Originally Posted by
HandsomeRyan
To me it isn't any one component or even a mix of components that make a bike more or less fun, it is the type of riding. Maybe it's because I'm not a racer and generally enjoy a moderate length rides at what most would consider a slow pace that having 'performace' bikes means less to me than it does to most. I think if I won a $5,000 race bike tomorrow it would be wasted on me because I'd still rather be lollygagging along the local MUP on it rather than training to race with Lance in the next TdF.
I completely agree! I would much rather be riding a bike I enjoy, even if it is one like my Raleigh Superbe that has a value of ~$300.
Originally Posted by
StanSeven
It depends on what you mean by enjoyment and what you want out of a bike. Todays bikes clearly out perform older bikes. But technology and prgress comes with a price tag. A modern CF bike with aero wheels and 10 or 11 speed group rides quicker and handles better than a 30 year old steel frame with a 5 speed freewheel. But if you like the feel of something that old, then you get enjoyment out of it. So if speed and handling are important, yes cost is the price of enjoyment.
I am willing to bet that my 38 year old "All Steel Bicycle" Raleigh will still be around and being ridden long after a very large number of the $$$ wonder bikes have bit the dust. Increased cost does not necessarily mean durability. I rode steel road frames for years with things like Suntour Superbe Pro equipment, it was a good compromise between cost and performance. Unless you are a top shelf professional racer the biggest gains are made in the engine rather than the components. However if someone wants to spend $5,000 on a bike that is their choice, you could probably cover most of my collection of 25+ bikes for that dollar amount.
Aaron
