Perceived cost of road bike and kit

drlodge

If you think £1k-£2k for a bike is a lot, you should try r/c helis as a hobby. One of the bigger i/c helis, in the air is about £2k and I have 6 of those + a few electric helis, and a dozen planes. Then there's the billion channel radio transmitter, another £2k :-\ Must have spent over £30k on that stuff over 10 years or so.

It all comes down to how much you can afford and how much you enjoy your hobby, whatever it may be. £5k for a bike, for me, is alot but justified since (a) I can afford it (b) I enjoy the experience of having it made-to-measure/built to my specification and (c) enjoy riding it.

Its only money and you can't take it with you. Best enjoy it while you can :-)

Grill

One of my wheelsets is worth almost 10x more than my car. Considering that my friends who know nothing about bikes think £500 is a lot for one, it's something I keep to myself. Don't have any friends that judge me for money I spend on my hobbies, and I could care less what Joe Public thinks. I don't drink, smoke, do drugs, or have a family so my spare cash goes on cycling.

diy

As ALK implied, my total bike spends has plummeted since taking up road cycling. Apart from duplicating a few bits of kit for about £100-150, my costs in the last 2 years for road cycling has been practically nil.

MTB on the other hand - well you are looking at 300 just to cover the maintenance items and that is with me doing all the labour including forks and shock servicing.

I've probably spend a grand per year on mtb for the last 2-3 years prior to doing most of my training on road.

fevmeister

zardoz wrote:

My other hobby is Photography. If you think cycling can be expensive then don't take up Photography seriously!

I think the problem is when people don't understand what is involved then they can't understand the expense. I get this all the time with cameras "My iphone is just as good as your 5 grand camera" yeah right! Try getting this on your iphone

http://i4apicture.com/london2012/e3672498

amazing! never seen a picture like it! and im not even viewing it on a hd screen!!

schweiz

Grill wrote:

One of my wheelsets is worth almost 10x more than my car.

I have no problem with people spending whatever they want or whatever they can afford on bike or kit or any hobby. However, I always find these 'my bike/wheels are worth more than my car' comparisons funny. People may have spent more on their bike than their car but their bike/wheels will be new and the car will have been second hand. A new Dacia Sandero costs £6000 and there's not a wheelset or even a full bike out there that costs £60,000!

schweiz

schweiz wrote:

Grill wrote:

One of my wheelsets is worth almost 10x more than my car.

I have no problem with people spending whatever they want or whatever they can afford on bike or kit or any hobby. However, I always find these 'my bike/wheels are worth more than my car' comparisons funny. People may have spent more on their bike than their car but their bike/wheels will be new and the car will have been second hand. A new Dacia Sandero costs £6000 and there's not a wheelset or even a full bike out there that costs £60,000!

I stand corrected....

http://most-expensive.net/bicycle

:shock:

Grill

I'm talking current worth. My car is a worth few hundred quid at best... Taxed...

Anonymous

schweiz wrote:

I stand corrected....

http://most-expensive.net/bicycle

:shock:

They are not real bikes though. One is jewellery and the other two are art

Bar Shaker

My other hobbies are sailing and flying.

Cycling, with nice kit, is almost free by comparison.

Anonymous

Going off topic and turning into a 'look what I have' thread, but at least everyone is calm lol

I have a Mont Blanc pencil :shock: Difficult to beat for Form over Function I would say

schweiz

Grill wrote:

I'm talking current worth. My car is a worth few hundred quid at best... Taxed...

I know you are but for a car to be worth a few hundred quid it's got to be 10-15+ years old and/or in bad condition. If your bikes were that old/condition they would be worth a lot less than the car (although there's still crazy money being paid for 70's/80's bikes made out of gas pipe!). But it's more the value comparison of something high end and new(ish) with something low(ish) end and old that I find a bit pointless.

All my bikes are on a new for old insurance policy and my 10 year old car is insured at current market value so if all were to be lost I would get more from the insurance for my bikes than for the car but I still wouldn't consider my bikes to be 'worth' more than my car even though they are! Maybe it's because I bought the car new?

I'm not having a go at you, I'm just saying I don't think the comparison is useful when looking at new bike and kit prices.

Slo Mo Jones

People, non-cyclists, understand that there will be expensive bikes and cheap bikes.

What pisses some people off is when someone looking for a starter bike asks an experienced cyclist how much a half decent bike costs and they get a reply of £1500-£2000. Which is a stupid answer and almost certainly one based subconsciously on letting the questioner know how much they might spend on a bike as a minimum, which wasn't the question.

When a non-cyclist asks how much a half decent bike costs, they clearly mean a decent starter bike, and anyone seriously advising a beginner to part with £1500-£2000 on something they may get bored with after 5 rides is a bit thick.

Anonymous

If someone asks what a half decent bike costs, and its £1000, I would (and have) told them its £1000.
If they want to buy a cheaper one first then thats up to them (I would tell them about the cheaper options too).

If I told someone to spend about a grand on a first bike, it would be because I would spend that on a first bike, not because I would spend that on a new bike.

Why are people buying their first bike always 'trying it out'?

Surely the cost aspect has more to do with what people can afford and not the fact that they have not done it before?

diy

Slo Mo Jones wrote:

When a non-cyclist asks how much a half decent bike costs, they clearly mean a decent starter bike, and anyone seriously advising a beginner to part with £1500-£2000 on something they may get bored with after 5 rides is a bit thick.

I'm very grateful to those people.

Slo Mo Jones

Carbonator wrote:

Why are people buying their first bike always 'trying it out'?

I didn't say they were.

Carbonator wrote:

Surely the cost aspect has more to do with what people can afford and not the fact that they have not done it before?

I, and most people, don't go through life buying things based on a price vs how much money I have ratio. There's many more factors to take into consideration.

I could have afforded to have spent double what I did on a car a month or so ago. But I didn't. I could afford to have gone to a nice restaurant for lunch today, but instead I had a sandwich and an apple.

Anonymous

You did. Riding something 5 times = trying it out.

How people evaluate the cost of a purchase has nothing to do with it.
If a half decent bike is a grand, its a grand, end of story.
What people decide to buy given the facts is up to them.

Slo Mo Jones

Carbonator wrote:

How people evaluate the cost of a purchase has nothing to do with it.

Of course it does. You need a reference point by which to measure quality, obviously. The experience of the cyclist. The amount the bike will be ridden. Loads of other factors. You consider the purpose of the bike, the needs, desires and behaviours of the person buying the bike. Otherwise you're judging against a redundant reference point.

A reasonable house for a 20 something bachelor is not half decent for a 40 something married man with 3 kids.

It's basic stuff.

Grill

schweiz wrote:

Grill wrote:

I'm talking current worth. My car is a worth few hundred quid at best... Taxed...

I know you are but for a car to be worth a few hundred quid it's got to be 10-15+ years old and/or in bad condition. If your bikes were that old/condition they would be worth a lot less than the car (although there's still crazy money being paid for 70's/80's bikes made out of gas pipe!). But it's more the value comparison of something high end and new(ish) with something low(ish) end and old that I find a bit pointless.

All my bikes are on a new for old insurance policy and my 10 year old car is insured at current market value so if all were to be lost I would get more from the insurance for my bikes than for the car but I still wouldn't consider my bikes to be 'worth' more than my car even though they are! Maybe it's because I bought the car new?

I'm not having a go at you, I'm just saying I don't think the comparison is useful when looking at new bike and kit prices.

I don't really know what you're getting at. My car is 15 years old and insured or 3rd party only (cars are disposable). Two of my bikes are insured at full market value (wheels are not as there is a 10k limit on my bike policy). Considering I do 3x the mileage of my car on my bikes they are definitely worth more in every sense of the word. New wheels for bike 5k... Even my HRE wheels I had on one of my cars back in the day weren't that much.

Anonymous

Slo Mo Jones wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

How people evaluate the cost of a purchase has nothing to do with it.

Of course it does. You need a reference point by which to measure quality, obviously. The experience of the cyclist. The amount the bike will be ridden. Loads of other factors. You consider the purpose of the bike, the needs, desires and behaviours of the person buying the bike. Otherwise you're judging against a redundant reference point.

A reasonable house for a 20 something bachelor is not half decent for a 40 something married man with 3 kids.

It's basic stuff.

Your analogies are poor and not in any way related to a bike. lunch that you buy every day compared to a once (or twice as you would have it) in years purchase. A house for one person v one for five.

The thread is about the perceived cost of a half decent bike, and in particular that perception from two different groups.
The actual amount (that say the seasoned cyclists came to if they could) is irrelevant, but what ever it is (not that it could ever be agreed on), it is, and cannot be altered by what someone can afford or how many times they ride the bike.

The amounts were not important. Only if there were a significant difference in perception of what a half decent bike cost (and I guess what it actually is).


You mentioned people getting pissed off for being given advice. I do not think people get pissed off for being given advice if it is good advice. They must be getting pissed off for another reason :roll:

mroli

ChrisAOnABike wrote:

I suffer from it as much as the next guy - for example, yesterday I was out in my Muddy Fox gear and three guys came past me, all dressed in Rapha. They weren't going so fast they couldn't have said 'hi', but not one of them did.

I've been out in Rapha gear and been ignored by people in Muddy Fox gear plenty of times too! Some people just aren't friendly and as you say - don't get a complex about it!

Anonymous

I started this thread to build bridges, not start arguments, so I am not going to argue with anyone on it

schweiz

Grill wrote:

schweiz wrote:

Grill wrote:

I'm talking current worth. My car is a worth few hundred quid at best... Taxed...

I know you are but for a car to be worth a few hundred quid it's got to be 10-15+ years old and/or in bad condition. If your bikes were that old/condition they would be worth a lot less than the car (although there's still crazy money being paid for 70's/80's bikes made out of gas pipe!). But it's more the value comparison of something high end and new(ish) with something low(ish) end and old that I find a bit pointless.

All my bikes are on a new for old insurance policy and my 10 year old car is insured at current market value so if all were to be lost I would get more from the insurance for my bikes than for the car but I still wouldn't consider my bikes to be 'worth' more than my car even though they are! Maybe it's because I bought the car new?

I'm not having a go at you, I'm just saying I don't think the comparison is useful when looking at new bike and kit prices.

I don't really know what you're getting at. My car is 15 years old and insured or 3rd party only (cars are disposable). Two of my bikes are insured at full market value (wheels are not as there is a 10k limit on my bike policy). Considering I do 3x the mileage of my car on my bikes they are definitely worth more in every sense of the word. New wheels for bike 5k... Even my HRE wheels I had on one of my cars back in the day weren't that much.

I'm just saying that when comparing the cost of anything against anything else it's often more useful to compare like with like. New with new, high spec with high spec etc. As it seems to be another populatr hobby in this thread, if photography was your hobby but you only had basic £300 Digital SLR camera with the bog standard lenses it comes with and then looking at taking up cycling and comparing it with a £10,000 bike as to the relative cost of the hobby will skew perceptions.

cheaterkiller

Currently have a CR1 for £1600 when I purchased it. It later had new wheels to replace the shoddy alex ones it came with. Alex are the halfords of wheels! The new wheels cost £350. Im on the dole so this stuff is as expensive as the Lunar Rover being chauffeured by the Stig. It also got new pedals. So for just under 2 grand I reckon I got a sweet bike. This is still only mid range spec. There are wheels that cost over a grand for the pair and many bikes that cost 3 times as much.

These are 2 completely different bikes of a similar price. Both made for speed.

http://www.tredz.co.uk/.Bianchi-HoC-Olt ... _57811.htm

https://www.suzuki-gb.co.uk/motorcycles ... /gsx-r750/

Which one is greater value for money? I like bikes with or without engines.

Crozza

zardoz wrote:

Crozza wrote:

zardoz wrote:

My other hobby is Photography. If you think cycling can be expensive then don't take up Photography seriously!

I think the problem is when people don't understand what is involved then they can't understand the expense. I get this all the time with cameras "My iphone is just as good as your 5 grand camera" yeah right! Try getting this on your iphone

http://i4apicture.com/london2012/e3672498

an iphone would be better for a picture like this

http://i4apicture.com/london2012/h3672498#hd6b3c42

some things just shouldn't be seen in such high-definition!

One of them isn't you is it?

nah

I could have displayed "Sir Bradley Wiggins" all on my own

ricky1980

zardoz wrote:

My other hobby is Photography. If you think cycling can be expensive then don't take up Photography seriously!

I think the problem is when people don't understand what is involved then they can't understand the expense. I get this all the time with cameras "My iphone is just as good as your 5 grand camera" yeah right! Try getting this on your iphone

http://i4apicture.com/london2012/e3672498

nice pics, me and you seems to have the same expensive taste in hobbies >.<.

but the thing is someone with an iphone can also take very well composed pictures and with some photoshop touch up can create equally stark effects although you will not want to print them on a canvas. I love my DSlr, wouldn't trade it for a point and shoot but nevertheless I wouldn't snub anyone who like photography regardless their equipment. I see plenty tourists with expensive canon 5Ds and Canon pro lens and the dial is on "AUTO" mode what a waste

to the topic of the post:

Mid ranged Alu roadie - £500-700 probably Tiagra specced
Mid ranged Carb roadie - £1000-£1200 probably 105/Apex specced
Mid ranged Ti - doesn't exist
Mid ranged Cycross/hybrids - well where do you really want to start...
Mid ranged brompton - you are getting ripped off already so why bother...

ilovegrace

Try coming into cycling from running !!
Building up kit from scratch can be dauntingly expensive, in all honesty it is why it took me so long to get into cycling (the cost).
Using running kit will go so far , but come autumn /winter ,no chance.
No denying it, even allowing for "everything is relative" and in my case kitting out with Aldi/lidle gear, to ride regular in all weathers does cost .
I would say including my cx bike for £640 in the sale and as I said aldi gear etc I have compiled enough gear to cycle year round at total cost of approx £1100. spread over the year . a shirt here a pair of shorts there , it does not feel to bad.
Mind you bearing in mind recent events (The death of a ex Prime minister !!) would you think that cycling is a middle/ upper class sport ?

diy

Some people need to have a good quality "thing", to motivate them to use it. Others enjoy spanking the crap out of a bargain.

tomisitt

Going back to the original question (as opposed to trying justify my own ridiculous spending), I think there's a massive gap between what the average person thinks cycling gear costs, and what it actually costs.

Most people's experience with bikes is buying something for their kids, or buying themselves a BSO (bicycle shaped object) from somewhere like Halfords. They may spend a couple of hundred quid max on a BSO, £30 on a helmet, and that's that. That's the average person's experience with cycling. In addition, cycling was traditionally a working-class means of transport, so there is a perception that it is inexpensive.

On the other hand, most people know that golf is expensive, that photography is expensive, and that even fishing can be expensive. But people who would think nothing of spending £800 a year on their football season-ticket are gob-smacked when you tell them that's how much a half-decent bike costs.

Cycling really isn't any more expensive than any other hobby, it's just that it is perceived by most people as being inexpensive. I think the average person would be stunned to know that a decent bike can cost upwards of £3000 and that a good pair of shorts can cost £150. They've just never thought of cycling in the same way they think about golf or photography, or whatever.

cheaterkiller

A good pair of shorts for £150? Whats the advantage of one of those over something you can get for £30 in direct sports? I got decent enough skin tight stuff from them. Dont know about winter stuff tho, I only need crap that doesnt cause much drag.

Mccaria

As long as I have been cycling there has always been a material discrepancy between what a cyclist (me!) is prepared to spend on a bike and what Joe Public thinks a bike should cost. My first Columbus SL frame was bought in 1982 and my latest bikes is just being assembled. From Columbus SL, through 653, 753 and various grades of carbon (never liked aluminium or titanium) the cost of my bikes has always surprised my none cycling friends. Hanging up a dozen tubs at £30+ a time takes some explaining, usually starting with "what is a tub?"

If you see cycling as a cheap means as getting from A-B then you will always see it a low cost option, however if you want to get from A-A (which accounts for 99% of my rides) taking in as many hills as possible, then your priorities are different.