Walmart bike good enough?

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 04 Sep 2007 12:50:29
From:
Subject: Walmart bike good enough?

I have recently got into biking and have started commuting to work 12
miles each way a twice a week. My bike is some heavy walmart'ish
bike, 18-speed mountain bike, shimano gears. Honestly I have no
issues with it, as it is tuned up correctly.

However, all the websites say to avoid these bikes, why? I suppose if
I spend $300+ I'll get a 10 pound lighter bike, but what difference
is that going to make? The weight of the rider dominates the mass of
the system, so a 10 lb bike weight reduction should only make you go
5-10% faster?

So what are the real benefits of expensive bikes?

Date: 23 Sep 2007 00:31:04
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Walmart bike good enough?

In article <1190227961.471005.235200@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >,
rdclark <rdclark2@gmail.com > writes:
> On Sep 17, 8:31 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
>
>> I figure the real benefits of expensive bikes
>> are ... they're pretty. And that's okay. It
>> can be nice to possess something of quality and
>> aesthetic beauty. If it inspires a rider to ride,
>> that's fine 'n dandy, just like sugar candy.
>
> What's "expensive"?

More than you could ever dream of affording.

[snip]

> Is $2000 expensive?

That's a good question. A lot of good bike can be
had for that price.

>I thought it was at the time. I believed I was
> indulging myself because I could afford to.
>
> I don't think so now. There may be a point where more money doesn't
> buy you anything of measurable worth, but $2000 isn't that point. I
> believe that every dollar I spent on this bike is part of the palpable
> experience of riding it every day.

I'm very fond of those rough-'n-ready, bulletproof, cheap-o
Sugino cranksets. And minimal Victor (VP) cage pedals.
And I've developed an appreciation for steel cranks, provided
they look sharp, and are not too beat-up.

The cheap-o frame I'm currently riding survived a head-on
collision. The orig fork didn't survive so well[*]; I
just swapped-in another one (+ the front wheel) from a
similar bike.

Given a budget, I could gleefully pimp-up a two-wheeled
whip like nobody's business. But I have no such budget.

Oh, well. I have what I have, and I'm happy & satisfied
with it. I hope other folx are satisfied with whatever
they've got.

To get to the point: "Expensive" is buying a bike for
an unused wall-hanger.

My new 1996 Trek 930SHX cost about $1500 Cdn IIRC.
It was a nice bike, and the most expensive one
I'd ever owned. I even put it to some extensive XC
MTB use. Then the world blew up in my face, and
I had to divest myself of many material posessions.

Then I ended up living in a rooming house.
I chummed-up with a fellow in the next-door rooming house;
he asked if there's anything he could help me out with.
I jokingly asked: "Do you have a spare bike?" And to my
amazement, he said: "Yes" and handed me the Sekine mixte
of which I am so maternal about, over the fence.

Man, it felt /so/ good to be on a bike again!

Getting to the point of acquiring that bike both cost
me dearly, and educated me greatly (that was back when
astrologically, Pluto was dragging Sagittarians down to
Hell.) I guess it's like an apprenticeship. My
nextdoorikah, Ewald's birthday is one day away from mine.

Heh.

That ol' Sekine is just cheap junk to most of the world,
despite it's lovely, raven-black paint and sculpted lugs.

cheers,
Tom

[*] I still have it. It looks like a giant extracted wisdom
tooth with long, twisted roots.

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Date: 22 Sep 2007 20:12:38
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Walmart bike good enough?

In article <HcKdnfOlo4HLpmzbnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Dana Myers <dana.myers@gmail.com > writes:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>
>> I don't condone cruelty to cats, but I wouldn't mind
>> barbecuing an ox. I guess it would have to be marinated
>> somehow.
>
> Marinated, or injected with cheese and deep-fried, perhaps?
> Just be careful where you pour out the grease afterwards.
>
> (Dunno if you watch Aqua Teen Hunger Force :-))

No, but I think I've been there (and maybe sometimes
return to it.)

Anyways, I think /all/ bicycles are good, especially if
they're put to use. There are so many styles of bike,
as there are styles of riding. There's something for
everybody's purposes. And I think that's beautiful.

An ox injected with cheese (ox Kiev?) is a scary prospect.

Gotta have some "healthy" stuff along with it.
I kinda like beet tops. The cheese thing is tempting,
but sometimes we've gotta draw limits.

I wonder how one deals with ox leftovers?

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 19 Sep 2007 11:52:41
From: rdclark
Subject: Re: Walmart bike good enough?

On Sep 17, 8:31 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:

> I figure the real benefits of expensive bikes
> are ... they're pretty. And that's okay. It
> can be nice to possess something of quality and
> aesthetic beauty. If it inspires a rider to ride,
> that's fine 'n dandy, just like sugar candy.

What's "expensive"?

Several years ago I invested about $2k in a titanium touring/
cyclocross frame set up with hand-built Mavic touring rims, Ultegra
parts, racks, and other components that would, in my estimation, yield
a comfortable, reliable daily commuter that could also serve for solo
centuries and multi-day tours. I liked the lightness and comfort of
the ti frame, and I hand-picked all the other parts for balance
between performance and economy, and to suit my personal preferences.

It's hard to imagine being happier with a bike than I've been with
this one, and over 25,000 miles later it's met all my expectations and
has needed no extraordinary maintenance. (I'm particularly happy with
the wheels.)

Is $2000 expensive? I thought it was at the time. I believed I was
indulging myself because I could afford to.

I don't think so now. There may be a point where more money doesn't
buy you anything of measurable worth, but $2000 isn't that point. I
believe that every dollar I spent on this bike is part of the palpable
experience of riding it every day.

(It has no carbon fiber parts, however.)

r

Date: 19 Sep 2007 01:54:32
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Walmart bike good enough?

In article <1rOdnQ7d4Y-JqW3bnZ2dnUVZ_uKpnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Dana Myers <dana.myers@gmail.com > writes:
> Dane Buson wrote:
>> Dana Myers <dana.myers@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Tom Keats wrote:
>>>
>>>> I figure the real benefits of expensive bikes
>>>> are ... they're pretty. And that's okay. It
>>>> can be nice to possess something of quality and
>>>> aesthetic beauty. If it inspires a rider to ride,
>>>> that's fine 'n dandy, just like sugar candy.

[snip]

> However, equating an "expensive" bike to "sugar candy",
> describing an "expensive" bike as pure vanity, sure sounds
> like sour grapes to me.

I thought the context of my statements was quite clearly
nonjudgmental.

> "Sugar candy" isn't the same as
> "not something that suits my needs", hence my comment.

"Fine 'n dandy just like sugar candy" is just an old,
general-purpose cliche, like "I'm so hungry I could eat an
ox," or "There's not enough room in here to swing a cat."

I don't condone cruelty to cats, but I wouldn't mind
barbecuing an ox. I guess it would have to be marinated
somehow. And I'd need some help moving it around.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Date: 22 Sep 2007 21:52:10
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Walmart bike good enough?

In article <84oqcf.1c.ln@vcn.bc.ca >, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats)
wrote:

> In article <1rOdnQ7d4Y-JqW3bnZ2dnUVZ_uKpnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Dana Myers <dana.myers@gmail.com> writes:
> > Dane Buson wrote:
> >> Dana Myers <dana.myers@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Tom Keats wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I figure the real benefits of expensive bikes
> >>>> are ... they're pretty. And that's okay. It
> >>>> can be nice to possess something of quality and
> >>>> aesthetic beauty. If it inspires a rider to ride,
> >>>> that's fine 'n dandy, just like sugar candy.
>
> [snip]
>
> > However, equating an "expensive" bike to "sugar candy",
> > describing an "expensive" bike as pure vanity, sure sounds
> > like sour grapes to me.
>
> I thought the context of my statements was quite clearly
> nonjudgmental.
>
> > "Sugar candy" isn't the same as
> > "not something that suits my needs", hence my comment.
>
> "Fine 'n dandy just like sugar candy" is just an old,
> general-purpose cliche, like "I'm so hungry I could eat an
> ox," or "There's not enough room in here to swing a cat."
>
> I don't condone cruelty to cats, but I wouldn't mind
> barbecuing an ox. I guess it would have to be marinated
> somehow. And I'd need some help moving it around.
>
>
> cheers,
> Tom

Tom: you find the ox, I'll provide the barbeque pit.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Date: 19 Sep 2007 08:08:04
From: Dana Myers
Subject: Re: Walmart bike good enough?

Tom Keats wrote:

> I don't condone cruelty to cats, but I wouldn't mind
> barbecuing an ox. I guess it would have to be marinated
> somehow.

Marinated, or injected with cheese and deep-fried, perhaps?
Just be careful where you pour out the grease afterwards.

(Dunno if you watch Aqua Teen Hunger Force :-))

Cheers -
Dana

Date: 17 Sep 2007 17:31:41
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Walmart bike good enough?

In article <1190073849.331834.109010@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com >,
"bweissman@gmail.com" <bweissman@gmail.com > writes:
> On Sep 4, 12:50 pm, oprah.cho...@gmail.com wrote:
>> So what are the real benefits of expensive bikes?
>
> Oh, good grief. (TM, Charlie Brown). If you want to know the answer to
> this question in personal terms, just go to a good bike shop which
> sells expensive bikes and ask for some test rides. Don't lie and say
> you're definitely going to buy that day. Just ask to ride some decent,
> lightweight road bikes in the $1500 - $2500 range. This is "mid range"
> but still expensive enough. Take a few out for a just couple of miles
> each. I'm pretty sure you will notice the "benefits" after one or two
> test rides. And you'll start to like it after 3 or 4 test rides. Then
> hang on to your credit card...

Any bike, no matter how much it originally cost, runs
better right after it's been cleaned & shined-up
a bit, too.

I figure the real benefits of expensive bikes
are ... they're pretty. And that's okay. It
can be nice to possess something of quality and
aesthetic beauty. If it inspires a rider to ride,
that's fine 'n dandy, just like sugar candy.

A Waterbury can keep just as good time as a
Rolex. In that vein, I think there are more
comprehensive benefits inherent in inexpensive
bikes, than expensive ones. For one thing,
there's less to worry about an inexpensive bike
getting stolen.

But maybe expensive, high-quality, "up-market" bikes
serve to qualify cycling as more than a trite
recreational pastime, or the realm of "losers" who
can't afford cars.

I don't particularly covet an expensive road bike,
myself. But if someone gave me one, I'd greatly
accept it. Of course, I'd have to only use it for
special occasions.

I especially don't want or need an expensive
mountain bike, for mountain biking purposes.
Why pay top dollar just to beat the livin'
daylights outa what you purchase?

So, I'm quite happy with what I've been blessed with.
It's good enough for a plebian like me.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Date: 17 Sep 2007 23:17:22
From: Dana Myers
Subject: Re: Walmart bike good enough?

Tom Keats wrote:

> I figure the real benefits of expensive bikes
> are ... they're pretty. And that's okay. It
> can be nice to possess something of quality and
> aesthetic beauty. If it inspires a rider to ride,
> that's fine 'n dandy, just like sugar candy.

[...]

Just tell yourself, the grapes are sour anyway, and
move on.

Dana

Date: 18 Sep 2007 12:27:29
From: Dane Buson
Subject: Re: Walmart bike good enough?

Dana Myers <dana.myers@gmail.com > wrote:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>
>> I figure the real benefits of expensive bikes
>> are ... they're pretty. And that's okay. It
>> can be nice to possess something of quality and
>> aesthetic beauty. If it inspires a rider to ride,
>> that's fine 'n dandy, just like sugar candy.
>
> [...]
>
> Just tell yourself, the grapes are sour anyway, and
> move on.

See, I get tired of stupid comments like that when I tell people I don't
own any carbon fiber bikes (or any CF parts). It's the same kind of
comment like I must dislike huge SUVs because I can't afford one. No, I
could afford either with ease, but they don't fit my needs or
particularities.

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
Death before dishonor. But neither before breakfast.

Date: 18 Sep 2007 13:24:22
From: Dana Myers
Subject: Re: Walmart bike good enough?

Dane Buson wrote:
> Dana Myers <dana.myers@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Tom Keats wrote:
>>
>>> I figure the real benefits of expensive bikes
>>> are ... they're pretty. And that's okay. It
>>> can be nice to possess something of quality and
>>> aesthetic beauty. If it inspires a rider to ride,
>>> that's fine 'n dandy, just like sugar candy.
>> [...]
>>
>> Just tell yourself, the grapes are sour anyway, and
>> move on.
>
> See, I get tired of stupid comments like that when I tell people I don't
> own any carbon fiber bikes (or any CF parts). It's the same kind of
> comment like I must dislike huge SUVs because I can't afford one. No, I
> could afford either with ease, but they don't fit my needs or
> particularities.

I'm not sure which "stupid comments" you're referring to.
I don't own a CF bike either, so what? Do you really
have people that criticize you for not owning a CF bike?
That seems pretty darn shallow to me.

However, equating an "expensive" bike to "sugar candy",
describing an "expensive" bike as pure vanity, sure sounds
like sour grapes to me. "Sugar candy" isn't the same as
"not something that suits my needs", hence my comment.

Dana

Date: 18 Sep 2007 13:55:51
From: Dane Buson
Subject: Re: Walmart bike good enough?

Dana Myers <dana.myers@gmail.com > wrote:
> Dane Buson wrote:
>> Dana Myers <dana.myers@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Tom Keats wrote:
>>>
>>>> I figure the real benefits of expensive bikes
>>>> are ... they're pretty. And that's okay. It
>>>> can be nice to possess something of quality and
>>>> aesthetic beauty. If it inspires a rider to ride,
>>>> that's fine 'n dandy, just like sugar candy.
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Just tell yourself, the grapes are sour anyway, and
>>> move on.
>>
>> See, I get tired of stupid comments like that when I tell people I don't
>> own any carbon fiber bikes (or any CF parts). It's the same kind of
>> comment like I must dislike huge SUVs because I can't afford one. No, I
>> could afford either with ease, but they don't fit my needs or
>> particularities.
>
> I'm not sure which "stupid comments" you're referring to.
> I don't own a CF bike either, so what? Do you really
> have people that criticize you for not owning a CF bike?

Oh, I've met them. Evidently, I'm not a serious rider because I don't
ride CF bikes (steel is heavy!). That and the people telling me to get
a powertap wheel.

> That seems pretty darn shallow to me.

Well, maybe so. I wasn't judging them to others, I just wish they'd
go elsewhere and be quiet.

> However, equating an "expensive" bike to "sugar candy",
> describing an "expensive" bike as pure vanity, sure sounds
> like sour grapes to me.

Well, to be fair they often are (though certainly not always). But
that's no different than any other form of transportation. i.e., After
a certain point you are not spending for core functionality but rather
for bells, whistles and 'prettiness'. And the dividing line for that is
of course subjective.

There, was that wishy-washy enough for you? ;-)

> "Sugar candy" isn't the same as "not something that suits my needs",
> hence my comment.

I just took it as part of Tom's love of word play and rhymes. Though I
might be wrong and it could certainly be taken that way.

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
I think your opinions are reasonable, except for the one about my mental
instability.
-- Psychology Professor, Farifield University

Date: 18 Sep 2007 20:27:22
From: Dana Myers
Subject: Re: Walmart bike good enough?

Dane Buson wrote:
> Dana Myers <dana.myers@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I don't own a CF bike either, so what? Do you really
>> have people that criticize you for not owning a CF bike?
>
> Oh, I've met them. Evidently, I'm not a serious rider because I don't
> ride CF bikes (steel is heavy!). That and the people telling me to get
> a powertap wheel.

Sigh. I've had at least one well-intentioned piece of advice that
alloy frames are too harsh, but it was from a person that doesn't
actually ride. I should have asked which magazine they'd been
reading.

[...]

>> However, equating an "expensive" bike to "sugar candy",
>> describing an "expensive" bike as pure vanity, sure sounds
>> like sour grapes to me.
>
> Well, to be fair they often are (though certainly not always).

Well, I'm not sure how much *pure* vanity, but it's true,
as the price point goes up, the vanity margin increases, and,
at some point, effectively overwhelms everything else.

Tom never actually defined what "expensive" was; at moderate
levels of expense, the value can be quite good. At high levels
of expense, it's not about value at all.

> But
> that's no different than any other form of transportation. i.e., After
> a certain point you are not spending for core functionality but rather
> for bells, whistles and 'prettiness'. And the dividing line for that is
> of course subjective.

... and thus we agree.

> There, was that wishy-washy enough for you? ;-)

Heh.

>> "Sugar candy" isn't the same as "not something that suits my needs",
>> hence my comment.
>
> I just took it as part of Tom's love of word play and rhymes. Though I
> might be wrong and it could certainly be taken that way.

It's difficult to tell without the nuance of interpersonal
communication. I could easily be quite mistaken, my apologies
if so.

Cheers -
Dana

Date: 19 Sep 2007 00:17:13
From: Zoot Katz
Subject: Re: Walmart bike good enough?

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:27:22 -0700, Dana Myers <dana.myers@gmail.com >
wrote:

>>> "Sugar candy" isn't the same as "not something that suits my needs",
>>> hence my comment.
>>
>> I just took it as part of Tom's love of word play and rhymes. Though I
>> might be wrong and it could certainly be taken that way.
>
>It's difficult to tell without the nuance of interpersonal
>communication. I could easily be quite mistaken, my apologies
>if so.

I do call those bikes "spun sugar".
Reason being, they're usually treated like they'd melt in the rain.

Tom, Dane and me ride in a lot of rain.

The only times I ever recall noticing carbon fibre bikes passing me
is when they're hanging off car.
--
zk

Date: 18 Sep 2007 22:30:00
From: Fabrizio Mazzoleni
Subject: Re: Walmart bike good enough?

"Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu > wrote in message

> Oh, I've met them. Evidently, I'm not a serious rider because I don't
> ride CF bikes (steel is heavy!).

A steel frame is ok if built by De Rosa, Colnago, or Bianchi.

Not ok if 'Made in China'.

Date: 18 Sep 2007 00:04:09
From: bweissman@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Walmart bike good enough?

On Sep 4, 12:50 pm, oprah.cho...@gmail.com wrote:
> So what are the real benefits of expensive bikes?

Oh, good grief. (TM, Charlie Brown). If you want to know the answer to
this question in personal terms, just go to a good bike shop which
sells expensive bikes and ask for some test rides. Don't lie and say
you're definitely going to buy that day. Just ask to ride some decent,
lightweight road bikes in the $1500 - $2500 range. This is "mid range"
but still expensive enough. Take a few out for a just couple of miles
each. I'm pretty sure you will notice the "benefits" after one or two
test rides. And you'll start to like it after 3 or 4 test rides. Then
hang on to your credit card...

- Bob

Date: 14 Sep 2007 16:56:58
From: jbollyn@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Walmart bike good enough?

On Sep 4, 2:50 pm, oprah.cho...@gmail.com wrote:
> I have recently got into biking and have started commuting to work 12
> miles each way a twice a week. My bike is some heavy walmart'ish
> bike, 18-speed mountain bike, shimano gears. Honestly I have no
> issues with it, as it is tuned up correctly.
>
> However, all the websites say to avoid these bikes, why? I suppose if
> I spend $300+ I'll get a 10 pound lighter bike, but what difference
> is that going to make? The weight of the rider dominates the mass of
> the system, so a 10 lb bike weight reduction should only make you go
> 5-10% faster?
>
> So what are the real benefits of expensive bikes?

If you are mainly interested in riding a bike to burn calories, I
suggest you are better off with a heavy bike. And most casual cyclists
want to spend as little $ as possible, so your current bike might be
well suited for your needs. You will feel the effect of the extra
weight going uphill or into the wind, not as much on flat ground.

I don't think one can generalize about 'expensive bikes' as a
homogenous group. A particular expensive bike might be completely
wrong for the kind of riding you do. The bike I am currently riding
came with a bunch of crappy OEM parts like cheap weak rims and a weak
crank. But I am 200lbs / 6'4", and I often carry 25lbs cargo, so I
have had to upgrade most of my parts for greater strength. My rear rim
split some time ago, and recently my crank broke:

http://orion.neiu.edu/~jbollyn/bike/broken_crank_out.jpg

http://orion.neiu.edu/~jbollyn/bike/broken_crank_in.jpg

- Jay

Date: 07 Sep 2007 20:05:55
From: Veloise
Subject: Re: Walmart bike good enough?

Bellsouth Ijit 2.0 - Global Warming Edition =AE wrote:

> Of course. It was said in jest. I would buy a bike from Salvation Army
> before I buy one from Walmart.
Red Shield stores can have decent bikes. I've found Raleighs and Treks
at various thrifts.

HTH

--Karen D.

Date: 05 Sep 2007 14:23:12
From: DougC
Subject: Re: Walmart bike good enough?

oprah.chopra@gmail.com wrote:
> I have recently got into biking and have started commuting to work 12
> miles each way a twice a week. My bike is some heavy walmart'ish
> bike, 18-speed mountain bike, shimano gears. Honestly I have no
> issues with it, as it is tuned up correctly.
>
> However, all the websites say to avoid these bikes, why? I suppose if
> I spend $300+ I'll get a 10 pound lighter bike, but what difference
> is that going to make? The weight of the rider dominates the mass of
> the system, so a 10 lb bike weight reduction should only make you go
> 5-10% faster?
>
> So what are the real benefits of expensive bikes?
>

These are things I have seen perhaps 5 years ago, looking at other
people's cheap bikes:

In the past I have seen that Wal-Mart bikes had the bottom bracket and
headset bearing races cut right into the BB shell, and no dust covers on
the bearings (even for MTB/BMX bikes!). So when these bearings would go
bad, the bike frame (and basically the whole bike) was shot, because
from an economic standpoint it's not worth fixing the frame.

The wheel bearings may not be a standard size either, necessitating
buying a whole new wheel when the bearings go bad, instead of just
buying new bearings for the wheel. Another wheel problem is wheels that
won't stay true, and this can usually be traced to ultra-cheap spokes
used--but once again, it isn't worth it to pay a bike shop to lace good
spokes into a Wal-Mart rim and hub. You might as well just buy a
whole-better-wheel pre-built (which you can do, when the OEM wheel goes
bad).

Dept store bikes have been improving over time, but I haven't looked
closely at any examples lately. A lot of people buy them and never
manage to wear them out, so in that respect, cheap bikes are "good
enough" for a lot of people.

I don't have an original source for this, but it's a widely repeated
story: once during an interview, the president of Huffy was asked why
they built bikes so cheaply. His response was that research they did
showed that the average person who shopped for a bike at a department
store rode it less than 75 miles /total/ before getting rid of it. So
his company built their bikes to be as cheap as possible, while lasting
75 miles.

...A lot of non-bicyclists would think that riding 75 miles would be
something akin to the Bataan death march, but for many people it's only
a single weekend's worth of riding. For some people it's one day's worth
of riding.

-------

Personally I don't feel that the weight of cheaper bikes is really
detrimental to their typical use; comfort is far more important than
weight. My long-distance/recreational bike is a recumbent that weighs
near 40 lbs, and I'm much happier riding that than I would be riding any
sub-20-lb upright road bike.
~

Date: 05 Sep 2007 09:37:50
From: rdclark
Subject: Re: Walmart bike good enough?

On Sep 4, 3:50 pm, oprah.cho...@gmail.com wrote:
> I have recently got into biking and have started commuting to work 12
> miles each way a twice a week. My bike is some heavy walmart'ish
> bike, 18-speed mountain bike, shimano gears. Honestly I have no
> issues with it, as it is tuned up correctly.
>
> However, all the websites say to avoid these bikes, why? I suppose if
> I spend $300+ I'll get a 10 pound lighter bike, but what difference
> is that going to make? The weight of the rider dominates the mass of
> the system, so a 10 lb bike weight reduction should only make you go
> 5-10% faster?
>
> So what are the real benefits of expensive bikes?

Aside from weight and parts quality (and the quality of brakes,
chains, hubs, spokes, rims etc. really do start to matter to high-
mileage riders), it's that they're available in many sizes, with
further adjustability through parts swapping.

Just like every clock is correct twice a day, there are people who are
actually the right size and body geometry to be fit correctly by a Wal-
mart bike. It's just like finding shoes at a yard sale that just
happen to fit you.

Maybe your Wal-mart bike fits you, and that's your good luck. Or maybe
you don't know the difference between a bike that fits and one that
doesn't, and yours doesn't, really, and the more you ride the more
uncomfortable you'll become. Or maybe you're young enough to ignore
the discomfort, only to regret it when you're 50 and your knees stop
working.

Have you ever gone hiking in shoes that don't fit *perfectly*? They
seem OK for a mile or two. Two weeks later...

r

Date: 05 Sep 2007 14:47:17
From: bluezfolk
Subject: Re: Walmart bike good enough?

On Sep 5, 7:48 am, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzo...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> oprah.cho...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> :: I have recently got into biking and have started commuting to work 12
> :: miles each way a twice a week. My bike is some heavy walmart'ish
> :: bike, 18-speed mountain bike, shimano gears. Honestly I have no
> :: issues with it, as it is tuned up correctly.
> ::
> :: However, all the websites say to avoid these bikes, why? I suppose if
> :: I spend $300+ I'll get a 10 pound lighter bike, but what difference
> :: is that going to make? The weight of the rider dominates the mass of
> :: the system, so a 10 lb bike weight reduction should only make you go
> :: 5-10% faster?
> ::
> :: So what are the real benefits of expensive bikes?
>
> Why don't you continue to ride your bike and see how much adjustment &
> tweaking you have to do over time, while reporting back here. If it gets
> you a year without too much hassle, then that will be interesting info for
> us. If not, then you will have validated the claims of others here (which
> might be helpful info to have) and then you can move to another bike. OTOH,
> I'd hate to hear of you stranded 12 miles from home, so please have some
> backup means of getting home. Take your cell phone!

Without saying anything bad about Walmart bikes, I'd like to make the
suggestion that for commuting a mountain bike might not be the best
choice. I switched from a road bike to a hybrid many years ago for
use as a commuter in NYC.

Eric

Date: 05 Sep 2007 11:27:23
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Walmart bike good enough?

bluezfolk wrote:
:: On Sep 5, 7:48 am, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzo...@hotmail.com > wrote:
::: oprah.cho...@gmail.com wrote:
:::
::::: I have recently got into biking and have started commuting to
::::: work 12 miles each way a twice a week. My bike is some heavy
::::: walmart'ish bike, 18-speed mountain bike, shimano gears. Honestly
::::: I have no issues with it, as it is tuned up correctly.
:::::
::::: However, all the websites say to avoid these bikes, why? I
::::: suppose if I spend $300+ I'll get a 10 pound lighter bike, but
::::: what difference is that going to make? The weight of the rider
::::: dominates the mass of the system, so a 10 lb bike weight
::::: reduction should only make you go 5-10% faster?
:::::
::::: So what are the real benefits of expensive bikes?
:::
::: Why don't you continue to ride your bike and see how much
::: adjustment & tweaking you have to do over time, while reporting
::: back here. If it gets you a year without too much hassle, then
::: that will be interesting info for us. If not, then you will have
::: validated the claims of others here (which might be helpful info to
::: have) and then you can move to another bike. OTOH, I'd hate to
::: hear of you stranded 12 miles from home, so please have some backup
::: means of getting home. Take your cell phone!
::
:: Without saying anything bad about Walmart bikes, I'd like to make the
:: suggestion that for commuting a mountain bike might not be the best
:: choice. I switched from a road bike to a hybrid many years ago for
:: use as a commuter in NYC.
::
:: Eric

I certainly wouldn't disagree...but the OP appears to be happy at the moment
with what he has.

Date: 05 Sep 2007 08:48:27
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Walmart bike good enough?

oprah.chopra@gmail.com wrote:
:: I have recently got into biking and have started commuting to work 12
:: miles each way a twice a week. My bike is some heavy walmart'ish
:: bike, 18-speed mountain bike, shimano gears. Honestly I have no
:: issues with it, as it is tuned up correctly.
::
:: However, all the websites say to avoid these bikes, why? I suppose if
:: I spend $300+ I'll get a 10 pound lighter bike, but what difference
:: is that going to make? The weight of the rider dominates the mass of
:: the system, so a 10 lb bike weight reduction should only make you go
:: 5-10% faster?
::
:: So what are the real benefits of expensive bikes?

Why don't you continue to ride your bike and see how much adjustment &
tweaking you have to do over time, while reporting back here. If it gets
you a year without too much hassle, then that will be interesting info for
us. If not, then you will have validated the claims of others here (which
might be helpful info to have) and then you can move to another bike. OTOH,
I'd hate to hear of you stranded 12 miles from home, so please have some
backup means of getting home. Take your cell phone!

Date: 05 Sep 2007 02:43:59
From: Mike A Schwab
Subject: Re: Walmart bike good enough?

Date: 04 Sep 2007 23:35:10
From: Sir Thomas of Cannondale
Subject: Re: Walmart bike good enough?

Are you familiar with Craigslist, the web page? I did a quick search for a
used bicycle [s].

There were hundreds of high quality road, mtn, old, really old, not so
old... heck, I got myself interested in a couple of them.

Why ride a Wally World piece of shit when you can buy a really nice second
hand bicycle on Craigslist.

==========================================================================

PS.. once you start riding to work on the light-weight old road tour model
you paid $100 dollars for?

You will be riding to work more than twice a week!

[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
<oprah.chopra@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1188935429.414736.104190@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>I have recently got into biking and have started commuting to work 12
> miles each way a twice a week. My bike is some heavy walmart'ish
> bike, 18-speed mountain bike, shimano gears. Honestly I have no
> issues with it, as it is tuned up correctly.
>
> However, all the websites say to avoid these bikes, why? I suppose if
> I spend $300+ I'll get a 10 pound lighter bike, but what difference
> is that going to make? The weight of the rider dominates the mass of
> the system, so a 10 lb bike weight reduction should only make you go
> 5-10% faster?
>
> So what are the real benefits of expensive bikes?
>

Date: 17 Sep 2007 15:56:30
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Walmart bike good enough?

Sir Thomas of Cannondale wrote:
> Are you familiar with Craigslist, the web page? I did a quick search for a
> used bicycle [s].
>
> There were hundreds of high quality road, mtn, old, really old, not so
> old... heck, I got myself interested in a couple of them.
>
> Why ride a Wally World piece of shit when you can buy a really nice second
> hand bicycle on Craigslist.

Indeed craigslist is one of the best places to buy a good used bicycle.
Sometimes you can get lucky at garage sales, but it's a lot of hassle.

I bought a Univega mountain/hybrid on craigslist for $25. I just
couldn't find the type of bike I wanted new at a decent price, i.e. no
suspension, cromoly frame, non-compact frame, threaded headset.

Date: 04 Sep 2007 14:03:49
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: Walmart bike good enough?

<oprah.chopra@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1188935429.414736.104190@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> I have recently got into biking and have started commuting to work 12
> miles each way a twice a week. My bike is some heavy walmart'ish
> bike, 18-speed mountain bike, shimano gears. Honestly I have no
> issues with it, as it is tuned up correctly.
>
> However, all the websites say to avoid these bikes, why? I suppose if
> I spend $300+ I'll get a 10 pound lighter bike, but what difference
> is that going to make? The weight of the rider dominates the mass of
> the system, so a 10 lb bike weight reduction should only make you go
> 5-10% faster?
>
> So what are the real benefits of expensive bikes?

There is a difference between "shimano" and "SHIMANO". The "Next" bikes
from Walley World are real junk. While they work just fine right out of the
store, the more you use them the more you have to keep adjusting them until
they end up being a daily adjustment. While you can upgrade them, don't
bother. The upgrades will take you into the cost of a decent bike.

The Schwinn out of walmart seems to be the exception. There is little
difference (except for the name on the frame in plastic) from the 139 buck
Walley World Schwinn and the 250 buck Schwinn out of a bike shop. In fact,
as pieces break on the walley world Schwinn you do a piece by piece upgrade
to the better equipped Bike Shop Schwinn. It's a poormans way of getting a
decent bike in time.

But if you can afford the 300+ bike at the Bike Shop, you should be able to
get MOST of these upgrades right off the showroom floor on it.

The pocket book drives these decisions more than anything else. But your 12
mile a day trip, your Next Walley World Special will be pretty much a pain
in the tail very quickly.

Date: 04 Sep 2007 18:48:40
From: Ron Hardin
Subject: Re: Walmart bike good enough?

oprah.chopra@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I have recently got into biking and have started commuting to work 12
> miles each way a twice a week. My bike is some heavy walmart'ish
> bike, 18-speed mountain bike, shimano gears. Honestly I have no
> issues with it, as it is tuned up correctly.
>
> However, all the websites say to avoid these bikes, why? I suppose if
> I spend $300+ I'll get a 10 pound lighter bike, but what difference
> is that going to make? The weight of the rider dominates the mass of
> the system, so a 10 lb bike weight reduction should only make you go
> 5-10% faster?
>
> So what are the real benefits of expensive bikes?

I do 8,000 miles a year on a Huffy and it's perfectly fine.
--
rhhardin@mindspring.com

On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

Date: 05 Sep 2007 08:50:42
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Walmart bike good enough?

Ron Hardin wrote:
:: I do 8,000 miles a year on a Huffy and it's perfectly fine.

Do you have a link to the specific model? Do you spend a lot of time on
maintenance to keep it going? How many miles do you have on it?

Date: 05 Sep 2007 14:53:31
From: Ron Hardin
Subject: Re: Walmart bike good enough?

Roger Zoul wrote:
>
> Ron Hardin wrote:
> :: I do 8,000 miles a year on a Huffy and it's perfectly fine.
>
> Do you have a link to the specific model? Do you spend a lot of time on
> maintenance to keep it going? How many miles do you have on it?

The current one is a Huffy Ironman, bought 1998, so it has 72k miles on it.

It doesn't require any attention except twice a year, when it's time to consider
replacing the power train. That's at about 4k miles. The chainwheels last maybe
12k before you need to replace them.

It was one of their top-of-the-line models, but the lesser models lasted as long.

The life is determined by how many components need replacement at the same time.
It's always worth replacing single components. But if it's several, a whole new
bicycle may be cheaper.

Huffy sells parts by the way, so keeping it in parts isn't a problem.
1-800-USA-BIKE. They wind up on your porch the next day, if you live in Ohio.
Anyway they used to. They may have moved to China.
--
rhhardin@mindspring.com

On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

Date: 05 Sep 2007 12:29:25
From: Pat
Subject: Re: Walmart bike good enough?

> Ron Hardin wrote:
> :: I do 8,000 miles a year on a Huffy and it's perfectly fine.
>
> Do you have a link to the specific model? Do you spend a lot of time on
> maintenance to keep it going? How many miles do you have on it?

Oh Roger, you just opened a can o' worms.
>
>

Date: 04 Sep 2007 22:42:08
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Walmart bike good enough?

On Sep 4, 3:10 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com > wrote:
> >> So what are the real benefits of expensive bikes?
>
> > They are often stronger, the individual componets are often more
> > presice and easier to keep in proper adjsutemtn. And the tires and
> > bearings, etc are better such that the offer less resistance. They are
> > usually less squishy as well. So you may be able to ride a given speed
> > with less effort.
>
> > But as you have no issues with your current bike, there is no reason
> > to expect it won't continue to do just what you need it to do.
>
> > IMO the price point for significantly better performance is well above
> > $300, so don't bother.
>
> Not true, in my humble opinion. Even a $300 mountain or hybrid bike,
> purchased from a decent bike shop, is going to be far easier to maintain,
> and less-costly in the long run (because it will last a whole lot longer).
> Rolling resistance etc isn't really the issue; durability, ie., TTW (Things
> That Work) vs STFA (Stuff That Falls Apart) is the key difference.
>
> Department stores are *not* made to be repairable, because people don't
> bring them back to the department store for work.

Around here, you can get $200 bikes at the Altus level or therebouts
from Target, Wally World, and Dicks Sporting goods. Dialed in right by
somebody handy, they're much better than the $79 specials. Heck, I
even recommend that students at Uni around here pick up a beach
cruiser from a big box store for campus cruising because of theft.

That said, my LBS understands that there is a need for bikes at a low
price point, so they sell Schwinn 26" path bikes, dialed in very
nicely for $250. They sell the snot out of those, proudly, because the
shop cares about getting folks on bikes in the first place. Amusingly
enough, people now come into the shop to buy 500 dollar and up bikes,
as "it seems everybody in the neighborhood rides a bike now." That's
an LBS run right. They treat us home wrenchers right as well, never
overcharging for minor parts or even making much at all from cables
and ferrules, and get the best word of mouth advertising in the world
because of it.

Date: 04 Sep 2007 14:28:39
From: Hank Wirtz
Subject: Re: Walmart bike good enough?

On Sep 4, 2:15 pm, "Bellsouth Ijit 2.0 - Global Warming Edition =AE"
<b...@bellsouth.net > wrote:

> This Walmart bike is good:http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?produ=
ct_id=3D5751042

Dunno if it's good, but it's overpriced for its spec and level of
dealer support.

For similar levels of support, you can get a 105-equipped bike from
Bikesdirect.com for $700-$800. For the same price as the Walmart one,
you could get an Ultegra-equipped one.

For most people though, who will need service after the sale, a
similarly equipped one could be had for a similar price from an LBS.
That would be the way to go.

Date: 07 Sep 2007 22:03:02
From: Bellsouth Ijit 2.0 - Global Warming Edition �
Subject: Re: Walmart bike good enough?

"Hank Wirtz" <hank@wirtznet.net > wrote in message
news:1188941319.087063.150450@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 4, 2:15 pm, "Bellsouth Ijit 2.0 - Global Warming Edition �"
<b...@bellsouth.net > wrote:

> This Walmart bike is
> good:http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=5751042

>Dunno if it's good, but it's overpriced for its spec and level of
>dealer support.

>For similar levels of support, you can get a 105-equipped bike from
>Bikesdirect.com for $700-$800. For the same price as the Walmart one,
>you could get an Ultegra-equipped one.

>For most people though, who will need service after the sale, a
>similarly equipped one could be had for a similar price from an LBS.
>That would be the way to go.

Of course. It was said in jest. I would buy a bike from Salvation Army
before I buy one from Walmart.

Date: 04 Sep 2007 17:15:02
From: Bellsouth Ijit 2.0 - Global Warming Edition �
Subject: Re: Walmart bike good enough?

Date: 04 Sep 2007 12:56:36
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Walmart bike good enough?

On Sep 4, 9:50 pm, oprah.cho...@gmail.com wrote:
> I have recently got into biking and have started commuting to work 12
> miles each way a twice a week. My bike is some heavy walmart'ish
> bike, 18-speed mountain bike, shimano gears. Honestly I have no
> issues with it, as it is tuned up correctly.
>
> However, all the websites say to avoid these bikes, why? I suppose if
> I spend $300+ I'll get a 10 pound lighter bike, but what difference
> is that going to make? The weight of the rider dominates the mass of
> the system, so a 10 lb bike weight reduction should only make you go
> 5-10% faster?

At most the difference would be 5-10% only on significaltly steep
hills. Otherwise it would have little effect.

> So what are the real benefits of expensive bikes?

They are often stronger, the individual componets are often more
presice and easier to keep in proper adjsutemtn. And the tires and
bearings, etc are better such that the offer less resistance. They are
usually less squishy as well. So you may be able to ride a given speed
with less effort.

But as you have no issues with your current bike, there is no reason
to expect it won't continue to do just what you need it to do.

IMO the price point for significantly better performance is well above
$300, so don't bother.

Have fun!

Joseph

Date: 05 Sep 2007 08:42:29
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Walmart bike good enough?

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 12:56:36 -0700, joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:

> They are often stronger, the individual componets are often more
> presice and easier to keep in proper adjsutemtn.

For anyone unfamiliar with cycling jargon, adjsutemtn is a clear, viscous
liquid (named after an ancient Dutch recipe) in which your bike's
components should be kept when not in use.

Date: 04 Sep 2007 20:10:28
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Walmart bike good enough?

>> So what are the real benefits of expensive bikes?
>
> They are often stronger, the individual componets are often more
> presice and easier to keep in proper adjsutemtn. And the tires and
> bearings, etc are better such that the offer less resistance. They are
> usually less squishy as well. So you may be able to ride a given speed
> with less effort.
>
> But as you have no issues with your current bike, there is no reason
> to expect it won't continue to do just what you need it to do.
>
> IMO the price point for significantly better performance is well above
> $300, so don't bother.

Not true, in my humble opinion. Even a $300 mountain or hybrid bike,
purchased from a decent bike shop, is going to be far easier to maintain,
and less-costly in the long run (because it will last a whole lot longer).
Rolling resistance etc isn't really the issue; durability, ie., TTW (Things
That Work) vs STFA (Stuff That Falls Apart) is the key difference.

Department stores are *not* made to be repairable, because people don't
bring them back to the department store for work. Simple as that. That may
incidentally be repairable, but it's not a primary focus. Bike shops loathe
things they can't repair, because the customers *do* bring that back when
something goes wrong. When we don't like something on a bike because it
doesn't last or it's difficult to work on, we let the manufacturer know, and
stop selling that particular model. The department stores lack that feedback
loop, so they just don't care. Better to sell something that looks like a
real bike than actually is. BSOs, or Bike Shaped Objects, is what they're
commonly called.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA