Most Indestructible bikes

>>1037211
90s rigid mtb

File: c29ee3505e9efe48cd0f2492f50501c7.jpg (25KB, 346x260px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 346x260px

>>1037211
The only truly special things about this bike are the high-spoke count wheels and the overbuilt rear rack, unless you're planning to use your bike similar to pic related, they're total overkill for everyday riding and commuting. The ordinary racks and wheels you find on bikes in western countries are perfectly strong (assuming the wheels are properly built, trued, and tensioned - this is the usual failing of cheap bikes sold at places like Walmart).

As far as low maintenance goes, the key features are the fenders, chainguard, singlespeed drivetrain, and coaster brake. The first three are standard options for singlespeed bikes or accessories you can easily add to a SS bike which prolong the life of the drivetrain. Coaster brakes are great for low maintenance and widely available, as long as you don't have lots of steep hills they're perfectly serviceable.

If you're in the US and want a bike just like the one pictured, you can buy a Worksman utility bike. Otherwise any simple bike from a proper bike shop will work as well for everything short of transporting bricks, livestock, etc.

>>1037212

90's mtb frames are far from indestructible. I've bent and snapped many. They're heavy and flexy plus if they've been sitting outside in the elements they're probably rusted to fuck on the inside. Which is almost as sketchy as riding cracked carbon.

Even a $400 single speed, mechanical disc Bikesdirect MTB is a massive upgrade over that meme.

>>1037224
I rode my $100 90's rigid mountainbike from NY to SF in 6 months, you don't know what you are talking about.

>>1037237
I have almost 20k miles on mine from it being used as a commuter for 15 years by 4 different people, but aside from drivetrain maintnence and new saddles/pedals its perfect

File: TransportU4N3.jpg (357KB, 1000x621px) Image search: [Google]

357KB, 1000x621px

>>1037215

I'm not in US. Will this bike work just as well

>>1037211
Honestly, a surly lht
Prolly the beefiest affordable frame on the market.

>>1037288
Stop with this shit meme.

File: 27012-a5ba32b30706425b9c1c3f616d31db5d.jpg (266KB, 2000x1204px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 2000x1204px

Serious answer:

A Flying Pigeon PA06. Designed to carry pigs.

>>1037271
This is a copy
of >>1037294

File: TransportU1N3.jpg (75KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 720x720px

>>1037271
>>1037294

Slightly cheaper but without the double kickstand which facilitates easy loading. My experience with a basket made me question the value of front racks

I put 30,000 miles on a merida cyclocross bike. Just consumables likes tyres, chains etc. Carbon forks sheared then the frame cracked.

>>1037294
>Flying Pigeon

https://foolishhuman.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/lets-all-go-out-and-not-get-flying-pigeons/

>>1037439
>>1037294
Those were kinda big here in NYC among rich douchebags for a couple of years, I wanna say late 00s maybe? Some clever guy was importing them and selling them for stupidly high prices.

>>1037434
>My experience with a basket made me question the value of front racks
They're definitely not for everyone. I'm on the opposite side of the fence; I can't stand the way rear-loaded bikes feel.

>>1037498
Are they as bad as that blog says? The concept of re-purposing a utility bike to take advantage of its robustness really calls to me.

Why not beach cruisers?

>>1037513
Well, I've never used one but I've looked at the ones chained up outside the apartment building near my office, where the units rent for $4800 a month, and on casual inspection it doesn't appear possible to work on one with normal bike tools. Couldn't speak to the robustness but in the west, I'd think you'd want a bike made of "bike stuff" so that you can maintain it without taking it to some grizzled Chinese welder every time you need to put a new chain on it.

>>1037293
please name a bike with more functionality, more indestructibility, lower maintenance, and a lower price.
for all intents and purposes, it is a 90s rigid mtb, except without the 20years of patina

>>1037518
Well, crap. Having to overnight tools and parts from China certainly fucks with the cost of ownership.

>>1037294
>>1037518
Yes, they're as bad as the blog says.

These bikes are straight out of the 1950s with essentially no design changes. Fucking ROD BRAKES holy shit! Most generic bike parts and tools that are available today will not work with these bikes. It might be hard to find ordinary consumables like brake pads, tires, and tubes - I'm not even sure if they use 700C wheels?

A bike like this might be amusing to own for a tinkerer who is happy to weld a little or fabricate their own sheet metal parts and brackets, but it's going to fail at being reliable, worry-free transportation in the western world.

>>1037288
Nah. Would not recommend an LHT if OP is thinking about single speed bikes.

>>1037211
OP, "Tough for 3rd world countries" doesn't mean "low maintenance". In fact, it might mean a *higher* level of regular maintenance. For example, loose-ball headsets, bottom brackets, and hubs are dirt cheap and bulletproof, but you have to keep on top of greasing them... Gotta repack the grease in coaster brakes periodically as well. And if your frame cracks, well, someone in the village owns a welder...

Tell us more about what you want in a bike. Why do you want a "tough" bike? Are you planning on carrying heavy loads? Over what sort of terrain? Do you like dropbars or flat bars? What level of maintenance are you ok with?

>>1037237
St Augustine to San diago. Plus getting hit by a car twice. Still trucking.

File: 1479180183298.jpg (14KB, 350x371px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 350x371px

>>1037534
I meant more the quality of worksmanship. I drive an old car, so weirdass parts sourcing isn't strange to me.

>>1037563
>made in china
>non standard parts
>technology that was out of date 60 years ago

>quality of worksmanship

File: cruiser bike.jpg (418KB, 2020x1256px) Image search: [Google]

418KB, 2020x1256px

How much of a bad idea is buying a Walmart Huffy to use as a cargo bike?

File: shrug.jpg (74KB, 500x450px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 500x450px

>>1037568
Yeah, fair enough. Stick to old Raleighs, then?

>>1037569

At 60lbs you'd be better off commuting on a DH bike.

>>1037572
I think it's more like 48 lbs. Just as heavy but probably lower build quality compared to my old Schwinn. If I stripped off some of the junk it might not be too heavy.

>>1037439
>blame the chinese for british parts standards
>blame the chinese for not tightning seatpost and stem and crashing
>blame the chinese for not being able to turn
>blame the chinese because its obviously worse than an indian made raleigh which has all the same weird parts because its the same bike
It's like listening to Trump speak

>>1037534

My intention is to ride varying distances from day to day, in all weather, on roads, pavements and canals, single or three speed, up hills and down hills and capable of all that whilst carrying a weeks grocery plus my current chubby form

Currently riding upright but wouldn't be opposed to riding flat. No interest in drop bars. Realistically I'd like to do nothing but mend punctures because my living area is so cramped I can't get much done plus I lack knowledge, tools and motivation. A check up at the bike store every 2 months or even better once a year

>>1037597
Workcycles, maybe. Well built, not cheap, v. practical. If emphasis on hills, you probably want something lighter though.

>>1037597
you're describing the perfect bike, in reality there are compromises.
get an old 90s mtb on craigs, ride it until you develope actual taste, then take it from there.

File: my wheels.png (3MB, 2096x968px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2096x968px

>>1037638

I'm enjoying my Dutch style single speed but I feel I should probably go for a 3 speed due to the hills and needing to cycle greater distances. It hasn't broken down but I've had to replace stuff so I'd like something even tougher. I've got my eye on >>1037434

>Pictured my bike

>>1037588
>its like listening to trump speak
we're going to... its going to be great... i mean... we'll show the rest of the world we can build bicycles too... great great good

>>1037681

Believe me. Tremendous

>>1037665
holy shit.
is that one of those 90s rigid mtbs everyones talking about?
it looks so versatile.
the jurisdiction practiced turning it into something a little more comfortable and practical is outstanding.
a bike like that might last you years with minimal maintence, and dare I say, it might even be indestructable.

>>1037597
Fuji Touring.
i commute on mine all year, load the shit out of it also. haven't had to do much with it in the way of repair - pretty bulletproof.
Does have drops but is all round the comfiest bike i've ever had...

File: 6213940633_c9ced16435.jpg (156KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 500x375px

>>1037597
>My intention is to ride varying distances from day to day
Could you be any LESS specific? Christ. What order of magnitude are we talking about - 1 mile a day, 10 miles, 100 miles? Will you be riding for fun or is this strictly a "get shit done" bicycle?
>in all weather
fenders
>on roads, pavements and canals
So no dirt/gravel?
>whilst
We're on 4chan sonny

I'd look at a Surly Troll. The frame is tough as nails. Clearance for wider tires that will be more comfortable and less prone to flats. They set up single-speed really nicely with the rear-facing track forks. Disc brakes or rim brakes. All the mounting points for racks you could ever want.

Throw a Wald 139 basket on the front and a 520 basket on the rear and it'll be a great grocery-getter.

File: IMG_3746.jpg (3MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4032x3024px

>>1037738
For example, here's my day-to-day commute-and-errand bike built on a very similar frame.

>>1037742
Those gumwalls look sweet af.

>>1037738
>>1037742
What specifically makes it "tough as nails" other than marketing? Wouldn't any properly made modern frame made of 525 tubing or similar be pretty much rock solid? I mean short of putting 16-spoke 23c crabbon rims on it, or using a badly designed rack that sways or damages the frame.

>>1037738

about 4-8 miles normal commute but I have to do an 18 mile round trip for half of the year so I'm going to need something that can handle that as well

canals pretty muddy but I suppose no dirt or gravel

>>1037746
>wouldn't any properly made modern frame made of 525 tubing or similar be pretty much rock solid?
Of course, that's why surleys are rock solid.

>>1037570
Okay, where would I look for old Raleigh/English 3-speeds in the US? CL doesn't have very many where I live. Should I just start looking around local bike shops and hope they have one?

>>1037745
Thanks! 650Bx48mm, smooooooooth

>>1037746
I'm stating it generally rather than specifically - any decent rigid MTB frame will do fine, as they're designed to take hits. Way better than a road bike frame that may feel too flexy/spongy when loaded up with cargo racks, or a foreign "tough for 3rd world conditions!" bike of dubious origin and quality.

The Troll specifically is nice because:
1) you can buy a new one today. There aren't a lot of rigid 90s-style MTBish frames being made nowadays; most new hardtail MTB frames have much slacker headtubes intended for modern suspension forks.

I like picking over Craigslist for deals but OP sounds like they don't have the skills to piece a bike together themselves. It'll be easy to get a shop to order a frame and build it up for them, and a single speed build should be relatively cheap.

2) Unlike many MTB frames, the Troll has all the brazeons you could ever want for racks/fenders/etc. You'll note my bike >>1037742 does NOT have rack mounts on the frame... I had to get a seatpost collar with rack mounts and a rear rack that fit on the axle, and then due to the hooded rear dropouts, some spacers and an extra-long QR. The Troll won't need any of those bodges.

3) Most bikes designed for loads - touring bikes, "adventure" bikes like the Salsa Fargo or Vaya, etc - are designed around drop bars. The Troll is designed for flats and would also build nicely with more upright riser bars.

4) And finally, although I mentioned it already, the Troll is explicitly designed to make single-speed setups easy, with the rear-facing track forks. Yeah, yeah, you can convert a bike with normal dropouts to single speed by replacing the rear derailleur with a chain tensioner - but if you know you want a single-speed, you might as well get a frame that's meant for it.

The other frame that comes to mind is the Soma Wolverine, for most of the same reasons - beefier frame, rack mounts, dropouts for single-speed.

>>1037746
what type of paranoid consumerist hell do you live in?
marketing isn't all about tricking you. Sure you have to read between the lines, but the brands that put durability as a priority in frame design are going to tell you that their frames are durable. The ones that don't are going to tell you their frames are light.
not all chromoly frames are made with the same gauge of tubing, which largely effects its durability. Other important aspects is the configuration of the frame shape. Do all tubes meet at points that gives them sound structural advantage and triangulation? Even specs like a 1" head tube over a 1 1/8th. If a manufacturer specs 1", they're doing it for a reason other than strength and they're limiting their selection of tubes that make up the top and down tube.

but you know, if you can't figure this out, don't take my word for it either, it's just marketing.

>>1037752
sure and so would a bianchi volpe or a trek 520, or about 30 other bikes, no? why does the surly get so much attention in this area?
>>1037757
I was asking about the surly vs. other similar bikes on the current market, not surly vs /n/'s favorite memebike. I mean lots of bikes have braze-ons and whatnot. I guess your comment about flat bars is the main thing that stands out. why anyone would buy a new bike meant for conventional gearing and convert it to SS is beyond me, but I'm kind of a SS hater so maybe that's just me

>>1037761
>what type of paranoid consumerist hell do you live in?
a website called 4chan in which memesters mindlessly repeat "some stuff I heard one time". same as you.
>marketing isn't all about tricking you.
I wasn't accusing you of intentionally trying to trick anyone although given how defensive you just got, it makes me wonder

>>1037748
>4-8 mile commute
literally anything with wheels will work
>18 mile commute
same, but you may want bars that offer more than one hand position so you don't get sore

>>1037774
>why would someone run SS
cheaper to build the bike up, less to go wrong
only disadvantage is hills

>about 30 other bikes
yeah, what you need is a general purpose bike with a rack, fenders and flat bars since you prefer them
there are lots of choices, none of them are wrong

>lots of bikes have braze-ons
not so much on cheap bikes now

its all just a question of figuring out what you want and which brand will get you what you want for the least money

>>1037774
yeah, you're paranoid and ignorant as fuck.
if you can't tell why the long haul trucker is better than 520 or a volpe, you clearly didn't look very hard and have a shit opinion.

>>1037883

Upgraded my current bike. we'll see how I get on

>>1037288
Yeah I think ss lht is kinda gimped. Maybe for flatland deliveries but...gears are nice

http://www.hiwheel.com/antique_replicas/gent_roadster.htm

This is just a Taiwanese-made Flying Pigeon with a "steampunk" facade, right?

>>1037928
>if you can't tell why the long haul trucker is better than 520 or a volpe, you clearly didn't look very hard and have a shit opinion.
Not the guy you're reply to, but for starters, the Volpe is a completely different bike than the LHT. The Volpe has shorter chainstays and way less BB drop - clearly a cyclocross-ish bike intended for mixed-surface use. Meanwhile the long chainstays of the LHT will favor a heavy rear load (and help avoid heelstrikes with big panniers), while the deep BB drop will make the bike feel more stable on pavement, abet with less pedal and chainring clearance over obstacles if taken offroad.

The LHT and the Volpe are intended for different uses, and claiming the LHT is just "better" than the Volpe is asine.

On the 520 vs LHT side, I'm scratching my head a bit more. Geo-wise, they're basically the same bike - both deep BB drop, long-chainstay touring bikes. The component spec on the complete bike is nicer on the LHT than the Trek, but it's priced higher to make up for it...

I'd buy the LHT frameset over the complete Trek if I was in the market for a dedicated touring bike (which, spoiler, is not what the OP asked about), but I'm just not seeing why it's so obviously better that it's worth sneering about.

File: main-qimg-59f1acfe85224638f5f2b5017764fc97-c.jpg (75KB, 572x382px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 572x382px

>>1037211
I don't know, maybe some kind of shaft-driven titanium mountain bike with solid tires? I doubt there's anything that fits that description on the market though but that's the thing I can think of when I think of unbreakable.

>>1038040
From what I've seen, the build quality and tolerance control on the surlys is more consistent than the volpes or the 520.

The lht and the volpes are different styles of bike and if you want to consider it that way, the volpe is a mediocre cross bike and the lht is a god tier touring bike. My definition of "better" means a "better" product. To ride some wiser-than-thou subjective guideline is asinine.

The other difference between the lht and the 520 that makes the lht easier to recommend is the variety of sizes it come in. More likely to find a primo fit. And fit is king.

Stay mad surly h8rs

>>1038040
Also 26" tires, faggot

>>1038040
Only thing that bothers me is why Surly just couldn't get themselves to put a kickstand mounting point on the LHT.
imho that's a massive design flaw. I just don't understand how anyone who has done tours with heavy panniers would choose a bike you have to somehow stabilize everytime you put the panniers on.

>>1038408
Stfu nerd.
They explain why they didn't want to add more welding heat and stress into the BB. And with the tight clearances for larger tires, there's less room to do it well.
Touring with a lot for weight isn't good for kickstand legs either. Still just as likely to topple if the weights not distributed correctly. Just lay it down or prop it up on a tree.
On dirt roads and big bumps, a Kickstand will pop out and fuck you.
Plus, now they have an aftermarket plate that does the job, if you really need it.

>>1038033
lol yeah that's just a PA06 with steampunk faggotry all over it

>>1037294
>rod brakes actuation
>100% aero rear brake positioning
Kinda confusing desu.

File: 1472057859058.jpg (9KB, 236x168px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 236x168px

>mfw randomly entering this thread made me buy my first bike in over a decade
>tfw new owner of a classic Dunelt 3-speed

Can't wait to start taking it on cruises on the bike trails in the city.