Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 07 Nov 2006 04:31:20
From: Ken Aston
Subject: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?

Recently, I have been using my bike more and more and by now I almost
stopped using any other way of transportation. It's a lot of fun and it
made me think about buying a really nice bike. Right now I am just
using a cheap discount bike which is quite heavy.

What I still don't understand is, what are the advantages of
sophisticated, expensive bikes? Parts last longer, the weight is lower,
I understand that. But besides that, why can I go faster with a 2,000 $
bike than with a 200 $ bike?

I read that it responds better because it is well built. Of course, if
it really has more gears, that makes a difference. But if gears are the
same, it's gonna be the same energy I put in, so why should I get a
higher speed out of it?

To come down to the point, assuming the same weight, the same type of
tyres and amount of gears, why can I go faster with a high quality
bike?

If you have any ideas, please share your thoughts with me. Thank you so
much.

Ken Aston

Date: 08 Nov 2006 13:57:54
From: gds
Subject: Re: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?

Ranchero wrote:
> Ken Aston wrote:
> > Recently, I have been using my bike more and more and by now I almost
> > stopped using any other way of transportation. It's a lot of fun and it
> > made me think about buying a really nice bike. Right now I am just
> > using a cheap discount bike which is quite heavy.
> > snip
>
> One thing that I don't think was mentioned is that an expensive bike
> will attract thieves. I have a spare beater bike. I can leave it
> locked up out in front of the shops I go to without worrying about my
> expensive bike getting swiped.

You are probably right on this. Although, interestingly the "after
ket" for stolen bikes may not value them the same as the retail
ket. Or it may be that thieves don't know bike values. A number of
years ago we had four bikes stored in one place in our garage. Thieves
broke in and stole two hard tail mountain bikes with a price when new
of ~$400 each. They left behind my Litespeed with a value of ~$3500 and
my wife's road bike which cost ~$1200.

Date: 08 Nov 2006 22:07:33
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?

gds wrote:
> Ranchero wrote:
>> Ken Aston wrote:
>>> Recently, I have been using my bike more and more and by now I almost
>>> stopped using any other way of transportation. It's a lot of fun and it
>>> made me think about buying a really nice bike. Right now I am just
>>> using a cheap discount bike which is quite heavy.
>>> snip
>> One thing that I don't think was mentioned is that an expensive bike
>> will attract thieves. I have a spare beater bike. I can leave it
>> locked up out in front of the shops I go to without worrying about my
>> expensive bike getting swiped.
>
> You are probably right on this. Although, interestingly the "after
> ket" for stolen bikes may not value them the same as the retail
> ket. Or it may be that thieves don't know bike values. A number of
> years ago we had four bikes stored in one place in our garage. Thieves
> broke in and stole two hard tail mountain bikes with a price when new
> of ~$400 each. They left behind my Litespeed with a value of ~$3500 and
> my wife's road bike which cost ~$1200.
>
Nobody said you had to be st to be a thief. One guy I heard of
locally locked his bike at a Wal-t and looped the cable through both
wheels and the frame since they had quick releases. When he came out,
the seat was gone, since the post had a quick release for adjusting on
the go. Some people will steal anything, even if they don't have a clue
what to do with it.
Sounds like a good reason for having a junker for those shopping trips.
I only go to stores that let me take the bike inside.
Bill Baka

Date: 09 Nov 2006 15:14:51
From: nash
Subject: Re: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?

have a clue
> what to do with it.
> Sounds like a good reason for having a junker for those shopping trips.
> I only go to stores that let me take the bike inside.
> Bill Baka

Bill I thought you only had a junker bike anyway from you post a few days
ago.

Date: 09 Nov 2006 10:57:52
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?

nash wrote:
> have a clue
>> what to do with it.
>> Sounds like a good reason for having a junker for those shopping trips.
>> I only go to stores that let me take the bike inside.
>> Bill Baka
>
> Bill I thought you only had a junker bike anyway from you post a few days
> ago.
>
>
I have a couple of non-junkers but I don't ride them to Wal-t, fer sure.
Bill Baka

Date: 08 Nov 2006 12:58:53
From: Ranchero
Subject: Re: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?

Date: 08 Nov 2006 09:28:00
From: gds
Subject: Re: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?

Bill Sornson wrote:
> gds wrote:
>
> > Frank, don't you subscribe to "less IS more" ? ;-)
>
> Heard you the first two times.
>
> Bill "slight irony" S.

That is a Google error. The message got hung up somewhere.

Date: 08 Nov 2006 08:29:16
From: gds
Subject: Re: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?

frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> gds wrote:
> >
> >
> > As others have said above there is a law of diminishing returns and as
> > price increases the ginal improvement of the bike get smaller and
> > smaller.
> > But it is also true that generally the more you pay the more you get.
>
> Hmm. I beg to differ. With bikes, the more you pay, the _less_ you
> get!
>
> Spend $69.99 and you'll get 35 pounds of bicycle, maybe more. Spend
> $2000 and you'll be lucky to get even 20 pounds of bicycle. That's $2
> per pound vs. $100 per pound - it's obvious which is the better buy!
> ;-)
>
> - Frank Krygowski

Frank, don't you subscribe to "less IS more" ? ;-)

Date: 08 Nov 2006 16:36:10
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?

gds wrote:

> Frank, don't you subscribe to "less IS more" ? ;-)

Heard you the first two times.

Bill "slight irony" S.

Date: 08 Nov 2006 08:25:04
From: gds
Subject: Re: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?

Date: 08 Nov 2006 07:43:05
From: gds
Subject: Re: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?

Date: 08 Nov 2006 04:07:43
From: Marz
Subject: Re: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?

Bill wrote:
> Ok,
> So am I the oddball here because I don't care about spending $2,000
> bucks on a bike and consider $50 enough? Exercise is the whole point and
> it doesn't take tons of money to through at a bike to get in shape. I
> don't think I am going to be competing, unless it's in the over 60
> category, and I do manage to get about 3-5K miles per cheap bike. So, in
> that case, I am getting more miles per dollar than the expensive bikes.
> Quick, somebody tell me why it's more fun to wreck a $2K bike than a $50
> bike. I do crash on my off road exploits and have the scars to show for
> it, but not the broken expensive bike, just one more parts bike.
> Bill Baka

For me 'fun' is the whole point of cycling, I spend 5 hours in the gym
and about 4 on the road bike getting fit so I can spend about 3 hours
week throwing a $4000 mtb around the trails near my home. I don't trust
the brakes on a cheap bike, the frame, the wheels or the components.
When I drop my bike off a 4ft drop at +20mph I know it's not going to
buckle under my 230lbs of mass and when I turn around to climb again
it's light enough to ride back up. After 16 months of beating my bike
up every weekend, the wheels are still true, headset tight, frame
straight and stiff (no movement in sus linkages) and I've been through
4 sets of tyres and two chains. I just can't see a $200 bike taking
that much abuse.

Laters,

z

Date: 08 Nov 2006 15:10:42
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?

z wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> Ok,
>> So am I the oddball here because I don't care about spending $2,000
>> bucks on a bike and consider $50 enough? Exercise is the whole point and
>> it doesn't take tons of money to through at a bike to get in shape. I
>> don't think I am going to be competing, unless it's in the over 60
>> category, and I do manage to get about 3-5K miles per cheap bike. So, in
>> that case, I am getting more miles per dollar than the expensive bikes.
>> Quick, somebody tell me why it's more fun to wreck a $2K bike than a $50
>> bike. I do crash on my off road exploits and have the scars to show for
>> it, but not the broken expensive bike, just one more parts bike.
>> Bill Baka
>
> For me 'fun' is the whole point of cycling, I spend 5 hours in the gym
> and about 4 on the road bike getting fit so I can spend about 3 hours
> week throwing a $4000 mtb around the trails near my home. I don't trust
> the brakes on a cheap bike, the frame, the wheels or the components.
> When I drop my bike off a 4ft drop at +20mph I know it's not going to
> buckle under my 230lbs of mass and when I turn around to climb again
> it's light enough to ride back up. After 16 months of beating my bike
> up every weekend, the wheels are still true, headset tight, frame
> straight and stiff (no movement in sus linkages) and I've been through
> 4 sets of tyres and two chains. I just can't see a $200 bike taking
> that much abuse.
>
> Laters,
>
> z
>
I have to admit to some truth in your assessment. I wore out 2 steel
frame x-t bikes and have yet to break anything on my somewhat more
expensive aluminum bike. No suspension but good components and the only
problem I have had with the brakes was my fault in overheating the back
rim coming down a steep (20%?) jagged rock descent. About 300 feet of
vertical downhill and the rear started to smell like something burning
and when I touched the rim something did, my fingers. The front brake
has enough power to put me over the front and while I have hit some
nasty holes and rocks at speed the most I have gotten was a sore tail
bone. Lucky for me, my wipe outs have been on dirt and not rocks, but
the bike was OK after a thorough cleaning. BTW, the bike is a Pacific
Nomad, so not a high dollar bike, but durable. I am at 180lbs right now
which is way over my optimum 145 but the bike seems to tolerate my
suicidal off road style. P.S., don't ever let your wife convince you to
gain weight to 'look' healthy, better skinny and in shape.
Bill Baka

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 07 Nov 2006 18:16:49
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?

DougC wrote:
> ...
> Well,,,, if you bought a highracer or lowracer recumbent, it'd have a
> /lot/ better aerodynamics....

Lowracers are for the incorrigible.

--
Tom Sherman - Red and Purple Sunset Lowracers

Date: 07 Nov 2006 18:13:28
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?

Frank Krygowski wrote:
> ...
> BTW, regarding saddles: I disagree with one poster who implies that
> you need an oddball bike to get a comfortable seat. What you need is a
> seat that fits your personal butt, and your personal riding style. It
> needs to be wide enough to support your sit bones, but not too wide.
> And unless you ride only short distances (say, five miles max) I'd
> advise against a very soft, cushy saddle. Those sort of swallow you in
> foam, and cut off all blood and air circulation until you're in pain.
> I'd advise trying for a saddle of moderate width and moderate firmness....

Point of order: uprights have SADDLES, recumbents have SEATS.

As to the relative comfort issue between SADDLES and SEATS, that is as
contentious as whether helmets have any significant effects in reducing
serious head injuries. ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

Date: 07 Nov 2006 18:05:23
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?

gds wrote:
> catzz66 wrote:
> > > Ken Aston wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>What I still don't understand is, what are the advantages of
> > >>sophisticated, expensive bikes? Parts last longer, the weight is lower,
> > >>I understand that. But besides that, why can I go faster with a 2,000 $
> > >>bike than with a 200 $ bike?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I've not followed this thread closely, but there are many, many choices
> > of bikes that are priced between $200 and $2,000.
>
> That is a true statement. But it doesn't answer the question of why
> bikes are better as thier price increases.
>
> As others have said above there is a law of diminishing returns and as
> price increases the ginal improvement of the bike get smaller and
> smaller.
> But it is also true that generally the more you pay the more you get.
> (There are always exceptions to every such rule)
> So, generally as dollars go up:
> -frame weight decreases
> -wheel weight decreases
> -component weight decreases
> -component reliability increases...

I would not be surprised if Ultegra and XT were MORE reliable than
DuraAce and XTR (or Chorus more reliable than Record). At some point,
higher material quality will not compensate for less material. The same
is almost certainly true for very expensive, "stupid light" bicycle
frames. Weight is of concern to professional racers who get their
equipment for free, long-term durability is not.

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

Date: 08 Nov 2006 02:02:43
From: Dave Mayer
Subject: Re: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?

"Ken Aston" <kenasto@googlemail.com > wrote in message
news:1162902680.390273.221800@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Recently, I have been using my bike more and more and by now I almost
> stopped using any other way of transportation. It's a lot of fun and it
> made me think about buying a really nice bike. Right now I am just
> using a cheap discount bike which is quite heavy.
>
>
> Ken Aston
>

Ken: $2000 will get a nice light road bike that will be worth keeping for
the rest of your life. This bike will provide decades of fitness benefits,
and take you to many interesting places. You will become a cyclist for
life.

Riding the $200 boat anchor bike (especially the full suspension models)
will be a chore. It's suspension will bob in and out needlessly with every
pedaling stroke robbing you of a significant amount of pedaling efficiency.
Its inefficient fat tires will slow you down on by several miles/hr right
off, and the incessant howl of the tire knobbies on the pavement will take
away a key pleasure of riding: peace and quiet. The bushings on the useless
rear suspension will quickly wear, and this will cause the rear end of the
bike to wander back and forth, leading to loose and scary handling. Besides
the energy-sapping suspension bob, its 35+ pound weight will make
accelerating and climbing a misery. Add to this poorly installed and
unreliable components. The folks that buy these monstrosities give up the
sport after a few tries. Especially kids. Parents: listen up: A 150 pound
adult riding a 40-pound bike is plain inefficient. A 75-pound kid riding a
40 pound bike is ridiculous. The X-t full-suspension models that have
pretty much taken over the junior bike ket will result in an entire
generation that does not ride.

I've provided several folks with good refurbished second-hand road bikes.
It is interesting to hear their initial: "Oh my Gawd" feedback, in that was
the first decent bike that they ever had, as they had not realized how
enjoyable cycling could be.

So think of it in these terms. A good bike that fits will likely result in
a long-term cyclist.

Date: 07 Nov 2006 16:49:41
From:
Subject: Re: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?

Ken Aston wrote:
> Recently, I have been using my bike more and more and by now I almost
> stopped using any other way of transportation. It's a lot of fun and it
> made me think about buying a really nice bike. Right now I am just
> using a cheap discount bike which is quite heavy.
>
> What I still don't understand is, what are the advantages of
> sophisticated, expensive bikes? Parts last longer, the weight is lower,
> I understand that. But besides that, why can I go faster with a 2,000 $
> bike than with a 200 $ bike?

First, it's great you're enjoying cycling. Doing it for
transportation, like you are, is a Good Thing, in my book.

But regarding the difference between cheap discount bikes and good
bikes, here's my experience, from long, long ago.

When I finished college and got a job, a new ten (count 'em - ten!)
speed was my first present to myself. I knew nothing about bikes, but
I saw a German bike at a discount store and bought it. And I rode it
for almost four years, in a part of the country where there were almost
no cyclists. I liked riding. I liked it a lot.

Then I learned my guitar teacher had a "good" bike in his basement.
Apparently, he bought it, crashed once, and never rode again. It was
rusty, parts didn't work right, wheels were crooked - but I acquired it
and spent a week getting it perfect, then took it out for a test ride.

I was amazed at the difference. The shifters and brakes worked _so_
much better. (The other bike had almost no brakes in the rain.) The
handling was nimble, not sluggish. The bike had a better choice of
gears. The tires had less rolling resistance. It was lighter, so
climbing was a bit easier. Almost all parts were aluminum instead of
chromed steel, so not only were they lighter, they wouldn't rust. The
bearings in the hubs, cranks, pedals and steering were all better. And
the aesthetics were better, too - nice lugs, nice detail paint, chrome
on the dropout wear surfaces, etc. The saddle - well, the saddle was a
narrow leather thing that I _tried_ to like, but after a couple years I
got one that fit me better.

But more to the point, overall, the bike was much more comfortable.
Now, I was lucky there, since I was buying used. My guitar teacher
just happened to be my size. If he were much taller or shorter, I
probably wouldn't have bought the bike. But the bike did fit me, and
that makes a tremendous difference.

I recall letting a couple friends test ride the bike. Even though it
was just a "middle of the line" bike, not top quality, they immediately
felt the difference between the good bike and their discount bikes.

Bike hardware has gotten better across the board. Your discount bike
is probably much better than mine was. But still, most discount bikes
are "one size sort of approximately fits all." And fit is one of the
most important things about a bike - more so than minor weight
differences, for sure.

As others have said, there is certainly a "diminishing returns" aspect
to bike buying. I'd guess that $300 or $400 will get you into the
bottom edge of decent bikes. An $800 bike will definitely be better,
but not really be twice as good (however that's measured) and a $1600
bike will certainly not be four times as good. At a certain point,
you're paying for this month's fashionable design trick, plus extra
polish on the metal parts, plus some tricky, high-tech looking
components that may be unrepairable five years from now.

I'd say, get a bike from the middle of a good company's price range.
Get a bike that fits your body perfectly. If necessary, have the shop
trade stems, or saddles, or pedals or whatever to suit you. Also, get
a bike that suits your intended use - and if you're riding for
transportation, that may mean getting stuff that's not at all stylish,
like fenders and good lights and racks and big bags.

BTW, regarding saddles: I disagree with one poster who implies that
you need an oddball bike to get a comfortable seat. What you need is a
seat that fits your personal butt, and your personal riding style. It
needs to be wide enough to support your sit bones, but not too wide.
And unless you ride only short distances (say, five miles max) I'd
advise against a very soft, cushy saddle. Those sort of swallow you in
foam, and cut off all blood and air circulation until you're in pain.
I'd advise trying for a saddle of moderate width and moderate firmness.

Finally, I'll agree with several posters who said "faster isn't
everything." (Or, in Ghandi's words, "There is more to life than
increasing its speed.")

Speed comes from having the bike fit you well, having a good
aerodynamic position and clothing, having good tires, and being in good
shape. In my experience, if you want to get really fast, you've got to
push yourself until it hurts, and do it over and over for a few years
at least. As Lance Armstrong said "It's not about the bike."

(Well, not very much, anyway.)

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 07 Nov 2006 16:12:37
From:
Subject: Re: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?

gds wrote:
>
>
> As others have said above there is a law of diminishing returns and as
> price increases the ginal improvement of the bike get smaller and
> smaller.
> But it is also true that generally the more you pay the more you get.

Hmm. I beg to differ. With bikes, the more you pay, the _less_ you
get!

Spend $69.99 and you'll get 35 pounds of bicycle, maybe more. Spend
$2000 and you'll be lucky to get even 20 pounds of bicycle. That's $2
per pound vs. $100 per pound - it's obvious which is the better buy!
;-)

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 07 Nov 2006 13:55:05
From: Art Harris
Subject: Re: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?

DougC wrote:

> The only differences between a cheap bike and an
> expensive bike are durability, functionality, weight and (possibly)
> aerodynamics.

True in general. But there's a point where "stupid light" hurts
durability.

I'd like to know what kind of bike the guy has now (MTB, cruiser, or
whatever), what kind of riding he does (off road, commuting, casual
road riding, etc.), and what he wants from a new bike. Give us more
info!

Art Harris

Date: 07 Nov 2006 13:48:18
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?

Date: 07 Nov 2006 22:52:22
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?

landotter wrote:
> Ken Aston wrote:
>> Recently, I have been using my bike more and more and by now I almost
>> stopped using any other way of transportation. It's a lot of fun and it
>> made me think about buying a really nice bike. Right now I am just
>> using a cheap discount bike which is quite heavy.
>>
>> What I still don't understand is, what are the advantages of
>> sophisticated, expensive bikes? Parts last longer, the weight is lower,
>> I understand that. But besides that, why can I go faster with a 2,000 $
>> bike than with a 200 $ bike?
>
> If you're in shape, you won't go palpably slower on a $200 craigslist
> bike fitted with nice tires and tuned properly compared to the $2000.
> That's provided the $200 bike isn't a department store tank. If you're
> racing and the more expensive bike buys you ten seconds up a mountain,
> that's well worth the cost. If you ain't racing, those are expensive
> seconds. People whom don't race like to buy luxe bikes, as mainly, they
> feel nice.
>
> For recreational use, a brand new $500 hybrid is built as well as most
> folks will ever need for casual use. A decent drop bar bike will cost a
> couple hundred more. Beyond that it's indeed the law of diminishing
> returns. Of course a hardcore rider might like very durable and
> expensive components, or the rich chiropractor may like the feel of
> Campagnolo Record even though he only rides fifty miles per week. The
> serious climber my find investing in a $2000 carbon fiber frame to be
> worth it, and the retro geek might like to part with a grand or more to
> have a custom lugged frame made.
>
Ok,
So am I the oddball here because I don't care about spending $2,000
bucks on a bike and consider $50 enough? Exercise is the whole point and
it doesn't take tons of money to through at a bike to get in shape. I
don't think I am going to be competing, unless it's in the over 60
category, and I do manage to get about 3-5K miles per cheap bike. So, in
that case, I am getting more miles per dollar than the expensive bikes.
Quick, somebody tell me why it's more fun to wreck a $2K bike than a $50
bike. I do crash on my off road exploits and have the scars to show for
it, but not the broken expensive bike, just one more parts bike.
Bill Baka

Date: 07 Nov 2006 15:38:18
From: DougC
Subject: Re: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?

Ken Aston wrote:
> Recently, I have been using my bike more and more and by now I almost
> stopped using any other way of transportation. It's a lot of fun and it
> made me think about buying a really nice bike. Right now I am just
> using a cheap discount bike which is quite heavy.
What tires does it got?
If they're fairly wide (like balloon tires), changing to narrower ones
can provide a significant improvement in how the bike feels when
accelerating, which is mainly the only time that being heavy matters.
Try some higher-pressure 1.5 to 1.3-inch-wide, if your rims can handle
the higher pressures.

> What I still don't understand is, what are the advantages of
> sophisticated, expensive bikes? Parts last longer, the weight is lower,
> I understand that. But besides that, why can I go faster with a 2,000 $
> bike than with a 200 $ bike?
You can't, other than if the higher-priced product has better
aerodynamic advantage. The only differences between a cheap bike and an
expensive bike are durability, functionality, weight and (possibly)
aerodynamics.

> I read that it responds better because it is well built. Of course, if
> it really has more gears, that makes a difference. But if gears are the
> same, it's gonna be the same energy I put in, so why should I get a
> higher speed out of it?
>
> To come down to the point, assuming the same weight, the same type of
> tyres and amount of gears, why can I go faster with a high quality
> bike?
>
Well,,,, if you bought a highracer or lowracer recumbent, it'd have a
/lot/ better aerodynamics. You certainly do not need to pay more money
for "the same old thing". If you would be able to use a recumbent bike
as well depends on exactly what you do with what you have now. A lot of
people in Europe use bike racks on public busses, and most recumbents
won't fit onto those.

> If you have any ideas, please share your thoughts with me. Thank you so
> much.
>
> Ken Aston
>
Due to the practical economics of mass-production, most-all upright
bicycles are fairly similar. If you pick any major part (frame, seat,
handlebars, cranks) it's difficult to radically modify how they work (or
are used) without impacting all the other major pieces.

Some US upright bike companies are now getting into "relaxed geometry"
bikes that move the cranks forward in order to provide better seat
comfort--but the problem with most of these attempts is that they insist
on using a regular upright bicycle saddle.... -And the models of this
type that are considered most-effective are the ones that /don't/ use a
conventional saddle. RANS makes a number of models, the Giant Revive is
one, the Sun Sunray is another.

I don't know about Euro trends in "consumer" bicycling--but the US
industry is s-l-o-w-l-y bending to the comfort-end of the ket.
Research indicates that there is a numerous segment of the population
that refuses to ride (or buy!) upright bicycles because the bicycles
aren't comfortable enough in use. This group drove the adaption of the
MTB, then the hybrid, and then the "comfort" bike,,, but road bikes,
MTB's, hybrids and comfort bikes all used very-similar components--in
particular, they used very similar /saddles/. The advancement of
crank-forward bikes is that they modify the frame to move the BB forward
enough to use a short-nose or nose-less saddle, that is much more
comfortable to ride.

My only "upright" bike is a RANS Fusion and it is easy to ride, has a
much lower stand-over height and doesn't cause any of the pain that
typical upright bicycles do. The reactions I've gotten from people
test-riding it have been pretty much totally positive, other than often
balking at its price.
~

Date: 07 Nov 2006 13:31:25
From: gds
Subject: Re: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?

catzz66 wrote:
> gds wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>I've not followed this thread closely, but there are many, many choices
> >>of bikes that are priced between $200 and $2,000.
> >
> >
> > That is a true statement. But it doesn't answer the question of why
> > bikes are better as thier price increases.
> > ...
> >
>
> True. I should have continued my thought by adding that a person does
> not need to spend $2,000 to get a bike that is noticably lighter and
> better made than a $200 bike.

For sure!

Date: 07 Nov 2006 12:00:51
From: gds
Subject: Re: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?

catzz66 wrote:
> > Ken Aston wrote:
> >
> >
> >>What I still don't understand is, what are the advantages of
> >>sophisticated, expensive bikes? Parts last longer, the weight is lower,
> >>I understand that. But besides that, why can I go faster with a 2,000 $
> >>bike than with a 200 $ bike?
> >
> >
>
> I've not followed this thread closely, but there are many, many choices
> of bikes that are priced between $200 and $2,000.

That is a true statement. But it doesn't answer the question of why
bikes are better as thier price increases.

As others have said above there is a law of diminishing returns and as
price increases the ginal improvement of the bike get smaller and
smaller.
But it is also true that generally the more you pay the more you get.
(There are always exceptions to every such rule)
So, generally as dollars go up:
-frame weight decreases
-wheel weight decreases
-component weight decreases
-component reliability increases
-aesthetics (finishes) increase
-ability to choose frame (ride) cahracterics to suit the individual
increases

It is up to each individual to find where they fit in the price x
performance curve.
As to ultimate performance, once you get to the "decent" level of bike
it is much more a matter of the engine (rider) than the machine that
makes one go fast. Lots of us senior riders have really nice bikes
because we like them and can afford them. We regularly get passed by
young racers on steeds half the price.

Date: 07 Nov 2006 15:22:17
From: catzz66
Subject: Re: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?

gds wrote:
>
>>>
>>I've not followed this thread closely, but there are many, many choices
>>of bikes that are priced between $200 and $2,000.
>
>
> That is a true statement. But it doesn't answer the question of why
> bikes are better as thier price increases.
> ...
>

True. I should have continued my thought by adding that a person does
not need to spend $2,000 to get a bike that is noticably lighter and
better made than a $200 bike.

Date: 07 Nov 2006 10:43:07
From: Marz
Subject: Re: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?

Ken Aston wrote:

> What I still don't understand is, what are the advantages of
> sophisticated, expensive bikes? Parts last longer, the weight is lower,
> I understand that. But besides that, why can I go faster with a 2,000 $
> bike than with a 200 $ bike?

Because ( on average ) a $2000 bike will be better built and therefore
stiffer than a $200 lump of metal. You'll see the difference when you
really try to put some power through the pedals, a cheap bike will flex
and suck up a lot of your effort whereas a better bike streams that
effort back through the tyres into the road.

>
> I read that it responds better because it is well built. Of course, if
> it really has more gears, that makes a difference. But if gears are the
> same, it's gonna be the same energy I put in, so why should I get a
> higher speed out of it?

> To come down to the point, assuming the same weight, the same type of
> tyres and amount of gears, why can I go faster with a high quality
> bike?
>

Because nobody builds a 13pound bike that can take +400pounds of
pressure at the pedals for less than $2000 and that doesn't flex like
damp piece of bread.

> If you have any ideas, please share your thoughts with me. Thank you so
> much.
>
> Ken Aston

Laters,

z

Date: 07 Nov 2006 13:09:05
From: catzz66
Subject: Re: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?

> Ken Aston wrote:
>
>
>>What I still don't understand is, what are the advantages of
>>sophisticated, expensive bikes? Parts last longer, the weight is lower,
>>I understand that. But besides that, why can I go faster with a 2,000 $
>>bike than with a 200 $ bike?
>
>

I've not followed this thread closely, but there are many, many choices
of bikes that are priced between $200 and $2,000.

Date: 07 Nov 2006 14:39:31
From: Claire Petersky
Subject: Re: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?

"Ken Aston" <kenasto@googlemail.com > wrote in message
news:1162902680.390273.221800@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

> To come down to the point, assuming the same weight, the same type of
> tyres and amount of gears, why can I go faster with a high quality
> bike?

Faster isn't everything. In fact, it's a secondary factor. For me, comfort
and reliability are top priorities. Since I do touring and events in which I
spend all day on the bike, I want a bike that I can ride for a hundred miles
or two, and not be feel crippled when I'm done. For both that kind of
riding, and also for the daily commute, I want a bike that will reliably
work well. I don't want to break down while I'm on a long ride, in the
middle of nowhere, and I don't want it to break down when I know I need to
get into the office and showered and be presentable for a meeting first
thing in the day. I don't want it to break down in dark when I'm riding home
after a long day, simply for personal safety reasons.

A fast bike is nice, but I wouldn't sacrifice comfort and reliability for
speed.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

Date: 07 Nov 2006 05:31:09
From: Art Harris
Subject: Re: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?

Ken Aston wrote:
> It's a lot of fun and it
> made me think about buying a really nice bike. Right now I am just
> using a cheap discount bike which is quite heavy.
>
> What I still don't understand is, what are the advantages of
> sophisticated, expensive bikes? Parts last longer, the weight is lower,
> I understand that. But besides that, why can I go faster with a 2,000 $
> bike than with a 200 $ bike?
>
Well, you may go a little faster on $2000 bike, but speed isn't the
only reason to upgrade. Nor do you have to spend $2000. As with most
things, there's a point of diminishing returns as you go up in price.
>
> Of course, if
> it really has more gears, that makes a difference. But if gears are the
> same, it's gonna be the same energy I put in, so why should I get a
> higher speed out of it?

There's a point of diminishing returns with gears too. Are 20 gears
better than 18 or 16? Not necessarily.

> To come down to the point, assuming the same weight, the same type of
> tyres and amount of gears, why can I go faster with a high quality
> bike?

Again, it's not just about speed. The most important things when buying
a bike is to get the right type for the kind of riding you do, to get
the correct size, and to have it set up properly. A good fitting,
medium quality bike will be much better than a cheap discount bike for
several reasons. If you buy from a good bike shop the bike will be
properly assembled and adjusted. The brakes, tires, wheels, cranks,
saddle, and other components will be of better quality, and will last
longer, than on a cheap discount bike. Braking, shifting, and steering
will likely be smoother and more positive.

Weight only makes a difference when climbing hills or when accelerating
quickly. And the weight must include the rider as well as the bike. A
difference of a pound or two of bike weight doesn't make much
difference.

These days, there's way too much emphasis on the bike. Being able to
ride fast or long distances has a lot more to do with the rider.

By all means, you ought to consider buying a better bike than you have
now. But before buying, spend some time looking at the different kinds
of bikes available, and think about what kind of riding you want to do.
And try not to be swayed by all the keting hype.

Art Harris

Date: 07 Nov 2006 04:53:31
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?