Titan Bikes

[Jewbacca]

3 hours ago, dasilvarsa said:

I don't like the Titan and Silverback Ranges. (Not very Refined ,Old Fashioned and Shite Resale)

They Selling Reasonably Well because Cheap and Other Brands are not Available because of Covid.

Merida, Giant and Scott 4 Me.

Quickly, what is old fashioned about the Cypher and the new Racing bikes?

The suspension kinematics are almost identical to that of the latest Epic Evo BUT uses a metric shock, which is the future. It has all the right 'modern' angles and it looks rad. 

Both the Vanquish and the Valerian tick all the respective boxes for their road niche.

Merida bikes, on the other hand, seem to have weirdly slack seat tube angles and are often ugly as heck. 

I think all of the above brands have some amazing bikes. Saying 'this brand' is bla bla is just untrue because all of the 5 mentioned brands have bikes across the range, from V brake entry level rubbish to relatively top end offerings.

I think ALL of them do that specific job very well. Which is rad as it gets more bums on saddles

[Sid the Sloth]

15 hours ago, sirmoun10goat said:

Value for money, such a horrible statement. Value for money items can suit a purpose, but does that mean you want it.

Things can be good, bad or a rip-off.

I do think the more expensive Titans are actually good

Surely value for money is the opposite of a rip off??

[CyclingFun]

23 hours ago, Danger Dassie said:

My current bike is a Cypher Elite and I'm more than happy with it.
Plenty good, the design team is based in Bellville Cape Town where all the design and development is carried out. 
The guy responsible for much of the current iteration of the range has extensive experience in the industry.

Their range of accessories are also damn good quality/performance for the money. 

I have a Titan Valerian Pro carbon road bike, best value for money bike i own Have had no problems with it. Punches way above its price tag compared to some other brands where one merely pay allot more for the brand name. 
if you’re not “brand” crazy, I’m sure you will love it and won’t make a mistake to buy one.

[sirmoun10goat]

2 hours ago, Sid the Sloth said:

Surely value for money is the opposite of a rip off??

Value for money generally implies poor/low quality, but given you are paying less, you can accept this. This falls in the category of bad.

Something can be good, and not necessarily expensive. I feel this is where Titan sits. It is not simply value for money, because what the my offer is good quality at a low(er) price.

Other things can be good, but excessively expensive, so a rip off.

 

[DieselnDust]

Value for money does not imply low quality, where do you get that definition from?

 

by definition:

used in reference to something that is well worth the money spent on it.

"this camera is really good value for money"

 i.e a Canon is really good value for money when viewed in the context of Sony, Nikon, Hasselblad etc

A Hyundai is good value for money 

Generally it implies an acceptable price to performance ratio and is not equal to junk, low quality

[sirmoun10goat]

1 hour ago, DieselnDust said:

Value for money does not imply low quality, where do you get that definition from?

 

by definition:

used in reference to something that is well worth the money spent on it.

"this camera is really good value for money"

 i.e a Canon is really good value for money when viewed in the context of Sony, Nikon, Hasselblad etc

A Hyundai is good value for money 

Generally it implies an acceptable price to performance ratio and is not equal to junk, low quality

But it’s a ratio-acceptable price to performance. So lower price, lower quality.

I think the latest Titans deserve better credit. They are good bikes, period. They are more than value for money. They offer a good product at a lower price.

They work on a lower margin, higher volume model than say some of the other brands.

Giant does/used to do the same. Their bikes came in at a lower price than Scott/Trek/Speciallized. Did that mean they were lower quality? No, they were good bikes, just not the flashiest/most desirable, not necessarily lower quality.

[mecheng89]

I've have a Titan Switch Pro (gravel) for a while and it's a very capable bike, I like it a lot. 

Edited June 30, 2021 by mecheng89
Used past tense instead of present tense

[Vaultboy]

9 hours ago, DieselnDust said:

Value for money does not imply low quality, where do you get that definition from?

.....

Generally it implies an acceptable price to performance ratio and is not equal to junk, low quality

I agree with your definition. And it can cut both ways. For example, I consider low end Scotts to not be value for money - they aren't junk or bad quality, but overpriced for what you are getting and just trading off the brand name.

[potsandpedals]

I love this conversation, especially because I read here what I see on the roads daily. 

Titan Racing bikes punch way above their weight in value. To me it doesn't really matter because it's ALL IN THE LEGS. My 2019 Valerian Pro with full Ultegra Disc (hydraulic) and a carbon frame is slap bang in between comfort and racing, so great! It was a shop demo so at R27k unbeatable spec-wise. That is value for money because the same specs on "you-know-which-brands" will be R50k +

Since you guys mention Giant, their wheels are great too, and as many weekenders swop their alloys in the shop for carbon, I grabbed a pair of 2nd hand but unused alloys that fly!

[Iwan Kemp]

9 hours ago, sirmoun10goat said:

Giant does/used to do the same. Their bikes came in at a lower price than Scott/Trek/Speciallized. Did that mean they were lower quality? No, they were good bikes, just not the flashiest/most desirable, not necessarily lower quality.

This disproves your initial statement as what you're saying here is Giant is good value for money and good quality.

Something costing R10 can be bad value for money, something costing R1m can be good value for money. It's not the ZAR's that matter, it's the value coupled to those ZAR's that matter. 

 

To the OP: Titan is a good brand, you can't go wrong.

[sirmoun10goat]

6 hours ago, Iwan Kemp said:

This disproves your initial statement as what you're saying here is Giant is good value for money and good quality.

Something costing R10 can be bad value for money, something costing R1m can be good value for money. It's not the ZAR's that matter, it's the value coupled to those ZAR's that matter. 

 

To the OP: Titan is a good brand, you can't go wrong.

Why must we describe something that is good, as good value for money - I maintain that is degrading.

 

Your final point is perfect - Titan is a good brand. That's it, period, no qualification - it is a good brand. Why can we not just describe things like that, or does everyone feel the need to qualify everything they say.

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

1 hour ago, sirmoun10goat said:

Why must we describe something that is good, as good value for money - I maintain that is degrading.

 

Your final point is perfect - Titan is a good brand. That's it, period, no qualification - it is a good brand. Why can we not just describe things like that, or does everyone feel the need to qualify everything they say.

Because if it's good, at a cheap price, that means it's value for money. IE: The item's quality exceeds the general level of quality of other items at that price. Hence, it is a complimentary statement. 

 

Value for money can be justified at any price. It's not a degrading connotation at all, your opinion on the term is incorrect. (EDIT: This means that it doesn't mean what you think it means)

 

(EDIT EDIT: People need to clarify what is being said when the person they're querying is allocating incorrect definitions to standard sayings)

Edited June 30, 2021 by Captain Fastbastard Mayhem

[sirmoun10goat]

32 minutes ago, Captain Fastbastard Mayhem said:

Because if it's good, at a cheap price, that means it's value for money. IE: The item's quality exceeds the general level of quality of other items at that price. Hence, it is a complimentary statement. 

 

Value for money can be justified at any price. It's not a degrading connotation at all, your opinion on the term is incorrect. (EDIT: This means that it doesn't mean what you think it means)

 

(EDIT EDIT: People need to clarify what is being said when the person they're querying is allocating incorrect definitions to standard sayings)

Cheap items, that are of poor/low/substandard quality, can also be seen as value for money - this generally happens when they serve their intended purpose to an acceptable level. This does not make the item good.

Titans are good bikes, regardless of price point.

[OVERDRIVE]

As I flood the thread...

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

23 minutes ago, sirmoun10goat said:

Cheap items, that are of poor/low/substandard quality, can also be seen as value for money - this generally happens when they serve their intended purpose to an acceptable level. This does not make the item good.

Titans are good bikes, regardless of price point.

But they are offered at a lower price than their competition. Hence, they are value for money. 

 

Edited June 30, 2021 by Captain Fastbastard Mayhem

[DieselnDust]

3 minutes ago, Captain Fastbastard Mayhem said:

Hence, they are value for money. 

 

AMEN<fullstop>#endvanieprent