How much for a decent bike?

[Canuk]

In terms of an object of conspicuous consumption, to satisfy your every whim or just to look pretty or whatever, you can spend as much as you like, spend money you don't really have, it is your prerogative.

Just don't wildly exaggerate the performance benefits in the process.

cheers

You just don't get it do you? People are spending on what they want with funds they do have!

Nobody really gives a hoot for your 'Science' when buying a new anything. Mostly their choices are completely abstract. Maybe you don't have the finances to buy the latest and the best kit, perhaps there's an inverted snobbery going on here...

I try and buy the best kit I can afford at the time. A. Because it generally performs better and lasts longer than cheap stuff and B. I like the good things in life, I've worked hard for them, so why not?

You/and or Science have absolutely no place in the criticism of other people's buying choices. The world is a great big mixed up place and that delivers big mixed up choices. That you still maintain this unwelcome point of view, criticism over sympathy will win you no friends. Quite the opposite. Perhaps that doesn't bother you. Like I said upthread, for some, knocking about like a tramp with a home brew haircut is 'okay'. Others would baulk at that picture.

Its called choice. Most people like to learn from their own mistakes, garner their own knowledge about things, even hold opinions different to others.

Thats not snobbery, that's just the human condition.

[Brucey]

you are repeating yourself quite needlessly, presumably in a (vain?) attempt to justify your own decisions.

This thread is 'how much for a decent bike?' not 'please let me pamper my ego' or whatever.

[Samuel D]

Sure, consumerism may be the way of the world we live in, but is that really desirable?

It destroys the planet and human happiness. What’s undesirable about that?

Nobody really gives a hoot for your 'Science' when buying a new anything.

You evidently don’t but others do. That’s why they come to the Bikes & Bits – Technical section of this forum. It’s for science. It’s not a suitable venue for boasting about your own consumerism or assigning status to bicycles according to the latest industry trends.

Expect to be asked to defend your opinions in technical terms, not with hand-waving and kooky home-grown social theories.

[amediasatex]

We have drifted somewhat from the original question... as a reminder it was:

So, how much (if price is a general guide) should you have to pay for a bike of a particular type (MTB, road etc) assuming it's not for anything specialized and/or is not going to get very heavy usage. And is it worth paying £2,000 for a bike which in 5 years might be quite out of date?

As I alluded to in my earlier post I personally would frame my answer thusly:

Q: So, how much (if price is a general guide) should you have to pay for a bike of a particular type (MTB, road etc) assuming it's not for anything specialized and/or is not going to get very heavy usage

A: Surprisingly little really, a couple of hundred +/- a bit really ought to get you a bit of serviceable quality that will perform adequately for normal use. Spend a bit more and you'll get a bit more but what you consider adequate will be a personal decision based on your needs. Do you want...

a bike for travelling very fast?
a bike for travelling very comfortably?
a bike for travelling with huge amounts of luggage?
a bike for transporting other (small and often scremaing) people?
a bike that requires very little maintenance?
a bike that you really really like looking at?

All are valid requirements and may alter the budget required so it's very difficult to give a definitive answer when John's idea of adequate may vary massively to Jane's idea of adequate.

Q: And is it worth paying £2,000 for a bike

A: Entirely subjective, and defined by your interpretation of 'worth'. Whether that be worth it in terms of extra longeviy, performance, or enjoyment of the colour. Only the purchaser can make that decision and it will also be swayed by their financial circumstances.

For someone with £5,000 in their pocket to burn then the answer may well be, yes totally worth it, you'll get more of what you want and it won't adversely affect your ability to eat this week.
For someone with £500 in their pocket the answer may well be, no not really worth it, you'll get 99% of what you need without spending the extra dosh.

which in 5 years might be quite out of date?

This is a function of what you buy. If you buy a current top of the range technically advanced bike then bits of it may well be out of date in 5 years, be that from changing standards or dropped support for particular proprietary components. But in the mainstream and lower end models there is very little that will go out of date that quickly. It's perfectly possible to buy a bike (both expensive and cheap) right now that will not go out of date in the next couple of decades, or you could buy one that will be a pig to fix in 2 years time, but which kind of bike you buy is a choice. I'd say if you have the money to burn then it's much less of an issue that if you're scrimping to save and want/need a bike to last a long time.

[Canuk]

you are repeating yourself quite needlessly, presumably in a (vain?) attempt to justify your own decisions.

This thread is 'how much for a decent bike?' not 'please let me pamper my ego' or whatever.

This thread has quite justifiably ripened into 'Do I come to the forum to be condescended to'? And is it right that any user should be subject to that kind of treatment?

Pot, kettle, black. Over self justification. Your pontification is not required on this thread. Do you cut your own hair at home? If you do, it's not for me to judge or criticise you, you would find me sympathetic instead. You might try this exercise yourself, next time you get stuck into someone or some choice with your own particular preference blazing.

[Brucey]

if you could only hear yourself.... jeez...

[Canuk]

if you could only hear yourself.... jeez...

[Canuk]

if you could only hear yourself.... jeez...

Likewise. There are plenty up thread who agree wholeheartedly with me. Its been some time since I spent 2K on a bicycle, but I rather enjoyed the result. And I absolutely defend my, and others right to do so, free from the useless critique of people like yourself. For that's what it is: absolutely useless and condescending.

This is something that absolutely needed to be said.

[Airsporter1st]

if you could only hear yourself.... jeez...

...and vice versa.

As a relative newcomer to the forum, I have the greatest respect for the phenomenal wealth of knowledge and experience that you share so freely with others, but your frequent condescension and belittlement of others do you no favours. Needless to say perhaps, I have been on the receiving end on several occasions, for no good reason that I could determine and its not pleasant.

[Cours]

if you could only hear yourself.... jeez...

...and vice versa.

As a relative newcomer to the forum, I have the greatest respect for the phenomenal wealth of knowledge and experience that you share so freely with others, but your frequent condescension and belittlement of others do you no favours. Needless to say perhaps, I have been on the receiving end on several occasions, for no good reason that I could determine and its not pleasant.

+++1 Newcomer also. A bit of humility goes a long way.

[Samuel D]

Brucey is a bit rough around the edges, but imagine his (and our) frustration at the technically ignorant nonsense espoused by posters with far worse manners in:

Bikes & Bits – Technical section

Instagram is the accepted place to boast about purchases. Take it there. This forum should remain a place for robust technical debate. It is inherent in that that people will be offended, even though that bewilders me. What’s the big deal if the forum doesn’t pat you on the back for buying something expensive? Enough people – a whole industry! – tell Brucey they don’t like what he likes.

If you buy a current top of the range technically advanced bike then bits of it may well be out of date in 5 years, be that from changing standards or dropped support for particular proprietary components. But in the mainstream and lower end models there is very little that will go out of date that quickly. It's perfectly possible to buy a bike (both expensive and cheap) right now that will not go out of date in the next couple of decades, or you could buy one that will be a pig to fix in 2 years time, but which kind of bike you buy is a choice. I'd say if you have the money to burn then it's much less of an issue that if you're scrimping to save and want/need a bike to last a long time.

How do your first and last sentences go together here? I think in many cases parsimony saves us from ending up with a high-end gimmick that won’t last (e.g. proprietary parts). Imagine trying to find a specific model of Trek’s Vector Wings in a decade.

[Brucey]

Canuk, one or two agree with you certainly. I suspect that there are many others who are looking on with interest at this thread and who don't want to get involved in what is essentially a completely pointless discussion, way off the point. You , as it were, "doth protest too much...." And as for having the blind gall to accuse others of being condescending in the same breath as home haircuts and the like... words truly fail me....

Let me remind you again; this thread is 'HOW MUCH FOR A DECENT BIKE?' the query being framed in the context of a £1000 road bike and a £600 MTB.

Quite a few folk here have owned/ridden plenty of esoteric bikes but are able to put them into sensible context. Others, ahem, evidently not so much....

[JakobW]

How do your first and last sentences go together here? I think in many cases parsimony saves us from ending up with a high-end gimmick that won’t last (e.g. proprietary parts). Imagine trying to find a specific model of Trek’s Vector Wings in a decade.

I took it to mean that if you've got the money to burn on expensive bikes, then it's less of a problem if in a couple of years parts are difficult, expensive, or even impossible to find, because you can afford to buy another.

Anyhow, WRT the OP's question, the answer seems to be 'between ~£500 and ~£1000, less if second-hand'; though the terms of debate have been a little rancourous, it seems to be conceded that above this level performance improvements are into the level of diminishing returns and/or driven by fashion (which isn't to say that these returns may not be worth it to some/people can get pleasure from fashion/yadda yadda yadda).

[Canuk]

Brucey is a bit rough around the edges, but imagine his (and our) frustration at the technically ignorant nonsense espoused by posters with far worse manners in:

Bikes & Bits – Technical section

Instagram is the accepted place to boast about purchases. Take it there. This forum should remain a place for robust technical debate. It is inherent in that that people will be offended, even though that bewilders me. What’s the big deal if the forum doesn’t pat you on the back for buying something expensive? Enough people – a whole industry! – tell Brucey they don’t like what he likes.

If you buy a current top of the range technically advanced bike then bits of it may well be out of date in 5 years, be that from changing standards or dropped support for particular proprietary components. But in the mainstream and lower end models there is very little that will go out of date that quickly. It's perfectly possible to buy a bike (both expensive and cheap) right now that will not go out of date in the next couple of decades, or you could buy one that will be a pig to fix in 2 years time, but which kind of bike you buy is a choice. I'd say if you have the money to burn then it's much less of an issue that if you're scrimping to save and want/need a bike to last a long time.

How do your first and last sentences go together here? I think in many cases parsimony saves us from ending up with a high-end gimmick that won’t last (e.g. proprietary parts). Imagine trying to find a specific model of Trek’s Vector Wings in a decade.

I take issue with all of the above. You're only defending the indefensible here, condescending attitudes have no place in a 'Technical' section. You might think they do, but they don't. This is the only account I have. Full stop.

The attitude of some on this section is grandiose to say the least. The bottom line is, most of your 'expert' knowledge is freely available , and much more accessible by people with a purposeful sense of generosity and humility on YouTube. If I want to find out how to cable up an SRAM lever I don't 'Ask Brucey', I try and do it myself and that's not successful I go straight to YouTube, where a visual guide is 100x more effective than someone wittering on about which Sturmey Archer widget is better than the other.

This thread is really just a talking shop. Fair enough, there's little here that you won't find more ably discussed and easily digested elsewhere. Its pretty redundant in that respect. That's pretty much the reason I do no feel the need to contribute to it. Except on the matter of condescending advice and critique of others choices.

[amediasatex]

If you buy a current top of the range technically advanced bike then bits of it may well be out of date in 5 years, be that from changing standards or dropped support for particular proprietary components. But in the mainstream and lower end models there is very little that will go out of date that quickly. It's perfectly possible to buy a bike (both expensive and cheap) right now that will not go out of date in the next couple of decades, or you could buy one that will be a pig to fix in 2 years time, but which kind of bike you buy is a choice. I'd say if you have the money to burn then it's much less of an issue that if you're scrimping to save and want/need a bike to last a long time.

How do your first and last sentences go together here? I think in many cases parsimony saves us from ending up with a high-end gimmick that won’t last (e.g. proprietary parts). Imagine trying to find a specific model of Trek’s Vector Wings in a decade.

I mean that if you buy a very technically advanced bike right now then it may well be out of date or hard to support in 5 years, but that if you have the cash then this isn't such a big issue as (presumably) you'll be happy/able to buy upgrade or replace the bike when support becomes an issue, where as if you are on more of a budget then future support may be a big factor in your decision about whether or not you choose a bike that uses non-standard or very technically advanced parts.

Does that clarify or have I completely missed the point (entirely possible!) of what you were asking?