Why so expensive?

[captinktm]

Help me out here, yes I have been reading the MCN again! They had a small article on how bikes are no more expensive now that they were in 98. If fact they say some are cheaper. Of course being complete bias towards manufacturer propaganda they picked a super sport 600. Anyway I did a bit of digging and this is what I found. I bought an R1 in 98 which was the cutting edge at the time and cost 7.5 k (12.5k in todays prices) , and in my humble opinion all anyone would ever need on public roads. A 2018 R1 will retail at more or less 20k that's 7 and half grand more!!!! even taking in inflation. They say all most in the same breath that bike sales are down. Fancy. Before you say they are completely different bikes, that's only because they wanted it that way. No one asked for 200 bhp and then because that is way too much for any one on a public road they had to fit electronic's to control it. I am gona stick my neck out here and say that on public roads the 2018 bike would be no faster with an experienced pilot on board, and lets face it if your not experienced wtf are you doing on a missile like this? Well what e think.

[AlanHolt]

It all depends on what basis they are making that statement. It could be that as a percentage of the authors salary, bikes are cheaper now than they were in '98. Perhaps they haven't increased in price as much as property, so they appear to be cheaper than they were. In relation to my salary, bikes have increased in value as a percentage of my earnings. This is why I don't buy any form of media, its all bo!!ocks.

[DavidS]

Too expensive, too fast, too complicated and too heavy.
Probably some other 'toos' as well.

Ah.....too much 'style over substance'......

Apart from the ABS and catalysts, where does all this lard come from in these days of lighweight advanced materials.

The prices of some 'mainstream' bikes now are eyewatering.
Interesting they used the price of a bike about to become almost extinct in new form.
PCPs probably don't help as they disguise the price and make you buy a new bike every three years.

I could easily see another attempt at a, say, 120bhp limit being introduced.

[minkyhead]

back in the noughtys the parralel world was in its prime ....i bought a new blackbird for 5010.00 retail was near to 8 grand ..nobody paid full retail for a bike unless they had a screw loose

now its a different world as the bike is just a vehicle to entice folks to sign up for credit ...no one i would sign for a interest only mortguage unless they were a landlord ..
but seemingly 100s of thousands will leap at the chance to do it on a bike or a car with pcp .

im looking at a pcp deal now ....you pay bmw 8000 pounds over three years ... 2010 of that is pure interest ? at a time when the base rate is half of one percent
you are resticted to a milage of 5000 per year and at the end of that you owe them another seven grand if you want to keep your bike

my annual milage was around 25.000 before i retired recently so the excess charge of 20000 miles at 8.9 pence per mile would be another 5340 on top making a total of over 13 grand fo bike i dont own

great buisness plan ..the profit is in the hp deal ..and that is how it is nowdays

[SteveW]

The top end, super trick stuff is right over my head.
Hence my preference for the road being the GS800 or my current Multi Strada 950.
Around 100 bhp and minimal silly gadgets.
I like to ride my bikes myself thank you.

[daveuprite]

Help me out here, yes I have been reading the MCN again! They had a small article on how bikes are no more expensive now that they were in 98. If fact they say some are cheaper. Of course being complete bias towards manufacturer propaganda they picked a super sport 600. Anyway I did a bit of digging and this is what I found. I bought an R1 in 98 which was the cutting edge at the time and cost 7.5 k (12.5k in todays prices) , and in my humble opinion all anyone would ever need on public roads. A 2018 R1 will retail at more or less 20k that's 7 and half grand more!!!! even taking in inflation. They say all most in the same breath that bike sales are down. Fancy. Before you say they are completely different bikes, that's only because they wanted it that way. No one asked for 200 bhp and then because that is way too much for any one on a public road they had to fit electronic's to control it. I am gona stick my neck out here and say that on public roads the 2018 bike would be no faster with an experienced pilot on board, and lets face it if your not experienced wtf are you doing on a missile like this? Well what e think.

Interesting question. I've ridden more hot dinners than the R1s I've eaten (err..). Anyway, I've raced them, bought them, sold them and taken them apart. There's still at least half a 4xv R1 in bits in boxes in my workshop even now. And I would argue that although the 98 R1 was indeed one of the fastest and best back then, it was in fact a fairly simple bike for Yamaha to make - and not nearly as costly to produce as its equivalent bike is today (even taking into account price rises). The recent R1 has a wide range of complex rider aids, some fairly exotic materials and computing power sufficient to send the Apollo mission to the moon several times over (or pick another comparison...). The bike does a hell of a lot more than the original R1. OK, the result is still a pretty damn fast sports bike but the capacity of the newer bike to compensate for rider error and make the ride safer is in a totally different league, despite 200bhp, to an early R1 - and all that tech (non-existent on the 98 bike) costs a lot to develop, test and produce. So it's not surprising the price has gone up disproportionate to inflation. Alongside the fact that ageing mainstream bikers have deserted sports bikes in recent years, making economies of scale harder to achieve.

As to a comparison of speed between the original and the new bike, as usual you need all the variables eliminated first - so if you are talking the same experienced rider, same conditions, same stretch of road etc etc etc, then as long as the rider can break speed limits (obviously) the ride on the 2017 R1 will definitely be quicker, and by some margin I would say. The TT times alone prove it - no need to look for further evidence. Which is just as you would expect.

[DavidS]

Any expensive and heavy riders aids and alleged safety items are all negated by the fact that bikes won't stay upright on their own so riders will still fall off them.
The heavier they are, the more you can be stuck under them and the more people it takes to lift them back upright.

[captinktm]

Help me out here, yes I have been reading the MCN again! They had a small article on how bikes are no more expensive now that they were in 98. If fact they say some are cheaper. Of course being complete bias towards manufacturer propaganda they picked a super sport 600. Anyway I did a bit of digging and this is what I found. I bought an R1 in 98 which was the cutting edge at the time and cost 7.5 k (12.5k in todays prices) , and in my humble opinion all anyone would ever need on public roads. A 2018 R1 will retail at more or less 20k that's 7 and half grand more!!!! even taking in inflation. They say all most in the same breath that bike sales are down. Fancy. Before you say they are completely different bikes, that's only because they wanted it that way. No one asked for 200 bhp and then because that is way too much for any one on a public road they had to fit electronic's to control it. I am gona stick my neck out here and say that on public roads the 2018 bike would be no faster with an experienced pilot on board, and lets face it if your not experienced wtf are you doing on a missile like this? Well what e think.

Interesting question. I've ridden more hot dinners than the R1s I've eaten (err..). Anyway, I've raced them, bought them, sold them and taken them apart. There's still at least half a 4xv R1 in bits in boxes in my workshop even now. And I would argue that although the 98 R1 was indeed one of the fastest and best back then, it was in fact a fairly simple bike for Yamaha to make - and not nearly as costly to produce as its equivalent bike is today (even taking into account price rises). The recent R1 has a wide range of complex rider aids, some fairly exotic materials and computing power sufficient to send the Apollo mission to the moon several times over (or pick another comparison...). The bike does a hell of a lot more than the original R1. OK, the result is still a pretty damn fast sports bike but the capacity of the newer bike to compensate for rider error and make the ride safer is in a totally different league, despite 200bhp, to an early R1 - and all that tech (non-existent on the 98 bike) costs a lot to develop, test and produce. So it's not surprising the price has gone up disproportionate to inflation. Alongside the fact that ageing mainstream bikers have deserted sports bikes in recent years, making economies of scale harder to achieve.

As to a comparison of speed between the original and the new bike, as usual you need all the variables eliminated first - so if you are talking the same experienced rider, same conditions, same stretch of road etc etc etc, then as long as the rider can break speed limits (obviously) the ride on the 2017 R1 will definitely be quicker, and by some margin I would say. The TT times alone prove it - no need to look for further evidence. Which is just as you would expect.

Ah I hear all you say, but of course my reply to the increased tecno on the new R1 was never asked for or in my opinion needed. And of course the evidence for that is the BSB championship. Also even taking into account speed limits and the breaking of, you can only ride so fast and use so much power on the road. Using the TT as an example is crazy, these guys are on the ragged edge and even they had to re calibrate there brain to over ride bikes to the extent that the electronics's saved them. No one can argue against, 150 bhp on the queens high way is enough. I also raced my R1's and on the road never did I think " I could do with another 50 bhp here" So what they have done is designed them selves into a col'de'sac making the bikes so power full that they had little choice but control it by electronic's. I don't doubt the Tec cost to develop but it was n't needed in the first place. If the roads were littered with R1's and Blades which guys had high sided then I could see the point of TC but there were n't.
I am sure I read some where they compared the new and old R1's and the verdict was the older bike was nicer and easier to ride on real roads. In my opinion if you need the electronic's to ride a bike on the road then you should n't be there. Riding a bike is about control, that's why is so engaging, and rewarding.
I would also argue (fancy) that electronic's don't cost a lot. They will never cost as much and engineering development ask Kawazaki. Some spotty youth sat in font of a laptop programming a black box will always be cheaper than 10 engineers designing a new supercharger.

[Mike54]

There is no apostrophe in the word electronics. That's all I wanted to say.

[garyboy]

Nice red shoes
electronics
shouldn't
weren't
aren't
see