This is something that has been on my mind for a long while: are cars super cheap or bikes super expensive?
Looking at how much material it takes to make and how complex it is, I would expect a car to cost ~100 more than a bike, but in reality it's more like ~10 more
Regular bikes are super cheap, but if you buy a top of the line, specialised and low quantity bike you're paying a premium of course.
Price is never about the material used... an iphone would be $200 if it was the case. Look into economy of scale, how money is made through maintenance/parts/after sale services, &c.
I'm not talking about 10k bikes, but also not supermarket bikes.
I said complexity and materials. An iPhone is extremely complex but it's only so cheap because electronics scale extremely well, probably only software does better.
Logically there should be more bikes than cars so the economy of scale should be in their favor. Bike maintenance isn't cheap either. Cars need to go through much more certification etc.
The more I think about it the less sense it makes. I think there's crazy competition on cars, but not on bikes.
A supermarket bike, not suitable if you're a bit serious and many repair shops will refuse to repair them because it's not worth it. For a decent bike you'd probably paying at least 3-4x more.
>There are twice as many cars than bikes in France from what I can find online, not sure about the rest of the world.
Google tells me worldwide daily production of bikes is 300.000 and cars 100.000. (IMO It would really be sad if it was otherwise)
> You can buy a basic city bike for <250 euros new
Fair point but what I meant in my initial post is even a top of the line Trek Slash doesn't have a quarter of the technology included in the lowest end Fiat Panda. Even the best e-bikes are still quite simple compared to a car.
Looking at how much material it takes to make and how complex it is, I would expect a car to cost ~100 more than a bike, but in reality it's more like ~10 more