If the term is to have any usefulness, it needs to be connected to a relatively short replacement cycle necessitated by the wear of the part--I think a consumable is a part of the machine we can expect to wear out several times during the machine's useful life. Any part of the bike can be replaced, but there are only certain ones that people expect to replace several times due tio wear during the normal usage of the bike. I wouldn't include hubs, cranks, brakes, handlebars, derailleurs, shifters/brifters, seat posts, stems, or wheels in that category. Chains, tires, tubes, cassettes, brake pads, cables and maybe chain rings would be the consumables. An argument could be made that saddles and pedals are sort of category straddlers, but I don't think they are really consumables, I just think it's incredibly common to replace them once, not usually for wear.

ClydeClydeson beat me to the listing process and his list of consumables is better than mine. I do think my list of non-consumables is pretty good, and I think it includes several moving parts we don't expect to wear out.

Funny you mention "consumable" bike parts. In about 20 years I've cycled I had a road bike, a mountian bike, and my current comfort bike. While hardly a cycling enthousiast, I've put a several thousand km on all of them. The only things Ive replaced was one seat, because one of them was uncomfortable, one tube, and the rear derailleur because clumsy me stepped on it once when I dropped the bike. Never tires, brake pads or chains.

Untill I joined BF I didn't even know chains wore out. Yesterday I noticed a fellow picking something up in the middle of the road. Sure enough it was his chain. Theres about 4,000 km on my chain now, and it doesn't look like it has stretched much. I will certianly pay more attention to cleaning and lubricating it after seeing one snap.

I didn't hear of this term back in the day so now I'm going to feign ignorance is as lame as Facebook/Twitter/Instagram/TicToc is communism.

Better than feigning intelligence, I guess.

It's not snapping that happens first, it's skipping and slipping. It's more like random shifting and/or suddenly feeling like your pedals skipped a few cogs. Lots of grindy noises. It's a bit hard to explain, but it wouldn't surprise me if you actually have some of the effects, but kind of think that stuff is normal.

If you've already gone 4000 km on this chain, you should probably also change the cassette when you do change it.
​​

I don't think you were feigning or displaying ignorance. We're old enough that we remember when this term wasn't used to describe any bike hardware so I think the linguistic shift is a pretty interesting topic.

Definitely. Thanks.

Do they? I always think it’s funny when people say, “You should buy a Chris King headset, because it’s the last headset you’ll ever buy.” Honestly, every headset can be the last one you’ll ever buy if you keep it adjusted. I’ve had Cane Creek and Ritchey units that have outlasted the frames they were installed on.

I’ve personally never worn out a headset, but I did work on ones that were indexed precisely for “straight ahead.”

In my racing days of 5k New England miles per year on a steep head tubed criterium bike, headsets went one year. Still ridable at that point but "brineling" past no-handing wasn't far away so each March a new one went in. (Yes, just Tanges, but a NR would only go a few months longer and die mid-season.)

Headsets have gotten a lot better. Stronglight's roller HS on my Mooney is as good as it was in the '90s when I put it on. The Chris King on another bike has 20k and is going strong. But I still ride Tanges on three bikes and just replace them as needed, every 8-10k.

livedarklions and ClydeClydeson have it right, 'consumables' is just a fancy way to say "wear items"; the stuff that typically gets replaced due to wear or age. Things like tires and grips/bar tape and even chains have always been there; cables too, especially on bikes that have seen many seasons; although modern STI cable routing and the the more demanding nature of 10/11+ -sp drivetrains require 'fresh' cables more often

Bike forums also has a high concentration of high-mileage all-conditions users, and spreadsheet-and-logbook 'maintenace obsessives' (who also probably ride a lot more than me) who replace components like BBs, cassettes and wheel rims far more often than a typical cyclist.
It's just that there's more of them here, so you hear about it a lot more.

​​​​​​The lighter you build anything, the more likely it is to break, that's the trade-off.
Aluminum bars have been common on light weight bicycles since the 1970s, I think the real reason you're seeing more broken handlebars now is that trainers are more common/popular than, say 15 years ago, and they're a lot harder on the bike than being on the road, and add the sweat/corrosion issues in on top of that.
So far, since I learned to ride a bike in the early 1980s, I've had two handlebars fail, one was a crash on an ultralight 140g Scott bar; but the one that failed JRA, was steel (it bent during a fast slalom -turn)

Aluminum rims definitely have a finite life. Eventually, cracks form at the spoke holes, then the spoke nipple pulls through, which makes it impossible to true the rim.

Carbon rims? If not bashed or crushed, and free of defects, they potentially can live a very long time.

Same here, but only standard 1” threaded ones.

Still trying to consume the frame on my 71 Schwinn.
Tim

try A1 with a little horseradish sauce.

To be honest, most people aren’t going to ride a bike far enough to wear out a chain. The vast majority of bicycles are Big Box Store bikes and don’t see more than a few hundred miles before they are put out of the way…some more than others.


The limb had 10 to15 rings.



Enthusiasts are going to go through a whole lot more wear items…aka “consumables”…than casual riders

How much did you mountain bike during the 80s into the early 90s? I’ve replaced dozens of them. Keeping a threaded headset “properly adjusted” was difficult to impossible due to the pounding that they took. They could be ruined in a single ride. We rode with cheap headsets because there was no sense spending money on a headset that was likely to get quickly ruined. There was even a rather large cottage industry of locking locknuts for headsets that had varying success. Chris King’s Grip Nut was actually a little bit better than other headsets at staying adjusted. Threadless solved all those problems.

I’ve managed to consume 4 frames. Two steel and two aluminum. And before anyone goes thinking that the steel was “better”, one of the steel frames had about 6000 miles before I got rid of it but it had broken the (steel) fork within a year of purchase and cracked the frame at the chainstay bridge within 3 years of purchase (repaired), broke a dropout within 4 years of purchase, and then cracked the chainstays again by year 5, when it was tossed. None of this was covered by warranty even though the sales rep suggested replacing the fork because they “were all breaking”. The other steel frame lasted just a little over 3 years (3800 miles)and broke at the dropout.

Of the two aluminum bikes, one was a Specialized M2 that cracked at the chainstay bridge after about 6600 miles after 5 years (replaced under warranty). The other aluminum frame broke due to a hyper setback seatpost because the frame was the wrong size. It was repaired and given to someone after 8 years (only about 1500 miles).

I'm pretty sure I've never heard a casual rider refer to bicycle "consumables.". I have known some who stop riding because they don't want to get a flat fixed.

I call something consumable if I normally wear out one or two in a season, and I keep it in stock. I have several tubes and patch kits, two tires, handlebar tape, brake pads, two chains, one cassette, one shifter cable. Pretty much a year's supply. I've been doing that since the 80s. I'm don't remember if I used that word back then, but it sure was a concept.

The term dates from long before bicycles. From Merriam-Webster:

First Known Use of consumable

Adjective - 1547, in the meaning defined above

Noun - 1722, in the meaning defined above

No one's debating when the term originated. But thanks.

If I rode my bike a few hundred miles per year, my chains would last many years. Instead, based on measured wear, they last about 2/3 of a season. Without a mileage reference, your comment is not much use.

If you order your consumables from Amazon, they'll send them to you regularly, on a schedule!

All things are Energy. Energy can not be created nor destroyed. But, it is always transformed.,