> otherwise you would know that a bike that you could cycle a 40km to 60km round commute on in a rural area is gonna set you back $2k Pot, meet kettle. That's

> otherwise you would know that a bike that you could cycle a 40km to 60km round commute on in a rural area is gonna set you back $2k Pot, meet kettle. That's an almost laughably out of touch estimate for a 40-60km commuter bike. Speaking as someone who has cycle-commuted between 30 and 60km, full time, for the better part of two decades (including a couple winters in the upper midwest and a 10 year stint of not even owning a car), plus recreational riding on the weekends, my response is: Horsefeathers. A nice gravel or cyclocross bike (with components one level below, say, Shimano 105, or SRAM Rival), one that will easily take 10 years / 75,000 miles of daily commuting with moderate maintenance costs, should set you back no more than about $1k. Paying more than $1k doesn't get you a more reliable bike. It gets you a lighter bike (which is often less reliable). And, respectfully, if you're paying $5 every time you puncture a tire, that's a you problem. When you're on a budget, you patch tubes instead of throwing them away. Cranks generally last the life of a frame, and bottom brackets don't suddenly catastrophically fail without warning. You're criticizing someone for not understanding what it's like to live on a low income, but all your cost estimates are from the perspective of an upper-middle income person who rides a fancy bike recreationally on the weekends. Like a politician who thinks that a gallon of milk costs $20.