Mechanics Ask Walmart, Bike Manufacturers to Stop Selling “Built-to-Fail” Bikes | Hacker News Reader

Mechanics Ask Walmart, Bike Manufacturers to Stop Selling “Built-to-Fail” Bikes

vice.com

36 pointspseudolus13 comments

The flip side, is the premium bike manufactures which have all gone to a custom part model, particularly with mountain bikes. Every couple years the wheel size changes (try getting a 26" mountain bike these days, even for smaller riders), axle changes, bottom bracket, head tube, shifters, chain dimensions, rear hub sizes, etc, etc, etc. Then after 5-10 years the parts become unavailable.

So, your premium bike might last longer, but when it breaks your screwed, time to go ebay shopping for a used part. I don't even think the manufactures know how to deal with this. Trek gives people lifetime frame guarantees, but after 2-3 years they can't actually provide a replacement frame that works with the bike components. So, its become like the 120+ month battery guarantees, they know its not going to last 120 months, the scam is to prorate it enough to force you to buy a new one. Sort of a built in loyalty discount.

In many ways I think the Walmart type bikes tend to be easier to repair since they are mostly still using older "standards".

I don't know about mountain bikes or modern carbon fiber marvels, but older "steelie" road bikes are amazingly upgradeable.

The only thing that stops you from putting in a modern 11-speed compatible wheel is that the axle is 4mm longer, but that can be accommodated by "respacing" the frame. I've done it on one of my bikes, was a bit scary to do (you have to bend it out a lot more than 4mm to have it settle back to the right spacing) but in the end, easy.

You'll have to keep the rim brakes, obviously, and front derailers aren't very standardized. But the rest of the drivetrain, right up to modern outboard bearing crank sets, will fit your 35 year old frame just fine.

The cheap "MicroNew" shifters from Ali Express, while not as pretty as high end Shimano stuff, work fine - I've put a few thousand kilometers on the 7-speed and 8-speed version so far and they're comfortable and reliable if a bit "clicky".

Modern stems and handlebars can be fitted to your old fork by inserting one of those quill/threadless adapters.

All done with not much attention to weight, my modernized steel bikes weigh in around 12kg, which is heavy by carbon fiber standards, but not too bad.

> Trek gives people lifetime frame guarantees, but after 2-3 years they can't actually provide a replacement frame that works with the bike components.

I threw away a perfectly repairable Trek bike recently because the parts were extremely expensive and hard to find. Now I know one more brand to stay away from buying.

This has frustrated me personally.

A casual acquaintance who doesn't have much money to spare wanted a bike. I said no problem, and started to show her suitable candidates from the local classifieds site. This was not during a bike boom, so truly decent all-purpose bikes could be had in the CAD$250 price range. Once I found the dandiest little Trek mountain bike at a garage sale, older but in 100% tip top mechanical condition and the only reason the $50 price wasn't suspicious was because it was sold at a garage sale in a decent neighbourhood. As soon as I put it back (it was too small for me personally) someone else bought it.

She didn't want them. She wanted something new. I kept telling her that a new $250 bike will give mechanical problems sooner than a used high quality bike. Deaf ears. I guess when you're truly helpless as bike maintenance goes, a used bike is like a 10 year old car from shady used car dealer. Much safer to buy a small, cheap brand, new one and be assured that everything is at 0% wear.

I have a hard time understanding how much maintenance an average “once a month to go to the park” rider that doesn’t live by the beach expects to do on a bike to worry about buying used.

I have a Klein from 2000 that has never needed more than a chain and tires. It’s beat up and I don’t ride it daily, but I doubt the Walmart buyer is riding daily either. The shocks are dead but I’ve even taken it to the trails as is and I had some fun.

I’ve had a Lemond (trek) for something like 6 years that I used to daily (1.5 years, 3mi each way) and I have only changed the handlebar tape because it was crumbly. Other than that I just lube the chain if it sits for too long. I’m even on the same tires I bought it with.

I think used non-Walmart bikes are a great option for budget buyers, and I'm disappointed they weren't mentioned in the article. Are used bike shops less common these days, compared to 10-15 years ago? That was the last time I was in the market and not coincidentally how long my used bike has lasted (so far).

Great advice for normal years. But the step-jump in demand from COVID combined with backed-up supply chains has soaked up the inventory of used bikes. Even used cars were selling for almost new for a bit.

One of the problems with owning and using a bike is the high theft rate from outside shops, libraries, street racks etc which means you risk losing it each time you leave it chained up outside. Even the expensive locks don't seem to be up to much if you've watched a few Lock-picking Lawyer YT vids.

The cost of having to replace even a cheap bike due to theft to a low income person is huge. Something in the 1.5k price range would be devastating so ... cheap bikes it is. I think that the ultimate problem is the excessive mark-ups on the cheap/junk bikes doesn't allow for a mid tier (in terms of price/quality) brand or manufacturer room to enter the market.

This sounds like dishwashers complaining about paper plates not surviving enough rinses in the sink. Of course someone whose living depends on adjusting, overhauling and replacing parts on bikes is going to claim that the central principles of what makes bikes great is their ability to be adjusted, overhauled, and have parts replaced, and of course they are going to push for all bikes to be required to be repairable. It's also worth noting that no one walks into a bike repair shop to show off the bike they purchased at walmart which doesn't need any repairs; mechanics are predisposed towards seeing the worst cases. I'm sure the mechaincs feel bikes should be made to a higher standard, but is this actually what's best for consumers?

If someone is going to be biking a lot, it makes sense to invest in a quality bike which will stand up to extensive usage and be easily repaired when something inevitably does fail. But lots of people bike only occasionally, and would rather not bike at all than pay for much more bike than they need. For these people a budget bike could be a great compromise. Paying a lower price for an inferior quality product is not some alien concept confusing the unwashed masses, it's standard practice that everyone expects. People can take their time deciding on a bicycle to purchase, and can completely walk away if they're not satisfied with any options; consumers worried about a bad deal can easily go online and look at reviews and recommendations for bikes.

While there may be some merit to requiring budget bike makers or sellers to perhaps label their products to indicate their expected lifespan and thus make it easier for consumers to make informed decisions, people should have the option to go to a convenient location and quickly buy a cheap bike if that's what they want. While I'm sure its proponents mean well, the proposed "minimum durability standard" would make cycling more inaccessible and restrict legitimate design choices.

Many of these bikes are not a great compromise at all, they are just all together bad.

A "dual suspension bikes" for $200, will be both bad on a trail, and on a road. It will have terrible rims, terrible tires, terrible everything, and will be designed to break near-immediately. All sizzle, no steak.

Walmart could have a bike for the same price with simpler, less flashy features, that was better in everyway. Except it wouldn't pretend to be a capable full squish bike.

IF walmart was to put their heft behind a rock solid single speed it would be be an exceptional win for consumers.

The thing is people are often not all that clued up on 'the tech jargon' and so would be unlikely to purchase a single speed, non-suspension plain jane bike when right next to it (for the same or similar price) is something that has (fake) suspension, shoddy gears etc but loudly proclaims 24 Speed, Comfort Suspension etc.

I mean caveat emptor but when manufacturers stoop to such deceptive practices as fake/non-functional suspension pieces then you can't always blame the purchaser*

(* not that you were btw - just a seperate train of thought).

I don't mean compromising between different use cases, I mean compromising on budget. Different people have different needs. Many people are okay with terrible rims, tires, etc, because they're not expecting to use the bike much. A bike that lasts 90 hours may sound like crap to you, but that's enough for a twenty minute round trip every weekday for a year, which for many people could be perfectly adequate.

The claim that something can be made higher quality for the same price seems highly dubious. Cheap bike makers are throwing on these flashy features instead of making something high quality because it is cheaper to do so. I'm sure walmart would love to sell a bike for the same price that more people wanted, or at least something people liked enough to repurchase. The fact is people looking for high quality bikes aren't looking at walmart, or at the very least would look at reviews prior to their purchase. Those who don't know what they are buying generally don't really care what they are buying - and there's nothing wrong with that.

they're not going to stop, it has always been this way

Seths' bike hacks on youtube has a few videos on this topic, honestly if you give the bikes a solid tune-up they'll suffice for normal riding, but if you put them to the test they will break

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3eUfZuo5Bg&ab_channel=BermP...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3vI2bYhCrk&ab_channel=BermP...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com