If money was no object....

[HLaB]

I've just "spent" £7,200 on a Titanium Condor build, and £9,800 on a Van Nicholas - both have electronic shifting, an expensive Brooks saddle and lightweight components. Wiggle has a bike for £7,700.

I think they'd be lighter than something cheaper, but not by enough to make a difference to an ordinary mortal.

Wowzerr, I thought I was bad at £1.5k on the Bianchi and £1.5k on the Kinesis

 

[Noodley]

I reckon 10k would cover it for most 'non gold plated' but top end bikes.

 

[MacB]

I reckon 10k would cover it for most 'non gold plated' but top end bikes.

Agreed but you'd have to be paying a 'name' premium to get up there

 

[edindave]

I "spent" about £3,500* the other night on a modest Van Nicholas... must try harder!!!

*Money really is no object when you're playing with the online configuration shopping list :-)

 

[Nebulous]

I reckon 10k would cover it for most 'non gold plated' but top end bikes.

I agree with that as pretty much a ceiling. The most expensive bikes I have seen in magazines or websites generally come in just under that.

You could also get to that on limited edition specials.

 

[srw]

I "spent" about £3,500* the other night on a modest Van Nicholas... must try harder!!!

I spent £3,000 on mine...

Both the Van Nic and the Condor websites have got a component-by-component builder. Just start with the most expensive frame (about £2,000 in each case) and pick the most expensive components. In both cases, we're talking about £2,000 for electronic shifting transmission, about £2,000 for wheels, about £250 for a Brooks titanium saddle, and so on. The Condor, admittedly, does have top-of-the-range touring tyres rather than something more appropriate. I didn't add titanium bottle cages to either, but did succumb to the Titanium nuts-and-bolts offer (only €75) on the Van Nic.

I've just done the same thing with Ribble's most expensive carbon frame. A very disappointing £5,000.

 

[Arch]

Agreed but you'd have to be paying a 'name' premium to get up there

Hence the second part of my question. How much 'better' is this mythical top end machine, than something more economical?

 

[numbnuts]

I would buy a trike

 

[jayonabike]

For me I would have 2 bikes, a Mercian and a Van Nic. Just checked last nights lottery numbers and didn't win so it won't be this week.

 

[yello]

And if you were to invest in R&D for each component? It'd be a sky's the limit (or Sky limit?) budget!

I reckon Noodley's £10k budget would probably sort the 'off the peg' option. Give or take a couple of thou.

2nd question; it gets asked in many guises but imho extra dosh spent does equate to 'better' kit - be it lighter, or stiffer, or whatever. Whether mere mortals like me can appreciate or take advantage of that difference is another matter entirely. It's true, you spend more for smaller performance increments at the top end. It's down to the individual and their needs/wants as to whether you want to spend for that.

 

[cjb]

I recently mentioned spending £500 on a pair of forks in the Mountain Biking section and was accused of "willy-waving".

 

[MacB]

Hence the second part of my question. How much 'better' is this mythical top end machine, than something more economical?

It's a very fair question and the answer is probably miniscule to non-existent, or even a negative from certain angles, depending on whether you're looking at performance or longevity of parts. But, not to be underestimated, there is also the mental/placebo effect. If you skimp, or think you've skimped, on any parts you may always be left wondering if it's you or the machine letting your performance down.

If you're racing or take your times/speed very seriously then you can make a justifiable case for top end gear

If you're not then the only justification is because you want it - a view I see nothing wrong with - for example I drive very little now and rather than spending my usual £20k on a replacement car I bought an old runaround for under £2k(if I was braver I wouldn't have bothered at all) - that frees up a lot of bike spend, though a fair bit of mine seemed to get diverted into patios, patio furniture, etc.

But I've taken the longevity and versatility options over the bling and performance, I hope I've still retained a little bling though. For me that means Rohloff, SONDelux, Ti frame, disc brakes, strong handbuilt wheels, etc. I don't expect any performance gains from what I've done but I do expect savings around longevity of parts and batteries for lights.

 

[Jezston]

In case anyone missed it, I think srw's use of the term "spent" in inverted commas means playing with their online bike builders.

 

[david k]

if money were no object id keep my bikes and employ somebody to train me and get all the top eqipment to help me get better

 

[Nebulous]

We're in a consumer society where we buy things because we can. 'Better' just doesn't come into it - although we may convince ourselves that it does.

My highest aspiration for a bike is a specialized tarmac, probably last years comp at £1600 - which is likely to stay out of reach for a while. At the same time there are many cyclists who would regard my £800 Allez as too far out of budget.

MacB (sorry MacB) regards a £2000 car as a cheap runaround. When my company car went away last year I went to an auction and spent £425 on my cheap runaround. 10 months later I sold it for £650, which was a proud moment given the money I've spent on cars over the years.

Many of these things are lifestyle choices. I earn enough to be able to afford that £1600 bike if I prioritised it, but it would mean making other cuts that I (or my family) wouldn't be willing to make.

We once went through a kind of semi-deliberate massive drop in income. When you have to really pare things back its quite amazing what you can actually live without. I've done a lot of thinking about this over the years, and often when I hear people saying they can't afford something I mutter to myself that they actually choose not to.