Today at lunchtime I walked across the road to a bike shop. I had a look around.
My colleague Simon was very impressed with an Airbourne bike and commented how “elegant the silver”. The shop assistant came and explained that it is titanium and it can last a life a time. I asked the guy why is it that people who buy titanium bikes always tell me that it can last a life time, but since they are so style conscious and love to own beautifully made bikes they end up getting a new bike two years later anyway.
Does anyone actually want to own the same bike his or her all life?
I guess this may be a silly question in the sense that people like an over-engineered product, just like buying a Breitling Super Ocean 1500m watch to go the YMCA pool.
I would like to get a new bike every 2 years but circumstances have a way of intervening. So far I have not been able to come close to that schedule.
If I did not buy bikes built to last, I’d have ended up being forced to buy several cheap and ugly frames outfitted with cheap ugly components in order to get myself through the lean times. That would have truly sucked.
Better to plan for the worst and hope for the best.
Julian - you always have PMs to send Tom. I hope you have ordered something sexy to go with that carbon bike you got and that you can ride it again soon.
Tom – Thanks for responding I do appreciate your insights. How long would you say people actually ride the same bikes (on the average)?
Vitus – from what I have heard Vitus979 frames are prone to separation at the joints. So you are not named after a bike that symbolizes durability. What bike do you actually ride?
I have the same Cannondale CAAD5 and Giant TCR aluminium frames since 2002, and 2001 respectively. The Giant looks good, the Cannondale is is still as shiny as the day I bought it (with one big scratch on its carbon fork). Both bikes are aluminium and I ride nearly everyday to work on the Giant (17 miles each way) and go on club rides every Sunday 55-80 miles on sometimes rough roads and in all weather conditions.
Perhaps not as high mileage as Gordo or Demerly, but the bikes are abused quiet a bit. Three years later and I still don’t need a replacement (in terms of wear and tear). I most definitely want to treat myself for a sexier machine.
Now Tom, you know we men can’t multi-task we do single tasks properly before moving on!! Thanks, for your response, mine is done. Say Hi to Dave for me.
from what I have heard Vitus979 frames are prone to separation at the joints. So you are not named after a bike that symbolizes durability. What bike do you actually ride?
I actually ride a Vitus979. Which despite whatever reputation it has for lack of durability, is still all in one piece.
Granted, I didn’t buy it because I thought it was a frame built to last. I bought it because it was cheap (used) and I could justify spending the money.
When I buy a new bike, will durability be a big concern? Probably not, for the simple reason that I think the fragility of bike frames is vastly overstated by some people. As you say, the 979 doesn’t have a grand reputation for lasted, and yet mine still works fine. I really do not think there are any frames that only last a couple of seasons. I think people just get tired on riding on an “outdated” bike, and want the new Vaporware3000, so they pretend that their three year old frame is plumb wore out.
That said, if I had real reason to believe that a frame would only last a few years, I wouldn’t buy it.
I think I’m in that rare camp that actually would like to get exactly what I need and then forget it. Seems I keep getting bike lust until I find just the perfect piece of gear, but once I find it, I’m really satisfied and I want it to last.
Lifetime might be a bit much, I like ‘indefinitely’ more. As in, I might ride my Ti Magmaa indefinitely.
I really do not think there are any frames that only last a couple of seasons. I think people just get tired on riding on an “outdated” bike, and want the new Vaporware3000, so they pretend that their three year old frame is plumb wore out.
I totally agree, one of the criteria I have when making a road bike purchase is simply - can I afford (both in $$ and emotional investment) a bike that will at some point be involved in a pile up/crash in a race or training. So in my case light stiff and disposable when crashed (or crashed a couple of times if really unfortunate) Point well highlighted after a pile up on last Sunday training ride in a pace line going 40km. No idea how those pros get up and ride the next day after crashing in those 70km sprint finishes!
first off - most of the bikes you see in the store today you would not WANT to last a lifetime, even if they did. nothing new here - take a gander at this, for example:
so, bunch of embarrassingly dated bikes from 12 short years ago - not really one of which anybody would want to ride tody, and more than a couple that would actually be considered unridable. guess what - take any major manu’s catologue from today, and look at it in 2017 and you will see the same thing. yes, even cervelo’s ( shock).
which is not to say it HAS to be that way, of course. there are many bikes from 12 years ago that still rock most heavily today. most all of them built by hand, by a guy or guys that live and breathe and know cycling . . . . not marketing.
which raises several questions . . . . . most notably, if we a bike from 1993 and I.D. it as a silly ass POS today, was it a silly ass POS then ?? despite sales figures - i say yes indeed it was. so then, are numerous bikes being fashionably sold today as cutting edge ALSO then silly ass POS’s, even tho we do not know it yet???
indeed they are.
which ones ??? (where is larry california, when a guy needs him?). but anyway, here is a little clue . . . . if it was designed on a cocktail napkin in a business park someplace and faxed off to the third world for production to meet 'market demands" in 2005 . . . . . . . . . .just guess what your future self will think of it in 2017 ???
Whats wrong with these treks? The OCLV’s have change little in apearance. Ok some of the paint jobs might not be that taste full and those pogo stick Suspension MTB’s where bad then, let alone by todays standards.
But if you took one of the OCLV frames (in say the black colouring) put today components on them they would not look that out of place today.
I still ride my 91 Merlin set up as a tri bike several times a week. I would bet less than 10% of the people I ride with have any idea that the bike is older than a couple years. I went from 8 to nine and now 10 speed on it, have used it the Deathride, Time trials, Triathlons, crits, and one cyclocross race. It is a damn good bike that I wll keep probably till I can’t ride. I have a dozen or so different bikes to choose from, but like the old Merlin. I have a 4 year old Moots that is a lot more agressive and a better road race frame, that I will probably keep for a long time too.
A frame that lasts a lifetime is a good thing for it’s owner. What has changed over the past ten years on a Merlin? Fatter tubes, no big deal. The frame shifter bolts are moved up onto the headtube. The New headsets might make it half as long as the old style Chris King. I put a threadless fork on it so that is totally up to date. It is a damn good bike.
Tri and TT bikes have changed, but I bet they are pretty close to being peaked out on the geometry changes in the next ten years or so. Unless the UCI allows totally aero frames into the ring.
As for the lifetime thing, why not have a nice bike that you don’t have to worry about the finish? G
I fully expect to be using my frame for ten years. My last frame lasted 10 years and I still ride that bike too. It has been through everything, racing, training, commuting even cyclocross. It’s been in at least 6 accidents with 2 broken forks and a replaced top tube. It is a little heavier than today’s frames, but I would not hesitate to race it.