Originally Posted by
MRT2
A response to the (ridiculous) new bikes are insane thread.
New bikes are in incredible bargain. Seriously. For 2 main reasons. First, for the money spent for an entry level to mid priced model, everyone from the casual rider to the aspiring amateur racer is getting a level of performance riders of a generation ago couldn't get even at the highest level. Second, compared to other leisure activities, cycling is relatively cheap.
1. For the money spent today, the performance is far better than what was available for the same inflation adjusted dollars 20, 30, or 40 years ago. Indeed, for $2,500 retail, you get a level of performance that was not available at any price even 15 or 20 years ago.
...
There may be people who have a good reason to spend $5000 or more on a bike, but frankly, I don't think it is necessary for 99.999% of cyclists in the world.
2. While cycling involves some up front costs, once you get your equipment, it is among the cheapest sport and leisure activities around.
...
Spread the cost of a new $1,000 bike out over, say, 10 years, and the cost is, $100/year, or less than $10/month. How many leisure expenses give you comparable value for less than $10/month.
Since I'm the guy that started that other thread, I guess I should respond (especially in light of your claim it is "ridiculous.")
So, first and foremost, you completely missed the premise of my thread. I realize I didn't state it explicitly in the thread title (no attempt at brevity goes unpunished), but if you actually read the first post, or any of my subsequent posts, you would see that I'm clearly talking bikes in the $5K to $15K range.
Now, I realize that this detail alone renders your entire thread pointless, but I'll continue along for the sake of discussion.
Point 1: As Koyote pointed out, comparing modern bikes to bikes from 20, 30 or 40 years ago is pretty meaningless. Of course they have gotten better, and of course inflation has increased the prices across the range. But is there any mass manufactured mechanical item that hasn't improved dramatically since the 1970's?
Anyway, I never claimed that a $1k or $2k bike was outrageous or overpriced. I was talking strictly in the higher ranges, especially relative to the premise that Trek offering $15k and $10k road bikes in their range makes the $5k bike seem like a mid to low range option, which is just insanity to me. In MY opinion.
Point 2: Not once did I mention the economics of the sport itself. I never said anything negative about cycling as an activity, so I'm not sure where that comes from. Again, as Koyote said, there are even cheaper options to cycling, but I don't think we need to get into all of that.