Originally Posted by vespasianus

But if "faster" is the definition, how much faster are they really? And I don't consider anything done by places like GCN "science". And lacking anything real, in terms of science, I fall back on something like plain old race times. And in that situation, while new "bikes" are faster, the amount they are faster is not as great as one would think. Again, look at my Ironman Kona post. You can also look at stage races and climbing times in the TDF. Now granted, times up Alpe d'Huez in the TDF are dependent upon lots of things, including EPO, but I am always surprised at how fast those old fat farts with heavy steel bikes and just nutty gearing went up those hills. The hell with aero, get me a safe version of EPO.

Modern bikes are expensive because people will pay for them. The shift did not occur today but in 2010. Lots of bikes in 2010 that cost $15,000. By todays level, that would be over $20K. There is a substantial wealth imbalance in the world and the rich are getting much richer and prices should reflect that.

The "performance" of today's bikes are questionably better. The rest is marketing to sell bikes. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Originally Posted by 3alarmer

...not me. I'm still astonished to realize that all the guys pushing modern technological improvements, driven by the desire for increased speed and performance, are actually riding stuff that has been intentionally detuned, for comfort. And using those "improvements", and the research costs behind them, as a rationale for expensive top end toys. I'm here to learn.

I'm happy you're "faster" thanks to disposable income, if "In many cycling "events," faster is by definition "better." All of us want to be our best version of self.

Originally Posted by PeteHski

Yeah, sure you are.

But if you were keen to learn then you should know that some bikes are optimised for different parameters. Endurance bikes are generally a little more comfortable than aero optimised race bikes. For ordinary amateur riders like myself, this tends to make them actually faster on longer events where fatigue is a key factor, especially on rougher roads. A pro rider might still be faster on an aero race bike, but I’m a 56 year old amateur so I value a little more comfort. My bike is still pretty quick though. It’s all relative.

Originally Posted by 3alarmer

...I'm pretty much aware of this. Merckx put out two versions of his steel frames, one just branded with his name, the other called "The Century". Sport touring geometry has been around since way back into the days you have already told me you know little about, in a prior post. I can find the exact quote for you if you want...I certainly don't want to risk arousing the ire of tomato coupe again.

Not sure what you point is here ? We seem to be in complete agreement that everything is relative. I'm only keen to learn stuff that is not solely based on opinion and affirmation. That stuff, opinion and affirmation based "fact", not so much.

Originally Posted by seypat

Speaking of super high tech advancements, we've went from a multi piece adjustable stem/handlebar system of one material, to a multi piece adjustable system of another material, to a one piece non adjustable system of another material. The best part is, the one piece non adjustable system costs what, 10-15 times the cost of the previous systems. That's some real progress right there.

Originally Posted by PeteHski

Right, so then you should be able to relate to the modern day equivalent of those bikes.

Let’s be honest though, you are not here to learn anything. You are here only to deride expensive new bikes and argue why you think we don’t deserve to be riding them. All this complete bs about not being able to extract 100% of their performance potential and comparing us to pro riders on older bikes is laughable.

Originally Posted by Atlas Shrugged

Dismissing the advancements made in modern bicycles as something the average consumer cannot appreciate is ludicrous. It's a tired argument that suggests things were better in the past, when in reality, progress should be celebrated.

Originally Posted by terrymorse

Ritchey SuperLogic handlebars: $300
Ritchey SuperLogic stem: $250
Total: $550

Ritchey SuperLogic Butano Ridge integrated bar/stem: $599

Huge price difference! /s

Originally Posted by terrymorse

Ritchey SuperLogic handlebars: $300
Ritchey SuperLogic stem: $250
Total: $550

Ritchey SuperLogic Butano Ridge integrated bar/stem: $599

Huge price difference! /s

Originally Posted by Atlas Shrugged

To prevent this thread from shutting down and get things back to the original premise, I believe high-end bicycles are so expensive nowadays due to the following.

I'll say that there are a variety of factors contributing to this trend. One major factor is the rising cost of materials, particularly carbon fiber that are commonly used in bike frames. Additionally, advances in technology and design have made bikes more complex and sophisticated manufacture, which drives up the price. Lastly, increasing specialization has created a greater demand for high-end bikes, which manufacturers have capitalized on by producing pricier models with marginal gains in mind regardless of the cost to implement.

The additional expenses required to attain the slight improvements expected from premium bicycles significantly add to the end user's cost, particularly due to the limited quantities involved. It's important to factor in all the tooling and development costs.

I agree that marketing plays a role in these increased costs. However, marketing now focuses on product differentiation through features implemented and unique designs rather than in the past when marketing was primarily focused on the brand and brand reputation.

Dismissing the advancements made in modern bicycles as something the average consumer cannot appreciate is ludicrous. It's a tired argument that suggests things were better in the past, when in reality, progress should be celebrated.

Originally Posted by Trakhak

An additional factor: as in many other categories (the example of the highest-performance cars comes mind), the machines that require the greatest investment in high tech are the ones that are bought in the smallest numbers. Some of us might consider the benefits resulting from the investment to be pitifully minimal, especially in the case the most expensive bicycles, and the return on that investment is likely fairly minimal, too, but I don't see that the companies making the bikes have much choice.

They could hire Grant Petersen to help them back away from the high-end market, maybe, but doing so didn't work out particularly well for Bridgestone.

Originally Posted by 3alarmer

...if we're at the part where brutal honesty enters the picture, the revelation that the same guys pushing the overwhelming advantages, brought to the contemporary pro race scene by the top end CF bikes, are not actually using them, has provided me with great merriment. So I guess we both got a good laugh.

I can certainly relate. Of the bicycles I ride here most regularly, 2/3 of them are of the slightly longer wheelbase, sport touring geometry you seem to favor.

I just do not understand, personally, why you insist on projecting this idea of "derision" of what others choose to ride onto me. Derision is kind of what you do, in these threads. Although I admit you're not the worst offender.

Originally Posted by seypat

You're quoting the cheapest you can find. Definitely not top level.

Originally Posted by seypat

Just checked A-zon. You can get a Kalloy stem and handlebar combo for about $60. Steel is even cheaper.

Originally Posted by georges1

That is true and back in 2010 nobody really cared about disc brakes

Originally Posted by terrymorse

BS. Ritchey SuperLogic are some of the best components on the market. The major brands offer integrated cockpits in the same price range.



So what? Low-end, old tech stuff will always be cheap. High-end, new tech stuff will be expensive. This is not surprising.

The "high-end integrated bar + stem is way more expensive than high-end but separate bar + stem" observation is BS.

Originally Posted by Trakhak

An additional factor: as in many other categories (the example of the highest-performance cars comes mind), the machines that require the greatest investment in high tech are the ones that are bought in the smallest numbers. Some of us might consider the benefits resulting from the investment to be pitifully minimal, especially in the case the most expensive bicycles, and the return on that investment is likely fairly minimal, too, but I don't see that the companies making the bikes have much choice.

They could hire Grant Petersen to help them back away from the high-end market, maybe, but doing so didn't work out particularly well for Bridgestone.

Originally Posted by terrymorse

BS. Ritchey SuperLogic are some of the best components on the market. The major brands offer integrated cockpits in the same price range.

Originally Posted by seypat

Here's my statement again. I didn't say anything about quality levels good or bad. I'm not even the one that established the time frame discussed in this thread. One of you guys did. Tell me exactly what is it about my statement as it is written that isn't true. I can easily find stem/handlebar combos examples under $50.

Originally Posted by terrymorse

The "current system" is integrated bar & stem.

A "previous system" is separate bar & stem.

The difference in cost between this "current system" and the "previous system" is minimal, as demonstrated.

Therefore, your claim that there is a 10-15 times difference between "current system" (integrated bar & stem) and "previous systems" (separate bar & stem) is disproven.

Originally Posted by PeteHski

. At that point I simply defend the newer tech. You won’t find me on the C&V forum harping on about how I think new bikes are superior. But it doesn’t seem to work in reverse. ....

Originally Posted by seypat

The point of my post was to point out that going from an adjustable system to a non adjustable system was not a high tech advancement. Rather, it was to point out that it's not an advancement at all no matter the price.

Originally Posted by terrymorse

Ritchey SuperLogic handlebars: $300
Ritchey SuperLogic stem: $250
Total: $550

Ritchey SuperLogic Butano Ridge integrated bar/stem: $599

Huge price difference! /s

Originally Posted by tomato coupe

Same story here:
Black Inc integrated bar/stem $650. (road bike 1)
Black Inc stem $300 + Black Inc bars $300 (road bike 2)

Originally Posted by PeteHski

One of my road bikes has a separate alloy bar and stem. The other has a carbon integrated bar/stem. While the latter is considerably more expensive (not because it is integrated, but because of the completely different materials and manufacture) it is significantly more comfortable to use. I feel a lot more road buzz from the alloy bars, even with thicker cushioned tape. It’s a bigger difference than I expected.

Originally Posted by 3alarmer

...try wider tyres. That's what I do here. It goes without saying, that the one thing most flexible between your hands and the road are your tyres.