It does seem impossible to disassociate what any product "should cost" - whether bicycles, widgets or cans of tomato soup - from what the consumer is able and willing to pay. Without the demand side of the equation, there would be no supply, at least not for long, and the given product would disappear from the market place. It also makes sense that the product MUST cost more than the cost to design, manufacture, distribute and market it. Without some profit incentive the product again would cease to exist. So somewhere between willingness to pay and cost-of-goods (plus some reasonable profit margin) is where I end up. All this being said, when discussing bicycles specifically, the junk being sold by mass marketers is indeed too cheap to provide that living wage to the workers who make the things or to provide a safe, reliable, fun-to-ride product for the end user. Yet they continue to sell these year after year. On the other hand, some of the carbon fiber whiz bang stuff sold at the typical LBS is way over priced in my opinion, but the retail shops themselves certainly do not make huge mark-ups and many of them struggle to stay in business. I agree with Zack that Rivs are likely priced too low, and so are the frames of most of the master craftsmen builders around. We are lucky to have folks like these who love the cycling sport and culture enough to do what they do for reasons other than pure economics.
On Jul 26, 9:18 am, Zack <zack...@gmail.com> wrote: > It should cost a price which allows the businesses that create the parts to > sustain themselves. > > I think that Rivendells are probably priced too low. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
