HOW MUCH ???

[threebikesmcginty]

There are plenty of people in the world who would spend £800 on a bottle of wine.

Won't be any nicer than a £3.99er from Mozzers!

 

[beancounter]

Won't be any nicer than a £3.99er from Mozzers!

I think it might.

bc

 

[amnesia]

The flaw in your argument though is that an £800 bottle of vintage wine will taste considerably better than a £4 bottle from Tesco's.

By all accounts this rear mech doesn't work as well as those several hundred pounds less, and there are better ways of losing more weight for less money. It's not even diminishing returns... it's just plain daft.


Does look kinda cool though

 

[beancounter]

The flaw in your argument though is that an £800 bottle of vintage wine will taste considerably better than a £4 bottle from Tesco's.

By all accounts this rear mech doesn't work as well as those several hundred pounds less, and there are better ways of losing more weight for less money. It's not even diminishing returns... it's just plain daft.


Does look kinda cool though

I'm sorry but you're still making the same mistake - you're applying your own logic to this. Rich people don't think like you think. They don't think "are there more cost effective ways of losing x grams". They see it, they want it, they buy it. The cost doesn't even register.

bc

 

[just jim]

I'm sorry but you're still making the same mistake - you're applying your own logic to this. Rich people don't think like you think. They don't think "are there more cost effective ways of losing x grams". They see it, they want it, they buy it. The cost doesn't even register.

bc

That's what I thought when I saw the Remington shaver. I liked it so much I bought the companyyyyyyyyy! ( signed the ghost of Victor Kiam)

 

[Arch]

I'm sorry but you're still making the same mistake - you're applying your own logic to this. Rich people don't think like you think. They don't think "are there more cost effective ways of losing x grams". They see it, they want it, they buy it. The cost doesn't even register.

bc

You have a point. I suppose my grumble is that in a world where so many are in grinding poverty, anyone having the wherewithall to spend (waste?) £800 on a few grams of metal for a bike seems pretty unfair. The same goes for a bottle of wine, or anything small or consumable. I think the only things I'd spend £800 or more on are a car or house, or a recumbent (assuming I couldn't get what I wanted for less than that second hand)

I grew up in a frugal household, so even when I have money to spend, I tend to think "Which is cheapest" first, then "How much can I afford above that?" To be able to buy something like that mech is so far beyond my comprehension as to be purely academic.

 

[dav1d]

It's 46g lighter than a regular DuraAce RD. Errr, not much really then for the extra £650...

Yes, but you get a lighter wallet thrown in too!

 

[02GF74]

yep - that is a fair bit of wonga.

 

[Wigsie]

I'm sorry but you're still making the same mistake - you're applying your own logic to this. Rich people don't think like you think. They don't think "are there more cost effective ways of losing x grams". They see it, they want it, they buy it. The cost doesn't even register.

bc

I disagree BC, this attitude may be relevant to a minority but I would hazard a guess that more moderately wealthy people would buy this than VERY wealthy guys. Especially if they are self made.

One of the wealthiest guys I know drives an Audi 80 from the mid 90's and has 10 acres of woodland that he 'cares for' as a hobby(using ancient tools), he is not tight by any stretch of the imagination but he would think buying that is crazy just like the rest of us.