To give a couple of examples from this week:
- A bike with the wheel replaced badly after the customer repaired a puncture: discs are sensitive, and the disc was bent out of shape. Fixable, but you need a specialised tool.
- A bike where the Disc Brake pads needed replacing because they hadn't been "bedded in" and had gone glassy. This costs a bit, and was delayed because the pads were not standard, so we have to order them.
- A bike came in with Shimano pads and Magura discs; these have different tolerances, so they aren't compatible. We now have to wait and see if the customer wants us to change the disc (€€) or the shoes/saddle/levers (€€€) so they're compatible.
- E-Bike came in for a diagnosis: the battery is dead. Customer ordered a battery through us (700€), then cancelled the order having found a cheaper (500€) battery online. The original Battery was already on the way, and cancelling cost 100€.because only licenced carriers can transport batteries; we can't even carry a loose battery from one workshop to the other on the other side of the town, so the customer will get an invoice for the 100€. If the new battery is a no-name battery, we can't maintain the bike any more.
Now, these are largely "human error" or the customer not thinking through consequences, but human error seems a lot easier to achieve with more modern tech.
That's not a criticism of people who use this tech, but there are drawbacks, and one is that it's often more complex and difficult and therefore expensive to maintain.
I don't (yet) feel the advantages for me outweigh the drawbacks, and even though I'm on a crash (ha,ha) course learning how to maintain all this tech, and having great fun fixing and testing some very expensive and high-tech bikes, I am still holding onto my very low-tech bike because I value simple reliability above what technology offers.
That said if anyone wants to offer me a
Genesis tour de Fer or a
Tern Oryx R14 (29") I would, with difficulty, accept...