Octalink ES25 replacement?

On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 08:35:07 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 6:55:32 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 07:22:59 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-08-16 18:34, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 06:33:41 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-08-15 18:20, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 7:16:29 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-14 18:37, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 07:04:07 -0700, Joerg
wrote:
much snipped

Gimmee a BB that weighs a pound and lasts forever.

That ship sailed when you got Octalink.


When buying an MTB that isn't completely custom-assembled there isn't
much choice.


... Square drive -- maybe, but
it would require maintenance. Any sealed unit (internal or external
bearing) will fail after a period of time -- sometimes a very long
period.


I now have a sealed UN-55 BB in my road bike which has square taper
cranks. So far there were adjustable Shimano 600 BBs in there but those
have become unobtanium, at least at reasonable prices.


Seek and thou shall find:
http://tinyurl.com/yapw9ats
US$2.42
Or a complete set with bearings, spindle and a wrench US$ 24.03

I think I have written about talking to a Chinese wholesaler at a
trade show here who would, in volume, supply the three piece BB's for
US$1.00 each.


Which will last what? Three rides?

I have no idea, but given that, according to what I read, China makes
60% of the world's bicycles, and 86% of the bicycles sold in the U.S.,
I suspect that it is a bit more then three rides.

Shimano, for example, has a major factory in China so very possible
your ES25 bottom brackets could have been made there.

It's my understanding that Shimano only manufactures 105 through DuraAce in Japan and anything below that is make in China. While it doesn't work as good as the top level parts it seems to last as long to me.

If you look closely at Shimano they talk about "factory" when
discussing their China operations and "assembly" when taking about the
Singapore and Malaysian operations.

On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:20:53 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/18/2017 10:35 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 6:55:32 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 07:22:59 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-08-16 18:34, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 06:33:41 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-08-15 18:20, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 7:16:29 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-14 18:37, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 07:04:07 -0700, Joerg
wrote:
much snipped

Gimmee a BB that weighs a pound and lasts forever.

That ship sailed when you got Octalink.


When buying an MTB that isn't completely custom-assembled there isn't
much choice.


... Square drive -- maybe, but
it would require maintenance. Any sealed unit (internal or external
bearing) will fail after a period of time -- sometimes a very long
period.


I now have a sealed UN-55 BB in my road bike which has square taper
cranks. So far there were adjustable Shimano 600 BBs in there but those
have become unobtanium, at least at reasonable prices.


Seek and thou shall find:
http://tinyurl.com/yapw9ats
US$2.42
Or a complete set with bearings, spindle and a wrench US$ 24.03

I think I have written about talking to a Chinese wholesaler at a
trade show here who would, in volume, supply the three piece BB's for
US$1.00 each.


Which will last what? Three rides?

I have no idea, but given that, according to what I read, China makes
60% of the world's bicycles, and 86% of the bicycles sold in the U.S.,
I suspect that it is a bit more then three rides.

Shimano, for example, has a major factory in China so very possible
your ES25 bottom brackets could have been made there.

It's my understanding that Shimano only manufactures 105 through DuraAce in Japan and anything below that is make in China. While it doesn't work as good as the top level parts it seems to last as long to me.


Significant Shimano production is in Malaysia just as
significant Campagnolo production is in Romania.


They have operations in both Singapore and Malaysia. Nearly all the
bits and pieces I buy here are marked "Made in Malaysia".

On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 11:56:24 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-08-17 19:13, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 16:13:22 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-08-17 07:17, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 4:19:21 AM UTC-7,
wrote:
On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 8:26:09 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 6:56:17 PM UTC-7, John B.
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 16:08:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/16/2017 9:33 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-15 18:20, jbeattie wrote:


It depends. Aircraft frames can endure 30+ years without major
structural replacements unless the owner let corrosion fester. My
aluminum frame MTB impresses me by how stiff and robust the frame is (a
reason why I bought that particular model). Not even a dent underneath
the fat down tube where all the rocks hit. Rocks that when they hit my
shins make the blood flow.


That isn't true as aircraft undergo almost continuous inspections and
any damage is immediately repaired. The B-52H, for example, which was
built starting in 1961 had a major structural modification of the wing
structure in 1964. The DC-3 (C-47) which was used for the initial "gun
ships" in Vietnam days had literally thousands of modification orders.


We jumped out of the Dornier DO-27. Until it was 30 years old it never
had needed structural repairs. Just engine TBO and the usual stuff. The
only reason that this aircraft in perfect shape had to be retired from
commercial service was that the manufacturer was not willing to bless
the fuselage past the 30-year mark.

Probably shoddy stuff. Some of the DC-3's (C-47's) I worked on in
Vietnam were older then 30 years and still flying combat missions

On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 12:01:08 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-08-17 19:10, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/17/2017 7:13 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-17 07:17, jbeattie wrote:


I should be like Joerg and complain about spending money on
replacements. My crappy ISIS BB didn't last a lifetime! ISIS was
the only thing worse than Octalink.


And here you guys razz me for being too critical of the quality of
bicycle parts. In the automotive world a manufacturer with such
failure rates would be our business prontissimo.

Imagine you were a car commuter and the equivalent happened with your
car. The drive shafts conks out in due course, you go through
universal joints like Kleenex, the steering wheel breaks, then the
transmission wears out, in less than two years the wheel bearings
start singing the blues. Oh, and then the car's chassis develops a big
fat crack at a structurally critical location. A car owner would be up
in arms about that. Yet with bicycles we are expected to find this
perfectly normal?

There are choices, Joerg. You (like most of us here) choose to buy sport
bikes - that is, bikes that compete in the market by trying to be fairly
lightweight, bikes that use "innovative" designs for components, bikes
designed for higher performance or off-road banging about.


Since when is a XC MTB a sport bike? Also, I have an SUV, a _sport_
utility vehicle. In over 20 years not even a bulb in a dome light has
ever dared to burn out.


Being a enthusiast I'm sure that you know that the so called "SUV" was
developed in order to evade the CAFE standards, and clean air
regulations, by building a vehicle based on a pickup truck chasses and
classified as a truck so as not having to comply with the fuel
consumption and emissions laws regarding passenger cars..


You have the opportunity to buy bikes with much stouter components. Buy
yourself one of the upright Dutch utility bikes! Every part of it would
probably last much longer than what you chose to buy. Yes, it may weigh
50 pounds, but you've repeatedly told us you don't care about weight.


Having lived in the Netherlands I have ridden those. Guess what, they
broke. The first thing I thoroughly crunched was ... the BB. All the way
so riding home had become immpossible.


You're like a guy who buys an Alfa Romeo and complains that it's more
fragile than his neighbor's dump truck.


Nope. I'd never buy an Alfa, that's not for me. Just like I won't buy
some super-light carbon fiber deal for a bicycle.

On 2017-08-18 18:05, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 4:10:10 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-18 13:32, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 3:01:02 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-17 19:10, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/17/2017 7:13 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-17 07:17, jbeattie wrote:


I should be like Joerg and complain about spending
money on replacements. My crappy ISIS BB didn't last
a lifetime! ISIS was the only thing worse than
Octalink.


And here you guys razz me for being too critical of the
quality of bicycle parts. In the automotive world a
manufacturer with such failure rates would be our business
prontissimo.

Imagine you were a car commuter and the equivalent happened
with your car. The drive shafts conks out in due course,
you go through universal joints like Kleenex, the steering
wheel breaks, then the transmission wears out, in less than
two years the wheel bearings start singing the blues. Oh,
and then the car's chassis develops a big fat crack at a
structurally critical location. A car owner would be up in
arms about that. Yet with bicycles we are expected to find
this perfectly normal?

There are choices, Joerg. You (like most of us here) choose
to buy sport bikes - that is, bikes that compete in the
market by trying to be fairly lightweight, bikes that use
"innovative" designs for components, bikes designed for
higher performance or off-road banging about.


Since when is a XC MTB a sport bike? Also, I have an SUV, a
_sport_ utility vehicle. In over 20 years not even a bulb in a
dome light has ever dared to burn out.


You have the opportunity to buy bikes with much stouter
components. Buy yourself one of the upright Dutch utility
bikes! Every part of it would probably last much longer than
what you chose to buy. Yes, it may weigh 50 pounds, but
you've repeatedly told us you don't care about weight.


Having lived in the Netherlands I have ridden those. Guess
what, they broke. The first thing I thoroughly crunched was ...
the BB. All the way so riding home had become immpossible.


You're like a guy who buys an Alfa Romeo and complains that
it's more fragile than his neighbor's dump truck.


Nope. I'd never buy an Alfa, that's not for me. Just like I
won't buy some super-light carbon fiber deal for a bicycle.

So even a Dutch bike isn't rugged enough for you?


I was by far not the only one breaking them.


Then buy yourself one of these
http://www.worksmancycles.com/indtrikes.html and stop whining.
Sheesh.


Have you looked more closely at the cranks and BB area? Appears to
be similar to what one finds on department store MTB. If so, how
long will that last?

http://www.worksmancycles.com/media/2014/m2620.jpg

If my MTB ever gives up so badly or suffers a crash that a repair
isn't economical I will be looking for a DH-MTB. 8" suspension
travel, 8" rotors, double-crown fork, the works. Always learning.
However, the frame I picked out is already a rather good one. It's
the mounted parts that are failing and that isn't much different
for other riders around here. Not all of them being clydes.

You have a mid-fi Fuji with parts that are at least a decade old (if
it has Octalink).


I have a low-fi Mitsubishi offroad vehicle. Yet that doesn't have any
problems whatsoever.


... You purport to thrash that bike. Expect to replace
parts. Bike parts do not last as long as car parts.


Can anyone explain why not? And no, weight is IMO not the typical
reason. Cost isn't either.


... Cars parts do
not last as long as brass toilet parts. Brass toilet parts do not
last as long as Egyptian pyramids. Egyptian pyramids do not last as
long as the sun. The material world has a shelf-life. Embrace it.


Beats me why cyclists always accept premature failure of components as
"normal". A regular vehicle isn't supposed to need TLC and repairs every
1k miles. So does that mean bicycles are inferior vehicles?

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2017-08-18 22:19, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 12:01:08 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-08-17 19:10, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/17/2017 7:13 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-17 07:17, jbeattie wrote:


I should be like Joerg and complain about spending money on
replacements. My crappy ISIS BB didn't last a lifetime! ISIS was
the only thing worse than Octalink.


And here you guys razz me for being too critical of the quality of
bicycle parts. In the automotive world a manufacturer with such
failure rates would be our business prontissimo.

Imagine you were a car commuter and the equivalent happened with your
car. The drive shafts conks out in due course, you go through
universal joints like Kleenex, the steering wheel breaks, then the
transmission wears out, in less than two years the wheel bearings
start singing the blues. Oh, and then the car's chassis develops a big
fat crack at a structurally critical location. A car owner would be up
in arms about that. Yet with bicycles we are expected to find this
perfectly normal?

There are choices, Joerg. You (like most of us here) choose to buy sport
bikes - that is, bikes that compete in the market by trying to be fairly
lightweight, bikes that use "innovative" designs for components, bikes
designed for higher performance or off-road banging about.


Since when is a XC MTB a sport bike? Also, I have an SUV, a _sport_
utility vehicle. In over 20 years not even a bulb in a dome light has
ever dared to burn out.


Being a enthusiast I'm sure that you know that the so called "SUV" was
developed in order to evade the CAFE standards, and clean air
regulations, by building a vehicle based on a pickup truck chasses and
classified as a truck so as not having to comply with the fuel
consumption and emissions laws regarding passenger cars..


Where did you pick up that urban legend? My SUV (built on a truck
chassis) must pass the very same emissions standards as the Mitsubishi
Eclipse which has the same engine. Gets tested every two years just like
passenger cars. Same for all the other SUVs around here.

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2017-08-18 22:06, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 11:56:24 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-08-17 19:13, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 16:13:22 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-08-17 07:17, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 4:19:21 AM UTC-7,
wrote:
On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 8:26:09 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 6:56:17 PM UTC-7, John B.
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 16:08:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/16/2017 9:33 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-15 18:20, jbeattie wrote:


It depends. Aircraft frames can endure 30+ years without major
structural replacements unless the owner let corrosion fester. My
aluminum frame MTB impresses me by how stiff and robust the frame is (a
reason why I bought that particular model). Not even a dent underneath
the fat down tube where all the rocks hit. Rocks that when they hit my
shins make the blood flow.


That isn't true as aircraft undergo almost continuous inspections and
any damage is immediately repaired. The B-52H, for example, which was
built starting in 1961 had a major structural modification of the wing
structure in 1964. The DC-3 (C-47) which was used for the initial "gun
ships" in Vietnam days had literally thousands of modification orders.


We jumped out of the Dornier DO-27. Until it was 30 years old it never
had needed structural repairs. Just engine TBO and the usual stuff. The
only reason that this aircraft in perfect shape had to be retired from
commercial service was that the manufacturer was not willing to bless
the fuselage past the 30-year mark.

Probably shoddy stuff.


Huh? It is a very high quality aircraft. It's just that you can't get
insurance for commercial use in Europe if not blessed.


... Some of the DC-3's (C-47's) I worked on in
Vietnam were older then 30 years and still flying combat missions


Exactly. That's why there is no reason why aluminum bike frames should
fail as often as mentioned here.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2017-08-18 21:53, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 12:07:36 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-08-18 08:31, wrote:
On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 4:13:19 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-17 07:17, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 4:19:21 AM UTC-7,
wrote:
On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 8:26:09 PM UTC-7, jbeattie
wrote:
On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 6:56:17 PM UTC-7, John B.
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 16:08:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/16/2017 9:33 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-15 18:20, jbeattie wrote:


Much Snipped

This cornering stuff concerned me a bit ever since I was a kid. One
kid in our town over-cooked a curve on dirt, went over a cliff,
sailed 100ft or so in free fall and died. Hopefully on impact and
not after a lot of suffering.

Joerg - that's a false comparison. Cars are not designed for the
ultimate in light weight.


Sure they do. Now they even have to because of stringent fleet
consumption regulations.

Not true at all. In fact most car parts are designed to be the
cheapest possible to manufacture. Look at all the stamped parts as
opposed to the same, and much lighter structure built of welded
tubing, for example.

The lower front suspension members I mentioned that were replaced on
my wife's car were stamped metal with a rolled lip all the way around.


Bought that at the place next to the food discounter?


Probably 10 or 15 lbs. each. I can, and have, fabricated much lighter
and stronger suspension members out of 4130 chromalloy tubing.


You can always improve but in general they make stuff as light as
possible. Like on the new Ford F150. Technology progresses.

http://iconvehicledynamics.com/shop/...l-arm-uca.html


... A car brake disk is 3/8" thick and can be
refaced several times. A bicycle disk must be replaced in total the
first time it gets any grooves in it or if it has heat distortion.


Gimmee a 3/8" front rotor for the MTB and I'd be all smiles. With all
the mods my MTB weighs over 40lbs anyhow so who cares?


Any, even marginally competent machine shop can make bicycle brake
disks and the likely material is also very cheap. One can only
speculate on why you don't have them.


You'd be surprised how little can be achieved that way around here.
Machine shops are loaded with work and they don't want a tiny special
order. BTDT. There are numerous out-of-work machinists who have lates
and stuff but for reasons I will never understand they won't offer
freelance.

However, there are places that make custom laser-engraved rotors and
when mine are through I'll ask what they want for a raw unengraved
(thick) one.


The engine, transmission and differential all are in lubrication
baths. Wheel bearings and such are two to three times heavier than
the maximum calculated loads.


It would not be a problem to run a bicycle BB in a lubrication bath.
It's also not much bigger than dirt bike wheel bearings who are exposed
to much more hammering yet last a lot longer.

Anyhow, a guy in Germany recommended to replace the ES25 with a ES51.
More pricey but if it last longer it would be fine.

But you'll never know until you spend the big bucks to buy one and
test it yourself. Based on your continuous complaints about lousy bike
parts I assume that you will be singing your sad songs about yet
another lousy bottom bracket within the year.


I will buy an ES51 after I remove the ES25 to get the exact dimensions.
Which I can't do because the bike needs to do two more rides before I
mothball it until the ES51 gets here. Then we'll see.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 8/19/2017 10:04 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-18 18:05, jbeattie wrote:


You have a mid-fi Fuji with parts that are at least a decade old (if
it has Octalink).


I have a low-fi Mitsubishi offroad vehicle. Yet that doesn't have any
problems whatsoever.

I _strongly_ suspect you exaggerate the reliability and longevity of
your motor vehicles even more than you exaggerate the faults of your
bicycles. I keep maintenance records on my cars, and I know what repairs
are necessary to keep a car running for my normal ten year replacement
cycle, let alone the 18 years I kept one car. Your claims about never
burning out even a dome light are totally unrealistic.

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* ... You purport to thrash that bike. Expect to replace
parts. Bike parts do not last as long as car parts.


Can anyone explain why not? And no, weight is IMO not the typical
reason. Cost isn't either.

I believe it's been explained many times.
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* ... Cars parts do
not last as long as brass toilet parts.Â* Brass toilet parts do not
last as long as Egyptian pyramids.Â* Egyptian pyramids do not last as
long as the sun.Â* The material world has a shelf-life. Embrace it.


Beats me why cyclists always accept premature failure of components as
"normal". A regular vehicle isn't supposed to need TLC and repairs every
1k miles. So does that mean bicycles are inferior vehicles?

Personally, I don't accept "premature" failure of bike components as
normal. I accept _normal_ failure of components as normal. I don't
expect bike tires to last 30,000 miles, bottom brackets to last 30 years
(even though one of mine did), mountain bikes to see no damage after
epic gonzo rides blasting over super-gnarly terrain while evading
mountain lions.

I'm a mechanical engineer. I understand tradeoffs regarding weight,
cost and longevity. I also understand the influence of production volume
on cost and availability. I know why parts for a Chevy sold by the
millions are cheaper than nearly identical parts for a Maserati sold by
the thousands.

And I know that my most-used touring bike has been very reliable. But
if I were totally dissatisfied with the reliability of
enthusiast-quality bikes AND if I really didn't care a bit about weight,
I'd buy myself a Worksman industrial-duty bicycle and quit whining.

But I also know this is all beyond you.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 8/19/2017 9:04 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-18 18:05, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 4:10:10 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-18 13:32, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 3:01:02 PM UTC-4, Joerg
wrote:
On 2017-08-17 19:10, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/17/2017 7:13 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-17 07:17, jbeattie wrote:


I should be like Joerg and complain about spending
money on replacements. My crappy ISIS BB didn't last
a lifetime! ISIS was the only thing worse than
Octalink.


And here you guys razz me for being too critical of the
quality of bicycle parts. In the automotive world a
manufacturer with such failure rates would be our
business
prontissimo.

Imagine you were a car commuter and the equivalent
happened
with your car. The drive shafts conks out in due course,
you go through universal joints like Kleenex, the
steering
wheel breaks, then the transmission wears out, in
less than
two years the wheel bearings start singing the blues.
Oh,
and then the car's chassis develops a big fat crack at a
structurally critical location. A car owner would be
up in
arms about that. Yet with bicycles we are expected to
find
this perfectly normal?

There are choices, Joerg. You (like most of us here)
choose
to buy sport bikes - that is, bikes that compete in the
market by trying to be fairly lightweight, bikes that use
"innovative" designs for components, bikes designed for
higher performance or off-road banging about.


Since when is a XC MTB a sport bike? Also, I have an
SUV, a
_sport_ utility vehicle. In over 20 years not even a
bulb in a
dome light has ever dared to burn out.


You have the opportunity to buy bikes with much stouter
components. Buy yourself one of the upright Dutch utility
bikes! Every part of it would probably last much
longer than
what you chose to buy. Yes, it may weigh 50 pounds, but
you've repeatedly told us you don't care about weight.


Having lived in the Netherlands I have ridden those. Guess
what, they broke. The first thing I thoroughly crunched
was ...
the BB. All the way so riding home had become immpossible.


You're like a guy who buys an Alfa Romeo and complains
that
it's more fragile than his neighbor's dump truck.


Nope. I'd never buy an Alfa, that's not for me. Just
like I
won't buy some super-light carbon fiber deal for a
bicycle.

So even a Dutch bike isn't rugged enough for you?


I was by far not the only one breaking them.


Then buy yourself one of these
http://www.worksmancycles.com/indtrikes.html and stop
whining.
Sheesh.


Have you looked more closely at the cranks and BB area?
Appears to
be similar to what one finds on department store MTB. If
so, how
long will that last?

http://www.worksmancycles.com/media/2014/m2620.jpg

If my MTB ever gives up so badly or suffers a crash that
a repair
isn't economical I will be looking for a DH-MTB. 8"
suspension
travel, 8" rotors, double-crown fork, the works. Always
learning.
However, the frame I picked out is already a rather good
one. It's
the mounted parts that are failing and that isn't much
different
for other riders around here. Not all of them being clydes.

You have a mid-fi Fuji with parts that are at least a
decade old (if
it has Octalink).


I have a low-fi Mitsubishi offroad vehicle. Yet that doesn't
have any problems whatsoever.


... You purport to thrash that bike. Expect to
replace
parts. Bike parts do not last as long as car parts.


Can anyone explain why not? And no, weight is IMO not the
typical reason. Cost isn't either.


... Cars
parts do
not last as long as brass toilet parts. Brass toilet
parts do not
last as long as Egyptian pyramids. Egyptian pyramids do
not last as
long as the sun. The material world has a shelf-life.
Embrace it.


Beats me why cyclists always accept premature failure of
components as "normal". A regular vehicle isn't supposed to
need TLC and repairs every 1k miles. So does that mean
bicycles are inferior vehicles?


If you pull off the stem and paint it, an apple could look
something like an orange but it is actually not an orange. I
hope that helps.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971