https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...f12baf9a16.jpg
Yep those are scrap bikes.

China tried to create a bike share program. The problem is a bike created too cheap simply isn't worth fixing no matter how well it's built. This is why bicycle co-ops are so important as they recycle quality used bikes to less fortunate people.

Those piles of scrap bikes had nothing to do with the bikes. There was a massive investment bubble, that poured cash into bike share companies. The quickest way to spend the cash was to buy more new bikes and leave the old ones to pile up on the streets. For instance, that was easier than hiring and managing people to round up all of the bikes ever day, and recharge them. Local governments started removing the bikes to get rid of the nuisance.

That is why in India, if someone wants a European car, it is a Mercedes or some other high end car. That is because it is not economical to ship anything cheaper.

I wonder if those supposedly in need for a cheap well made bike are toting expensive phones and wear things only until they get dirty, then chuck them out...

I can’t help but to notice that in our society we are indoctrinated from a young age to equate car ownership as a measure of self worth, social identity and status. It is not unique among those who can (or really can’t but are beholden to high interest big loans) afford it either. All the big bike manufacturers seem to or have reasonably priced city, college campus, urban utility hybrids in their line up. No matter how much they try to promote the idea of riding a bike as a fun, physically healthy, economically healthy means of short distance transportation it will never catch on. At best it has become the dominion of the freaks who hate cars, entitled snobs or the poor who are clogging the road where they don’t belong.

Thee idea of a reasonably priced well built reliable bike for local transportation is in fact smart for individual people and society. I’m sure it could be done in a manner that makes business sense too. However as I alluded to it will always be overshadowed by Subaru summer, Toyota-thon, and Lexus December to remember.

Too many gears and bad suspension. Exactly the opposite of what is being discussed.

What was being discussed is low end bike that's readily available to the "unbanked" and poor. you will get what the market gives you. It doesnt matter one bit what a group of bike nerds think people need.

I second this suggestion. And Youtube is your friend. If I can rebuild a crank nose in a sports car with no previous experience strictly utilizing you tube and a car forum, anyone can do the minimal assembly and tune of a bicycle via the same sources. Many seem to be advocating to some sort of handout all the time.

Nothing wrong with having a car.

https://medium.com/@eklochikhin/a-ca...p-b7d1bac751ae

I don't know if that article was intended to be ironic or not, but it's a marketing fluff piece from a guy who's selling some kind of tech enabled parking service.

A couple of the comments to the article point out the obvious, which is that car ownership as a necessity for mobility isn't exactly a choice for many people. The article mentions that single moms benefit from car ownership. No ****, Sherlock. That's because if they don't own a car, they can't function at all.

I think the point of the op was there's a need for an affordable alternative to a piece of junk like that. Read the reviews on your link, it really proves the point.

Solution: It's called the old bicycle. There are millions of them out there and they fit the bill of cheap, reliable, easily maintained transportation. They can often be had for less that $100 (plenty of personal experience there) and are often a few consumable parts away from being just as good or better than new. Most nine-year-olds can be taught to replace a tire or a chain. Here is a good example. This type of bicycle is the most produced vehicle of any kind ever, and it does exactly what it was designed to do.
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...1b1132a38a.jpg

Other excellent options include the tons and tons of English three speeds sitting unused across the country, Chicago Schwinns, Free Spirits, etc.
We don't need new bikes. We need to use the ones we already made.

Wait...you expect me to volunteer my time to build bikes for free so that Walmart can sell more of them at a lower price thus enabling them to make more profit? And this is your business plan?

It was never a business plan.
Just another clueless SJW pipe dream :rolleyes:

No, but clearly I was mistaken in expecting you to be able to tell the difference between what I did, versus didn't say...

You're right that these are good solutions.

Where you're wrong is in that they're not sufficiently available where they're needed.

Availability is contingent on someone deciding to clean out the basement or garage, then putting it up for sale (or donation) in a path that gets it where it's needed. Just had a look at my regional craigslist, and in terms of what you are talking about, nothing. There are a couple of "steel is real" road bikes that might be almost temping if I were in the market for one though...

I'm looking forward to seeing whether the Manchester NH bike coop comes back to its pre-covid success. It was an excellent place for people to pay a very few dollars to learn to maintain their bikes and rent the tools and space for repairing and upgrading old bikes. I think the rate was $5 per hour, and there was a mechanic/advisor on site. They also sold used components for almost nothing.

I was there for a couple of weekends. A beehive of activity with a mix of all ages working on their bikes.

And yes, it is a non-profit.

Uhh, no. Actually no one here cares what you want to do with your time. But the whole point is to enable people to obtain decent, well-assembled bikes at Walmart-like prices. This would actually compete with Walmart. How would that enable Walmart to sell more?

I've owned a couple of Walmart bikes over the past couple decades. My observation is the ones I had were so poorly manufactured as to be maintenance proof.

Odd that you say they were so poorly manufactured yet you bought a couple.
Unless you bought them both at the same time I fail to see the logic. Fool me once...
Unless you were part of the unbanked masses and were ofc then forced to shop at Walmart and buy dangerously subpar items in general :rolleyes:

No, I'm right.

What you're saying is theoretical and does not match reality. Plenty of good options on the Western Mass Craigslist.

But Craigslist is one option of many. Bike Coops were mentioned - another option in some areas. Like it or not, decent old bicycles are very easy to find if one actually wants to. Key is want.

You're "solution" to this theoretical problem amounts to creating more garbage in the long run, not fulfilling some "need" that the next sensationalized portion of the population is lacking. It feels good for a month or a year, but eventually means another huge pile of unused machines. We don't need to make more junk to satisfy our conscience. We should want to put the stuff we relegated to the trash pile prematurely to good use. More waste isn't the answer.

yes

Well, the idea was that a store like that would be one of the main (but not only) places selling them.

But since they'd need less frequent replacement, indeed they'd ultimately sell fewer.
​​​​​​

No, you're wrong. There's not nearly the used a availability to meet the demand, though again, it's a great choice when one can find something.

The bike like objects are going to get built and bought, regardless.

My thoughts were about making them be sturdy rather than be garbage, so that fewer would be made, quickly broken, and trashed.

That sturdiness is key if they're going to have second and third lives on the used market, too.

Cheap good bikes exist, they are called "used mountain bikes". Regardless, I think a far bigger barrier than price is that most people either don't want to commute by bike or can't commute by bike. Both of those problems are far harder to solve.

The Dutch have the ideal practical bike in the "omafiets". Omefiets are ideal for many commuters and are quickly becoming more readily available in the US.

Those are real and larger problems indeed. But the article was about people who already see a bike as an option - largely because nothing else is. Many here have a surprising desire to pretend these obligate cyclists don't exist, but they do.

Indeed, though that's not the only configuration worth considering.

You're obligate cyclists are a small enough percentage of the population to be served entirely by the used market.

Unfortunately, most don't want that option.

Bowing out. Happy riding. :)

Not when the used market is being bled dry by the pandemic bored (not to mention newly subway-averse) snapping up the sound options.

Nor can an obligate cyclist spend a week hunting craigslist and travelling around trying to find something.

And then there's the structural problem with the used market - less and less of what's sold as a new bike is going to end up as a sound option there - many of the department store ones are too flimsy to survive, while increasingly exotic construction of high end bikes makes them less maintainable - steel of uncertain use history is one thing, carbon something quite else. Much of the affordable "good stuff" on the used market is decades old - and not being replenished. Several here have observed that a 90's rigid MTB would be a good choice, but that's a 20+ year old style less and less of which will be found every year.

In terms of not making garbage destined to be thrown away, I completely agree; but that doesn't mean not making anything, it means trying to get to a point where what is being made isn't garbage, but something that can have a series of service lives through several successive owners.