Link to the other (now closed) thread.
In search of what to search for.
Well, I am up to 21 entrys so far. I decided that I will jumble the entry numbers once they are all in. That way, there is even less chance of guessing who is who.
|......GO.BROWNS........| ||'|";, ___.
|_..._..._______===|=||_|__|..., ] -
In search of what to search for.
1. The cost of different items acquired independently is independent.
2. Any item has a minimum cost of $0. So in the case of purchasing a bike then selling off parts of said bike for equal or greater amount than what you paid for the whole, the remaining bits count as free, but not negative cost.
1 + 2 = The sale of parts from a whole only counts towards reducing the cost of the remaining bits from the whole. The savings are not transferable to other items. If I buy a whole bike for $40, spend $20 on new wheels, then sell the old wheels for $70, my total cost for the budget is $20 - new wheels weren't part of the original whole plus the cost of the purchased bike cannot drop below $0.
Let's see now, first it's a good thing I didn't draft up a number plate, if the ends up with one on it. But the number jumble is a good idea.
Next, if I work this right I wonder if I could end up with a negative-$$$ value, nah not in my local market currently.
Made some progress by actually digging my way through the bike jumble to one potential project bike. Might change my mind though due to fork issues. Maybe I'll just invert some ape hangers and build a stretch limo funny bike fixed gear Drew Special.
Just gotta wait for the snow here to melt so I can start rummaging
It's not that complicated, what you spend on the bike, no matter where the money came from counts towards the budget. Here is an example that I hope will clear this up.
I buy a Peugeot for $50.00. It has the nasty Simplex Prestige derailleurs and they just happen to be broken. Next day I find a donor Nishiki bike in the trash. I decide to use the whole bike as my freebie and proceed to swap the derailleurs over to the Peugeot. I then add new tires, $20.00 and tubes, $10.00 and handlebar tape for $10.00.
Nishiki parts bike $ Freebie $
Tires and tubes $30.00
Handlebar tape $10.00
If I sell the wheels off the Nishiki for $40.00 and then use that money to buy, for example, front and rear racks for the Peugeot, then you add it to the budget.
Front rack $20.00
Rear rack $20.00
Now your total is $130.00.
Last edited by High Fist Shin; 01-04-10 at 09:43 PM.
In life there are no mistakes, only lessons. -Shin
Alright, here is a question for the judges (about valuation of things) : Let's say one buys a bike for $X and sells its frame for $2X and keeps the components for this competition. What value would you place on those components? (In my book, it should be a negative value), but I want to hear what the judges would say...
(and this is my 1,000th post, so I better pop a cork -tape that is)
still stuck in the '80s; '70s were good as well, but i severely dislike tubulars.
As I see it, however, this competition is a friendly one that should be made as fair as possible to everyone involved. To me, this means all participants should try, as individuals, to account for costs as fairly as possible. There is no way that we, as judges, can audit each entry. We're working on the honor system here.
The two salient 'guidelines' I pull from the rules (which are unchanged from last year's competition) are:
1. Complete bike purchased for parts may be included in the expenses either as the total cost of the bike or an FMV for each item used, at the builder's discretion.
2. The expense area is the only real way to cheat since there is no documentation required outside your word. Every builder is on the honor system, don't cheat, this is just for fun and karma will eventually kick you in the ass if you do. Play clean!
So in my opinion, unless an item is pulled from the trash, it must be accounted for monetarily, with the exception of the ONE freebie, which may be acquired free in ways other than a trash find. Therefore, if you buy a bike for $20, sell everything but the crank for $300, and use the crank for your project, you should assign it's value as $20 or whatever you deem the FMV to be for that particular crank.
This is simply an alternative opinion. If most of us would prefer to reward the 'flipper's economy', I'm fine with it.
I believe stausty would rule the components cost you $0.
Now all we need is a consensus. I have no trouble honoring the consensus of the competition's entrants. But if that's too complicated to determine, it appears the judges rule 2-1 in favor of accounting for the components as greater than $0.
Last edited by JunkYardBike; 12-29-09 at 10:03 PM.
This sounds like fun. I just have to rid my basement of all the sawdust from my wifes Christmas present (a Mission style Ash coffee table) and figure out which bike could be a candidate....
I was thinking that I might have to account for costs in two ways: 1) estimated value of the parts and 2) their actual cost to me. One is certainly going to be higher than two as a result of flipping activities. For example, the pedals I will likely use came off of a bike I bought for $140 and sold for $150 (and substituted some pedals that came off a bike I found in the trash). And several other parts will likely come from a bike I bought for $100, mostly for its brand new Brooks B17. That CL purchase was completed by a local friend who was one town away from the seller. He kept the frameset, and I got all of the parts, including the B17, so I could imagine that I assign a value of $75 to the saddle and figure everything else cost me $25 (wheelset, crankset, brakes, bars, etc.)? And, finally, I have managed to amass items in the parts bin of which I have no idea as to origins; they likely came from geared bikes that I stripped down and sold off as single speeds. As I said, two values: estimated value and actual cost.
Do you mean you'll have to account for your costs in two ways, to arrive at one estimate? Or do you mean to point out that on most of these projects, there will be an actual cost and an estimated value? Maybe participants should calculate and submit both?
From a judging perspective, it's apropos that the only 'objective' criterion becomes a tangled nest!
I did have premonitions the accounting might cause controversy, but it appears to have worked itself out last year. Were you dissatisfied with the accounting process last year Neal?
I'm all about process decisions on something like this, but it could potentially take longer to iron out than the duration of the contest itself.
On to plan-b and revisiting the fork issue.
Question: do these have to fit us or can I build up a kid's bike, or maybe take an old BMX Schwinn Predator down off the wall and set it up with a super tall stem and drop bars and a mega-long setback seatpost and a pair of recumbent 20"x1-3/8" road slicks and bolt on a bolt-on derailleur hanger and convert it to a pseudo-10-speed grocery grabber?????
It's no fun when the plans turn left while you were leaning hard right.
Consider any questions above just rhetorical, besides I'd probably use the GT Pro Performer for that conversion since it has the stand on top surfer bars which I'd use instead of drops.
Confused? Perfect, then the plan is working .... 8-)
Hmmm, plan-K then, got some napkin sketching to do, possibly even dust off a sewing machine or oil up the leather stitcher. Hmmmm, thinking ....