Originally Posted by t2p

That one one of the first high quality made in Japan cars that placed the Japanese auto industry solidly on the map

Originally Posted by GhostRider62

I'm not the average american.

Originally Posted by PeteHski

But I know I certainly couldn't afford a pro-level road race bike growing up in the 70s or 80s. I very much remember lusting over them in Harry Hall's pro shop in Manchester and they were miles out of my league as a student. I eventually managed to cobble together one of his budget Reynolds frames with a 105 groupset (mid 80s vintage with "Biopace" chainset) and that wasn't cheap for the time.

Originally Posted by smd4

In 1988, my junior year of college, I was riding a new (1986) Waterford Paramount frame with full Dura Ace group set. Some of the parts I got at cost while working at the bike shop, but most of the parts and the frame were purchased at full retail. So yes, it was possible to have a 100% top-of-the-line full race bike.

It would be pretty much impossible for me to afford an actual top-of-the-line racing bike today, and even if I could afford it, I'm not sure I would want to. Looks like top-end racing bikes with Dura Ace 12 speed are selling for around $15,000 and up. Doubt my college-age son working at the grocery store will be able to afford that any time soon.

Originally Posted by GhostRider62

Few of the people I ride with are on top of the line bikes. More likely to be on older bikes but my county has fallen on hard times, we used to be the 3rd highest income in the country but just got pushed out of the top 10. People used to buy their cars and bikes back then. They say the average american doesn't have the cash to make a $5,000 repair on their car.

I see a lot of Shimano 105 on midlevel carbon bikes, very few DA or SRAM Red. Such a machine is far better in comfort, ease of use and speed than the steel campy bikes of 40+ years ago. Perhaps, the high end bikes are in urban areas.

Originally Posted by PeteHski

Well it's all anecdotal unless you can remember what a top-end bike actually cost back in the day? Price and year and then we can compare after taking account of inflation.

Originally Posted by prj71

Apparently you aren't familiar with the 3 year / 12,000 mile lease. Lots of people are replacing their cars every three years.

Originally Posted by PeteHski

Yeah I agree. From my limited experience over the pond people tend to keep their cars a lot longer. Interesting thing here is that the hire purchase "model" now pretty much applies to every relatively expensive product, including high-end bikes. Nearly all of the £10k bikes on our roads will be financed over 3-5 years exactly like a car. Not many people will walk into the shop and put down £10k up front. Most people just don't have that kind of cash to hand.

Originally Posted by smd4

Not sure what you mean by "anecdotal." It was the same frame the Schwinn Icy-Hot team was riding (the same color, even), with the exact same components. It was a top-of-the-line racing bike for the day. Wish I could remember the prices for all the parts. I seem to recall the frame was about $600 in 1986 (Steve from Peoria probably has the catalog). That would be about $1,600 today.

Can you buy a top-of-the line full carbon racing frame for that amount today?

Originally Posted by tomato coupe

A $600 bike wasn't close to top-of-the-line pricing in 1986. I paid over $1,000 for a Trek in 1983, and I think Schwinn Paramounts were $3,000 at the time.

Originally Posted by smd4

Did I write "bike?" 'Cause I thought I wrote the "frame" cost $600. As I recall...

Originally Posted by prj71

Quit buying Ford, Chevy or Dodge products and you don't have to worry about that. Want to avoid unreliable cars and lots of repair bills? You buy Toyota, Honda or Nissan.

Originally Posted by tomato coupe

Yes, my mistake...


For $3,000 you got a Paramount with your choice of components.

Originally Posted by PeteHski

Well it's all anecdotal unless you can remember what a top-end bike actually cost back in the day? Price and year and then we can compare after taking account of inflation.

Originally Posted by smd4

I certainly don't recall that. And it doesn't make much sense if you think about it. For the same $3,000 I could get a Paramount with Shimano 600? Or Dura Ace?

And actually, a copy of the 1986 Schwinn catalog that I've seen only offers it as a frame and fork.

1986 Schwinn Catalog

The Schwinn shop only sold two Paramount framesets--one to me, and one to the owner's son (who, because he was a dealer, got to have his name painted on the left chainstay).

Originally Posted by tomato coupe

...

Originally Posted by genejockey

$600 would get you a Cannondale R500, with RX100, three tiers down from DA.

Originally Posted by smd4

Um...what you linked to is for 1980. I'm talking 1986. Big differences. When--again--the Paramount was only available as a frame/fork.

See?

Originally Posted by tomato coupe

Okay, and I was referring to 1983. Paramounts were offered at $3,000 starting in 1980. (I think they dropped to $2,500 at some point.)

What's the big deal anyway? I misread your price as a complete bike price, not a frame price, and acknowledged my oversight.

Originally Posted by smd4

In 1988, my junior year of college, I was riding a new (1986) Waterford Paramount frame with full Dura Ace group set. Some of the parts I got at cost while working at the bike shop, but most of the parts and the frame were purchased at full retail. So yes, it was possible to have a 100% top-of-the-line full race bike.

It would be pretty much impossible for me to afford an actual top-of-the-line racing bike today, and even if I could afford it, I'm not sure I would want to. Looks like top-end racing bikes with Dura Ace 12 speed are selling for around $15,000 and up. Doubt my college-age son working at the grocery store will be able to afford that any time soon.

Originally Posted by Kapusta

No way in hell I could afford a high end bike in college in the 80s.

Others could. Heck, some drove new BMWs.

What you or I or some other person could or could not afford in college is a silly metric, as everyone’s financial situation is different.

Originally Posted by smd4

It's not silly--it's true. Even if you use the $3,000 number in 1986--that's only $8,000 today. How many pro-level racing bikes can you get for $8,000 today, with the most technologically-advanced components?

You don't have to answer that.

Originally Posted by smd4

It's not silly--it's true. Even if you use the $3,000 number in 1986--that's only $8,000 today. How many pro-level racing bikes can you get for $8,000 today, with the most technologically-advanced components?

You don't have to answer that.

Originally Posted by Kapusta

The fact is the the $8K bike from today is far FAR better than what any pro was racing on in 1986.

Originally Posted by genejockey

Hmmmm. In 1997, I bought a Ritchey Road Logic with full Dura Ace that listed for $3000. It had 8 speeds, STI levers, 32 spoke wheels, and dual pivot brakes, all on a light steel frame. Weighed about 21lbs, which was pretty good for a 58cm steel bike back then. Two years ago, I bought a 2020 Canyon Endurace for $2400. It came with 105, disc brakes, 11 speeds, and weighs about 18 lbs. CPI inflation calculator says $3000 in 1997 = $4800 in 2020, so adjusted for inflation, the Canyon was half the price of the Ritchey, but with better brakes, wider gearing, more aerodynamic, and also lighter.

However, there are big problems with the comparison. Computers are constantly developing, getting faster, with more memory, etc as the technology advances. It's not really manufacturing efficiency that drives the economy, it's the advancing technology.

Bikes, OTOH, are a 19th century technology where the advances in technology are largely incremental. They're the same basic shape and work the same way they have for many decades. There's not the room for improvement there is with computers. Still, 3000 2022 dollars gets you a more capable bike than 3000 1997 dollars got you.