How much faster is that new aero bike?

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by benb

I think Giant is probably doing fine and likely making similar margins to the motorcycle manufacturers.

The huge markups likely happen after Giant's customer puts the bike into their supply chain. A big part of Giant's business is building bikes for other people.

It is still really, really, really hard for me to imagine how on earth these bikes could actually cost more to develop than motorcycles though. Anyone saying that strikes me as extremely ignorant of what goes into a modern motorcycle.

The bike industry is way way way more outsourced. The % of parts on a motorcycle that has to be designed, engineered & manufactured by the company that paints it's name on the tank of a motorcycle is much higher than what goes on a bike. And the overall parts count on a motorcycle is through the stratosphere compared to a bike. Even if you go to eBikes.. eBikes have outsourced drivetrain and often many models have the same drivetrain. Go through a motorcycle manufacturer's model lineup and they've engineered a specific drivetrain for each and every model and it's not outsourced. For performance models it gets re-engineered about every 3 years.

The only way it can somehow make sense is if a huge portion of the cost of bikes is lost to all the outsourcing and supply chain. As if all those parts they get to pull off the shelf have such a big margin that it squeezes the bike manufacturers.

Maybe the other thing is bike companies probably sponsor more riders relative to the # of high end race bikes they sell compared to the motorcycle companies. Their wasted money on that is likely a lot higher. And the overall % of the cost of a bike that is due to marketing is likely higher.

Maybe one other thing.. motorcycle cruisers have huge prices and might have bigger than normal margins and cover some of the other models. Bicycles that seems to be the opposite. Hybrids and cruiser style bikes are cheap. If the manufacturers could sell those cheaper to engineer bicycles at a style premium it would help fund all the other stuff.

edit: Probably the biggest reason bikes keep getting more and more expensive is it seems to be attracting an aging demographic and the companies are running with that on the fact that older riders have more and more money to spend if they keep riding into their best financial years.

Another factor is that bicycle companies have more SKUs for complete bikes than motorcycle companies. Visiting the Honda website, I see 9 different models of motorcycles, some available in 2 or 3 colors. In contrast, the Specialized website shows over 300 models (both as complete bikes and frame only), some available in 4 or more colors, and in each in 5 or 6 sizes. The sales volume on each bicycle SKU has to be much smaller than for each motorcycle SKU. Having to manufacture, stock, and ship more SKUs can add substantially to the overhead costs (which is why Trek has announced that in a cost cutting measure, they are reducing their SKUs).

And comparing a $10,00 bicycle to a $10,000 motorcycle is a bit apples and oranges. The $10,000 bicycle is a very low volume top level bike, whereas that might be more mid-level for motorcycles. Again looking at the Honda and Specialized web sites, the least expensive Honda is the $4,950 Rebel 300 (one color, one size), whereas the least expensive Specialized is the $400 Sirius 2.0 (three colors, six sizes), which is a about a 12:1 ratio in price. There are likely more dealer costs (delivery, prep, sales, title, etc.) for the Honda Rebel 300 than for the Sirius 2.0, but probably not 12 times more.

[Repack Rider]

In 1981 Gary Fisher and I had a display at the Long Beach trade show for our new little company, "MountainBikes."

An industry rep considerably older than we were told us, "Boys, I love your passion, but you have to understand that I have been in this business a long time. The future of the bicycle industry is aerodynamic components."

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by Repack Rider

In 1981 Gary Fisher and I had a display at the Long Beach trade show for our new little company, "MountainBikes."

An industry rep considerably older than we were told us, "Boys, I love your passion, but you have to understand that I have been in this business a long time. The future of the bicycle industry is aerodynamic components."

That's why we call this hobby "cycling" - because we keep cycling (and re-cyling) through through the same revolving phases - first its weight weenie-ism (like the "drillium" craze of the '70s), then aerodynamics (such as the Shimano Aero AX components from the early '80s), to off-road biking (the early MTB era), then back to the Weight weenie-ism (like the late '90s) back to the aero craze of the early '00s, then back to off-road (gravel), and the cycle keeps revolving.

How many times did elliptical chainrings fall in and out of favor? I count at least 3 times. And we keep waxing and waning between whether longer cranks or shorter cranks are better. Wash, rinse, repeat.

[benb]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

Another factor is that bicycle companies have more SKUs for complete bikes than motorcycle companies. Visiting the Honda website, I see 9 different models of motorcycles, some available in 2 or 3 colors. In contrast, the Specialized website shows over 300 models (both as complete bikes and frame only), some available in 4 or more colors, and in each in 5 or 6 sizes. The sales volume on each bicycle SKU has to be much smaller than for each motorcycle SKU. Having to manufacture, stock, and ship more SKUs can add substantially to the overhead costs (which is why Trek has announced that in a cost cutting measure, they are reducing their SKUs).

And comparing a $10,00 bicycle to a $10,000 motorcycle is a bit apples and oranges. The $10,000 bicycle is a very low volume top level bike, whereas that might be more mid-level for motorcycles. Again looking at the Honda and Specialized web sites, the least expensive Honda is the $4,950 Rebel 300 (one color, one size), whereas the least expensive Specialized is the $400 Sirius 2.0 (three colors, six sizes), which is a about a 12:1 ratio in price. There are likely more dealer costs (delivery, prep, sales, title, etc.) for the Honda Rebel 300 than for the Sirius 2.0, but probably not 12 times more.

It's really hard to say.

Honda sold around 18M motorcycles in 2023, and 460k in the US.

Giant supposedly makes 6M bicycles a year.

Speclalized doesn't seem to release much data.

You probably shouldn't compare total bikes though if you're trying to think about price. For bicycles huge numbers of the cheap ones are too cheap for a company like Specialized to bother with. If you compare something like a $15k S-Works Tarmac to a Honda CBR-1000RR ($17k) the production numbers probably start getting a lot closer.

The $28k CBR-1000RR-R SP which is basically the equivalent of that halo S-Works is like 50 units a year for the US. Most dealers won't even sell a single one.

[litcrazy]

I still think it’s crazy to think a road bike without engine or suspension costs that much relative to a motorcycle.

Bikes do seem quite different in the way in the drivetrains and each component is branded vs with cars and motorcycles. I imagine it gives component makers much better bargaining power.

Originally Posted by Mark McM

Another factor is that bicycle companies have more SKUs for complete bikes than motorcycle companies. Visiting the Honda website, I see 9 different models of motorcycles, some available in 2 or 3 colors. In contrast, the Specialized website shows over 300 models (both as complete bikes and frame only), some available in 4 or more colors, and in each in 5 or 6 sizes. The sales volume on each bicycle SKU has to be much smaller than for each motorcycle SKU. Having to manufacture, stock, and ship more SKUs can add substantially to the overhead costs (which is why Trek has announced that in a cost cutting measure, they are reducing their SKUs).

And comparing a $10,00 bicycle to a $10,000 motorcycle is a bit apples and oranges. The $10,000 bicycle is a very low volume top level bike, whereas that might be more mid-level for motorcycles. Again looking at the Honda and Specialized web sites, the least expensive Honda is the $4,950 Rebel 300 (one color, one size), whereas the least expensive Specialized is the $400 Sirius 2.0 (three colors, six sizes), which is a about a 12:1 ratio in price. There are likely more dealer costs (delivery, prep, sales, title, etc.) for the Honda Rebel 300 than for the Sirius 2.0, but probably not 12 times more.

[El Chaba]

Originally Posted by benb

What always makes me skeptical for me (and we know who these things actually matter for and who they don't) is my own ability to actually hold TT/aero positions.

If I can't hold a deeply aero position for 15-20 minutes riding hard without having to sit up to avoid a cramp, numb feet, etc.. that is the low hanging fruit for me, not how aero my wheels or frame are. Maybe my attitude would be different if I was 27 again and not 47, but my ability to hold TT position wasn't actually better back then. I had more watts available and time to train available, but I wasn't as efficient of a rider and wasn't real smart.

It's like spend $2000 on wheels, $5000-10000 on a new bike or just keep trying to figure out how I can hold a good position better, which is close to free.

Nobody ever talks about how much time you lose each time you have to sit up on the hoods cause your back is getting cramped or something. For my real world situations I think I can gain more with my position and holding a low position for long flat/downhill stretches.

I did one of these things this morning. I have a common end of ride stretch that uses part of a TT course and it's on the way back to my house so I very frequently hit segment of road at the end of rides and it's a good barometer.. can I ride tempo or threshold for that ~5 miles and hold a good aero position. I am getting closer with some recent changes but I don't think I've ever been able to ride the entire 5 miles without sitting up at some point.

I don't really have any real opinion on how often I see fully decked out aero bikes with riders sitting upright/bad position. I'm not really counting or trying to keep track, but I do think if you have a pretty upright position and you have one of those bikes it's definitely worth figuring out how to optimize your position.

Also with regard to how they used to market weight savings and now aero.. which one of these is more screwed up by the riders position or composition? Clearly the rider being overweight very quickly eclipses any amount of weight savings on the bike.. that one has always been obvious to nearly everyone, but aero is definitely more complex. At the amateur and recreational levels the whole thing of "you still save time" doesn't really matter if you're dropped. Neither the lighter bike nor the more aero bike is likely to keep you in a group that's going to drop you on a climb, and if you're hanging on the back of the pack the aero is likely not helping in the draft there. And if you get dropped on the flat the aero bike is still probably not going to let you get back on, as the aero savings are still much smaller than the savings you had when you were still in the draft of the pack.

(X) like


This is a really good post, well thought out and makes some great points…especially the last paragraph.

[9tubes]

Originally Posted by benb

The $28k CBR-1000RR-R SP which is basically the equivalent of that halo S-Works is like 50 units a year for the US. Most dealers won't even sell a single one.

Yeah, but look at how many Rs you get.



-

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by litcrazy

I still think it’s crazy to think a road bike without engine or suspension costs that much relative to a motorcycle.

It's also crazy to think that a Rolex watch which has to be kept manually wound on a daily basis costs so much more than an electronic Seiko which can power itself for years, yet people still buy the Rolexes.*