Is Huffy synonomous with Junk?
Ron Russell
name is probably mentioned more than any other brand, but usually
in an unflattering manner. I see them frequently on campus here
at UIC, and on rides through the west suburbs and bike trails.
Last week, I met two young women who were riding from Carpenter-
ville to Aurora(about 30 miles) and plannned to ride back the
same day, on Huffys. I have a much better bike, but I have
closely examined Huffy, Murray and Roadmaster bikes out of
curiosity. It seems true that the materials used are selected
with cost, not performance in mind. So carbon steel is used
instead of chrome-moly in the frame, and steel is also used
for components such as bars, rims, seatpost, where aluminum
might be used to save weight. But the worst thing which
probably contributes to their poor functionality is the fact
that they are not professionally assembled. Given careful
assembly and adjustment, there is no reason for them not to
work in an adequate manner, so long as they are not pushed
beyond their limits of strength by deliberate abuse. Of
course these limits are lower than on any bike which costs
more, that is after all, what your extra money is purchasing,
the ability to ride harder and faster without breaking.
But for people who want a bike for short, low intensity rides,
there seems to be no reason to exclude one of these from the
list of possibilities. In the early years of this century,
Ford Motor Co. proved that there is a larger market for an
inexpensive car, regardless of its deficiencies, than
for an expensive car. As a result, Fords in those years,
by their commonplace parts availability, became very practical
cars to own, although performance was inferior in almost all
aspects to any car which cost more, much like the cheap bike/
expensive bike situation which exists now. Ford is no longer
equivelant to "a cheap car", although maybe Hyundai is. But
that is all that some people need, or want, or can afford.
Same thing with a Huffy-clone: If someone is satisfied with
the low level of performance offered by a Huffy, why give
them a hard time? Better to encourage them to keep riding,
and let them "move up" to something with more performance when
they feel the need.
Ron
J. Michael Wingrave
I agree very strongly. All too often we, myself included
get too caught up in the old clich that more is better
and too much is better still. This is why I see beautiful
Cannodales being ridden back and forth to class...
and back and forth, and back and forth, never
to see a trail in their life. For these people I would
strongly suggest a Huffy. It will take you back and forth
to your classes faithfully. Well, I could sit here and
"philosophize" forever on the subject, but you and I
both have better things to do
Mike's $.02
Bruce Jackson
Ron Russell <U12...@uicvm.uic.edu> wrote:
> It seems true that the materials used are selected with cost, not
> performance in mind. So carbon steel is used instead of chrome-moly
> in the frame, and steel is also used for components such as bars,
> rims, seatpost, where aluminum might be used to save weight.
Believe it or not there is a bit of overlap between department store
bikes and bike shop bikes in terms of equipment. Some nicer
department store bikes have cromo frames, aluminum rims, and
servicable derailures while some low end bike shop bikes have carbon
steel frames, steel rims, and barely servicable components.
> But the worst thing which probably contributes to their poor
> functionality is the fact that they are not professionally
> assembled. Given careful assembly and adjustment, there is no
> reason for them not to work in an adequate manner, so long as they
> are not pushed beyond their limits of strength by deliberate abuse.
Some of the bike shops I worked at would assemble department store and
mail order bikes. The usual charge was $10-$25 plus parts. We always
replaced plastic brake levers since no amount of adjustment would make
the brakes safe and dependable in our opinion. Additionally, often
the owners of the bike would damage some of the parts trying to
assemble the bike themselves. While this wasn't a particularily
profitable thing to do it did sometimes win us over customers. Most
people would buy bikes at bike shops instead of department stores if
they knew how much value a good shop adds to a bike through expert
assembly, 1 year of free labor, and good advise.
> But for people who want a bike for short, low intensity rides,
> there seems to be no reason to exclude one of these from the
> list of possibilities. In the early years of this century,
> Ford Motor Co. proved that there is a larger market for an
> inexpensive car, regardless of its deficiencies, than
> for an expensive car. As a result, Fords in those years,
> by their commonplace parts availability, became very practical
> cars to own, although performance was inferior in almost all
> aspects to any car which cost more, much like the cheap bike/
> expensive bike situation which exists now. Ford is no longer
> equivelant to "a cheap car", although maybe Hyundai is. But
> that is all that some people need, or want, or can afford.
> Same thing with a Huffy-clone: If someone is satisfied with
> the low level of performance offered by a Huffy, why give
> them a hard time? Better to encourage them to keep riding,
> and let them "move up" to something with more performance when
> they feel the need.
The main problem that I have with this is that the premium for buying
a bike at a bike shop isn't significant. Often the price for a decent
assmebly or a single major repair offsets the price advantage between
one of the best department store bikes and a bottom line bike shop
bike. For most people, I'd argue, finding a good bike shop and
getting your bike from them will be the better deal. We don't need to
look down our noses at people who buy department store bikes, we need
to educate them. I doubt that there are many people out there who can
not handle the extra cost of a bike shop bike over a department store
model; it is simply that they are not aware that they are getting
anything for the extra money.
--
Bruce Jackson | Univ. of North Texas | jac...@cs.unt.edu
UNIX Systems Admin. | P. O. Box 13886 | GAB 550E (817)565-2279
Dept. of Computer Sci.| Denton, Tx. 76203-3886 | FAX: (817)565-2799
Michael Dolenga
> Same thing with a Huffy-clone: If someone is satisfied with
> the low level of performance offered by a Huffy, why give
> them a hard time? Better to encourage them to keep riding,
> and let them "move up" to something with more performance when
> they feel the need.
Let people buy what they want, of course. However, in terms of quality,
you could get a better used bike for the same price that you would pay for
a Huffy. If someone were to ask which bike to buy for $200, I'd tell them
a used one. It might need a tune up, and there are risks involved, but
it's a better deal.
Having a good bike is encouragement enough to ride. If their Huffy is
breaking down, they won't ride it. It'll rot in their garage.
Mike
--
"It is all very well to play for a while with fools ... but fools must be
changed fairly often or the entertainment becomes tiresome." - Sartre
Thomas H. Kunich
>closely examined Huffy, Murray and Roadmaster bikes out of
>curiosity. It seems true that the materials used are selected
>with cost, not performance in mind.
Ron, as you examine more and more bicycles, and ride better and better
bikes you will start to see that Huffy, Murray and other junk bicycles
REALLY are junk. It isn't just materials or price/performance points --
a Huffy will cost about 70% of what a bicycle shop bike will cost. What
you will get is a frame that is 75% heavier and _weaker_. The drop-outs
will be sheet steel. Often they will be pressed in instead of welded.
Every bearing in the bike will be of the very lowest quality obtainable.
The seat will be hidiously uncomfortable in the majority of cases. The
wheels will have too few and much too heavy spokes. The crank will be
one piece and probably the arms will be too short. The derailleurs will
be below the bottom of the line, often copies of real stuff or old
obsolete parts no longer manufactured and gotten in a lot from Shimano.
These bikes have incredable friction losses in the drive train and
were never designed to take the loads imposed by a real bicyclist.
On our thursday ride a new rider bought a road bike from another
member and got rid of his Huffy Mountain Bike. He improved his
12 mile time _BY_30_MINUTES_. He went from thinking that we were all
supermen (and women) to being a couple of minutes slower than the
rest of us.
Yes, there is a place for department store bikes, but they really are
junk. And it sure doesn't help that they are poorly assembledd and
never maintained.
Tom Louie
J. Michael Wingrave <wingrave@helios> wrote:
>I agree very strongly. All too often we, myself included
>get too caught up in the old clich that more is better
>and too much is better still. This is why I see beautiful
>Cannodales being ridden back and forth to class...
>and back and forth, and back and forth, never
>to see a trail in their life.
I agree. Being a poor college student, the only two bikes that I have
owned have both been used "cheap" bikes (a Huffy and a Roadmaster).
However, I'm not afraid to get grungy and to jump into adjusting and
maintaining my bike. My brakes and shifters are in top form, I try to
keep my rims trued, etc. For the money I paid, I think I've gotten a
very large return on my bikes. I keep my current bike clean and well
adjusted. It, of course, doesn't hurt that it has decent components on
it. However, when I try out my friends' Bridgestone or Mongoose bikes,
I'm amazed at how light and agile their bikes are. Stupid carbon steel
frame of mine must weigh a ton in comparison.
However, I do know for a fact that my friend with her Mongoose rides her
bike about once every week, maybe less. Here's a $300+ bike, brand new,
and she doesn't make the most out of it. Heck, her chain fell off of
her front chainring once and she had to phone me up to come out and fix
it for her.
Sigh, whatever. Clearly in the long run, a nice midrange bike is easier
to maintain. But I honestly believe that my biking enjoyment to money
spent ratio is much much higher that most people around here on campus.
Tom "Happy biker on a Roadmaster" Louie
Brent Chivers
Thomas H. Kunich <to...@netcom.com> wrote:
> Ron, as you examine more and more bicycles, and ride better and better
> bikes you will start to see that Huffy, Murray and other junk bicycles
> REALLY are junk. It isn't just materials or price/performance points --
> a Huffy will cost about 70% of what a bicycle shop bike will cost. What
> you will get is a frame that is 75% heavier and _weaker_. The drop-outs
> will be sheet steel. Often they will be pressed in instead of welded.
> Every bearing in the bike will be of the very lowest quality obtainable.
> The seat will be hidiously uncomfortable in the majority of cases. The
> wheels will have too few and much too heavy spokes. The crank will be
> one piece and probably the arms will be too short. The derailleurs will
> be below the bottom of the line, often copies of real stuff or old
> obsolete parts no longer manufactured and gotten in a lot from Shimano.
Not all Huffys (Murrays, etc) are as bad as you think. My commuter
bike is a Huffy. It came with Shimano 200GS components, the same as
the low-end bikes in the bike shops at the time. (70% was about right
for the price difference.) I'll admit the frame is heavy, with stamped
drop-outs -- but it is holding up fine to my use. I don't remember
the original seat being uncomfortable, although I've long since worn
it out and replaced it. The wheels were light and true, and have held
up well to urban-street punishment. (I'm not about to claim that this
would be a good off-road machine.)
And the serious thieves are not going to fight multiple
locks for a Huffy. No bike can be a usable commuter
if you can't park it at your destination!
> On our thursday ride a new rider bought a road bike
> from another member and got rid of his Huffy Mountain
> Bike. He improved his 12 mile time _BY_30_MINUTES_.
My commuter has street tires replacing the knobbies. While my road
bike is much lighter and more enjoyable to ride, my logs show that
there isn't a big speed difference between them (on rides up to 20
miles round trip) -- even before you allow for the commuter's fat
tires and extra load (light system and batteries, and the pounds
of music/instruments/etc that I need at my destination).
> And it sure doesn't help that [department-store
> bikes] are poorly assembled and never maintained.
Assembly is a problem with the store, not the bike. (But it is
a real problem.) Maintenance is a problem with the bike's owner,
and many bike-shop bikes get similar treatment from casual riders.
--
______________________________________________________________________
Brent Chivers McLean, VA bchi...@mitre.org