The indespesensible test ride

A bike that has been worked on but not test-ridden is not worthy of compensation. Sometimes the bike is too big for you to ride comfortably, sometimes it's hot or cold outside, sometimes the bike is a polished turd that you just spent more than an hour transforming into a convincing BSO (bicycle shaped object). It does not matter: if you cannot ride the bike with confidence that it rolls, shifts, and stops, you have no business charging customer for your work.

About a year ago, I applied for a wrenching job at a local bike shop, one that happens to sell a lot of high-end bikes to performance-driven customers. They had me take it outdoors to splash it down with de-greaser and hose it down to make it somewhat "clean." When I pointed out that someone had at some point, before reaching the shop, forced the right pedal into the (left-hand threaded) left crank arm and left it sticking out crooked from that arm, and then apparently stripped out the other arm trying to do the opposite arm with the wrong pedal, they said to due the "tune up" anyways. This bike was DOA, as replacing the cranks and pedals would have cost more than the bike itself. It should never, in my opinion, been left at the shop at all. When I asked how I was supposed to test-ride this bike when it was "done," they looked at me as if I was asking them how to fly it to the Moon.

This shop's mechanics and I were mutually perplexed by one another's perspectives on what constitutes good mechanical work.

I admit that my perspective was an idealistic one: make every bike as close to perfect as possible and charge the customer for only that work that achieves this.

Their perspective appeared to me a more pragmatic one: do the work requested regardless of the outcome, charge the customer for the work done, not necessarily the value received.

This shop was populated by deluded would-be sorcerers. They had no clear protocol for dealing with DOA bikes, no pride in doing good work behind which they can stand, and no sense of propriety regarding results of their work. In other words, they seemed to have no qualms about taking money from people without delivering the goods. They were working on pricey, high-end bicycles using folk wisdom and old wive's tales without knowledge of technical specifications, proper tools, and confidence in their work. Instead, they seemed to be standing in a structure composed of termites holding hands: the "cool" image of the shop as a place where Lycra-clad racers hang out.

Unfortunately, this is the case with a lot of bicycle shops. I cannot say how many, or where they are concentrated, but my experiences have informed me that, at least in some places, a shop does not need to have a well-equipped service area staffed with confident, well-trained mechanics. It only needs to have the appearance of having such a facility. Some of the best mechanics may, in fact, be working in unknown places where they are under-paid and under-utilized, but satisfied in the knowledge that they are doing their customers right.

Tangent/rant over. My point is: every bike needs a test ride. If it does not pass a test ride, the customer should not pay for it until it's done right.