Originally Posted by
zymphad
Exactly this was my thought. While a rider like me doesn't need or take advantage all a 5,000+ frame can offer, there is no denying that there is more to offer. Better carbon layup, better carbon, design, more aero, better cable, overall accessory integrations, etc etc.
The bike you get for $3,000 more is "better" but the actual real-world benefit is
very small.
A lot of the difference is marketing.
Originally Posted by
zymphad
Helmets, considering they have one purpose, protection, the cheapest helmets in US, EU and AU still have to abide by the stringest regulations, still have to guarantee high level of protection.
??? No, they have to provide a standard level of protection (it's not at all clear that that standard is especially "high").
Originally Posted by
zymphad
The value of these helmets seem largely based on marketing to me.
I hate to break it to you: the value of expensive things is almost always "largely based on marketing".
Originally Posted by
zymphad
And anecdotes like this continue to confuse me why $400 helmets are sought after if they don't perform any better. With other cycling gear, I don't need to buy or try to understand the value they have. While I think the name and their ads are moronic, Assos, I can understand where pricetag is coming from. I can't see it from $400 helmets, they aren't using special materials that a $40 bell isn't.
Who says they are "sought after"? Even "avid" cyclists don't tend to spend $400 on a helmet. Spending $400 on a helmet is (likely)
unusual.