Originally Posted by
70sSanO
This is an honest question, by not being able to repair, does that mean not being able to replace parts?
John
Basically, yes. The big box retailers get the price so low by using the cheapest parts they can find that are often not replaceable (stuff welded or riveted instead of bolts, obscure sizes, etc). So you buy the $99 bike, something inevitably breaks and you can't change it. You take it to a bike mechanic who points out it'll cost $150 to bodge a fix onto the $99 bike and then it gets scrapped.
So the proposal in the OP is to make bikes that will actually last a reasonable use, and can be repaired when they fail rather than getting maybe 20 hours of riding out of them before they are scrap.
And for the budget I think they can be, but they tend to go for flashy looking but terrible parts to make them more appealing - making them 21 speeds instead of 6, giving them awful suspension forks instead of rigid, disc brakes instead of V's and so on.
Originally Posted by
frogman
If we aren't capable of doing a basic safety check on a bicycle from Walmart before using it then it's our problem not Walmart. We they are not high quality bikes but you get what you pay for.
The average consumer doesn't have time to learn how to test and rebuild anything they buy from a shop. Walmart is selling them so should safely be assumed to be selling something that's fit for purpose.
Here's a good example from Amazon:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Eurobike-wh...dp/B07QW62XLG/
To an experienced cyclist likely to be on this forum it's obviously a crap bike. But to a random mom looking for a birthday present? "They wouldn't sell it if it was dangerous, right?".