What is mid-range?
- Thread starter john
- Start date
You have a good point there - I mean the idea that a low-end Klein becomes fair game for mid-range, is analogous to suggesting that the cheapest Ferrari is a mid-range car.kaiser":80tc2jmd said:
The entire spectrum of prices isn't that relevant - as there's always extremes at each end of the scale - so for bikes, bikes in the thousands - of for cars in the millions, don't really affect what is mid-range for either - because mid range for either, is affected by what people actually buy and spend, as opposed to the potential of what could be bought.
Bike mags got that spot on when comparing mid-range bikes in group tests, as do car mags, comparing cars that are mid-range in their group tests.
- Feedback
- View
Don't forget there is another category, exotica
300-500 Entry
500-900 Mid-range
900-1500 Top
1500+ exotica
It's not a slap bag in the "middle" thing, there's more to it, more like a scale of affordableness (if that's a word)
How can it be that a mid range car costs say 20-25k but a Bugatti Veyron costs 1,000,000 :?
All IMO true for early 90's
300-500 Entry
500-900 Mid-range
900-1500 Top
1500+ exotica
It's not a slap bag in the "middle" thing, there's more to it, more like a scale of affordableness (if that's a word)
How can it be that a mid range car costs say 20-25k but a Bugatti Veyron costs 1,000,000 :?
All IMO true for early 90's
- Feedback
- View
Magazines are there to make money, not to actually review bikes, that's just their product and appese the advertisers.
They review the bikes and call real entry level (i.e. decent enought to be a lasting worthwhile bike used for more than trundling down dome roads and trails) 'Mid-Range' because people like to think they have a 'mid-range' bike and call it something better than it is. It makes you feel good and the magazine know that, so do manufaturers and retailers, look at Halford or ToyRUs for examples, they know average Joe knows nothing.
anyways, that enough of my banter and others should join in saying what they think mid-range should be with a good example
They review the bikes and call real entry level (i.e. decent enought to be a lasting worthwhile bike used for more than trundling down dome roads and trails) 'Mid-Range' because people like to think they have a 'mid-range' bike and call it something better than it is. It makes you feel good and the magazine know that, so do manufaturers and retailers, look at Halford or ToyRUs for examples, they know average Joe knows nothing.
anyways, that enough of my banter and others should join in saying what they think mid-range should be with a good example
They called entry level bikes, entry level bikes, because they were the cheapest MTBs that would actually work well, off-road, and not fall to bits. The kit on them may not have lasted as well as better spec'd bikes, but they were competent off road. Any reviews or group tests I ever saw on entry level bikes, all seemed fair comment - sure hardly aspirational stuff, but bikes perfectly adequate for newbies to start hitting the trails.FluffyChicken":5xc8i5iu said:
Mid-range bikes were grouped, tested and reviewed as such, because the magazines had a good handle on what people bought, largely, as mid-range bikes - I'd hazard a guess in a very similar way that car magazines handle group tests of cars that are considered mid-range (same as they have other categories, like executive).
When magazines review bikes, together, they do so on the basis that they have a rough idea of what people are considering for the category stated. Their intent isn't focused on making people feel good, it's in providing articles that would make people want to read, and keep reading their magazine.
The target audience for MTB mags is nothing like your "average Joe" nor the person who buys bikes at toy shops or supermarkets.FluffyChicken":5xc8i5iu said:
Mags reviewing bikes isn't about making people feel good - it's about providing reviews on things that are actually popular, and people actually buy in numbers, that will help their circulation. It's about appealling to their audience, and your "average Joe" or supermarket buying BSO owner, isn't the likely target audience (nor for that matter buyer) of MTB mags.
FluffyChicken":28b2ukjl said:
In my mind mid range applies more to a manufacturer's range than a price range too, as over here in Australia the country of origin did/does cause a few bikes to become overpriced for their spec.
For example in the early/mid 90s a bottom of the range Cannondale (or similar) handmade in the US with ordinary parts cost the same as a Tawainese made steel hardtail with XT group.
Maybe in hindsight the current BOTM name is only the issue?? So in future I'd say naming of BOTM specials make things more black and white along the lines of the titanium and full suspension special, where its obvious whether a bike is in or not.
Anyway enough of this banter, its begining to remind me of mtbr vrc forum!!
- Feedback
- View
The definition was not "Mid range Marin" or "Mid range Orange" it is supposed to be an overall mid range.
eastcoaststeve
PoTM Winner
Not trying to fan the flames, but I think part of the riff is folks are trying to wrap a few different issues up in one neat little definition, and it's getting all lumpy...
1st part: This month's BOTM was dubbed by John as a Mid-Range Special, (mid -range was catagorized by him, solely as a level of COMPONENTS. Thus it leaves room for what may be perceived as "higher end" frames with acceptable, by his standard components. I'm sure John chose this route for simplicity and for the lattitude and variety of bikes it will encompass.
2nd part: The low, mid, high range grouping of ALL vintage MTBs by original price reasoning is, while easy to research, also left to the "buyer at the time BITD' to determine "their" level of worth for the bikes in question...some folks had more cash than others and that ball starts to unravel as well.
3rd part: Mid-range by builder...mid-range GT vs mid-range Merlin vs mid-range Orange vs mid-range Klein vs mid-range Rocky Mtn etc, etc...hard to make a direct comparison except with the heart, which is what seems to drive most of our choices.
Not sure if this makes any sense to anyone but myself, but I always value other's opinions (even though I might not agree), and in the spirit of fun I'm along for the ride.
Steve
1st part: This month's BOTM was dubbed by John as a Mid-Range Special, (mid -range was catagorized by him, solely as a level of COMPONENTS. Thus it leaves room for what may be perceived as "higher end" frames with acceptable, by his standard components. I'm sure John chose this route for simplicity and for the lattitude and variety of bikes it will encompass.
John":hncl97ma said:This time it's mid range special. How have we defined mid range for the sake of this BoTM? No bikes with better components than Mountain LX / Deore LX or Suntour XCD, that goes for the entire gruppo.
I'm sure this one will cause some debate and be a real headache
2nd part: The low, mid, high range grouping of ALL vintage MTBs by original price reasoning is, while easy to research, also left to the "buyer at the time BITD' to determine "their" level of worth for the bikes in question...some folks had more cash than others and that ball starts to unravel as well.
3rd part: Mid-range by builder...mid-range GT vs mid-range Merlin vs mid-range Orange vs mid-range Klein vs mid-range Rocky Mtn etc, etc...hard to make a direct comparison except with the heart, which is what seems to drive most of our choices.
Not sure if this makes any sense to anyone but myself, but I always value other's opinions (even though I might not agree), and in the spirit of fun I'm along for the ride.
Steve
