For a "real" bike (the kind you buy for $500 US or more from a shop that basically just does bikes, or buy used): yes

For a "department store" bike aka "bicycle shaped object" (the kind you buy for $100-$300 from Walmart, Sears, Costco or another store that doesn't actually have anybody that knows how to properly assemble a bike): no.

Those department store bikes are estimated to average something like 75 miles of use in their lifetime (showroom floor to landfill) and are generally not made to be very serviceable.

So if we assume that a $60 cardboard bike is intended to compete with $100 disposable bikes, it's probably still a good step forwards.

In 2005 I bought a 5-year-old used Huffy beach cruiser for $18. The new model of the same bike was about $120. For two years, I used that bike as a commuter and averaged about 40 miles per week on it during good weather; I was living in Chicago at the time, so let's call it 20-weeks of biking, or 800 miles.

After that two years, I still used it as a backup and regularly lent it out to friends; easily 400 miles per year for the next four years. I never upgraded a single component, other than change the tires once and inner tubes as needed. I never changed or oiled the chain; I purposefully did not maintain the bike so I could find out when it would self-destruct. For the past three years, I had been storing the bike outside and uncovered (during Chicago winters). Once spring rolled around, I would just hop on and grind through the rust.

The only reason I stopped riding the bike was because last year both wheels were stolen.

IMO 500+$ bikes are far more about fun/ego than transportation. A cheap bike that let's you comfortably travel 3 miles and not really care if there stolen is worth a lot. A bike that weighs 10lb's less but is more likely to be stolen and costs 2-3 times as much is far less useful.

Even for short distances, a better device is more pleasant to use. Not sweating is worth a lot if you can't shower at your destination.

And what if you want to travel 10 miles? Or 50? Carry more cargo, climb steeper hills? I think you should adopt this moderate position from a competing industry: "your mileage may vary."

> a better device is more pleasant to use.

A cardboard bike is probably not great. Bt getting people on bikes is important. If they have an okay experience on a lousy $10 cardboard bike then there's a chance that they go on a buy a bike and use it.

And, like everything else, there's a lot of nonsense spoken about bikes.

Most people do not need carbon fibre frames and titanium widgets etc.

That's assuming it's still there when you want to use it. A well maintained cheap bike might take 5% more effort to use, but being able to use it in more places IMO is worth more than being slightly less tired when you get there.

I bought my commuter bike for about $550 new. I've had it for 6 years and commuted daily on it along with other 30-40 mile rides on it as transportation (not recreation). The only parts I've had to replace are the tires, brakes and chain which are normal wear parts. I ride in the winter as well, and had I gotten a cheap bike instead I would have spent more money replacing bikes, and it would be a slower and less enjoyable ride.

I do live in an area where a single U-lock is enough theft deterrent, which removes the theft concern for me. Without the theft concern I now have a bike that lets me go farther, carry more and lasts longer than cheap bike. That seems like it's a whole lot more useful to me.

I agree that it's a somewhat arbitrary line and limiting yourself to 100$ bikes is probably overkill for most people on HN. However, I would be shocked if the extra 60$ over a great 490$ bike really made that much of a difference in terms of utility. Still, averaged over 6 years it's not really worth worrying about, but you don't get to guess how long you will use the bike ahead of time.

I have a "department store" bike from about 13 years ago, purchased as a birthday gift when I was young. I'm sure it was less than $300. I probably rode it around 1400 miles in the past year, and I've been riding it heavily for the past ten years or so (my high school was about 5 miles away).

Whatever the intent of the manufacturer, I'm convinced that a metal "bicycle shaped object" will get you pretty far if you want. I find it serviceable enough despite its rough origin. The brake levers, derailleurs, frame, and front wheel are all original, but everything else has been replaced.

I doubt much of it would end up in a landfill, metal recycling is far too profitable for that kind of outcome.

I agree that it's a step backwards. My current bike is over 50 years old and I got it for $100. Performance is not top notch but better than a new big box store bike for 3 times its price. I would estimate that it has seen at least 5-6 previous owners.

Or, you know, I could have bought a cardboard bike.

I feel like while this is a fun project, some people need to sit back and take a big picture view before spending years to develop a product only to realize that you've been bested by the tech of 60 years ago.

Agreed.

I still think there's a lot of room for improvement in modern bikeshare paradigms. The most common time I tell myself 'man, I wish I had a bike' is when I want to get to a convenience store/lunch spot one-three miles away, where walking isn't really feasible but driving seems exorbitant.

I wish there was a system where I could pay fifty cents at a bike station and get the use of a bike for an hour, or something similar. That's my ideal system.

They have it in Boston and many other cities for $80 a year. Stations set up all over the city.

I absolutely love these - they are just "there" without ever having to invest any time or money in maintenance. Almost the perfect no-brainer transportation alternative.

There is a system like that in Tel Aviv. Interestingly, the #1 criticism of it is that the system doesn't recognize correctly if there are or aren't available bikes at the station. A software/hardware bug.

The original system like this started in Copenhagen, and doesn't cost anything - when you return the bike to the special rack, you get your 20Kr piece back.

Lots of other cities around the world have bike sharing programs now. The more fancy ones have a smartcard system that you charge up and it deducts money for usage.

Yes, as a lifetime cyclist I find it quite annoying that people now assume I'm riding my bike to make some sort of statement. I'm riding my bike because I like doing it and always have.

My answer to your last question is that it depends heavily on the expected mileage/lifetime one gets out of one. Surely they're not single-use, but they're also probably won't last multiple decades.

"Fun" is another big use, but I don't think that's the market he's going for.

Being made of cardboard, I don't think the disposable part is so bad. Cardboard is easily recycled, and, if not recycled, biodegradable. And the trees used to make the original cardboard are a renewable resource. That still leaves the non-cardboard components, but they're a small part of the overall bike.

The same applies to paper plates.

I think the difference arises that once you factor in the energy it takes to make a cheap product repeatedly (then collect it and recycle it) vs the energy it takes to make a quality product only once.