First time bike buyer: what differences will I see if I upgrade?

[Gopherbassist]

For the first time in my life, I'm going to have a job that will take me above the poverty line. One of the things I want to do is buy a bike to help maintain my fitness. I've gone into several bike shops in my area, and all but one tried very hard to upsell me to more expensive gear. I understand why they're doing this, big ticket items reap bigger profits.

But when I ask a simple question like "What differences will I see/hear/feel when I buy this bike that costs $500 more than the entry level one," there is no answer. Not even do I get a question dodge, but a totally empty blank stare. So, I thought I'd take my question to a larger group of people that don't have financial stake in the question: What do I get out of spending more? My experience has been that cheaper stuff is often worse, but bikes aren't exactly cheap in the first place.


And, I imagine this question has been asked a lot, but when I searched, the results included stuff about the prices of milk, gasoline, and I think even beef, so I felt it may be more expedient to just start a new thread. Apologies in advance.

 

[oldbobcat]

To me that step above entry level means the $1300-1800 range. Tell me if I'm mistaken. If we agree, then you should get a frame that gives a more refined ride, more up-to-date ergonomics like handlebar and saddle, control levers that are more pleasant to use, stiffer brake calipers that will be more responsive, upgrade from a 9- to 10-speed cassette, and lighter and more durable wheels. This range usually puts you on an upgraded aluminum frame or an entry level carbon one.

I put it this way. If you're really getting into the sport, you won't feel the need to upgrade after a year or two on your entry level bike. On the other hand, you might be just delaying the urge to upgrade even more a little further up the road.

 

[alfeng]

[COLOR= rgb(24, 24, 24)]The slightly BETTER bikes will probably weigh ~2 lbs. lighter ([/COLOR]that's just a very rough ballpark estimate[COLOR= rgb(24, 24, 24)]) than the less expensive bikes ... [/COLOR]

• the better derailleurs have more alloy & less steel, so they weigh less.
• the better wheels will, as noted, usually weigh less.
• the better Shimano chainrings (i.e., Ultegra & Dura Ace) have better ramping-and-pinning & are nickle-plated which means that they will last longer if all other things are equal -- FSA rings & 105-or-less chainrings are not nickle-plated AND 105-or-less chainrings have marginal ramping-and-pinning so the shifting will not be as efficient as you should be able to experience with a Ultegra or a Dura Ace crankset & chainrings

On the other hand, FWIW, I think that any bike equipped with Shimano SORA shifters can be easily upgraded as a DIY project with a pair of Campagnolo 10-speed shifters (11-speed is "okay" -- both can be indexed to a variety of Shimano drivetrains) for under $200 (closer to half that if you buy the shifters on eBay) ...

• the real world difference between the least expensive & most expensive Campagnolo shifter is much smaller than the difference between the least & best Shimano shifters
• in a different-but-similar-vein, the difference between the less expensive & most expensive Shimano derailleurs is small EXCEPT FOR the weight & finish ... in some ways, THAT is true for Campagnolo derailleurs, too, with the less expensive rear derailleurs being porky compared to the best AND the better Campagnolo rear derailleurs can theoretically be rebuilt (if you can afford the individual replacement components, that is)

But, buying a sweeter set of wheels will probably make up most of the weight difference if-and-when you feel a need for better wheels.

• if you change the shifters to Campagnolo + nicer set of wheels AND tune it properly (this is true regardless of the brand of components), then, IMO, you will have a bike that is almost as good as far as it functions mechanically as an Ultegra equipped bike for half the price
• if you also change the rear derailleur to an Ultegra rear derailleur, then the resultant bike will be as good as a Dura Ace equipped bike, IMO, as far as how it functions mechanically

Changing the crankset will probably knock another 1/2 pound, or more, off the bike; but, there may not be any perceivable mechanical advantage because Campagnolo shifters are, IMO, also capable of functioning well with ANY crankset & chainring set in addition to working with almost any front derailleur.

Better Shimano cassettes weigh less than the less expensive cassettes.

• BTW. 'I' think that Campagnolo's mechanical shifters combined with Shimano derailleurs & Shimano cassettes yield shifting which is as good as what has been described for the Di2 & EPS drivetrains ... at least, the way I set them up ... so, I would rather buy the less expensive bike & make the alluded to changes.

---

The actual frame may-or-may-not be different between an $800 bike & a $1300 bike OTHER THAN the paint scheme or colors which may be available AND possibly how nicely the welds are executed.

 

[Dr Lodge]

Originally Posted by Gopherbassist .

But when I ask a simple question like "What differences will I see/hear/feel when I buy this bike that costs $500 more than the entry level one," there is no answer. Not even do I get a question dodge, but a totally empty blank stare.

Doesn't surprise me. I think the differences are quite marginal but I would think of the differences in 3 ways, in this order:
- Frame
- Wheels
- Other Components

Frame fit, geometry, materials, weight and overall ride quality. You'll only get to know the difference by RIDING the damn thing. The sales man can't really sell you on ride quality or fit. The frame is the most important since a frame upgrade at a later date isn't cost effective

Wheels - mainly weight reduction, rim profile, you might see different materials or spoke configurations. In my opinion, these minimal spoke wheels are just asking for trouble. You want a wheel that is light yet strong, and spokes that can be easily replaced. Stainless steel double butted spokes is a minimum spec. Wheels can be upgraded, but its costly

Other components - this is likely to be the majority of a single group set, sometimes with different crank or brakes swapped out. see what your money is getting in in terms of which groupset is provided and where this sits in the "hierarchy". Even the most basic groupset works fine, I just fitted Sora brifters (cheap Shimano) on my 531 bike and they work a treat. Components can be upgraded one at a time. The saddle might be cheap so worth asking if it can be swapped out for your preferred model if you want that.

 

[dabac]

Thing is, humans aren't good as measuring devices. We do OK on comparison values but pretty much suck on absolute values. A slight change that will mean nothing important at all in terms of MPH or endurance can mean a lot in enjoyment. I rode quite happily for several years on my entry level MTB. Every clunk, every jar I just thought of as normal - until my first tour of the Alps. Suddenly, there was a reference point - the other bikes in the group. On the flat, having a 6 lbs heavier bike meant nothing. On a 2-hour continuous uphill grind, it means a lot. At 15 MPH, a sharp rebound out of the fork wasn't even a nuisance, at 30 MPH it almost took me off the trail.

The key thing here is that upgradeitis (unless you have a well stocked parts bin to start with and/or the the skill/time for bargain hunting) can be real costly.
Out of a shop, you'll never get a better prize for a part than when it's already bolted to a bike.
In terms of money, the only thing that makes sense under general conditions is replace-with-better as parts wear out.

Some will say "get a nice frame, everything else can be replaced". Other will say, "get a bike with nice parts, then keep watching for a better frame off ebay or somewhere and move your nice parts over"

I'd suggest you start out with a fairly new, but used bike. It should have the integrated brakes/shifters. Number of gears is your least concern. Ride until you know what it's all about. It can be sold on with a marginal loss when you've figured out how it suited you. Was it the right size? Did it feel nervous or sluggish? Does it make you feel like the odd one out in your group? (if you ride in a group that is..)

If you consider department-store bikes as entry-level, then the big difference is that everything else can be left for a shop for maintenance and repairs, w/o even the simplest of tasks costing a significant portion of the purchase price.

 

[Gopherbassist]

Thanks for the replies everyone.

So, it looks like most of this stuff is stuff I'm not going to have to worry about. I'm not going to be riding with other people or racing, and the likelyhood of me going up mountains is low. I'm not concerned with weight as my only goal is to burn calories. But one thing that does matter is something alfeng touched on a little bit: how long should my equipment last? What should I bee looking for in components to tell me about their durability? Does the increased durability offset the higher price when more expensive gear is being considered? Thanks in advance for any answers.

 

[CAMPYBOB]

Originally Posted by dabac .

Thing is, humans aren't good as measuring devices. We do OK on comparison values but pretty much suck on absolute values. A slight change that will mean nothing important at all in terms of MPH or endurance can mean a lot in enjoyment. I rode quite happily for several years on my entry level MTB. Every clunk, every jar I just thought of as normal - until my first tour of the Alps. Suddenly, there was a reference point - the other bikes in the group. On the flat, having a 6 lbs heavier bike meant nothing. On a 2-hour continuous uphill grind, it means a lot. At 15 MPH, a sharp rebound out of the fork wasn't even a nuisance, at 30 MPH it almost took me off the trail.

The key thing here is that upgradeitis (unless you have a well stocked parts bin to start with and/or the the skill/time for bargain hunting) can be real costly.
Out of a shop, you'll never get a better prize for a part than when it's already bolted to a bike.
In terms of money, the only thing that makes sense under general conditions is replace-with-better as parts wear out.

Some will say "get a nice frame, everything else can be replaced". Other will say, "get a bike with nice parts, then keep watching for a better frame off ebay or somewhere and move your nice parts over"

I'd suggest you start out with a fairly new, but used bike. It should have the integrated brakes/shifters. Number of gears is your least concern. Ride until you know what it's all about. It can be sold on with a marginal loss when you've figured out how it suited you. Was it the right size? Did it feel nervous or sluggish? Does it make you feel like the odd one out in your group? (if you ride in a group that is..)

If you consider department-store bikes as entry-level, then the big difference is that everything else can be left for a shop for maintenance and repairs, w/o even the simplest of tasks costing a significant portion of the purchase price.

This gentleman has given the beginning rider EXCELLENT advice.

My humble dos centavos worth is...'if' you are the type of person that sticks with something...that knows what he wants to do...go get fitted at a shop and over-spend a bit. The performance gains, minor as thet may seem, will be worth the additional cost.

All the above posters stated the reasons why that is so.

Jump in, head first, and enjoy the sport!

To answer your questions:

But one thing that does matter is something alfeng touched on a little bit: how long should my equipment last?

Even a Shimano Sora or Tiagra equipped bike should last long enough for you to be ready for your next bike and upgrade...at least three to five years with proper lubrication, adjustment and replaced wear items. Mileage and care will affect longevity, but bikes are made to be used up.

What should I bee looking for in components to tell me about their durability?

Drive trains have become pretty darn reliable and durable, even on the low end. I would pay attention to the crankset being a decent one...Shimano 105 or better would be my target...a mid-line FSA or such would be just as good. You can tell a lot about some components by their hardware...quality fasteners usually are installed on better components.

Wheels are where many bike manufactures save money to get their models to retail at a certain price point. Look them over carefully and compare them to the next couple of higher models in the line up. Ask questions about their durability and check out the web for user opinions and experiences. Roadbikereview.com and the several other review sites are a good source of info on specific models and components.

You'll likely never score that 'perfect' combination of frame, wheels, components, seat, etc., but you can dial your choice in pretty close and go from there.

Does the increased durability offset the higher price when more expensive gear is being considered?

Yes and no. Higher priced components do last longer, but it is generally lighter weight, stronger construction, better function, etc. that you are paying for...oh...and the 'bling factor'. Big dollar gear is usually finished better.

 

[maydog]

If the quality is there (shimano and campy), I don't see how more expensive components could be more durable.

I may be in the minority, but my first road bike was a base, entry level unit. It had a steel fork, sora gruppo and no name wheels. It was inexpensive, but the quality was good. On that bike I learned a heck of alot about road riding, maintenance and what I wanted for my next machine.

That was back in 2004, I think. It remains one of my best purchases. I still have the bike and ride it frequently. Its my "beater", but its really more than that. I still ride most of my centuries on it. Over the course of the years, I made a lot of changes. Many items were replaced due to normal wear out, but the frame, fork, handlebars, stem, shifters and seatpost are still original equipment. I have upgraded the crank, wheels, chain, seat, the rear derailleur to accept a mountain cassette and added aerobars and rear rack.

A bike is not a wife, you can have two or more, you can sell them or change them as you see fit.

 

[alienator]

If the quality is there (shimano and campy), I don't see how more expensive components could be more durable. I may be in the minority, but my first road bike was a base, entry level unit. It had a steel fork, sora gruppo and no name wheels. It was inexpensive, but the quality was good. On that bike I learned a heck of alot about road riding, maintenance and what I wanted for my next machine. That was back in 2004, I think. It remains one of my best purchases. I still have the bike and ride it frequently. Its my "beater", but its really more than that. I still ride most of my centuries on it. Over the course of the years, I made a lot of changes. Many items were replaced due to normal wear out, but the frame, fork, handlebars, stem, shifters and seatpost are still original equipment. I have upgraded the crank, wheels, chain, seat, the rear derailleur to accept a mountain cassette and added aerobars and rear rack. A bike is not a wife, you can have two or more, you can sell them or change them as you see fit.

+1 to this and to what dabac said. I will, however, challenge the idea that you cannot sell or change a wife as you see fit. What you get when you pay a bit more for components for a bike is generally a little bit less weight, perhaps marginally better function (with marginally meaning less significant than what you're imagining right now), and PERHAPS marginally longer useful life.

 

[swampy1970]

If you want to spend some money on something that WILL make you go faster - get a set of clip on aero bars.

Position and comfort come next in the list. You have to be able to pedal the darned bike without putting yourself in a position that'll lead to pain. A good position will also normally lend itself to putting you on the bike with weight evenly distributed within the wheels - which is sometimes handy to have when you're leaning the bike over and have to touch the brakes slightly... You could ride Bradley Wiggins' personal Tour de France winning bike but if you weren't proportioned like a 6ft2 stick insect then chances are you'd be hating life real quick

Good well fitting clothing probably makes as much actual difference than mega bucks on a flash looking but otherwise regular road bike. Anything that flaps in the wind will slow you down and the rider is by far the biggest part of the aero equation. Good clothing it almost less likely to leave you feeling clammy on hot days and affords better ventilation. Good kit tends to last longer too - so often it really doesn't work out that much more expensive over the cost of the item. Good shoes = a must.

But there's no denying the effect of seeing a nice bike with good kit.

 

[alienator]

But there's no denying the effect of seeing a nice bike with good kit.

Exactly, this bike and kit get me all wound up to ride.

 

[Volnix]

Higher end usually means products more refined, lighter and with more design parameters. Quite alot of them though (especially the very high end racing stuff), seem to pose quite alot on the http://www.cpsc.gov/ website as potentially dangerous.

Also there are different quality-durability requirements for city bikes and racing bikes. I would suppose that racing bikes have less strict requirements for durability quality. You can check some the requirements on these documents:

EN standard 14764 (safety requirements and test methods for city and trekking bicycles

EN standard 14766 (safety requirements and test methods for mountain bicycles with a maximum saddle height of 635mm or more, intended for off-road and rough terrain use; bicycle and rider of 100kgs)

EN standard 14781 (safety requirements and test methods for racing bicycles with a maximum saddle height of 635mm or more, intended for high-speed amateur use on public roads; bicycle and rider of 100kgs).

I once checked the standards and they dont seem so strict at all actually. By the way these are EU standards, there might be others issued somewhere else. It seems that they are just a guideline and maybe companies are not required to follow them. For example the cycle load fatigue test was only for a few thoughsand cycles whilst a bike would probably go through millions of cycles whilst on use.

Some things that are probably not good to compromise are:

-Quality of frame
-Performance of braking system.
-Quality - strength of wheels.
-Quality - strength of handlebars

But usually that has a penalty on weight efficiency and thats where things start to get complicated. So new exotic materials are starting to get used, shapes manipulation occurs etc.

Much of the extra money that the higher end components cost involve advertisment, research and other stuff too. I once checked how much a roll of carbon fibre costs which was enough to build a whole bike and it wasnt expensive at all. The manufacture process is not that expensive either, I suspect the energy requirements to produce a metallic frame from aluminium or steel would be more expensive.

Its probably safer with a well established manufacturer that offers an extensive warranty. Shimano gives 2 years of warranty for all its parts I think.