Schwinn Varsity back from the dead (at Walmart!)

Originally Posted by flameburns623

My advice: REFUSE to pay more than $300.00 for any new bicycle. REFUSE to pay more than $50.00 for any use bicycle. REFUSE to pay more than $5000.00 for a new car or more than $1000.00 for a used car. That's in US dollars, circa AD 2007.

At times, I rather like feudal ideas about value far more than I like the modern "a thing is worth what someone is willing and able to pay for it" concept. The latter idea is a recipe for eternal inflation. I probably will explain this poorly, but the feudal economy was built around the idea of stability and utility: a thing was worth what it was intended for, and for whom it was intended. One would never make a cart (or a bicycle) of gold or precious metal because the item could never be worth more than a similar item made of base metal. This tended to ensure that the price of common means of transportation and of common tools of trade remained within the reach of common people.

The practice of inflating prices based upon the ability of more-affluent consumers to pay was seen as price-gouging (there's a different term for it but I'm not finding the synonym at present), and it was subject to both civil and ecclesiastical penalties. The policy created stable, conservative societies which changed dramatically only during periods of extreme duress--periods of total war, disease, or famine.

A few folks may remember the story, included in many literature or social-studies textbooks in about the 5th or 6th grade. The story was meant to demean conservatism, but I took away a rather different lesson. As I recollect, the story is told of an ancient, good-and-wise Chinese emperor who had built a very peaceful and prosperous kingdom, but made many enemies in the surrounding kingdoms. His enemies formed an alliance against him, and their combined forces were approximately equal to his own; the victory could easily go to either side. In the weeks prior to the great battle, the emperor was secretly approached by one of his subjects, a prodigy who had created several weapons which might give the emperor the decisive edge. One was a crude sort of blunderbuss, a sort of rifle. Another was a sort of cannon. Most importantly, the prodigy had devised some sort of flying machine (I don't recollect if this was a hot-air balloon or a glider), to which he had attached a platform from which his other weapons could be utilised.

The emperor immediately recognised that these weapons would indeed give him a great advantage over his enemies. But he also recognised that these new weapons would totally disrupt the traditional methods of waging war, and would ultimately change society itself if such weapons proliferated. The Emperor excused himself and, without explaining why, sent the royal executioner in to dispatch the prodigy of his head. All of the prodigy's inventions were destroyed without anyone being told what they were. In the battle that ensued, the Emperor's army lost and he himself was mortally wounded; his dying words were something like "Though I have lost my empire, I have preserved it".

We were supposed to be appalled, as I recollect, that a "good and wise" king would esteem his traditions so highly that he would refuse to change his ways of conducting war. But what if the "good and wise king" were actually a bad and exploitative one? What if his enemies had been the real 'good guys'? After all--at the risk of invoking Godwin's Law--the most well-known proponent of traditional values in our time was also the leader who embraced new technology most enthusiastically. And the one who most of us most fervently disdain and despise: Adolf Hitler.

Sorry for the rant. I get frustrated at the bike snobbery that insists that a 'good bike' cannot be found for less than $700.00, largely because I just don't think that most people who buy bikes will ever perceive the least amount of difference between a $200.00 Schwinn from Wal-Mart and a $7000.00 bike from a local bike shop.

Originally Posted by 10 speed

An excellent observation in theory except for one critical point. Our precious dollar is practically worthless. A gas pipe huffy of 30 years ago was a by today's standard basic steel welded together frame with components designed to last 36mo of heavy duty abuse. Your big box bike of today given anywhere near the same treatment and you will find they hold up less than 90 days. Before you think I'm insulting the big box store that sell these bike shaped objects like 60 dollar Next with 18 speeds. I recollect the only new bike I ever bought was a 10 speed Murry bought in 96 for $79 +tax and that was because it was on clearance. With inflation today that would be $140 or so. These Wal-Mart bike serve their purpose: cheap because you're worth it. I own 17 different bikes at this time and have spent less than 700 or so on all of them together. All top shelf quality but if I was to club ride
I would definitely spend $1500 on a good bike for speed and safety. You get what you pay for .

Originally Posted by flameburns623

The other side of the feudal-economy coin is that if you built it--you built it for the ages. In a feudal economy, no bike would cost much more than an 'expensive' Wal-Mart bike--but if a Wal-Mart bike wore out before your grandson passed it on to his grandson, someone at Wal-Mart would have their head rolling around in a basket. Which is why feudal castles are still standing, but our newest big-box Wal-Mart around here, just finished last year, will be plowed under and converted to parking lot by the time I retire. Feudal economies punished innovation and rewarded stability, reliability, and utility.

So in my 'ideal' world--no one would ever build a bike out of carbon alloys or whatever space-age material is being used to make them so expensive, and bikes probably wouldn't be advanced much beyond the three-speed or mebbe the ten-speed stage . . .but they would be cheap in relation to whatever people's standard-of-living might equate to, and the things would last for generations on end.

Originally Posted by 10 speed

You must understand why a respectable commuter is worth 700 dollars. It is because that is the value of a quality bike. People in this country have assume the pay they receive is below appropriate. The usual class envy lie. This countries politics has been to convince you to vote for them. Not policies. So they buy votes by borrowing money. People have to ask If what I do I wouldn't pay some one else to do it somethings wrong. If you went to the machine shop with that bike on paper do you think they could build one for 300 I don't think so.

Originally Posted by gatucar

Hi guys,

I respect both positions regarding the price of a bike. If you have the money and you will really enjoy riding a 1000 + bike…go for it (actually I would like to buy a nice bike). But there are other things that make me think different.

1) The companies that manufacture nice bikes spend a lot of money in advertisement (supporting athletes, etc) and the consumer will finally pay for it. I have heard that close to 50% of the value of a brand product is actually advertisement, (I may be wrong but a Sam’s coke is half price than the real one). This makes a 1000 dollar bike worth of 500.

2) The bike company will need to get some money as well…just say 100 dollars at least (10%)…We now have a 400 dollars bike.

3) Depending where you live you will have to pay taxes. To me it is a good 10%. (10% of 1000 = 100). We have now a 300 bike

4) Bike shops at my city (small city) are fairly small so I really doubt that they can get a good discount for buying a large number of bicycles from the bicycle company. Let’s say they have to pay 50 dollars more than a large business able of getting a nice discount. (we have to pay 50 extra dollars due to inherent inefficiency of a small store) We have now a 250 dollar bike.

5) The bike shop will sell a reduced number of these nice bikes every month and from these few bikes these guys must make a living. This is: pay employees, the rent, bills, transportation, education for their kids, and so on. Let’s say that their earnings for selling a 1000 dollar bike are just 15 % (150 dollars). We have now a 100 dollar bike.


OK my calculations may be dead wrong and it is true that a big store will never be able to take account of the entire extra price that I already mentioned. But just make the same thinking process with a 200 Schwinn.


Advertisement= 0

Company earnings (just say 10%) = 20 dollars

Taxes = 20 dollars

Big store gets the discount so I will discount zero from my calculations.

Big store earnings (say 50%) = 100 dollars



At the end we have “real values” of 60 and 100 dollars for two different bikes.



Just kidding (but not 100% kidding).

Originally Posted by flameburns623

In any case: Wal-Mart buys it's bikes for $15.00 and sells them for $150.00. We have already determined that Wal-Mart is failing to do it's duty as a retailer because it's bikes will not stand up under reasonable use. In addition, they are taking what I feel is an unfair and exorbitant amount of profit for their products. I frankly don't agree with you that the 'fair' starting price of a bike is $700.00. A bicycle is a working-class person's means of transportation and in a feudal economy that would be recognised and the price would be held to that standard: I'm somewhat arbitrarily naming that price as $300.00, but I think that's pretty close
.....
There is way too much premeditated obsolescence in products generally, and in bikes and autos particularly. Bikes that are a mere ten years old are already said, widely and on this forum, to have 'outdated technology'; they are 'good starter bikes' for someone on a budget, but the advice is always--START with that bike BUT 'upgrade' ASAP. That is wrong. Our economy assumes that yesterday's products are trash, fit only for the very-poor or for the ash-heap--preferably the latter, so that the product does not impede the steady upward spiral of prices for newer products beyond the reach of common people.

Originally Posted by jptaguilar

Originally Posted by jptaguilar