Differences between mid range road bike and high end?
 

Hey everyone,

I currently have a mid range Specialized bike priced around $1500 and I'm very happy with it. I see bikes that are in the $6000- $10 000 range and I wonder what makes them so expensive and what advantages do they bring?

If you compare the raw material cost of a $2000 bike and a $8000 bike there isn't too much difference raw material wise besides light sacrifices of weight. However maybe there's more to it then I'm not seeing.

1. List all the advantages of a $6000+ bike over a $1500-$2000 bike

2. What exactly makes a $6000+ bike so expensive and what sort of performance gains should you expect to gain to justify the cost?

Not much. Once you get past the 2000 dollar price point it's mostly diminishing returns. The major differences above 2000 will be wheels and at a certain price point you'll get electronic shifting, which is nice.

I just upgraded from a Madone 4.6 to a emonda SLR. The SLR cost 3 times as much, while its not 3 times better it certainly is significantly better.

It shifts increadably quick and smooth. It accelerates quicker and handles better.

The biggest advantage of the expensive bicycle is less weight by making your wallet lighter. Another advantage is that sometimes other riders will marvel at what a nice bicycle you have.

The expensive bicycle is expensive because people will pay that much for it, plus the cost includes all the research and development, manufacturing, overhead, blah blah blah required by the companies involved plus some profit. There is probably less work overall in putting together the lower priced bicycles because most of the research, development, and testing was probably done on the higher priced top of the line stuff and the lessons learned from there can be trickled down to the lower price point bicycles. As mentioned, you generally get nicer and lighter components as you pay more.

As far as performance gains, in my experience, they are extremely minor if any. If you are getting killed by your riding buddies on a $1500 bike, then you'll still get destroyed on a $10000 bike. If you are racing, then maybe the very small advantages could make a difference over your closest rivals when you're talking about a few seconds here and there.

I have bicycles that span that range, and I enjoy riding all of them. I pick which one to ride mostly based on whether there is a good chance of rain and whether I'll be riding in a group with some lousy bike handlers and/or lousy pack/group riders that will increase the chance of crashing me out. Most of the time I prefer to ride my most expensive bicycle which is also my favorite ride, but under adverse conditions I usually choose the least expensive bike. To be honest though, I'd be perfectly happy if I circumstances were such that I could only have my least expensive bike because it's good enough and still lots of fun to ride.

In search for posts which document performance differences, very few, if any forum posters claim any improvements in speed with higher end bikes.

Personally speaking, I do not notice differences in shifting quality between tiagra 10, 105 11, and ultegra 11.

Even my tektro brakes seem to be breaking in nicely.

What you really want is a frame that fits you well, and to get a fitting that optimizes fit once you have the right frame size.

The performance differences between tiagra, 105, ultegra and dura ace are fairly miniscule. Add kool stop pads to any of those dual pivot brakes in any of those groups, and you'll have the best shifting and very good to excellent braking.

Paying more gets you less weight but you will not go any faster.

There are also certain disadvantages or tradeoffs as you move up in price.

Carbon wheels are a bit lighter but MUCH noisier and offer a poor braking surface.

You can get disc brakes to offset the braking disadvantage, but they are heavier, negating the weight savings from the wheels.

Electronic shifting from what I understand is well liked by those who use it, but a bit heavier and requires recharging a battery every few days or perhaps once a week. A minor annoyance.

In addition, you'll be getting a lot of carbon components: bars, seatpost, saddle rails, etc. You'll have to be more careful with torque when installing or adjusting.

All of this is in the service of lighter weight for the most part, yet results in negligible, largely non existent performance gains.

You will if you're going uphill. Not a huge difference, but if you can shave 3-5 lbs of bike weight it can make a difference on a competitive ride.

Perhaps, but you'll also go faster on a heavier bike on the way down. :)

But seriously, in reading some of the threads on this forum, many forum members report that their ride times don't improve with lighter or more expensive bikes. Some even report that they are a bit slower on their lighter bikes, for whatever reason.

Actually going lighter or more aero will gain you seconds (assuming 40k or longer) if you are "fast" or minutes if you are fat. It's up to you if saving 5 minutes on your 8 hour century is worth $10k.

The bike itself shifts more quickly and smoother, or the new/better component group shifts more quickly and smoother?

Higher priced bikes usually have higher priced groups. A Specialized bike priced around $1500 probably doesn't have the newest/latest/top-of-line Shimano DA or SRAM Red or Campy Record. It probably does not have the lightest faster hubs and wheels. So components have a lot to do with price.

After components it's the frame. The more custom the more labor involved to produce. And where is it produced? A Ti or steel bike hand-built in USA will be an expensive hand-built frame. Some of the new carbon frames sourced in Asia and sold by big names like Trek and others you're paying a premium for the name.

It mostly comes down to aesthetics.

If you really like your $1500, you won't notice much of a difference on a $6K bike, unless you are really OCD. :)

When I'm out riding, I often literally forget which bike I'm riding- my 18 year-old aluminum bike, or my <2 year-old carbon-fiber $4300MSRP bike with $800 worth of upgrades. (I bought it used for substantially less!)

In the end, it's more about the rider than the bike.

With bikes, it's much like: A Timex will keep just as good time as a Rolex; yet some people are willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars for a Rolex. It doesn't do anything more than the Timex....it just looks and feels nicer; and is something to admire.

By $300 Bikesdirect first adult road bike shifted and performed perfectly adequately. I like my fancy-pants modern bike O-K, but I'm glad i didn't buy it new for full price....because in the end, my rides are the same.

I don't know who reported what but there is no question that shaving 3-4 lbs will make you faster up a 5+% hill. An aero bike with a good set of wheels could save 20+W on the flats which is substantial. Whether any of that matters to you is a different question.

Thanks for the detailed replies everyone, as someone who is new to biking I learned a lot. Great community here and awesome people! Looking forward to learning more.:thumb:

for me it is all about "feel".
I can tell a difference in how the bike feels between the 2k and 4K versions, enough of a feeling to go the difference..
When I rode the 6K bikes, I could not tell enough of a "feel" difference to justify the money...When I ride for hours, I want the bike to feel good and I want to feel good when I am finished riding, I simply do not care what other folks think about it. I am not brand oriented and do not give a crap about the bike snobs...I have one trek, one ridley, one giant and one KHS bike....I have different bikes for different types of riding and ride the one that feels best to me.

Great way to think about it, thanks for you reply.

It's just once every ~1000 miles...

Ultegra 6870 (Di2) - 2359g
Ultegra 6800 (Non-Di2) 2368g

Anecdotally, I'm averaging about 1800-2000 miles per charge, so for my volume that's about 4-5 times a year for charging. If you're recharging the Di2 battery every few days, that's some serious mileage.

Zipp 404 (Firecrest, Clincher) 1615g
Dura-Ace C24 (9000, Clincher) 1395g

Intangibles. Cachet.

ITT: a bunch of people commenting on $6000 bikes who have never ridden $6000 bikes.

OP: it's about optimization and design effort. It takes a lot more engineering effort to design a sub-15lb bike than it does a 17+lb bike (and the price reflects this as much as it does the raw material cost - $4000 buys about a week of one engineer's time; development cycles are in the years of man-hours). Two pounds might not seem like a lot, but 2lbs is 1% of a 200lb bike+rider system, which is directly 1% faster up a hill, which is 6 seconds on a 10 minute hill. Races have been won on far less margin.

If none of this seems important to you, then you are not in the market for a $6000 bike. Not everyone is.

lol

Race speeds are faster but they do not seem to be that much faster. Tour de France Statistics , racing - Why aren't Tour de France riders going any faster? - Bicycles Stack Exchange This next link shows a more graffic view of the very slow and minor increase in speed. It is surprising to me that with lighter bikes, better training methods and crew support, the differences in speed are not greater. On the other hand, once you are at the top of the game, making a minute increase in performance is very difficult. I suspect that at the level of amateur cyclists a better performing bike makes little difference actual performance but may make a big difference in satisfaction.

Thanks for you reply, that makes sense. Sounds like the higher up you go the differences are smaller but when it comes to racing those differences are enough to create a win or loss.

The difference between a $1500 bike and a $2000 bike is generally that you will go from an aluminum frame with mid range components and entry level wheels to a carbon frame with entry level wheels and components. The carbon will be slightly lighter, but probably less stiff than the aluminum frame. The cheaper bike may actually feel livelier and faster than the more expensive carbon bike. Going from $2000 to $3000 will get you a stiffer carbon frame and mid range components. The stiffer carbon and better components will give the bike a sportier feel in general and make it feel more responsive to harder efforts. Going to $4000 will get you a ride-tuned stiff carbon frame to balance the stiffness with some better ride quality, with mid-range wheels and mid to upper range components. Going to the $6000 range will get you even lighter, mid-upper end wheels and electronic shifting.

In my opinion, the average new rider with less than 2 years riding under their belt will not be able to tell much of a difference if they were to ride the various bikes. The average rider who has been riding for a while but never does fast paced group rides or never rides hard just for the fun of it will notice the difference between a $1500 bike and a $3000 bike, but won't feel much difference between a $3000 and $6000 model. The slight differences in feel, response, and weight between the $3000 bike and a $6000 bike will really only be apparent to riders who push their bikes hard and who measure themselves against the clock or others riding hard in a group. A bike is just a tool, and what kind of tool is worth what kind of money to you depends on how you plan to use it.

Add better bikes, remove being doped to the gills on amphetamines, EPO, and HGH...looks like it is about a wash...

berner, the TDF courses, and tactics, have changed so much that we can't really relate the winning speeds to the bikes used.