|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Trek folks with Alloy vs Carbon Steerers
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 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Trek folks with Alloy vs Carbon Steerers
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 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Trek folks with Alloy vs Carbon Steerers
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 |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Trek folks with Alloy vs Carbon Steerers
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. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Trek folks with Alloy vs Carbon Steerers
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. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Trek folks with Alloy vs Carbon Steerers
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. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Trek folks with Alloy vs Carbon Steerers
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bikes With Short Top Tubes and High Front Ends - WAS:Interpreting Serotta Fit Cycle Data For Other Manufacturers? | itsfred | General | 6 | April 4th 05 10:28 PM |
Bikes With Short Top Tubes and High Front Ends - WAS:Interpreting Serotta Fit Cycle Data For Other Manufacturers? | Mike Jacoubowsky | Techniques | 4 | April 4th 05 10:28 PM |
Threadless stems and carbon steerers in crashes | George Herbert Walker | Techniques | 10 | October 2nd 04 06:16 PM |
WTT: Stuff for CX FULL carbon fork (or maybe alloy) | Bigglesworth | Marketplace | 0 | September 19th 03 04:43 AM |
Question about ride quality of aluminium with carbon stays | Roy | Techniques | 82 | September 9th 03 03:54 AM |