General question (with no hidden agenda, I promise—I'm just curious!)
When considering the cost of a mountain bike versus its quality and durability, my assumption (as with most things) is that the relationship isn't a straight line going up...but rather a curve.
I assume at some point, the curve flattens out—and continuing to spend more on a bike only results in tiny improvements in quality and durability.
So my general question is...at what price point does the curve start going flat?
The answer is likely different for HT vs. FS bikes, so pick either.
For example, I'm assuming that an $800 bike is going to be a lot better than a $400 bike.
And I'd also assume that a $1600 bike would be a lot better than an $800 bike.
But is a $3200 bike literally twice as good in every respect as a $1600 bike? If so...then is a $6400 bike twice as good as the $3200?
I would think that (again, generally speaking) the curve might start getting pretty flat somewhere north of $3-4K...but I might be wrong?
Thoughts?
Scott
When considering the cost of a mountain bike versus its quality and durability, my assumption (as with most things) is that the relationship isn't a straight line going up...but rather a curve.
I assume at some point, the curve flattens out—and continuing to spend more on a bike only results in tiny improvements in quality and durability.
So my general question is...at what price point does the curve start going flat?
The answer is likely different for HT vs. FS bikes, so pick either.
For example, I'm assuming that an $800 bike is going to be a lot better than a $400 bike.
And I'd also assume that a $1600 bike would be a lot better than an $800 bike.
But is a $3200 bike literally twice as good in every respect as a $1600 bike? If so...then is a $6400 bike twice as good as the $3200?
I would think that (again, generally speaking) the curve might start getting pretty flat somewhere north of $3-4K...but I might be wrong?
Thoughts?
Scott
).
