jorglueke

So what was the first bigger jump in quality you made and for what reason? When you say your rode LBS bikes you mean you got t try out a lot so it was easy to decide what you wanted next?

jorglueke

I will put a test drive on my list. I wonder how far they'll let me go

jorglueke

I don't know why I'm bothering to explain this since you obviously have telepathy.

$1000 is the current cost for an entry level Trek Road bike. Not terribly arbitrary.
Need meaning, for $1000 you are going to get something what won't collapse into a heaping pile of Walmart rubble the first time you hit a pothole. If you're biking regularly that's my cut off for need. After that it;s want. So when people spend more than what they need to have a basic quality ride why do they do it?

That's what I'm curious about.

If you don;t think a thread is legitimate why waste your time being an ass?

jorglueke

jorglueke

The irony escaped you eh?

TimothyH

At a certain point there is a synergy which can't really be quantified by "What do you pay for?"

A mid 60's Jaguar E-Type, a Mustang P51 fighter plane, James Brown gettin' up offa that thing...

I know it when I experience it even if I can't explain it.

Maelochs

Why not an entry-level road bike from BikesDirect? In fact, I am sure you can get nice road bikes for a lot less at a lot of places.

Performance Bikes offers this: Fuji Sportif 2.5 Road Bike - 2017 for $539 and you can actually go to a Performance Bike store and pick it up.

I think the reason people take issue with the post is the tone: the "I paid less so I am wiser, you were all suckered into buying hype and no substance." That is why I asked about how you determine the "needs" of others. Apparently you missed that point.

Maybe you should abandon this thread, and start a new one along the lines of "What added value did you perceive that you received when you bought a more expensive bike?"---maybe something which doesn't in the actual first post tell people they were fools who overspent on stuff they didn't "need."

There have been a lot of threads like this one---(hence the "dead horse" responses) and they all seem to come from people defending spending what they spent and telling everyone who spent more that they bought a bunch of hype and marketing and glitz and crap that they didn't need or which didn't make any difference.

Pretty obviously, that is not the most friendly way to start.

Maybe you could start a new thread explaining what you ride and have ridden, what worked and didn't work, how you decided on what you have now and how well it works for you, and then ask if people who spent more found that what they have preforms better than cheaper stuff they used to own, and if so, how?

When you start off telling other people what they "need" you are already too far off track to salvage the thread ... because obviously, there are many different definitions of "need" and equally obviously, everyone "needs" different things.

That whole "individuality" thing, ya know.

Anyway, you want to call me "Troll" for asking about a huge logical flaw in your post, go ahead. Not sure it helps in any way ... and it sure doesn't clear up that huge logical flaw.

Maybe, Sir, You are being an ass by telling everyone what they “need,” and people are pointing this out to you so you won’t make the same mistake again? Sometimes the kindest thing people can do is criticize.

Seriously ... Reword the question to elicit Exactly the information you want, leave out the moralizing about what others “need,” and start fresh ... maybe you will get more of the kind of answers you want.

Also ... if you post a question, any question, on the Internet and are not prepared for some answers which make you uncomfortable or call into question the thought processes behind the question, maybe the Internet is not a good place for you.

shelbyfv

Getting kind of overwrought there jorg. In your clueless arrogance, you are apparently blind to what everyone is trying to explain to you. Your $1000 "entry level" bike might be someone's grail. Or it more likely for BF, would be considered a bottom feeder BSO. It's all relative. You've clearly stated you don't think anyone needs a bike nicer than your $1000 Trek. You've staked out a position. You would have done better just to have asked what folks like about their nicer bikes instead of implying they have somehow made a stupid choice, EDIT- Maelochs said it all above, better than I could have!

rubiksoval

You should start giving a hoot. And then you should start making a connection. Because the question you're asking is answered by the same general reasoning.

Do you need help with said reasoning? Maybe a detailed illustration would be of assistance?

jorglueke

Thanks to all who responded to the question understanding what I intended which was to hear why other's make the jump from the $1000 price point upwards.

For the rest of you, I don't care what you think I thought or what you think about my post.

shelbyfv

Y'all come back soon

Abu Mahendra

Well, for one you are paying for decreased economies of scale. The fewer units sold due to higher price, the fewer units are made, and therefore the more it costs per unit to manufacture, transport and store.

Heyspike

For me, I worked in a local bike shop through high school. We sold Schwinn, when I left Cannondale came in. From that point onward I always wanted one. I purchased my CAADX Cyclocross bike 2 years ago, and now the Beast of the East last week. I don't go for the top of the line components, I'm a Shimano 105 guy. The more you pay, the lighter & smoother it gets.
At 53 years old, I'm tired of buying junk, Life is short , get what YOU want.

Jiggle

People would get a million times more enjoyment from spending the depreciation value on a new bike that they lost driving a new car off the lot....than from driving a new car off the lot.

Or something like that.

Spend $55k on a new SUV that ain't going to do nothing but fill vanity needs.

Or ride a $6k bike for three years and keep yourself in shape, out of trouble, and full of enjoyment.

12strings

But you can get a giant or Fuji comparable bike with similar components and quality for under $600. Won't fall apart...if you "splurge" for the $1000 trek, we could call it a "want."

12strings

Actually, I ended up giving away my first guitar, a Yamaha acoustic 12 string, to young man in Haiti who really was wanting one.

I now only own 6 string guitars.

jorglueke

We could but then we'd needlessly debating semantics instead of answering the intent of the question.

jorglueke

Yes! But, how do I know what I want with so much choice? Sure I'd love not to have to remember to get my butt out of my seat every time I ride over a crack in the road or sidewalk, can a better bike fix that?

I can ride for hours I just get tired of hills, is an electric boost the way to go?

I don't know exactly, I remain curious on what factors go into people's purchasing decisions.

jorglueke

Then they are a bit hypersensitive no? Maybe the internet is too rough and tumble when a simple question can rile them up. Another approach might be to ask the poster to clarify rather than jamming a whole bunch of assumptions into the thread. Or you could just ignore the whole thread. But no, the wise must lecture...

Seriously, get over yourself.
There's that irony again.

shelbyfv

Why don't you go back through the thread, add up the responses that agree with your initial assertion that none of us need a bike that costs over $1000?

Rider_1

I'm going to make an assumption here that what was meant be "need" is that there seem to be many people who have equipment that is very far beyond what they can benefit from. For example, I met a lady, in 2008 or 2009, who had a $2500 carbon Trek, and she didn't even know how to use the gears, or what they were for. The bike offered so much more than she could comprehend.

jorglueke

Pauley L

This right here is a perfect illustration of folks projecting their own economic situation on others. They can't imagine why anyone would own an SUV for anything other than "vanity needs."

This kind of slow thinking is unfortunately all too prevalent.

For example:

- I already own a number of "high end" bikes that I already get lots of enjoyment from -regardless of what vehicles I own or drive.
- My SUV gets us to great trailheads all across the Western US(more enjoyment right there), tows our boat to great lakes/rivers (more enjoyment right there), and gets us quickly and safely up to ski in the Winter (more enjoyment right there).

Who are you to determine what other peoples' enjoyment should stem from? Heck, many folks don't enjoy riding yet you paint them with the same silly brush.

Furthermore, you need to understand that there are many riders that don't share the economic constraints that you use as your baseline. Depreciation on a mid-range SUV (your $55k example) is simply not an issue for many folks

Wileyrat

Not at all, I'm sure the vast majority of riders on nice bikes can ride just fine with a "lesser" bike, but chose for whatever reason to buy a nicer bike.

I know if I were young and starting out, I wouldn't choose to spend thousands on a c.f. bike, but I'm not, and I chose to buy a bike that I wanted rather than one that just suited my utilitarian needs.

shelbyfv

A slippery slope if we are only permitted to buy a bike we could utilize to the max. Don't think you really want to promote that. Sorry the lady with the Trek offended you so badly you still talk about it 9 years later. Must have been tough!