So, what’s behind the disappearing entry-level road bike?
Several reasons. They include: reduced market competition, increased component integration, disc brakes, and gravel riding.
The market has fewer companies.
When it comes to bicycle components, there are far fewer companies then there used to be. Granted, under the labels, many bikes and components might have been coming out of the same factories, but even with that, there used to be more variety. Take drivetrains. In the long-ago, pre-STI era, there was at least: Huret/Sachs (which got absorbed by SRAM), Ofmega, Mavic, Simplex, SunTour, Zeus, along with Campagnolo and Shimano. Even a decade ago, at the entry level there was Campagnolo Centaur, Microshift, Shimano 105, and SRAM Rival and pretty much all could be mated with an inexpensive set of Tektro brake calipers and FSA crankset. Today, for entry-level there’s Microshift (sort of) and Shimano 105—SRAM seems to have just about gotten out of the entry-level two-chainring market as their Rival component group, which used to be competitive with 105 is now electronic-only, and Apex 1×12 is SRAM’s base component option.
The math is simple: less competition=higher prices. Market concentration seems to be a trend in just about every industry. While it’s good for the larger companies, it often limits innovation, productivity, and wages.
Likewise, the big four bike companies (Trek, Specialized, Giant, Cannondale), sometimes called the “Quadumvirate,” have less competition these days, so there’s less downward pressure on complete-bike prices. However, they, too feel the pain of reduced competition when Shimano is their only drivetrain and brake component choice. And the existing bike companies are plenty concerned about whether or not people are going to buy bikes at all, and lately, that’s been tough.
There is increased component integration.
This is another culprit behind the disappearing entry-level road bike. A time-honored way for a product manager to design a bike to hit a certain price point was to substitute bargain brands and house-branded components as much as possible while still being able to boast name brands for at least some of the components. Before the early 1990s, when integrated shifting, cassette hubs, and pre-built wheel systems drove many component suppliers out of business, there were lots of options for just about every bit on a bike. But those choices dramatically dwindled.
Since about 2009, entry-level road bikes likely had to have either Shimano or SRAM shifting. A savvy entry-level bike likely comes with house brand bars, stem, seat post, saddle, wheels, cranks, brakes, discount brand cassette and chain, and then the name brand derailleurs, chain, and maybe shifters. Now, with component integration going in all directions, that’s hard to do.
Most entry-level bikes, if they have disc brakes, most likely have the same brand brake/shift lever as brake caliper and rotor, and then that also extends to the derailleurs. It’s essential that a hydraulic brake caliper pair with the same brand brake/shift lever. Microshift derailleurs pair with Shimano shifters, but that price saving of substituting only two derailleurs is pretty small, and product managers might be both leery of the extra work it takes to do separate sourcing on a bike with a low profit margin and might be worried that it will make the bike less appealing with customers.
Then there are disc brakes.
Rotor-disc brakes seemed to have a hand the disappearing entry-level race bike as well. Simply put, changing from rim brakes to discs adds the weight of the caliper and rotor, and the braking forces add stresses to the fork, the stays, the hubs, spokes, and rims. Everything has a cost, and the added force of a caliper stopping a 140-160mm rotor needs to be resisted by all those components. So, in order to be safe, particularly with lower-priced bikes, manufacturers are likely to err on the side of over-building. So, a fork gains 200g or more. The chainstays might get heavier. The hubs might get heavier. Spokes are added—the 18- or 20-radially spoked front wheel is usually replaced with a 24- or 28-spoke front wheel with two-cross spoking. The 24-spoke rear wheel is usually replaced with a 28-spoke rear. The aluminum rim is likely heavier. A roughly-equivalent entry-level disc-brake bike to a rim-brake bike is likely both heavier and more expensive, as the brake components are more expensive. And then to minimize the cost difference other components might get even heavier to save money; think of the bike coming with steel-wire bead tires rather than Kevlar bead (and heavier, cheaper casing), a cheaper, heavier, crankset, and then cheaper, heavier bars, stem, post, and saddle. When it comes to those road bikes with aluminum frame, carbon fork, hydraulic-disc brakes and 2×11 or 2×12 drivetrain, the bike weighs around 20lbs, likely more, when its rim-brake cousin came in around 18lbs, maybe less.
The difference between rim and disc in practice.
The price difference between the Cannondale CAAD13 105 and CAAD13 105 disc in 2023 is telling. Just going to rotor-disc braking adds $350 and more than 1.5lbs to the bike.
One product manager I spoke with said that several years ago he saw discs as the death of the entry level road bike. To him, it’s that the introduction of discs meant the entry-level bike now weighed about 5lbs more than the pro bike, and that made them unattractive to racers and prospective racers.
Rim brake bikes aren’t selling.
This claim is likely impossible to track through public sources. That written, both shop salespeople and bike company insiders have brought it up when asked about rim brake bikes. They see the price difference, they worry about the increasing cost of bikes, they themselves are often happy with rim-brake bikes as their personal ride, and even claim that rim brake bikes ride better, yet they believe that the public has spoken. A well-known bike reviewer, one who probably helped nudge consumers toward disc brake bikes, wrote, “I’ve also found that the better bike isn’t always the more enjoyable one to ride. I’m not alone. To paraphrase what many brand representatives told me: Rim brakes are dead. But personally, I still love to ride my rim-brake bike.”
Gravel bikes came on the scene.
While it was most-likely coincidental, gravel riding became a thing just as disc brakes were taking off, another reason for the disappearing entry-level road bike. As apparent interest in gravel was surging, interest in road racing appeared to be waning. As a result, there was greater interest in making entry-level gravel bikes. And the hope or assumption is probably that the customer is basically the same—it’s not that many people are making a commitment to gravel riding any more than people were making a commitment to road racing, but that the same customer could be sold the gravel bike just as easily as the road racing bike. In both cases, the person is probably not gravel riding or road racing, but looking for a decent bike to ride for fitness on paved roads most of the time. And it’s easier to slap skinnier tires on the gravel bike to go road riding/racing then it is squeeze wider tires to go gravel grinding.
The apparent waning interest in road bikes probably meant that bike companies were selling fewer entry-level road bikes, which then translated into making fewer such bikes the next year. And since the quantity of components and frame tubes being purchased was reduced, the companies would have to pay more for the components, driving up the cost of the bike, and possibly reducing profit margin.
A gravel bike can be ridden, even raced, on the road; many entry-level riders are probably going to spend most of their time road riding, even with a gravel bike. But building a gravel bike also means a longer fork, longer stays, and, to be safe, possibly heavier, more durable components, including larger, heavier tires, so the bike likely gets heavier still.
Gravel bikes can be raced on the road, but…
Yes, gravel bikes can be raced on the road. And are. Even when a bike isn’t perfect for a particular use, it can be workable, and most bikes are impressively flexible in this way. But it might not be a seamless transition. If the gravel bike comes with a single chainring setup, that single ring might not be big enough, so it would need to be changed, which would also require a new chain. The tires might need to be swapped out from 32-38mm to 25-28mm, and from a multi-surface tread to a road tread.
But there are other limitations. The biggest is potentially position, which is the biggest aero factor of all. Gravel bikes are often designed for less of a height differential between saddle and bars, so the position of one’s hands and thus chest are possibly higher. And the rest of the bike geometry might not be a great compromise, either. A concern is that the bottom bracket drop is such that pedaling through curves is harder on a gravel bike than on a road bike; some gravel bikes have a fairly low bottom bracket for greater stability, like 1-1.5cm lower. Another possible issue is steering; the trail numbers on a gravel bike are designed around larger tires, so putting on smaller tires both brings the bottom bracket closer to the ground and makes the steering more agile compared to the bike equipped with larger tires. And even when everything else is right, the stock wheels are probably built more for durability than aerodynamics, so that slows the bike down for a given power output. When there are people racing beginner races with pro-level bikes, some small disadvantages can really add up.
Gravel bikes can be raced in cyclocross.
A potential benefit of the entry-level gravel bike for a new bike racer is that it can also get dressed with its original tires and raced cyclocross. Here, too, the typical low bottom bracket, higher weight, and longer trail numbers of gravel bikes limit their ability to excel in twisty applications. All bikes are compromises. However, most disc brake-equipped bikes in the “road” category these days have enough clearance for 33mm cyclocross tubulars (not that the manufacturers are promising this much space for tires). The Fuji SL-A, very much an entry-level road race bike that comes shod with 28mm slick tires, is raced on the road, ridden on gravel, and in ‘cross by the person who designed it.
Shimano and SRAM have an interesting reveal.
For years, Shimano 105 and SRAM Rival were the go-to drivetrains on entry-level road bikes. 105 now has an electronic version. Rival has become electronic-only. SRAM’s Apex group, which is 1x only and tilted toward gravel riding, is their entry-level component group, though with the right size chain ring (a 48 or 50 tooth ring), could be fine for the road. While both companies will certainly tout the very real improvements they’ve made to the groups, it’s hard not to see how entry-level has gotten more expensive beyond merely adjusting for inflation. Another possible culprit in the disappearing entry-level bike.
Wheels are hugely important. They just don’t sell.
While the aspect ratios of the downtube and seat post can make a measurable difference in the wind tunnel, the effect on the road is probably less than what can be found in laboratory conditions. On the other hand, the wheels, particularly the front wheel, can make a real aerodynamic difference on the road. But at the entry level, the wheels are rarely a focus. Product managers are usually riders themselves and know the importance of a good set of wheels, but between the imperatives of selling, the need to hit price benchmarks, and that bike brands are more in the business of selling framesets with parts hung on them, wheels are often a place to save money, as they are rarely a selling point to the consumer looking in this category. The retail customer knows Shimano, they probably know SRAM, but do they care about ENVE or Zipp? Looking at what happened to Mavic, it would seem that wheels on complete bikes, while briefly a focus, are now an afterthought.
The math of selling $2,000 bikes.
Basic economics suggests that a business will sell more of a less expensive item. The individual profit per item is less, but it’s ostensibly made up for by greater volume. Bikes are typically marked up 30-40% over wholesale cost. Assuming 35% mark-up, a shop stands to gain about $519 for this bike—that needs to cover assembly costs, storage, showroom space, and sales efforts. The $1481 the shop paid for the bike probably included a 30% mark-up by the brand, meaning they probably get about $342 when they sold the bike to the shop.
Maybe the bike companies are looking at the numbers and thinking they can keep the overall sales numbers the same by disappearing the entry-level bike, or with a higher-priced entry-level. Or maybe they assume that there will be a slight drop off in sales volume but with the increased per-unit profit, they should still come out ahead or break even at the end of the year. Maybe they’re just stuck in a hard place, unable to bring prices lower and still selling it for more than they think they should, and hoping that something external will give. No one knows exactly why, but from all sales indicators, bike companies are in a tough spot at this moment.
Top image by Marco Quezada. http://www.marcoquezada.com
Thanks for these two very interesting reads, your most recent. Acknowledging some participants in cycling culture (e.g. Rivendell et al) have consistently designed and marketed for “Unracers,” your point is well taken. Bikes akin to those great-for-the-time entry-level racing bikes of the ’80s (+1 for the Allez, and also the Bridgestone RB-1) are not as apparent in current line-ups. A development that is likely not so great for US road racing–or perhaps one that will limit the field of new racers to those with the financial resources, yes? All this said, I am glad that cycling in all forms seems to be going well.