[shancz]

Originally Posted by Emvi

The BIG bikes sold in India via CBU route are obviously expensive. But I think there are quite a few of them which are manufactured/assembled in India. One such notable example is BMW G310 series bikes.

Is it because of the taxation, the bikes are priced higher? Are they priced higher just for the premiumness?

I don't think its a fair comparison to compare "bikes and cars below 10 lakhs". In the same way you don't compare a Ciaz to an A4.
Every machine is built for a purpose, capability and audience. To cross compare IMHO is unfair

IMO Bikes are actually cheaper than cars in any segment, if the comparison is accurate.
Why ? trying to be as close as possible, some examples :
- Triumph Speed Triple R/Kawasaki Z900 is comparable to a Jaguar XE/Lexus ES
- KTM 390 Duke/TVS RTR 200 is comparable to a Skoda Rapid/Tata Altroz Turbo
- Honda Africa/Triumph Tiger is comparable to a Toyota Landcruiser/Land Rover Defender
- RE Himalayan/BMW 310GS is comparable to a Safari(older)/Harrier

Compare their prices and the bikes are cheaper by multiples.

I can't recall the exact words but Shubhabrata Marmar had very accurately lamented on this topic in some video/article which I agree to :
When you buy a big bike like a Ducati/Aprilia you are buying the best machinery and equipment available anywhere in the world in that class, so a more relevant comparison would be to an equivalent car which incites a similar experience like a Ferrari/Maserati.

[sodapop]

Originally Posted by Emvi

There have been some valuable inputs from the fellow BHPians. Inputs are appreciated.But I also see a lot has been mentioned about performance in terms of power,speed and the metallurgy of the powertrains of the BIG bikes as the primary reason behind the pricing.

First of all, please define "Big" bikes. Please give us a parameter to judge a "big" bike on. Otherwise how do you expect people to not assume it to mean superbikes?

Time and money spent on R&D may not be always proportional to the price of the vehicle. Tata Nano is one such example.

I don't think you quite understood what some people are saying. I'll make it easier by giving an example. Suppose you are making a Sonata watch. Let's take the R&D cost to be 10 lakhs. Now with a Sonata, you expect to sell about a crore watches and so R&D costs will be 0.1 rupees per watch to recover them. However if you're making a super exclusive Rolex which you will expect to sell about a 100 units in total, with the same R&D cost, you'll have to recover about 10,000 rupees which will add to the production cost significantly. Now that is called economies of scale.

If speed is the criteria that differentiates these bikes from cars, we all know even the cars in 3.5-5 lakhs rupee bracket are well capable of attaining speeds in the region of 145-155 kmph. I know, it is never safe or sane driving at that speeds, I'm just quoting for the purpose of comparison. I am not discounting the fact that the bikes definitely have superior acceleration. As rightly mentioned by a fellow BHPian it is not about spec sheet battle.

An Alto 800 has a top speed of 140 km/h whereas a KTM RC390 which is priced a tad bit less goes till 170 km/h. Leaving that aside, you can see the difference in their 0-100 timings which is just mind boggling and you'll understand why performance bikes are called so. An Alto does 0-100 in 19 seconds but an RC390 does it in less than 6!

Let us forget supercars and superbikes for a moment. We have bikes like RE Interceptor, Bajaj Dominar 400 and KTMs which offer great performance, acceptable quality, modern technology, displacement and most importantly priced almost equal to or marginally lesser than the cheapest car options available. Interestingly the bikes one or two segments above the ones that I have mentioned seem to be priced disproportionately(I am not sure if it is the right word). It doesn't seem so in case of the cars.

You are completely sidelining the fact that most of these "big" bikes are complete imports which attract a very heavy tax rate. And it's not feasible to assemble them locally in most cases simply because the volumes are far too less to justify. Like I said, economies of scale do come into play because the fixed cost in producing 100 bikes and 10,000 bikes will be nearly the same but the various other variable factors like input costs will be staggeringly higher for the 100 bikes.


I hope you got the answer you were looking for.

[Emvi]

Originally Posted by shancz

I don't think its a fair comparison to compare "bikes and cars below 10 lakhs". In the same way you don't compare a Ciaz to an A4.
Every machine is built for a purpose, capability and audience. To cross compare IMHO is unfair

IMO Bikes are actually cheaper than cars in any segment, if the comparison is accurate.
Why ? trying to be as close as possible, some examples :

I can't recall the exact words but Shubhabrata Marmar had very accurately lamented on this topic in some video/article which I agree to : [/i]

I think you have missed the context of my post a little bit. I am not trying to compare cars with bikes or their capabilities. Ironically though, the comparison you have presented is a good one! What Shubhabratha has said is genuine, they are the best of the best, not everyday you find those machines on the roads though. As I have already quoted in my previous post, let us not include "legends" for the purpose of discussion. We have a few very well engineered cars in the country with best features- safety and covinience, good performance and comfort retailing at around 1 million rupees mark. It is easy for anyone to understand whats contributing to the price of the cars, but it is not the same with the bikes we are discussing about. Hope I have clarified my context.

Lastly, I am just curious to know, what would you compare a 600-800cc cruiser bike to?

Originally Posted by sodapop

First of all, please define "Big" bikes. Please give us a parameter to judge a "big" bike on. Otherwise how do you expect people to not assume it to mean superbikes?

It seems to me like you have missed my first post.

I don't think you quite understood what some people are saying.

I guess you are just picking the lines and not the context.

An Alto 800 has a top speed of 140 km/h whereas a KTM RC390 which is priced a tad bit less goes till 170 km/h. Leaving that aside, you can see the difference in their 0-100 timings which is just mind boggling and you'll understand why performance bikes are called so.

It is not just about a particular car in comparison with a particular bike. Picking the slowest car and the fastest bike in the price range will definitely amplify the difference. I myself have acknowledged the fact that the bikes have superior acceleration. Probably you have missed that as well.

You are completely sidelining the fact that most of these "big" bikes are complete imports which attract a very heavy tax rate. And it's not feasible to assemble them locally in most cases simply because the volumes are far too less to justify. Like I said, economies of scale do come into play because the fixed cost in producing 100 bikes and 10,000 bikes will be nearly the same but the various other variable factors like input costs will be staggeringly higher for the 100 bikes.

Refer my first post.

I hope you got the answer you were looking for.

I genuinely thank your efforts.

[shancz]

Originally Posted by Emvi

I think you have missed the context of my post a little bit.

We have a few very well engineered cars in the country with best features- safety and covinience, good performance and comfort retailing at around 1 million rupees mark. It is easy for anyone to understand whats contributing to the price of the cars, but it is not the same with the bikes we are discussing about. Hope I have clarified my context.

Yes I did, apologies I didn't see your earlier post, I guess you meant this one:

Originally Posted by Emvi

Reiterating my point, are the BIG bikes really expensive to manufacture or what is the genuine reason behind the pricing?

• To simplify lets compare the Altroz XZ Turbo at 8.84 lakhs ex-showroom :
• In terms of equivalence like I mentioned earlier it will be the RTR 200 priced at 1.3 lakhs ex-showroom, do you think this is fair enough just in terms of price ?
• In terms of price only, the Triumph Speed Triple R around the 8.84 lakhs ex-showroom. Note that its available for 9100GBP in the UK translating to 9.1 lakhs(not sure about the taxes there) which if on road is still ok, considering the duties and stuff(its not a CBU though).

Correct me if I am wrong but your question seems to be : why is the Speed Triple as expensive as the Altroz while you can't see anything that costs that much ?
While I don't agree with the comparison itself but let me hazard a guess, some points :

• Light : Keeping the weight down is expensive due to the materials and processes involved. Altroz is mainly steel, ST is aluminium, including the chassis, frames and the likes. It wouldn't matter if the Altroz was heavier by 50kgs but if the ST can't have that.
  
• Compact : Both have 3 cylinder engines with riding modes and ABS and all that has to fit in the small frame of the ST. Making things smaller requires much more effort and precision hence expensive.
  
• Performance : Bikes usually redline above 10000rpm, my RTR180 hits 11000rpm, ST makes peak power at 12000rpm the Altroz redlines below 6000rpm, so some difference in technology and likely expensive ?
  
• Refinement and Quality : Making things better is expensive. The Altroz feels coarse at 5000rpm, you just cannot have that in a motorcycle which makes its peak power at 9000rpm. The level of refinement on a ST are in a different league.
  
• Technology : the technology in the bike as well as in the manufacturing processes to make them perform at such engine speeds, within those dimensions while keeping the weight in check shouldn't be more expensive too ?
  
• Royalties and Tariffs : add slightly but not much of a deal, mainly applies to imported components. If you are talking about the BMW G310R, just compare it to the TVS RR310 which shares the platform and similarly priced but with better features, styling and practicality. The difference you'll get in their prices is basically the price of the BMW badge to a great extent.

This was just an exercise to list some of the reasons I could think of, but just writing them made me feel sick, its that weird a comparison
But on the other hand what would make more sense is a comparison of costs between different bikes themselves like the Dominars to the Dukes, the G310GS to the Himalayan, the 390 Adventure to the G310GS, the ST to the Z900 or the Interceptor 650 to the Ninja 650, the Continental 650 to the CBR650R. Now that's more interesting and feasible.

Originally Posted by Emvi

Lastly, I am just curious to know, what would you compare a 600-800cc cruiser bike to?

Tough one, cannot think of any. Usually bikes/cars serve at least one direct purpose like sports are about performance and speed, ADVs are about touring in comfort and handling abuse, commuters are for comfort and FE. But that segment works purely on feel, when you are astride that with your legs stretched out and a V twin rumbling under you. I never liked it but a lot of people do and I respect that.

[Emvi]

Originally Posted by shancz

• To simplify lets compare the Altroz XZ Turbo at 8.84 lakhs ex-showroom :
• In terms of equivalence like I mentioned earlier it will be the RTR 200 priced at 1.3 lakhs ex-showroom, do you think this is fair enough just in terms of price ?
• In terms of price only, the Triumph Speed Triple R around the 8.84 lakhs ex-showroom. Note that its available for 9100GBP in the UK translating to 9.1 lakhs(not sure about the taxes there) which if on road is still ok, considering the duties and stuff(its not a CBU though).

Correct me if I am wrong but your question seems to be : why is the Speed Triple as expensive as the Altroz while you can't see anything that costs that much ?
While I don't agree with the comparison itself but let me hazard a guess, some points :

• Light : Keeping the weight down is expensive due to the materials and processes involved. Altroz is mainly steel, ST is aluminium, including the chassis, frames and the likes. It wouldn't matter if the Altroz was heavier by 50kgs but if the ST can't have that.
  
• Compact : Both have 3 cylinder engines with riding modes and ABS and all that has to fit in the small frame of the ST. Making things smaller requires much more effort and precision hence expensive.
  
• Performance : Bikes usually redline above 10000rpm, my RTR180 hits 11000rpm, ST makes peak power at 12000rpm the Altroz redlines below 6000rpm, so some difference in technology and likely expensive ?
  
• Refinement and Quality : Making things better is expensive. The Altroz feels coarse at 5000rpm, you just cannot have that in a motorcycle which makes its peak power at 9000rpm. The level of refinement on a ST are in a different league.
  
• Technology : the technology in the bike as well as in the manufacturing processes to make them perform at such engine speeds, within those dimensions while keeping the weight in check shouldn't be more expensive too ?
  
• Royalties and Tariffs : add slightly but not much of a deal, mainly applies to imported components. If you are talking about the BMW G310R, just compare it to the TVS RR310 which shares the platform and similarly priced but with better features, styling and practicality. The difference you'll get in their prices is basically the price of the BMW badge to a great extent.

This was just an exercise to list some of the reasons I could think of, but just writing them made me feel sick, its that weird a comparison

Yes, you are 'mostly' right. The comparison might seem weird, nonetheless it is excellent! Your exercise is a very good one indeed. Thank you. It shows how superior the Triumph ST is and where the money has been spent on. I said 'mostly' because- taking into consideration the vehicles(cars and bikes) in the price bracket of 3-12 lakh rupees,

1. Not all bikes boast of aluminium frame/chassis. Do they ?
There are quite a few bikes with steel frames in various configurations- trellis, diamond and perimeter type.

2. Materials wise aluminium is probably twice(or even little more) as expensive as the high tensile steel. Having worked in manufacturing industries previously, my experience says there is not a lot of difference in machining cost of the metals in discussion. In fact on occasions, machining aluminium is easier and cheaper than steel. Die-cast aluminium components generally have very good finishing and hence require low machining time. Aluminium chassis enhances a bike's rigidity and stiffness which is essential for handling characteristics of a high speed machine. A point to be noted is that a car chassis is designed to carry more load(people/luggage) on different road surfaces, they are heavier, stronger and probably has 4-5 times more metal (steel). It is important to consider that a lot of emphasis is also given for the ride and handling of a car while designing. Thus the price factor of the materials used is completely negated IMO.

3. Regarding compactness, it is true precision equates to cost. The power is transmitted only to the rear wheel of a bike and that whole system needs to be compact. The drivetrains in cars are not compact for sure for obvious reasons, but no less complicated than the bikes. Precision manufacturing and engineering add up to a bike's price, no doubt. What we can't disregard is the sheer number of components a car has in comparison with a bike. Yes, the precision levels of certain critical components might be a couple of notches below compared to a bike, but they are not devoid of high class engineering, are they?

4. A car may not have the speed and acceleration of a bike. The high RPMs that a bike can rev up to is purely exhilarating. When it comes to torque figures, cars generally fare better. When a TVS Apache redlines at 11k RPM, it's not surprising at all that the bigger bikes rev even higher. A bike is perhaps 'technologically' advanced in this regard. But a car which can seat 4 or 5 people with top safety and covenience features also needs to have good 'technology', if not better than the bikes.

Weighing in all the factors that have been discussed so far like performance, technology, sales volume, taxation and others, the more we discuss about this topic, the more I feel that the manufacturers price these BIG bikes higher just because they want to price them higher more than anything. Exceptions are always there.

[Vignesh_N/A]

A similar comparison can also be made for Volvo B7R vs Audi A7

B7R has more space, can carry more people and has more parts yet it costs almost same as A7.

[shancz]

Originally Posted by Emvi

Weighing in all the factors that have been discussed so far like performance, technology, sales volume, taxation and others, the more we discuss about this topic, the more I feel that the manufacturers price these BIG bikes higher just because they want to price them higher more than anything. Exceptions are always there.

Thanks for your points.

I think the cost of machining and materials needs a dedicated discussion, we already have a couple of threads which I haven't checked though. But I cannot comment on it since I have no knowledge on that subject.

I see the reasoning behind your thread but in the end there is something inside that just doesn't accept the comparison of a bike and a car.
Although calculating the cost of a bike itself is fine

If you look at the price drop on BMW G310 series recently your views are confirmed in a way. They added significant kit, made them BS6 compatible and still dropped by almost 65k, G310GS went from 3.49 to 2.85 lakhs. But that's BMW, they have done it before with the F650(pun intended).

Let me get back to worrying how long can Triumph hold on in India with their current sales

[Gansan]

Two reasons.

1) They are exotic lifestyle products. A 800 cc bike will invariably be a lifestyle product and will be priced accordingly. A similar displacement Alto, even though it offers a lot more creature comforts than the bike, is a mass market prodcuct and not lifestyle product.

2) This is a corollary to point no.1. Because these are lifestyle products, they sell in negligible volumes. So economies of scale never kick in.

[Emvi]

Originally Posted by shancz

Thanks for your points.

I see the reasoning behind your thread but in the end there is something inside that just doesn't accept the comparison of a bike and a car.
Although calculating the cost of a bike itself is fine

If you look at the price drop on BMW G310 series recently your views are confirmed in a way. They added significant kit, made them BS6 compatible and still dropped by almost 65k, G310GS went from 3.49 to 2.85 lakhs.
Let me get back to worrying how long can Triumph hold on in India with their current sales

Thanks for your time and valuable insights. You have certainly shown that we can have meaningful discussions without being sarcastic. I respect your views.

Cheers

[shashank.nk]

Originally Posted by Emvi

the more I feel that the manufacturers price these BIG bikes higher just because they want to price them higher more than anything. Exceptions are always there.

Not only because they want to but also because they CAN. I'm no expert, but pricing is a function of many factors and one such factor is the desirability of the product being sold.

Premium bikes and cars have HUGE desirability which is why a customer is willing to pay a premium for it. A mass market product on the other hand is no where close to these bikes in terms of desirability. Most superbike purchases result in fulfilling a childhood dream, however relatively speaking buying say a i20 is not something many would have dreamt of as a child.

So when the market is willing to pay a premium, you charge it.

[shancz]

Originally Posted by Gansan

They are exotic lifestyle products.

Aptly put, I may have a different threshold for exotic but lifestyle products is perfect.

Originally Posted by Emvi

Thanks for your time and valuable insights. You have certainly shown that we can have meaningful discussions without being sarcastic. I respect your views.

Thanks to you too, I would've never imagined discussing or even sparing a thought over a topic like this anywhere else
Keeping the biker at bay I actually see the logic and agree with your argument(reluctantly) that they charge the money because they can and like Gansan and others have mentioned the economies of scale don't kick in in such products due to low volumes.

This actually made me ask myself does TVS earn the the same profit on a RTR200 and a Star City ? They don't and they shouldn't. RTR200 is a lifestyle product and should be charged as such but not ridiculously high though.
I think Indian manufacturers are more sensible in this. Others, not so much.
Like BMW Motorrad gave us a glimpse of how much they charge with the price cut.
Imagine how much does a Triumph/Ducati spend on their establishment and product launches and how can they sustain by selling 100 bikes/year ? This is something that has baffled me for a long time. This exclusivity/premium-ness surcharge could be quite high. Reminds me of Apple.

Also on pricing, we should look at factory pricing too. For example when my friend bought his Himalayan BS4 it was approx 2 lakhs on road here. We were discussing that although good it wasn't worth 2 lakhs and then he checked the invoice. The factory price was approx 1.2 lakhs IIRC. So if RE charges us 1.2 lakhs for it, its fair enough.

The respect is mutual, I learnt something new so quite beneficial too, Thanks

[jomson13]

Originally Posted by Gansan

Two reasons.

1) They are exotic lifestyle products. A 800 cc bike will invariably be a lifestyle product and will be priced accordingly. A similar displacement Alto, even though it offers a lot more creature comforts than the bike, is a mass market prodcuct and not lifestyle product.

2) This is a corollary to point no.1. Because these are lifestyle products, they sell in negligible volumes. So economies of scale never kick in.

Totally agree about the lifestyle product analogy. I could think of one more:

Fashion accessories - take handbags for instance. The basic job performed is the same but the price varies greatly across brands. The high flying brands command the price due to their image, exclusivity in addition to a superior customer experience

[aargee]

Technically on paper, on every aspect the numbers on motorcycle is way too inferior; heck even the number of tires are less. But when you ride & drive...that's when you know whether hell broke loose or you're already feeling heaven!!

[aargee]

Originally Posted by aargee

Technically on paper, on every aspect the numbers on motorcycle is way too inferior; heck even the number of tires are less. But when you ride & drive...that's when you know whether hell broke loose or you're already feeling heaven!!

And what differs in real life is what's not on paper...or the image to be practical is P2WR
Ninja H2R 310 Bhp weighs - 216 Kg = 1435 Bhp per tonne
C43 AMG 385 Bhp weighs - 1804 Kg = 213 Bhp per tonne

[Zinda]

Comparing superbikes with ordinary cars isn't fair - they should be compared to supercars IMO. Here are the core factors which make big bikes more expensive than cars:

1. Power output -
Hayabusa - 1300cc - 200 bhp
Ninja H2R - 1000cc supercharged - 310 bhp
BMW S1000RR - 185 bhp

Now, do you remember ANY regular 1000cc Car ever produced which can match these figures?

2. Compact powertrain - Engine+Gearbox combo is super compact. No ordinary car can match this while producing same levels of output

3. Lots of fibre and expensive lightweight parts to keep the weight in check


And then lesser sales volume means manufacturers keep high margins for profit.