Originally Posted by
veganbikes
I am talking about the silly gender binary you brought up in your post. You claimed that because someone is say lumped in to the women's binary that would justify a higher cost.
I said no such thing. I only discussed why having women's-sized frames makes sense for some bikes (namely higher-priced ones): they have different proportions, and at those price points, it justifies the higher manufacturing cost of having more frame molds and sizes made. Walmart bikes are too cheap to have 15 different sizes (mens + womens) for the same bike, but a $2-5k bike can justify it. I never said anything about someone "lumped into the women's binary". Some people will fit certain-sized bikes better than others, and having a wide range of sizes in both mens- and womens-specific geometries mean any given person is more likely to find a more comfortable bike in such a product line than they would in a product line with 3 sizes (S, M, L).
The """""bikes""""" at wally mart typically aren't sized at all. That is a bad comparison to anything.
Obviously you haven't even looked at them; they certainly are sized, and even advertise it loudly on cardboard inserts between the spokes. They even go so far as to tell you what height range likely works best, something you don't get from expensive bikes at the LBS (they rely on salespeople to help you find the right size).
As far as outliers yes really big people, I can see a higher cost not just because low volume but also potentially a lot more material being used.
Ok, you obviously have little idea of how economics in manufacturing work. The extra material used in a 61cm frame versus a 54cm frame is not significant; most of the cost of the frame is in the labor, and a significant portion of the cost of the total bike is in the other components (wheels, shifters, brakes, crankset, seat tube/seat, etc.). But that's only if you can fit on one of the offered sizes. If you need something custom-made, now you're looking at much higher costs, if you can even get it.
However lumping a wide range of people into a few "averages" doesn't really work super well and even worse when they are marketed within a binary.
First, no one is forcing women to buy women's-sized bikes, or preventing men from buying them. That's ridiculous.
Second, you *have to* lump a wide range of people into a handful of sizes. That's how EVERY mass-produced product works: shoes, shirts, pants, etc. I can't believe I have to spell this out for you people. Do you have only custom-made clothes or something? Any normal person buys pants with the inseam and waist that's close as they can get, and then uses a belt to make up the difference.
Almost no one agrees that I would rather have a steel or ti frame?
Almost no one else wants a Titanium frame. If this weren't true, then we would all be riding Ti bikes instead of CF or Al ones.
Who are all these people who are dead wrong? I will state it again, I would rather have a steel or ti frame. Carbon or aluminum doesn't excite me and again I would rather go steel or ti!
Is English not your first language, or do you have a reading comprehension problem? I really feel like I'm arguing with someone who doesn't understand basic English here. This isn't about your personal preferences, this is about the preferences of the whole market. You do not represent the vast majority of bike-buyers.
Steel and ti are quite popular still
This is a blatant falsehood, particularly for Ti. The number of Ti bikes sold every year is insignificant compared to everything else. Steel isn't terribly popular either; even Walmart bikes are frequently Al.