Adrian wrote:
chris harrison ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :
Also not average, but not unimaginable.


So where did "average" come into it? Although I'd suspect that it's *FAR*
more common to buy inexpensive cars than expensive bikes...

Not if I look at the cars on the roads I walk past in the morning. I
would put money on an overwhelming majority of them costing their owners
more than 5 grand when bought - and a goodly proportion of them still
worth more than that.

FWIW, I introduced the word 'average' several posts ago. You were making
out that you would not have done something - that is only relevant if
you are proposing yourself as the typical man in the street? Otherwise
why should you go on to question why spending the same sum on a bike
should be a cause of surprise?

It goes a lot further than that same 5 grand spent on a car


How? Seriously - genuine question. I'm *baffled* about what a £5k bike will
do that a £500 one won't.

As the old saying goes, if you have to ask the question, you won't
understand the answer.

But it is very similar to asking what a 50 grand car will get you that a
5 grand one won't.

You get better technology, better materials, higher quality components,
better performance.

In message . 170,
Adrian writes
chris harrison ) gurgled happily, sounding much like

So where did "average" come into it? Although I'd suspect that it's *FAR*
more common to buy inexpensive cars than expensive bikes...

It goes a lot further than that same 5 grand spent on a car

How? Seriously - genuine question. I'm *baffled* about what a £5k bike will
do that a £500 one won't.

Make a statement to the world about the wealth, taste and trouser
endowment of the man who owns it?

I'm guessing the majority of people who spend 5k on a bike are men.

--
Steve Walker

chris harrison ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

How? Seriously - genuine question. I'm *baffled* about what a £5k
bike will do that a £500 one won't.

As the old saying goes, if you have to ask the question, you won't
understand the answer.

Humour me.

But it is very similar to asking what a 50 grand car will get you that
a 5 grand one won't.

Is it?

You get better technology, better materials, higher quality
components,

Do you get more space, more comfort, and more functionality?

better performance.

Really? sceptical Y'see, I was of the impression that the £5k bike would
use the same power source as the £500 bike. Yes, there may be a very minor
weight saving, but that's going to be minimal when you consider the weight
including rider. a few hundred grams saved over a hundred kilo all-in
weight? Similar difference to having a dump before you get on the bike.

"Adrian" wrote in message
. 244.170...

So where did "average" come into it? Although I'd suspect that it's *FAR*
more common to buy inexpensive cars than expensive bikes...

There are a hell of a lot of cheap crap bikes bought - you just don't see
the owner's talking about them.

It goes a lot further than that same 5 grand spent on a car

How? Seriously - genuine question. I'm *baffled* about what a £5k bike
will
do that a £500 one won't.

Ok, what will a 300k car do which a 30k one won't? There's an awful lot of
your answer.

Most of the answer is almost always 'go faster' - applies to both cars and
bikes. Another of the key subsets is 'being more comfortable' - oh look,
cars and bikes again. 'Easy to ride' is another one (ok, cars suffer this to
less of a degree since autoboxes etc are very cheap). 'Carry more people' is
another - cars get this one too.

Key differences include materials (CF costs a lot more than gaspipe!),
design and volume of manufacture (recumbents tend to be more expensive,
recumbent trikes more so).

My speciality is tandems - I know of bikes which cost 5K. What they will do
which your 500 quid one won't is : Carry two people. Be portable within
airline luggage restrictions (the former makes this one quite hard and
expensive). Be light enough to lift (ever crossed scottish deer fences?
having something which doesn't weigh a ton is a significant advantage). Have
better gears and brakes (a rohloff hub costs as much as your 500 quid bike
alone - but it will be strong and reliable in the way that a derailleur
system never will be).

Recumbents have similar games. Recumbent tandems even more so.

Will that do?

cheers,
clive

Adrian wrote:
chris harrison ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :
But it is very similar to asking what a 50 grand car will get you that
a 5 grand one won't.


Is it?

You asked the question, are you giving the answer, too?

You get better technology, better materials, higher quality
components,


Do you get more space, more comfort, and more functionality?

Those are not typically factors considered when spending that sort of
amount on a bike - but if you are just measuring issues of utility, of
getting from A to B, then the issues are similar.

better performance.


Really? sceptical Y'see, I was of the impression that the £5k bike would
use the same power source as the £500 bike. Yes, there may be a very minor
weight saving, but that's going to be minimal when you consider the weight
including rider. a few hundred grams saved over a hundred kilo all-in
weight? Similar difference to having a dump before you get on the bike.

It's not just weight, but that is a consideration. Different
constructions (e.g. wheels, frame), more expensive materials which are
stiffer and thus more effective at transferring the power generated
directly to where it is useful.

Consider road bikes. At the cheap end of the market (e.g. less than 500
quid) you can still get a more than decent machine which will, to most
people, do a great job of getting them from A to B without too much
fuss. It will even allow them to do it with reasonable speed. The
marginal improvements of the next step up (to under 1000) will be
evident, but not generally necessary unless you're doing a lot of
mileage and training/racing seriously. As you spend more and more you
will suffer from diminishing returns, so if you are buying to commute or
just pootle then, yes, 5 grand is a waste and you shouldn't be doing it.

But if you are racing, where seconds counts and fractions of a percent
make a real difference ... then spending more is just something that has
to happen. Same as with a car. Same as with a boat. Same as with most
things used for competitions as opposed to utility.

And, yes, having a dump or not having seconds of pudding can make a
difference - but if you're doing that *as*well* as having decent kit ...

In message . com, kiko
writes
- oh yes being taxed loads. No thanks. I pay enough tax already.
So do I, but I still have to pay VED and buy DERV as red diesel renders
my car liable to confiscation by those nasty customs men. No, there is
no equality in road use and until there is the I believe all cycles
should be taxed tested and insured and the riders have to pay extra to
use the roads as motorists do.
--
Clive

In message .com, kiko
writes
Seriously, I agree that would be tricky. But where would you stick a
number plate on a bike/rider? Maybe use a lightweight electronic ID
tag?
What's wrong with just enforcing the use of user identification on their
backs, with the same fine as not displaying a number plate on a car,
London cyclists get the benefits, why not the pain?
--
Clive

In message . 170,
Adrian writes
groan Don't give the *******s ideas...
It's not a bad idea, just equality.
--
Clive

In message , Jack Taylor
writes
The bottom line is that, whether pedestrians, cyclists or motorists,
there is bad practise and intolerance between all groups. Ultimately,
better roadcraft, less arrogance and more consideration for other
parties would improve everybodys day!
Whilst as a pedestrian and a car driver I accept this, I find that
cyclists are by far and away the worst for breaking the HC and this
includes motor-cyclists of all sizes of machines, from little scooters
up to 1200cc machines.
--
Clive

Clive ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

groan Don't give the *******s ideas...

It's not a bad idea, just equality.

They've not *quite* got round to RFID tags in car 'plates yet, though...