login
cost of bike v benefits
-
No new posts
|
 2009-05-18 1:50 PM |
Veteran 263  |  Subject: cost of bike v benefitsIn terms of road bikes, how much difference does a more expensive bike really make? I understand that the most important thing about any bike is that it fits you correctly. And then, if you're racing triathlons, aerobars are going to make a large difference. But you could buy a very entry level bike that fit you perfectly, attach some aerobars and still go fast. Edited by lengthcroft 2009-05-18 2:04 PM |
| 2009-05-18 1:56 PM in reply to: #2158566 |
Expert 939  Newton, MA | Subject: RE: cost of bike v benefits lengthcroft So what is the advantage to spending, say $2k rather than $1k, or $4k rather than $2k. I know you get better components, stiffer frame etc, but what difference does that REALLY make to a relative novice? Between zero and none. lengthcroft - 2009-05-18 2:50 PM By the way, I'm talking just road bikes here, not tri bikes. Tri bike or road bike, doesn't really make a difference. Riding lots will. |
| 2009-05-18 1:58 PM in reply to: #2158566 |
Extreme Veteran 418 Pittsburgh | Subject: RE: cost of bike v benefits It might not make that big of a difference to an utter novice, but if you get a super-entry-level bike, expect to want/need to upgrade in a year or less as your skills improve. I feel like even a beginning road rider should have a decent frame/components, if they can fit it into their budget at all. I'm not a very accomplished cyclist (this is my first season of tri, and my second season putting any serious mileage on a bike), but after a couple test rides, I decided that at the very least, I needed a frame with a carbon fork (cuts down the vibrations if you're getting an aluminum frame, which I figured I'd probably end up with) and Shimano 105-level components. I saved up for about a year to get my road bike, shopped around, and ended up paying about $1200 for a Scott Contessa Speedster. The saving/waiting was totally worth it, and I think I'll be riding this bike for several seasons. ETA: I guess it's relative to your idea of an entry-level bike... You can get way more bike for $1500-$2000 than you can get for $1000 or less, and the differences are really noticeable to even a beginning biker. But when you get to the $2000-$4000 difference, IMO, you're not going to really benefit from the better ride until you put a lot of miles in and become an experienced rider. It's like, even a terrible driver can feel the difference between a rusted-out old Chevy Nova and a brand-new car. But you have to be at least an okay driver to really appreciate the difference between a brand-new regular car and a brand-new really nice sports car. Edited by kat_astrophe 2009-05-18 2:02 PM |
| 2009-05-18 1:58 PM in reply to: #2158566 |
Extreme Veteran 448 | Subject: RE: cost of bike v benefits The money lots of times means lighter. The higher end components may shift a little better, the lighter frames and wheelsets may climb a little better, may spin up a little faster. What does it mean to a novice? Not much. You are really talking about very little actual time savings on a real course. What you need is a good bike that fits well and is comfortable. Put about 5 thousand miles or so on it. Then it may or may not be time to upgrade, you will know then. More money does not make you faster or even last longer. I have passed lots of people on bikes that are worth 3 times as much as mine is. |
| 2009-05-18 2:01 PM in reply to: #2158593 |
Extreme Veteran 448 | Subject: RE: cost of bike v benefits kat_astrophe - 2009-05-18 1:58 PM I decided that at the very least, I needed a frame with a carbon fork (cuts down the vibrations if you're getting an aluminum frame, which I figured I'd probably end up with) and Shimano 105-level components. Great place to start. I think that AL frame with carbon fork and maybe even stays and seat posts is the way to go when starting, or even after you have been in the game for a while. Also 105 is a great compromise of quality vrs. cost. |
| 2009-05-18 2:01 PM in reply to: #2158566 |
Giver 18427   | Subject: RE: cost of bike v benefits 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. Edited by run4yrlif 2009-05-18 2:02 PM |
| 2009-05-18 2:05 PM in reply to: #2158612 |
Cycling Guru 15134 Fulton, MD | Subject: RE: cost of bike v benefits Quality of materials (cheaper priced stuff has more plastic parts in the mechanisms), quality of the frame (machine welded versus hand laid/welded), weight, design parameters, longevity of parts, etc. Will the average cyclist notice a difference, in some ways. Will a more experienced rider notice a bigger difference, in most cases - yes. In cycling (as well as most things in life) I'm a firm believer in "You get what you pay for." |
| 2009-05-18 4:09 PM in reply to: #2158566 |
New user 19 | Subject: RE: cost of bike v benefits Having started with a Trek 5200 and then moved to a Carbon Cervelo Soloist, and now riding a Look 585, I have to say each upgrade has meant additional refinement. higherend bikes are generally going to be stiffer, handle better, or I would say crisper, the components are more responsive and last longer. However, I am not sure a novice would notice much difference between a highend bike and an entry level bike. when I started riding my goal was to buy a bike that would out last my abilities as I grew as a rider. an entry level bike does not do that. they are on the heavy side, the components and wheels are not durable and require more maintance. I don;t think a person has to give an arm or a leg, but if your budget is under a $1000.00, find a highend used bike. typical a 2 year old highend bike will have better technology than a new entry level bike. The Trek 5200 and its other versions are great bikes. some of the other big name bike manaufacture bikes can be had for 1/2 their price used. |
| 2009-05-18 6:53 PM in reply to: #2158566 |
| Member 34 Wes Sacramento | Subject: RE: cost of bike v benefits I personally say "go used" for your first bike. You can get a great bike for a lot less money. I picked up a used Trek Hilo in 2005 for $575 and that included Sidi T1 shoes! That bike was $2500 new and the shoes are $200 (they just happened to fit). I ended up with a great triathlon bike for very little money. |
| 2009-05-18 7:30 PM in reply to: #2158566 |
Pro 6767 the Alabama part of Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: cost of bike v benefits lengthcroft - 2009-05-18 2:50 PM ... Never let it be said that I would stand in the way of someone's upgrading and acquisition of more gear. But what do you mean the bike is "starting to fall apart"? Last year I replaced a 16 year old bike that was still running great (but I wanted a lighter carbon frame bike, with integrated shifting). This year, we replaced mrs gearboy's nearly 25 year old bike that was also running fine (because I finally convinced her to get a women's specific bike for a better fit). I've just sold both those bikes to bikeless friends on the cheap (because of their ages - the bikes, not the friends). Even an old bike bought second hand should not "fall apart" if it is properly maintained. Mrs gearboy's bike was $200 new, btw, so we are not talking about a high end piece of machinary, here. My point is that if your current bike is truly "falling apart", maybe you should learn to maintain the bike, or find a good LBS that you trust to do so, so your newer bike doesn't suffer a premature death. You don't want to spend a grand or two and then have to replace the bike due to mechanical issues in a year or two (style and performance, now that's another matter). |
| 2009-05-19 6:32 AM in reply to: #2159482 |
| Veteran 263 | Subject: RE: cost of bike v benefits gearboy - 2009-05-18 7:30 PM lengthcroft - 2009-05-18 2:50 PM ... Never let it be said that I would stand in the way of someone's upgrading and acquisition of more gear. But what do you mean the bike is "starting to fall apart"? Last year I replaced a 16 year old bike that was still running great (but I wanted a lighter carbon frame bike, with integrated shifting). This year, we replaced mrs gearboy's nearly 25 year old bike that was also running fine (because I finally convinced her to get a women's specific bike for a better fit). I've just sold both those bikes to bikeless friends on the cheap (because of their ages - the bikes, not the friends). Even an old bike bought second hand should not "fall apart" if it is properly maintained. Mrs gearboy's bike was $200 new, btw, so we are not talking about a high end piece of machinary, here. My point is that if your current bike is truly "falling apart", maybe you should learn to maintain the bike, or find a good LBS that you trust to do so, so your newer bike doesn't suffer a premature death. You don't want to spend a grand or two and then have to replace the bike due to mechanical issues in a year or two (style and performance, now that's another matter). The bike was bought second hand from a friend for $100. He had ridden the cr*p out of it for several years, and for the last few months had stored it outside as he didn't have room inside. The chain and the rear cassette now need replacing as they are very worn and the chain keeps slipping. There are also various little niggly things that keep going wrong with it as all the parts are worn. I could spend a few hundred on it at the LBS but I don't see the point. I think now is a good time to upgrade to a more quality machine. And I'll definitely be looking after the new one. |
| 2009-05-19 9:30 AM in reply to: #2158566 |
| Extreme Veteran 763 | Subject: RE: cost of bike v benefits This is a very interesting topic. I would say that if you already know you like / love cycling then you should not buy an entry level bike. My definition of non entry level would be Ultegra or better 10 speed components. I think most entry level road bikes use carbon forks so this is not a great indicator. The drive train of entry level bikes is not that great although they work. My Trek Pilot has Sora and Tiagra components with 9700+ miles on it. I cannot complain about the durability. My new bike is Ultegra SL and it shifts effortlessly. The other thing I like is that you can shift under load. I'm sure this is not recommended, but it is sometimes necessary. My Trek would not shift under load. I think Bicycling magazine just rated a bunch of bikes in the 1500 - 2500 range. You may want to see if you can find this data. I bought a Cervelo S1 and am thrilled with the bike. I think it was a great value. I am obviously biased so you may not come to the same conclusion. Recommending a bike to another person is like recommending a spouse. We probably won't like the same things. Try as many as you can. This advice is true for bikes and spouses. Kevin |
| 2009-05-19 11:18 AM in reply to: #2159982 |
Pro 6767 the Alabama part of Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: cost of bike v benefits lengthcroft - 2009-05-19 7:32 AM gearboy - 2009-05-18 7:30 PM lengthcroft - 2009-05-18 2:50 PM ... Never let it be said that I would stand in the way of someone's upgrading and acquisition of more gear. But what do you mean the bike is "starting to fall apart"? Last year I replaced a 16 year old bike that was still running great (but I wanted a lighter carbon frame bike, with integrated shifting). This year, we replaced mrs gearboy's nearly 25 year old bike that was also running fine (because I finally convinced her to get a women's specific bike for a better fit). I've just sold both those bikes to bikeless friends on the cheap (because of their ages - the bikes, not the friends). Even an old bike bought second hand should not "fall apart" if it is properly maintained. Mrs gearboy's bike was $200 new, btw, so we are not talking about a high end piece of machinary, here. My point is that if your current bike is truly "falling apart", maybe you should learn to maintain the bike, or find a good LBS that you trust to do so, so your newer bike doesn't suffer a premature death. You don't want to spend a grand or two and then have to replace the bike due to mechanical issues in a year or two (style and performance, now that's another matter). The bike was bought second hand from a friend for $100. He had ridden the cr*p out of it for several years, and for the last few months had stored it outside as he didn't have room inside. The chain and the rear cassette now need replacing as they are very worn and the chain keeps slipping. There are also various little niggly things that keep going wrong with it as all the parts are worn. I could spend a few hundred on it at the LBS but I don't see the point. I think now is a good time to upgrade to a more quality machine. And I'll definitely be looking after the new one. Thanks for the clarification. It sounds like the lack of maintainance occured before you got it. And I think your friend overcharged you for a bike he let rust outside. Having to spend the money to bring a neglected bike up to snuff is one of the reasons a lot of people don't like to get used bikes. By the time you replace the whole drive train, tires, tubes, cables, bearings, etc, you can easily drop another $200 and up, depending on the quality of components. Plus labor, if you don't do it yourself. For a few hundred more, you can get a new bike with entry level components; of course if you spend more on the components, either as an upgrade or a new bike, the cost goes up. |
| 2009-05-19 11:39 AM in reply to: #2158566 |
Master 1436 Wilmington | Subject: RE: cost of bike v benefits Before I bought my tri bike I tested out alot of road bikes and and some tri high end bikes and it boiled down to do I want to drop $5000 or drop $1000 on a bike and I am novice. I found a happy meduim when I bought my 2008 Felt S32 which retailed $1100 and I bought it for $800( just e-mailed all the triathlon sports stores and say you want a good cheap tri bike and this is my budget what can you help me). The bike is light its fast and I am happy with it and very happy with the price. I do get jealous when I see those carbon fiber bikes and wish I had one but NOTHING feels better when you in aero postion and you pass a few folks who have those bikes.  |
| 2009-05-19 11:42 AM in reply to: #2158566 |
| Master 2460 | Subject: RE: cost of bike v benefits General consensus among true roadies is that across road bikes in general, the bike will contribute <5% of race performance, and most of that 5% is only if comparing intro level to higher end road bikes. If you take mid-range to higher road bikes, it's probably less than that. So it's 95% you. (Mtn bikes and hybrids with fatter tires, however, will go markedly slower than a road bike - 15%+) |
| 2009-05-19 5:34 PM in reply to: #2160839 |
| 21 | Subject: RE: cost of bike v benefits I have a related question and your comments about it "being 95% you" and "hybrids are markedly slower than a road bike" are exactly the ideas that have been bouncing around in my head and confusing me. I am VERY out of shape (5'2", 240lbs) and started training in February for my first sprint tri (on 5/31). I have a cheap 21-speed hybrid and ride pretty slowly (9-10mph average) even with a decent amount of effort. Hills absolutely kill me. I am fully aware that a BIG part of the issue is my lack of fitness, and I'm working on that. But realistically, would it benefit me (for increased speed and easier hill climbing) in the meantime to invest in a road bike or tri bike? Or would the benefit with my heavy weight be so minimal as to be a waste of money at this point? |
| 2009-05-19 5:51 PM in reply to: #2161829 |
| Member 34 Wes Sacramento | Subject: RE: cost of bike v benefits trishc243 - 2009-05-19 3:34 PM I have a related question and your comments about it "being 95% you" and "hybrids are markedly slower than a road bike" are exactly the ideas that have been bouncing around in my head and confusing me. I am VERY out of shape (5'2", 240lbs) and started training in February for my first sprint tri (on 5/31). I have a cheap 21-speed hybrid and ride pretty slowly (9-10mph average) even with a decent amount of effort. Hills absolutely kill me. I am fully aware that a BIG part of the issue is my lack of fitness, and I'm working on that. But realistically, would it benefit me (for increased speed and easier hill climbing) in the meantime to invest in a road bike or tri bike? Or would the benefit with my heavy weight be so minimal as to be a waste of money at this point? One thing to consider is that if you go with a mid-high end bike, they are usually made with tight tolerances for a maximum weight. Carbon frames and wheelsets prefer the sub 200lb and some even rate down to 140lb. If you are looking to get a bike that will last while you get into shape, aluminum or even an older steel frame bike may be better for you. The performance gain from a couple pounds of bike weight is pretty negligible and the heartache of breaking a new $2000+ bike is certainly not. |
| 2009-05-19 6:01 PM in reply to: #2158566 |
Expert 1123 Columbus | Subject: RE: cost of bike v benefits 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) |
| 2009-05-19 10:11 PM in reply to: #2161874 |
Pro 6767 the Alabama part of Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: cost of bike v benefits 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. |
| 2009-05-19 10:37 PM in reply to: #2158566 |
Member 33 San Francisco | Subject: RE: cost of bike v benefits Working part time at a bicycle shop, I'd recommend you go test ride a bunch of bikes. How serious are you into Tri's? As this will be your main bike I'd recommend you get a road bike and put on aero bars. You should test ride bikes from 1k-4k, aluminum, carbon, and even a steel bike if they have any. See if you can personally tell the difference, and if the difference is worth the cost to you. For the money, get the best frame you can get with ok components, as you can always upgrade down the line. Also when buying a bike from a shop, see if a pro fit is included, or if free maintenance is included, and how long also. As others have said, there is a huge difference between a $1500 and a $500 bike. The differences and ride feel gets way smaller between a $2k and a $3k bike. |
| 2009-05-19 11:10 PM in reply to: #2161829 |
| Master 2460 | Subject: RE: cost of bike v benefits trishc243 - 2009-05-19 5:34 PM I have a related question and your comments about it "being 95% you" and "hybrids are markedly slower than a road bike" are exactly the ideas that have been bouncing around in my head and confusing me. I am VERY out of shape (5'2", 240lbs) and started training in February for my first sprint tri (on 5/31). I have a cheap 21-speed hybrid and ride pretty slowly (9-10mph average) even with a decent amount of effort. Hills absolutely kill me. I am fully aware that a BIG part of the issue is my lack of fitness, and I'm working on that. But realistically, would it benefit me (for increased speed and easier hill climbing) in the meantime to invest in a road bike or tri bike? Or would the benefit with my heavy weight be so minimal as to be a waste of money at this point? I hate to be a downer - but it's almost definitely your lack of fitness that it holding you back. The aerobikes really excel on downhills and flats where you can ride fast. Of course, a light bike is also very helpful on hills, but actually, the performance gap between the fast road bikes and mtn bikes are reduced on the hills, as the aero advantage and tire thickness advantage are less of a factor at those slower speeds. In fact, the smaller gears on some mtn bikes are favored for big hilly courses by beginner riders. The real difference will be felt on the 20+mph stretches, where you'll spin out your gears on your mtn & hybrid. |
| 2009-05-20 3:43 AM in reply to: #2158566 |
| Expert 658 | Subject: RE: cost of bike v benefits This thread is really helpful... It's helped me heaps because I'm pretty much in the same situation at the moment and I was looking to spend 3.5k maybe but now I see its not really worth it. Now I'd rather spend 2k on a bike and use the rest to buy some other new gear. Thanks everyone for their input, extremely helpful. |
| 2009-05-20 10:34 AM in reply to: #2162431 |
| 286 | Subject: RE: cost of bike v benefits supa-powa - 2009-05-20 3:43 AM This thread is really helpful... It's helped me heaps because I'm pretty much in the same situation at the moment and I was looking to spend 3.5k maybe but now I see its not really worth it. Now I'd rather spend 2k on a bike and use the rest to buy some other new gear. Thanks everyone for their input, extremely helpful. Do it. Last year I did this, bought a New 2006 Felt S22 for $1800. Yeah, not a 2008 model, but Dura Ace, carbon cranks, etc. and I love it. |
| 2009-05-20 10:35 AM in reply to: #2158566 |
Champion 7547 Albuquerque, New Mexico Bronze member | Subject: RE: cost of bike v benefits More expensive bikes will generally have lighter frames made to tighter tolerances and higher grade components. How significant are these to novice riders? Hard to say. I had a Huffy 10-speed back in the 80's. Heavy, wobbly, not-quite-aligned-frame. Got rid of it when I got a mountain bike in the late 90's. I was AMAZED when I got a real road bike (an '87 Raleigh) that it was far more responsive and efficient than I remember my old Huffy. (My Huffy was probably 26-27#, the Raleigh right at 20#. ) Last year, I got a Javelin Fara (a mid-range road bike) on closeout. What do I notice about the Javelin compared to the Raleigh? Mostly convenience with integrated shifting and a 10-speed cassette (the Raleigh had a 6-speed freewheel). The Javelin rides a little better (CF fork, seatpost, and seat stays). Since you already have STI shifting, you might see a more compliant ride. You might also pick up a gear or two (10-speed versus 8/9 speed) and will most likely have a double crankset (53/39 or 50/36) whereas your Trek *might* have a triple. You've got money burning a hole in your wallet, but what if you approach it from the other side? How expensive a bike would you be willing to REPLACE if it got destroyed in a mishap? Could you see yourself buying two $1500 bikes? If not, then maybe you shouldn't buy the first $1500 bike (and be anxious about damaging it). Yea...the bike might be covered by insurance, but sometimes it's our own fault or wouldn't be worth filing a homeowner claim. If the Trek 1000 fits, replacing the chain and cassette can be <$100 (about $20 for a chain, $40-50 for a cassette, and $20-30 for a couple of tools). You could even replace the whole rear wheel ($70-150). Only you can really decide whether to spend the $$ or not, but if riding the Trek for another year makes it much easier/clearer what would be your upgrade path, it's probably money well spent. |
| 2009-05-20 11:37 AM in reply to: #2158566 |
Member 360 Denver, CO | Subject: RE: cost of bike v benefits I used a twenty year old used bike for a few years and got a newer used bike a few years ago. I road about the same speed on both bikes immediately after the change. But I do feel much more comfortable on the new bike than the older bike. It could just be that the new bike fits me better but it might also be that I now have a carbon fork, integrated shifting, etc. And there are bikes that have not so great components - I echo what others have said that Shimano 105 is about as low as I would go. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK