124Spider

Nobody buys a bike as an "investment." What people spend on a bike is a function of how important cycling is to them, and how much money they have. $15,000 isn't a lot of money to some people; $700 is a lot of money to a lot of people.

Everyone should get over worrying about how much the next guy/gal spends on his/her bike, since it doesn't matter. Buy what you want to buy and can afford, and enjoy the heck out of it!

Maelochs

I never plan to sell any of my bikes so their potential retail value is meaningless once I have paid for them.

But as fro the 'bike as an investment" argument ... obviously you don't won a car, right? Terrible investment.

124Spider

Wow, you stay up nights over this? You might consider other ways to channel your concerns! I can assure you that not one dime of "your" money has gone to prop up someone who spent $15,000 on a bike, then lost his job and got "gov't handouts."

Just, Wow!

jj1091

It's a fund paid for by employers, managed by the states, so it's really not a gov't handout.

Wcollins00

prairiepedaler

As the saying goes: they sip champagne in Tel Aviv while Americans go hungry. That is: there are a lot of billionaires out there (the money junkie types, the 0.01%) who eventually have to spend their money on something. It can be the David Geffen 454ft yacht, or the $2 million dollar wristwatch. This is reptilian brain thinking. It isn't about realistic value anymore.

124Spider

I should be used to it by now, but I don't easily get used to all the hating that goes on in "enthusiast" forums.

I have never spent, and never will spend, even a significant percentage of $15,000 on a bike. But that doesn't mean that I think one doesn't get "realistic value" (whatever that is) out of such a purchase. Who are you, or anyone else, to decide, arbitrarily, what constitutes "realistic value" for someone else?

I have a very nice bike; it cost less than 20% of $15,000. I love that bike, and I'm unlikely ever to get a more expensive bike. But I certainly can see all sorts of benefits one gets for spending more than I spent on a bike; only lack of funds for such a purchase prevents me from buying a better bike (and, yes, spending more money on a bike, if you know what you're doing, does buy you a "better" bike; you may not want a "better" bike, or be able to afford a "better" bike, but that's not to say there isn't a "better" bike).

Too many erroneously interpret "diminishing returns" as "not realistic value," when "value" is an entirely relative concept, heavily dependent on how much money one has.

Lots of people around here like to hate on the idea of a $3,000 bike. That is, of course, utter nonsense. Now we are treated to a thread where people get to hate on the idea of a $15,000 bike. That also is, of course, utter nonsense.

Buy what you want. Enjoy the heck out of it. Don't worry about what someone else buys, and especially don't criticize someone else for spending more that you would (or could) on a bike!

Mark

Ritalalala

So is the existence of luxury goods equal to the scam? Bicycles obviously have greater value.
The price/performance ratio does not apply to anything.
Although I can't afford a bike for $15k.

indyfabz

Guess you don't have a job and pay state unemployment tax. Personally, I pay an additional federal payroll tax of 4.9% on the first $100K of my salary. That covers, among other things, any unemployment "handout" I might claim. You are a funny guy. Uninformed, but funny.

Koyote

You would make a decent economist.

To demonstrate this point to my students, I tell them what I paid for my last new bike: $1800. Many of them are amazed that someone would spend so much money on a bicycle. Then we start talking about what their phones cost, how much some of them have spent on sneakers, sporting equipment, etc. The hunters and trap shooters will spend thousands on a single rifle or shotgun. One kid had $1600 worth of tattoos. Some of them have nicer cars than the one that my wife and I own, and we are six-figure income, middle-aged professionals.

Ultimately, they get the point: wants are subjective, and there is little point in judging them.

Skipjacks

Can you please go on my local Craigslist bike page and explain that to the sellers there?

I'm getting tired of seeing this...

"I paid $1500 for this bike in 2009 and it's only got 3 or 4 thousand miles on it. So I think $1400 is a fair asking price. I'll even throw in a bottle cage."

...because a $4 bottle cage covers 9 years of depreciation and wear and tear.

Sadly, I'm not exaggerating all that much with this example.

Skipjacks

The free market works.

The ONLY reason there are $15,000 bicycles is because there are people who will spend $15,000 on a bicycle.

If no one was willing to spend $15,000 on a bike I guarantee no one would be fronting the $12,000 in capital is takes to make a $15,000 bike.

There is also a market for $200 bikes. Target is full of them. The streets are full of them.

The market works.

And generally speaking, if you don't want to spend $15,000 on a bike, you wouldn't notice the difference between a $15,000 bike and $2000 bike anyway.

mstateglfr 

Your point makes sense if it applies to someone wanting to buy a $1600 105 road bike as an investment. That’s a terrible investment.
Your point is flat out moronic if it applies to someone wanting to buy a $1600 105 road bike to ride and enjoy for the next 7 years.

You even state that a bike is a tool. Exactly! It’s a tool and not an investment. Its meant to be used and enjoyed. Just like tools, there are different levels of quality. Do you think the tools that can be purchased at the Dollar Store are of the same quality and refinement as tools at Home Depot or at speciality shops? Of course they aren’t of the same quality.
Tools vary in quality and price- just like bicycles.

If someone is going to ride a couple thousand miles each year(a high amount compared to what I think is the overall average for people who own a bike) and they want to be comfortable with a reliable bike- $1600 will get all that. Ride it 7 years and it has 14000 miles on it. Add $400 for maintenance over that time.
So $2000 over 7 years and 14000 miles.


About 1000 hours of riding means $2/hour to own the bike- hardly excessive.
Less than $300 per year to comfortably and reliably get out and enjoy nature- hardly excessive.

Sure, this can be done for less because like you said- it’s a tool. You can also build a house with a hammer. But a nail gun is better!

mstateglfr 

Misnomer. The misnomeriest misnomer that ever misnomered.
We dont have a free market economy. The bike industry isnt a free market. The consumer doesnt engage in buying within a free market.


I totally get the points within your post and agree with them.
Just take issue with calling any of this a free market. Its a heavily regulated and restricted market that we all play within.

livedarklions

I'm not disagreeing with the rest of your post, or arguing with you in any way, but just out of curiosity, where does the $12,000 capital outlay figure come from? Are you just assuming a 20% margin, or does that figure derived from some source?

mstateglfr 

Read more and post less. Learn what unemployment is before claiming its a government handout.

Ill get you started- https://www.google.com/search?q=how+...hrome&ie=UTF-8

Koyote

And thank goodness for that! Living in an unregulated market economy would be a nightmare, which is why such a thing has never existed.

Skipjacks

I made up the numbers for illustrative purposes. A 20% bump was a rough estimate based on a whim.

The profit margin can't be TOO high or some other company would come in an undercut them.

If you're making a 50% margin on each bike I can't believe another company wouldn't be happy with a 40% margin and drive you right out of the market. I also can't believe a $15,000 bike would cost $14,000 to make. So 20% seemed reasonable.

Skipjacks

There is regulation in terms of material availability and labor laws and import tariffs and etc etc etc...

But you know what I meant.

If you own a bike business and sell $15,000 bikes I have the same opportunity that you do to open my own bike business and sell $5,000 to a different market segment or to sell $14,999 bikes to your customers to try and undercut you.

There are restrictions on the market, but the restrictions apply to both of us. The rules don't favor either of us. Though our individual skills and start up capital and connections and stuff might.

At least that's how it's supposed to be. It becomes an unlevel playing field when you grease enough politicians to get more favorable tax rules to build your warehouse, or if I bribe enough of them to get my imported parts in without tariffs, and things like that. Oh sorry did I say grease and bribe? I meant "if we make enough totally legitimate campaign contributions" one of us may get more favorable conditions.

Now there is are vast differences between what rules I have to follow as an American starting a business in America and what someone else has to follow in Germany or China. That's not set up as a level playing field at all. That's a whole different situation. But 2 people in the same place are SUPPOSED to have the same rules to play by. It's not a free for all do whatever you want, but it's free enough that I can choose to build bikes or sell cheeseburgers with my capital and do whatever I want within the rules to be competitive with your business.

Kapusta

In addition to the previous corrections to your misconceptions around unemployment benefits, I will add the following:

Whether or not someone lives within their means does not effect their eligibility for unemployment benefits.

livedarklions

Apple gets away with much higher margins in the mass market electronics world than its competitors. I don't have a lot of doubt that some producers can't also get away with that at the $12k-$15k level of bicycle. In some ways, the inflated price can be an attraction if, as is probably the case, some of these purchases are being made for status purposes.

Skipjacks

Well this is true. Apple is selling the brand name along with the phone and charges a premium for it. They created a market with the brand name has value people are willing to pay for. Good for them. That's VERY hard to do and few companies succeed in doing it like Apple has.

I have no doubt I could make 2 identical bikes, one with the Trek logo on the side, one without it, and I could sell the Trek bike for more for the same reason.

And you're right. Somethings are worth more simply because they cost more. Take those ripped up white t shirts that celebrities wear. It's a $4 t shirt. But some one rips it up and puts a $400 price tag on it and some rich celebrity will buy it BECAUSE it has a $400 price tag.

Is a Gucci purse really giving anyone $2000 in value as a purse? It's a bag on a string. That's all it is. If the bag holds stuff and the string doesn't break, the bag has no more functional value than a $14 purse from Wal Mart. But it costs $2000 because people will pay for the Gucci logo as a status symbol. That is worth it to some people. If the Gucci purse has a $50 price tag in the store, that would NEVER happen. The real value of the $2000 purse is to be able to broadcast to the world that "I can afford a $2000 purse". So it's worth more because it costs more.

Back to bikes...adding the Trek logo does add some value. The brand has been around a long time so I tend to think they know how to build a bike. Plus I know it comes with a warranty that has a history of being honored. I personally know people who have claimed the lifetime frame guarantee from Trek. So the Trek logo on the side has some value. But not status symbol value where I'm willing to pay 10 times the cost of the identical bike without the Trek logo. I might be willing to pay 10% more an insurance policy against future problems that I know will be fixed free.

Sal Bandini

Envy is the basest emotion. Some of you must be very miserable.

prairiepedaler

As they say, a fool and his money. Who's hating? I don't care what you spend, or if some guy wants to fork out $15k for a unique potato chip that looks like a bust of Jay Leno. For him that's good "value" and for most, not. That chip's value is subjective, but highly limited to a few individuals only and would be dismissed by most as madness worse than tulip mania.

79pmooney

+1 Now I have paid nearly $3000 twice for just frames (then built them up with new parts, parts on hand and used parts. This to get the bike I really wanted, a culmination of 40+ years of riding and experience at a time in my life when I can afford it. (Done twice because I treated myself to a super fix gear after I had the first built. Very few stock bikes are better than a grade B fit for me. I:ve known that for decades. 30 years ago I took a spin on a bike of a new material that was one of those "Wow!" moments. So now I have two of them with the grade A fits I expect from a good bike.

I could easily spend thousands more on these bikes and drop their weights several pounds each. They'd be a touch faster and my financial situation that much worse. The joy of riding them ? Wouldn't be very different.

Ben