"I don't like progress. I think as you get older, you find it isn't progress; it's only change, and isn't change always for the better. You find out it don't stand up." -Jack Taylor (legendary bicycle builder)
Yes they are ripping us off. When I got into cycling 3 years ago I realized it was similar to RC cars. Good tools make a huge difference and Understanding basic maitance gave me more confidence with my bike. Even the tools are overpriced for what they are. Frame prices are out of control. Group sets, for what they are, seem over priced. Wheels, for what they are, seem very overpriced as Well. Chinese brands figured it out with frames. They keep the cost down and you can more affordable put a bike together rather than going with main stream brands. The Chinese group sets, especially the electric ones, haven’t figured it out yet. Durability seems to be the issue so they haven’t dialed in productions of group sets yet. But it is coming. These brands are going to be forced to lower prices. Supply and demand on the open market. Just my two cents.
My current road bike is built on a top of the range alu frame from 2003. I've only ever replaced worn parts, slowly upgrading to more modern (lighter) tech. The only reason I could possibly have for replacing the frame is if I wanted disc brakes, unless the frame itself fails catastrophically.
He nailed it straight off. Bikes are already as good as we need them to be, better than we need them to be really. Now they need to work on getting production costs down and getting more people on bikes because of the affordability. He's also correct that bikes are one of the worst investments you can make. As soon as you take it out of the shop, it's worth half of what you paid. Maybe a bit more than that, I may be exaggerating things a bit, but I'm not that far off.
What? Getting production costs down? Production costs are at floor level in cheap labor countries. They need to get their margins to non-extortionate levels that's what they need to do. A 500% or a 1000+% margin is simply indecent.
Well it depends the brands and popularity. Are we talking £115 for the top end of the line?? Lets take Rapha and Maap, at rapha for 170$(€115) you have theirs pro training team lets say mid entry if you want their pro team or the aero stuff you are looking close to 300$ Canadian before taxe (£200). Maap is in the same price range. They all charge higher price for the innovation but the technology its been out for years now so no point on charging higher prices, some jersey are getting even worst in terms of quality but still charging the full price. Don’t get me wrong i like better quality but 220cad$ (£150) for a mid entry level jersey is pushing things to much.
Attacus uses post consumer recycled fabrics. A) a necessary innovation, B) These fabrics are still very expensive to produce, relative to non recycled. But most high end cycling clothing could be 1/3rd of the price and the company would still make money. Part of the issue with cycling clothing companies is there are too many and they are too small, so economies of scale hits them hard.
Do you think bikes don't have a build and materials cost? Then there are operational costs to consider. The argument in the video is niave. If you own a high end leisure clothing business. It's unfair of you to critique capitalism carte blance for price inflation in cycling. Complex systems aren't explained away by saying *capitaliam*.
Some people have to decide whether to put the heating on or have dinner. Others can afford a £15k bicycle to use on zwift and take photos of on the weekend. There are deep problems with society and the economy
I recently watched a video from a TH-camr who is doing enduro (motorbike). He was showing that the price of an enduro motorbike and the price of a MTB are the same. How come motorbike manufacturers can offer so much more technology and components at the same price? They standardize the product (one frame size, etc.) and achieve massive economies of scale. Meanwhile, the bike manufacturers forego the opportunity to generate economies of scale and to pass them down to us, by pleasuring themselves with multiple groupsets and and infinite number of frame sizes that make precisely 0 difference for 2/3rd of cyclists. The only exception being no-nonsense brands like Decathlon, unsurprisingly.
Agree , like how you can get Yamaha R7 , very quick performance motorbike for £10k . Which has tons of tech / development and complex parts . Yet you get a very mechanically simple 10k Specialized road bike for the same price . The industry is elitist and know that cycling fanatics will spend that much money because they are fed form advertising and press that it is worth it, and combined with the natural ‘want’ to have the best . How can a mid range road bike cost 3k for what you actually are getting , it really is nuts. Should be Basic decent bike £200 Entry / mid level £500 Advanced £1000 Pro am level £1500 Pro level £2000-4000. And even that top level should be carbon frame , wheels di2 - look what they can put into a motorbike for £4-5k
This whole thing with these $1,500 bicycles mystifies me and that's probably on the cheap, United States I like to just buy an old '90s chromoly or aluminum frame of good quality build off of that with some components and just have a regular daily rider
Some bicycles cost more than really nice big cc Ducatis that are made in Italy. Not only that many small, brand new cars cost the same as high end bicycles. Think of all the costs involved in getting a car legally built and on the road. Bicycle manufacturers are taking this piss. Take Selle Italia saddles I happen to know for a fact that the most expensive saddle they make costs less than 10 pounds to produce yet it retails for over 500 pounds.
There is not enough cheap innovation. Eg, cyclist use bottle cages to hold tools and extras; securely on trips. Why not have more bottle cage mounts to make bikes more flexible for this purpose? Instead they innovate proprietary inflexible tool cabins within the toptube/downtube. How much did that research cost? versus, how much would it cost to simply drill in additional bottle cage mount holes? Frivolous innovation as an excuse to charge more when a simple solution would be much better.
Excellent idea- just like we do with cars , approved VW , Audi etc . There would be huge market for quality ‘approved’ bikes . 2 sides to this tho , it would eat into their new sales . But once someone bought into a used bike they may want to upgrade to a new one or better spec used one . And it could breed brand loyalty . Initially it would hit new sales of entry level bikes tho.
Interesting discussion. The problem is that a good e-bike, a fun one, is just silly expensive! I want one, but can't pay 5000 pounds for a bicycle. They are therefore impossible to own. The price needs to come down - a lot.
No, you do not need innovation to lower the price .there are perfectly good bikes that still exist for a fairly decent price that have been around for years before the so-called latest innovation came on the market . The industry has convinced people that they NEEd this innovation when in fact they do not. No one NEEDs hydraulic disc brakes even though they are great and no one NEEDs wireless shifting or derailleur hangers that are bomb proof and no one NEEDs a carbon frame and so on in order to have a bike that has satisfactory handling and ride characteristics and will last a very long time if maintained . So NO,innovation beyond what i have stated is simply unnecessary . people have been convinced that they need to have all of the latest innovations in order to enjoy their purchase .The industry ears most of the blame for the high prices but the sheep are also responsible for buying into the hype.
The problem to the initial argument is that us, the customers, pay for innovation but when we try to upgrade our bikes we get charge not just for the innovation, but the innovation, that they argue, we already pay for. WTF!
Bike tech is plateauing. It needs to become cheaper and more accessible. China is going to eat Europe and US companies for lunch if the prices don't come down. China is starting to ship frames, and wheels that are comparable to anything big name-brand. Chinese brand groupsets matching the big 3 are a couple of years away, but it's a when question, not if.
I went to buy kid a second hand bike from a recycle your bike thing and the price was really about £350 for a trek hardtail . Looked like it was from the late 90s and had rust on fork. I was shocked . Sold a better bike for a 3rd of the price in better condition 2 months before
Totally agree....self charging, fit and forget, compatability between groupsets, batteries, even built in contact routing within frames negating cables, not to mention electronic brakes like Blake did on GMBN!! X% will go on energy production but making electronic components easier to fit and use than cable.
gear hubs ALWAYS gonna be less efficient (power losses) than derailleurs, so they will NEVER be adopted in true reacing. They are good for everything else but not performance.
Part of the problem is like for like products these days cost a lot more, but are genuinely far better. Doesn't sound like a problem until you get into the psychology of it. When I bought my new bike, I swapped from an old alloy frame with a mix of Tiagra and 105 on it. Now, of course, I didn't want to get a bike with Tiagra, because that's worse than the 105 I had, and I didn't really want an alloy frame because carbon is so much better right? The psychology of the consistent product lines tells us that we *need* to get the same or better named product, even if it really doesn't matter. 105 will always be better than Tiagra from the same year, but a modern alloy bike with Tiagra on it would be loads better than a 10 year old alloy bike with 105. Point is, we kinda rip ourselves off, to an extent. Sure, the marketing tells us we need the best stuff with the highest profit margins, but it's kinda our fault for falling for it. Here's a video idea for you: just how cheap do you have to go before a modern bike is worse than the equivalent to that 10 year old alloy bike with 105? Where does it start being an upgrade? What's the minimum amount of money to get an objectively better experience?
Oh I think you would be shocked by that experiment. I think what you would find is you would need to go back 30-40 years to see statistically significant and meaningful differences in performance based on innovation and technology. Most of the performance gains from technology we have seen in cycling over that time frame is largely incremental and from a performance gain standpoint is only available to the top 0.001% of bike riders. I think someone with expertise in management science could easily calculate a curve of cost vs value on road bikes and many people with high end bikes would be shocked at finding out most of the excessive money is being spent on convenience and perception and not objective measurable value. I am certain that there would be a point on that curve in which the most value vs. price point and that many of us would be shocked at how low that price point would be.
The problem or issue with a dynamo or generator on a bike is that it requires friction to produce energy. Rolling friction is the bane of road cyclists. Regenerative braking or having a constant friction from the wheels feeding friction based energy would be felt as resistance or drag. Cars get away with regenerative braking to produce electricity because the electric motors work to move the car forward. It can still be felt by the driver as drag however. This is multiplied with the "motor" is the human. We are much more sensitive to drag and friction when we ride. It would be for commuter bikes maybe, but I don't see performance sport bikes having it due to rotational resistance.
I like your ideas, especially second hand bikes. The problem is labor involved to recondition the bikes. Here in NY we have many organization where they collect bikes and recondition them. Disadvantaged folks/kids in my city can go there and get a bike for free. People of means pay but still the cost is cheap. Many
Not faster no, but I wouldn’t give up electronic shifting and since going to 12spd I’ve finally eliminated that annoying cadence gap on my 11-28 cassette while actually slightly extending the range of the cassette with the 12spd 11-30. But, electronic gears have been around for years so should have gotten much much cheaper and adding a 12th cog after all these years shouldn’t incur any additional costs. I think that’s the biggest problem, the industry claims iterations as innovations to try and hide their greed. Luckily my LBS sells a really good non-mainstream brand and combined with cycle to work schemes I got my new bike at a more reasonable price. But mainstream brands are just taking the mick with their pricing.
Yes it’s more fun and precise. Doesn’t make you faster though. When you need fine tuning on the fly is a lot easier . But if you are looking to buy speed drop the money on wheels before eshifting
@@aerobrain2001 yeah I totally agree with you on the fit. It’s the single most effective speed weapon you can buy. Very good point. Just nothing shiny and cool to look at, other than all those gold cups on Strava.
Maintenance on current typical bikes is 100% an issue. The service intervals are way too high. I cannot ride my bike a few 100 km without cleaning/oiling/fiddling with something. That is a joke. What is the service interval for a much more complicated and higher stressed motorcycle or car? And what does that service look like?
Before introducing a new model, these bikes should have a life cycle, like a 10-year gap. Make bikes accessible, and mass produce them so they get cheaper. I just saw DOGMA X, and it costs $16K. That's more than a motorcycle or close to a Honda Civic. Crazy expensive. The bike should be around. $3 to $4K at maximum.
Trek is a family/employee owned private company…they are slightly less than 1B in annual revenue and in a cash starved business(they get paid way after they spent the money on development and unit costs) with probably high capital costs…the market has been driven by innovation for many years so not sure there is the financial capacity(buffer) to risk a change…most people who buy bikes regularly want the best and what the pros ride
They should really go to bike shop for 5 min to see if their ideas work... Selling a 50 euro bike how do you pay salaries, a rent, parts? Now a days with all the responsibilities as a business owner it is simply impossible to have those prices. The real question is: Are cities are doing the necessary to supply bikes as an additional mean of transport ? A 50 euro monthly pass would be more logical as alternative transport solution. So why is the industry guilty of giving innovation to those who want to pay for it? At the end only "light" ideas a not really structured way of questioning the industry
In 2006, I bought a Decathlon road bike for 109€ - it was steel, had the shifters on the down tube, weighed a ton. It was all I could afford but it got me cycling again. So cheap is possible.
The incremental cost in bikes using the same frame set is ludicrous. They can charge £1,000 more for the same bike just because it has hydraulic brakes and a “better” group set. Yes these components cost more but no way is the different manufacturing cost accurately reflected in the price.
That’s why I opted for a Madone SL7 over an SLR, got it for half the price of a top end SLR with 99% of the performance and less than a 1kg weight penalty
Cycling is the new golf!. Of course we are going to get ripped off. Rupert and Tarquin would sooner set their heads on fire than be seen riding a Decathlon or Boardman etc.
The down-hill ski industry went down this road decades ago. Every year, a new ski model, bindings, poles, clothing line, etc etc gets rolled out. Same tech. Different cosmetic wrapping. No progress. Just marketing. I bought myself a $200 used carbon frame from France and pieced together top of the line Shimano components from 10 years ago and it rides every bit as good (and as fast) as a $5k bike today. Biggest difference? I learned to wrench my own ride and got more satisfaction. There is no durability problems with any component if well maintained. I will only replace my bike if the frame fails.
We have a lot of innovation. The key is that what was Dura-Ace/Red three years ago is now 105/Rival. Same with frame technology. Used to be the top end was 700. Now that's on the 3K bike. 11K is found on top end or even more exotic carbon. Same with aluminium/titanium. The only material that hasn't technically improved over the last 20 years is steel.
Next cycling revolution: carbon ceramic brake discs. Save 45g over steel, cost $20k Or more likely idea: ABS for bikes. No need to worry locking wheels at full braking.
I want safe bikes (don't try to save bikes around the fork steerer), one universal system for internal cable routing that's working, all around better quality control, round and perfectly aligned bottom bracket holes. Other than that, find a new material and invent heat resistant carbon wheels so we can go back to rim brakes.
Big bike brand like....Scott. Scott are very small in the bike industry. Trek have bought out the Red Barn Refresh in the US which others have mentioned.
Can we talk about the elephant in the room? For example, 2022 Specialised Crux Comp, RRP £4600. 2023 Specialised Crux Comp, RRP £3500. Zero difference in spec aside from colour. We were being mugged during the bubble.
In the age of The Bottom Line Above All it will always be hard for a corporation to willingly accept less profit. Refurb is less profitable than all new. This is, in part, why governments offer incentives, like tax breaks for value refurbished. A net public good often needs a public incentive.
There are too many rich idiots buying brand new bikes, and shitting their old bikes out to the second market.... When I can pick up a light ally bike up from my LBS for £170, why would I buy a new one?
Things are sold at cheaper priced because they become less desirable, usually because there is a newer, shinier version released. A new version doesn't change the cost of production of the old model. Economies of scale means producing one thing forever will result in a cheaper product. The "innovation" increases the price of the old and new as they have to recoup development costs. The issue is "perceived innovation" v true or needed innovation. Bike companies make new versions to sell new versions. vary rarely do they produce true innovation that make a difference.
The innovation part of life for me needs to happen with the overall reliability. I want no more flats, so airless tires that are light, don't roll like cold honey, ride tuneable, etc. They don't need to be "faster" in some way that no one notices or can even realize, they don't need to be lighter, almost anyone that wants a lighter bike probably has a pound on them worth losing somewhere, do that instead (me included in that statement). Maybe a chain that is pre-impregnated with lube that won't ever need maintenace other than hosing off? Stuff like that would be fantastic, so the experience isn't always going to come down to, whelp I was having a great ride until I hit a pile of glass, punctured both tires, ripped a tube valve off, or spewed sealant all over the place and left you stranded. Selling us something that is more allegedly aero, vs hey these tires never go flat, last 10,000 miles, feel about the same as pneumatic, and roll fast, sold. We're focused on the wrong part of life, one bonk and that 15000 dollar superbike feels that same as your huffy you had as a kid.
better battery technology would solve a lot of problems in a lot of ways. We need something better than lithium ion that also won't go up in flames if things go wrong.
You could argue the reason the US is where it is comes from its national cultural foundation in adaptation/innovate to overcome challenges…the world we be a different place without NASA
innovation isnt the problem , frame manufacturers make carbon frames with cheap chinese unskilled labour , makes a frame for maybe 150-200 pounds oer frame and then they chargle like 2000 for just the frame , the companies are way too focussed on profits
Car companies have certified pre owned. Maybe bikes could do that. Give bike mechanics more business too Also aftermarket parts that are affordable are such a hurdle. Imagine being a beginner without a parts bin. $100 is like 20% of your entire bike. A few weeks of food. There has to be something in between PNW, RaceFace, etc. and Upanbike
It’s annoying that old tech is not supported. Example rim brakes, or older group set components. So you’re somewhat forced to upgrade which means more £€¥$$
Proprietary hardware makes things difficult. Ebikes are cool but manufacturers want exclusively.. E-bikes need to work together to have more common parts and sustainable. If you have 2-3 e-bikes there are 2-4 different chargers and batteries. Older (simpler) bikes are wonderful and easier to maintain. I love my steel frame internal gear hub bikes, especially the one with a belt drive. Recycle bike shops have small margins of profits so it’s important for customers to be kind and understanding when there might be a higher cost to 2nd hand parts.
The Trek Emonda ALR 5 is an exciting proposition in that, at $2400, it is a relatively cheap bike that actually doesn't suck. This bike which, in weight, fit and finish is nearly indistinguishable from a quality carbon road bike, is quite relevant to your discussion in that it rather epitomizes the concept of an uncompromized affordable basic road bike. There are, of course, similar competitors in this space, but if you take a look at this one particularly in the matte black finish with its nearly invisible aluminum welds, you might agree that the industry should be developing more in this price range and quality. I am more than puzzled by Trek's marketing strategy in that the DI2 version of this bike, the ALR 6, it's not available in America. Bizarre. Yes, make more affordable bikes. I very much want to upgrade my bike, but the one I want to replace it with will cost me more than $10,000. So my question becomes, is the new bike actually $10,000 better than the bike I'm already riding? And the answer is inevitably no. So that's a sale they've lost.
Yes the latest tech is fab. But alot doesnt really make most of us that much quicker. You still have to pedal it in the end. Most if it is made in the fast east cheap labour etc. When i bought my first dale it was made in usa. Where as dales not and are so expensive. Clothing is another one made in, china and mega money.
Bicycle industry has gone overboard with the pricing of a peddle bicycle. These overpriced road bikes are not worth it for recreational cyclist in general because unless you are a professional cyclist you will not get the benefit because recreational cyclist are not at the level of proficiency as a pro cyclist. The main reason for cycling business are failing is because the really good road bikes are overpriced. In fact, some cost more than motorcycles which are head and shoulders more technical than an overpriced bicycle. Another reason why cycling might be waning is in America I see a lot of unfit people who are getting into electric bikes because you don’t need to be as fit to ride.
I just can't justify paying several thousand dollars for something I provide 100% of the power... Nah just give me something with a motor for those prices. If I want t workout/sweat I just go for a jog at high intensity
If you source parts from China and from reputable carbon frame makers, you can build a carbon bike with carbon wheelset and Tiagra disc groupset for 1100 GBP. But you would have to include labor cost.
The real issue with bike is not a price. For £350 it is possible to get a really good used bike in mint condition. Real problem is that bike can be stolen. Now even shifters and seats can be stolen. I am just waiting when finally electric scooters will be legalized, they can be carried on shoulder using a strap.
I agree with him completely! The bike industry needs to calm the f*ck down! Seeing them have to discount their products because they didn't have the foresight to see the bubble popping and their greed... they deserve what's happening when a decent mtb is over $5k due to "decent" components and the same can be said for road bikes. A top of the line bike sitting around 5 figures? Seriously?! Its a f*cking bike! Not a car or motorcycle. Bikes still (outside of ebikes) offer the same functionality. The part of change that I hate is the price as well as how quickly they adapt to the latest and greatest... we're not all pro-racers. Options are nice, but not when they become out dated so quickly at the expense of the latest gimmick.
If the bike industry is saying innovation is pushing up prices, I’d like to know when the innovation is going to be released… I can only remember things that at most would be consider iteration. Disc brakes have been around in the bike industry for decades, electronic gears for 10+ years as a couple of examples. I agree that something like Classified is innovation, but other than that everything else has just been slight tweaks and natural progression (11 to 12 speed, wireless shifters etc). It’s only marketing teams that dress the tweaks up as “radical” or “innovative” So basically, make’em cheaper :-)
"How much should a basic-but-good bike cost"? Walk into Halfords. Go past the cheapest ones, everyone knows they'll be rubbish. Go to 50% more than that. That's where Joe Public expect the "basic-but-good" stuff to start.
It's crazy how conservative Jimmy is! But the debate between Jimmy and Francis is interesting. I think that Francis could be a little more assertive, so that the debate will be more fun. I feel like Francis holds it in. One reason could be that he behaves as a host to Jimmy. One other reason being that he doesn't want to antagonize his friend on air. I'm sure those debates are more fun offline!!! Love the podcast and your work though. It's not a hate message. Just some thoughts. And they're probably very wrong ahah
Absolutely putting disc break and cheap group set on entry levels bikes and charging 1800 dollars plus is outrages… like the Allez series in particular.. it’s a rip off
Innovation is great as long as it is innovation going in the right direction. All the innovations being made are innovations towards winning races. Less than 0.5% of cyclists need that kind of innovation. In a top level race where athletes are already at or near the limit of human physical abilities, a 50gm difference in bike weight or a 1% reduction in the drag coefficient could mean the difference between first and second place in a two hour race. For the rest of us, those numbers are irrelevant. What we need is innovation that lowers the price of bikes while maintaining quality and longevity. Carbon fiber bikes are very light and stiff, but they do not have longevity. But they are used a bike frame material anyway. Why? Because all race bikes (whether carbon fibre or steel or any other material) are assumed to be damaged and should be disposed of after a multiday race such as the Tour De France. Thus, carbon fibre as a bike frame material is acceptable in a race where the bike will be discarded soon after the end of the tour. But carbon fiber for ordinary cyclists is a ghastly idea. They are not cheap. They are not recyclable. They are not durable. But bike companies pushed them to ordinary cyclists anyway by the strategy of marketing and reducing buyer's choice. As another example, bike companies successfully convinced us to get rid of our trusty mechanical brakes and replace them with complicated disk brakes. Their reason is not engineering. Rim brakes can be mechanical but disc brakes have to be hydraulic to match the stopping ability of a mechanical braking surface on the rim of the wheel. Their real reason is simplification of their assembly line by having only one facility required to produce brakes for both MTB and RB bicycles. And of course the chance to charge a premium for a more complicated contraption. TLDR: Yes, the bike companies are ripping us off.
I am seeing so many people on E-bikes. The number of people on bikes in my city is exploding. Trek, Specialized and Giant have very expensive E-bikes. They are not competing with the more economical brands for the average cyclist. They seem more focused on cycling as an elite sport.
Is it really that you want bicycles subsidized heavily as a common social good? I'm on with that. Most things should be more expensive, not less. The oil we use to make the products and move them all around the world is subsidized and is going to cost an unspeakable amount to recover from later. If manufacturing anything carried its true cost nothing would be as cheap as it is. *Maybe we're really talking about who pays, not what it costs.
I don't even need to watch the vid to know the answer? Hell yes they're way too expensive. When they cost more than an amazing motorbike you know it's ridiculous
When a bike costs more than a Norton Commando bearing in mind the parts and labour putting the motorcycle together there’s something wrong somewhere
"I don't like progress. I think as you get older, you find it isn't progress; it's only change, and isn't change always for the better. You find out it don't stand up." -Jack Taylor (legendary bicycle builder)
Yes they are ripping us off. When I got into cycling 3 years ago I realized it was similar to RC cars. Good tools make a huge difference and Understanding basic maitance gave me more confidence with my bike. Even the tools are overpriced for what they are. Frame prices are out of control. Group sets, for what they are, seem over priced. Wheels, for what they are, seem very overpriced as Well. Chinese brands figured it out with frames. They keep the cost down and you can more affordable put a bike together rather than going with main stream brands. The Chinese group sets, especially the electric ones, haven’t figured it out yet. Durability seems to be the issue so they haven’t dialed in productions of group sets yet. But it is coming. These brands are going to be forced to lower prices. Supply and demand on the open market. Just my two cents.
My current road bike is built on a top of the range alu frame from 2003. I've only ever replaced worn parts, slowly upgrading to more modern (lighter) tech. The only reason I could possibly have for replacing the frame is if I wanted disc brakes, unless the frame itself fails catastrophically.
As long as people are willing to pay their prices?? People seem to have forgotten that if we don't stand up for ourselves? Nobody will !!!!!
He nailed it straight off. Bikes are already as good as we need them to be, better than we need them to be really. Now they need to work on getting production costs down and getting more people on bikes because of the affordability.
He's also correct that bikes are one of the worst investments you can make. As soon as you take it out of the shop, it's worth half of what you paid. Maybe a bit more than that, I may be exaggerating things a bit, but I'm not that far off.
What? Getting production costs down? Production costs are at floor level in cheap labor countries. They need to get their margins to non-extortionate levels that's what they need to do. A 500% or a 1000+% margin is simply indecent.
The same applies to cars. But there you loose way more money than on your 1500 £ bike.
@@martinmeier9639 I would have to agree. The car industry is out of control just like the bike industry.
If we follow Jimmys pricing logic on bikes the Attacus jersey at £115 should be £20-£25 at best.
Well it depends the brands and popularity. Are we talking £115 for the top end of the line?? Lets take Rapha and Maap, at rapha for 170$(€115) you have theirs pro training team lets say mid entry if you want their pro team or the aero stuff you are looking close to 300$ Canadian before taxe (£200). Maap is in the same price range. They all charge higher price for the innovation but the technology its been out for years now so no point on charging higher prices, some jersey are getting even worst in terms of quality but still charging the full price. Don’t get me wrong i like better quality but 220cad$ (£150) for a mid entry level jersey is pushing things to much.
Attacus uses post consumer recycled fabrics.
A) a necessary innovation,
B) These fabrics are still very expensive to produce, relative to non recycled.
But most high end cycling clothing could be 1/3rd of the price and the company would still make money. Part of the issue with cycling clothing companies is there are too many and they are too small, so economies of scale hits them hard.
Do you think bikes don't have a build and materials cost? Then there are operational costs to consider.
The argument in the video is niave. If you own a high end leisure clothing business. It's unfair of you to critique capitalism carte blance for price inflation in cycling. Complex systems aren't explained away by saying *capitaliam*.
$5 in material.
What kind of fabric costs the amount in those elitist jerseys brands are selling?
Building and riding bikes for 20+ years... you are so spot on! Keep it up!
Some people have to decide whether to put the heating on or have dinner. Others can afford a £15k bicycle to use on zwift and take photos of on the weekend. There are deep problems with society and the economy
My favorite people are the knobs who justify their $15k Specialized SL8 by saying they can feel such a big difference from the SL7 😁
I enjoy cleaning and looking after my bikes. I am no mechanic but I enjoy knowing how it works.
I recently watched a video from a TH-camr who is doing enduro (motorbike). He was showing that the price of an enduro motorbike and the price of a MTB are the same. How come motorbike manufacturers can offer so much more technology and components at the same price? They standardize the product (one frame size, etc.) and achieve massive economies of scale. Meanwhile, the bike manufacturers forego the opportunity to generate economies of scale and to pass them down to us, by pleasuring themselves with multiple groupsets and and infinite number of frame sizes that make precisely 0 difference for 2/3rd of cyclists. The only exception being no-nonsense brands like Decathlon, unsurprisingly.
Agree , like how you can get Yamaha R7 , very quick performance motorbike for £10k . Which has tons of tech / development and complex parts . Yet you get a very mechanically simple 10k Specialized road bike for the same price . The industry is elitist and know that cycling fanatics will spend that much money because they are fed form advertising and press that it is worth it, and combined with the natural ‘want’ to have the best .
How can a mid range road bike cost 3k for what you actually are getting , it really is nuts.
Should be
Basic decent bike £200
Entry / mid level £500
Advanced £1000
Pro am level £1500
Pro level £2000-4000. And even that top level should be carbon frame , wheels di2 - look what they can put into a motorbike for £4-5k
This whole thing with these $1,500 bicycles mystifies me and that's probably on the cheap, United States I like to just buy an old '90s chromoly or aluminum frame of good quality build off of that with some components and just have a regular daily rider
Guys when a super bike Honda 1000cc with 200 bhp costa less then a road bike, that is just stupid.
Some bicycles cost more than really nice big cc Ducatis that are made in Italy. Not only that many small, brand new cars cost the same as high end bicycles. Think of all the costs involved in getting a car legally built and on the road. Bicycle manufacturers are taking this piss. Take Selle Italia saddles I happen to know for a fact that the most expensive saddle they make costs less than 10 pounds to produce yet it retails for over 500 pounds.
I just had a look at Specialised website. A bike that cost $20k has been reduced in price by over $4k.
Yes, they are taking the piss!
There is not enough cheap innovation.
Eg, cyclist use bottle cages to hold tools and extras; securely on trips. Why not have more bottle cage mounts to make bikes more flexible for this purpose?
Instead they innovate proprietary inflexible tool cabins within the toptube/downtube. How much did that research cost? versus, how much would it cost to simply drill in additional bottle cage mount holes? Frivolous innovation as an excuse to charge more when a simple solution would be much better.
HP printers are pinnacle of "low serviceability". Dream business model, everything is tightly integrated and replacement costs a ton of money.
Excellent idea- just like we do with cars , approved VW , Audi etc . There would be huge market for quality ‘approved’ bikes .
2 sides to this tho , it would eat into their new sales . But once someone bought into a used bike they may want to upgrade to a new one or better spec used one . And it could breed brand loyalty . Initially it would hit new sales of entry level bikes tho.
Interesting discussion. The problem is that a good e-bike, a fun one, is just silly expensive!
I want one, but can't pay 5000 pounds for a bicycle. They are therefore impossible to own. The price needs to come down - a lot.
If you don;t think bike companies are forcing us to buy stuff we don;t want / need: Try buying a top quality rim braked mechanical gear race bike...
Jimmy, Trek just launched the Red Barn program that does certified used bikes
Certified used is still expensive on those trek bikes
They are just profiting of our collective stupidity- that’s all. No need to assign blame
No, you do not need innovation to lower the price .there are perfectly good bikes that still exist for a fairly decent price that have been around for years before the so-called latest innovation came on the market .
The industry has convinced people that they NEEd this innovation when in fact they do not. No one NEEDs hydraulic disc brakes even though they are great and no one NEEDs wireless shifting or derailleur hangers that are bomb proof and no one NEEDs a carbon frame and so on in order to have a bike that has satisfactory handling and ride characteristics and will last a very long time if maintained . So NO,innovation beyond what i have stated is simply unnecessary . people have been convinced that they need to have all of the latest innovations in order to enjoy their purchase .The industry ears most of the blame for the high prices but the sheep are also responsible for buying into the hype.
Patagonia had their own eBay shop for their 2nd band stuff (they might still do). Pretty much what was suggested at the end of the episode
The problem to the initial argument is that us, the customers, pay for innovation but when we try to upgrade our bikes we get charge not just for the innovation, but the innovation, that they argue, we already pay for. WTF!
Bike innovation does not inflate a $300-800 frame to a $14k bike. Facts.
Bike tech is plateauing. It needs to become cheaper and more accessible. China is going to eat Europe and US companies for lunch if the prices don't come down. China is starting to ship frames, and wheels that are comparable to anything big name-brand. Chinese brand groupsets matching the big 3 are a couple of years away, but it's a when question, not if.
4.5kg bikes are the ones from 2008. Scott addict RC, cannondale supersix evo etc.
I went to buy kid a second hand bike from a recycle your bike thing and the price was really about £350 for a trek hardtail . Looked like it was from the late 90s and had rust on fork. I was shocked . Sold a better bike for a 3rd of the price in better condition 2 months before
Totally agree....self charging, fit and forget, compatability between groupsets, batteries, even built in contact routing within frames negating cables, not to mention electronic brakes like Blake did on GMBN!! X% will go on energy production but making electronic components easier to fit and use than cable.
gear hubs ALWAYS gonna be less efficient (power losses) than derailleurs, so they will NEVER be adopted in true reacing. They are good for everything else but not performance.
Thu axles, full hydro disc brakes and 11sp 105/micro shift groupset should not be impossible to produce for £350.
I went completely the other way and got myself a used omafiet.
Integrated everything and should last a lifetime in the slow lane lol
Part of the problem is like for like products these days cost a lot more, but are genuinely far better. Doesn't sound like a problem until you get into the psychology of it. When I bought my new bike, I swapped from an old alloy frame with a mix of Tiagra and 105 on it. Now, of course, I didn't want to get a bike with Tiagra, because that's worse than the 105 I had, and I didn't really want an alloy frame because carbon is so much better right? The psychology of the consistent product lines tells us that we *need* to get the same or better named product, even if it really doesn't matter. 105 will always be better than Tiagra from the same year, but a modern alloy bike with Tiagra on it would be loads better than a 10 year old alloy bike with 105.
Point is, we kinda rip ourselves off, to an extent. Sure, the marketing tells us we need the best stuff with the highest profit margins, but it's kinda our fault for falling for it. Here's a video idea for you: just how cheap do you have to go before a modern bike is worse than the equivalent to that 10 year old alloy bike with 105? Where does it start being an upgrade? What's the minimum amount of money to get an objectively better experience?
Oh I think you would be shocked by that experiment. I think what you would find is you would need to go back 30-40 years to see statistically significant and meaningful differences in performance based on innovation and technology.
Most of the performance gains from technology we have seen in cycling over that time frame is largely incremental and from a performance gain standpoint is only available to the top 0.001% of bike riders.
I think someone with expertise in management science could easily calculate a curve of cost vs value on road bikes and many people with high end bikes would be shocked at finding out most of the excessive money is being spent on convenience and perception and not objective measurable value.
I am certain that there would be a point on that curve in which the most value vs. price point and that many of us would be shocked at how low that price point would be.
The problem or issue with a dynamo or generator on a bike is that it requires friction to produce energy. Rolling friction is the bane of road cyclists. Regenerative braking or having a constant friction from the wheels feeding friction based energy would be felt as resistance or drag. Cars get away with regenerative braking to produce electricity because the electric motors work to move the car forward. It can still be felt by the driver as drag however. This is multiplied with the "motor" is the human. We are much more sensitive to drag and friction when we ride. It would be for commuter bikes maybe, but I don't see performance sport bikes having it due to rotational resistance.
I like your ideas, especially second hand bikes. The problem is labor involved to recondition the bikes. Here in NY we have many organization where they collect bikes and recondition them. Disadvantaged folks/kids in my city can go there and get a bike for free. People of means pay but still the cost is cheap. Many
I have to ask this question, does 12sp electric shifting really make cycling more fun and the rider faster than a 11 sp mechanical shifting group?
Not faster no, but I wouldn’t give up electronic shifting and since going to 12spd I’ve finally eliminated that annoying cadence gap on my 11-28 cassette while actually slightly extending the range of the cassette with the 12spd 11-30.
But, electronic gears have been around for years so should have gotten much much cheaper and adding a 12th cog after all these years shouldn’t incur any additional costs. I think that’s the biggest problem, the industry claims iterations as innovations to try and hide their greed. Luckily my LBS sells a really good non-mainstream brand and combined with cycle to work schemes I got my new bike at a more reasonable price. But mainstream brands are just taking the mick with their pricing.
Yes it’s more fun and precise. Doesn’t make you faster though. When you need fine tuning on the fly is a lot easier . But if you are looking to buy speed drop the money on wheels before eshifting
@@robbiek4400 I’d almost say drop money on a bike fit first. But yeah, wheels and tyres are probably the two physical items that made me quicker.
@@aerobrain2001 yeah I totally agree with you on the fit. It’s the single most effective speed weapon you can buy. Very good point. Just nothing shiny and cool to look at, other than all those gold cups on Strava.
Maintenance on current typical bikes is 100% an issue. The service intervals are way too high. I cannot ride my bike a few 100 km without cleaning/oiling/fiddling with something. That is a joke. What is the service interval for a much more complicated and higher stressed motorcycle or car? And what does that service look like?
I agree....
Bikes are way too expensive and are prohibiting more people from joining the movement.
$7K to $15K for a bike is totally insane!
you can get a perfectly good bike for 700
Before introducing a new model, these bikes should have a life cycle, like a 10-year gap. Make bikes accessible, and mass produce them so they get cheaper. I just saw DOGMA X, and it costs $16K. That's more than a motorcycle or close to a Honda Civic. Crazy expensive. The bike should be around. $3 to $4K at maximum.
Recycke your bike is great it used to be in Durham but now its moved to Chester Le-Street. I haven't been there since it re-opened
Laughs in allez rim brake with 105 ❤😂
Trek is a family/employee owned private company…they are slightly less than 1B in annual revenue and in a cash starved business(they get paid way after they spent the money on development and unit costs) with probably high capital costs…the market has been driven by innovation for many years so not sure there is the financial capacity(buffer) to risk a change…most people who buy bikes regularly want the best and what the pros ride
Nobody wants or needs what the pros are ridding.
Belt drives are amazing. I have it with an 11 speed internal hub. It just goes with little maintenance.
They should really go to bike shop for 5 min to see if their ideas work... Selling a 50 euro bike how do you pay salaries, a rent, parts? Now a days with all the responsibilities as a business owner it is simply impossible to have those prices. The real question is: Are cities are doing the necessary to supply bikes as an additional mean of transport ? A 50 euro monthly pass would be more logical as alternative transport solution. So why is the industry guilty of giving innovation to those who want to pay for it? At the end only "light" ideas a not really structured way of questioning the industry
In 2006, I bought a Decathlon road bike for 109€ - it was steel, had the shifters on the down tube, weighed a ton. It was all I could afford but it got me cycling again. So cheap is possible.
$20 craigslist bike in 2020 right before pandemic. 38 centuries to date
What?
The incremental cost in bikes using the same frame set is ludicrous. They can charge £1,000 more for the same bike just because it has hydraulic brakes and a “better” group set. Yes these components cost more but no way is the different manufacturing cost accurately reflected in the price.
A bike shop equivalent of CEX (Computer Exchange)?
Jimmy totally nailed this..The secondary market should be huge it's ripe for development..
Yeah Attacus stuff is really expensive. Cheap cycling stuff for me is around 20-60€ (Decathlon - Van Rysel Clothing) not Attacus (£100+)
That’s why I opted for a Madone SL7 over an SLR, got it for half the price of a top end SLR with 99% of the performance and less than a 1kg weight penalty
You should check out the pros closet in Colorado they are exploding on the second hand market. 14:44
Cycling is the new golf!. Of course we are going to get ripped off. Rupert and Tarquin would sooner set their heads on fire than be seen riding a Decathlon or Boardman etc.
The down-hill ski industry went down this road decades ago. Every year, a new ski model, bindings, poles, clothing line, etc etc gets rolled out. Same tech. Different cosmetic wrapping. No progress. Just marketing. I bought myself a $200 used carbon frame from France and pieced together top of the line Shimano components from 10 years ago and it rides every bit as good (and as fast) as a $5k bike today. Biggest difference? I learned to wrench my own ride and got more satisfaction. There is no durability problems with any component if well maintained. I will only replace my bike if the frame fails.
Innovation can be manufacturing processes that reduce cost. Its not just tech innovation.
We have a lot of innovation. The key is that what was Dura-Ace/Red three years ago is now 105/Rival. Same with frame technology. Used to be the top end was 700. Now that's on the 3K bike. 11K is found on top end or even more exotic carbon. Same with aluminium/titanium. The only material that hasn't technically improved over the last 20 years is steel.
Next cycling revolution: carbon ceramic brake discs. Save 45g over steel, cost $20k
Or more likely idea: ABS for bikes. No need to worry locking wheels at full braking.
ABS exists for ebikes already, mostly on pedelecs (45km/h)
I want safe bikes (don't try to save bikes around the fork steerer), one universal system for internal cable routing that's working, all around better quality control, round and perfectly aligned bottom bracket holes. Other than that, find a new material and invent heat resistant carbon wheels so we can go back to rim brakes.
New in 90% case works on every products, ne packaging, new look, new recipe, new formula, etc.
Big bike brand like....Scott. Scott are very small in the bike industry. Trek have bought out the Red Barn Refresh in the US which others have mentioned.
I agree bikes have reached a platio aero has been around for a long time a good bike fit and a good coach is the secret to improving your riding
Can we talk about the elephant in the room? For example, 2022 Specialised Crux Comp, RRP £4600. 2023 Specialised Crux Comp, RRP £3500. Zero difference in spec aside from colour. We were being mugged during the bubble.
In the age of The Bottom Line Above All it will always be hard for a corporation to willingly accept less profit. Refurb is less profitable than all new. This is, in part, why governments offer incentives, like tax breaks for value refurbished. A net public good often needs a public incentive.
There are too many rich idiots buying brand new bikes, and shitting their old bikes out to the second market.... When I can pick up a light ally bike up from my LBS for £170, why would I buy a new one?
So you could use your hub dynamo to charge your electronic gears. Progress? Or just bs.
Things are sold at cheaper priced because they become less desirable, usually because there is a newer, shinier version released. A new version doesn't change the cost of production of the old model.
Economies of scale means producing one thing forever will result in a cheaper product.
The "innovation" increases the price of the old and new as they have to recoup development costs.
The issue is "perceived innovation" v true or needed innovation. Bike companies make new versions to sell new versions. vary rarely do they produce true innovation that make a difference.
The innovation part of life for me needs to happen with the overall reliability. I want no more flats, so airless tires that are light, don't roll like cold honey, ride tuneable, etc. They don't need to be "faster" in some way that no one notices or can even realize, they don't need to be lighter, almost anyone that wants a lighter bike probably has a pound on them worth losing somewhere, do that instead (me included in that statement). Maybe a chain that is pre-impregnated with lube that won't ever need maintenace other than hosing off? Stuff like that would be fantastic, so the experience isn't always going to come down to, whelp I was having a great ride until I hit a pile of glass, punctured both tires, ripped a tube valve off, or spewed sealant all over the place and left you stranded. Selling us something that is more allegedly aero, vs hey these tires never go flat, last 10,000 miles, feel about the same as pneumatic, and roll fast, sold. We're focused on the wrong part of life, one bonk and that 15000 dollar superbike feels that same as your huffy you had as a kid.
For eBikes, better battery technology. More dense and less expensive so more people use them.
better battery technology would solve a lot of problems in a lot of ways. We need something better than lithium ion that also won't go up in flames if things go wrong.
You could argue the reason the US is where it is comes from its national cultural foundation in adaptation/innovate to overcome challenges…the world we be a different place without NASA
innovation isnt the problem , frame manufacturers make carbon frames with cheap chinese unskilled labour , makes a frame for maybe 150-200 pounds oer frame and then they chargle like 2000 for just the frame , the companies are way too focussed on profits
Car companies have certified pre owned. Maybe bikes could do that. Give bike mechanics more business too
Also aftermarket parts that are affordable are such a hurdle. Imagine being a beginner without a parts bin. $100 is like 20% of your entire bike. A few weeks of food. There has to be something in between PNW, RaceFace, etc. and Upanbike
What’s wrong with 26 hard tail?
People say they don't want innovation but imagine doing a modern day XC mountain bike course on a 90's 26" mtb. it would literally try and kill you.
You should review a pinion drive on a bike like a tout-terrain or a rohloff
Why not ask the UCI to put a price cap on road bikes in a similar way that they put a Weight limit in place?
It’s annoying that old tech is not supported. Example rim brakes, or older group set components. So you’re somewhat forced to upgrade which means more £€¥$$
I have an old Italian frame from late 80s or early 90s and I want to upgrade it but there is very minimal good stuff out there
Charging hub that powers the electronic derailleurs 😂 .
With the exception of E-Bikes new innovations do not sell bikes. Building cycling communities is what sells bikes.
Proprietary hardware makes things difficult. Ebikes are cool but manufacturers want exclusively.. E-bikes need to work together to have more common parts and sustainable. If you have 2-3 e-bikes there are 2-4 different chargers and batteries.
Older (simpler) bikes are wonderful and easier to maintain. I love my steel frame internal gear hub bikes, especially the one with a belt drive. Recycle bike shops have small margins of profits so it’s important for customers to be kind and understanding when there might be a higher cost to 2nd hand parts.
The Trek Emonda ALR 5 is an exciting proposition in that, at $2400, it is a relatively cheap bike that actually doesn't suck. This bike which, in weight, fit and finish is nearly indistinguishable from a quality carbon road bike, is quite relevant to your discussion in that it rather epitomizes the concept of an uncompromized affordable basic road bike.
There are, of course, similar competitors in this space, but if you take a look at this one particularly in the matte black finish with its nearly invisible aluminum welds, you might agree that the industry should be developing more in this price range and quality.
I am more than puzzled by Trek's marketing strategy in that the DI2 version of this bike, the ALR 6, it's not available in America. Bizarre.
Yes, make more affordable bikes. I very much want to upgrade my bike, but the one I want to replace it with will cost me more than $10,000. So my question becomes, is the new bike actually $10,000 better than the bike I'm already riding? And the answer is inevitably no.
So that's a sale they've lost.
Yes the latest tech is fab. But alot doesnt really make most of us that much quicker. You still have to pedal it in the end.
Most if it is made in the fast east cheap labour etc. When i bought my first dale it was made in usa. Where as dales not and are so expensive.
Clothing is another one made in, china and mega money.
Bicycle industry has gone overboard with the pricing of a peddle bicycle. These overpriced road bikes are not worth it for recreational cyclist in general because unless you are a professional cyclist you will not get the benefit because recreational cyclist are not at the level of proficiency as a pro cyclist. The main reason for cycling business are failing is because the really good road bikes are overpriced. In fact, some cost more than motorcycles which are head and shoulders more technical than an overpriced bicycle. Another reason why cycling might be waning is in America I see a lot of unfit people who are getting into electric bikes because you don’t need to be as fit to ride.
I just can't justify paying several thousand dollars for something I provide 100% of the power...
Nah just give me something with a motor for those prices.
If I want t workout/sweat I just go for a jog at high intensity
If you source parts from China and from reputable carbon frame makers, you can build a carbon bike with carbon wheelset and Tiagra disc groupset for 1100 GBP. But you would have to include labor cost.
The bike industry is no different than any other industry. How many people are going to want to buy an iPhone 13 nowadays?
The real issue with bike is not a price. For £350 it is possible to get a really good used bike in mint condition.
Real problem is that bike can be stolen. Now even shifters and seats can be stolen.
I am just waiting when finally electric scooters will be legalized, they can be carried on shoulder using a strap.
Innovation serves the industry now. When it gets to only brand bike shops can work on the bike it will be completed
Race led innovation is not needed - it's a dead end for the majority of cyclists.
I agree with him completely! The bike industry needs to calm the f*ck down! Seeing them have to discount their products because they didn't have the foresight to see the bubble popping and their greed... they deserve what's happening when a decent mtb is over $5k due to "decent" components and the same can be said for road bikes. A top of the line bike sitting around 5 figures? Seriously?! Its a f*cking bike! Not a car or motorcycle. Bikes still (outside of ebikes) offer the same functionality. The part of change that I hate is the price as well as how quickly they adapt to the latest and greatest... we're not all pro-racers. Options are nice, but not when they become out dated so quickly at the expense of the latest gimmick.
If the bike industry is saying innovation is pushing up prices, I’d like to know when the innovation is going to be released… I can only remember things that at most would be consider iteration. Disc brakes have been around in the bike industry for decades, electronic gears for 10+ years as a couple of examples.
I agree that something like Classified is innovation, but other than that everything else has just been slight tweaks and natural progression (11 to 12 speed, wireless shifters etc). It’s only marketing teams that dress the tweaks up as “radical” or “innovative”
So basically, make’em cheaper :-)
Cheaper bikes
Innovation are pretty minimal nowadays
Yes. Next question
"How much should a basic-but-good bike cost"?
Walk into Halfords. Go past the cheapest ones, everyone knows they'll be rubbish. Go to 50% more than that. That's where Joe Public expect the "basic-but-good" stuff to start.
It's crazy how conservative Jimmy is! But the debate between Jimmy and Francis is interesting. I think that Francis could be a little more assertive, so that the debate will be more fun. I feel like Francis holds it in. One reason could be that he behaves as a host to Jimmy. One other reason being that he doesn't want to antagonize his friend on air. I'm sure those debates are more fun offline!!! Love the podcast and your work though. It's not a hate message. Just some thoughts. And they're probably very wrong ahah
short answer: yes , long answer hell yes !!
Absolutely putting disc break and cheap group set on entry levels bikes and charging 1800 dollars plus is outrages… like the Allez series in particular.. it’s a rip off
Innovation is great as long as it is innovation going in the right direction. All the innovations being made are innovations towards winning races. Less than 0.5% of cyclists need that kind of innovation. In a top level race where athletes are already at or near the limit of human physical abilities, a 50gm difference in bike weight or a 1% reduction in the drag coefficient could mean the difference between first and second place in a two hour race. For the rest of us, those numbers are irrelevant.
What we need is innovation that lowers the price of bikes while maintaining quality and longevity. Carbon fiber bikes are very light and stiff, but they do not have longevity. But they are used a bike frame material anyway. Why? Because all race bikes (whether carbon fibre or steel or any other material) are assumed to be damaged and should be disposed of after a multiday race such as the Tour De France. Thus, carbon fibre as a bike frame material is acceptable in a race where the bike will be discarded soon after the end of the tour. But carbon fiber for ordinary cyclists is a ghastly idea. They are not cheap. They are not recyclable. They are not durable. But bike companies pushed them to ordinary cyclists anyway by the strategy of marketing and reducing buyer's choice.
As another example, bike companies successfully convinced us to get rid of our trusty mechanical brakes and replace them with complicated disk brakes. Their reason is not engineering. Rim brakes can be mechanical but disc brakes have to be hydraulic to match the stopping ability of a mechanical braking surface on the rim of the wheel. Their real reason is simplification of their assembly line by having only one facility required to produce brakes for both MTB and RB bicycles. And of course the chance to charge a premium for a more complicated contraption.
TLDR: Yes, the bike companies are ripping us off.
I am seeing so many people on E-bikes. The number of people on bikes in my city is exploding. Trek, Specialized and Giant have very expensive E-bikes. They are not competing with the more economical brands for the average cyclist. They seem more focused on cycling as an elite sport.
Is it really that you want bicycles subsidized heavily as a common social good? I'm on with that.
Most things should be more expensive, not less. The oil we use to make the products and move them all around the world is subsidized and is going to cost an unspeakable amount to recover from later.
If manufacturing anything carried its true cost nothing would be as cheap as it is.
*Maybe we're really talking about who pays, not what it costs.
Yes.
I don't even need to watch the vid to know the answer? Hell yes they're way too expensive. When they cost more than an amazing motorbike you know it's ridiculous