What is mid-range?

[yo-Nate-y]

but "serious bike" does not equal "high-end"

 

[GoldenEraMTB]

but "serious bike" does not equal "high-end"

a-ha! good point. Any examples?

 

[yo-Nate-y]

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.

 

[FluffyChicken]

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)

 

[yo-Nate-y]

I'd agree with that one too. Competent bikes that would be a good base for upgrades,

 

[eastcoaststeve]

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

 

[Neil]

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.

 

[Bike Hoarder]

 

[FluffyChicken]

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

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

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

 

[Neil]

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 on bikes.