Cycling UK Forum

May one pay by instalments over several years? Like buying a car, where one does not own it at the end?

mikeymo wrote:Oh, I get your drift all right. You don't like rich people spending large amounts of money (that they don't deserve) on things, so you describe them as "status symbols".

Quite bizarre.

I said the exact opposite of that - that I don't have any problem with people spending their money on such things.

As to status symbols - you're seriously saying there's no such thing? Seriously??

Very odd.

speedsixdave wrote:

Bmblbzzz wrote: veblen

Not come across the term before but a quick google reveals a most useful concept and name for it. Thanks Bmblbzzz!

+1. Just googled it myself.

The utility cyclist wrote:

Bonzo Banana wrote:The gains on expensive bikes are so ridiculously marginal and the risk of theft is super high and the cost of maintaining them is super high. Ultimately a slightly fitter rider on a low end Claris road bike will beat a less fit rider on a top end £13k bike. You buy a Ferrari car you get a Ferrari engine you don't fit it with a 50cc moped engine in it which can be the case when a rich less fit middle age man splashes out on a high end bike.

It's all marketing nonsense anyway, Specialized import such bikes from the far east to promote their engineering status plus they sponsor events so that the Specialized brand is desired. I don't think Specialized has really made anything themselves, I'm pretty sure even their early bikes were imported from Japan. You can see Specialized mountain bikes being made in a recent fuji-ta video. The same factory is used for many low end brands. I've got a cheap Muddyfox sports direct road bike that came from the same factory, no doubt it hasn't got the butted tubes of the Specialized entry level road bikes that are made there but they will be manufactured by the same people to the same overall quality, only the components will vary and my cheap Muddyfox bikes sports a decent freehub/Claris drivetrain with brifters and dual pivot brakes, it's probably just a kg heavier than the entry level Specialized road bike because of a lack of frame tube butting.

You can see the same Muddyfox model of bike as mine up against a high end carbon fibre Boardman bike here. Also the Muddyfox bike only has a 12-25 cassette so bear that in mind when you see the results. I'm sure a 11-32T cassette would have made a significant difference to the results.

Ultimately its a silly money purchase in line with a gold plated McClaren. You'd have to be an amazing cyclist for the tiny gains to make sense and such bikes sell in ridiculously low numbers, probably 10,000 entry level Specialized bikes are sold for every one of these.

I think the chances of lower end bikes are more susceptible to being stolen in all honesty.
Cost of maintaining isn't very high - what's with using the word 'super'?? My own Dura Ace shifters haven't missed a beat in 5 years, carbon cranks still bob on as are all the carbon components including carbon rail saddle. The high end Enduro BB has lasted same, only big ring, chain, brake pads, bar tape have been replaced. Even the rear tubular is still going okay, I've done about 10,000 miles on it.
Some people report having 50,000 miles on their Dura Ace 7900 shifters.

I think people who don't buy high end have little idea as to running costs, sure if you do a lot of miles it's going to cost more but very high costs only occur if you damage your bike and/or components

It's nothing like a gold plated Mclaren and it isn't a silly money purchase, only people making comments like that are 'silly'

Is that really true. Items like cassettes, chains, chainrings etc wear out over time and a £15 cassette made of heavier steel will often outlast a lightweight aluminium cassette at £90. I've seen touring advice where they recommend the lower cost cassettes due to getting sometimes 2x as long lifespan. Chains are the same too. So not only do you have shorter life components which cost much more but any failure or damage to a high end component will obviously need a far more expensive repair. I don't think its unfair or misleading at all to state a high end bike will need more expensive maintenance and repairs. Also high end bikes have much more proprietary components so you are held to ransom by the brand who may be the only supplier of that part and it could even be a part of the bike that is not available in the future which puts a time limit on how long you can use the bike. Lastly the tolerances on high end bikes can be much more critical requiring more frequent adjustment on some groupsets. If you have two mechanical groupsets one with a 8 speed cogset and another 12 speed, the tolerances are much tighter with 12 speed and adjustments will likely be more frequent. The industry keeps pushing the boundaries of how many cogs they can get in a cassette and making them of lighter materials. In the middle again is the best compromise of reliability and performance. Obviously there are many factors though, frequency of use, weight of rider, fair weather cyclists, power of rider, spin or grind etc. Then you have carbon fibre frame and fork scanning if you have a minor accident and unsure if the bike is safe to ride not something steel or aluminium bikes would normally bother with and admittedly many CF riders don't either but it is often recommended in the certification and therefore included as advice in manuals in order to ensure safety. You can omit that whole section of costs on lower cost bikes.

Surely there is no one who thinks it would cost the same to maintain a high end bike compared to a mid-level or lower mid-level bike. Where I would accept that there is high maintenance costs is the very low end entry level bike that have junk components like freewheels and components barely fit for purpose those could end up being more costly than a high end bike if not financially at least by the huge amount of time you have to put into them to keep them working which would equate to high labour costs if you don't do repairs and maintenance yourself. To me if there was five price levels of bike with super cheap being 1 and super expensive being 5 for me the sensible purchase would be 2 or 3 in that price scale.

Again I'm writing as someone who would never benefit from a high end bike though, my engine is more ford fiesta level so would be a poor pairing with a high end super bike. I'd still get overtaken by a 18 year old on a Halfords Apollo road bike. If high end bikes came with a set of Chris Froome legs built in then I maybe would have a different viewpoint. So the disadvantages vs the advantages of high end bikes for me are clearly heavily weighted on the negative side. Ultimately I'm only a leisure rider who needs practicality and exists in an environment of pot holes, thieves, angry car drivers etc.

Jamesh wrote:10k for a pro race bike is about right 3k for a paint job more debatable.
GCN did a video on pro race bike prices.


canyons a bargain!!

https://youtu.be/DNV2psLKy0A

I'm not sure if it's worth watching that video, but there are no 'cheap' bikes in the TdF, where cheap might be '£2,000' (which still isn't cheap exactly, but there we go).

The Canyon Ultimate range is:

1. CFR for around £7000
2. CF SLX, which is the old version with about 140g more in the frame, and 40g more in the fork
3. CF SL which is the base model, adding about 100g to the frameset weight, and starting at £2k with 105 hydraulic disc brakes

There's 150 grams between 105 and Ultegra, and a further 250 grams to Dura-Ace, otherwise the priciest build adds 50mm carbon rims rather than heavier (250g) box section alloy ones, ceramic bearings, a, er 3rd-printed saddle (carbon, saving 50g).

Presumably the idea is to sell shedloads of £2k bikes, and if you want to buy your own deep section carbon wheels you can do so at much lower cost (and switch between them).

Anyway, clearly every year they all claim their new bike is much lighter, stiffer, faster and more aero than the old one.

Pro racing speeds suggest that this is unlikely:



but at any rate there are clearly a lot of 'barely used' 'old hat', unobtainium bikes.

With Shimano/Campagnalo removing most of the components from the bike brands with the 'groupset', bike vendors are left differentiating on the basis of frame (lighter/stiffer/more aero), fork (very marginally lighter), handlebars (more aero), seat post (either more comfortable OR lighter, pick one), saddle (but why when you could buy your own, as with pedals), and wheels (lighter, aero, ceramic bearings, etc).

Stuff about 'ceramic bearings' is proven to be nonsense, so it's mostly left to waffle about yaw angles and aero, which is a bit difficult in real world turbulence, but looks good in reviews.

IF one is an elite athlete, then one prefers rim brakes, but consumers want disc brakes.

So this Specialized is at least a consumer bike that says it is, not a consumer bike that pros are forced to ride so that consumers will buy them.

thelawnet wrote:

I wonder what caused the stagnation after WWI? I'd imagine it was down to changes in race format but I don't have any idea what. The far less dramatic flattening in the last couple of decades I'd put down to the post-Armstrong effect. The 70s also look fairly lacking in improvement, but the results are more widely distributed there.

IIRC derailleur gears were not used in some prestigious races (such as the TDF) all through the 1920s. There was also a distinct lack of men of professional cycling age in many countries; WW1 had a devastating effect. Another effect was that about 1930 better quality steel tubes for bicycle frames became more widely available.

It is an interesting graph but I wonder what races are included in the data set?

cheers

Bmblbzzz wrote:

thelawnet wrote:

I wonder what caused the stagnation after WWI? I'd imagine it was down to changes in race format but I don't have any idea what. The far less dramatic flattening in the last couple of decades I'd put down to the post-Armstrong effect. The 70s also look fairly lacking in improvement, but the results are more widely distributed there.

Lack of competition/training throughout WW1?
Quality of road surfaces?
Some one the top riders will have been killed during the war.
Availability of good quality food?
Spanish flu?

Interesting graph indeed. I expect much of the increase between 1920 and 1960 was better road surfaces or at least more widespread decent road surfaces. Tarmac is the cyclist's best friend!

Shrunken talent pool sounds a likely factor along with lack of training etc.

And going with that, an increase in competition from other, perhaps more modern and exciting, speed-based sports; motor racing, aviation, speed boating. This was the era of Futurism.

I don't think it can have been bad road surfaces as WWI and particularly the increase in motoring led to improvements.

I don't know much about the agricultural situation of the 1920s but I would have expected bad diet to have been a factor in the immediate post-WWII years.

As for the graph's dataset, it's labelled 'tourspeed' and starts in the TdF's first year, so I presume it's the winner's times for each year? Or average stage speeds for the whole peloton? Or something like that...

Brucey wrote:IIRC derailleur gears were not used in some prestigious races (such as the TDF) all through the 1920s. There was also a distinct lack of men of professional cycling age in many countries; WW1 had a devastating effect. Another effect was that about 1930 better quality steel tubes for bicycle frames became more widely available.

It is an interesting graph but I wonder what races are included in the data set?

cheers

TdF only.

I made a graph since 1960



You'd have to look at average elevation gain and such like, but the average speed gains from the late 80s to 2000 were large, since then nothing....

Bmblbzzz wrote:I wonder what caused the stagnation after WWI? I'd imagine it was down to changes in race format but I don't have any idea what.

Trouble with looking at one criteria is it never tells the real stories. 1919 was the slowest TdF ever, it was also 2,000 km longer than most current versions even though it had six fewer stages. The speed ought not to be a surprise, neither should the fact that it also had the lowest number of finishers, 10 out of 69, I'm surprised anyone finished. The next few years didn't improve the stats for the riders by much.
http://bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdfstats.html

cycle tramp wrote:

The utility cyclist wrote:So you don't have any experience of high end bikes so go with the stupid comments, how very typical of some forummers. Things they don't understand or have zero experience of and go in just to make troll comments to antagonise and insult.

Er... since you've asked..so far I've ridden racing up rights, folders, shoppers, traditional roadsters, expedition rated tourers, 2 and 3 wheeled human powered vehicles, used hydraulic brakes, roller brakes, drum brakes, coster brake, rim brakes (vee, capiller, roller cam), single speed, fixed wheel, three speed hub, nu-Vinci hub, rolhoff hub, deraileurs (1x5; 3x7; 4x7), lighting wise; dyno-hub; bottle and battery...

..I've cycled with road going cycling clubs, undertaken timed events, been on social rides, night rides,undertaken day rides, weekend rides, moving on touring, loaded touring, commuting and shopping..

...I have been cycling for some time. Perhaps enough to know that the quality of a bicycle ride is down to so many factors, the route you take, how you feel on that day, the company you may travel with, the weather, how the bike fits you, how other road users treat you, the quality of the road surfaces, the views, the smells you encounter on the way, the pub or cafe you stop at, those random, but good surprises on your journey.

Anyone can attempt to sell you any bicycle at any price - it's the open market after all, but to proclaim that you will have a better experience on this bicycle simply because it costs more seems rather dismissive of the fittness and bike handling skills of the rider and the whole experience which is travel.

So you've no experience of high end bikes as I said

The utility cyclist wrote:So you've no experience of high end bikes as I said

At this point may I enquire what you precisely mean by high end? And what is it do you think I am missing from the experience?

roubaixtuesday wrote:

mikeymo wrote:Oh, I get your drift all right. You don't like rich people spending large amounts of money (that they don't deserve) on things, so you describe them as "status symbols".

Quite bizarre.

I said the exact opposite of that - that I don't have any problem with people spending their money on such things.

As to status symbols - you're seriously saying there's no such thing? Seriously??

Very odd.

Nothing at all "odd" or "bizarre". Though I acknowledge your "faux naive" use of language in an attempt to deflect your real attitude being pointed out to you.

What I'm saying is exactly this - that you are not being honest. Maybe not even with yourself. That your actual feelings about wealthy people and how they spend their money are not what you are pretending they are.

roubaixtuesday wrote:If someone is buying it purely as a status symbol, why worry, it's far less damaging than other status symbols like fast cars/mansions/ first class fights etc.

The three things that you presented as examples of "status symbols" are all very strange. I find it difficult to believe this, but maybe you've never actually met any wealthy people, or driven or ridden in a "luxury" car or visited a large well appointed house. Or sat in the cramped "coach" seats of an airliner. But if you really haven't, then be assured that spending more money usually brings greater physical comfort and pleasure.

If I were very wealthy I would have a large, comfortable car. It would probably cost a lot of money, it would probably be "fast" as you put it, but only if I drove it fast. I would have a large house, with a swimming pool, several bathrooms, grounds to keep animals, etc. etc. A "mansion" as you put it. And if I ever flew I would fly first class. These are rational decisions that people with money make, because they choose to spend money on things that make them happy, strangely enough.

Your real attitude to the wealthy is revealed in choosing these things as examples of status symbols, rather than the rational choices they actually are. As I said, it looks to me like an attempt by you to present wealthy people who make these decisions as vain or childish or stupid.

What is bizarre is that you didn't choose any of those things which potentially could be described as "status symbols" - personalised number plates, maybe, or jewellery, neither of which have any "utility". Though people have all sorts of reasons for buying anything.

Yes, some people may sometimes buy things as "status symbols". Far far less often than you believe. Wealthy people buy things for comfort, ease, utility, pleasure, security. Just like the rest of us.