Is the year of production/release really really matter?

smkso

Hi, I am a beginner in road cycling and now looking for a new bike. Brand new bikes are mostly expensive so, I opted to look for used bikes mostly on eBay.

My question is, is the year of production or release of a bike really does matter?

For example, I found a really decent, reasonably priced bike on eBay which is Specialized Tamrac Elite 2010 with great specs (carbon body & fork, Shimano 105 STI..) Is it really much of a difference to buy an older version of a bike rather than a newer version? I am not sure how quick the innovation of cycling industry that makes something like 2010 almost obsolete.

cattytown

A 2010 bike will still be very rideable in terms of spec. If buying used, it could have a few thousand miles on and some components be a little tired. Really you need to get along and see a bike, ideally with someone that knows what they are looking at if you are unsure. You could get something that someone bought, rode twice round the block and put it away. Equally you could get something that has has a couple of hundred miles a week on it. If you can ask to see the sale receipt too...

Year on year updates are generally quite small - things like Sora losing the thumb shifters, Increasing selection on rear cassettes. Only occasionally with there be something that is a big step forwards, and for that you need to check the specs for each model year.

Bobbinogs

One of the problems for all industries is that some price points become 'fixed' to a consumer so the manufacturers need to keep within it, whether they like it or not, and that usually means going down the spec chain each year rather than up it. In cycling, probably a combination of the cycle to work scheme and the mental barrier of £1,000 means that manufacturers will do all they can to be under the £1,000 limit. It is then interesting to note the spec slide each year for certain models, say a Spesh Secteur xxx one year has 105, the following year it drops to Tiagra, the following year it drops to Sora.

The problem is further confused by the fact that equipment manufacturers do trickle down technology...which helps in some degree as this year's Tiagra may be as good as last year's 105 but how good does good have to be? Performance is usually subjective (whatever we would like to believe) and you will often hear "This year's 105 is every bit as good as last year's Ultegra" without any objective testing data to back it up. Component weight is nice and objective but means little to a fat rider weighing 18 stone.

IMO, technology has moved on but for most of us, we simply cannot exploit what the advances may give us. I have no doubt that aero bikes are quicker for the pros who can average 44kph on hilly stages. I cannot so, for me, riding a 2011 machine will not hold me back compared to a 2014 one.

The one thing you will need to factor in though is wear and tear or, more specifically, abuse. For me, this does not mean that a 2011 bike will be worn out, far from it, it does mean avoid a bike that has signs of a serious crash or knocks.

I have an '89 machine that is still going strong (although I wouldn't race on it for a variety of reasons) and I have been riding it when setting some of my best Strava PR times...Strava simply does not factor in the year of manufacture or the 'nicety' of wheels, etc.; it just records segment times which can burst a lot of marketing BS/cycling lore about certain products.

So, what is the conclusion apart from that I write rambling posts? Just buy wisely. Some models hold their value well (Spesh Allez is a great example of this) and, with careful maintenance and consumable replacement (brakes, chains, cables, etc.) these bikes can offer many years of excellent riding and then be sold for a good return when 'upgrading' at a later date.

markhewitt1978

Bobbinogs wrote:

One of the problems for all industries is that some price points become 'fixed' to a consumer so the manufacturers need to keep within it, whether they like it or not, and that usually means going down the spec chain each year rather than up it. In cycling, probably a combination of the cycle to work scheme and the mental barrier of £1,000 means that manufacturers will do all they can to be under the £1,000 limit. It is then interesting to note the spec slide each year for certain models, say a Spesh Secteur xxx one year has 105, the following year it drops to Tiagra, the following year it drops to Sora.

Yes, I've noticed that with a lot of models, that the new one is ever so slightly worse than the outgoing one. It's not always as dramatic as a drop from 105 to Tiagra across the board, but things like changing the brake capilers, front mech, cassette, slightly lower wheel spec, all things which maintain the manufacturers profit margin but deliver a slightly worse bike than existed before.