>>1666098>original MSRP is relatively meaningless.not really, for a little bit more than 200$ you can sometimes get top notch vintage bikes
with high value components, that was multiple k$ new, and would be sufficient to be ridden by pros, makes no sense to waste that amount of money on some heavy shit bike with Acera components that wasn't more than 400$ new 15 years ago
>You're also not taking into account inflationNo, I don't, I include that in the reduced value for used items.
>$249 in 1999 is worth $399.14 today. And i'd say that bike is comparable to the base model FX1 which is like $500That's just ridiculous. According to your logic an used bicycle from 1983 that was 3000$ should now cost 10k$ or whatever idiotic sum
>the fact that bicycle prices have risen generally.No, I don't support jewish meme trickery. Not the value of bicycles have risen but the performance of the cycling industry went to hell. Value of a bicycle is related to the value it has due to factors that are much more important. Material, build quality, components, weight, rarity, role in cycling history etc. not whatever some douchebag thinks his bicycle should make him money because "bicycle prices have risen" or whatever.
In reality it's really simple if you pay 200$ for some 16kg Acera shit bike from 2003 you are simply an idiot.
People like you are actually the reason that douchebags think they can make huge moneygrab out of their their close to worthless shitbikes.
Pic related is how an used bike worth 200$ and more looks like, not the consoomer trash in
>>1666023 and
>>1665984 