Is anyone completely done with these absurd prices?

[joejack951]

You make that what wheelset comparison with what sounds like an assumption the "house branded" wheelset on the Giant are an inferior and cheap product.
Those cadex wheels ain't cheap and are apparently lighter and more aero.

https://www.cyclingnews.com/reviews/cad ... et-review/

I don’t think that was the point being made. By keeping as much of the bike “in house” a manufacturer can reduce their costs and undercut the competition. Some manufacturers pass the saving on, while others keep the extra profit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Replying to both here.

Zipp 454 NSW retail: $4220
Cadex 50 Ultra retail $3500

Both pricey, but the Zipps cost 20% more and as noted above, Scott is reselling those wheels rather than manufacturing them so their cost is likely higher for them, too.

And be honest, in casual cycling circles, which wheelset is going to get more 'oohs' and 'ahhs'?

Personally, I'll take whichever wheels perform better, not that I'm likely to ever justify that kind of money for a wheelset. I'm all open mold rims and Bitex hubs

[Kurt1980]

The bike will cost what the market will pay regardless of what it costs to make and sell the bike :re why road bike is more expensive than fancy suspension mtb. Isn’t that always the case for road vs mtb?

For some weird reason road bike has this weird pristine “elite” status to it as opposed to other disciplines. Which am sure contributes to part of the current cost structure.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, I think there is an aspirational and elite (good word actually, struggling to find a better one...) status attached to road cycling that's not in the mtb scene. It certainly has these themes of "for racing only", "ultimate performance", "integration", "precision", "focus", "discipline" and similar.

Elite mtb obviously has that. But it also has hippie, weed smoking roots, with branches of "gnarly bro", and competition judged by style rather than time (see Redbull Rampage for instance).

I'd say there is a sneaky classism at play here. I say that as a huge mtb fan for basically 30 years, and only recent roadie convert.

I think you both have identified the key driver of the high pricing. Road cycling has been adopted by a higher socio-economic demographic market segment over the last decade or more. A good deal of the marketing now incorporates an element of glamour and status that was previously absent which further enhances its appeal to the well heeled. Take a look at some of the websites of the higher end clothing brands - beautiful people, exotic locations, etc. Truly an aspirational segment for those not yet in it. A powerful creator of emotionally driven demand. Save your pennies people, my guess is this is only going one way.

This sentence....absolutely captures it....

"A good deal of the marketing now incorporates an element of glamour and status that was previously absent which further enhances its appeal to the well heeled."

Kudos!

[warthog101]

[quote=joejack951 post_id=1827409 time=1694450971 user_id=1819]

Replying to both here.

Zipp 454 NSW retail: $4220
Cadex 50 Ultra retail $3500

Both pricey, but the Zipps cost 20% more and as noted above, Scott is reselling those wheels rather than manufacturing them so their cost is likely higher for them, too.

And be honest, in casual cycling circles, which wheelset is going to get more 'oohs' and 'ahhs'?

Personally, I'll take whichever wheels perform better, not that I'm likely to ever justify that kind of money for a wheelset. I'm all open mold rims and Bitex hubs
[/quote]

I would expect Scott have negotiated a price for those wheels supplied at a hell of a lot less than retail, or they'd have gone with another wheelset.
Regardless the Giant is more than 20% cheaper with a better performing wheelset.
Each to their own. The Scott isn't better value imo, but yes both are ridiculously expensive. No way am I paying that for a bicycle either.

[fatpinarellorider]

I think what annoys me more about expensive bikes today is this.
It's not even that they're that expensive!

Previously, decades ago, the only way to spend anywhere near close to 8k+ on a bicycle was to buy the frame (and there were only a smattering of brands costing $2.5k), then get all the remaining stuff separately. And in so doing, you made it customised to suit the rider, and thus something completely unique, exclusive and therefore special.

Because I don't ever remember walking into my local suburban bike shop(s) and seeing bikes for anywhere near twenty thousands dollars.
Sure there were some shops selling top end kit, but it was not the norm (in my case it meant a special trip to the city).

In this way, getting one thing at a time, it was more affordable for poorer people too! Students and people with relatively low-paying jobs could eventually save up and get something 'nice'.

So as far as I'm concerned, if you put together a bicycle on your own, handpicking everything yourself to suit your own taste, then great. I'm all on board with that. Just as people have done on this forum essentially since the very beginning.

But what I don't like is that brands today are essentially offering virtually identical bikes costing 15 thousand dollars straight off the shelf, and they're not even really what I'd call "special". They've just got generic in-brand componentry (bars, stems, saddles, even wheels). If you buy a Pinarello, you get "MOST". What's so special about MOST? Nothing. It's not Deda is it? No one in their right mind goes out and puts 'MOST' branded parts on their non-Pinarello, do they?
(just wanna state for the record here that I own a low-end Pina from 2007)

Will you find a Selle Italia SLR Boost Tekno Superflow on a 15 grand bike today? I doubt it. It'll be something else inferior (read: cheaper). Now I don't particular like that shape of saddle, I'm just using it as an example...

Say you fork out your 10, 12, 15 or even 20k for your latest trek or specialized. Ok.
If you're a new rider, you might be thinking. "Right, now I have 'the best' ". And be all happy and smug with yoursmugself.

Will it have an extralight steerer tube expander? Or a set of tune skewers? Or a Chris King headset? No. No it won't.
It'll have some other garbage in its place. Am I right?

Expensive bikes today, I don't know, they just don't have this what I'd call personal, individual touch. I dunno, they're all rather bland. No soul man.

And how far would you get with them if you asked them to swap out various brands of components for their equivalent retail value in other brands, bar tape, say? Just imagine it. "No, I want an ITM/3T handlebar" you say. Despite spending an arm and a leg, you're not likely to get very far at all.

It just seems to me that these off the peg bikes are not worth more the sum of their parts, they're worth less. So I feel that people are getting majorly ripped off somewhere here, and bike companies are making a ton of money on it. Other more experienced riders probably won't be that impressed either. They'll probably be more thinking along the lines of "well more fool you".

[Ypuh]

I think you both have identified the key driver of the high pricing. Road cycling has been adopted by a higher socio-economic demographic market segment over the last decade or more. A good deal of the marketing now incorporates an element of glamour and status that was previously absent which further enhances its appeal to the well heeled. Take a look at some of the websites of the higher end clothing brands - beautiful people, exotic locations, etc. Truly an aspirational segment for those not yet in it. A powerful creator of emotionally driven demand. Save your pennies people, my guess is this is only going one way.

Maybe it's the other way around; cycling has a positive effect on your socio-economic status in life. Free your legs and the mind will follow. In that case a slightly more expensive bike would be the best investment a person can make.

[joejack951]

I would expect Scott have negotiated a price for those wheels supplied at a hell of a lot less than retail, or they'd have gone with another wheelset.

Of course, but 35-40% (just guessing at what they may pay as a percentage of retail) of $4200 is still more than 20% (again guessing at cost) of $3500. The gap is even wider than the retail gap.

[warthog101]

I would expect Scott have negotiated a price for those wheels supplied at a hell of a lot less than retail, or they'd have gone with another wheelset.

Of course, but 35-40% (just guessing at what they may pay as a percentage of retail) of $4200 is still more than 20% (again guessing at cost) of $3500. The gap is even wider than the retail gap.

I have no knowledge of what price they have negotiated or how much profit Zipp places on their wheels. Are they made in Asia too now? Where is the justification for that increased price. It is certainly not performace. The Cadex wheel tests faster.
You would look at the technology and argue it is more advanced also.
A faster, lighter set of wheels on a bike that costs significantly less. Again, yes the Giant is a better buy.

Edit; had a quick look. Zipp still appear to be made in USA. That'll be why they cost more if so.
I actually have some older Zipps (404 firecrest). Got em second hand. I care not where they were made.

[warthog101]

Of course, but 35-40% (just guessing at what they may pay as a percentage of retail) of $4200 is still more than 20% (again guessing at cost) of $3500. The gap is even wider than the retail gap.

Yes 35 -40% of $4200 (1470-1680) is more than 20% of $3500 (700).
What point are you trying to make there?

Are you proposing that is what the wheels cost each manufacturer? (Scott and Giant)

Either way if I am going to pay a lot of money for a product that is marketed as fast, why pay more for a slower product?

[Mr.Gib]

I think you both have identified the key driver of the high pricing. Road cycling has been adopted by a higher socio-economic demographic market segment over the last decade or more. A good deal of the marketing now incorporates an element of glamour and status that was previously absent which further enhances its appeal to the well heeled. Take a look at some of the websites of the higher end clothing brands - beautiful people, exotic locations, etc. Truly an aspirational segment for those not yet in it. A powerful creator of emotionally driven demand. Save your pennies people, my guess is this is only going one way.

Maybe it's the other way around; cycling has a positive effect on your socio-economic status in life. Free your legs and the mind will follow. In that case a slightly more expensive bike would be the best investment a person can make.

That would be nice and perhaps being a dedicated cyclist makes one a better person. Certainly hanging out with a higher demographic is a legitimate part of a sociological upgrade. But I'm afraid with current high prices, the financial investment in cycling gear might move an individuals economic status in the wrong direction.

Truthfully, I'm more worried about the cost of cycling related travel. Living in North America means that to ride anywhere great, very significant travel expenditures are required. Those of you living in Europe should never overlook how lucky you are in this regard. Maybe convince yourselves that because you save so much money on travel, you can justify more money on bikes.

[joejack951]

Of course, but 35-40% (just guessing at what they may pay as a percentage of retail) of $4200 is still more than 20% (again guessing at cost) of $3500. The gap is even wider than the retail gap.

Yes 35 -40% of $4200 (1470-1680) is more than 20% of $3500 (700).
What point are you trying to make there?

Are you proposing that is what the wheels cost each manufacturer? (Scott and Giant)

Either way if I am going to pay a lot of money for a product that is marketed as fast, why pay more for a slower product?

I'm simply proposing one factor that may influence the price disparity between the top end Scott and the Giant. Make of it what you will.

As far as testing goes, who's test do you trust more? A quick Google search found another comparison of the same wheelsets and the Zipps seemed to beat the Cadex wheels pretty handily: https://intheknowcycling.com/carbon-disc-wheelset/

The cyclingnews test provides far more quantifiable data, but when we're talking 4 watts out of 240, they better be extremely regimented in their test procedure. Perhaps they lay out in more detail elsewhere how they performed their testing but I'm not seeing much. Actually, I just looked back and all the test data has an image credit attributed to, no surprise, Cadex. Anyone else shocked that their wheels just so happened to perform the best in these tests?

Of course, don't take this as a knock on Giant/Cadex so much as a knock on marketing of this type of stuff in general. Every company wants to claim they sell the best 'thing', no matter how small the difference. Getting caught up in that nonsense (remember how this is a recreational thing for most of us) is a quick way to waste a lot of money. Geeking out on the stuff can be fun and if the splurge doesn't hurt to bad go ahead and buy it. But please spare us the moans and groans about the industry 'gouging' you all over the latest aero bike.

[warthog101]

I'm simply proposing one factor that may influence the price disparity between the top end Scott and the Giant. Make of it what you will.

As far as testing goes, who's test do you trust more? A quick Google search found another comparison of the same wheelsets and the Zipps seemed to beat the Cadex wheels pretty handily: https://intheknowcycling.com/carbon-disc-wheelset/

The cyclingnews test provides far more quantifiable data, but when we're talking 4 watts out of 240, they better be extremely regimented in their test procedure. Perhaps they lay out in more detail elsewhere how they performed their testing but I'm not seeing much. Actually, I just looked back and all the test data has an image credit attributed to, no surprise, Cadex. Anyone else shocked that their wheels just so happened to perform the best in these tests?

Of course, don't take this as a knock on Giant/Cadex so much as a knock on marketing of this type of stuff in general. Every company wants to claim they sell the best 'thing', no matter how small the difference. Getting caught up in that nonsense (remember how this is a recreational thing for most of us) is a quick way to waste a lot of money. Geeking out on the stuff can be fun and if the splurge doesn't hurt to bad go ahead and buy it. But please spare us the moans and groans about the industry 'gouging' you all over the latest aero bike.

I saw no aero data at all on that "test". Somebody called Steve likes the Zipps.
Sure the link I posted may have used Giant data. Didn't check. There was however drag data provided.

The price disparity is significant and is not explained by the cost difference of the wheelsets.
I just disagreed with the quote below and the inference in it, as I read it, that "housebranded" wheels are an inferior product.

Similar to you I am not in the market for that expensive a bike. I am not " moaning and groaning" about price gouging. I just am not buying one as I have more important priorities for that amount of money.

Anyway, I just took a look at Giant's offerings and couldn't help but notice that they have a $12,500 road bike: https://www.giant-bicycles.com/us/prope ... -sl-0-2023

So a Scott Foil RC is $16k (https://www.scott-sports.com/us/en/prod ... =290337047). Right off the bat I see a few major differences, namely the in-house branded wheels on the Giant and the Zipps on Scott. Whether or not that and the remaining differences are worth $3.5k to you doesn't make Scott's offering a scam and Giant's a good deal. They are both quite expensive for what amounts to a recreational toy for most of us. Then again, add another '0' on the end of my yearly earnings and I'd see those prices a lot differently.

[Nickldn]

I'm simply proposing one factor that may influence the price disparity between the top end Scott and the Giant. Make of it what you will.

As far as testing goes, who's test do you trust more? A quick Google search found another comparison of the same wheelsets and the Zipps seemed to beat the Cadex wheels pretty handily: https://intheknowcycling.com/carbon-disc-wheelset/

The cyclingnews test provides far more quantifiable data, but when we're talking 4 watts out of 240, they better be extremely regimented in their test procedure. Perhaps they lay out in more detail elsewhere how they performed their testing but I'm not seeing much. Actually, I just looked back and all the test data has an image credit attributed to, no surprise, Cadex. Anyone else shocked that their wheels just so happened to perform the best in these tests?

Of course, don't take this as a knock on Giant/Cadex so much as a knock on marketing of this type of stuff in general. Every company wants to claim they sell the best 'thing', no matter how small the difference. Getting caught up in that nonsense (remember how this is a recreational thing for most of us) is a quick way to waste a lot of money. Geeking out on the stuff can be fun and if the splurge doesn't hurt to bad go ahead and buy it. But please spare us the moans and groans about the industry 'gouging' you all over the latest aero bike.

I saw no aero data at all on that "test". Somebody called Steve likes the Zipps.
Sure the link I posted may have used Giant data. Didn't check. There was however drag data provided.

The price disparity is significant and is not explained by the cost difference of the wheelsets.
I just disagreed with the quote below and the inference in it, as I read it, that "housebranded" wheels are an inferior product.

Similar to you I am not in the market for that expensive a bike. I am not " moaning and groaning" about price gouging. I just am not buying one as I have more important priorities for that amount of money.

Anyway, I just took a look at Giant's offerings and couldn't help but notice that they have a $12,500 road bike: https://www.giant-bicycles.com/us/prope ... -sl-0-2023

So a Scott Foil RC is $16k (https://www.scott-sports.com/us/en/prod ... =290337047). Right off the bat I see a few major differences, namely the in-house branded wheels on the Giant and the Zipps on Scott. Whether or not that and the remaining differences are worth $3.5k to you doesn't make Scott's offering a scam and Giant's a good deal. They are both quite expensive for what amounts to a recreational toy for most of us. Then again, add another '0' on the end of my yearly earnings and I'd see those prices a lot differently.

Intheknowcycling.com is a nice, well written website. However, the tables with + 0 and - serve to reinforce lack of scientific measurement to back up purely subjective claims.

I would add the views expressed by the writers are very biased towards riding in North America and may not apply equally in other parts of the world. It is no coincidence the top 2 recommended wheelsets are American.

I read the website with interest and respect the authors, but their views are just that, views.

What does this have to do with our discussion about prices you may ask? Not a lot it turns out, anyone can have an opinion on any cycling component, but just because something costs more doesn't make it better. This is the marketing trap we all fall into from time to time and why scientific measurements are so valuable to debunk myths created by marketing.

[fatpinarellorider]

Anyway, what's wrong with moaning and groaning?

[Nickldn]

Anyway, what's wrong with moaning and groaning?

Agree, calling out price gouging and fantastical claims made by the industry is valuable to protect the unwary and raise standards.

[pushpush]

Truthfully, I'm more worried about the cost of cycling related travel. Living in North America means that to ride anywhere great, very significant travel expenditures are required. Those of you living in Europe should never overlook how lucky you are in this regard.

Where in America do you live? Here in Northern California there is an endless amount of great riding. A couple of hours in a car and you can be in the desert, or above the alpine line, or along the ocean, or in the ancient forests, or almost anything else. Rolling flatlands, mountains, and so on. It is all relatively near.

I wouldnt be so quick to generalize about North America. It is a big place with a lot of options. Choose a good one and travel to ride isn't a requirement or costly impediment.