Originally Posted by fender1

What are the chances that something relevant comes from this test? I mean to say that the bike will more than likely perform better than many people expect because they have a predetermined idea as to outcome based on price and the reality that most folks here would have already bailed on this bike due poor initial build and the amonut of maintinence needed to keep it road worthty on a daily basis.

I ride a 1978 Trek. I paid $153 shipped to my home via e-bay. I average about 100 miles per week. 1/3 of my commute is on unpaved, potholed cinder covered path. So far 1 broken spoke on 25+ year old wheels, brake adjustment due to pad wear and chain/lube cleaning. I have 1800+ miles on the bike so far. What I fail to see when comparing any well built used bike to the Denali is, where is the value of the "cheap" bike? I understand Cig needed a bike in a short time frame but his "test" is meaningless in my mind as very few people on this forum would purchase this bike and the average person who does is:

A. Not putting up that kind of milage.
B. Not spending the time, money or have the expertice to repair as needed.
c. Would replace as soon as things started to get difficult to maintain, with a bike of similar quality.

So i guess I wonder what the point is? I see plenty of aluminum framed road bikes on e-bay that go between $100-$200. Sorry if I am comig off as a jerk, but the outcome has very little pratical real world application. Entertainement value, plenty.