# Are bikes becoming more expensive?



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

So given the amount of people complaining about the "increasing costs of bicycles", I thought it might be interesting to take a look at actual manufacturer suggested retail prices and relative value of the U.S. Dollar. I used Specialized: Choose Region + Language, Home - Used Bicycles for Sale - BicycleBlueBook.com, and Measuring Worth - Relative Worth Calculators and Data Sets to pull this data. Since the first commercially available, mass-produced mountain bike was the 1981 Specialized Stumpjumper, I thought it made sense to use that as the baseline. The original Specialized Stumpjumper retailed for a whopping $750 in 1981 dollars.

In 1993, a basic Specialized Stumpjumper retailed for $877. This included a 21-speed Shimano LX drivetrain. The CPI has $750 from 1981 equivalent to $1190 in 1993. In 1993, $1083 would have bought you a Stumpjumper FS, complete with an air fork and Shimano LX components. That was a nice upgrade at the time.

The 1981 Specialized Stumpjumper retailed for $750, which was equivalent to $1920 in 2013 using the Consumer Price Index. To compare, a 2015 Specialized Stumpjumper Comp 29er retails for $2000. I'll take the 2015 version for an equivalent price, thank you very much.

So ignoring inflation and the "increasing" median household income, $750 right now will buy you a Specialized Pitch Comp 650b. Sure, it doesn't have LX components, but the Shimano components that are on it will absolutely out-perform the 1981 Shimano LX components. Hydraulic disc brakes, better tires, and a suspension fork are just cherries on the top.

I could go on through the years and compare other brands, but I don't really see the point. Bikes have not gotten more expensive. In fact, they are more affordable now than ever. You couldn't buy a mountain bike for $500 in 1981, but you can get a relatively trail-worthy bike for $500 right now that works better than the original Stumpjumper ever did.


----------



## Impetus (Aug 10, 2014)

What do Statistics tell you?

...anything you want them to.


Your math, while technically accurate completely misses the point of why people say bikes have gotten too expensive.
You can rationalize all you want about how parts have gotten more reliable and suspension forks are better. No one is dumb enough to argue they haven't. They argue that the 'minimum required price' for a bike that isn't a total crap heap is a barrier to entry for a lot of folks and no one can truly figure out why.

In the mid-early 90's a pretty solidly built, singletrack-capable bike from a well-known bike company was about $350. It was probably a mix of Alivio and Deore components, and had Shimano cantilever brakes. It wasn't flashy but no-one worried it was gonna implode on the trail. I myself rode a Spec Rockhopper with SLX group for almost 4 years before moving to an FS GT LTS (a top of the line bike at the time at $1300). My brother and dad continued to beat on it for another decade before a rock dented the downtube.

Fast forward 20 years and discounting inflation, a $350 bike is found at D!cks Sporting goods, or is a WalGoose, and has top of the line "SIS" components and a 7sp freewheel. People actually DO worry that it's gonna implode on the trail. 

Use the tool you linked to adjust for inflation, and that's $480. Specialized lists the HardRock base model for $480, with a component spec that's part Altus and part Acera. With Tektro brakes. NOT the SLX that came on my $350 Rockhopper. It's even a step down from the Alivio/Deore mix group of it's predecessor. It does have the same JIS Sq Taper BB that my 1993 RockHopper had. There's zero reason to spec a bike that poorly in 2015. 

I don't care that it has a 100mm suspension fork. I've ridden a classmates $500 Trek with a Suntour fork...I'd rather have a rigid fork. That thing was dangerous.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

Having ridden through the evolution of the mountain bike i can say that for the dollar mountain bikes continue to get better and better than each successive model year. There was a time that a high end bike needed constant attention, constant fiddling and was constantly breaking down and low end mountain bikes were generic looking and plain. Now you get great performing bikes that share the appearance and some of the benefits of their higher end siblings and you can buy 'em and ride them and barely maintain them. 

Sure you can go to the extremes: $12k specialized and high end customs but for $1.5K you can get into an amazing bike that will last for ages and probably deliver better performance than the high end bikes of the previous decade. I have truly loved seeing this happen. There was time when we referred to thinks like Cranknfails, shimano rapidwrong, and CNC high end glass components. It is infinitely better than it was and I can't wait to see where it goes from here.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

ARandomBiker said:


> In the mid-early 90's a pretty solidly built, singletrack-capable bike from a well-known bike company was about $350. It was probably a mix of Alivio and Deore components, and had Shimano cantilever brakes. It wasn't flashy but no-one worried it was gonna implode on the trail. I myself rode a Spec Rockhopper with SLX group for almost 4 years before moving to an FS GT LTS (a top of the line bike at the time at $1300). My brother and dad continued to beat on it for another decade before a rock dented the downtube.
> 
> No. $350 did not get you Deore or even Alivio components in the mid '90s. Cantilever brakes, yes. I bought a brand new Schwinn Frontier in '93 that had 15 speeds and friction thumb shifters. The tires, brakes, and pretty much everything else sucked. The forks bent fairly easily, as did the wheels. Definitely NOT a trail-worthy bike. Also, SLX didn't exist until somewhat recently, unless you meant STX, which is possible. Finally, $1300 bought you nowhere near a top of the line bike. My 1998 Specialized FSR Comp cost $1350 and came with a modest LX spec. It was second from the bottom of Specialized's full-suspension lineup. Top of the line bikes in the mid '90's were easily in the upper $3000's, and ended with Cannondale's $15,000 team downhill bike. Are you sure you even rode mountain bikes in the '90's?
> 
> ...


Dangerous? Not as dangerous as a foldable high-tensile rigid fork with hard rubber tires and cantilever brakes. I'll trust my math and common sense anyday.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Flucod said:


> Any stock Suntour forks that come OEM in the US are NOT meant for trail riding, in fact they have small warnings on the lower right legs stating not to ride off-road with them. Makes me laugh everytime I build a $900 bike that should not be used off-road. In fact a rigid fork would be an improvement over what is currently on bikes.


Most parts on those low and mid level bikes from the '80's and mid ' 90's wouldn't be recommended for real mountain biking these days, either. Have you never ridden the garbage from 20 years ago? That stuff was often dangerous.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

rockcrusher said:


> Having ridden through the evolution of the mountain bike i can say that for the dollar mountain bikes continue to get better and better than each successive model year. There was a time that a high end bike needed constant attention, constant fiddling and was constantly breaking down and low end mountain bikes were generic looking and plain. Now you get great performing bikes that share the appearance and some of the benefits of their higher end siblings and you can buy 'em and ride them and barely maintain them.
> 
> Sure you can go to the extremes: $12k specialized and high end customs but for $1.5K you can get into an amazing bike that will last for ages and probably deliver better performance than the high end bikes of the previous decade. I have truly loved seeing this happen. There was time when we referred to thinks like Cranknfails, shimano rapidwrong, and CNC high end glass components. It is infinitely better than it was and I can't wait to see where it goes from here.


Right on! It is clear who was actually riding back in the early days. Man, I can't believe it has been that long ago...


----------



## Impetus (Aug 10, 2014)

Clearly I mis-interpreted the intent of this thread. I came for an adult discussion on the inflation of entry into a hobby. not a circle-jerk of agreement about 'the bad-old-days'. 

I'll blame it on me being halfway down a Cap'n & Coke made in a Sonic Rte 44 cup.

Maybe I'll come back when I'm sober.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Look a what you get today:

disc brakes on both ends, in addition to the disc hubs and tabs
high volume tires
slacker headtube angle
shorter stem (by miles)
nice low-riser type handlebar usually with some sweep and 31.5 interface so stiff
10 speed rear shifter
suspension fork tubes actually big enough to deal with hitting bumps, instead of deflecitng and flexing all over the place
far bigger bearings and axle for the crankset, so the spindle doesn't snap off a little jump
low-profile derailleurs and clutch mechanisms so the chain doesn't smack and slap all over the place
lighter stronger rims
butted aluminum frames (remember when an aluminum frame was rare!?)

And on and on. Not all of these advancements are some sort of bling part, but just the way the bikes have evolved. While you might spend $500 for a nice starter bike these days, it's miles ahead of a $1500 bike from 1998. While you "can" ride those older bikes, newer bikes make it much easier and funner to ride-you are not constantly fighting the bike. So while it seems some things are more money, I submit that you are getting a lot more for your money at the same time. A lot more than just "oh, a shimano XT bike now costs $4000", which is missing the point IMO.


----------



## CS2 (Jul 24, 2007)

B


rockcrusher said:


> Having ridden through the evolution of the mountain bike i can say that for the dollar mountain bikes continue to get better and better than each successive model year. There was a time that a high end bike needed constant attention, constant fiddling and was constantly breaking down and low end mountain bikes were generic looking and plain. Now you get great performing bikes that share the appearance and some of the benefits of their higher end siblings and you can buy 'em and ride them and barely maintain them.
> 
> Sure you can go to the extremes: $12k specialized and high end customs but for $1.5K you can get into an amazing bike that will last for ages and probably deliver better performance than the high end bikes of the previous decade. I have truly loved seeing this happen. There was time when we referred to thinks like Cranknfails, shimano rapidwrong, and CNC high end glass components. It is infinitely better than it was and I can't wait to see where it goes from here.


Agreed,owning an 82 stumpy I an say things have come a long way.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

ARandomBiker said:


> Clearly I mis-interpreted the intent of this thread. I came for an adult discussion on the inflation of entry into a hobby. not a circle-jerk of agreement about 'the bad-old-days'.
> 
> I'll blame it on me being halfway down a Cap'n & Coke made in a Sonic Rte 44 cup.
> 
> Maybe I'll come back when I'm sober.


Post some facts, and then we can have a genuine discussion. Being sober might help.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

In 2002 I purchased a brand new 2002 Specialized Enduro Pro, the top of the line Enduro model you could buy as a complete bike, the Carbon S-works was frame only.

I paid $2700.00

Today I think Specialized has dropped the "pro" model and now offer the "Expert" as the top of the line before you get to S-Works Carbon Bikes.

Today the MSRP on a 2015 Specialized Enduro Expert is $6,600.00

source:
Specialized Enduro FSR Expert 650b 2015 from Bike Bling

That is more than double.

Inflation has not doubled since 2002, and neither has my income.


----------



## ColinL (Feb 9, 2012)

High end has gotten higher, no doubt.

Low end does deliver more bang for your buck, but the OEM market is squeezing out 'good' hard tail bikes. So, you either spend $800 for a HT with a junk Suntour fork or you spend $1800 for an entry-level FS bike with an air fork.

$1800 does seem expensive for an entry-level bike.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

ColinL said:


> High end has gotten higher, no doubt.


The OP did not specify this was a discussion of only entry level bikes, I look at the scenario based on my own personal experience.


----------



## KevinGT (Dec 25, 2012)

Since bikes aren't anywhere close to a commodity, you shouldn't expect prices to increase anywhere close to inflation.

Bikes have gotten significantly more complicated since I started riding in 1988 so with that added complexity comes two things: improved performance and higher costs.

Look at brakes, for example. The cantilever brakes on my original Specialized Rockhopper had how many parts? Calipers, pads, mounting hardware, straddle cable, cable hanger, a couple springs, some washers, and a simple cable-pull lever. How many parts does a modern hydraulic brake have? 10x as many? each of those components has a design, manufacturing, and assembly cost that the canti's don't have. Costs skyrocket. Worth it? That's for you to decide. Having nearly quit the sport because I got so sick of weak cantilever brakes that constantly needed to be adjusted and required perfectly true and clean rims, I'd say it's worth it.

Same with a fork. Compare the number of parts, engineering time, and assembly complexity of even a low end shock to an old steel rigid fork. Not even in the same league.

NOW FOR THE FUN PART! Don't make the mistake of comparing a 26 lbs., 5" travel, carbon fiber all mountain bike at $4000 to a 1988 rigid steel bike. Instead, compare a 1988 rigid steel bike to a 2015 rigid steel bike...wait, they are tough to find. Let's find something close...

I paid $400 for my 1988 rigid steel specialized rockhopper. Here's what $400 gets you today:

Save Up to 60% Off Mountain Bikes - MTB - Motobecane 500HT

Bikes are cool and can be more affordable for a better bike today than in 1988.


----------



## cjsb (Mar 4, 2009)

The bike industry doesn't have cartel like traits so it would be difficult to just raise prices that others couldn't use as an opportunity to undercut. In fact, bikes direct model is booming because of the higher overall prices of bikes and the one area where there is flexibility--distribution and overhead--is the bike direct sweet spot.

It is probably aa function of a number of things:
Exxchange rate
Frame Materials
Demand
Tariffs
Lower mfg volumes
Labor
Others

Carbon is going to get cheaper and my next bike is probably going to reflect more efficciencies in the pricing.


----------



## cjsb (Mar 4, 2009)

Oh yeah, why did I reply to this thread? What was I thinking? I have to unsubscribe before it gets to ten pages.

to me the interesting aspects in the nexxt few years will be frame materials and distribution. more smaller companies will do bikes direct model, then the big domino will be a mid sized company.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

It appears to me that a few people are looking back at the bikes from the old days with skewed lenses. Bikes from 15 years ago were nowhere near mid to entry-level bikes of today. Even without inflation, you get so much more for the same amount of money, today. Those old steel forks bent on rugged terrain or any decent jump or drop. The wheels were always out of true, bearings were never sealed, everything needed constant adjustment, brakes didn't stop, and I could go on and on. Yes, the old days were magical. The bikes were not. 

People keep mentioning this crap Suntour fork on entry level bikes of today. Well, that crap Suntour fork would have been considered magic in the late '80's and early '90's. 

Finally, where were people buying these top-end bikes for $2500 in the '90's? Look at the old magazines or online at those retail prices. Sure, there weren't many $6000 bikes out there in 1995, but they were out there. A Rockshox Judy XL went for about $600 in 1998. $600 now will just about get you into the Revelation range. I remember Santa Cruz Heckler frames going for around $900 in the late '90's with very unreliable shocks. 

It doesn't matter which price-point you choose to compare... There just is no comparison. I'm willing to bet that $150 Walmart bike just might be better than the $350 Schwinn I rode back in 1993. High-end may go higher today, but nobody needs to spend that much to get an absolutely awesome bike. Heck, you couldn't get a bike like a $6000 Stumpjumper for any price in 2005. You can't compare that.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

I dunno that bikes are really all that much more expensive now. I had no problem finding bikes to spend a bunch of money on 15-20 years ago. Had a few frames bitd that were well over $2k alone, $1k+ wheelsets, $1200 forks, pretty basic hardtails that MSRPed in the $3k range, etc. I think there are just more people willing to shell out these days, whether that's due to actual 'requirements' or just stronger marketing.

There definitely are a lot of areas that newer stuff works better though. There area also areas where newer is just newer. I don't see all that much improvement in lower end equipment in the past 10 years or so.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

mountainbiker24 said:


> A Rockshox Judy XL went for about $600 in 1998.


...and the damping cartridge would probably last all of a week before shitting the bed. Ahhh...the good old days.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

cjsb said:


> to me the interesting aspects in the nexxt few years will be frame materials and distribution. more smaller companies will do bikes direct model, then the big domino will be a mid sized company.


I think we are already starting to see that. Airborne, bikes-direct, etc for cheap bikes with smart specs. Many places will ship you a bike. I don't recall many places shipping complete bikes 20 years ago, but the internet has really had an impact on that. The overhead is a huge reason for the perceived increase in bike prices. Employees make more now than they did 20 years ago, so of course they charge more. Still, it's amazing to me how the industry has absorbed the inflation enough to offer a solid mountain bike for $400.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

slapheadmofo said:


> ...and the damping cartridge would probably last all of a week before shitting the bed. Ahhh...the good old days.


Lol. Yeah, that's about it! I still want an old yellow Judy SL, since it seemed like every nice bike back in the day had one..


----------



## KevinGT (Dec 25, 2012)

My point is simply that you can't compare a 1988 Ford Taurus price to a 2014 Range Rover Autobiography price.


----------



## ColinL (Feb 9, 2012)

Around my area, people were still overwhelmingly on hardtails in 2010. I was on one, and VERY foolishly spent money on a carbon road bike. I would go to a trail and see only one or two full suspension bikes for every ten HT.

Finally in 2012, I got with the program and built a FS bike. I didn't bother repeating this foolishness for my wife, her first MTB is FS.

I don't know whether it is X-Games related, or just people riding FS at a demo day, or borrowing a friend's bike, but people are realizing that FS is a hell of a lot nicer to ride over rocks and roots. Flowy trails are rare, here.

Regarding cost, try motocross.  It's really nuts if you don't do your own maintenance. Every time I see someone whining about Fox service intervals, I think about valve lash and piston rings. I'll stop now before we go OT, but MTBing is not expensive compared to other things you can do, and yet it is very expensive compared to some other things you can do.


----------



## ljsmith (Oct 26, 2007)

I have been riding since the 80s. It seems to me like entry level, trail worthy bikes are about the same price (when adjusted for inflation) as they always have been. What has changed is what is considered high end now costs as much as some motorcycles and cars. That was never the case back in the day. No stock bicycle cost anything near what a cheap car cost back in the day. The other thing is that magazines and sites like this, have convinced people that they need high end bikes to ride. Back in the day magazines used to test bikes that every day people could afford. Now I look at online and magazine reviews and they are all testing $6000 bikes. I am not sure when the last time I saw a review of anything with Deore parts. And if they do do a review they say how bad the Deore parts "feel" and that you would need to upgrade them if you bought that bike. The "industry" has conspired to make people feel inadequate if they are riding an entry level bike. This is why so many newbies shell out thousands of dollars on their first bikes. Kind of like the "post your entry level bike" thread around here somewhere, where people are posting $4000 bikes as their entry level bikes. The only benefit is that these newbies often give up the sport pretty quick and you can buy their bikes off craigslist dirt cheap.


----------



## KevinGT (Dec 25, 2012)

ljsmith said:


> I have been riding since the 80s. It seems to me like entry level, trail worthy bikes are about the same price (when adjusted for inflation) as they always have been. What has changed is what is considered high end now costs as much as some motorcycles and cars.


Exactly. That was my point.

You can't compare a high end bike price today to 20 years ago because that bike _didn't exist_ 20 years ago! Not even close. Hell, the only thing they have in common is that they both have two wheels...and they are different sizes now!

Here's a question for you: how much does an iPhone 6 cost compared to a 1988 iPhone?


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Klurejr said:


> In 2002 I purchased a brand new 2002 Specialized Enduro Pro, the top of the line Enduro model you could buy as a complete bike, the Carbon S-works was frame only.
> 
> I paid $2700.00
> 
> ...


That 2002 model may have been the top bike in that line, but the parts spec was nowhere near the top. Mostly XT, house brand components found on their entry-mid level bikes, and lower-end Mavic rims don't scream "top-end". Top-end in the line, absolutely. Good deal at the time, absolutely. Top-end spec? No. Very comparable to a $2800 bike today, like a Santa Cruz Heckler with a Pike fork and SLX components. That $6000 model you're comparing it to has a carbon frame, which would have been impossible to make in 2002, high-end aluminum wheels, a top-end SRAM X01 drivetrain, Pike fork, dropper post, and many other improvements. You want to compare your 2002? Compare it to the base model at $3600. Yes, it retails for $800 more, but the bike itself doesn't compare. The Evo model is only $500 more. If you really want to keep it at $2800, look at the camber or Stumpy line, which are more capable than your old Enduro for very favorable prices.


----------



## lorsban (Sep 2, 2009)

I remember my dad getting me a Klein Pulse Pro for about $1000. It was a sub 25 pound bike with SRAM 9.0 setup with a carbon rear derailleur, LX front. It also had Manitou Mach 5 elastomer shocks and bontrager bits all over. Plus Shimano SPD pedals. 

That was 1995, I think. So I guess that's a $1800 value today? 

For $1800, I think I could get a similar model bike with similar "level" specs appropriate for today, which is either XT or SLX, maybe Rockshox Recon or Reba. And it could weigh 26-27 pounds.

For $1000 tho, I'm looking at base Shimano bits, maybe even Suntour cranks, but Suntour X series forks. And a bunch of home branded stuff = ~30 pounds.


----------



## cjsb (Mar 4, 2009)

mountainbiker24 said:


> I think we are already starting to see that. Airborne, bikes-direct, etc for cheap bikes with smart specs. Many places will ship you a bike. I don't recall many places shipping complete bikes 20 years ago, but the internet has really had an impact on that. The overhead is a huge reason for the perceived increase in bike prices. Employees make more now than they did 20 years ago, so of course they charge more. Still, it's amazing to me how the industry has absorbed the inflation enough to offer a solid mountain bike for $400.


Definitely agree. Interesting thing is that companies like Airborne, BikesDirect are viewed generally as value type purchases. Not saying they ar poor quality at all. There is a huge amount to be saved once a company like SantaCruz for example goes bike direct like and lowers prices. So you have a real quality Brand lowering price. Currently Santa Cruz sells through a number of online retailers but the MSRP is the same as at a LBS dealer.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

mountainbiker24 said:


> That 2002 model may have been the top bike in that line, but the parts spec was nowhere near the top. Mostly XT, house brand components found on their entry-mid level bikes, and lower-end Mavic rims don't scream "top-end". Top-end in the line, absolutely. Good deal at the time, absolutely. Top-end spec? No. Very comparable to a $2800 bike today, like a Santa Cruz Heckler with a Pike fork and SLX components. That $6000 model you're comparing it to has a carbon frame, which would have been impossible to make in 2002, high-end aluminum wheels, a top-end SRAM X01 drivetrain, Pike fork, dropper post, and many other improvements. You want to compare your 2002? Compare it to the base model at $3600. Yes, it retails for $800 more, but the bike itself doesn't compare. The Evo model is only $500 more. If you really want to keep it at $2800, look at the camber or Stumpy line, which are more capable than your old Enduro for very favorable prices.


The Enduro Expert is Carbon? I thought only the Enduro Carbon was Carbon..... I went and looked it up and you are correct, I missed that. I guess Specialized bikes tiers mean very different things today than they used to.

The 02 Enduro Pro came with an XTR rear Derailleur and XT for the Front and XT Shifterpods, so yeah, the front derailleur and the shifter pods were not top of the line, they were second best you could get at the time in the shimano world, but they were the best you could get on a complete Specialized bike from the factory, on what was at the time considered a pretty revolutionary bike. I am not sure the same can be said of the current Enduro.

So even though some of the components are not exactly a match for the tier of quality on the Comp:
Specialized Enduro FSR Comp 650b 2015 from Bike Bling
I am not sure you can side by side SRAMx7 and Shimano XT..... but those are niggles in the big picture.

The 2015 Enduro Comp is a decent match to what the Pro was back in 2002. So at $3600, it is $900.00 more expensive than what I paid for a new bike 13 years ago. Roughly 1/3 more expensive than a similar bike in 2002. So not twice as expensive, but still a big increase.
Has your income gone up by 1/3rd in the last 13 years? Mine has gone down. Heck the Recession we had from 2008 until this past year has kept my income flat, and for a while I was unemployed and then working for much less than I had been. In general the prices of many things in this world have gone up much faster than incomes have, and bikes are one of those things.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

lorsban said:


> For $1000 tho, I'm looking at base Shimano bits, maybe even Suntour cranks, but Suntour X series forks. And a bunch of home branded stuff = ~30 pounds.


Just to mention, not that it matters much, but Bontrager parts were 'homebrand' for Klein (Trek owned both). And those Manitou Mach 5's were 'take-off-and-throw-away' parts IME.  I think you could get pretty close to a comparable bike today for just a few hundred more.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

lorsban said:


> I remember my dad getting me a Klein Pulse Pro for about $1000. It was a sub 25 pound bike with SRAM 9.0 setup with a carbon rear derailleur, LX front. It also had Manitou Mach 5 elastomer shocks and bontrager bits all over. Plus Shimano SPD pedals.
> 
> That was 1995, I think. So I guess that's a $1800 value today?
> 
> ...


I doubt that bike retailed for a grand, though. I know that The Trek 7000 was the value of the year in either '97 or '98 at right about a grand, and that was mostly LX with a Rockshox Indy fork. Supposedly about 24 pounds. Edit: I actually just looked it up. In 1997, a Klein Pulse Pro retailed for $1300. Solid specs, probably comparable to a $1500 bike of today, but it still won't perform as well, in my opinion. Otherwise I agree with everything you said.

I do find it very interesting that bikes seem to be heavier now than they used to be. I never weighed any of my bikes, but it is more difficult to get a bike down to 23 pounds, nowadays. I guess maybe the disc brakes, better but heavier forks, and... I don't know. Maybe companies and magazines weighed the bikes differently back in the day. Thinking about this some more, I am reminiscing about the old Amp bikes. A 5" travel 23 pound bike is impressive today, much more 20 years ago. Then I remembered how many of those things broke on the trail. People don't break things as often as they used to. I'm thinking companies are building a bit more for durability (not longevity..) into parts for fear of lawsuits and warranty issues.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Klurejr said:


> The Enduro Expert is Carbon? I thought only the Enduro Carbon was Carbon..... I went and looked it up and you are correct, I missed that. I guess Specialized bikes tiers mean very different things today than they used to.
> 
> The 02 Enduro Pro came with an XTR rear Derailleur and XT for the Front and XT Shifterpods, so yeah, the front derailleur and the shifter pods were not top of the line, they were second best you could get at the time in the shimano world, but they were the best you could get on a complete Specialized bike from the factory, on what was at the time considered a pretty revolutionary bike. I am not sure the same can be said of the current Enduro.
> 
> ...


I get what you're saying. My pay hasn't kept up with inflation, either. I just don't think comparing components that have the same name but have 15 years of development between them is apples to apples. Sure, that bike had XT. Those XT parts are subjectively comparable to what, Alivio parts of today? This is where it gets difficult to compare, and there is definitely room for discussion, here.


----------



## lorsban (Sep 2, 2009)

slapheadmofo said:


> Just to mention, not that it matters much, but Bontrager parts were 'homebrand' for Klein (Trek owned both). And those Manitou Mach 5's were 'take-off-and-throw-away' parts IME.  I think you could get pretty close to a comparable bike today for just a few hundred more.


Oh yeah you're right. Especially about that Manitou. RST/Suntour came afterwards.

But I think Bonty had just been bought out at that point. Prior to that, they were making good innovative stuff.

Even today, I still rank their stuff better than most OEM.


----------



## Glide the Clyde (Nov 12, 2009)

Wait. For. It.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.


----------



## lorsban (Sep 2, 2009)

mountainbiker24 said:


> I doubt that bike retailed for a grand, though. I know that The Trek 7000 was the value of the year in either '97 or '98 at right about a grand, and that was mostly LX with a Rockshox Indy fork. Supposedly about 24 pounds. Edit: I actually just looked it up. In 1997, a Klein Pulse Pro retailed for $1300. Solid specs, probably comparable to a $1500 bike of today, but it still won't perform as well, in my opinion.


The areas where I think the Klein manages even today tho are frame build and geometry, SRAM Esp 9.0 RD - that still shifts Really well imo. Great cable routing. And of course weight.

You can probably put good RS SID forks to build up performance. But you'd be limited by the travel. Big travel would negate the geometry advantage.

But the one area I can't live without is Hydraulics. A well setup Tektro Auriga is miles better than even top XT/R Vbrakes. Imo



> I do find it very interesting that bikes seem to be heavier now than they used to be. I never weighed any of my bikes, but it is more difficult to get a bike down to 23 pounds, nowadays. I guess maybe the disc brakes, better but heavier forks, and... I don't know. Maybe companies and magazines weighed the bikes differently back in the day. Thinking about this some more, I am reminiscing about the old Amp bikes. A 5" travel 23 pound bike is impressive today, much more 20 years ago. Then I remembered how many of those things broke on the trail. People don't break things as often as they used to. I'm thinking companies are building a bit more for durability (not longevity..) into parts for fear of lawsuits and warranty issues.


Yeah, long travel stuff and disks add at least 2 pounds. Plus all that oversizing or beefing up.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

mountainbiker24 said:


> I get what you're saying. My pay hasn't kept up with inflation, either. I just don't think comparing components that have the same name but have 15 years of development between them is apples to apples. Sure, that bike had XT. Those XT parts are subjectively comparable to what, Alivio parts of today? This is where it gets difficult to compare, and there is definitely room for discussion, here.


Um no. You do realize that 15 years ago was the year 2000? I still own a Cannondale F2000SX with a lefty from that year. The brakes were the only crap part on that bike. And 2000 XT the equivalent to today's Alivio? You're kidding right?


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Silentfoe said:


> Um no. You do realize that 15 years ago was the year 2000? I still own a Cannondale F2000SX with a lefty from that year. The brakes were the only crap part on that bike. And 2000 XT the equivalent to today's Alivio? You're kidding right?


Um yeah. You realize the year 2000 was 15 years ago, right? 9-speed, no clutch, and ISIS bb... Sounds a lot like Alivio to me. 15 years is a long time in the mountain bike world. There has been a lot if trickle-down since then. You under-estimate just how good Alivio and Deore are, especially compared to the stuff we had 15 years ago. It might be built with more plastic and less aluminum in places, and it might be a few grams heavier, but it works pretty darn good. Lots if trickle-down technology. Also, I never said your bike or anybody's bike was crap. Lots of crappy parts back in the '80's and '90's that people don't seem to remember, though. Your Cannondale is a hardtail. That frame isn't all that much different from today's aluminum frames, other than tapered headtubes, press-fit bb, improved tube shaping and butting, and updated geometry. The fork is lightyears behind current technology, the brakes suck, as you mentioned, the tires were awful, and the components are 15 years behind. Not crap, but nowhere near today's XT. You guide and rent bikes? Have you ridden some of the newer ones, or just give them out to other people?


----------



## lorsban (Sep 2, 2009)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Um yeah. You realize the year 2000 was 15 years ago, right? 9-speed, no clutch, and ISIS bb... Sounds a lot like Alivio to me. 15 years is a long time in the mountain bike world. There has been a lot if trickle-down since then. You under-estimate just how good Alivio and Deore are, especially compared to the stuff we had 15 years ago. It might be built with more plastic and less aluminum in places, and it might be a few grams heavier, but it works pretty darn good. Lots if trickle-down technology. Also, I never said your bike or anybody's bike was crap. Lots of crappy parts back in the '80's and '90's that people don't seem to remember, though. Your Cannondale is a hardtail. That frame isn't all that much different from today's aluminum frames, other than tapered headtubes, press-fit bb, improved tube shaping and butting, and updated geometry. The fork is lightyears behind current technology, the brakes suck, as you mentioned, the tires were awful, and the components are 15 years behind. Not crap, but nowhere near today's XT. You guide and rent bikes? Have you ridden some of the newer ones, or just give them out to other people?


I think the Alivio rear derailer today is at least as good as 1st gen Deore shadow. 
I just got a bike with 2014-2015 Alivio groupset and I was planning to upgrade it immediately but they're working very well. As well as my Shadow Deore 9spd.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Flucod said:


> Are you a shill for bike companies?
> 
> 1. Taperer HT's, not really any noticeable improvement.
> 
> ...


Clueless. I don't work for the industry in any capacity. I just find it ignorant to say that bikes and parts have gotten more expensive when the numbers show the opposite. I didn't say that Klein was inferior to many of today's aluminum bikes, but some of your claims are just ridiculous. Tapered headtubes don't make a difference? I disagree. They aren't necessary, but they are stiffer for a given weight. Heck, Klein was using oversized headtubes in the early '90's, so there's some irony, there. I agree with press fit bottom brackets from a convenience perspective, but there are benefits. None of my bikes have one. Frame manufacturing has come a long way since 2000. Do you really not know this? Better alloys, better tube shaping to add compliance or stiffness where desired... Of course, a $500 hardtail won't have many of these advancements and will not be much, if any, better than an older Klein. Old Lefties were obviously a good design, as the basic design is still in production. The technology inside that fork is nowhere near today's mid to upper end damping. Rebound, compression, or platform.

I ride the bike that best suits my trails and riding style. It benefits from decades of research and experience. It cost about $3000, and it performs better than any bike I have ridden in the past. The 5" of travel was darn near freeride back in 2000, but it's about the same weight as the hardtails from around 1990. I put in this work because I wanted people to realize how good we have it these days. I'm not trying to hurt anybody's feelings or rip on your 15-year old bike. I know it's a great bike. It's just not as good as a bike of the same price today. I'm sorry if that offends you.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Flucod said:


> Are you a shill for bike companies?
> 
> 1. Taperer HT's, not really any noticeable improvement.
> 
> ...


Taper headtubes, made out of necessity due to long travel forks and long-axle to crown lengths on 29ers and other similar bikes. Dinky 2.5" travel SIDs are long gone, replaced by far stiffer forks that don't flex fore and aft, all this requires a better interface with the frame to prevent ovalizing the headtube, which was becoming a problem in the 2000s. Stiffness to weight ratio now much better and no ovalized headtubes.

Pressfit BB, maybe not as good as octalink, but bearings are replaceable at $12-30 each and spindles don't snap anymore like the old throwaway shimano square-taper. I like shimano's interface better, but the pressfit still works pretty well.

Klein frames? lol...


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

mountainbiker24 said:


> some of your claims are just ridiculous.


I'm sure at least a very large minority believe the same of you...


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

mountainbiker24 said:


> I get what you're saying. My pay hasn't kept up with inflation, either. I just don't think comparing components that have the same name but have 15 years of development between them is apples to apples. Sure, that bike had XT. Those XT parts are subjectively comparable to what, Alivio parts of today? This is where it gets difficult to compare, and there is definitely room for discussion, here.


No, XT of 2002 is comparable to XT of today. The same amount of RnD and manufacturing process has gone into them.... Are the current XT items better, of course, but are they 30% better in price???? That is the question.

Look at other markets, say the computer market. A top of the line video card today is way more powerful than the top of the line video card from 2002, however it still remains in the "top of the line" pricing tier, and as companies have more experience in what they are making the prices on such things have dropped, not gone up. The amount of RnD to make an XT or XTR product today is not 30% more time and effort than it was 13 years ago, if anything it should be less because of all the experience the company has making those parts for the past few decades. The cost of labor could perhaps be an issue.....


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Klurejr said:


> No, XT of 2002 is comparable to XT of today. The same amount of RnD and manufacturing process has gone into them....


I highly doubt that. I imagine as companies like Shimano and SRAM have grown they have invested more time, money, and resources into research and development.

As far as comparing XT from 2002 to XT of 2015, we'll just have to agree to disagree. If you want a bike that performs like a bike from 15 years ago, it will be cheaper than it cost 15 years ago. That's all I'm saying. Just because it kept the same name doesn't mean it has to keep the same price, in my opinion. Top of the line has gotten less attainable, but entry and mid-level has remained relatively stable and performs much better nowadays.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Zowie said:


> I'm sure at least a very large minority believe the same of you...


Then I feel vindicated! When the vast majority of people agree with me, then I'll start to wonder if I'm wrong.


----------



## gat3keeper (Jan 24, 2015)

Here in the country where I live, I think not only the bike but the hobby itself become expensive.

Before, a generic $100 taiwan mountain bike is very rampant. People are happy with it and seems to enjoy riding. But due to Internet, etc... new generation seek for more expensive bikes and having an ego that if you don't own a branded one, your bike is a trash or better find other hobby.


----------



## Speed Goat (Dec 31, 2013)

mountainbiker24 said:


> I highly doubt that. I imagine as companies like Shimano and SRAM have grown they have invested more time, money, and resources into research and development.


Shimano has been making bicycle components for 95 years. I sure hope they have been spending some time on R&D.

I have XTR components that are 20 years old that work just as good as the XTR stuff I have today. The new stuff may be a little lighter, but both work equally well.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Flucod said:


> I will go toe to toe with anyone out there, I have wrenched for the last 20 years in shops and raced at the highest level for 10 and over 20 years of racing total. I even was a domestic team mechanic for a road team.
> 
> In all of my 50 years I have only seen "1" ovalized headtube and it was due to a headset being used loose.
> 
> ...


I have no interest in your toe-jam, but I for one am glad we don't have to have huge gussets anymore and nearly-solid steerers that were starting to show up in the 90s. Now we have lightweight AND stiff frames/forks. You can ride your 28mm SID flex-o-matic.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Speed Goat said:


> Shimano has been making bicycle components for 95 years. I sure hope they have been spending some time on R&D.
> 
> I have XTR components that are 20 years old that work just as good as the XTR stuff I have today. The new stuff may be a little lighter, but both work equally well.


I'm sure they have, too. You don't think that computer-aided design, increased competition, or an increasing mountain bike market over the last 20 years or so have encouraged to invest more than in the past? My old XT cantilever brakes, square taper bottom brackets, 8-speed drivetrain, etc. never worked as well or were as durable as today's Deore. Actually, the one thing the old groupos had on the new stuff might be weight, at the expense of durability, of course. As far as shifting quality, well, I don't remember grabbing 3 gears on a single downshift, but the actual shift did work very well. That's about the only thing that might be comparable. Of course, it's easier to dial in 8-speed than 10-speed.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Oh, and Shimano hubs haven't changed in years, so those are comparable. Could you get a set of XT hubs for $110 in the '90's?


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Jayem said:


> I have no interest in your toe-jam, but I for one am glad we don't have to have huge gussets anymore and nearly-solid steerers that were starting to show up in the 90s. Now we have lightweight AND stiff frames/forks. You can ride your 28mm SID flex-o-matic.


Yep. I guess us "Milleniums" that have actually been riding mountain bikes since the early '90s and actually remember it just don't know what we're talking about.


----------



## Kajjal (Dec 14, 2013)

Until about 2008 mountain bikes were mainly getting better value for money each year. The the big companies started hiking prices and dropping spec's a lot more. Only now is this reversing.

I have a mid 1990's and 2013 xc hardtail. Both great bikes with the biggest difference being v-brakes verses disc brakes. More recent bikes are better than the old cantilever rigid hardtails from the early 1990's and cheaper to which is good for everyone.


----------



## mnigro (Jul 31, 2007)

*Are we all a bunch of idiots?*

I have a friend who is in the market for a new bike so I've been helping him shop for a day or two. My last few bikes have all purchased as a frame, usually on steep sale and built up with old & new parts, so I've not looked at complete builds for a long while.

I cannot believe what a $1500+ bike comes spec'd with these days. Generic bars/setm/post, garbage wheels, mediocre fork (at best), low level brakes, etc. After looking around, I can build him an XT-level bike nice bars/stem/post, a decent fork & wheelset for maybe $300 more.

Anyway, am I the only one who has an issue with this? The way I calculated the prices for the complete builds in the $1500 range, every single part of the bike could be purchased at full retail and it would cost about the same. WTF?


----------



## cmg (Mar 13, 2012)

l hear what you're saying, but your lbs has rental costs, labour costs, stock cost and he also probably has a family......

he, like you, needs to make money


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

cmg71 said:


> l hear what you're saying, but your lbs has rental costs, labour costs, stock cost and he also probably has a family......
> 
> he, like you, needs to make money


Yes but it wasn't very long ago that the builds were mid grade with some high end components mixed in. Not "all" low end like what he's referring to.


----------



## the-one1 (Aug 2, 2008)

Like you I've not looked at full bikes since my noob days. You can get better parts spec per dollar from highend used parts than new low end parts.


----------



## GuitsBoy (Sep 24, 2013)

I couldn't agree more, which is exactly why I ride a $1600 sub 24 lb carbon fiber hardtail. Building yourself, you know exactly where you want to compromise and where not to - it wont be the same for everybody. You can score one in a life time deals on parts if your timing is right. And in the end, nothing beats knowing the ins and outs of the bike you build yourself.


----------



## mnigro (Jul 31, 2007)

cmg71 said:


> l hear what you're saying, but your lbs has rental costs, labour costs, stock cost and he also probably has a family......
> 
> he, like you, needs to make money


Agreed, the LBS needs to make a profit. However, the LBS isn't buying their bikes piece by piece and custom busing them for the floor. They get complete bikes from the manufacturer.

My point is that the OEMs are asking way too much these days. Specialized (for example) makes money on the sum of the parts. They get these parts at a massive discount - they aren't buying these parts at retail prices. But as I was trying to figure things out, the frames must be $600-$700 of the total cost, or we are expected to pay retail prices for all these crap components. Btw, do you really think that a Rockhopper frame is worth $600 or $700???

For reference, a $1500 Trek Fuel 6, full susser was about $1600 in 2008 and was much better specd than most bikes in this range today. We're only talking 7 years here, not 15 years of inflation.

Anyway, this current rate of price hikes is not sustainable. In another10 years our bikes will cost more than our cars.


----------



## Phillbo (Apr 7, 2004)

What? You don't think the price of cars will increase over the next 10 years?


----------



## ljsmith (Oct 26, 2007)

I've been riding since 1985 and this has always been the case. Thats why I built my first bike in 1988. Almost any bike that is not top of the line has always been overpriced and come with house brand cockpit parts and wheels. The crankset is usually a step below the rest of the group (these days they seem to put low end FSA cranks on everything). If you must buy from a LBS, wait until they are clearing out last years inventory and you can get 40-50% off if you are a smart shopper, then with the money you save you can upgrade all the junk on the bike. Also, looking at Bikepedia, a 2008 Trek Fuel EX 6.5 (there was no 6) was $1800 and its part spec doesn't look that great to me. When adjusted for inflation it comes out to $2050 (I used an inflation calculator). Juicy 3 brakes, Bontrager junk cockpit , full Deore and then they slap a XT rear derailleur on to make it look high end to those who don't know better. I think you are just too caught up in the "good ol days" mentality.


----------



## Fiskare (Sep 5, 2008)

But doing it yourself requires real competence. Not everybody has that. That's the value in what is offered complete at a shop. I haven't done that for a very long time, but I am blessed to know what I know. And everyone has to eat. Imagine being in love with golf but being an idiot. You would go broke way before you ever reached scratch. So it could be worse.

Oh, and cars. Now there is a money pit.


----------



## mnigro (Jul 31, 2007)

Phillbo said:


> What? You don't think the price of cars will increase over the next 10 years?


no, I understand that the cost will go up. But, in 2008 nicely spec'd Honda Accord was about $29k. They aren't $50k today.


----------



## mnigro (Jul 31, 2007)

I think we're getting off-track just a little bit, here. 

The main point I was trying to make was this... the cost of bikes, in general, has increased well above inflation. And, it appears that the big OEM's are pricing their entry-level bikes so high that you can almost buy the full list of components at retail cost and build it yourself. 

There used to be a great value buying a complete build and it doesn't seem to be the case anymore. The top-of-the-line models have risen to rediculous costs and are spec'd with dropper posts, carbon wheelsets, etc. BUT, bikes at lower end of the spectrum have increased in cost at the same rate yet they still spec them with dog $hit components.


----------



## Fiskare (Sep 5, 2008)

mnigro said:


> I think we're getting off-track just a little bit, here. The main point I was trying to make was this... the cost of bikes, in general, has increased well above inflation.


Except that in the beginning you had a $750 Ritchey and a $550 Specialized, and.......

No suspension, no indexing, often not adhering to standards (since they hardly existed), gearing that was often flat out wrong, lots of junk posing as real and still getting hundreds of dollars (not talking about those same Ritcheys and those same Stumpys, oddly I own both of them). I think a modern 2k machine is, given normal inflation (3%ish per annum over the last thirty years), a pretty good value when you consider it's capability. I'm not talking about the capability of the rider, just the bike. I don't think anyone is getting robbed. If all we had is what we had way back then MTBing would not be the great success that it has become. I see lots of value for the consumer.

And the shop owners I know well do great things for their specific community. Flat out impressive. I would love to talk about it because it's that impressive. Not my story so not for me.

And we all gotta eat.


----------



## Spec44 (Aug 17, 2013)

Considering the average person doesn't know what a Phillips head screwdriver is, and the average person in this day and age wouldn't build up a bike of those parts with their hands, why should the the manufacturers leave that money on the table?

Shouldn't they get a mark-up on the parts? Do they not deserve a return on their investment to maintain the facilities and employees needed to assemble bikes? Bottom line is that people are paying the money for them, so why would they not sell them for what the market will bear?


----------



## Saladin (Sep 25, 2014)

Spec44 said:


> Considering the average person doesn't know what a Phillips head screwdriver is,


This.

There's a target market for the high-end bikes with the markup and all. Some people don't know enough or feel like doing the shopping and assembly. Same goes for computers, cell phones and other electronics; cars, houses, furniture, appliances, and all kinds of other crap. There are a select few that know how to put it together and make it work at a substantial discount, but for the rest there is an industry to support their needs.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Leaving out the whole build your own and hunting down deals angle (of which I'm a big fan), there have always been plenty of opportunities to overspend on bikes. Just seems like more people take advantage of them now (or is it the other way around?) . 

In 97 I bought a Stumpy for something like 1800. Judy fork blew up after about a month, crankset was made out of cheese, bunch of house brand parts, stupid radial laced front wheel, POS Ritchey pedals...but it had that XTR derailleur.

Paid about the same for a DBR Axis in 95 - again, crap Manitou Mach5 fork, LX/STX and no-name bits...but there was that Logic-tubed frame that I've still got.

99 picked up an FSR Enduro Comp for something under 2k, destroyed the frame within a couple weeks; there was pretty much nothing on it worth transferring to the warranty replacement. Basically bought it as a stripper in the first place, Specialized warranty dept turned it into a few years of free frames. 

My first 'nice' bike was a $700 93 Trek 7000, rigid, cantis of course, Exage equipped, broke it in a season, everything worked like **** from the get-go. I would probably put myself in the hospital trying to ride it in stock form now. Thing was no prize. 

I guess I just don't think you get any less overall bang for your buck now. Of course somebody with some know-how and experience can put together something nice and cheaper than off-the-shelf bikes offer, but for about as long as I can remember, a nice frame with a higher level spec overall (not just a splash of bling to sell it) isn't something that tends to show up often under 3 to 4K. Seems about the same these days.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

I don't see how you guys are building sub- $1500 xt level bikes, I shopped around and scored what I thought were some pretty OK deals and spent that much just on my frame and fork.


----------



## GuitsBoy (Sep 24, 2013)

J.B. Weld said:


> I don't see how you guys are building sub- $1500 xt level bikes, I shopped around and scored what I thought were some pretty OK deals and spent that much just on my frame and fork.


You have to compromise some things to get there. You pretty much have to get the frame, fork and wheelset out of the way for under a grand to even stand a chance. And of course, to do that, youre gonna have to sacrifice something along the way. For me, theres not enough difference between a 200 dollar and 1000 dollar hardtail frame to justify the money. However there is a world of difference between a 200 dollar groupset and 5 or 600 dollar groupset, so the money always goes into components instead. To each their own.


----------



## cjsb (Mar 4, 2009)

I have missed all of the amazing deals when I built it myself. My experience is that it costs a lot more, primarily for the fork and wheels. If you hit everything just at the right time you could get a frame on closeout, fork on closeout, but still waiting for those custom wheels to be blown out. There are definitely great sales on components, I just don't see it much on fork and wheels, have to make up the difference on a blow out on the frame.

Anyway, my experience is not the same as the OP. However, my last two bikes I bought directly (Canfield), and from an internet retailer (CC). There are more companies that do direct sales on the internet--that is all they do--like Airborne, and they have some great pricing on complete new builds.


----------



## Joules (Oct 12, 2005)

mnigro said:


> Anyway, am I the only one who has an issue with this? The way I calculated the prices for the complete builds in the $1500 range, every single part of the bike could be purchased at full retail and it would cost about the same. WTF?


I'd bet almost anything you didn't calculate correctly. Please, show us one example of this.


----------



## Slash5 (Nov 27, 2011)

I just can't stomach the in store price of bikes.
Pretty well all of my bikes have been built. After the build, I usually share wheels back and forth until I get a deal that I can't resist. Every other bike I have has been bought used.
Just read a review on the Chromag Rootdown, a 29er hardtail with steel frame, made in Taiwan, from $3,544 to $4,900.
That's insane.


----------



## Raleighguy29 (Jan 7, 2014)

Slash5 said:


> I just can't stomach the in store price of bikes.
> Pretty well all of my bikes have been built. After the build, I usually share wheels back and forth until I get a deal that I can't resist. Every other bike I have has been bought used.
> Just read a review on the Chromag Rootdown, a 29er hardtail with steel frame, made in Taiwan, from $3,544 to $4,900.
> That's insane.


That's a lot of money for a bike but the rootdown is a bad ass bike. I snatched up a lightly used frame for cheap and built it up as a ss.









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

mnigro said:


> The main point I was trying to make was this... the cost of bikes, in general, has increased well above inflation. And, it appears that the big OEM's are pricing their entry-level bikes so high that you can almost buy the full list of components at retail cost and build it yourself.


curious, when you are adding up the cost of a complete bike, are you using the deeply-discounted prices you find online, especially European retailers? those prices are often lower than what you LBS pays a distributor for those items. (that is the subject of an entirely different discussion.) it might not matter in a practical sense, but it might be interesting to add up the cost of a custom complete bike with all the components at MSRP to see how much that bike "ought to" cost.

someone please post a price list of an XT-equipped custom bike order that they can actually buy. then, just for grins, re-price that same bike at MSRP prices. I'll bet it will double the total cost of that bike to go MSRP.

the other cost is, like others have said, due to the fact that most people lack the time, skill, and knowledge that it would take to select parts and assemble a custom bike. you are paying a company to do it for you.

how much money could you save by growing and grinding your own peanut butter, milking a cow in your backyard for the cheese on your pizza, and weaving your own wool from sheep in your yard? who has the time and energy to do these things?


----------



## mnigro (Jul 31, 2007)

Joules said:


> I'd bet almost anything you didn't calculate correctly. Please, show us one example of this.


It's really hard when they slap so many house brand components on the bikes but here is an example I wrote up for my buddy. I changed a few things to meet this arguement as I was looking at better components almost all the way around....the Rockhopper as opposed to what he could build. Keep in mind that I'm probably being generous in Speci's favor on some of these components, like wheels & crankset. Not sure what the frame should consist of but the collective cost minus the frame is about $1385, using actual retail costs. So, pretty damn close to what I was talking about.

FRAME - ?
Specialized A1 SL Aluminum, EVO 29er geometry, fully butted tubesets, ORE downtube, tapered headtube, forged dropouts w/ disc mount, replaceable derailleur hanger

FORK - $235
RockShox XC32 TK, Solo Air spring, 32mm stanchions, tapered alloy steerer, TurnKey damping w/ lockout, external rebound adjust, 15mm thru-axle, size-specific 100/120mm travel

HEADSET - $40
1-1/8" upper, 1-1/2" lower, Campy style, integrated sealed cartridge bearings

STEM - $30 (RF Ride cost)
Specialized 3D forged alloy, 4-bolt, 6-degree rise, anti-corrosion hardware

HANDLEBARS - $30 (RF Ride XC cost)
Specialized, low rise bar, double butted 6061 alloy, 9-degree backsweep, 5-degree upsweep, 15mm rise, 31.8mm

GRIPS - $25
Specialized Body Geometry XC Contour, Kraton w/ gel, lock-on

FRONT BRAKE & REAR BRAKE - $120
Tektro Gemini Comp, hydraulic disc, resin/metallic pads, I-spec compatible

FRONT DERAILLEUR - $35
SRAM X5, 2x10, high mount

REAR DERAILLEUR $115
SRAM X9 Type 2, 10-speed, medium cage

SHIFT LEVERS - $55
SRAM X5, 2x10, trigger

CASSETTE - $50
Sunrace, 10-speed, 11-36

CHAIN - $25
KMC X10, 10-speed, w/ reusable MissingLink

CRANKSET, BOTTOM BRACKET - $125 (? Deore retails for $165)
Specialized Stout XC, 2x10, 2 pc., 24mm spindle, 36/22, anti-corrosion hardware

PEDALS - $20
Alloy, 1 pc. body, 9/16", w/ reflectors

RIMS, FRONT HUB, REAR HUB, SPOKES - $200 (? their aftermarket price for a set of SL is $265)
Specialized Stout XC, 29" disc, alloy double-wall, pin joint, 26mm inner width, 28/32h
Specialized Hi Lo disc, alloy, sealed cartridge bearings, 15mm thru-axle, 32h
Specialized Stout XC disc, alloy, RCC bearing system, QR, 32h
Stainless, 14g, black

FRONT TIRE, REAR TIRE, INNER TUBES - $80
Specialized Ground Control Sport, 60TPI, wire bead, 29x2.3"
Standard, presta valve

SADDLE - $40
Body Geometry mountain, steel rails, 143mm

SEATPOST - $150 (? who the hell knows, KS eTen is $175)
TranzX YSP02 dropper, infinite adjust, external cable routing, remote lever, 30.9mm, 100mm travel

SEAT BINDER - $10
Alloy, single bolt, w/ dropper post cable routing, 34.9mm


----------



## cjsb (Mar 4, 2009)

I disagree with the whole "bikes have gotten crazy expensive" if applied to most mountain bikes. I also don't see where you are getting cheaper build options when you do it yourself. Below are just three examples of bikes priced in your buddy's budget range that are very good specs. The Goblin and the Tokul look like great specs to me.

Raleigh Bicycles - 2014 Tokul 4130
Airborne Bicycles . Goblin EVO

Chameleon 27.5" D AM Kit Complete Mountain Bike (100144365) at CambriaBike.com


----------



## syl3 (Apr 23, 2008)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Yes but it wasn't very long ago that the builds were mid grade with some high end components mixed in. Not "all" low end like what he's referring to.


2015 3x10 Deore shifts waaay better than 2008 3x9 XT. Not to mention how shitty virtually all mid-level disc brakes were back then.

Its only a downgrade in label, the new technologies trickled down fast.


----------



## mnigro (Jul 31, 2007)

cjsb said:


> I disagree with the whole "bikes have gotten crazy expensive" if applied to most mountain bikes. I also don't see where you are getting cheaper build options when you do it yourself. Below are just three examples of bikes priced in your buddy's budget range that are very good specs. The Goblin and the Tokul look like great specs to me.
> 
> Raleigh Bicycles - 2014 Tokul 4130
> Airborne Bicycles . Goblin EVO
> ...


Yes, these are all extremely good specs. Just for comp, look at them side by side vs the "big" brands. You're basically proving my point as Raleigh & Airborne are outliers. The Chameleon is not a bad build either.


----------



## cjsb (Mar 4, 2009)

mnigro said:


> Yes, these are all extremely good specs. Just for comp, look at them side by side vs the "big" brands. You're basically proving my point as Raleigh & Airborne are outliers. The Chameleon is not a bad build either.


I am not arguing with you here, but it is hard to figure out what your point is. If your point is that in general it costs more to buy a bike from an LBS when buying Specialized or Trek, then I would tend to agree. But there are many other brands out there to choose from.

This is just my experience, but I also do a lot of online shopping, perhaps not as much a others though. But when I built my Yell, it was expensive. Frame only and that was a decent price. But compared to a similar type bike Kona Honzo, there is no way I could have built my yell with the same build as a complete Honzo for the same cost as buying from a Kona dealer. The Kona complete build from the LBS was far cheaper.

Brands like Specialized and Trek may at least try to compensate for the higher cost of being exclusively LBS oriented by providing great warranty service and support through the LBS. I am not defending them and when you someone says they are considering Specialized or trek then in general to me they are paying more money.


----------



## Joules (Oct 12, 2005)

mnigro said:


> ....the Rockhopper as opposed to what he could build.


I didn't check the prices of everything, but you're certainly lowballing the fork by at least $100 - the only XC32 I could find retail was $290 with a straight steerer and qr - the taper/15 typically add at least $50 to the price of every fork where it's an option.

So conclusion: you're either planning on riding a bike with no frame, or you're getting the frame for free vs buying parts. And since you dismissed direct-sales like airborn, you clearly want to pay for the specialized brand name. You chose spec as your example - as a brand one of either the worst values or the most expensive frames depending on your prospective.

Try looking at, say a Jamis, or even Cannondale can get you a comparable spec for $1-200 less.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

syl3 said:


> 2015 3x10 Deore shifts waaay better than 2008 3x9 XT.


No way. Maybe clapped out XT vs. new Deore, but there will be virtually no difference new vs. new.

Heck, I run a completely mismatched 8-spd drivetrain of higher end parts and it shifts just as good as 10-speed.

- SLX crank with narrow wide ring
- XT 8spd shifter
- XT 11-30t 8spd cassette
- XTR m952 rear deraileur (9spd)
- Dura-ace 7901 chain (10spd)


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

syl3 said:


> Its only a downgrade in label, the new technologies trickled down fast.


Very important to note.

There are ways to build a new bike at a very reasonable value. The one I built last fall, for example. I took advantage of heavy discounting available to me through working at a shop.


----------



## dbhammercycle (Nov 15, 2011)

I'm not sure about the cost of complete bike builds now vs then, I don't have that much money to slap on the counter unless its credit and I don't believe in using tomorrow's needs to pay for today's pleasures. It took me a few years to get my Blizzard to its current configuration and I purchased waaay below MSRP by buying NOS, getting lucky and winning auctions, and just being in the right place at the right time for quality used parts. That stated, I have been riding the bike since about 6months after I purchased the frame. My point is that you can get what you want at the pricepoint you have, but it will take time and you will have to make some compromises along the way. Maybe it won't all be the same groupo and you may dig into the parts bin at first, but really it doesn't matter what it looks like as long as the ride puts a smile on your face. In some sense, if I see a frankenstein it tells me the rider knows their spritzer and I may appreciate it more. As far as being idiots, well it's more about whether or not you feel like one, it's a personal feeling of not wanting to be taken advantage of for following your pleasure. The industry is a business, they are in it to make money but the industry is also a check against itself. The manufacturers look to hit their best pricepoint based on what other manufacturers are offering, but this is further checked by if the bike sells or not. So, if the MSRP makes you feel like an idiot, bide your time, make decisions that you are comfortable with, and ride what you got until you can buy or build what you want.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

syl3 said:


> Its only a downgrade in label, the new technologies trickled down fast.


While the tech trickles down quickly, the quailty of materials, precision and finish does not. Deore works well out of the box and will stand up to the average rider for a while, but will wear out. XTR wears like iron, because of the build quailty.


----------



## ilikecereal (Jan 8, 2015)

To answer the original question, yes.

As everyone has touched on there are so many factors here to consider. If you're looking at a 2015 full MSRP big brand bike, yeah it's going to be expensive. I think the bike you're looking at is geared towards newer riders who want something that's going to be reliable, with a good warranty, and doesn't need the highest end components. If you have the means and time to build it yourself, sure you can save some money.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

I just attempted to build a decent complete on Price Point with mid-range, closeout parts and I only got as far as a Kona Big Unit, Reba fork, and some Sun Ringle wheels and I was already at over $1300. how does one buy a decent XT-level equipped bike for $1500?


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

syl3 said:


> 2015 3x10 Deore shifts waaay better than 2008 3x9 XT. Not to mention how shitty virtually all mid-level disc brakes were back then.
> 
> Its only a downgrade in label, the new technologies trickled down fast.


This is the funniest thing I've read on here in a long time. Thanks.


----------



## 70sSanO (Nov 20, 2013)

I think he is saying an XT equipped for $1800 compared to a Trek or Specialized lower end component bike for $1500.

I think what slapheadmofo has a lot of merit. There were a number of "top-of-the-line" or close to bikes in the 90's/early 2000's that hit $1500 and more and the quality of the components were less than adequate. A $350 Mag 21 with 46mm travel is just not comparable with what you can buy for $350 today. XTR STI shifters...

For the most part a $1500 bike today will be better than a 1995 or 2000 $1500 bike with the difference being the bike of today probably may not hold up as well 15-20 years from now. But that is with anything these days.

I think the biggest change is not in the function but the longevity and compatibility. Companies (Shimano) seem to be escalating their obsolescence in the last few years. This makes it tougher to find cheaper, older/better replacement parts.

John


----------



## syl3 (Apr 23, 2008)

turbodog said:


> No way. Maybe clapped out XT vs. new Deore, but there will be virtually no difference new vs. new.
> 
> Heck, I run a completely mismatched 8-spd drivetrain of higher end parts and it shifts just as good as 10-speed.
> 
> ...


8 speed has wide enough spacing that 2:1 ratio is not a bother. 9 speed is where its starting to show its flaws. So much so that they were practically forced to rip off sram's 1:1 for Dynasys. also no directional chain for 9 speed. 760 and especially 761 RDs are so ugly they make my teeth hurt. and dual control? seriously?

no difference new vs new is making my point, thanks for that. but over the course of a season you will run into problems way sooner on the older gear. a 10 speed cassette will usually take a 3rd chain, but a 9 speed cassette will mostly be toast after the second chain, even when its not skipping, the shifting on cogs 2-3 and 3-4 will be piss poor. cable routing is not brilliant either, that big loop going into the RD is a sucker for mud seeping in and staying there.

Front shifts are way better, cage geometries are more tolerant of mix and match chainrings, shadow RD doesnt bang up and down against the chainstay (though it does stabilize the parallelogram againt cable tension so if you skimp on cables you're gonna snap a few), and do i really need to explain how good the clutch is?


----------



## Fiskare (Sep 5, 2008)

mack_turtle said:


> how much money could you save by growing and grinding your own peanut butter, milking a cow in your backyard for the cheese on your pizza, and weaving your own wool from sheep in your yard? who has the time and energy to do these things?


We buy everything almost all our food stuff in bulk, and super quality. Do all our own cooking, canning 6 fruit trees, plus a year round garden. And my wife buys most of our clothes from the thrift store and tailors them to perfection. I do that with bikes. The savings are substantial and continuous. But I hear ya after that. I know folks with milk cows. It only works for a very few. Today, it seems, the more self sufficient person still uses what the big machine makes. But gets it second hand and then makes it work. So we tailor but we don't weave, nor grow the critter or the cotton.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

This is just another case of the fact that money continues to lose it's value. 

In other words, we pay more now for the same thing we paid less for yesteryear. 

...and it's only going to get worse. 

For example, in California when I started driving back in the 80s, gasoline went for not much over a $1/gallon. It's now 3 times that much and this pricing is considered low for the times.

In 2004, I purchased the next model down from a S-works SJ FSR (first year of this redesign) and had the components upgraded to full XTR. I paid $3400 back then. The next model down from an S-works today SJ FSR has an MSRP of $5900. 

...and it's only going to get worse....


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Hawg said:


> This is just another case of the fact that money continues to lose it's value.
> 
> In other words, we pay more now for the same thing we paid less for yesteryear.
> 
> ...


But what's funny is the frames are pretty much the same price today as back then. I paid $2000 for my Intense frame in 2002'. Not much different than a frame equivalent of today. Yet the forks have doubled in price.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

mack_turtle said:


> I just attempted to build a decent complete on Price Point with mid-range, closeout parts and I only got as far as a Kona Big Unit, Reba fork, and some Sun Ringle wheels and I was already at over $1300. how does one buy a decent XT-level equipped bike for $1500?


You don't.


----------



## NiteOwlNY (Mar 20, 2015)

In 1982 I was a sponsored BMX racer, I raced Mongoose until my bike was stolen. I still have the receipts (and the bike), the GT I built to replace it ended up costing $1200 by the time I was done. 

Prices are pretty relevant to today's dollar.


----------



## Atl-Biker (Feb 8, 2012)

Great thread lol. $200 frames and wheels aren't important.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

GuitsBoy said:


> I couldn't agree more, which is exactly why I ride a $1600 sub 24 lb carbon fiber hardtail. Building yourself, you know exactly where you want to compromise and where not to - it wont be the same for everybody. You can score one in a life time deals on parts if your timing is right. And in the end, nothing beats knowing the ins and outs of the bike you build yourself.


You're also putting in a lot of your own time, using tools that you had to buy and that's assuming you know what you're doing and install everything properly. What's all that worth? Nothings free


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

Phillbo said:


> What? You don't think the price of cars will increase over the next 10 years?


I bought a Subaru Forester in 2002 for $19,500 and one in 2014 that actually had a higher spec and much improved everything else for $22,500. So they may of went down when inflation is factored in.


----------



## cjsb (Mar 4, 2009)

NiteOwlNY said:


> In 1982 I was a sponsored BMX racer, I raced Mongoose until my bike was stolen. I still have the receipts (and the bike), the GT I built to replace it ended up costing $1200 by the time I was done.
> 
> Prices are pretty relevant to today's dollar.


I am getting way old now and the memory is fading, but I remember buying a cannondale F900 stock back in the day. It was super stiff aluminum HT, with a lefty fork, coda disc brakes, coda suspension seat post, XT shifters, and that all-important deal sealer XTR rear mech. It cost me $1800-1900ish back in maybe 2001-2002? All of the Cods stuff on that bike was total crap. I kept blowing out the lefty and it had to go back to Cannondale several times. The bike fit great, was a total rocket, but was constantly needing repair.

I see the $188-1900 HTs today and they are far better than my old F900. This is just my own experience and causal empiricism.

TheOPs overall issue or question cannot be addressed by each of our individual experiences but is really easy to address using some general analysis. Although i suspect that bikes have really improved bang for buck and the stuff I ride today blows away the stuff from 10+ years ago, it is still my opinion.

However, I still have not found the $1600 24lb HT that I would consider riding. I am very skeptical of such claims, but at the same time some prefer certain things and compromise on others, and some can wait forever to do a build and get it all on closeout and barter with the thieves at flea markets.I suppose it is possible.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Yet the forks have doubled in price.


Yeah - high end forks and wheels have gone through the roof.

I think a lot of the penchant many have these days for spending wild amounts on money on bikes comes from the mistaken assumption that with the riding they're doing and their skill level, top end performance is necessary, or even noticeable for the most part. 
Ego, marketing victimhood, the magpie effect...more people buying more bike than they can reasonably ever expect to use anywhere near it's full potential...most of us will be served fine by a decent mid level bike, but there's a ton of people out there that like to drive a top-fuel dragster to the grocery store and back it seems. No reason for the bike companies not to take advantage.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

GuitsBoy said:


> I couldn't agree more, which is exactly why I ride a $1600 sub 24 lb carbon fiber hardtail.


I'm not doubting you but I would be genuinely interested in how you got there, I'm more than $1000 beyond that amount into mine and still @ around 25 pounds (xl).


----------



## syl3 (Apr 23, 2008)

slapheadmofo said:


> Yeah - high end forks and wheels have gone through the roof.


High end stuff has reached new peaks of performance and durability. Some people think it's worth it.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Atl-Biker said:


> Great thread lol. $200 frames and wheels aren't important.


Anybody here as confused as me of this post ^^^?



slapheadmofo said:


> Yeah - high end forks and wheels have gone through the roof.
> 
> I think a lot of the penchant many have these days for spending wild amounts on money on bikes comes from the mistaken assumption that with the riding they're doing and their skill level, top end performance is necessary, or even noticeable for the most part.
> Ego, marketing victimhood, the magpie effect...more people buying more bike than they can reasonably ever expect to use anywhere near it's full potential...most of us will be served fine by a decent mid level bike, but there's a ton of people out there that like to drive a top-fuel dragster to the grocery store and back it seems. No reason for the bike companies not to take advantage.


As I said my Intense frame in 2002' cost $2000 which is about the same as a comparable high end aluminum frame of today. My Fox fork is a Vanilla back then was top of the line for $650 but in today's market a comparable one is double to triple that cost. I don't get how some components have shot through the roof but the frames are still about the same.


----------



## nauc (Sep 9, 2009)

i bought this a few years ago for $1,100 as a complete bike. it would probably cost $1,600 now = stupid

GT Avalanche Expert
RS Recon (130mm w/lock)
SLX shifters
SLX front d
XT rear d
Deore cranks and hubs
SLX cassette
Avid J3 brakes
WTB rims
Kenda Nevs
CC headset
GT bars, stem n post
WTB saddle
SPD pedals

thing rails tho


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

After reading some of these posts, I would have to say that many of us are idiots. You can't have a decent wheelset built for $200 unless you can build it yourself and get free spokes. How many of us have that skill? A good hardtail frame will cost around $500 new, at least. Today's Deore is better than 10-year old XT. Shadow technology and 10-speeds alone make it better. Forks today are much better for similar prices than forks from 2005, and it isn't close. I posted this before. I don't feel the need to type it again.

http://forums.mtbr.com/general-discussion/bikes-becoming-more-expensive-947024.html


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

nauc said:


> i bought this a few years ago for $1,100 as a complete bike. it would probably cost $1,600 now = stupid
> 
> GT Avalanche Expert
> RS Recon (130mm w/lock).
> ...


A similar bike will cost about the same, even if some of the components may be labeled differently.


----------



## M-Train (Jan 12, 2008)

Could it be that the industry has convinced average riders that they need pro-level builds? We are a consume and dispose society and people love buying new stuff. There are a lot of 5" full-squish bikes out there on terrain that people rode on rigid bikes 25 years ago, just not as fast or plush. I know that disc brakes and suspension make previously unrideable terrain possible, but you'll see plenty of people walking their new rigs down it still. 
The answer is yes, we are all idiots, myself included, but for many more reasons than the overpriced bikes we buy.


----------



## NiteOwlNY (Mar 20, 2015)

I look at it this way... Did I need a 5 grand FS bike? Not really, I could have done the same on a lesser model... But I'm 45 years old, I'm now dealing with old BMX/MX injuries coming back to haunt me as well as a very bad car accident 15 years ago that has left me partially disabled. I don't know how many years of riding I have left before it just becomes way too uncomfortable. I was getting exactly what I wanted and enjoying the heck out of it while I can.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

syl3 said:


> High end stuff has reached new peaks of performance and durability. Some people think it's worth it.


Not a peak, just another temporary point on a long slope with a pretty mellow overall ascent.

As always, today's 'latest and greatest' is tomorrow's 'you need to upgrade' for those that get sucked into that game, even while the level of riding most people are doing isn't really progressing much from what I can tell, and trails in general are tending to become less demanding at the same time.

I mean $2000 wheels? I'm all about riding/buying whatever makes you happy, but I personally would need to be riding at a damn near pro level to think I required anything like that, or that it would really much of an appreciable difference in my riding.

Not saying I wouldn't take a set if they were offered to me at a screaming discount or anything.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

NiteOwlNY said:


> I look at it this way... Did I need a 5 grand FS bike? Not really, I could have done the same on a lesser model... But I'm 45 years old, I'm now dealing with old BMX/MX injuries coming back to haunt me as well as a very bad car accident 15 years ago that has left me partially disabled. I don't know how many years of riding I have left before it just becomes way too uncomfortable. I was getting exactly what I wanted and enjoying the heck out of it while I can.


I can see this point, to a point. I find myself regularly buying bikes that might've retailed for 5 or 6k a few years ago for half MSRP, or less. The difference between 2-4 (or even more) year old tech and the newest stuff isn't all that great, and not in any way worth spending double the money IMO.

But hey, it's not for me to tell anyone how to spend their dough.


----------



## Fiskare (Sep 5, 2008)

NiteOwlNY said:


> I look at it this way... Did I need a 5 grand FS bike? Not really, I could have done the same on a lesser model... But I'm 45 years old, I'm now dealing with old BMX/MX injuries coming back to haunt me as well as a very bad car accident 15 years ago that has left me partially disabled. I don't know how many years of riding I have left before it just becomes way too uncomfortable. I was getting exactly what I wanted and enjoying the heck out of it while I can.


I am older than you and just about as busted up. I ride (what to me) is a very nice 5+" FS from 2003. But it wasn't bought to help an old guy keep riding. I didn't even buy it for me (gift to wife). These days one of the best features it has is that this old busted up Luddite can still do long rides over rougher terrain and and walk right. I have recently done those same rides on my fully rigid smooth riding steel MTB and I am hurting before the ride ends. So you can count me as a believer


----------



## NiteOwlNY (Mar 20, 2015)

Fiskare said:


> I am older than you and just about as busted up. I ride (what to me) is a very nice 5+" FS from 2003. But it wasn't bought to help an old guy keep riding. I didn't even buy it for me (gift to wife). These days one of the best features it has is that this old busted up Luddite can still do long rides over rougher terrain and and walk right. I have recently done those same rides on my fully rigid smooth riding steel MTB and I am hurting before the ride ends. So you can count me as a believer


Old injuries come back to haunt us as we get older but when you're young and invincible you don't think what's going to happen as you age. Tomorrow I get my monthly lidocaine shots into my neck and shoulders and listen to my neurologist tell me what I should and shouldn't be doing...

Can't take it with you, may as well get what you want and enjoy the hell out of it while you can!


----------



## Fiskare (Sep 5, 2008)

NiteOwlNY said:


> Old injuries come back to haunt us as we get older but when you're young and invincible you don't think what's going to happen as you age. Tomorrow I get my monthly lidocaine shots into my neck and shoulders and listen to my neurologist tell me what I should and shouldn't be doing...
> 
> Can't take it with you, may as well get what you want and enjoy the hell out of it while you can!


Rust never sleeps. Maybe it really is better to burn out than to fade away. My wife is set, and when I finish raising my son I will have completed the mission. After that, yeehaw!


----------



## Vespasianus (Apr 9, 2008)

Count me in as wondering how bike spec have gotten worse. But the main culprit is the move away from 26" wheels. Low end 29ers (sub $1000) seem to have terrible wheelsets and forks. The 27.5" bikes are even worse. I have bikes running 8, 9 and 10 speed XT shifters and they all have better ergonomics and shifting than the low end Altus crap that is out there now. And the SR forks are terrible. Just terrible. 

What I will say is that there are some great deals out there as well in the 1050-1250 range but trying to convince my wife that spending that much on a bike for our 14 year old son is a very hard!


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

I think that the problem is, instead, that the skill and experience needed to do ones own build successfully is severely undervalued. 

People with skills always seem to forget that.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Berkeley Mike said:


> I think that the problem is, instead, that the skill and experience needed to do ones own build successfully is severely undervalued.
> 
> People with skills always seem to forget that.


So ya think I could get away with asking for a 12 pack instead of 6 for tossing a bike together?


----------



## ljsmith (Oct 26, 2007)

Berkeley Mike said:


> I think that the problem is, instead, that the skill and experience needed to do ones own build successfully is severely undervalued.
> 
> People with skills always seem to forget that.


I guess I am getting old, but back in the day everyone wrenched on their own bikes. Of course we didn't have $5000 bikes and the kind of disposable income to pay for repairs, so we had to learn how to do it. Nowadays people take their bikes in the the LBS for everything. It amazes me when I am on here and people talk about taking their bike in to get new tires put on. I built my first bike by myself at 14 with no bike manual, there was no internet to tell me how to do it and I have never taken a bike into a shop. Its really not that hard to build a bike. The problem is people aren't willing to learn or purchase the necessary tools to do it, not that they don't have some set of skills.


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

People aren't willing to do any kind of work anymore - we don't value craftspeople anymore. I built my first bike at 10 and was working on cars by 16. I think there is a value in being handy even if you are a white collar desk jockey (like me).


----------



## 779334 (Oct 10, 2014)

For the OP, you need to put a link with the bike your dissatisfied with. 

Not sure your level of business or economic knowledge, but the manufacturer has to buy the materials, pay the employee to build it, and make a profit. Profit is only made after expenses have been subtracted, such as electricity, insurance, shipping, the marketing department, billing....etc. There's a lot to subtract before net profit can be calculated. In the end, the LBS has his expenses and employees to take care of. Of course you can build a better bike because you don't have all of the above expenses.


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

*In 2015, new bikes are for suckers*

The bike industry is eating itself.

What rider wants to spend $7000 on a new bike today, only to risk waking up a year from now to find out that the re-sale value just cratered because the frame & rear axle are 142 not boost?

_Quick, act now_: it's your chance to relive the fun of spending through the nose to buy a new bike with a QR rear, right before the whole world decided that 142 was the latest greatest! Or more recently the fun of having the re-sale value of your 26" bike cut in half in the blink of an eye.

I think Boost is just a big middle finger from SRAM and the big companies aimed at riders, for basically the reasons given by Richard Cunningham here.

But, even putting SRAM's cynical standard game aside, there's still the danger that 2 years from now the market will have decided that 2.35 tires on 30 mm wheels are stupid-skinny, obsolete. _You _may disagree, _you _may think 2.35 is just fine, but that's not going to be much consolation if you decide to sell your bike and realize your bike is worth a grand or two less than you expected.

I love the bikes out today, but no way in hell would I buy one now. The bike industry has persuaded me not to.


----------



## Menel (Mar 15, 2015)

I see you are cranky and resistant to change. Username is appropriate.

All 3 of my bikes have been previous year closeouts, deeply discounted. Always bought in the spring. New bikes have always been for suckers.


----------



## bmorejared (Mar 26, 2015)

I'm very new to biking, but I'm assuming it is like every other hobby I have had like golf, motorcycles, and cars. The items are bought for enjoyment purposes and not investment purposes.


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

Menel said:


> I see you are cranky and resistant to change. Username is appropriate.


Not resistant to change. I love change. I love it so much that I want to buy the latest greatest every couple years, which means being able to sell my 2-3 year-old bike without getting reamed.

Cranky, yes.



Menel said:


> All 3 of my bikes have been previous year closeouts, deeply discounted. Always bought in the spring. New bikes have always been for suckers.


How clever. Except here's the thing: it doesn't matter how much you _paid _for your bike. When you bought it, you figured you could resell it for X, but then a year later you realized that now you could only sell it for X-$1000. You were sad.


----------



## dan4jeepin (Apr 9, 2007)

I buy bikes I like and ride them til there beat up and dead. If your buying bikes and worrying about re-sale value your doing it wrong.


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

dan4jeepin said:


> I buy bikes I like and ride them til there beat up and dead. If your buying bikes and worrying about re-sale value your doing it wrong.


Yeah, that reasoning is quite convincing to everyone here whose main bike is a pro-flex with v-brakes.


----------



## Menel (Mar 15, 2015)

When I had my Lynskey Helix customized, etched with my name. I knew here was no resell. My previous roadie was put on rain/winter backup status.

When I bought my recent starter mtb NailTrail slx/xt marked down to 1100. To see how I feel about the sport. If I hammer it around trails for a season and decide not for me. No huge loss. If I decide I love MTB and do another custom Lynskey the NailTrail will be backup.

Eventually either backup will be so old Ill PIF to a friend.

N+1 stop selling bikes


----------



## Ladmo (Jan 11, 2013)

Bikes rapidly decline in value. Some bikes decline even more than others, but all bikes decline in value. A lot. I would suggest that the problem is you denying reality and maintaining an unrealistic expectation of current value, rather than some larger conspiracy at work.


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

Ladmo said:


> Bikes rapidly decline in value. Some bikes decline even more than others, but all bikes decline in value. A lot.


Of course. But when features inherent to a particular design are perceived by the market as obsolete (like rear quick releases or 26" wheels), they decline a lot faster. Buying a bike for $6k and reselling it two years later for $3500 is a rapid decline in value. But thinking you'd be able to sell it for $3500, and realizing that now you can only sell it for $2000, still is painful.

Unless you're someone who doesn't care about losing a couple grand you thought you had because Mommy is footing the bill.


----------



## kneecap (Dec 20, 2003)

bmorejared said:


> I'm very new to biking, but I'm assuming it is like every other hobby I have had like golf, motorcycles, and cars. The items are bought for enjoyment purposes and not investment purposes.


This ^^^^^^


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

OldManBike said:


> Not resistant to change. I love change. I love it so much that I want to buy the latest greatest every couple years, which means being able to sell my 2-3 year-old bike without getting reamed.
> 
> Cranky, yes.
> 
> How clever. Except here's the thing: it doesn't matter how much you _paid _for your bike. When you bought it, you figured you could resell it for X, but then a year later you realized that now you could only sell it for X-$1000. You were sad.


No, YOU figured that and YOU were sad.

Lots of us don't give a damn because after a few years, we know our bikes aren't going to be worth **** because they're beat, and we either keep them around for spares/loaners or sell them to friends for a screaming deal.

I also agree you can remove the specific year from the thread title. Depreciation on new bikes has always been ridiculous. Few quicker ways to wave goodbye to a bunch of $$ than wheel a new bike out the shop door.


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

Sure. If you know you're never going to sell your 2015 bike, then you're golden. I don't think that's a particularly large percentage of the new-bike-buying market, but okay. 

Revised, increased-accuracy thread title: "In 2015, new bikes are for suckers (or people who are certain they're never selling them, or who don't care how much they're worth if they do)"


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

There are a lot of very good bikes out there for a lot less than $7000. That price point is for very top end bikes with top end builds. People who start these "bikes are too expensive" threads don't seem to be able to grasp that.


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

zrm said:


> There are a lot of very good bikes out there for a lot less than $7000. That price point is for very top end bikes with top end builds. People who start these "bikes are too expensive" threads don't seem to be able to grasp that.


This isn't a "bikes are too expensive" thread.


----------



## 779334 (Oct 10, 2014)

Why do people buy $3000 bikes and sell them a couple months later for $1000?

I would not pay $7000 for a new bike...forget it. But even if someone does, who cares if the market value goes down, if the rider will keep the bike for a long time, to him, the bike is worth what he paid. Now, if they want to resell them, then yeah, bad move. 

My bike was $899 and I've done put about $450 into it. To me, it is worth what I paid. To someone else who would want to buy it, not even half.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Its not a new phenomena. 

My 1988 bike was obsolete in 1989 because brakes moved from under the chainstay to seatstay. 

My 1990 bike looked old fashioned in 1992 when curved rigid forks were replaced by straight blade rigid forks and top mount thumb shifters were replaced with triggers. 

My 1996 bike was out of date by 1997 when the new model had V brakes instead of Cantis. 

My 2001 bike was soon seeming old when square taper bottom brackets went away away, bars got a new diameter, and disc brakes replaced rim brakes. 

My 2008 bike was pretty cool for a year or two, until the head angle was too steep, the wheel size was wrong, and the head tube size was too small for a "modern bike". And ewww those skinny quick releases! 

My 2014 bike came with 23mm wide rims on 29" wheels, and now neither one of those things are hot anymore. And this bike is less than a year old!


The thing is, I still have some of those bikes and wouldn't mind riding any of them today. My 2014 bike will be my joy for years to come, regardless of what the "industry" decides to change.

So you see, there is never a good time to buy a new bike!


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

OldManBike said:


> This isn't a "bikes are too expensive" thread.


Sure it is. Aren't you saying that the purchase price minus the resale value makes the bike too expensive? Since there are plenty of very capable bikes out there for less than half the new purchase price you quote it stands to reason that even if that cost/resale ratio was the same, you're out less money.

Of course it all depends on what your priorities and financial resources are. For plenty of people, having a top end bike is important. For some of those people the money isn't a big deal - they can afford it. For others, they simply put devoting the money to a top end bike as a priority in their finances. For instance, I can afford a $7000 bike or a $50,000 car but not both. I'll buy the $7000 bike and drive a less expensive car.


----------



## Ladmo (Jan 11, 2013)

OldManBike said:


> But thinking you'd be able to sell it for $3500, and realizing that now you can only sell it for $2000, still is painful.
> 
> Unless you're someone who doesn't care about losing a couple grand you thought you had because Mommy is footing the bill.


Bwaaa haaa haa, you funny. I bought my bike because it was the best bike I had ever ridden, and I can afford to buy whatever mountain bike I want without thinking twice about it. There aren't many things about getting older that are good, but getting into a position where you can buy whatever mountain bike you want is one of the good things. I spent the money I did so I could have the best riding experience I could, and the fact that the bike would depreciate, and the fact that new technology would come out, and whatever else there is to wring hands about, none of that mattered in even the slightest amount to me.

I wanted it, I bought it, I'm riding it for all I've got, and if I never earn a penny back via a re-sale, it still will be worth every cent I've spent. Instead of agonizing over how much you will lose buying a new bike, why don't you use your knowledge of how bikes decline in value to put together your dream used bike?


----------



## Gasp4Air (Jun 5, 2009)

OldManBike said:


> This isn't a "bikes are too expensive" thread.


Sure it is - you're complaint is that when you sell it, you can't get what you'd like for it, thus increasing your cost.

When the complaints about new features - new standards - new anything pop up, as they often do, I wonder where the individual would like change to stop. Now? 10 years ago? 20 years? After you buy your last bike?


----------



## surfskidude (Mar 22, 2014)

I have played the 'toy game' for many years! Always have done tons of research and pretty much had an idea of what's the latest thing. Most high end gear from flyfishing, photography, outigger canoes, road bikes and mtn bikes ( all my weaknesses ) are more similar than they are not! You just gotta pick the one that's right for your game and go for it. I always spend a little more than I need with the thought I'll grow into it. The important thing is don't break whatever your bank may be… get the best stuff you can afford and get out there. Something better will always come along ( well maybe ). When it comes time to sell… you gotta figure what that toy brought to you and not just the market value. Go play people!!!


----------



## 779334 (Oct 10, 2014)

smilinsteve said:


> Its not a new phenomena.
> 
> My 1988 bike was obsolete in 1989 because brakes moved from under the chainstay to seatstay.
> 
> ...


Yup. Just buy it and ride it for as long as possible. My 2000 trek was 15 years old when I sold it. It was doing fine, by the rim brakes were killing my palms down the hill.


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

zrm said:


> Sure it is. Aren't you saying that the purchase price minus the resale value makes the bike too expensive? Since there are plenty of very capable bikes out there for less than half the new purchase price you quote it stands to reason that even if that cost/resale ratio was the same, you're out less money.





Gasp4Air said:


> Sure it is - you're complaint is that when you sell it, you can't get what you'd like for it, thus increasing your cost.
> 
> When the complaints about new features - new standards - new anything pop up, as they often do, I wonder where the individual would like change to stop. Now? 10 years ago? 20 years? After you buy your last bike?


No, it isn't. Buy the $7,000 bike, just don't buy it this year unless you don't care about resale. Don't drop the money when the obsolescence of your fancy new bike is already on the horizon.



Gasp4Air said:


> When the complaints about new features - new standards - new anything pop up, as they often do, I wonder where the individual would like change to stop. Now? 10 years ago? 20 years? After you buy your last bike?


Read the RC column again.


----------



## deke505 (Jul 29, 2012)

dan4jeepin said:


> I buy bikes I like and ride them til there beat up and dead. If your buying bikes and worrying about re-sale value your doing it wrong.


+1. You are suppose to ride the bike into the ground.


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

smilinsteve said:


> Its not a new phenomena.
> 
> . . .
> 
> So you see, there is never a good time to buy a new bike!


Sure, I agree. But I think there are particularly _bad _times to buy a new bike: when some new thing is already in the pipeline that will make bikes bought now depreciate a lot faster than bikes bought a year from now. (Even if its a relatively useless new thing like Boost.)

Some of you guys would not have cared one bit if you bought a shiny new bike with a rear QR a week before you realized that QR bikes were going to be a lot harder to sell than 142 bikes. But a lot of people would care. And those people are thinking twice before buying now.


----------



## deke505 (Jul 29, 2012)

OldManBike said:


> Sure, I agree. But I think there are particularly _bad _times to buy a new bike: when some new thing is already in the pipeline that will make bikes bought now depreciate a lot faster than bikes bought a year from now. (Even if its a relatively useless new thing like Boost.)
> 
> Some of you guys would not have cared one bit if you bought a shiny new bike with a rear QR a week before you realized that QR bikes were going to be a lot harder to sell than 142 bikes. But a lot of people would care. And those people are thinking twice before buying now.


I think you are wrong, I think most people tend to buy a bike to ride and not care what the value is a year or two down the road.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

I don't know about everyone else But I both agree and disagree.

I purchased a brand new 2002 Specialized Enduro Pro in July 2002. I rode it into the ground until the main shock linkage cracked in 2013.

I then purchased a 2006 Kona Coiler and have been riding that.

I kinda miss my enduro and might pay someone to weld up the linkage so I can build it back up again.

If you purchase new, purchase with the intent of keeping the bike a long time or make peace with the fact that buying and re-selling every few years to always have the latest and greatest is going to cost you a pretty penny.

For me that is not worth it, I have a blast every-time I ride my "old" Coiler.


----------



## bonner1040 (Apr 5, 2015)

I wouldn't dream of selling any of my equipment, bikes or otherwise. *If I need more money I will work harder or just ask my employer for more money.*

I am relatively new to cycling and have spent a relative-to-me small fortune so far. I dont ever expect to see a single cent of that money come back in currency.

Maybe the OP should look into leasing.


----------



## Carton (Sep 15, 2014)

AshevilleMtBiker said:


> Yup. Just buy it and ride it for as long as possible. My 2000 trek was 15 years old when I sold it. It was doing fine, by the rim brakes were killing my palms down the hill.


Hate to agree with the self-designated resident troglodyte, but I do, so I guess that makes me one too, to a point.

The article isn't saying that every year is terrible for bikes, its saying that 2015 is going to be particularly bad, since Boost is a frame standard that pretty much makes your to most important bike parts (frame and wheelset) obsolete right off the shop. Not only if you buy 142x12, but if you even if you shell out for the BOOST itself, since an even wider standard is almost surely in the offing. So I do agree with this being a case of marketing trumping engineering, milking money out of consumers for a very slight performance bonus.

Shimano and SRAM have done this egregiously with groupsets but at a much lower price to consumers, since I could swap out a 1990 groupset with a whole new one with the only possible extra cost being fidgeting with the (or maybe even a new) rear hub and possibly getting a bottom bracket adapter for the SRAM model. Meanwhile the teeth have gone up from 7 speed to 11 speed in small increments. I don't mind that kind of phase obsolence. It's up front, and doesn't really affect the rest of my bike. And well, 25 years is a long time to go between swapping groupsets. And it still could be done at fairly minimal additional costs.

But frame manufacturers should have a higher standard with this stuff. You change the platform everything changes. It's fine with major performance gains, like upgrading to disk brakes, going from quill stems to integrated headsets, and (methinks) thru-axles. Or doing things (wider bars, narrower seatposts) that stand alone. But some refinements, like tapered headsets and press-fit bottom brackets, seem to have provided very little bang for a lot of bucks and hassle. And this very slight widening of the hubs seems to me even more unnecessary.

I'm not planning on ever reselling my bike at this point, though circumstances change. My 15 year old bike is seeing new life as a commuter, even though the hubs play like spinning tops at this point. I'm hoping 15 years down the line I'll give nmy 2014 bike a similar makeover. But I still don't enjoy losing a bunch on potential resale value, and having a harder go at swapping wheels in a few years, for a new standard promising a "10%" (even if they're being spectacularly honest/conservative that seems awful little) improvement in stiffness that itself going to be obsolete in very short order.


----------



## Rev Bubba (Jan 16, 2004)

OldManBike: Poor assumptions on your part. I never bought a bike figuring in potential resale. By the time I get a new bike, I've had close to ten years on the one being replaced and give it away.

I figure it takes close to ten years for technology to change enough to justify something new. I plan to buy a bike in a month or so and will have a "boutique?" brand with a carbon frame, FS, etc. all for around $4400 delivered. I suppose for another $3000 I could buy the same bike that weighs about 2 lbs. less then the kit I'm purchasing.

PS: People and children everywhere, please don't assume that age equates to crotchitiness. (I'm not even sure this is a word but you get the idea )


----------



## Rev Bubba (Jan 16, 2004)

Mommy died long ago.


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

Rev Bubba said:


> Mommy died long ago.


My condolences.


----------



## bonner1040 (Apr 5, 2015)

I just looked at both my bikes without boost... they are suddenly slower and less beautiful! OH NO


----------



## kdb71 (Feb 19, 2014)

I agree and disagree as well. The ever-changing standards are tiresome, but with innovation comes change and often improvement. Threadless headsets replaced threaded, disk replaced v replaced canti, through axle replaced QR...these are all improvements in my book. 
That said you don't have to believe the hype if you don't want to. I rode my 1995 Kona Lava Dome until about a year and a half ago. Made upgrades over time and put thousands and thousands of miles on that bike before I finally decided that it was time to get a new bike instead of sourcing old spec replacement parts. The leap in bike technology over that 20 years was incredible and the new bike is superior to the old bike in every way...except one. Fun. They are both equally fun to ride and the only limits are rider skill and ambition.
Sounds like the OP is the ideal customer for the industry that he is railing against. No one is forcing anyone to actually go out and buy the latest and greatest or next big thing each season. More importantly the basis of his complaint is the financial impact on his "flipping" the bikes once he feels the need to buy the next big thing. Just get off the merry-go-round and go ride.
As others have said I believe in buying things that I'm actually going to use. As long as I make a sound, informed decision I know that I got what I was looking for at the time and I will enjoy it until the wheels fall off. In this model the changing industry standards are irrelevant to me until I actually need a new bike.
Oh, and my Mommy won't pay for that one either.


----------



## TheGweed (Jan 30, 2010)

If a person has the money and doesn't mind spending it on a particular bike, that's their business and no one else's. Doesn't make them a sucker.


----------



## Ladmo (Jan 11, 2013)

Rev Bubba said:


> I figure it takes close to ten years for technology to change enough to justify something new.


I don't know if 10 years is the right number, but I do know that up until recently, all the new bikes I've tested at demo events were clearly not as good as the bike I bought in June, 2012, and the bike that I recently thought might be better was only better by a very small amount (which I attribute to a better fork than what I'm running). I'm convinced that if a person does a good job buying (or assembling) a bike, there is no reason that bike can't be a bike they will be happy to ride for many years. But some people want something new all the time. that's fine, but just know it'll cost you.


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

Yeah, yeah. You guys are all geniuses. You never buy a bike you don't still just _adore_ 3 years later. You never get the frame size wrong. You never guess wrong about what geometry / suspension / wheelsize / whatever will work for you, on your trails. You never move to a different area with a different style of trails. Your Magic 8-balls all are _perfect_.

But the rest of us aren't quite as smart. Sometimes we buy a bike and then realize two years or a year or a month later, for whatever reason, that this isn't a bike we want own the rest of our lives. So we don't sneer at re-sale value.

And you guys are all made of money. You want a new bike, you just go _buy_ it, because your orthodontics practice is _on fire_.

But some of us aren't quite that sloppy affluent. We want a new bike, but to swing it without bankruptcy or Ramen or divorce, we gotta cash out the old one.

Glad everyone liked the Mommy line.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Gran Torino - Get Off My Lawn _HD


----------



## Rev Bubba (Jan 16, 2004)

It probably takes close to ten years to get to the point where I can't add new technology to my older bikes. At some point you get there but if you upgrade with newer items as older ones wear out, you can keep a bike pretty current. Just because you can't include a new technology on your bike doesn't mean your current one doesn't still ride perfectly well.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

My $0.02 ^^ 
Bikes are fun, bikes can be expensive. I bought a reasonably expensive bike $2.75K nzd. Is the bike worth that amount to me? Dam Skippy! I love my ride... Do I consider my bike an investment!? If I had never ridden a bike and someone came to me whilst on deaths door and asked 'would you give me $3,000 to be able to live for 2 more years?' I'd sign that check w/o a hesitation! It's all relative, you can't take any of it with you. You can sure use it while you've got it and hopefully stick around a little longer. Plus, the memories one can make are priceless. Reminds me that I need a new CSC (camera).

-------------------------------------
Opinions are like A-holes... everybody 
has one & they're usually full of...??


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

The thing about Boost is that it isn't necessary. You don't even need to change frame spacing to fit a wider hub. The 142 standard uses the same hub as the old 135, and added spacers and changed the dropout. But you could use a wider hub with less spacers to keep it compatible with 142 rear dropouts.


----------



## Rev Bubba (Jan 16, 2004)

Since some of my best rides have been on really crappy rental bikes in second and third world countries, for me, getting the perfect geometry, size and everything else is pretty over rated. It less expensive to adjust to poor buying decisions than to keep trying to get the perfect bike. 

Perfection, after all, is the enemy of pretty darn good.


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

Rev Bubba said:


> Since some of my best rides have been on really crappy rental bikes in second and third world countries, for me, getting the perfect geometry, size and everything else is pretty over rated. It less expensive to adjust to poor buying decisions than to keep trying to get the perfect bike.
> 
> Perfection, after all, is the enemy of pretty darn good.


That's cool. I ain't trying to persuade you any different. But yours is not the universally prevailing viewpoint.


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

At this very moment, on Pinkbike, under XC/All mountain complete bikes, counting only bikes 2012 to 2015, the number of bikes for sale is 3,092.

So I think just maybe its not just me.


----------



## bigfruits (Mar 21, 2011)

cant really say it bothers me as the last thing on my mind when i buy a bike is selling it or worrying what i will get for it in the future. 

why dont you take advantage of this and buy these bikes that become obsolete after a few months for half price?


----------



## kdb71 (Feb 19, 2014)

OldManBike said:


> At this very moment, on Pinkbike, under XC/All mountain complete bikes, counting only bikes 2012 to 2015, the number of bikes for sale is 3,092.
> 
> So I think just maybe its not just me.


Exactly. There are a ton of people doing what you are doing.It wasn't long ago that your options for selling used stuff consisted of:
1. Know someone that wants to buy it
2. Own a brick and mortar shop
3. Consign at someone else's brick and mortar shop
4. Take out a classified ad in the newspaper / penny saver
Now there's craigslist, ebay, pinkbike, mtbr classifieds, etc... You can reach the entire planet with a few clicks. So my sympathy for the seller is limited. Sounds like maybe you aren't making the wisest initial purchase decisions. If your money truly is tight that is where your focus should be.


----------



## 7daysaweek (May 7, 2008)

Have you actually had trouble selling a bike and that's what set you off or are you just assuming that things are different so it will cause issues for you?

I still have a QR rear on my bike and don't consider it obsolete. Still works for me. That's a sample size of one but there are plenty of older bikes/parts selling just fine in my local classifieds. I've even seen **GASP** QR front wheels, 9 speed derailleurs, and non-tapered forks selling for reasonable amounts. Yes, it's less than what they cost new but... that's kinda the way it works. Eventually it will all come full circle and all of the QR rear wheels will be antique and will command extremely high prices for those trying to restore an old, ancient, 2012 bike and need those hard to find parts. So, if it really bothers you, shrink-wrap your current rides and wait it out. 

I'm still curious though. Have you specifically met someone who has told you they would pay $X for bike but will now only pay $X because of "x-new-improved-super-feature"?


----------



## bonner1040 (Apr 5, 2015)

OldManBike said:


> At this very moment, on Pinkbike, under XC/All mountain complete bikes, counting only bikes 2012 to 2015, the number of bikes for sale is 3,092.
> 
> So I think just maybe its not just me.


3092? Is that a lot? Lets assume the *average* bike sold costs $2000. (exorbitantly high for an average but I dont want any complaining) Thats $6,000,000 in new merchandise.

You are asserting that $6,000,000 worth of merchandise from 3 calendar years of business is a lot??? LOL Thats 4/10s of ONE%

.04%

not 4%, .04%

(based on $15,000,000,000 in sales - also LOW to deter complaining)

Industry Overview 2013 - National Bicycle Dealers Association
(^^ thats called a reference^^)https://www.google.co.in/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=6%2C000%2C000%2F15%2C000%2C000%2C000
(^math^)

Excuse me I gotta laugh again. LOL. no really LOL.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

I still have my old bikes because resale value has never been worth it for me.

Again, it's not a new phenomena.


----------



## bonner1040 (Apr 5, 2015)

BAHAHAHAH im still laughing!


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Bikes have come a long ways since I bought a Diamond Back Arrival in the late '80's. And, I say, thank God! My newest bike, with some of the newest upgrades is much safer, faster, easier and much more fun to ride. I can't wait to see what the next 30 years bring to the montain bike industry. If it's anything like the last 30 years, it's going to be very very cool! Bring it on!!!


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

I also must say, that the things that have happened to me, and the direction my life has taken because of mountain bikes and been worth way, way more to me than the thousands of $ I have spent on this sport. It's been priceless!


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

So, OP what are you pedaling now? Just buy a 2 year old bike from someone for a steal. I still ride my 2005 kona dawg. I really enjoy my 2013 spec enduro. Maybe just ride your bike. My first bike, a 2003 stumpy is now one of my winter commuters. And no whining. I still drive my 1999 corolla, and still have a box of ( wait for it) cassette tapes on the front seat. It may assplode any minute now. Or get caught up in a time space warp.


----------



## bonner1040 (Apr 5, 2015)

OP can buy a bike for like 80% off all of the people that are crushed by new technology. 

does he resell his cell phones and shoes?


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Its a bad year to buy cell phones. A couple of years from now, it will hardly have any value.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

smilinsteve said:


> Its a bad year to buy cell phones. A couple of months(years) from now, it will hardly have any value.


Fix it for you.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

*How many of these threads do we need?* :yikes:ut:

http://forums.mtbr.com/general-discussion/we-all-bunch-idiots-961403.html

http://forums.mtbr.com/general-discussion/2015-new-bikes-suckers-961805-3.html#post11886141


----------



## Rev Bubba (Jan 16, 2004)

I've always been a sucker for a bunch of idiots.....


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> *How many of these threads do we need?* :yikes:ut:
> 
> http://forums.mtbr.com/general-discussion/we-all-bunch-idiots-961403.html
> ...


Huh. Didn't open that thread, figured that was just some geriatric crank.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

OldManBike said:


> Huh. Didn't open that thread, figured that was just some geriatric crank.


I wouldn't have expected you to. It's only been the hot topic thread for the last four days.


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> I wouldn't have expected you to. It's only been the hot topic thread for the last four days.


Rest assured that Twenty Two Thousand Post Guy follows such things more closely than I.


----------



## Fiskare (Sep 5, 2008)

OldManBike said:


> Rest assured that Twenty Two Thousand Post Guy follows such things more closely than I.


Damn, 60 posts in four hours. You ROCK!


----------



## ljsmith (Oct 26, 2007)

All of this is just a result of a lot of competition in the market place now. Everyone has to constantly innovate in order to outsell the other companies. It used to be Shimano put out some stuff and kept it the same for years and you had no choice but to buy it or some inferior junk. Now Shimano, or any other bike company, can't just sit on the same product for 5 or 10 years. For some (probably most) this is good because it means they can upgrade every year or two and are constantly getting the latest technology and innovation. Others are happy with what they have and just ride it until it breaks. And then there are others that are more worried about resale value and probably worry about people thinking their bikes are not as good because they don't have Boost. Personally I buy what I like, I keep it as long as I still like it and get a new bike when I want to. I used to ride a bike with v brakes when everyone had discs. Guess what, I had just as much fun. I rode 26 when everyone was going to 29, again I still had just as much fun. I rode QR when everyone had thru axles, you can probably guess I still had just as much fun. When I got rid of the bikes, I broke them down and sold all the components individually and did all right as far as resale goes. I say spend more time riding your bike and less time worrying about stuff that just doesn't matter. The industry has certainly changed, but its not going to affect how much fun you can have. If bikes are too expensive, just put off getting a new bike for longer, unless you absolutely need that 9-52 13 speed cassette thats coming.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

OldManBike said:


> Rest assured that Twenty Two Thousand Post Guy follows such things more closely than I.


Given the length of membership that's about an average poster.


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

That's all dandy. 

I still think for most riders buying a new bike now is a bad move.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

OldManBike said:


> That's all dandy.
> 
> I still think for most riders buying a new bike now is a bad move.


Bikes are discretionary lifestyle items, like many other activities and gear that form people's various hobbies and passions. We don't need the gear, but if all goes as planned we (hopefully) use these items regularly, which is then mission accomplished. What's your solution, buying a used bike? The value/depreciation curve on those is likely to be even steeper, albeit relative to a smaller outlay on the used goods.

Nice MTB purchased in 2015 = few thousand dollars.

More hours and smiles riding it than I can count, not to mention potential savings from improved health via fitness = priceless.

Waiting for some mythical market timing to buy bike = years of ride smile opportunities now gone. Time cannot be bought back with any hypothetical improved ROI on delaying bike purchase.


----------



## Ladmo (Jan 11, 2013)

OldManBike said:


> That's all dandy.
> 
> I still think for most riders buying a new bike now is a bad move.


If I was going to buy a new bike, and the model I was looking at was 3 or more years from the last time they updated it, I most definitely agree with you that, specific to that bike model, now is a bad time. At a minimum, wait until they roll out this years models before you buy to make sure you aren't buying the last of that version they will make. On the other hand, if what you are lusting after is a Nomad or an SB6c or an HD3, which are brand new models, there will never be a better time than right now.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

RC makes a very good point; it does seem utterly rediculous to re-jig everything for the sake of a 3mm/10% increase. If you're going to blow away the current standards and piss everyone off, make it a good worthwhile increase. He's dead right that in 2-4 years we'll have "Boost Plus" or something like that with another miniscule increase being touted as the next big miracle. Hard not to be cynical about the industry with stunts like that.

And as for the OP, I can certainly feel his pain. In 2010 I, for the first time, bought a new "boutique" frame and built up my real-world-dream-bike; a Turner 5spot with 26" wheels, QR rear, 69* HA, and straight 1-1/8th steerer. 12 months later the new Spot had a 44mm HT for tapered forks, 67.7* HA and 12mm rear axle. Couple of years later we had the Burner, complete with the new big wheels, slacker angles and longer TT, and my dream bike was now an antique, worth less than 1/3 what I'd paid for it.

But that's life, I'm still enjoying it, though I'll probably replace it with something newer soon. It's never a great time to buy a new bike, and like a new car you're always going to lose a bunch of money the second it rolls off the lot. Buy something one clearance or second hand if you're worried about taking too big a hit. Otherwise just suck it up, and make sure you ride it enough to justify the expenditure. I might just start chucking $10-20 a week into "new bike account" to soften the blow 3-4 years down the track.


----------



## Melll (Jan 25, 2015)

dan4jeepin said:


> I buy bikes I like and ride them til there beat up and dead. If your buying bikes and worrying about re-sale value your doing it wrong.





deke505 said:


> +1. You are suppose to ride the bike into the ground.


+2 ride it, love it into the ground. Keep forever in shed/garage/dining room to remember all the good times...


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

Everyone seems to think I started this thread out of bitter misery. My bike's great, life's great. I have not been gravely wronged by the bike industry. I did not just drop $7k on a bike. Mom's still alive.

Just trying to help other riders avoid getting blindsided.


----------



## Rev Bubba (Jan 16, 2004)

Too late for that. 
Your original title set the tone and the internet, in all its wisdom, ran with it.


----------



## net wurker (Sep 13, 2007)

Stocks, bonds, mutual funds are for investing.

Bikes are for riding.

I like the old standard rule of thumb, "buy the best bike you can afford when you're buying a bike".


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

Specifically, this is what I had in mind.

A couple years ago, I decided to buy carbon rims. My frame could fit either 26 or 27.5. I couldn't decide which to get. I asked a friend, who's way more of an industry insider then I'll ever be. He told me, "go 27.5. Next year they're going to be taking over." I didn't quite believe him, but I went with the 27.5's anyway. I was grateful for his advice.

The MTB media is in bed with the industry. See? See? See?

_They're _not going to whisper in your ear, "um, hold off on buying that dream bike, its about to get crapped on by SRAM."

So, I'm trying to help out.


----------



## 1trakryder (Apr 21, 2010)

This thread grabbed my attention immediately. I have purchased many used bikes so I thought "awesome! great tech at great prices!" Let's hope you're right. I love a deal. Truthfully though this ***** is truly the poster child for 1st world problem. Enjoy your bikes folks. New stuff is coming every day so expect this to be the issue going forward.


----------



## wg (Dec 20, 2003)

What 'net wurker' said: "buy the best bike you can afford when you're buying a bike". 
I have never purchased a bike with resale in mind over decades of riding...., umm, crap, (damn I'm old). Research and test ride what works best for me and only me. Not for whomever may inherit or buy it at some unknown future date. I do agree that bike pricing and marketing has gotten out of hand but if its out of my budget, I do not care. 
I'm replacing the drive train on my poor pathetic 26" ride this week. The frame is four years old and I still like it.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

You seem to place a lot of stake on industry insiders and media reports about what is or isn't happening. I just find myself a bike, doing whatever research on the merits of the product(s) that are available - either new or used - and scrounge up whatever test rides I can manage so that I feel I've made a somewhat informed decision, and then I ride it. Don't care much about what insiders or journalists have to say about how I go about it. "Sky is Falling" reports don't seem to have any real-world impact on my rides.



OldManBike said:


> Specifically, this is what I had in mind.
> 
> A couple years ago, I decided to buy carbon rims. My frame could fit either 26 or 27.5. I couldn't decide which to get. I asked a friend, who's way more of an industry insider then I'll ever be. He told me, "go 27.5. Next year they're going to be taking over." I didn't quite believe him, but I went with the 27.5's anyway. I was grateful for his advice.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mr5150 (Dec 20, 2011)

smilinsteve said:


> Its not a new phenomena.
> 
> My 1988 bike was obsolete in 1989 because brakes moved from under the chainstay to seatstay.
> 
> ...


My 1999 Reynolds 853 steel HT and my 2008 Superlight are just as enjoyable to ride today as they were the day I built them. Yea they are on their third and second drivetrain, respectively.

I think it is a sad joke that a bike equivalent to my 24.5lbs 1999 XT HT would go for $4000+ in 2015. Has anyone priced a better Trek HT these days?


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Mr5150 said:


> My 1999 Reynolds 853 steel HT and my 2008 Superlight are just as enjoyable to ride today as they were the day I built them. Yea they are on their third and second drivetrain, respectfully.
> 
> I think it is a sad joke that a bike equivalent to my 24.5lbs 1999 XT HT would go for $4000+ in 2015. Has anyone priced a better Trek HT these days?


****, you could pay 5K back in the mid '90s for bike.


----------



## ljsmith (Oct 26, 2007)

OldManBike said:


> That's all dandy.
> 
> I still think for most riders buying a new bike now is a bad move.


I find this to be an odd statement. With the trending of the bike industry towards more and more different "standards", when exactly do you think is a good time to buy a bike? If things keep going at this rate, it will only get worse. So really right now is the best time to buy a bike right?


----------



## Havinfun (Mar 18, 2015)

1trakryder said:


> This thread grabbed my attention immediately. I have purchased many used bikes so I thought "awesome! great tech at great prices!" Let's hope you're right. I love a deal. Truthfully though this ***** is truly the poster child for 1st world problem. Enjoy your bikes folks. New stuff is coming every day so expect this to be the issue going forward.


Definitely first world poster child!!!

I love my bikes!!!

And, none of you will be providing a shoulder to cry on if I decide to sell one....


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

OMB, nice thread, sorry everyone is so full of crap. :bluefrown:

(With rare exception)


----------



## Mr5150 (Dec 20, 2011)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> ****, you could pay 5K back in the mid '90s for bike.


Sure. Top of the line Ti HT with XTR. $5K was as expensive as they got in 1999. With a few exceptions.

Trek wants 10K for a HT these days. I've seen HTs go for 11K. It's not about inflation. Consider what a LCD TV went for 10 years ago and what they cost today.

Must be the cost of 29 inch drivetrains and seatposts that affect the prices of bikes today.


----------



## mcrn12 (Feb 1, 2013)

Do you think it will change? I think the sport is becoming more popular and technology is at a rapid pace. I do not see it changing. They will always create something better and new. So to me there is no time like the present. However you could say its a great time to buy used! Take advantage of the decline in value and buy it used. Either way it is cheaper than being out of shape and getting fat. Health care is a whole lot more expensive than a carbon mountain bike.


----------



## 779334 (Oct 10, 2014)

bonner1040 said:


> I just looked at both my bikes without boost... they are suddenly slower and less beautiful! OH NO


You need to add some stickers. It'll instantly become faster and newer.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

OldManBike said:


> Yeah, that reasoning is quite convincing to everyone here whose main bike is a pro-flex with v-brakes.


No Proflex but until a few months ago I was still on V's and I highly doubt that you or anyone else were having more fun than I was regardless of how much you spent or how up to date your components are.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

OldManBike said:


> Mom's still alive.


His bedroom is right next to hers.

These threads usually come from someone who can't afford to stay up with the latest technology. So, they have to justify it in their mind that they don't want to stay up to date with the technology, for some other reason. So, they make themselves believe that the bike industry is out to **** everyone in the ass. This can be proven by the fact that they continue to ride the technology that then can afford. They draw that line in what technology is ok and what is not ok, based on what they can afford. The technology they decide to ride is ok, but anything more advanced is suddenly not ok to ride, again because the industry in ****ing them over with newer stuff. But the industry wasn't ****ing them over when they bought their current ride, because it was affordable to them. Which means, people who draw that line anywhere are hypocrites.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

Mr5150 said:


> Trek wants 10K for a HT these days. I've seen HTs go for 11K. It's not about inflation. Consider what a LCD TV went for 10 years ago and what they cost today.
> 
> Must be the cost of 29 inch drivetrains and seatposts that affect the prices of bikes today.


Sure, and Porsche sells it's most expensive supercar for over $200,000. You're talking about an absolute top of the line bike with absolute top of the line materials and absolute top of the line components. Trek also sells much more modestly priced bikes. Saying bikes are too expensive by citing the price of the very best of the best is like saying you can't buy a decent car at a good price because of Porsches and Ferraris.


----------



## bonner1040 (Apr 5, 2015)

AshevilleMtBiker said:


> You need to add some stickers. It'll instantly become faster and newer.


I have stickers! (how did you know I was a sticker maniac?)


----------



## bonner1040 (Apr 5, 2015)

OldManBike said:


> Specifically, this is what I had in mind.
> 
> A couple years ago, I decided to buy carbon rims. My frame could fit either 26 or 27.5. I couldn't decide which to get. I asked a friend, who's way more of an industry insider then I'll ever be. He told me, "go 27.5. Next year they're going to be taking over." I didn't quite believe him, but I went with the 27.5's anyway. I was grateful for his advice.
> 
> ...


This is the part I dont get. Who cares what 'takes over' why didnt you buy rims based on performance criteria vs what was going to be the new standard. Did they stop making tires for your rims?


----------



## Shark (Feb 4, 2006)

I've ridden my bikes from 4-7 years... By that time they are so old and beaten up, they are loaner bikes or sell to a friend for cheap.

If you buy a high end bike and only ride it for a year, well, that's your own choice. Can't complain about bike resale value.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

zrm said:


> Sure, and Porsche sells it's most expensive supercar for over $200,000.


You are correct, over $200,000. More specifically, over $800,000.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Shark said:


> I've ridden my bikes from 4-7 years... By that time they are so old and beaten up, they are loaner bikes or sell to a friend for cheap.
> 
> If you buy a high end bike and only ride it for a year, well, that's your own choice. Can't complain about bike resale value.


This is the way I feel about it, too. I'm happy with what I have, and when it's time for something new, I'll choose from what's available at that time.


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

OldManBike said:


> Of course. But when features inherent to a particular design are perceived by the market as obsolete (like rear quick releases or 26" wheels), they decline a lot faster. Buying a bike for $6k and reselling it two years later for $3500 is a rapid decline in value. But thinking you'd be able to sell it for $3500, and realizing that now you can only sell it for $2000, still is painful.
> 
> Unless you're someone who doesn't care about losing a couple grand you thought you had because Mommy is footing the bill.


Dude...I don't think many people buy bikes with an eye to their resale value. They're not like cars. Inherently if you use mountain bikes as they are intended to be used you wear the resale out of 'em fairly quickly

On the other hand the way to sell a high end bike is to part it out. I made $1700 selling the frame and parts from a 2011 Carbon Stumpjumper individually. Their were no takers at this price as a whole bike on Ebay.

I paid $2900 for it and rode it for two years. That's not bad. Sure I "lost" $1200 on the deal but the money went to a new, better bike...Titanium and everything.

Mountain biking is a hobby. You can spend pretty much as much or as little as you want on it. I happen to like spending money on bike stuff.


----------



## 7daysaweek (May 7, 2008)

bonner1040 said:


> Thats 4/10s of ONE%
> 
> .04%
> 
> ...


Wouldn't 4/10s of ONE% be .4%... isn't that 4/100s of ONE%? I'm not sure how math works but I think that's right...


----------



## bonner1040 (Apr 5, 2015)

yes 0.4% I miss typed. The point is there though at 4/10s or 4/100s


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

7daysaweek said:


> Wouldn't 4/10s of ONE% be .4%... isn't that 4/100s of ONE%? I'm not sure how math works but I think that's right...


Ha!



bonner1040 said:


> You are asserting that $6,000,000 worth of merchandise from 3 calendar years of business is a lot??? LOL Thats 4/10s of ONE%
> 
> .04%
> 
> ...





bonner1040 said:


> BAHAHAHAH im still laughing!


Bahhhhahah! Now I'm still laughing :lol: :lol:


----------



## Ladmo (Jan 11, 2013)

^^^^^^

There's a lesson in there somewhere


----------



## Carton (Sep 15, 2014)

Did you guys read the OP and the article?

"Major industry players set on making new industry wide standard widening main body by 6mm in key area promising 10% extra stiffness (which would likely be updated another few mm for another X% extra stiffness a couple of years down the line)" sounds to a very few of us like a generic Onion piece, and apparently to the overwhelming majority of MTBR members like a step towards the evolution of the bike industry into a perpetual innovation juggernaut, something only the broke, the hypocrital or the amish could possibly be against. YMMV, truly.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Yes, and the same content is all over MTB social media and websites. 

Getting worked up every year about something new and incompatible (tapered headtubes, 142, 27.5, Boost, etc.) isn't necessarily a sign of penetrating insight behind the curtain of "the industry." And realizing that this really doesn't matter when I'm not in the market for a bike doesn't make me credulous. 

I don't buy off-the-shelf bikes. I put a lot of thought and homework into custom builds to get the frame, fork, and components I want. When I do that, obviously I go with what's available. When I'm ready for a new frame in a couple years, the whole build will be refreshed. 

I don't know why people are so sensitive to perceived obsolescence when it comes to mountain bikes. It probably has something to do with the fact that their 4-figure cost.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

sour grapes, indeed.

everyone just calm the effing eff down here. "old" standards are not going away any time soon. i just bought a brand new frame with 10x135mm rear, 73mm threaded bottom bracket, and an oversized head tube that will take a straight or tapered for depending on the headset I put in it. no one is forcing you to adopt new "standards" on hub spacing, for diameters, bottom brackets, etc. those options are out there if you choose them, but it takes a long, long time for anything to really die. you can still build a bike with cotter-pin cranks, canti brakes and a threaded headset, if you so choose!

for those of you who want to have the latest and greatest, it's yours. just be aware that you will pay through the nose for it and there's a chance that it will be a gimmick and replacement parts might not be available some day. (see Klein 1 1/16" road headsets and Palamino suspension parts, top-normal derailleurs and Biopace chainrings). if 110mm front hubs become a widely accepted standard in the new future, regular old 100 hubs and forks will be around for the life of your current fork and wheel, at least. by the time Boost becomes ubiquitous, if it ever does, your frame will be cracked in several places and your wheels will be destroyed.

I have some old issues of Dirt Rag and I find it hilarious to read through back issues from the early Nineties full of commentary about how suspension forks are a "gimmick" that will never take off. Boost and some of the other new ideas that create marginal improvements in performance might not achieve near-universal acceptance like suspension has, but it could. my fear is that a lot of this stuff is gimmicks from manufacturers who have run out of reasons to take consumers into buying new stuff.


----------



## Rev Bubba (Jan 16, 2004)

I've been following this and get the impression most people are not sensitive to perceived obsolescence. 

It appears the majority do not buy a bike as an investment and keep what they have for a long time at which point the bike is pretty worn out and not worth much to anyone.


----------



## Carton (Sep 15, 2014)

evasive said:


> I don't know why people are so sensitive to perceived obsolescence when it comes to mountain bikes. It probably has something to do with the fact that their 4-figure cost.


Agree with you 100%. In other walks of life people just call a spade a spade and laugh at it:






MADtv - Spishak Mach20

It does usually help slow manufacturers from going berserk with this stuff.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

OldManBike said:


> Sure, I agree. But I think there are particularly _bad _times to buy a new bike: when some new thing is already in the pipeline that will make bikes bought now depreciate a lot faster than bikes bought a year from now. (Even if its a relatively useless new thing like Boost.)
> 
> Some of you guys would not have cared one bit if you bought a shiny new bike with a rear QR a week before you realized that QR bikes were going to be a lot harder to sell than 142 bikes. But a lot of people would care. And those people are thinking twice before buying now.


Shops CLOSEOUTS. It's the best way to go.


----------



## Deep Thought (Sep 3, 2012)

I love how people like to pretend that the bike industry is the only industry that does this.


----------



## Owosso (Mar 27, 2015)

Planned obsolescence mandated by marketing is a bad thing.
True innovation is a good thing.

When Paul Turner released the RS1 back in the 80's, I basically said "I'm not putting one of those heavy things on the front of my bike!" (...and I was probably 17 years old at the time).

I now ride up and down hills on 6 inches of front & rear travel.

I just bought another new bike (a 2015).
...And even though I probably won't be coughing up the cheddar for a new one for a couple years, I look forward to seeing what's _"next"._

It's not a fashion show - it's a freaking mountain bike ride.


----------



## Gasp4Air (Jun 5, 2009)

I think the OP would like to be able to approve/disapprove of new bicycle products and designs, based on his own needs, preferences, and budget. *

NEWS FLASH* You can already approve/disapprove any bicycle product: if you don't like it, don't buy it. I'ts just that easy.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Gasp4Air said:


> NEWS FLASH[/COLOR][/B] You can already approve/disapprove any bicycle product: if you don't like it, don't buy it. I'ts just that easy.


Bingo!

Only buy **** when YOU decide you need it, not when some marketing schmuck somewhere decides it's time to tell you that you need it.

I get it that some people are into bling and getting all gear-weenie and keep-up-with-the-Joneses about stuff, and hey, if that's your schtick, have fun with it. But let's not pretend it really makes much difference when it comes down actual riding. A strong rider on a old shitbox will kick an average rider's ass no matter how much they spent on crap like carbon, dropper posts, or the whatever gearing fad is popular this month. Not saying everyone needs to ride a shitbox, but nor do gain much by trying to stay on top of every trend that gets trotted out.


----------



## Owosso (Mar 27, 2015)

At the shop that I worked in back in 1990, you could get a Specialized Hardrock for $319.00.
It had single-walled rims, a hi-tensile steel frame (cro-mo main frame), a six speed freewheel, thumb shifters (the WERE indexed) and a rigid fork.

In 2015, my friend's wife just scored a Hardrock for around $400.00.
This thing came with a butted/hydro-formed aluminum frame, double-walled rims, 8-speed cassette, trigger shifters and a coil-sprung fork with just shy of 100mm of travel.

IMO - That's a lot of upgrades for less than a hundred bucks.

On the high-end, bike prices are insane!
On the low-end, you actually get a little more for your money.


----------



## Fiskare (Sep 5, 2008)

slapheadmofo said:


> Bingo!
> Only buy **** when YOU decide you need it, not when some marketing schmuck somewhere decides it's time to tell you that you need it.
> 
> A strong rider on a old shitbox will kick an average rider's ass no matter how much they spent on crap like carbon, dropper posts, or the whatever gearing fad is popular this month.


Bingo right back at ya!


----------



## abelfonseca (Dec 26, 2011)

OP, was it a hardtail or a full suspension?


----------



## RIVER29 (Mar 12, 2012)

I see so many threads talking about how the bike industry does "this" and "that" like they have some mesmerizing control over all bikers and we have no choice but buy their products. This was the same conversation everyone was having two years ago about 27.5" wheels. The truth is WE drive the industry and WE are a bunch of gear heads that want to try every new thing the industry can throw at us if WE think it provides any advantage what so ever. The industry will stop innovating when WE stop buying... is that really what we want?


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Owosso said:


> At the shop that I worked in back in 1990, you could get a Specialized Hardrock for $319.00.
> It had single-walled rims, a hi-tensile steel frame (cro-mo main frame), a six speed freewheel, thumb shifters (the WERE indexed) and a rigid fork.
> 
> In 2015, my friend's wife just scored a Hardrock for around $400.00.
> ...


And the disc brakes.

And that's just the thing, the advancements are too numerous to list, from handlebar sweep, to frame and fork stiffness, to geometry, to tire width, and dozens of other places. Lots and lots of things that most people take for granted today. I sure would not want to go back to a 2000s bike, yes, it worked, but things are much better now.


----------



## deke505 (Jul 29, 2012)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> http://forums.mtbr.com/general-discussion/2015-new-bikes-suckers-961805-5.html


it's a time paradox.


----------



## Ladmo (Jan 11, 2013)

deke505 said:


> it's a time paradox.


in Star Trek, they just fly around the earth faster and faster until all is well...I think Superman can do that too...


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

I have merged three threads that had basically the same content into one. Please do not start any more threads about this topic, they will get deleted.


----------



## Carton (Sep 15, 2014)

Klurejr said:


> I have merged three threads that had basically the same content into one. Please do not start any more threads about this topic, they will get deleted.


Wait, what? The 2015 thread was mainly about standards and Boost 148, had very little to do with the cost of the bikes (except for their resale value).


----------



## Rev Bubba (Jan 16, 2004)

Whoever merged these topics screwed up big time. You mixed the increasing cost of bikes with the introduction of new standards in the thread on being a sucker if you buy a bike in 2015. How about fixing your error?


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

Dear mod,

"Wait until next year to buy an expensive bike" is not the same as "bikes are too expensive."

Get a life.

Sincerely yours,
OMB


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

Keep merging...

http://forums.mtbr.com/passion/when...re-expensive-than-motocross-bikes-810073.html
http://forums.mtbr.com/beginners-corner/why-mountain-bikes-so-expensive-191605.html
http://forums.mtbr.com/general-discussion/when-did-bikes-get-so-expensive-685105.html
http://forums.mtbr.com/general-discussion/why-bicycles-so-expensive-639448.html
http://forums.mtbr.com/specialized/why-specialized-so-expensive-overpriced-australia-567525.html
http://forums.mtbr.com/commuting/bike-commuting-too-expensive-645230.html


----------



## deke505 (Jul 29, 2012)

I think some peoples post got drained during the mix up.


----------



## Gasp4Air (Jun 5, 2009)

If you keep merging similar topics the whole site will boil down to about 7 million-post threads. If the site owners want users to see the ads, don't kill the golden goose that keeps laying site visits. MTBers love to beat a dead horse, as is consistently pointed out by MTBers. Merging these threads was silly. (And so are the threads, but so what?)


----------



## bonner1040 (Apr 5, 2015)

Klurejr said:


> I have merged three threads that had basically the same content into one. Please do not start any more threads about this topic, they will get deleted.


This is super lame. I participate in forums based around several industries on a regular basis.

I have NEVER seen this.

This type of meddling makes me not want to participate here.

BOOOOOO - Shame on you.


----------



## bonner1040 (Apr 5, 2015)

MODS - Please merge

Bike Forums
http://forums.mtbr.com/
BikesZone Cycling Forum
cyclists.in/forum
Cycling Forums
BikeRadar.com • Index page
forums.roadbikereview.com/

ALSO

Backcountry.com
rei.com
ems.com
and more.


----------



## Rev Bubba (Jan 16, 2004)

Klurejr, you screwed the pooch on this one. Stop meddling in things of which you have no knowledge. I was participating in a thread on standards, not the expense of mountain bikes. Cost was a factor but not the factor.

Perhaps you had too much beer frat boy?


----------



## bonner1040 (Apr 5, 2015)

Klurejr said:


> I have merged three threads that had basically the same content into one. Please do not start any more threads about this topic, they will get deleted.


YOU SUCK! Were you even participating? I was reading these threads! Now, ruined! You just crapped on all the input that the membership offered. Who cares if they were similar?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Could you please go merge 99% of the threads in the Beginners corner into the 4 or 5
actually distinct questions they ask?


----------



## Havinfun (Mar 18, 2015)

I am with the mod on this one, these threads might have had some unique values as pointed out above, but the horse was dead and things were just circling the drain. Unlike the Pitbull thread which is a source of tremendous value and learning possibilities....


----------



## Rev Bubba (Jan 16, 2004)

You seem to miss that not everyone participated in each thread and by combining them, you create one that quickly becomes unwieldy. Wading through several hundred responses takes much of the pleasure out of reading.

Pitbull thread?


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

Anything on MTBR that doesn't tow the industry line will be censored fairly quickly. As long as you drink the kool-aide, your input is welcome. Deviate from the message and you will be labled a "troll'. Don't even get me started on the people who are blatant industry shills (see my ignore list).


----------



## Havinfun (Mar 18, 2015)

Rev Bubba said:


> You seem to miss that not everyone participated in each thread and by combining them, you create one that quickly becomes unwieldy. Wading through several hundred responses takes much of the pleasure out of reading.
> 
> Pitbull thread?


I hear you, and I am trying to see where folks are coming from, but it just seems like all of these threads eventually wind themselves into circles and nothing new is actually said. Like asking a motorcycle forum what the best oil is. And, the Pitbull thread is a disaster of a thread, but kind of fun anyway...


----------



## Rev Bubba (Jan 16, 2004)

Scrolling down I caught sight of the Pitbull thread on Off Camber. I don't go there 'cause I think the NSA monitors those who do .....

Admittedly, many threads just go around in circles but I'm here for the entertainment value mostly and the moderator cancelled my current favorite show.


----------



## Carton (Sep 15, 2014)

I think this might've been my fault. That Colon Blow video always seems to stir up a lot of crap...


----------



## Havinfun (Mar 18, 2015)

Rev Bubba said:


> Scrolling down I caught sight of the Pitbull thread on Off Camber. I don't go there 'cause I think the NSA monitors those who do .....
> 
> Admittedly, many threads just go around in circles but I'm here for the entertainment value mostly and the moderator cancelled my current favorite show.


You are missing out on the best current show, sadly.


----------



## Gasp4Air (Jun 5, 2009)

Carton said:


> I think this might've been my fault. That Colon Blow video always seems to stir up a lot of crap...


Colon Blow is an appropriate addition to any thread.


----------



## apache (Jan 2, 2006)

Absolutely they have. My last dirtbike I bought was a state of the art KTM 450SX. It cost me less than $7500 brand new (2012 model bought in 2013). 

Specialized probably sells more FS Epics than KTM sells 450 dirtbikes. Yet, the Epic costs more with all the bells and whistles than the KTM made with carbon, aluminum, and magnesium, and a sophisticated engine. 

Point being, that economy of scale argument most likely doesn't hold water here.


----------



## Carton (Sep 15, 2014)

apache said:


> Absolutely they have. My last dirtbike I bought was a state of the art KTM 450SX. It cost me less than $7500 brand new (2012 model bought in 2013).
> 
> Specialized probably sells more FS Epics than KTM sells 450 dirtbikes. Yet, the Epic costs more with all the bells and whistles than the KTM made with carbon, aluminum, and magnesium, and a sophisticated engine.
> 
> Point being, that economy of scale argument most likely doesn't hold water here.


Yeah, but the KTM 450SX doesn't have BOOST 148. So it's going to be obsolete in 2016, and will lose most of its resale value. Plus good luck finding new wheels when you want to upgrade...


----------



## Havinfun (Mar 18, 2015)

apache said:


> Absolutely they have. My last dirtbike I bought was a state of the art KTM 450SX. It cost me less than $7500 brand new (2012 model bought in 2013).
> 
> Specialized probably sells more FS Epics than KTM sells 450 dirtbikes. Yet, the Epic costs more with all the bells and whistles than the KTM made with carbon, aluminum, and magnesium, and a sophisticated engine.
> 
> Point being, that economy of scale argument most likely doesn't hold water here.


Hey, leave the Epics alone. Go pick on those silly Cannondales that forgot half of the fork and go up to 11k. That is just crazy. And imagine how hard it is to find the right leg a few years from now.


----------



## RIVER29 (Mar 12, 2012)

Now that the mods have screwed these threads all up and the conversation is all about that can we have the title changed to reflect the new topic?


----------



## Carton (Sep 15, 2014)

RIVER29 said:


> Now that the mods have screwed these threads all up and the conversation is all about that can we have the title changed to reflect the new topic?


Something the mods will actually read? How about "Namaste vs Hoegaarden vs Coney Island Albino Python" ? :thumbsup:


----------



## net wurker (Sep 13, 2007)

RIVER29 said:


> Now that the mods have screwed these threads all up and the conversation is all about that can we have the title changed to reflect the new topic?


How bout LBS Nazis?


----------



## ShinDiggity (Mar 29, 2010)

turbodog said:


> Anything on MTBR that doesn't tow the industry line will be censored fairly quickly. As long as you drink the kool-aide, your input is welcome. Deviate from the message and you will be labled a "troll'. Don't even get me started on the people who are blatant industry shills (see my ignore list).


You didn't learn much from your little time out did ya?

It's too bad the 26" wheel is falling by the wayside and you can't handle it. Poor you.

You're supposed to adapt but instead some will whine, cry and moan about what they don't have the capacity to understand.

Since you are hating on MTBR so much ...









P.S.

More on topic ... at least 26" wheeled bikes are not going up in price as much because they aren't being produced much anymore.


----------



## Rev Bubba (Jan 16, 2004)

"You are missing out on the best current show, sadly." 

Yeah but I'm staying away from the Off Camber forum. I have enough trouble with certain national and/or provincial authorities (that will remain nameless) already and don't need to get the NSA on my ragged old arsh.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

Bikes are like computers the manufactures want to keep the price point around $1500. 

$1500 has always gotten you a really nice bike but below that is a total crap shoot, which is the nitch that Bikes Direct is filling nicely.


----------



## deke505 (Jul 29, 2012)

Rev Bubba said:


> "You are missing out on the best current show, sadly."
> 
> Yeah but I'm staying away from the Off Camber forum. I have enough trouble with certain national and/or provincial authorities (that will remain nameless) already and don't need to get the NSA on my ragged old arsh.


to late you are already on their list.


----------



## Rev Bubba (Jan 16, 2004)

These damned computers make it to easy to find us .....


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

Off-brand frames are now the real deal. No need for logo show-offs; the riding skills will do the talking.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Crankout said:


> Off-brand frames are now the real deal. No need for logo show-offs; the riding skills will do the talking.


Examples?


----------



## SpokaneTim (Jan 2, 2004)

Hawg said:


> In 2004, I purchased the next model down from a S-works SJ FSR (first year of this redesign) and had the components upgraded to full XTR. I paid $3400 back then. The next model down from an S-works today SJ FSR has an MSRP of $5900.
> 
> ...and it's only going to get worse....


I also purchased a 2004 Stumpjumper FSR Pro. I bought mine while living in Taiwan. The OTD price was around $975. $975 included all the costs for materials and parts, as well as those who designed and built my bike. For some odd reason, between the time it left Taiwan and was eventually put on display in a showroom in the USA, the cost jumped by nearly $2000. My Stumpjumper was built at the Merida factory and was much cheaper than the Enduro that was built at the Giant factory.

It would be nice if magazines and websites would be more transparent by showing the actual cost of a bike rather than MSRP.


----------



## TSpice (May 15, 2015)

I wouldn't say bikes are increasing in value if you look at it from a component to component comparison. There are minor inflation increases, but in general I don't think its much different.

Where it DOES become different however is when you look at the quality of components going on, quality of frame designs, bells and whistles, and marketing. 

You can still get a simple hard tail that works, has simple features, and will survive most trails for <$500. You can't ask for XT deraileurs, Fox suspension, full carbon framing, race rims, and still expect it to be a cheap bike.

People see friends on expensive bikes and want to follow suit. They see pros on TV, they see the snazzy bikes at the shop, whatever else that happens. 

As consumer requirements increase, it is logical that the cost increases as well.


----------



## Ernest Blair (May 18, 2015)

I picked up a 30 year old Cannondale ST-500 at a local garage sale in Indiana US for 25USD last year. It's a beautiful bike...a little scratched up but no worse for the wear. I watch Craigslist and find bargains on a weekly basis. Don't know so much about the UK, but here in the states there are plenty of options still available for those who don't want to pay high prices.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Didn't read this, don't need to. Yes bikes are more expensive, but my LBS had a bike for under $2500 that will do everything better than an older bike. Components aren't high end but they out perform crappy old suspension, and brakes. My new bike was expensive, I retired and living on a pension. Best bike I've ever been on. I'm having so much fun it's worth twice the outrageous price. My 89 Stumpjumper Team is like a townie bike compared to my new Warden. They are both high end knobby tired bikes, but that's where the similarities end. We are always living in the golden age of mountain biking, as it just keeps getting better. Are we being gouged, probably not any more than back in the 80s.


----------



## BikeIntelligencer (Jun 5, 2009)

Actually the price is the same... see graphic. Unfortunately the 1981 SJ was TOL. Today a TOL will cost you plus/minus $10k. So yeah, equivalent bikes have gotten plenty more expensive in that aspect...


mountainbiker24 said:


> The 1981 Specialized Stumpjumper retailed for $750, which was equivalent to $1920 in 2013 using the Consumer Price Index. To compare, a 2015 Specialized Stumpjumper Comp 29er retails for $2000. I'll take the 2015 version for an equivalent price, thank you very much.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Flucod said:


> Haters always hate what they cannot have.


This is where all this chit comes from.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

BikeIntelligencer said:


> Actually the price is the same... see graphic. Unfortunately the 1981 SJ was TOL. Today a TOL will cost you plus/minus $10k. So yeah, equivalent bikes have gotten plenty more expensive in that aspect...
> View attachment 989479


It was also the bottom of the line, so compare that to a $100 mountain bike, then.


----------



## norbyd (Aug 30, 2009)

*What do you think of the prices of Mountain Bikes these days?*

I'm curious to start a discussion on how ridiculous the prices of MTB's are getting today.

I know firsthand, I own a Ripley.

I remember back in the 90's the top end bike with the best components would cost $3K. Now it is more than triple, like $10K and feel it is going to get even more expensive as technology improves. Like the wireless drivetrain may make bikes $15K within the next few years.

With this kind of money you could buy a car, a motorcycle, pay a mortgage, etc... I guess it's all relative...

So I'm wondering what's your budget for an MTB? If you have one...LOL.

Also, do you think they are going to get more expensive in the future, less expensive, stay constant??

What are your feelings about the crazy cost of these things?

I love my Ripley but held out for a long time before getting one. My budget is under $4K.

I look forward to reading your responses!


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Outrageous in my opinion.


The prices will continue to grow as the years go.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

..............


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

I'm in Canada and our dollar is low compared to US but in CDN$ my 89 Team Stumpy was $1400 which is now $2700. XT level, rigid, cantis, 28lbs. My 15 Knolly Warden is around $6000, XT level, 150/160mm travel, discs, 29 lbs. doesn't sound that bad. Sure I wish they were cheaper but I think it's not too out of line. My buddy picked up a great Troy for under $4000 and it rips like that old stumpy never could.


----------



## fatcat (Mar 11, 2006)

I wouldn't worry about the cost of bikes, they are like 'Junkie said, is just going to go up and up. Especially if you like XTR, XT X10 X9 groupos and carbon. 

If you like Diamondback and the like with Deore/Alivio parts they arent going to go up much.
The OP should have posted What do you think of the 'prices of non-Deore-equipped that are NOT made in Taiwan or China' bikes these days?

Forget about exotics or made in USA. The more inflation rises here, the more the bike's going to cost.

You can find a better deal buying a house in places like Waco Texas or Norman Oklahoma or Anytown Ohio, basically anywhere not near California, NYC or Hawaii.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

norbyd said:


> I remember back in the 90's the top end bike with the best components would cost $3K. Now it is more than triple, like $10K and feel it is going to get even more expensive as technology improves. Like the wireless drivetrain may make bikes $15K within the next few years.


Why do people keep posting this garbage? You remember incorrectly. There were plenty if bikes in the mid to late 90's that cost up to $8000. Carbon was ridiculously expensive, as was titanium. A bike today, even without accounting for inflation, is much better than a similarily priced bike from the mid 90's. Sure, the specs may appear to be lower end at times, but that "low-end" spec is much more capable than higher specs back in the day. You don't have to spend $4000 to get a great mountain bike. It cost $800 for a DECENT hardtail and $1500 for a DECENT full-suspension back in 1997. For those prices, you can find a better bike today.

Do some research. I already did. And yes, I built/bought plenty of bikes in the 90's.

http://forums.mtbr.com/general-discussion/bikes-becoming-more-expensive-947024.html


----------



## norbyd (Aug 30, 2009)

Flucod said:


> Name something that has not gone up in price, how about that?
> 
> You don't have to buy one, complaining about it aint helping no one.


 Absolutely!

I'm not complaining, as I mentioned I own an Ibis Ripley. I just want people's 
input/opinion on this, that's all.


----------



## norbyd (Aug 30, 2009)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Why do people keep posting this garbage? You remember incorrectly. There were plenty if bikes in the mid to late 90's that cost up to $8000. Carbon was ridiculously expensive, as was titanium. A bike today, even without accounting for inflation, is much better than a similarily priced bike from the mid 90's. Sure, the specs may appear to be lower end at times, but that "low-end" spec is much more capable than higher specs back in the day. You don't have to spend $4000 to get a great mountain bike. It cost $800 for a DECENT hardtail and $1500 for a DECENT full-suspension back in 1997. For those prices, you can find a better bike today.
> 
> Do some research. I already did. And yes, I built/bought plenty of bikes in the 90's.
> 
> http://forums.mtbr.com/general-discussion/bikes-becoming-more-expensive-947024.html


Good point, Mountainbike.


----------



## Mookie (Feb 28, 2008)

I think you can get pretty good value these days. You can get a good bike, good fork and a really decent component group for a decent price. I like where mountain bike pricing is. Of course there's a lot of pricey stuff on the highest end. You could spend pretty much as much money as you have in the bank account if you wanted to.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

I apologize if I came across as rude, but people post a thread like this every other month. Here are a few bikes from the 90's that retailed for over $4000:

1998 Schwinn Homegrown Factory Straight 6 - New and Used Bike Value

1998 Rotec Pro Downhill - New and Used Bike Value

1997 Rocky Mountain Element Team Only - New and Used Bike Value

1998 Outland VPP 5 DH (02) - New and Used Bike Value

1996 Mountain Cycle San Andreas DHS - New and Used Bike Value

1993 Moots YBB SF - New and Used Bike Value

1998 Litespeed Tellico (03) - New and Used Bike Value

1998 Klein Mantra Pro - New and Used Bike Value

1995 Kestrel Rubicon Comp - New and Used Bike Value

1999 Ibis Bow Ti - New and Used Bike Value

1998 GT STS-Lobo DH - New and Used Bike Value

1998 Cannondale Super V Raven 4000 - New and Used Bike Value

I know these are top of the line bikes, where today's top of the line bikes go for $6-8000, but it's not even a comparison between these bikes and even the mid-level bikes of today. Adjustable compression, lockout, and air suspension? Nope. Disc brakes? Barely. 10-speed? Clutch derailleurs? Pro-pedal? Carbon rims? Carbon bars? Not yet. Suspension bearings? Maybe. For the same price, you get a much better bike. Factor in inflation, and today's bikes are an absolute bargain!


----------



## John Kuhl (Dec 10, 2007)

Walmart has plenty of cheap bikes.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

norbyd said:


> With this kind of money you could .... pay a mortgage, etc... I guess it's all relative...


So obviously you haven't checked out the price of housing recently in any place that a sane person would actually want to live...


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

norbyd said:


> I'm curious to start a discussion on how ridiculous the prices of MTB's are getting today.
> 
> I know firsthand, I own a Ripley.
> 
> ...


If you got a new $3K bike today, it would be worlds better than the most expensive bikes from "back in the day."


----------



## Cayenne_Pepa (Dec 18, 2007)

Light. Cheap. Strong. Pick two. I chose everything...but cheap. Am I at all disappointed? Hell-to-the-NO. 

You only live once, and you can't take it with you. Ride the best you can afford...but shop wisely.


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

When i got into mtbing back in 1992, my absolute dream bike was the Tomac signature Raleigh that retailed for just over US$6000.

Thing is companies (excluding your smaller, eg Trek vs Yeti) have bikes at lots of price points, usually people complain about some $$$$ as being ludicrously expensive, when the company makes the same bike for half or even a quarter of the price, its just lower spec. when an aluminium bike with deore level components will do the job nicely, people complain about the same bike in carbon with xtr... 
Nobody needs some high end bit of gear, but it sure is nice, and if thats the way you go, you have to pay for it.

Do people when they go to buy a car, do they say "I need a car, I can afford a Camry, a Camry will fit my needs perfectly, but I think I'll buy a Ferrari... oh F'k me Ferraris are overpriced...".


----------



## fatcat (Mar 11, 2006)

mik_git said:


> .... but I think I'll buy a Ferrari... oh F'k me Ferraris are overpriced...".


This one was only $1300 (before I did some upgrades)


----------



## cjsb (Mar 4, 2009)

"This thought has never ocurred to me, dude."

But now that it has, just buy online/direct, or closeout sales on NOS. That's just short-term options. For long term options you have to vote wisely as I hear one of the candidates plans to "Make bike prices great again", and another was heard trying to capitalize on that statement by adding at his own presser "...For the little guy.". Hillary is still asking her house staff of undocumented workers what a bicycle is.


----------



## johnnyspoke (Sep 15, 2005)

One of my bikes is a '10 Rumblefish 2 that sold for 4000 new. This was the top alloy 29er in the line. Through the years Trek has kept that pricepoint as the top alloy trail 29er, now the Fuel EX 9. Now I love my old Rumblefish and I've done some upgrades along the way, but you're getting VASTLY more bike for that same 4 grand on a 17 EX 9 than what an old Rumblefish gave you.

ETA: Sure, the high end has gone up with carbon this and that, but that's not saying bikes in general have gone up. Your chi chi lightweight (yet strong) all CF trail/enduro/all mountain bike wasn't in the catalog until the last few years.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

norbyd said:


> I remember back in the 90's the top end bike with the best components would cost $3K.


In 97 my hardtail frame sold for just under 2K (over $5k for a full bike). 
My buddy had to 1-up me; his was almost 2500, bare frame, his build was easily over $6k. And they didn't work anywhere near as well as a bike that costs half that nowadays.

Far as top end parts go...I know guys that ran Avalanche forks that MSRPed close to $4k 10+ years ago. That's just the fork.

Expensive **** is expensive.


----------



## 779334 (Oct 10, 2014)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Why do people keep posting this garbage? You remember incorrectly. There were plenty if bikes in the mid to late 90's that cost up to $8000. Carbon was ridiculously expensive, as was titanium. A bike today, even without accounting for inflation, is much better than a similarily priced bike from the mid 90's. Sure, the specs may appear to be lower end at times, but that "low-end" spec is much more capable than higher specs back in the day. You don't have to spend $4000 to get a great mountain bike. It cost $800 for a DECENT hardtail and $1500 for a DECENT full-suspension back in 1997. For those prices, you can find a better bike today.
> 
> Do some research. I already did. And yes, I built/bought plenty of bikes in the 90's.
> 
> http://forums.mtbr.com/general-discussion/bikes-becoming-more-expensive-947024.html


I have to agree with this. A bike that used to cost $2000 before is actually cheaper today if same level components are used. The reason for prices going up are improvements and developments.

To make it simpler, the prices haven't really gone up in categories, per se. The new bikes just have better technology and parts, which make the prices go up.


----------



## dbhammercycle (Nov 15, 2011)

Research, marketing and to some extent the cost of materials (which should get cheaper+better as time goes on, carbon for instance) are the industry reasons for the increased cost of bicycles. Some of the older components were more robust than current counterparts, but were heavier and less exact (less gears and more space between them for instance). Otherwise blame inflation and the increased cost of living. 

That said, plenty of cheap or cheaper options out there to choose from. Just purchase mass produced stuff at the end of year online clearances from 3rd party sellers. Take a chance on used, if you know what to look for and what to look at, one can make a sweet deal of an addition to the garage/shed.

Last option... find what you like, accept the cost, and let the ride put the smile back on your face if you get buyer's remorse.


----------



## TSpice (May 15, 2015)

While things always change, and they always will change, I think the BIGGEST thing that has changed over the recent years is behaviors of new generations, not the prices of things. 

I personally don't think cost has gone up that much. I mean prices of items are dictated by the market, not by some company just wanting to make more money. If nobody pays, the business doesn't survive, it is simple economics.

What has changed over the years though, is that every new generation seems to believe that they can, and should, be able to get the latest and greatest possessions in fractions of the time it took their previous generation. 

Bikes aren't any different. Most people ride bikes that they have absolutely no chance at every fully utilizing. So at some point, they believed they needed whatever beast of a bike they purchased. If they didn't think they needed it, but just wanted it? That is an easier no brainer because just because you want something doesn't mean you deserve something. I want a 100ft yacht and a private island, but guess what. 

So I bet if most people got a better understanding of what they actually needed, pricing would be pretty low. Then it is only a question of desires, which I already touched upon above.


----------



## aerius (Nov 20, 2010)

Flucod said:


> Name something that has not gone up in price, how about that?
> 
> You don't have to buy one, complaining about it aint helping no one.


Computers. The $400 laptop I'm typing on now is at least 10-20 times faster than the $3000 desktop I was using 15 years ago in university. This cheap little thing has more memory in it than that desktop had in hard drive space. 15-20 years ago LCD monitors were hideously expensive ($2500-3000 easy) and not much good except for displaying things that didn't move much. These days I can get one for 1/10th the price with far better picture quality that can play movies and everything else I want.


----------



## DiRt DeViL (Dec 24, 2003)

Bike technology is a lot better but the prices are sky high and honestly don't know how people can afford 3-5k dollar bikes when a $1500 bike seems out of reach to some of us.

The last bike I bought new was in 2011 and was an alloy hardtail because it was all I could afford, that bike price now has almost doubled with a similar component group. Carbon, fat, plus or boost forget it, not even the alloy versions are within reach and that's why the used market is the way to go. My current rides are that hardtail and an used entry level fatty.

Electronics for example as technology improves the prices go down but the bike industry is the other way around.


----------



## idividebyzero (Sep 25, 2014)

Completely unaffordable especially with the lack of financing and trade.

I only look at used bikes, new is out of the question.


----------



## andy b. (Sep 7, 2010)

norbyd said:


> I remember back in the 90's the top end bike with the best components would cost $3K. Now it is more than triple, like $10K and feel it is going to get even more expensive as technology improves. Like the wireless drivetrain may make bikes $15K within the next few years.
> 
> With this kind of money you could buy a car, a motorcycle, pay a mortgage, etc... I guess it's all relative...


In 1990 you could get a new Ford Escort for about $3k. A comparable car today will cost $15k. Only your perspective has changed, not the actual cost in current funds.


----------



## DiRt DeViL (Dec 24, 2003)

andy b. said:


> In 1990 you could get a new Ford Escort for about $3k. A comparable car today will cost $15k. Only your perspective has changed, not the actual cost in current funds.


You are correct, the 1990's value of the dollar was different.

When I was a teen a top of the line 125cc dirt bike was around $2000 now is more than double, the technology of today's bike is night and day when compared to the 1980's but you get the idea. In the 90's a $4500 jet ski was absurd, now they go up to $10k or more so seems that everything transportation (bikes included) related prices increase as technology progresses and not even the obsolete (technology wise) are sold cheap.

Anyway, if I had 5k or more for a bike that will mean that I would be debt free or my salary is absurd which none is true. The new fancy expensive bikes are not for the average Joe and have no idea how people can afford them.


----------



## TSpice (May 15, 2015)

aerius said:


> Computers. The $400 laptop I'm typing on now is at least 10-20 times faster than the $3000 desktop I was using 15 years ago in university. This cheap little thing has more memory in it than that desktop had in hard drive space. 15-20 years ago LCD monitors were hideously expensive ($2500-3000 easy) and not much good except for displaying things that didn't move much. These days I can get one for 1/10th the price with far better picture quality that can play movies and everything else I want.


100%

Prices of stuff in my opinion is actually coming DOWN significantly because of how easy it is to get technology.

The problem is as I mentioned though that people are slowly raising their own expectations, but for whatever reason are shocked that the prices are following.

A 20" TV 15 years ago was $400
A 20" TV 10 years ago was $200
A 20" on best buy right now is $99.99

The perception:
A 20" TV 15 years ago was pretty nice.
A 20" TV 10 years ago was pretty small.
A 20" TV today is better spent hung over your toilet or bath tub because if it fell off, you don't care.

The desires:
A 20" TV 15 years ago was a good TV to have.
A 50" TV 10 years ago was a good TV to have.
A 50"+ HDTV is standard today.
A 60"+ HDTV Curved LED is a good TV to have.

You see the problem with that? People want more and more and more and more, but then complain price goes up. It is stupid.

Same goes for bikes. Take that experienced dude who ripped down a double black with that Walmart huffy. Sure it was falling apart, but he made it down. He didn't need $4k+ to get there. Maybe adding $100 worth of parts to that Huffy and it wouldn't have fallen apart.

So, if you want the latest and greatest? You get to pay for it. If you just want to ride a mountain bike? There are hundreds of bikes that are cheap, and get the job done.

(Same goes for road. Buddy and I race triathlons together. I have a $2500 road bike, and he has a bike he got off craigslist for $400. He beats me every year in the cycling leg. I am not exactly slow either (23mph average). So, did he complain that the average triathlon bike is $3k+ these days? No, he got a bike, and rode a bike.)


----------



## JACKL (Sep 18, 2011)

I've been able to build my ultimate dream bike for $3500 doing it online, so no complaints really. Everything on it is bulletproof and should last quite a while.

If I couldn't afford that, I'd spend $1000 - $1200 on a Motobecane, Diamondback, or similar and have a durable bike to enjoy. I'd still enjoy riding.

But if you want carbon, XTR, etc. and want to buy it from a shop, then of course it will cost more. It is important to keep in mind that when buying from a shop, you are not just buying a bike, but service and support.


----------



## forkboy (Apr 20, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Here are a few bikes from the 90's that retailed for over $4000:
> 
> 1993 Moots YBB SF - New and Used Bike Value
> 
> I know these are top of the line bikes, where today's top of the line bikes go for $6-8000,


Those were the boutique bikes even then...

The only one still in production is the YBB. Apples to apples, that is now $10,500. $4500 to $2500 above your estimate.

Rogue YBB 27.5" - Moots

I couldn't afford $4K in 1993, and I have no interest in affording $10K today.

The real bummer is the way that resale value has plummeted. In 2001, I could buy a bike for $1500, ride it a year, and sell it on Ebay for $1100.

Now you can buy a bike for $7000, ride it a year and maybe get $2500 out of it. Nobody trusts used carbon.
Maybe less if a new BB, headtube, or hub size has come out since then.

Apparently the low end is still holding it's own though. The only bike I ever bought new off the shelf was a 1996 Rockhopper for $650. You can get a 2016 Rockhopper for $1150.


----------



## patrick2cents (Apr 30, 2010)

Compared to many hobbies out there (anyone own a boat?) mountain bikes are pretty cheap. The expensive bikes exist because they are still relatively cheap as hobbies go and folks will pay for the best of anything if they want it/can afford it. 

Also, you can put together a pretty impressive bike for $2500 today that would blow absolutely anything from 20 years ago away. It really has gotten a lot better if you compare the price to what kind of performance you are getting. I don't really get why anyone would pine for days of yore when the bikes sucked and they still cost a lot of money.


----------



## Cayenne_Pepa (Dec 18, 2007)

*Future-proofed Trailbike....*

I spent $4500 building my $8800/new, 2012 XC carbon FS in 2013. It has a tapered head tube, short chainstays, 120mm travel, dropper post, carbon wheels and 1x11. Although it no longer weighs 23.3 pounds...it still handles all-day, Trail riding and even bike park stuff, without any need to go with 38mm wide wheels, Boost axles, or 1x12:


----------



## fatcat (Mar 11, 2006)

patrick2cents said:


> Compared to many hobbies out there (anyone own a boat?) mountain bikes are pretty cheap. The expensive bikes exist because they are still relatively cheap as hobbies go and folks will pay for the best of anything if they want it/can afford it.


Agreed and prices have doubled...^^^^...Yeah you guys are lucky you arent married to someone like my wife. I bought my watch 15 years ago for $3500, now its $7,000. She wanted one for our anniversary in June and of course it had to be the 18k gold one...needless to say 15 years ago it was only $9,000, now its the price of a new fully loaded Prius Four.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

fatcat said:


> Agreed and prices have doubled...^^^^...Yeah you guys are lucky you arent married to someone like my wife. I bought my watch 15 years ago for $3500, now its $7,000. She wanted one for our anniversary in June and of course it had to be the 18k gold one...needless to say 15 years ago it was only $9,000, now its the price of a new fully loaded Prius Four.


Do they at least give you a Handi when you buy it?


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

I think you can get an awesome mountain bike for not too much money. I also think you can spend as much as you want on a bike, and at some point will get very little return for your dollars. Same with gold clubs, hiking gear, or anything else that one spends their money on.

Now, you should go to the Car & Driver forums and complain about $600,000 cars. 

Anyway, this thread has been started literally 1000 times. Try search.


----------



## fatcat (Mar 11, 2006)

...more than that, brother, more than that.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

TSpice said:


> So, if you want the latest and greatest? You get to pay for it. If you just want to ride a mountain bike? There are hundreds of bikes that are cheap, and get the job done.


Truer words were never spoken.


----------



## knutso (Oct 8, 2008)

I think cycling has gotten cheaper, with our access to the tools of the interweb. Today we have options: english speaking reps for straight from China/taiwan carbon, massive closeouts, UK and German dealers eliminating the markup of the NAmerica distribution chain.

Back in the day, you had access to the msrp parts at the lbs, or whatever you could pull from other bikes. No way were you getting exactly what you needed, brand new, dropped on your doorstep for 70+% off msrp


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

andy b. said:


> In 1990 you could get a new Ford Escort for about $3k. A comparable car today will cost $15k. Only your perspective has changed, not the actual cost in current funds.


FWIW - way off on the price of a new Escort, they went for ~$8k at that time. 
There are a number of 2016 cars that come in ~$13k new.

Things didn't go up anywhere near 5x in price.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Jayem said:


> Truer words were never spoken.


Although those words were true. Were they 100% true? If not there has been truer words spoken.

It's hard to compare one set of words from another set of words and determine which set is truer than the other.

So in the grand scheme of things those words were pretty true although not proven that they were truer than other words spoken previously.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

mountainbiker24 said:


> http://forums.mtbr.com/general-discussion/bikes-becoming-more-expensive-947024.html


Exactly what I thought when I saw this thread today.

Merged.

Please use the search function instead of starting a duplicate thread.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

forkboy said:


> Those were the boutique bikes even then...
> 
> The only one still in production is the YBB. Apples to apples, that is now $10,500. $4500 to $2500 above your estimate.
> 
> ...


Wrong. Most of those bikes I posted are mid to large companies. Prices for similar bikes are quite comparable today. Look them up. If you don't want to do the research, check out the first link I posted. That 1996 Rockhopper is not comparable to a 2016 Rockhopper just because it shares the name.


----------



## cjsb (Mar 4, 2009)

1. Guy hasn't bought a new bike in 15 years.
2. Goes to bike shop and gets hit with sticker shock.
3. Where is that $279 rigid fork Rockhopper with turd brakes, turd wheels, a combination anvil/gridning wheels for a saddle?
4. Posts on MTBR about the outrageous cost of new bikes.
5. Doesdn't realize he can get that exact same RH, it's on Craigslist for $75.
6. Guy does not realize that Fat Tire in Portland is blowing out 3 Thunderbolt BC Editions----for $6.5k!!! That is an amazing deal for all carbon, including Enve Wheels, for a bike that MSRP north of $10k. You want DI2? Got it! Quit complaining and give these folks a call:

Holy Smokes!!! Carbon Di2 ENVE SALE! ? Fat Tire Farm-Portland's Premier Mountain Bike Shop


----------



## forkboy (Apr 20, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Wrong. Most of those bikes I posted are mid to large companies. Prices for similar bikes are quite comparable today. Look them up. If you don't want to do the research, check out the first link I posted. That 1996 Rockhopper is not comparable to a 2016 Rockhopper just because it shares the name.


No - you're wrong.

Some of the bikes you listed are DH bikes - Schwinn, Rotec, Outland, MC, GT. Even though if they had a major label on the down tube - they were NOT mass-manufactured. They were easily twice as much as anything else in a manufacturers lineup. Nobody bought DH bikes in 1998 unless they raced DH. They weighed around 45 lbs. No way would you take that on anything other than a DH course. A Corvette and an Aveo are both made by Chevy. Not the same car, and not made by the same people.

Moots, Litespeed, Ibis, Klein and Kestrel were all boutique manufacturers. They may be major brands (or gone) today- but in the 1990's they were not mass market at all.
Cannondale was just stupid. They spent all their money trying to develop motocross parts and lost their ass.

And the Rockhopper comparison is a surprisingly direct comparison.
1996 Specialized Rockhopper Comp A1 FS - New and Used Bike Value
2015 Specialized Rockhopper Expert 29er - New and Used Bike Value

The only real difference is wheel size, and the fork probably actually does something now.

I think part of the issue here is that people are comparing the bike they COULD buy 5 years ago with the higher end bike they WANT now.


----------



## Picard (Apr 5, 2005)

Bikes cost 10k for xx1 group set. Ridiculous 

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

I don't know if bikes are more expensive across the board, but I know that my tastes have become more expensive (by a lot).... and why not? .... Ladies like peanut butter and jelly sandwiches 3 times a day, right?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Ride what you want or can afford. Then shut your yap, envy is ugly.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Picard said:


> Bikes cost 10k for xx1 group set. Ridiculous
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


Find another product where you can ride what the pros use AND is affordable. People are forgetting what they're getting. Yes, some bike models may cost as much as a dirt bike, but you're getting an almost exact replica of what a pro rider will use....try that with a dirt bike and you'll end up spending 2-3, or even 4 times the original purchase price.



tiretracks said:


> Ride what you want or can afford. Then shut your yap, envy is ugly.


Yup.


----------



## Picard (Apr 5, 2005)

The problem is that most manufacturers jack up the price at cut throat level. The only people who can afford are Donald Trump, or Arab sheik. They can buy Bentley. Bike prices are at Bentley or Ferrari level. BMW even make mountain bike. Would I buy their products? Hell no. I am not stupid to spend 20k on BMW mountain bike. 

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

No one is making anyone buy a 10K bike or even a 2K bike. If you think that is too expensive, buy a cheaper bike.

Comparing today's bikes to yesterday's is not fair. Too much about the world and the bikes has changes in 10 or 20 years for that to make any sense.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Picard said:


> The problem is that most manufacturers jack up the price at cut throat level. The only people who can afford are Donald Trump, or Arab sheik. They can buy Bentley. Bike prices are at Bentley or Ferrari level. BMW even make mountain bike. Would I buy their products? Hell no. I am not stupid to spend 20k on BMW mountain bike.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


Google translate isn't working for me.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

forkboy said:


> No - you're wrong.
> 
> Some of the bikes you listed are DH bikes - Schwinn, Rotec, Outland, MC, GT. Even though if they had a major label on the down tube - they were NOT mass-manufactured. They were easily twice as much as anything else in a manufacturers lineup. Nobody bought DH bikes in 1998 unless they raced DH. They weighed around 45 lbs. No way would you take that on anything other than a DH course. A Corvette and an Aveo are both made by Chevy. Not the same car, and not made by the same people.
> 
> ...


So you had to spend $5-$6000 to get a 6 inch travel bike back in the day that was strictly limited to downhill. Now, you can get a 6 inch travel bike that is 15 pounds lighter and much more capable downhill for $3000. Thanks for supporting my argument.

As for the Rockhoppers, again, naming components and bikes the same doesn't make them comparable.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Picard said:


> Bikes cost 10k for xx1 group set. Ridiculous
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


You don't need a xx1 group set. Not that it was even an option in the '90s. I can't believe I'm agreeing with richde...


----------



## Bikeventures (Jul 21, 2014)

The prices of the "glamour" components like frame, suspension, drivetrain, wheels, tires, etc doesn't bother me much because a lot of R&D go into designing those parts. But after building my first custom bike, I was caught off guard how the little, simple parts add up. To me stems are simple metal connectors for the handlebars. How much R&D goes into designing stems? Yet they range from $50-$100. Then you have all the little adapters you need to make the parts fit. $20 for a brake rotor adaptor? I hope the markup was good for my LBS.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

^^ I agree with the "glamour" parts. A 10k will typically be loaded with those parts. XX1 vs GX...yes XX1 is lighter, but not by a significant amount...and you'll probably get 95% of the performance of XX1 with GX at a significant price break. Stems to me are more like jewelry for the bike. Its pretty much there for fit purposes. A 35 dollar Uno stem will work the same as a $400 MCFK carbon one. I do like a nice looking stem though. I have a Flatforce and Atlas on my bikes.

I'm building a used 2015 Banshee now. The frame is being delivered and the drivetrain parts are on the way. I'm about 1100-1200 in with the frame and new parts. Wheels, fork, and other components are being transferred from the old bike.


----------



## jim9112 (Jul 10, 2016)

I really like what I can get for my money these days. The top end is out of my price range but man the mid range and even lower range stuff is so capable. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

Bikeventures said:


> The prices of the "glamour" components like frame, suspension, drivetrain, wheels, tires, etc doesn't bother me much because a lot of R&D go into designing those parts. But after building my first custom bike, I was caught off guard how the little, simple parts add up.


Yes, I agree here. Tubeless tape and valve stems, grips, chains, brake cables, spokes... all those little tiny parts that are made in massive quantities and cost 150X what they cost to make, that's nuts.


----------



## forkboy (Apr 20, 2004)

whoops. Wrong place.


----------



## forkboy (Apr 20, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> So you had to spend $5-$6000 to get a 6 inch travel bike back in the day that was strictly limited to downhill. Now, you can get a 6 inch travel bike that is 15 pounds lighter and much more capable downhill for $3000. Thanks for supporting my argument.
> 
> As for the Rockhoppers, again, naming components and bikes the same doesn't make them comparable.


My point was that your arguments and supporting facts make no sense. I'm not really sure if it's a lack of reading comprehension on your part, or just a desire to argue even if you are arguing the same point as someone else.

Naming bikes that are made out of the exact same material, by the same company, and running an almost identical level of components (albeit with 20 years of progress inside) makes them PERFECTLY comparable. If you weren't so fired up trying to win arguments on the internet you would realize that example held up your point better than the point you were poorly trying to make.

Moots 93 to moots 2016 = 162% overall increase, 4.3% annual increase vs average inflation rate of 2.25%
Rochopper 96 to Rockhopper 2016 = 23% overall increase. 1% annual increase vs inflation of 2.2%

Moots - inflation for a top-end bike have almost doubled the rate of inflation. Does NOT support your point.
Rockhopper - inflation for an entry level bike is 1/2 the annual inflation rate. Does support your point.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Back in the 90's you could get a Huffy Mt. Fury at Wally-world for $49, now you have to spend $99 for the equivalent.

That's [email protected]


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

forkboy said:


> My point was that your arguments and supporting facts make no sense. I'm not really sure if it's a lack of reading comprehension on your part, or just a desire to argue even if you are arguing the same point as someone else.
> 
> Naming bikes that are made out of the exact same material, by the same company, and running an almost identical level of components (albeit with 20 years of progress inside) makes them PERFECTLY comparable. If you weren't so fired up trying to win arguments on the internet you would realize that example held up your point better than the point you were poorly trying to make.
> 
> ...


I disagree. Not necessarily with your math, but the rest of what you said. I won't apologize for my desire to be right.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

forkboy said:


> My point was that your arguments and supporting facts make no sense. I'm not really sure if it's a lack of reading comprehension on your part, or just a desire to argue even if you are arguing the same point as someone else.
> 
> Naming bikes that are made out of the exact same material, by the same company, and running an almost identical level of components (albeit with 20 years of progress inside) makes them PERFECTLY comparable. If you weren't so fired up trying to win arguments on the internet you would realize that example held up your point better than the point you were poorly trying to make.
> 
> ...


Using "inflation" as a metric is flawed in itself.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

J.B. Weld said:


> Back in the 90's you could get a Huffy Mt. Fury at Wally-world for $49, now you have to spend $99 for the equivalent.
> 
> That's [email protected]


And, unlike the high-end stuff, the Walmart/Huffy quality has probably gone downhill since the 90's in the never-ending search for greater margins...

The "ride what you can afford" mantra is truer now than ever before. One of my riding buddies has a young family and tight budged when it comes to toys, last year he bought himself a used '13 Stumpy which [after a few tweaks] owes him about as much as my fork and wheelset owe me. The difference between his bike and my Warden that cost me 3-4 times the amount is subtle at our level, he is faster than me up and downhill. His stumpy doesn't have the latest geo or wheelsize, but still has 6" of good quality travel front and rear, 180mm hydraulic discs, dropper post, and 1x drivetrain.

So yes, you can easily spend a lot of money on a bike (my Warden that seems pretty expensive compared to his stumpy still doesn't have a single piece of carbon on it, older 10-spd 1x drivetrain etc) but you don't have to, you can still get one hell of a bike by shopping around and keeping an eye out for deals.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

forkboy said:


> Naming bikes that are made out of the exact same material, by the same company, and running an almost identical level of components (*albeit with 20 years of progress inside*) makes them PERFECTLY comparable. If you weren't so fired up trying to win arguments on the internet you would realize that example held up your point better than the point you were poorly trying to make.


Ah, here's your problem.

If you want to compare, you need to compare that 9-speed vintage bike with a poorly dampened fork to something, you need to compare it to a modern 9-speed bike with a poorly dampened fork. Those things are still cheap. Don't compare what was the equivalent of a Rock Shox Sector with a top of the line, 3-way adjustable fork...there's simply no comparison there.

Frame prices have barely budged, back in 2002 you were paying 1600-1800 for a 4-5" travel AL frame like the original Titus Switchblade, now you can get a 6" travel AL Pivot Mach 6 for $2000. Hell, that's cheap considering that 14 years have passed and how much better that M6 will be.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

I think it simply comes down to there being a lot more high-end expensive bikes out there new (and more from the big companies) because there's a much bigger market for them. The difference between an entry level bike and a big-money bike is a lot more drastic these day for the most part. BITD, you could spend a ton of money and still be hacking around on what would now be considered a seriously shitty-riding bike. If you could time-warp back to the early 90s with a stock of today's top bikes, I bet you'd have no problem selling them for the same prices that they're going for now.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)




----------

