[bikeqld] Bikeshop... "you've flogged it"

[Stephen Viller]

On 06/02/2009, at 11:37 am, Ian Lister wrote:

> On Wed, 4 Feb 2009, Peter Whittle wrote:
>> If the frame is fine, you can make it a decent bike again, and even  
>> upgrade
>> to better brakes, better gears, or whatever is stuffed. What  
>> exactly is
>> stuffed? Chances are it's brake pads, cables and housing, chain,  
>> cassette
>> and the middle ring only, and these are inexpensive on lower/mid  
>> range
>> bikes, if you shop well - and they are consumables that you should be
>> counting on replacing periodically anyway (along with oil).
> [snip]
>
> I was surprised to hear yesterday from my LBS that I should replace  
> my cables and housing every six months. No doubt that's at the more  
> frequent end of the scale, but I had always thought of them as  
> lasting many years.
>
> Is component life generally getting shorter, or am I just becoming a  
> better consumer? Has the continuous reduction in weight and size  
> (e.g. chain width) caused this, is it a case of designing components  
> to be consumable rather than long-lasting, or has it always been  
> this way? Am I just a cheap old b.stard for not wanting to replace a  
> signficant portion of the parts on my bike every six months?

My 9 year old (steel frame :)) road bike is still running it's  
original chainset (Campag 9 speed triple). I've taken it to various  
bike shops for servicing (Lifecycle most recently) and always make a  
point of asking about the chain in particular. Each time they check it  
and tell me it's still not stretched to point of needing to be  
replaced. In the mean time, my 7 year old mountain bike (Shimano LX)  
has gone through 3 chains, 2 cassettes, and a new crankset/chainrings.  
This is with predominantly road use for commuting.

I've only recently changed the cables on the mountain bike as I  
upgraded to disk brakes, otherwise everything like that is original.

I know what groupset I'll be going for on my next road bike...

--Stephen.