Rose Bikes Announces Price Increases of 8-12%
Germany's Rose Bikes has become the latest manufacturer to announce price rises due to the effects of COVID-19.
The direct sale brand will be increasing its prices by 8-12% across all segments, joining brands including Commencal, Propain, Santa Cruz and others that have recently all felt the pandemic's toll on the cost of doing business.
The brand has described the bike boom as "unstoppable" and says that this has meant a scarcity of raw materials has increased prices across the industry and throughout the supply chain. The brand also says that shipping containers cost eight times more than normal and there have been increases in cost for land freight too. The price increase won't come into effect until March 25th so anyone considering purchasing a Rose bike is recommended to do so before that deadline.
 | Almost all components of the supply industry are now more expensive for us. On top of that are increased freight costs. Of course, we would also prefer to keep the old prices. Unfortunately, we could not delay it any longer. As a small compensation, we are offering our customers the option of ordering their bike at the old price until March 25th. |
| "If you want to cycle next summer, buy now! Because the boom is not stopping and delivery times will continue to be higher than customers are used to in the bike industry." |
More info, here.
Author Info:
Member since Nov 14, 2018
Must Read This Week
So, 4 years distance:
Geo:
Minus cca. 3° Head Angle, plus 3° Seat Angle, plus 45 mm Reach, minus 40 mm Seat Tube length
Equipment:
148 vs 142 rear axle, mm vs inch Shock, 175 vs 125 dropper post, 30 vs 23 mm rims, 12 vs 10 speeds, 10-51 vs 10-42 cassette, bigger discs, 10 mm shorter stem and 20 mm wider Handlebars
It's also a very good platform even for some upgrades if you want since you are not throwing money at old geo frame.
It could just be me but I think the industry slowed down in the last 2-3 years (well a bit depends on the brand).
Nope. Time to hoard the consumables!
Oh yeah...ugh, republicans happened LOL
When are we going to stop paying people ignorant wages for jobs that we've deemed should exist?
Hey kids 'never take financial advice from the PB comment section Exhibit A'
Just answer the questions: what rate should employees be paid? And for smaller companies, does that mean the company just makes less profit so that they can pay their employees more, or do you think the company (inherently profit driven) is going to likely cut some employees since now the marginal cost/marginal utility disparity has grown?
The fact that you are arguing that there are human beings in the richest country in the world who don't deserve to live comfortably is sociopathic.
Every human being should be paid a living wage. It doesn't matter how much better than them you think you are. Every human being should be paid a living wage.
Paying the poorest people in our societies more puts money directly back into our local economies as the poorest people can't save money and they can't invest money. They will spend any extra money they have on necessities they are currently foregoing. That means that local businesses who are now paying their employees properly are also making more money so they are at a net gain. This is proven by every study into it ever done, there is no economic reason not to give every employee proper wages. The same is true of Universal basic income programs, every penny spent on them returns itself several fold in reduced reliance on government programs but capitalists rely on exploiting desperate people to focus wealth on a tiny fraction of individuals so they push the Socialism = Evil narrative down our throats.
The only argument against proper living wages for all human beings is that you think other human beings don't deserve comfort and happiness, and that's f*cked.
Nobody is arguing for a minimum wage of $50. The $15 amount is being pushed for as it is enough for most people in most states of America to afford to rent a home for them and their families.
A 10% increase in food service industry worker's wages generally leads to a 1.4% increase in the price of the food they sell. So a 100% increase in the minimum wage as is being discussed would lead to around a 14% increase in the price of a big mac (53 cents) but would allow every person in the restaurant to be able to afford to rent a safe and comfortable place to sleep and raise their family.
It also allows you, if you don't make minimum wage, to argue that your skills deserve to be paid better as you could go and make enough to live on flipping burgers. Your boss doesn't want to lose you as you are a skilled worker so you get a raise so that 53 cent increase in the burger price is more than offset when you treat yourself to some junk on the way home from a ride.
"it isn't possible to live on food service wages" (my gf was a bartender and a sommelier and made over 5k take home a month before COVID so again, false. but granted that its much harder if your only billable skill is flipping a cheeseburger and not being stoned)
I've literally never once used the argument "people don't deserve to live comfortably". What a wonderfully painful and wild strawman that was.
and lets go with your logic one step further here, who is going to bear the burden of these increased costs of operations: you, the consumer, or me the business owner? Because we already have seen how vehemently opposed everyone is to any sort of increase in prices, so consumers aren't going to foot the bill most likely. And the business owner won't accept lower profits if he can replace the now expensive human capital with cheap non human capital.
Like I get it you want to have a kumbaya moment and everyone to be paid what they feel its worth, but take it out of idealistic sofa talk and apply it to the real world for 2 seconds and you'll find that pretty much every market subverts your efforts.
Sure sounds like you are arguing that some people... ahem, sorry, "flesh puppets" don't deserve to make enough money to live on here.
Is that the only thing you're able to come back with? seriously?
Ok let's open it up to you then, how much should someone get paid who only knows how to make a big Mac? And should the consumer bear the increase or the company?
furthermore, if these "living wages" measures actually worked, then why are we having this discussion? we already raised it to 12.50 and 13.5 in some states, and guess what, still not buying a house with them burger wages.
I've worked in fast food restaurants, I've been a pool boy, bar back, insurance salesman, bike salesman, you name it. People are paid based on what they can do, pretty much end of story.
If you think differently, please provide some examples that back up your theories.
not saying its not a good idea, just pointing out some early setbacks
Take your Fox News, Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson bullshit somewhere else. I've read your argument all over the internet.
I call it bootlickery because that's exactly what it is. Tell me, how much are you getting paid by capitalists and corporations for singing their praises and deep throating?
Unless you can furnish me an economics degree or your business earnings, you're just an armchair bootlicker that has watched way too many hours of Fox.
I have never worked in fast food I am just capable of human empathy.
"Ok let's open it up to you then, how much should someone get paid who only knows how to make a big Mac? And should the consumer bear the increase or the company?"
How many times? Enough to live comfortably. That varies from place to place but it is sure as shit a lot more than the current minimum wage.
Getting into an argument over the specifics isn't addressing the central point that human beings deserve to live comfortably. What is your argument against that? What is your reasoning for people, no matter where they work, putting in a full week of work and not being able to afford a place to live without roommates or rats?
"People are paid based on what they can do, pretty much end of story."
I agree that people should be paid different based on what they can do, the lowest end of that spectrum however should be enough to live on comfortably.
Ah the true colors come out. Can I see this econ degree of yours?
Or are you just as full of shit as your Fox News overlords?
And for the record, I haven't made any sort of claims. I just like to call out bootlickers for what they are.
This.
I mostly like capitalism and the 'free market', and as such, I have zero sympathy for businesses that claim they can barely stay afloat even with underpaid laborers. I you can't stay in business while paying your staff a living wage based on locality and average housing costs, you shouldn't be in business. And as a consumer, your operating costs aren't my problem.
I wouldn't say I'm anti-corporation. I'm more along the lines of pro-labor.
First...I don't think 7.25 is a livable wage...to be clear. As for what is...well...that depends on the individual I suppose...but in todays world 7.25 amounts to 14.5 K per year before tax. Wheew...no bueno.
That said, we live in a country where, IF you can move about, you can find a job doing unskilled labor for more than minimum wage...for the most part. I know in my area you can pretty easily find an unskilled labor job starting around 12-15 per hour.
The problem is, the contingent of people who can't move about (which admittedly is tricky on minimum wage without public transportation) or have some extenuating circumstance, and are literally stuck at the mercy of 7.25.
Now, I don't know what that contingent is, how big, whereabouts geographically but...I am SURE it exists. To YOUR point, I don't know that we can make blanket policy changes for this contingent without really hurting small business. On the other hand...how long can small business retain workers when...in areas like mine...big companies are ALREADY PAYING a near or greater than 15 dollar minimum wage...WITHOUT a federal mandate.
Eventually...if you let it play out naturally...the big fish are going to gobble up the small fish anyway. People can't survive on 7.25...period. If small business wants to keep paying that as to not "hurt" their business...they may find themselves without a workforce eventually. Wouldn't you agree?
I think the bigger question is...how did we let big business get so big that small business can't compete with a 15 dollar minimum wage? What are we actually doing to ensure small business can stay competitive? Surely the answer can't be...drive said businesses employees into poverty.
And people have this perception that they make good money because they and they alone are working hard for it, and justify it to themselves in this way. Plenty of people are working two jobs and still just get by or juggling work and raising children etc. It's a very self centred and arrogant way of thinking, but that's what most people are.
And ya forgive me for not divulging personal information on the internet, but if you want to have an actual discussion on economics I think you'd find yourself pretty clearly out of depth.
and I get it, you have no substance so you name call. which is why you're not taken seriously, maybe if you actually understood the basics of the system you engage in you could stand to learn something, but alas calling people idiots and staying ignorant is probably way easier.
The pull yourself up by your bootstraps work both ways.
And you're avoiding the issue: rewarding low skill labor at a value that is higher than the profit it can generate, is economically inefficient. If someone flipping burgers can do more than burger flipping, then the onus on them to go and find a job that is consummate to the level of labor/profit they can bring to the table. Im not saying giant corporations don't take advantage of it, but to quote Louis C.K "maybe if someone with no contacts or connections in the country who doesn't even speak the language, can take your job, maybe the problem is YOU"
Hey i'd love for everyone to make $100/hr, the problem is you absolutely devalue the currency if suddenly a high school student can make $800 a day without doing a single thing for the company other than pour/serve/cook/clean. And again, you're facing the problem that as technology gets more sophisiticated, the easier it is to replace these jobs with robots, which is already happening, so you're not only incentivizing companies to employ workers for less hours, you're also incentivizing them to just replace them. At the end of the day, you can't force corporations to not profit maximize, no matter how much you stomp your feet. And at the end of the day, lots of small companies wont be able to cover the additional expenses, and although @Almazing stupidly thinks that that's justification for that company sinking, they're ignoring the fact that on a bigger scale these means rampant unemployment.
Like most of these ideas fall apart at the very next step of their implementation if everyone just thought through them enough.
If you have some sort of economic model that is representative of the US economy that shows raising minimum wage actually results in a net benefit for the average consumer and worker then I think that's a better place to make your argument instead of hypotheticals.
I get what you’re saying, but you see, you’ve typed up a whole bunch of claims without citing any sources or case studies or models. Provide links.
‘Trust me, I’m an economist’ just doesn’t cut it.
"i get what you're saying" so you're acknowledging you understand the principles of economics but you're just not accepting them and instead calling me names because???
See theory is great. But as we've all seen with the GME fiasco, theory sometimes is just that. Theory. But I'd prefer so see published works from people smarter than you or me about why minimum wage increases would collapse American society as we know it(sic).
PragerU, unfortunately, doesn't count. Neither do any right(or left) wing pundits, or individuals who've openly supported partisanship on either side. I'm clearly a left-wing liberal snowflake, but I still like to see unbiased studies and data.
Because in all honesty, and I don't mean this as an attack on you, your arguments are the same ones I've heard from the likes of PragerU, the Fox team, Ben Shapiro, and the rotting Rush Limbaugh, to name a few.
And if you've heard these arguments so many times how come you can't substantiate your rebuttals even in the slightest?
raising minimum wage will have an insignificant and short term effect/benefit for low skill workers. Refute that please.
That was a snarky remark on my part. A joke, even.
I have clearly made my side known on this debate. That being said, I’ve only expressed opinions that are my own and haven’t tried to pass them off as fact. I have no rebuttal because you’ve failed to provide sources for your claims.
I’m sure you know about the burden of proof, yes? You’ve made the claim. Provide some proof.
It’s that simple. Unless your proof comes from the ‘forbidden’ sources I’ve mentioned earlier.
I'd recommend starting at page 20, where he starts by stating experience is essentially the only thing that elevate a laborers wage value.
duckduckgo.com/?q=minimum+wage+doesn%27t+help+the+poor&atb=v246-1&ia=web
here is an opinion piece from CNN: www.cnn.com/2021/02/09/perspectives/15-minimum-wage-biden-hurt/index.html
www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2019/07/10/the-unintended-consequences-of-the-15-minimum-wage/?sh=2251e83de4a7 (this is probably the most relevant source)
TLDR version; minimum wage hikes only helps a select few low wage earners, while hurting more across multiple income brackets.
Still need more? Your turn to provide some meaningful data.
Thanks for this.
CNN is an opinion piece. I do appreciate that you’ve decided to post a left leaning news source, however. Though I dislike CNN because of their overbearing bias.
The Forbes article is writing by a CEO and founder or a large recruiting firm. So I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that he is financially and personally invested in keeping wages low and profits high. Also an opinion piece.
And the MIT link. Well that’s the down and dirty theory.
Since experience then is tied to wages, do you not think American society has been undervaluing job experience for say, the last 10, 15, maybe even 20 years?
And no I don't. I think that capitalism for the most part rewards competency. Obviously there are flaws and exceptions, but by and large the people working minimum wage jobs at 711 or McDonalds aren't rocket scientists or dentists that couldn't find work.
So now the onus on you, provide some sort of data that shows a minimum wage increase will improve the livelihood of low income earners.
Btw interesting tid bit, did you know that union leaders are played in proportion to the other salaries in the union, so the tiers are proportionate to one another. Meaning if you vote for union workers to be paid more, you're also advocating for union heads to increase their multi million dollar salaries? bet ya didn't know that one.
And you'd actually be really credible if you did provide 2 opinion pieces from authors that are actual economists. Information, at least in this day and age, is only as credible as the author is.
I'm actually trying to break down my own argument here, but I'm not finding any articles stating that the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 had any lasting negative or positive effects. Then again, it was so long ago that such data could be lost in the sea of search engines. In any case, this topic is so divisive and generally always will be.
Below is my opinion, and my opinion alone.
I personally feel that minimum wage, should at the very least, go up proportionally with the inflation percentage every year. $7.25 in 2019 doesn't hold the same weight as it did in 2009. And the federal economists should work with states and cities to study what is, and what isn't a living wage in their regions, congressional districts, counties, whatever. I'm a federal employee and we have COLA adjustments to our salary depending on region. It works well, but as a government job, it doesn't pay as well as a private company.
You can't honestly think that the $7.25 federal minimum wage is worth just as much as it was in 2009 do you?
fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42973.pdf
Here's some data from a real credible source.
TLDR, 1968 was the last time the minimum wage held any real value. And minimum wage, despite being raised 22 times, has not been able to keep up with inflation and the steady rise of consumer products. Purchasing power has been on the decline, and continues to do so.
I gave multiple sources, opinion and otherwise, showing the adverse and negative externalities of the increased minimum wage. And for the most part states have their own minimum wage, so we're talking about a broader topic than just the federal minimum wage.
And no, no money is worth the same as it was 10 years ago, is that a serious question?? Nobody is arguing that inflation isn't real, or deflation for that matter.
What you need to prove to me, is that there is some overarching benefit to the MAJORITY of low skill laborers/low income earners, as a result of the minimum wage increase. I've provided my evidence to the contrary, and you provided stats that the purchasing power for goods bundles has decreased, which is natural considering the variety of goods produced has skyrocketed, leading to constant fluctuations in dollar valuations.
I'm not trying to be rude, but a lot of the things you're arguing are somewhat agreed upon or at least accepted elements of economics, which you could easily learn more about with some light reading. I know you'll probably call him a coon or uncle tom or a sellout, but "basic economics" by thomas sowell has a great amount of information about basic market equilibriums and inefficiencies.
Actually, no. I ignore biases by completely refusing to acknowledge opinion pieces on both sides. Clearly, those opinion pieces are speculating on the potential effects of another increase in minimum wage. We will never know what those real world effects are unless the minimum wage hike ever comes to pass. I can make speculations too, and so can you. Doesn't mean it's worth knowing about or backed by data. Opinion pieces aren't something I would call evidence to support your claims. Echo, echo, echo, echo.
Please stop projecting on me.
I don't believe I ever said that minimum wage would solve all of our problems. Hell, I do believe that it may even introduce new problems. I merely stated that the minimum wage, at minimum, should rise with inflation on a proportional level, whatever that dollar value may be. I provided you with data as to why I feel that the minimum wage has lost its purchasing power. And why I feel it should be raised proportionally with inflation, at a minimum. And I'll leave it at that.
look at the amount of people who bitch and moan about a tariff that affects only luxury goods, and tell me people won't complain when prices go up. Your extremely limited focus on cheeseburgers would be great if the economy consisted solely of cheeseburgers and people. People already don't tip in the US, despite knowing that it directly goes to the server, so ya forgive me for not betting on the altruism of the masses.
"doesn't mean its worth knowing about or backed up by data" ahhh the ignorance of the modern left.
The point you so painfully keep trying to avoid is: Show me that a minimum wage increase will positively affect the MAJORITY of low skill workers or wage earners. That's all you have to do, I provided multiple sources opinion based and otherwise showing that it won't have the intended effect, and that it might have the inverse effect, so please substantiate your claim somehow that I'm wrong..
or you could go back to putting your fingers in your ears and calling anyone with more understanding of the economy a "boot licker", which I hope by now you can realize was incredibly immature and a total waste of time. just because people understand something you struggle with shouldn't be a reason for condemnation. grow up buddeh.
Do you know what speculation is called when it's based on facts and data? Analysis.
at this point its clear you're not going to provide anything worth reading, should have guessed from your initial statements. ignorance must surely be bliss. later
See the late Walter Williams for more:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y97UqMZvvIE
What do we need? Systematic change! When do we need it? We never should've allowed large corporations and wealthy individuals to buy policy change that degrades collective bargaining!
www.brookings.edu/research/living-wage-laws-how-much-do-can-they-matter/#:~:text=Living%20wage%20laws%20have%20both,and%20modest%20reductions%20in%20poverty.
www.epi.org/publication/bp170
edlabor.house.gov/imo/media/doc/FactSheet-RaisingTheMinimumWageIsGoodForWorkers,Businesses,andTheEconomy-FINAL.pdf
www.apa.org/monitor/2016/04/living-wage
crownschool.uchicago.edu/ssa_magazine/living-wage-ordinances-are-not-model-minimum-wage
www.jstor.org/stable/2117925?casa_token=qY8OT6cFVokAAAAA%3A6GzLmi__k42eYKd6EuIBwskbnmu_wGqULuZJ1rs0pejQZu2JSb776D8oJJKK5fPp88oX6VM6FqfT0FsId_Nf9JtVGKAUvFcXNdMArDQYDhzvrbeRtNqa&seq=5#metadata_info_tab_contents
*Do note that limited peer-reviewed studies have been effectively conducted on this topic due to its complexity! The body of evidence is widely inconclusive, thus the general economic analysis is reasonable.
*Also note that an economics course guide is relatively meaningless in supporting a point of view as it outlines various economic strategies but doesn't offer information addressing our current question.
I sold my house in Oregon, but decided to stay local for a bit while I tied up some loose ends, and so that I could ride Oregon trails through the summer. I had already set an end date with my employer, and I just wanted a gig that would be like 4-6 months and something where I can just show up, work, and go home. No take home work and no stress. A buddy got me on with him doing light construction work.. like landscape maintenance, fence repairs, nothing all that technical. I started at $15/hr. Just 3 years prior that same position started at $12.25, which, at the time, was quite a bit higher than the minimum wage in the area of $9.75. You worked outside in the elements, rain or shine, and were compensated for it with a fair bit more than minimum wage. But as I mentioned above, Oregon voted to raise the minimum wage over a period of years, starting in 2016(?). *I* voted to raise the minimum wage, even though at the time I made a pretty decent salary.
The section manager explained his plight to me at one point. In a nutshell what happened was this: What used to be a nice bump up in pay for what is essentially low-skilled labor was now the floor for all jobs in the area. So he was having a haaaard time getting people who wanted to come work outside in the rain for 7 months of the year when they could make the same wage working in a climate controlled place like Target, a coffee shop, etc. It didn't help that you had to pass a pee test to get hired (in Oregon, ha) because we worked with heavy machinery on occasion. So he had to start offering a higher starting wage to even get people to apply. Even then, a good deal of them were just crap from what he said. He liked me because I showed up and worked hard and had a good attitude (I didn't stress over the job because I knew it was temporary)--and I had department management experience, so we would talk about that side of operations sometimes. Well guess what... *his* boss was like hey man, the company can't just pay all these new hires $15/hr, you'll have to raise your bids for contract work to compensate. So he did. And the few large apartment complexes that they contracted with just said well ok, we still need your services, and everyone seems to be charging more these days, so it is what it is. The apt complexes just cover that cost by hiking rent the maximum allowed each year.. and people need a place to live, so what are they gonna do, not pay it? Additionally, morale in the shop was an all-time low because the new hires were making as much as the guys who had been there for 4+ years.. these guys had 4, 5, 6 years experience, making the same as any new dummy walking in off the street. "Just pay them more"? And then what, hike bid prices even higher?
A federal minimum wage of $7.25 is absurd, and far behind the times. But then again, I've seen the cascading effects of a $15/hr hike in real life. Calling it a "living wage" is a farce, because it is completely relative. How nice of a dwelling should I be afforded for trading 40hrs of my labor? Which neighborhood can it be in? How much food, how nice of food.. organic, or gov't cheese? How new of a cell phone do I deserve? I don't know the answers.
I just need metal frames, good suspension, wheels that don't taco and I'm pretty good...
Literally things as simple as finding raw cardboard for packaging is proving to be impossible due to the increase in demand for online shopping etc.
I cite port delays... Boats waiting to be unloaded due to not being able to dock. Massive delays. Do you think the shipping companies are not offsetting the fact that they are being delayed with price increases? www.freightwaves.com/news/inside-californias-colossal-container-ship-traffic-jam
All of these increased logistical hurdles are costing companies more money in getting product to your door. Its not as simple as "bike companies are being greedy".
And oh so good.
Bicycles are becoming the new cars. The prices are becoming so prohibitive, that the only way to buy a nice car is through financing, or now even cheaper through leasing. You only have to go to any bike website now to see that finance is available on pretty much all bikes, and even components now.
YT's newly released bikes have proved it doesn't have to be this way. Their Jeffsy Core 2 bike is amazing value for money. To me, this exposes the likes of Santa Cruz and Specialized for that they are, lovely looking bikes, but WAY overpriced.
1) Inflation
2) Bike companies will design and sell what people will pay for
Inflation's a bitch, and is only part of the story.
An S-Works Enduro in 2005 cost $US 5500, today it's $US 10500. (+91%)
Adjusted for inflation, that '05 Enduro would be $US 7500 (+36%) in today's money.
We're footing the bill for how much better bikes are than they were 15 years ago, and we seem to love it.
But as always the bulk of bikes on the trail are not the highest-end ones. Your average trailbike is a better value than decades ago. Here is a case where trickle-down actually works:
In 2021 for less than $3000 ($2200 in '05 dollars) you can go buy (disclaimer: covid...) a Marin Alpine Trail or a Nukeproof Reactor with modern geo, modern damping, meaty tubeless tires, and a dropper post. The old '05 S-Works Enduro would have a hard time keeping up. And didn't even have a water bottle in the frame. lol
And staying on topic of this article.. Rose has great bikes at incredible price points. Even with this increase they have a much better value than say YT, which increased their marketing budget and bike pricing once people over the pond got its popularity.
Bike brand X bad. Bike brand Y good. Oh, and f*** e-bikes, too.
“Since the start of 2020, aluminum is up 15%, and rubber is up by 50% or more. Steel prices were up about 20% in 2020, and China Steel Corp., Taiwan’s biggest steel maker, announced another 9.5% price increase on Jan. 14.
Even corrugated cardboard is up 10% in the last year, with a sharp price increase in the commodity cost at the end of 2020.”
www.bicycleretailer.com/international/2021/02/05/take-hike-bike-prices-expected-go-again#.YE-OhCX3YlQ
Add in Brexit for you and Trump’s tariff war with China for us. I’m surprised the prices haven’t gone up more considering the crushing demand for stuff.
But by next year those bikes will be $2-3k clothes hangers when people go back to work, the gym, and resume more normal activities.
If Rose bikes were making good margins and profit from the UK, they would have continued to sell here.
As it was, a wee bit of paperwork tipped them over the edge and they used it as their excuse to exit the UK market (pretty sure Rose bikes had a UK market share of 1%).
www.bikeradar.com/news/rose-bikes-not-available-uk
I don’t hear anyone complaining about selling their 5 year old bike for damn near what they paid and upgrading.
There’s a lot of new people, there’s going to continue to be, and the companies are going to have to adjust to meet demand. And until the supply chain issues are sorted, it’s going to be who wants to pay the most. It’s no secret they don’t have a problem selling any of these
One thing is for certain; my ‘19 Bronson looks better each day. SC won’t be getting anymore sales out of me...again not because they are greedy per se, but that the increases have priced them out of future consideration. These price increases are certainly changing the way I look at new bikes, especially high end.
"We have over a year of production already ordered, anything you order now or in the next 12 months will be affected by this boom even if in stops today and we get no more orders for the rest of 2021. Suppliers are unable to keep up with demand and are informing us of delays daily so delivery schedules are slipping further and further, every element of our business is increasing in cost. We will likely need to increase our pricing again to stay afloat unless things start moving in the other direction soon."
The boom has been good for everyone except people who actually enjoy riding bikes on a regular basis. The sooner it ends, the better for actual riders.
Thankfully I've got a new bike on order that's due in May but I'm one of the lucky ones, lots of people are going to be disappointed this year. Whatever you do don't break one of your bikes!
Can't you do whips, scrubs and rip berms on those bikes? Please, let me know, I don't want to waste my money XD.
You can even make a mullet if you want. I think if you ride at least one 650b wheel you are still cool.
"Aluminum Prices Push Toward 2020 High on Sanction Worries, Demand
The metal has gained more than 13% year-to-date
Dec. 18, 2020
Aluminum prices are trading near their highest levels in almost two years, fueled by soaring demand for raw materials and worries that potential new U.S. sanctions on one of the world’s largest producers could limit global supplies of the metal.
Aluminum, used in everything from jet engines to electric vehicles, has surged more than 40% from its May lows, with contracts for delivery in three months closing at $2056.50 Friday, near the 2020 high of $2064.50 hit earlier this month. It has now gained more than 13% year-to-date."
www.wsj.com/articles/aluminum-prices-push-toward-2020-high-on-sanction-worries-demand-11608308859
Raw material cost will be passed from the supplier to the bike frame manufacturer, and on down the line. Same for rubber, plastic, carbon, increased shipping costs due to lack of supply, etc until the final product.
I'm pretty certain Rose and Santa Cruz et al knew that they would lose some customers with price hikes. There are many alternatives and Rose bikes are still a pretty good value.
The big question: will bike companies reduce prices to reflect that?
Wtf is going on? Yeah, covid blabla, people started riding. But a) Enve makes their rims in house and who as a beginner buys $1000 rims. What is going on in this industry right now!?!?
Translation
“Due to demand we’re putting our prices up, but using 2020 as an excuse”
Said all bike companies.
Where some money could be saved is if overseas invoices were not payed via a tax haven with a few percent creamed off for the company owners before the actual invoice was paid. Governments, Germany included turn a blind eye to that.
My commencal was a 9k build and previous antidotecarbon jack was a 15k build .. it's it worth that... hell no..
Dirt/motor bikes are far more complicated and in most aspects, high tech.. and mtbs are starting to command those prices.. for items made in China/taiwan by people so underpaid.. no this is purely price gouging because the market will pay it.
I'm ashamed of what's happened..
I'll be building my own bike next time..
you don't have to pay it. £1000 bikes are better than they have ever been before. You can get a great fun bike for a reasonable amount of money. Are there better bikes out there? Of course there are. Nobody is saying the entire car industry is insane and out of control and pricing people out of car ownership because a new ferrari costs £250,000.
Doublecrownaddict: *grabs pitchfork and starts screaming incoherently about nazis*
I wonder even if you order a bike right now will you actually receieve it in Oct-Nov, or if the delivery date is just going to get postponed over and over again.
Its supply and demand. fewer flights = less space available for freight = more pressure on the ships.
@garrisond5 If you doubt me, then I invite you to share what info you have from your factories and vendors in Taiwan, China and Vietnam....oh you dont have these connections, nor do you know anyone who does? Well then, move along.
Of course its not as simple as 'no flights = more expensive surface freight' But I will tell you this: when there are no more flights and the pressure to have faster surface freight from Asia to Europe or USA increases, then some ships will increase their cruising speed to -for example- knock a week off their transit times, if this is done the fuel usage per transit increases exponentially, this of course is a big factor on surface shipping costs.
Well if you want to split hairs, then I'll be happy to point out for a second time that you are wrong. I never said they dont use fuel, I said they dont run on gasoline, which is true. Gasoline is a type of fuel, but fuel is not always gasoline.
Reading comprehension. look it up mate.