Lucillle

The New York Times Wirecutter mentioned bicycles today in their article saying that the most expensive items are not always the best. Here is what they wrote about bicycles:

And our cyclists on staff caution that almost everybody is likely to do just as well with a midrange bike as with something lightweight and top-of-the-line that boasts expensive components such as carbon-fiber wheels since higher-end bikes are designed for speed rather than durability. “Modern components like gear shifters, brakes, derailleurs, and hubs are all solid, and the high-end stuff is not functionally much better than midrange,” says senior staff writer and cyclist Tim Heffernan. You’ll still have to keep buying the parts that degrade over time, and high-end bikes are magnets for thieves.

“And as a general word on buying bikes right now, the pandemic boom is over, and many suppliers overshot on inventory, so deals can be found, both new old stock in bike stores and on the used market,” Tim adds. “Stores need to dump stock, and lots of people who bought a new bike during the pandemic have given up the hobby.”"

indyfabz

smd4

I think in general, including with bikes, you get what you pay for. I agree that "mid-range" stuff is fine. I don't think you can go wrong with 105 v. Dura Ace.

Iride01 

"Best" doesn't seem to be defined here. Best in what way? Obviously the most expensive bikes aren't the best bikes for a low budget. And if best includes more than one criteria, then as with most things, there's a bell curve where you have lousy on one side and marginal gains on the other.

CrimsonEclipse

All things engineering are compromise.

and "better" is subjective.

queue 100 pages of the same tired arguments

wheelreason

Lies! all lies! you absolutelly CAN buy speed, now let me show you this bike, and why it's a bargain at $16k...

ScottCommutes

A house with tens of thousands of dollars of custom trim isn't the best choice if you are moving in with seven little kids. An electric pickup truck with all the bells and whistles isn't the best choice to take into the wilderness. A high performance jet plane isn't the best choice for a novice pilot. The most expensive choice isn't necessarily the right choice for a certain individual, but it might be the right choice for someone else.

I find nothing to disagree with in the quote from the article.

ScottCommutes

By the way, not being a learned type, I read "NYT Wirecutter" and assumed it was a tool.

_ForceD_

I will certainly concur that the most expensive item isn’t always the best. It really comes down to what you’re doing with the bike, or component/gear. Unless you’re looking to just spend money unnecessarily, a bicycle used to run errands around town doesn’t need to be CF, and have top-of-the-line components. Obviously a bike used for racing is different. And of course I’ve encountered cyclists who insist “I have a certain reputation to uphold so my errand bike has to be top of the line.” If that’s you, and it’s how you want to spend your money…that’s your prerogative. In regard to apparel and other bike-related gear…I try to think outside the bicycling box. Some of my best cycling gear isn’t produced by the usual bicycling-related manufacturers, nor was it even intended to be used for cycling. But it works well for my purposes. Conversely, I’ve purchase high-end, name brand cycling gear that promised ‘this or that’ and didn’t come close to doing what it was supposed to do. — Dan

icemilkcoffee 

For road bikes there are 4 key technologies that came along in the last dozen years: Tubeless tires, hydraulic disc brakes, power meters and electronic shifting. If your new bike has all of these 4 things, you are golden. With that in mind I think the new 105 Di2 groupset would be a good stopping point for 'good enough'. Above this level I consider 'nice to have' but non-essential. Below this level you are not getting the full benefits of the latest technologies.

veganbikes

No thanks, don't need the NYT or their wirecutter to tell me what is good or bad, they rate bikes with tourney as good and their locks were all from Kryptonite. I trust them about as much as I trust a broken ladder.

Kapusta

The quoted part of the article is very good advice for people who are looking to Wire Cutter for what bike to get.

As a general rule, if you don’t already know why a high end bike might be better than a midrange one, you are probably wasting your money buying it.

Full disclosure: I ride midrange Road and Fat bikes and a high end FS MTB.

Rick_D

Heh. "I asked around the office" is kind of a tell.

The judges would also accept "My colleagues, in a rare consensus, assert the Garmin Forerunner keeps more accurate time than a Patek Philippe."

Lamont Cobb

The only publication for bicycles that I trust is Bicycling! magazine. The NY Times often has a hidden agenda. Just sayin'.

Steel Charlie

Absolutely ! ! For decades Bicycling! has been the fount of truth, justice, and the American Way ! ! !

ofajen

This has been my preferred wirecutter (cables and housings, too) since I got it over forty years ago. Unfortunately, the manufacturer has long since abandoned operations. There does seem to be at least one domestic manufacturer of quality fence pliers still operating in the state of Texas.




Otto

mpetry912 

one should review the concept of "marginal diminishing returns" in which 50% more spend gets you 5% more functionality.

in the shimano line, the difference between the DA item and the comparable Ultegra is (mostly) cosmetic. Mostly.

but at the low end the difference is larger because you're further down the spend vs benefit curve.

it is hard to believe how crappy a $500 ebike can be, at least in my view. An unrepairable.

Remember Wirecutter's staff evaluate bikes the same way they evaluate toasters. they are not enthusiasts.

/markp

mpetry912 

The Garmin does keep better time than a Patek, as long as the satellites are in view.

my Garmin Fenix watch will drift a minute or so out sync with the official time if I don't put it in GPS mode every couple of weeks.

just sayin

/markp

Trakhak

They're telling people that they don't need to spend as much on a bike as Bicycling! magazine often hints that they should. Would you mind explaining what the NYT's hidden agenda might be here? Just askin'.

mpetry912 

It's because they evaluate bikes in the same way they evaluate toasters. They are not enthusiasts.

/markp

Kapusta

Neither are 99% of the people who will be looking to them for bike buying advice.

And for those people the advice quoted (stick with midrange) is spot on.

Camilo

It's fun being able to afford and enjoy top of the line stuff - as long as it fits.

Camilo

None are needed to have a top performing and/or really enjoyable fast bike.

Trakhak

You might be thinking of Consumer Reports. The NYT article refers to "our cyclists on staff." Contra your offhand guess, The NYT staffers cited likely fit the cycling enthusiast profile, probably skewing upmarket in bikes and equipment.

blacknbluebikes 

They know their audience, and that's a good thing. They wouldn't recommomend a Ferrari to a Soccer Mom, and that makes sense. Does anyone need a Ferrari? Yeah. Me.