[SWriverstone]

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

 

[TSpice]

Its hard to say.

Quality is a highly relative feature.

I think what most people ride are cheapo bikes. Does that mean they are low quality? or just my standards are too high? I have a $2800 bike. Many people on the trail can smoke me with their $800 bikes. Is mine overpriced? (I love my bike, wouldn't change anything about it.)

Quality is literally a function of user perception vs experienced "feel." Nothing more.

If you enjoy the output of your rig, regardless of how much it cost you, you will think it is quality. If your brother has the same thing and it falls apart on day 2? He will say its a piece of crap. You have the same bikes, yet you love it, your brother hates it.

Ford vs Chevy. User perception is everything.

 

[tehllama]

It's greater than 1:1 out to $1200 or so regardless of bike, that applies to a higher threshold on full suspension bikes. The improved complete component spec across the board, especially for bigger riders, is so laughably massive that it still consistently upsets me that $400-$600 bikes cost as much as they do, because they shouldn't. A $600 bike is less than half the bike a $1000 bike is for somebody my size.

Out to $3500 each performance gain is going to result in small added capability or maneuverability - good suspension components, easier to use drivetrains, dropper posts, better tires, and stiffer wheelsets all can ballooon costs out to that point.

Adding full carbon frame/cockpit/rims is what happens beyond that - those are the epitome of marginal gains, since the goal is primarily weight savings that cumulatively make the bike slightly better handling, whereas the engineered compliance of those parts isn't a drastically novel capability.

For me having $3350 wrapped up in my nicest FS bike puts me well into diminishing returns, but the better suspension performance and improved traction from wider rims/tires is buying some safety margin when I'm using 5" or more of travel. It's a bike that is, to me, 50% better than my carbon hardtail bike that is half the cost

 

[XCBiker10287]

It's greater than 1:1 out to $1200 or so regardless of bike, that applies to a higher threshold on full suspension bikes. The improved complete component spec across the board, especially for bigger riders, is so laughably massive that it still consistently upsets me that $400-$600 bikes cost as much as they do, because they shouldn't. A $600 bike is less than half the bike a $1000 bike is for somebody my size.

Out to $3500 each performance gain is going to result in small added capability or maneuverability - good suspension components, easier to use drivetrains, dropper posts, better tires, and stiffer wheelsets all can ballooon costs out to that point.

Adding full carbon frame/cockpit/rims is what happens beyond that - those are the epitome of marginal gains, since the goal is primarily weight savings that cumulatively make the bike slightly better handling, whereas the engineered compliance of those parts isn't a drastically novel capability.

For me having $3350 wrapped up in my nicest FS bike puts me well into diminishing returns, but the better suspension performance and improved traction from wider rims/tires is buying some safety margin when I'm using 5" or more of travel. It's a bike that is, to me, 50% better than my carbon hardtail bike that is half the cost

But that's your opinion. It all comes down to preference, what you are doing with the bike etc.

 

[kyle242gt]

I think the curve really depends on what you're buying. If you want a 100mm HT XC bike, it'll be lower than a 150mm FS AM bike.

It's also going to sort of depend on the type of bike you're into - shaving grams on an XC bike might be smart, vs adding width, travel, strength to an AM bike.

I'd say it ramps up from 700-1500, level to about 2K, then diminishing returns for HT, roughly double that for FS.

 

[Harold]

I think looking at complete bike cost hides some factors.

I think it's better to look at individual components.

Cranks are one of those components where you have a very high cost/performance ratio. Looking at shifters/derailleurs gets you into the curve assumed from the initial post. Midrange stuff like Deore and SLX gives a very high value, and moving to higher end stuff gets you rapidly accelerating costs for small performance improvements.

Suspension gets you somewhere a little different. I think the biggest performance improvements are to be had at the break point between entry level coil sprung forks and entry level air forks. Beyond that, the benefits are more incremental and costs accelerate quite a bit.

What about wheels? That one is more difficult to put a finger on. With hubs, you can talk about better bearings and higher POE freehub mechanisms, vs. low end freewheel hubs. You have axle compatibility questions. With rims, strength vs. weight is important, but there's no real standard for "strength". All we have to go by is what the manufacturer says about it in its marketing language. A wider rim is PROBABLY stronger, but the build plays a big role there. Which spokes are used? What is the quality of the build process? Ease of tubeless setup is another thing to consider with rims. Is the rim designed for tubeless setups? If not, can it be done? The bigger the rider, or more aggressive the rider, the more the wheels will be pushed, and the more important they become in the equation, so that one isn't quite so neat.

What about parts that don't move? Frame, stem, handlebars, etc? What about full suspension frames? Are they automatically better than hardtails? I think that one becomes a complicated question, too.

Removing cost from the equation, and putting FS and hardtail bikes on more equal ground, I think once you get to air suspension and Deore shifters (with probably at least SLX rear derailleur, somewhat decent wheels, etc), you tend to have a pretty high value bike. My preference is for slightly better than entry level suspension as a starting point of a high value bike, though. So that puts us at no less than 32mm stanchions and a bit of an improved damper. But a lot of riders will be hard pressed to distinguish differences there.

 

[SWriverstone]

Interesting comments. @TSpice, I do agree that intangibles like perception, ability, and riding style make a big difference. But as others mentioned, it seems like it would be relatively easy to quantify actual differences in weight, reliability, and durability between different components, brakes, suspension, etc.

Personally, I place a higher premium on durability than performance (though performance is important too). I'd rather have a bike that can take thousands of beatings and not break with less perfrmance than vice-versa. Because I'm the kind of person who doesn't want to spend the $,$$$ any more often than I absolutely have to.

So I guess a related question is: do reliability/durability and performance always come together? Or, for example, are there lower-end components that are a lot heavier (decreasing performance) but are built like tanks and can take a lot of abuse?

Scott

 

[copylatte]

I think value is in the eye of the beholder.

Your skill level, riding style, financial means, etc. probably determines the value you place on bikes and bike parts. Different geometries, different suspension, different tires, brakes, etc all dictate different ride characteristics. Its what you do with your bike that determines its value. If I'm going to race xc, I'd like the best, most cost effective solutions to help me win. If I'm rallying with buddies at a dh park, its a different package.

So, I agree that the best value vs. cost should be broken down by what you need for what you do (probably on a component level). I prefer to build all of my bikes with the parts I want and they are all very different. In the internet age, I'd suggest its the best way to dial in the cost vs. value since there are so many reasonable options and good prices........the hardest part is knowing what you like before you try it......but your riding buddies and mtbr can always help with that.....(as well as personal experience).

 

[justwan naride]

There's certainly a point where spending more doesn't get you a lot the equivalent improvement in performance. However, our buying decisions are usually based on disposable income, so we tend to buy the best we can afford.

My recent reaction demoing a 4200 euro carbon FS trailbike was "well that's a great bike that I'd happily own, but it's not 2 or 3 times better than my trusty old hardtail".

 

[Circlip]

Presumably the choice to spend increasingly higher amounts of money on a bike is to achieve either or both of better 1. efficiency/speed, and 2. durability (both relative to a person's individual riding habits as has been noted several times already).

The durability aspect is difficult to quantify in any useful manner aside from anecdotal experiences, or obvious mismatches of bike type and build to the intended purpose.

However, if instead you were able to collect and acquire data about speed or efficiency (energy/power for a given time or speed) then I'd guess graphing it would generate a noticeable law of diminishing returns starting at about $1000 for HT or $2000 for FS. Sure, I can notice some difference in better (more expensive) bikes beyond those price points, and probably even realize some gains in speed or efficiency, but I think they are going to be minor and decreasing from those points onward.

For a practical example, sure I'm probably going to be noticeably faster on a $1000 HT vs. $300 HT on any "real" trail. Going from $1000 HT to $5000 HT a bit quicker still, but not by much. At that point the bike is already competent, and 99% of the outcome is going to be due to the rider's abilities.

That being said, I have no problem with anyone owning or wanting bikes well north of those price points. Nice gear is fun stuff, and one aspect of what makes mountain biking kind of fun IMHO.

 

[AndrwSwitch]

I think diminishing returns set in pretty much immediately. But I don't feel like a sucker for buying from higher in the cost curve. If I can afford it and I think I'll have more fun, well, I did move quite a lot further up the market last time 'round.

It depends a lot on use too. Are we talking about actual mountain biking, transportation, casual riding?

Similar to Harold, I have a couple ideas of "no excuses" bikes that I measure other bikes by.

At the bottom of the market, I want something to go, stop, shift if it's multispeed, and not do anything weird. I think a rigid bike with V-brakes and a 3x8 drivetrain is potentially a pretty kickass value.

I don't really want anything in between until it comes with a name-brand suspension fork with a tunable spring rate and rebound damper. Brakes can be BB7s or name-brand hydraulic, but I'm suspicious of off-brand. So there's kind of a no-man's-land.

Maybe the next step up is rear suspension. Needs to be a halfway decent linkage design and reasonable tunable shock, so there's another no-man's-land.

After that, I guess diminishing returns get really, really bad.

In particular, I think bling hubs, cranks, and almost anything carbon are well into that region. Though I'm a bit curious about rims.

 

[SWriverstone]

I should have prefaced my original post with something like "for the average non-pro, non-racer, enthusiastic rider." Clearly if you're racing Leadville or nationally-ranked, tiny differences in hardware could make big differences in performance.

My question about price-vs-quality is more aimed at the "large middle" swath of riders—weekend warriors, those who don't "train" in the formal sense of the word, but who still may ride a fair amount throughout the year on a variety of trail types.

Regarding the "it's all relative" point (which I agree with to an extent)...

If I had unlimited funds and could buy any bike I wanted, I would still want to spend that money wisely. I'd want to know the price points that deliver very real (and widely-agreed-upon) performance/reliability/durability levels.

Then I'd still want to know the increased price points (starting wherever) that deliver "maybe a little better" improvements versus "this WILL make a big difference regardless of your ability!" improvements.

Because presuming there is a point of diminishing returns (which there almost always is), I wouldn't want to be spending twice as much money on "iffy" improvements. (Because I'd want to use the money I saved for traveling to new riding destinations!)

I agree looking at components makes sense. As mentioned above, I can see how there are pretty big improvements to be gained from...
• disc brakes versus caliper brakes
• Deore (and better) components versus lower end
• tubeless tires/rims versus tubes
• air suspension versus coiled spring

So those bullets above may suggest the biggest breakpoint in price-vs-quality. (And I realize we're still talking about a range.)

Anyway, I realize that without data this is a somewhat rhetorical post. And I also realize that some riders (not all) will likely go a long way to justify the money spent on their bike, saying "this $8K bike is light years better than any $3K bike on the market and makes me a far better rider!"

And my hunch (just a hunch) is that there is a very real price point (for recreational riders) where if you spend much more, your value plummets and the quality/performance/durability boost is almost unmeasurable.

Scott

 

[tehllama]

I totally agree that the air sprung, Deore/X5 level is where diminishing returns start to seriously happen. Those are bikes that will work, and handle nearly everything appropriate for the bike of that intent (*basically frame/travel combinations). For 95% of users, this is what I'd peg as the cost/performance breakpoint. Bikes specced with mixtures of Deore/SLX stuff are the best values in the industry (I have one!), no denying that.

The next approximate breakpoint is the XT/X9 type area where it's eminently durable/reliable with a lot of practical weight savings and hand-me-down features. Suspension in this range has the latest/greatest damping hardware from last rotation's bikes, and these are the quality hub/rim/spoke setups that are as close to bulletproof as possible... anything past this is primarily weight savings, or small subjective improvements in feel.

As a 235lb bruiser type rider, anything below the Deore/X5 line was a placeholder until I broke it - I was literally overtorquing the cranks, warping the brakes from heat, trashing wheels on buffed out XC trails, and exploding freehubs on bikes, all within 10 miles of brand new. I thought it was me, until I finally got a bike with X5/X7 stuff on it, and it all worked, survived, and allowed me to actually enjoy riding instead of having lovely hikes where I'm hiking/carrying a 33lb rolling pet back after it quits.
The Deore/SLX/Entry level Fox stuff on my hardtail works perfectly, but isn't super swanky, the SLX/XT Pike/FloatCTD stuff on my all mountain FS bike now works a touch better. I'm still gradually destroying rims, but it's because I'm right at the weight/durability tradeoff for somebody my size.

The 35mm Stanchion Pike is a pretty baller fork, but in 5.9" travel guise I was having issues with cheaper forks being unwilling to keep the front wheel on track, and diving through too much travel over bigger (>watermelon) rocks... I suspect if I wasn't 6'2" and 20lb heavier than I ought to be I'd have been happy with the Fox32 or Revelation, but having a less capable fork would mean avoiding my now favorite trails, or accepting ridiculously high chances of needing medical attention, so that was really a value proposition for me.

But that's your opinion. It all comes down to preference, what you are doing with the bike etc.

Clearly what one is doing with the bike is relevant, but there's a latent assumption that the rider wants to (and is able to) use at least 80% of the capability of the bike that's there - otherwise everything is wasted value over a sprawl-mart Huffy if it never leaves pavement and isn't asked to travel quickly... this is a forum, my informed opinion is basically what was solicited; not sure how my post was out of line or confusing.
A good XC bike with those parts will do that job great, an entry level trail bike will excel in that domain, and for all but clydes that level in an all mountain bike will work brilliantly. I think that covers the OP's scope of applications.

 

[SWriverstone]

Good post tehllama! :thumbsup:
Scott

 

[moefosho]

I think it has a lot to do with the rider as well. What is the bike going to be used for, rider experience, etc.
For a beginner or someone who rarely rides. There are diminishing returns after deore/air fork so around $1000.

For someone who rides on a regular basis I think you get pretty good performance gains up to XT/X1, carbon frames, carbon wheels, high end suspension,etc. so $4-7k. Obviously $2000 bikes are pretty dang fantastic and are very enjoyable.

For pros, I dont think there are any diminishing returns. Every little bit helps.

 

[Circlip]

For pros, I dont think there are any diminishing returns. Every little bit helps.

The phrases "every little bit helps" and "diminishing returns" are somewhat at odds with one another IMHO. If we are talking about relative placings in a competitive environment (e.g. 1st place vs. 5th place) then I agree completely, with margins sometimes being very small depending on the race discipline. However, in terms of absolute time savings pros are subject to the same law of diminishing returns as casual riders, maybe even more so as they have the experience to manage around small deficiencies in equipment.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

For someone who rides on a regular basis I think you get pretty good performance gains up to XT/X1, carbon frames, carbon wheels, high end suspension,etc. so $4-7k. Obviously $2000 bikes are pretty dang fantastic and are very enjoyable.

As someone who rides on a regular basis I think I get pretty good performance gain at XT, carbon frames, carbon wheels, high end suspension,etc. $4-7k. My racing hard tail was wonderful for 15 years but she was beating me up and I wasn't enjoying my ride. So I sent her on her way. I am an older rider with arthritis in my hands so, full suspended and carbon everything is the solution. Plus I moved to 27.5 and 2/10.

I spent as much as I could on the new machine based upon my many years of riding and training riders. I think I was really smart about it and would not want to take a step down with any aspect of the bike as it is now. Going backward would reduce my pleasure and not have any sum gain at all.

Save $500-800 on wheels. Carbon is awesome, why would I do that. I had them built on CK hubs I already owned but you still have to figure that in.

XT is my bang for buck for years. Deore/LX uh...no.

Give up the carbon frame for alloy....nope.

Give up carbon bars and stem...nope.

My Syntace carbon seat post is superior to any alloy so ...no. Though I might like a dropper.

But, if I made all of those changes I would be at a sub-$3000 bike. That is a quite a savings and still quite a nice bike. But it is nothing like what I ride now. Worth that extra $3000-$4000? Absolutely.

So for me the margin of diminishing is just past the cost of a dropper, if I want the weight, or XTR, but I've never been spoiled by XTR so what do I know?

 

[AndrwSwitch]

Yeah, I was just thinking about this too.

It seems to be less and less of a real thing in professional cycling. But people (supposedly, anyway) used to be able to make their living as privateer riders - unattached racers. I think you'd find yourself a couple sponsors and go do your best.

As an amateur racer, I have a little bit of a line on parts. I don't think this level of pro really did much better. So for that rider type, I think diminishing returns is really more important, not less so. With a very limited budget, they need to keep their bike rolling, fund travel, pay entry fees, eat, etc. It was interesting to see a pro bike story about that a few years ago. Very different from the pro bike galleries for the guys at the top.

On the road, they've run hard up against the weight limit. Which is kind of interesting, because it means that they basically have 6.8 kg to budget, and we're now seeing the teams make choices about where to allocate that weight. I think that's part of why aero wheels are so popular - they have to have some weight somewhere, so why not make it "faster" the bike? And everybody's using a power meter these days, which wasn't always true. But not everyone wears a heart rate monitor - interesting. And they can be real fusspots about carrying a bottle, or a second bottle, etc.

There was also that race Ned Overend did on a Rockhopper. Clearly a bit of a stunt, although Contador did something similar with SRAM Apex a few years ago. I think, even given that a huge part of these guys' job is to gain notoriety for their sponsors, that if they didn't believe in diminishing returns, it would be near-impossible to get pro racers to consent to doing this kind of stunt.

 

[rangeriderdave]

I like to ride my bikes for years and put many miles on them. I will wear out/ break things ,I want parts that last so, XT level shifters ,brakes ,etc. I look at the cost of a bike by dollars divided by miles .Plus it's cheaper to buy once.

 

[SWriverstone]

There was also that race Ned Overend did on a Rockhopper. Clearly a bit of a stunt, although Contador did something similar with SRAM Apex a few years ago. I think, even given that a huge part of these guys' job is to gain notoriety for their sponsors, that if they didn't believe in diminishing returns, it would be near-impossible to get pro racers to consent to doing this kind of stunt.

This is something I think about a LOT. I used to be a nationally-ranked whitewater slalom racer. Not U.S. Team caliber, but solidly in the "B" rankings just below. And with whitewater slalom, equipment is every bit as important as it is in mountain or road biking.

And I can say with absolute certainty that the top guy on the U.S. team at the time (Jon Lugbill-also one of the greatest whitewater paddlers the world has ever known)...could have annihilated me in any race paddling a boat that was literally 10lbs heavier than mine (and I could be paddling the most lightweight, state-of-the-art carbon/kevlar/spectra boat in existence and would still have gotten my ass kicked).

So the question I ponder is...why are we all SO obsessed with equipment...when we all KNOW that ability, discipline, intelligence, training strategy, etc. make a MUCH bigger difference? (Again-I'm not talking about top racers-I'm talking about average run-of-the-mill recreational riders, who still tend to obsess over equipment!)

:headscratch:
Scott