http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/recreational-cycling/11056942/Why-are-bikes-so-expensive.html

‘cos they’re wicked?

I didn’t open the link by the way. If it says anything other than that they are just trying to get a rise.

Bit of a crap article. You can get cars for £250000, doesn’t mean people can’t drive without spending that much.
Tries to make it sound like “mamils” (ooh, my sides) are all riding around town on £12000 bikes, which is utter bollocks.

meh

Ridiculous article, apples/oranges. Plus their graph appears to show the spike in 2009, not 2011…

CBA reading the whole article, skim reading they managed to say average bike was “over £1,100” so probably ~1,123 but immediately go on to mention 12k superbikes, bit of a leap that. So a super bike is only 12x the cost of an average bike. How do super cars stack up against average cars? (and if you prefer top gear terminology I’d say £12k is more hyper than super).

does the price justify the product?

the first £1000 most definitely, the second yep, third less so and rapidly diminishing returns after that.

On our average ride, you can’t move for 12 grand bikes

Oh… wait…. hang on a minute. I got confused there. Got them mixed up with with thrashed 5 year old hardtails in unfashionable wheel sizes, and Triggers Broom full-sussers 🙄

I’d say the article makes 3 good points and misses 1 essential point

Points that are correct

The price of top end retail bikes is in some weird vortex where higher cost is better (but of course that doesn’t hurt anyone)

People are now spending more on bikes

Bike inflation has exceeded inflation overall over the last few years

But where it is wrong is to say that value has gone and there aren’t affordable bikes

I’m sure in real terms way you can buy as an entry level road bike in Halfords or Evans for less than the kid in the advert spent. In real terms it will out perform the bike in the advert

If you don’t need an actual shop then the value goes up again

why are cars so expensive? my dad told me about getting a car for a few hundred bob back in the day but these days you can spend millions of pounds ON A SINGLE AUTOMOBILE!

30 years after the Yellow Pages advert, the hopeful boy’s entry level racing bicycle would today cost the average family at least £1,000, if not more.

Bollocks £5-600 would be fine.

I have no issues with the cost of bikes at the moment. You can get an awesome hard tail for 1k, you can get a decent FS for about that and an amazing AM slayer for 2-2.5k considering the technology and build quality I’m happy with current prices.

Frosty, yeah, exactly.
I’ve bought 2 bikes this year that retail at £850 each. I’ve made a few cheap mods (bars, grips, £35 hydraulic brakes off CRC etc) and they’re both utterly fantastic bikes, they look great, they ride brilliantly, one is 10sp X5 and the other 9sp Sora and it all works perfectly well. XT or Ultegra wouldn’t make any measurable difference to me.
The low to mid range stuff these days is astonishingly good.

The low to mid range stuff these days is astonishingly good.

+1

We say this every year, it’s true every year, sure posher stuff is posher, but it’s worth remembering and I’m going to say it again.

Low to mid range stuff really is very very good for the money.

Cycling in the telegraph appears to be in the Men’s section.

Islabikes luath is current entry point for a kids racer surely..399 for 26incher/9ish yr old kid.

Critchlow is an arse

the average price of a bike is £233

30 years after the Yellow Pages advert, the hopeful boy’s entry level racing bicycle would today cost the average family at least £1,000, if not more.

Really?

Pointless article really. Its a comment on the entire consumer/capitalist society. If they want a truly perverse example, look at cosmetics.

Don’t they reprint this article every year, just upping the quoted prices by another 20%?

And when was the last time you read a newspaper article about something you were familiar with and didn’t realise it was all just a bunch of sensationalist and lazy journalism?

Disagree that the low range stuff is astonishingly good and good value for money – most of the low range stuff is awful, far too heavy, over complicated (things like dual suspension), components that wont last, brakes that barely work, bolts that will round off if you try to adjust….they are so bad they put alot of people off cycling. It shouldnt be this way, a simple, well designed bike should be in reach of those whose budgets are under £200 whereas the reality is you need to spend about double that to have something fit for purpose and there isnt much choice in that price range. That might sound pretty cheap to most of us but it is alot of money for many folk, particularly those just starting out.

Telegraph in absolutely made up click bait shocks!

The man has never stooped to walking around Decathlon. A pity it’s only a head shot of him, I bet his watch cost about the same as that bike.

He’s obviously not the guy in the office that gets asked to help people buy a decent bike. I hope.
£300 seems to get you out of BSO, the same as when I worked in a bike shop 15 years ago.
C2W probably ups the spend, the people maxing theit budget are probably the same serious new riders that would have only spent around £600 15 years ago , but now it’s on the tax man, blow it.

Not surprised to see it’s the same guy who churned out this bit of click bait nonsense.

Not surprised to see it’s the same guy who churned out this bit of click bait nonsense.

Ha, first thing I thought when I read the article, and went to post that, only to notice it’s a 4 month old thread.

Has he scored a point yet!?

+ 1 for timber. I’m sure the C2W encourages many £1999 bike deals. (I think the limit is £2k?)

The low to mid range stuff these days is astonishingly good.

Another +1

It wasn’t that long ago that when someone asked you “What bike for £400”, you’d normally recommend something used.

Now, you’ve actually got a number of very capable machines these days for that sort of money! Some of the Decathlon stuff is brilliant for the money, as is the direct to customer manufacturers we’ve seen popping up.

Has he scored a point yet!?

No. Best so far is 15th in a 3rd cat crit. Maybe he needs a more expensive bike?

Whether the general cost of bicycles has increased or not….. he was right about that saddle though.

It’s not unknown for online newspapers to produce total nonsense as clickbait…

Then again most people have their priorities all over the place when it comes to bikes vs cars. Won’t spend £1k on a good bike which will save them money on train fares, petrol etc but will spend £15k+ (+interest) on a car which spends 22 out of every 24 hours parked up…

and thenm looses money for every mile driven

The depreciation on a brand new car in the first mile would buy a decent bike and in the first year an excellent one

No. Best so far is 15th in a 3rd cat crit. Maybe he needs a more expensive bike?

If only he was spending £25k a year, rather than skimping and only spending £24k!

His wattbike must need replacing by now too.

Disagree that the low range stuff is astonishingly good and good value for money – most of the low range stuff is awful, far too heavy, over complicated (things like dual suspension), components that wont last, brakes that barely work, bolts that will round off if you try to adjust….they are so bad they put alot of people off cycling.

Depends what you mean by “low range” I suppose. I reckon you’re right if you’re thinking about £75 “dual suspension” bikes from the likes of Sports Direct or Asda, but I think those posters who disagree were probably a little way up the price range – £300+ and you start to get proper bicycles that actually work, without having to spend £2,000 or even £12,000.

Nothing more to say about the ORIGINAL article, not reading the NEW ONE.
(Just a hint for those dragging up the old discussion!)

I bet the kids bike in the yellow pages ad didn’t have 531 ,with its cheapo safety levers .Probably one of the gash Hi ten steel things Raleigh made .. for kids

I clearly remember when mountain bikes first became popular, in the late 80’s, a rough guide said that a decent starter bike should cost around £300. I don’t think much has changed.
Don’t expect whizzy suspension, though.

I would reason that young lads bike from back then would have had those lovely chrome wet day = deathtrap rims……… 😕

I spent £600 on a Rockhopper in 2003.

It had a noodly Manitou Axe-wound fork and v-brakes. The spec highlight was an LX rear mech.

Fast forward ten years and the 2013 Rockhopper is a similar price, comes with reliable hydraulic discs, a far superior fork and although there may be the odd sub-Deore component, reliable shifting and a long life is the order of the day.

Indeed PJM1974 – having bought my first “proper” mountain bike in 1996, it amazes me that price points have remained as static as they have over the years given that we’ve had almost 20 years of inflation since then. And that’s before we get to the fact that even relatively basic equipment works sooooo much better than it did back in the day. My £400 in 1996 bought me a fully rigid Kona with threaded forks and quill stem, 21 gripshifted gears and cantilever brakes. Look at what you get for £400 these days. And if you really want a nice surprise, adjust that £400 for 20 years or so of inflation and see what that would buy you…