this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2024
22 points (89.3% liked)
Bicycling
2217 readers
1 users here now
A community for those who enjoy bicycling for any reason— utility, recreation, sport, or whatever!
Post your questions, experiences, knowledge, pictures, news, links, and (civil) rants.
Rules (to be added on an as-needed basis)
- Comments and posts should be respectful and productive.
- No ads or commercial spam, including linking to your own monetized content.
- Linked content should be as unburdened by ads and trackers as possible.
Welcome!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
@Diplomjodler3 @retrospectology Diminishing returns apply to bikes, just as they apply to everything else: the $15k pro-spec Specialized SL8 isn't more than 'twice as good' as the $6k SL8 at the bottom of the range. But $400 doesn't buy you much bike these days, and a $2k bike will be measurably better in every single way. Depends on what you're doing really. If you're riding to the shops a couple of times a week, not worth spending extra. If you're doing 1,000 miles a month, definitely is.
@Diplomjodler3 @retrospectology Everyone will have a tipping point, where they couldn't justify spending more on a bike for the improvement you get. Mine's around $4k: I couldn't really justify spending more for better components, lighter weight, etc. Much as I'd like to. But I could easily justify a $2k bike. It's a different number for everyone though.
I never said anything about really expensive bikes. Of course on those you get diminishing returns and they're not worth it for most people. But if you cycle regularly for anything longer than a few kilometres, spending on a decent bike is very much worth it.
@Diplomjodler3 yeah, i absolutely agree. diminishing returns applies from dollar zero, though, and everyone's tipping point is going to be different. someone saying they couldn't justify spending $2k on a bike is entirely reasonable. Someone saying they don't think it *can* be justified is wrong, though :-)
@wav3ydave @Diplomjodler3 experience in other domains makes me wonder if that's necessarily true though. I've seen plenty of people but "better" computers, appliances, cars that were more expensive but not better for their purposes.
Like spending more on slightly lighter parts isn't really an advantage if those lighter parts break more often than cheaper heavier parts. Or are harder to repair or replace in the field from non specialist ships. Or make your bike attract thieves....
@stark @Diplomjodler3 yeah, there's an element of that: a $10k superbike isn't as good for getting the shopping as a $500 city bike, if getting the shopping is all you're doing. I'm more talking about performance bikes for enthusiast cyclists here, be they roadies/mtbers/gravel riders/whatever. I've reviewed a *lot* of bikes over the years, and for the most part you genuinely do get what you pay for, but with diminishing returns the more you spend.