cost of bike v benefits

Expert

939

Tulsa

Subject: RE: cost of bike v benefits

run4yrlif - 2009-05-18 2:01 PM It's definitley a case of diminishing returns.

Generally, there's a big functional difference between $500 and $1500 bikes. Between $2500 and $3500, you'll find negligible performance differences.

Between $500 and $1500 yes. I notice quite a bit of difference between a $2000 and $3000. Now once you get good components and the frame is the same, thats when the money difference doesn't make a huge impact. I don't notice a huge difference between a ultegra or dura ace de-railer compaired to SRAM Red components. There is some difference, but alot of the huge cost difference is weight.

My Race Log

Expert

1123

Columbus

Subject: RE: cost of bike v benefits

gearboy - 2009-05-19 11:11 PM

bruehoyt - 2009-05-19 7:01 PM the original question is one I have considered often.

i almost agree with the first reply -

rather than a zero affect I feel a more expensive (assuming quality matches price) will help a rider - but it is not huge - training is huge. buy a bike that is equal to your competitive level.

the original question is great that it qualifies cost for rider level.

I think that someone doing there first tri (especially if they are oming off the couch) need spend NO money on a bike. ride what is in your garage, borrowed or bought cheap.

A fit person who is starting tris may want a top dept store bike, low end bike shop bike or used nice bike. probably $200-$500 is ample.

as you get more competitive a nicer road bike or low end tri bike for up to $1500

beyond that amount you had better be lean and competitive. if you weigh 210 a 15 pound bike ain't gonna change anything. if you train as little as i do on the bike it is wasted money. a non pro may spend over 4Gs on a bike

in my opinion, if your bike cost more than that you'd better have some sponsorship and be able to win local events.

i made the jump from a $200 bike that i was doing fine on to a $900 bike this year - it has made no difference in my speed. (though there are other variables and I do hope to improve on this bike)

I would strongly urge anyone who is serious about getting better on the bike to avoid the department store bike. There is more to the bike than the overall weight of the bike. THe bike has to be assembled correctly, and for maximum comfort, it also needs to be fitted. And if you can find a reasonably made new bike for $200, more power to you! My first road bike cost that - in 1985! And it was a pretty low end bike, that I did my first year of racing on.

I would recommend doubling that budget, considering an entry bike to be up to around $1k. There is a lot more to the bike than the speed. A poorly fitted bike will not be pleasurable to ride, which will result in avoidance of riding. And better components shift more easily and reliably. I used to see a similar effect when I was doing a lot more backpacking, that people would cheap out on equipment, figuring that they would see if they liked it first. But because the gear was uncomfortable, poorly fitted, and generally not working well for intensive use, they would drop out. I used to recommend borrowing good gear, or renting it, rather than buying gear that is at the very bottom of the barrel. You don't need top end either, just something reasonably in the middle range.

for a beginner, a dept store bike IS fine.

i rode 2 tris last year and averaged over 20mph in each. i paid $178 for a Schwinn Prelude from target. I am not sure what bike you are riding but your speed is considerably slower than that so evidence says that a dept store bike can work for a beginner.

most people i see at tris have more bike than ability.

My Race Log

Pro

6767

the Alabama part of Pennsylvania

Subject: RE: cost of bike v benefits

bruehoyt - 2009-05-20 2:16 PM

gearboy - 2009-05-19 11:11 PM

bruehoyt - 2009-05-19 7:01 PM the original question is one I have considered often.

i almost agree with the first reply -

rather than a zero affect I feel a more expensive (assuming quality matches price) will help a rider - but it is not huge - training is huge. buy a bike that is equal to your competitive level.

the original question is great that it qualifies cost for rider level.

I think that someone doing there first tri (especially if they are oming off the couch) need spend NO money on a bike. ride what is in your garage, borrowed or bought cheap.

A fit person who is starting tris may want a top dept store bike, low end bike shop bike or used nice bike. probably $200-$500 is ample.

as you get more competitive a nicer road bike or low end tri bike for up to $1500

beyond that amount you had better be lean and competitive. if you weigh 210 a 15 pound bike ain't gonna change anything. if you train as little as i do on the bike it is wasted money. a non pro may spend over 4Gs on a bike

in my opinion, if your bike cost more than that you'd better have some sponsorship and be able to win local events.

i made the jump from a $200 bike that i was doing fine on to a $900 bike this year - it has made no difference in my speed. (though there are other variables and I do hope to improve on this bike)

I would strongly urge anyone who is serious about getting better on the bike to avoid the department store bike. There is more to the bike than the overall weight of the bike. THe bike has to be assembled correctly, and for maximum comfort, it also needs to be fitted. And if you can find a reasonably made new bike for $200, more power to you! My first road bike cost that - in 1985! And it was a pretty low end bike, that I did my first year of racing on.

I would recommend doubling that budget, considering an entry bike to be up to around $1k. There is a lot more to the bike than the speed. A poorly fitted bike will not be pleasurable to ride, which will result in avoidance of riding. And better components shift more easily and reliably. I used to see a similar effect when I was doing a lot more backpacking, that people would cheap out on equipment, figuring that they would see if they liked it first. But because the gear was uncomfortable, poorly fitted, and generally not working well for intensive use, they would drop out. I used to recommend borrowing good gear, or renting it, rather than buying gear that is at the very bottom of the barrel. You don't need top end either, just something reasonably in the middle range.

for a beginner, a dept store bike IS fine.

i rode 2 tris last year and averaged over 20mph in each. i paid $178 for a Schwinn Prelude from target. I am not sure what bike you are riding but your speed is considerably slower than that so evidence says that a dept store bike can work for a beginner.

most people i see at tris have more bike than ability.

I see you ran around a 6.5 minute mile at your races. I am considerably slower than that. Does that mean I should run in a pair of Walmart shoes (after all, you apparently think people should only use gear that is "equal to their competitive level") ? My point was not that a better bike makes you faster. T.I.T.S. does that, and I know I am not getting enough. But I feel much better riding my current bike than my first one, which weighed 15 pounds more, had friction shifters, platform pedals, and had never been fitted to me.

I also think that a bike is an investment. If you are happy with your Schwinn, then fine. Mrs gearboy was happy with her 1985 Shogun until she began this year to have issues with her hips that the men's frame exacerbated. I don't see the point of getting a low end bike, knowing that you want to get a better bike later. Get the best bike you can reasonably afford, and get it from the LBS so it can be fitted.

I'm glad your bike is working for you. But again, my experience in other areas as well as tri's has been that poorly fitted and inadequate gear makes for a less pleasurable experience. And for what its worth, when I raced in my early 30's, my average pace was slightly over 20 MPH, and I still only ran at best an 8+ minute mile.

My Race Log

cost of bike v benefits (Page 2)

REGISTER TODAY