Should I get a new bike? Or should I fix my broken one?
I was in a
bicycle accident last September, in which I was side-winded by a livery cab. Miraculously, I'm fine, but the bike isn't: the wheels are bent, one bicycle pedal is warped towards the frame and so won't turn, and the force of the impact was strong enough to twist the handlebars and seat. I'm not sure how the frame is doing -- it's a double-butted steel frame (a Miyata 210 from 1984), but I don't know how to check for stress, cracks, or any problems. Due to neglect during the winter (since I couldn't ride it), the chain, gears, and steel wheels have now become rusted.
I now have a chance to buy a nice road bike for $200, that is fully tuned-up, with new tires, tubes, brakes, etc, and with the guarantee of future service.
When I got my old bike, I bought it for $80, and spent an equal amount (or more) on it tuning it, cleaning it up, replacing parts, etc. I'd like to imagine that the hassle and money involved will be similar in this case as well. Is it worth it to get a new bike, or should I spend $100+ on new wheels/tubes, new tires, a tune-up, a new chain, etc. and just fix my old bike with the hope that the frame will be okay?
(additional question: If the cost is the same, should I get brakes with suicide levers, or install interrupter brakes?)
Thank you, AskMe!
Unless there's a bike co-op nearby where you can get parts cheap (chain ring, pedals, etc.), it's not worth replacing the broken parts on the bike. Good wheels alone would cost around $50-100 new.
Also, you say you're not sure how the frame is doing. Even though steel can handle a lot, I would be worried about the crash stressing the frame.
As for the brakes, I would trust the interrupters more than the suicide levers.
posted by nakedsushi at 2:37 PM on May 12