lot of posts dissing the "posers" and their high $$ bikes, though.
> 
> *the hate goes both ways*, i didn't spend 6 years in university so i could ride a huffy, but i sure as hell don't care one iota if you ride one. i'm hella glad i don't ride JM01's trails, where your bike is . i just wanna ride, don't you?


It is not "hate" at all&#8230;..it is an annoyance at some people's arrogance. I know that some riders on the trail will not say hi to me after I say hi to them because they think their sh** doesn't stink. You can see this in their attitude, whether it is in the parking lot or out on the trail. These same people often will spend more time talking about a ride/componentry/bikes than the actual ride itself. I have seen people like this, and it is annoying, but I do not hate them.

As a note, these same people almost always have the latest "in" name in biking. Some people watch the runways in Europe and base their decisions on clothing upon that, and likewise there are bikers who need to ride the "in" bike.


----------



## ferday (Jan 15, 2004)

brianthebiker said:


> As a note, these same people almost always have the latest "in" name in biking. Some people watch the runways in Europe and base their decisions on clothing upon that, and likewise there are bikers who need to ride the "in" bike.


ya, hate is strong, but easier to type than annoyance. i didn't mean anything by that.

just playing devils advocate, i believe all types (racers, riders, commuters, posers, huckers....etc.) have their place in the sport.

besides, r&d for the new "in" thing costs money, so i guess the posers can fund it until the technology can filter down to the rest of us...


----------



## brianthebiker (Nov 1, 2005)

JM01 said:


> not really that cheap...just looks like crap
> 
> it's a U.S. made Schwinn Sierra 700 GSX, Scram 5.0 RD & shifters, XT FD (with a Shimano chain ring and Shimano 34-11 cog set), Schwalbe Marathon Plus tires, and more...it has to stand up to 50km/day


Sorry, I didn't mean your bike looked cheap..... I was just typing out a line of thought which was not connected with what I previously typed.


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

brianthebiker said:


> It is not "hate" at all&#8230;..it is an annoyance at some people's arrogance. I know that some riders on the trail will not say hi to me after I say hi to them because they think their sh** doesn't stink. You can see this in their attitude, whether it is in the parking lot or out on the trail. These same people often will spend more time talking about a ride/componentry/bikes than the actual ride itself. I have seen people like this, and it is annoying, but* I do not hate them.
> *
> As a note, these same people almost always have the latest "in" name in biking. Some people watch the runways in Europe and base their decisions on clothing upon that, and likewise there are bikers who need to ride the "in" bike.


Yeah, these are the Litespeed and Merlin guys around here. Why do I hate them? Because if you're stuck on the side of the trail with mechanicals, they will not so much as stop or ask you if everything is ok. Furthermore, if you're a little slow, they exercise unsafe passing methods. This is not only me, but many people in my area share these thoughts.


----------



## JM01 (Mar 29, 2005)

ferday said:


> *the hate goes both ways*, i didn't spend 6 years in university so i could ride a huffy, but i sure as hell don't care one iota if you ride one. i'm hella glad i don't ride JM01's trails, where your bike is . i just wanna ride, don't you?


hang on a sec...what's the connection between an education and the cost of your bike...does a Turner make a difference if you have a Masters? or is it something else?

I ride an expensive bike sometimes, but i had a big deal go through last year and Mrs. J thought it would be nice to commerate it with a nice bike, something that would get used rather than hang on a wall or a trip that's forgotten in a few weeks. She was right, i still ride the bike, just don't think that the $6K price tag makes that much difference in my ability or the terrain that i ride


----------



## brianthebiker (Nov 1, 2005)

ferday said:


> besides, r&d for the new "in" thing costs money, so i guess the posers can fund it until the technology can filter down to the rest of us...


I guess they do serve a purpose after all;-)


----------



## JM01 (Mar 29, 2005)

brianthebiker said:


> Sorry, I didn't mean your bike looked cheap..... I was just typing out a line of thought which was not connected with what I previously typed.


aw comon...i put a lot of effort into making it look cheap...even the CAA badge

yes, its supposed to look cheap, they last a lot longer on the streets up here...my point was that it was a good bike, sort of like a frog prince


----------



## brianthebiker (Nov 1, 2005)

JM01 said:


> aw comon...i put a lot of effort into making it look cheap...even the CAA badge
> 
> yes, its supposed to look cheap, they last a lot longer on the streets up here...my point was that it was a good bike, sort of like a frog prince


Think you might be onto something here......how does "Frog Prince Cycles" sound?;-)


----------



## JM01 (Mar 29, 2005)

brianthebiker said:


> Think you might be onto something here......how does "Frog Prince Cycles" sound?;-)


Like I croaked and went to heaven


----------



## ferday (Jan 15, 2004)

JM01 said:


> hang on a sec...what's the connection between an education and the cost of your bike...does a Turner make a difference if you have a Masters? or is it something else?
> 
> I ride an expensive bike sometimes, but i had a big deal go through last year and Mrs. J thought it would be nice to commerate it with a nice bike, something that would get used rather than hang on a wall or a trip that's forgotten in a few weeks. She was right, i still ride the bike, just don't think that the $6K price tag makes that much difference in my ability or the terrain that i ride


whoah...the only "connection" between the education and bike is that i worked my f'n a$$ off to be able to get a decent job to be able to afford whatever bike i want. i have my share of cheap commuters as well.

i never said the price tag has anything to do with ability or fun level either, nor should it. i love all my bikes, cheap and expensive. go ride and stop reading a bunch of crap into peoples posts.


----------



## wrongway (Jul 26, 2005)

brianthebiker said:


> I am very skeptical of those results. Lasy year, more than 20 Million bikes were sold in the USA.....the overwhelming majority of them were cheap department store bikes. Does anyone honestly think they would continue to sell year after year if they simply fell apart within a week?
> 
> A side note.....Bicycling magazine did a similar "study" last year looking at these bikes, and they found them reliable for street commuting purposes, which is essentially what they are made for. Anyone who honestly believes $150 bikes are made to bomb down mountains needs to go and have their head checked......they are selling these cheap bikes as mountain bikes because that is what is "cool"
> 
> ...


Listen to brianthebiker . Those bikes are downright unsafe, and not trail worthy! Back in 1991 I started on a $220 "Team" Murray, which was condidered a high end Neiman-Marcus dept. store bike  . There is no way you can ride fast on these things, even if it's a candy colored "Team" edition with biopace chainrings . My Murray started falling apart on my first beginner fire road descent. The mild steel bars bent downward, and the pedals bent (I suspect the spindles were mild steel as well). I only weighed 170 lbs back then, too. There were no drops or jumps on the trail and the word "hucking" was not yet invented. The Murray got replaced with $550 Diamond Back Apex the following month. The upgrade was WAY worth it. Night and day difference.

These Magma swapmeet bikes and whatnot will continue to sell, because they are cheap, and to the general public who is not bike saavy the "Mongoose Daytona" jalopy looks as good as my Intense.


----------



## JM01 (Mar 29, 2005)

ferday said:


> whoah...the only "connection" between the education and bike is that i worked my f'n a$$ off to be able to get a decent job to be able to afford whatever bike i want. i have my share of cheap commuters as well.
> 
> i never said the price tag has anything to do with ability or fun level either, nor should it. i love all my bikes, cheap and expensive. go ride and stop reading a bunch of crap into peoples posts.


this thread was to focus on the question of inexpensive bike performance...are they any good? does the average rider appreciate the difference? does the difference in quality and build reflect the extra amount one has to spend?...not the ability to afford an expensive bike...that is best left to a thread on the F-88 forum

My cynical post was intended to point out that hard work, earning power, and the abilty to afford an above average bike has nothing to do with the valid question originally raised

I didn't read anything into the post, just read the crap that was there:

*"i didn't spend 6 years in university so i could ride a huffy, but i sure as hell don't care one iota if you ride one. i'm hella glad i don't ride JM01's trails, where your bike is"*


----------



## jabpn (Jun 21, 2004)

*Ya' know what..*

Are there places for the Huffies etc. Sure. Are they junk. Yep. These bikes do fall apart very quickly even when used for commuting on nice paved roads. So how many people here do ride the "junk"? I do and I know others that do. The cleaning crew where I work all ride cheap dept. store bikes. I commute to work on my cheapo winter beater. So does the bike get me by? Yes. Do the bikes got others by? Yes. But here's a little secret. Even though cheap bikes can get you by they are still junk, break down etc. etc. Case in point. The bikes that our cleaning crew use.....no longer shift (although they got them about four months ago). The brakes barely work. The handlebars are loose to the point you can't tighten the bolts down to completely stop twisting at some level. The seats are falling apart. The wheels are out of true. Need I go on. These guys (and a gal) don't go hucking or jumping or serious trail riding. They just ride to work and back because they can't afford cars. They used to come in on the bus but they started biking in after seeing me riding in for a few months.

The thing is they have learned to "ride" around these problems. They use their foot on the pavement to help stop them. They try not to lean on their handlebars to much. They walk up steep hills. Most of us had cheapo bikes as kids, we know how to "get around" the problems that developed on those cheapo bikes. So....do you think they would not take a LBS bike in the, say, $500 range if offered to them? We all know the answer. Of course they would. But why? Just because they're higher bling? NO. They know that these bikes ARE built better and would last longer. My cheapo commuter runs pretty well. Want to know why? Because almost every week I am fixing or adjusting something. I knew this when I bought the bike that I would be dealing with all the little annoying problems. Routine maintenance on my cheapo bike compared with my Kona Kula Deluxe is vastly different. My Kona maintenance consists mostly of lubing the chain for every ride or two, for months at a time. That's it. Rarely do I have to make adjustments to deraillers, bolts, cranks, seat, etc. Everything runs smoothly and it stays that way for a very long time. Cheapo bike--------------uhh no! I'm constantly replacing nuts and bolts, truing the wheels, adjusting the derailleurs (almost every other day), my seat is torn in two places (just from riding on it), I've replaced about two or three major parts including the stem and handlebars. I'm going to need a new headset. Cranks squeak like there's no tomorrow, even though everthing is tight. My bottome bracket cup keeps coming loose. Need I go on?

So there is a big difference in quality levels of bikes. Posters on this thread keep bringing up the fact that for a lot of people the cheapo bike is enough blah blah blah blah. I disagree with this. These bikes only work for the majority of people because the people learn to work around the problems. Not because the bike adequetly works as it was designed. And I know a lot of people riding cheapo bikes. A decent bike doesn't have these problems, to a large degree anyway. The other thing I take contention with about this thread is the huge gap that's being discussed regarding bike prices. Since when do bikes fall into the dept. store price range and then jump to $3k - $4k. There are GREAT bikes to be had in the $400 ish to $1000 range. I still wish I had my old DiamondBack Ascent SE (it got stolen =[ ). That bike also needed very little maintenance, although a little more than my current Kona, mostly derailleur adjustments every now and then. I do ride faster on my Kona.. Don't get me wrong I like my Kona alot. It's a great bike. But if I still had my $500 Diamondback I didn't, and wouldn't now, feel the need to upgrade despite having experience riding a "better" bike. I also wouldn't feel the need to own a "winter beater" bike to keep my nice one safe if I still had the DiamondBack. So if you think about it, cheaper ( cheaper...not cheapo) bikes have a lower overall cost of ownership. LOL


----------



## ferday (Jan 15, 2004)

> My cynical post was intended to point out that hard work, earning power, and the abilty to afford an above average bike has nothing to do with the valid question originally raised


my bad then. i want nothing to do with f88 or an argument with a regular poster.

to answer the OP's question (finally)...i disagree with you JM01, the $$ bike outperforms a cheap bike in every category, especially durability over time. there is a cut-off to that (ie between $3K and $6K for example) but a bike at say $1000 is far superior to a bike at $200 in every category except possible fun factor (until the cheap bike breaks.)


----------



## B.Howard (Sep 1, 2005)

*A Better Test*



Frozenspokes said:


> So, I thought that maybe we could do a real world test of our own. My suggestion is simple. Any one interested in doing a real world test at MTBR would be given a budget of up to $200.00 (The $$ would come from donations from MTBR members) to buy a bike at one of the big box stores. They would be responsible for posting on the condition of the bike at purchase.


A better test would be to make a wager.

For example, we pick some reasonably responsible but young rider (like a college kid) and bet him $500.00 that he can't complete X number of races on a $200.00 department store bike. If he makes it through the races with the bike in one piece, he gets the $500. If he doesn't, he has to do X hours of trail maintenance. He'll have an incentive to make the bike work, and he'll have to be froogle about replacing parts because $500, assuming he wins it, would not cover many upgrade. If he succeeds, he could tell everyone what sort of effort was required.

This method would take some of the subjectivity out of the equation. Plus, it would probably not be difficult to get sponsorship from a publication like Consumer Reports or MBA, either of which which might want to purchase the story for its entertainment and information value.


----------



## blizzard_mk (Feb 19, 2006)

Well put jabpn. 

I was having a hard time deciding between an Ellsworth and a Huffy, I had no idea there was anything in between.


----------



## JM01 (Mar 29, 2005)

ferday said:


> my bad then. i want nothing to do with f88 or an argument with a regular poster.
> 
> to answer the OP's question (finally)...i disagree with you JM01, the $$ bike outperforms a cheap bike in every category, especially durability over time. there is a cut-off to that (ie between $3K and $6K for example) but a bike at say $1000 is far superior to a bike at $200 in every category except possible fun factor (until the cheap bike breaks.)


Thats the point

also pics of the home trails

as with me, the cheap bikes 100-300 last about 2 years, especially with the sand on the home trails. My better bikes 500-1500 are great, do everything well, and have lasted for years with regular maintenance

From there, we have some very expensive bikes...road, hybrid, and MTB, and in truth, i can see very little difference in their performance...any difference is usually a result of the components, rather than the frame.

That said, my Ellsworth is a unique bike...saved my butt in a few sketchy situations, and is unique in the way it climbs and on the downhills...probably not worth the stupid price, but i haven't been on a bike that comes close at any price. But not an issue here, as it is not a bike that an average rider would buy.

Sorry for the tone of my post, just felt it ironic that when we were typing on performance, the issue of affordability came up in conjunction my post on status.

BTW, your right about F-88, fun sometimes, but most there speak to, or about, a burning Bush


----------



## jabpn (Jun 21, 2004)

blizzard_mk said:


> Well put jabpn.
> 
> I was having a hard time deciding between an Ellsworth and a Huffy, I had no idea there was anything in between.


YES it's TRUE! LOL`


----------



## wrongway (Jul 26, 2005)

ferday said:


> seriously guys, i've never met these people. you keep bringing them up, and they sure draw a lot of hate on these boards...but i've never seen one! most people on the trail have average $ bikes, and those with high $ bikes are out riding, every time i've seen one.
> 
> where are the mysterious poseurs?


They're at the gym on spin bikes listening to techno  .


----------



## TrekFan (Apr 21, 2005)

brianthebiker said:


> IMO, there is way to much emphasis on what people ride and not enough on why people ride. I would much rather see someone who is excited about the sport and who rides a lot than someone with a $3000 bike who is merely a poseur.
> 
> My .02


right on. to this day i think i have put more miles on my old $75 toys r us Murray 10 speed when i was in high school/college than i do on my multi-thousand dollar bikes today...


----------



## GOLLUM (Mar 10, 2005)

*I've done this experiment inadvertently with a friend....*

This is the way the situation went down and how it escalated to proving my point.

He knew that I ride regularly but did not know the extent of the equipment I use. When he saw my bike for the first time the first question he ask me was how much did it cost. I told him and he had that WTF? expression on his face. Typical comments came out of his mouth, that's a down payment for a nice car, you got ripped off, do you really need all that fancy crap?? I bit my lip from saying STFU, instead I invited him to ride with me one day. I kept in mind of his riding level and the bike he was riding, a MOTIV bought at Costco. I already knew that this was gonna be short and sweet and I was gonna have the last laugh.
I picked a bunny trail, very easy, no drops, roots, just a moderate amount of speed bumps and one climb. I made sure his bike was in riding order. I told him his seat is too low and might want to raise it up a bit but he said he would be uncomfortable. Fine. I was at point at the beginning of the trailhead when we started and the first thing I heard was his chain skipping. "Hold up a sec" he yelled His chain dropped from the middle ring. I had made sure that he would not have any shifting or any other problems but oviously I had miss something. We went back to the car too see If I can make the proper adustments.
I tried my best to adjust the limit screws but the chain kept on dropping to the granny gear. I ask him that if had encountered this problem before and he said yes. I asked him if he tried to correct the problem. This was his response and I was shocked. "I try not to put too much load on the first pedal stroke that's why I keep the seat low I was dumbfounded, I did not know how to respond to that.

Moral of the story? Use cheap eqipment you get cheap results. I didn't give him a hard time about it I just understood him (I think??) Another observation is that the rider should be better educated rather than frugal. At the long run he/she would enjoy the sport better. Support your LBS they know what they are talking about. My .02 worth.


----------



## mondaycurse (Nov 24, 2005)

I wouldn't call people riding they're bikes through town "posers." I have one bike that I need to use to go to the ATM, go to the movies, etc, but I also need it to take to the local trails. 
Also, I find it funny how mountain bikes are "cool looking," but other people think my 2005 trek 6500 paint job looks dumb compared to wal*mart specials. Have you seen some of those paint jobs and frames? cheesy. My friend(big guy around 250 lbs) recently got a walmart special and has already replaced the seatpost, rims, and rear shock with the company replacements and has so far spent around 500 on the bike including replacement parts.


----------



## G-reg (Jan 12, 2004)

Sorry to dampen the flame war, but the point isn't 40.00 vs 4000.00. The point is that a 320.00 Trek 3700 is about a billion times better than a 295.00 dual suspension Pacific. A bike shop putting it together instead of the janitor is worth the cost of admission alone.


----------



## Dmytro (Nov 11, 2003)

Sorry to Hijack the discussion,

JM01, is your first photo from Durham? looks really familiar..

My take on the discussion:
While the quality of bike is vastly superior for a $500+LBS bike then a $200 wally world special, I don't think that many of us *need* 3,000k + bikes.

But, if we can afford it, why not?

People don't *need* $500,000 houses.. but that seems to be the trend now..


----------



## dtrek4500 (May 7, 2004)

Check out this dude's new bike.


----------



## phromm (Jan 8, 2006)

*feel lucky*

Sure, bikes can be expensive compared to running shoes or tennis rackets. But compared to motorcycles or cars, they're a relative bargain. Who among us can afford a motorcycle or car that would be a competitive racer (other than in a junk-yard derby)? But most people on a relatively modest budget, could scrape up enough dough to buy a bike that's within a hair of anything being raced by the pros. Plus, if the boutique manufacturers of the world had to maintain a business selling bikes to only those that could truly utilized the bikes potential, they'd go out of business. For every hardcore rider out there buying a high-end bike, there's probably several posers who buy the same bike just to get to the corner coffee shop on the weekend. At the end of the day, we all benefit. As for the department store bikes - life is short, why waste it riding crap (or even worrying about it for that matter)?

phromm


----------



## BrianU (Feb 4, 2004)

*Sorry, do not believe it.*



brianthebiker said:


> Look a little harder.
> 
> Seriously, there are a heck of a lot of commuters who use bikes such as Huffy's not because they want to, but because of economic necessity. These people ride everyday, rain or shine, and log more miles than most here on mtbr I would venture to guess. And at the same time, they are constantly ridiculed for riding these very same bikes they are forced to ride, again, because of economic necessity.
> 
> And you surprised that this draws people ire????.......I would worry if it did not!


And I have used a department store bike for commuting. In 1989 I went to NAS Jacksonville, for what was supposed to be 3 weeks, before heading overseas. That 3 weeks turned into 3 months and with Florida's heat, humidity, 2 miles to the sea wall, round trip to the chow hall at lunch, and back to the barracks every day, I quickly decided one of those $140 Murrays at the PX was a good idea. When I left, I just gave it to someone. I was the exception though. The bike racks between the buildings were full of these bikes, but most looked like they were hardly ever used, if used at all. Sure you see people commuting on these, but I would bet for every one of these you see actually frequently used, there are 50 sitting in someone's backyard rusting away within a year of being purchased. It is this majority that does not understand how we can pay so much money for a mountainbike, when Wal-marts sells perfectly fine mountainbikes for so cheap. Heck, they are even full suspension. This is the target customer for these bikes, not someone that realizes these bikes are only suited for commuting on the road.

Brian


----------



## jonlong (Sep 29, 2004)

Lots of interesting points brought up in this thread...

I think that department store bikes definitely have a place in the cycling world. There are more huffy's and pacific's sold than all the high end bikes put together each year. I can't remember the numbers, but department store bikes make up a the strong majority of bike sales. I would much rather see a kid riding a cheap huffy and having a good time than have him sitting inside all day because his parents can't afford a $250 Trek kid's bike. 

There is definitely a difference between a department store bike and a cheap bike store bike, other than the quality of the assembly. I have had many customers bring brand new department store bikes in for professional assembly, but the bikes are impossible to build well. The parts are so cheaply made and are made to such loose specifications that things just don't work well, despite the best adjustment possible.

I think that the markup on a $200 Trek and a $200 Pacific are probably different. The Pacific is made with much cheaper parts, resulting in greater profit for the company. A bike shop makes less money on the bike, because it has more expensive parts, but they make up their money in accessories and service/labor. 

I started mountain biking on a $150 Pacific hardtail. I had a great time and learned a lot about bike maintenance becauese that thing was constantly falling apart. But I wouldn't have been able to get into mountain biking without a cheap gateway.


----------



## brianthebiker (Nov 1, 2005)

Re: _a bike at say $1000 is far superior to a bike at $200 in every category except possible fun factor (until the cheap bike breaks.)_

I think that was the underlying theme of most of the posts on this thread.


----------



## cameronm_99 (Dec 27, 2005)

Personal experience. Cheap department store bikes are not good for anything but commuting, and possibly some recreational (ie paved, hard pack running trails) trail use. Anything beyond that and they will falll apart. Bought one to ride back and forth to work, and then decided that I wanted to start MTB ing. It took less than 3 weeks for me to completely destroy the rear hub/freewheel and the shifters. That's when I stated looking for a quality MTB in the price range that I could afford at the time. I refused to spend $100 on a bike that I knew would not last me more than a couple of months of real trail use.


----------



## Guyechka (Jul 19, 2005)

*welcome to consumerism 101*

Face it, you are forced to buy a costly bike or upgrade last year's costly bike when you buy into the consumerist mentality. We all do it, even those who are riding Wal-mart specials. What about the friend who doesn't ride who is taken aback by the cost of your bike? His immediate response is, "You could have used that for a down payment on a nice car!"? What does that tell you? It tells me that his priorities are elsewhere than bikes, not that he has a better grip on the reality that we are, above all, consumers. That same friend is going to drive up to your house in a fine new car ($3000 down payment) and brag about how wonderful it is. Does he really need it? No! He could have bought a used car with 100,000 miles on it for less than the down payment. Why, you could be equally as appalled at his purchase.

As for poseurs, they are the ones who have really bought into the consumerist mentality 100%, to the point that they feel obliged to look down their noses at anyone who isn't keeping up. In their eyes, they are the pinnacle of consumerist evolution, able to afford the latest, most expensive piece of machinery out there. It isn't quite that they have "the bike". Rather, it is that they have the money and, especially, the discernment that allows them to buy the bike. Find one posuer riding a Merlin and you find a group of poseurs riding Merlins, Ellsworths, Titus exo-grids, Deans. Each one is trying their damnedest to keep up with the rest as regards acquiring new and hot bike equipment.

Let those who want to spend $100 on a Wal-mart bike, but watch them buy a $600,000 house, with five bedrooms and four baths, for their three person families. Meanwhile, be thankful that you are so obsessed with bikes that you "only" spend $2000 a year on new gear and don't give a rat's ass for new cars or new houses.


----------



## JM01 (Mar 29, 2005)

Bloodfist said:


> Sorry to Hijack the discussion,
> 
> JM01, is your first photo from Durham? looks really familiar..
> 
> ...


sorry...never been to Durham...maybe some day

i don't think anybody needs a 3K bike either...best to wait until they're on sale and pay less BTW...have you seen what kind of house sells for 500K in toronto nowadays...not much better than a fixerupper in most cases


----------



## brianthebiker (Nov 1, 2005)

*Well said!*

Re: _ I think that department store bikes definitely have a place in the cycling world. There are more huffy's and pacific's sold than all the high end bikes put together each year. I can't remember the numbers, but department store bikes make up a the strong majority of bike sales. I would much rather see a kid riding a cheap huffy and having a good time than have him sitting inside all day because his parents can't afford a $250 Trek kid's bike. _

Well said and to the point. I would add that this kid is much less likely to do drugs, sit and play on the X-Box, and on and on......


----------



## JM01 (Mar 29, 2005)

found some stats on Canadian bike sales...perhaps they can relate to our American friends...nice to see that the lbs's have increased their market share over the last 3 years:

http://www.sportsvision.info/rprt_bicycles.htm


----------



## brulew (Dec 13, 2005)




----------



## insanebert (Oct 21, 2005)

I used to ride many a wallmart type bike. I started on them and they were fine in the flat swap called Louisiana. When we evacuated to North Carolina I had to get a bike with all of the great trails here like the pisgah and such. I got a cheap mongoose at wallmart which lasted about 2 months before I destroyed the fork. It literaly snaped in two and lets just say the ensuing crash was not very pertty. I was lucky to walk away from it and will never think about a cheap bike again.


----------



## jabpn (Jun 21, 2004)

*Ok*

So I think we're all agreed now that dept. store bikes are cheap. They do have a place (hey...my cleaning crew friends still get to work faster than the bus or walking). I personally will never buy one. And I personally will still have most of my co-workers look at me strangely every time they see me come through the door in the middle of winter. Here's a good story that I'm sure most of us can relate to....I was walking in the sporting goods dept at Target the other night and I over heard the following conversation of a dad shopper talking to a sales associate.

<Father> So I noticed that the front brake lever squeezes all the way down to the handlebars real easy but the rear brake one doesn't. Is it supposed to be this way?

<Salesperson (looked to be 16) > ummmm......yeah. You don't want the brake levers to hard in the front.

<Father> Oh I get it. You mean so that she doesn't go flying over the handlebars right? (at least he has a basic concept of an endo  )

<Salesperson> Yeah that's right. You don't want her locking up the brake alright.

<Father> (chuckling) Yeah!

At the point I just couldn't keep from laughing out loud. I tried, I really did. I walked over to the salesguy, and looking at him, I asked him to go get me the wrench I needed. I then explained a few "biking pointers" to him and helped him adjust the bike to the point it was safe to ride. Keep in mind the seven year old daughter was sitting right there on the bike this whole time. What I did not do however was launch into a tirade about how these bikes sucked and launch into the salesguy about how inept he was etc etc. This was the girl's first bike and she "thought it was pretty". I did hear a manager ask the salesguy what was going on though as I walked away. I doubt he got into trouble but at least the little girl isn't going to get nailed by a car when she can't stop rolling down the driveway.

So........I'm thinking the next new thread should be "At what price range do you stop getting a significant increase in functionality/durability and start becoming "blingish" ".
(Keep in mind that I do ride a complete X.0 drivetrain. I love it but readily admit it is blingish...although very well working bling).


----------



## ChipV (Jun 6, 2005)

When my wife and i first got into mountain biking, back in the early nineties, we shopped around at the local bike shops and ended up with two Gary Fisher Marlins. If I remember correctly, they were just over $300 each, came with full cro-mo frames and decent Shimano components. That was alot for us to spend on bikes back then, and I was pretty proud of those bikes. We rode the hell out of them, too. 

I see kids around our neighborhood riding Wal-mart "chopper" bikes, or those ultra cheap boinger bikes...I always think how much more fun they would be having if they would have taken that $200 and bought a decent BMX bike. The same can be said for the adults I see cruisng the park on those 50 lb Wal Mart boingers. Man, if they would have just stopped by a LBS they could have gotten three times the bike for nearly the same money. 

I guess it comes down to, for most people, a bike is a bike is a bike....they buy it because of the color, or because it has a rear shock. They don't really care if it is going to fall apart, because most of the time it will be laying out in the rain after a few weeks, and not long after be forgotten in the back of the garage.


----------



## ErickKTM (Jul 29, 2004)

When I was in college I rode a Raleigh M80, it was a decent bike back in 95 when i got it, I paid like $500 for it. Rode it every day to the gym and class and trail riding on the weekends. Put alot of miles on that bike. Replace the tires, straighten the back rim and ride.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

Well there's lot's of replies and I'll admit I didn't read them all, but as someone who's basically experienced this I'll share my $0.02........

I started off looking to get back into an excercise routine just about 2 years ago and had almost always riden throughout my life so far (just had this stint when I 1st got into comps of doing F-all). We have to import and then pay quite a bit of duty on everything here so I'll make sure and state clearly the bikes and known US type pricing.

I went into the local bike shop (there's only 1) and picked out what I thought was a decent bike that was withing my budget (under $1K BDS=$500 US) It was a Diamondback COIL-X and it came in just under $800 BDS/$400 US (think it costs around $300 US in the states) Well I had this bike (not quite department store, but just slightly better ) and it lasted me just under a year as I had been told (after I made the decission and ordered it) by actual mountain bikers. I had been told the parts wouldn't last a year and it's fork wasn't to safe, had no real sort of dampening etc (I did have several "calls" because of that fork) So for $800 I got into mountin biking, rode 1,800 miles for that year and learned about MTBing, the components, my style, got some seriously decent and fun excercise.

I now ride a GIANT Trance3 ($1400 US, over 4 times the price of the DB COIL-X) which I've had for just over a year now, and on the very first ride I could tell the difference, the comfidence it inspired in me, how much better the suspension was etc, etc. Now in the year I've had the bike I've upgraded quite a lot of the parts (upgraditis) - they aren't toast, just either put down as spares or being used on my rigid MTB). My Trance is prob worth over $2400 US now with all the upgrades, but I've put over 3,000 miles on it in that 1st year and I missed out riding it for almost 3 months out of that year and think that every penny I've spent on it was well worth it. I don't think that for someone who is going to ride 3-4 times/75-120 miles a week that a $2,000-$2,500 bike is expensive at all.

Would I actually every consider buying or riding one of those "wally world" type bikes - NEVER, I almost got seriously injured riding a semi-decent bike and couldn't imagine how insecure I would feel bombing a WW bike down a mountain or off a 1ft drop.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

Double post site if F*ing areound again, geting database errors and hit refresh, got the double post. :S


----------



## PCC (Sep 5, 2005)

ferday said:


> seriously guys, i've never met these people. you keep bringing them up, and they sure draw a lot of hate on these boards...but i've never seen one! most people on the trail have average $ bikes, and those with high $ bikes are out riding, every time i've seen one.
> 
> where are the mysterious poseurs?


You don't see them because the bikes are comfortably in people's garages and the owners are comfortably on their couches.

I have worked on a few cheap bikes in my time and I can honestly say that the mild steel axles will bend, the grease will wear out in the bearings, the bearings will fall apart as a result. That is, if the bike doesn't meet an untimely death because the rock-hard brake pads scraping on chrome steel rims didn't stop the bike on time and it ended up crashing into something and the rider is either lucky and came away with a few scrapes and bruises or is dearly departed.


----------



## big_slacker (Feb 16, 2004)

I just bought a $60 caloi frame from jenson usa. We'll see if it breaks this weekend.


----------



## Frozenspokes (May 26, 2004)

Wow! I step away from the board for a few days and a firestorm ensues. I have just read the untire thread and amongst the flame wars and usual acidic posts found a few gems of wisdom. Forgive me if I don't include the posters handles.

To the guy with the cleaning crew. That is just the type of stuff that I am looking for. It has been my beleif that a $300.00 "quality" bike was at least double the quality of it's $200.00 dept store counterpart. Your description of the way your co-workers had learned to "work around" many of the issues with these bikes was illuminating. 

To the guy that started riding more technical trails on a cheap bike and the fork broke. Wow! Glad that you are OK. Again, this is the type of real world experience that I was looking for. As you learned, it is worth the extra $$$ to buy a quality bike.

To the guy that took his coworker out on the dept store bike. Good for you for trying to share the joy of our sport. It is unfortunate that so many in our society don't understand it. But, the dude had to be a lost cause. 

I guess that I sometimes grow weary of trying to explain to some clueless wonders why it would be better for them to spend the extra $$ and go to the LBS and get a hardtail vs. getting that "cool looking" WalMart FS bike for less.


----------



## mappable (Aug 29, 2004)

has anyone ridden a schwinn ranger?
here's the link to amazon reviews
i was surprised at how positive the reviews were for a $140 bike.
does anyone know anything about the red shimano sprocket that's used on the rear derailleur? it looks like its made of plastic.


----------



## mappable (Aug 29, 2004)

here's a link to the shimano tourney product group site

i found the following description revealing "Best of all, Tourney's visual appearance has a high-level impression that in no way is inferior to its upper classes. Tourney sets an appealing standard in this entry-level category."


----------



## JM01 (Mar 29, 2005)

PCC said:


> You don't see them because the bikes are comfortably in people's garages and the owners are comfortably on their couches.
> 
> I have worked on a few cheap bikes in my time and I can honestly say that the mild steel axles will bend, the grease will wear out in the bearings, the bearings will fall apart as a result. That is, if the bike doesn't meet an untimely death because the rock-hard brake pads scraping on chrome steel rims didn't stop the bike on time and it ended up crashing into something and the rider is either lucky and came away with a few scrapes and bruises or is dearly departed.


depends on what you use them for...i need winter commuters to ride in the snow and salt...a disposable bike that can be scrapped when the salt eats them away, but with good brakes and tires.

just picked this up 2 days ago everything works, lifetime frame warranty, 1 year on the components, aluminum rims, kenda tires...all for

$71.97 cdn ($63.33 US)


----------



## aliensporebomb (Feb 2, 2004)

*Thinking....*

My first mountain bike (I used to post here as Blue 
'Goose after this old bike, a blue Mongoose Surge) 
was a $350 bike shop special - no front or rear 
suspension, really basic but it worked. I later turned 
it into a commuter bike after I got a "real" mountain 
bike.

The issue with the department store bikes beyond 
poor assembly, lowest of the low end components 
and cookie cutter designs is that they are incredibly 
heavy.

I lifted one of the Mongoose IBOC dual boingers at 
Target a few weeks ago and nearly gave myself a 
hernia. It had to weigh close to 50 pounds.

Anyone riding this beyond basic transportation (which 
is what I see most of them being used as) would 
find themselves in for a rude surprise trying to use 
it for real trail riding.

I think many people ride once and never again as
lugging 50 pounds of bike up a hill would make even
a fit person reconsider their cycling desire.

Your mileage may vary.


----------



## timsajerk (Jun 6, 2004)

so this is a long ass thread and i admittedly just skimmed it...

with a heavy conscience i admit to selling cheap bikes. i manage the toy/sporting good dept for a major retail company. simply put these bikes are junk. any chance i get i refer someone to a lbs. the reallity these bike come 50% assembled, poorly at that. usually they are shipped on their side with a easily a hundred pounds stacked on top of them. so they've taken a beating before ever getting to the store. pacific and magna cut corners where ever they can. store i work for sells a bike for $53, i mean really what can you expect. yet they take it to the lbs and spend the cost of the bike to get it riding decently.

people do expect to be able to ride trails on a $140 schwinn, and refuse to believe its worht investing more. they see a shock and expect it to feel like riding on pillows. people that buy these bikes are ignorant to their limitations.

there is however some place for them though. it's a university town and if the bikes locked up outside and never be tuned up, why throw away money? i have no problems selling a cheap bike that might make it through a semester outside a dorm. hopefully they just consider it an expense. roughly the cost of one text book.

personal disclaimer: 
liabilty prevents me from working on a bikes in the store. its contracted though another company


----------



## jonlong (Sep 29, 2004)

timsajerk,

Do you know how the bike builders get paid? I've heard $10 a bike for most department/sporting goods stores. And considering they are only assembled, not tuned, you could crank out a decent number of bikes in an hour. Probably could make more money than working in a bike shop.


----------



## PrincipalRider (Jun 24, 2005)

jabpn said:


> There are GREAT bikes to be had in the $400 ish to $1000 range. I still wish I had my old DiamondBack Ascent SE (it got stolen =[ ).


I agree. I paid $279.00 for my 2003 specialized hardrock crmo. It had acera components and tektro brakes and a RS Judy fork. If you look up thes parts on the reviews, they do not score highly. Yet this bike always held up with little maintainence.I tortured that hardtail til my kidneys hurt. I rode it on all but the hardes trails in Phoenix AZ. After I got my FS Haro, I sold it (stupidly, I could have built a SS with that frame) to a friend for 50 bucks who needed a ride in the worst way. He is still riding it all over with no problems.

My girfriend had a RoadMaster Mt. Fury that she paid 40 bucks for. That thing was always coming out of adjustment, coming loose, breaking down, not shifting, ghost shifting, or just plain sucking. I had to work on it all the time to keep up with the Hardrock. Luckily we stopped at a sandwich shop after a ride about a mile from her house and she forgot to lock her bike. When we came out, it was gone. She was all sad. So I let her ride my bike home as I danced a jig all the way down the street. I bought her Trek 4300 and the first thing she said after riding it was, "I always thought I just didn't know how to change gears on the other bike.This bike just pops them into place." Best 300 bucks I ever spent.

I can understand buying the 40 dollar walmart cruiser or comfort bike if you need transportation and you have no funds. What I do not understand, is buying the 150 or 200 dollar Walmart "mountain" bike when you can save a little bit more and get a decent bike that is put together by a mechanic at a bike shop.


----------



## B.Howard (Sep 1, 2005)

NMPhi767 said:


> What I do not understand, is buying the 150 or 200 dollar Walmart "mountain" bike when you can save a little bit more and get a decent bike that is put together by a mechanic at a bike shop.


Well, having a bike put together by a mechanic at a shop is not always the best deal either. My buddy just dropped about $1,200 on a roadie from a really nice LBS, and every time he tries to shift into his small front ring, his chain drops off the drivetrain. I keep offering to fix it, but he just wants to take it back to the shop. I think this is kind of weak, but he keeps saying that part of his purchase included free maintenance. So, there's another reason to go to the LBS on the front end.

For my money, buying used and learning how to service your own equipment is the best way to go. Of course, if you're buying a bike at Wal-Mart, you probably just want to go ride and forget about it.

At any rate, between my last post and now, I did see one guy with a NEXT bike at our local trails. He was pushing it because it was ireparably broken. That's the only NEXT I've ever seen out there.


----------



## jonlong (Sep 29, 2004)

B.Howard said:


> At any rate, between my last post and now, I did see one guy with a NEXT bike at our local trails. He was pushing it because it was ireparably broken. That's the only NEXT I've ever seen out there.


Seeing people on department store bikes on the trail is always an uplifting thing for me. They are typically people who are just getting into the sport who haven't yet been corrupted by the marketing and latest trends in mountain biking. It's similar to seeing little kids on the trail. You know they are out there for the right reasons.


----------



## timsajerk (Jun 6, 2004)

the assembler at my store makes about $3.40 per bike, and can assemble about 30 on a good day. i've never had an assembly person that even rides bikes. nice guy but he's just not paid enough to care about something he has no passion for.


----------



## B.Howard (Sep 1, 2005)

jonlong said:


> Seeing people on department store bikes on the trail is always an uplifting thing for me.


True. The person on one of these dept. store jobs is probably a beginner, and it's good to see kids trying out healthy hobbies. If they like it, they'll probably buy a nicer bike next time. Assuming a kid spends $150 on a Wal-Mart nike, breaks it in 6 months, and then drops $399 on an Ibex, or Iron Horse or something after wising up, he still hasn't spent as much money as he would have spent if he bought an xBox 360 and a handful of games.


----------



## Irish (Mar 30, 2005)

Here is my experience....

When I first started I didn't know anyone who rides, so not knowing better I went to Walmart and bought a Schwinn S-30. The regular price was right around $300, I got it reduced after Christmas sale trying to get rid of all the extra bikes they got in for the season for $176. Not knowing much at the time I thought Schwinn was a great namebrand.

I probably put 600-800 miles (not sure I broke my $15 wally world computer) on the thing, all on XC trails, small rocks, lots of roots, no big drops. I'm a big guy 6'3 weighing in at around 230. I heard a lot of creaking, and noises, the worst was I broke the seat clamps out on a trail when I hit a very small drop just a hair over 1 foot.

It had it moments that scarred me, like when I would hit 30mph on a downhill. After finding this site and learning more about bikes, I noticed a few more things with it the average joe wouldn't, and the biggest problem I had was the brakes, they were not intended for serious trail riding, and needed to have pads replaced very frequently. Also it wouldn't shift up properly from the granny gear to the middle chain ring, but I was able to fix that.

Long story short, I was pretty ruff on that bike, it never "fell apart" a few things went wrong, but that is to be expected, as it wasn't built for someone my size. I've since bought a Giant Reign 1, and the difference is amazing, but I still keep the ole wally special in good condition in case someone without a bike wants to go for a ride and give the sport a try. They are not made for serious trail riding, but I don't see anything wrong with taking it off road as long as you know it's limits. If it will get someone riding that otherwise wouldn't, well go for it, although they would be better off with a quality used bike, but the average joe isn't going to think that way unless they know a more experienced rider.


----------



## jkish (Dec 11, 2004)

*Not for trial use*

I had a Walmart Schwinn Sidewinder (almost identical to the Ranger that Target sells) that I bought to ride to class. I took it on the trail and it lasted one day. At the time I weighed 225. The wheels warped, axle bent, pedal bent and BB was making crunching sounds.

For short road commutes it would probably have lasted a while especially for light riders. Most dept store bikes aren't meant for off road use and usually have a sticker on the top tube that says so.

That day on the trail tearing up the Schwinn reminded me how much fun mountain biking was. A little over a year later (and 25lbs lighter) I've got 2 decent bikes and am hooked.


----------



## Blendthree (Feb 10, 2006)

I think everyone tends to forget that bike manufacturers are really frame companies (cheapies included). It is quite possible to get some decent components even from a department store, I once picked up a Mongoose with a 24 speed Shimano Acera drive train, Hayes manual disc, Kenda Koyotes and a 65mm adjustable Mozo fork, RST-22 coil over shock, KMC chain etc. The cost of the complete bike was less than buying just a few of the components alone. Perhaps the frame was overweight, but since it was technically free, no harm no foul.


----------

