Can you provide links to specs to actually see the components?
As mentioned in earlier discussion, the “same name” bike and model are not guaranteed to be equivalent in form and function.
It is actually a different design (and likely material) with an emphasis on aerodynamics over weight, that was the prior model goals.
Whether one matters more to someone is individual, but the frames are functionally different and not just “new” as in being made 5 years apart.
“Worth” implies value, and as mentioned, that is highly individual and subjective.
We’ve covered a range of reasons that prices now are higher than then. I can’t say that all those cover the price difference entirely, but they are real and a factor in the overall price equation.
Holy snap, that’s over $12000 Canadian just on exchange rate alone, not including any of the other nonsense that would increase the price. In my province, as a minimum I’d have to add 13% sales tax for nearly $13,700 and well it’s Canada, so just throw on an extra G just because.
They are not functionally different.
They are road bikes made to take you from point A to point B pedaling.
I could accept materials or design are different but function is the same.
Obviously the form, factor and technology should improve over time. That’s just progress. That doesn’t mean the cost, research and technology of its time was different than now.
Just look at what happens to the DTC brands prices versus the established brands as they gain market share. Prices goes up, cost of production likely goes down, as their scale goes up.
It may or may not. The tech and resources that lead to these new aero bike is likely more expensive than the much less sophisticated than the design and research from 15 years ago. Those efforts cost time and money to the manufactures (materials, wages, overhead, etc.) and those all factor into the cost of a bike over time (assuming a company aims to make a profit and continue in the biz).
All true, but only part of the equation. Scaling is not always linear or in a positive direction (WRT company profits) so we can make some guesses, but know that we don’t necessarily know the full picture.
I agree with Power13’s analysis and think the bikes are a proper comparison, with a few incremental differences when looking at component and frame differences (including a much cleaner Di2 integration). And I agree on the subjective side of the equation making the pure call a tough one.
Please tell me, since I honestly do not know why one is Double the price of the other one?
Edit: I clicked on the link and saw its not double but more like 5500 vs 7500 or 36% increase
Reedit: its 5500 to 7000 or 30% increase
It’s the closest comparison I can think of without checking every bike out there.
Personally, I see very little difference apart from the frame to justify the price hike. Whilst @Power13 has listed the differences I don’t think they are game changers, just improvements with the frame being the biggest.
That means 126% increase looking from high to low.
For reference, “double” would be 200% for that value (11,000 price), while 100% would be the same (5550 price).
- So we are well below your “double” statement and closer to the same price side of the pendulum stroke.
I can’t precisely cover the exact reason in any case, this included, but can only make suggestions along the lines we have covered at steps above (Inflation = 5 years, technological advances, MFG issues re:C-19, etc.)
