This is not totally fair comparison, ask any AI:
“number of midrange motorcycles produced vs highend bicycles and how does it affect pricing?”
1 Like
Motorbike vs bicycle cost, been a long while since I watched but this covers most of it.
5 Likes
It’s always the same answer. It’s because they (bike companies) can. If they sell a $15000 bicycle, why would they lower the price? Part of the reason bike prices are high is because people pay it. If Specialized didn’t sell a single halo spec SL8, they would lower the price. I see plenty of S-Works riding around so people are buying them. That’s my take at least.
8 Likes
The Ducati Monster ‘Starts as $12,995’, the cheapest Hypermotard is $13,995, the Diavel is $27,195, with the XDiavel at $28,995. Multistrada V2 is $15,995, Streetfighter V2 is $14,995.
Yeah, they are not $40,000, but they aren’t ‘cheap’ when compared to the nose bleed high prices of some bicycles. Maybe Ducati has raised their prices along with the ‘sea level’ of every other company, and that comparison doesn’t work anymore. Sure there are really nose bleed prices for bicycles, but the average person isn’t buying a bike that cost more than their first car. (I wish I could afford a bike like that, but I also realize my Roubaix is/was a fantastic bike at around $4,000 at the time. For those that can, more power to you, but complaining about the pricing of sky-high bikes is rather ridiculous)
That is just the price for paint on a mustang GTD if you want to take the paint to sample option and lock out option so that no one else can have one in your color. You can option one out over a half a million.. but that’s not even remotely a normal mustang.
65, random year, mustang would have been about 2500 bucks, that would be a little under 30k today, mustangs start at a little over 30k today. Cars in recent years (think last 2 decades) have generally stayed under inflation. Example (with rounding) in 2000 a golf 1.8t would be about 20k. In 2020 a golf 1.8t was about 20k.
Cars are not a great example for this conversation though as you can see from the golf pricing because they generally make giant leaps in improvements in 20 years but the prices don’t change as much. Bicycles go up by a lot in that time and motorcycles somewhere between cars and bikes.
3 Likes
Great video. It would be interesting to see a more technical breakdown of the bill of materials of building a bicycle and motorcycle.
I’ll say that bike vs. motorcycle is not a hill I wanted to die on. I could care less.
From that video, what stood out was that motorcycle makers and dealers take 15% each. In the cycling industry it’s 30% and 30% plus the groupset maker’s cut.
What I think pushes higher end bikes even higher is the duopoly status of Shimano and Sram. Motorcycle makers make every part on an assembly line. The bicycle maker has to buy all the parts from other companies who also want their 30%.
The other half of it is high end framesets. With a $5000+ frameset, bits of carbon are put in a mold in a factory in Asia and a frame comes out. Supposedly they put in a few bits of high modulus carbon in a fancier layup. These days, you often don’t get an amazing paint job on a $5k frame.
The $2-3k frame is made in exactly the same way with the same labor, maybe in the same mold and often with the same black paint raw finish. To me this is where Specialized extracts it’s S-Works branding tax because the cost differential to make an S-Works versus a non S-Works is going to be very small. The different layup doesn’t cost extra and the different grade of carbon or bits of high modulus don’t cost much more.
2 Likes
The motorcycle vs bicycle cost comparison is always fairly disingenuous.
It’s always a low-end or mid-range motorcycle compared to a top-spec bicycle.
If one wants to compared a top tier S-Works Tarmac to a motorcycle, they ought to at least compare it with a motorcycle that’s actually race worthy.
2 Likes
Why? Maybe an unpopular opinion but shouldn’t a low end motorcycle be more than a top end bicycle?
If not… why?
1 Like
Low end motorcycles are more expensive than low end bicycles. A low end motorcycle definitely shouldn’t cost more than a high end bicycle. Have you spent time on a low end motorcycle? The fit and finish is miserable compared to even a mid-tier bicycle. A Trek Fuel Ex 8 for example feels much higher quality than a Honda Grom.
I can get a perfectly acceptable brand new bicycle for $1,299.
This bike is good enough to do all group rides, entry level racing, etc.
If I pick on Yamaha (since it’s cheaper than Ducati), the absolute cheapest sport bike is $5,499 and I would argue the R3 needs at least another $1,000 dumped into it to be fun on the track.
Realistically though, the $12,499 R9 is probably equivalent to the $2,499 Emonda ALR 5.
The other thing too, once these hit the used market. The motorcycles always hold their value far better than bicycles. A 10 year old sport bike is probably still selling for more than half of it’s original MSRP even today. My 2014 Street Triple R was roughly 10k when I bought it new, but I still regularly see them listed for sale in the 5-7k range. A road bicycle from 2014 is basically worthless at this point.
3 Likes
I was HIGHLY into motorcycles before bicycles. It is literally how I got into bicycles to begin with. Eventually bicycles took over my life…
BECAUSE THEY ARE CHEAPER 
Nowadays my track bike is an NSR50 and it has been sitting for two years. My mom is bugging me to take it out to Apex (yes, you read that correctly) 
Lol yeah… that’s kind where I’m at too.
I used to do 10+ track days every season, then I got older and realized I was burning $400-500 every single day at the track and thought to myself there’s gotta be a more financially responsible two wheel sport.
Funny thing is, most of the fast guys on the local mtb scene all seem to also have a moto background as well. Although mostly on the dirt side.
2 Likes
What I learned on my dirt bike, and the racing I did on it makes me a far better mtb rider than many (most). Especially trail rider/racers. If you are doing 30 to 40mph on a 2-track you had better be trying to look three turns ahead, or you are going to be lawn art, or a hood ornament. I’ve avoided collisions with cars, trucks, horses, farm animals more than other riders. And I rode my dirt bike in the winter and learned a hell of a lot about riding my dirt bike in sand. And cracked a helmet too 
1 Like
I don’t think so. By definition, a top end bicycle is just that, top end. There’s really no limit because it’s a luxury item. It’s not necessary. It’s meant to be the best of the best and the price is reflective of what people will pay, not by worth of components. Can you get a top end bike for cheaper than a low end motorcycle? Maybe. But it isn’t a fair comparison because they have completely different objectives. A low end motorcycle is about utility. A high end bicycle is about luxury. Luxury items in any space don’t follow conventional rules. It would be like asking why a Louis Vuitton bag costs more than a canvas bag at the supermarket. They both carry things. One is utility, one is luxury.
My hot take is that any bike above $3000 IS a top end bike. If it’s got electronic shifting, it’s a top end bike. If it has 105/Rival or better, it’s a top end bike. Carbon frame or wheels, top end bike. So yea, low end motorcycles are more expensive than top end bikes.
1 Like
I’d say Dura Ace or Red are high end bikes (Dura Ace and Campagnolo were high end bikes in the past). It’s interesting how ‘high end bike’ has crept down market. I used to consider disc brakes a high end feature but it’s now almost ubiquitous. Di2 was also, but it’s trickling down to lower price points. Sewups, but they are gone from the majority of the market. It’s now more clouded. Wireless shifting is a high end bike feature. Soon that may not matter either.
But a motorcycle is a motorcycle. Aside from some bling (or disc brakes) it’s power and name, right?
It would depend on how much money you have to spend at some point, right? And the brand and their pricing structure. Is a $15,000 bike better than a $3,000 bike? If you have enough money to buy that 15k bike, you could say ‘Yes’. In the end, it’s a bike. It’s probably lighter, but ‘better’?
I think I’m basing it more on function. And have to realize this forum is a very small subsection of cycling. If you asked every person in the world who rides a bike whether they need electronic shifting, I would wager the vast majority would say no. That makes electronic shifting top end in my mind. Are you going to put 105 or Rival on a city bike or Dutch bike? No way. Tiagra and below is perfectly fine for 90% (if not higher) of cyclists. That’s why I say 105 and above is top end. I gifted my dad an alloy bike that had some lower end carbon wheels, a carbon fork, and 11-sp mech Ultegra. You’d think I bought him a yacht. He thought it was the most advanced, high end, fancy bike in the world. Probably worth $1500. He’s a cyclist. That was top end to him. And I think it would be to most people. This forum skews high end so we see Ultegra as good but not the best. We look at alloy wheels like they’re from the Flintstones.
If the bike is good enough for the majority of people it’s a good, nice bike. Anything above that is top end. And I think most people would laugh at a $3000 bike as exorbitant. Many average cyclists would say that’s too expensive.
105 is in the upper half, aka the top end.
3 Likes
You can look at the bicycling reddit and see how many people are shopping for bikes below $500. And then also see the people who think that electronic shifting is a total game changer.
Which is funny, because I don’t like electronic shifting. But I have Dura Ace Di2.
Yeah, you’re right. It’s hard to remember how it felt in the beginning. I took the Di2 105 group as being a large part in the homoginization of their product line. 105 is what I started out on, and it was generally rock solid. How long until Shimano drops mechanical 105, and will they? Carbon frames are still a midhigh to high end bikes.
For me, electronic shifting is definitely not “a total game change” but it’s nice. My gravel bike and road bike are lauf’s and they don’t even offer mechanical shifting anymore. My old road bike had shimano 105 and that was super smooth and quiet. Electronic shifting is very nice but I was happy with good mechanic group sets.
I’m not saying electronic shifting isn’t a game changer for some people but I feel like people like to think what they own is amazing
2 Likes
Until it’s not. A new bike a fast, until it’s not. Then the itch is for another new bike to get that fast feeling back. N+1…
2 Likes
Agree, except for TT/Tri bikes. Electronic made those so much better for testing different extensions. I used to go race with a new front end each week optimising.
Although with the complicated internal routing I am moving towards electronic shifting being better. My gravel bike with a lot of internal routing is mechanical and just doesn’t shift like my bikes of old.
1 Like