# Is it me or are Trek bikes being downgraded each year?



## Jason1500 (Apr 1, 2008)

I was just browsing Trek's bike archive and I noticed each year the bike seems to lose something. For example a 2007 Trek 2100 had ZR9000 alloy (7000 series aluminum) with carbon stays and a mix of Ultegra/105 10spd, in 2008 2100 or now called 2.1 the frame is now Alpha Black Aluminum w/ carbon stays but is now a mix of 105/tiagra 9spd. 2009 it pretty much stayed the same and now in 2010 they did upgrade it back to 105 10spd for the 2.1 but it lost the carbon stays. That's just one example seems to be the same for most the low-end to mid range models. I'm guessing this is to keep the price point / profit margin the same year to year but you would think Trek would be able to work deals with component makers to be able to keep the bike at least on the same level as the previous year's model. Or is there some other motive for downgrading? I have a 2006 1500 and comparing it to today's 1.5 I think I have the better bike.


----------



## Trek2.3 (Sep 13, 2009)

Apparently so.


----------



## mhopton (Feb 14, 2005)

Inflation forces a downgrade somewhere in the bike to maintain the same competitive price points across the entire line. To keep a mid-level bike priced at $3k each year, some factor on that bike must be downgraded to keep the same bike at the same price point.

Basic econ 101.


----------



## DaveN (Jun 25, 2005)

Something else to consider is technology trickle-down. Is today's 105 crankset better than the version from three years ago? Could you equate the 2010 105 crankset with the 2007 Ultegra for stiffness and weight? I'm not sure, but I tend to think so, or at least wonder how close they might be. I have this implicit assumption that a certain product category gets technically better, if not every year, at least every couple of years. And gets cheaper or at least stays at the same price.

I think that someone buying an Ultegra-equipped bike today may have better equipment than my five year old Dura Ace 9 speed, and is paying much less.


----------



## roadmountain (Mar 8, 2010)

In the bicycle industry, down-spec'ing has been the norm for at least the past 25 years. 

What the industry is good at, however, is innovating new features. So while the quality of materials steadily declines, there is an increase in functionality. 

The same downgrading of materials is evident in other industries as well: in automobiles, the downgrading of materials has become quite embarrassing. Even though the original sticker prices don't go up that much, you'll be paying for it down the line with much more frequent repair bills for parts. 

Personally, as a recreational rider, I don't push my equipment hard enough to say whether there's been a decrease in durability. You'd have to ask the pro's or recreational racers for an answer to that question.


----------



## Jason1500 (Apr 1, 2008)

DaveN said:


> Something else to consider is technology trickle-down. Is today's 105 crankset better than the version from three years ago? Could you equate the 2010 105 crankset with the 2007 Ultegra for stiffness and weight? I'm not sure, but I tend to think so, or at least wonder how close they might be. I have this implicit assumption that a certain product category gets technically better, if not every year, at least every couple of years. And gets cheaper or at least stays at the same price.
> 
> I think that someone buying an Ultegra-equipped bike today may have better equipment than my five year old Dura Ace 9 speed, and is paying much less.


But if it's trickle down shouldn't the component level remain the same compared to the rest of the line up. I mean of course a 2010 105 is going to be better then a 2006 105 components. To me the whole idea of trickle down is to keep price points consistent. So dura-ace, ultegra, 105, tiagra, sora can remain at around the same price year to year. So if $1100 Aluminum bike 4 years ago was equipped with 105 components, a 2010 $1100 Aluminum bike should be equipped with 105 components but it's not it has Tiagra 9spd components. And actually I just check the price of a 105 Rear Derailleur which sold of $35 on Nashbar in 2006(via archive.org) and now the current 105 rear sells for $79.00. To me that's not trickle down. No wonder why bike makers had to go to tiagra for the $1100 price point at this rate we'll see 2200 components at $1100 in a few years.


----------



## hikertoo (Jul 7, 2010)

Yep, glad I got my full XT MTB a few years ago at $2200, this year it's over $3K to get a full XT MTB that's full suspension.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Jason1500 said:


> But if it's trickle down shouldn't the component level remain the same compared to the rest of the line up. I mean of course a 2010 105 is going to be better then a 2006 105 components. To me the whole idea of trickle down is to keep price points consistent. So dura-ace, ultegra, 105, tiagra, sora can remain at around the same price year to year. So if $1100 Aluminum bike 4 years ago was equipped with 105 components, a 2010 $1100 Aluminum bike should be equipped with 105 components but it's not it has Tiagra 9spd components. And actually I just check the price of a 105 Rear Derailleur which sold of $35 on Nashbar in 2006(via archive.org) and now the current 105 rear sells for $79.00. To me that's not trickle down. No wonder why bike makers had to go to tiagra for the $1100 price point at this rate we'll see 2200 components at $1100 in a few years.


This can't work. Prices for the of parts and the whole process making bikes creeps up continually. If a 105 bike cost $1100 4 years ago, there is no way to offer the same spec level for $1100 now. An Ultegra Madone cost $2400 5 years ago, they're $3200 now.

FWIW, when I used to manage a store our most expensive bike was a D/A 9-speed with Ksyrium wheels for $3,800. A couple times a month different guys would come into the store and talk about how when they raced in the 80's you couldn't spend more than $1500-2k on a bike. I offered to have them bring in their $1500 bike with which we would compare a $1500 bike that was current and if they could find any aspect of the old bike that was truly superior to the new one then I'd give them the new one for 30% off. After examining the $1500 bike I never did get any takers.


The bike makers work to the pricepoints the retailers demand and put as much value into the bikes at those prices as they can.


----------



## Opus51569 (Jul 21, 2009)

The same is true with the SCOTT bike I bought last year. The S30 I purchased in 2009 came with full 105. This year's S30 model is a mix of Tiagra and 105.


----------



## cryoplasm (Jun 14, 2008)

davidka said:


> This can't work. Prices for the of parts and the whole process making bikes creeps up continually. If a 105 bike cost $1100 4 years ago, there is no way to offer the same spec level for $1100 now. An Ultegra Madone cost $2400 5 years ago, they're $3200 now.
> 
> FWIW, when I used to manage a store our most expensive bike was a D/A 9-speed with Ksyrium wheels for $3,800. A couple times a month different guys would come into the store and talk about how when they raced in the 80's you couldn't spend more than $1500-2k on a bike. I offered to have them bring in their $1500 bike with which we would compare a $1500 bike that was current and if they could find any aspect of the old bike that was truly superior to the new one then I'd give them the new one for 30% off. After examining the $1500 bike I never did get any takers.
> 
> ...



I am sure a $1500 bike in the late 90s, early 00s would have been superior in a number of ways to a $1500, 80s bike. OK $1500 on a bike was alot more in the 80s than today, but then that stuff is vintage by today's standards.

Progression of prices and spec. over time is a give-and-take affair. One thing is certain, you have to pay and keep paying to get the best and remain there with updates.


----------



## roadmountain (Mar 8, 2010)

You get more innovation and features, but the quality of materials keeps going down. 

Oddly, prices keep going up while production is outsourced, meaning the cost of labor is cut drastically. Go figure.


----------

