What is high end for you?

[CassidyAce]

Re:

Hardrock and roughly equivalent (Muirwoods, etc.) = low end

Rockhopper and roughly equivalent (Bear Valley, etc.) = Mid range

Stumpjumper and roughly equivalent (Zaskar, etc.) = High end

Below or above is BSO territory or niche/pro or just plain weird! But call me a commoner . . .

Don't know about the $2,500 criterion: for most riders, that indicates more money than sense. Overtaking a rider on a Santa Cruz while on a much cheaper bike is just one of life's little pleasures.

 

[M-Power]

Re:

You can pick up a high end retrobike for a few hundred quid, tune it up, maybe replace a few bits and it will ride great. Nowt wrong with that. Having worked in the trade bitd and owned mass produced high end bikes first, it became clear after a year or two there were annoying shortcomings. These centred mostly around poor geometry ( I need a longer TT ) and sometimes frame alignment, not to mention spec compromises. I wasted a fortune initially trying to compensate for poor geometry and handling in the rough stuff.

Then one day a customer comes in with somthing imported and exotic, you take it for a test ride.....and the scales literally fall from your eyes. It just blows you away and you have to know exactly WHY ! You will never own a mass produced Taiwanese bike again...ever You know the rest and its not skinny

 

[legrandefromage]

ok, 300LX, thats my final offer

 

[fattiman]

I think I know what the O.P is getting at here. The likes of Klein, Fat Chance, Yeti, Merlin and Kona Custom and Specialized S-Works models are what most would consider "Top End" dream bikes, both now and back in the day.
I certainly wouldnt consider a Zaskar or Stumpjumper as Top End, common as muck!

 

[longun]

Something that your worried will break when you ride it haha

 

[legrandefromage]

The original Zaskar wasnt a cheap bike and they are '10 a penny' due to fact that they dont break very often. 'High end' can be popular models

 

[CassidyAce]

Re:

'High end' can be popular models

Agreed.

I think there are two different ideas of what the discussion is about on this thread, which is reflected in some people talking about 'high end' and others talking about 'top end'. A Zaskar might not be top end but it was at the high end of GT's range and certainly good enough for most riders. Obviously, there were/are more expensive bikes and opinions will differ about where 'high end' begins.

Perhaps being a good enough rider to justify having a top end bike is a more important issue. But as long as you've got a bike that keeps you healthy and you enjoy riding, does it really matter?

 

[xxnick1975]

Top end just means top of the range

 

[jimo746]

Something that your worried will break when you ride it haha

Like a Pace?

 

[ultrazenith]

To be top end, you need to be able to ride it like you don't care if i breaks, because you know whatever happens, you can get it repaired and repainted. If you thnk there's a good chance that what you ride might break under normal riding, then I'd argue it's not really top end.