do bikes depreciate?

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 09:33:50 -0600, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> "Callistus Valerius" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> What you are saying, is that a top of line Trek Carbon bike in 2000,
>> is worth less than the Sora 8 sp Trek Aluminum 1000 that they are
>> selling today. That's crazy, the market is crazy.
>
>It's a used bike, and you have to understand what that means in the real
>world. A bike is a toy for most people and a tool for some. Most
>people buy bikes for recreational purposes (e.g., a toy). Used toys
>don't hold much value until they are old and rare. The people who buy
>bikes as tools (e.g., their only form of mechanized transport or as
>something for work purposes such as a bike messenger) aren't buying
>carbon fiber Treks, generally speaking.

Not only that, but frankly there is more uncertainty in buying a used
bike. As an example, I've got some old stuff of my own that I value
at a certain amount. I surely wouldn't buy it used for anywhere near
the same amount of money, even if I could inspect it carefully,
because there is a lot more uncertainty in my mind about the stuff
from not having lived with it.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

Mark wrote:
> Callistus Valerius wrote:
>
> > Is there such a thing as a blue book on used bikes? I have a 2000 Trek
> > 5200 triple 9sp, with no crashes or problems, with 22,000 miles on it, that
> > I paid $2200 for in 2000. These are the changes I made on it.
> >
> > 1. Replaced stem with a longer, forte stem 4 bolt (didn't like the 2 bolt
> > it had originally)
> > 2. New Shimano BB (2000 miles on it now).
> > 3. Replaced the original ultegra FD, and replaced it with a 105 FD.
> > 4. Fairly new OP wheels, rolf junk removed.
> > 5. Seatpost replaced with a forte two bolt.
> > 6. Size 58
> >
> > I've looked at the Trek carbon road bike prices today, and they are just
> > astronomical at $5000+, so I'm thinking the bike I have has gained value, am
> > I wrong? What's a ball park figure of the value of this bike, knowing that
> > there are no issues, like cracked frame etc.?
>
> From the cover of an early '80's Lickton Bicycle Shop catalog:
> "The only way to beat inflation is to invest in quality bike parts!"

When that was written, there was alot of truth to it. The pace of
"change" was much slower, both in frames and components. A high quality
bike was often viwed a a lifetime purchase. Today, the boys at the LBS
will tell you your 5-10 year old bike is hopelessy outdated, needs to
be replaced, etc., etc. Bah!
>
> Mark J.

 

[semi-ambivalent]

> LOL. This is like economists complaining when the economy doesn't
> conform to economics theory. "It's not the theory that's wrong, it's
> the market!"

Agreed.
Economists have spent generations establishing their studies as some
kind of science, with their bell curves and all. Then, when people
don't behave predictably, when they don't behave like hamsters on a
wheel the economists invent new jargon like 'inverted yield curve' to
explain it away. Keynes himself said the market was controlled by
"animal spirits" and he was probably more accurate than Greenspan ever
was. You pay the price it takes to get the bike you want. And then you
live with the bike or the remorse; or both. Either way the market's
been moved, and it wasn't the economist that moved it.

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> Mark wrote:
> > Callistus Valerius wrote:
> >
> > > Is there such a thing as a blue book on used bikes? I have a 2000 Trek
> > > 5200 triple 9sp, with no crashes or problems, with 22,000 miles on it, that
> > > I paid $2200 for in 2000. These are the changes I made on it.
> > >
> > > 1. Replaced stem with a longer, forte stem 4 bolt (didn't like the 2 bolt
> > > it had originally)
> > > 2. New Shimano BB (2000 miles on it now).
> > > 3. Replaced the original ultegra FD, and replaced it with a 105 FD.
> > > 4. Fairly new OP wheels, rolf junk removed.
> > > 5. Seatpost replaced with a forte two bolt.
> > > 6. Size 58
> > >
> > > I've looked at the Trek carbon road bike prices today, and they are just
> > > astronomical at $5000+, so I'm thinking the bike I have has gained value, am
> > > I wrong? What's a ball park figure of the value of this bike, knowing that
> > > there are no issues, like cracked frame etc.?
> >
> > From the cover of an early '80's Lickton Bicycle Shop catalog:
> > "The only way to beat inflation is to invest in quality bike parts!"
>
> When that was written, there was alot of truth to it. The pace of
> "change" was much slower, both in frames and components. A high quality
> bike was often viwed a a lifetime purchase. Today, the boys at the LBS
> will tell you your 5-10 year old bike is hopelessy outdated, needs to
> be replaced, etc., etc. Bah!
> >
> > Mark J.

Not all the 'boys' and not all LBS'....I am in the process of restoring
a 1962 Legnano, have made rideable many bikes from the 70s, 80s, early
90s...

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > Mark wrote:
> > > Callistus Valerius wrote:
> > >
> > > > Is there such a thing as a blue book on used bikes? I have a 2000 Trek
> > > > 5200 triple 9sp, with no crashes or problems, with 22,000 miles on it, that
> > > > I paid $2200 for in 2000. These are the changes I made on it.
> > > >
> > > > 1. Replaced stem with a longer, forte stem 4 bolt (didn't like the 2 bolt
> > > > it had originally)
> > > > 2. New Shimano BB (2000 miles on it now).
> > > > 3. Replaced the original ultegra FD, and replaced it with a 105 FD.
> > > > 4. Fairly new OP wheels, rolf junk removed.
> > > > 5. Seatpost replaced with a forte two bolt.
> > > > 6. Size 58
> > > >
> > > > I've looked at the Trek carbon road bike prices today, and they are just
> > > > astronomical at $5000+, so I'm thinking the bike I have has gained value, am
> > > > I wrong? What's a ball park figure of the value of this bike, knowing that
> > > > there are no issues, like cracked frame etc.?
> > >
> > > From the cover of an early '80's Lickton Bicycle Shop catalog:
> > > "The only way to beat inflation is to invest in quality bike parts!"
> >
> > When that was written, there was alot of truth to it. The pace of
> > "change" was much slower, both in frames and components. A high quality
> > bike was often viewed a a lifetime purchase. Today, the boys at the LBS
> > will tell you your 5-10 year old bike is hopelessy outdated, needs to
> > be replaced, etc., etc. Bah!
> > >
> > > Mark J.
>
> Not all the 'boys' and not all LBS'....I am in the process of restoring
> a 1962 Legnano, have made rideable many bikes from the 70s, 80s, early
> 90s...

My apologies, I never meant to include you or your shop, Peter. It was
more of a general statement.

Is the Legnano for you or a customer?

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > > Mark wrote:
> > > > Callistus Valerius wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Is there such a thing as a blue book on used bikes? I have a 2000 Trek
> > > > > 5200 triple 9sp, with no crashes or problems, with 22,000 miles on it, that
> > > > > I paid $2200 for in 2000. These are the changes I made on it.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Replaced stem with a longer, forte stem 4 bolt (didn't like the 2 bolt
> > > > > it had originally)
> > > > > 2. New Shimano BB (2000 miles on it now).
> > > > > 3. Replaced the original ultegra FD, and replaced it with a 105 FD.
> > > > > 4. Fairly new OP wheels, rolf junk removed.
> > > > > 5. Seatpost replaced with a forte two bolt.
> > > > > 6. Size 58
> > > > >
> > > > > I've looked at the Trek carbon road bike prices today, and they are just
> > > > > astronomical at $5000+, so I'm thinking the bike I have has gained value, am
> > > > > I wrong? What's a ball park figure of the value of this bike, knowing that
> > > > > there are no issues, like cracked frame etc.?
> > > >
> > > > From the cover of an early '80's Lickton Bicycle Shop catalog:
> > > > "The only way to beat inflation is to invest in quality bike parts!"
> > >
> > > When that was written, there was alot of truth to it. The pace of
> > > "change" was much slower, both in frames and components. A high quality
> > > bike was often viewed a a lifetime purchase. Today, the boys at the LBS
> > > will tell you your 5-10 year old bike is hopelessy outdated, needs to
> > > be replaced, etc., etc. Bah!
> > > >
> > > > Mark J.
> >
> > Not all the 'boys' and not all LBS'....I am in the process of restoring
> > a 1962 Legnano, have made rideable many bikes from the 70s, 80s, early
> > 90s...
>
> My apologies, I never meant to include you or your shop, Peter. It was
> more of a general statement.
>
> Is the Legnano for you or a customer?

Customer..getting painted at CyclArt right now. I took apart, cleaned
the RD(1962 Record, steel pulleys), have a nearly new GS 3 arm crank
and BB for it...gonna be very sweet..

I know you didn't mean my shop or others. More of a statement about
most 'bike shops', where their mantra is, 'sell new', not fix anything.

 

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 10:31:00 GMT, "Callistus Valerius"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>>
>> Sorry I missed this bit in my other reply.
>>
>> > I've looked at the Trek carbon road bike prices today, and they are
>> > just astronomical at $5000+, so I'm thinking the bike I have has
>> > gained value, am I wrong?
>>
>> Way wrong. Closer $500 than $5000.
>-----------
>Then the market is wrong. It's worth more to me, as even as a commuter
>bike, than to give some stranger a gift. I wouldn't even go below $1800,
>because the bike is better than when I bought it. What you are saying, is
>that a top of line Trek Carbon bike in 2000, is worth less than the Sora 8
>sp Trek Aluminum 1000 that they are selling today. That's crazy, the
>market is crazy.
>
>It kind of reminds me though of old cars. I drive old cars, that aren't
>trashed, look like new, have been maintained, and drive and look, almost
>new. I have to put a steering wheel lock on them, because if they were
>stolen the insurance company would only give me 1/3 of what an equivelent
>replacement cost would be.

Dear Cal,

There's no law against you refusing to sell your beloved bike for less
than $1800. You can set any price you please on it.

But would you be willing to pay $1800 for that 6-year old bicycle if
someone else were selling it?

A short stint in a pawn shop or a used car lot will give you a good
idea of what things are actually worth when someone actually has to
pay for them.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> > > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > > > Mark wrote:
> > > > > Callistus Valerius wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Is there such a thing as a blue book on used bikes? I have a 2000 Trek
> > > > > > 5200 triple 9sp, with no crashes or problems, with 22,000 miles on it, that
> > > > > > I paid $2200 for in 2000. These are the changes I made on it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Replaced stem with a longer, forte stem 4 bolt (didn't like the 2 bolt
> > > > > > it had originally)
> > > > > > 2. New Shimano BB (2000 miles on it now).
> > > > > > 3. Replaced the original ultegra FD, and replaced it with a 105 FD.
> > > > > > 4. Fairly new OP wheels, rolf junk removed.
> > > > > > 5. Seatpost replaced with a forte two bolt.
> > > > > > 6. Size 58
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've looked at the Trek carbon road bike prices today, and they are just
> > > > > > astronomical at $5000+, so I'm thinking the bike I have has gained value, am
> > > > > > I wrong? What's a ball park figure of the value of this bike, knowing that
> > > > > > there are no issues, like cracked frame etc.?
> > > > >
> > > > > From the cover of an early '80's Lickton Bicycle Shop catalog:
> > > > > "The only way to beat inflation is to invest in quality bike parts!"
> > > >
> > > > When that was written, there was alot of truth to it. The pace of
> > > > "change" was much slower, both in frames and components. A high quality
> > > > bike was often viewed a a lifetime purchase. Today, the boys at the LBS
> > > > will tell you your 5-10 year old bike is hopelessy outdated, needs to
> > > > be replaced, etc., etc. Bah!
> > > > >
> > > > > Mark J.
> > >
> > > Not all the 'boys' and not all LBS'....I am in the process of restoring
> > > a 1962 Legnano, have made rideable many bikes from the 70s, 80s, early
> > > 90s...
> >
> > My apologies, I never meant to include you or your shop, Peter. It was
> > more of a general statement.
> >
> > Is the Legnano for you or a customer?
>
> Customer..getting painted at CyclArt right now. I took apart, cleaned
> the RD(1962 Record, steel pulleys), have a nearly new GS 3 arm crank
> and BB for it...gonna be very sweet..

I hope you'll post some pictures when it's completed.

>
> I know you didn't mean my shop or others. More of a statement about
> most 'bike shops', where their mantra is, 'sell new', not fix anything.

Yeah, it's a sad state of affairs.

 

[* * Chas]

"Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Mark wrote:
> > Callistus Valerius wrote:
> >
> > > Is there such a thing as a blue book on used bikes? I have a
2000 Trek
> > > 5200 triple 9sp, with no crashes or problems, with 22,000 miles on
it, that
> > > I paid $2200 for in 2000. These are the changes I made on it.
> > >
> > > 1. Replaced stem with a longer, forte stem 4 bolt (didn't like
the 2 bolt
> > > it had originally)
> > > 2. New Shimano BB (2000 miles on it now).
> > > 3. Replaced the original ultegra FD, and replaced it with a 105
FD.
> > > 4. Fairly new OP wheels, rolf junk removed.
> > > 5. Seatpost replaced with a forte two bolt.
> > > 6. Size 58
> > >
> > > I've looked at the Trek carbon road bike prices today, and they
are just
> > > astronomical at $5000+, so I'm thinking the bike I have has gained
value, am
> > > I wrong? What's a ball park figure of the value of this bike,
knowing that
> > > there are no issues, like cracked frame etc.?
> >
> > From the cover of an early '80's Lickton Bicycle Shop catalog:
> > "The only way to beat inflation is to invest in quality bike parts!"
>
> When that was written, there was alot of truth to it. The pace of
> "change" was much slower, both in frames and components. A high quality
> bike was often viwed a a lifetime purchase. Today, the boys at the LBS
> will tell you your 5-10 year old bike is hopelessy outdated, needs to
> be replaced, etc., etc. Bah!

Many of them have never seen components "that old"....

Chas.

 

[* * Chas]

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> > > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > > > Mark wrote:
> > > > > Callistus Valerius wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Is there such a thing as a blue book on used bikes? I
have a 2000 Trek
> > > > > > 5200 triple 9sp, with no crashes or problems, with 22,000
miles on it, that
> > > > > > I paid $2200 for in 2000. These are the changes I made on it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Replaced stem with a longer, forte stem 4 bolt (didn't
like the 2 bolt
> > > > > > it had originally)
> > > > > > 2. New Shimano BB (2000 miles on it now).
> > > > > > 3. Replaced the original ultegra FD, and replaced it with a
105 FD.
> > > > > > 4. Fairly new OP wheels, rolf junk removed.
> > > > > > 5. Seatpost replaced with a forte two bolt.
> > > > > > 6. Size 58
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've looked at the Trek carbon road bike prices today, and
they are just
> > > > > > astronomical at $5000+, so I'm thinking the bike I have has
gained value, am
> > > > > > I wrong? What's a ball park figure of the value of this bike,
knowing that
> > > > > > there are no issues, like cracked frame etc.?
> > > > >
> > > > > From the cover of an early '80's Lickton Bicycle Shop catalog:
> > > > > "The only way to beat inflation is to invest in quality bike
parts!"
> > > >
> > > > When that was written, there was alot of truth to it. The pace of
> > > > "change" was much slower, both in frames and components. A high
quality
> > > > bike was often viewed a a lifetime purchase. Today, the boys at
the LBS
> > > > will tell you your 5-10 year old bike is hopelessy outdated, needs
to
> > > > be replaced, etc., etc. Bah!
> > > > >
> > > > > Mark J.
> > >
> > > Not all the 'boys' and not all LBS'....I am in the process of
restoring
> > > a 1962 Legnano, have made rideable many bikes from the 70s, 80s,
early
> > > 90s...
> >
> > My apologies, I never meant to include you or your shop, Peter. It was
> > more of a general statement.
> >
> > Is the Legnano for you or a customer?
>
> Customer..getting painted at CyclArt right now. I took apart, cleaned
> the RD(1962 Record, steel pulleys), have a nearly new GS 3 arm crank
> and BB for it...gonna be very sweet..
>
> I know you didn't mean my shop or others. More of a statement about
> most 'bike shops', where their mantra is, 'sell new', not fix anything.
>

Our motto was - sometimes you're better off buying an older high quality
bike with a good frame than a new lower quality one.

You could upgrade the components as you went along. We sold quite a few of
the lower end Frejus and Legnano bikes with great frames (usually Falk DB
tubes) and steel cranksets but reasonable quality alloy wheels.

We had lots of trade-ins as customers with mid range bikes came back and
upgraded to better ones.


Chas.

 

[* * Chas]

"Callistus Valerius" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> >
> > Sorry I missed this bit in my other reply.
> >
> > > I've looked at the Trek carbon road bike prices today, and they are
> > > just astronomical at $5000+, so I'm thinking the bike I have has
> > > gained value, am I wrong?
> >
> > Way wrong. Closer $500 than $5000.
> -----------
> Then the market is wrong. It's worth more to me, as even as a commuter
> bike, than to give some stranger a gift. I wouldn't even go below
$1800,
> because the bike is better than when I bought it. What you are saying,
is
> that a top of line Trek Carbon bike in 2000, is worth less than the Sora
8
> sp Trek Aluminum 1000 that they are selling today. That's crazy, the
> market is crazy.
>
> It kind of reminds me though of old cars. I drive old cars, that aren't
> trashed, look like new, have been maintained, and drive and look, almost
> new. I have to put a steering wheel lock on them, because if they were
> stolen the insurance company would only give me 1/3 of what an
equivelent
> replacement cost would be.
>
>
Cal,

Bikes start to depreciate as soon as they are put in a box at the factory.
Why do you think that you can frequently buy brand new previous year's
models at such reduced prices?

The bikes that maintain or appreciate in value are usually rare hand made
antiques made before 1980 in very good condition like Hetchins, Rene
Herse, Alex Singer (and for some reason which doesn't fit into the rare,
hand made category, Peugeot PX-10s). These kinds of bikes are of interest
to the small group of classic bike collectors around the world, especially
in Japan.

There are others who will pay more than market value for older bikes that
they have a special interest in. For example an old Schwinn 10 speed or a
banana bike but the bikes are usually in mint condition or have been
restored.

I was recently outbid on eBay for a mid '70s bike that originally sold for
~$250 but brought over $850 at auction. I really wanted THAT bike because
it was a rare model that I had always liked and it was in mint condition
with all of the original components. I doubt that I could get anywhere
near that price if I had won and tried to resell it.

When a seller overvalues a bike on eBay, Craig's list or other online
outlet, they frequently get flamed by the cycling community all over the
internet.

Production made items like cars, bikes and cameras rarely increase in
value during their expected lifetime. It's the 30/30 rule 30 feet or 30
seconds out the door! US muscle cars from the 1960s and '70s bring a small
fortune but they were rare when new and are now 30 to 40 years old.

Your Trek 5200 is a production model and who knows how many of these Trek
built. The changes that you made add little to the resale value of the
bike. You can probably find similar bikes for sale for less than $500 but
that shouldn't detract from your ownership experience.

You've ridden the bike for an average of over 3600 miles a year.

Think of (hopefully) the pleasure you have derived from owning the bike,
riding it and upgrading it to your desires.

Ride it and enjoy....

Chas.

 

[Marcus Coles]

With the exception of collectibles or bikes that people may think will
be collectible in the future, NOS, currently fashionable, cult bikes
and bikes with historical relevance etc.

Used bikes, 1 year old 50% of the original value and a reduction of 10%
of the balance for each following year.

After one year the used components are often worth more than the bike as
a whole. This is why so many bikes are parted out on Ebay.


Marcus

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>> 22,000 miles on 1 bike is much more than average. I'd say you got your
>> money's worth out of it.
>>
> <cut>
>
> Surely you're joking? My new bike has only got 18000 miles on it so
> far, but as it's still quite new (3 years old) I'm expecting a lot
> more. The older bikes I ride must have a lot more (some date back to
> the 1970s, but I only got a cycle computer in 2000, so I am lacking
> data).


We had a customer come in two years ago with his 1994 (Green) Trek 5200,
quite excited to show us his odometer turning over to 75,000 miles. He
bought a new bike from us shortly thereafter, but kept riding his older bike
because he got thinking about hitting the 100k mark. Unfortunately, at 88k
miles or so, we spotted something we didn't like in the bottom bracket area
(a small crack in the paint that we'd been watching for the past 2k or so
miles) and determined that it was actually the beginning of crack in the
shell itself. Trek replaced the frame at no charge, but it was rather sad
not to see the bike hit 100k miles. In my book, the bike lived a long &
happy life, and performed admirably.

But yeah, 22k miles is just enough to break in a frame! A whole lot of parts
would need replacing by then, but surely not the frameset. Chainrings,
maybe. A couple cassettes by then. A bunch of chains & tires. Handlebar
*should* be replaced, but never is. Bottom bracket probably once. Headset
maybe, because nobody bothered to clean & lube it each year. But the frame?
It should be fine, provided it wasn't run into anything.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>> Way wrong. Closer $500 than $5000.
> -----------
> Then the market is wrong. It's worth more to me, as even as a commuter
> bike, than to give some stranger a gift. I wouldn't even go below $1800,
> because the bike is better than when I bought it.

For a bike that sells for $2000 *new*, you'd expect someone to buy it for
$1800 used, without a warranty?

> What you are saying, is
> that a top of line Trek Carbon bike in 2000, is worth less than the Sora 8
> sp Trek Aluminum 1000 that they are selling today. That's crazy, the
> market is crazy.

First, it wasn't top of the line in 2000; the 5500 was. Second, 10-speed
Ultegra (as found on the new bike) is going to have greater customer
acceptance than the older 9-speed found on your bike. Third, Shimano
warrants their equipment for two years, assuring a customer that, with the
new bike, they're at least two years away from having to fork out a lot of
$$$ ofr new STI levers.

But I'd say it's worth more than a Trek 1000. In general, you get about half
the new price of a bike, and go down from there. If your bike's in GREAT
shape, you might get half. But given that a buyer doesn't even have a way of
knowing for sure you haven't crashed it or run it into a roof on a roof
rack...

Regarding the upgraded parts-

> 1. Replaced stem with a longer, forte stem 4 bolt (didn't like the 2
> bolt
> it had originally)
That represents a preference, not a superiority of one product over the
other.

> 2. New Shimano BB (2000 miles on it now).
A new bike would have one with zero miles on it.

> 3. Replaced the original ultegra FD, and replaced it with a 105 FD.
I'm missing something here; an Ultegra FD is more expensive than a '105.

> 4. Fairly new OP wheels, rolf junk removed.
The wheels on the stock bike were Rolf Vector Comps. Those were about as
bomb-proof as you could get. They weren't the lightest, but spoke breakage
was exceptionally rare, denting rims almost impossible, and the hubs were
easy to get parts for.

> 5. Seatpost replaced with a forte two bolt.
This is another area of questionable improvement to the buyer. Not to
mention that such seatposts are very inexpensive.

> It kind of reminds me though of old cars. I drive old cars, that aren't
> trashed, look like new, have been maintained, and drive and look, almost
> new. I have to put a steering wheel lock on them, because if they were
> stolen the insurance company would only give me 1/3 of what an equivelent
> replacement cost would be.

Bikes are meant to be ridden, not purchased with the idea that it's going to
be an investment that you'll get back later on. The way to make it worth the
money is to ride it, plain & simple. Beyond that, the harsh realities of the
marketplace are the *only* determining factor in terms of what you can sell
it for. Its value to you is irrelevant, except that the diferential between
its value to you vs someone else is likely the determining factor for
keeping or selling it.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

 

[[email protected]]

Andrew W wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> <cut>
> > 22,000 miles on 1 bike is much more than average. I'd say you got your
> > money's worth out of it.
> >
> <cut>
>
> Surely you're joking?

I doubt if he is joking. The vast, vast majority of bikes (nice ones
bought at bike shops) will not be ridden 22,000 miles. Similar to
cars. How many people drive their cars 200-300-400,000 miles, for the
cars that are actually made with that high of quality? I see lots of
new cars/trucks on the road. There would have to be crashes happening
in front of my eyes every time I drive for all of the new cars/trucks
to be actual replacements for cars/trucks that are no longer drivable.
And most people with nice bikes probably have 2 or 3 of them to spread
the mileage between.




My new bike has only got 18000 miles on it so
> far, but as it's still quite new (3 years old) I'm expecting a lot
> more. The older bikes I ride must have a lot more (some date back to
> the 1970s, but I only got a cycle computer in 2000, so I am lacking
> data).
>
> Replacing parts as they wear out I'm expecting all my bikes to last
> more or less indefinitely (or until a nasty crash at least).
>
> Why would you expect anything different?

 

[* * Chas]

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
<snip>
> Bikes are meant to be ridden, not purchased with the idea that it's going
to
> be an investment that you'll get back later on. The way to make it worth
the
> money is to ride it, plain & simple. Beyond that, the harsh realities of
the
> marketplace are the *only* determining factor in terms of what you can
sell
> it for. Its value to you is irrelevant, except that the diferential
between
> its value to you vs someone else is likely the determining factor for
> keeping or selling it.
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky

I have a bunch of vintage bikes from the '70s and '80s. I like them because
they're a little dinged up and fun to ride. I've had new bikes that I never
rode because they were too pretty and I didn't want to get them scratched or
dirty. They just sat around gathering dust.

Chas.

 

[bfd]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 09:33:50 -0600, Tim McNamara
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Callistus Valerius" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> What you are saying, is that a top of line Trek Carbon bike in 2000,
> >> is worth less than the Sora 8 sp Trek Aluminum 1000 that they are
> >> selling today. That's crazy, the market is crazy.
> >
> >It's a used bike, and you have to understand what that means in the real
> >world. A bike is a toy for most people and a tool for some. Most
> >people buy bikes for recreational purposes (e.g., a toy). Used toys
> >don't hold much value until they are old and rare. The people who buy
> >bikes as tools (e.g., their only form of mechanized transport or as
> >something for work purposes such as a bike messenger) aren't buying
> >carbon fiber Treks, generally speaking.
>
> Not only that, but frankly there is more uncertainty in buying a used
> bike. As an example, I've got some old stuff of my own that I value
> at a certain amount. I surely wouldn't buy it used for anywhere near
> the same amount of money, even if I could inspect it carefully,
> because there is a lot more uncertainty in my mind about the stuff
> from not having lived with it.
>
This is a very valid point. The OP believes his 6 year old Trek 5000
whatever is worth more than a new 2006 Trek Aluminum 1000. However,
those interested in the newer Trek 1000 are probably going to want a
warranty and service from a shop. A USED Trek, no matter how well
maintained, does not come with any warranty as Trek only provides one
to the original owner.

 

[Solvang Cyclist]

"* * Chas" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> I have a bunch of vintage bikes from the '70s and '80s. I like them
> because they're a little dinged up and fun to ride. I've had new bikes
> that I never rode because they were too pretty and I didn't want to
> get them scratched or dirty. They just sat around gathering dust.
>

I put together my old bike in the early '80s and I rode it many thousands
of miles and it doesn't have any scratches or dings in the paint. It's easy
to keep a bike in good shape. I'm just careful about where I park it. I
lean it carefully. When I transport the bike in my car, I protect it with a
shipping blanket.

Of course, if I was a racer, the bike would be more of a tool and I doubt
it could last without a scratch, but for recreational riding, it's not that
hard to keep it looking new while still putting on the miles.

Cheers,
David

 

[[email protected]]

Callistus Valerius wrote:
> >
> > Sorry I missed this bit in my other reply.
> >
> > > I've looked at the Trek carbon road bike prices today, and they are
> > > just astronomical at $5000+, so I'm thinking the bike I have has
> > > gained value, am I wrong?
> >
> > Way wrong. Closer $500 than $5000.
> -----------
> Then the market is wrong. It's worth more to me, as even as a commuter
> bike, than to give some stranger a gift. I wouldn't even go below $1800,

http://www.bikeiowa.com/asp/forum/t...+Classifieds+(Buy,+Sell,+Trade)&M=True&S=True

Here is a fellow "bicyclist" who thinks the same as you. Actually his
thinking is even more unordinary. He wants $1800 for the frame/fork
only. It is a 2005 Madone 5.9. So given that this is a newer
frame/fork than your 2000 5200, but it is just the frame/fork, whereas
yours is a complete bike, the $1800 may be about right. Maybe even a
bit low since the eventual buyer of yours can ride it immediately. No
messing about building the bike up.

Oddly the person listing the frame/fork above did not edit his posting
with a SOLD within minutes or hours of posting it. Odd.




> because the bike is better than when I bought it. What you are saying, is
> that a top of line Trek Carbon bike in 2000, is worth less than the Sora 8
> sp Trek Aluminum 1000 that they are selling today. That's crazy, the
> market is crazy.
>
> It kind of reminds me though of old cars. I drive old cars, that aren't
> trashed, look like new, have been maintained, and drive and look, almost
> new. I have to put a steering wheel lock on them, because if they were
> stolen the insurance company would only give me 1/3 of what an equivelent
> replacement cost would be.

 

[Vee]

[email protected] wrote:
> Callistus Valerius wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry I missed this bit in my other reply.
> > >
> > > > I've looked at the Trek carbon road bike prices today, and they are
> > > > just astronomical at $5000+, so I'm thinking the bike I have has
> > > > gained value, am I wrong?
> > >
> > > Way wrong. Closer $500 than $5000.
> > -----------
> > Then the market is wrong. It's worth more to me, as even as a commuter
> > bike, than to give some stranger a gift. I wouldn't even go below $1800,
>
> http://www.bikeiowa.com/asp/forum/t...+Classifieds+(Buy,+Sell,+Trade)&M=True&S=True
>
> Here is a fellow "bicyclist" who thinks the same as you. Actually his
> thinking is even more unordinary. He wants $1800 for the frame/fork
> only. It is a 2005 Madone 5.9. So given that this is a newer
> frame/fork than your 2000 5200, but it is just the frame/fork, whereas
> yours is a complete bike, the $1800 may be about right. Maybe even a
> bit low since the eventual buyer of yours can ride it immediately. No
> messing about building the bike up.

The Madone frameset is worth a lot more than the OP's 5200 because it's
what the pro's are riding. It's light and stiff and shiny, and has a
dramatic name. As for the complete vs. frameset difference: old parts
aren't worth much more than no parts, unless it's that Nuovo Record
stuff that old timers compulsively hoard in their basements.

-Vee