The more you pay, the less bicycle you get.

So, pay $50, and you might get a whole 40 pounds worth of bicycle.
Pay $1000, and you might only get 20 pounds worth of bicycle.
Pay $10,000, and you only get about 15 pounds worth of bicycle.

Great comparison with the cars, thanks for posting.

And $45k gets you:

Tech: A look at the world's lightest bike | Cyclingnews.com

The only thing it is missing is a 4.5 pound lock and a 10.8 pound chain for just over 15 more pounds

Sure there is a difference - despite what many conspiracy theorists' may believe, the greater cost will undoubtedly bring some benefit - whether lighter components, more durable components, or potential to ride faster. The difference may be marginal, but they are also quantifiable at manufacturing / testing level, hence the different levels of product manufactured.

For someone to make a blanket statement that a more expensive bike / components will make a rider faster is, of itself, erroneous.

In a similar vein, to say that a higher priced bike will provide no advantage, is also erroneous.

Finally, for some to say 'I test rode more expensive bikes, then chose to buy a cheaper version as I couldn't tell the difference,' to me, says they couldn't afford the higher priced bike, but seemingly need to justify why they made their purchase decision - which ties back in to the worrying about what everyone else thinks argument...

My previous road bike had 105 (purchased in the 90's). I rode it for a decade. 2 years with significant mileage and then after used as a commuter/utility bike. I never replaced the chain, rarely lubed it, and it always shifted well.

My mtb: deore front and rear mech. A bit better on maintenance, lighter use in mileage: 10+ years of use, nothing replaced, still shifts perfectly.

Too early to say on my current tiagra 10. Shifts perfectly though. I don't anticipate any deterioration. 1,2, and a couple of 3 tooth jumps provide almost no challenge for a rear mech. Shimano just works.

Low end v brakes: ridiculous stopping power.

Low endish tektro: average stopping power, but breaking in very well. Kool stops as backups just in case.

I understand people wanting the latest toys, bragging rights, ego gratification, etc. But entry level shimano tech works so well, I simply don't see the need to step up to high end stuff.

I compared specialized's alu offerings (secteur and allez smartweld) with their carbon bikes, and I felt the carbons were relatively stiff and their alu frames didn't give up much, if anything, in terms of comfort. I went alu, and saved myself the hassle of dealing with carbon. Not to mention many hundreds of dollars.

Extremely satisfied with my purchase. I can save 1.5 lbs. off the bike with $350 pair of wheels, and upgrade the brakes to get excellent stopping power with kool stops. I've already invested about $12 in the pads, an incredible value. My bike is a hair over 20 lbs. with clipless pedals, and I can get that down to 18.5 lbs very easily, at around $1600 total. Not to mention I'll have two pairs of wheels with my 18.5 lb bike.

This is just completely idiotic. You don't have a shred of evidence of "quantifiable" performance gains on a bike that is 2 or 3 lbs. lighter.

Feel free to provide "quantifiable manufacturer's evidence" to back up your claim.

I test rode bikes up to the $3K+ range. I decided on a far less expensive bicycle. I had to buy it, fell in love with it first ride and every test ride afterwards and post purchase has backed up my decision, and then some.

Tiagra 10 shifts perfectly, front and rear. FACT.

Even low end tektro calipers are acceptable, and getting better with each ride, as pads wear in (and after a few minutes of adjustment).

A simple $350 upgrade can save an additional 1.5 lbs off my bike, which would bring the total to about $1600. I'm not sure if I'm going to upgrade wheels.

There are plenty of forum members who weigh 200-350+ lbs. No point in getting a bike 2 lbs. lighter then. It simply makes no difference.

Why would that be embarrassing? Suppose you are not racing him or anyone, ever for that matter?. Why would you be embarrassed by someone going faster than you? Suppose you are 70 years old with a heart condition, and he is 18. Suppose you have more money than you know what to do with and like shiny things. You are projecting your own persona on everyone. This is similar to the stupid *****ing and moaning about people half-wheeling them. As if either the half-wheeler or you are trying to prove your superiority every second of your life. Maybe you were just riding slow and the cheap bike guy was just riding fast. Maybe the half-wheeler just happened to be a little in front of you, not trying to show he can always put it to you as you fear.

This is all so juvenile. It reminds me of kids in the back seat, "Mom, he's touching me!" Why can't cyclists just grow up and ride their bikes?

Unless that is what they want. That is as good a point as any, ever.

My son regularly beat guys with $5000 bikes on his $1000 bike in crits. But he eventually upgraded to a Madone 6.5 and he's even faster.

It's not a matter of not being able to afford, its simply a matter of intelligence. Since it's the engine that matters, what else can one conclude?

People that simply buy speed rather than earn it are delusional.

TO me, to get faster it takes money/time.



If you want to improve the engine, you need to buy workout gear, gym membership, etc. and spend time working out.
or
you need to spend time dieting or spend money and time with a weight watchers,, etc. plan to lose weight and this will get you faster.
or
you buy a new bike and this makes you feel good so that you spend more time on it and push your limits a bit more and this makes you faster.





I think any combination of these will get you faster, some more than others. The last could be a placebo affect or cause endorphin release, etc or just the sensation of a new toy can lift a negative attitude and since the mental game is improved, your speed may also. And of course, a lighter bike could share some amount off of long rides.

pick your poison. I think they all work. As long as it keeps you riding, they are all good.

Does a more expensive bike help? I think it does. Even if it just makes you feel good about yourself and put more into your ride, that alone will get better performance. With trickle down of product to the lower lines, what was an expensive group set is just about what the entry level has become. Sure it is similar to 5, 7,10 or older group set but everyone loved the stuff then so other than things are even better now, there is nothing wrong with any part of the line. At the same time, the entry level is so much better than where it has been that many do not realize how much better it has gotten. It is not just the mid to upper lines that improve, all of them have which is why there seems to be satisfaction up and down the lines.

As for spending money, realize what you are trying to accomplish, make sure the fit is great, not just good and buy what will make you ride more. That in the end is what makes us better.

Frank

Well, nobody is saying you buy the engine when you buy a higher end bike.

OK....

Well yesterday he came home for two days and we took the opportunity to go for a ride together. He has 2 of his bikes at his apartment and stores the rest of them in my garage. He took out his Madone 6.5 and i took my Emonda SLR. After pumping up the tires I turned around and he grabbed my bike and took off. 5 minutes later he as back and said he can definitely felt my bike as "more lively" and shifted nicer than his. Both are top end bike, his a 2012 and mine a 2015.

So yes, there is a noticible difference but only can decide if it's worth it.

It sounds like this is pretty much the case with a lot of posts. I don't think most people with high end bikes expect a huge performance difference. Rather they are buying high end bikes for other reasons. It's the same with most activities - golf, tennis, fishing, running, etc. we buy what we like and makes us feel good.

This occurs in all sports. One kid pays $20 for a hockey stick and the other kid pays $300. Ditto for skates. Take it to golf or tennis and the same thing happens. The car analogy is actually a great one. A Honda Accord is a great car. AC, Radio, Cruise, Leather and etc. It is one of the most reliable cars made. One could ask why pay more for something else? Your BMW is not going to get you there any faster or do anything different.
People are different. We all like and want different things. Who cares if the newbie buys a Pinarello instead of a Giant Defy? Who cares if the fat guy is paying more for less weight in parts? Who cares if the bike is made in China? Why is your Jersey $150 when you could get one for $35?
Maybe it makes you a tiny bit faster and maybe it does not. Maybe it is more comfortable and maybe it is not. Maybe you just like the looks of it better. It is not your money so stop worrying about it. I am quite certain that the best riders on this board would smoke most of the other riders regardless of if they were on a Motobecane, Fuji, Trek or Specialized.
We are all attracted to different bikes and cars for a reason. Personally, I see no need to spend money on a car. A Honda Accord is the best car in the world for ME. Good gas mileage. Reliable.AC. Radio. Gets me from pt A to pt B. I am happy. I do not begrudge others for what they drive. Most my neighbors have Mercedes and Lexus. I do not even notice as cars just are not important to me.
I will say that I ride Colanago equipped with Campy. I like the look. I like the ride. I love boutique bikes. They are different. Does it mesh with my car personality? No. So what. Buy what you like and stop worry about what others ride or why they ride them. If you took the time to talk to people you may find that there are reasons for what they do.
I think that all bikes are pretty nice. I have said many times that bikes in the same category of specs are all roughly the same. Fuji, Trek, Specialized, Cannondal and etc. are all great bikes. Why anybody snoots one brand because of where it is made is silly. They are all good. Ride what you ride and enjoy it. There is no reason to look down on somebody because they ride an expensive bike or because they ride an inexpensive bike. Who cares. Just enjoy what you have and let others do the same.

It's called the law of diminishing returns.

A $400 bike will do 75% of a $10,000 bike.

To quote a rep from Rolex when asked how things were going in the watch business: "I wouldn't know; I'm not in the watch business. I'm in the luxury business."

OT but I love seeing things like that where a business really has their true market in sight. The problem with so many businesses is they just don't know or understand their market. Too many are stuck in the past.

Another good one for vision came from a McDonalds executive. He was asked what the future trends in fast food is. He said "I don't know but I can say McDonalds will be selling more whatever it is than anyone else"

There is one situation where you'll see a tangible advantage. We're talking about weight primarily, and aero.

Suppose you're riding in a group, tightly packed and near the edges of your ability to keep up. Staying in the draft is critical because if you fade back a few feet and catch some wind, they may be gone before you catch up. Even if you can catch up again, you're burning matches and you only have so many of them.

You need to match accelerations (and deceleration) to the riders ahead of you. A lighter bike, and lighter wheels, facilitates it. Sure you get the energy back with greater mass/momentum and angular momentum if you never use brakes, but that doesn't match accelerations. If the acceleration curves don't match, you're catching wind and that will cost you.

Speaking personally, I almost never ride with a group and don't sprint with people so it's just about meaningless to me. But if I did do those things, everyone else would have a tangible edge over me and my 22 pound bike until I did something about the bike weight.

And the real irony of this is that Rolex is nowhere NEAR the high end of the luxury watch market. I could easily name a dozen or twenty brands of high end time pieces that are FAR more expensive and exclusive than Rolexes are. And the joke of it is, I own Chinese or Vietnamese-made copies of maybe a half-dozen of these luxury watches, none of which cost me more than $50 each in Asia, and all of which could fool > 99.9% of the population that they were the genuine article when they are worn on my wrist. They also keep time just as well as the genuine ones, with price tags well into the 5-digits do.

Comparing watch brands to car brands in terms of status and exclusivity: Timex is like Hyundai, Seiko is like Toyota, Rolex is like Cadillac, whereas Patek Philippe is like Mercedes, whereas Vacheron Constantin is like Bentley or Maybach.

You seem upset.

When I had my $800 bike, I rode it about 1,000 miles a year. Now that I have my $3,000 bike, I ride it 4,000 miles a year.

True, the most expensive bike is the one you don't drive.

Ah, but which is the cause and which is the effect?

Are you riding more because you spent more on your bike, or did you buy the more expensive bike after you saw your mileage grow and you felt you could justify the expense?