View Single Post
Old 03-20-17, 10:47 PM
  #61  
B. Carfree
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 7,048
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 502 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by FBinNY View Post
If I may toss a hand grenade into this dialog, the entire question may be moot.

These days, a major limiter of bike life isn't the frame. It's the obsolescence of consumable components, and the rapidly changing standards. It's still possible to find parts to keep a vintage bike with ISO headest and BB alive. But stuff is changing very rapidly, and it can be harder to find some parts for a 10 year ole bike than a 50 year old one.

The situation probably isn't all that bad, but many people are replacing bikes, not because of frame age (in miles or time) but either because keeping them on road is getting expensive, or because they want to upgrade.

Modern bikes aren't being built a keepers, they're being built as consumables that people are expected to replace the same way they replace cellphones and laptops.

Now, feel free to debate 20 or 50 year life cycles.
But we were having so much fun not quite answering the OP. Why did you have to spoil it with a truth bomb?
B. Carfree is offline