On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 7:49:45 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 08:24:37 -0400, Duane
wrote:

On 28/08/2017 9:29 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 14:40:18 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 5:22:25 PM UTC-4, wrote:
We might as well pick up this argument here again because the cost of carbon fiber has been falling like a log. You can now buy carbon fiber bikes for the same or less than aluminum or steel of the same quality and with the same component sets on them.

I have been convinced in email conversations with engineers are large manufacturers that you can build a carbon fiber frame and fork with the ability to last a lifetime.

But that is not what they are designing. They are using a light material to manufacture the lightest possible bikes. They are competing with each other to make a lighter bike. The engineers are stuck trying to put as much reliability into these frames as possible for their weights.

Snipped

Your first paragraph contradicts your third paragraph. LOL

Cheers

I think that the first paragraph referred to costs of raw carbon fiber
which is probably correct as facilities to make CF has tripled in the
past 10 years. Although it is also true that demand has risen during
the same period.

The last time I was down to my LBS - about two weeks ago - they had
one steel frame bike in stock, a TREK touring bike, bar end shifters
and all. The bulk of the bikes "on the floor" were aluminum and a few
"top of the line" CF bikes were on display.

One made me think of our indomitable MTB rider. All carbon, suspension
fore and aft, and large, the sales person mentioned "3.8", I assume
inches, tires. Price? A modest US$6,000 (note the devaluation of the
U.S. dollar here).

The shop also (usually) has a triathlon sitting in the window. In the
vicinity of US$10,000.

So, I'd guess that essentially, the top of the line bikes are CF, the
average guy is riding aluminum and the low enders (who think of
themselves as true believers) ride steel.
--
Cheers,


This depends largely on what type of bikes you're talking about and
which manufacturer. I can get a Specialized Tarmac Comp with 105 for
less than a steel bike with the same group. In fact, my first CF bike
was a Tarmac Elite that I bought because the steel Marinoni I wanted
with the same Ultegra group was nearly twice the price.

I don't think the frame material is necessarily the defining factor in
bike prices these days.

My guess is that material cost isn't a major factor in what anything
costs these days. In fact I would guess that it is quite the opposite.
"How much can we sell it for".

The LBS day I mentioned above my trusty Sales Person showed me an
aluminum frame TREK with an 8 speed compact gear set, drop bars, STI
shifters, etc. for U.S. $441.00. Granted this was a clearance sale of
last year's models but I doubt that they were selling the bikes below
costs and a year ago they were more then $1,000.

At what point in history do you suppose ANY person sold things for material and labor costs and a small profit?