The 2011 Trek Speed Concept 7.5, is spec’d with ultegra derailers, 105 cas, DA shifters, Ultegra Crankset…and msrp is $3499.00. As compared to the P2 which has similar components for $2400. Or even the Felt B14 which has DA derailers, Vision crankset, etc for $2799.
But why is the SC 7.5 so much more? is it all in the aero dynamics of the Frame? Or is it because it’s the new TREK hot tri item?
all products you ever buy are priced in an attempt to maximize profit.
the trek is priced that way because trek thinks that price will maximize profit.
whether that price is a good value for the purely performance minded purchaser as compared to a P2C is, I think, unknown. It may be more aerodynamic, it does have the hidden rear brake right? The kamm profile may provide better high yaw aerodynamics and/or stiffness. The aero storage container on the back is a nice feature that the p2c doesn’t have.
This is something we keep seeing on the forum and a great opportunity for expansion:
“All carbon fiber bikes are the same right? They are made in Taiwan by inexpensive labour and have a decal set and paint applied then shipped to the U.S. They are all basically the same. A carbon fiber frame costs less than a couple hundred dollars to produce.”
Product managers and engineers probably want to stick a knife in their eye when they read that.
Firstly, Treks new bikes are domestic production, which, because of the degree of uniqueness to the design, may not add much to the production cost since a bike that sophisticated and unique is expensive to make easier, but probably easier to make in the U.S.
Development costs for Trek had to be enormous, probably unprecedented in our industry. Trek has substantial resources and is in triathlon for the long haul. They have the right people in place and the new direction shows they will emerge as a Tri-specific leader because they have substantial resources and the right crew.
All these things cost money and contribute to a better bike. There are stumbles along the way like the water bottle and rear brake on the Cervelo P4 and the very early forks on the Bayonet front end of the Felt DA and B2. Now those issues have been greatly improved on. Trek will have the same development curve, but likely at a quicker pace.
The bottom line is the bikes are more expensive because they are more complex to produce and more sophisticated. Whether that means “better” for you is an individual decision since a bike like a Cervelo P2 represents a sophisticated design (albeit a legacy one now) at a reasonable cost. Sometimes extracting that last 5% of technology can cost 20-30% more. It’s up to you to decide if it’s worth it.
Its where the customer perceives the value. Trek is likely selling at this higher price point because they know they can sell at this price. They have a history of extremely successful bikes in the protour and many customers know this. People are willing to pay for this history of success by paying the extra bit.
Personally I would go with the P2, but both bikes are exceptional.
Great points, Tom. Too often people look at the material cost of a product only and have no idea of the development costs. ALL those costs need to e factored into the price of the final product.
That is also one reason why you will see prices decline after a product has been out there…development costs have been recouped and that allows for lower pricing structures moving forward.
Agreed on both points.
Wait a couple years when the molds and R&D is paid for. Cervelo and Felt frames have been out for a while thus accounting for the ‘cheaper’ frames.
This is a good question. I saw that trek is offering $300 off project one builds.
$2400 buys a speed concept 7.0 with SRAM apex or a cervelo p2 with ultegra.
The trek white paper indicates that the 7.0 with the aero bar from the 7.5 is faster than the p2 with that same aerobar.
Which is more aero speed concept with use Tula aerobar or p2 with use Tula aero bar?
The p2 is a better value on components but aero matters more in triathlon. The p2 is possibly faster than the sc 7.0 out of the box because of the round aero bar on the sc.
The sc 7.5 comes with ultegra and the aero bar used in white paper testing but costs more than $1000 more.
this is so much industry insider bullshit.
what if, for sake of thought experiment, the Trek Speed Concept came to market EXACTLY as is except through the opposite of what you said:
produced overseas, low production costs, low development costs, easy to make. Also, the intangibles… Trek doesn’t have substantial resources, it has average resources. New company, not in triathlon for the long haul, average people working, average people in place etc. etc.
the OP asked about VALUE and you answered with MARKETING
Trek also has the best customer service in the industry; my opinion of course. That was the reason I bought a SC 7.0 instead of another bike that was spec’d better for less.
The car industry agreed to certain standards like “mpg” to enable cutomers to compare the products. The bike industry fails again and again to answer the most obvious questions. Personally I could not care less, how a design is created and what great hurdles any company faces, when putting a bike on the road. Especially I don’t care, whether it is produced in Italy, Rumania, Asia, the USA or on the moon.
I am interested in two things on a triathlon bike that fits: Price + Aerodynamics (Given that the product is serviceable, robust, not too soft and not too heavy and has a reasonable paint job)
And aerodynamics at the moment is guesswork at best.
The question of the OP was absolutely fair, to be more precise: On an average course like IM Hawaii how much does a Trek frame yield over a P2 frame (all other things like position, wheels … being equal of course). The only answer IMHO would be something like “180 seconds”. And then we as consumers could decide, wether 3 minutes are worth 1000 USD for us or not.
Until that happens, I am not willing to pay more than absolutely necessary to get something, that I guesstimate is doing a good job at a reasonable price.
So I do ride a P2 and would not be willing to upgrade to the speed concept (or P4), until independent standardized tests, that competing companies accept (like in the car industry), are available.
I understand your frustration but we can take some solace in the fact that the REASON those things are guesswork, or at least very hard to figure out for sure, is that the differences between the good bikes are so small.
There was a long and fascinating discussion of whether a P2C or P3C would be more aerodynamic for chrissie wellington because the P3C would need a few cms of spacers
talk about splitting hairs!
And aerodynamics at the moment is guesswork at best.
“Firstly, Treks new bikes are domestic production…”
Tom - Are you sure? I thought the 9-series was Trek’s OCLV Red Carbon (made in Wisconsin) and the 7-series was Trek’s TCT carbon (made in Asia)?
“Firstly, Treks new bikes are domestic production…”
Tom - Are you sure? I thought the 9-series was Trek’s OCLV Red Carbon (made in Wisconsin) and the 7-series was Trek’s TCT carbon (made in Asia)?
You are correct, only the 9 series frames are made in the USA.
All marketing bull$hit and personal bias aside, the SC is the new kid on the block and has some heavyweights riding and backing the product. The points Tom makes are valid around the R&D except the only frames made in the US are the 9 series SC and 6 series madones all other framesets are out of Asia. The real point is for a large percentage of the population who ride bikes, is the minor difference in aerodynamics between the framesets really going to make or break a race? Mostly no and the ones where it will generally are sponsored and ride what they are signed to, the rest (including me) purchase based on a number of factors, asthetics, fit, particular bias, percieved value and importantly, budget. Trek price their bikes where they think it will sell and maximise their bottom line, if you think it is too high or not value for money there are many other options out there, however as is the case that as time passes and newer funkier bikes hit the market, the older models will come down in price. I personally have purchased a SC 9.9 after looking at the other bikes on the market and really (Out of the box) between the P4, Shiv, SC 9 and Trinity SL0, there isn’t a whole lot between them and it goes the same in the “intermediate” range when I was originally looking at the SC7, P2/3C, Transition and Trinity SL2. Buy the frame you can afford which fits and you want to ride, the components can/will change over time but you will be stuck with the frame.
This is something we keep seeing on the forum and a great opportunity for expansion:
“All carbon fiber bikes are the same right? They are made in Taiwan by inexpensive labour and have a decal set and paint applied then shipped to the U.S. They are all basically the same. A carbon fiber frame costs less than a couple hundred dollars to produce.”
Product managers and engineers probably want to stick a knife in their eye when they read that.
Firstly, Treks new bikes are domestic production, which, because of the degree of uniqueness to the design, may not add much to the production cost since a bike that sophisticated and unique is expensive to make easier, but probably easier to make in the U.S.
Development costs for Trek had to be enormous, probably unprecedented in our industry. Trek has substantial resources and is in triathlon for the long haul. They have the right people in place and the new direction shows they will emerge as a Tri-specific leader because they have substantial resources and the right crew.
All these things cost money and contribute to a better bike. There are stumbles along the way like the water bottle and rear brake on the Cervelo P4 and the very early forks on the Bayonet front end of the Felt DA and B2. Now those issues have been greatly improved on. Trek will have the same development curve, but likely at a quicker pace.
The bottom line is the bikes are more expensive because they are more complex to produce and more sophisticated. Whether that means “better” for you is an individual decision since a bike like a Cervelo P2 represents a sophisticated design (albeit a legacy one now) at a reasonable cost. Sometimes extracting that last 5% of technology can cost 20-30% more. It’s up to you to decide if it’s worth it.
Tom - I was one of the people who have whined about the cost of carbon bikes. Something happened recently that helped me see the light and change my attitude. A few weeks ago, I was at my department’s holiday party. I started chatting with a co-worker. I asked him where he worked previously. He told me he worked for a drug manufacturer. I started talking about the high cost (i.e., $1 billion dollars) to bring a new drug to the market. He brought up the fact that, as a result of this, a new drug, even it sells for for several hundred dollars, may only cost less than a dollar to produce. So, I saw the light about carbon bikes: it is not just about the cost of the actual manufacturing. There can be huge development costs that the manufacturer has to get back by selling bikes at a profit.
The 2011 Trek Speed Concept 7.5, is spec’d with ultegra derailers, 105 cas, DA shifters, Ultegra Crankset…and msrp is $3499.00. As compared to the P2 which has similar components for $2400. Or even the Felt B14 which has DA derailers, Vision crankset, etc for $2799.
But why is the SC 7.5 so much more? is it all in the aero dynamics of the Frame? Or is it because it’s the new TREK hot tri item?
youre comparing the 7.5 to the p2c when you should be comparing to p3.
if it fits, the trek is the best bike for long course triathletes.
All marketing bull$hit and personal bias aside, the SC is the new kid on the block and has some heavyweights riding and backing the product. The points Tom makes are valid around the R&D except the only frames made in the US are the 9 series SC and 6 series madones all other framesets are out of Asia. The real point is for a large percentage of the population who ride bikes, is the minor difference in aerodynamics between the framesets really going to make or break a race? Mostly no and the ones where it will generally are sponsored and ride what they are signed to, the rest (including me) purchase based on a number of factors, asthetics, fit, particular bias, percieved value and importantly, budget. Trek price their bikes where they think it will sell and maximise their bottom line, if you think it is too high or not value for money there are many other options out there, however as is the case that as time passes and newer funkier bikes hit the market, the older models will come down in price. I personally have purchased a SC 9.9 after looking at the other bikes on the market and really (Out of the box) between the P4, Shiv, SC 9 and Trinity SL0, there isn’t a whole lot between them and it goes the same in the “intermediate” range when I was originally looking at the SC7, P2/3C, Transition and Trinity SL2. Buy the frame you can afford which fits and you want to ride, the components can/will change over time but you will be stuck with the frame.
I completely agree.
this is so much industry insider bullshit
Yeah…except it isn’t. They are the facts. These are all very tangible costs which need to be recouped.
If you want a bike that meets the scenario you outlined, I suggest you look at Leader or something similar.
Does Trek charge more because they are Trek and they can? Absolutely. I don’t begrudge them that advantage either. They have taken a company which struggled for YEARS to be taken seriously as a high-end company (first gen OCLV or their original full-suspension bike, anyone?). They have finally gotten to where they wanted after a long struggle…kudos to them.
And I say that a someone who loathed Trek after having competed against them for years.