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.

We get this argument from people who haven't set foot in a bike shop in a long time. So for the person who hasn't been in a bike shop since the Ford Administration, it can be quite a shock to see entry level bikes for $400, entry level road bikes for $800, and higher end bikes north of $2,000. But first, you need to account for inflation. That Schwinn Varsity you bought for $108 would cost you $545 in 2018, adjusted for inflation. Which is more than the cost of a new Trek or Giant hybrid. A 1973 Super Sport retailed for $150, which is inflation adjusted $841. A 1974 Paramount retailed for $500, inflation adjusted takes you to $2500.

So to put this argument to rest, bike prices have kept pace with inflation, but though we might be nostalgic for the lost era, how many of us would take a 40 lb Schwinn Varsity over a 26 lb Trek FX. Or a Super Sport or LeTour compared to a modern entry level road bike from just about any manufacture? Or even the mighty Paramount, compared to just about any modern CF 105 equipped bike at around the $2,000 price point?

So, for $400 to $600 retail, you are getting a bicycle that will get you around town, maybe even take on a 50 or 60 mile charity ride or multi day supported tour (provided it is a more leisurely social type tour), and the components, though plasticky will likely last for many years and if they fail, replacements are cheap.

$800 to $900 will get you an entry level aluminum road bike that can be upgraded with better wheels in the future. And 9 speeds, while seemingly pedestrian, is still something that would have cost you $1,200 just a few years back, but because the components are labeled Sora instead of Tiagra or 105, this is now the second from the bottom of Shimano's lineup. But thanks to trickle down technology, you the entry level rider have access to technology as good as or better than what Merckx, Hinault, Indurain, Roche, and Lemond had just a generation ago. And those guys raced up and down mountains, and sprinted against the very best in the world.

Jump up to $2,000 to $2,500 retail and you get a bike that gives you the performance of what the very best in the world were using just 7 or 8 years ago, and 95% of the performance of what the pros are using today.

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.

Cycling has its gear costs, just like golf, skiing, car racing, etc... Unlike those activities, with cycling, once you pay these up front costs, you are pretty much set for a long time because you don't have country club fees, green fees, lift tickets, or other recurring expenses. Unlike, say, cars, maintenance on bikes is relatively cheap, even if you have to pay a shop for it, and almost free if you do your routine maintenance yourself. Also unlike cars, storage for bikes is relatively modest.

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.

fietsbob

robertorolfo, may note a price range in autos , rises quite high for the select few..

Modern production efficiency/design has made the $500 bicycle (lack the prestige of one costing 100x more, but it can.. )
get you out in the countryside, enjoying nature.

Maelochs

I concur wholeheartedly.

Value for dollar, bikes have gone Way up. The 42-pound 10-speed Schwinn suburban I bought as a do-everything bike in the early '70s would cost as much or more than the 24-speed Dawes I bought in 2015. Steel vs, Al, but steel fork vs CF fork. Better brakes on the Dawes, and while the Claris/Sora running gear wasn't the greatest, the bike got me from LA to DC with nothing more than some spoke-tightening and cable adjustments. And the Schwinn with whatever----maybe 42x25 low gearing? would Not have made it over the mountains.

The Schwinn was a tank ... but the Dawes, at half the weight, is every bit as durable.

New Sora is as good as two-generations-old 105 if not better. And for $1000 a smart shopper can get new 105 (well, 5800---I guess 7K just came out) with a decent frame and CF fork. Value for dollar is just amazing.

Happy Feet

Very well put.

I don't know about the inflation figures but the point are well taken. Even more so if one can be a bit frugal and buy last years model or something on discount. I bought a last years model Al road bike listed at $1400 for $800 with Taigra groupset and mech disc brakes.

Another point related is that bikes aren't that expensive if people are more honest about needs vs wants. I'm an active cyclist and that bike still allows me room to grow. The so called "engine" can't yet take full advantage of the bike's ability so to speak. I could imagine I need a CF Ultegra blah blah blah costing thousands more but that would just be a want which is fine; but one shouldn't complain about the high price or wants if the needs can be met.

MRT2

I was talking retail prices, but I get it. A savvy shopper can jump up a level or two if they can find a good deal.

MRT2

I used an online inflation calculator, so take it fwiw. You did well getting a $1,400 retail bike for $800. If cared for, it should give you a decade or more of service.

Regarding your second point, that is so true. If you legs, heart and lungs can only get you so far on a 23 lb entry level bike with 8 or 9 speed shifters, upgrading to 11 speeds might be a nice upgrade, but probably won't get you down the road all that much further or faster. Past a certain threshold, it really is mostly about the rider.

Koyote

1. Many products are superior and better bargains than in my youth. I could give examples, but there are so many that the point should be obvious to anyone over 25 years old.

2. Plenty of activities/sports are cheaper than cycling (e.g., running), but I don't care. I like cycling.

exmechanic89

I didnt read the 'new bikes are insanely priced' thread, but I agree with your repsonse OP, and tell that same thing to people all the time. Modern manufacturing techniques and imports have made quality levels really rise, not just in bicycles but also, guitars/music gear, TVs & other consumer electronics, and many other things. And although I'm able to ride something nicer than entry level because of my knowledge, I'd have no issue riding a $400 bike these days if that was my only option. There are plenty of decent rides at that price point, imo. I often call it a golden age for bikes other consumer goods.

Skipjacks

This really is the best part of biking.

Once you have the bike it's a cheap sport. (And yet, I still manage to spend money on it .......odd how that works....but I don't HAVE to. I choose to. VERY different thing. With most activities you HAVE to keep spending money on you can't go them. Like you said...golf, skiing, race car driving, skydiving, hell even runners wear out shoes faster I wear out tires)

And you don't have to spend $1000 to get into it.

I paid $350 for my first bike as an adult (not counting the various bikes I had as a kid) and it lasted me 15 years. And that was a very nice bike, above Wal Mart quality back in the day. That bike is still going strong today. I just gave it to a friend last month who's getting into biking for the first time. So he's starting off for free!

Over the years I probably put $100 into that bike on things like new tires, a new seat, etc.

And a Wal Mart bike for $200 WILL STILL WORK. Most people who commute to work on bikes because they can't afford a car do so on Wal Mart level bikes because they are cheap. And they manage to get to and from work on those bikes every day.

So biking basically costs what you want it to cost.

You can do it cheap initially and never spend another dollar.

You can buy an expensive bike initially and never spend another dollar.

You can buy an expensive bike and keep buying more parts for it.

It's a hobby/sport/activity/utilitarian tool that will fit almost any budget and level of interest.

Skipjacks

Only in the short term. In the long term when you add the cost of your knee replacement surgery running becomes a pricey hobby.

If your bike develops a bad joint down the road you just buy a new frame for a couple hundred bucks and you'll good to go.

northtexasbiker

You guys sound like you are trying to justify a purchase to your wives.

jefnvk

Quit being logical, it is seemingly frowned upon around here. We like ridiculous hysterics based on something that almost no one actually does being portrayed as commonplace

But yes, spot on. The one thing I will add, as far as low-end sticker shock: many here have been cycling for a long time, and don't remember when they started. While I have obviously been cycling since a child, it was only in the past few years that I really got into it. Yes, for someone new to the sport, who doesn't know if they are going to stick with it, even a $1500 bike does seem like a lot. I've gotten to the point where such prices don't really scare me anymore, even if I don't want to pay them, but it did take some time. It pained me a bit to drop $1200 on my fat bike, by far the most I've ever spent on a bike. At the same time, I knew full well what I was getting out of it, over a "cheap" option, and that lessened the blow considerably.

The best analogy I can give: I can walk into the homebrew shop and spend $1500 on a new brewing setup without even trying. Would you do that, if you were brand new to the hobby and didn't know much about it or what you wanted to do? Or, would you ask if there were a more economical way to get your feet wet?

And to the person who asked if I'd rather have a Le Tour than a new bike, I can't really say that I get much more out of my Mazama than my Le Tour, for the type of riding I generally do. I love breaking out the Le Tour!

robertorolfo

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.

indyfabz

Financially, I answer to no one other than myself and I say "Dilly, Dilly!" to the OP.


The first bike I ever bought was a Panasonic Sport DX, or something like that. Set me back around $250 in '86. For that amount in today's dollars, I could get something far better than that tank.

bruce19

Panasonic DX2000. My first "real" bike. I think it came with a 23 big cog. Ugh.

bruce19

FWIW, I think the range of available bikes, both in terms of gear and price, is amazing. Great bargains IMO. I won't get more specific because everyone here has done a great job of spelling it out.

mcours2006

I bought my Gardin steel bike back in 1985 for $550 CAD. Factoring inflation that amount could buy you something in the neighbourhood of $1170 today. What could I buy with about 1K CAD (not including tax) today?

The bike back then was an entry level bike with house-brand components on it, so a rung or two below 105's (which I really wanted, BTW), so perhaps equivalent to Tiagra or Sora.

My point is that, yes bikes have gotten better, the relative prices have not really changed all that much. As someone else has noted, everything is better and cheaper these days. For some perspective, our first VHS machine cost us $800 back in 1984.

79pmooney

When I read that referenced thread, I was thinking "go into a Performance shop and look at a 105 equipped Fuji. Compare that to the inflation adjusted bike you could buy for those bucks 20, 30 or 40 years ago.

Quick look, an Ultegra 2017 Fuji Roubaix, MSRP $1600. In 1977, that would be lass than $400 to spend. A 10-speed Fuji Finest with hi-tensile steel frame. 24 pounds. (Top of the head guessing but I worked in a Fuji shop that year. A SunTour Cyclone cro-mo high end racing Fuji was a thousand dollars and weighed 21 pounds with tubulars. 12-speed. DT shifting.) IN 1986, we would be spending $740. In 1997, $1050.

In short, that Ultegra equipped Roubais is on h*** of a bike for the dollar compared to anything of the past (and I bet a very good bike in all respects save compared to bikes now costing more). It's on sale now as last year's bike for $1000. I didn't look but I'm guessing the 105 equipped last year's Fuji is $800 now. I didn't go that far back but I am guessing that isn't much more than I paid for my Peugeot UO-8 in 1967.

Ben

fixedweasel

Bikes have advanced so much from even a decade ago but prices have gotten much cheaper. You can easily find full carbon framesets* with partial Ultegra for $1200 and full carbon framesets* with complete Ultegra R8000 grouppos for $1500. A steal in today's dollars with that technology. No complaints. Just ride.



*except for alloy steerer in some cases

rydabent

Ok-----------go ahead and buy the $5000 bike of my choice, and I will pay you $10 a month for it.

Btw which bike shop or mfg do you work for????

MRT2

I got the premise of your thread, which was, IMO flawed, or maybe correct but somewhat obvious, since nobody except maybe the professional bike racer really needs to spend that much.

As for your other point, it isn't meaningless at all to say that inflation adjusted, you are getting a level of performance several levels up, or maybe even better than what was available at any price 20 or 30 years ago. This keeps things in perspective for those of us who bought our first bicycle 20, 30 or 40 years ago.

MRT2

I don't. Which one do you work for?

MRT2

Initially, running would be cheaper, but if you seriously get into running, you could easily go through 4 to 6 pairs of running shoes a year. Personally, I don't spend more than $50 or $60 on trainers. But if running was my thing (and there was a time when it was), I would probably not skimp on running shoes. So good running shoes at, say, $125 to $150, and you are easily upward of $600/year or more just in running shoes.

wphamilton

I'm on board with this, but I think the numbers we're throwing out are too high. I've never spent more than $270 on any new bike, and I've never felt much envy for the higher-valued bikes. A little bit, but the entry level is sufficient for my purposes, and I'm not a casual rider dawdling on the trails on weekends either. When I think about how cheap it really has been, per mile or per hour or whatever, I'm always a little amazed about it.

Running though, I've got to buy some shoes soon and I've already blown more on a gps/hr watch than I spent on cycling last year. Even as cheap as I am, I could easily see it cost more than my cycling does.

1500SLR

You're not getting better value but whatever.... I spent $400 on a 2007 Trek 1500 SLR with 10 speed Ultegra, then I proceeded t o spend $400 on converting it to 6770 DI2. If I spent $800 on a new bike it probably would not be SLR grade aluminum, and it would likely have a Tiagra groupset.Given aluminum bikes have changed little (or any) in the last 15 odd years. Well, to be honest you don't know where to look.

Find me a full DI2 bike with SLR grade aluminum for $800 and I'll eat a hat. The bike I am building is better than what most pros were riding 20years ago when Pantani was the last person to win a tour on an aluminum bike. That doesn't really mean anything. To me its about building something cool, and I have a cool bike that no one else in the world has (I've checked). A

side from the above fact, no one who rides recreationally and maybe acts as the local weekend warrior at a crit needs a $2500 bike, to be honest most people don't even need a $1500 bike for what they do, they just WANT a $5000 or $10000 or even a $15000 bike which is cool if that is exponential to what you can afford living within your means, but if its not it really is just wank.

I'll just leave these here for the fun of though. But if you know of a new SLR grade alloy bike with a DI2 groupset for the same price new let me know. Maybe if you don't know anything about bikes, going to your l ocal bike store and spending $800 for something off the floor might seem sensible. But there is a world of solid, high quality, high grade aluminum bikes out there just waiting for new owners. This one was owned by one elderly gentleman and hadn't been ridden seriously in about 8 or 9 years. You may have your CAAD12 for $1500 but you will get all the nuances of riding a Canonndale including the possibility of having a BB30 bottom bracket and other weird oddities, it may even have a Sora level groupset. I know I'd much prefer riding the bike I own now.