[norbar]

honestly i think it is quite useful and it shows rather well whats happening

the top end of the market has gone bonkers, and lower end has improved a lot.
it's never been so cheap to get into downhill.

just look at young talent bikes, canyon and more.
there is no need to shell out 10k for a bike just buy one for 3

That's how I feel. To be honest even without direct order companies the avg. prices are lower. I bought my legend on preorder for 2k$ and got a lot of my very expensive parts on deals. It's easy to go below msrp compared to 4-5 years ago. Not to mention lower end parts finally work and are very good while a low spec bikes in 2005 needed part changes. The only thing that is really annoying price wise is tires.

 

[tabletop84]

Yup. Prices for dh-tires are getting seriously retarded. It's almost impossible to find one below 40€ nowadays.

 

[norbar]

Yup. Prices for dh-tires are getting seriously retarded. It's almost impossible to find one below 40€ nowadays.

Non UST in PL sometimes can be found for <30E but the choice and window of opportunity is narrow. I run UST so I pay retail and given how much we earn in Poland it's a damn expensive tire anyway.

 

[IH8Rice]

Yup. Prices for dh-tires are getting seriously retarded. It's almost impossible to find one below 40&#8364; nowadays.

you can buy car tires for as much as dh tires retail for

 

[klunky]

you can buy car tires for as much as dh tires retail for

But can you buy racing track car tyres for the same price?

 

[norbar]

But can you buy racing track car tyres for the same price?

That! It always baffles me when people compare high end bike components to low to middle range bike/car components. It's silly.


Also new quality road tires for 80E ? US road tires must be really low if you can buy something serious for that price.

 

[IH8Rice]

Also new quality road tires for 80E ? US road tires must be really low if you can buy something serious for that price.

yes, you can. and no one ever said anything about "serious" tires for a car at that price... whatever the fvck that means.

regardless if you can buy "racing car tires" for that price or if you think the comparison is stupid. the point is, you can buy "quality" car tires for that price

 

[norbar]

yes, you can. and no one ever said anything about "serious" tires for a car at that price... whatever the fvck that means.

regardless if you can buy "racing car tires" for that price or if you think the comparison is stupid. the point is, you can buy "quality" car tires for that price

Why do you always have to turn it into a quarrel? Does me not agreeing with you endanger your well being?

Serious is interchangeable with quality for me. I did a quick search on the local price and since we should compare retail pirelli, michelin, conti, etc. are 250$+ Looking at ebay it's the same. Not speaking about race tires. Just an average tire. If you want something that came of a brand new merc but is unused you may go 500$ so either we have a different definition of quality or we look at different places.

 

[IH8Rice]

or we look at different places.

this.
if new "brand name" tires start at $250 in your country and that sucks for you all.


if you cant see how my comparison is still relative a comparison regardless of how "high quality" something is then you missed the point

 

[norbar]

this.
if new "brand name" tires start at $250 in your country and that sucks for you all.


if you cant see how my comparison is still a comparison regardless of how "high quality" something is then you missed the point

I think you missed the point. It's like saying watches are more expensive than cars becaue that patek you saw costs more than a fort pinto without blowing up. Hell bricks are more expensive than cars because banksy goes for a ton of cash. I better start buying some now before it's too late.

Also I looked at ebay and michelins are quite expensive. Didn't bother to look for something else.

 

[IH8Rice]

It's like saying watches are more expensive than cars becaue that patek you saw costs more than a fort pinto without blowing up. Hell bricks are more expensive than cars because banksy goes for a ton of cash. I better start buying some now before it's too late.

 

[norbar]

Comparison. Ie "hurrr durrr high end racing bike tire costs more than run of the mill car tires derp derp". Talk to a car enthusiast about car tire prices and say to him he can buy some tires for 80E. He will be delighted.

 

[marshalolson]

But can you buy racing track car tyres for the same price?

hoosiers are going to start at $225 each and go up from there.

 

[EVRAC]

I agree with some of the recent points. We can not fairly compare the most expensive bike tires to almost the cheapest car tires. I've heard this a lot from my friends who think it's stupid that their bike tires cost as much as their car tires, but they are buying the same tires the pros race on for their bike, and almost the cheapest tires they can find for their car.

A better comparison would be to look at what the most expensive tires cost in either sport, or to look at the cheapest. Heck, I think the shop I used to work at had some old "smoke" clone tires for $5.

Yes you can buy an entry level motorbike for the cost of a high end bike, but so what? It's a meaningless comparison. Compare entry-level to entry-level, and pro-level to pro-level.

 

[tabletop84]

Are you just too stupid to realize that you get ripped off?

A car tire needs probably 10 times the amount of rubber and costs way more in development for certification.

https://www.google.de/search?q=autoreifen&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:de:official&client=firefox-a#q=autoreifen&hl=de&client=firefox-a&hs=Prk&rls=org.mozilla:de:official&tbs=p_ord:p&tbm=shop&prmd=imvns&ei=RwUbUPX_C46HswaP84DADQ&start=40&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=6bee779e89c53c33&biw=1440&bih=730

****in sheep

 

[syadasti]

I checked with a friend (also a cyclist) who is a wheel engineer at a major car and cycling tire company, Rice and tabletop are correct:

Just a lowly wheel engineer. Tires are a WHOLE different ball game. But, yes, I believe bike tires are easier to design and almost certainly easier to manufacture. I have a contact at Michelin I can check with.

 

[Tomasz]

All prices from online discount auto tire retailer (TireRack):

OEM tires for 2008 Mercedes CLS550 (comfort-performance):
$310 per tire front
$363 per tire rear

OEM tires for 2010 Ferrari Italia (performance-comfort):
$447 per tire front
$463 per tire rear

On Amazon, high performance DOT Nitto tires:
$393-$478 per tire.

Non-DOT race tires (hard to find online... source is http://rogerkrausracing.com/pages/pricing.html)
$300-$450 per tire for Toyos

Maxxis Minion DHF, wire bead 26x2.5, BikeBling:
$63

 

[gemini2k]

Ya DH tires are a scam, whats new?

 

[tabletop84]

@Tomasz

this comparison doesn't make sense as well as all other hurr durr you can't buy f1-race-car technology for cheap. I doubt a minion does have to prove itself under testing conditions of 200mph and stuff like that.

Manufacturers like schwalbe want their retailers to keep prices high:

http://www.mtb-news.de/forum/showthread.php?t=460417

 

[Kntr]

you can buy car tires for as much as dh tires retail for

Not the 37" Jeep tires I buy. I could buy 4 or 5 Minion DNF tires for the price of one.

My Honda Fit tires are cheap though.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

All prices from online discount auto tire retailer (TireRack):

OEM tires for 2008 Mercedes CLS550 (comfort-performance):
$310 per tire front
$363 per tire rear

OEM tires for 2010 Ferrari Italia (performance-comfort):
$447 per tire front
$463 per tire rear

On Amazon, high performance DOT Nitto tires:
$393-$478 per tire.

Non-DOT race tires (hard to find online... source is http://rogerkrausracing.com/pages/pricing.html)
$300-$450 per tire for Toyos

Maxxis Minion DHF, wire bead 26x2.5, BikeBling:
$63

the sophistication of minion tires are nothing to high-performance car tires.

 

[norbar]

the sophistication of minion tires are nothing to high-performance car tires.

Let me flip it for you. The dh bike tire market is nothing compared to car tire market.

 

[HardtailHack]

Must admit I am a bit surprised at what tyres cost, I started pretending to ride in about 99 and you could get Tioga Factory DH tyre for ~$20 0n sale, now to get a Minion on sale you are looking at $60. You could still buy an $8000 bike back then but tyres were cheap as ****.

I get that some Panaracer and Conti tyres are expensive because they are made in countries with higher wages but the other brands must be loving us paying whatever they ask.

 

[gemini2k]

@Tomasz


Manufacturers like schwalbe want their retailers to keep prices high:

http://www.mtb-news.de/forum/showthread.php?t=460417

Just about all mtb vendors have minimum advertised price agreements that they make their dealers sign.

 

[dilzy]

Just about all mtb vendors have minimum advertised price agreements that they make their dealers sign.

I don't know about other countries, but this is specifically illegal in Australia.

 

[Wa-Aw]

If there was a car-tyre company that was as dominant in the car tire market as maxxis is the in bike market, I bet their top of line, most-popular-model-in-the-world tire would be pretty damned expensive.

 

[norbar]

If there was a car-tyre company that was as dominant in the car tire market as maxxis is the in bike market, I bet their top of line, most-popular-model-in-the-world tire would be pretty damned expensive.

To be honest maxxis is less expensive than spech, schwable, conti. That is what surprises me. I think there is a place on the market for a cheaper yet still good tire company.

 

[Kanye West]

I don't know about other countries, but this is specifically illegal in Australia.

So manufacturers/distributors have ZERO control over how a dealer advertises prices for their products in Australia? So they could advertise products for something like 3% above dealer cost and nowhere near MSRP on brand new products that would elsewhere have a minimum advertised price of MSRP? Not trying to be a douche, I'm genuinely curious about it.

 

[syadasti]

So manufacturers/distributors have ZERO control over how a dealer advertises prices for their products in Australia? So they could advertise products for something like 3% above dealer cost and nowhere near MSRP on brand new products that would elsewhere have a minimum advertised price of MSRP? Not trying to be a douche, I'm genuinely curious about it.

Price fixing is illegal in the US too but many companies find loopholes or simply ignore the Sherman Antitrust Act (just like they infamously did for years with misinformation on aftermarket parts in the auto industries and others). There are so many companies breaking the law they only go after the biggest criminals.

If your shop follows dealer MAP or enforces trade restrictions (ie no Internet sales of certain brands), you are violating federal law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing#Legal_status_in_the_United_States_and_Canada

Sellers might agree to sell at a common target price; set a common minimum price; buy the product from a supplier at a specified maximum price; adhere to a price book or list price; engage in cooperative price advertising; standardize financial credit terms offered to purchasers; use uniform trade-in allowances; limit discounts; discontinue a free service or fix the price of one component of an overall service; adhere uniformly to previously-announced prices and terms of sale; establish uniform costs and markups; impose mandatory surcharges; purposefully reduce output or sales in order to charge higher prices; or purposefully share or pool markets, territories, or customers.

...

In neo-classical economics, price fixing is inefficient. The anti-competitive agreement by producers to fix prices above the market price transfers some of the consumer surplus to those producers and also results in a deadweight loss.

In the United States, price fixing can be prosecuted as a criminal federal offense under section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.[1] Criminal prosecutions may only be handled by the U.S. Department of Justice, but the Federal Trade Commission also has jurisdiction for civil antitrust violations. Many State Attorneys General also bring antitrust cases and have antitrust offices, such as Virginia, New York, and California. Private individuals or organizations can bring their own lawsuits for triple damages for antitrust violations and also recover attorneys fees.[2]

Under American law, exchanging prices among competitors can also violate the antitrust laws. This includes exchanging prices with either the intent to fix prices or if the exchange affects the prices individual competitors set. Proof that competitors have shared prices can be used as part of the evidence of an illegal price fixing agreement.[3] Experts generally advise that competitors avoid even the appearance of agreeing on price.[4]

Since 1997, the US Court divided price fixing into two categories: vertical and horizontal maximum price fixing.[5] In State Oil Co. v Khan,[6] the US Supreme Court held that vertical price fixing is no longer considered a per se violation of the Sherman Act, but horizontal price fixing is still considered a breach of the Sherman Act. Also in 2008, the defendants of United States v LG Display Co., United States v. Chunghwa Picture Tubes, and United States v. Sharp Corporation heard in the Northern District of California, agreed to pay a total sum of $ 585 million to settle their prosecutions for conspiring to fix prices of liquid crystal display panels, which was the second largest amount awarded under the Sherman Act in history.

 

[Tomasz]

"In State Oil Co. v Khan,[6] the US Supreme Court held that vertical price fixing is no longer considered a per se violation of the Sherman Act..."

What we're discussing here is vertical price fixing, and thus not illegal in the US.

 

[syadasti]

What we're discussing here is vertical price fixing, and thus not illegal in the US.

Actually its still illegal in many cases:

http://goo.gl/QmeJx

The Supreme Court determined that minimum RPM agreements should be judged according to the &#8220;rule of reason&#8221; in a landmark June 2007 decision (Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., i.e. the Leegin decision).[22]

&#8220;Rule of reason&#8221; determines illegality on a case-by-case basis, whereby &#8220;the factfinder weighs all of the circumstances of a case in deciding whether a restrictive practice should be prohibited as imposing an unreasonable restraint on competition.&#8221;[23] This rule not only examines circumstances, but also weighs likely harm as well as legitimate business justifications and consumer benefits (i.e., procompetitive justifications). Thus, minimum RPM is not always legal or illegal, but each case will be analyzed on an individual basis, taking all relevant factors into consideration. It is worth noting that a significant amount of U.S. state law and legislation conforms to the new federal standard, but not all do.[24]

Recent Developments in Minimum RPM

In 2007, U.S. senators sponsored the Discount Pricing Consumer Protection Act as a bill &#8220;to correct the Supreme Court&#8217;s mistaken interpretation of the Sherman Act in the Leegin decision.&#8221;[25] The bill did not pass by the end of the 110th Congress, but has already been re-sponsored in the current 111th Congress. It would amend the antitrust laws to restore the rule that minimum RPM agreements violate the Sherman Act.[26] The attorneys general of 35 states support the bill, while the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) support the Leegin decision.[27]

The Leegin decision is already affecting business practices in the United States. In March 2000, Nine West settled its use of minimum RPM agreements with the FTC. In May 2008, after the Leegin decision, the FTC modified its order and allowed Nine West to use minimum RPM agreements, subject to periodic reports. Relying on the rule of reason rationale, the FTC evaluated the merits of this particular case, and determined that Nine West&#8217;s use of minimum RPM agreements did not &#8220;pose any potential competitive concerns&#8221; because of &#8220;among other things, &#8216;its modest market share.&#8217;&#8221;[28] Because of the Leegin decision, the courts and the FTC are not forced to prohibit business decisions that are competitive in nature and they can study those that fall into a shade of gray.

 

[tacubaya]

Dafuq

 

[marshalolson]

Simply put, price maintenance is not illegal in the us, cad, or euro zone.

In the us specifically, the supreme court has roundly ruled that business can compete in means other than price (advertising, selection, service, presentation, etc) and therefore price maintenance itself does not violate Sherman anti trust rules.

Per the text above price maintenance would only be considered illegal if it was in conjunction with other practices that limited all means of competition in the marketplace.

 

[syadasti]

Many current RPM policies are illegal but with little possibility of prosecution the law is functionally useless.

Its not all means of competition, its any form of anti-competitive practice in regards to minimum RPM: "prohibited as imposing an unreasonable restraint on competition"

The period and magnitude of horizontal price fixing in the LCD market (billions in illegal profit over a 15 year period) shows the government does not have the proper resources to enforce their regulations. The global financial crisis could have been prevented if existing regulations were enforced too.

Corporate interests purposely lobby to make sure they have the upper-hand. A clear example is the resistance to the creation of the US CFPB while US consumers are being abused with regular frequency:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Consumer_Financial_Protection_Bureau

 

[IH8Rice]

When a dealer signs a agreement with a mfg to advertise said product at a mfg's suggested retail, it certainly is not illegal. I dealt with this daily in the consumer electronics biz by constantly listening to one customer bitch that another dealer has violated our nor more then 10% off MAP policy. Not a single customer bitched about us violating the Sherman act and no one threatened to sue us (at least for that reason)

 

[syadasti]

When a dealer signs a agreement with a mfg to advertise said product at a mfg's suggested retail, it certainly is not illegal. I dealt with this daily in the consumer electronics biz by constantly listening to one customer bitch that another dealer has violated our nor more then 10% off MAP policy. Not a single customer bitched about us violating the Sherman act and no one threatened to sue us (at least for that reason)

People aren't aware as demonstrated by the 15 year LCD fraud and the decades it took for laws that auto dealers must clearly state to customers that 3rd party doesn't violate warranty.

 

[marshalolson]

Many current MAP policies are illegal but with little possibility of prosecution the law is functionally useless.

simply put, you are wrong. read Leegin Creative v. PSKS

a brand has the right to not sell to retailers that do not comply with sales terms.

 

[mattmatt86]

Wow this is a weird thread.

 

[syadasti]

simply put, you are wrong. read Leegin Creative v. PSKS

a brand has the right to not sell to retailers that do not comply with sales terms.

It's not clear-cut junior. I work for a category leading company (non-cycling) and we've discussed it with the lawyers. I know management is aware of customers who charge below MAP for certain reasons, obviously they keep quiet on delicate matters like that.

In particular, I've personally heard of cycling brands doing both illegal strategies mentioned in the second paragraph below [from the article I mentioned earlier]. There is little to no incentive for an LBS to complain about either of those illegal practices and the consumer wouldn't have a clue:

If a businessperson&#8217;s retailers apply pressure to implement minimum RPM or increase minimum prices, the businessperson may be accused of facilitating a retail price fixing conspiracy. Do not take part in this. Immediately seek legal counsel.

Another scenario in which minimum RPM may harm the competitive process is when attractive retail markups, provided by minimum RPM, induce retailers not to stock the products of a manufacturer&#8217;s competitors. Such exclusion is similar to a manufacturer using exclusive contracts at the retail level to exclude rivals from &#8220;retail space&#8221; critical to competition. This scenario requires that a manufacturer have a substantial market share.