rpenmanparker 

Talk about overused adjectives! In the biking world durable has got to be right at the top of the list.

Over and over again folks write in that they are looking for a "durable" bike, and that puzzles me. What does it mean and why the inordinate concern? Why do bikes, which are probably as a class the longest-lived transportation machine ever invented, always associated with a quest for long useful life? Or to put it another way, what is everyone afraid of? Rust, failed components, crashworthiness?

Cars generally cost a lot more than bikes, yet folks seldom ask for a durable car, per se. Sure no one wants high maintenance costs, but that is not quite the same thing. For some reason when it comes to bikes, people just don't want to think ahead to needing a next one. Why is that?

Exactly what does a durable bike mean TO YOU?

vzwire

I believe some requests for opinions on durability is probably a soft way of saying "Hey, I'm a big guy... Some of these bikes look as if they would explode underneath me."
With automobiles this is of no concern.

As a former big guy... I would have certainly used the word durable when describing a need for a bike.

Bacciagalupe

Do you want to break down when you're 30 miles away from your car or the nearest mass transit?

Do you really want to repair your bike every 2 weeks?

Do you really want to replace your wheels every 6 months?

Why would anyone want an unreliable transportation device?


Are you joking? American cars lost a lot of market share, and damaged their reputations, when they were building unreliable cars in the 1980s. Jokes like "FIAT = Fix It Again, Tony" are rife. Reliability is very important for car buyers.


Have you really not seen all the "N +1" jokes in The Subforum Formely Known as 41?

mlander

+1

I immediately disagreed with that premise. The 100,000 mile, 10 year warranty put Hyundai on the map. The promise of durablity is why the car company still exists.

StanSeven

Good question. Bikes last a long, long time. Most new bikes don't need anything other than cable adjustments after a couple hundred miles. Except for tires, one can ride for a couple years without needing anything except chain lube and occasional cleaning. Depending on personal preferences, you might not be interested in a bike after ten years or so even though the bike is in good shape - think about the latest frames, wheels, electronic shifting, etc.

Depending on one's point of reference, bikes can cost more than a new car. Take a look at the latest $20K Trek. $10K - 15K bikes are relatively common. Regardless any new car should be virtually maintenance free for years. Many cars don't even need oil changes for 10K miles or more. tuneups are a thing of the past. Unless you use performance tires, tires can go 50K miles. Technology has made things not only better but reduced maintenance substantially.

wphamilton

I don't think he's asking why anyone would want a reliable bike. We often see someone soliciting opinions, they are new to cycling and want to get in shape, commute, lose weight, race, ride around or whatever, and somewhere in there they want "a durable bike". He's asking what we think that actually means, and he's right that it's practically meaningless. Most any bike that we'd recommend to a new rider, any entry level bike, is "durable" for their purposes. In other words, it won't break down every 2 weeks or need new wheels in six months.

rpenmanparker 

Reliable and durable aren't the same thing IMO. So the breakdowns and frequent repairs you allude to aren't really relevant to the discussion. If that is what is meant by people saying "durable", they're using the wrong word. As far as replacing wheels every 6 months, that isn't even close to realistic. That is really one of the points I am making. Bikes are already so durable IN GENERAL, what are people talking about?

Once again you are confusing reliable and durable. Durable means long lasting. A very durable bike in terms of being able to be adjusted or repaired and ridden for decades could be very unreliable.

I didn't say nobody wanted N+1 or adding to N. I said there is a broad swath of folks who don't want to think about replacing N.

rpenmanparker 

Hey, this is shaping up to be a good discussion. Keep in coming!

popeye

It is if you had those pared spoke Boni wheels.

JTGraphics

Durable bike most bikes start out OK keeping it operating good is up to the owner.
I have a commuter bike for that reason I did not want to spent to much on it, It's ridden 5 days a week sometimes when the grandkids are over it also goes out on a weekend day also.
Its a Fuji Crosstown 2.0 bought new at Performance Bike on sale ended up costing me $280.
The only things that have been changed are BB, 1x Chain 1x, Tires 3x and brake pads 2x
I keep it clean and lubed and its got well over 21,500 miles on it in 6 years.
So taken care of even cheap bikes can be durable or I guess Reliable would be the better word.

mrodgers

Yup, people are not all that smart. Durable means it is not likely going to break. Not, when it breaks, you will get it fixed for nothing for a long time.

In the car world, the term is reliable vs. durable here. Car folks do care. That is why there are so many Hondas and Toyotas out on the roads, because they are the reliable ones so lots of old cars still going and people buy them because of that reason. You don't see Ford ******* on the road any more. You are likely to see quite a few 80's and 90's Civics, Accords, Corollas, and Camrys.

Depending on point of reference indeed. You're 10k oil change is more than twice a year for me on my wife's vehicle. 50k tires, two years tops. Maintenance is a regular thing though. Where the Fords, Chevys, and Dodges gets you is repairing, a whole different thing than maintenance.

I always drove a used Toyota. I got use to never having to repair my vehicles. Then I figured we could get away with buying new instead of used but couldn't afford a new Toyota. So, I bought her a Ford. Wow, I did nothing every summer but work on that stupid thing. She rolled it at 118k miles (6 years old) and I had more money tied up in repairing it than I ever did with my previous 7 used bought close to 100k and driven to almost 200k Toyotas.

RollCNY

I understand the word "durable", but I don't get the assumption with bicycles that more expensive groups are "more durable" than mid level or entry level groups. Or higher "quality", which is another word that to me gets significantly more misapplied in this forum.

Dura Ace was probably not designed to be more "durable" than 105. It is designed to be lighter, and handle higher load more smoothly, at least that is my assumption. It is designed to a higher level of precision, most likely tighter tolerances, but often those design decisions often make a product less "durable", in that they handle wear less well, and show small incremental losses in performance more quickly.

Not to wander, but "quality" is a more infuriating term to me. A quality part is a part that meets its design intent and design parameters. Sora, if made to print, is of the exact same quality as Dura Ace. Now, it is absolutely of lesser performance, but it was designed to be that way, so that in no way reflects its quality.

cicli_masi

Well said. This is how I would have replied to component durability.

For me, when I ask the durability question, I am mostly referring to the frame, the foundation. Recently, I find myself asking this in regards to carbon. I'm on steel now, for city road reasons. Only a few months into road cycling and I'm progressing towards a lighter option. So, for myself, at the moment, I ask that question of durability regarding carbon frames. Without 'what if-ing' all the possible scenarios that would cause frame damage, will carbon last as long as a metal counterpart?

rpenmanparker 

Why? What difference does it make? If carbon is the performance choice, are you going to avoid it, because it may last only 10 years instead of a lifetime? Do you have a lower limit of acceptability?

cicli_masi

Noted. You're reasoning stands true. I appreciate your perspective.

StanSeven

Toyotas are great; Honda's in recent years not so much. The problem with being an a car enthusiast is Toyota's are boring. If you want a car that's quick, handles well, and has a sporty look, you're out of luck.

Dudelsack 

Who is more durable, Chris Froome or Alberto Contador?

RollCNY

Froome. Contador got taken out by a steak.

Bacciagalupe

Durable: able to withstand wear, pressure, or damage; hard-wearing
Reliable: consistently good in quality or performance; able to be trusted

OK, so they're not synonyms. But I don't see how something can be reliable if it isn't durable.


While I agree that anything you get at an LBS will hit a pretty good baseline for durability, not all equipment is equally durable. There are always tradeoffs between factors like cost, weight, stiffness and durability. E.g. Shimano 2300 is not going to last as long as 105 or Ultegra. Or, a race-oriented carbon fiber frame won't be able to take as much punishment as an overbuilt steel touring frame. Or, a pedal with a titanium spindle might be weaker than a steel spindle.


Sorry, but I have to disagree with you on that one. Maybe the frame can be called "durable," but the bike as a whole should not be classified as "resistant to wear" if the drivetrain doesn't last 2000 miles.


Why is that a problem? If I buy a bike, why shouldn't I want it to last a long time?

Dudelsack 

All of my bikes are catch-and-release.

jon c. 

From what I've read, a lot of BSOs are not durable. So if that's been your experience, I can see asking about a bike's durability.

RollCNY

Something is reliable but not durable when it does well within its design spec, but poorly out of it. Brake hoods and bar tape are reliable, but don't hold up to forces outside of plan. Plastic parts are very reliable inside their intended use, but don't hold up to "abuse". I think car fender liners are a great example of a part that is extremely reliable, until you have to take them off and see how fragile they become over time. If you never have to remove one, you will never know how non-durable they are.

Chain is a good example. An 8 speed chain is as reliable as a 10 speed chain, but one reaches end of life wear quicker. So an 8 speed chain is most likely more durable.

Sometimes it is easy to look at the opposites of things to understand them. The opposite of durable is fragile, or perishable. The opposite of reliable is unreliable. Eyeglasses are incredibly fragile, but extremely reliable. Used within design parameters, your eyes wear out before your glasses.

Barrettscv 

The real question is: Will the bike be reliable for me?

A 230 lb cyclist who needs to travel over damaged pavement needs a very different bike compared to a 130 lbs cyclist who has smooth pavement.

We saw this during this weeks Tou de France. Most competitors used "endurance" style bikes with strong wheels and larger tires during stage #6 . The large cobbles required special bikes to endure the pounding provided.

rpenmanparker 

To throw another idea into the mix, I question the notion that one buys a bike for life. We change many of the things we own for newer. Maybe because they are "worn out", maybe just because we want to. Is it so different with bikes? We have all read posts by folks expecting to ride the same bike forever. My point is we don't have that expectation about most (all?) other things we own. Not cars, not houses. (No maintenance, redecorating or remodeling ever needed? Yeah, right.) Why does it crop up re: bikes? Why shouldn't a bike just wear out?

MrCharlie

I think the drive for a "durable" frame is rooted in a subconscious awareness that one is spending way too much money on a bike and thus replacing it would be a huge strain at best. That's why I bought Ti. It broke after one season. FML, or whatever the acronym is.