Re: One for the Economists: inflation, road bike pricing, etc

[S. Anderson]

"Luigi de Guzman" > wrote in message
om...
> I love google. It gives me new toys every day. I stumbled across an
> inflation calculator today:
>
> <http://www.westegg.com/inflation/>
>
> According to this, US$ 100.00 in 1979 is worth US$ 265.28 in 2002
> dollars.
>
> So I'm curious--what did you oldtimers pay for 'good' road bikes back
> in the day? Have prices risen or fallen in real terms over the past
> twenty, thirty years? Or have they stayed even?
>
> If this fellow's calculator is correct, then, I've got some
> interesting findings:
>
> In 1979...
>
> A *mart special bike costs around $30.00
> An entry-level road bike costs around $225.00
> A racer or a tourer costs $336.00
>
>
> Fascinating.
>
> -Luigi
> "rerum cognoscere causas" -motto, London School of Economics &
> Political Science

When I was a tyke, I saw a Cinelli road bike for $2200CDN..that was in about
1983 or so. That was probably a pretty good bike in its day, but it's also
a pretty good bike today. I don't think the prices have risen that much in
the last 20 years. When I first started working in a shop, also around
1983, the Raleigh Grand Prix was about $275 here in Canada. An equivalent
bike today is probably around $350 or so. So the prices have risen, but
overall, probably lower than inflation. I mean, think of the Giant OCR3. A
GREAT bike for $700. 20 years ago, that would have bought a Miele Bici VII,
probably the same level of bike, but the OCR3 works better. I would think
off-shore labour has kept prices down, along with advances in automation.

My CDN$0.02 worth (only worth CDN $0.012 in 1979...)

Scott...

[Harris]

"Luigi de Guzman" wrote:
> So I'm curious--what did you oldtimers pay for 'good' road bikes back
> in the day? Have prices risen or fallen in real terms over the past
> twenty, thirty years? Or have they stayed even?

In 1984 I bought/built up my current bike. It's built on a "Palo Alto
Bicycles" Columbus SL lugged frame (made in Italy). Here is the cost
breakdown:

Frame/Fork/Headset.....................................$340.0 0
(Plus got a $34 coupon for my next purchase)

Cinelli 64 handlebars.................................... 12.45

Cinelli Model 1A stem................................... 16.50

Campy SR crankset....................................... 89.99

Campy NR BB............................................... 36.95

Campy NR rear der........................................ 43.95

Campy NR front der....................................... 24.10

Campy NR DT shift levers............................... 8.99

Campy der cables.......................................... 3.00

SR LaPrade seat post...................................... 10.50

SR Silstar Pedals............................................ 10.90

Christophe Toe Clips....................................... 2.90

Christophe toe straps...................................... 2.50

Sedisport chain............................................. . 3.95

Shimano Dura-Ace brakeset (incl levers)........... 48.50

Concor Superleggera saddle............................. 22.50

Campy NR hubset 36h...................................... 45.50

Super Champ Arc-en-Ciel s/u rims (pair!)........... 23.20

DT spokes............................................ .......... 15.90

Wolber Invulnerable sew-ups (pair)................... 31.00

Seat post binder bolt....................................... 2.95

Benotto handlebar tape.................................... .99

Sun Tour New Winner Freewheel (6sp)............... 18.90


Total..................$816.12
(Minus $34 coupon) - 34.00

Grand Total.............$782.12

Art Harris

[David Storm]

"Luigi de Guzman" > wrote in message
om...
> I love google. It gives me new toys every day. I stumbled across an
> inflation calculator today:
>
> <http://www.westegg.com/inflation/>
>
> According to this, US$ 100.00 in 1979 is worth US$ 265.28 in 2002
> dollars.
>
> So I'm curious--what did you oldtimers pay for 'good' road bikes back
> in the day? Have prices risen or fallen in real terms over the past
> twenty, thirty years? Or have they stayed even?
>
> If this fellow's calculator is correct, then, I've got some
> interesting findings:
>
> In 1979...
>
> A *mart special bike costs around $30.00
> An entry-level road bike costs around $225.00
> A racer or a tourer costs $336.00
>
>
> Fascinating.
>
My first "road" bike with derailluer shifting was a
10-speed Motobecane Grand Tour purchased at
Velo bicycle shop in Berkeley in 1975. I paid
$210 and rode it for 25-30K miles on numerous
centuries, tours, weekend rides, and commuting
trips. The old steel horse still runs and I ride it
occassionally.



> -Luigi
> "rerum cognoscere causas" -motto, London School of Economics &
> Political Science

[Mark Jones]

Luigi de Guzman" > wrote in message
om...
> In 1979...
>
> A *mart special bike costs around $30.00
> An entry-level road bike costs around $225.00
> A racer or a tourer costs $336.00
The bikes are so much better engineered today that
a comparison just on cost will be hard to do. I bought
two new bikes last year and it was surprising how much
the bikes had improved in twenty years. The last time
I had seriously looked at bicycles was in 1982. If I had
known how good they had gotten, I wouldn't have
waited so long.

I might even get one or two more as soon as I can build
a storage area for this many bicycles.

[Joe Potter]

wrote:

> In article >, "Harris"
> <n2ah@spa m.sprynet.com> writes:
>>"Luigi de Guzman" wrote:
>>> So I'm curious--what did you oldtimers pay for 'good' road bikes back
>>> in the day? Have prices risen or fallen in real terms over the past
>>> twenty, thirty years? Or have they stayed even?
>
> As another point of comparison, in 1970 I paid $225 for my all-Campy
> Frejus.
> At that time, that was about what a good road bike cost. $250 would have
> been
> a lot. But, of course, a good road bike now is a lot better than then,
> but it does cost 10 times as much.
>
> David L. Johnson
> Department of Mathematics
> Lehigh University


David,

What was the average pay for teachers at Lehigh in 1970?
What is it today?

The bikes cost less today than then; you just pay more Dollars. It is the
Dollars that are now near worthless.

Read Rothbard for economics 101.

--
Regards, Joe

[Derek Torrington]

In February 1974 I got a Lambert (!) 15 speed with sew-ups weighing in
a 21.5 lbs for $115 less tax. By the end of the first month of riding
it needed a new freewheel, new derailleurs, and the (non-tapered)
crank spindles developed play and were soon unuseable.
Derek






On 9 Aug 2003 06:12:37 -0700, (Luigi de Guzman)
wrote:

>I love google. It gives me new toys every day. I stumbled across an
>inflation calculator today:
>
><http://www.westegg.com/inflation/>
>
>According to this, US$ 100.00 in 1979 is worth US$ 265.28 in 2002
>dollars.
>
>So I'm curious--what did you oldtimers pay for 'good' road bikes back
>in the day? Have prices risen or fallen in real terms over the past
>twenty, thirty years? Or have they stayed even?
>
>If this fellow's calculator is correct, then, I've got some
>interesting findings:
>
>In 1979...
>
>A *mart special bike costs around $30.00
>An entry-level road bike costs around $225.00
>A racer or a tourer costs $336.00
>
>
>Fascinating.
>
>-Luigi
>"rerum cognoscere causas" -motto, London School of Economics &
>Political Science

[Benjamin Weiner]

Luigi de Guzman > wrote:

> According to this, US$ 100.00 in 1979 is worth US$ 265.28 in 2002
> dollars.

> So I'm curious--what did you oldtimers pay for 'good' road bikes back
> in the day? Have prices risen or fallen in real terms over the past
> twenty, thirty years? Or have they stayed even?

Prices have risen much less than inflation, depending on how you
value technological improvements. Keep in mind that the entry-level
$300 bike is now a MTB or hybrid rather than a road bike, and you
get more for the money now. The good old days weren't that good.

I have a Consumer Guide bicycle book from 1980. A Raleigh Super Grand
Prix 10-speed was $269. It had a high-ten frame and fork, barend
shifters, Suntour VGT and Compe derailleurs, aluminum cotterless
cranks 52/42, a Suntour 14-34 5speed freewheel, Weinmann center pull
brakes, QR hubs and aluminum rims. If you stepped down to the Grand
Prix at $239 you got steel rims and stem shifters. The Record Ace at
$197 had steel rims, a QR only in front, and a heavy steel seatpost.

This is about what I remember from my first real "10-speed", a
Raleigh bought a year or two later.

A Reynolds 531-framed Raleigh Professional with Nuovo Record and
sewups listed at $925, a Competition was $499. Price points for
other manufacturers listed were similar, although the Motobecane
Grand Touring looks like a good deal relative to the Raleighs -
for only $295 you actually got double butted Vitus 172 tubes
rather than gaspipe.

[Luigi de Guzman]

wrote in message >...
> In article >, "Harris" <n2ah@spa
> m.sprynet.com> writes:
> >"Luigi de Guzman" wrote:
> >> So I'm curious--what did you oldtimers pay for 'good' road bikes back
> >> in the day? Have prices risen or fallen in real terms over the past
> >> twenty, thirty years? Or have they stayed even?
>
> As another point of comparison, in 1970 I paid $225 for my all-Campy Frejus.
> At that time, that was about what a good road bike cost. $250 would have been
> a lot. But, of course, a good road bike now is a lot better than then, but it
> does cost 10 times as much.

This is exactly what I'm trying to get at. Of *course* it costs more
in nominal terms--thirty years of inflation will do that. But does it
cost more in *real* terms?

A quick look at the inflation calculator says no. A bike equivalent
to your Campagnolo-equipped Frejus might $1,062 today.

This would be a great way to teach kids about inflation and the
consumer price indices...but of course, kids are too young for
inflation to have any serious effect. I'm too young, for instance,
(22) for any of these things to affect me all that much.

It certainly does put things into perspective.

-Luigi


>
> David L. Johnson
> Department of Mathematics
> Lehigh University

[Eric S. Sande]

>It certainly does put things into perspective.

htttp://www.jimlangley.net/spin/bikeman.html#p

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------

[Eric S. Sande]

>It certainly does put things into perspective.

http://www.jimlangley.net/spin/bikeman.html#p

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------

[Zoot Katz]

10 Aug 2003 01:01:44 -0700,
>,
(Luigi de Guzman) wrote:

>This is exactly what I'm trying to get at. Of *course* it costs more
>in nominal terms--thirty years of inflation will do that. But does it
>cost more in *real* terms?

In 1971, my first bike, a steel French 10spd, cost 90 dollars. I was
working at general construction labour taking home $125 per week.
My second bike, two months later, a Reynolds 531double butted French
bike with alloy cranks and sew-ups, cost $200 while I was earning $80
per week at the bike shop. When it got stolen soon after, I built up a
full Campagnolo Record Mercian for about $350 with two sets of wheels.

Looking at bike prices in Sri Lanka last year, a lady's 7spd
derailleur city bike with accessories cost the same as the average one
month wage.
--
zk

[Peter Cole]

"Benjamin Weiner" > wrote in message
...
> Luigi de Guzman > wrote:
>
> > According to this, US$ 100.00 in 1979 is worth US$ 265.28 in 2002
> > dollars.
>
> > So I'm curious--what did you oldtimers pay for 'good' road bikes back
> > in the day? Have prices risen or fallen in real terms over the past
> > twenty, thirty years? Or have they stayed even?
>
> Prices have risen much less than inflation, depending on how you
> value technological improvements. Keep in mind that the entry-level
> $300 bike is now a MTB or hybrid rather than a road bike, and you
> get more for the money now. The good old days weren't that good.

I still have my college bike from 1970, and my wife has hers from 1972. I also
have a never-ridden Schwinn LeTour from the early 80's. New bikes are
dramatically better. Old bikes are really not much fun to ride. Given
inflation, they were shockingly expensive for the junk they were.

[Harris]

"Mark Jones" wrote:
> The bikes are so much better engineered today that
> a comparison just on cost will be hard to do. I bought
> two new bikes last year and it was surprising how much
> the bikes had improved in twenty years.

I have mixed feelings about that.

On the one hand, modern bikes certainly shift smoother and brake better.
Clincher tires have certainly improved. And clipless pedals were a giant
step forward.

But most road frames tend to have clearances too tight for even moderately
wide tires, and stylishly short chainstays that do nothing to improve the
ride. And try to buy a high end bike without exotic low spoke count wheels.

The trends toward threadless (and now "integrated") headsets, and compact
geometry, are not improvements IMHO. And do we really need 10 speed
cassettes?

The mid '80s sport touring bikes actually had a lot to offer for the typical
recreational rider.

The older bikes had an understated elegance and simplicity that is missing
now. I've tried to combine what I consider the best of both worlds by
upgrading my lugged steel frame with a modern drivetrain and brakes. I like
the result!

Art Harris

[Mark Jones]

"Harris" > wrote in message
et...
> The older bikes had an understated elegance and simplicity that is missing
> now. I've tried to combine what I consider the best of both worlds by
> upgrading my lugged steel frame with a modern drivetrain and brakes. I
like
> the result!
I have a Raleigh SC40 for riding city trails and a Trek 1200
for street use. Both of these perform a lot better than the
bikes from 20 years ago. It isn't just one thing that was
improved, but rather everything seems to work a lot better.

[Peter Cole]

"Mark Jones" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter Cole" > wrote in message
> news:jIqZa.113194$o%2.49036@sccrnsc02...
> > I still have my college bike from 1970, and my wife has hers from 1972. I
> also
> > have a never-ridden Schwinn LeTour from the early 80's. New bikes are
> > dramatically better. Old bikes are really not much fun to ride. Given
> > inflation, they were shockingly expensive for the junk they were.

> I recently gave away a 1982 Schwinn LeTour because it
> was so inferior to the two bikes that I got last year.
> It just wasn't worth keeping.

I just bought mine for the frame. SInce it has horizontal dropouts, and is a
68 cm, it's wonderful for fixed gear conversion. I probabaly won't use
anything but the frame, though (& maybe the brakes, with new pads & levers).

[dlj0@Lehigh.EDU]

In article >, Joe Potter <none@h
ome.org> writes:

>> As another point of comparison, in 1970 I paid $225 for my all-Campy
>> Frejus.
>> At that time, that was about what a good road bike cost. $250 would have
>> been
>> a lot. But, of course, a good road bike now is a lot better than then,
>> but it does cost 10 times as much.
>>
>> David L. Johnson
>> Department of Mathematics
>> Lehigh University
>
>
>David,
>
>What was the average pay for teachers at Lehigh in 1970?
>What is it today?
>
I am aware of the idea of inflation, actually. Earlier in this thread it was
mentioned that between about 1979 and today the cululative inflation was on
the order of a factor of 2.5. Now, between 1970 and 1979 inflation was worse,
overall, but it would have to be a factor of 4 to add up to a factor of 10
between then and now. I don't have any idea of the average salary in 1970 --
not that I was at Lehigh then, anyway. But I'm sure it would be over $10,000,
which is far more than 10% of current salaries.

>The bikes cost less today than then; you just pay more Dollars. It is the
>Dollars that are now near worthless.
>
I don't think that is right for high-end machines. The most expensive bikes
of 1970 cost considerably less than the most expensive today, accounting for
anyone's measure of the cumulative inflation. On the other hand, the
cheap-to-usable range of bikes is far cheaper (and better) than the comparable
range then. Add to that the fact that the most exotic bikes of 1970 were not
nearly as good in many measures as even a production racing bike of today.


David L. Johnson
Department of Mathematics
Lehigh University

[Hunrobe]

>"Harris"

wrote in part:

>But most road frames tend to have clearances too tight for even moderately
>wide tires, and stylishly short chainstays that do nothing to improve the
>ride. And try to buy a high end bike without exotic low spoke count wheels.

If you need or want tires wider than about 25mm you're right but many if not
most riders neither need nor want tires that wide. Tourers that routinely carry
a heavy load may but they are a very small part of the market and there are
touring bikes available to meet their specialized requirements.
As for not being able to buy a high end bike without exotic low spoke count
wheels, why would you buy a high end bike if you were not able to specify what
wheels you want? If I'm spending $1000- $3000 on a bike I'm darn sure not going
to just accept whatever wheels happen to be standard on that bike unless they
also happen to be what I want. If they won't swap them out for the wheels I
want-and adjust the price accordingly- I'll take my business somewhere else.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Peter Cole]

"Hunrobe" > wrote in message
...
> >"Harris"
>
> wrote in part:
>
> >But most road frames tend to have clearances too tight for even moderately
> >wide tires, and stylishly short chainstays that do nothing to improve the
> >ride. And try to buy a high end bike without exotic low spoke count wheels.
>
> If you need or want tires wider than about 25mm you're right but many if not
> most riders neither need nor want tires that wide. Tourers that routinely
carry
> a heavy load may but they are a very small part of the market and there are
> touring bikes available to meet their specialized requirements.

This is true, but it's also true that the restricted frames/brakes are
entirely unnecessary, simply a useless, and limiting, styling.

[Art Harris]

Hunrobe: wrote:
> >"Harris" wrote:

> >But most road frames tend to have clearances too tight for even moderately
> >wide tires, and stylishly short chainstays that do nothing to improve the
> >ride.
>
> If you need or want tires wider than about 25mm you're right but many if not
> most riders neither need nor want tires that wide. Tourers that routinely carry
> a heavy load may but they are a very small part of the market and there are
> touring bikes available to meet their specialized requirements.

The thing is that tight clearances serve no useful purpose. Often
folks who buy these frames later regret that they can't fit wider
tires (which provide a more comfortable/stable ride, resistance to
pinch flats, etc.).

Why limit your options for no good reason?

Art Harris