Even though this post is about my latest new bicycle, let’s start with a discussion about elastic sided boots.

I was recently trawling through a local ‘end of Winter sale’ at an apparently up-market clothing store when I spotted a ‘humungous discount’ on a pair of RM Williams riding boots, which are boots for anything but riding; being shoes you put on for just motivating about the place, in paddock or in cafe latte glitterati circles. These boots were 40 per cent off. Marked down from $700 (!) to a ‘mere’ $420. These are not the leather soled urban banker/aspiring pretend farmer kind of boots. No, they were for ‘everyday use’. With rubber soles etcetera.

Naturally, my curiosity was not one of actually wanting a pair such as these, but of ‘just how stupid could anyone be to pay $700 let alone $420 for a pair of boots that are, objectively, no more serviceable or, genuinely, attractive than a pair of ‘Mongrel’ Boots you can get from the local rural merchandiser in town. At $80. Yes, the RM’s were no doubt more prestigious, which means more noticeable to others who actually bother to notice other people’s boots, should there actually ever be such observers, but then again, where I come from, a pair of Mongrel Boots are probably more attractive to the types I would prefer to send such signals to given that the RM’s carry the baggage of being the choice de rigeur of posers in cafe latte gliterati circles. It’s all about the perpetual search for self-validation, of course. Which is a stupendously dumb endeavour given that the vast majority of one’s intended target/source of self-validation would be entirely preoccupied with you noticing them rather than them noticing you. Let me say that ‘Mongrel boots’ are, like RM Williams boots, made in Australia from Australian leathers according to Australian designs by Australian people. Yes, the RM Williams boots have fewer seams and probably more polished polishing, prettier boxes proffered up by shopkeepers in a more deferential way than one gets from the folk who run the rural merchandise joint. But, I’ve had a pair of Mongrel Boots for over 10 years, have worn them every day, in mud, rain, over every kind of terrain (but never at the local latte glitterati joint because I can get vastly better coffee from my home Lelit Bianca machine). These wondrously reliable boots resist rocks, hammers dropped on your foot and the ingress of snake fangs into your foot when out and about in the paddock. I also have a pair of RM’s that I have also owned for 10 years (a gift) and they have worn well given that I have worn them twice.

My point is that the choice between the RM’s and the Mongrel Boots involves a super premium for perceived ‘prestige’ and all other manifestations of ‘superiority signalling’ with which insecure wastrels tend to get involved. I do not doubt that there are some very real ‘non market’ rewards being realised by owners of super prestige brands like RM Williams (and that one can actually spend thousands of dollars on boots which might make the $700 RM’s look like a ‘bargain’ in relative terms). Thousands of Ferrari owners can’t be wrong. And for that matter, owners of Pinarello Dogma’s (guilty as charged).

But, to put things in the perspective of pure economics (I was once an economist who lectured in such things at a university), the difference in price between the RM Williams boots and the Mongrel boots of $340 at the ‘bargain sale rate’ for the former, is an entirely ‘irrational’ super premium penalty for the objective irrationality of the RM Williams customer. If the use case for both pairs of shoes is the same (that is, wearing them ‘everywhere’, day in day out, as is kind of implied for a pair of boots in the first place). Alternatively, that $340 differential is the ‘aesthetic’ valuation implied for the RM Williams buyer. Which is just fine, as long as that buyer recognises that this differential is attributable to aesthetics rather than to any inherent usability enhancements that are otherwise unavailable via the choice of a pair of Mongrel Boots. We economists call that premium the ‘utility reward’ or the non-market valuation of the extra utility presumably experienced by the owner of a pair of RM Williams boots over what that same person might realise via a pair of Mongrel Boots. That utility reward will not be expressed in terms of enhancements to locomotion or less or more protection from snakebites on the foot.

Which brings me to my main point. There is a particular reward or valuation that applies to choices such as these. There is a real valuation to be placed on a decision that favours the cheaper choice when there is no real compromise to use or technical/technological attributes between two options that involve very different prices. There is a real and substantial reward one might derive from choosing one cheaper option that is equal in technology and/or quality to another that costs many times more. It’s a kind of smugness knowing how brilliant your decision was. Especially where there are absolutely zero compromises in terms of everything that matters pertaining to use, reliability, efficiency, effectiveness and even looks/aesthetics. It’s a win-thing. Your cheaper choice rises in personal value because it is cheaper than something else. You might end up preferring the cheaper option, not just because it’s cheaper but because it is so astoundingly uncompromised in relation to the other choices you might have made. You might glow with pride when you wear your Mongrel Boots to the local cafe even if you are the only one who notices how clever you were with your choice. Perhaps your cleverness value might be more than the cash premium the RM Williams buyer might pay through their delusions of grandeur.

Which, of course. leads me to bikes.

Imagine you are presented with two top-specified bicycles engineered to perform-to-perfection against your particular use intentions. They both carry the same components (say, Shimano Dura Ace). They both weigh about 7kg. They are both state of the art aero (if that matters to you), both are supreme at climbing, going fast, delivering the utmost in handling precision in all conditions. And they both look brilliant. And both carry a profoundly impressive heritage in terms of acceptance at pro-level (again, if that matters). Neither will impede your progress to the top podium step if racing is your thing or your fantasy.

The differences are marginal, and when the plusses and minuses for each are added up, the ledger balance is exactly the same.

However, what if one of the choices was half the price of the other?

Enter that smugness reward for winning the value for money contest. But doubly so because one cost half. And it is not stolen or second hand, or made in some dodgy Chinese sweat shop available only via the dark web internet. No, both are made in the exact same country (Taiwan). Both from super premium carbon. Both designed with dedicated intent and via world class creative talent. One design team is based in Taiwan and the other in Taiwan/Slovenia. And there’s more. That Slovenian mob is Team Pogi! Yes, your value hero choice is the bike chosen by Tadej Pogacar’s PogiTeam Pro Conti squad. And was the bike that Pogi rode for his first major wins. The super premium bike is a Giant Propel SL0. Yours for $15,000. The other is the Gusto GTR Max, yours for $7400. Both dressed in Dura Ace. Both weigh about the same (especially if wearing the same wheels). Each is as aero as the other. Both flawless in construction. No evident compromises for either.

Pause here for hysterical audience over-reaction…

I’ve just made that choice. I have a Propel already. I have had a never ending sequence of Giant TCR SL0’s. I know and love Giant’s top end bikes. I was looking at the 2026 Propel. That bike holds its own value smugness premium over the S-Works Tarmac at $5000 more. The Propel is by all accounts an uncompromised statement of pro-bike perfection. There are, apparently, no downsides to that bike. It would be a brilliant match to my 2025 Giant TCR SL0. Same spec. Same Cadex wheels.

But by wondrous chance, the Australian Gusto distributor turned up at my local bike shop and that shop sent me pics of Gusto’s latest GTR Max. Without knowing the price, I was intrigued. Especially with all those Slovenian associations. Here was something new and unexpected, novel and exciting. There was a dimension of exclusivity attached to the Gusto. I have never seen one on the road or have ever met anyone who has one.

And then they told me the price.

Now I have a Gusto GTR Max and after 500km of riding I can report with some confidence that this Gusto is one astounding bike. My test notes include:

Finally, and in tune with the prestige side of things, Gusto is not a Chinese, here today gone tomorrow unknown parts bin special of dubious and unknown heritage, available only via the internet and with zero dealer backup. Gusto’s are only available via bricks and mortar dealers. They do not sell direct. Gusto believes in real bike shops and in the value of dealership support. It’s been in business from 2011 and there’s the PogiTeam thing to back it all up. As much as I’ve been looking, and looking I have been, I can’t find a catch. There are no hidden cost cutting shortcuts to be found. The frame is guaranteed for life, and then on for lifetimes after mine.

And did I mention my absolutely wallowing-in-it super premium value smugness happening here? This Gusto feels like a lottery win! The prize is the cash saving and the prize adds value to the bike, so much so that it’s worth over double what I paid in terms of total utility value. As an exercise in insane perversity, I am now inspired to plan for adding the Propel as well (as an adjunct rather than as any kind of upgrade)…at least down the track. Or maybe I might go for the Custo gravel bike that’s about to be released.