£2000 vs £5000 and above Carbon bike performance

[jonnysnorocket]

To my mind it's a case of diminishing returns, whether it be Hi-fi, Cameras, fishing tackle, cars etc ...... whatever.
When you reach a certain price point, the performance increase isn't proportional to the extra outlay.

 

[Profpointy]

For a lot of things (not all) the expensive one is simply "nicer" even if not objectively "better". My Condor (steel) bike is simply nicer than any previous bike I've owned. Not mega expensive but certainly a premium item. In part at least, it fits me better than any other bike but, and I may be deluding myself, seems to have a spring to it which makes it nicer to ride. I don't suppose I'm any faster on it than on a £600 bike.

Related to the price comment, a lot of people here run a fleet of bikes - and change bikes quite regularly. I'd rather have one nice bike than three OK bikes. And I tend to buy-and-keep rather than chopping things in too.

At some point I anticipate getting a nice steel lugged audax type bike, which'll doubtless be £3k but hopefully not £5k. Not currently cycling much, so no point at the moment, but one day.

 

[vickster]

Are we all assuming that @Arrowfoot doesnt have a powerful engine?

@Fnaar

 

[vickster]

Actually thats my point. You get a more powerful engine with a car and a motorbike but not a bike. This question was posed by a pub landlord to us, a group of cyclists. We were stumped to the last man when he asked if an expensive bike went faster. It does tell us that some of us have made too many assumptions.

The cost threshold is much lower for a bike and the rest is very much up to the rider.

Well obviously expensive aero wheels on a top end bike are much faster

 

[AndyRM]

@Fnaar

The new Viz came out yesterday, he'll be busy.

 

[Arrowfoot]

Well obviously expensive aero wheels on a top end bike are much faster

Aero wheels fall within component category. If you fit aero wheels in cheaper carbon frames they will also have the same effect.

 

[400bhp]

To my mind it's a case of diminishing returns, whether it be Hi-fi, Cameras, fishing tackle, cars etc ...... whatever.
When you reach a certain price point, the performance increase isn't proportional to the extra outlay.

Depends who you are.

Agree for the average Joe though.

 

[Apollonius]

I think whoever you are then there are diminishing returns as you spend more. This applies, as jonnysnotrocket says to many "luxury" goods. Wheter you wish to spend that sort of money comes down to individual choices. I believe that some fishing rods, for example can cost a lot of money. Would I buy one? No. No interest in fishing, but I would imagine that for a fisherman whose passion it is, that would be a dream. Something to save and work for. Something to handle with joy, use with pleasure and cherish as an emblem of something beautifully crafted for its purpose. Can't see it myself, but then, I am not a fisherman, but the very best to those that think like this. It is a good job we are not all the same or the banks of the rivers would be packed with people waving the Superfish 5000. (Yes, I made that up.) Same applies to (say) vintage aeroplanes or bikes. Each to his own.

 

[Joshua Plumtree]

Depends what the bike is made for. A £2000 'aero' bike would probably outperform, in terms of speed, a £5000 bike that wasn't necessarily built with the same objective.

From my own personal experience, given two frames that fit, both with very similar components and wheels, but one being a fairly top end carbon aero frame and the other a cheapish aluminium frame, I reckon the difference in average speed would be less than 1mph.

Marginal gains.

 

[Citius]

Thing is, a £2000 aero bike with an 18st mamil on board would not be as aero as a £5000 non-aero bike with a 10st racer on it. The rider and the position accounts for much more of the aero profile than the frame itself.

 

[Apollonius]

Citius, with respect, I think you are in error in suggesting that the sole purpose of an expensive bike is to go faster. This is not the only reason people choose a more expensive bike. Nor is the desire to show off the only reason either. As I said above in my fishing rod example, people who can afford to indulge their passions do so for reasons like enjoyment of a finely crafted machine, or pleasure in using it. If they have the money, then why not?

 

[Citius]

Citius, with respect, I think you are in error in suggesting that the sole purpose of an expensive bike is to go faster.

My earlier point was specifically in relation to aero/non-aero bikes...

 

[Arrowfoot]

Can't wait for the day when one of the TV channels do a proper comparison. You will never get it done by any of the bike mags as they need the vendors.

 

[Venod]

Can't comment on £5000+ frames as never owned one, but I have ridden a lot of different bikes of various materials and find very little difference in my performance on a decent lightweight frame whatever the material, as the frames get heavier climbing performance diminishes, on the flat not a lot in it between light v heavy once up to speed, the material and construction of a frame determines how it feels when ridden, if I was paying £5000+ for a frame I would expect the best but may not get it.

 

[Kajjal]

A chap on YouTube compared two road bikes one very expensive and the other lower priced but not a very cheap and nasty road bike. He concluded there were differences but hard to justify the price difference and not as much difference as he expected. Once you get a half decent bike the rider and bike setup are big factors.