2012 Bikes Price Increases Rip Off. Again!

EKIMIKE

Also, before anyone else has a go, there's nothing wrong with tall head-tubes and compact chainsets, it's just an observation i've made. :roll:

Turnbull2000

Got a Trek Madone 5.9SL, full Dura-Ace, Race X Lite and Race XXX Lite components, all carbon. Got it new for £2000 in 2007. Would probably have to find around £4500 or more to get a similar spec today.

Headhuunter

EKIMIKE wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

What's wrong with carbon clinchers and cheap carbon frames? OK perhaps someone going for a cheap carbon frame may be better off on a top end aluminium but not always...

If you read what i said, those are the positives that have come from astute manufacturers. People want carbon clinchers and cheap carbon frames. They are providing exactly that. The only real disadvantage is that prices are going up (although that's a bit of a generalisation).

All considered we're getting better bikes but in some cases we're paying a premium. There are still very competitively priced bikes out there. They may not have the branding you desire though (Ribble, P-X, Cube, Canyon, Verenti e.t.c).

Yeah but you wrote:

"E.g. carbon clinchers (they make no practical sense but the market demands them)"

I'm not challenging you I' genuinely interested why carbon clinchers make no practical sense. I haven't got any carbon clinchers, I just wondered why you said that....

EKIMIKE

Headhuunter wrote:

Yeah but you wrote:

"E.g. carbon clinchers (they make no practical sense but the market demands them)"

I'm not challenging you I' genuinely interested why carbon clinchers make no practical sense. I haven't got any carbon clinchers, I just wondered why you said that....

Maybe practical was the wrong word. Whilst they are practical for someone using clinchers, and that's the majority of us, they aren't practical from an engineering/manufacturing point of view as there are serious challenges with the braking surface on a carbon clincher (which are just about being overcome, albeit at a big cost). The problem lies in that conventional position for a braking track is also where a clincher rim is at it's thinnest and carbon fibre composite doesn't dissipate heat very well.

Alot of cheaper carbon clinchers you will notice lower the brake track position, so much so that some brakes don't reach down far enough.

rogz

EKIMIKE wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Increased popularity and demand should reduce prices not increase them, as manufacturers are able to benefit from increased economies of scale of production and more companies are attracted by increased sale volumes and enter the market.

True. In theory. But when the increase in demand is from a very rich demographic (middle-aged men with well paid jobs) then the manufacturers see the £££'s.

If anything all this shows that bike manufacturers are very astute to their market. It's no co-incidence that along with increasing demand from the above demographic, we've also seen more 'sportive' models with taller head tubes and compact chainset's becoming standard kit - things that make cycling easier for fat old men.

Equally their astuteness is a benefit as we're seeing many many features introduced which the market demands. E.g. carbon clinchers (they make no practical sense but the market demands them), super-light frames, cheap carbon frames, and the big one: online retail.

You've just described what bikes have become: a Veblen good.

EKIMIKE

Never heard that term before. Cheers, it's good to learn something everyday.

Drysuitdiver

Cressers wrote:

It's a result of inflation, deflation, costs of raw materials and Sh*mano groupsets,, the wind is blowing from the east, the moon being in Libra, the month having an 'r' in it...

..But mostly the cycle industry getting away with what it can, fueled by masses of guilible consumers.

its all industries that get away with it. anything that has the word "diving" before or after it or in the description automatically commands 30% more.

rick_chasey

rogz wrote:

EKIMIKE wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Increased popularity and demand should reduce prices not increase them, as manufacturers are able to benefit from increased economies of scale of production and more companies are attracted by increased sale volumes and enter the market.

True. In theory. But when the increase in demand is from a very rich demographic (middle-aged men with well paid jobs) then the manufacturers see the £££'s.

If anything all this shows that bike manufacturers are very astute to their market. It's no co-incidence that along with increasing demand from the above demographic, we've also seen more 'sportive' models with taller head tubes and compact chainset's becoming standard kit - things that make cycling easier for fat old men.

Equally their astuteness is a benefit as we're seeing many many features introduced which the market demands. E.g. carbon clinchers (they make no practical sense but the market demands them), super-light frames, cheap carbon frames, and the big one: online retail.

You've just described what bikes have become: a Veblen good.

Most bikes are not Veblen goods, and when demand rises, prices rise.

It's pretty standard.

Demand often rises faster than supply can adjust, (since, especially in manufacturing, companies like to operate close to full capacity so when more demand comes it takes a while to get more staff/machines/factories etc) so the prices rise as a result.

(I won't bring out the supply and demand graph)

TiBoy

I paid just under £1500 for my Sunday September (now Sabbath) when the 1st came out as dealer was doing them VAT free, the same bike is now listed at £2700! Bikes are going the same way as houses in the 80's, if you don't buy now you will end up with a studio flat in 3 years instead of a 3 bed detached now.

gilesjuk

Simple, build your own. Price it up and see if it is cheaper.

Sometimes it is, often it is not.