Buying expensive bikes and bike parts.
Discussion
I know expense is all relative to each of us but I see loads of people spending thousands on bikes and components that often look as though they give very little saving in weight etc.
Are some of you actually pro cyclists and 'need' to do this to get each second advantage over the competition or do most of you just like having good kit or enjoy upgrading your bikes with more expensive parts for your rides.
I mean, if some of you with bikes costing say £2,000 plus went out on a £1,000 bike would you be any slower or less able to complete the distance you cover in training or would you simply be less likely to use your bike as you didn't enjoy a cheaper bike as much as it 'wasn't as good' in some way?
I can understand the attraction of having nice looking things I'm just wondering if fellow posters spend a fortune for actual performance they honestly notice or just for the attraction of having something known to be good. Some of you must have spent £££s on a component to replace a perfectly good one that was just slightly heaver and not actually noticed any difference in performance.
Are some of you actually pro cyclists and 'need' to do this to get each second advantage over the competition or do most of you just like having good kit or enjoy upgrading your bikes with more expensive parts for your rides.
I mean, if some of you with bikes costing say £2,000 plus went out on a £1,000 bike would you be any slower or less able to complete the distance you cover in training or would you simply be less likely to use your bike as you didn't enjoy a cheaper bike as much as it 'wasn't as good' in some way?
I can understand the attraction of having nice looking things I'm just wondering if fellow posters spend a fortune for actual performance they honestly notice or just for the attraction of having something known to be good. Some of you must have spent £££s on a component to replace a perfectly good one that was just slightly heaver and not actually noticed any difference in performance.
In the case of specific components then I agree that the saving in weight might offer no noticeable advantage individually, but overall if you can save 1kg on the weight of a bike then I think you'll notice it underneath you.
A couple of months ago I bought a £1500 full-suspension mountain bike and the difference in performance compared to my 20 year-old rigid bike has transformed my enjoyment of mountain biking. I feel like a teenager again.
If you ever get the chance to ride an expensive (lightweight) bike instead of your regular one over a route you know, you should notice a huge difference. It's the pursuit of that pleasure that means that component upgrades can be worth it when considered in total.
A couple of months ago I bought a £1500 full-suspension mountain bike and the difference in performance compared to my 20 year-old rigid bike has transformed my enjoyment of mountain biking. I feel like a teenager again.
If you ever get the chance to ride an expensive (lightweight) bike instead of your regular one over a route you know, you should notice a huge difference. It's the pursuit of that pleasure that means that component upgrades can be worth it when considered in total.
Nobody really NEEDS to spend all that money on a bike, like no one NEEDS a Ferrari when a Fiat 500 will do.
You could call it a marketing win over common sense, or just people who want the best they can afford. The returns get smaller as you get further up the price range, but some people just want the best.
To liken it to cars, if you compare a £10k Fiat 500 with a £100k Ferrari F430, then that to a £190k Scuderia, the £90k jumps don't represent the same amount of jump in performance. The same is true for bikes.
I made up the numbers, but you get the idea.
For the record, I'm currently wanting a £2.5k Cannondale Super Six with Compact Ultegra groupset, so marketing has beaten my common sense into a bucket. I know it won't make me much faster than when I'm on my stead from 2004 that cost £750 then.
You could call it a marketing win over common sense, or just people who want the best they can afford. The returns get smaller as you get further up the price range, but some people just want the best.
To liken it to cars, if you compare a £10k Fiat 500 with a £100k Ferrari F430, then that to a £190k Scuderia, the £90k jumps don't represent the same amount of jump in performance. The same is true for bikes.
I made up the numbers, but you get the idea.
For the record, I'm currently wanting a £2.5k Cannondale Super Six with Compact Ultegra groupset, so marketing has beaten my common sense into a bucket. I know it won't make me much faster than when I'm on my stead from 2004 that cost £750 then.
I have a VERY expensive bike with top of the range kit.
There are a few reasons.
1) upgrading components is very expensive and buying them on the bike is a considerable saving
2) for some bits of kit there just isnt a substitute (XTR shifters, RP23, Hope brakes, UST rims, hope hubs, talas forks etc)
3) For my bike the spec of the top model does make it feel and handle better, shorter stem, weight saving etc. It does handle better, not just kidding myself.
4) durability - ceramic bearings all round, decent brakes and a rugged, well made frame mean it takes a lot of abuse to stop my bike and miss a ride
5) Quality of the ride - a frame that speaks to you, communicates the ride and involves you. It adds to the experience.
VERY importantly,
6) BECAUSE I CAN!
Pistonheads is a car forum so lets use an analagy we should all get. There is a big difference in driving a Kia to driving a Jaguar.
There are a few reasons.
1) upgrading components is very expensive and buying them on the bike is a considerable saving
2) for some bits of kit there just isnt a substitute (XTR shifters, RP23, Hope brakes, UST rims, hope hubs, talas forks etc)
3) For my bike the spec of the top model does make it feel and handle better, shorter stem, weight saving etc. It does handle better, not just kidding myself.
4) durability - ceramic bearings all round, decent brakes and a rugged, well made frame mean it takes a lot of abuse to stop my bike and miss a ride
5) Quality of the ride - a frame that speaks to you, communicates the ride and involves you. It adds to the experience.
VERY importantly,
6) BECAUSE I CAN!
Pistonheads is a car forum so lets use an analagy we should all get. There is a big difference in driving a Kia to driving a Jaguar.
Edited by Gooby on Wednesday 29th September 10:05
itsnotarace said:
It's all down to the engine. Someone who is fast on a 2k bike will still be fast on a 1k bike but they may have to work a bit harder
I'd add a condition to that though: provided the bike's geometry is the same then this is probably true. My bike is a Specialized XC at £1500. My cycling buddy just bought a Specialized Epic for £2k. Although his bike is 1kg lighter (which is noticeable) the geometry is very different and would tire me out quickly. (It's twitchy compared with the more laid-back XC that I like.)AcidReflux said:
If you ever get the chance to ride an expensive (lightweight) bike instead of your regular one over a route you know, you should notice a huge difference. It's the pursuit of that pleasure that means that component upgrades can be worth it when considered in total.
I suppose it depends on how you define a "lightweight" bike and a "regular one". I wonder if most people on here would honestly notice a difference in actual performance between a £1,500 ish road bike and a £3,000 plus bike or is the enjoyment simply in having nice things.I expect the returns diminish hugely on road bikes once you go above £1,500 or so, the weight saving becomes minimal. What I'm asking is could most of you that spend big money on bikes honestly notice the difference or is the enjoyment in thinking you have good kit that might actually give YOU (not some pro cyclist) the same performance as a frame costing a hell of a lot less.
As I said before I understand the attraction in having nice things I'm just wondering if people spend money to get (measurable for them) performance or some other enjoyment from owning expensive bike/chainset/wheels/other component.
Gooby said:
I have a VERY expensive bike with top of the range kit.
There are a few reasons.
1) upgrading components is very expensive and buying them on the bike is a considerable saving
2) for some bits of kit there just isnt a substitute (XTR shifters, RP23, Hope brakes, UST rims, hope hubs, talas forks etc)
3) For my bike the spec of the top model does make it feel and handle better, shorter stem, weight saving etc. It does handle better, not just kidding myself.
4) durability - ceramic bearings all round, decent brakes and a rugged, well made frame mean it takes a lot of abuse to stop my bike and miss a ride
5) Quality of the ride - a frame that speaks to you, communicates the ride and involves you. It adds to the experience.
VERY importantly,
6) BECAUSE I CAN!
Pistonheads is a car forum so lets use an analagy we should all get. There is a big difference in driving a Kia to driving a Jaguar.
So would you honestly be any slower over the same distance on a bike costing 75% or even 50% as much? I'm not being rude, you may be Lance Armstrong.There are a few reasons.
1) upgrading components is very expensive and buying them on the bike is a considerable saving
2) for some bits of kit there just isnt a substitute (XTR shifters, RP23, Hope brakes, UST rims, hope hubs, talas forks etc)
3) For my bike the spec of the top model does make it feel and handle better, shorter stem, weight saving etc. It does handle better, not just kidding myself.
4) durability - ceramic bearings all round, decent brakes and a rugged, well made frame mean it takes a lot of abuse to stop my bike and miss a ride
5) Quality of the ride - a frame that speaks to you, communicates the ride and involves you. It adds to the experience.
VERY importantly,
6) BECAUSE I CAN!
Pistonheads is a car forum so lets use an analagy we should all get. There is a big difference in driving a Kia to driving a Jaguar.
itsnotarace said:
It's all down to the engine. Someone who is fast on a 2k bike will still be fast on a 1k bike but they may have to work a bit harder
If someone who was an average cyclist went out on a £1,500 road bike and then a £3,000 bike with the same geometry over the same distance would they be much faster? I imagine they would notice the difference between a £700 bike and a £1,500 one but less so if at all between a £1,500 one and a £3,000 one.
el stovey said:
If someone who was an average cyclist went out on a £1,500 road bike and then a £3,000 bike with the same geometry over the same distance would they be much faster?
No, as I said above, it's all in the engine (ie the person pedalling). If the person pedalling is in poor fitness then spending 5 grand on a bike isn't going to improve their average speed until they have spent a lot of time in the saddle getting fitter.el stovey said:
I imagine they would notice the difference between a £700 bike and a £1,500 one but less so if at all between a £1,500 one and a £3,000 one.
The difference that they would feel would not necessarily be the weight, but down to the quality of the gearshifts and general componentry, workmanship etcitsnotarace said:
The difference that they would feel would not necessarily be the weight, but down to the quality of the gearshifts and general componentry, workmanship etc
Are the quality of gearshifts really much smoother in properly set up top vs midrange components? I imagined the extra cost was weight saving rather than a noticeable difference in quality of the changing itself.I average nearly 2 mph slower on my winter bike than I do on my summer one.
Both frames have exactly the same dimensions and angles.
Winter one is heavier (steel 531 tubing), and has cheaper, heavier components on it (mix of Suntour and v.old cheapo Shimano Exage or something)
Summer one is steel (653 tubing) and has, largely, Shimano 105 groupo.
To give an idea of relative cost for this 2 sec performance difference:
Winter bike cost around £500 to put together back in 1990. Summer bike cost around £1000 in 1990.
Both frames have exactly the same dimensions and angles.
Winter one is heavier (steel 531 tubing), and has cheaper, heavier components on it (mix of Suntour and v.old cheapo Shimano Exage or something)
Summer one is steel (653 tubing) and has, largely, Shimano 105 groupo.
To give an idea of relative cost for this 2 sec performance difference:
Winter bike cost around £500 to put together back in 1990. Summer bike cost around £1000 in 1990.
el stovey said:
Are the quality of gearshifts really much smoother in properly set up top vs midrange components? I imagined the extra cost was weight saving rather than a noticeable difference in quality of the changing itself.
I couldn't claim this for SRAM or Campag as I haven't tried their top end groupsets but for Shimano, Dura Aces shifts much sweeter than 105. And the brakes are way better.It just depends on your perspective, budget, need for the ultimate badge, car analogy again, many people will use and prefer say a Lotus Elise vs a Porsche Boxster, mainly because in certain circumstances it can be faster and when it is not it's more involving.
So a invariably I can have more fun at a slower speed on my out of a box basic trek HT vs my mates spec built Full Suss Rocky Mountain over the same course.
In the extreme you can understand why people can have an unhealthy obsession with a brakeless fixed gear, steel lugged bike over carbon Di2 equipped mega bike.
The other point I'd raise is that I prefer to upgrade as I wear things out, so I haven't exactly paid through the nose for LX/105 over XTR/Dura Ace, Hope over Avid or Fox over Roxshox when getting the bike new.
The real challenge is to buy a bike with a good enough frame and basic but good enough starting spec at your price point that is;
1 Worth upgrading, and
2 Can take the kind of riding you intend to use it for in the first instance.
So a invariably I can have more fun at a slower speed on my out of a box basic trek HT vs my mates spec built Full Suss Rocky Mountain over the same course.
In the extreme you can understand why people can have an unhealthy obsession with a brakeless fixed gear, steel lugged bike over carbon Di2 equipped mega bike.
The other point I'd raise is that I prefer to upgrade as I wear things out, so I haven't exactly paid through the nose for LX/105 over XTR/Dura Ace, Hope over Avid or Fox over Roxshox when getting the bike new.
The real challenge is to buy a bike with a good enough frame and basic but good enough starting spec at your price point that is;
1 Worth upgrading, and
2 Can take the kind of riding you intend to use it for in the first instance.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 29th September 10:57
el stovey said:
Gooby said:
I have a VERY expensive bike with top of the range kit.
There are a few reasons.
1) upgrading components is very expensive and buying them on the bike is a considerable saving
2) for some bits of kit there just isnt a substitute (XTR shifters, RP23, Hope brakes, UST rims, hope hubs, talas forks etc)
3) For my bike the spec of the top model does make it feel and handle better, shorter stem, weight saving etc. It does handle better, not just kidding myself.
4) durability - ceramic bearings all round, decent brakes and a rugged, well made frame mean it takes a lot of abuse to stop my bike and miss a ride
5) Quality of the ride - a frame that speaks to you, communicates the ride and involves you. It adds to the experience.
VERY importantly,
6) BECAUSE I CAN!
Pistonheads is a car forum so lets use an analagy we should all get. There is a big difference in driving a Kia to driving a Jaguar.
So would you honestly be any slower over the same distance on a bike costing 75% or even 50% as much? I'm not being rude, you may be Lance Armstrong.There are a few reasons.
1) upgrading components is very expensive and buying them on the bike is a considerable saving
2) for some bits of kit there just isnt a substitute (XTR shifters, RP23, Hope brakes, UST rims, hope hubs, talas forks etc)
3) For my bike the spec of the top model does make it feel and handle better, shorter stem, weight saving etc. It does handle better, not just kidding myself.
4) durability - ceramic bearings all round, decent brakes and a rugged, well made frame mean it takes a lot of abuse to stop my bike and miss a ride
5) Quality of the ride - a frame that speaks to you, communicates the ride and involves you. It adds to the experience.
VERY importantly,
6) BECAUSE I CAN!
Pistonheads is a car forum so lets use an analagy we should all get. There is a big difference in driving a Kia to driving a Jaguar.
My best buddy has the same bike as me, just £1.5k cheaper. It is heavier, it is slower and over distance harder work. BUT I suppose that if I had a bike of lesser kit quality and value, I would get used to it and develop strength, skill and stamina to go just as fast. Part of riding is developing consistency, quality kit generally behaves in a consistent manner and supports better riding.
My MTB probably isn't expensive compared to some (~£2000 Stiffee custom build) but for me it was most definitely a want over a need. I just wanted something a bit rare, special, with all the right kit on it. The fork cost nearly a much as my whole previous bike! (RS Revelation Team w/ Maxle for those that care). I didn't buy it to improve my performance or for it to be the most technically accomplished bike, I just wanted something that could do any type of riding (within reason), be fun, robust and reliable and wouldn't leave me wanting. Buying something lower spec and then upgrading it is always more expensive anyway.
Edited by mackie1 on Wednesday 29th September 11:22
I guess I don't need to say you're very much in the realms of diminishing returns and you can buy performance, but not ability. (But I will anyway).
I’ve got (I think) a sensible approach to ‘bike bling’ for example I’d buy X9 shifters and derailers because they feel nice to use. Would I buy an XTR chainset? Nope, I’m sure they’re lovely and lighter than the SLX one I’ve got, but unless there’s the mother of all sales on I’ll never know.
Do I think the few grams saving or the slightly shappier shift that the X9 gives me over the X7 or the slower shift and extra weight of the SLX will make a meaningful amount of difference to performance? Not on your Nelly. Mostly because I simply refuse to ride against the clock anymore.
I find the middle range of most things is about the best place to be.
Actually I’m eyeing up a new bike now, I’m joining the herd and getting a Spicy (I think) the 216 is too basic for me, I don’t like the forks much and some of the other stuff. The 516 is really nice, but it’s a grand more than the 316 which is about right. I’ll but my current wheels on it and upgrade the shifter to XT (from deore – If I can live with Shimano).
Not sure about our Roadriding members, but MTB is 50% confidence, nothing like a bit of bling to get the juices going.
A word of warning for you us magpies. When I build my Shocker I went to town on the kit, came in at about £5k and that was in '08 before the world went mad. Best bit, Marz 888 RC3 WC forks. They're sooo sexy. Of course I know and understand sag and rebound, but the rest is a bit of a mystery. I'm sure I paid a high premium to have forks that don't work as well as the basic ones because I've set them up wrong.
I’ve got (I think) a sensible approach to ‘bike bling’ for example I’d buy X9 shifters and derailers because they feel nice to use. Would I buy an XTR chainset? Nope, I’m sure they’re lovely and lighter than the SLX one I’ve got, but unless there’s the mother of all sales on I’ll never know.
Do I think the few grams saving or the slightly shappier shift that the X9 gives me over the X7 or the slower shift and extra weight of the SLX will make a meaningful amount of difference to performance? Not on your Nelly. Mostly because I simply refuse to ride against the clock anymore.
I find the middle range of most things is about the best place to be.
Actually I’m eyeing up a new bike now, I’m joining the herd and getting a Spicy (I think) the 216 is too basic for me, I don’t like the forks much and some of the other stuff. The 516 is really nice, but it’s a grand more than the 316 which is about right. I’ll but my current wheels on it and upgrade the shifter to XT (from deore – If I can live with Shimano).
Not sure about our Roadriding members, but MTB is 50% confidence, nothing like a bit of bling to get the juices going.
A word of warning for you us magpies. When I build my Shocker I went to town on the kit, came in at about £5k and that was in '08 before the world went mad. Best bit, Marz 888 RC3 WC forks. They're sooo sexy. Of course I know and understand sag and rebound, but the rest is a bit of a mystery. I'm sure I paid a high premium to have forks that don't work as well as the basic ones because I've set them up wrong.
Edited by P-Jay on Wednesday 29th September 11:34
el stovey said:
Gooby said:
My best buddy has the same bike as me, just £1.5k cheaper. It is heavier, it is slower and over distance harder work.
You've actually ridden both bikes over the same distance and were measurably slower in the cheaper one? Even if he only "thinks it does" he justified it to himself, he doesn't need to justify it to anyone else.
I'm quite happy for people to spend whatever they want on their bikes without judging them, in many cases I think that looks nice, should be a cracking ride over a or b, however I don't have such a low opinion of what I personally can afford or get away with to put other peoples choices down.
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff