[Closed] Component 'Standards'

Maybe everything will just get more expensive to cover it.

The variety of "standards" keeps things more interesting and allows for developments, but I suspect it artificially inflates the overall cost of stuff ... but if nobody ever tried something different, we would still be riding penny farthings 🙂

Tapered is pretty much the norm now. You won't see many with straight steerers of any size.

All about the manufacturers and not for the benefit of consumers.

****s.

Bike sales are not driven by 'need', they are driven by 'want' = lifestyle/fashion choices.

Thus bike 'development' is driven by the necessity to keep changing the current fashion or 'standard' to create new wants in buyers.

No point is Spech trying to sell you another idential colour scheme hardtail stumpy with std steerer, 100mm travel, 25.4 bars and 8spd that is the same as the one you bought 3yrs ago and is all you need to tit around the woods when they can offer you a bright red, super-special carbon, 650b, 142 rear, 150mm travel, full susser with taper steerer and bolt though both ends.

It's the reality of marketing to existing customers.

Problem: Most people who are seriously into MTB already have a bike.

Solution: Convince them that their current bike is rubbish.

Changing standards is a win-win because it means people can't just upgrade their existing bikes.

[img] [/img]

its not upgrading that worries me, its replacing parts like for like.

It's either "progress" or (if you're cynical) "creating a market", genuinely trying to make a difference or changing things for the sake of it ... probably a bit of both in reality

I'm in 2 minds over the whole issue.

On the one hand,

Marzocchi knew how to make good dampers in 1994 when they made the first bombers, magnesium casting isn't anything new, and every engineer knows bigger diameter = stiffer. So why has it taken 20 years to come up with the 55 RC3? The proliferation of CAD and FEA only explains so much.

On the other hand, if they genuinly could have built it 20 years ago, why didn't they, after all they'd have won races and therefore sold more products, so they can't be drip feeding pre-planed developments otherwise the cometition would just do it quicker*.

*shimano excepted who've apparently patented loads of gear related stuff for the future, why not give it us now?

I'm worried that bikes are going to become more and more like cars, ie more and more model-specific.
Just had to rebuild the gear selector on my Transit. This part only fits Mk6 and Mk7 Ford Transits with the 2 litre engine and front wheel drive.
I can easily envisage a world where there will be a special front mech which only fits Specialized Stumperjumpers 2017-19 with a 40-44 tooth big ring and Specilized's own shifter. Which only fits on their own bars. Which only fits on their stems. Which only fits their steerer tube. Which only fits their headsets. Which only fits their frames. Joined up thinking is all well and good but a real PITA to get parts for.
.
No reason to pick on Spec other than general ubiquity.
.
I agree that progress is good, but can't everyone sit down and come with a 'standard'. I'm sure it could be done. 25.4mm bars, 1 1/8 headsets, 135mm axle spacing, 9mm QR, English thread BBs, pedal axle threads. Stuff is (usually) interchangeable I don't know how these were decided on but it would nice if they could do it again for BBs, axles, steerers, etc. Maybe two standards, light or strong, like QR/20mm axles used to be for years until they started messing about with 15mm and 15-20mm tapered and QR20 etc.

25.4mm bars, 1 1/8 headsets, 135mm axle spacing, 9mm QR, English thread BBs, pedal axle threads.

Basically what everyone else has stuck with while MTBs have headed off on their own with new incompatible things. And for most people, even riding MTBs, those standards were perfectly sufficient.

I suppose the answer is to boycott stuff which isn't easily upgradeable and interchangeable.