Bikes aren’t the only industry like this. Look at cars today and the features they come with that a few years ago were still options on luxury vehicles. Conversely you can also option out some cars to double their MSRP just for options, some will say it’s not worth it, but I find most of the time those arguments come from a place of defending ones personal finances (I bought a base model Camry so the fully loaded is therefore a ripoff for suckers). Same is seen in this thread with people projecting their opinions about what’s worth it to them and what isn’t and stating it as fact
We could all be having a civilized discussion about why prices are the way they are, we could speculate and discuss, but instead it’s mostly “cOrPoRaTe GrEeD iS mAkInG CyClInG LeSs iNcLuSiVe”
No one said corporate greed is driving this, but rather people like you believing just because you increased your performance by an arbitrary amount that you can justify to yourself carbon double the price.
So the fact that I can now justify spending more on a higher modulus frame is the driving force for higher prices, and makes cycling less inclusive? Man, we’re really heading into some uncharted territory
Just to be clear feel free to spend your money on anything you like that I am not criticizing.
I believe in the incremental law of diminishing returns above stated.
I am not convinced that the “higher modulus” is worth its price in terms of what it gets you in performance that is all.
Maybe its manufacturing cost means the margins of companies are not huge that I do not know. What I do know is that at some point it becomes nonsense because our own body sensitivity is not so fine to detect changes in material or elastic properties.
Whatever your gear is irrelevant: Pogacar, Roglic or Alaphillipe would drop any of us in any steel road bike.
I would rather prefer to leave inclusiveness out of the conversation.
I’ve never understood this line of argument…ino one is suggesting that if they buy a $15K superbike that they will be able to beat Pogacar or even a low-level domestic pro.
People are buying such bikes because 1) they want and can afford them, and 2) they (theoretically) want to maximize their own performance on a bike.
A few years ago a club member brought his 18 year old son to a group climbing ride. The kid was on a vintage 1980s bike. He crushed most of us, and hung with the best climbers.
I’ll say it again a different way, if my 2015 Trek Domane ($5000 retail) had to be replaced I could get a comparable bike for $1200 less than 2015 retail pricing. And bumping the replacement to $6000, would upgrade to Di2, awesome wide carbon wheels, and a slightly heavier but more aero frame. So from that standpoint I’m pretty happy with what Trek is doing, and ignoring Trek’s halo bikes that cost 2x.
BINGO, that is your opinion and you’re entitled to it and on some level I agree, but that’s not the same as outlandish statements some have made and pushed as fact. Also the whole “the pros can beat us on steel bikes” argument is nonsense, then essentially nobody needs anything more than 7 speed friction shifters.
Mario Andretti could probably put down a faster lap time in a Corolla than I could in a 911, it doesn’t mean the 911 isn’t worth buying
It’s hard to look past greed when prices have changed so much during the past few years. The examples I posted showed a 1k increase year on year and I would be very surprised if the associated costs of making and building a bike increased by that same amount.
Look at my example, my $5000 2015 Trek Domane 6.2 Disc could be replaced with a $3800 Trek Domane SL6. Or for a 20% increase over 2015 price, I could upgrade to Di2 and awesome wide carbon wheels on the SL7.
I wonder how many people claiming corporate greed etc wouldn’t take advantage of covid selling a used bike. I bet not one of them would say “I’ve got this bike normally worth 2k but people are paying 3k for the same thing left and right, but I’m going to sell it for 2k anyway”. I bet not a single one, yet they are surprised when bikes get more expensive. I’m sure not price changes are due to material changes in the product or costs associated, some of it is due to “company A B and C all raised prices for comparable bikes so we are going to do the same” but if you don’t run a business with profit at the forefront, you won’t run a business for very long.
There were two flagged posts in this thread. I had Ivy review and handle them, since I was an active participant in the thread. I think one got deleted by the poster and not sure on the status of other one.
Nothing more than that, so this has been a pretty solid discussion in the grand scheme of things (which I really appreciate as a mod).
This is a busy thread, and I agree with many points from both sides of the argument.
I’m not sure that there is a “bubble” that will burst, bike companies will continue to increase bike prices as people continue to buy them.
On the point of halo bikes, my thinking (and the same with the dentist’s on their bikes) is that it is great for us regular Joe’s for these bikes to exist. That is where the highest level of technology enter the market, but it then means our normal people bikes get those same improvements over time.
On the second hand market, there appears to be a bubble looking at what people are asking for (and getting) second hand mountain bikes. I believe second hand prices will come back a bit when new bikes are available at a more normal rate again.
Finally, I have been looking at new mountain bikes recently, and whilst I initially baulked at the jump in price from ten years ago. The technology in the new bike is pretty incredible. The last couple of years in particular there seems to have been a particularly huge jump in sophistication and function in suspension, dropper post, drive train, let alone the geometry/frame updates from some brands.
I don’t think it’s a bubble, but bikes are definitely expensive. The amount of choice we have now is amazing, and that only comes from the strength of the cycling industry. More cyclists at all levels is great for us all.
Got that right. My frame set is 3299 compared to a Madone at 3699. And for 400 less you get a bunch of pivots. And an axle. And a stem/headset. And a shock.
Madone frame doesn’t even look like it comes with the proprietary brakes you need. I’m sure they know their customer and know that dentists (sorry to keep using you guys) don’t have a problem dropping 10k+ on a bike and they potentially offset the lower margins on the more every-man products. Maybe, that’s my theory anyway
I would have raised the price on the bike (frame set) had I had a bit more forethought. As it was, it was one of the easiest bike I’ve ever sold, and there were multiple interested parties. Instead, I took the first offer, and even shipped it on my dime to grease the wheels. I realized in hindsight, that I could have charged a little more, and not paid for shipping. No regrets, as the guy that bought was super cool and made it easy, but if I was selling a bike now - absolutely I’d set a firm (fair) price. If nothing else the increase in demand makes it a sellers market (for a change).
I’d like to see a detailed article that shows what it takes for a company to go from napkin sketch concept to making the sale on the salesroom floor. Even that doesn’t account for the final sales price, MSRP as that can even change throughout the model year…
