Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Classic & Vintage This forum is to discuss the many aspects of classic and vintage bicycles, including musclebikes, lightweights, middleweights, hi-wheelers, bone-shakers, safety bikes and much more.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-29-09, 03:08 PM   #26
USAZorro
Seņor Member
 
USAZorro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Florence, KY
Bikes: 1954 Hetchins M.O., 1959 Viking Severn Valley, 1970 Raleigh Pro, 1972 Fuji "The Finest", 1974 Raleigh Superbe&Comp, 1976 Raleigh Team Pro, 1996 Giant Iguana, 2000 Bob Jackson Arrowhead
Posts: 14,345
Link to the other (now closed) thread.
__________________
In search of what to search for.
USAZorro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-09, 03:15 PM   #27
JunkYardBike
Since 1938...
 
JunkYardBike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Northwestern NJ
Bikes:
Posts: 6,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by USAZorro View Post
Link to the other (now closed) thread.
Could you also post a link to this thread in the other - as the final post of that thread - in the event some participants may have be subscribed to it or have it bookmarked?
JunkYardBike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-09, 03:28 PM   #28
mkeller234
Rustbelt Rider
 
mkeller234's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Canton, OH
Bikes: 1990 Trek 1420 - 1978 Raleigh Professional - 1973 Schwinn Collegiate - 1974 Schwinn Suburban
Posts: 8,295
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........| ||'|";, ___.
|_..._..._______===|=||_|__|..., ] -
"(@)'(@)"""''"**|(@)(@)*****''(@)
mkeller234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-09, 03:30 PM   #29
High Fist Shin
The Brave Descender
Thread Starter
 
High Fist Shin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: S.E. Pennsylvania
Bikes: Univega Viva Touring, Cannondale Six/13
Posts: 2,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by rat fink View Post
I have a variation on the freebie question: Suppose you acquired a dumpster bike and sold the groupset for a price high enough that you were able to purchase all new parts and have money left over... Does the entire bike count as a single freebie even though it was complete? Does the dollar value count on the new parts you 'traded' for?
To answer your question, it doesn't matter how you came by the money, if you spent cash on parts for your entry, it counts towards your budget, even though that cash came from the sale of "free" parts.

-Shin
__________________
In life there are no mistakes, only lessons. -Shin
High Fist Shin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-09, 03:52 PM   #30
bigvegan
Senior Member
 
bigvegan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Bikes:
Posts: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machin Shin View Post
To answer your question, it doesn't matter how you came by the money, if you spent cash on parts for your entry, it counts towards your budget, even though that cash came from the sale of "free" parts.

-Shin
That doesn't quite make sense. Yes, the cash spent on new parts should count TOWARD your budget, but the cash made from any parts on the project bike that are sold should be deducted FROM your budget, NO?
bigvegan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-09, 06:02 PM   #31
USAZorro
Seņor Member
 
USAZorro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Florence, KY
Bikes: 1954 Hetchins M.O., 1959 Viking Severn Valley, 1970 Raleigh Pro, 1972 Fuji "The Finest", 1974 Raleigh Superbe&Comp, 1976 Raleigh Team Pro, 1996 Giant Iguana, 2000 Bob Jackson Arrowhead
Posts: 14,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigvegan View Post
That doesn't quite make sense. Yes, the cash spent on new parts should count TOWARD your budget, but the cash made from any parts on the project bike that are sold should be deducted FROM your budget, NO?
It's really a question of what the money is being deducted from. If I buy bike for $30.00, sell parts from it for $50.00, and then buy more parts for $40.00 that I use on the bike, the original bike could be the freebie (presuming there's not another), and you'd have $40.00 in budget for the parts you bought. NOT the $20.00 you'd have by lumping the entire budget $30.00 on bike + $40.00 on parts - $50.00 on the sale of parts. ...at least that's my understanding of it. I'll accept correction by the judges if they say this is incorrect.
__________________
In search of what to search for.
USAZorro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-09, 06:28 PM   #32
stausty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Bikes:
Posts: 709
Quote:
Originally Posted by USAZorro View Post
It's really a question of what the money is being deducted from. If I buy bike for $30.00, sell parts from it for $50.00, and then buy more parts for $40.00 that I use on the bike, the original bike could be the freebie (presuming there's not another), and you'd have $40.00 in budget for the parts you bought. NOT the $20.00 you'd have by lumping the entire budget $30.00 on bike + $40.00 on parts - $50.00 on the sale of parts. ...at least that's my understanding of it. I'll accept correction by the judges if they say this is incorrect.
Hopefully this clarifies things and does not conflict with previous rulings:

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.
stausty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-09, 06:34 PM   #33
treebound 
aka: Mike J.
 
treebound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: between Milwaukee and Sheboygan in Wisconsin
Bikes: 1995 Trek 520 is the current primary bike.
Posts: 3,038
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.
treebound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-09, 08:28 PM   #34
cnnrmccloskey
Senior Member
 
cnnrmccloskey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Portland Oregon
Bikes: '82 Giante super challange, 70 Gitane Tour de France, GT Gutterball
Posts: 744
Just gotta wait for the snow here to melt so I can start rummaging
cnnrmccloskey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-09, 08:58 PM   #35
High Fist Shin
The Brave Descender
Thread Starter
 
High Fist Shin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: S.E. Pennsylvania
Bikes: Univega Viva Touring, Cannondale Six/13
Posts: 2,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigvegan View Post
That doesn't quite make sense. Yes, the cash spent on new parts should count TOWARD your budget, but the cash made from any parts on the project bike that are sold should be deducted FROM your budget, NO?
That's just it. Velo-Cheapo is about creative use of what you have, what you can find or what you can buy. There aren't any awards or bonus points for creative money management. It comes down to how much you spent and that's all. If you found a free bike in the trash and sold the parts for cash, I gotta ask, why didn't you use the whole bike or the parts for your entry?

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.

Total price:
Peugeot $50.00
Nishiki parts bike $ Freebie $
Tires and tubes $30.00
Handlebar tape $10.00
Total $90.00

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.

-Judge Shin
__________________
In life there are no mistakes, only lessons. -Shin

Last edited by High Fist Shin; 01-04-10 at 09:43 PM.
High Fist Shin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-09, 09:15 PM   #36
EjustE
sultan of schwinn
 
EjustE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lehigh Valley, PA
Bikes:
Posts: 3,594
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)
EjustE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-09, 09:15 PM   #37
JunkYardBike
Since 1938...
 
JunkYardBike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Northwestern NJ
Bikes:
Posts: 6,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by stausty View Post
Hopefully this clarifies things and does not conflict with previous rulings:

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.
This is a workable accounting process, and if we agree to go this way, I'm fine with it. However, I personally dislike it because it gives advantage to flippers. I could probably build a bike for near $0 because I'll often sell parts/frame/etc. of a purchase for more or equal to the original purchase price. If we want to reward this, that's fine.

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.
JunkYardBike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-09, 09:21 PM   #38
JunkYardBike
Since 1938...
 
JunkYardBike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Northwestern NJ
Bikes:
Posts: 6,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machin Shin View Post
That's just it. Velo-Cheapo is about creative use of what you have, what you can find or what you can buy. There aren't any awards or bonus points for creative money management. It comes down to how much you spent and that's all. If you found a free bike in the trash and sold the parts for cash, I gotta ask, why didn't you use the whole bike or the parts for your entry?

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.

Total price:
Peugeot $50.00
Nishiki $ Freebie $a
Tires and tubes $30.00
Handlebar tape $10.00
Total $90.00

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.

-Judge Shin
+1 Very well put Judge Shin!
JunkYardBike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-09, 09:28 PM   #39
JunkYardBike
Since 1938...
 
JunkYardBike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Northwestern NJ
Bikes:
Posts: 6,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by EjustE View Post
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)
In my opinion, and I believe Shin's as well, those components should be accounted for as costing your original $X, or you should assign those used on your project a FMV, individually, if that is the lesser amount.

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.
JunkYardBike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-09, 09:43 PM   #40
RobE30 
Wherever I may roam....
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Topton Pa
Bikes: A few bikes
Posts: 1,869
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....
RobE30 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-09, 09:54 PM   #41
JunkYardBike
Since 1938...
 
JunkYardBike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Northwestern NJ
Bikes:
Posts: 6,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobE30 View Post
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 can't wait to see it!







This actually looks doable:



And of course, the internet legend:

JunkYardBike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-09, 10:43 PM   #42
nlerner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 9,784
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.

Neal
nlerner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-09, 10:53 PM   #43
michael k
Senior Member
 
michael k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Portland,Or
Bikes:
Posts: 1,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnnrmccloskey View Post
just gotta wait for the snow here to melt so i can start rummaging
x2
michael k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-09, 11:04 PM   #44
JunkYardBike
Since 1938...
 
JunkYardBike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Northwestern NJ
Bikes:
Posts: 6,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by nlerner View Post
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.

Neal
Is that a question Neal?

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.
JunkYardBike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-09, 12:01 AM   #45
stausty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Bikes:
Posts: 709
Quote:
Originally Posted by JunkYardBike View Post
In my opinion, and I believe Shin's as well, those components should be accounted for as costing your original $X, or you should assign those used on your project a FMV, individually, if that is the lesser amount.

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.
I see the wisdom in your and Shin's argument. List what you paid or traded for everything you paid or traded for, minus the freebe. And don't make it needlessly complicated.
stausty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-09, 07:42 AM   #46
High Fist Shin
The Brave Descender
Thread Starter
 
High Fist Shin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: S.E. Pennsylvania
Bikes: Univega Viva Touring, Cannondale Six/13
Posts: 2,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by stausty View Post
I see the wisdom in your and Shin's argument. List what you paid or traded for everything you paid or traded for, minus the freebe. And don't make it needlessly complicated.


-Shin
__________________
In life there are no mistakes, only lessons. -Shin
High Fist Shin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-09, 08:05 AM   #47
nlerner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 9,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by JunkYardBike View Post
Is that a question Neal?

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.
More of a rambling thought than a question. I had no problems with the accounting last year, but I mostly commented to point out that as one of those flippers/hoarders, I likely do have an advantage. Thus, I likely should report both actual costs and component value.

Neal
nlerner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-09, 03:49 PM   #48
treebound 
aka: Mike J.
 
treebound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: between Milwaukee and Sheboygan in Wisconsin
Bikes: 1995 Trek 520 is the current primary bike.
Posts: 3,038
Budget killer:
http://aebike.com/page.cfm?action=de...=30&SKU=HU2204

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-)
treebound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-09, 06:07 PM   #49
High Fist Shin
The Brave Descender
Thread Starter
 
High Fist Shin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: S.E. Pennsylvania
Bikes: Univega Viva Touring, Cannondale Six/13
Posts: 2,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by treebound View Post
Budget killer:
http://aebike.com/page.cfm?action=de...=30&SKU=HU2204

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-)
You can build up anything you like. I think a cheapo kids bike would be a cool idea. Go for it!

-Judge Shin
__________________
In life there are no mistakes, only lessons. -Shin

Last edited by High Fist Shin; 12-30-09 at 09:21 PM.
High Fist Shin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-09, 07:25 PM   #50
treebound 
aka: Mike J.
 
treebound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: between Milwaukee and Sheboygan in Wisconsin
Bikes: 1995 Trek 520 is the current primary bike.
Posts: 3,038
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 ....
treebound is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:28 PM.