3 ms·
You're right. I definitely would have done this even if the cost didn't make too much sense. The exercise is one reason, another is that the caltrain lot fills
by codezero 12y ago
You're right. I definitely would have done this even if the cost didn't make too much sense. The exercise is one reason, another is that the caltrain lot fills up before about 7:45 am, so even if I'm catching an 8:15 train, I need to be there early. With a bike, I can ride for 10-15 minutes and get there on time. My bike won't last a year, or a lifetime, it's not decent, I've had to do a bunch of bolt tightening even after a few weeks, but that's OK, I didn't pay a lot.
- dredmorbius 12y agoBolt-tightening (especially on a recently-purchased bike) is hardly unexpected. On a new bike, there's a lot of general stretching and breaking-in of components over the first few days/weeks of use. A used $400 bike _should_ last you a long time, if you've selected properly. Though replacing components is fairly typical -- chain and freewheel, cables, tires, wheels. I've gone through a number of other components as well over various bikes under heavy use, though I've still got two frames that I've had for decades.
- codezero 12y agoI bought a new $350 bike so my expectations are low. I'm ok with that. I wasn't sure the bike commute would stick so I didn't want to go all in right away.
- dredmorbius 12y agoSunk cost, so, well, roll with it. But a used purchase in this case is almost always going to be more appropriate. There's a serious inflection point at the lower end of the bike market where you get very low-quality kit. I've not bought new for such a long time I'm not sure where it is any more, but ~$400 - $800 is likely around the range for a basic city bike (e.g., "mountain bike" type stance but geared for city streets). Figure paying half that for a lightly used model, of which there are generally many to choose from for numerous reasons.