[bigfudge]

Even in motorsports, presumably it’s still mostly showing off? Unless you are a pro, you’d still lose any seriously comepetitivr race and have plenty to learn and enjoy driving a not-quite-top of the line sports car?

I don’t know motorsports, but in all the sports I do know it’s that way. Tennis, cycling… there are serious diminishing returns in all of those and most kit spending isn’t justified by performance as much as status or stamp collecting.

So much of our lives are taken up by worrying about tiny performance differences that really don’t matter. It makes me sad for the waste of life sometimes.

[wing-_-nuts]

>Even in motorsports, presumably it’s still mostly showing off? Unless you are a pro, you’d still lose any seriously comepetitivr race and have plenty to learn and enjoy driving a not-quite-top of the line sports car?

I was at a track day once, and you'd see guys rolling up with very expensive cars, and they were often clocked as noobs before anyone even spoke to them. The guy rolling up with a beat up 1st gen miata pulling a trailer with two sets of spare tires? Yeah, that guy got respect. Dude was scary quick in the turns.

[ubermonkey]

Absolutely true that few folks who show up at track days or autocross sessions in high-end cars know what they're doing.

But the ones that do? Ho-leee shit.

[ubermonkey]

That's definitely true, and I have a whole other rant how my cycling pals and I love to poke fun at dudes who show up to the group ride on a brand new $10,000 bike and get dropped before the midpoint.

BUT! It's easier than you think to get a point in participatory motorsports where the difference between, say, a Cayman and a Miata is something you can actively use.

[wallst07]

>That's definitely true, and I have a whole other rant how my cycling pals and I love to poke fun at dudes who show up to the group ride on a brand new $10,000 bike and get dropped before the midpoint.

This has nothing to do with higher end cars or bikes being "signaling" this is just an anecdote between your skill and the next level.

You could say the same thing about a tour de france winner with any bike vs you and your pals.

If you are competitive, you get to a point where the differences do matter.

[ubermonkey]

>This has nothing to do with higher end cars or bikes being "signaling" this is just an anecdote between your skill and the next level.

No, that's precisely what it's about.

>You could say the same thing about a tour de france winner with any bike vs you and your pals

In cycling, a TdF rider's bike isn't significantly more expensive or fancy than the highest-end bike available from any given maker. A novice rider rolling up on something one or two ticks away from the absolute top of the line is being a silly person. Novices in any discipline who opt for the high end of equipment are making foolish choices, and are frequently teased about it.

>If you are competitive, you get to a point where the differences do matter.

My guess is that you don't know very much about cycling. Pogi would be as very nearly as fast on my $5000 road bike as he is on his TdF bike. His comp bike is a little bit lighter, and it has components that are one tick higher up and thus lighter, but the differences at this level are tiny.

Nobody who isn't being paid to ride needs to go higher than $5k on a road bike. Going higher is just showing off, which is of course a totally reasonable thing to do, but don't pretend it makes a real difference.

[jimbokun]

Curious what would you say is the sweet spot to pay for a bicycle before rapid diminishing returns?

I still feel like if you go out for a long ride on a Huffy from Walmart you might hurt yourself.

[ubermonkey]

I only know road bikes.

The groupset would drive it for me. If I was buying a new bike, and I knew I wanted to be a rider, I wouldn't mess about with anything less than Shimano 105. At Specialized, the lowest end bike with the 105 groupset on it is $2100. That's the Allez Comp, which has an aluminum frame and wheels.

The next step up the ladder would be their "endurance" frame, which is carbon. It's called the Roubaix, and equipped with 105 it's $2800.

Either of those would be a good first "serious" bike.

If the question is more about diminishing returns, I'd offer my own bike, which is a Giant TCR Advanced. It's a couple years old. I have about $5500 in it, all in, but that includes the middle-grade SRAM electronic shifting group, carbon wheels, and a power meter. The meter is skippable if you're not doing serious training, but I did and do use power data for training. Subtract $800 if you don't want that.

I honestly think spending more is just showing off. If that's your jam, knock yourself out, but it's probably not making a big difference UNLESS you need a custom frame to be comfortable.

[bigfudge]

In the Uk it’s about £3-4k I think. Beyond that the differences in function are very small and would make no differences at all in an amateur road race. For time trials it’s a bit different and there clothing does make a measurable difference, although still v small relative to training harder!

[doubled112]

Doesn’t have to be long ride.

One time I bought a bike from Walmart and didn’t make it the 5km home before I lost a crank arm.

[wallst07]

>Even in motorsports, presumably it’s still mostly showing off?

What, you mean like F1 where the rules of the engineering / tech of the car and shaving a second can mean 1st place vs not placing?

[bigfudge]

The context was a comment about a “track weapon” and normies buying cars.

[jimbokun]

In tennis I’m sure the real way to turn money into competitive gains is personalized coaching.

Not sure about cycling. But a general physical trainer wouldn’t hurt.