For some time now, a reassuring explanation has been circulating: the bicycle market is struggling because too many bikes were sold during the Covid years. A simple, almost comforting reading. Too comforting. Because if we were truly facing a normal rebalancing after a boom, we would be witnessing a physiological adjustment. What we are observing instead is something deeper, involving structure, culture, and collective priorities.
During the pandemic, demand undoubtedly grew. But it was never fully met: component shortages, unavailable groupsets, delayed deliveries. There was never an oversupply capable of explaining a prolonged downturn in the following years. Reducing everything to “we sold too much” means avoiding the full picture. The current difficulty of cycling does not originate in Covid; it originates in a system that continues to prioritize something else.
The automobile remains the center of gravity
The first factor is political and economic. The automotive sector is the one facing genuine structural pressure, and precisely for that reason it is protected, supported, incentivized. Electrification is presented as the definitive ecological answer, while the overall impact — from battery production to raw materials to end-of-life — is far more complex. Yet the dominant narrative is clear: the car must be saved.
The bicycle, which remains the most efficient and sustainable vehicle available, does not benefit from the same centrality. It lacks the same industrial power and political weight; it does not activate comparable interests. When a sector is not placed at the center of public policy, it inevitably pays the price. It is not the market that has abandoned the bicycle; it is the system that never truly placed it at the center.
Fragile infrastructure, declining trust
Sustainable mobility is widely discussed, yet cycling infrastructure remains scarce, fragmented, and at times unsafe. There is no network — only segments. And segments do not create trust.
Meanwhile, accidents increase and the perception of risk grows. Fear thus becomes the invisible brake on the market. When a family hesitates to let a child ride, we are not facing a simple commercial data point but a cultural fracture. If one generation learns to ride independently later than the previous one, this is not a statistical detail: it signals that the bicycle is no longer spontaneous freedom but supervised, confined activity. And when it loses public space, it also loses its economic future.
The rise of gravel cycling partly stems from this: the need to move away from traffic and seek dirt roads, trails, secondary routes. It is not only a technical trend; it is an escape. But a sector that escapes does not expand — it adapts to marginality.
E-bikes: short expansion, structural effects
Electric bicycles were presented as the great lever of growth. To some extent they were: new users, new segments, new revenue. But in the medium term, a different picture emerges.
The e-bike user behaves differently from the traditional sport cyclist: they replace the bike less often, consume fewer components, keep the bike longer. They do not experience upgrading as continuous evolution. Moreover, many muscular cyclists migrated to electric, more than electric created new sport cyclists. The effect has been a weakening of traditional off-road segments, with significant declines in cross-country and enduro.
When performance is delegated to the motor, the technical search for the machine loses centrality. After the initial peak, the market experienced an opposite rebound. Not because the e-bike is a wrong direction, but because it did not broaden overall cycling culture: it created a parallel domain. The promised path from e-bike to muscle bike did not materialize; on the contrary, many sport cyclists moved to electric, further weakening the traditional base, especially in MTB.
Unlike the electric car, moreover, the bicycle — electric or not — has not received structural, continuous fiscal support. Once again, a choice emerges: other consumptions are incentivized, not active mobility.
The myth of excessive prices
Another recurring explanation claims that bikes do not sell because they are too expensive. This reading also proves fragile. The models that most easily reach sell-out status, when it happens, are often the highest-end ones. A clear sign that, among those truly inside cycling practice, willingness to spend has not disappeared.
In recent years, the industry has introduced increasingly complex technical solutions, and price lists have grown. But this does not make the bicycle inaccessible: the offer remains widely stratified. If a €15–18k top-end model is out of reach, there are bicycles of quality and durability at a fraction of that price. It has always been so, and it still is.
The removed issue of theft
The theft of bicycles is rarely addressed seriously. Some argue that more theft generates more sales. In reality, the opposite occurs. Those who suffer theft often do not repurchase immediately, or choose a lower-value model, limit daily use, reduce exposure. The damage is emotional as well as economic: it alters behavior. If leaving a bike outside school or work means risking its loss, the simplest choice returns to the car.
Theft thus becomes a powerful disincentive to quality purchase, yet it is rarely treated as a structural emergency. Protecting the bicycle means making it truly usable.
Not a product crisis, but a crisis of space and vision
The bicycle has not become less valid, less technological, or less desirable. It has been progressively marginalized: in policy, infrastructure, perceived safety, urban culture. Attributing everything to excessive Covid-era sales is convenient, but it does not explain the shrinking of cycling public space, the fear of families, the impact of theft, the persistent centrality of the automobile.
The real question is not how many bikes were sold three years ago, but what role we intend to assign to the bicycle in the future of our cities. This is not a market in crisis due to saturation; it is a vehicle left without space. And without space, no market can breathe.
