How much for a decent bike?

[drossall]

the thread is (I think, excluding various 'special bits') about

'how much for a decent bike'

which is not the same thing as

'how much for a bike that sets my heart aflutter'.

I'm inclined to agree. This thread seems to have demonstrated that:

• Cyclists are not interested in decent bikes, but only in bikes that they personally like
• There is very little tolerance for different ideas
• Therefore, the OP would be well advised to steer clear and spend his/her money on something else

It's a pity. I don't think I'll ever buy a carbon wonder bike. But I do enjoy admiring them, and if you want to lend me one for a ride, just to see what it's like... (Or titanium. Never tried that. Looks really good.)

But yes, the answer to a new rider is probably in the £500 region. What's more, given the firm opinions expressed here, part of the purpose of that first decent bike will be to form firm opinions of your own. Bad news if you do that on a £6000 bike and decide it's firmly not the type for you

[Sweep]

There's a good reason why a £500,000 house is better and more desirable than a £50k house. Quality of build and workmanship, longevity and able to hold is value in practical and economic terms..

That's not actually true as you should know if you have any grasp of economics.

An awful example.

For only better in that, as long as properly valued, you can flog it for 10 times more. But will presumably have bought it for a similarly high price. But then we are talking hard cash/not quality.

London is full of rabbit hutches costing half a million.

That would horrify folks in other areas/countries living in a 50K thing.

For of course houses in the UK are all mostly about the market, speculation, location/location.

back to bikes.

May contribute in time on the core topic.

[Cours]

There's a good reason why a £500,000 house is better and more desirable than a £50k house. Quality of build and workmanship, longevity and able to hold is value in practical and economic terms..

That's not actually true as you should know if you have any grasp of economics.

An awful example.

For only better in that, as long as properly valued, you can flog it for 10 times more. But will presumably have bought it for a similarly high price. But then we are talking hard cash/not quality.

London is full of rabbit hutches costing half a million.

That would horrify folks in other areas/countries living in a 50K thing.

For of course houses in the UK are all mostly about the market, speculation, location/location.

back to bikes.

May contribute in time on the core topic.

Please do.

A 500k house, irrespective of location is comprehensively 'better' than a 50k house in the same area. Its down to build Quality, materials used, finishing and expertise in design and completion.

Exactly the same with bikes. You gets what you pays for.

[Sweep]

Yes you have, belatedly, introduced the word "area".

Which was precisely my point.

Hence market.

Are you suggesting that in terms of quality a given bike in Yorkshire compares unfavourably with one in London?

The tangent was your initial jump from bikes to houses.

Back to bikes.

Which are of course somewhat more mobile than houses.

[Brucey]

you could spend half a million pounds extra building your house from diamante encrusted carbon fibre and having electronically actuated wi-fi enabled doorhandles, etc etc.....

A 'better house'...???...

Uh, 'yes'...…. to some folk.........


etc etc etc

[Sweep]

thanks for your customary sanity brucey

[Oldjohnw]

A £500k house would not be better - at least for me. I'd have several bedrooms which were superfluous. I don't know where I'd find a £50k house.

A house with an unnecessarily large footprint might be better for my ego but would it be better for the planet?

So I guess the answer is, as always, whether bikes or houses, 'it depends.'

[RickH]

The consensus seems to be, for new bikes roughly:

£500 will buy you something decent
£1000 will buy you something nice
£2000 will buy you all the performance you could reasonably want*
Any more is pure indulgence.

*Unless you're an actual pro or doing something super-demanding.

Views on the acceptability of pure indulgence are varied and controversial.

It's notable that this controversy is over a sum of money which if spent on a motor car will buy you nothing more than a slightly different paint job or performance improvement which will make zero difference to the time taken to get legally from A to B!

I'd go pretty much with that assessment with the exception of more esoteric machines, tandems , etc., which tend to be more expensive at all levels. The limit of how much you could spend being acceptable/appropriate is where much of the debate will lie.

[Airsporter1st]

fixed by moderator

.... in the meantime, may I respectfully request that you attribute your quotes to the person making them? I have not mentioned house prices in this thread or any other on this forum.

[Sweep]

sorry airsporter - no malice intended.

Seems to be a glitch of the quoting/reply system.

For that piece of economic illiteracy does seem to have been Cours, who I thought I was replying to.

On bikes, I think £1,000 to £1,500 should very comfortably cover it for non racing purposes.

May return with more when on a proper keyboard.