ViperZ

Exactly my point. A $300 saddle actually does not take $300 worth of labour and materials to produce..... Same goes for pretty much everything else. Sure there is engineering time, research time, development time, infrastructure, marketing distributions...etc, however in the end, it is all about what the Market will pay for the product.


How much has the Bicycle really changed over the last 10 years? 20years, 100 years? Sure materials have changed and it's application may have change, however we are talking about a Bicycle, it's not a rocket or nuclear reactor ... It still a simple machine plain and simple. The real problem is forums like this elevate the simple mechanics of a Bicycle to the status of a Jet fighter, and stand in line to pay the exorbant prices for them. All so we can wax on poetically about how one material rides soo much better than another, or how one item is so much superior over another...... All the while believing we are truly bicycle connoisseurs...

I suppose it is the Western way of life

Singlespeedster

A lot. Even over the past 10 years. The amount of r&d going into frame material and processes alone has skyrocketed over the past 10 years. Componentry has evolved quite a bit too. And I still am of the opinion that if you consider the true cost that goes into producing new models and new designs, cycling is a relative bargain. Some firends of mine run a company that produces high end mountain bike frames. Currently they are in the process of launching a new downhill bike that introduces some pretty radical ne technology. Althought the frame alone retails for 3500 dollars, they will be the forst to tell you that if they calculated out the total amount of r&d that went into getting that frame to market, they would have to charge ten times that amount to simply break even.

recursive

Educate yourself. You can start here.
https://www.campyonly.com/history.html

ViperZ

Small shops I can agree that it would take a while to recover costs, however I contend that there is not a lot of functional performance and it's actually diminished gains once a bike runs past the $1,500 to $2,000 price range. After that a consumer is mostly paying for the exclusivity of the part, or components.

After all the mantra here is always, "It's not the bike but the engine..." So if this is true, does a $5,000 bike make a difference over a $1,500 bike?

About the changes, I still see there is still a sprocket, and a chain is used to drive it. The chain is derailed to shift gears, the brakes are still a caliper clamp actuated by cable. This stuff has been around for many decades, all we have seen is an evolution, rather than Revolution. Like I said, there has been advancements in materials and manufacturing techniques, however the bicycle is basically unchanged since I started riding 35 years ago.

My 17 year old Trek, looks and performs just as good as a modern day Madone, even before the upgrade, so I contend again the bicycle hasn't changed much... And if it has, whats it really matter if the Motor is all that counts? I read repeatedly here that Eddy Merckx in his day would beat anybody here on a modern bike, or even Lance.


https://www.campyonly.com/history.html



Kinda still looks simular to me.....


My point is that most of us here are like the kettle calling the pot black with the $10,000 Trek. Ask anybody out side of cycling and they will tell you $1,000 is crazy for a complete Bike, much less fo just a frame never mind $5,000 for just a frame, or $700 for a crank set.... So really we are our own worst critics.

Again, Bicycles don't have to cost what they do, however because people are willing to pay the price that is asked, the manufacturers will continue to command it.

Myself I'm no better, I know that a frame or part should not be as much as they are, however given the chance, I would sell the farm for it. But I'm like that for any of my passions or Hobbies.

Soapbox\off

baj32161

I wouldn't spend more than $2000 for a bike even if I did have the money. I just don't see any performance advantage or justification for it with the type of riding I do (ie: recreational). The bike I bought is all the bike I will ever need, and at $850 it was still more than I wanted to spend at first. Having said that I do love it. I think so many of us like to impress other riders so we need to justify the reasons for getting all the bling we get. When I got my bike I didn't know enough about bikes to care whether it would impress anyone and, therefore, didn't care.

Its nice to know that some people ARE impressed though . Hey we all gotta get SOME love, right ?

Cheers,

Brian

Singlespeedster

We're gonna have to agree to disagree here. I am still of the opinion that bicycles have changed significantly over the years. It is interesting that you claim that bicycles have not changed in 35 years, yet there have been advancements in materials and manufacturing techniques.




So this begs the question: Why do you show a trek 5000 in your sig file? Why don't you sell that bike, since you steadfastly contend that it is just as good as your newer bike?






https://www.campyonly.com/history.html



Kinda still looks simular to me.....



Not to me....


I don't get it. To prove your point you are suggesting that we ask people who know nothing about cycling?

Anyway, like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree. Nothing has ever been accomplished by arguing on the internet. and I have a silly, overpriced, not-as-good-as-a-17-year-old-trek bicycle to ride.

ViperZ

The functional mechanics and operation has not changed. Additionally even with all these advancements in materials, A good solid steel lugged bike is still a good bet. I would say the biggest change has been Index shifting.

Again, the bicycle is a simple machine, whose mechanical function is well understood and explored in this day and age.


Because it's been in the family for 17 years, has been the centre of many pleasurable rides, Is kind of unique, my new bike isn't complete yet and because I love Bicycles.


Thats a mountain bike, I'll submit that that has been a change in the bike industry. If we are referring to the Road Bike, it still can look pretty similar today, sloping tube compacts not withstanding.


No, I'm just saying, that many of us here are laughing at the $10,000 Trek, yet in in many instances, many people would laugh at us spending $2,000 on a bicycle.



Who's arguing? Go out and ride, whats it matter what I think, for all I know, I know nothing. If bicycles can't be over priced, why were we laughing a $10,000 Trek?


BTW, have you priced out a Campagnolo Record group?


I find it a bit hard to believe all that above is really worth $1500, but you know what, If I really wanted it, I would not care and I'll pay it.


Centaur Group for $650, Record is good, but more than 2 times the price? Centaur is made overseas is my understanding, so that may add to it's lower cost, however functionally the latter group is probably more than adequate for most cyclists here.

ViperZ

~$5,000usd Theres your moneys worth...



~$245usd (but oh so sweet... drool..)



Last I checked >$1,000 cdn



~$320usd



~$4,000usd



~390usd



~$3,200usd Frame only for a Steel Bike


Look at frames from Seven, Serrota, Litespeed, Independant Fabrications, for a bit of sticker shock

How about $100 apiece Tubular bicycle tires? A Steel belted radial for a car can cost less, that ain't right...

I suspect, in the end an average person could always buy a $1,500 bike, work on the engine and kick my a$$ on the road after I have spent all that Money on those parts above... The difference is we both could be very happy regardless of price paid or actual performance.

jeh

https://www.selleitalia.com/preziosa/index.php

gotta have it. only 1500$.

-j

minolta7

Oh man, do I have to jump on this...

I agree with the OP.

ViperZ

Really?



$6,725 - $12,135usd

Singlespeedster

No need. I sell Seven and Serotta. I have Eliums, Altas and ID8s in stock, built up, on the floor. I have Legends, Ottrots and CDAs built up as well. I also have 4 of those Treks that started all of this kerfuffle.

Cypress

And out of them, which would you choose to ride?

ViperZ

Ahh, it's all clear now... Being a Bike dealer I can see how my middle class consumer position and comments could affect you.

Singlespeedster

They affect me because I don't agree with them. I suspect this would be the same for anyone who hears someone say "Hey, your livelihood is all smoke, mirrors, marketing and scam."

And I sell all sorts of bikes. We do high end stuff, but we address the middle of the market and the entry level consumer as well. And we treat every customer like they are the guy buying the 10k Ottrott. I don't believe in classifying consumers. In my shop there are no "middle class consumers", there are customers.

I still think that most $2000 bikes are worth the money to the serious recretional cyclist. And that the modern bike represents significant changes from your beloved 17 year old Trek.

Singlespeedster

You are taking the easy way out. Anyone could skim the top of the market and find the ridiculous. This doesn't adequately address the contention that "no bike is worth more than $2000".

ViperZ

And it's not your fault, you are not to blame...


Thats Great, your shop sounds like the kind of shop I would love to drool it... I have nothing against Expensive bikes, and in fact I love them myself, and throw all justification out the door when it comes to price. However in the construct of this thread and the $10,000 Trek, it's easy to see why things are priced as they are, Market. Maybe I was playing a little Devils advocate, with everyone pooping the $10,000 Trek, My point was if we are to laugh and sneer at that, we should laugh at ourselfs first.


Maybe it has, however these "Significant Changes" don't amount to alot in the real world, maybe a pound or so in weight. Last group ride I partook in I was not dropped and was in the front of the pack with bicycles of all levels and ranges. I was not left behind as others were with their "Significantly Advanced" bicycle. I climbed and cornered just as well, if not better than most. Last time (this summer) I took a Madone 5.2 and a Specialized R-Comp out for a ride, They really felt the same as my Beloved Trek. So much so, I didn't buy like I had intended too, I decided to just upgrade my parts a little, and wouldn't you know it, Everything old is New again. BTW, I paid about $2500 Dealer cost for this bike in 1989, at that time I suspect it would be the equivelent of the $5000 bike today. So You see, I totally understand.





OK, Middle level market, if you can call it that.... ~$2,500usd?

Regardless of what I choose I don't think you would see it my way, so why do you continue?

As I said, this is all relative to the statement that Bicycle components can be over priced, and that a $2,000 bicycle will perform just as well as a $10,000 bicycle, after all, it's the engine that counts is the Mantra. Really it's all rapidly diminished gains after ~$2,000.

Aside from that, are you going to try and tell me a Bicycle frame like a Seven or Colnago is actually worth $4000, $5000 in manufacturing, and production costs? Sure there is development and there is research that goes into it, but that is recovered with a higher sales volume, however once that happens, it dilutes the brand name, and we certainly can't have that for these exclusive brands can we? They are only worth that because the world is full of high paid people that will put down the money for it.

When a person can buy a Pedal Force Carbon frame for $500, or a TST Ti bike for $400, or a Giant Composite bike with full Ultegra for under $2,000, or a Specialized? Where does the rational for a $4,000 frame come from? Or a $12,000 Seven? Other than I want it, I have the money, and not many others will have one like it...

A frame with 15 weld points costing $4000?

Tubular tires costing more than a Car tire?

It's clear NOW you are plying your position from a sellers stand point, so really what would you like me to submit to you? Please take my money, because that $5000 bike is such a screaming deal, I should take 2?

As much as I say no bike may be worth $2,000 or more, you don't see me running away, and as I said before, If I really wanted it, I would spend it, I have before on many things and I will continue to, but lets be honest about it. I fully understand that the profit margins on bicycles from a LBS perspective may be low, however that does not mean the Manufactuers and distributers are correct in charging the LBS what they do before sales. That Trek isn't worth $10,000, just as much as that Seven isn't worth $12,000


I have shown you many over priced bicycles and components, Your turn, if you have a point prove it... But quit using me as your whipping boy

Cassadamius

Alright, the way I see it is.....most everything today is overpriced. We pay $3.00 for a box of cereal, when all it is is basically wheat (or flour) and sugar. People pay the same for cigarettes, which are paper and tobacco (a cheap plant). Cars exist over $1,000,000. By buying an expensive bike, I am putting my money towards something I love, into an industry that I wish to grow moreso than most other industries. I love my bicycle, I love the precision, the art. While I obviously don't have to spend the money I do on a bike, there's nothing I'd rather spend money on. People enjoy spending money. I love my bike. I'll put the money in the pockets of people designing beautiful bikes, incredible efficient pieces of art, instead of people designing cars and clothes, industries I'd rather minimize.

minolta7

Let's be blatant. That Trek isn't made to ride. It's made to show off as an artpiece (although I can think of many more beautiful bikes than that at that price level).

Why are average paintings $100, it's just some paint and canvas? Come on, road cycling is an image-conscious sport- as long as it looks good, it's worth it.

Singlespeedster

I disagree with both points, still. I htink that over the past 17 years, changes that amount o a lot have occurred in bicycles. Most of which are noticeable to the recreational cyclist. And weight costs a lot to lose, and a lot to engineer the loss of. And it is a sliding scale. A pound off of a 23 lb road bike costs much less than a pound off of a 17 pound road bike.

That is pretty high market, if you ask me, for a wheelset. Again, I completely agree with you that the upper end of the market, is overpriced, partly due to demand, and partly due to economies of scale. What I am pursuing you on is the claim that "ANybody that spends more that $2000 on a BICYCLE is a Sucker" And also the claim that "Bicycles and bicyle components are way over priced for the amount of material and work that goes into manufacturing them." And I'm not using you as a whipping boy. The way I see it, Bike Forums is a...forum. And the word forum means (to me) an open discussion, not a one way discussion. And since I'm the guy at teh bike shop that people will come to and say "I read on the internet that no bikes are worth more than $2K, I think it is only fair that you shed some light on your position here.


What is wrong about having a selller's standpoint? We do operate in a market economy, and until you decide that you don't want to be a part of it and you are going to make your own bikes, it's the system we are stuck with.

ViperZ

Ok, I submitted to that, but what does the weight loss really mean in the real world of a recreational cyclist? The Motor counts more than the machine. You are still talking like a salesman and I have a tough time buying in to it. My Trek works fine enough, It's light enough, fast enough, and is responsive enough. I have no problems in group or club rides leaving more modern bikes behind, and why do you suppose that is? I have this Antique bike, that's not suppose to happen according to what you deem as important, critical or place Value into. Are you telling me if I rode your "significantly Advanced" bicycle, I would be faster and NOW might be able to win over you in a road race? We are still talking about a bicycle, that given all it's latest advancements, is functionally unchanged, and is only part of the equation.


I have presented why I feel bicycles and components are over priced, I have listed and shown many fine examples.... You have done nothing but cry foul and presented no facts or reasoning yourself. All you have really done is bring my bike into question as something I should almost apologize for riding in this day and age of "Significantly Advanced" Bicycles. At the end of the day, if a person can keep up on a gas pipe special to a modern day bike, how significant is that modern technology?

Sure most of todays bike maybe better, but it's a point of Diminished gains, and somewhere after $2,000 things get stratospheric. Will it really make them faster? I don't think so. Why is it that most (high %) of the real fast riders & racers, around my town are on $1,000 - $2000 bikes, and a lot of the ones on the +$4000 ones are more weekend riders or geezers out for a stroll? I think it's because they train harder, and have more heart, but that just a wild guess.


As I have stated, My comment was more Devils Advocate, and that if we are to laugh at a $10,000 bike, surely we need to laugh at our industry and at ourselves spending $2,000 and up for a bike. If I'm calling anybody that spends more than $2,000 on a bike a Sucker, I'm calling myself a sucker as well. What part of that don't you understand? I spent $2500 on my Trek in 1989, I recently spent at least $1,500 upgrading it, My Rocky cost $3,200 in 1988, my Litespeed Project is going to cost more than $3,500-$4,000 when I'm done.... I'm not proud of it, however I feel you miss my intentions.


Please prove to me why a Colnago is $4000, a Seven starts at $5,000, why a Campagnolo Record Rear Derailleur is $500 cdn. Or the Crank is nearly $1,000 cdn at my LBS. Show me stats of labor cost of manufacturing and distribution to justify the pricing.

How is it companies like TST can offer Ti frames for $1,100 Brand new, yet Merlin and Litespeed can charge more than $4,000?

How is it Companies like Giant & Jamis can offer a composite bikes equipped with Ultegra, for around $2,000, yet other manufacturers charge $4,000 just for a frame? This also includes Companies like Look, Pinarello & Derosa, that charge a premium price yet manufacture in the east. It's certainly not manufacturing costs. are they really that much better of a Bike? Maybe to the Salesman, and to the person glossing over it, but in reality, the motor and mind will determine the ultimate performance of the whole.

Why are bicycle tires priced more than some car tires? There certainly is less materials in the bicycle Tire. If your answer is because some of them are hand made, then how advanced has the production of the industry really become? That stint during the Tour show people making Hutchinson tires and it took no time and little effort to make a tire.

As a salesman in this thread, I think you place too much value in the bicycle, elevating it to a more critical component in the sport than it really deserves. However I can respect that, that is your lively hood, and if people kept riding their Antique bikes, that affects you. You see however, I understand that, and I can laugh at myself for subscribing and giving in to the Bicycle marketing and Hype.

Significant performance gains can't be bought, it has to be earned. However the Industry and exclusive pricing seems to promise otherwise. I have always said, it's not the Piano, rather the Piano Player.


I'm sorry I said "Anybody that spends more than $2000 on a bike is a Sucker", and, that my 1989 Bike can compare to a Modern day bike, I was wrong.

Now please go ride....