PDA

View Full Version : Not No. 1



meinschaft
02-18-2014, 08:37 AM
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/02/17/is-harley-davidson-the-worst-motorcycle-money-can.aspx

Thruxtonbill
02-18-2014, 11:37 AM
I wonder if CR knows that Triumph still builds motorcycles.

Gas Man
02-18-2014, 04:53 PM
So let me get this straight.... the big touring bikes don't suffer from any real issues, just little stupid electrical bugs and therefor they are rated as the worse bikes?! Sounds like BS. Maybe I'm just an idiot, because the other brand I would love to own is a BMW. :lol:

Ultra AL
02-18-2014, 05:44 PM
I've never put any stock into anything Consumers Reports says. I've seen them rate cheap Huffy crap bikes ahead of world class bicycles. Anyone that knows anything about bicycles knows that Huff, Kent, Sears, Roadmaster, etc. etc. are just cheap garbage that have done a great job of getting consumer name recognition. CR pumped up these brands in the 1980's as the best bikes on the market, ahead of Trek, Giant, Specialized, etc. which are true bicycles, not cheap bicycle-shaped objects like the crap they endorsed. I always figured it was about who paid the most to the CR editors.

Gas Man
02-18-2014, 09:22 PM
Yeah I really don't either... it's sad. It pretty much rates like every other USA magazine that is being bought out by it's sponsors.

Denimblack
02-18-2014, 09:23 PM
I've never put any stock into anything Consumers Reports says. I've seen them rate cheap Huffy crap bikes ahead of world class bicycles. Anyone that knows anything about bicycles knows that Huff, Kent, Sears, Roadmaster, etc. etc. are just cheap garbage that have done a great job of getting consumer name recognition. CR pumped up these brands in the 1980's as the best bikes on the market, ahead of Trek, Giant, Specialized, etc. which are true bicycles, not cheap bicycle-shaped objects like the crap they endorsed. I always figured it was about who paid the most to the CR editors.
Was CR only taking into consideration the quality of these bikes. Or was price maybe a factor as well? I know in the 80's and 90's all the kids and people I knew had huffys and bikes around that price range. With a few exceptions of Redlines, GT, or Mongoose. The brands you mentioned really were off the radar due to them pricing themselves out of reach for a lot of families. I for one would love to pick up a Giant road bike from your store, but I even today have a hard time justifying $500-$2000 for a pedal bike. I'm not trying to say anything bad about those brands, I know there's many people who love these bikes, but the reality is those are out of most families price ranges. Especially during the recession in the 1980s.

Ultra AL
02-19-2014, 01:10 AM
I know what your saying Mike, but truly, for anyone that plans on doing more than a once or twice a year ride on their bicycle, if you spend less than $300, you are buying something that rides poorly, weighs a ton, shifts badly, and won't last for more than a season of real use. Look at it this way. In the 1950's Schwinn had a bike they sold a crap=load of, called the Black Phantom. It was a 26" wheel cruiser with fenders, rack, horn tank, headlight, taillight, etc. It was the class of the bicycle industry. It retailed for $79.95

The average salary in a week for a guy in the 50's was probably around $350 a month. That bike was more than a weeks wage for the average guy. Yet Schwinn sold a ton of them to the average American consumer. Now I realize that Columbia, Firestone, etc. had a cheaper version that sold for about 1/2 that, but even then, that was around half a guys weekly check to buy the cheaper bike.

Translate that to today. The $50 Columbia would be the equivalent of the $500 bike of today. But the big boxes, the WalMarts, the Targets, Meijer, etc. have trained folks to believe that a bike shouldn't cost more than $100-$150. You can't even take a family of 4 to the Tiger game for that these days!

Anyway, forgive the rant. I'm just an old man living in the past. LOL

Gas Man
02-19-2014, 07:17 AM
But Al, your perspective is right on. It's amazing how retailers have been able to "slow down" the infliation of some products in public perception.

Denimblack
02-19-2014, 08:22 AM
Lol, I gotcha Al. Makes sense to me. Although that's crazy for a bike in the 1950's!!!

Ultra AL
02-19-2014, 03:07 PM
But Al, your perspective is right on. It's amazing how retailers have been able to "slow down" the infliation of some products in public perception.

That's because they've discovered ways to make them cheaper and cheaper. And I don't mean produced cheaper but similar quality. I mean producing worse and worse junk in order to keep the price down. That's why we call them 'bike shaped objects'. They look like a real bike, but up close and personal what they really are shows through. Lol

Thruxtonbill
02-19-2014, 03:38 PM
That's because they've discovered ways to make them cheaper and cheaper. And I don't mean produced cheaper but similar quality. I mean producing worse and worse junk in order to keep the price down.

Are we talking bicycles or American cars from the mid 70s for the next 30 years or so?

Aaanyway, I wanna know why Phil started this thread .....like taking a dump in the living room of your buddys house and sneaking out the back door.....trouble maker:wtf::lmao::lmao::lmao:

Gas Man
02-19-2014, 10:55 PM
That's because they've discovered ways to make them cheaper and cheaper. And I don't mean produced cheaper but similar quality. I mean producing worse and worse junk in order to keep the price down. That's why we call them 'bike shaped objects'. They look like a real bike, but up close and personal what they really are shows through. Lol

That's just...

:screwy::scratch::bs::cry::hug::whistle::plzdie::l ala:michael jackson:bsflag::gary::catout:redflip:dn::th:

Bagger Dave
02-19-2014, 11:05 PM
That's just...

:screwy::scratch::bs::cry::hug::whistle::plzdie::l ala:michael jackson:bsflag::gary::catout:redflip:dn::th:

:lmao:

detdrbuzzard
02-23-2014, 08:47 PM
well al the last bicycle i purchased new was a '97 bianchi that was on sale for about $729 marked down from $929. add a set of campy daytona pedals on sale for $99 from colorado cyclist, regular price $150 and sidi shoes and cleats for about $200. i miss the old days when i could come in your shop and get a schwinn le tour for $500 and some cristopher toe clips and straps and have a nice bike for about $550. now days i don't even look at bikes at $550. a nice cheap bike to me is in the $1000 - $1500 range, that should get me the cheaped bianchi road bike nowdays

Ultra AL
02-23-2014, 08:50 PM
William, that's about right. Entry level road bikes are about $600. A nice one starts at about $1000.

RedneckMedic
02-23-2014, 08:58 PM
My brother is really into cycling. He has a few. He got an old Schwinn and his newer bike that he rides most of the time he spent about 2500. Then there's that damn unicycle he has lol. He rode to Indiana last year with a family friend and he's done the palm ride twice. I just can't get my fat ass comfortable on a bike. I rode around makinac island last year and I was about dead.

Ultra AL
02-23-2014, 09:12 PM
I just can't get my fat ass comfortable on a bike. I rode around makinac island last year and I was about dead.

:lmao:

detdrbuzzard
02-23-2014, 09:15 PM
i was more into cycling when i was younger but i still have a few older bikes in the house. most are schwinns, a super le tour from about '79, a le tour and world tourist from about '85 the '97 bianchi tro'feo, and a schwinn serra with g-stays from '91. i use to ride in the wolverine 200 every spring

Mudpuppy
03-04-2014, 04:39 PM
Are we talking bicycles or American cars from the mid 70s for the next 30 years or so?

Aaanyway, I wanna know why Phil started this thread .....like taking a dump in the living room of your buddys house and sneaking out the back door.....trouble maker:wtf::lmao::lmao::lmao:

You come home there is a steaming loaf on your brand new carpet, a serious cloud deck in the unflushed toilet and the cat is pregnant. God damnit.

So the stats in this article seem severely flawed in several ways. It does not take into account number of miles ridden, etc. And it is a very small percentage of riders overall. A small "test" group. And if you read to the end it is some kind of fucking advertisement to get you to buy their book on how to buy cars and books because they will make you so damn rich. Print this entire thread out, wipe your ass with it and burn the motherfucker. I hate manipulated statistics. It is what is wrong with this world. Guns are dangerous but GMOs are safe. Fucking bullshit.

skipper
03-04-2014, 05:04 PM
I notice this didn't take into account > 25yo single girl draw. That's worth something right? Bwahahahaha.

Mudpuppy
03-05-2014, 11:05 AM
I notice this didn't take into account > 25yo single girl draw. That's worth something right? Bwahahahaha.

That is everything, lol

Tin Man
03-15-2014, 11:14 AM
American cars ?? Dollar for Dollar they were and still are the best buy for your money. Did you drink the CR koolaid?

Gas Man
03-15-2014, 10:29 PM
For me... I think post 2009... you simply can't beat what Ford is putting out.

Caveman
03-16-2014, 04:32 AM
For me... I think post 2009... you simply can't beat what Ford is putting out.

YUCK:screwy::screwy:

Thruxtonbill
03-16-2014, 09:44 AM
For me... I think post 2009... you simply can't beat what Ford is putting out.

If you say so...resale still sucks.

junkyardjon
03-16-2014, 10:23 AM
just shows Gas Man don't work on cars for a living LOL.... every car is great if your never have to touch one for repairs. people wonder why it cost so much to fix shit, cause they are designed like total shit

Gas Man
03-17-2014, 12:00 AM
I'm basing it on many aspects but top is the styling and performance. I'd put the Ford up against any of it's competitors and it will beat it. IMHO

Mudpuppy
03-25-2014, 04:05 PM
I agree that Ford stepped their game up but overall their quality SUCKS. So many issues with my 2011 Fusion it's ridiculous. My 09 wasn't any better. The Mazda before that was garbage as well. Quality of all vehicles and commercial goods have significantly decreased - shiny and bright (the Chrysler way) to make you think quality but all it is is cheap fucking plastic garbage. Try buying a quality washing machine or hot water heater - doesn't exist.

RedneckMedic
03-25-2014, 06:56 PM
I've been really digging my 2014 silverado. I beat the piss out of my 2011 and it just kept going never had any issues and I get good customer service from my dealer with all scheduled maintenance paid for.

Gas Man
03-25-2014, 09:15 PM
I agree that Ford stepped their game up but overall their quality SUCKS. So many issues with my 2011 Fusion it's ridiculous. My 09 wasn't any better. The Mazda before that was garbage as well. Quality of all vehicles and commercial goods have significantly decreased - shiny and bright (the Chrysler way) to make you think quality but all it is is cheap fucking plastic garbage. Try buying a quality washing machine or hot water heater - doesn't exist.

I have a 2010 fusion for work and I rolled like 78k on it today... great car. It's not exciting but it's a good car. The wife's 2013 Fusion Titanium is badass. She's about to roll 18k on the clock and not even a burp wrong. Moe will attest, it's a badass car.

Nate's traverse has 70k on it and he's done real well with it. Worse thing was a timing chain replacement, otherwise good suv.

My 2011 HHR SS had to have a new motor at 3k and spent 4.5 months (commulative) of the first 11 months in the shop and GM wouldn't stand behind it... I had to hire a lawyer and they ended up buying it back. That was the last new GM I'd ever buy. FUCK EM.

When my wife's 2010 Ford Fiesta had noisey brakes... it took a couple phone calls to customer service but Ford stood behind it. Got the problem fixed and then stepped WAY WAY up after fixing it... I voiced concern about the noise coming back. They added a 5 year 75k extended bumper to bumper warranty with loaner car. Fixed it and stood up. THAT boys and girls IS CUSTOMER SERVICE!!!