La Flamme Rouge **off topic discussion**

Seems to be one lad talking to himself for a day. Without the kind of cheap bikes he is talking about I wouldnt now be enjoying the €700bike I am now on. Sound like an entitled cnt to me.

A lot of people cant take the chance on spending a large sum on a first bike only to find out cycling doesnt suit them and some people just dont have the capital to make expensive purchases. No way in hell I would have taken the chance on commuting by bike if I had to but a bike that cost even €200. My €700 bike is the most expensive thing I have ever bought in my life outside of paying rent and I can only afford that due to spending time not paying rent during Covid.

Cutting off access to cheap bikes sounds like awful entitled wnker stuff to me and completely disconnected to how many people live despite whatever charity he worked with (as charity workers often are)

The way he says they are "potentially dangerous" sounds like the types who moan that we are not in high viz.What are the scientific stats behind this danger? how many accidents do these "dangerous" bikes cause?

The one point I do agree with him on is the bike to work which non of my zero hours employers have ever let me avail of. Very very rare I have ever seen a low paid worker saying they are on a BTW bike. It should be through tax using a government tax scheme or dole scheme not through the employer

As for the b2w why not have a system where people like me who luckily for once had the €700 but couldn't do b2w just fill out a revenue form and get the tax back that way.

As for trying to push this minimum standard as a way to reduce waste and carbon footprint I assume he is equally as keen to stop rich people having 6 bikes and 20 wheelsets in their house at any one time.

The only other change I would make to the Cycle to Work scheme would be that everyone who avails if it would save the top rate of tax, regardless of the actual tax band they are in. Currently higher earners benefit more from it, which seems a bit bass-ackwards

Can't see it happening, but there would be a much better market in second-hand bikes if all bikes entering the market met a minimum standard.

The core point he makes; that bikes made from poor quality parts and assembled with next to no quality control leads to products which are destined for the scrap heap really quickly.

It's a person with experience of global phenomenon as it applies to his work experience with bicycles; but something that is seen in countless products worldwide.

In the last 12 months alone, through work, I've come across two component failures in new bikes which lead to pretty nasty accidents; one was substandard seat post design the other a wheel which looked like it has been built by a drunk monkey and which failed within the housing estate. There was also the square taper bottom bracket which failed within about 100km; an old reliable simple design which under a race to the bottom on price lead to it being made from some plastic with subsequent failures.

At a €200 budget, at least prior to Covid inflation, there was no problem getting a reliable second hand bike for use. I bought a fixed gear On One for €200 about 4 years ago and I use it most days; it has had zero maintenance and is still perfectly functional. Previously I bought an old steel bike converted to single speed for €70 which was perfectly fine if rough as fcuk.

If you were to sell a new bike for €200 it would need to be really simple; single speed, heavy steel build. Something like this should be ok

That is going to be a better bet at being low cost to own than a similarly priced dual suspension mtb with 24 gears or whatever

I bought a Raleigh Road Ace Select with Reynolds 531c frame, 753 forks and Shimano 600 from my LBS in 1988 for IR£644. According to friends and family at the time, it was 'crazy money to spend on a bike'.

One subtle quality issue I had was buying entry-level Raleigh hybrids and using them to carry a lot of heavy-ish loads. I guess customers expected derailleur bikes to have at least seven speeds at the rear, and Raleigh duly obliged, but used screw-on freewheels to keep costs down. Nothing wrong with screw-on freewheels, but when you go beyond five speeds or so, there is too much axle protruding from the hub and axles are prone to breaking. And so it was. I spent a surprising amount of time replacing rear wheels, or slotting in new axles I salvaged from elsewhere.

I'd have been perfectly happy with a five-gear screw-on freewheel, and they might have offered that, if they weren't trying to meet unreasonable customer expectations for that price point.

I had terrible problem with spokes breaking on my entry-level Raleighs, something that hasn't happened since I moved one price point up.

I only found out as an adult that my dad used to true our wheels now and then when we'd gone to bed. Didn't even know he knew how to do that. Explains how little trouble the bikes gave us, to some extent, anyway.

Bit of an Elves and Shoemakers vibe.

What happens if it collides with a spherical cow?

1. With the BTW, the employer has to sign a document verifying that the applicant is using the bicycle to travel to work. I don't think Revenue would accept the word of a private individual.
2. I think the points he makes about cheap bikes have gone completely over your head. You give an example of a 'rich' person having 6 bikes and 20 wheelsets makes no sense. That 'rich' person's bikes will be viable to maintain/serviced/replace consumable items etc. However, replacing a chain, cassette, cables, pads, bar tape on a BSO will probable cost more than was initially paid for the bike - ie. it's not viable and in the insurance world would be 'written off'.