Bicycles Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people who build and repair bicycles, people who train cycling, or commute on bicycles. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
My bike has passed its prime, one by one parts start to break, and replacing them keeps eating more and more money. Which made me wondering, is there any rule of thumb of when it is more economical to get a new bike instead of replacing parts all the time? Up to which point are repairs the financially better choice?
(I do all the work myself, so in my case it's just about the cost of material.)
If doing the work by yourself, and your are satisfied with the frame, never.
If you replace the whole bike, you have to purchase each and every of its parts in a package. Usually the package is not very good: for example, many manufacturers save money by using non-Shimano parts in a less visible location like wheel hub. Those wheel hubs will be hard to replace -- in fact, replacement of the hub is probably one of the hardest replacement jobs in a bike.
If you replace only a failed part, you have to purchase replacement just for that particular part.
Not only that, but by replacing failed parts, you have the opportunity to customize your bike by selecting which replacement part to purchase. You won't have that opportunity if you purchase a whole bike. Very often, after observing a failure, you have the opportunity to purchase a more durable part to replace the cheap part that failed.
I would argue that purchase of a new bike is a good idea only if its frame can do something your current frame cannot do. For example, some modern frames are asymmetric in the rear to allow even spoke tension in the rear wheel. If rear wheel is what isn't working for you, perhaps this asymmetry could help. Similarly, new frames may support disc brakes whereas old frames probably do not. Also, many new bikes have electric assist whereas old frames cannot accept electric assist motors.
As an example, I bought a new drop bar e-bike that hasn't arrived yet. I am not happy with its component choices. It is not a good bike. It is the least poor e-bike I found. I bought it because my current frame does not accept a Bosch motor, because the frame was designed before the era of motors.
When you suffer damage that can't be repaired economically.
Example: I have cracked the frame on three bikes in the last decade, all in the area of the seatpost clamp and all because my saddle is excessively high.
If you're looking for an excuse to buy a new bike, that's a different matter.
You can also own more than one bike, its okay to own a road bike and a MTB, for example. I even own two fairly similar road bikes, each cost relatively little because they were used. Financially I'd not be able to afford one new road bike, but I can own multiple older bikes for cheaper.
My evaluations, that may apply or not to you, are the following:
as long as the cost per year in new parts is less than one half of the cost of the yearly commuter pass on public transport, I am good with that (given where I live, in the german speaking part of the world, practically it means that only a cracked frame may cost more than the pass).
I expect it to have one fourth of its value after 10 years. So, if I spent 1500-1000$/Eur/gbp in 2010, I expect to be able to sell it for 375-250$/Eur/gbp. In 10 years I would have then spent 125-75$/Eur/gbp per year to own and use that bike. I would expect not to spend more than 125-75$/Eur/gbp per year in replacing parts. When I cross that (mental) treshold, I start thinking of getting rid of the bike, selling it in minimal functional state.
For the reason given above, I tend to buy used recreation bikes, so I minimize the initial investment and I only pay the yearly maintenance. Plus a used bike, similar to a used car, tend to mantain its value (minimal difference if sold as 2nd or 3rd or 4th hand ...)
It also depends on how much you like your bike. Sure you can get a new better bike at a reasonable price. For example in my case I have a 1994 Gary Fisher Supercaliber. I love that bike but it is hardly worth anything today. I have bought new fork three times, four bottom brackets. Change the chain every year and the cassette every second year. Have a steel Surly middle chainring that I turn around after four years. Although I have just now bought a TA chainring. Change the cables as needed. Still have original derailleur although the jockey wheels have been replaced twice. Every time I have to replace the front fork or bottom bracket I think that it is probably a time for a new bike. But yet still I buy the parts and replace them. I don´t know how long I will keep doing this. But people are different. If you like to have a new bike every couple of years, then go for it. If you are like me and are attached to your bike then keep it. But my bike was an upper end bike in the day, that is why I still have it. I doubt I would be as loyal with a low end bike though.
I can tell from your post you are not adverse to repairing a bike. That's great, I worked in a bike shop and know the feeling that you get when working on a bike with your own hands. Economical as that craft can be you're right, there is a point at which you need to examine the trade off between buying parts and buying a new bike. I think there are a lot of ways to do this but here are two I find standard:
Compare the cost per mile. You can calculate that by recording the total cost (parts + maintenance) and dividing by your total mileage. If you compare the cost of a new bike holding the mileage constant you will have a fairly general indicator to relative value. It's like MPG/KPG in a car. Of course you could take into account inflation when measuring the new bike cost. Even better is to calculate the cost per wheel, derailleur or other components. I admit this is a technical way of formulating an economical solution and fairly time intensive.
Take the calculated trade-in value like a car (BicycleBlueBook-ValueGuide), and compare that to the expected price of the next maintenance or upgrade. If the cost of the new part etc. is greater than the trade-in value you might want to get a new bike. Shops near me calculate the trade-in-value as well. You don't have to trade in your bike, just use the value to make an educated choice. Personally I don't recommend trade-in, because I like holding onto old bikes in chance of a rainy day. You can also subtract the Trade-in value from the price at purchase, divide by years or months and find the depreciation.
Things you might think about:
The economic factors for buying a new bike are your budget, and price expectations. For instance what are your expectations for buying a bike today vs. buying the same bike next year? Do you have a propensity to save? Today a bike can be a big investment.
Older frames feature the "quick release" mechanism to attach the wheels. Now new "throw axle" standard is emerging that needs different frame and different wheels. Most of the new wheels in the shop are now "throw axle" so at some point likely quick release will become difficult to get, forcing to replace the frame and both wheels, hence more or less a new bicycle.
It may be more parts that simply change and are no longer compatible, making their counterparts difficult to support.
