"Buy the best or the cheapest"

Depends on how you divide it up. I consider tri bikes in the $2,500 to $3,000 range (e.g., the P2) to be "middling" and the best value out there. I know I'm "completely in love with" mine and see absolutely no need for upgrades.

I've got a Felt B-12 with full Ultegra components. It's middle of the road and I'm completely in love with it. These aren't houses, they're bikes and your scenario doesn't hold.

I'm curious what I could possibly want to upgrade on it. Okay I got Dura-Ace brakes to replace the no-names that were on it, now I'm done upgrading.

I had an S32 and it was an excellent bike but I can see where you would want to upgrade the components on it.

Yes, there is a difference between the two bikes and I doubt I'll ever seen the want or need to get the top flight bike.

Edited by DanielG 2009-09-12 7:03 AM

Oh, if you're trying to talk yourself into the low end bike, then by all means get one. You'll find out whether you made a mistake or not within a few months. If you still don't think so then you did the right thing. If you always have bike envy or always are "I wish I had..." then you did make a mistake.

My brain wouldn't let me be happy with the cheapest. I'm just not wired that way. Every time I try that, I end up hating what I have and need to get something better and regret it. Some people thrive on savings, I just don't. I get excited about having nice "stuff" I guess. I already am restraining myself from getting another bike when mine is perfectly good.

Well, I'm a little divided on this, myself.  I've owned two very inexpensive entry-level road bikes (first a K2, then a Scott, neither over $700) and have a "middling" tri bike (a Kestrel Talon).  Certainly my Kestrel is a better bike than my Scott--it's a lot lighter, if nothing else--but I have to admit a fondness for the Scott.  I think maybe I'm just more critical of minor issues with the more expensive bike (getting the carbon seatpost not to slip, creaking from cable housings, that sort of thing) than I am with the cheaper one (the Scott definitely has a couple bigger issues).  Didn't stop me from riding the Kestrel rather than the Scott on my IM this summer, though.

I think, as with a lot of purchases, there are great values out there and there can be some satisfaction to be had from finding one after a lot of looking around.

First, I don't buy into the "Best or the cheapest" when it comes to houses.  Here in Baton Rouge (applies to many big cities), buying the cheapest means moving into a neighborhood that you would never feel safe in, would have to keep your kids in the house, lousy resale, and would hate in no time. 

I would buy into the concept if it meant "Buy the best or the cheapest in your price range".  For me that would be $800-$2700.  I bought parts and had a mechanic build it.  Base build around $800 and probably added $200 worth of parts (clip ons, clipless pedals, better rims, etc).  Haven't regretted my decision but do plan on buying a better bike in a couple of years. 

My motto is: "the best is just good enough for me."  Always try to buy equipment that is better than you.  This way, you are your only limiter, not your stuff!  When a piece of equipment is holding you back, upgrade.  This works for fishing rods, pool cues,  etc.  Both of those examples can be purchased for under a $30 or over $1000. 




Edited by Gregkl 2009-09-12 5:15 PM

I think "Best or cheapest" does mean WITHIN YOUR PRICE RANGE and your overall interests. Or we'd all be riding $20k bikes or tricycles.
 

Gotta disagree with OP. Cheapest often sucks & Bling is for posers. I buy solid bikes & gear that are better than I am.  Usu. this is a little beyond "middle-of-the-road" stuff.  Sweet-spot of the market. Cost-effective gear that doesn't limit performance. Spending more than that is a waste.  Or worse if the more expensive gear doesn't suit your game or sacrifices reliability during competition or training.  Like a big strong Clyde buying expensive lightweight wheels that he continually flexes into rubbing the brakepads on climbs/sprints risking broken spokes and DNFs.  Or buying expensive but less durable tires for riding courses on bad roads.  Faster to be riding on a durable $35 tire than stopped fixing a $75 flat.  OTOH- buying "cheapest" is often MORE expensive in the long run. IMHO if you're consistently riding 4-5k miles/yr spending the extra $$ for 105 (even Ultegra) groupo bike vs Sora is worth it for better shifting quality, less frequent maintenance ($) and less down time (aggravation & lost training time). 


Edited by Oldteen 2009-09-12 9:29 PM

I don't think the analogy holds up.  The housing article says that buying a house that you feel is "second best" is a soul sucker, because you are paying almost as much each month as for your dream house, and can't set aside money to upgrade.  If you buy the cheapest house you feel safe in, you can save a lot of money,l and also sell the house (hopefully, and at a profit) when you have enough set aside.  With a bike, the resale is never going to be more than you paid for it, and so you will have tied up your cash without any ability to regain it later.

If you are strapped for cash, I would say buy the best bike you can afford from a prior year.  You'll get a discount compared to the newest model, and still have a bike that works.  In a year or two, even the newer model will be old.

I think you have to be careful how you are reading the line, as the "cheapest" sometimes costs more than the "best".