Forum menu
[blah blah]90’s[blah blah]. As a dickhead at the time
This implies that you no longer self-identify as a dickhead. If true, can you give us [s]loyal[/s] [I]occasional[/I] customers an idea of when you transitioned?
Folks can change their mind.
Absolutely they can and that is a very good thing.
Normally people change their mind about something because they find new information or their attitudes change.
If Brant changed his mind because he found out something he didn't know before or if his attitudes changed then that's fine. However, from his responses to people on here (who were only saying the same things he and others in the industry have been saying about factory conditions for years) it doesn't sound like either one of those things happened.
If he found out that factory conditions were worse than he thought or if he one day decided that the factory conditions were unacceptable I would expect a response that was more apologetic. 'Sorry, we didn't know at the time.' or 'Sorry, we knew conditions weren't great but we honestly didn't think we could sell the frames if they were priced any higher.'
I don't know if he's taken a page out of the Sick Bicycle Co book of marketing but his responses were confrontational and not apologetic at all which is a confusing response if he truly had his Road to Damascus moment.
It does leave me wondering if he is just a plain old capitalist. When the best business practice was to sell products as cheaply as possible he went and found the cheapest source. Now that the winds are changing and it makes more sense to promote locally manufactured products he is scathing of cheap Asian imports.
I guess we'll never know.
I'm not invested in the debate, but tweeting about your post was a pretty cheap move :-/
(Shall I have a whine about my bad experience buying a Pompino with **** chainline in 2006? 😉 )
Bugger me some people think they matter.
In some small way of answering the original post, I have owned a few steel hardtails in my time, the latest my second Stanton Slackline. I love their bikes and the way in which they do things, when they released the first prototype pictures of the SwitchFS frame I just knew I had to have one!
Yes it's a little heavier than an alloy or carbon frame but i love the way it rides and they guys at Stanton were amazing. I also love the fact it was hand made in the UK but then that might not carry any weight with others, which is fine with me 🙂
Keep seeing new models all the time, but honestly, why
Because it's cheaper and easier for the sorts of "boutique" makers, especially UK based, that want to make interesting, short production run, easily production line altered bikes. You see more of them here, as the sorts of folk who read STW and the kind of folks that might buy one, aren't so much a venn diagram, but just completely overlapping cirlces.
Nearly all bikes used to be made from steel, and companies had to persuade people to buy bikes that weren't, until comparatively recently as well.
Nearly all bikes used to be made from steel, true and prices reflected that, not so now, I'd love to see the material costs then work out what premium prices they put on their welding skills and time in the UK.
This one is a fantastic pissing contest.
There are so many sanctimonious cries of 'No I'm right' its almost all blending together into white noise!
I also get the the impression that Cotic owners are older dudes or young with a grandad mindset like Jon richardson, how many riders would gladly own an alloy, carbon or steel frame compared to riders who would never go steel for full sus.
Mid 50's and yes, ride a Flare Max. I've been thru alloy and carbon FS's - broken 2 carbon frames, but my gravel is carbon.
My Flare Max just rides ace, and now in it's 4th year of abuse - I worked out the other day that it's like Triggers Broom with the only original parts from purchase as a bike are:
- frame & shock, bigger rotor adaptors, crank, stem, post QR and headset spacers
It just encourages me to ride steep & fast trails, consequentially I wear out and/or break lots of bits.
If I had to replace it, it'll be another Cotic FS.
I also get the the impression that Cotic owners are older dudes or young with a grandad mindset like Jon richardson, how many riders would gladly own an alloy, carbon or steel frame compared to riders who would never go steel for full sus.
haha, I guess that makes me a young person with a grandad mindset. No clue who Jon richardson is though... maybe im not old enough or have enough of a grandad mindset. I just think they make nice bike that fit me ride well and have a good brand ethos. Pushing trash free trails and the whole woman of steel thing whats not to get on board with.
Would I be right in thinking that Cotic were the first company in the recent era to sell a production steel full-sus?
If so, the reasons they went that route were rather pragmatic and didn’t involve anything like “feel” which is harder to pin down (but could be quantified with elaborate testing kit). The feel thing is something they started talking about later on.
Old alloy trail bikes were often pretty bendy - small tubes, pivots, skinny forks, etc. When the Rocket came out it was stiffer with its steel frame. But alloy bikes have got stiffer and carbon ones even stiffer. And now the feel difference and the benefits of less rigid frames (within reason) are showing up.
https://www.cotic.co.uk/geek/page/SteelFullSuspension
The first half of that (before breeeathe) is what Cotic said when they launched the Rocket. The rest is what they learnt.
I’ve been through similar things with my own products - I can’t remember for sure but I don’t think I realised quite how much structural changes I made for lower weight would result in some aspects of improved tone (although some hunting through old emails and posts could reveal the truth).
I just think they make nice bike that fit me ride well and have a good brand ethos.
That's as good reasons as any IMO.
I'm currently drawn towards a FlareMAX with bike fit and geometry top of my list of reasons. Yes, frame material is coming into it too in a 'non-carbon' approach, but if it was between steel or aluminium? I'm not that bothered. If I do go ahead it'll be the 7th Cotic I've owned - there's just something about the bikes/company that dings my bell.
https://www.cotic.co.uk/geek/page/SteelFullSuspensionThe first half of that (before breeeathe) is what Cotic said when they launched the Rocket. The rest is what they learnt.
That's a good read and pretty much answers the question posed by the OP.
To be fair there's always been that strength to weight / stiffness ratio, steel being 3x stiffer, but also around 3 times denser, that's why you have bigger aluminium tubes and hydroformed frames to increase stiffness to that of steel in the areas that require it and have the weight savings through this, by weight on a bike i'd say alu vs steel is pretty similar in costs, maybe a little more for steel, but you're getting more of it.
I do like steel bikes, have my explosif for hardtail stuff, but maybe one day i'll get a nice steel full susser, i just like reading thoughts on this type of issue.
I worked out the other day that it’s like Triggers Broom with the only original parts from purchase as a bike are:
– frame & shock, bigger rotor adaptors, crank, stem, post QR and headset spacers
I have a Specialized Enduro, and the only things I changed are the handlebar and stem (because they didn't feel good). But honestly it doesn't matter, it doesn't mean that either is better or worse than the other. It's a toy for having fun on. Don't worry about it too much.
I also get the the impression that Cotic owners are older dudes or young with a grandad mindset like Jon richardson, how many riders would gladly own an alloy, carbon or steel frame compared to riders who would never go steel for full sus.
Nah, bought my RocketMAX because it looks cool and is fast as ****. Cotic are lovely to deal with and have put a lot back into MTB around Sheffield/Peak.
If I had a bit more money I probably would have bought a Starling, for even more niche "old man" vibe.
Nah, bought my RocketMAX because it looks cool and is fast as ****. Cotic are lovely to deal with and have put a lot back into MTB around Sheffield/Peak.
I'm a bit meh about the brand thing for Cotic
I bought my rocketmax secondhand because it was cheapish and in good condition. I wouldn't buy a second hand carbon MTB and would worry about an alloy one. The support available to keep it going was also a factor
It's exceeded expectations so I'm quite happy
Yeah, I know what you mean about the brand. I was never a fan of the old logo, was a bit eyerolly, but the block colours and frame wrap graphics are nice. I mostly meant about the thin, straight tubes. Nom.
I nearly fell off my chair when i read Brant having a pop at cheap foreign made products and labour conditions.
As someone who likes value, I have ridden second hand full suss frames since 2006, mostly aluminium but there was a 26" Rocket in there too.
Each one rode better than the last (apart from the orange 140mm travel Marin Wolf Ridge which I sold after a few rides) but this is geometry I think rather material.
This year at 50 when I decided to buy a whole brand new bike I would have loved to buy a Cotic or Starling but a Bird was just better value.
Looks wise, steel wins no hands down for me. Especially the Swarf frames, stunning.
My own experience, having owned and ridden alu, carbon and steel FS bikes is that there are probably too many differences to pin them down to specific things. However, I can say for sure that my Murmur (with it's skinny steel rear end) is incredibly quiet and calm feeling, finds amazing grip in the slop and drops better than my Nomad did, despite having 30mm less rear travel. It's also much easier to clean, look after and maintain, cost a lot less, is from a nice bloke in Bristol who I actually met and looks the absolute business.
I am not a steel die hard though, I'd happy have another bike made of carbon or alu, but I really like my Starling.
I nearly fell off my chair when i read Brant having a pop at cheap foreign made products and labour conditions.
Haha!
I nearly fell off my chair when i read Brant having a pop at cheap foreign made products and labour conditions.
Does it count as a flounce if you announce it on Twitter and not here?
https://twitter.com/shedfire/status/1425110656341221384
#prayforbrantsbrainandheart
I looked at steel full-sussers (Jeht and Murmur trail specifically) recently snapped an alloy frame. But despite steel being so much stronger and easily repairable the warranty's sucked in comparison to big brand alloy - as well as the prices for the same spec level. So I'm back on alloy but with the peace of mind of a no-quibble lifetime frame warranty.
with the peace of mind of a no-quibble lifetime frame warranty
Isn't there some question about what the lifetime of the frame actually means?
I think I would rather take my chances explaining what happened to Joe or Cy than have to navigate the legal departments of Specialized, Trek, Giant, etc
Well, I just had a warranty replacement from one of those brands. I sent them a photo showing the bike with longer forks than it came with, a different damper and almost no other stock parts. They sent a new frame of latest model within a week, no questions.
When I looked at steel - cotic = 5 years, starling = 2 years, stanton = lifetime but they want the frame back to inspect and judge themselves whether it's their fault.
So that was my call. I'm sure others experiences may lead them to different conclusions.
Surely sales volume would play a part here; the more profit and operating capital you have, the more you can afford a blinged out warranty for PR purposes
or to look at it another way:
If you have mass production churning out 100 frames a week, vs a bloke in a shed doing 1 frame a week, then you'll have a lot more spare frames for crash replacement and warranty claims
Sometimes though, you have to go with your heart rather than your head, or to put a different twang on it:
harmonics beat economics
Did the excellent warranty support on early Reverbs mean they were really high quality reliable products with a long lifespan or did it mean they had such high profit margins and were playing such a longterm game with big financial backing that they could keep replacing a poorly designed product without quibbling?
I'm sure there is a big affordability element, though that doesn't explain the disparity between the niche brands.
I'm pretty sure the big brands spend a lot more on RnD and testing also, so they can minimize the losses on warranty claims which would add up to a lot with the numbers they sell.
It's nice to have small UK brands knocking out something different. But they are kind of a luxury. And they won't create the same levels of employment in the UK as a Giant or Specialized, so I don't feel bad for not buying them.
All mountain bikes are a luxury. Do any of the big three employ that many people here or get involved with mountain biking at a grassroots level?
navigate the legal departments of Specialized, Trek, Giant, etc
I was basically the warranty department at Trek and it was very rare that a frame breakage was deemed non warranty. Only in the event of an obvious crash did I turn down a frame replacement and the number of times I offered a full bike in exchange for an obsolete one that had broken was beyond counting. Many warranty departments have a motto of "how can we get to yes" when I comes to replacements.... except Giant.
@funkmasterp
I don't think we'd have some of the trail centres we have without sponsorship from the big players. They also sponsor charity teams and events. There wouldn't be an industry here for newer, smaller brands to exploit without these companies. They've invested millions in promoting the sport here. They employ people in their concept stores and dealer networks. And the back-office staff. Sponsored riders and brand ambassadors. The race teams.
It's just a fair comparison to make.
Thanks gtx29 I wasn’t aware of most of that tbh. Only ever owned a couple of Treks over the years. All other bikes have been steel (Cotic, Stif, Stooge etc). Not sure if it’s a fair comparison or if the smaller brands wouldn’t exist without them. The former due to the financial backing and production facilities they have . The latter doesn’t really add up as some of the niche UK brands have been around for a very long time. Curtis for example
The main reason I don't stray from carbon or alloy big brands is you can until recently pick up a total bargain on last year's model and even bigger bargains if its 2 years old, a couple of years back CRC were selling off Nukeproof mega frames for £750, and before that I just missed out on an XT equipped mega for around £2000 if I remember correctly, unbelievable bargains could be had if you're quick off the mark, so when the supply chain gets back to normal in a year, the bargains will be there the year after, fingers crossed.
I doubt you'll ever see the steel guys have a decent sale.
Pipedream Full Moxie!
Love to ride one just to see how a steel full sus feels. Mind you, I've never ridden a carbon bike either. True story. Not because I don't like them. Just never tried one!
My FS is ti anyway and it's more a bike than I'll ever need really!
I doubt you’ll ever see the steel guys have a decent sale.
Because they work to a different business model.
Why do weight conscious WRC rally cars use steel roll cages?
https://www.redbull.com/gb-en/how-wrc-roll-cage-safety-feature-works
Why do KTM use steel on their motorbikes?
https://www.voestalpine.com/blog/en/mobility/ktm-relies-on-steel-motorcycle-chassis/
https://www.motorcyclesports.net/motogp/motogp-motogp/ktm-keep-confident-steel-chassis-motogp/
https://motocrossactionmag.com/amp/ask-the-mxperts-will-the-big-four-switch-to-steel-frames/
Beat me to it. ^^^^
A lot easier to change and develop chassis and associated flex amounts than alu or carbon.
Why do weight conscious WRC rally cars use steel roll cages?
The simple answer to that is because the FIA tells them to. Before the rules were tightened up they got upto all sorts of shenanigans.
You could build a carbon roll cage, plenty of series allow them. But that would require far more testing and cost a fortune. It's easier to say roll cages must be made from a specified grade of steel, set OD and wall thickness and say they must be triangulated a certain way. Then all your scrutineer has to do is poke his head in, check the manufacturers plate, and tick a box.
Comparable to the UCI weight limits. They could come up with a durability test, but it's simpler to just say bikes have to weigh 16lb and remove the incentive for manufacturers to get into an arms race.