This R&D thingy is a total red herring. There is a vast amount of public domain scientific and engineering knowledge to be used by any capable bike frame manufacturer, the bulk of which are headquartered in Taiwan. Think of all of the "craftsmen" out there in little operations making frames that bling-seekers covet and overpay for...hugely. Simple, proven designs are more than enough for 99% + of the riders out there, and what's left to be had for most is fashion.

Disagree...

Where did this come from...



So you are saying bicycle manufacturers should stop all research because there is nothing new to be developed..

There is money being spent on R&D to make faster, lighter bikes...

It then trickles down to these guys and made into a $199 frame...

>>It then trickles down to these guys and made into a $199 frame<<

Exactly. That's how it's supposed to work. That is the basis of the entire patent/intellectual property system. If it wasn't, patents would last for 100 years, not 20. The goal of a patent system is to strike a balance between providing inventors protection for their ideas so they'd have an incentive to invent and allowing for the free flow of ideas and innovation to empower industry and technology. Entities like BD selling inexpensive $199 frames that incorporate expensive R&D from other companies is sort of the ultimate goal.

It's a lifetime warranty. Warrantied for the life of the frame. :D

Bike frame design by the name brands focuses mostly on product differentiation. "Parts is parts" so they just make their frames look different to have marketing angles. Frame performance differences even at the high end are not demonstrable relative to rider ability. Look at those silly looking Orbeas. Compare a Look to a Madonne. In terms of advanced science and engineering, the bike companies are pikers relative to automotive and aerospace, where the products are far more complex. They hire the cast offs and malcontents from these other industries. Small company entrepreneurs plowing advanced component niches learn their craft outside of the bike industry. It's hard to get too excited about what are generally meaningless differences in bike frames since there are so many other parameters that also matter.

BTW: "It then trickles down to these guys and made into a $199 frame." - it's inevitable.

Of course BD is trying to sell something on BF. It's the blinky advert to the right. More interest is generated by BD threads and those BD naysayers who perpetuate BD threads. Like it or not, BD haters are helping advertise.

Lol
 

Nice, Very Nice!

Yes the trickle down is inevitable and I have no problem with it...


What other parameters matter....

Is there research costs in developing the other parameters...



Is there anything to get excited about with bicycle frames except color...

You seriously think bicycle manufacturers spend little to nothing on R&D....




I have added enough to a Bikes Direct thread...

What other parameters matter.... RIDER, LOTS OF COMPONENTS, LOTS OF TUNING

Is there research costs in developing the other parameters...SHIMANO, CAMPAGNOLO, ....PHIL WOOD;-)

Is there anything to get excited about with bicycle frames except color...SURE, BUT BE REALISTIC.

You seriously think bicycle manufacturers spend little to nothing on R&D....COMPARED TO BOEING, GM? FERRARI SPENDS A $BILLION PER YEAR JUST ON THEIR FORMULA 1 PROGRAM.

I have added enough to a Bikes Direct thread...SACRED COWS DIE HARD.

Holy cow...

First off, your example does not help your arguement....

I am not saying Cervelo puts more into R&D than Boeing if it did an R3 would cost $250 million...

But Cervelo does rent a wind tunnel, build a mock of of Dave Z, and do testing to determine if they flatten this tube will it affect the ride, etc....

Trek developed OLCV...

It all costs money...

When they find something that works, it trickles down....

But who pays....

Schwag weenies.

Next.

HIJACK
Hey Gusboh
"I ride a bike and I use a Mac; Both save me time, money and stress."
How does your sig line relieve stress? Its link made me crazy with desire. Thanks for nothing.

If the Dept. of Defense procured a Cervelo, they'd figure out a way to get the cost up to $250 million each.

Wheels that are literally bomb proof? Get rid of the wheels on the mountain bike and add tank treads? I like the idea.

I am a selfish consumer. I don't ride a BD bike, but the trickling down of technology is inevitable, and if we can get it for cheap, I'm all for it. Think about computers - sure, IBM used to do a lot of R&D before they put out a product. Think Apple - the investments they put into Ipod. But very quickly, look alikes come out. Look at food - Kraft, Nestle, etc. has many food developers to develop recipes. Then comes private label manufacturers that backward engineer that technology. Bikes really aren't that different. The frame consists of 5 tubes! Carbon frames can be chopped up, melted, for scientific analysis of the plastic. Heck, backward engineer the 08 Trek Madone frames (almost bought one until I fell in love with my Look) by building a mold and tweak it a little.

All I'm saying is...R&D is great, but same technology for cheap is better. If there was a BD store where I live, I would certainly test ride their bikes against the name brands. Unfortunately, I don't have that luck. So I'll probably stick with buying name brands, but I think how Mike built up Bikesdirect is actually pretty cool from a pure business perspective. Buying brands - happens everyday!

>>All I'm saying is...R&D is great, but same technology for cheap is better. If there was a BD store where I live, I would certainly test ride their bikes against the name brands. Unfortunately, I don't have that luck. So I'll probably stick with buying name brands, but I think how Mike built up Bikesdirect is actually pretty cool from a pure business perspective. <<

Correct.

Buy a 'new to you' Macbook pro from a mac schwag weenie. Like Pcad with Zipps. Stress gone :D.

Correct.

You lot should just be happy you've got the option of getting a cheap bike.
Same bike over here would cost at least 2 times the amount of the BD.
Windsor Tourist = Fuji Touring. BD = $600. Here = $1400 (comparison of a touring bike only because i know it's the exact same bike)

Buy what you like, be thankful you can get it.


Then go hate yourself for being slow.

Here is a dude that gets it, utterly defying all Wrong Hemisphere Odds. Well done.

Bikewise...

This is like long division, as in it's way over the heads of many on this thread. Until they have a problem, then they come out here and start a thread moaning and b!tching about it.


Details, details.....:eek:

BTW...there's a typo in the Moto warranty.

So, if your Moto carbon frame fails, then you get to buy a new one. Sounds like a deal to me.

Correct.

As usual.

I do not want this to be incorrect; my people got this info after calling several Trek dealers and the Trek Corp offices.

The Trek warranty says "If you crash or impact your bike and the force of the impact is absorbed by a carbon part, we strongly encourage you to replace the part, even if there are no indications of damage. If such a crash or impact occurs, Trek offers a crash replacement program for carbon parts, substantially reducing any replacement cost."

I want to be clear on this - if someone falls off and 'the force of the impact is absorbed by a carbon' frame - how much is it to replace that frame? My understanding is; customer gets a credit towards a new frame. Am I wrong? That is what we were told.

Defects are very rare; on frames or parts - everyone in the biz knows that

But people fall off bikes a lot; especially racers.
Let's say an adventure racer has a carbon XC Trek and falls off and the bike frame hits a tree. The impact will be 'absorbed' by the carbon frame. If I understand clearly - Trek and it's dealers "strongly encourage you to replace " that frame.
IF I AM WRONG PLEASE LET ME KNOW

I am assuming that carbon parts includes the frame - I think that is what the warranty implies.

Anyway, the difference here is; cost when ''the force of the impact is absorbed by a carbon" item. Who I wonder prefers the coverage of defects only to 'no fault' coverage at below wholesale cost on carbon peices.

For example, in my experience, I never see claims of defective carbon forks. But we get cusomers who damage forks and admit they did it. This happens all the time. They send us a note and a picture and we just sell them a new fork for $30 or $40 [bit more on full CF moncq]. Truth is we do this a lot on wheels too [even though most are not CF]. Customers crash their wheel, send us an inquiry, we offer them a wheel at our cost [which is below normal dealer cost].

Now the question of CF frame warranty; We should take a poll.
1] How many people on BF have ever had an actually defective frame?
2] How many defective frames have you owned in a life-time of cycling?
3] How many people on BF have ever fallen off their bike?
And either
[a]seen the frame hit something?
[b]not been looking and not known if the frame 'absorbed the force of the impact"?

I'll start, I have never had a defective frame out of way over 100 personal bikes I have owned. I have fallen off more times than I would like to admit to. When I have fallen off I have never paid attention to what was happening to my bike; I have been more concerned about myself. I am certain many times my frame has hit something, as I have later seen the marks and/or dents.

You're missing the point.

You were asked if your warranty compared to Trek's.

You replied "yes", which is - at best - taking liberties with the truth.

I would like to clear up a question what I tried to answer with a single word.

The question was in the order of
Can you compare the Motobecane Warranty to the Trek Warranty?

I answered
"YES"

I thought this would be funny and that everyone would understand; of course, you can compare them but there's lots of details.

Examples:
You have a 6 year old Trek 1000 with a defective fork -- very rare -- not covered. New fork $200 or so
You have a 6 Year old Moto Record with a defective fork -- very rare -- no-fault fork cost $30
You crash your new Trek 1.5 and bend the fork -- not covered. New fork $200 or so.
You crash your Moto Vent Noir -- no-fault fork cost $30
Your 2-year old Trek CX bike has a defective canti brake -- very rare-- not covered. Buy new brake.
Your 2-year old Moto Fantom Cross has defective canti - very rare - covered. You get free new one.
Piant on your 3 year old Trek bubbles up!
Aleins abduct your Motobecane!
Your Trek falls in love with my Moto and they run off to Peru, and they never call! heartbreaking :(

Warranties have exact wording; they all mean something different. They can all be compared and if one is concerned about them - they should be compared. I hope in light of the real world situation THAT BIKE DEFECTS ARE VERY RARE.

So the only answer I can think of that is close to correct when ask
'can you compare your warranty to Trek?' is Yes