>>1571055Look at that blue Kent whatsitsname, if I were to make sure the bearings are greased and that all the bolts are tight what exactly can go wrong with it?
It's a very simple bicycle. It's a machine that can be competently produced and sold for $100. If we were on about some dual-suspension, triple crankset "mountain" bike abortion selling for as little money, then yes it will suck majorly. But if it's something simple like that then what's the matter?
When you think about WHY it's so cheap the compromises are reasonable.
>single speedNothing wrong with that.
>plain steel frame setHeavy, but nothing wrong with that.
>steel handlebars, seatpost, and stemDitto.
>stamped steel chainring integrated into cranksetWill work, will last.
>cheap saddleWill do its job for casuals, anybody who cares changes theirs immediately anyhow.
>tiresSee above.
>cup&cone bottom bracketRequires maintenance, but is functional. A basic sealed unit costs about as much as having someone else do it for you, too.
>single wall rimsWill do as long as you ride wide tires and don't ram into curbs.
>cup&cone hubsRepacking those is pretty easy and it's only a big deal in rainy season. Nutted axles are okay and simple to upgrade to QR in those hubs if you want.
>brakesackschually in the US they have to be able to stop somebody going at 15MPH in under 15ft and resist being rocked while squeezed with 100 lbf to get to sell the bike, you'll be just fine if you get the cable tension set correctly
>painted spokes, simple headset, paint and finish, schrader valvesAutism by this point.
I wish to reiterate that I would not expect a more complicated bicycle to be good for that little money, that's where you do enter the realm of steel wheels with brittle galvanized spokes, crank standards older than square taper, and Lark clone derailleurs made out of cheese.
