Bicycle Lifespan

I bought a used Cannondale road bike in 2001. It was in great shape
then, but now many items are in need of replacement--shifters, cables,
saddle, wheels, tires, etc. Admittedly a new bike might not need all
of this after only 3 years, but I'm still stuck in the position of
either fixing this one (which I fear would be putting good money after
bad) or buying a new ride.

This brings up the question of what the expected lifespan of a road
bike should be. Is it 3-5 years and one should just live with the
thought of dropping $2K for a new one that often just as one must do
with computers? Or is it longer, allowing one to think more of it
like a car? If the latter, are expensive parts worth replacing on a
bike? I expect the shifters & cables alone to cost over $400 to have
replaced; a significant expense that requires serious consideration.

Thanks for any thoughts,
-Kurt

PS: I'm a bit dismayed at the lack of durability of "Dura-Ace"
components. Has anyone else found them to not necessarily be worth
their cost?

On 1 Aug 2004 14:38:36 -0700, Kurt Tappe wrote:

I bought a used Cannondale road bike in 2001. It was in great shape
then, but now many items are in need of replacement--shifters, cables,
saddle, wheels, tires, etc. Admittedly a new bike might not need all
of this after only 3 years, but I'm still stuck in the position of
either fixing this one (which I fear would be putting good money after
bad) or buying a new ride.

This brings up the question of what the expected lifespan of a road
bike should be. Is it 3-5 years and one should just live with the
thought of dropping $2K for a new one that often just as one must do
with computers? Or is it longer, allowing one to think more of it
like a car? If the latter, are expensive parts worth replacing on a
bike? I expect the shifters & cables alone to cost over $400 to have
replaced; a significant expense that requires serious consideration.

Thanks for any thoughts,
-Kurt

PS: I'm a bit dismayed at the lack of durability of "Dura-Ace"
components. Has anyone else found them to not necessarily be worth
their cost?

If you have had it for some time, and it sounds like you have, you
will be familiar with everything. It makes sense to spend the money
to upgrade the parts that wear out with higher quality if possible.
Then you would be out $400 rather than another $2K and you would
know what will wear and what won't. I have been riding an old Huffy
for about ten years as my utility bike and have only worn out
the bottom bracket, and rear wheel bearings. I ride from 10 to 70
miles every day so maybe I am lucky or maybe you put in a lot of miles.

Think of what you could do with $1600 versus breaking in a new ride.
Bill Baka

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

I run a Huffy 8000 miles a year, and replace all sorts of stuff
(Huffy phone order), bb, rear wheel, derailleur, freewheel, as it
wears out, EXCEPT if a whole bunch of things are marginal at once,
when it is cheaper to get a new Huffy, which has all new parts
all around.

A $2000 bike though this is not true for; try replacing with cheaper
parts, if you don't want to part with much money. The cheap stuff
works okay.
--
Ron Hardin


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

This brings up the question of what the expected lifespan of a road
bike should be.

The other day I was out for a ride round the lanes. Stopped and chatted to a
guy on a bike coming the other way. His bike was over 50 years old. It was
*immaculate* in original paint & parts. He rides almost every day on this bike.
He maintains it wonderfully.

Cheers, helen s


--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
**$om $

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--

"Kurt Tappe" wrote in message
m...
I bought a used Cannondale road bike in 2001. It was in great shape
then, but now many items are in need of replacement--shifters, cables,
saddle, wheels, tires, etc. Admittedly a new bike might not need all
of this after only 3 years, but I'm still stuck in the position of
either fixing this one (which I fear would be putting good money after
bad) or buying a new ride.

This brings up the question of what the expected lifespan of a road
bike should be. Is it 3-5 years and one should just live with the
thought of dropping $2K for a new one that often just as one must do
with computers? Or is it longer, allowing one to think more of it
like a car? If the latter, are expensive parts worth replacing on a
bike? I expect the shifters & cables alone to cost over $400 to have
replaced; a significant expense that requires serious consideration.

It's not years, it's miles, and maintenance. Some high-wear parts may last a
few thousand miles. Others may go 10k or more. The frame should last
indefinitely.

What I don't understand is why this should come as a surprise.

RichC

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 14:38:36 -0700, Kurt Tappe wrote:

I bought a used Cannondale road bike in 2001. It was in great shape
then, but now many items are in need of replacement--shifters, cables,
saddle, wheels, tires, etc.

What makes you think all these things need replacement? Tires and cables
are maintenance items, and need to be replaced regularly. But what is
wrong with the shifters? STI shifters do break down eventually, but not
until you have a good bit of mileage. And wheels? Wheels are
not a unit. Rims need occasional replacing, but hubs last
nearly forever if properly cared for, and spokes can last for
several rims if you replace the rim with one of the same
diameter.

This brings up the question of what the expected lifespan of a road bike
should be.

Decades.

Is it 3-5 years and one should just live with the thought of
dropping $2K for a new one that often just as one must do with
computers? Or is it longer, allowing one to think more of it like a
car? If the latter, are expensive parts worth replacing on a bike? I
expect the shifters & cables alone to cost over $400 to have replaced; a
significant expense that requires serious consideration.

Then they must be STI. Unfortunately, STI shifters are not repairable.
In contrast, Campy Ergo shifters are easy enough to repair that a
competent home mechanic can do so within half an hour.

PS: I'm a bit dismayed at the lack of durability of "Dura-Ace"
components. Has anyone else found them to not necessarily be worth their
cost?

Depends. The only Dura-Ace component I have, a rear track hub, seems to
be bomb-proof. Others have not had such luck -- but all Shimano shifters
have the same problems. Other wear parts, such as bearings, are easily
and cheaply replaced.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
_`\(,_ | certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to
(_)/ (_) | reality. -- Albert Einstein

I know that there are steel bikes 50+ years old which are still going
strong. I'd be interested in seeing how the ultralight aluminum and carbon
fiber bikes are going to hold up, though. Will we be seeing "classic OCLV
Treks" for sale 30 years for now on eBay?

Kurt Tappe wrote:

I bought a used Cannondale road bike in 2001. It was in great shape
then, but now many items are in need of replacement--shifters, cables,
saddle, wheels, tires, etc. Admittedly a new bike might not need all
of this after only 3 years, but I'm still stuck in the position of
either fixing this one (which I fear would be putting good money after
bad) or buying a new ride.

What year was the bike made? And what makes you think all those parts
are bad?

My Cannondale is a 1986 model. The "wear parts" have, of course, been
replaced. That's tires, chain and cogs and (rarely) cables. The rims
were replaced only because I wanted to move from 27" to 700c rims - the
old ones were perfect. The shifters are perfect. Hubs are perfect. So
are the bottom bracket, cranks, brakes, etc etc.

My utility bike is probably the one I ride most. It's a 1972 Raleigh.
Between 1976 (when I rescued it from someone's basement) and 1986, I
replaced most of its equipment, but since then, only tires, chains and
cogs, and (rarely) cables. The shifters date from the late '70s!

Bikes last a long, long time, and they're usually simple to fix when
parts do wear out.



This brings up the question of what the expected lifespan of a road
bike should be.

I'd say decades.


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 22:12:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

This brings up the question of what the expected lifespan of a road
bike should be.

I'd say decades.

Probably so, considering what a success my little brother's Follis has
been with minimal work.

-Luigi

"Kurt Tappe" wrote in message
m...
I bought a used Cannondale road bike in 2001. It was in great shape
then, but now many items are in need of replacement--shifters, cables,
saddle, wheels, tires, etc. Admittedly a new bike might not need all
of this after only 3 years, but I'm still stuck in the position of
either fixing this one (which I fear would be putting good money after
bad) or buying a new ride.

There are items on a bike that need replacement after a while, and that
certainly includes items like cables, tires, and chains. A new bike is
likely to need all that stuff after 3 years, if not before.

Some of the other items on your list -- shifters, saddle, wheels -- are also
replaceable items; it's hard to say what mileage might be on them. The main
expense item will be the shifters, and I can't comment on Dura-Ace.

Road bikes can be ridden a long time. I'm not the only guy in this newsgroup
riding a bike from the 1970's. It partly depends on what type of experience
you are seeking.