Koyote

Umm, okay, so now there ARE reasonably-priced and well-spec'd entry level bikes that meet with your approval. So, what you are still complaining about?

MRT2

Because they are still closer to $700 than $500, which was the original premise of the thread. we got into the weeds of Specialized vs. Cannondale vs. Trek etc because people kept bringing up each brand.

Koyote

I give up. Like everyone else seems to have done.

Dubinthedam

With online shops I'd say there is actually more bang for your buck. I paid €400 for a 8speed Alu Road bike last year. I thought, let's see what I get. I'm actually amazed on a daily basis how good the bike is. Sora derailleur with Claris shifter and a steal fork. The chain, pedals, tyres were pretty useless, the wheels heavy, but good enough. I still upgraded them, Tiagra hubs, shimano rims.

So the bike is €500, before discount, and similar set-up from big brands would be €700-800. In dollars/US about the same. The dribble down effect Shimano often talk about is very real. Claris, Sora are equivalent to 105, ten-twenty years ago. They work just as well as 105. Nobody really needs anything better than 105 unless they are actually racing. Microshift with series like Advent are fantastic value for money. Add to this shops like Decathlon, websites like Aliexpress and you can upgrade parts very cheaply.

Generally, I'd say there are a lot more impressive bikes out there under the $1000, than over the $1000.

shelbyfv

Darn, I thought I read it was Tiagra. I'm so confused....

Dubinthedam

Lol, I hear you and agree, Tiagra is more than good enough. I work on Shimano marketing materials so I know what the 'blurbs says. But they're completely focused on product ranges.

Orbea do a full carbon, full Tiagra set-up for €2000. If only I had the money!

mstateglfr 

$2400usd for a carbon frame with tiagra.

I wish my salary kept up with the price of tiagra carbon bikes!

cbrstar

The fact that Kona is selling bikes with a much lower price point with much lower end parts is a bad sign for the brand. It means that they have hit their max amount of new customers at a certain price point and they are looking to expand their customer base with a lower price point.

unterhausen

It means they can sell them and they know it's not going to dilute their brand image. It also probably reflects the fact that they can get these parts at this point in history, which is a lot better than having nicer bikes in their catalog but not actually available for sale. As long as it's a usable bike, it's not going to hurt them in any way. When the owners of these bikes upgrade, they probably will consider another Kona.

The market is not going to be the same as it was in 2019 for a few years, maybe 2025?

mstateglfr 

?

Trek sells FX1 bikes for $500 and $600...is that a bad sign for the brand?
Maybe they offer the entry level bikes to get people into Trek bikes in the first place and those bikes sometimes lead to more bikes bought that are Trek branded.

Just a wild counter thought to your doomsday claim.

cbrstar

Take a look at all the other brands Trek had that are now defunct.
Klein
Lemond
Gary Fisher
Villager

Every product has a life cycle.

Dubinthedam

Nike sell top pro trainers for 300, but they also sell tshirts for 4,99 at the discount store! I don't see them having any brand issues.

If kona keeps making bikes like the kona unit, I don't think they'll have any brand problems either.

cbrstar

Nike started making them in Japan when they were called BRS. But even they started making them "cheaper" using sweatshops and child labor. Heck even the Chinese went on strike because their wages were too low. If nike had kept manufacturing in Japan and with matching inflation the shoes would cost way more then $300 and Nike would have been out of business a long time ago.

mstateglfr 

What is your point? This doesnt answer what I asked.
I asked if you think that since Trek makes entry level bikes, is that a bad sign for the Trek brand.

You listing some brands that Trek bought and stopped utilizing doesnt answer my question.

Reality is that some brands have a wide range of products since the marketplace is so wide ranging. Those brands choose to try and capture volume and they do this intentionally versus what you claim, which is that they are maxed out at a price point and need to then get more customers at a lower price.
Trek, Specialized, Giant, Marin, Kona, Jamis, Cannondale, etc all do this intentionally- Are you claiming its a bad sign for all these brands that they are selling bikes at an entry price point?

Counter to the approach of the brands above, some other brands only offer entry level bikes- Poseidon, State,etc.
Counter to both of the already mentioned approaches, some brands only offer higher level bikes- Open, Cervelo, etc.


You seem confused as to why some brands have a wide range of offerings.

mstateglfr 

Are you being purposefully obtuse or what? The other poster makes a very good point that counters your claim about entry level offerings being bad for Kona, and you respond with this?

mstateglfr 

Why is it a bad sign? You havent said why. Multiple examples have been thrown your way that counter your claim, and you have offered nothing of substance.
Why is it a bad sign that Trek sells an entry level hybrid just like they have for 30 years, that Kona sells an entry level hybrid just like they have for many years(i dont know the exact number), or that Nike sells cheap stuff alongside expensive stuff just like they have for decades?

cbrstar

I borrowed this graph, but you also have to imagine your customer base as a pyramid. The bottom there's tons of people with the least amount of money and at the top is the least amount of people but with the most amount of money. Lets say a product or a bike is priced right in the middle of a pyramid. What happens is a product see's huge sales but eventually it hits 100% of that level of new customers and you will see a sudden huge drop in sales like in the above graph. Basically just about everyone who is going to buy one has, and now it takes 50x the effort to try to attract new customers. When this happens a company has a few different options. 1) Innovate new products to sell to the same customers, and maybe even reach customers at a higher level 2) Which you most often see is to make it cheaper and sell it at a lower price. Which basically means to go down a level and reach a wider amount of new customers. You often hear fans of a product say "They don't make them like the used to" etc. So when I see brands like Kona, Trek etc start offering more economic models I immediately think the brand has hit the point of having a sharp sales decline. There's lots of brands that started being prestigious but the brand keeps getting watered down.


But there's also another problem that manufactures face. When inflation out paces wages. If your customer base can lets say only afford $300 for a pair of shoes but thanks to inflation the shoes should be selling for $500. But $500 pushes you up to the next rung of customers where there is less of them and maybe they are not interested in your brand as they see it as inferior. Well now you have to find a way to manufacture them even cheaper to stay in the same customer base. Which is why many big time brands have been going to places like China for decades. We saw this back in the 80's where most of the bicycle manufacturing in Japan was forced to relocate to Taiwan after the US increased the value of the Yen.

livedarklions

You do understand that a) the time scale on that might be several lifetimes and b) that's not a universal law or something. Plenty of brands don't have a curve that looks anything like that. Is Kraft doing that?

Koyote

So much wrongness here. This reads like an essay answer that got a C+ in Business 101.

mstateglfr 

Brands can exist and thrive when providing products at the low end, middle, and high end of a market.
Ford, Trek, Nike, Honda, Wilson, and countless more are example that show a brand can exist abs thrive for decades while providing providing products at entry price points and above.

How is this even something that is being debated in 2021? This world man, it's gone nuts.

livedarklions

The real kicker here is he has confused brand with product. I actually looked up his graph, it's the life cycle for a product. Brands diversify and renew their product lines precisely so they won't get caught in that curve.

Koyote

I'm not even sure that's the worst of it, and that's saying something.

livedarklions

He must think Shimano is at death's door.

cbrstar

This is pretty basic marketing and the fact that you can't comprehend it must mean you got a F.

livedarklions

See above, you don't know the difference between a product and a brand. We comprehend, you're just wrong.

And you just said that nonsense about not comprehending your poorly reasoned essay to a guy with a Ph.D. in economics. When he graded it as a C+ freshman essay, he has the basis for comparison.