Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 201 to 250 of 261
  1. #201
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,359
    Sorry, my intention is not to be insulting. I'm just letting you know that you really don't know what you're talking about, to the point that it's not even worth my time to debate the topic with you. Please go off an do some of your own research, the internet has plenty of information on all these topics. Good luck.

  2. #202
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by turbodog View Post
    Sorry, my intention is not to be insulting. I'm just letting you know that you really don't know what you're talking about, to the point that it's not even worth my time to debate the topic with you. Please go off an do some of your own research, the internet has plenty of information on all these topics. Good luck.
    Translation - you got nothing to contribute.
    Are you really sure about that?

  3. #203
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,359
    Quote Originally Posted by MSLKauai View Post
    Translation - you got nothing to contribute.
    No, I really do. I could probably write a 4000 word dissertation about this subject, proving your original hypothesis completely wrong beyond any doubt - I'm more than capable and qualified to do so. However, I'm not really interested in doing that....maybe if you paid me $150/hour I'd consider it. Thanks.

  4. #204
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    6,254
    Quote Originally Posted by MSLKauai View Post
    Why are nice bikes so frigging expensive?
    I'm curious about what your theory might be.

    Is it that bike companies are making obscene profit margins on their high end product? Or maybe bicycle companies are so poorly managed that they have to charge 5x what the product should cost in order to cover for their ineptitude? Conspiracy???

  5. #205
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,731
    Quote Originally Posted by turbodog View Post
    Excellent analysis. However, it should be noted that bikes went through massive changes in the late 90's to early 2000's. So going back 20 years there may be a major difference, but if you only go back 10 years, it might not be as dramatic
    But that is the whole point! Price, content, value.

    These other guys are just wasting time.......

    Okay, here is another example, and I am just going with bikes I have owned:

    2005 Stumpy Pro, Alloy: XT, Mechanical Brakes. 100 mm travel. $3100, $3763 in 2014 dollars

    In 2014 $3763 buys a Spec Camber 29 Carbon: X7, XT mix, 110 mm travel, Fox Float technology, Dropper Seatpost.

    Clearly a better value. And pretty dramatic.
    I don't rattle.

  6. #206
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    I'm curious about what your theory might be.

    Is it that bike companies are making obscene profit margins on their high end product? Or maybe bicycle companies are so poorly managed that they have to charge 5x what the product should cost in order to cover for their ineptitude? Conspiracy???
    Good question. I've found, through the projects I've worked on in my own business, that when products have a pricing scheme that defies common sense, it is often driven by high relative costs in sales and marketing. In high end biking, that would translate to racing events and teams, advertising, incentives, sponsoring, etc. I would guess those costs, when totaled up across the industry and all the companies (frames, brakes, shocks, gears, etc.) that engage in this high end product pushing are quite a bit higher than other industries. The truth is the performance characteristics of a $8,000 road bike are not that much better than a $2,000 road bike at this point so the pricing is likely more a reflection of marketing costs than real innovation that creates a product with a legitimate 4X value proposition. I don't think collusion or conspiracy plays any role whatsoever ... just plain old run of the mill inefficiencies generated by the need for excessive marketing, image building and value branding.
    Are you really sure about that?

  7. #207
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,359
    Here's a good series of articles about the supply chain in the bike industry.....

    Vertical limit | surviving compression fatigue |

    Figure, the three driving factors in item cost are supply chain/retail, manufacturing/materials, and engineering/design. Marketing would be considered an overhead cost.

  8. #208
    mtbr member
    Reputation: juan_speeder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,280
    Quote Originally Posted by MSLKauai View Post
    Good question. I've found, through the projects I've worked on in my own business, that when products have a pricing scheme that defies common sense, it is often driven by high relative costs in sales and marketing. In high end biking, that would translate to racing events and teams, advertising, incentives, sponsoring, etc. I would guess those costs, when totaled up across the industry and all the companies (frames, brakes, shocks, gears, etc.) that engage in this high end product pushing are quite a bit higher than other industries. The truth is the performance characteristics of a $8,000 road bike are not that much better than a $2,000 road bike at this point so the pricing is likely more a reflection of marketing costs than real innovation that creates a product with a legitimate 4X value proposition. I don't think collusion or conspiracy plays any role whatsoever ... just plain old run of the mill inefficiencies generated by the need for excessive marketing, image building and value branding.
    If the marketing, image building, and branding are a need, how can they also be excessive?
    Supply Side Jesusnomosist

  9. #209
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by juan_speeder View Post
    If the marketing, image building, and branding are a need, how can they also be excessive?
    How much marketing/sales push is needed to sell any product is a major consideration in pricing and often the single biggest line item in retailing. Big box stores and internet marketing have been successful largely because they have reduced this expense and can offer the same product at often dramatically lower prices. The actual cost of manufacturing a product is often shockingly low compared to all the marketing and distribution expense when it's ALL totaled, including the marketing/sales expense of suppliers down the supply chain. It's how a golf ball that might cost 35 cents to manufacture ends up costing the consumer $4. Or a pair of jeans that cost $4 to manufacture show up after numerous distribution transactions with a price tag of $45.

    Dramatic leaps in innovation give companies pricing power and when those leaps become smaller and smaller, companies often beef up advertising/sales expense to drive sales. At some point, it reverses however because the value proposition of a low cost, high quality competitor compresses margins. We are in the early stages of this now in the smartphone industry. There are many retail products where 50% or more of the cost to the consumer is simply paying for all the sales and marketing costs along the way and all of that cost does virtually nothing to improve or innovate the product. It might provide a little grass roots intel, but that's about it.
    Are you really sure about that?

  10. #210
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,359

  11. #211
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,359
    Quote Originally Posted by MSLKauai View Post
    How much marketing/sales push is needed to sell any product is a major consideration in pricing and often the single biggest line item in retailing. Big box stores and internet marketing have been successful largely because they have reduced this expense and can offer the same product at often dramatically lower prices. The actual cost of manufacturing a product is often shockingly low compared to all the marketing and distribution expense when it's ALL totaled, including the marketing/sales expense of suppliers down the supply chain. It's how a golf ball that might cost 35 cents to manufacture ends up costing the consumer $4. Or a pair of jeans that cost $4 to manufacture show up after numerous distribution transactions with a price tag of $45.

    Dramatic leaps in innovation give companies pricing power and when those leaps become smaller and smaller, companies often beef up advertising/sales expense to drive sales. At some point, it reverses however because the value proposition of a low cost, high quality competitor compresses margins. We are in the early stages of this now in the smartphone industry. There are many retail products where 50% or more of the cost to the consumer is simply paying for all the sales and marketing costs along the way and all of that cost does virtually nothing to improve or innovate the product. It might provide a little grass roots intel, but that's about it.
    You should really just step back and read the articles I'm linking.

    And that's not even getting into the manufacturing or design side of things!

  12. #212
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by turbodog View Post
    You should really just step back and read the articles I'm linking.

    And that's not even getting into the manufacturing or design side of things!
    I did ... here's an interesting quote ...

    "Today, the outcome of that curiosity is plain to see. Well-known bicycle brands are now effectively sales and marketing departments, with varying degrees of in-house R+D capabilities. Swift progression towards information symmetry – the state whereby a consumer has equal information about a given product – is dissolving brand stories into product-based arguments. Often, the purchase of a high-end bicycle centers around discussion as sophisticated as a pre-school sandpit fight."

    In other words, Turbo -- what they're saying here is that the big money brainpower is working on sales, marketing, events, branding, merchandising, etc. Which is exactly what I've been saying.
    Are you really sure about that?

  13. #213
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    685
    OEM brands, potentially no more innovative than their ODM/OBM counterparts, have the biggest challenge; convincing consumers that their heritage, origin, authenticity and exclusivity (read: high market price) are worth the wait and premium. Even with their added margin layers, long supply chains are not necessarily the problem. There will always be a percentage of the consumer market with sufficient disposable income to justify the perceived status associated with purchasing an OEM brand. However, the real battle for OEM brands is to win back market share from the less-expensive OBM and ODM brands. Transparency and consumer-focused communication, long in short supply over the years, are not optional. OEM brands need to explain their multiple supply channels and associated benefits to consumers, whilst giving all downstream stakeholders equal opportunity to deliver best value and service to the end consumer.
    I fail to see how this boslters Turbodog's scant case.

    They're explicitly calling out added margin layers being paid for by those who purchase on status more than value. In other words, there's no real justification for $10,000.00 bikes.

    The other thing that folks overlook is that the value brands likely make a higher overall margin due to not having a real pressure to reduce price, they only have to price low enough to be perceived as a value relative to the OEM brands.
    Quote Originally Posted by ridelikeafatkid
    "MOMMY, I WANT TO RIDE LIKE THAT FAT KID!" true story.

  14. #214
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    But, that's not how free market capitalism works. Would you rather have a different economic system?
    Not at all, I love a free market economy and wouldn't want it any other way. I would argue that we wouldn't be arguing about the cost of mountain bikes on a mountain bike website without a free market economy nor would we have the innovation, selection, etc. that breeds in a competitive market.

    I think its fantastic that we have availability to a whole range of toys for playing in dirt and I think there are some real values right now like a used or NOS SB-66 due to current industry 27.5-29er marketing.

    I simply would find it absurd to pay 10k for a 2014 SC Bronson C when I can pay 9k for a 2014 KTM 350 EXC for the all the reasons I stated previously. If someone handed me 10k and gave me the option of a 2014 Bronson Carbon or a 2014 KTM 350 EXC, I would be heading to the nearest KTM dealership without a second thought. But I both mountain bike and dirt bike as well as live in an area with plenty of access for both types of trails so outside of that context it may not make sense and I respect that.

  15. #215
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by Jutt77 View Post
    Not at all, I love a free market economy and wouldn't want it any other way. I would argue that we wouldn't be arguing about the cost of mountain bikes on a mountain bike website without a free market economy nor would we have the innovation, selection, etc. that breeds in a competitive market.

    I think its fantastic that we have availability to a whole range of toys for playing in dirt and I think there are some real values right now like a used or NOS SB-66 due to current industry 27.5-29er marketing.

    I simply would find it absurd to pay 10k for a 2014 SC Bronson C when I can pay 9k for a 2014 KTM 350 EXC for the all the reasons I stated previously. If someone handed me 10k and gave me the option of a 2014 Bronson Carbon or a 2014 KTM 350 EXC, I would be heading to the nearest KTM dealership without a second thought. But I both mountain bike and dirt bike as well as live in an area with plenty of access for both types of trails so outside of that context it may not make sense and I respect that.
    Put the SC Bronson C right next to the KTM 350 EXC and then take a hard look at the two machines. Then, take the two of them apart part by part and lay out all those parts so you can see them and, once again, compare the two. Then ask yourself the following questions:

    1. Which of these machines required more engineering?
    2. Which costs more to manufacture?
    3. Which has more high tech components in it?
    4. Which machine is more complex?
    5. Which machine is more durable?
    6. Which required more steps and labor hours to assemble?
    7. Which was manufactured in a more expensive labor market?
    and finally, which of the two machines, that are priced nearly identically, has more likely hype, marketing and sales cost built into it to justify the price tag?

    There's nothing "wrong" with spending $10,000 on a SC Carbon Bronson mountain bike, but the discussion has to do with is it truly innovation and far superior performance characteristics that distinguish this bike from the $3000 alternatives or is it marketing, hype and the promotion of the status factor???
    Are you really sure about that?

  16. #216
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,143
    Quote Originally Posted by MSLKauai View Post
    There's nothing "wrong" with spending $10,000 on a SC Carbon Bronson mountain bike, but the discussion has to do with is it truly innovation and far superior performance characteristics that distinguish this bike from the $3000 alternatives
    We're not on the same wavelength here. You're looking for "far superior". I don't need far superior to justify the cost. I just need better, in some way that's meaningful to me. It could be in some way that I actually notice - even incrementally - or it could be in some way that appeals to me aesthetically and has no performance benefit whatsoever. It's a hobby, it makes me feel good, and I don't begrudge the prices I pay. Most people have a limit to how far that extends, as do I, but you're coming at this more from a pure value perspective which really isn't my first concern. I couldn't care less what a moto costs, as I have no interest in owning or riding one.

  17. #217
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,318
    Quote Originally Posted by MSLKauai View Post
    That stuff offsets a lot of your economies of scale argument.
    Man, you are hard headed! When your talking millions of units, there is no offsetting, as you are describing it. Actually the costs are offset or spread over millions of units. With adds little to the price of one unit? Yet again, that's the whole purpose of Economies of Scale. Please go read a book about the subject.

    Quote Originally Posted by MSLKauai View Post
    I think what does drive the cost of bikes so high is three things. 1) There are so many brands and models that it does hurt the volume of any one company and 2) Many of the companies really only design and "manufacture" (really outsource the manufacturing) the frame and have to buy every other part from another supplier. 3) There are a lot of marketing costs embedded in the industry that does nothing to add value but just piles on expense.
    Your #1 just doesn't even make any sense. I guess you want to put a cap on the amount of bike companies and models they can sell? #2: How do you think cars are made? Like, 95% of the parts are outsourced. Most of them come from china, where you can have parts made ridiculously cheap. With some cars, even the engines are outsourced. Sounds pretty much, just like the bike industry. #3: Marketing is a very important part of any company. How do you expect to find out about products if companies don't market them? The marketing industry is as big as any industry. Are you saying it's all a waste of time and money? How do you think this website stays online? Without marketing, it wouldn't be here.

  18. #218
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Circlip View Post
    We're not on the same wavelength here. You're looking for "far superior". I don't need far superior to justify the cost. I just need better, in some way that's meaningful to me. It could be in some way that I actually notice - even incrementally - or it could be in some way that appeals to me aesthetically and has no performance benefit whatsoever. It's a hobby, it makes me feel good, and I don't begrudge the prices I pay. Most people have a limit to how far that extends, as do I, but you're coming at this more from a pure value perspective which really isn't my first concern. I couldn't care less what a moto costs, as I have no interest in owning or riding one.
    Aside from the moto comment, I agree here 100%!

  19. #219
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,143
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    Aside from the moto comment, I agree here 100%!
    I recognize there are lots of fun hobbies aside from mountain biking, it's just not my thing. For people who do moto, have at'er!

  20. #220
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Circlip View Post
    I recognize there are lots of fun hobbies aside from mountain biking, it's just not my thing. For people who do moto, have at'er!
    I respect that.

  21. #221
    hands up who wants to die
    Reputation: rpet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,390

    Why are nice bikes so frigging expensive?

    Man there's a lot of stupid in this thread. Gotta unsub.
    The server is too busy at the moment. Please try again later.

  22. #222
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,318
    Quote Originally Posted by rpet View Post
    Man there's a lot of stupid in this thread. Gotta unsub.
    What side of the stupid are you on?

  23. #223
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pharmaboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    505
    Gee, market size for one - you can't compare the price of a Tata to a specialized bike, expensive bikes are more like trying to justify why a Maserati costs what it does.

    Marketing ? Well only need to look at threads all over mtbr to see how easily led my marketers the knowledgeable people on mtbr are.

    No one needs to prove any performance gain in mountain bikes, you just need to say gnar, or stiffness, or leverage or any unsubstantiated ********, and as long as you can get a few story writers who contribute to magazines to agree it becomes truth and everybody needs to upgrade right away.

    Cars are bought by people who want it as a tool to go from a to b, and aren't as emotionally attached to the decision.

    Now compare a $500 commuter bike for value versus other products!

  24. #224
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,318
    Quote Originally Posted by pharmaboy View Post
    Gee, market size for one - you can't compare the price of a Tata to a specialized bike, expensive bikes are more like trying to justify why a Maserati costs what it does.

    Marketing ? Well only need to look at threads all over mtbr to see how easily led my marketers the knowledgeable people on mtbr are.

    No one needs to prove any performance gain in mountain bikes, you just need to say gnar, or stiffness, or leverage or any unsubstantiated ********, and as long as you can get a few story writers who contribute to magazines to agree it becomes truth and everybody needs to upgrade right away.

    Cars are bought by people who want it as a tool to go from a to b, and aren't as emotionally attached to the decision.

    Now compare a $500 commuter bike for value versus other products!
    Are you buying tatas again? Those are some very pessimistic views on marketing and the bike industry. I don't think MTB riders are really that stupid. As for cars, speak for yourself. For a lot of people cars aren't just a, "tool". A lot of people get very attached to their cars. For some people cars are a hobby and a way of life.

  25. #225
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    Man, you are hard headed! When your talking millions of units, there is no offsetting, as you are describing it. Actually the costs are offset or spread over millions of units. With adds little to the price of one unit? Yet again, that's the whole purpose of Economies of Scale. Please go read a book about the subject.



    Your #1 just doesn't even make any sense. I guess you want to put a cap on the amount of bike companies and models they can sell? #2: How do you think cars are made? Like, 95% of the parts are outsourced. Most of them come from china, where you can have parts made ridiculously cheap. With some cars, even the engines are outsourced. Sounds pretty much, just like the bike industry. #3: Marketing is a very important part of any company. How do you expect to find out about products if companies don't market them? The marketing industry is as big as any industry. Are you saying it's all a waste of time and money? How do you think this website stays online? Without marketing, it wouldn't be here.
    Point #1 had to do with what drives the high cost of bikes and is not only relevant but true. Parts are indeed sourced from many companies to all car companies around the world. No secret there. Marketing is a key driver of economic activity, yet it often adds no value at all to the product. In certain services companies, sales teams do add a certain value, but in general, sales and marketing adds cost to the equation with little to no quality or innovation contribution. Sales and marketing, interestingly, can drive a lot of "perceived" value and pricing advantages, however. Clearly, high end bikes are an obvious example of this.
    Are you really sure about that?

  26. #226
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pharmaboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    Are you buying tatas again? Those are some very pessimistic views on marketing and the bike industry. I don't think MTB riders are really that stupid. As for cars, speak for yourself. For a lot of people cars aren't just a, "tool". A lot of people get very attached to their cars. For some people cars are a hobby and a way of life.
    One mans realism is another's pessimism.

    Cars are more important to me than a to be as well, but I recognise I'm in the minority, and there are a lot of uninteresting cars sold, just look around the car park- from where I sit right now I can see 40 very boring cars and one toyota 86 which just about rates as interesting, and one proper 4wd which looks like it's never been offroad.

    As a bike population we are the equivalent of vacuous rich housewives drinking vintage bollinger with their Prada handbags

  27. #227
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by pharmaboy View Post

    As a bike population we are the equivalent of vacuous rich housewives drinking vintage bollinger with their Prada handbags
    One of the truer statements on this thread and even more true at the higher end of the pricing curve for parts and bikes.
    Are you really sure about that?

  28. #228
    mtbr member
    Reputation: juan_speeder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,280
    Quote Originally Posted by trboxman View Post

    They're explicitly calling out added margin layers being paid for by those who purchase on status more than value. In other words, there's no real justification for $10,000.00 bikes.
    Since Specialized, for example, consistently sells out of their $10K S-Works bikes, in pretty short order too, I'd say that there is a justification.
    Supply Side Jesusnomosist

  29. #229
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    685
    Quote Originally Posted by juan_speeder View Post
    Since Specialized, for example, consistently sells out of their $10K S-Works bikes, in pretty short order too, I'd say that there is a justification.
    Only if you're purchasing on status vs. cost value. Some sheep are happy to get sheared...
    Quote Originally Posted by ridelikeafatkid
    "MOMMY, I WANT TO RIDE LIKE THAT FAT KID!" true story.

  30. #230
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by juan_speeder View Post
    Since Specialized, for example, consistently sells out of their $10K S-Works bikes, in pretty short order too, I'd say that there is a justification.
    I think what he was saying is that beyond a certain price point, the performance gains are minimal and what the customer is actually buying is status. Of course there is justification for any purchase and nothing wrong or evil about a person spending $10,000 no a bicycle if that's what turns him/her on.

    To me, it comes down to sheer marvel at the bike industry for the marketing and image/brand work they have done to convince so many to spend those kinds of dollars on ultra high end bikes and parts that carry with them minimal, if any, performance advantages over alternatives half their cost. In the auto industry, for example, there's a huge difference in features and capabilities between a $25,000 car and a $50,000 car. A $4,000 road bike compared to an $8,000 road bike is very, very close in terms of performance characteristics and even appearance.
    Are you really sure about that?

  31. #231
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    425
    Let's take a look at Cycling's premiere global event, the Tour De France. By far the biggest biking event of the year. Let's say we were to select one of the GC favorites, maybe Nairo Quintana and took away his $10,000+ sponsored racing bike and replaced it with, a $4,000 racing road bike that was perfectly tuned and fit to him. Does anyone believe that his chances of winning would be seriously impacted by this equipment change if he had a few weeks to train on it and adjust? I'm not talking about his TT bike, but his main road bike. I don't think it would make any impact at all, but am curious what others think.

    Or, do the same thing with one of the world's best XC mountain bike racers or cyclocross racer. Take their $10,000+ bikes and replace them with a well tuned and set up bike of half value. How much real negative impact would that have on their performance if they were given enough time to train and adjust to the new ride?
    Are you really sure about that?

  32. #232
    mtbr member
    Reputation: peteer01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    591
    Quote Originally Posted by MSLKauai View Post
    I think what he was saying is that beyond a certain price point, the performance gains are minimal and what the customer is actually buying is status.
    There are some very, very nice $10,000 watches.

    I don't disagree with you on the road bike comment, but to each his own. If you want five small ticks every second from the second hand on a watch that is otherwise indistinguishable from the +$3000 watch that has a very accurate second hand that moves every second, you're going to pay that premium.

    I'm happy to spend money on a nice bike, but I'm not going to spend the extra $4000 cut a single digit percentage of it's weight. Other people are going to pay that premium.

  33. #233
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,318
    Quote Originally Posted by MSLKauai View Post
    Point #1 had to do with what drives the high cost of bikes and is not only relevant but true. Parts are indeed sourced from many companies to all car companies around the world. No secret there. Marketing is a key driver of economic activity, yet it often adds no value at all to the product. In certain services companies, sales teams do add a certain value, but in general, sales and marketing adds cost to the equation with little to no quality or innovation contribution. Sales and marketing, interestingly, can drive a lot of "perceived" value and pricing advantages, however. Clearly, high end bikes are an obvious example of this.
    To address your original post: I said that most of the parts are made in China and I didn't say any engines were made in China. Not all costs add value to the product. Some costs add value for the company selling the product and/or the consumer. And, I have no problem with that. In the end, a $10,000 Santa Cruz is worth every penny, simply by definition, because people are buying them.

  34. #234
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,318
    Quote Originally Posted by peteer01 View Post
    There are some very, very nice $10,000 watches.

    I don't disagree with you on the road bike comment, but to each his own. If you want five small ticks every second from the second hand on a watch that is otherwise indistinguishable from the +$3000 watch that has a very accurate second hand that moves every second, you're going to pay that premium.

    I'm happy to spend money on a nice bike, but I'm not going to spend the extra $4000 cut a single digit percentage of it's weight. Other people are going to pay that premium.
    Being a watch collector, often times you are paying for exclusivity. And again Economies of Scale play a part.

  35. #235
    Perpetual n00b
    Reputation: dgw2jr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,760

    Re: Why are nice bikes so frigging expensive?

    It's pretty obvious the bike industry is broke. Just look at those hipster clothes they all wear.
    The leg bone's connected to the Cash Bone!

  36. #236
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    6,254
    Quote Originally Posted by MSLKauai View Post
    Or, do the same thing with one of the world's best XC mountain bike racers or cyclocross racer. Take their $10,000+ bikes and replace them with a well tuned and set up bike of half value. How much real negative impact would that have on their performance if they were given enough time to train and adjust to the new ride?

    How much negative impact is necessary?

    Nino Schurters full suspension bike weighs just a tad over 17 pounds and the 1200 gram wheelset with handmade tubular tires cost over $3000 by themselves, where is he going to find a bike with those numbers for $5000? I suppose an extra pound or 2 might not drastically affect his performance but racing, especially at the elite levels can be decided by just a few seconds and a couple of watts. I think it's already been said at least a half dozen times that cost goes up exponentially as you approach the pinnacle of what is technically possible, which seems sensible to me.

  37. #237
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    How much negative impact is necessary?

    Nino Schurters full suspension bike weighs just a tad over 17 pounds and the 1200 gram wheelset with handmade tubular tires cost over $3000 by themselves, where is he going to find a bike with those numbers for $5000? I suppose an extra pound or 2 might not drastically affect his performance but racing, especially at the elite levels can be decided by just a few seconds and a couple of watts. I think it's already been said at least a half dozen times that cost goes up exponentially as you approach the pinnacle of what is technically possible, which seems sensible to me.
    Are you speculating he would not be able to win with a bike 2-4 lbs heavier than his current bike? I truly don't know the answer as I'm not a racer.
    Are you really sure about that?

  38. #238
    mtbr member
    Reputation: peteer01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    591
    At that level of competition? Yes. Every pound matters, that's why there are minimum weight limits for road bikes.

    Quote Originally Posted by MSLKauai View Post
    Are you speculating he would not be able to win with a bike 2-4 lbs heavier than his current bike? I truly don't know the answer as I'm not a racer.

  39. #239
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    6,254
    Quote Originally Posted by MSLKauai View Post
    Are you speculating he would not be able to win with a bike 2-4 lbs heavier than his current bike? I truly don't know the answer as I'm not a racer.
    Absolutely, without a doubt. Everything matters at that level.

  40. #240
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by peteer01 View Post
    At that level of competition? Yes. Every pound matters, that's why there are minimum weight limits for road bikes.
    In the TDF, in most of the stages, the GC contenders tie and the race is won or lost, typically because of either a crash or the performance on 2-3 of the tougher mountain stages and photo finishes in those stages are very rare. Typically, the winner has a mountain stage or two where they open a sizable gap between themselves and the field. Some exceptions, of course, but in general, it's rarely, for the GC guys that close. The sprint and TT stages are a whole other story and the TT bikes probably have a bigger impact on performance.

    Having ridden thousands and thousands of XC miles on different hardtails and FS XC bikes (again, I'm not a racer) the bike, compared to technique and conditioning seems to play a minor role if you're on a good fast bike. Maybe the winning margins really are that razor thin and a few pounds would kill your chances of winning, I don't know. I just tend to think a lot of the ultra expensive parts and components are on there to sell the masses on lighter and more expensive parts given that the races themselves don't generate much income for the industry (they actually generate expense) unlike car racing where 100,000 people will show up and pay big money to see the race.
    Are you really sure about that?

  41. #241
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,585

    Re: Why are nice bikes so frigging expensive?

    Quote Originally Posted by MSLKauai View Post
    Are you speculating he would not be able to win with a bike 2-4 lbs heavier than his current bike? I truly don't know the answer as I'm not a racer.
    Even some DH racers use titanium bolts to save some grams.
    I have seen 4 brake rotor bolts used instead of 6. In the pro level, every gram counts, races are often decided by 1/100 of a second.

  42. #242
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by jazzanova View Post
    Even some DH racers use titanium bolts to save some grams.
    I have seen 4 brake rotor bolts used instead of 6. In the pro level, every gram counts, races are often decided by 1/100 of a second.
    Are there real examples of pro racers who, after what they considered a significant equipment change suddenly became dominant in the way you see, for instance, in pro motorcycle racing and attribute their success, to a large extent, to the weight advantage of their equipment? As in, since I got this new super duper $3,000 wheel set, I'm unbeatable???

    This kind of equipment advantage really does exist in other forms of racing, typically motorized, but does it exist in pro bicycle racing?
    Are you really sure about that?

  43. #243
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    6,254
    Quote Originally Posted by MSLKauai View Post
    Are there real examples of pro racers who, after what they considered a significant equipment change suddenly became dominant in the way you see, for instance, in pro motorcycle racing and attribute their success, to a large extent, to the weight advantage of their equipment? As in, since I got this new super duper $3,000 wheel set, I'm unbeatable???

    This kind of equipment advantage really does exist in other forms of racing, typically motorized, but does it exist in pro bicycle racing?

    Now you're just being silly.

  44. #244
    Desert of the real
    Reputation: Zowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,921
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    I don't think MTB riders are really that stupid.
    This explains a lot, coming from you.

  45. #245
    mtbr member
    Reputation: d365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,705
    what a bunch of talking in circles......

    why does anything cost what it does? why does anything have value?

    why do people care about saving grams on components, or new technology that provides minimal improvements? better does not equal better?

    How are these companies still in business?

  46. #246
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,359
    Quote Originally Posted by trboxman View Post
    I fail to see how this boslters Turbodog's scant case.

    They're explicitly calling out added margin layers being paid for by those who purchase on status more than value. In other words, there's no real justification for $10,000.00 bikes.

    The other thing that folks overlook is that the value brands likely make a higher overall margin due to not having a real pressure to reduce price, they only have to price low enough to be perceived as a value relative to the OEM brands.
    Yes, you fail to understand. The articles fully explain the history of mountain bike suppy chain (in AU). SOME bikes are $10k *partly* because of a longer, tightly controlled supply chain! Think of Specialized, with their tightly controlled dealer network - they have an image and you pay a premium for it.

  47. #247
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by d365 View Post
    what a bunch of talking in circles......

    why does anything cost what it does? why does anything have value?

    why do people care about saving grams on components, or new technology that provides minimal improvements? better does not equal better?

    How are these companies still in business?
    Orrrr ... why would anyone engage on an internet DISCUSSION FORUM simply to criticize the forum and conversation? The whole point of a discussion forum is to exchange ideas, discuss, etc. That's kind of a human motivation. Why, if you're not interested in the discussion, not ignore it and dig into a thread that does interest you? What possible benefit do you get in criticizing the interactions of others on a discussion board? Does it make you feel better to throw grenades from the sidelines at others?
    Are you really sure about that?

  48. #248
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    685
    Quote Originally Posted by turbodog View Post
    Yes, you fail to understand. The articles fully explain the history of mountain bike suppy chain (in AU). SOME bikes are $10k *partly* because of a longer, tightly controlled supply chain! Think of Specialized, with their tightly controlled dealer network - they have an image and you pay a premium for it.
    Nice qualified flip flop and attempt to redirect attention from your own egregious lapse of reading comprehension.

    You'd have likely fared better by stunning us with your own analysis rather than relying on a well informed industry publication that refutes your assertion point by point...
    Quote Originally Posted by ridelikeafatkid
    "MOMMY, I WANT TO RIDE LIKE THAT FAT KID!" true story.

  49. #249
    mtbr member
    Reputation: peteer01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    591
    Quote Originally Posted by MSLKauai View Post
    why would anyone engage on an internet DISCUSSION FORUM simply to criticize the forum and conversation? The whole point of a discussion forum is to exchange ideas, discuss, etc.
    Conversations are good when people are open to new information, new ideas and having their views changed. If the conversation starts to loop back to the same points regardless of new information, it becomes counter-productive.

    Quote Originally Posted by d365 View Post
    what a bunch of talking in circles.
    I think d365's concern is that a lot of information has been offered up. But it seems like you are asking questions 10 pages in that are essentially rephrased versions of questions that have already been answered earlier in the thread.

    If you're genuinely interested in having a meaningful discussion, great. I think the thread has covered your questions quite well to this point, and hopefully the time people put into replying to you has helped answer your questions.

  50. #250
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by peteer01 View Post
    Conversations are good when people are open to new information, new ideas and having their views changed. If the conversation starts to loop back to the same points regardless of new information, it becomes counter-productive.



    I think d365's concern is that a lot of information has been offered up. But it seems like you are asking questions 10 pages in that are essentially rephrased versions of questions that have already been answered earlier in the thread.

    If you're genuinely interested in having a meaningful discussion, great. I think the thread has covered your questions quite well to this point, and hopefully the time people put into replying to you has helped answer your questions.
    First off, I'm really glad we have someone on the forum that has divined the essence of what a discussion forum is, how much discussion is appropriate and when it should end. That's a big, big plus!!!

    To me, internet discussion forums are entertainment. It's fun to joust about a bit, get some ideas and shoot the breeze. I'm not looking for some eternal truth or answer here. The thread poses a very complex question that touches many issues of economics, human motivation, ego, performance, advertising, value, etc. Lots of ins and outs to discuss. I do it while I'm trading the markets and things are slow.

    And, perhaps you should consider AVOIDING topics that cannot get to a certain answer and stick to technical topics where a particular final answer can be found. THere are a lot of areas of discussion where there are no answers but the discussion and opinions are the whole point. This annoys some and I think it's best they avoid that type of interaction ... of course, if it gives you some pleasure to criticize those that enjoy it, have at it. I challenge you to find a single mean spirited post I've made where I criticize or insult another poster. The only time I get critical is when someone splashes in to declare the thread is a waste of time and going nowhere, which is utterly absurd. I'm trying to moderate it, keep it alive and interact with others interested in the topic. Those not interested or not appreciating the topic ought to avoid it, don't you think?

    And, FWIW, I think some of the most interesting posts have come through the last 4-5 pages ... but that's just me ... If you'd like to see the thread go in a more interesting direction, by all means, post something interesting that moves it in that direction!
    Are you really sure about that?

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 52
    Last Post: 10-11-2014, 09:43 AM
  2. Replies: 103
    Last Post: 09-09-2012, 11:41 PM
  3. When did bikes get so expensive?
    By theeric in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 12-03-2011, 12:31 AM
  4. Nice not to expensive wheelset advice.
    By Carraig042 in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 03-12-2011, 03:32 AM
  5. Expensive Bikes Gap
    By AndrwSwitch in forum XC Racing and Training
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 01-01-2011, 01:31 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •