CTI price increase

SilicdyneTRF
Wildman Rocketry
eggtimer rocketry
Advertise with us
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Chad said:
Did the hardware go up or just the propellent? If it's only the propellent then the price increase is probably related to cost of materials. And if that's the case, then I would expect AT motors to go up too at some point.
Click to expand...

Hardware prices are up there. I haven't been following the prices. The Aerotech Hobbyline motors are now at: 24/40- $77.00 29/40-120-$87.00. , and $26.00 for a G reload. IMO high for "entry level".
 
charrington said:
Comparing aerotech, cti and other hobby rocketry manufacturers to large corporations that consistently exploit the political climate to rake in record profits is really wrong. Do you think that hobby rocketry manufacturers are raking in the big bucks and exploiting you? Aerotech and CTI employees need to pay rent and eat too, right? The increase of the average motor is far below inflation levels. The price of motors arent up, our wages are down while mega corporations rake in record profits. Dont put aerotech and CTI in the same boat as Amazon and Walmart.
Click to expand...

The actual problem is, likely, the Canadian economy.

https://www.nesto.ca/lifestyle/planning-for-a-recession-in-canada/

Inflation is around 6.2%, in Canada . . .. Still seems not to justify price increases of 25% +/-, though.

Dave F.
 
Antares JS said:
Try thinking through that again, as well as looking up what the non-SpaceX companies are planning to use to get their constellations launched.
Click to expand...

I am sure you know more about commercial rocket tech than I do.

I admit, I am not sure, or care too much, if Space-X is using their re-usable systems for LEO launches of their satellite constellation. It would seem like that would be an exorbitantly expensive way to put satellites into LEO, but maybe it isn't. I saw an interview sometime back (no link, can't remember where I saw it) where Elon Musk was asked about Starlink and the cost of launches and he said the use of liquid fuel is not sustainable (cost and complexity way too high per launch to sustain the number of launches they need for Starlink). So, no clue on my part what Space-X has in the queue for the future. Maybe they are planning to use dilithium crystals, for all I know.

As for other companies, I imagine they will be doing the same cost-benefit analysis. I am 100% confident there will be a wide variety of technology used to launch things into space over time and one-time use may (hopefully) be something that goes way as we get better at these things.

None of that in anyway changes the point that there is a gigantic market for aerospace parts and propellants that will make companies like CTI veer towards the commercial market and the large potential margins. If you want to put 100,000 satellites into LEO, you need a way to get them there and there will be a whole lot of companies willing to make the parts needed, regardless of the changes in tech. If the militaries of the world want to increase their missile production by 150%, they need to buy the propellant/parts from somewhere. The market for rockets for weather, media/film, UAV boosters, sounding rockets, etc will only grow, not shrink.

More broadly, it is the larger lure of commercial sales in general. Fiberglass tubes are a great example. Turns out that garment companies, for instance, use large FWFG tubes on their industrial machines to hold thread, cloth etc (more cost effective than metal tubes, I guess). Apparently, the sale of just one of those tubes eclipses what a manufacturer could make in the rocket hobby market in a whole year. All kinds of other FG tube uses that are way more lucrative than trying to make and sell small tubes/quantities to folks like us.

Many of the products we rely on for HPR have a very high barrier of entry to manufacture. They require $Millions to get a business setup and a lot of getting through red tape. If those companies survive the process to get to profitability, it only makes sense that they will try to take the leap to the next step.
 
mtnmanak said:
I am sure you know more about commercial rocket tech than I do.

I admit, I am not sure, or care too much, if Space-X is using their re-usable systems for LEO launches of their satellite constellation. It would seem like that would be an exorbitantly expensive way to put satellites into LEO, but maybe it isn't. I saw an interview sometime back (no link, can't remember where I saw it) where Elon Musk was asked about Starlink and the cost of launches and he said the use of liquid fuel is not sustainable (cost and complexity way too high per launch to sustain the number of launches they need for Starlink). So, no clue on my part what Space-X has in the queue for the future. Maybe they are planning to use dilithium crystals, for all I know.
Click to expand...
SpaceX does not operate a non-reusable system and only very occasionally deliberately expend a first stage when the requirements of a particular launch preclude saving propellant for a landing. However, there is currently no way to recover the upper stage, so that is expended with every flight.

Regardless, SpaceX's launch services are far cheaper than any of their competition. I am genuinely shocked that anyone would think using a reusable rocket would be "exorbitantly expensive."

SpaceX is getting as many Starlink satellites as they can launched using Falcon 9, but they are banking on the in-development, fully reusable Starship system to be able to eventually launch many more Starlinks at once while expending no hardware.
 
Chad said:
Did the hardware go up or just the propellent? If it's only the propellent then the price increase is probably related to cost of materials. And if that's the case, then I would expect AT motors to go up too at some point.
Click to expand...

Hardware seems to be up too, at least in one example: Pro29 6GXL went from $39.75 to $50.87, a 28% increase. I'm glad I have all the hardware I need for the forseeable future, at least.
 
gdjsky01 said:
0) this is not rocketry related
1) irregardless is not a word
2) without a profit everyone is unemployed. So who will buy the products? You think people invest in companies to LOSE money?
Click to expand...
From the Merriam-Webster dictionary,

irregardless​

adverb​

ir·re·gard·less ˌir-i-ˈgärd-ləs

nonstandard
: REGARDLESS
I told them that irregardless of what you read in books, they's some members of the theatrical profession that occasionally visits the place where they sleep.—Ring Lardner

pen-icon.svg
Is irregardless a word?: Usage Guide

Irregardless was popularized in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its increasingly widespread spoken use called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance.
 
Antares JS said:
SpaceX does not operate a non-reusable system and only very occasionally deliberately expend a first stage when the requirements of a particular launch preclude saving propellant for a landing. However, there is currently no way to recover the upper stage, so that is expended with every flight.

Regardless, SpaceX's launch services are far cheaper than any of their competition. I am genuinely shocked that anyone would think using a reusable rocket would be "exorbitantly expensive."

SpaceX is getting as many Starlink satellites as they can launched using Falcon 9, but they are banking on the in-development, fully reusable Starship system to be able to eventually launch many more Starlinks at once while expending no hardware.
Click to expand...

Great.
 
The price of aluminum has gone up 40% in 2 years which impacts the price of the hardware, and cost of propellants which contain aluminum. A lot of electricity goes into refining aluminum ore. A lot of energy, in general, goes into making the alloys and tempering.

AP has gone up at least 100% in 2 years, and availability is getting worse due to international conflicts and politics. There's a single North American producer and they aren't worried about small manufacturers. AP from China is getting impossible due to their export regs and the cost of shipping. China also has increased the use of AP in large solids and reformulated their AP which no longer matches US mil specs.

HTPB (etc) prices follow oil prices. Once it's gone up, it hasn't come back down with lower crude oil prices because of the uncertainty in the cost and supply of oil.

Transportation costs in general drive up the cost of raw materials shipped into a company to make any product. Fedex/UPS have gone up 30-40%. Again, uncertainty in the cost and supply of oil.

With all of those challenges, plus the rising cost of labor, it's a wonder the HPR motor pricing hasn't gone up faster. This is where the advantage of mil/aero customers help offset the hobby line costs. If AT and CTI didn't have that, they'd go by the wayside like the small motor manufacturers have.

These are the economic facts. No need to bring politics into it.
 
gdjsky01 said:
0) this is not rocketry related
1) irregardless is not a word
2) without a profit everyone is unemployed. So who will buy the products? You think people invest in companies to LOSE money?
Click to expand...
The problem is, hobby dollars are getting hard to come by. With out of control inflation across the board, a lot of us are getting to the point where we have to start trimming the budget just to put food on the table. So if the *insert your favorite hobby here* companies keep raising their prices, they will force us to stop buying. Then where do their profit margins go? How many of these places can afford to lose even half of their customer base?

I haven't bought any hpr motors for a while now, maybe over a year, I'd have to check. We're at the price point now, that I might be done with hpr when my current stock is depleted.
 
gldknght said:
The problem is, hobby dollars are getting hard to come by. With out of control inflation across the board, a lot of us are getting to the point where we have to start trimming the budget just to put food on the table. So if the *insert your favorite hobby here* companies keep raising their prices, they will force us to stop buying. Then where do their profit margins go? How many of these places can afford to lose even half of their customer base?

I haven't bought any hpr motors for a while now, maybe over a year, I'd have to check. We're at the price point now, that I might be done with hpr when my current stock is depleted.
Click to expand...



First off:
1673499354234.png

NON STANDARD Its a double negative.



Now on to @gldknght 's post. Your post is perfect and I can understand. (However the prices were out of control long before a year of inflation).

Almost all of my HPR inventory was bought 10 years ago. I was on hiatus from 2017 to 2022. I bought most of my HPR loads from Ken at Performance Hobbies during his BF sales. However he no longer answers to my emails so maybe he is gone? Dunno. But again, prices are insane. $120 for a K? It costs AT no more than $30 in quantity. You'll not convince me otherwise with seeing the books.

Were it not for my stockpile, I'd be done with HPR. And most MPR. I mean W?F! $30 for 2 lousy E's or F's? $15USD each? Really?
Yet if people were not insanely well off and paying that price, no motor manufacturers would be around. So I (we?) must (are) the exception not the rule. I see Dad's shelling out $15 for a single E at a launch because the spoiled brat will shriek and moan unless he does.

But I digress.

I'll launch until I can't... then I'll move on to a a cheaper hobby, like Amateur Astronomy.
:p
 
A manufacturer faced with rising costs can do one of three things. 1) Accept the lower margin and eat the increased costs. If the cost increase seems to be a temporary thing, and they're in a good cash-flow position, this may be an option. If the cost increases appear to be permanent, this is going to adversely affect the bottom line... and most likely be unsustainable. 2) Reduce other expenses. That may mean layoffs... which nobody wants. 3) Raise their prices to cover the increase in costs. If the margins are relatively low and/or cash flow is an issue, this may the the most palatable option.
 
THE best way to make a small fortune in the hobby business is to start out with a LARGE one.

CTI is (or could be) in a unique position in that they are really AT's ONLY competition. I am not suggesting they LOWER prices if the product is no good. People will figure that out and decide their rocket is worth more than the savings. Now I have nothing but old loads (7 or 8 years) and all are I and below and they work great. I really like CTI. Variety is good. Choice is good. Now if the product IS good, lower, don't raise, prices. Or hold the line (same as lower prices in an inflation cycle). Your value proposition becomes attractive to consumers. (Yeah MBA speak). You'll know a few months or so if you are kicking ass and taking names, or just bleeding more money. The former, rock on, the latter, well time maybe to exit that market. Sad but if you have a good professional clientele than rock(et) on.

I was very critical of what I read about CTI's customer service in this thread. OTOH I get they have to pay $40 to SHIP a $100 replacement reload to a consumer. I get that that is crazy.

A cr*p. I don't have all the answers. I just want CTI to succeed because choice is good.
 
This whole discussion is helping me decide which way I go as I get into 54 and 75 reloads. I started with CTI 38 starter set (3G case, 6G case, DAT & 2 spacers), purchasing at the end of 2019 for $109.95. Although it took a month and a half to get, it was the economical choice at the time. As I now have quite a few FG kits in my build pile, 4 of them with 54 motor mounts, I think I'll switch over to AT.
 
H_Rocket said:
3D grain printing is something I want to try. I have burned ABS, but it's reportedly a pain to print. I suppose PLA would burn.
Click to expand...
Its not pain for simple shapes like a fuel grain.
 
gldknght said:
The problem is, hobby dollars are getting hard to come by. With out of control inflation across the board, a lot of us are getting to the point where we have to start trimming the budget just to put food on the table. So if the *insert your favorite hobby here* companies keep raising their prices, they will force us to stop buying. Then where do their profit margins go? How many of these places can afford to lose even half of their customer base?

I haven't bought any hpr motors for a while now, maybe over a year, I'd have to check. We're at the price point now, that I might be done with hpr when my current stock is depleted.
Click to expand...

Could always change to rockets that use smaller motors.
 
Even the Estes black powder motors have gone way up in price. I'll still buy some and maybe even go for my L1 and buy an occasional HPR motor, but I probably won't fly as many rockets as I would otherwise. I certainly won't quit the hobby!
 
... so I figure my days of launching a dozen+++ HPR in a day are over. down to 3 or 4, especially with my now limited income. I don't have a deep back stock so it's gonna be retail. what the heck, it's a hobby. Flying at some clubs cost more in gas to get to and hotels to stay at, than I'd spend on motors. Bu it's part of the adventure.

Hybrids are an interesting thing. Yeah they are cheap, but they stink! The Contrails always light, but the others don't (oh yeah, save a lot of $$$ spnding the whole weekend tryng to get the damn thing to light, arrgh!). and no reloads available anyway. plus the mass fraction is terrible, worse than BP! 1700 feet on an M motor!???! get outta here.
 
SeanW78 said:
This whole discussion is helping me decide which way I go as I get into 54 and 75 reloads. I started with CTI 38 starter set (3G case, 6G case, DAT & 2 spacers), purchasing at the end of 2019 for $109.95. Although it took a month and a half to get, it was the economical choice at the time. As I now have quite a few FG kits in my build pile, 4 of them with 54 motor mounts, I think I'll switch over to AT.
Click to expand...
I, too, are contemplating "going to the dark side" (AT) as currently there are zero CTI (my usual 'go to' motor choice) vendors (with stock) over here in Oz.
Luckily I purchased a CTI 4G 75mm case system a while back which is compatible with the AT Crossloads. Using these should get me over the hump of L3 late this year or early next. After that we'll just have to wait and see.
Cheers
 
Sorry to hear that. Mine COL has not gone up as much as you all are claiming.

However, Inflation today is a result of someone's (wanna guess who's?) "stick my head in the sand, the press is making it up" response to a global pandemic. That caused all the resulting supply chain issues and then the resulting pent up demand. Which led to a different employment dynamic. Which led to more jobs than people. Which led to higher wages. Then couple that with climate change causing food supply issues.. well... it does not take a Rocket Scientist (see! Rocketry content!)....

And we all know who tried to sweep the entire pandemic under a rug. Leadership. There is no substitute.
 

Similar threads

Cl(VII)
Sold Wildman Falcon 3 (Built) - Price Drop
Replies
2
Views
680
Cl(VII)
Cl(VII)
SammyD
For Sale CTI / Cesaroni - Pro-98, 6gr, 4gr, and 3gr - Gen 1 Motor Casings and 1 Closure Set - NEW, UNUSED
Replies
2
Views
665
StreuB1
StreuB1
prfesser
On price increases re. minimum wage increase
12 13 14
Replies
417
Views
22K
MJW
M
rfjustin
Sold CTI and Aerotech 38mm hardware (priced to move)
Replies
14
Views
1K
rfjustin
rfjustin
SMR
Sold Spring Cleaning - 8" nose cone, CTI 54-6G casings, 12' x 1515 rail
Replies
4
Views
1K
cwbullet
cwbullet

Latest posts

Back
Top