surak

My point is that buyer's remorse from thinking one paid too much for a bike must be infrequent, otherwise why would people be willing to jump right back in and buy more? Whereas many people hate dealing with the new car haggling process and many end up feeling like they got ripped off, hardly eager to do it all again.

jefnvk

We are talking about an industry which perfected "buy new every two".

And an industry where people want new so frequently they never actually buy a car, just lease it.

InOmaha

Given how manufacturing has generally shifted from 1st world factory conditions to 3rd world sweatshop conditions, I would have expected more bicycles to follow the electronics pricing model. Do they hand make all the high end bikes and their components in 1st world factories, or is your $1500 bike being welded on the same jig as the $400 bike by the same person making $1.50/hour?


The bike in your LBS may well be shipping from the same place as Walmart's bikes.





It's definitely something to research.

surak

Nah.

https://www.autonews.com/article/2016...its-11.6-years

And leasing? Plenty of articles on how leasing usually doesn't make financial sense for most people. There's no controversy or debate on that point. Still every new or used question about bikes will be split.

Maelochs

Yeah. Absolutely. Those people will sell you a car even if you are still paying off another ... even if you have three bankruptcies and no job.

"Find out how much you qualify now!!!!!!!!"

Um ... about 22 cents, but we 100 percent accept every application and we will give you the loan for 22 cents .... just pay the application fee of $150 and we will write you the 22-cent check.

jefnvk

Whether or not it makes sense is a debate for elsewhere, the fact is a third of new cars today are leased and that number has been growing for a few years, with a normal term of three years: https://www.edmunds.com/about/press/...ds-report.html

Even at an average of 6.5 years of ownership of a new vehicle, that leaves numerous people trading in at the 2-3 year mark, to counteract those holding their car for 8-10 years. To be fair, I doubt the "average" bike buyer is upgrading their bike any more frequently, either. This site isn't really composed of "average" folks

OBoile

I'm guessing roughly the same as your hospital bill from getting hit by a car.

Lots of people (including both of my parents) run for pretty much their entire adult life without "ruining" anything.

Maelochs

I am perfectly average.

1500SLR

The cost of hospital bills in Australia as a result of being hit by a car? $0 its covered in the insurance of a driver. The cost of hospital bills for elective joint replacement in Australia $15000-$30000.

OBoile

I think you missed the point of my post.

1500SLR

You assume running is low impact and that you won't get as many injuries as in cycling?

OBoile

No but you're welcome to keep trying.

1500SLR

I don't see how you can get from presuming repairing the injuries from running would be the same as or more expensive than being hit by a car. It's beside the point, it would cost you $0 even if you were hit by a car. There is a definite probability if you run for a long time on hard surfaces that you will end up with hip and knee problems regardless of the shoes you are wearing. Lots of people ride bikes there entire lives and don't suffer anything worse than the natural degeneration of the human body.

OBoile

Still haven't figured it out. Should I tell you or do you want to keep guessing?

northtexasbiker

The point is a poster used an extreme example of possible hidden cost of running (knee surgery) and as a retort someone used an extreme example of hidden costs of cycling, medical bills. It's great you live in a country where everyone has insurance, but it doesn't have to be medical bills to make his point. For every scenario you can think of for running costing you a lot of money, you can just as easily come up with a cycling scenario.


Insurance is a funny thing in Texas. It's illegal to drive without it, but people's vehicles still start even if they don't have it.


Cycling doesn't have to be expensive. You can make it expensive but it's not necessary. Running is cheaper than cycling. You are just doing mental gymnastics to convince yourself otherwise. Does that mean there isn't a possible situation as a runner where something could happen costing you a lot of money? Absolutely not, but those possibilities exist in every facet of life.

cyccommute 

Like, say, the Trek Emonda ALR 5? I would put it at the same level at an '89 Miyata 912 and the price is just below $1700. Bikes really have held their value and quality over the years. Yes, there are very expensive bikes but comparing those to old bikes is somewhat like comparing a Curtis Jenny to an F16 (I wouldn't compare it to anything after the F16 because they are all dogs). There's really nothing to compare other than they ultimately both fly.

On the other hand, there are incredible bargains out there. For roughly the same price as you paid for your 912 (in 2018 dollars) you can by the Jamis Ventura Sport. It's been my "go to" entry level road bike for years. It's cheap and it has a world class weight for 1989. Let's not forget that a slightly over 20 lb road bike in 1989 was what Lemond was using to win the Tour. For an "entry level" bike, 23 lb is hard to beat for less then $700.

1500SLR

No but please feel free to entertain me.

Cycling never has to be expensive, I just like halfway decent bike with quirky builds quite personally. You can get a bike from the dump for the price of scrap metal or a couple cans of beans. Or in America you could go to Goodwill. People make cycling expensive for whatever reason even though the vast majority of us will never be fast enough to make use of what tops out at around $15000 bikes which are the types pro riders are using.

If you're talking about impact on your body running is horrendous. I did a 6mile fun run one year including training I came in the top 10 or so for my age group, but would I run regularly? Not a chance. Even with a good set of shoes I ended up with hip bursitis after one race. You can ride on a well setup bike and have almost no damage done to your body which isn't incidental until you're too old to ride a bike anymore, pretty much give or take.

I hate to make an N=1 argument but if the shoes fit, wear it.

MRT2

Exactly. 23 lbs and 8 speed Claris components. In 1989, Dura Ace was 8 speed. 105 was was downtube shifting, and 6 speed. Maybe just me, but I would take 8 speed Claris brifters over 1989 105.

northtexasbiker

What are you even talking about? Go to a junkyard and get a bike? Why don't you just run barefoot that doesn't even cost you the time or energy to go to goodwill. Running is cheaper, but that doesn't make it better. Your anecdotal evidence that running results in more costly injuries is irrelevant to that fact. Sorry you can't run without going to the hospital, but quit extrapolating that to mean nobody can.

OBoile

My original comment was a someone tongue in cheek statement to illustrate the silliness of representing a worst case scenario as the norm. I'd be shocked if there were more then 50 runners ever who have received multiple hip and knee replacements but continued to run.

For some reason, people like to needlessly put down other activities as though that somehow makes their chosen endeavour better. In doing so, they frequently go well beyond what is rational or evidence based. Needlessly spreading misinformation does no one any good. The idea that running will inevitably destroy your body is ridiculous.

1500SLR

I'm quite certain other people can, but from my experience running is not a sport I wish to partake in.

Hiro11

That's a excellent bike and I appreciate your point here.

A few things to think about:
1. I don't think the difference in real world performance difference between an old steel bike and a newer alloy or carbon bike is very large. Certainly not as large as you imply.
2. Regardless, it's a bit unfair to compare a bike with an additional thirty years of development behind it. As I said in an earlier post, IMO a better idea is to look at the quality you're getting at a given price point within the overall spectrum of quality available at the time. IMO, you got more for your money back then. This is of course arguable.
3. My major complaint with retail bikes sold today is that they too often cheap out on crucial parts that your average buyer wouldn't notice. They throw a fancy rear derailleur on there (which is arguably the least important component on a bike) and then install an unreliable press fit BB with cheap bearings, crappy rear hubs, cheap saddles, cheap cables, creaky seatposts etc. That stuff matters a great deal after a few thousand miles and can start to drive you crazy. Fixing these issues gets expensive quickly. My point with the Miyata is that this wasn't a problem back then at this price point. Everything on that bike was name brand, well engineered and reliable. As a counter example, today if I get a year out of a new unbranded rear hub I consider myself lucky.

Oneder

Guys I can waste money on high end bikes more efficiently, what a deal. Too bad the price of a decent bike that actually works has gone up 5x but no big deal right? Gotta have those 1000 dollar wheels so useful.

cyccommute 

Some of that depends on what's being compared. For road bikes, there's definitely a difference but of a lesser degree than say comparing modern mountain bikes to old mountain bikes. That difference is huge.

On the other hand, there has been a lot of technology that has trickled down to mid-level modern bikes that have made them easier to maintain and provide a better experience than older bikes.

Sorry but I don't agree. I think you get a better value now. Overall the bikes work better and require less maintenance than bikes from 1988 (which is your bike's year). The Jamis I linked to weighs as much (as little?) as your original 912 but it costs the same as your bike did 30 years ago. The only real difference between Claris now and Shimano 600 from 30 years ago is a little bit of finish.

The Emonda weighs less and works better than the 912.

I'm not sure what you are talking about here. "Press fit" bottom brackets aren't something you find on "cheap" bikes. Press fit is what you find on high end bikes. Yes, the Emonda has a press fit but, again, that's not what I would call a "cheap bike". Nothing else looks to me like it would require a lot of replacement, upgrades or changes. That probably won't keep people from doing upgrades but, more often than not, that's something that people choose to do rather than need to do. You could ride that bike (or the Ventura) for years without making any changes and be happy with it.

cyccommute 

No, the price of a "decent" bike hasn't gone up 5x over the last 30 years. As I said above, the Ventura Sport is comparable to a 1988 mid-level road bike at almost the same price. The bikes that do cost 5 times as much as a bike from 1989 aren't necessarily mid-level bikes anymore. A $3500 bike is a very good bike.