coruskate said:
But if you've ever worked on a BSO you'll know that some bikes are more easily maintainable than others: brake calipers that don't flex under load, bolt heads made of something other than cheese, etc etc. If you take "maintenance" to include "replacing not-fit-for-purpose parts" then trivially this statement is correct, but the biek may end up costing more than you thought it would
So my
Halfords Apollo gent's bike which was £39.99 new in 1983 is still a bag of shoot although it has only needed a pair of tyres and tubes and a new chain 5 years ago.
It runs. It keeps going on the original brakes with the original blocks. The original wheel bearings even
Shall I mention a 1974 BSA 20" shopping bike?
How much maintenance is neccessary to keep a bike on the road? Not a lot, except not many bike owners ( note my reluctance to use the term 'cyclists' ) put in the work.
I bought myself a 'cheap bag of shoot' in 2003 ( Raleigh Firefly ). My son rides it now when he visits. It is "mint" (as it is said in motoring circles).
Why do so many 'bike owners' complain the bike has broken when it is obvious the bike hasn't seen a moment of care and attention?