That $130 Heavy is most definitely not nicer than your Sears Free Spirit. You paid $89 for that bike in 1973. In todays dollars, that’s about $530. A Trek FX 1 costs $500. It’s about the same quality as that Free Spirit you bought in 1973. Not great but at least it is rideable without being a danger to its owner.

If you had paid $25 for your Free Spirit, you’d have a comparable bike and it likely would be the same quality.

So what do you suggest cutting in terms of features to reach this $250 price point? State Bicycle makes $300 single speeds. That’s the features that you have to get rid of to make it affordable. Single speed might work for young, athletic riders but not for most. The world ain’t flat. The Trek FX 1 I gave as an example above is about the lowest price you could go for a multigeared and still get something that hasn’t be cost cut to the point where it is a danger to the rider. Even it uses very low quality components.

Good luck with that. HelMart makes no money on the bikes they sell. At $100 per, they probably lose money. But the buyer that is willing to buy from HelMart is also going to buy some other stuff that does make HelMart money. Bicycles are a loss leader. Bike shops barely make money on the actual bicycle

There are simple ones. See the Trek above. I would say that a single speed is useless so they have to have some kind of gearing. Gearing, whether 10 or 21 or 30 speed, doesn’t cost that much. But the lower the cost, the less the quality. That’s where HelMart is at now. Too low a cost, too low the quality.

How much do you think index shifting adds to the cost? You buy SRAM MRX grip shifts retail for $20. You can get them wholesale for about half that. In bulk quantities, for a manufacturer, probably a quarter of that price. Friction shifters cost about the same. Index shifting isn’t delicate and it does make shifting easier. Anyone who can’t make it work properly...even the appallingly bad ones on HelMart bikes...just isn’t trying hard enough. Again, I have lots of familiarity with these BSO and have no problem with making them work properly.

On what basis do you reach this conclusion?

Make one shifting assembly from thicker metal rather than two from what they do. If you can do 21 speed that works even momentarily for $129, you should be able to do 8 that has some service life for $250.

I'm not actually arguing for single speed in the US market, but speaking as someone neither young nor fit who rides centuries on such...

Ironically if you look at "the world" you do see a lot of single speed (two foot gear is underappreciated) - but again, I don't think it's actually necessary to pare things down that far.

But notice how share bikes are often 3-speed tanks, yet very popular.

It's what being able to use index shifting demands in terms of manufacturing accuracy and adjustment from the derailleur. Give the rider a continuous control, and they'll quickly learn to accomplish whatever getting the chain on the sprocket they want and having it run there smoothly is going to take on that particular day.

Instead of a mechanism that needs adjustment to stay working, you have a mechanism that needs a few minutes worth of learning to ride with.

Are you aware of how small a fraction of households - even seemingly middle class ones - have even $300 in available savings to meet a sudden expense? It's one of the things the linked article goes into.

Being that close to the edge feels unfathomable, but it's a surprising number of people's reality.

For the economic necessity bikes, you also have to consider things like theft risk - commuting 5 miles each way is maybe 3000 miles a year, not much to ask for a bike, but will the buyer still have it in a year, or two to justify spending more?

Even if they could, we're back to the problem of not being able to make up-front investments, as also evidenced by doing things like buying household staples at full price and small containers when you need them, rather than stocking up when it's on sale or periodically venturing to where the prices are better.

Then, when you get into the category where there is some savings, you start seeing a lot of thought go into getting value for money. So sure, someone who's convinced themselves they're going to ride a hundred fitness miles a week may go put a fair amount of money into something decent at the LBS or order something impressive looking online. Conversely someone who's just going to do 10-20 miles on the rail trail with their kids on the occasional weekend isn't a cyclist, they're just someone who wants to ride a bike sometimes, and don't need anything fancy. Nor do they want to spend a lot on little Johnnie's _ size bike since he'll outgrow it in a year, and even though it can probably be passed on to his sister Sallie... and then maybe given to Sadie across the street, it's still a temporary solution. Maybe then it's time to get Johnnie a bike for college, but since he'll just be riding a half mile across campus and its likely to get stolen anyway...

I am probably better-informed than you about income and wealth distribution in the US, but that is beside the point. You seem to think that something should cost a certain amount just because you want it to, because you think it is "fair." The actual cost of producing such bikes doesn't seem to enter into your thinking.

The market for new bicycles is fairly competitive -- in an economic sense, meaning that that are many firms of various sizes, low barriers to entry, etc. If it were possible to produce a reliable and durable commuter bike for $250, and there was sufficient demand for it, someone would be producing it. My sense of this market, having bought (and maintained) dozens of such bikes, tells me that your conclusion is incorrect.

Great - apply that knowledge and see where it leads - but do keep in mind that neither "income" nor "wealth" is quite "$300 in the bank someone could spend today"

More the exact opposite. I'm quite confident that the prices I'm proposing are achievable, by taking the same means used to achieve the current prices, but applying them to a more suitable design that's simpler and more solid.

Yet there's a 2x price difference just within the range of budget BSO's.

It is - some of the better BSO's aren't all that terribly far off, yet they come laden with anti-features. Remove those and make what they actually need just a bit better, by making it simpler.

What I've been pointing out consistently through this is that it can't be a unilateral move by any one party, it would take the cooperation of the stores and the customers and community support to retarget from featureitis BSO's to solid, simple budget solutions.

Neither saying "I want to pay X" nor "here's a low-feature solid budget bike" works on its own without the cooperation of the other party; it would really have to be approached from all directions at once: supply, maintenance, and community-based consumer education about what's actually important in a bike (for example, think about the people who've kidnapped share bikes to do various challenge rides, and instead do vlog's about doing them on the $250 budget bike, ones about working on it, etc)

Or we can keep turning resources into short-lived crap.

How much did a bike cost in 1920? Probably a worker's monthly wages or more and that was a heavy single speed bike. For a monthly wage, even at minimum wage, you can buy a decent commuter bike nowadays.

People say they want a simple bike, then buy the colorful full suspension bike at Walmart. Walmart sells exactly what people actually buy. If people buy a decent rigid commuter bike for $500, Walmart would sell it. But people only talk about buying a decent bike, then end up with the cheap one.

The terrible truth is, to buy a decent bike people would have to give up smoking, drinking, drugs and Starbucks. And that actually tells us people's priorities.

It is not different with cars. Many years ago I worked at Starbucks. People came every day to buy a $5 coffee. But didn't have money to fix their driver side mirror that had fallen off. 1 month brewing coffee at home would have paid for a life saving safety feature. Priorities....

Manufacturing is drastically more automated today. Think about it, and there aren't really any more steps in producing a sound basic bike than a BSO - actually there are fewer parts to be made. They just need to be very slightly better, the heat treat of the BB axle needs to not end up screwed up in occasional batches to the point where it produces cheese or glass, etc.

So I'll explain again, for what - the fourth time - what I said in the post immediately above yours, which is that it would have to be a shift of all parties, not just a unilateral change by one. To repeat again what was in the post literally above yours, neither "hey buy this" or "I want" works by itself, it would take both together.

No, that's near double what it needs to cost.

And looking at what they do sell, shows it's possible.

Manufacturers should change their current business models so that the ‘unbanked’ can get a $250 well built, brand new bike on a few hours notice?
Nope.
Please elaborate on who the ‘unbanked’ are though?

It's a standard term familiar to anyone who knows anything about challenges faced by segments of society other than their own.

If you don't know what you're talking about, don't care to look it up, and didn't pick up the examples already given in the thread including the context you pulled it from, then maybe you don't have a lot to say?

Incidentally, they are a major consumer group; in fact there are whole, rather exploitative industries, for which they are nearly the entire customer base. So in fact yes, people do organize business around that.

Where I am in S E Asia, they buy container loads of second hand bikes from Japan, and often sell ladies bikes for around $50 retail.

New ladies bikes are often not much more, maybe $60.

You cam buy new mountain bikes for under $150, manufactured in Asia.

These prices are retail. The importer is making money, and the retailer is making money.

I'm not sure what your crusade is about. If you honestly feel you can make a quality, trouble free bike for $250 then by all means do so. Might be an interesting education in reality for you.

There is no shortage of used bikes, just bikes that meet your Americanized standards. I volunteer at charities that ship bikes to Africa as part of their ministry. They have warehouses of used bikes they mix and match parts from to make whole bikes. Their biggest problems in not a lack of bikes but shipping costs.

Yeah?...
The ‘unbanked’ you referred to make up around 5% of the population.
And about half of them made the choice to avoid banks due to fees and overall distrust of banks. Not lack of funds or inability to pay $500 for an item.
Either way, they are most certainly a nonfactor when it comes to bicycle mass production.
But you keep doing you lol

In other words: if the consumers would simply demand it, and the producers would simply produce it, we could have these bikes that you want at the price that you want.

Got it.

The thing is this isn't just a bike thing. Pick a hobby. Any hobby. Be it photography, downhill skiing, snow shoeing, fly fishing, trap shooting, golfing etc. The good quality equipment, just like in biking, is going to cost money.

Some of you would probably be surprised to know that I have I have approximately $1000 wrapped up into one of the many fly rods I own.

https://www.orvis.com/helios-3d-fly-rods

If you are so sure a decent bike could be sold (consumer price) for $250.... I like to see how you actually do that in the real world and not just in an internet discussion. unless your definition of decent is much different than mine.

Except economics, nothing stops you from actually delivering on your promise of selling the bikes you advocate for.

I am trying to follow your scheme here.

You want to start a bike brand that builds a kinda budget bike with features from the 70's that wont be as "cool" as a walmart bike.

You want to build the bikes and pay the workers with virtue.

You want a huge distribution network (this part I assume, I'm sure you don't want to leave out poor Appalachian Americans and only service mega cities.)

You want a dealer network for service so the consumer can keep this junk on the road.

I guess my question is did you survey these poor folks you are trying to help?

I work with people who think I am completely nuts for riding a bike to work everyday. I have spent most of life in horrible low income neighborhoods. I have never in my life meet a single mom who did her banking at the check into cash that said you know what would make my life better a bike to ride to my crap job/jobs. I have never meet a guy version of that person that had any interest in biking. those people need/want cars they have to transport kids carry tools time is not a resource they have riding bikes is wasting time(mega cities may be a exception)

You mentioned this isnt all about commuting. well that brings up the a question if its recreation. what makes you think poor people that are bike nerds want a feature less bike to play on?

Sounds more like the government should mandate this to me. Its really the only way all the things described could ever happen in a country this size.

This is the part that UniChris , and the author of the article linked in the original post, have completely missed: getting low-income/low-wealth people on bikes could most effectively be accomplished with government intervention.

There is plenty of data on the question of "why people don't use bikes for transportation," and cost is not a top factor; more often, people cite safety and infrastructure concerns -- in other words, they don't feel safe while riding along the shoulders of busy streets. With good bike infrastructure (bike lanes, paths, safer intersections, bike racks, etc), we could overcome the biggest hurdle for many people. After that, if cost is a factor, it's easily solvable with means-tested subsidies (or tax breaks), incentives for employers to provide bike-friendly facilities (secure storage, showers, etc), even directly subsidized bikes. (Bike share or citi-bike programs are an example. There's no reason why low-income people couldn't be provided with free access.)

Simply wishing and hoping for bikes to cost less is not a solution.

It does have that kind of feel to it. I am assuming eventually "other people's money" will be asked to pay for it.

$250 price points:p unbanked ;) bicyclists co op :) bike cost inflation :foo: Breezer or State brand :thumb: noob workshops:thumb: $timulus Checks:thumb:

I have no use for such a thing.

The article linked in the first post was about people who want and need them, but can't get them.

That's not to deny that many would probably prefer a car if they had the choice, but that's orders of magnitude further out of reach.
​​​​​​
Economic desperation bike transport is very much a thing.

But yes, it's true that the reason good inexpensive bikes aren't on the market when they could be, is that it would take a joint change on both the selling and buying side - neither could switch without the other.

In the long-run, it's cheaper than climate change + more traffic congestion + higher healthcare costs caused by obesity + etc.

Our tax dollars already heavily subsidize an auto-centric lifestyle; wouldn't it be smarter to put some of those resources towards cycling?

I’m not getting your point here. Your first sentence makes no sense.

You do it for fun or the bragging rights. You also probably didn’t load your bike up with clothes for commuting or groceries or other items.


If you look in the world where single speed is used extensively, those places tend to be in relatively flat areas. Other places that have hills may have people riding single speeds but people riding there tend to do it as a challenge.

But, again, you haven’t identified any item on a bicycle that could be pared down so as to get the cost of a durable bicycle below around $500.

About those. We got a mess of them from the local ride share when Lime and Uber killed the ride share system in Denver. We sold a few of them for $10 but we had a whole bunch more that we couldn’t even give away.


You keep going on about index shifting. It’s not that expensive nor that hard to keep operating. The expensive part...the research and development...was paid for long ago. You seem to think it adds hundreds of dollars to the price of the bike. It adds pennies, if even that.

You have the perfect model of how to make a budget bike in the HelMart Heavys (and similar). You end up with a bicycle that is heavy, unreliable, too expensive to fix, and is a danger to its rider. Making them a bit better and doubling the price probably would only make a bike that is slightly better. My co-op scraps hundreds of these kinds of bikes per year. Even with free labor and reclaimed parts, they aren’t worth the effort of even stripping the parts from them. I took about 6 tons of them to the scrap yard last summer.

The biggest thing with department store bikes is that the assembly is such a roll of the dice. Retail assembly is usually done by piece-rate contract assemblers, rather than store employees, and there's neither time nor room allowed for more than a cursory function check, let alone a test-ride. If you, the buyer have little to no mechanical knowledge, particularly about adjusting bike components, then you may get home with a bike that doesn't work right, and no other option than to return it to the store for another one.

There are some not-bad bikes out there. A quick walk through the bike aisle at Target this morning turned up a couple of interesting tidbits:

At $259 : The Schwinn Ranger 26" MTB. All steel, even the bars and seatpost. 3x7 'A' series Grip-shift Shimano, with V-brakes. I actually have a used one, that my 12-year-old learned how to ride on. It's definitely a cost-point bike, but it doesn't have any silly features, other than a basic coil-spring fork, and has been holding up well to the bumps and bangs of a rookie rider. I'm not surprised that it seems to be durable, it probably weighs 40 lbs. It's a tank.
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...8109972459.png
For $110 more (that's $369) is the Schwinn Circuit hybrid; Aluminum frame, all Tourney with Rapidfire shifters and mech disk brakes. Shipping weight is listed as 31lbs, but it feels lighter than that on the stand. It also surprised me for how well turned-out it is. Replaceable RD hanger, rack and fender mounts, even mid-mounts on the front fork. The cranks (and probably the BB) are the only thing obviously cheap-looking, but it appears to be a standard threaded unit, so it's easy to remedy if needed.
Seriously considering this one as an upgrade for Mr Skinnylegs when he outgrows that 15" frame MTB

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...90e20930f4.png