Originally Posted by Bob Ross
She had gotten it into her mind that a new bike ought to cost $1500. The way she arrived at that dollar amount was because 10 years ago she got a really nice bike for $800, and six months ago her friend got a really nice bike for $1200. Therefore, "really nice bikes" must cost less than $1500, and anything in the $3000 neighborhood must be a "really insanely overkill much-too-good-for-you bike".
So here's my question: What differences (if any) can I expect to notice when comparing a $1500 bike to a $3000 bike?
Say, within the Cannondale line (or Specialized, or Bianchi...) what tangible, palpable differences will stepping up from a $1500 model to their $2400-3000 model offer?
Thanks.
$1500 used to be my threshold as well until I found Bike Forums. Now I don't see anything out of the ordinary to my recent purchase ($2200) of a Cinelli/Campy bike. Why? I think I've gone native. There seems to be a normalization of that sort of thing here. For example, you buy a new or used bike and more often than not you think you need to upgrade. You buy one bike and immediately feel the need to purchase another different bike so you have all of your riding needs taken care of. You LUST after handcrafted framesets and map out all of the possible ways you can spec it until you realize that, yes, you do need that retirement account.
Keeping things in perspective certainly helps. Will I go faster or be more efficient on my Cinelli? Possibly. It's about 2 pounds lighter than my Rivendell and it should be easier to throw around. Will I be as comfortable on it? Maybe. The tires are slightly thinner at 28c, the seat tube angle is more upright, the chainstays are shorter, and the wheelbase is shorter but those are the qualities I looking for in the bike that replaced the Romulus.
I think the biggest differences you'll see comparing a $1500 to a $3000 is that the $3000 will have higher level (but not much) components and a nicer frameset or frame materials. That and lighter weight.