Quote:
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.