Originally Posted by
Squeezebox
There is a huge gap between the cost of touring vs road and mountain bicycles. My question was why that gap is there. The point I tried to make was what would a touring bicycle be if it were in the cost and material range of a top end road bicycle. Not anything about should you spend that much.
There is only a gap if you ignore custom touring bikes.
The market for road and mountain bicycles is huge. The "tail" of this market that buys expensive bicycles is a large number of people.
The market for touring bicycles is small. The "tail" of that market isn't really big enough to sell expensive factory touring bicycles.
Originally Posted by
Squeezebox
True enough. And there's the whole discussion about panniers vs bikepacking also, wt & aero alike.
But carbon has proved its value and viability in bicycle frames, components, wheels. Electronic shifting as well. I don't see any reason to not use them for touring. Of course other than the size of the market pretty much requires custom frame & fork. Seems like it could be done though.
Because they are expensive and don't provide much benefit for their cost.
Originally Posted by
Squeezebox
1- Does the market make what it wants to sell to the customer, even though it's inferior.
2- Does the market make what the customer wants to buy, A superior product.
I find carbon to be a superior product.
I disagree with your analysis within the range of bicycles.
There are a lot of people who are willing to spend $2500 on a carbon road bike.
There is a tiny number of people who are willing to spend $2500 on a touring bike (of any material).