Looking to buy new bike

Looking to buy new bike

Post by Ron Ruf » Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:42:43


Quote:

>So why did you pok $3K for your road bike???

It was used, and I paid a lot less than that... but, probably because I
"appreciate quality mechanicals". I'd rather pay $1,000 for a used Ti
frame with Dura Ace, than $500 for a new Al frame with Sora. It's
prettier (IMO), and I just like Ti... but I know it isn't significantly
faster, better handling, better riding, or better shifting than the
cheaper bike.

The more time we spend riding and the more years we spend in the sport,
the easier it is to notice details and even obsess about them... but
the OP was just starting out. I thought it made sense to advise him to
spend a little money rather than more. He can always get a nicer bike
later on if he really gets into the sport, and he wants to upgrade...
then he'll probably know what he really wants. Many people have the
idea (if they are tuned into the marketing hype), that the difference
in speed between a $500 bike and a $5,000 bike is huge... but it really
isn't. He doesn't have to spend much at all to get 99% of the
performance.

 
 
 

Looking to buy new bike

Post by Mad Do » Fri, 12 Aug 2005 23:08:05

Ron Ruff says...

Quote:

>>So why did you pok $3K for your road bike???
>It was used, and I paid a lot less than that... but, probably because I
>"appreciate quality mechanicals". I'd rather pay $1,000 for a used Ti
>frame with Dura Ace, than $500 for a new Al frame with Sora. It's
>prettier (IMO), and I just like Ti... but I know it isn't significantly
>faster, better handling, better riding, or better shifting than the
>cheaper bike.

Man alive, you can take a simple subject and confuse the hell out of it.  You
make it sound like all you're going for is a prettier bike since you believe
that the more expensive stuff doesn't work better or go faster.  To me, that's
just all wrong.  If I truly believed that a rear deraileur that cost 1/3 as much
was as good, fast, etc., then that's what I'd buy.  They all look the same to me
when they are moving 35 mph.  What I've noticed when I've ridden on lower priced
gear is that it has to be kept in perfect adjustment or it doesn't work right.
And the cheap stuff gets out of alignment faster than good stuff.  I'd rather
ride than tweak and the stuff I ride on has been very reliable.

Quote:
>The more time we spend riding and the more years we spend in the sport,
>the easier it is to notice details and even obsess about them... but
>the OP was just starting out. I thought it made sense to advise him to
>spend a little money rather than more. He can always get a nicer bike
>later on if he really gets into the sport, and he wants to upgrade...
>then he'll probably know what he really wants. Many people have the
>idea (if they are tuned into the marketing hype), that the difference
>in speed between a $500 bike and a $5,000 bike is huge... but it really
>isn't. He doesn't have to spend much at all to get 99% of the
>performance.

He can always get a nicer bike later?  I'd rather be patient, shop around and
get what I want the first time.  When you sell or trade a used bike, you don't
get much out of it, so buying a cheap bike as a short term stopgap is not the
solution because you lose when you upgrade.  I've been on my current bike 12
years, although most of the original components have worn out and been replaced
once or twice.  But that's just me.  If you'd rather buy cheap shit now and
replace it with something better later, go for it.  I figure you lose with that
plan but it's a free country and you're free to waste your money as you see fit.

 
 
 

Looking to buy new bike

Post by Tim Line » Fri, 12 Aug 2005 23:26:39

Quote:

> Tim Lines says...


>>>Ron Ruff says...

>>>>Price range is up to you... you could pay under $500 for a decent
>>>>road bike or you could pay a lot more for mostly esoteric improvements.

>>>I'm still waiting to see the Giro or Tour won on a $500 bike.  Cause,
>>>you know, if those improvements are just esoteric, then surely a top
>>>rider could win big on a cheap bike, right?

>>Couldn't happen because nobody would pay a top rider to ride a cheap bike.

> Then why would anyone bother to pay more if the money just went mostly for
> espteric improvements?  Dontcha think there would be just ONE rider in the
> entire modern history of the grand tours that would do it just to prove a point?

No.  These guys like getting paid.  Sponsers like getting exposure for
their top of the line bikes.  If LANCE! won the TdF on a Trek 1000,
every Fred out their would want a Trek 1000.  Do you suppose Trek would
rather sell lots of Trek 1000s to Freds with big credit limits or
Madrones to those same Freds?

I'll answer for you:  Trek likes making money so they'd rather sell
expensive bikes.  That's why they pay LANCE! to ride their most
expensive bikes.  LANCE! likes getting paid, so he rides what they'll
pay him to ride.

This is called "capitalism".

Actually, LANCE! seemed pretty hung up on fredly stuff himself.  Looking
for a psychological edge and all that.  So substitute Salvo, er,
Savoldel, um, that Italian dude that rides for Discovery.  Same story.

 
 
 

Looking to buy new bike

Post by Mad Do » Sat, 13 Aug 2005 01:33:51

Tim Lines says...

Quote:
>No.  These guys like getting paid.  Sponsers like getting exposure for
>their top of the line bikes.  If LANCE! won the TdF on a Trek 1000,
>every Fred out their would want a Trek 1000.  Do you suppose Trek would
>rather sell lots of Trek 1000s to Freds with big credit limits or
>Madrones to those same Freds?
>I'll answer for you:  Trek likes making money so they'd rather sell
>expensive bikes.  That's why they pay LANCE! to ride their most
>expensive bikes.  LANCE! likes getting paid, so he rides what they'll
>pay him to ride.
>This is called "capitalism".

Right.  And one component of capitalism is to undersell the bloated top dogs.
You see it all the time in automobiles, consumer electronics, etc.  So surely,
if a cheap bike is as fast as an expensive bike, surely someone wacked and on
the edge like Vino would ride a cheaper bike so his bike maker could surpass
Trek in sales.  Like if a Madonne sells for, what, something like $5 or 6K with
D/A, surely Giant could take their $500 bike and put nice paint on it and sell
it for $3K and take away tons of sales from Trek.  Because, you know that the
$5K bike has no performance edge over the $500, bike, right?  So just inflate
the price on the $500 bike up to $3K to make it look credible and then you've
got even more capital in your capitalism, right?

Wrong.  A $500 bike will be heavy and every ounce counts when you're climbing
big hills.  Lance won 7 tours in part because he prepared himself and worked off
the pre-season flab.  Ferrari estimates that each ounce of additional rider
weight adds a second on a typical eight mile climb, so if you assume that static
bike weight has a similar penalty, then the ~7 pounds weight penalty that a $500
bike has as compared to a $6K bike, you're looking at almost 2 minutes per 8
mile hill.  There's quite a few 8 mile hills in the tour, so who's gonna be able
to win on a heavy $500 bike?

I keep forgetting - we "normal" people don't deserve to have the same advantages
as the pros.  We're not worthy.  We are slugs that don't train enough to go
fast, we're too fat and too ugly, so we should slow ourselves even further by
riding heavy bikes with lousy brakes and shifters.  It's cool for us to spend
$30-40K on cars, but $5K on a bike is excessive and foolish.

Tim, do you ride a $500 bike?

 
 
 

Looking to buy new bike

Post by gwhit » Sat, 13 Aug 2005 02:11:44

Quote:

> This is called "capitalism".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

http://www.capitalism.org/

http://www.capmag.com/

http://www.celebratecapitalism.org/

http://www.capitalism.net/

http://www.capitalismcenter.org/

http://www.mises.org/books/capitalism.pdf

http://www.mises.org/story/1562
"How striking to discover, then, how few writers and thinkers are
willing to spell out precisely what they mean when they refer to the
economics of capitalism. For many, the term capitalism is nothing but a
vessel into which they pour all the people, institutions, and ideas that
they hate. And so capitalism emerges as a synonym for greed, dirty
rivers and streams, pollution, corrupt businessmen, entrenched social
privilege, the Republican Party, criminal syndicates, world Jewry, war
for oil, or what have you. In fact, the advocates of capitalism
themselves haven't always been entirely clear on the meaning and
implications of capitalist theory."

You'll get all sorts of definitions, depending upon whom you're talking
to.  It can be beneficial to get someone's definition first before
talking about it.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-20n1-1.html

 
 
 

Looking to buy new bike

Post by Tim Line » Sat, 13 Aug 2005 04:44:02

Quote:

> Tim Lines says...

>>No.  These guys like getting paid.  Sponsers like getting exposure for
>>their top of the line bikes.  If LANCE! won the TdF on a Trek 1000,
>>every Fred out their would want a Trek 1000.  Do you suppose Trek would
>>rather sell lots of Trek 1000s to Freds with big credit limits or
>>Madrones to those same Freds?

>>I'll answer for you:  Trek likes making money so they'd rather sell
>>expensive bikes.  That's why they pay LANCE! to ride their most
>>expensive bikes.  LANCE! likes getting paid, so he rides what they'll
>>pay him to ride.

>>This is called "capitalism".

> Right.  And one component of capitalism is to undersell the bloated top dogs.
> You see it all the time in automobiles, consumer electronics, etc.  So surely,
> if a cheap bike is as fast as an expensive bike, surely someone wacked and on
> the edge like Vino would ride a cheaper bike so his bike maker could surpass
> Trek in sales.  Like if a Madonne sells for, what, something like $5 or 6K with
> D/A, surely Giant could take their $500 bike and put nice paint on it and sell
> it for $3K and take away tons of sales from Trek.  Because, you know that the
> $5K bike has no performance edge over the $500, bike, right?  So just inflate
> the price on the $500 bike up to $3K to make it look credible and then you've
> got even more capital in your capitalism, right?

> Wrong.  A $500 bike will be heavy and every ounce counts when you're climbing
> big hills.  Lance won 7 tours in part because he prepared himself and worked off
> the pre-season flab.  Ferrari estimates that each ounce of additional rider
> weight adds a second on a typical eight mile climb, so if you assume that static
> bike weight has a similar penalty, then the ~7 pounds weight penalty that a $500
> bike has as compared to a $6K bike, you're looking at almost 2 minutes per 8
> mile hill.  There's quite a few 8 mile hills in the tour, so who's gonna be able
> to win on a heavy $500 bike?

> I keep forgetting - we "normal" people don't deserve to have the same advantages
> as the pros.  We're not worthy.  We are slugs that don't train enough to go
> fast, we're too fat and too ugly, so we should slow ourselves even further by
> riding heavy bikes with lousy brakes and shifters.  It's cool for us to spend
> $30-40K on cars, but $5K on a bike is excessive and foolish.

> Tim, do you ride a $500 bike?

Not generally, no.  But I'm not claiming that $5000 and $500 bikes are
the same either.  I've seen one of these that looked superior to many
$5000 bikes:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C4C42199B

Part of the reason these bikes are so cheap is because the marketing
costs are low.  If you pay TMobile to ride them, that will change.

BTW, I think the bike above is perfectly adequate.  It just lacks the
fredly drool factor.

 
 
 

Looking to buy new bike

Post by Missylin » Sat, 13 Aug 2005 06:03:20

Quote:

> I'll answer for you:  Trek likes making money so they'd rather sell
> expensive bikes.  That's why they pay LANCE! to ride their most
> expensive bikes.  LANCE! likes getting paid, so he rides what they'll
> pay him to ride.

> This is called "capitalism".

bull -- he did trek a favor by taking their $ to riding their best
stuff.

bike company's would have lined up to take trek's place.

lance doesn't need trek's $.  he needs to win.

lance has proven time and again he'll walk from equipment he doesn't
like.  he rode a lightspeed blade with trek's logo in the TT's early
on.

more recently, lance scrapped a special narrow TT bike trek spent 6
figures developing because last minute tests showed the design "may"
have negatively impacted his power.

pro's will accept $ to use specific products, but not if they hurt
results

 
 
 

Looking to buy new bike

Post by Tim Line » Sat, 13 Aug 2005 07:49:27

Quote:

>>I'll answer for you:  Trek likes making money so they'd rather sell
>>expensive bikes.  That's why they pay LANCE! to ride their most
>>expensive bikes.  LANCE! likes getting paid, so he rides what they'll
>>pay him to ride.

>>This is called "capitalism".

> bull -- he did trek a favor by taking their $ to riding their best
> stuff.

> bike company's would have lined up to take trek's place.

> lance doesn't need trek's $.  he needs to win.

> lance has proven time and again he'll walk from equipment he doesn't
> like.  he rode a lightspeed blade with trek's logo in the TT's early
> on.

> more recently, lance scrapped a special narrow TT bike trek spent 6
> figures developing because last minute tests showed the design "may"
> have negatively impacted his power.

> pro's will accept $ to use specific products, but not if they hurt
> results

Too bad you didn't read my entire post.  It would have saved you the
trouble of arguing a point I'd already made.
 
 
 

Looking to buy new bike

Post by Tim Line » Sat, 13 Aug 2005 07:56:03

Quote:


>>This is called "capitalism".

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

> http://www.capitalism.org/

> http://www.capmag.com/

> http://www.celebratecapitalism.org/

> http://www.capitalism.net/

> http://www.capitalismcenter.org/

> http://www.mises.org/books/capitalism.pdf

> http://www.mises.org/story/1562
> "How striking to discover, then, how few writers and thinkers are
> willing to spell out precisely what they mean when they refer to the
> economics of capitalism. For many, the term capitalism is nothing but a
> vessel into which they pour all the people, institutions, and ideas that
> they hate. And so capitalism emerges as a synonym for greed, dirty
> rivers and streams, pollution, corrupt businessmen, entrenched social
> privilege, the Republican Party, criminal syndicates, world Jewry, war
> for oil, or what have you. In fact, the advocates of capitalism
> themselves haven't always been entirely clear on the meaning and
> implications of capitalist theory."

> You'll get all sorts of definitions, depending upon whom you're talking
> to.  It can be beneficial to get someone's definition first before
> talking about it.

Well OK, wikipedia says (among other things):

"These theorists characterise capitalism as an economic system where
capital is privately owned and economic decisions are determined in a
free market --that is, by trades that occur as a result of voluntary
agreement between buyers and sellers; where a market mentality and
entrepreneurial spirit exists ..."

And that's what I'm talking about.  You are correct about the word being
used to mean a lot of other things too.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-20n1-1.html

 
 
 

Looking to buy new bike

Post by Michael Pres » Sat, 13 Aug 2005 08:59:18


Quote:


> > This is called "capitalism".

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

> http://www.capitalism.org/

> http://www.capmag.com/

> http://www.celebratecapitalism.org/

> http://www.capitalism.net/

> http://www.capitalismcenter.org/

> http://www.mises.org/books/capitalism.pdf

> http://www.mises.org/story/1562
> "How striking to discover, then, how few writers and thinkers are
> willing to spell out precisely what they mean when they refer to the
> economics of capitalism. For many, the term capitalism is nothing but a
> vessel into which they pour all the people, institutions, and ideas that
> they hate. And so capitalism emerges as a synonym for greed, dirty
> rivers and streams, pollution, corrupt businessmen, entrenched social
> privilege, the Republican Party, criminal syndicates, world Jewry, war
> for oil, or what have you. In fact, the advocates of capitalism
> themselves haven't always been entirely clear on the meaning and
> implications of capitalist theory."

> You'll get all sorts of definitions, depending upon whom you're talking
> to.  It can be beneficial to get someone's definition first before
> talking about it.

> http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-20n1-1.html

Bait and switch. You implicitly promise a definition of
capitalism and many paragraphs in he is still ranting
about "wordsmith intellectuals" biting the hand that feeds
them. Eventually I began to doubt the author's probity and
stopped reading. He also gave short shrift to hard science
intellectuals. Probably has no clue what it takes to bust
your ass in mathematics; it's a humbling experience.

--
Michael Press

 
 
 

Looking to buy new bike

Post by Mad Do » Sat, 13 Aug 2005 08:42:07

Tim Lines says...

Quote:
>Not generally, no.  But I'm not claiming that $5000 and $500 bikes are
>the same either.  I've seen one of these that looked superior to many
>$5000 bikes:
>http://makeashorterlink.com/?C4C42199B
>Part of the reason these bikes are so cheap is because the marketing
>costs are low.  If you pay TMobile to ride them, that will change.

$2500 ain't cheap to me!

Quote:
>BTW, I think the bike above is perfectly adequate.  It just lacks the
>fredly drool factor.

There are even decent ~$1500 bikes, but that's still triple $500.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not aiming a newbie at a tricked-out Ottrott.  But
someone that has the discipline to be a serious lifter might appreciate the
performance advantage of a better bike.

 
 
 

Looking to buy new bike

Post by Michael Pres » Sat, 13 Aug 2005 09:06:56



[...]

Quote:
>  I've been on my current bike 12
> years, although most of the original components have worn out and been replaced
> once or twice.  But that's just me.  

Cool. Who made the frame? (or was that replace too :)

[...]

--
Michael Press

 
 
 

Looking to buy new bike

Post by Mad Do » Sat, 13 Aug 2005 08:54:32

Missylini says...

Quote:
>> I'll answer for you:  Trek likes making money so they'd rather sell
>> expensive bikes.  That's why they pay LANCE! to ride their most
>> expensive bikes.  LANCE! likes getting paid, so he rides what they'll
>> pay him to ride.
>> This is called "capitalism".
>bull -- he did trek a favor by taking their $ to riding their best
>stuff.

If you believe "Lance Armstrong's War", Lance drove Trek in many directions of
development, most of which were failures (and this is typical of new product
development).

Quote:
>bike company's would have lined up to take trek's place.

Yep.

Quote:
>lance doesn't need trek's $.  he needs to win.

Past tense.

Quote:
>lance has proven time and again he'll walk from equipment he doesn't
>like.  he rode a lightspeed blade with trek's logo in the TT's early
>on.

Didn't Trek buy Lightspeed after LAnce got mad at Lemond?
 
 
 

Looking to buy new bike

Post by h square » Sat, 13 Aug 2005 09:21:00

Quote:

> If you'd rather buy cheap shit now and
> replace it with something better later, go for it.  I figure you lose with that
> plan but it's a free country and you're free to waste your money as you see fit.

as an aside, since i don't race, i've been riding my $250 bike-of-shame
http://home.comcast.net/~pomeroyq/bikeofshame.jpg
for several years now. the only parts i've replaced are the tires and
the saddle and the brake pads. (knock on wood). i feel i've gotten my
money's worth out of the bike and don't regret not buying something more
expensive. (but i'll admit i'm weird and am completely not into nice
bikes at all.)

heather

 
 
 

Looking to buy new bike

Post by Steven Bornfel » Sat, 13 Aug 2005 09:46:10

Quote:


>> If you'd rather buy cheap shit now and
>> replace it with something better later, go for it.  I figure you lose
>> with that
>> plan but it's a free country and you're free to waste your money as
>> you see fit.

> as an aside, since i don't race, i've been riding my $250 bike-of-shame
> http://home.comcast.net/~pomeroyq/bikeofshame.jpg
> for several years now. the only parts i've replaced are the tires and
> the saddle and the brake pads. (knock on wood). i feel i've gotten my
> money's worth out of the bike and don't regret not buying something more
> expensive. (but i'll admit i'm weird and am completely not into nice
> bikes at all.)

> heather

        That's very cool
        A buddy of mine who works in a bike shop in NY used to have a bike (may
still have it for all I know) with decals on the downtube: "Piece of Shit".

Steve

--
Cut the nonsense to reply