tttiltheend wrote:
Some of these recommendations are extremely conservative.
Fair enough. Yes, that's probably true.
The schedule I use is below my financial pain threshold, and my "not more maintenance" threshold...and, the bike is "never" performing sub-par....so, I'm happy. Also, I created the schedule when I was a pure cyclist...and rode a LOT more than I do as a triathlete. So, I'm sure it could be extended. Of course, that schedule can be tempered with "am I having a problem?" or "does it look ok?"...and skip a schedule if neither of those indicates a need. The truth is very few things fail outright...most just result in a gradual decrease in performance over time/distance. So, the dividing lines are a bit arbitrary...based on some acceptable level of degradation.
I was intentionally vague about the "fit coords" item (eg, exactly HOW). Personally, I have marks and tape at strategic locations that allow me to either directly inspect (saddle height), or use a square to quickly verify (saddle nose)everything is where it should be. So, yes it takes 5 minutes to check everything...10 if something has to be corrected. No levels, plumb lines, or tape measures required. That said, if those marks didn't exist...I think its still important to ensure the position isn't changing every month, however you have to get it done.
Re: Wheels...I check them, but I don't have to true them. So, I disagree that it is indicative of a quality issue--I would agree if truing were frequently necessary. But, I just lift the wheel off the ground and give it a spin. I can see if it has any wobble, and if there is any brake drag. Two birds. 99.5% of the time, all is good. 0.4% of the time a brake caliper is rubbing because it got bumped. That other 0.1% there is a minor wobble that I can fix when I have time, but doesn't stop me from going on a ride.