@Diplomjodler3 yeah, i absolutely agree. diminishing returns applies from dollar zero, though, and everyone's tipping point is going to be different. someone saying they couldn't justify spending $2k on a bike is entirely reasonable. Someone saying they don't think it *can* be justified is wrong, though :-)
wav3ydave
joined 2 years ago
@Diplomjodler3 @retrospectology Everyone will have a tipping point, where they couldn't justify spending more on a bike for the improvement you get. Mine's around $4k: I couldn't really justify spending more for better components, lighter weight, etc. Much as I'd like to. But I could easily justify a $2k bike. It's a different number for everyone though.
@Diplomjodler3 @retrospectology Diminishing returns apply to bikes, just as they apply to everything else: the $15k pro-spec Specialized SL8 isn't more than 'twice as good' as the $6k SL8 at the bottom of the range. But $400 doesn't buy you much bike these days, and a $2k bike will be measurably better in every single way. Depends on what you're doing really. If you're riding to the shops a couple of times a week, not worth spending extra. If you're doing 1,000 miles a month, definitely is.
@stark @Diplomjodler3 yeah, there's an element of that: a $10k superbike isn't as good for getting the shopping as a $500 city bike, if getting the shopping is all you're doing. I'm more talking about performance bikes for enthusiast cyclists here, be they roadies/mtbers/gravel riders/whatever. I've reviewed a *lot* of bikes over the years, and for the most part you genuinely do get what you pay for, but with diminishing returns the more you spend.