New London cycle commuter

[karlt]

Two grand? "Not a lot of money to spend on a bike"?

What planet are some of you on?

A bike lasts ten years. That's £200 per year or £4.00 a week or 90p per day.

Yeah, but so does a bike costing a lot less than 2 grand. That's rather the point I was making - you don't need to spend anything like this amount. Calling it "not a lot of money" is patently false when it's about three or four times what you actually need to spend. Sure, if you want the 2 grand bike go for it, but don't pretend it's not much money to spend on a bike. It's a hell of a lot.

[karlt]

Two grand? "Not a lot of money to spend on a bike"?

What planet are some of you on?

Sounds like a lot of money until you consider that a London zone 1-3 annual travel pass costs £1500. The bike will pay for itself in just over a year.

That would be justification for spending two grand on a bike if it had to cost that much and you were comparing it with the travel pass. It doesn't have to cost that much; nothing like that much. The vast, vast majority of people considering a commute like this would spend a couple of hundred or so. I really, really thought hard about whether the £270 I spent on my road bike was too much to justify.

[Big T]

And the cheapest UK new car is the Suzuki Alto at £5995, so why aren't the roads full of them? The best selling car is the Fiesta which can cost twice as much.

Sometimes cheapest isn't best.

[[XAP]Bob]

I'd suggest that unless you're getting a Rolhoff equipped ebike then £2000 is more akin to spending 50k+ on a car...

Very nice, but clearly buying stuff you like (nothing necessarily wrong there)

For £2k I'd be looking at a pair of bikes (or half a 'bent trike, fully kitted out if I'm honest) so that you have easy servicing options.

[meic]

Except that most of us can lay our hands on £2,000 but not £50,000.
Then cars depreciate very rapidly, not just financially but in serviceable lifespan.

I think my car has done well to last 18 years, I see no reason why my bikes shouldnt out live me.

I agree though that you can commute very happily on a bike that cost a lot less than £2,000. As consumables are worn out you can replace them with something more durable if you wish.

22,000 trouble free miles on a secondhand Raleigh bought for £45

Rather a bit more spent on chains, rims, hubs, tyres, sprockets, cables etc.

[karlt]

And the cheapest UK new car is the Suzuki Alto at £5995, so why aren't the roads full of them? The best selling car is the Fiesta which can cost twice as much.

Sometimes cheapest isn't best.

And the cheapest bikes in the UK cost around £75 from Sports Direct or Argos. No-one here's suggesting buying one of them, and I'm sure we all know why. That doesn't mean that we suggest spending twenty times as much. As [XAP}Bob says, this isn't Altos and Fiestas; this isn't comparing Altos and Fiestas; this is comparing Suzuki Altos and a mid life crisis worthy sports car. Nothing wrong with that, but pretending it's not an expensive choice doesn't fool anyone.

[[XAP]Bob]

We can't all lay our hands on £50k, but the value of bikes basically tops out at £10k ish, cars top out at £250kish (yea you undoubtedly can spend more on either)

So to go to a £2k bike is to buy something in the very high end of bikes...

There is no problem with that, but it isn't a "mondeo" transport solution, it's at least a lotus exige

I say this as someone with a trike worth significantly more - I don't sau it's not justifiable, it is alot of money though.