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.
The hard part is manufacturer ranges vary a lot
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.
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