Why are some bikes so expensive relative to others?

ronbyrne2005

I see all these expensive road and MTBs costing a few grand , why are they so expensive when they are made in asia where cheap production is driving down costs of most other products. How much extra performance/usage do you get for spending a few thousand as opposed to several hundred euro? How much quicker would an athlete on a three thousand euro road bike be compared to same athlete on a sub thousand euro road bike?
Just interested in learning why people pay so much for these bikes.

kona

The best way to explain this would be to give you a week with a serious bike, then put you back on a standard decent bike.
you will notice the gulf between the two instantly.

but to explain a bike between a grand and €700 wont be much, maybe the next level up in parts.
over €1000 is where the serious bikes come in.
There are lots of different genres of MTB, such as dirt jump, downhill, cross country, Freeride.
As regards to Freeride, if you are hitting a 40ft drop, you will want to know that you are on somthing decent, and made really strong.
In cross country, you will be losing over a kilo for every €500 you spend over about €1000, the performace of the parts wont really be any better.
example Deore and Deore LX.
however if you are good enough to push a bike worth over €2500 to its limits you really should be sponsored and getting them for free!!
High grade metal alloys cost alot of money to produce,and there is alot of demand for them, as does carbon fibre this adds alot onto the cost too.
Where they are built usually has noting to do with it, as long as its a respected brand.
for exmple, Airbus are going to start aircraft production in china shortly, these aircraft will be as well built as the ones built in tolouse.

personally, I enjoy building bikes so id be more inclined to spend the money on parts, than spend on a full bike, im sure many others are the same.

Ghost Rider

Hi Ron Byrne or Ron Byrne's friend.

From what I've read, the main difference between sub-1000 euro bikes and bikes costing much more than that seems to be the respective weights of the frames, wheelsets and groupsets, and also the durability of the groupsets.

Ironically, it is sometimes said of carbon frames that although they are lighter (and more expensive), they are also more likely to suffer catastrophic damage in a collision than steel frames, and possibly even than aluminium frames.

Raam

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

I see all these expensive road and MTBs costing a few grand , why are they so expensive when they are made in asia where cheap production is driving down costs of most other products. How much extra performance/usage do you get for spending a few thousand as opposed to several hundred euro? How much quicker would an athlete on a three thousand euro road bike be compared to same athlete on a sub thousand euro road bike?
Just interested in learning why people pay so much for these bikes.

I can't really speak much about the manufacturing cost of items, but when talking purely about superior bike components versus "cheaper" components, you will see a huge difference. If one super athlete is on a sub one thousand euro bike and they are facing another equally super athlete on a three thousand euro bike, then the athlete on the 3g bike is going the have the advantage. Any edge that a cyclist can get out of their machine is worth it if you are in it for the money. Of course, the law of diminishing returns also takes effect here. Typically, the more expensive the components, the lighter and more reliable they are and the better the job that they do.

Edit: for some one like me, having a 3 grand bike would probably make no difference over having a 1500 quid bike apart from added satisfaction. But I'm in it for my own enjoyment. There *might* be some difference, but compared to the improvements I could make from purely training, they are probably negligible.

niceonetom

ok, we admit it. most of us ride bike that are much more expensive than necessary.

in our defense i will say this:
how many golfers are lugging around 5k worth of carbon fibre and tungsten and never get their handicap below 10?

and then they drive home in their 80k beemers which are electronically limited to 155mph?

or obsessive gamers playing cod4 on 3 grands worth of pc?

do i really need my phone to be able to roam to any continent, play movies, games, and sync with my laptop?

everything these days is over engineered, over speced, and (inevitably) over-priced. we no longer live in a world where 'good enough' is good enough. so what? we like nice things, whatever we're into.

the actual improvement in performance can be minimal, especially as you spend more and more (diminishing returns, as stated above), and any of us who compete, well we're all engaged in an arms race of tech resulting in no actual change in relative advantage.

i spend at least an hour a day cycling, and at the weekends it can be an all day thing, so that why it's important to me. and that's why it's worth it to me.

there are a lot of very expensive bikes made in china, but they're not made out of tissue by slaves. china (taiwan really) is the world's leading carbon fibre product producer, and production techniques for carbon are still very expensive. it requires a lot of separate processes, most done by skilled hands and the quality control has to be really high, which pushes cost up hugely. similar problems exist for aluminium and titanium.

we want a bike to strong, light and cheap. unfortunately a bike can only be two of these things at a time .

rubadub

Economies of scale are at play too, only so many of these high end bikes are made. An increase in efficiency can mean 100,000s of bucks to a pro, so buying a lighter frame can be worth it. Just like racing cars etc.

My bike was only €600 and lads in work thought I was mad! saying "could have got a motorbike for that"- yeah a bagosh!t motorbike. Others though I was mad buying a TV for 2000, yet thought nothing about buying a 50,000 car that they drive down the shops in. people have more money to spend on past-times and hobbies nowadays, so the expensive bikes are now more readily available, and more are seen on them.

I do around 60miles a week every week, a cheaper bike is a false economy. I am not too worried about the wieght & efficiency. I cycle to waste calories, not conserve them like a pro would want to. I value comfort and reliability.

Bicyclegadabout

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

I see all these expensive road and MTBs costing a few grand , why are they so expensive when they are made in asia where cheap production is driving down costs of most other products. How much extra performance/usage do you get for spending a few thousand as opposed to several hundred euro? How much quicker would an athlete on a three thousand euro road bike be compared to same athlete on a sub thousand euro road bike?
Just interested in learning why people pay so much for these bikes.

*more business theory

1. When stuff get's really expensive, it's made for professional athletes, as in the guys who get paid to cycle. In this case, the customer isn't joe bloggs who works in an office, it's Discovery or whoever i.e. a big corporation with lots of money who can afford to spend a lot and make it back in the advertising they get from the sponsorship of mr. Tour de France.

This allows them to spend a lot on research and development, which is an expensive process. You have a room full of geniuses working on every component of the bike. In cycling especially, it costs a lot to get even the slightest edge, because the basic design is very, very old. But high quality component manufacturers can afford to pay big R+D costs because of the prices they can charge Discovery et al....also, of course, really good businesses *want* to make really good products.

2. When they're selling hugely expensive bikes to you or me, it's because of three things:
a. They know that some people have that sort of money and want to spend it on really good components, whether they *need* to spend that money is another question. Lots of people own two €100k cars, do they need them? Probably not, but they *want* those cars. As well, the state of the economy comes into play here, as in the amount of disposable income people have.
b. They're testing the equipment that they're making on the general public to see how it works in the real world.
c. It helps to make the R+D expense worthwhile, it puts money in the bank, and in a more complicated way, it helps in allowing economies of scale, bulk purchase of expensive raw materials, storage costs, manufacturing costs, and other suchlike that happens in the actual factory and in the books of the accountant who does the purchasing.And it's related to point b, some people want the latest technology no matter how good it is.
d. They charge a lot now because the technology is constantly developing, so they need to make as much money as possible before their technology becomes obsolete. But, being obsolete doesn't mean being crap in terms of the customers perspective.


Now, labour doesn't come into the cost really because everyone get's their crap done in China or India if it's at all possible. Labour happens there, R+D happens here. And R+D wages are much more in line internationally than manufacturing wages.
Btw, They know what their doing over there, "made in China" does not mean "Poorly manufactured", usually.

3. On the flip side, for manufacturers who make cheap bikes the goal is to produce a cheap bike. Not necessarily a crap bike, but a cheap one.
The processes and tricks of the trade and cheap labour costs are available and used by all, so the only place they can save on is materials and the cost of manufacturing, and from point 2d above, the cost of manufacturing depends on the amount of R+D that's gone into the design relative to the return from that to the research and development people. In other words, they'll use designs that aren't cutting edge, and they'll manufacture it with less than ideal materials.

Then, VAT, delivery costs and so on amplify the difference between bike A and bike B.

As for economies of scale....that's more complicated. I heard somewhere that Giant have the ability to buy huge amounts of components, which means they can get a good price. If you can buy in bulk, you have your supplier over a barrel. Hence, Giant offer good bikes at slightly cheaper prices than their competitors.

I recommend this book for people that want to get an idea of manufacturing processes as they relate to the cost of end products. It's a damning testimonial of Western business, right there in black and white:
http://www.amazon.com/Machine-That-Changed-World-Production/dp/0060974176



I'm gonna laugh my head off when I read this in the morning.

Chips Lovell

Bicyclegadabout wrote: »

In this case, the customer isn't joe bloggs who works in an office, it's Discovery or whoever i.e. a big corporation with lots of money who can afford to spend a lot and make it back in the advertising they get from the sponsorship of mr. Tour de France.

Bike manufacturers pay pro teams to ride their bikes, not the other way around.

Bicyclegadabout

el tonto wrote: »

Bike manufacturers pay pro teams to ride their bikes, not the other way around.

HA, disregard everything I typed so

Regardless though, big company pays some dude to ride a bike around France on Television. It's worth it for the big company, be they bike manufacturer or waning documentary channel.

But thanks for clearing that up. I'm not too knowledgable when it comes to the world of professional cycling. I should check out how it actually works. I assume it works like Formula 1, but I base that on nothing at all.


Whatever, my points stand DAMMIT!!!!1

rubadub

el tonto wrote: »

Bike manufacturers pay pro teams to ride their bikes, not the other way around.

Just advertising really, so the up and coming wannabe pros go out and buy them. I am sure most pro atheltes are littered with freebies. If they werent up to scratch the pros wouldnt be pros

Bicyclegadabout

Just in case anyone was wondering, I was drinking last night.

Hungrycol

Bicyclegadabout wrote: »

Just in case anyone was wondering, I was drinking last night.

What Absinthe?!

Bicyclegadabout

Hungrycol wrote: »

What Absinthe?!

A big bottle of anti-troll juice.

david1two3

rubadub wrote: »

Just advertising really, so the up and coming wannabe pros go out and buy them. I am sure most pro atheltes are littered with freebies. If they werent up to scratch the pros wouldnt be pros

Cycling is an addiction,I know guys on 7 grand racers weighing 12lbs and mountain bikers on the same kind of 7 grand machine, if you are very good at spotting bargains you can save a fortune. Quest Cyle shop here in London had a Ridley Damocles(£3899) in Record with Fulcrum racing wheels,everybling you need and all they wanted was £1999. Pretty much the same thing Robbie Mcewan wins his sprints on. I could only scrape £1000 at the time an then it was gone. It was a 60cm frame and end of season so I think they must have had trouble shifting it as Ridley gave it to them at a real knock down price. I ended up with Quests own Carmen Carbon with Record cranks and all chorus except for Veloce brakes(colour was right), no wheels. The frame was 8 months old and perfect. I got it for £900 and raced it at Hillingdon last saturday finishing in the top twenty, it takes me weeks to finish my first race so this bike is very special as although I felt ok at the time I spent the next two days doing nothing I was so knackered.I say the bike was perfect but when I checked the bike later on the chain and derialeur were extremely filthy. The Carmen is 16lbs without pedals and is a jot to ride.

Junior

Oh yah and the Airbus build drove up the price of carbon over the last while..

blorg

Price of carbon bikes is definately coming down year on year, not up.

As others have said, the mould is more important than the material.

Hungrycol

blorg wrote: »

Price of carbon bikes is definately coming down year on year, not up.

Agreed. That whole Airbus thing was a nonsense.

kona

Junior wrote: »

Oh yah and the Airbus build drove up the price of carbon over the last while..

no but im sure boeing will with the new 787.

the airbus remark was to do with the skilled labour in china, not to do with the cost of materials

niceonetom

Hungrycol wrote: »

Agreed. That whole Airbus thing was a nonsense.

it's not airbus's fault. the patagonian carbon harvest failed. drought, you see.

Junior

Hungrycol wrote: »

Agreed. That whole Airbus thing was a nonsense.

You reckon ?

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/manufacturing/2007-06-05-carbon-fibers-usat_N.htm

Hungrycol

Junior wrote: »

You reckon ?

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/manufacturing/2007-06-05-carbon-fibers-usat_N.htm

Some typing errors in my previous post.

It should read:

"Greed. That whole Airbus thing was not nonsense"

E&OE

cowan

You do pay a lot for the rep of a bike company aswell, some are better than others, and some treat their customers better. i.e Team Saracen vs. Kona. The kona is more expensive and amy have the same parts, but ill buy that sooner,

blorg

Junior wrote: »

You reckon ?

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/manufacturing/2007-06-05-carbon-fibers-usat_N.htm

That article is from 8 months ago. Whatever about the raw material cost, it is _not_ being reflected in carbon bike costs, which are lower/better spec year on year (indeed article mentions that Trek had hedged their supplies.)

chris85

Ghost Rider wrote: »

Ironically, it is sometimes said of carbon frames that although they are lighter (and more expensive), they are also more likely to suffer catastrophic damage in a collision than steel frames, and possibly even than aluminium frames.

Carbon frames are more likely to cause catastrophic failure but the force required to cause this catastrophic failure is a lot higher.

Basically an aluminium frame will fail at a lower stress (less force on it) but the failure will occur in the form of a crack and occurs more often at the weld in the frame. This is because aluminum is ductile which means it will stretch on failure.

Carnon frame can resist a lot more stress but when it does fail it will occure with a snap in the frame most likely. This is because carbon fibres are very brittle and they will not stretch really before failure.

This is why carbon used everywhere in racing bikes as stresses arent that great in racing frames.
Carbin fibre isnt used as much in Downhill as the impacts from downhill may cause the frame to break during a ride which could seriously injure the rider. Aluminium gets used more often as if it breaks the rider can usually safely come to a stop. No use for carbin frames in downhill to be honest.

kona

chris85 wrote: »

Carbon frames are more likely to cause catastrophic failure but the force required to cause this catastrophic failure is a lot higher.

Basically an aluminium frame will fail at a lower stress (less force on it) but the failure will occur in the form of a crack and occurs more often at the weld in the frame. This is because aluminum is ductile which means it will stretch on failure.

Carnon frame can resist a lot more stress but when it does fail it will occure with a snap in the frame most likely. This is because carbon fibres are very brittle and they will not stretch really before failure.

This is why carbon used everywhere in racing bikes as stresses arent that great in racing frames.
Carbin fibre isnt used as much in Downhill as the impacts from downhill may cause the frame to break during a ride which could seriously injure the rider. Aluminium gets used more often as if it breaks the rider can usually safely come to a stop. No use for carbin frames in downhill to be honest.

for the most part you are right, but,
depending on the way the carbon fibre is weaved and baked, you can get a fair amount af elasticity in it compared to eary varieties of carbon fibre.

i have never seen 6061 0r 7005 aluminium crack in stress tests, it stretches a bit(compared to steel) and then breaks.
and the stresses involved is nothing near what a dh bike would endure., if it fails at the weld its a ****ty weld tbh.

if you are hitting big stuff you still cant beat chro mo for its strength.

dave2pvd

People generalise far too much when it comes to physical properties/performance of CF/alu/steel/Ti frames. You can't necessarily say that a certain material frame will behave in a certain way. My point is that frame design is a far more important predictor of performance than the material used. This is especially true in the case of a CF frame - it's not a very 'traditional' build; needs a lot of design input compared to say, steel.

Why are some bikes so expensive? Well, a light and strong bike is not cheap to make. In the case of a road racing bike, the frame will probably be CF. High modulus, monocoque CF frames are very difficult to fabricate. The raw material ain't cheap either.

Raam

While we are banging on about carbon and how strong it is, here is a new carbon mountain wheelset:
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/fulcrum-introducing-carbon-mountain-wheelset-14412

chris85

kona wrote: »

for the most part you are right, but,
depending on the way the carbon fibre is weaved and baked, you can get a fair amount af elasticity in it compared to eary varieties of carbon fibre.

i have never seen 6061 0r 7005 aluminium crack in stress tests, it stretches a bit(compared to steel) and then breaks.
and the stresses involved is nothing near what a dh bike would endure., if it fails at the weld its a ****ty weld tbh.

if you are hitting big stuff you still cant beat chro mo for its strength.

Weaves can be engineered to give a good amount of elasticity but most of the research is put into making them more rigid and to reduce elasticity for road bikes. Have done little amount of DH, but dont think CF is needed there. Worked with a guy abroad once who designed a Carbon Fibre DH bike which had no rear shock, instead the frame was engineered to bend in the rear to act as a shock. Frame got published in big bike mag over there, and he was back working as a mechanic Point is why engineer CF for downhill, if it fails the rider is f**ked. makes little difference on performance.

In my experience, i have seen many DH bikes with cracks at the top of the downtube at the weld. Usually happens because the land is bad and the front end takes the impact.

Chro-mo is great, I remember being really young on a Raleigh DH bike wit a heavy ass Chro-mo frame.

dave2pvd wrote: »

People generalise far too much when it comes to physical properties/performance of CF/alu/steel/Ti frames. You can't necessarily say that a certain material frame will behave in a certain way. My point is that frame design is a far more important predictor of performance than the material used. This is especially true in the case of a CF frame - it's not a very 'traditional' build; needs a lot of design input compared to say, steel.

Why are some bikes so expensive? Well, a light and strong bike is not cheap to make. In the case of a road racing bike, the frame will probably be CF. High modulus, monocoque CF frames are very difficult to fabricate. The raw material ain't cheap either.

Sorry if I am trivialising things, just trying to keep the materials side of things simple for others. Composites are a specialist for me and could talk for days bout them but dont like to, like to keep it simple. Totally agree that design is as important, especially for CF frames.

dave2pvd

chris85,

Since we're on the subject of expensive bikes, have a look at this: http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=tech/2008/reviews/bianchi928_tcube08
Not monocoque and not lugged. And very expensive!

Certainly a more labour-intensive construction than jigging and tig-welding aluminium.

dave2pvd

chris85

dave2pvd wrote: »

chris85,

Since we're on the subject of expensive bikes, have a look at this: http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=tech/2008/reviews/bianchi928_tcube08
Not monocoque and not lugged. And very expensive!

Certainly a more labour-intensive construction than jigging and tig-welding aluminium.

dave2pvd

Looks nice. Definitly more labour intensive and the price tag shows it. Havent done any riding in the last few years so have been away from the new stuff coming in.