login
Is the Entry Price Point Triathlon Bike Doomed? (Page 4)
-
No new posts
|
 2011-10-11 8:30 AM in reply to: #3717925 |
 Coastal Carolina |  Subject: RE: Is the Entry Price Point Triathlon Bike Doomed?For me I started out in the last year, started on a mid 80's trek, and was able to get a great deal on an entry level roadie from a college student who didn't really know what he had and was also trying to sell to move away from college. That being said I enjoy Tri's and plan to continue and increase distance and number of races. To the bike end I have started setting $100 aside for a new entry level tri that I hope to buy sometime in the winter of 2012, so yes sub 2k is very important to me, and I do not think it is doomed mostly because I see it as a stepping stone. That entry level bike will have a better geometry and fit than my current set-up but with entry level components. I can slowly upgrade the components on the bike, wheel set, PT, shifters, brakes etc. until I have higher end set-up and then buy a higher end frame and swap the components, at least that is my plan. If I was forced into the market at or above 2k I would not even consider a Tri bike due to financial concerns, cost of what is essentially a "toy" vs. my income. Dropping over 2k over several years I can do, all at once might give me an anuerism.
As to the 1st bike I choose road because that's what I could get a deal on and will be using it for group rides and a 3 day charity ride that I would not want to do on a tri bike. I think it is more of a function of what gets you into the sport and riding. Either way ride it like you stole it. |
| 2011-10-11 8:33 AM in reply to: #3718570 |
Champion  16151    Checkin' out the podium girls | Subject: RE: Is the Entry Price Point Triathlon Bike Doomed? apicek - 2011-10-10 9:39 PM pitt83 - 2011-10-10 9:03 PM Seeing it from the manufacturer's POV, I don't see making an intro tri bike. The cost of jigging , cutting, welding and producing frames in tri geometry doesn't pay at this price point. The volume in road bikes make that a profitable product. I simply don't see selling enough tri bikes in each size to justify swapping out my production schedule to do so. Sure, Sora components and Alex wheels drive the price down. But for me to weld frames in a profitable quantity isn't worth the distraction from entry level road and mountain bikes. This gets me thinking actually. Obviously these, what I would consider very expensive, bikes, are "worth" the price tag, because someone out there is willing to pay that much for them. Can't say they're overpriced if they're selling at that price. But, what I wonder is... what's the actual cost to manufacture one of these bikes? What kind of profit margin are the manufacturers turning on these things? Obviously the higher end bikes you're going to have R&D factors as well, plus retail overhead, etc., but I would be surprised at all to hear that the more expensive the bike, the much great percentage of the price is going to profit. Anyone have any clue on this? I don't know the margins on frames at the manufacturing level. They outsource these to Asia to be built (especially at the lower price points). What is costly is stopping the line, reconfiguring for a tri-bike, building those, and then restarting the line with a different frame. It's like making both blenders and juicers. If you make millions selling blenders, but only a few thousand selling juicers to a very specific, small market segment of health concious consumers, you might skip the juicer market and focus on blenders. You don't then have to reconfigure your production only for a small market for a couple thousand sales. Leave that to another manufacturer or be certain you're going to make enough margin selling only high end juicers. |
| 2011-10-11 8:41 AM in reply to: #3718830 |
Champion 6627 Rochester Hills, Michigan Gold member | Subject: RE: Is the Entry Price Point Triathlon Bike Doomed? pitt83 - 2011-10-11 8:10 AM rkreuser - 2011-10-10 8:33 PM ....The next big bike company won't be the ones that succesfully convinces people to pay another $500 for the 'next best thing'. The next big bike company will be the one that 1) develops the killer app (an entry-level tri bike), and 2) finds a way to make their brand sticky. Easy formula: Get a million people to ride your bike at entry level, and give them a reason to stay with your brand when the portion of the folks that stay with the sport upgrade - which no one has figured out how to do, except companies like Softride and Zipp who have a loyal following due to their unique frame design and ride characteristics, and to a lesser degree, Kestrel and the Airfoil. It's amazing to me that there's really no differentiation between felt, cervelo, trek, specialized, etc. The differences are measured in milliseconds (from a performance perspective) and cents (from a monetary perspective). There's a way to attack that market. No one's brave enough because they're making money as-is.... A LARGE majority of design is dictated by the UCI. Think Floyd Landis and the praying mantis position. As soon as he tried it, the UCI shut it down. Buyers are buying these bikes to race them and if they're not compliant with the sport's governing body standards, a manufacturer risks making an Edsel which no one wants. Hence, you get design homogeneity because of the rules. Understood. But 95% of AG'ers - the target market for the next big bike manufacturer - will never have to comply with UCI rules unless they step up to an ITU race (no entry-level bike required) or do a standalone UCI-sponsored TT. I'd be very, very curious to see Felt or Cervelo's thoughts and analysis on producing a non-UCI compliant design. Seems to me, anyway, to be a very easy way to hit a target market with a better, diferentiated product (and go faster) in the vast sea of look-alikes. |
| 2011-10-11 8:45 AM in reply to: #3718907 |
Champion 4835 Eat Cheese or Die | Subject: RE: Is the Entry Price Point Triathlon Bike Doomed? mr2tony - 2011-10-11 8:17 AM So, yes, there's definitely a market for the entry-level tri bike and I would HIGHLY encourage bike-makers to offer them. They would get more people into the sport. And if you can buy a $900 Trek tri bike and it performs well, then chances are you're going to someday, maybe, have more money and buy a $1900 Trek tri bike. And then maybe some day a $2900 Trek tri bike. I've found brand loyalty to be extremely high among triathletes. Why would it get more people into the sport? I think more people would get into the sport if they didn't think they needed a TT bike to participate. There are two areas that haven't been addressed when it comes to the first bike. And that is comfort and control of a TT bike. It's not easy to ride on the aero bars if you aren't a competent bike handler. It's also not a position that lends it's self to feeling secure and confident on the bike. Unless someone is coming from a cycling background, I think a TT bike is a terrible choice for a first bike. Without time spend becoming competent on the bike and adjusting to the position of riding, I think a TT bike as a first bike can scare people away. We all know that if you can't maintain the aero position for a large majority of your ride, a road bike is going to be faster. How many newbs are going to stay on the aero bars long enough to make it worth owning a tt bike? Yes, I realize there are always people who are going to say "But I was fine with a TT bike as a first bike." I don't really care about those few anecdotal stories. What I care about is getting more people on bicycles and I think a TT bike as a first bike is inappropriate for the vast majority of people. One reason to go to your LBS is that a good and competent sales person is going to find out as much as they can about a person's background before steering them to a particular style of bike and in this way, the road vs. tt bike debate can be handled on a case by case basis. Seeking to answer that debate on the internet gets you a confusion of anecdotal stories and generalizations. Edited by graceful_dave 2011-10-11 8:47 AM |
| 2011-10-11 8:47 AM in reply to: #3718956 |
Champion 4835 Eat Cheese or Die | Subject: RE: Is the Entry Price Point Triathlon Bike Doomed? rkreuser - 2011-10-11 8:41 AM pitt83 - 2011-10-11 8:10 AM rkreuser - 2011-10-10 8:33 PM ....The next big bike company won't be the ones that succesfully convinces people to pay another $500 for the 'next best thing'. The next big bike company will be the one that 1) develops the killer app (an entry-level tri bike), and 2) finds a way to make their brand sticky. Easy formula: Get a million people to ride your bike at entry level, and give them a reason to stay with your brand when the portion of the folks that stay with the sport upgrade - which no one has figured out how to do, except companies like Softride and Zipp who have a loyal following due to their unique frame design and ride characteristics, and to a lesser degree, Kestrel and the Airfoil. It's amazing to me that there's really no differentiation between felt, cervelo, trek, specialized, etc. The differences are measured in milliseconds (from a performance perspective) and cents (from a monetary perspective). There's a way to attack that market. No one's brave enough because they're making money as-is.... A LARGE majority of design is dictated by the UCI. Think Floyd Landis and the praying mantis position. As soon as he tried it, the UCI shut it down. Buyers are buying these bikes to race them and if they're not compliant with the sport's governing body standards, a manufacturer risks making an Edsel which no one wants. Hence, you get design homogeneity because of the rules. Understood. But 95% of AG'ers - the target market for the next big bike manufacturer - will never have to comply with UCI rules unless they step up to an ITU race (no entry-level bike required) or do a standalone UCI-sponsored TT. I'd be very, very curious to see Felt or Cervelo's thoughts and analysis on producing a non-UCI compliant design. Seems to me, anyway, to be a very easy way to hit a target market with a better, diferentiated product (and go faster) in the vast sea of look-alikes. Why would they want to build two different frames? It's far less costly to just make all the frames UCI compliant. Edited by graceful_dave 2011-10-11 8:47 AM |
| 2011-10-11 8:49 AM in reply to: #3718956 |
Champion 16151 Checkin' out the podium girls | Subject: RE: Is the Entry Price Point Triathlon Bike Doomed? rkreuser - 2011-10-11 9:41 AM pitt83 - 2011-10-11 8:10 AM rkreuser - 2011-10-10 8:33 PM ....The next big bike company won't be the ones that succesfully convinces people to pay another $500 for the 'next best thing'. The next big bike company will be the one that 1) develops the killer app (an entry-level tri bike), and 2) finds a way to make their brand sticky. Easy formula: Get a million people to ride your bike at entry level, and give them a reason to stay with your brand when the portion of the folks that stay with the sport upgrade - which no one has figured out how to do, except companies like Softride and Zipp who have a loyal following due to their unique frame design and ride characteristics, and to a lesser degree, Kestrel and the Airfoil. It's amazing to me that there's really no differentiation between felt, cervelo, trek, specialized, etc. The differences are measured in milliseconds (from a performance perspective) and cents (from a monetary perspective). There's a way to attack that market. No one's brave enough because they're making money as-is.... A LARGE majority of design is dictated by the UCI. Think Floyd Landis and the praying mantis position. As soon as he tried it, the UCI shut it down. Buyers are buying these bikes to race them and if they're not compliant with the sport's governing body standards, a manufacturer risks making an Edsel which no one wants. Hence, you get design homogeneity because of the rules. Understood. But 95% of AG'ers - the target market for the next big bike manufacturer - will never have to comply with UCI rules unless they step up to an ITU race (no entry-level bike required) or do a standalone UCI-sponsored TT. I'd be very, very curious to see Felt or Cervelo's thoughts and analysis on producing a non-UCI compliant design. Seems to me, anyway, to be a very easy way to hit a target market with a better, diferentiated product (and go faster) in the vast sea of look-alikes. Target market is not a sub-$2K bike. One-off design is always going to be costly. If you're making a sub$2K bike, you have to sell tens of thousands of these to make a profit. ETA: Look at the price difference between a custom Seven versus a stock Litespeed. Same materials, different manufacturing, far different pricing due to manufactuing costs and the need to recoup a decent margin on low volume goods. Edited by pitt83 2011-10-11 8:51 AM |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK