I'm sure I will get a wide range of opinions, but I just had to ask.

Looking at the wide range of prices in running gear, in just the Shimano line, what is actually BETTER about the low end and as you climb all the way up ? I mean, what IS the difference between a Alivio and a Deore and a XT or what ever comes next ? They all basically do the same thing. Is it just the build quality and materials ? Is it smoothness ? Is is speed ?

Quality, materials, mechanics may be different, durability(to an extent).

From my point of view, in economic terms there's definately a law of diminshing returns when it comes to some bicycle components. In other words, as you go up the product line, you're getting less for your money. Some bikers are willing to pay extra for top-of-the line components, in order to save those last precious grams, or have a slightly smoother shifting derailleur. Component manufacturers definately profit more from these guys, and in turn, motivates them to make innovative products.

Then you have the bling factor. It's no coincidence that the best components, also LOOK the best

That being said, I'm having a hard time justifying upgrading my Deore components on my hardtail. It shifts so damn well, which reminds me of the old saying. If it ain't broke........

Wrinklefree,

I guess, as a newbee and with CostCo bike bolted in a trainer, my specific question, that spawned this more general thread is...what is in the Deore line that is much better than those below it ? In the $500 and under price range, the gear seems to be a jumble of Alivio, and Acera and Deore parts. What is in the mix changes as the price goes up. NONE of the manufacturers seem to have an all Alivio or Acera or Deore bike in that product line. If I have a bike with a Alivio, Deore, Alivio mix, is it fundementally better than one with a Acera, Deore, Alivio combo ? If they were all one model on each bike as the price went up, it would be easier. With this mixing of parts, I wonder if the gear is no better than it's cheapest link.

Well, what the front derraileur is probably doesn't matter as much as what the rear is. And the shifters probably make a pretty big difference too, at least for ergonomics and looks.

When it comes to drive train I always buy midline. Cheaping out sacrifices quality and weight, spending to much sacrifices money for negligable (in how I ride anyways) differences in quality/weight. I stick to LX/XT range depending on sales, but either way I only buy sram now. so x.7 ALL THE WAY

I think I'm below the LX/XT range, budgetwise, I'm afraid.

which one is better ? LX or XT or x.7 or x.9 ?

The front derailieur isn't as critical as the rear as it does far less work.

As you go up the ladder stuff is better made, smoother, lighter, (so on and so forth). However it's my opinion that XT is the best mix of lightweight and durability and LX (a step down) is the best bang for the buck.
XTR isn't worth the premium price for the minimal weight savings over XT and to top it off it also tends to be less durable in my experience and opinion

XTR is great when someone else is buying but for me it's not worth it.

I just swapped my shimano Co50 front derailleur for an older Lx (new) to match my rear and the difference is not huge but it is there in a quicker, smoother shift, it feels chunkier at the shifter too. If I'd bought current Lx the difference would have been more pronounced over the basic shimano front derailleur that the Co50 is. As everyone has said as you go up the quality goes up too as does the price, Is XTR worth it? guess so if you race it.