Eh, someone will probably smoke you on their $1k bike. You gain literally nothing for the more expensive bikes except a few grams of weight savings here and there.

>You gain literally nothing for the more expensive bikes

You do if they come with a beefy motor strapped to them.

Anyone who mountain bikes regularly on more difficult trails will end up riding a bike that costs at least $5K. You can argue that it isn't necessary but the majority of riders would definitely disagree with you. I've never seen a $1K bike on such trails.

Of course, if you just need a commuter bike that can easily be had for $1K. Of course no one really needs anything - one could just run and save the $1K.

Then you're talking about a niche, not related to any meaningful percentage of bicycle use.

That depends on the region. In western US / Canada it is not niche. Globally, however it probably is.

That problem is only in your head, and it sounds like someone complaining that iPhones and Ferraris are too expensive.

I recently bought a perfectly nice hybrid bike (with disc brakes too) for less than USD$1000.

Ownership rates of iPhones are very different from Ferarris. I'm sure there is a logical fallacy in this argument somewhere.

They're both luxury brands.

I’m mostly interested in quantitative metrics. The term “luxury” is very subjective. Perhaps some bubblegum brands could be considered luxury.

2.2B iPhones have been manufactured since 2007 while there are 65K Ferraris. That is one Ferrari for every 33K iPhones.

That is significant enough to not group them together to make a point in an argument.

I just spot checked a bike (Salsa Fargo). Was $1750 in 2012 and is $2650 now. I didn't compare the components to see if they are fancier than they used to be.

At a very cursory glance, looks like the price is up 50% in 10 years.

That is your choice. As long as people are paying more, there will be a supply of more expensive bikes.

Competition should theoretically drive prices down, but this hasn't happened.

Yes, it has. There's tons of bikes for $200-$4000. If you're only looking at $10k bikes, that's your problem and it's to be expected that prices will be ridiculously high. This is exactly like complaining that Rolls Royces are too expensive.

That sounds like a you problem.

I think it could be a problem for manufacturers as well. People will eventually get tired of getting ripped off and switch sports.

Bikes aren't for "sports", they're for everyday transportation.

I don't have such strong opinions about how bikes (or other products) should be used. I'm curious, what informed your ideology? Why is the bike such a sacred cow for you?

You're projecting. Why do you have such a strong opinion about how bikes should be used?

>> Bikes aren't for "sports", they're for everyday transportation

That is your comment. I have no opinion whatsoever regarding how bikes should be used.

>>People will eventually get tired of getting ripped off and switch sports.

That is your comment. You obviously DO have an opinion on how bikes should be used.

I have an opinion on the pricing of higher end mountain bikes - I wish they were less expensive. I don't have an opinion on how they (or any bike) are used - bank robbery notwithstanding. You stated that bikes should only be used for transportation.

Suggest reviewing the following links regarding argument construction, how to avoid fallacies, etc.

https://www.oxford-royale.com/articles/construct-compelling-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies