livedarklions

I recognize that those words are in English, but I don't speak the HiFi dialect.

AlgarveCycling

This subject is very subjective...

A $500 bike will be utter rubbish to anyone wanting to race at a high level. However, it will serve adequately to allow someone to decide if cycling on a more competitive level is for them or not. A $1500 bike is pretty good these days and would be great for the vast majority of cyclists in terms of quality vs cost. A $5000 bike, apart from niceties such as electronics and slightly better quality, may be a little lighter where it matters most to shave a few seconds off a time trial - that could mean the difference between 1st and 4th place for someone who races against riders of very close ability.

It's very marginal gains after $1500-$2000 so you pay more because those small gains will actually make a difference for you or you have the cash and simply want the best you can afford in terms of quality/weight/technology - you need no further justification than that.

For the recreational/social cyclist who likes to join the Club rides on a Sunday and even partake in the odd Sportive or race and who doesn't want to spend all their disposable income on a bike, the good news is that those marginal gains will mean nothing to them and are therefore not worth paying for and the quality of a $1500 bike is such that, well maintained, it will last a long time.

$500? I have just that value bike at my apartment in Amsterdam. It's great for popping down to the shops, commuting and not worrying too much about it getting stolen. It is a very serviceable bike for getting from A to B where B is not that far away. It can be great to ride around the canals with en-route to a place to eat and drink on a weekend. It can also serve as a means to get fit. What it would not serve well as is a bike to race. It is just not that comfortable for longer distances, it is just not as precise as it needs to be, it is heavy and it is a chore to ride quickly, sapping watts where a $1500 bike wouldn't.

I've owned cheap bikes - still do - and expensive bikes. My 5.8kg Wilier with Sram Red etap is a Pro level climbing bike, with a price tag to match. Is it worth more to me than a $1500 bike? Yes, that 5.8kg vs 7.0kg or more is a tangible advantage on steep gradients and I live in a very lumpy region. My Trek Madone SLR is 8.5kg...I've taken it up steep climbs, it can do it ok but doesn't feel anywhere near as sprightly as my Wilier however, for sprinting and chasing seconds on the flats it makes a quantifiable difference to me. My 29er MTB is high end, carbon, XTR weighs only 9.2kg for dual suspension...again, I feel the difference in general nimbleness and speed over my previous bike that was $4000 less to buy. But I'm chasing those finer margins. If I wasn't, these bikes would not make as much sense as they do now to me apart from just wanting them regardless of any actual benefit in performance due to my personal ability or riding preferences.

In summary, the vast majority of my Amsterdam friends do not need nor desire anything more than the +/-$500 bikes that they already have. Equally, however, my friends who cover many more miles on any given ride would not want a $500 bike for that purpose and those that chase those finer time margins, generally, seek to gain advantages via technology as much as personal strength and fitness.

CAT7RDR

My first bike after 25 years away from cycling was a $600 Trek 29'er. I had to upgrade the drive train to Deore level before I found the bike safe and serviceable to ride. For me that boosted the cost of the bike to over $1,000. $1500 seems reasonable to purchase a new road bike that will not be a problem soon due to cheap/failed parts.

Rides4Beer

Flip the argument, a better bike with better components is more efficient, which can translate to speed, but on the flip side can translate to being able to ride a longer distance for the same effort at whatever he considers to be a safe/reasonable speed. So he gets to enjoy more scenery on an expensive bike while outputting the same effort.

But I do think that once you get to a certain level of bike, prob around 105 component level, gains past that are pretty minimal for most people. After that, you're just spending the money because you can and want to (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Cyclist0108

The basic idea is that instead of having one stereo amp, you can flip a switch and have one mono amp, and you get more than double the power. So you can get two, one for each stereo channel. You get much less cross-talk between the two channels (better separation) because they are physically independent entities. Also greater signal to noise. Basically, it is a better way of doing stereo, and great if you have inefficient speakers, as you can deliver more power (which, counter-intuitively, has the benefit of making it sound better at lower volume).

GlennR

My son got into triathlons at age 14. At 15 he purchased a Specialized Allez for $800 and only replaced it when he was 18 and working at a local bike shop and purchased a Cervelo P2... which is still has at age 30.

He regularly won his age group and at 17 won a Sprint Triathlon outright on that bike. He raced Olympic distance and also raced Crits. He commented that he was faster than many that had multi thousand bikes. He made the Long Island team for the Empire States Games and his team won Bronze.

It is 100% the "motor", but the bike sure does help. It also has to do with your dedication and disposable income. I bet there's a number of $5000+ bikes that are sitting in a garage and never ridden. But there are more $500 bikes being ridden alot. The LBS by me is full of repairs. And the manager knows that when Covid is over many will be put away. But there will be a number of people that will buy new bikes when available since they found they enjoy cycling and want to invest in their new hobby.

Here's my thinking on the price of bikes, it has to do with cost per mile. My rather expensive bike has a cost per mile of under 50¢. And that includes accessories and replacement parts like tires and tubes.

-----------------------------------------------------

Let me add that the bike my son had before he got the Allez he still owns. He put a child seat on the back and now takes my 3 year old granddaughter on rides to the beach which is 17 miles both ways.

So a $500 bike can last a long time.

rydabent

And the Kia probably will be more reliable. And sure will cost less to maintain.

rydabent

Actually the $500 bike might last a lot longer. If the plastic $5000 bike falls over on something sharp, it will get a hole in the frame and be worthless.

rydabent

In the real world, which would you rather lose when you teenage daughter backs out of the garage and runs over your bike?

Tacoenthusiast

If you leave your bike laying in the driveway you probably don't care much if it gets run over or not

AlgarveCycling

I hear you, and take your points. I've been there, like your son, we all started somewhere and those with a natural advantage will be able to use that to beat those with more expensive kit. At 14, 15, 16 I was racing BMX on very average bikes. At 18 I started road, my first bike, a 531P steel-tubed bike with Tiagra (if I recall correctly) parts was the equivalent to today's $500 machine. It got me into road racing, club rides and I won my first Junior races on it. I am a natural sprinter, I won races at athletics and on a bike it was the same. Good genetics. I upgraded the bike over time, came 2nd at Regionals, 8th at Nationals and only had my first 'really nice' new bike at 27. We work with what we can afford. I still look back at my $500 initial bike as a load of crap though compared to the advantages I realised with nicer upgrades and better bikes.

Technology does give a distinct advantage. If you are significantly stronger, faster than your competition, then sure, you can 'get away' with a lesser machine and still win. Put an Elite cyclist on a $500 bike and expect him to win a major Classic where the margins in ability are much closer and the weaker riders will win. It is simply a fact that some bikes will make you faster than others.

Let's take me against the clock. My Wilier has helped me to over 70 KOM's since last August. In addition, a number I have been close to but just couldn't quite get there despite many repeated efforts in all conditions. My Trek Madone, a heavier, but far more aero and much better sprinting machine has already helped me get two of those 'impossible' KOM's this week. The bike does make a difference. Yes, the engine provides the power and 80-85% of the speed...the bike provides the rest. If you are climbing, a significantly lighter bike will give you a faster time. If doing a time trial or sprinting, an aero bike will make a difference.
Like me, your son is faster on a light, aero bike than he is on a heavier, less aero machine. Of course, like your son, I simply couldn't get to the tech I am now able to when I was much younger. We would both have been even faster with today's top end bikes. The fact we still did well is testament to our natural ability but that doesn't mean we can't benefit more from a $1500 over a $500 one.

Also, we are talking new $500 vs new $1500 or more as I understand it, not what absolute steal we can get on the second-hand market from some old biddy selling an unused $2500 bike for $500...

Tacoenthusiast

How would your wilier compare to the madone if you were riding to trader joes to buy some hotdogs?

AlgarveCycling

Stuff all difference unless there was a KOM I wanted on the way and if it was a steep hill or a short sprint...

I'd take my $500 bike. Or my MTB. On a boat or plane, because I'd have to cross the ocean first to get to a Trader Joes.

GlennR

I would of thought you'd say TACOs.
Bikes are like tools, no one does everything, just like I have (4) torque wrenches and a half dozen different hammers.

Here's my wife's $500 ($565) bike. It fits her riding needs. I can't ride with her on my Emonda due to her under 7mph pace. If I had a garage sale bike with flat pedals, I would go with her. But there are none to be found.

livedarklions

My son nags me because I won't spend more than $20 on a pair of headphones.

Cyclist0108

Garages are for bikes, not cars.

GlennR

Get Bose QC35... noise canceling.

Paul Barnard

Appeal to him on his terms. He obviously can discern the difference between $500 audio components and $5000 components. Tell him it's like that with bicycles. There is likely a similar kind of diminishing returns as well. For example a $1000 bike will likely be twice as good as a $500 bike. The differences will be palpable. But the higher in price point you go the less the differences will be apparent.

livedarklions

So far, my son is not winning the argument. I like noise.

Cyclist0108

In fairness, I think this was implicitly what he was saying to me.

livedarklions

Better yet, blindfold test him on different kinds of wire.

Cyclist0108

Or on different bikes.

There is a fairly famous story about a double-blind test in which multi-thousand-dollar wire is replaced with a length of coat hanger. No audible difference when you cannot see what is happening.

livedarklions

The most recent iteration.

indyfabz

Like many, many people, my real world has never included a daughter or a garage (your limited view of how people live is shockingly limited, but if it did....

I would rather lose my $500 bike than my $5K bike. That seems like a no-brainer, but maybe you see it differently. Any other questions?

05 fuji

[QUOTE=wgscott;21548056]So I got asked the following in an email from a non-cyclist friend today:



My diplomacy skills fail me. (This guy is spending > $5K on recreational audio equipment, so the issue isn't a restricted budget.)[/QUOTE

He is your friend...what did YOU tell him?