How much for a decent bike?

[iandusud]

It's still an interesting question though. People do seem to have strange ideas about what they should pay for a bike - £200 seems a lot to some people*, they are almost resentful at having to pay anything at all.

This was very much the case when I was selling bikes in the 80s. There was a certain image, that was unfortunately perpetuated by many cyclists that, cycling was a poor man's transport and therefore should cost next to nothing. Thankfully the recent uptake of cycling by those with money to spend has changed that image a lot, although I'm sure the idea still prevails for many. My wife resents buying socks. For some strange reason she thinks that they should be free!

Ian

[reohn2]

It has all turned a bit pointless hasn't it? This thread that is. What is a good bike ? What ever you want. End! Nowt wrong with spending 10k if you want. Don't knock those who do or those who spend 100 quid.
Baer in mind that every time you criticise some one who criticises, you are the same. So calling someone a bike snob puts you in the same light etc.
Consider that most bikes are bought for fun, especially those of any value. If its fun you can't judge. We all want different things. My priorty is fun to ride, stuff economy, reliability or trendiness. If it breaks down I get another out of the shed and mend the first.
I contend that the original question cannot have a definitive answer and those who try to create such a thing have missed the point.

[b]OK I'll bite and say IMO anyone who spends even half of that on a bicycle has been well and truly ripped off[/b]
These are bicycles we're discussing and there is no bike on the planet worth that kind of money,
I'll take whatever flak hurled my way if anyone can give good reason why they need spend so much to enjoy a bike ride.

Why? How is it a rip off, you offer up zero logic behind your opinion, you say there is no bicycle on the planet that's worth that money, do explain how you came to that conclusion?
That's a bit like saying a house worth £500k is a rip off, or a watch that's £500 is a rip off, or a tyre that is £60 is a rip off or a hand-built frame that is over £500 is a rip off and so many thousands of other examples, an ice cream at the seaside over 50p is a rip off

Why is your definition the one that all others should be judged upon, why is spending x amount ruffling yours and others feathers so much you have to make a big deal about it?

Why is your definition so sound?

[reohn2]

It has all turned a bit pointless hasn't it? This thread that is. What is a good bike ? What ever you want. End!
I contend that the original question cannot have a definitive answer and those who try to create such a thing have missed the point.

It's still an interesting question though. People do seem to have strange ideas about what they should pay for a bike - £200 seems a lot to some people*, they are almost resentful at having to pay anything at all. A £1000 bike is going to cost less than one cup of coffee per week over its ten year life. I would say, the more the better but £1000 is an excellent break point. I'm not worried about the people who spend thousands,I'm worried about the people who don't spend enough.
* I'm not talking about people on benefits and low wages here. I buy second-hand but I think a bit of quality is worth going after.

But what is enough?

[horizon]

But what is enough?

It's usually just a bit more than they expect to have to spend. Generally, people don't want to spend anything - it's what marketing people call a distress payment, like petrol. They don't like the idea of having to cycle anyway, especially in the rain, and give up their privileged place on the road. Having to pay for it is like having to pay for your transport to prison. The only people I feel really sympathetic with are those with no money at all - they just need to pick up whatever they can get.

I'm very OK about people spending thousands on bling - that's their choice. But £10 per week for a year will buy a very good bike and liberate you from buses, obesity and boredom. People just don't don't realise the value they're getting.

By the way, just in technical terms, as I said above I think £1000 is the real breakpoint as it buys you a superb touring bike but there's plenty out there at half that. We do know that around £200 - £300 it gets a bit iffy so second hand would be the way to go.

[thelawnet]

I'm very OK about people spending thousands on bling - that's their choice. But £10 per week for a year will buy a very good bike and liberate you from buses, obesity and boredom. People just don't don't realise the value they're getting.

By the way, just in technical terms, as I said above I think £1000 is the real breakpoint as it buys you a superb touring bike but there's plenty out there at half that. We do know that around £200 - £300 it gets a bit iffy so second hand would be the way to go.

a touring bike for what? Some people just need a bike to go one mile to the shops or school. Clearly there is no 'one size fits all'.

Also in terms of £10 per week, some people are on 'whatever' bike and then spend £xxx on maintenance

[Vorpal]

It's still an interesting question though. People do seem to have strange ideas about what they should pay for a bike - £200 seems a lot to some people*, they are almost resentful at having to pay anything at all. A £1000 bike is going to cost less than one cup of coffee per week over its ten year life. I would say, the more the better but £1000 is an excellent break point. I'm not worried about the people who spend thousands, I'm worried about the people who don't spend enough.

What is enough?

I've never spent £1000 on a bike purchase. The closest I've come to that was £800 on a used Geoff Smith tourer (which is a lovely, comfortable bike).

I also have two bikes which I got free. A mountain bike which came to me because I'm the friendly local cyclist. It needed a little TLC, but otherwise seems a decent bike. With an adjustable stem, Mr. V and I can both use it, and do so. The other bike I got free is a folding bike that I inherited when Mr. V's uncle died.

Most of my bikes are worth rather less than £1000, though some of them would cost more than that, if I had to replace them with new.

My tourer and the tandem are probably the highest vale bikes I have. I don't guess there's much between them for new replacement value.

[horizon]

I've never spent £1000 on a bike purchase. The closest I've come to that was £800 on a used Geoff Smith tourer (which is a lovely, comfortable bike).

There seems to be a point at which it is possible to buy a steel framed touring bike with quality components. I'm thinking Surly LHT, Dawes Galaxy, Spa Tourer, Thorn Club Tour etc. And then the Audax and cross varieties. You can throw in the more rugged 26" wheel or lighter road bikes but basically you come back to around £1000. Buying second-hand (as you did), snapping up a demo model or building it yourself brings the price down. You can indulge with a Mercian or Condor but they are simply at the higher end of this bracket.

Those are bikes on which you can ride for hours to stack up the mileage or lug your laptop to work on or finish an Audax in reasonable time. As is always said on this forum, you can do anything on any bike at any cost but leaving that aside, if you want that kind of bike then it circulates around the £1000 mark (new). I think those are decent bikes at a decent price.

Below that price are dozens of workable, useful, practical, fast, rugged bikes. My old Dawes Kokomo (cost new: £190) is still doing great service after 18 years. But that brings us down to the next breakpoint which is probably at around £250 when the components are of poorer quality.

So while this may be an unanswerable question, I would say there are useful observations to be made. My own answer would probably depend on who was asking and what they were looking for.

[pliptrot]

It is no surprise that acrimony is to be found when money is one point of discussion. There are those who conflate price with quality and those who apply other scrutiny. Experience and knowledge tend to move folk into the second group. The industry (that is everyone who profits from making and selling bikes, from Specialized to the LBS) has done a sterling job in persuading us all that we need -we should have- a certain type of bike, and anything other than the highest price represents a compromise. Anyone with a bit of knowledge and a nod to science thinks otherwise, and bikes would look different if critical thinking was appropriately applied. Big ticket bikes may be off-putting to others as they carry a concomitant implication that this is what you need. The fact remains that e-shifting and all the other gewgaws on offer are superfluous. The slightly hysterical guff said of such things betrays their gimmickry.

[PH]

I'm thinking Surly LHT, Dawes Galaxy, Spa Tourer, Thorn Club Tour etc. And then the Audax and cross varieties. You can throw in the more rugged 26" wheel or lighter road bikes but basically you come back to around £1000.

I think it must be a while since you last went bike shopping I doubt there's anything in the Thorn range below £1,400, LHT's are not far behind once you've added rack and guards, which from your list leaves the Spa brand and some of the cheaper model Galaxies.
IMO there's two ways to buy something - price based where you say I have £X to spend and go looking for the best you can get for that budget, or criteria based where you say I want XYZ and then end up spending whatever that costs. In nearly every case, cycling and otherwise, when I've done the latter I feel I've had better long term value.

[Airsporter1st]

Its a funny old world isn't it? All this talk about snobbery and yet the only snobbery to be found in the above thread is of the inverse variety.

[horizon]

Its a funny old world isn't it? All this talk about snobbery and yet the only snobbery to be found in the above thread is of the inverse variety.

I think a lot of it is to do with dealing with people's objections to buying a bike while at the same time valuing the good things about a good bike.

[Brucey]

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'.

Many of us have bought bikes that fall into the latter category but not all are deluded enough to maintain that they went appreciably faster, were somehow 'worth it' (except perhaps as some personal indulgence or other) etc.

To accuse folk who point this out of 'inverted snobbery' is perhaps both too easy and too simplistic; the argument is more nuanced than that.

cheers

[roubaixtuesday]

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!

[Cours]

Its a funny old world isn't it? All this talk about snobbery and yet the only snobbery to be found in the above thread is of the inverse variety.

Okay, I'll take the bait. There is such a pile of inverted snobbery in this thread its hard to stomach. According to some Rohloff and S&S couplings are 'practical' and desirable things, virtually indispensable. According to some...

So let's price up this dream build.. Brian Rourke 953 Rohloff compatible frame £1900. S&S gubbins upgrade £600, Rohloff about £1000. Let's get ac carbon chain and chain ring £200, do away with the 80's gripshift with a Rohbox and some Dura Ace shifters £500. Decent wheelsbuild £300, finishing kit to match with disc braking £800. Plus bags, racks and suitably plush hub dynamo lightning: no change out of £6K. Of course that's 'crazy' how could ANYONE want spend that much on a BICYCLE?

Of course all of this esoteric stuff = GOOD

A carbon bike for half the price, with disc braking heavy duty , virtually indestructible carbon wheels and wireless shifting = BAD

This thread is symptomatic of all inverted bike snobs attempting to condescend and dictate to everyone else who might have an opinion. And hell mend you are dumb enougj to disagree with. Its really not on.

Like was said upthread. 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.

I think you'll find that Rohloff and S&S couplings anathema to the vast majority of cyclists who spend £1k plus on a bike. There's such a thing as variety, and what suits a peronal need and preference. The mass market is not something to be poo-pooed. Its where the innovation most of us take for granted comes from. STI gearing, cassette hubs, disc braking, tubeless tyres, lightweight tubing, frame design. The list goes and on. Yet the same snobs brand club cyclists who invest in it as 'thick and unimaginative'.

Inverted snobbery indeed.

[Brucey]

all of which blather illustrates a complete lack of acknowledgement of the differences between 'practical/useful things for very particular purposes' and 'marginal gains' which are so small there is great difficulty in actually measuring them.