Who pays 14x as much for an 'equivalent' item? And why?

[PH]

I simply wanted to know how to choose a headset (or set of crank arms) based upon some reasonable criteria that would ensure that I got something that was likely to last a reasonable amount of time without paying through the nose for the brand, colour or other non-functional parameters.

I did post half way down page 6 about this, asking a decent question about the future you intend for the components, did you miss it?

Have a look at this post again, it might prove helpful.

This thread keeps flipping between the op saying they're asking a question to saying that something has made their point. No harm done, it's just a forum and although there may sometimes be tears there's rarely any blood spilt. Whatever the original intent, I've enjoyed some of the interesting posts it's created.

[MartinC]

........................What I was looking for was some quantitative, or at least logical, way of trying to choose components that wasn't based on showroom appeal, marketing hype or other vanity justifictions...................

There isn't one. In the vernacular - "yer pays yer money and yer takes yer choice" - every justification is subjective to some extent and open to challenge.

[meic]

The only unquantifiable part of the equation is how much some people are prepared to spend for the label; for the colour and other non-functional attributes; for exclusivity; etc. All of which I explicitly tried (& apparently failed) to remove from consideration.

You are being too restrictive in your criteria of what is functional.
Many of us are not building a bike just for speed and even just for riding!
There is a pleasure not just in saving 3s on a journey, I never time mine in that way, but in the way a bike feels to carry or to corner, in the sound it makes, in the fluidity of the gear changes, in the vibration that comes up through the bars, in the way it absorbs a pothole, in the way it stays on track and can be persuaded to deviate from its track and if it stops.

Then you can add aesthetics like colour and even exclusivity.

After all do you cycle off to take a photo with a cheap mobile phone or with some camera with functions, lens quality and focusing abilities that I will not even pretend to comprehend.
If everybody could buy the perfect camera for £10 would you not be tempted to buy a slightly unique one for £20, even if that uniqueness was a type of minor imperfection?

I have to admit that while I buy cars on function, I had a complaint with my last car in that it was exactly the same silver colour as 50% of the cars on the road, now I have a replacement which is a worse colour (beige) but at least it isnt yet another silver car in a line of silver cars.

Fortunately in the world of cycling colour and exclusivity seldom cost more and are often cheaper.

[Buk]

You are being too restrictive in your criteria of what is functional.
Many of us are not building a bike just for speed and even just for riding!
There is a pleasure not just in saving 3s on a journey, I never time mine in that way, but in the way a bike feels to carry or to corner, in the sound it makes, in the fluidity of the gear changes, in the vibration that comes up through the bars, in the way it absorbs a pothole, in the way it stays on track and can be persuaded to deviate from its track and if it stops.

If I offered you a 5mm hex key that came in a choice of antique bronze, white gold or aged platinum; rang with perfect F# when struck or dropped; had a micro-taper lead-in and lightly burnished faces that caused it to make a satisfying snick & thuck sounds respectively, when inserted and removed; came with a slip-over padded cover made from hand-stitched Ostrich hide and filled with cygnet down to protect your fingers; and an electric spin-drive for those long bolts; all for the amazing low price of £59.99. Would you buy one?

My bike is a tool. One I am beginning to enjoy using; but still a tool.

You are being too restrictive in your criteria of what is functional.

No. I think "functional" is clearly defined:designed to be practical and useful, rather than attractive.

Whilst aesthetics and function are not necessarily at odds with one another; those pleasurable feelings are not necessary for a bike to function. You may choose not to ride a bike that doesn't measure up to your aesthetic; but you did buy the silver car and the beige one, despite complaining about both.

So far -- excepting the damage caused during shipment -- the only complaint I have with my bike is that the supplied mudguards are entirely useless; but given that a) most purchasers of this bike would probably never fit them; and b) a set of these is £23, it's a minor niggle.

[meic]

Mudguards are not needed to get you from A to B.
By your own criteria of functionality you should just ditch them.

I can get from A to B with cheap lights that hardly illuminate, paying a small fortune for lights that allow me to ride at daylight speeds, in a relaxed state, reliably, improves my functionality, even if the expense is difficult to justify in terms of the benefit.

[Buk]

Mudguards are not needed to get you from A to B.
By your own criteria of functionality you should just ditch them.

Nice retort. They may not be needed to get to B; but if I want to be in any state to be allowed in when I get there; they are necessary in certain kinds of weather.

I can get from A to B with cheap lights that hardly illuminate, paying a small fortune for lights that allow me to ride at daylight speeds, in a relaxed state, reliably, improves my functionality, even if the expense is difficult to justify in terms of the benefit.

Not so hard given you've already done so. Your daily commute home -- if you have one -- would take the same time in winter as in summer.

If I had a commute by bike, that is something that would cause me to pay for a silver pair of these; but even though my bike is predominantly black, nothing would make me pay the listed price for a black pair.

[Mr Evil]

...Of course they all weight ~40% more (** see below.) than yours. But, and its a big one, how much difference does that saving make? [...] 3% time saving...

You're taking a narrow view there. I own a 10kg bike and an 8kg bike. I have to lug them up and down stairs sometimes, and it's much more pleasant with the 8kg bike on my shoulder, by more than the 20% reduction in weight.

...A bike is one of the simplest and most efficient machines. Everything about what makes that machine efficient, and what can make it more efficient is totally quantifiable...

There are so many things that are not quantifiable at all, such as...

[Mudguards] may not be needed to get to B; but if I want to be in any state to be allowed in when I get there; they are necessary in certain kinds of weather...

Care to quantify the value of being dry?

I would still like to hear you justify the expense of owning a bike at all. Quantitively.

[Buk]

...Of course they all weight ~40% more (** see below.) than yours. But, and its a big one, how much difference does that saving make? [...] 3% time saving...

You're taking a narrow view there. I own a 10kg bike and an 8kg bike. I have to lug them up and down stairs sometimes, and it's much more pleasant with the 8kg bike on my shoulder, by more than the 20% reduction in weight.

If that is your primary, or even an important secondary criteria, maybe £35,000 for this 2.7kg practical machine would be worth it to you?

...A bike is one of the simplest and most efficient machines. Everything about what makes that machine efficient, and what can make it more efficient is totally quantifiable...

There are so many things that are not quantifiable at all, such as...

[Mudguards] may not be needed to get to B; but if I want to be in any state to be allowed in when I get there; they are necessary in certain kinds of weather...

Care to quantify the value of being dry?.

Of being dry, no. Not covered in mud if I decide to stop for lunch at country pub or tearoom; definitely worth £23. Maybe more.

I would still like to hear you justify the expense of owning a bike at all. Quantitively.

Easy. It costs £24 return (and four longish walks) to get my favourite 'local' nature reserve; 4 trips and what I've spent so far on my bike is covered.

[Mr Evil]

Care to quantify the value of being dry?.

Of being dry, no. Not covered in mud if I decide to stop for lunch at country pub or tearoom; definitely worth £23. Maybe more.

It's not clear to me how you have arrived at that number.

I would still like to hear you justify the expense of owning a bike at all. Quantitively.

Easy. It costs £24 return (and four longish walks) to get my favourite 'local' nature reserve; 4 trips and what I've spent so far on my bike is covered.

You don't need to go to a nature reserve; it's not at all utilitarian.

[Buk]

It's not clear to me how you have arrived at that number.

£23

You don't need to go to a nature reserve; it's not at all utilitarian.

Are you telling me I mustn't go?

I do go, the only equation is how often. The utility of the bike is more often.

[Mr Evil]

It's not clear to me how you have arrived at that number.

£23

That's just the price of a product, not its value to you. Would you buy mudguards if you had to pay £25? £50? Why not make some yourself out of scrap for free?

You don't need to go to a nature reserve; it's not at all utilitarian.

Are you telling me I mustn't go?

I do go, the only equation is how often. The utility of the bike is more often.

And there's the answer to your original question. You have decided arbitrarily that something has value to you, even though it is entirely non-functional.

[Buk]

And there's the answer to your original question. You have decided arbitrarily that something has value to you, even though it is entirely non-functional.

Not even close. Please read https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=115568&start=120#p1144800

[cycle tramp]

Care to quantify the value of being dry?.

Of being dry, no. Not covered in mud if I decide to stop for lunch at country pub or tearoom; definitely worth £23. Maybe more.

It's not clear to me how you have arrived at that number.

Actually, if the mudguards were full length, fitted with mudflaps and the bicycle frame was steel, then the worth of the mudguards may be higher.
A front full length mudguard & mudflap would assist in preventing mud and water from the road spraying into the lower headset race, and reduce mud and water being thrown into the chain, bottom bracket, and the pedal bearings thus lengthening the life of each component. A rear full length mudguard prevents water being thrown onto the seat post where it may dribble into the frame. Of course any savings made by replacing rusty frames and worn component depends on how much you ride in wet or muddy conditions. I wouldn't expect to see a lot of change for those riders who only go out in the dry. For those of us who don't mind a bit of rain, mudguards may make a difference over 3 to 5 years. Invest to save as they used to say.

[cycle tramp]

Of course, a different way of looking at a bikes value is using different comparisons.
Person A pays for gym membership at 40 pounds per month and visits the gym 3 times a week, 1 hour each each week. Person A also travels 4 miles each way to the gym which takes 15 minutes each way by car which costs 24 pence per mile.
If person A stopped going to the gym how much would they have to spend on a bicycle? If person A was to cycle at 10 miles an hour, how far would they have cycled if they dedicated the same amount of time cycling as going to the gym? How happy are you that you don't have gym membership ?

[Mr Evil]

And there's the answer to your original question. You have decided arbitrarily that something has value to you, even though it is entirely non-functional.

Not even close. Please read https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=115568&start=120#p1144800

Clearly the problem here is that you either don't understand what you're asking, or you lack the ability to word it coherently.