Is the Entry Price Point Triathlon Bike Doomed? (Page 2)

I bought an aluminum road bike, then a carbon road bike, then a carbon tri bike.  My son now races on my aluminum road bike, I expect my daughters will in the future if they keep going like they are.  My son is getting a tri-bike for Christmas. (already bought) 

I don't know if an under 2K tri bike is relevant or not, but I know I could send at least one of my kids to college for a couple years on what I now have invested in bicycles.

I think if you don't have alot of experience on a bicycle, a more forgiving road bike is definately the way to start.  Learn to ride well and then move toward a tri-bike.  From what I have seen, some peope won't even be able to take advantage of the tri-bike's uh......advantages....either because they can't get into an aero position that truly benefits them, or they don't do enough work  to make it advantageous anyway.  Others I have seen, however, make fairly substantial gains by getting into a tri specific bike position.  You won't know until you ride a road bike for awhile first.

And....I'd never sell my road bike just because I have a tri bike.

Everyone should have more bikes than pairs of shoes.  You never know who is going to stop bye for a ride. 

1st bike) woops on the used mnt bike, but still comes in handy to ride in the rain

2nd bike) correction on the mnt bike, good for xterra

3rd bike) wish I had a great road bike, but will have to settle for this one, but still comes in handy to ride in the rain and for yard work

4th bike) finaly found that great road bike, good for long training rides

5th bike) everyone should have a BMX just in case

6th bike) because the other one is better for long rides than going fast

7th bike) it would be great to have a bike that can go really fast on the dirt trails

8th bike) my wife really wanted a bike

9th bike) my wife really wanted the other bike

10th bike) my long training rides bike was in the shop

11th bike) "I wish" (but I will some day have a 29er)

so no, the first bike doesn't need to be a road bike

X2

No reason an entry level tri bike should be vastly more than an entry level road bike. Components and wheels are almost exactly the same. A different geometry shouldn't jack up the price by a huge margin.

I had a roadie first. That's because when I started biking there was no such thing as a tri bike. That being said, I think people should get whatever bike they want as their first bike - if it will cause them to put in the requisite miles. Simply because a person gets a road bike first doesn't mean they will automatically develop better bike handling skills.

The big thing - is there a market for entry level tri bikes? Not sure on this one. I know lots of bikers and very few of them are triathletes. People coming into the sport from a cycling background may already have a mid range road bike and not be looking to essentially downgrade to change geometry. People starting out on a Walmart MTB or other similar low end bikes may think even a $700 entry level bike is way too expensive. That doesn't seem to leave a huge market. A couple bike companies offering something here would be adequate.

As a poster above me stated, such a bike does exist:

http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/motobecane/nemesis_xi.htm

I love my Trek 1.2, but every time I see the bike linked above, I kick myself for having not looked around enough to see that such a bike existed.  There's a lot of bike you get there for the money.  

I do feel like I'm in a good place having both a road bike and tri-bike now, but unless you're interested in road racing as well, I'd say go with a bike like the Nemesis, Cervelo P1/P2SL, or SC 2.5.  You'll be able to get fit into a real TT position that way, which will help your bike leg tremendously.

It's also a value question for me.  Is the additional cost of a tri bike worth whatever gains in speed I might get?

For example I ride a Cannondale Caad10 with aerobars and can average about 20-21mph over 40miles with no major climbs.  If what I've read is correct then switching to a tri bike might, might get me to 21-22mph average. 

If I keep the road bike and pick-up a tri bike for $2000 then I'll be spending $500-$1000 per mph gained.  Even if I sell my road bike to offest the cost I'll still likely be selling at a loss and would still have to spend about $250 for a potential 1mph gain. 

For someone just starting out and is content doing short course tris, maybe maxing at an Oly distance, the theoretical gains just don't justify the cost.

I don't know about that.  The biggest required one time expense for a Tri is the bike.

I had a $100 walmart special.  I went out after my first tri and bought a $500 road bike.

Had there been a $200 upgrade to a Tri bike I MIGHT have bought it.... I say might because with my wife doing Tri's at the same time I was buying two bikes.

A lot of new people to Tri are not cyclists.  They maybe runners, swimmers, or people off the couch who, like me, don't think they could go long on any one sport, but figured they could do a 5k and the equivalent in biking and swimming.

There have been arguments presented- and debunked- that a triathlon geometry bike enables you to run faster off the bike (Ian Garside study).

Do you guys believe that? Does the notion that you run faster off a triathlon, as some argue, enter into the buying equation or is that not even on the table?

When I was looking for my first tri bike in early 2005 this was crucial. Actually, my double secret price point was $1500. I didn't own a road bike and I had one season of two sprints under my belt. Anything above $2k (with pedals/tax etc) was unthinkable. I don't believe I am or was at all remarkable in what I was looking for.

Generally a road bike unless they're getting into it to cross an iron distance tri off their bucket list.

You'll generally get more for your money with a road bike, it's more versatile, they tend to handle better. There's more variety in models.

No, but I know that the triathlon geometry will enable a rider to get into the steepest, most aerodynamic position possible.  Again this is knowing things that I know now two seasons after deciding on my first bike.  I simply wish I had known about all this beforehand.

The relevance of sub $2K depends on how "sub" it is.  I'd say there's a natural gap in the tri-bike market between a $1200 (or even sub $1K) tri bike and a $2.5K+ machine. 

I see the $2500+ bikes going to people
A)  Getting their second (or Nth) tri-bike
B)  Getting their first tri-bike after buying at least 2 different road bikes
These buyers are usually attuned to components and want nicer wheels etc.  I wouldn't classify these purchasers as "recreational" athletes as most of them are trying to be competitive at whatever race distance they compete.  These purchasers most likely already have the remaining "stuff" and just want the bike. 

I think the $1000 tri-bike would sell well as comparable to an entry-level road bike.  For many purchasers, it will be their *only* bike and competes with a road bike and clip-on aerobars.  In theory, the cheaper bar-end shifters would more than offset the lower volumes compared to entry level road bikes.   By the time you outfit the bike with pedals, a helmet, repair kit, bottles and holders, etc. it gets quite expensive.  First-time buyers need to be able to test ride the bike and get guidance from suitable shop personnel about fit and what to look for in a bike fit (even if that means buying the bike elsewhere).  I'd say the "entry level" tri-bike would have a more foregiving geometry than the high end bikes. 

The market for $1K tri bikes include:
A)  Recreational triathletes moving up to OLY-HIM distances

I encourage people training for their first races to just ride whatever bike they already have whether it's a mountain bike, road bike, or tri-bike. 

Guess I'm one of the few dissenters.

I wanted a good entry-level bike that I could built upon over time. I picked the P2C to have an aero carbon frame and decent components. The cheapest bike I considered was the $2k Felt model.

If I was uncertain about triathlon and didn't want to invest that much money, I would have bought an entry-level road bike instead.

Being new to triathlon myself, I can completely understand and identify with some of the posts on here that discuss the cost of triathlon equipment and how daunting it can be to try and kit yourself out. Bike, wetsuit, clothing, pedals, shoes.......... the list goes on. I did my first triathlon on my mountain bike, wearing shorts and a t-shirt and loved every second of it. 

I think it comes down to personal preference. There are going to be people out there who will not even blink an eye at dropping 10k on a bike regardless of their level of participation or fitness. On the other hand there will be some people who think a grand is a ridiculous amount to pay for a bike and will be perfectly happy to ride a Walmart special or a beat up old roadie. So long as it gets to the finish line, job done.

However, I think the sub-$2k market is hugely important. If you look around and do your research there are some really cool tri-bikes out there for under $1500. Possibly closer to $1000 if you buy a 2008-9 model at an event such as the bike blowout sale. There are some really good deals to be had.

Sub-2k caters to a very large population of buyers. Removing TT/Tri bikes within this price bracket and your alienating a very large part of the market.

Mike

I wouldn't consider ANY $2K bike "entry level" and even less the P2C.

Everything I saw (Cervelo, Felt, Trek, and Specialized) was aluminum under $2K. So, an "entry level carbon frame" seems to start at $2K.

As of right now....I would buy a sub $2k tri bike. $2k and over, no.

This could change in the future, but currently no.  

I have seen this issue argued and re-argued on the boards, and I'm not sure what to conclude. Also, as a time-limited age-grouper I do most of my running off the bike in any case, so the bike-to-run switch doesn't worry me much. So this did not factor into my tri bike purchase. I bought a tri bike only because I figured that I was losing a bunch of time by racing on my more relaxed geometry roadie.

I'm not sure on the market for sub $2k tri bikes. Although many would of course welcome lower-priced offerings, but it's probably just a slice of that market that would be looking to buy a $1500 tri bike. Many folks are quite happy racing on their roadies, and wouldn't want anything more. Some want a more aero position, and are quite happy to get that using clip-on aerobars, which offer the promise of doing everything with one bike. The $1500 tri bike would -- I guess -- go to somebody who is dissatisfied with clip-on aerobars, but not interested/able to spend north of $2k. Since that $1500 is much closer to $2k than it is to the cost of clip-on aerobars, I'd guess that it's not a huge market segment.

I bought a felt f16 and I love it my next tri I was 20.mph before my fastest was 18.6mph but im not if I finish top 5 for my age group so do I need a tri bike no but I have drag raced for 20 years this is cheap compared to what I have done in the past. and I will live longer doing this. plus if you buy a bike for 2k it is still worth good money for atleast 5 years if you hae a change of heart .

$2000 is very relevant. So is $1000, even more relevant. To your questions:

MOST people should buy a road bike first, IMHO. Unless you're sure 1) you'll be with the sport for a while and 2) you know how to choose a tri bike (which most first time buyers don't), or 3) you're at the pointy end of the non-peleton and need the extra 15% aero speed in your rookie season, I just don't see the point.

Next, it's amazing what the marketing machine has done in the last 10 years. The $1000 QR Kilo, aluminum, used to be the standard for 'entry level'. In the last decade, though, industry has pushed that up to $2,000 (per your rule of thumb), and convinced you that a wheel cutout, carbon, lighter weight, aero wheels, drink bladders, DA, etc are essential on an ENTRY level bike. They're not. What's essential is a good position, because the air the person moves is 10x more impactful than the air the bike moves. That's all.

The next big bike company won't be the ones that succesfully convinces people to pay another $500 for the 'next best thing'. The next big bike company will be the one that 1) develops the killer app (an entry-level tri bike), and 2) finds a way to make their brand sticky. Easy formula: Get a million people to ride your bike at entry level, and give them a reason to stay with your brand when the portion of the folks that stay with the sport upgrade - which no one has figured out how to do, except companies like Softride and Zipp who have a loyal following due to their unique frame design and ride characteristics, and to a lesser degree, Kestrel and the Airfoil.  

It's amazing to me that there's really no differentiation between felt, cervelo, trek, specialized, etc. The differences are measured in milliseconds (from a performance perspective) and cents (from a monetary perspective). There's a way to attack that market. No one's brave enough because they're making money as-is.  

ETA: Just for perspective: I'm on a 2007 Felt B2 that Tom sold me (in 2006) - top of the line at the time - that features aluminum AND carbon, external cable routing, no wheel cutout. All of 5 years ago. Kona winners were riding equivalent technology at the time, with no real impact on winning bike times. Bike technolgy is very, very overrated. It's the strongest kool-aid. The cheapest bike that puts you in the best position is my vote. And it can be done for <$1K.