Originally Posted by
AdelaaR
Ken, it was I and not qmsdc15 who claimed that 2K for a bike is too much.
My bike is pretty "special" ... it has components of the shimano classes XT, 105 and ultegra mixed together and it cost me about $950.
For amateur riders, there simply is no reason to go higher in price as the difference in riding will be next to nothing.
People are free to do what they want to do of course, so if an individual wants to pay $5500 for a full dura ace "eddy merckx" full carbon bike and then go drive with it on sundays at an average speed of 13mph ... then that is their good right.
But don't you feel that is a waste of a good bike?
Don't you perceive that as "decadent"?
I do.
I actually feel sorry for such a bike.
Originally Posted by
qmsdc15
Fail
If you can afford a car, you don't need a bike at all, much less a $2000 one.
The question is why would anyone need such an expensive bike. Why not isn't the correct answer. Try again.
I don't know which one of you was first but you both said it. I merely pointed out that no one needs a bicycle at all and I did not realize that I was opening Pandora's box by doing so. In terms of your argument I actually agree that a $2k bike does not really give one $1k of benefit over a $1k bike while in my opinion a $1k bike does give reasonably close to $500 improvement over a $500 bike. It always depends on what you perceive as an improvement and on what value you place on a given improvement. Your arguments are largely based on quantifiable performance benefits and that is the type of argument I normally subscribe to as well. However purchase decisions are driven by many other factors for people who are not race or performance driven. Those factors cannot be quantified and in many cases cannot even be expressed adequately. So it it really impossible to say that the desire to own an expensive bicycle is misplaced. The people who buy expensive bicycles have their reasons and for them they are valid. I don't consider any price for a bicycle that is actually used and treasured by its owner to be decedent. To me decedent would be buying an uber-expensive bicycle which you never ride just to impress the people who see it on display in your living room. If you buy the bike and then proceed to wear it out on the roads and trails then it was not decedent to buy it, no matter how much you paid. If there is a $4k bike that you just love, will use, and can afford, then buy it. If there is a $200 bike you love but buying it would mean asking your family to go hungry for a couple of weeks, don't buy it, look for a $10 bike in a garage sale instead.
If Mr 13 MPH really uses his full-on race bike and enjoys it, if he feels God's pleasure when he rides it, then he has made an excellent choice. No bike could ask for a better owner than him. Perversely a professional racer would appreciate that bike's performance more and make better use of it but he would not love it as much, he would pitch it in the bin the instant something 10 grams lighter came along.
Ken