robertorolfo

15-20 lbs of raw carbon fiber? At the prices that Trek is sourcing it? Um, I don't think that is where the money is going.

And all the "man hours"? Please. Tell me about how much more complicated a bicycle frame is than an internal combustion engine? And then talk to me about suspension design/geometry, and then talk to me about the aerodynamics of a motorcycle's bodywork, and then talk to me about the sophisticated electronics and equipment needed for ABS, engine management and emissions controls.

It's just not adding up, sorry.

Getting back to those "men" building the bikes, even assuming it's the super high end stuff not being built in China, I still don't see how it is costing Trek more than some of the smaller Italian brands building things by hand in the bel paese.

Why can't you get this simple concept: what does $15,000 get you when buying a bicycle, a motorcycle (and we also started with a car as well, but we can just leave that out for now).

$15k can get you that Trek, or it can get you a Ducati 959 (just to name one easy example). Yes, that Trek is a top of the line racing bike, but it is still an amalgamation of non-complicated structures and super simple mechanical parts. And it still needs a good rider to get anything done.

The Ducati has a marvel of an internal combustion engine, super sophisticated electronics, sophisticated suspension design and componentry, complicated emissions equipment and electronics, and a straightforward volume of raw material that outweighs 20 Treks.

And yes, the Ducati won't reach its potential without a good rider, but at least on the straights it only needs a good twist of the wrist to beat a lot of the competition, which just about anybody could manage. No, it's not their ultimate best racing bike (that simply isn't for sale), but it's a much better product for $15k. It's a no brainer, really. (Plus, you have all the morons out there that call them the "Ferrari of Motorcycles," for the losers that care about that stuff, but we can ignore that nonsense as well).


What are you getting at here? Are you really telling me that a touring rider prefers a touring bike? This is ground breaking! Next thing you know, you will be telling me that the sky is blue.

The point was that Harley's cost a significant premium for the name alone. Compare apples to apples, and you will see that any Victory, or Honda or Yamaha of a similar style will actually be a better bike AND cost less.

Really? And bikes that have to add weight to bring them up to the UCI minimum, with CF everything and electronic 11s groupsets are the exact same as 6 speed downtube steel bikes of the mid 80s?

Admittedly I wasn't sure about when ABS started appearing, but it was still an option (as opposed to standard equipment), no? In any case, ABS has come a long way, is a lot more prevalent now, and even a simple ABS system is more sophisticated than electronic shifting on race bicycles.

Also, again, you seem to be struggling with categories of motorcycles. Comparing a GS to a VF500? Oh dear.


The advancement is in the design, programming and other related hardware, not in the circuit-boards used to implement it.



Anyway, one more time for all the people that keep missing it: this isn't about judging the way other people spend their money. This is about the value in a $15K bicycle.

jefnvk

I'll ignore the rest, I was content to let this die until you brought it back up.

Value is being weirdly defined by you. You seem to think that since you can't see the justification in the price, it isn't an appropriate price. That is completely ignoring the reality that once again, you are talking about a high end race bike, not something with a practical purpose. Yes, it is akin to a high end race motorcycle or car, no matter how you want to argue otherwise. Just as in those applications, you are paying for marginal gains that make a huge difference while racing, that in no way reflect the price of something mundane and average on the market..

In any case, you see to think it isn't an appropriate price based on the sum of its parts. Maybe you should actually try breaking it down:

https://www.specialized.com/us/en/s-...=240052-134294
$11500 bike, since that is the most expensive Specialized offers that I could easily find, and the cost of its components pulled from the MSRP on a google search:
CHAIN SRAM Red 22
BOTTOM BRACKET SRAM BB30, 68mm
$291+$779+340 (respectively for arms,power meter, bearings) CRANKSET S-Works FACT carbon, Quarq Power Meter, w/CeramicSpeed ceramic bearings
$2900 (complete groupset)SHIFT LEVERS SRAM eTap disc
CASSETTE SRAM Red 22, 11-28t
FRONT DERAILLEUR SRAM eTap, Braze-on, wireless
CHAINRINGS 52/36T
REAR DERAILLEUR SRAM eTap
$1375 REAR WHEEL Roval CLX 64 Disc rim, Roval AFD2, Centerlock, CeramicSpeed bearings, DT Swiss 240 internals, 11-speed, 12x142mm thru-axle, 24h
INNER TUBES 700x18/25mm, 80mm Presta valve
$80 FRONT TIRE Turbo Cotton, 700x26mm, 320 TPI
$80 REAR TIRE Turbo Cotton, 700x26mm, 320 TPI
$1025 FRONT WHEEL Roval CLX 64 Disc rim, Roval AFD1, Centerlock, CeramicSpeed bearings, 21h
$300 SADDLE S-Works Power, 143mm, carbon rails, carbon base, synthetic leather
$25 TAPE S-Wrap w/ Sticky gel
$182 SEATPOST Specialized Venge Aero seatpost, FACT carbon
$121 STEM Venge ViAS aero
$300 HANDLEBARS S-Works Aerofly ViAS, 25mm
PEDALS Nylon, 105x78x28mm, loose balls w/ reflectors
$35 SEAT BINDER Specialized Venge assembly
FORK S-Works FACT 11r carbon, full monocoque
FRAME S-Works FACT 11r carbon, Rider-First Engineered™, Win Tunnel Engineered, internal cable routing, 12x142mm thru-axle, carbon OSBB, flat disc mount

You come in $33 north of $7800 in those components, meaning you've got under $3700 for the frame and fork. A quick Google search will turn up any number of frames at or above that price: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=sh...w=1350&bih=755

Sounds to me as if the price is simply a realization of how much high end components cost.

logical

The price of the carbon was just a starting point. Besides you wouldnt be able to source carbon as cheap as Trek can.

You glossed over the rest of my post about how each component has a cost and also has R&D. Just because you dont "see" these costs doesnt mean there isnt a price for these things. Just because you are sure a bike is not complicated stuff at the high end you overlook all the proof of what it costs. A motorcycle may be more complicated in parts but that doesnt mean the bike didnt take as much work to make. In actuality it probably means the bike is harder to innovate on because they only have a limited amount of things they can change on a bike.

OBoile

7 pages in and you still don't see how this is a loaded question. One more time:
$15,000 is an astronomically high price for a bike. For pretty much any product, when you get the absolute top of the line you aren't going to get good value for your money unless even the smallest marginal improvement makes a big difference to you.

$15,000 is an economical price for a motorcycle. As such, you get good value for the money... just like someone who spends $800 on a bicycle.

Of course the motorcycle sounds like a better deal. It is... unless you are a serious cyclist who derives great value from small marginal benefits in your equipment, or at least takes great pleasure in the idea.

Next, you should got a motorcycle forum and complain that the top end motorcycles are terrible bargains because you can buy a decent house for the same amount of money.

Metieval

a banana is bad, because it doen't taste like an apple.

ColonelSanders

Even if people were not happy with this thread starting, some of the responses here have been great to read and very informative.

Stratocaster

Nope - you're wrong.
The basket of goods used to make this "calculation" isn't the same today as it was years ago.
Sure, they try to make it look the same, but it's not.
For example, that basket of goods from 15 years ago might have contained salmon, olive oil, and steak.
But today, that same basket might contain talapia, corn oil, and ground beef.

The catch is that they make it look legit by calling the contents fish, cooking oil, and beef.
I used these goods to make my point. I have no idea as to whether or not those particular goods are actually used in the calculations - but the point is that they pretend to compare the same goods, when in reality they are only similar goods.
...not sure where I got that from - probably the interwebs.

jefnvk

Sure, but it wouldn't really be legit if we were still looking at horseshoes, lamp oil, and lard as they once may have (again, made up for the point of discussion) either. Indicies needs to adjust to keep up with what is common to live a modern life.

Oneder

Fools and their money. I used to hit up to 60 mph on my old schwinn cruiser that cost 99 bucks. Blow right past all the guys on their fancy (for the day) ten speeds.

I can see the amount of money being worth it for a pro athlete or if you do a great deal of offroading, but most people are just deluding themselves.

The real irritation today is that the rider who wants simple reliability for a reasonable price just isn't served any more. 400-500 bucks just to have a bike that won't fall apart in a year or two.

jefnvk

Well no crap. My 40 year old steel Schwinn that weighs about 33# with steel flywheels as wheels comes down hills faster than carbon racers too, especially with my 215# on it. Then again, it also gets a death shudder somewhere in the low 40s, and won't stop any faster than a train either.

Things cost money, it is a fact of life. I hate spending it, but realistically expecting a quality bike under $400 is really starting to pinch pennies. Even then, you can still buy something like this for $250, if all you care about is basic functionality that should last a few seasons: https://www.bikesdirect.com/products/...c1-holiday.htm

Koyote

So, you are making up examples, and citing something you found somewhere - “probably the interwebs.” That’s very convincing.

You raise a good point about the Market Basket… it does change over time, but it is not because the Bureau of Labor Statistics is trying to deceive anyone about the rate of inflation. It changes (as do the weights applied to different goods’ price changes) as people’s consumption habits change. There is no conspiracy. The people who maintain this data are not political appointees.

But generally, you and the previous poster are just plain wrong. Sure, it partly depends on what we might consider to be “high” inflation - but by any reasonable comparison (historical or comparative) inflation in the US has been very low for at least the past 15 - 20 years. Hell, the highest inflation rate we’ve had in the past couple decades was about 4% in 2007. That’s pretty low.

Here is some actual data on the CPI and food prices in particular: the CPI, and food price inflation.

General Geoff

You must have really long, steep hills where you are. Best I've managed is 42mph down a ~10% grade.

stuart1865

Yeah...I wonder about the logic "My super-deluxe bike weighs only_____ pounds!" vs......"Lose some weight, buddy, because it's much less expensive."

Yep, diminishing returns. You only have so much power in your legs. Your $15K Technocycle won't get you up a hill any faster than a $2k bike or my Double Butted Gaspipe....if my legs are stronger than yours.

KraneXL

aplcr0331

Sure ya did. 60mph, Jesus Christ.


Just to entertain more of your drivel, how'd you measure the speed?

MRT2

60 mph on an old cruiser, maybe with a coaster brake, and you lived to tell the tale. Emphasis on tale.

The question I have is, did blowing past cars at 60 mph on an old cruiser bring down your blood pressure?

Ryan Olivas

I totally agree with you. Bikes nowadays are way too pricey.

Obeast

cycling is for rich people. So is the sport at the competitive level. Us folks with lesser means need to understand this. This is why the tour de France has zero global interest and is just boring as hell to watch.

KraneXL

No.

Trakhak

The Tour de France is second only to the (football/soccer) World Cup in global viewership.

1500SLR

Wrong... guess again.

jefnvk

Sarcasm, I hope?

I've seen that before, but I've got some doubts as to how it is actually calculated. If that is a three week viewership, it is a fair guess the number is 1/20th or so of that, with the same group of folks watching every day. You can at least make the argument for the WC and Olympics that different people are watching different days, not so easy with TdF.

From a simple smell test, I have a particularly hard time believing that 3 billion people globally, nearly half the world, are actually watching the TdF, more than would be watching Cricket, F1, or the Champions League finals popular in countries with far larger populations than the areas into bike racing.

KraneXL

Like any statistics the terminology can be deceptive. You could consider it #1 as a spectator sport where millions of people line thousands of miles of road. Then you can add around the world viewership.

Happy Feet

Don't let the majority of SE Asia know that. It'll mess with their reality.

jefnvk

Sure, but for reference, the LA Dodgers had nearly 3.8 million people watch them in person last year, and that isn't including TV viewership. Statistics are fun!

That 3.5 billion number still sounds incredibly suspect to me though. It would seem even high for the World Cup, although I am less likely to argue that than TdF, it is still literally every other person in the world. If they're good at anything though, sports organizations are masters at manipulating attendance/viewership figures.