# What is entry level?



## alanneal (May 23, 2007)

:mad2::blush2: Sometimes magazines show entry level bikes yet have More"advanced" 
items like carbon frames, higher end aliuminum frames and the like. To me Shimano taigra,Sram Apex is EL not shimano 105 gearing,or sram rival, sorry camapagnolo veloce is not EL. Is entry level changing? can a cheap frame with 105 be EL?


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

there are people here who will be happy to help you if they better understand what your question is.

so perhaps try again with the question?


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

alanneal said:


> :mad2::blush2: Sometimes magazines show entry level bikes yet have More"advanced"
> items like carbon frames, higher end aliuminum frames and the like. To me Shimano taigra,Sram Apex is EL not shimano 105 gearing,or sram rival, sorry camapagnolo veloce is not EL. Is entry level changing? can a cheap frame with 105 be EL?


Entry level depends on who is buying.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

alanneal said:


> :mad2::blush2: Sometimes magazines show entry level bikes yet have More"advanced"
> items like carbon frames, higher end aliuminum frames and the like. *To me Shimano taigra,Sram Apex is EL not shimano 105 gearing*, or sram rival, sorry camapagnolo veloce is not EL. Is entry level changing? can a cheap frame with 105 be EL?


The bold statement points up just why entry level is hard to define. To some, Shimano 2300 or Sora are entry level, not Tiagra or Apex. Others think 105 _is_ entry level. 

The literal definition of entry level is a starting point when learning a new skill. Someone could argue that any bike filling their current _needs_ (as opposed to _wants_) is entry level. And just as entry level salaries vary widely based on ones field, so do noobs perceptions of what constitutes entry level bikes. 

There are members here that think a used, $300 bike is entry level, while others focus on the $800, $1,200, $2k (and up) ranges.

Me? I think this is a good example:
Specialized Bicycle Components


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

It's a marketing term. :wink5: Sometimes also a euphemism.

I think it would be to the benefit of riders and the industry if bikes positioned as entry-level also preserved more of the versatility that road bikes can have. But things that look like racing bikes sell.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

All good answers, so just as an add-on: always keep in mind that a strong rider on an entry-level bike hung with entry-level components will easily drop a not-so-strong rider on a pro-level bike hung with pro-level components. Seems elementary, but people (including yours truly) sometimes forget.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

wim said:


> All good answers, so just as an add-on: always keep in mind that a strong rider on an entry-level bike hung with entry-level components will easily drop a not-so-strong rider on a pro-level bike hung with pro-level components. *Seems elementary, but people (including yours truly) sometimes forget. *


Yes, I'm afraid my current 'arsenal' backs your theory, wim.


----------



## Warpdatframe (Dec 9, 2012)

The entry level for recreation is pretty much any bike that works decently. If you are aspiring to race I wouldn't go any lower than 105. A new bike with an alloy frame and 105 will be somewhere around 1000-1500 bucks.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

Warpdatframe said:


> If you are aspiring to race I wouldn't go any lower than 105.


Why? As said above, stuff don't matter much. Especially for aspiring racers..


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

FWIW, one of my racers has Tiagra.

In a racing discipline with brakes and multiple gears, the bike really just needs to go, stop, and not throw the chain. I think it's good to be able to shift as easily as most of the other racers, which was why I didn't want to go below Tiagra - Sora had that awkward thumb button at the time. But if you've ridden properly set up Tiagra, 105 and Ultegra... I dunno, I notice that the throws on Tiagra are a bit longer, but that's about it for functional differences.

The longer I ride and the more races I go to, the less I care about a lot of this stuff, actually. If it fits me well and it's not causing me to leave time on course, it's good enough. Although I do have a soft spot for fancy tires.


----------



## DownByFive (Feb 2, 2012)

Seems like you're conflating "entry level" with "cheap". You can get an Ultegra bike off BikesDirect for less than some Tiagra bikes from the more mainstream brands. To me, entry level means slightly more relaxed geometry, less stiff, and more concessions to fitting wider array of riders (beefier wheels, for instance). Yes, these types of bikes have lower-end components, but Tiagra isn't really "better" than Ultegra...slightly lighter and maybe finished a little better, but it's not like they work any differently that would make one "easier" for a beginner to use.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

I've given my generic reply; now it's time for a real reply/rant...

IMO there really isn't much of an "entry-level" anymore as far as a bike for someone who wants a road bike, but isn't interested in racing. Almost every single road bike is marketed as race-ready, race-geometry, or some such horsesh!t. How many cyclists actually race? So why are there so many race bikes? People my age and older will remember when a "touring" bike was the road bike you had unless you were a racer. 27" wheels, steel frames, stem-mounted shifters - maybe downtube-mounted if it was a high-end touring bike - and a comfortable geometry designed for riding; not for racing.

Now, everyone wants super-lightweight carbon and race-worthy components even if they only ride 10-100 miles per week, never get above 20 mph, and only ride in group rides. You want entry-level? For me, it's the Torker Interurban. Steel, can take wide tires, Shimano 2300 components, comfortable geometry, and a low price. If you're planning on racing, by all means buy a race bike in any price range. If you aren't going to be entering races though, why ride in a race position on a stiffer bike?

Bring back the "Normal" road bike!


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

PlatyPius said:


> I've given my generic reply; now it's time for a real reply/rant...
> IMO there really isn't much of an "entry-level" anymore as far as a bike for someone who wants a road bike, but isn't interested in racing. Almost every single road bike is marketed as race-ready, race-geometry, or some such horsesh!t. How many cyclists actually race? So why are there so many race bikes? People my age and older will remember when a "touring" bike was the road bike you had unless you were a racer. 27" wheels, steel frames, stem-mounted shifters - maybe downtube-mounted if it was a high-end touring bike - and a comfortable geometry designed for riding; not for racing.
> Now, everyone wants super-lightweight carbon and race-worthy components even if they only ride 10-100 miles per week, never get above 20 mph, and only ride in group rides. You want entry-level? For me, it's the Torker Interurban. Steel, can take wide tires, Shimano 2300 components, comfortable geometry, and a low price. If you're planning on racing, by all means buy a race bike in any price range. If you aren't going to be entering races though, why ride in a race position on a stiffer bike?
> Bring back the "Normal" road bike!


Peter? Peter White? Is that you? Uhh but maybe you're Grant Petersen lurking as a Platypus.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

PlatyPius said:


> So why are there so many race bikes?


Because people want their youth back.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

PlatyPius said:


> People my age and older will remember when a "touring" bike was the road bike you had unless you were a racer. 27" wheels, steel frames, stem-mounted shifters - maybe downtube-mounted if it was a high-end touring bike - and a comfortable geometry designed for riding; not for racing.


Not quite - stem shifters were never on anything but "entry level" bikes.


----------



## MikeWMass (Oct 15, 2011)

The real touring bikes had barends. Steel was all there was. Most bikes except those truly marketed to racers had eyelets for racks and fenders. Many had pegs for frame pumps. We were still able to ride up the same hills we ride up now.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

MikeWMass said:


> The real touring bikes had barends. Steel was all there was. Most bikes except those truly marketed to racers had eyelets for racks and fenders. Many had pegs for frame pumps. We were still able to ride up the same hills we ride up now.


Yes. Actual, real touring bikes had SunTour bar end shifters.


----------



## SlicedUpBeef (Dec 16, 2012)

I would say 105 equipped is EL, handful of affordable bikes are now released with 105.


----------



## wanderinwalker (May 10, 2012)

Entry level depends on what you have to spend as a point to start on the hobby. My "entry level" bike wasa a 9-speed Tiagra equipped Trek 2.1. Aluminum frame, carbon stays and fork. For another rider it could have been the 1-series Trek of the same vintage or an Ultegra-equipped full carbon bike.

FWIW, my "upgrade" bike is a Giant Defy Composite, carbon frame with 10-speed SRAM Apex. For some people (and in the magazines too) this is still an "entry level" bike. I'd consider it a bike for an enthusiast rider who has other hobbies. :thumbsup:


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

SlicedUpBeef said:


> I would say 105 equipped is EL, handful of affordable bikes are now released with 105.


If you think that 105 is entry-level then you would also agree that a Mercedes E350 is an entry-level car, right?


----------



## MrMook (Nov 18, 2007)

PlatyPius said:


> If you think that 105 is entry-level then you would also agree that a Mercedes E350 is an entry-level car, right?


Nor is it a race car. An E350 is basically a Titanium Budnitz cruiser. 

For an entry level car, I'd pick a Subaru Impreza. Tiagra. Sure you can race it, and many do, but it's pretty basic. Could be a commuter or a weekend warrior. 

Subaru WRX: 105. Now we're getting a bit more serious. You at least think you'd like to maybe try riding/driving like a pro. 

Subaru STI: Ultegra. Damn fine setup, and probably well beyond the skill-level of most owners.

STI with suspension work, a tune, and some R-comps: Dura Ace+. You're either a very rich gear head, or you're looking to be as competitive as possible


----------



## LAW.S.T (May 15, 2012)

MrMook said:


> Nor is it a race car. An E350 is basically a Titanium Budnitz cruiser.
> 
> For an entry level car, I'd pick a Subaru Impreza. Tiagra. Sure you can race it, and many do, but it's pretty basic. Could be a commuter or a weekend warrior.
> 
> ...


i like this analogy a lot. i like Subaru a lot


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

MrMook said:


> Nor is it a race car. An E350 is basically a Titanium Budnitz cruiser.
> 
> For an entry level car, I'd pick a Subaru Impreza. Tiagra. Sure you can race it, and many do, but it's pretty basic. Could be a commuter or a weekend warrior.
> 
> ...


You're reading too much ad copy. Tiagra's basic? 105 is 'getting serious'? Ultegra is probably well beyond the skill level of most owners?

These are groupsets - the shifters change gears and the brakes stop the bike. No matter the level, the function (and pretty much performance) stays the same. Key to the level of performance isn't the groupset itself, but rather, the set up/ tuning. 

Funny how attitudes change correspondingly to product offerings. IMO/E 10 speed Tiagra's on a par with Shimano's previous gen 105 (5600). The 'old' minimum standard held by many. But now, Tiagra doesn't replace that standard, the new 105 (5700) does.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

An entry-level car is a Honda Civic, Nissan Sentra or something similar. On a road bike, entry-level is the least expensive, yet still functional, group. That would be Tourney. It's basically 2300 from a couple of years ago. 2x7. It isn't sexy, it isn't light, but it's inexpensive and it works. Some might say that 2300/3300 is entry-level. I'll give them that. I would also say that Campy Veloce is entry-level. Ditto for SRAM Apex. Anything above the lowest viable group isn't entry-level if you're a beginner.


----------



## MrMook (Nov 18, 2007)

PJ352 said:


> You're reading too much ad copy. Tiagra's basic? 105 is 'getting serious'? Ultegra is probably well beyond the skill level of most owners?


Its all pretty subjective, but in this snarky world of roadies sub-105 is considered "non-serious", whether marketing or not. Sure, a rider on a Tourney or Sora setup might put us all to shame, but in terms of weight, performance, gearing options, and comparable wheelsets, I think 105 is about the starting point for anyone considering a move into competitive cycling. Tourney/Sora/Tiagra is great for an entry level road rider who is looking for fitness, or general recreation, club rides, charity centuries, etc, but would you really recommend it to anyone who is about to embark on an 8-10 hour-per-week training regimin? Perhaps a life-long mountain biker entering the world of road riding?


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

MrMook said:


> Its all pretty subjective, but in this snarky world of roadies sub-105 is considered "non-serious", whether marketing or not. Sure, a rider on a Tourney or Sora setup might put us all to shame, but in terms of weight, performance, gearing options, and comparable wheelsets, I think 105 is about the starting point for anyone considering a move into competitive cycling. Tourney/Sora/Tiagra is great for an entry level road rider who is looking for fitness, or general recreation, club rides, charity centuries, etc, but would you really recommend it to anyone who is about to embark on an 8-10 hour-per-week training regimin? Perhaps a life-long mountain biker entering the world of road riding?


No argument on the attitudes of many that 105 is the entry level groupset for 'serious' roadies, but since 'subjective' means opinion/ illusory (so, not necessarily fact) that mindset has little substance. 

Beyond any (minor) weight/ finish/ refinement differences in groupsets, we have a fundamentally different attitude about the 'payback'. As I mentioned, _how_ a drivetrain is tuned is far more important in determining performance than the level/ model. I can de-tune a DA drivetrain that you'd be frustrated operating, while fine tuning a lower end groupset that you'd be happy to do a century on. 

Weight, finish and perhaps a slightly higher level of refinement, don't equate to higher performance, training/ fitness do. So the only time that _very_ slight edge offered by a higher end group matters is when all else is equal. Seldom the case, and a non-issue in all but close, competitive events.

Lastly, to answer your question, since I have no saddle time with Tourney, I can't offer an opinion, but yes, I'd recommend Sora or Tiagra to anyone who is about to embark on an 8-10 hour-per-week training regimen. That said, I'd also recommend that they visit LBS's and test ride several bikes before deciding. Because (as we both have said), this topic is highly subjective.


----------



## bbulmann (Aug 22, 2012)

Fit is more important than components- Best to find a trusted LBS that will not just sell you what bike they have in stock but will find a match for you in fit AND components. Start with your budget, and don't deviate from it. My first racing bike (that I still ride) is a full dura ace 853 bike from the late 90s I bought for $500 (used) and spent about $250 to switch the stem and new cassette/chain/tires. Sure beats anything I could buy new for $750 BUT I spent a lot of time looking for a bike with the right fit. If you prefer new, find a recommended or trusted fitter if you can and see what is within your budget.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

MrMook said:


> Its all pretty subjective, but in this snarky world of roadies sub-105 is considered "non-serious", whether marketing or not. Sure, a rider on a Tourney or Sora setup might put us all to shame, but in terms of weight, performance, gearing options, and comparable wheelsets, I think 105 is about the starting point for anyone considering a move into competitive cycling. Tourney/Sora/Tiagra is great for an entry level road rider who is looking for fitness, or general recreation, club rides, charity centuries, etc, but would you really recommend it to anyone who is about to embark on an 8-10 hour-per-week training regimin? Perhaps a life-long mountain biker entering the world of road riding?


Lucky I missed that memo before I started racing. My 'cross bike has Tiagra and comparable on it, and I race that a few times a season, and get a fair amount of training on it in the late summer and early fall. My track bike listed for $800 or so, but I got it for under $300, and I still have most of the stock stuff on it, including 32-spoke wheels - just have some new cogs. Granted, they're Dura-Ace, but in the context of track, that doesn't mean much.

I remember buying my mountain bike and thinking that if I got more serious about cycling or started competing, I'd "have to" get something more expensive. But a couple years later when circumstances lined up better for going racing, it was the wrong time for me to get a new bike. So I started racing what I had. I think that people who believe/promote the idea that one "has to have" a higher-end build to race are making excuses for not racing. As far as I'm concerned, all you have to have to race is a bike that's rules-compliant (which implies going and stopping) and shifts (if racing in a discipline and class using multispeed bikes, but negotiable since people sometimes race singlespeeds in multi-speed classes, especially off-road) and that's it.

Unlike cars, where the engine, drivetrain and suspension system are all elements of the car, with a bicycle, the engine is the rider, most of the drivetrain is the rider, and most of the suspension is the rider. Bicycle manufacturers are fighting to improve a power loss that's already a very small portion of total power loss.

Something I notice about competitive vs. non-competitive cyclists is that while both groups are competitive with each other, competitive cyclists usually race each other often enough to know who's fast. That leaves a lot less to prove, unless two people are pretty closely matched, and then they still compete on the basis of who's fast. In non-competitive circles, though, I notice a lot more emphasis on gear. I wish more people would pin a number on, if only a couple times a year. It induces a certain sense of perspective.


----------



## MrMook (Nov 18, 2007)

Points taken. I really don't want to be the guy saying you have to ride 105 or better, but as a new roadie who's been in the market for my first road bike, most of the advice I got was focused on 105 or above. Most complete bikes with Tiagra or lower were explained to me by shop staff as being more comfort or touring oriented in terms of build, geometry, materials, etc. Marketing and sales pitch, sure, but I also wanted to make sure I got a frame that was capable of what I wanted to accomplish with the bike. I could race a bike with comfort geometry, no problem. In fact, I started this road game on my SS commuter, and was inquiring about doing some CAT5 races with it, until I was laughed out by all the snarky roadies who made me feel like a fool for asking until I finally learned that it's simply not allowed. (I'm coming from a MTB perspective, and thought beginners could race anything).

Long story short, I went with a used Ridley on Craigslist (Alu/carbon) for $700. 105 components with a non-series compact crank. Its fantastic, and I'm very happy with my decision, and glad, actually, that I didn't go beyond my budget for the CAAD10 I had been drooling over. Also, I'll be pinning a number on as much as possible this year.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

Of course it's okay to want nice things. It's just irritating to me when people try to make the sport more exclusive by promoting an idea of "need."

Here's an interesting thread concerning trying some crits on a singlespeed. I don't know how yours is fitted out, but in the US, a singlespeed using a freewheel and with brakes on both wheels is probably legal. Whether or not you can hang on it is another story.
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/fixed-single-speed/ss-criterium-racing-257261.html

For complete rules, check out USA Cycling's web site. If you're racing this year, you may as well set up an account and order a license while you're there. Assuming, anyway, that you're racing road in a state other than Oregon.

Good luck with your racing next season. It takes most people a couple tries to finish one, but there's nothing quite like fully committing to a race. My discipline tends to be "everything but road," but I went racing in one way or another eighteen times last year and already have one behind me this year. It's addictive, and one of the things that's a lot of fun about bike racing is that it can be a lot more feasible to try to win than in massive events like marathons.


----------



## BigPoser (Jan 11, 2013)

I just got my first road bike in 22 years and a lot has changed since then. Because of the time since my last road ride, I would say that I'm EL, and that I first bike is also considered EL, which is a 12' Masi Evoluzione Apex. I absolutely love it! Put over 20 miles on her maiden ride this afternoon. 

I looked for a couple months at anything and everything at or below $2000. To me, it's all about preference. The fact is that if you get something and don't like something about it, you can change it.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

Entry level crosses every variety of sporting equipment. There are "entry level" fishing rods and reels, "entry level" golf clubs, "entry level" hiking shoes, you name it, there's stuff advertised as "entry level" for almost every form of recreational activity. I've even seen cheaper baseball gloves branded as "entry level".

Maybe they should call it what it really is. Budget gear. For people who have a tight budget, and/or those people exploring a form of recreation that they're not sure they're going to stay at.

I remember when a set of cheap Northwestern golf clubs were marketed as a "starter set". I'm sure that Jack Nicklaus could have still used those to shoot a 65 at Augusta. And than on the best day that I ever had, I couldn't break 90 using a top of the line set of Titleists. So now instead of a starter set, you buy entry level. Same concept.

IMO the purchaser is what's entry level, not the goods.


----------



## CheapTrek (Dec 23, 2011)

Yup. A few years ago (when I was in good form), I was dropping guys riding expensive Colnagos and Moots on our club ride. This was on a Trek 1.1 with a 2300 group set. 

I'd often ride with my mentor who was a big classic bike guy and he would show up with his old steel Masi with shifters on the down tubes and toe clips. New members to the group would occasionally make snide comments about whether or not he would be able to keep up. Always before the ride started. Never after. 

Also worth noting: I bought my Trek used for 475.00 including clip less pedals and rode it for three years and never once, in roughly 6k worth of riding, did I ever have a problem with that cheap group set. The only negative thing I can say about it is that shifting from the drops can be a bit of a pain.


----------



## CheapTrek (Dec 23, 2011)

All this Subaru talk belongs in The Lounge. 

An "entry" level car for most people is something more like an 8 year old Camry with 110k on it. 

I agree with Platy (my disclaimer: I don't own a bike shop). Dialed in and maintained properly, even the lowest priced road bikes from a bike shop will offer you a decent ride if you're a beginner. 

When we start telling people who express an interest in riding that spending only 600 bucks on their first bike doesn't constitute entry level, it just hurts the sport. I began road riding on a bike that was loaned to me (mid 80's Bianchi in about 2007) and rode it with groups and solo for over a year. Completely fell in love with being in the saddle. 

I sure as hell don't want to dissuade anyone from the joy of riding because they don't think they can afford it.


----------



## albert1028 (Jan 21, 2013)

From all of my reading, I'm thinking there is no bad bike as long as its mechanically in good condition. 

My question for those who are seasoned rider, I feel that as long as the person is happy with a $500 to $6000 bike and does not think that the expensive bike is going to make the rider a good rider, then buy the bike that the person feels is worth their while. 

Any thoughts from others?


----------



## demonrider (Jul 18, 2012)

Entry level, IMO, is what *you* think is a reasonable cost for *your* entry into road cycling. For me it was $1000, but for some it is a $5000 carbon dura ace overkill (again, IMO). 

If you can afford it, by all means buy whatever you feel you deserve. For me even the microshift equipped bike was a spaceship at that point. At first when I found out that this microshift stuff was basically the bottom of the brand pile I felt kind of bad, but the more I rode the more I realized how much I did NOT know and the more I rode I felt better about the relatively small initial investment made.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

albert1028 said:


> From all of my reading, I'm thinking there is no bad bike as long as its mechanically in good condition.
> 
> My question for those who are seasoned rider, I feel that as long as the person is happy with a $500 to $6000 bike and does not think that the expensive bike is going to make the rider a good rider, then buy the bike that the person feels is worth their while.
> 
> Any thoughts from others?


Pretty much.

People want there to be some correlation between a rider's commitment to the sport and the cost of his bike, but if it exists, it's a very subjective one, and nowhere near the correlation with disposable income.

One of the problems with a lot of current bikes is that a lot of inexpensive bikes try to look like pricey ones and have the feature sets of pricey ones, and that means cheaper implementations of things. I'd rather (and I did) just de-evolve to downtube shifters or a singlespeed or something in many cases.

Some of my really high-mileage friends are in transitional periods for one reason or another and collect all those miles on fifteen-year-old equipment. That's fine. I don't get much of a chance to feel superior about my carbon fork while I hang on for dear life. 

A few months ago, I went mountain biking with my local club. Rare for me - I tend to ride with personal friends or teammates if I have time to coordinate riding with other people. He was on something like $8000 worth of hardware he really didn't know how to ride. But, he's been a financial services dude for however long; that's just the world of money he operates in. I guess I could have felt bad about my little hardtail if I wanted to. He gave me plenty of time while I was waiting on him.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

albert1028 said:


> From all of my reading, I'm thinking there is no bad bike as long as its mechanically in good condition.


I'd add "... and fits well" to the above. A bike that's tuned to perfection won't be fun to ride if it doesn't fit the rider.



albert1028 said:


> My question for those who are seasoned rider, I feel that as long as the person is happy with a $500 to $6000 bike and does not think that the expensive bike is going to make the rider a good rider, then buy the bike that the person feels is worth their while.
> 
> Any thoughts from others?


Buying more expensive gear doesn't make a rider better, a training regimen suited to the individual and their goals does. 

That said, as has been stated, if someone has $6k and want to buy a high end bike, there's no rule against it. Me? Even if I could afford a $6k bike, I'd be more apt to buy a $2k bike and ride the bejesus out of it.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

If I felt comfortable spending $6000 on a bike...

...the one I want actually comes in at $4500. So, oh well. Some of the builds are more expensive, but they're too far into diminishing returns and drive it up over $6000 at that point anyway.

Guess I could add a power meter.

I'd rather spend the money on a fabulous vacation with my more economical bike. And on having it hurt less when I rip the rear derailleur off, destroy a wheel, or any of the other bad things that happen to my bikes.


----------



## kjdhawkhill (Jan 29, 2011)

Only problem with this analogy is that the engines of the cars are different. The go-fast motor, or in some cases, the barely-go, on a bike is provided by the buyer rider, in the car the buyer driver simply buys the more powerful engine. I do like subarus, though.


----------



## wanderinwalker (May 10, 2012)

kjdhawkhill said:


> Only problem with this analogy is that the engines of the cars are different. The go-fast motor, or in some cases, the barely-go, on a bike is provided by the buyer rider, in the car the buyer driver simply buys the more powerful engine. I do like subarus, though.


I'd agree with this after reading the car analogy. It's not like Ultegra magically turns the pedals for you while Tiagra doesn't offer that option. They both provide brakes to stop, a range of usable gears and a means to propel the bike without pushing against the ground with your feet.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

PlatyPius said:


> Yes. Actual, real touring bikes had SunTour bar end shifters.


Yup. I had one of those. A Fuji Finest with Suntour bar cons. I rode the hell out of it.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

A lot of butt gets kicked by guys with Tiagra on their bikes. I never take my fancy bike racing unless its a road race or a 6 hour or something like that. Very stoked to race my new/used CAAD 10 and its 105 and cheap wheels.


----------



## JoePAz (Jul 20, 2012)

Entry level is really something cheap and effective enough to take on real rides. They will tend to be little heavy and have components that don't work quite a smoothly. However you can still ride them just about anywhere. As price I would consider it to be about 500 to $1000 for new bike. These are prices where you can get something that will work reasonably well and hold up, but lack the finesse of better stuff. 

The shifters work, but maybe not so smoothly. The rear cogs are cogs, but slight heavier than higher end stuff. And things like 10 speeds rear cassettes and carbon forks tend to be more special finds than routine. 


Mid range bikes IMHO are best for those ride hard and often. They can appreciate a little less weight and smoother actions, but are still built to price. Most of us need nothing more than a mid range bike. 

High end bikes pull out all the stops and tend to have the best of everything. Price is rarely a concern, but everything else is. In the end it does not mean a high end bike make a rider faster only one that hopefully apperciates all the extra little details on such a bike. 

Now my "entry level" bike is carbon fiber and Ultegra equipped. However I bought it used so I bought it at entry level prices for what was an upper mid-range bike back in the day. I made the choice to get a bike like this since I come from a mid range mountain bike. I did not want a reduction in the refinement of my road bike and the only way to do that on budget was to go used. The bike is 12 years old now and it works great. I think it superior to most new entry level bikes, but with anything used you take some added risk. So far it has been flawless.


----------

