roadwarrior

Thank you. Blood was starting to shoot out of my eyes.

The "41 Think Tank" never fails to disappoint.

wphamilton

So you guys are saying that the $6000 bikes are mostly used in races? That is surprising to me.

Where are we drawing the line for mid/high range anyway? I'd have put it considerably lower.

Brian Ratliff

They are optimized for racing, no question. How they are used by doctors with money to burn... that's a different question. What money restricted amateur racers use... different question. But in the $6k range, yea, racing is the objective. And you'd be surprised how a kid can scrape together enough money to buy a competitive frameset if racing is his or her focus.

There's no "line", only predispositions and prejudices. When I was in college, I was predisposed to thinking $2k was a small fortune to spend on a bicycle. Now? Not so much. If you are simply talking about quality; a top of the line frameset (not "just as good as top-of-the-line but out the back door of some Chinese factory", but the frameset out of, say, Trek's catalog that occupies the top spot) with matching wheels, drivetrain and components will set you back about $6k.

sam_cyclist

Very few cyclists race. If you weigh 185+ lbs., you're not going to be very competitive as a climber anyway.

This means maybe .1% of riders will benefit from a $6K bike.

The performance gain on a climb is absolutely miniscule, in theory only, and you lose a portion of the advantage on the way back down.

I say in theory only, since drafting, choosing the right line, your own weight variation from one day to the next, among many other factors, affects your performance on any given day. Also, what if you bring 2 26 oz water bottles and your friend brings 1 20 oz bottle? Now you're 2 lb. weight advantage is gone completely.

$6K+ bikes are all about pride of ownership, bragging rights, etc.

roadwarrior

It's the frame, first....Cannondale's Nano frameset, alone, is almost six grand.

When you get to this level it's like buying an Indy Car. It's a professional racing frame. The Super Six HM is almost ten grand, the racing addition. Now, you can get that frame with less in the wheels for less money. HM with DA 9000 is a bit less than six grand.

Not everybody needs this, but if you have the cash and want one, it's available.

You can get a really really nice bike for two to three grand with great components.

I usually ask if the customer minds if the maintenance is a bit higher. the reason is that the pro stuff is light, but since a pro team does not worry about parts, the lighter stuff is the more susceptible it is to breakage. If a pro breaks something, it's replaced. for the general public, not as easy.

sam_cyclist

I'd say a large percentage of $6K+ bikes are part of a stable of bikes owned by enthusiasts and only get a moderate amount of use (say 1-3 rides a week). Probably a significant minority of very expensive bikes are collecting dust in the owner's garage.

The notion that these bikes are being used by forum members in touring races with 10 mile climbs is, well....

gregf83 

Fall off the group by a few meters on a 5 min climb and your race can easily be over. Ride up a 40 min hill and the difference is far from miniscule. It's not going to matter if you're not competitive but that doesn't apply to everyone.

sam_cyclist

The vast, vast majority of people buying bikes at $6K+ are not racing. They are recreational cyclists and it's a fair bet that a significant minority of people who own expensive bikes rarely if ever ride them. Check your CL listings.

I really don't want to get into the specifics of the demographic profile of riders who buy these bikes, but let's just say they do not fit the racer profile. The demographic is actually exactly the opposite.

Brian Ratliff

Who cares who uses what for what. $6k bikes are race bikes. They are built expressly for those .1% of riders who race and they represent the pinnacle of cycling technology.

A small advantage is an advantage, and guys looking for that last second up a climb have already ditched their waterbottles.

Sam, do you race? Do you ride a high end bike?

Brian Ratliff

Brian Ratliff

Who cares? The OP asked about the difference between these bikes, not the demographics of who buys them.

wphamilton

It's a different question how the doctors use them, but racing is still their objective? I'm sorry, but that doesn't make a lot of sense. It's self-contradictory.

I don't know, but I'd bet that there are a lot more $6000 bikes used by doctors and other professionals who seldom or never race them, than by kid's "scraping enough money" for a $6K bike to race.

It's a critical question, not sniping, because if there are a lot of $6K and up bikes that seldom see races, then that six seconds that might mean a podium place difference - among enough races - isn't a factor at all in why those bikes were purchased, nor in how they're ridden.

Brian Ratliff

Change your frame of thinking. No, they are not racing. They are doctors. BUT, they aspire to ride like the racers they admire. These purchases are aspirational. Aspirational; not practical, not showoff. These people train like racers (or as much as possible given the limits of their time and energy), and they ride like racers (when they have the time and energy). They only don't race because they make money with body parts that sometimes get maimed in bike crashes and their profession doesn't leave them with enough time to train properly. Who do you think are the people caring about Strava? These people are racing in so far as they care about the same things racers care about in their equipment purchases.

Also, lots of doctors do actually race. And they race on much cooler bikes than my engineering salary affords.

And the kid that knows he or she's got talent? They usually end up riding cool stuff too, eventually. They find a way because it's important to them.

Elvo

There are a million reasons to purchase a certain bike and going faster in your USAC/UCI/CBC sanctioned race or your local gran fondo/century/group ride/solo training ride is certainly a valid reason to buy a "faster" bike.

Stucky

I doubt that many people who pay six grand or more for a bike, are racing those bikes, since the probability of crashing and mangling the bike is quite high in races. Most amateurs can't afford to trash a $6K bike. I hear of a lot of people who do race, while they may own a $6K bike; they buy $1K-$2K bikes to actually race.

wphamilton

How do you know this, that their purchases are "aspirational"? How do you even know that they admire racers? I certainly don't know, but I can see several other motivations.

Consider for a moment that your assumption (let's call a spade a spade) is wrong. Suppose the reason that they don't race these $6K bikes is because they don't care about races. If they don't care about races, then they don't care about racers and they don't care about potentially finishing third instead of second. In that case (the more likely case IMO) they bought the bike for other reasons. The commonly expressed other reasons are intangibles (feel), and cachet.

Stucky

Ecept, you forgot to mention that "faster" as it pertains to bikes (as opposed to riders) is measured in terms of fractions of a second difference per mile. Not as in "Oh, man, I can only do 12MPH on that bike, but I can do 27MPH on that one!". It's more like: Every thousand dollars you spend above two grand, will buy you maybe 1/2 a second per mile...if that; and if you're a really strong rider...because the benefits are less at slower speeds.

bbbean 

If you're happy with your bike, does it matter? What's the difference in a Yugo and a Rolls? A hamburger and a steak? A good massage and a great massage?

While we could list the various engineering, finish, performance, and durability gains one expects as you move up teh price ladder, the simplest and most convincing answer to the argument is to simply get down to the LBS and ride a few high end bikes. If you can't tell the difference, then you've saved yourself a lot of money and you can go on being happy with your current bike. If you can tell a difference, you'll know what the extra $$$ buys you.

Just a passing observation - I've never encountered a cyclist who claimed moral or intellectual superiority because his bike was more expensive than mine, but I regularly hear people make the argument that they are morally or intellectually superior because they spent less on their bikes.

BB

Brian Ratliff

Why is this so important to you that you label people who buy high dollar bikes "posers"? You pose a question, state that it's in earnest, then attack my answer and dismiss it out of hand. I'm left wondering about your motivations in this discussion.

My answer comes from people I've talked to.

Loveless4577

So at the end of the day it is safe to say that there are differences between a 2K, 6K, 10K bike. Frames, components, wheels, etc. But noticing the subtle difference in ride quality and whether you will benefit from them will depend on the rider.

RJM

It doesn't take being a doctor to raise $6K for a high end bike. Cycling is a relatively cheap hobby even if you prioritize, save, and spend the money on a high end bike.

It's been my experience that higher end bikes ride better, shift better, are lighter, and there has been more attention to detail while constructing the bike frame/fork along with the components.

Elvo

Actually the slower you are, the greater the time savings =)

Elvo

Yes. But ride quality can be significantly noticeable as well especially if you compare a Domane with 28mm wheels/tires with a $1k aluminium bike.

Cyclosaurus

I call it Authenticity Snobbery (a.k.a. anti-snob snobbery). A cyclist who is truly going "authentic" doesn't wear lycra or ride an expensive bike, and makes sure everyone knows how authentic they are. Super bonus points for dropping a kitted-out roadie while riding a beater bike wearing jeans.

Cyclosaurus

If you've got $6K and need to go fast, buy a velomobile. That's what I would do.