tomato coupe

They spend most of their time racing on indoor bikes (where aerodynamics has zero effect), but then sometimes go out and win a road race? Those very same road races where you claim aerodynamics aren't important, because the riders are all in a peloton? Pure genius.

tomato coupe

I think we're all losing sight of the important issue -- road bikes sold today ARE KILLING PEOPLE because they are not set up like TikTok's bike. By his own estimate, 5% of new cyclists DIE because they are sold bikes that are comfortable. (One can only imagine how many more die because they buy comfortable clothes and shoes!)

genejockey 

I think what a lot of us forget is that a $3000 bike is ALREADY an M5 compared to the "average" bike. This is more like comparing say, the base Porsche 911 Carrera with the 911 GT3 - the Carrera is already so fast and capable that you'd only notice the difference at a much higher level of driving than you do every day.

njkayaker

A Rolex and a cheap watch also both tell the time ("both get you there"). And people will still rationalize that the Rolex is "better".

The performance enhancement that a $13k bike will give you over a $5k bike is very, very small.

Most people spending the extra $$ are doing so because they have money. Not because it's providing a useful increase in performance.

Anyway, most people buying an M5 aren't driving it in a way that requires the extra performance.

My point: they don't make much sense on a performance level but people keep suggesting they do because they are expensive (not really considering the magnitude of the actual "extra performance").

Really-expensive bikes are weird things.

genejockey 

The funny thing about the Rolex vs 'cheap watch' comparison is that the cheap watch is likely to be a better timekeeper than the Rolex, because quartz accuracy will always be superior to mechanical. So, you don't buy the Rolex because you're looking for the best timekeeper, whereas when you spend $13K vs $5K on a bike you can reasonably expect to get a better bike.

genejockey 

I have to say, the paragraph you quoted is probably one of the most ridiculous things I've seen on the internet as a whole, let alone on BF. The idea that people give up cycling because they're too comfortable is..... out there. WAY out there.

tomato coupe

It's like people avoiding the dentist because they find it too relaxing.

njkayaker

(I was expecting people to be aware of that "funny thing".)

(Even the watch thing is somewhat more complicated. You won't be able to swim with the (really) cheap watch (for example).)

The problem with the "better bike" argument is that people assume it's (like) "80% better" when it's like, maaaybe, 1%. The extra money spent at that level very inefficient. Most people buying really expensive bikes are doing so because they can. Not because the tiny extra performance has much practical value to them.

Most people buying Porsches never use them in "a much higher level of driving" situation.

3alarmer 

.
...33 pages. *golf clap*

genejockey 

But even there, you can get watches for really cheap that are more reliably waterproof and shock resistant than a Rolex, so in buying one, you're not really buying it for the timekeeping, or water- or shock-resistance. There are all kinds of reasons to buy a premium mechanical watch, but being better at the basic functions of a watch is not one of them.

Exactly. If I spend 3 times as much and get a bike that weighs 7 kg vs 8, I haven't tripled the performance.

Most people buying Rolexes aren't divers, either, But it makes me happy knowing that superbikes, and supercars, and premium watches exist, because constantly striving to make things better is one of the nicer aspects of humanity.

rsbob 

Nothing more satisfying than leaving someone in the dust on their high end bike. But you never know if they are doing a recovery ride or are just not up to the bike, but I’ll take it anyway.

There will always be wealthy or very indebted wanna be or just plain status seekers out there that buy the best. Just like the Lamborghini Aventador stuck in traffic that I cruised by on my bike yesterday. It no doubt makes them feel good and if that is what their ego needs, and they can afford it, so be it. I am way past being jealous or bitter about what they have since that is a waste of time.

I bought a nicer bike two years ago - far from a $15K bike, and the difference over my 80s and 90s steel and aluminum bikes is incredible. I can’t say I have ridden a $15K bike so I can not say with any certainty how much lighter, more precise, quicker shifting a bike like that might be. Reading reviews of such bikes by knowledgeable reviewers, there has to be something there. For people that can afford and want one, good for them. I am happy with my choice since it is comfortable, relatively light for an endurance bike, and occasionally gets a compliment which is good my male ego. (When I ride my vintage bikes I get far more compliments by the older set. They obviously appreciate the retro-nature but little can they appreciate how much more work I have to put out to climb or accelerate. As a result, I don’t enjoy it that much and pretty much stick to the newer bike.)

njkayaker

The problem is that it's fairly common that people think they can buy large differences in performance. It's also fairly common for people to think they need an expensive bike.

Most divers can't afford Rolexes (and Rolexes aren't very useful for diving either).

Sy Reene

I thought the Rolex was for captaining submarines, aren't they?

GhostRider62

You said it was an ego trip to own those things.

Now, you are arguing the performance isn't worth it.

Make up your mind.

People who drive an M5 or ride a Pinarello or wear an expensive don't really care what others think or whether the performance differential is linear. There are obviously diminishing returns.

njkayaker

There's no contradiction here.

You know this isn't always true. Or you are unbelievably naive.

Atlas Shrugged

It’s always interesting the arrogance of people who determine the appropriate level to spend on products and judge others with that standard. Often using words like ego, arrogance etc. It would be interesting watching someone explain how $5K is a reasonable amount to spend on a bicycle to the 50% of the world which lives on less than $6.00/day.

People who spend what to others seem like ridiculous amounts on select items rarely judge those who spend less yet, it does not apply the other way around. Second only to audiophiles cycling is filled with ridiculous subjective judgements such as feel and ride quality and place a arbitrary price threshold on what is appropriate to spend.

For reference; I own a Rolex, Bike is over $13K, Drive an AMG and don’t really care what others wear, ride or drive.

njkayaker

People are free to spend how ever much they like on what ever. That doesn't necessarily mean doing so makes much sense. And discussing the reasons behind purchases isn't "judging" people.

There are also people who have more money than they know what to do with. But, as far as a justifiable reason for purchasing something, this is not interesting.

Weird flex.

LarrySellerz

username checks out

terrymorse 

I know this has been written before, but it's good advice:

Buy what you like to ride. If the bike you like costs big bucks, and you have the bucks to spend, go for it.

If the fancy and expensive bike induces you to ride more, it's money well spent.

njkayaker

Low hanging fruit.

LarrySellerz

For what its worth I ride in a group where 10+k$ bikes are really common (live in a super rich area) and I don't think ive ever heard someone "brag" about the price or model of their bike.

njkayaker

They don't need to brag about it. That would be gauche anyway. You are just supposed to notice.

dedhed

All the divers I know wear a dive computer

timtak

By 2030 one half of Americans will be obese with a BMI of 30 or more by 2030 and currently about 300,000, or one in a hundred Americans, die of it per year. I think that everything that facilitates this gets normalised. Not only bigger portions of food, yes as you say, baggy clothes, bigger houses, bigger cars, and also road bikes too. The road bikes are for me a little different to the others in that it is not apparent that they are fat facilitating. The tall headtubes go almost unnoticed. I had no idea.

I thought road bikes were fast because they are lighter, when it is pretty much all in the body position.

I am not sure how many people go to bike shops hoping to be helped back to fitness only to be sold un-aerodynamic bling (or a "Rolex") and how many give up cycling partly as a consequence, and how many fail to lose weight, and then die partly facilitated in that way but I hope it is none at all.

tomato coupe

Please stop. You've gone from a quirky guy with an extreme setup to someone that exposures total nonsense. The idea that people will give up cycling because their bike does not have an aggressive setup is laughable, and every post you make defending that theory makes you look crazy.