← Blog · Cycling / Brands

The Idiot Index of Cycling

How can a bicycle cost as much as a motorcycle when nobody in the cycling industry seems to be getting extraordinarily rich?

By Carles Carrera · July 2026
AMS co-founder. Cyclist. Motorcyclist.

I recently came across an idea associated with Elon Musk called the Idiot Index, which he applied to rockets but can be applied with anything.

It compares the price of a finished component with the cost of the raw materials inside it. If a part costs €1,000 but contains only €20 worth of aluminium, the index is very high.

That does not necessarily mean anyone is being ripped off. Turning cheap materials into a precise, reliable and useful product can be extremely difficult. But a very high Idiot Index should at least make us curious.

It immediately made me think about bicycles.

A bicycle versus a motorcycle

I ride bicycles and motorcycles, so both compete for the same limited part of my budget. And there is one comparison that has always been difficult for me to ignore.

A top-end bicycle can cost roughly the same as a Honda CRF450 enduro motorcycle.

The bicycle may be spectacular. My first reaction when I see a €10,000 or €12,000 bike is usually: Wow.

But the motorcycle has an engine, gearbox, clutch, fuel system, cooling system, exhaust, electronics, suspension and thousands of components working together. The bicycle is a frame, two wheels, a cockpit, a saddle, tyres and a groupset.

They are different markets with different production volumes and different economics. I understand that. But when two products compete for the same money, the comparison is real.

By complexity and number of parts, the bicycle looks extraordinarily expensive.

Part of that difference can be explained. A motorcycle chassis can be produced quickly using highly industrialised processes. A premium carbon bicycle frame still requires a surprising amount of manual work. Sheets of carbon are cut, positioned by hand in a specific sequence, placed into moulds, cured, removed, inspected, finished and painted.

The bicycle is a simpler machine, but one of its main components can be remarkably artisanal.

Production volume matters too. Honda can spread engineering and manufacturing investment across large numbers of motorcycles and shared components. A premium bicycle frame may be produced in much smaller quantities, divided again by model, size and colour.

That explains part of the price.

I am less sure that it explains all of it.

Where does the money go?

You see the problem most clearly when building a bicycle component by component. The cost of the groupset can be brutal. Then you add premium wheels, a premium cockpit, a premium seatpost and a premium saddle. Almost every individual subsystem has become expensive enough to feel like a luxury product.

Shimano and SRAM dominate much of the performance groupset market, so the obvious assumption is that this is where the money goes.

Perhaps they are becoming extraordinarily rich from selling us derailleurs, brakes and cassettes.

But the evidence is not so simple. SRAM is privately held, so its full financial position is difficult to examine. Shimano publishes its results, and its cycling business is profitable, but it does not display the kind of effortless monopoly economics that the prices of premium groupsets might lead us to expect. In 2025, Shimano’s bicycle-component sales increased, while operating income from the division fell by about 21%. (Cycling Weekly)Then you look at the bicycle brands themselves.

Many are dealing with declining profits, restructuring, excess inventory and heavy discounting. Retailers do not appear to be wonderful businesses either. Nor do distributors, who finance stock and risk being left with last year’s models.

The finished bicycle is extremely expensive.

Yet it is surprisingly difficult to identify who is capturing all that value.

This is where the Idiot Index becomes interesting. Musk originally used it to challenge engineers: compare the price of a part with the value of its materials and investigate the gap. A high ratio may expose inefficient manufacturing or unnecessary complexity.

In cycling, the gap may contain something else as well.

It contains low production volumes, manual carbon manufacturing, engineering, tooling, distribution and inventory. But nearly every physical industry has development, moulds, samples, errors, quality control, transport, warehouses, distributors and warranties. These costs are real, but they are not unique to bicycles.

What we are really buying

The gap also contains us.

I have bought €85 bottle cages and €400 saddles. I was fully aware that they would not transform the experience of riding my bike.

Why did I buy them?

Weight matters. Reliability matters. Aesthetics matter. The brand matters. The feeling of owning the best matters. So do passion, illusion and the pleasure of looking at a beautiful machine.

And ego matters. Maybe, as the Ryan Holiday book, Ego is the Enemy.

Cyclists often want to be different and unique, while simultaneously wanting to use exactly the same equipment as the best riders in the world.

We are a little strange.

I am not making a moral argument against expensive bicycles. I have always believed that things are worth what people are willing to pay for them. If a company sells a bicycle for €10,000 and customers happily buy it, the market has justified the price.

Life is also too short to own bad bikes when you love cycling and can afford good ones.

But we should be honest about what we are buying.

A €10,000 bicycle will probably not give me twice the performance or twice the fun of a €5,000 bicycle. I know this. Most experienced cyclists know it.

And still, we want the €10,000 bicycle.

The difference may be irrational from a pure performance perspective, but humans do not buy only measurable performance. We buy design, identity, aspiration and emotional attachment. Those things have value because we decide they have value.

Fun per euro

My own measure has increasingly become fun per euro.

That may explain why I have recently been buying more motorcycles than bicycles. For the same amount of money, the motorcycle currently gives me more novelty, more experiences and more fun.

But that is only my decision. Another cyclist may get enormous satisfaction from owning a perfect road bike, even when a much cheaper one would ride almost as well.

The question that remains is not whether premium bicycles are worth their price. The market already answers that every time somebody buys one.

The stranger question is why an industry can sell so many extraordinarily expensive products while its brands, retailers and suppliers often struggle to generate extraordinary returns.

Perhaps the Idiot Index of cycling is simply very high because carbon manufacturing is manual, volumes are small and components are complex.

Perhaps too much money disappears into distribution, inventory and constant product renewal.

Perhaps the industry has been moving through inertia, launching new bicycles because that is what brands are expected to do, with everyone trying to lead while travelling in roughly the same direction.

Perhaps we cyclists create the index ourselves through our appetite for lighter, newer, more exclusive and more beautiful equipment.

Most likely, it is all of these things.

But I am not convinced that anyone fully understands the answer.

Not the consumers.

Not the brands.

Perhaps not even the industry itself.

The bicycle is simple. Its Idiot Index is not.

Source: The Book of Elon, by Eric Jorgenson; Shimano FY2025 financial results.

Read next

Expertise Creates Blind Spots
The Fun-to-Risk Ratio