Quite a discussion. Its hard to define by any one criteria. I'd say though that mid range has a bigger spectrum than low and high end.
great point; albeit a short one
i'd just woken up.
what i think i was trying to say is.. bottom end is fairly easy to define. you know what to look out for and what to expect on a bottom end bike and you know you'll be looking at up to say £400.
same with top end bikes. you know what is going to be draped on that beautiful frame and you know you will pay thousands for it.
mid range lies between these. there are lower mid range, mid range and higher mid range i guess. my point is that the makority of bikes are mid range and i guess that is why john has defined mid range as lx-max. ho had to use some kind of cut off before approaching the higher end of mid range.
my thinking is that there are not many really high end or really low end bikes out there compared to the number of "mid range" bikes.
i have entered my rts 2 this month as i feel that it is mid range. yes it is more expensive than the 5-600 price point that a few are suggesting as a guide but a lot of the extra was because of the back end. if it were a hardtail it would be around the 5-600 price i would have thought. i am looking at this as mid range suspension.
my other thought for entry was my beloved khs montana pro. i couldnt enter as it has dx hubs and xt cranks. i thought about a quick rebuild but deemed that not very sporting as the bike was originally xt equipped and had, if i recall, a £900 retail. however i would definately regard this as mid range. thats not to say i was a spoilt brat when i was a kid - my best bike was a fire mountain, its just i see high end as being the exotic and out of reach.
ah...yes...good stuff. Another thing to consider: