Powered by Outside

Are bikes really worth that much $

PB Forum :: Bikes, Parts, and Gear
Are bikes really worth that much $
Author Message
flag mr-eric
Posted: Jan 6, 2009 at 22:34 Quote
the bike companys also kinda hold a monopoly on the public, people are willing to pay that much because theres no other products of that high a standard and quality, now there are bikes that are just out of the question over priced, but there are bikes that are reasonably priced like brodie for example. ive been riding a brodie nemesis for years and love it, quality is amazing. look at a bike that is similer but over priced, lets say a yeti 4x, those are stupid expensve. what im saying is that your not gonna be able to get the parts you need unless your willing to scarifice alot
of $, which seems to me that alot of people do, i mean u dont see alot of people at whistler on a supercycle
flag Jwmbike14
Posted: Jan 6, 2009 at 22:34 Quote
max-tooltime-imus5 wrote:
gdawg wrote:
Dude you have to realize that the demand for these high end bikes is very low in relation to a standard motorized vehicle or even a low end Supercycle. Should we expect companies like Ferrari to lower their prices for their cars? Think of these high end bikes as the Ferrari's of the bike world.

this makes more sense to me.

yes. i guess it would make more sense. if you don't understand suspension design, engineering, and especially machining.

and obviously don't know your bike well. nor do you know motorcycles very well.

see to understand the question your asking means you have to have some sort of knowledge about technology.

look at the internals of a motorcycle mastercylinder! they are straight forward piston with a resivor. look at juicy elixers. with a tabered mastercyclinder. meaning it moves more fluid initially then it does later on, making a strong yet modulating brake.

the ANSWER IS IN MY WRITING. its technical and machining aspect.

and in the end makes more sense then the ferrari explanation. because a ferrari is just as much advanced like our bikes. look at the machining and time going into building a ferrari engine. we are talking about the same stuff!

a ferrari will never be cheap, not because of demand. but because of the cost of the high end materials, the engineering, and the high end and precise machining!

same as the brake comparrison! take a piston out of a 2007 honda civic and compare it to any ferrari. the machining on the ferrari will be emaculate.

i don't quite understand how that explanation doesn't make sense? someone help?
flag Jwmbike14
Posted: Jan 6, 2009 at 22:36 Quote
mr-eric wrote:
the bike companys also kinda hold a monopoly on the public, people are willing to pay that much because theres no other products of that high a standard and quality, now there are bikes that are just out of the question over priced, but there are bikes that are reasonably priced like brodie for example. ive been riding a brodie nemesis for years and love it, quality is amazing. look at a bike that is similer but over priced, lets say a yeti 4x, those are stupid expensve. what im saying is that your not gonna be able to get the parts you need unless your willing to scarifice alot
of $, which seems to me that alot of people do, i mean u dont see alot of people at whistler on a supercycle

once more, it may be stupid expensive. but what your not looking at is the engineering and MACHINING

look out the dropouts on the yeti. or posibly where the seat stays come together for the lower pivot. there is some crazy machining that your brodie does not have.
flag Jwmbike14
Posted: Jan 6, 2009 at 22:37 Quote
max-tooltime-imus5 wrote:
so basically they wouldn't work because they are too heavy?

so we are paying for the weight...

dude. no part of your question made sense.

no we aren't paying for the weight. its a completely different form of technology.

thats like asking to put a chevy silverado fron end and suspension and such on a corvett.

they both have a frame! blah blah blah. ITS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!
flag r-throop
Posted: Jan 6, 2009 at 22:41 Quote
here is what it all comes down to its not weather you have gone broke of not i have a 1500 dollar bike that i pulled off a guy here where i live but he rides a v-10 now when we ride i can keep up to him on my little ass bike and i love that bike it just suits me it not weather i spent 1500 dollars or 6k its what fits and flow to your riding so if you test a 6k bike and you absolutely hate it then don't buy it but don't go out and spend 6k on something a web site forum tells you is that best on the market because one famous person says it is. he only got that bike for riding the bike he truly loved
flag Jwmbike14
Posted: Jan 6, 2009 at 22:47 Quote
gemini-guy wrote:
here is what it all comes down to its not weather you have gone broke of not i have a 1500 dollar bike that i pulled off a guy here where i live but he rides a v-10 now when we ride i can keep up to him on my little ass bike and i love that bike it just suits me it not weather i spent 1500 dollars or 6k its what fits and flow to your riding so if you test a 6k bike and you absolutely hate it then don't buy it but don't go out and spend 6k on something a web site forum tells you is that best on the market because one famous person says it is. he only got that bike for riding the bike he truly loved

its more of a discussion if we are getting ripped off spending money on bikes.

but good comment!

but to contradict. it would be the same as saying some kid in his corvette can beat a driver in a ferrari. this very well may be true. thw ferrari may be faster, but if the kid has way more skill and the ferrari driver has very little (unfortunately like most ferrari owners) then the kid may very well kick his ass on the track
flag wanabe
Posted: Jan 6, 2009 at 22:53 Quote
their is allot of social economics going on here the fact is if they made 2 bikes the exact same but one cost twice as much because of a small change like a color people would spend twice as much just to show they can afford it as long a people maintain this mentality they will provide the product to make a profit this of course simplifies the idea but you get the point
flag r-throop
Posted: Jan 6, 2009 at 22:55 Quote
well if it comes down to money then f*ck it all im out because if companies start charging more and newer tech comes out i am done but its honestly the right way to go with a bike a year older and upgrade the major parts
flag wanabe
Posted: Jan 6, 2009 at 23:00 Quote
gemini-guy wrote:
well if it comes down to money then f*ck it all im out because if companies start charging more and newer tech comes out i am done but its honestly the right way to go with a bike a year older and upgrade the major parts

I would agree I have a 07 and have no plans of changing it any time soon
flag yo13bo
Posted: Jan 6, 2009 at 23:13 Quote
max-tooltime-imus5 wrote:
solid points.

out of curiosity, what would happen if a downhill bike was fitted with a moto-styled fork (on a smaller scale)?
you would automatically dump every 360, if you can even get it in the air, its a stupid idea
flag Ozchuck
Posted: Jan 7, 2009 at 4:29 Quote
Its because you pump the cash into these people, and so they're willing to charge accordingly.

You should look up mamachari's, little japanese $200 bike c/w baby seat and shopping bag. they're complete crap, but by the time they're mass-made, and assembled by a starving chinese kid, thats the price.

Comparing this to a 'proper' bike, maybe with some carbon and some other nice bits and pieces and it'll be over a couple thousand.
Thats what we prefer, right?
You be like "woah, they're both powered by pedals, where does the money go?"

In india, you can buy a TATA car, NEW for $2500! thats right, less than most pinkbikers BICYCLES! it fits 5!!! people, and drives, and is powered by a motor!
Compare this to a new ford fiesta, that fits LESS people in it, and is also powered by a petrol engine, is going for 26,000$, more than 10X as much.

And now, whatever justification you can find for buying a thing that costs 10x as much for the same goal (goes broom, drives around, whatever.), will also apply to bicycles. and I even chose a cheap comparo car, can you imagine if I chose to compare to a BMW, something that is 2-3 times the average yearly wage? bah!!!!

You hit a point of diminishing returns on everything, which means you pay exponential money for little gain in quality. but shit, you ride a bike! your operating costs are zero, and your time on the bike is like a million hours, where else would the money go?
flag evan547
Posted: Jan 7, 2009 at 5:01 Quote
max-tooltime-imus5 wrote:
i see were your coming from but their is nowhere near the same technology or even durability put into bikes.

i mean, a bike is powered by pedals.

Sorry, but this is one of those misconceptions that really bothers me. If I go and pull a lower control arm off of my wrangler and the rocker on my faux bar bike, they are very different.

The car part is cheaply made. It is strong, but obviously has excess material, lower levels of workmanship, and is made of a material that all of us here in Michigan know will rust before too long.

The bike rocker is finely machined to save weight, yet has still been engineered to withstand the forces it will have to support. It is made out of magnesium.

Next in my argument, is the functionality. A $1000 car is not going to build a lot of confidence in longevity. The car is usually ditched after repairs begin to "snowball" and exceed the value of the car.

a $1000 bike though, should be expected to last for years with routine maintenance and reasonable repairs.

Finally, if one rides their bike to work, and then for fun, it is logical that one could spend more time on their bike than in their car. Where are you going to put the money then?

Modern performance bicycles undergo more precision engineering than the average (not formula 1) auto. If you give an engineer the design criteria for a car, they can leave extra material to ensure strength and to save manufacturing costs. This "fudge factor" in the criteria is not present in performance bicycles. If I give you a 50 lb XC bike, you're gunna be pissed.

I also know that the margin in bike sales is woefully low. If a shop sells you a bike, they may help their cash flow, but they actually make very little money. A bicycle tube shop would kill by margin comparison.

I firmly believe that the bikes really do cost that much. If you still don't think so, start naming people who have gotten rich in the bike industry. They are few and far between.
flag gnarkore
Posted: Jan 7, 2009 at 5:05 Quote
gemini-guy wrote:
well if it comes down to money then f*ck it all im out because if companies start charging more and newer tech comes out i am done but its honestly the right way to go with a bike a year older and upgrade the major parts

well everyone does that, for everything.

Newer better technology will cost more than older technology regardless if its computers, bikes, cars.
flag gnarkore
Posted: Jan 7, 2009 at 5:07 Quote
evan547 wrote:
max-tooltime-imus5 wrote:
i see were your coming from but their is nowhere near the same technology or even durability put into bikes.

i mean, a bike is powered by pedals.

Sorry, but this is one of those misconceptions that really bothers me. If I go and pull a lower control arm off of my wrangler and the rocker on my faux bar bike, they are very different.

The car part is cheaply made. It is strong, but obviously has excess material, lower levels of workmanship, and is made of a material that all of us here in Michigan know will rust before too long.

The bike rocker is finely machined to save weight, yet has still been engineered to withstand the forces it will have to support. It is made out of magnesium.

Next in my argument, is the functionality. A $1000 car is not going to build a lot of confidence in longevity. The car is usually ditched after repairs begin to "snowball" and exceed the value of the car.

a $1000 bike though, should be expected to last for years with routine maintenance and reasonable repairs.

Finally, if one rides their bike to work, and then for fun, it is logical that one could spend more time on their bike than in their car. Where are you going to put the money then?

Modern performance bicycles undergo more precision engineering than the average (not formula 1) auto. If you give an engineer the design criteria for a car, they can leave extra material to ensure strength and to save manufacturing costs. This "fudge factor" in the criteria is not present in performance bicycles. If I give you a 50 lb XC bike, you're gunna be pissed.

I also know that the margin in bike sales is woefully low. If a shop sells you a bike, they may help their cash flow, but they actually make very little money. A bicycle tube shop would kill by margin comparison.

I firmly believe that the bikes really do cost that much. If you still don't think so, start naming people who have gotten rich in the bike industry. They are few and far between.

the founder of specialized is a rich man haha.
flag robbie7127
Posted: Jan 7, 2009 at 5:20 Quote
I find the whole question "are bikes really worth that much" to be a amusing one, for several reasons.

The question you should be asking is "is a bike worth that much to YOU?" In my opinion bikes don't cost that much.

For example..in 2009 I will probably spend $200,000 on my house (inc bills etc) $50,000 on a new car, $20,000 on shopping and who knows what on Gas....In comparison even if I decide to have a karpiel made for me ($11,000 aprox) its small change, and for a sport I love that allows me to be a kid again its a small price to pay.

If people don't like the prices maybe look at used? or a "non-trendwhore" bike (I ride a A Line...and until I find something I can't do on it its good enough)...there are always ways of riding.

 


Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.011979
Mobile Version of Website