fprintf

I started bicycle racing in 1985 as a junior, and I remember my parents saying how expensive "10-speeds" were back then as they explained that they couldn't afford the Benotto w/ the campagnolo components I wanted. I ended up first w/ a Univega, and then applied my paper route money on a lower end Benotto frame. Unfortunately I didn't pay attention to the prices and can't recall what things cost.

So are high-end road bikes w/ storied names, like Colnago, Cinelli and Pinarello more expensive today, when adjusted for inflation, than they were back in the late 70s and 1980s?

I ask, because $6,000 - $10,000 just seems so ridiculously out of reach for a racing bicycle. You can buy a 120 horsepower, extraordinarily complex motorcycle for that kind of money. But I try to justify the price because they are handmade, especially if relatively speaking the prices have stayed the same. E.g. I'd think $2,000 for a bicycle in 1985 would compare to $6,000 now (just pulling numbers out of my bum).

Frankly, $3,000 for a bicycle is way out of reach for me right now, which seems to be the going rate for bikes ridden around here. So this is somewhat theoretical.

Relative average prices.
1980:
Bread - .48
Milk - 1.60
Gas - 1.03
Car - 5,413
Income - 11,321

2007: (in my area)
Bread - $3.00
Milk: $4.00
Gas: $3.30
Income: $48,201 (US census bureau)

Everything seems 3x - 4x more expensive. That would make the $9,800 Pinarello Prince cost between $2,400 and $3,300 in 1980. Is that what the top of the line Pinarello cost back then?

BTW, I know we are comparing apples and oranges since the technology in our bicycles is so much more advanced - e.g. carbon fiber, titanium etc.

botto 

IIRC my Pinarello Treviso w/chorus cost somewhere around 1,500$ at Roy's Sheepshead Cycles back in 1990.

FizzyPop

Around 1986 my brother paid 400GBP for a Dawes with Shimano parts and a 531 frame. That would have been around 800USD. Thats no Pinarello, but an idea of what lower end bikes cost.

botto 

What's a "Pinny?"

bcart1991

And the cheapest new Ferrari costs as much as a 5,000-square-foot house if you pick the right (or wrong...) neighborhood.

It's all about what you want, not what you need.

merlinextraligh

The price of top end bikes has increased faster than the inflation rate. Using a CPI calculator, $2000 in 1986 dollars is equivelent to $3612 in 2006 dollars.

In 1986, $2000 would just about buy you a top end bike.

In 2006, $3612, won't buy you a top end bike. It would buy you a better bike than the $2000 1986 bike.

But the top end has been pushed up with more features, and lightweight materials, aero wheels etc.

So the price of a comparable bike is probably no higher, maybe even lower today, when you adjust for quality. (for example a $1500 CF, DA equipped bike from Bikes Direct, is arguably a better bike than the handmade steel frame with Campy Record circa 1986.)

However, the cost of acquiring a top end bike has increased in real dollars, because the top end has been pushed higher.

merlinextraligh

My personal example is a 1989 Schwinn Paramount OS, full Dura Ace, for just under $2000. That was arguably one the best bikes available at that time. (remember in 1989 Campy did not index for crap).

$3612, does not begin to get you the best bike available today.

55/Rad

1988 Centurion Ironman Expert. Tange Chromoly frame with Suntour GPX group (functional but less than 105 for the day) Overall considered a quality entry-to-low-mid level bike - $500 out the door.

SoreFeet

Bicycle prices today have more to do with the cost of marketing than the skilled labor/materials needed to build a bike. The supply and demand side brings the price of custom made steel frames up significant margin.

I don't think using the term "better" to describe a modern composite bicycle is really just. I think it is safe to say that high disposable income morons will put more money into a bike today than yesterday because the diversity of product image is much greater.

The technology to market has made selling crappy Taiwan frames at a premium. The same can be said for wheels. It is a well known fact that a 36 spoke cross three wheel is more durable and almost maintenance free if properly built. Yet most people today who are fat ride on low spoke wheels that go out of true because they think they will go faster with less spokes.

For the user who refered to Reynolds 531 as a lesser material than today...Get real. Do you really think any of these flimbsy 2,000$ specialized bicycles will be ridden over the next 50 years? I don't think so.

Before I swear up a storm I will return, to my happy niche over at Classic and Vintage...You roadies can continue to bask in consumer glory.

sced

The possibilities for bling at any cost have increased a lot as well. I think that if pros had to pay for their own bikes they would ride bikes that are less expensive than what some BF'ers have with no loss of competitiveness.

merlinextraligh

With the possible exception of durability, there really isn't much question that the state of the art 2008 bike is superior to the 1988 state of the art bike. A 15lb carbon fiber bike with a 10 speed guppo that shifts flawlessly, is comfortable to ride, yet is extremely stiff in transmitting power, brakes wonderfully, and has aero wheels, is going to be measurably faster than the 21lbs Reynolds 531 bike, and is going to be more fun to ride.

I currently have a Reynolds 531 Paramount with Campy Nuevo Record, a 1989 Paramount OS, and a 2007 Giant Team TCR Advanced.

While I love the Paramounts, time has moved on, and the Giant is simply a better bike.

And guess which one of the 3 frames has broken? The 1989 Paramount.

merlinextraligh

Might be true at the US pro level, and the Domestique level in Europe. But you can be certain guys at the Ullrich/Armstrong level would pay if they had to for anything that they thought would give them an edge.

For example, its been widely reported that Ullrich had to pay for his own Lightweights.

Cleave

Hi,

I worked at a SoCal bike shop in the mid-1980s during a hiatus from my engineering career. We sold a custom Dave Moulton with a Campagnolo 50th Anniversary group and pretty much the best of everything else for $5,000 + tax. Not sure how the CPI calculator converts that price.

sced

The point is good enough?

merlinextraligh

^^ $9030 in 2006 dollars ( the last year available, and uusing 1986 as the base year)

orcanova

In @1991 I bought a Trek 2300 carbon/aluminum, with 600 Ultegra and down tube shifters for about $1300 at an LBS in the Bronx. You could probably get a comparable bike for the same price today...actually better, with 105 STI and way better frames and wheels than that bike...

Same with computers. I bought a $3000.00 "power desktop in 1996 with 16MB RAM and a 1 Gig HD, 17 inch monitor and the vid card I think was 2MB or something like that. It was about the highest spec'd computer you could get. The price points seem to stay the same, even though the stuff gets better.

zacster

In 1982 I bought a custom built Davidson out in Seattle, with Campy NR that cost $1200. It had Columbus SL tubing. I also have an Italian (Zilioli, nobody has heard of him in the US) bike with Columbus SL/Campy SR from 1983 that cost 1300. Both were pretty hot bikes for their time. I still have them.

I also have a Kuota Kredo CF with Chorus bike from 2006 that cost $3600. Guess which one I ride exclusively? Every time I get tempted to go back to one of my steel beauties, I remember why I went with carbon and ride the Kuota. I haven't been on either steel bike in 2 years.

I would say that given inflation, bikes today are cheaper and better.

Amen

A little OT I know, but I didn't know you lived in Brooklyn. Thats my LBS as well.

You still in brooklyn?

botto 

Nope.

lunacycle

It looks like your inflation calculator assumes a 3% increase per year. In that case, my 1982 Trek, with handbuilt Reynolds 531 frame, with Suntour and SR components, for which I paid $440 new, would have been equivalent to $440 x (1.03)^26 = $949. That would buy me just the frame with today's money.

merlinextraligh

It's based on the Consumer Price Index, which is a standard (albeit arguably flawed) measure of price inflation. In that period it averages out pretty close to 3%. However if you run different periods, it can vary dramatically. For example, using the 70's where we had years of double digit inflation produces substantially different results.

https://www.westegg.com/inflation/

Cleave

OK, I found the calculator. $5,000 in 1984 is $9,700 in 2006. I think that is a comparable (though not the highest) price for a high end bicycle with most of the bells and whistles.

FizzyPop

I dont think anyone referred to 531 as a lesser material if you reread. And if taken care of, I see no reason why bikes bought today wouldnt last, especially at the price range you mention.

Slowpoke Dave

yep

merlinextraligh

You don't think that a 15 lb pound bike, with a stiffer frame, 20 speed gears which are both wide ranged and closely spaced, flawless indexed shifting, integrated levers, brakes that actually stop, and lighter more aerodynamic wheels is better than a 21lb bike, with 12 speeds, no indexed shifting, (or indexing that works like crap), a less stiff frame, wheels that are heavier, have more drag, and are actually less durable?

Now you can argue whether its enough of a difference to be worth the money. However, the vast majority of reasonable people, heck even most of the C&V crowd will conceed the 2008 State of the Art Road bike is "better" than a mid 80's road bike.

Time marches on.