Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?

Recently, I have been using my bike more and more and by now I almost
stopped using any other way of transportation. It's a lot of fun and it
made me think about buying a really nice bike. Right now I am just
using a cheap discount bike which is quite heavy.

What I still don't understand is, what are the advantages of
sophisticated, expensive bikes? Parts last longer, the weight is lower,
I understand that. But besides that, why can I go faster with a 2,000 $
bike than with a 200 $ bike?

I read that it responds better because it is well built. Of course, if
it really has more gears, that makes a difference. But if gears are the
same, it's gonna be the same energy I put in, so why should I get a
higher speed out of it?

To come down to the point, assuming the same weight, the same type of
tyres and amount of gears, why can I go faster with a high quality
bike?

If you have any ideas, please share your thoughts with me. Thank you so
much.

Ken Aston

Ken Aston wrote:
Recently, I have been using my bike more and more and by now I almost
stopped using any other way of transportation. It's a lot of fun and it
made me think about buying a really nice bike. Right now I am just
using a cheap discount bike which is quite heavy.

What I still don't understand is, what are the advantages of
sophisticated, expensive bikes? Parts last longer, the weight is lower,
I understand that. But besides that, why can I go faster with a 2,000 $
bike than with a 200 $ bike?

What is your definition of expensive and sophisticated?

The general problem with "X-mart" bicycles is poor quality components
that will never work properly, the inability to upgrade components in
many cases due to compatibility issues, lack of frame sizes to allow
proper fitting, and overall poor design. The worst are likely cheap
suspension components.

I read that it responds better because it is well built. Of course, if
it really has more gears, that makes a difference. But if gears are the
same, it's gonna be the same energy I put in, so why should I get a
higher speed out of it?

All else being equal, a comfortable rider will be faster than an
uncomfortable rider.

To come down to the point, assuming the same weight, the same type of
tyres and amount of gears, why can I go faster with a high quality
bike?

See above.

If you have any ideas, please share your thoughts with me. Thank you so
much.

Depending on you mechanical aptitude (or if you have access to a PROPER
BIKE SHOP), expensive bicycles are not necessary. The older
non-suspended steel frame ATB from the mid 1980''s to mid 1990's are
durable, plentiful, inexpensive, compatible with modern components [1],
and with proper setup can make excellent urban commuters.

For drop-bar road bikes, Japanese steel frame bikes from the 1980's are
also a good choice for the reasons mentioned above.

For the same cost (ca. $200 USD) as an object that looks like a fully
suspended ATB, you can have a bicycle with proper fit, proper brakes,
good shifting and good handling.

[1] Not always true with older bikes, especially from Europe where the
frames are often not compatible with modern headsets and bottom
brackets.

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

Ken Aston wrote:
It's a lot of fun and it
made me think about buying a really nice bike. Right now I am just
using a cheap discount bike which is quite heavy.

What I still don't understand is, what are the advantages of
sophisticated, expensive bikes? Parts last longer, the weight is lower,
I understand that. But besides that, why can I go faster with a 2,000 $
bike than with a 200 $ bike?

Well, you may go a little faster on $2000 bike, but speed isn't the
only reason to upgrade. Nor do you have to spend $2000. As with most
things, there's a point of diminishing returns as you go up in price.

Of course, if
it really has more gears, that makes a difference. But if gears are the
same, it's gonna be the same energy I put in, so why should I get a
higher speed out of it?

There's a point of diminishing returns with gears too. Are 20 gears
better than 18 or 16? Not necessarily.


To come down to the point, assuming the same weight, the same type of
tyres and amount of gears, why can I go faster with a high quality
bike?

Again, it's not just about speed. The most important things when buying
a bike is to get the right type for the kind of riding you do, to get
the correct size, and to have it set up properly. A good fitting,
medium quality bike will be much better than a cheap discount bike for
several reasons. If you buy from a good bike shop the bike will be
properly assembled and adjusted. The brakes, tires, wheels, cranks,
saddle, and other components will be of better quality, and will last
longer, than on a cheap discount bike. Braking, shifting, and steering
will likely be smoother and more positive.

Weight only makes a difference when climbing hills or when accelerating
quickly. And the weight must include the rider as well as the bike. A
difference of a pound or two of bike weight doesn't make much
difference.

These days, there's way too much emphasis on the bike. Being able to
ride fast or long distances has a lot more to do with the rider.

By all means, you ought to consider buying a better bike than you have
now. But before buying, spend some time looking at the different kinds
of bikes available, and think about what kind of riding you want to do.
And try not to be swayed by all the marketing hype.

Art Harris

"Ken Aston" wrote in message
ups.com...

To come down to the point, assuming the same weight, the same type of
tyres and amount of gears, why can I go faster with a high quality
bike?


Faster isn't everything. In fact, it's a secondary factor. For me, comfort
and reliability are top priorities. Since I do touring and events in which I
spend all day on the bike, I want a bike that I can ride for a hundred miles
or two, and not be feel crippled when I'm done. For both that kind of
riding, and also for the daily commute, I want a bike that will reliably
work well. I don't want to break down while I'm on a long ride, in the
middle of nowhere, and I don't want it to break down when I know I need to
get into the office and showered and be presentable for a meeting first
thing in the day. I don't want it to break down in dark when I'm riding home
after a long day, simply for personal safety reasons.

A fast bike is nice, but I wouldn't sacrifice comfort and reliability for
speed.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

Ken Aston wrote:

What I still don't understand is, what are the advantages of
sophisticated, expensive bikes? Parts last longer, the weight is lower,
I understand that. But besides that, why can I go faster with a 2,000 $
bike than with a 200 $ bike?

Because ( on average ) a $2000 bike will be better built and therefore
stiffer than a $200 lump of metal. You'll see the difference when you
really try to put some power through the pedals, a cheap bike will flex
and suck up a lot of your effort whereas a better bike streams that
effort back through the tyres into the road.


I read that it responds better because it is well built. Of course, if
it really has more gears, that makes a difference. But if gears are the
same, it's gonna be the same energy I put in, so why should I get a
higher speed out of it?

To come down to the point, assuming the same weight, the same type of
tyres and amount of gears, why can I go faster with a high quality
bike?


Because nobody builds a 13pound bike that can take +400pounds of
pressure at the pedals for less than $2000 and that doesn't flex like
damp piece of bread.



If you have any ideas, please share your thoughts with me. Thank you so
much.

Ken Aston

Laters,

Marz

Ken Aston wrote:


What I still don't understand is, what are the advantages of
sophisticated, expensive bikes? Parts last longer, the weight is lower,
I understand that. But besides that, why can I go faster with a 2,000 $
bike than with a 200 $ bike?



I've not followed this thread closely, but there are many, many choices
of bikes that are priced between $200 and $2,000.

catzz66 wrote:
Ken Aston wrote:


What I still don't understand is, what are the advantages of
sophisticated, expensive bikes? Parts last longer, the weight is lower,
I understand that. But besides that, why can I go faster with a 2,000 $
bike than with a 200 $ bike?



I've not followed this thread closely, but there are many, many choices
of bikes that are priced between $200 and $2,000.

That is a true statement. But it doesn't answer the question of why
bikes are better as thier price increases.

As others have said above there is a law of diminishing returns and as
price increases the marginal improvement of the bike get smaller and
smaller.
But it is also true that generally the more you pay the more you get.
(There are always exceptions to every such rule)
So, generally as dollars go up:
-frame weight decreases
-wheel weight decreases
-component weight decreases
-component reliability increases
-aesthetics (finishes) increase
-ability to choose frame (ride) cahracterics to suit the individual
increases

It is up to each individual to find where they fit in the price x
performance curve.
As to ultimate performance, once you get to the "decent" level of bike
it is much more a matter of the engine (rider) than the machine that
makes one go fast. Lots of us senior riders have really nice bikes
because we like them and can afford them. We regularly get passed by
young racers on steeds half the price.

gds wrote:


I've not followed this thread closely, but there are many, many choices
of bikes that are priced between $200 and $2,000.


That is a true statement. But it doesn't answer the question of why
bikes are better as thier price increases.
...


True. I should have continued my thought by adding that a person does
not need to spend $2,000 to get a bike that is noticably lighter and
better made than a $200 bike.

catzz66 wrote:
gds wrote:


I've not followed this thread closely, but there are many, many choices
of bikes that are priced between $200 and $2,000.


That is a true statement. But it doesn't answer the question of why
bikes are better as thier price increases.
...


True. I should have continued my thought by adding that a person does
not need to spend $2,000 to get a bike that is noticably lighter and
better made than a $200 bike.

For sure!

Ken Aston wrote:
Recently, I have been using my bike more and more and by now I almost
stopped using any other way of transportation. It's a lot of fun and it
made me think about buying a really nice bike. Right now I am just
using a cheap discount bike which is quite heavy.
What tires does it got?
If they're fairly wide (like balloon tires), changing to narrower ones
can provide a significant improvement in how the bike feels when
accelerating, which is mainly the only time that being heavy matters.
Try some higher-pressure 1.5 to 1.3-inch-wide, if your rims can handle
the higher pressures.

What I still don't understand is, what are the advantages of
sophisticated, expensive bikes? Parts last longer, the weight is lower,
I understand that. But besides that, why can I go faster with a 2,000 $
bike than with a 200 $ bike?
You can't, other than if the higher-priced product has better
aerodynamic advantage. The only differences between a cheap bike and an
expensive bike are durability, functionality, weight and (possibly)
aerodynamics.

I read that it responds better because it is well built. Of course, if
it really has more gears, that makes a difference. But if gears are the
same, it's gonna be the same energy I put in, so why should I get a
higher speed out of it?

To come down to the point, assuming the same weight, the same type of
tyres and amount of gears, why can I go faster with a high quality
bike?

Well,,,, if you bought a highracer or lowracer recumbent, it'd have a
/lot/ better aerodynamics. You certainly do not need to pay more money
for "the same old thing". If you would be able to use a recumbent bike
as well depends on exactly what you do with what you have now. A lot of
people in Europe use bike racks on public busses, and most recumbents
won't fit onto those.

If you have any ideas, please share your thoughts with me. Thank you so
much.

Ken Aston

Due to the practical economics of mass-production, most-all upright
bicycles are fairly similar. If you pick any major part (frame, seat,
handlebars, cranks) it's difficult to radically modify how they work (or
are used) without impacting all the other major pieces.

Some US upright bike companies are now getting into "relaxed geometry"
bikes that move the cranks forward in order to provide better seat
comfort--but the problem with most of these attempts is that they insist
on using a regular upright bicycle saddle.... -And the models of this
type that are considered most-effective are the ones that /don't/ use a
conventional saddle. RANS makes a number of models, the Giant Revive is
one, the Sun Sunray is another.

I don't know about Euro trends in "consumer" bicycling--but the US
industry is s-l-o-w-l-y bending to the comfort-end of the market.
Research indicates that there is a numerous segment of the population
that refuses to ride (or buy!) upright bicycles because the bicycles
aren't comfortable enough in use. This group drove the adaption of the
MTB, then the hybrid, and then the "comfort" bike,,, but road bikes,
MTB's, hybrids and comfort bikes all used very-similar components--in
particular, they used very similar /saddles/. The advancement of
crank-forward bikes is that they modify the frame to move the BB forward
enough to use a short-nose or nose-less saddle, that is much more
comfortable to ride.

My only "upright" bike is a RANS Fusion and it is easy to ride, has a
much lower stand-over height and doesn't cause any of the pain that
typical upright bicycles do. The reactions I've gotten from people
test-riding it have been pretty much totally positive, other than often
balking at its price.
~