Canada's most dangerous city for cyclists

On Thu, 30 May 2013 05:10:19 GMT, Ralph Barone
wrote:

Or just dragging my own sorry ass...
Sorry Jeff, I left out the trailing g in my post. By the way, are you
related to barefoot running advocate Dan Lieberman?

http://barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu
Hopefully, I'm not related. One thing nice about being barefoot is
that it's possible to put his foot in his mouth, without interference
from the shoe. Also, I'm not related to Joe Lieberman, former senator
from Connecticut, although I had considered claiming a connection so
that I could make some spare cash doing influence peddling.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 5/29/2013 2:11 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:

http://www.flandriacafe.com/2011/12/...-stand-up.html

Good article. One difference today, which was pointed out in an article
in _Bicycle Reseller News_ which was talking about consumers buying
carbon fiber frames directly from China at about 1/5 the U.S. price, is
that when you buy a name brand carbon fiber bicycle a large part of the
cost is for the warranty. It's like buying a Craftsman hand tool--you
know it's going to break eventually but you don't have to pay for it again.

Perhaps the "lifetime" frame warranty needs to be dropped of CF and the
prices reduced accordingly. But that would probably hurt the name brand
producers even more because they'd have essentially no reason to buy
from them.

One person that the article interviewed said that he bought two of the
frames from China, so he'd have a spare for when the first one
eventually broke.

On May 30, 9:47*am, sms wrote:
On 5/29/2013 2:11 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:

http://www.flandriacafe.com/2011/12/...nt-please-stan...

Good article. One difference today, which was pointed out in an article
in _Bicycle Reseller News_ which was talking about consumers buying
carbon fiber frames directly from China at about 1/5 the U.S. price, is
that when you buy a name brand carbon fiber bicycle a large part of the
cost is for the warranty. It's like buying a Craftsman hand tool--you
know it's going to break eventually but you don't have to pay for it again.

On 5/30/2013 1:53 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:

That's not true at all. Name brand producers police production, do
QC, have ISO compliant factories, have sophisticated domestic
designers.

The bottom line is that the direct buyers of these frames are not
reporting any more failures than the buyers of name brand frames. Well
part of it may be Frank's theory of risk compensation and the buyers of
the frames direct from China are treating them better.

I'm not seeing well made CF frames breaking in great number. Maybe
the bleeding edge stuff is disposable, but even if that is true,
that's why you get the lifetime warranty.

As I said, that's the value advantage of buying a Trek or Specialized
from an authorized dealer, it's the warranty.

The article is he
http://www.bicycleretailer.com/industry-news/2013/05/21/mag-consumers-go-straight-source#.UafAI0Ack4I

On Thursday, May 30, 2013 9:53:18 PM UTC+1, Jay Beattie wrote:

... get a Surly

LHT because it won't break, and if it does break, he can re-braze/weld

it or re-purpose it as a boat anchor or rebar in the back patio.

Backyard micro steel smelters was official Chinese government policy in Chairman Mao's day. The failure of that, and other kookie "policies" were among the reasons he was eventually removed from power.

Andre Jute

On 30/05/13 22:28, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 12:23:35 +1000, James
wrote:

On 30/05/13 11:13, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 08:16:51 +1000, James
wrote:

On 30/05/13 07:11, Jay Beattie wrote:

http://www.flandriacafe.com/2011/12/...-stand-up.html


I enjoyed reading that. Thanks for sharing the link.

A good read but the $2,000 he mentions in the 1970's would be worth
$10,971 in today's money so the $10,000 racing bike is not
outrageously expensive compared with the past.


Where did you read about $2000 in the 1970s?

As I understand it, the heading of the third column of the first table
is "Would cost today..." (December, 2011), in which it appears a
"pro-level ride hovered between $2,000 and $3,000. For quite some time."


I was too fast on my feet :-) I saw the $2,000 odd that he was saying
was a fair present cost and reacted :-(

But I think that there is a lot more to it than just the inflation
rate. My latest bike cost me US$ 402.00 for materials - tubing,
dropouts, fork crown, etc. It took me four days to build it.... now
granted I wasn't working like a dog and spent a lot of time checking
before I cut but I'd suggest that it isn't more than a day out.

Recent salaries in S. California for metal workers is in the $20 - $30
dollars an hour range so say, 3 days at $25/hour is $600. The cost of
the bare frame and forks is a thousand dollars. Add in a group set,
and you are up to $1,600, or more. Now add wheels and tires ???? and
certainly you are talking over $2,000. Now add in a little profit for
the guy that built it and you are right up there in the $3,000 range.
Of course 1975 bikes did have down tube shifters which are
substantially cheaper than modern "brifters".

But having said all that I was down to the largest bike shop in
Bangkok the other day and a bloke came in, and very obviously was
buying his first bike. The Sales Girl kept trying to get him to look
at some of the cheaper Trek bikes they stock but the guy kept heading
back for the top of the line models and that is all he'd look at.

So there you have it. Costs have gone up but I'd guess that the buying
public is largely to blame for the increase in prices. I doubt that
any major bike company starts out by calculating the costs to build
the bike. I'd guess they start out with a number that they think will
sell and calculate backwards from that. and if this is so, the
companies are reckoning that there is a market for a $10,000 bike.

Did you read the part of the article about marketing?

--
JS

On Fri, 31 May 2013 07:42:27 +1000, James
wrote:

On 30/05/13 22:28, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 12:23:35 +1000, James
wrote:


Much snipped

So there you have it. Costs have gone up but I'd guess that the buying
public is largely to blame for the increase in prices. I doubt that
any major bike company starts out by calculating the costs to build
the bike. I'd guess they start out with a number that they think will
sell and calculate backwards from that. and if this is so, the
companies are reckoning that there is a market for a $10,000 bike.

Did you read the part of the article about marketing?

Not really. I already know a bit about that. Perceived value, for
instance. I participated in a marketing experiment back in the late
1950's where we changed the price of an outboard motor monthly for a
while. We discovered that their selling price was very much a factor
in sales. Which seems simple until you find that maximum sales did not
occur at the lowest sales price but at a higher figure. In fact the
sales figure was a bell curve and sales dropped off at both the low
and the high price.

And don't kid yourself, the bike companies know all that.

Probably the highest cost item in the Coca-Cola accounts is
advertisement. Far higher than cost of materials.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 31/05/13 09:42, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2013 07:42:27 +1000, James
wrote:

On 30/05/13 22:28, John B. wrote:

So there you have it. Costs have gone up but I'd guess that the buying
public is largely to blame for the increase in prices. I doubt that
any major bike company starts out by calculating the costs to build
the bike. I'd guess they start out with a number that they think will
sell and calculate backwards from that. and if this is so, the
companies are reckoning that there is a market for a $10,000 bike.

That's not really how the author explained it. Basically he said that
the presence of a $10,000+ bike at the top of the range dragged peoples
expenditure toward the higher end. Instead of being happy buying a
$2000-$3000 bike, customers were happy to spend $4000-$5000, being well
below the top of the range.

I gather the manufacturers don't expect there to be much market at all
for the $10,000+ bikes, but by it being there on the shop floor
increases the sale price of the mid range bikes - and their profits.

Did you read the part of the article about marketing?

Not really. I already know a bit about that. Perceived value, for
instance. I participated in a marketing experiment back in the late
1950's where we changed the price of an outboard motor monthly for a
while. We discovered that their selling price was very much a factor
in sales. Which seems simple until you find that maximum sales did not
occur at the lowest sales price but at a higher figure. In fact the
sales figure was a bell curve and sales dropped off at both the low
and the high price.

And don't kid yourself, the bike companies know all that.

Probably the highest cost item in the Coca-Cola accounts is
advertisement. Far higher than cost of materials.

The author talked about a different marketing experiment that gave
useful insight.

--
JS

On Thu, 30 May 2013 14:22:18 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
wrote:

On Thursday, May 30, 2013 9:53:18 PM UTC+1, Jay Beattie wrote:

... get a Surly

LHT because it won't break, and if it does break, he can re-braze/weld

it or re-purpose it as a boat anchor or rebar in the back patio.

Backyard micro steel smelters was official Chinese government policy in Chairman Mao's day.
The failure of that, and other kookie "policies" were among the reasons he was eventually removed from power.

Andre Jute

Backyard steel smelters?

It is estimated that between 20 and 40 million people died in China
during the Great Chinese Famine of 1958 - 1961 and additionally an
estimated 40 million births were lost either terminated or through
delayed marriage or failure to conceive. With an estimated population
of 900,000,000 that amounts to some 9% of the population .

Mao was never removed from power. In fact Lin Biao, who it is alleged
planned a coup against Mao was killed in a plane crash in 1971, some
claim due to his airplane being sabotaged. Mao died in office in 1976.

The "backyard steel smelters" were found to be a mistake and that
portion of the Great Leap Forward was abandoned in 1959, after only
one year of trial.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 31 May 2013 10:10:41 +1000, James
wrote:

On 31/05/13 09:42, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2013 07:42:27 +1000, James
wrote:

On 30/05/13 22:28, John B. wrote:

So there you have it. Costs have gone up but I'd guess that the buying
public is largely to blame for the increase in prices. I doubt that
any major bike company starts out by calculating the costs to build
the bike. I'd guess they start out with a number that they think will
sell and calculate backwards from that. and if this is so, the
companies are reckoning that there is a market for a $10,000 bike.

That's not really how the author explained it. Basically he said that
the presence of a $10,000+ bike at the top of the range dragged peoples
expenditure toward the higher end. Instead of being happy buying a
$2000-$3000 bike, customers were happy to spend $4000-$5000, being well
below the top of the range.

I gather the manufacturers don't expect there to be much market at all
for the $10,000+ bikes, but by it being there on the shop floor
increases the sale price of the mid range bikes - and their profits.

Did you read the part of the article about marketing?

Not really. I already know a bit about that. Perceived value, for
instance. I participated in a marketing experiment back in the late
1950's where we changed the price of an outboard motor monthly for a
while. We discovered that their selling price was very much a factor
in sales. Which seems simple until you find that maximum sales did not
occur at the lowest sales price but at a higher figure. In fact the
sales figure was a bell curve and sales dropped off at both the low
and the high price.

And don't kid yourself, the bike companies know all that.

Probably the highest cost item in the Coca-Cola accounts is
advertisement. Far higher than cost of materials.

The author talked about a different marketing experiment that gave
useful insight.

You (and the author) are of course correct. In fact marketing is an
extremely complex subject. for example, studies have shown that people
are more likely to turn to the right when entering a store, or to look
to the right, so goods on the right side of the isle are more often
picked by shoppers.

Most store chains have some sort of "members discount plan" which
allows them to identify who makes most of the purchases made in the
store. I recently read a study of Target Corp.'s marketing. From the
a study of purchases they can identify whether a young woman is single
or married and whether expecting a child or already has one and then
they can mail out discount coupons targeted to these peoples. It was
said that this increased their sales by a billion dollars the first
year.

(It also identified the statistician that developed the system but
didn't say how much his annual bonus was at the end of the billion
dollar sales year :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.