Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Fri Dec 09, 2016 6:55 pm

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 97 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 3:43 am 
PoTM & rBoTY Winner
PoTM & rBoTY Winner
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 7:30 pm
Posts: 2046
Location: ARIZONA
but "serious bike" does not equal "high-end"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 6:00 am 
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 7:16 pm
Posts: 9939
Location: ÜberUnderbidder
yo-Nate-y wrote:
but "serious bike" does not equal "high-end"


a-ha! good point. Any examples?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 1:58 pm 
PoTM & rBoTY Winner
PoTM & rBoTY Winner
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 7:30 pm
Posts: 2046
Location: ARIZONA
Bikes like the Trek 970?
Totally competent and race-able but with a more workhorse aesthetic. It had XT/DX. But I think the big difference that makes it serious but not high-end is the the maker-branded parts that completed the build.

Perhaps the 950 is a better example.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 3:11 pm 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 2:36 pm
Posts: 16748
Location: Yorkshire, England
GoldenEraMTB wrote:
yo-Nate-y wrote:
but "serious bike" does not equal "high-end"


a-ha! good point. Any examples?


1992 Rocky Mountain Hammer, typical Deore DX, good tubes on the frame (Ritchey Logic Cro-Mo) good components, it's a 'serious bike' but not high end.
Probably what I would class as mid-range for the era. (it is one or two up from the bottom of this particular range, and a lot down from the top of the range)
Again what people would call a serious bike, no doubting that, but certainly not a high end bike
£900 (don't know if that includes or exclude VAT at the time)

;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 3:21 pm 
PoTM & rBoTY Winner
PoTM & rBoTY Winner
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 7:30 pm
Posts: 2046
Location: ARIZONA
I'd agree with that one too. Competent bikes that would be a good base for upgrades,


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 4:35 pm 
PoTM Winner
PoTM Winner
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 5:17 pm
Posts: 272
Location: EastCoast USA
FluffyChicken wrote:
GoldenEraMTB wrote:
yo-Nate-y wrote:
but "serious bike" does not equal "high-end"


a-ha! good point. Any examples?


1992 Rocky Mountain Hammer, typical Deore DX, good tubes on the frame (Ritchey Logic Cro-Mo) good components, it's a 'serious bike' but not high end.
Probably what I would class as mid-range for the era. (it is one or two up from the bottom of this particular range, and a lot down from the top of the range)
Again what people would call a serious bike, no doubting that, but certainly not a high end bike
£900 (don't know if that includes or exclude VAT at the time)

;)





Funny that you should bring up the Hammer...I have a nice one in the garage that I really enjoy riding, and it was the very first bike I thought of submitting for this months mid-range BOTM, but the DX bits excluded it :( .





Steve


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 9:08 pm 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
I think the flaw in logic, here, seems to be the idea that once you have some rules for category, then by exclusion, you can define mid-range.

That's not really how it worked or works - nor is it with cars.

If you just look at the range of prices available - then sure, mid range is going to look quite expansive (given the upper end of the market leads to pretty darned pricey machines) - just like the car market.

But that's just ignoring the reality - and that which was evident in the mags BITD. What really matters, is the mid-range prices of bikes that people actually bought - because that is truly what is mid-range - not simply some median band of prices that's theoretically occupying the middle space.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 9:34 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 9:01 am
Posts: 1364
Location: West Somerset/East Devon
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 9:49 pm 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 2:36 pm
Posts: 16748
Location: Yorkshire, England
Neil wrote:
I think the flaw in logic, here, seems to be the idea that once you have some rules for category, then by exclusion, you can define mid-range.

That's not really how it worked or works - nor is it with cars.

If you just look at the range of prices available - then sure, mid range is going to look quite expansive (given the upper end of the market leads to pretty darned pricey machines) - just like the car market.

But that's just ignoring the reality - and that which was evident in the mags BITD. What really matters, is the mid-range prices of bikes that people actually bought - because that is truly what is mid-range - not simply some median band of prices that's theoretically occupying the middle space.


Actually I think the flaw is peoples opinion and what they want to be mid-range.

Mid-Range is actually quite easy, by definition it's the mid-point of a manufacturers range. For us it would be the middle bike of said manufaturers MTB range.

The hard part is manufacturer ranges vary a lot :D

Taking what people buy would not define a mid-range, just what the average type of bike a person would buy. Probably an ASDA £70 special.

One other flaw in our BotM is not define a bottom groupset to use. Everything from Tourney and SIS could be used.

In other words so many flaws and so many opinions.... makes good chat though otherwise it would be boring :)

---
For more silliness
If we moved to Orange bike in the early 90's
A Clockwork LX and Prestige LX are not in the same league, yet still classed as midrange in this contest

A Clockwork DX is for this considered high end, where a Titanium LX is not.

Bottom of the range Orange where all LX equipped*. For them the frame defined the '...-range', components defined the expense :lol:

An Elite LX cost £1025 in 1993, A Clockwork XTR cost £1099....


*Ok the bottom was XC Expert by a few pounds, but that confuses things. XC Comp MD was the same price as Deore DX though


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:43 am 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
FluffyChicken wrote:
Actually I think the flaw is peoples opinion and what they want to be mid-range.

Well we're all entitled to our opinion, and it clearly differs between several, here, over this.

But as I've said, countless times - magazines, BITD, didn't struggle, one bit, to define or review mid-range bikes. Over the years, I read countless articles of group tests of bikes that were mid-range.

And you know what? They all coincided with roughly the amounts of money I've been talking about, and roughly the type of bikes bought. And never once - that's right - not ever - did I read group test of mid-range bikes that included a 1200 or 1300 quid bike.

Not sure if I ever read a group test of mid-range bikes that included anything as expensive as 900 pounds.

So if the magazines, so clearly and easily could define what was mid-range, why are we being revisionist, now? Did the magazines get it all wrong? Or perhaps did they have some inkling, some concept of why they included the bikes they did in mid-range group tests.
FluffyChicken wrote:
The hard part is manufacturer ranges vary a lot :D

And what you're conveniently ignoring, there, is that all the manufacturers that you'd give equal weight to, there, were given equal weight to, by the buyers.
FluffyChicken wrote:
Taking what people buy would not define a mid-range, just what the average type of bike a person would buy. Probably an ASDA £70 special.

This isn't what the average person would buy, but the median of what people spend on bikes.


Last edited by Neil on Thu Feb 17, 2011 10:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 97 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dubya3, Kell, kvs766, kyle888, restorich, Smithjss70, Tc, xerxes and 39 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group