Are you people buying bikes in the anticipation of being able to sell them for more later? If not, then by definition there cannot be a bicycle price bubble.
Thank you, and I will now end my TED talk on financial bubbles in the bicycle retail market.
Sorry if someone already mentioned this - but I do not have the time to read 355 comments at the moment.
Something that often goes missed in this conversation - people compare top of the line race bikes to just any old car. If you buy a $14k bike you are essentially buying the best bike money can get. If you compare that to a used or inexpensive new car of course it is going to seem insane. However, if you buy the best car money can get it is what, like $250k?
Also, I might be wrong on this but donât most bike manufacturers make very little if any money on their top end race bikes? They essentially make them to sponsor teams and for marketing so they can make more money on lower end models?
Yup, weâve hit on cars from the ânormalâ to insane âhaloâ level pricing above.
And as to margin on bikes, that has been covered as well, from a number of angles (low, mid, high, halo).
My problem is people are looking at bikes that arenât designed to be affordable and complaining about price. The people who have 10k to drop on a bike arenât phased by that bike costing 12k, they are on a different socioeconomic level. We wouldnât use the argument of âwell the Veyron was 1.9m and the Chiron is 3m for incremental improvements, therefore VW must be pricing things unfairlyâ
I was thinking the leaner brands being more like Fuji, maybe Diamondback etc, where they donât have massive development teams, a wind tunnel, fancy press camps, concept stores etc.
So many expenses to be covered in the margin. I wonder if there are too many brands, therefore each brandâs sales volume is not large enough to really spread those costs wide enough.
Regardless, the MSRP for a new S-Works Tarmac frame, makes me annoyed and sad when I consider what it may cost out the factory door.
Iâd kinda argue that there are not enough brandsâŚor at least major ones. The (US) market is dominated by Trek and Specialized, with Giant a distant third. As a result, they wield unfavorable leverage in the LBS network, often forcing shops to carry only their brandâŚor at least not another major brand.
This really hurt some shops this year because once the big boys were out of stock, they had no secondary brand to turn to for supply.
Guy up the street from me was a dedicated Giant dealer (but not a concept store)âŚhe finally was forced to bring in Jamis as a second brand. Luckily he had never signed an exclusivity agreement with Giant, so he had the flexibility to bring on another brand.
That makes sense. I wish the data was publicly available. How many dealers does each brand have, how many of each bicycle model do they sell, and how many different size molds do they have for each one etc?
I saw some recall data for a Salsa bike I think, and they had the sales period and the recall quantity, which gave some insight. I thought it said like 700 Cutthroats sold over maybe 14 months (I canât remember exactly). If they run that particular frame (and therefore the molds, and they have 4 molds) for 3 years, then theyâre trying to âpayâ for each mold from at most maybe 1000 bikes. Whereas specialized for the Tarmac, run a mold 2 years I think (maybe they trickle it down and get another 2 years running it with cheaper carbon for Tarmac Comp Carbon etc too), they could be dividing that mold cost across 10,000 frames (I donât know at their numbers if they have one mold per size, or if they need 20 molds per size to get the volume of frames off. (Iâm guessing all this, as I work in medical product design/manufacturing, and have lived in China at a factory etc, but Iâve not done bicycles nor carbon fiber).
Anyways, Iâm still sad that I canât afford an S-Works. If these COVID price increases last, or if manufacturers bubble up the price for a carbon GRX gravel bike (my next purchase) by $1k, then Iâll also be sad.
Had it been mentioned already? I dunno, butâŚ
Top end prices could merely be reflecting the greater econ phenomena of 0% money.
In other words, no collusionsry bubble, just reactionary price point.
And arenât we completely ignoring the increased cost of labor in these comparisons as well? Itâs extremely difficult to make a completely accurate and fair comparison.
I noted it earlierâŚthere are several factors in it. Wages in Shenzhen China have risen substantially over the last few years. While many of the bikes we are talking about here arenât produced there anymore, a lot of the components are.
In addition, Taiwan labor is definitely a challenge. Most Taiwanese no longer aspire to a factory job, they aspire to a management job. So Taiwanese companies have to import workers from SE Asian countries.
Even if the major brands werenât doing this, since custom niche brands and frame builders have been charging this much for decades adjusted for inflation.
Big brands can drive a metric f ton of R&D. They saw the market and figured that if people are going to buy super expensive bikes then it might as well be from them. They can use the R&D line to lure folks towards them and away from niche brands that are more about custom fit etc. If youre going to spend 10-15k on a bike and fit an off the wall bike and donât want something steel or ti or custom⌠Youâre going to be drawn to something with the newest fangled tech.
People also wait for years in a cue for a Richard Sachs frame. Thereâs always someone. Not judging. People also buy Ferrari when they could drive around in a bimmer. To each their own.
I also do think itâs wild, but itâs always existed. Just more in the open now.
I would still argue no BMW has engine of a Ferrari as opposed to 15k bike vs 3-4k bike?
There is no obvious quantifiable advantage between super high end and high quality sensibly priced bike.
Take the âengineâ out of your argument. It breaks down.
The more accurate comparison is the carbon/magnesium/titanium/unobtanium make up of the components in a supercar Vs normal car.
Repeating a false assertion over and over doesnât make it trueâŚThe question is whether or not those advantages are worth the price. For some people, the answer is âyesâ.
I donât know why this is such a hard concept to grasp.
May I suggest you study the economic term âutilityâ? âUtility is a term in economics that refers to the total satisfaction received from consuming a good or service.â
Sometimes the differences do not matter to most people, but they matter a lot to some.
Take the difference between a Porsche GT3 RS and a Porsche GT3 RS MR (Manthey Racing). You take a really, really fast car, and Manthey (Porscheâs equivalent of AMG) does literally nothing to the engine, rips out exquisite Porsche parts and replaces them with even better ones. Even though they only upgrade suspension, aero and the like, the result is a car that is significantly faster on the track. Can you feel the difference on the road? Most people wonât, especially if they stick to local traffic laws. 
And even in the regular GT3 RS, in most jurisdictions you are at most 4â5 seconds away from losing your license.
There is also a difference between ordinary cars and race cars, which I think is an apt comparison if you look at super bikes. The suspension of a BMW M3 is perfectly adequate for what it is designed to do, but if you were serious about racing or taking it to the track, youâd probably want to rip it out and replace it with something proper.
Sure there is. Whether this difference matters to you is another thing.
I had what I consider a super bike (although I reckon itâd be a high-end bike according to your classification) as a loaner for two weeks, and I knocked off 2:45 minutes off of my PR in a 22-minute climb. And I didnât even have a power meter on that bike to pace my effort properly. This thing was a hoot to ride, the frame and carbon rims were not just supremely comfortable, but also confidence inspiring.
And while I am fast when compared to most, Iâm slow when compared with properly fast people. (Iâve ridden with former international pros and current domestic pros, I am under no illusions ) Proper pros will be able to do things with a high-end bike that they cannot do as well with a cheaper bike. Because at the highest of high-ends, a lot is about marginal gains. Thatâs how pros choose their gearing, thatâs how they approach other aspects.
I know someone who bought a decked out Pinarello F12 because thatâs what they favorite team in the TdF used. He isnât the fastest to put it mildly, but the bike puts a smile to his face when he rides it. So according to me, it was a good investment for him.
Yes there is a price bubble. Electronic shifting is loads heavier than mechanical, Is it even an upgrade on a race bike or just marketing? Disc brakes are heavier too? I feel that if someone reallyneeds a 12000 dollar bike they are probley fast enough to get them for free. Marginal, marketing gains, are expensive. Im more in the camp that if your training is consistent and productive on the middle of the road bike you will beat the person who is not training effectively on the more expensive bikes. Example, where i live, Northern Ca, last year most of the local mtb races where won by a fast guy with an aluminum frame specialized chisel. Training beats marketing hype.
Training and bike performance are not mutually exclusive conceptsâŚthere is nothing to prevent someone with one of the most expensive bikes from utilizing a well-constructed training plan.
You can have both if you so choose.
ByciclesâŚbuying byciclesâŚtrying to find a logical reasoning in a sport where most are looking for an excuse to buy one more bycicle, is like going to a brothel looking for love.
Is not about speed, technology, weight or performance⌠Is all about happiness.
Yeah being happy, sometimes, can be expensive 
