For the money, you can’t beat aluminum. I think the sum of parts on my Allez Sprint is about $3k (mostly used parts), but an equivalent new carbon bike would be closer to $5-$6k.
The Allez Sprint is a bit of a niche product in the biking world, but I think used prices indicate there is strong demand for them.
That’s what I inferred.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with 105 and that wasn’t (at all) the point of what I was trying to say (as you point out).
Chicken and egg. I think part of it is reducing SKUs. I didn’t notice Cannondale struggling to sell CAADs with Ultegra, and look at the prices of used Allez Sprints.
It really isn’t…
No doubt, as I have previously stated. But if aluminum frames were selling well, why do you think suppliers would decide to eliminate them and not other SKU’s that are poor performers?
Same question as above…if they weren’t “struggling” to sell them, why eliminate them? and what metric are you basing this on?
Irrelevant…I can point to any number of niche markets where devotees of the niche pay inflated prices for items. That doesn’t mean that there is sufficient widespread market demand to support ongoing business concerns.
Just to be clear…I’m not trying to just bang on you…but this whole “oh, the industry is forcing us to buy things we don’t want” argument is just a figment of people’s imaginations. It just doesn’t happen that way…sure, there are occasions where a big company decides to push a feature, but when the market doesn’t want the feature, they will reject it…look at Shimano Biopace as a prime example.
But there simply isn’t the coordination between companies necessary to execute a big, bad “Let’s eliminate alloy bikes because we want to sell carbon bikes” conspiracy.
They talk about this a lot in one of the recent Nerd Alert podcast, but I think it’s this:
At the time the industry swapped from aluminum to carbon for high end bikes, aluminum manufacturing was nowhere what it is today. The selling point for carbon was better ride quality, lighter, stiffer. That advertising push has stuck to this day, so in a way the sales are results of their own making. The best aluminum can match at least the middling carbon nowadays. There is plenty of stuff pushed in the industry that is almost against the end-users best interest and now its standard.
What I’m saying is, if they wanted aluminum to succeed again, they could make it happen. And they should. There is something extra special about a metal bike that you don’t have to worry about and that can be made cheaply so there is an actual entry level into the sport. We are quickly kicking our own sport in the nads and hamstringing its progression with no way to get started. The largest hurdle for cycling is access and ditching aluminum makes it that much larger.
I don’t think my post suggested a ‘conspiracy’, or anything ‘big, bad’. I simply said the industry has decided that performance bikes should be made from carbon. If I’ve suggested any kind of cartel-like behaviour, please point out where.
There may be (and probably are) a whole host of reasons why.
It is entirely possible for there to be more demand for, say, a Supersix with 105 and a basic wheelset than a CAAD with Ultegra and a higher end one, without the demand for the latter being so low as to make it an unprofitable item. However, it could make business sense, potentially, to eliminate price overlap, and to incentivise the would-be purchaser to move up the product offering range, especially if he or she perceives themselves as ‘too good’ for 105, as a poster above memorably expressed it. In that scenario, then excising the CAAD makes sense.
There is also the argument that, in a time of significant groupset shortages, manufacturers have made a very conscious decision to allocate sparse resources to an item that is more profitable, certainly in terms of raw ££ (who knows about margins). Again, this makes good business sense.
However, that these things make good business sense doesn’t make the sentiment that manufacturers have decided to eliminate high-end alloy offerings any less true, and it doesn’t make my regret about that any less legitimate. One can understand a decision, and wish it hadn’t been taken, without suggesting it’s some great evil plot.
OK, so now it is OK for the industry to “make it happen”? Kind of a double-standard, no?
there are a myriad of ways to enter into the sport…but because they may not meet your personal criteria doesn’t make them less valid.
Who is “we”?
Right here…
By saying “the industry” decided, that clearly implies some kind of monolithic thinking.
Sure, I have already pointed that out…but that doesn’t mean that you necessarily eliminate SKU’s that are performing well, either in terms of revenue or profitability.
Absolutely and I would certainly advocate doing so…but how do you know that carbon frames are more profitable than alloy ones? Given the cost difference between alloy and carbon frames (materials, labor, tooling, etc) and the high price of carbon, I am very confident that you can make an alloy frame with the same specs be substantially cheaper AND more profitable than a carbon one. Which would indicate the demand for alloy is not what you assume it to be.
I’ll ask again…did suppliers “decide” this or did consumers make their preferences clear (as they did with disc brakes)?
K.
This was pretty much all I needed to know. You aren’t interested in actually talking about any of this. You’re just being argumentative for the sake of it yawn. I’ll just go around your bridge, troll. K byyeeee
Sorry, but this is post-hoc goalpost moving. First, I suggested a ‘conspiracy’; now it’s shifted to ‘monolithic thinking’. One, they’re different things, and two, no. A group of companies have reached the same decision. As we’re neither in court or a philology class, and as the phenomenon is widespread, ‘the industry’ is an acceptable shorthand, and focusing on narrow definitions of words doesn’t strengthen your argument. I neither said, nor implied, there has been a collaborative, deliberate decision to disadvantage the consumer, which you have somehow inferred.
I don’t, and I didn’t say that. After a post-hoc, now you’re cherry-picking. I said that the carbon models are more profitable in terms of sheer ££ - i.e. they cost more. That’s pretty irrefutable. I deliberately said I don’t know what the margins are.
Only manufacturers can decide to eliminate a product line or model; that’s self-evident. I also didn’t mention discs, nor am I convinced that’s a useful analogy.
Finally, if alloy frames are/were so much more profitable -
Wait, what?!?!?
I asked you very simple questions based on your post…and did so in a respectful manner. So your response is to call me a “troll” and bail out. So which one of us isn’t “interested in actually talking about any of this”?
The reality is that I spent 10 years working in the bike industry, a lot of that time doing product development…so I have a pretty good understanding of how bikes are developed, marketed and sold. IOW, how the industry generally works.
I’m sorry if that real world knowledge conflicts with your theories…
It most certainly comes across as “collaborative” when you say things like “the industry decided”. And I moved no goals…I used “monolithic” as a synonym.
There is a difference between “profit dollars” and “profitable”. What you are referring to is “profit dollars”. Margin is irrelevant as it is just a %. I have noted in the past that more expensive bikes tend to produce more profit dollars but have a lower margin.
The disc brake analogy is absolutely a useful analogy as it illustrates how suppliers respond to consumer demand / preferences. I made that very clear in an earlier response.
Again, see the disc brake analogy (or even the Biopace one)…all the marketing in the world is not going to get consumers to buy products they don’t want…at least not long term. I can almost certainly guarantee that no suppliers are saying “Yeah, we know consumers really want alloy frames, but we are going to force them to buy carbon ones.” I’ll ask again, if Cannondale had no problem selling CAAD bikes with Ultegra, why did they stop? Especially since they would have a clearly differentiated product vs the competition, establishing a unique place in the market where they could dominate?
I’ll play, but miss me with your pseudo-intellectual stuff or I will opt right out. Also, don’t be purposefully dense just to argue. Don’t give a damn about your “experience” either cause I can’t verify it.
You know what I meant, cmon. If they realized the issues of constantly pushing a higher-priced set of bikes, they could right the ship back to a middle ground and offer alloy bikes that are just as competitive.
My point is that any gifted kid who could compete at a high level, may not be able if they aren’t also gifted with parents who can afford to get them there.
“We” is the bike industry and the customers who have reinforced a certain behavior from all those around us and the bike companies. If i could have it my way, I and every other higher category rider would race on stuff that would not qualify as a superbike.
Yes, you seem very open to discussion. But I am sure I am just making up my experiences just so I can 'win" some discussion on an internet forum. 
My point was that you feel something is nefarious about supplying carbon bikes from “the industry” but you are OK with them “righting the ship” to supply products that meet your personal desires. I have continually pointed out that the industry responds to the demands of the consumer.
A gifted kid will crush people on a alloy bike with Tiagra or Sora (available now) as they would with a carbon bike with Ultegra. The bike doesn’t make that big of a difference.
The biggest lesson I learned early on in my career was that what I wanted to make was immaterial. I needed to make products that people would want to buy. I did a few bikes that were flops because I let my personal interest cloud my professional judgement.
As I have consistently stated, if there was such a widespread demand for alloy bikes with higher end spec, someone in the industry would see that opportunity and respond to it…especially since (as noted above) it would provide them with a clearly differentiated product in a crowded marketplace.
K out 
Sooooo…You make ad hominem attacks, question my credibility and then avoid the questions posed to you.
Asked and answered, I guess.
Yo, this is a thread about bikes. WTF
You used ‘monolithic’ as a synonym for ‘conspiracy’??
I don’t think there’s a single business owner in the land who’d agree that margin is irrelevant.
It’s also a false analogy in that it presupposes the performance difference between alloy and carbon is equivalent to that between rim and disc brakes. Discs are a comparatively minor price differential for significantly increased performance and a host of downstream advantages (wheels, tyres etc). Carbon is - as you argued earlier - a substantial price differential, for much less clear performance gain.
So you’re arguing, essentially, that despite alloy frames being much more profitable (if we follow your suggestion), no manufacturer is trying to sell them because they are as undesirable as Biopace rings? They they are such a demonstrably inferior offering that no marketing in the world can sell them? Moreover, you seem to be suggesting that this is a totally unsellable product with Ultegra and above, but a wholly viable one with 105. If so, why?
If you were to argue that alloy bikes with Ultegra are less popular than carbon ones, and most companies a) don’t want price overlap, b) want to push consumers up the market range, and c) they are currently working out how to allocate sparse resources (most notably groupsets), that’s much more plausible.
Finally, without being cynical, it is harder to justify the pricing of higher-end models if appreciably lower-priced offerings that aren’t that much worse exist.
Wow…I can only suggest you go back and read my posts on this subject. I have made those exact points multiple times, on this and other threads.
My whole point, all along, and in which I have bene very consistent, is that there is no industry movement to force people on to carbon bikes at the expense of alloy bikes. I have given you examples of other product introductions to exemplify that behavior. I’m not certain where you therefore get your product equivalency inferences.
We are clearly talking past each other, so I’m just gonna bow out.
You made the Biopace comparison, which - given the continued existence of alloy bikes at 105 level and below- apparently only applies to alloy bikes with a certain level of equipment. I also engaged with other aspects of your posts in detail, so I don’t need to reread them.
I have also said very clearly I also don’t believe there is any conspiracy, and have explained in detail how and why it’s much more nuanced than that. I don’t understand why you have oversimplified that to the point that it’s unrepresentative.
But I too will bow out. I have a disc braked carbon frame to ride that has been forced on me by the Trek-Specialized-Giant cartel 
An example is not a comparison. It was an example of how the market rejected a product “forced” on them by a supplier…