There are some brands of bicycles that can cost more than the down payment on a car. Why? Surely making a bike lightweight and reliable isn’t so difficult that it warrants that price? Is it just the brand name or maybe it has to do with customization options?
The corrrect answer is massive profiteering off of suckers.
There’s some engineering expense, that makes real bikes that last years and perform reliably, which makes it more expensive than a Walmart bike, but after that it’s rip off city.
Easiest measure to illustrate this, is the price of motorcycles. You can drop £10k on road bike or mountain bike, and still not really get top of the range. Look up what kind of motorcycle you can get for that money and then make a value judgement .
Not just marketing. Carbon fibre and weight reduction can get very expensive.
Of course, you pretty quickly hit diminishing returns, and most people don’t actually need that for a short weekend trip.
But it can make sense to spend a few thousand on a bike, if you’re using it to commute or you use it for work (deliveries, etc.).
Don’t know much about bikes, but I remember reading the story of someone who had bought something insane. Think a high end ducati. Anyway, he was complaining about how it overheated and/or got to hot at traffic lights. Someone pointed out it wasn’t designed to idle at a traffic light or cruise highway speeds. He was driving it too slowly for it to cool the engine properly. He’d bought a bike that was designed to go fast, only to find out it wasn’t actually that good at riding around at relatively slow speeds.
Don’t know if that’s true, but it does illustrate that more expensive isn’t always necessarily a better choice for an individual user.
Yeah, nah, Ducatis are like the carbon road bikes of the motorcycle world - all about dick waving. A little while back one of the larger YouTube channels took the latest Ducati to a track and put it up against a cheap 7 year old Suzuki, and the Suzuki was still faster … and if you buy a Japanese sport bike it’s not going to have the mechanical problems of a Ducati either.
Source: I have owned, ridden, repaired and raced a lot of motorbikes, including some fast-ish ones.
I think I watched that video. Ducati Panigale vs a GSX-R?
Not just about dick waving. The Ducati was prettier and Italian.
From what I know of cars, that means it was more reliable than something Japanese, because they replaced breakdowns and technical issues with temparement and character. Because humans are irrational, that’s not unlikely to cause the user to anthropomorphise their overpriced but technically flawed vehicle. (“She sometimes gets stuck in 3rd, you need to be gentle.”)
That’s the one.
It’s all just horseshit, if you want a motorbike with character, get a classic one. Hell, even my '82 Montesa manages to be reliable, yet has character out the wazoo.
I see no evidence that these bike manufacturers are super profitable, so I doubt there is much “massive profiteering”. Good bicycles are a high tech but low volume industry.
I spent 1.2k on a lower-end-good-bike 11 years ago. It’s the best fun per dollar purchase I’ve made in my 60ish year life. I wish I’d spent a few hundred more for an Ultegra group set.
10k mountain bike is like 95% the same bike as what a professional mountain biker would use in a competition. 10k motorbike is consumer grade junk that would probably break within minutes if you abuse it like you do a pro bike.
So, as an example. The Honda CBR650R is $9,899.
You can absolutely abuse that for thousands of miles.
I somehow doubt that’s anywhere compareable to the bikes they use on motoGP or such. A quick google seems to put those anywhere from 1 to 4 million USD.
Warranty will often mention that it’s void if you race it. But I don’t think the comparison’s fair.
Even in circumstances where it isn’t literally illegal to ride even a ‘budget’ motorbike anywhere near full potential, it’s still incredibly dangerous for an amateur. You literally can’t abuse it like a pro, without likely killing yourself.
Pro-level bicycle? Often no problem. You’re less likely to get into trouble at 20mph/30kmh than 120mph/200kmh on a cheap motorbike. Forget about motogp bikes which IRC do 0-300kmh(190mph?) in under 10 seconds.
True, but there are grades of racing. I don’t know what the current class structure is, but a 7k CBR is spitting distance of super street or whatever that AMA class is called now. I think the point being made is still valid. I can’t go out and buy a motogp bike, and the manufacturer isn’t pretending to sell me one.
Yeah, I’m just trying to illustrate that many people don’t quite seem to appreciate the level on engineering that is put into these things. What your average weekend warrior is doing with their mountain bike is not that far away from what a pro enduro racer would do in a competition. That’s why you need pro level gear too and that comes with a cost. A walmart bike simply just can’t handle the abuse and there’s plenty of videos on YouTube demonstrating that.
Superbike championships use road bikes with a change of fairings and upgrades to things like exhaust, brakes, and suspension.
Hell, Isle Of Man TT lightweight class has used stuff like the ER6f as a base which is a budget commuter bike, lol
A halo model super sport is basically a street legal race bike.
Remember when NASCAR racing meant “stock” car racing? Me neither.
Poor camparison, Superbike championship and the TT etc use the frame and engine (and quite a few other bits too). A stock bike in the right hands can get reasonably close to their lap times, and one with light mods (say, €1000 extra and a bit of elbow grease) can be halfway between the two.
That’s like comparing a road-model Subaru to a rally-model Subaru, they are obviously built for far different purposes
No… That’s my point. 10k mountain bike basically is that rally subaru. That’s why it’s not fair to compare a bike like that to consumer level motorbikes. That mountain bike is pro-level.
Ninja 400 for 6000 and that’s basically the honda civic of motorcycles. Very reliable even after being crashed multiple times
Nonsense
10k gets you a brand new Yamaha MT-09: A sick-looking naked motorcycle with a 3 cylinder 118hp engine. It’s really frickin fast.
In around 2012 the costs of Tour the France bikes ranged somewhere around 4k to 8k (with a rumoured 12K€ bike). Source: French TV :-)
Training bikes was about half (source my lil bro^^), but as the frame were mostly carbon and glue, they were actually quite used at the end of the season.
It’s 90% ripoff.
Let’s be honest, in the “regular” bike area there hasn’t been a meaningful innovation in the last 15-20 years. Bike chains are literally the same for what? 30 years? Yet, this extremely simple stamped metal in oil costs 20€. For what?
I mean, even a normal, reasonable bike costs easily 800€. That’s as much as a baseline MacBook Air. The pinnacle of engineering costs as much as a product that’s literally 19th century technology and easily mass-produceable .