Trek folks with Alloy vs Carbon Steerers

Mark Hickey wrote:
"Scott" wrote:

So, willingness to pay more for the less-costly one notwithstanding,
doesn't it border on criminal to charge approx. 50% more for the
all-carbon fork?

I mean, people got all wigged out on the oil companies passing on
higher costs when the price of crude went up. Shouldn't we be in an
uproar over such clearly profit-mongering practices by the cycling
industry???

There is often very little correlation between the quality of a
product and the price in the bike industry. A certain fork will sell
for $X with a well-known company's name splashed all over it, and MUCH
less for the same fork without that fancy name (direct from the
manufacturer).

Mark Hickey

Mark,

I know. I was being facetious in my earlier message.
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 23:02:23 -0700, Mark Hickey
wrote:

There is often very little correlation between the quality of a
product and the price in the bike industry. A certain fork will sell
for $X with a well-known company's name splashed all over it, and MUCH
less for the same fork without that fancy name (direct from the
manufacturer).

It's not the same fork, though, is it -- that big name manufacturer sends,
if they're any good at all, a QA representative to the factory to force
them to work to the actual specifications instead of being extra-sloppy,
and reject clearly failed items. Many smaller companies can't really
afford to return failed product once it's in the factory, after all.

With a non-brand or a direct from the factory part, you can get lucky, but
you can also get very unlucky.


Jasper

Jasper Janssen wrote:

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 23:02:23 -0700, Mark Hickey
wrote:

There is often very little correlation between the quality of a
product and the price in the bike industry. A certain fork will sell
for $X with a well-known company's name splashed all over it, and MUCH
less for the same fork without that fancy name (direct from the
manufacturer).

It's not the same fork, though, is it -- that big name manufacturer sends,
if they're any good at all, a QA representative to the factory to force
them to work to the actual specifications instead of being extra-sloppy,
and reject clearly failed items. Many smaller companies can't really
afford to return failed product once it's in the factory, after all.

With a non-brand or a direct from the factory part, you can get lucky, but
you can also get very unlucky.

While what you're surmising above may be theoretically possible,
there's just no evidence that there's a huge gap in quality between
parts made in the same factory for different marketing channels. No
doubt there are some QC processes imposed that can make some
difference - but it's not like we're seeing noticeably higher failure
rates in direct-marketed forks vs. rebranded forks vs. OEM forks of
the same design. In most cases it costs more to change the process to
produce lower-quality parts than it does to standardize to the
highest-quality approach. I'd suspect that most of the imposed QC
restrictions are focused on cosmetics rather than structural
integrity.

Ritchey is a great example of this - Tom Ritchey is famous for being
picky when it comes to accepting shipments from his suppliers (who
also build similar parts that are sold under other brands). Yet I
haven't seen any important differences between Ritchey and Sugino
cranks and seat posts, for example. They're all good.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Dans le message de ,
Mark Hickey a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
Jasper Janssen wrote:

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 23:02:23 -0700, Mark Hickey
wrote:

There is often very little correlation between the quality of a
product and the price in the bike industry. A certain fork will
sell for $X with a well-known company's name splashed all over it,
and MUCH less for the same fork without that fancy name (direct
from the manufacturer).

It's not the same fork, though, is it -- that big name manufacturer
sends, if they're any good at all, a QA representative to the
factory to force them to work to the actual specifications instead
of being extra-sloppy, and reject clearly failed items. Many smaller
companies can't really afford to return failed product once it's in
the factory, after all.

With a non-brand or a direct from the factory part, you can get
lucky, but you can also get very unlucky.

While what you're surmising above may be theoretically possible,
there's just no evidence that there's a huge gap in quality between
parts made in the same factory for different marketing channels. No
doubt there are some QC processes imposed that can make some
difference - but it's not like we're seeing noticeably higher failure
rates in direct-marketed forks vs. rebranded forks vs. OEM forks of
the same design. In most cases it costs more to change the process to
produce lower-quality parts than it does to standardize to the
highest-quality approach. I'd suspect that most of the imposed QC
restrictions are focused on cosmetics rather than structural
integrity.

You missed the essential !! The decal is the key structural element that
lends solidity to all the forks that have fancy brand names. Millions of
hours of R&D go into that. I remain totally surprised how little you get
for these wafer thin transfers, when they provide 2000% more reliability
when glued in place.
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine
*******

La vie, c'est comme une bicyclette,
il faut avancer pour ne pas perdre l'équilibre.
-- Einstein, A.


Ritchey is a great example of this - Tom Ritchey is famous for being
picky when it comes to accepting shipments from his suppliers (who
also build similar parts that are sold under other brands). Yet I
haven't seen any important differences between Ritchey and Sugino
cranks and seat posts, for example. They're all good.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Werehatrack wrote:
On 17 Nov 2005 20:40:52 -0800, "Scott"
wrote:


Sir, It's Just Me wrote:
Folks are willing to pay more for a carbon steerer than an alloy.
Whether it costs slightly more or less to produce is immaterial (excuse
the pun).

Let's say, for the sake of the discussion, that it is less expensive to
make an all-carbon fork vs one with an aluminum steerer tube. I don't
know that it's true, but it's been alleged earlier in the thread.

So, willingness to pay more for the less-costly one notwithstanding,
doesn't it border on criminal to charge approx. 50% more for the
all-carbon fork?

The investors who provide the funding for the operation of the company
would counter that from their standpoint, charging less than the buyer
is willing to pay is even more wrong; it deprives them of the return
that they're entitled to get on their investment.

I mean, people got all wigged out on the oil companies passing on
higher costs when the price of crude went up. Shouldn't we be in an
uproar over such clearly profit-mongering practices by the cycling
industry???

Gasoline is a backbone commodity whose price was artificially
manipulated by speculators during a period of mild shortage driven by
a catastrophe. Carbon bicycle parts are a luxury item whose price is
rightfully determined by the supply-and-demand system working in an
environment in which the people who buy carbon bits are mostly much
less concerned with the specific price of the part than with its
current image. I see nothing to criticise in manufacturers cashing in
on the urge that the buyers have to spend bigger bucks for an item
whose prestige level is higher than a similar but less fashionable
item, or, for that matter, for a fashionable item several times the
price of a functionally interchangeable commodity-level item that is
available at an economical price.

Profit is what makes those CF bits exist. Without it, you'd be riding
a steel fork at best.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

First, you gotta get your sarcasm meter recalibrated. You apparently
completely missed the sarcasm of my comments.

Secondly, you sound surprisingly 'big business/free market' in your
comments. Frankly, I agree with practically all your assessments,
especially the part about it being wrong to NOT charge what the market
will bear.

On 19 Nov 2005 15:00:46 -0800, "Scott"
wrote:

First, you gotta get your sarcasm meter recalibrated. You apparently
completely missed the sarcasm of my comments.

Fair cop, mostly, though I sometimes run across people who seriously
would have held those opinions and expressed them that way.

Secondly, you sound surprisingly 'big business/free market' in your
comments. Frankly, I agree with practically all your assessments,
especially the part about it being wrong to NOT charge what the market
will bear.

It goes both ways. I find it foolish to charge too little and
counterproductive (in the long term) to charge more than the item is
truly worth. That last part is the sticking point; determining the
worth is a very subjective process. One of my business associates is
fond of raising his prices until the sales fall off, and then backing
down just a bit, while another looks at the competition and matches
the pricing of the ones that are selling similar goods successfully.
Their methods both result in a profit in most cases, but they seldom
arrive at the same price point for the same type of item.

In a perfect world, the profit in making things would be in the
creative process; in the real world, the profit is in selling it.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Werehatrack wrote:
On 19 Nov 2005 15:00:46 -0800, "Scott"
wrote:

Secondly, you sound surprisingly 'big business/free market' in your
comments. Frankly, I agree with practically all your assessments,
especially the part about it being wrong to NOT charge what the market
will bear.

It goes both ways. I find it foolish to charge too little and
counterproductive (in the long term) to charge more than the item is
truly worth. That last part is the sticking point; determining the
worth is a very subjective process. One of my business associates is
fond of raising his prices until the sales fall off, and then backing
down just a bit, while another looks at the competition and matches
the pricing of the ones that are selling similar goods successfully.
Their methods both result in a profit in most cases, but they seldom
arrive at the same price point for the same type of item.

In a perfect world, the profit in making things would be in the
creative process; in the real world, the profit is in selling it.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

The real trick is not to raise the price till sales drop off, but to
raise the price till profits (overall, not per sale) drop off. It's
about diminishing returns, not diminishing sales.

"Sandy" wrote:

You missed the essential !! The decal is the key structural element that
lends solidity to all the forks that have fancy brand names. Millions of
hours of R&D go into that. I remain totally surprised how little you get
for these wafer thin transfers, when they provide 2000% more reliability
when glued in place.

Excuse me - I have to go cancel the warranties on the frames I've sold
without decals!

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame