It's not that cheap bad bikes drove out expensive good bikes, but tha bad bikes at all price levels drove out good bikes at all price levels.
There are hallmarks of bike appeal (say, fat tires, or suspension), which will attract buyers. If those features are poorly engineered and manufactured, they lower the overall value of the bike. It's a worse bike for having them.
It's much as embellishment of virtually any product occurs with time, but most especially functional systems, which negate the actual useful appeal. The functional parts are reduced to minimum viable cost (and quality).
Put another way, the situation is of a high-reward environment (lots of dumb money flowing), rewarding variation, but with a really bad selection criterion. It's essentially disevolution at work -- the goal is to suck up as much money as possible, regardless of technical quality, and it works because technical quality is hard to assess for.
There are hallmarks of bike appeal (say, fat tires, or suspension), which will attract buyers. If those features are poorly engineered and manufactured, they lower the overall value of the bike. It's a worse bike for having them.
It's much as embellishment of virtually any product occurs with time, but most especially functional systems, which negate the actual useful appeal. The functional parts are reduced to minimum viable cost (and quality).
Put another way, the situation is of a high-reward environment (lots of dumb money flowing), rewarding variation, but with a really bad selection criterion. It's essentially disevolution at work -- the goal is to suck up as much money as possible, regardless of technical quality, and it works because technical quality is hard to assess for.