I would like the cycling industry to stop peddling both electric Mountainbikes and road bikes.
Electric cargo bikes. Commuter things. Fair enough. They serve a purpose and (hopefully) remove cars from the roads.
Electric mountain bikes and road bikes don't need motors. You've got legs. You managed for years without them. Why do you need them now?
Electric mountain bikes and road bikes don't need motors. You've got legs. You managed for years without them. Why do you need them now?
Because fk people with health issues, amirite?
Indeed. eBike is transformational for all sorts of reasons - and any reason people ride more but need an ebike from health to riding bikes is just fun, is a good enough reason for me......
Can I ask for more focus on ease of maintenance, reparability, durability and all things sustainable?
Because fk people with health issues, amirite?
and the proportion of eBike riders with health issues compared to "easy ups and more downs" issues is?
irrelevant. If e-bikes get more people riding/out and about, that’s better. Speaking as someone what was an MTBer who became unfit/stopped riding much, bought an ebike that got me back riding enough and fit enough to get back on, and race, regular bikes.
Gatekeepers can get in the sea.
Why is there an issue with ‘easy ups & more downs’?
Do you like being miserable?
No issue with it (other than massively increased trail erosion at popular off-piste areas - see Barnhill/Bixlade @ FOD) just found it funny that TH was using whataboutery (won't you think about the disadvantaged) to excuse perfectly able bodied riders buying ebikes. I get they're fun and that you get more fun in the same time but, to me it just feels wrong.
Anyway it's thread derailment and wasn't my argument in the first place.
What else should the bike industry to stop doing now please?
Electric mountain bikes and road bikes don't need motors.
I don't think you could build an electric mountain bike without a motor. You haven't though this through
Why is there an issue with ‘easy ups & more downs’?
Do you like being miserable?
No issue with it (other than massively increased trail erosion at popular off-piste areas - see Barnhill/Bixlade @ FOD) just found it funny that TH was using whataboutery (won't you think about the disadvantaged) to excuse perfectly able bodied riders buying ebikes. I get they're fun and that you get more fun in the same time but, to me it just feels wrong.
Anyway it's thread derailment and wasn't my argument in the first place.
What else should the bike industry to stop doing now please?
Ironically, you picked a prime example of somewhere I live, and have dug / helped dig a number of trails in that spot.
Its general volume of traffic is way more of an issue than e-bikes IMO. And as most of the people who dig in the FoD are ebikers anyway, it would be amusingly hypocritical if we took offence to the type of bikes ridden.
That area is in a bad way in general because of its closeness to the Cycle Centre & it’s very much the first place people stumble across when going searching for trails, as a result it gets a lot of traffic. Now there is little to no building & maintenance because, basically no one can be bothered there now.
I get the argument that emtbs allow those with health issues to get back out again.
However, I'm also keenly aware that ebikes have created two tiers of mountain biking and the more popular ebikes get the greater the barrier to entry for mountain biking as a whole will become.
Ebikes could lead to mountain biking becoming like jet skiing. A somewhat anti-social activity done by well off people looking for a new toy rather than an accessible sport for young people who are be able to get into without having rich parents.
I see both sides of the argument but with the way ebikes are currently being marketed and sold I don't see them having an overall positive effect on mountain biking.
Don't mind ebikes. My little corner of Surrey is now quiet as they must all head off to doing endless loops of Barry Knows Best. I can crack on doing my own thing on a normal mountain bike.
Ebikes and ebikers seem lovely people when I do meet them.
Things I don't like? That retaining bolt on rear calipers that is hard to get to. That idea needs to be rethought.
Otherwise it's all good.
And we’re back to gatekeeping about e-bikes and ‘MTBs not needing motors’, that didn’t take long. MTBs don’t need droppers, disc brakes, hydraulic suspension or tubeless tyres, but they sure make riding a helluva lot more fun.
There are plenty of e-bikes out there without batteries and motors, they’re called regular bikes. It’s not like the industry has stopped making and selling them.
Bikes are fun, e-bikes are fun, if you want to be avoid e-bikes then don't buy one. I have both and they are both great fun, personally for me I’m loving the e-bike more right now as I get more downhill for my time and that’s the bit I enjoy the best.
If I want to slog across Dartmoor on a big sufferfest or muck around with my e-bikeless friends then I’ll take the normal bike instead.
E-bikes taking shortcuts up the hills destroying the original trail in the process. Why can’t they just follow the trail round the switchbacks rather than just cutting straight across them all. Some of the climbs at Cannock re getting trashed by these shortcuts
E-bikes taking shortcuts up the hills destroying the original trail in the process. Why can’t they just follow the trail round the switchbacks rather than just cutting straight across them all. Some of the climbs at Cannock re getting trashed by these shortcuts
This is the only thing I hate about ebikers, the people not the bikes, its the attitude that it is acceptable to just do it, maybe trail centres need to just make some 'proper' ebike trails with real steep climbs so they can go test themselves, rather than a lap of the blue, stopping every where for a 20minute chat.
People have been taking shortcuts and trashing trails for decades. There have been ‘Strava lines’ and corner cutting since biking began. You can’t blame that all on e-bikes.
Also before you point out that e-bikers are rude and hammer up behind slower riders and insist they let them pass, this has been going on for about the same time as bikes were invented as well
Get off your high horse and step away from the gate. More bikes of any kind are good for the industry and sport. Next you’ll be complaining that all these uncouth youths are coming out to the country and ‘jibbing’ everywhere talking their street jive.
Go shake your fist and shout at the clouds.
And we’re back to gatekeeping about e-bikes and ‘MTBs not needing motors’, that didn’t take long.
It's not so much gatekeeping from me. It's more I'm worried that if ebikes become the default for mountain biking then mountain biking fundamentally changes.
It goes from being the natural progression for kids messing about with their mates on bikes to a very expensive toy which excludes all but the kids with the richest parents.
Time will tell but it's a legitimate concern, imo. Not sure what the solution is though. Perhaps genuinely limiting the power output might be a start as the 'maximum' continuous power is not an actual limit on power output.
Also before you point out that e-bikers are rude and hammer up behind slower riders and insist they let them pass, this has been going on for about the same time as bikes were invented as well
People riding/driving all sorts of vehicles can be rude and impatient. It doesn't take much to say "hi, on your right" or whatever... and to give the rider in front of you a chance to assess the trail, and find somewhere safe to let you past. It's not peculiar to e-bikers.
I've seen how children and less experienced riders feel that they have to move out of the way immediately when I come up behind them. They have every right to be there too. I find myself saying "wait until it's safe" or "keep riding until it gets wider".
We know what humans can be like with cars, motorbikes etc (power, speed, "move out of my way")... so I'm not sure what the answer is to keep cycling attitudes positive and polite.
But it all stems from something deeper than powered vehicles IMO. I just hope we don't find ourselves having to live with boy racers anti-social behaviour as cycling becomes easier and more accessible.
Road riding can be a challenge because of those attitudes... we have a good opportunity to nip things in the bud as far as MTB riding is concerned (i.e no close passes, be patient, be polite). 🤞
If e-bikes get more people riding/out and about, that’s better.
The whole thing made perfect sense when I was riding an event. Had a chat with a lovely chap in his 70s, riding an eMTB... he only started riding in his mid-60s. The first thing I thought was: it would have been VERY cool to go MTBing with my dad.
Also, for long technical trails/descents - if I wanted to session something a few times to get familiar with it, it would be nice to have an eMTB to focus on those bits (if I'm not out to focus on pedal fitness). But I don't want more than one MTB. Tempting though.
Commuting/shopping - for sure, perhaps an ideal use case. But I'd rather get an e-motorbike for that (for not much more money). Nothing wrong with e-bicycles at all, but drivers can be d*cks. I'd rather be overtaking safely than being overtaken unsafely.
People have been taking shortcuts and trashing trails for decades. There have been ‘Strava lines’ and corner cutting since biking began. You can’t blame that all on e-bikes.
I agree but not on climbing sections where they go straight up rather than round the corners. I doubt there are very many riders who could ever ride up these lines without an ebike. These lines have appeared in the last couple of years, so either those on mtbs have suddenly got super strong in sufficient numbers to create a trail or its e-bikes
Seen as this has turned into an Ebike thread...
Why do most ebikers I encounter that are up here on holiday in the Tweed Valley appear to be mute when riding?
It's a very odd phenomenon.
Were they already mute or did it only happen after they got an ebike? 😉
Back on topic.
I simply avoid anything that i don't like that's new bike wise.
If enough other folks do the same it normally disappears a few years down the line.
See press fit BB's as an example.
I would like the bike industry to…. Stop publishing adverts that shows the rider several feet off the ground and being rad*
It perhaps gives the viewer the wrong idea of the fun that can be had with an ATB. A more appropriate picture would be a rider slogging through mud or riding through beautiful countryside with a big grin on their face. Or, a group of friends and family enjoying a ride as a mutually inclusive and friendly event.
*I have no idea what “rad” means but I’ve heard it mentioned!
I would like the Industry to.... stop chasing profit margins by ever inflating the top-end barriers of pricepoint, and do so instead by getting more bums on bikes.
A lot of the recent tech innovations pushing prices skyward are just not necessary for the simple task of having fun on a bike. Top tier groupsets coming in at £3-4k with high wear items such as cassettes at £400 can go do one for starters...
No one has ever accused me of being mute😉. Even after a thyroidectomy that damaged some nerves and affecting my speech/volume I still never shut up (apparently), I’ve just lost my booming Brian Blessed volume.
I’m teaching my kids the rule of “be nice, say high” when out in the country.
I would like the Industry to.... stop chasing profit margins by ever inflating the top-end barriers of pricepoint, and do so instead by getting more bums on bikes.
That’s like asking someone if they would like to stop breathing. It’s always about the margin especially as more and more private equity works its way into the industry
It’s always about the margin
My strong hunch is that while its worked up to now, it's something that is time limited due to the discrepancies in spending power across age demographics. Unless there's some radical shift in economic trajectory for most, the future dominant styles will likely be much simpler and necessarily affordable.
I'm worried that if ebikes become the default for mountain biking then mountain biking fundamentally changes.
Probably too late imho. The mainstream of MTB is E-MTB now. Not quite default and debateable if the majority but it's becoming a powered sport b/c manstream MTB was always about the thrills over the pedalling (eg unlike road riding that has a pedalling/fitness culture).
There's a good article on the dumber approaches the e-bike 'industry' takes on the EMTB site -
https://ebike-mtb.com/en/regulatory-dilemma-facing-the-e-bike-industry/
Being dumb when it comes to e-bike spec, promotion and marketed use? It does seem like one thing the bike industry needs to think about.
Personally fwiw .. I don't think it matters if 'MTB' changes. It doesn't change what we do ourselves, not if we don't want to take up the new options or be seen as following the mainstream. Do we identify as a 'mountain biker' or someone who just likes bikes? Personally / fwiw there's too much to bikes to only be into one genre or identity. Like music, why only be into one thing. I think there's always been XC/out for a pedal and Enduro/out for thrlls riders and their bikes, hang-outs and riding spots ect have always been different. MTB hasn't been a 'all in one' thing since the perhaps the early 90s.
It’s always about the margin especially as more and more private equity works its way into the industry
This.
Why are carbon bikes or E-MTBs so popular with big brands? Because small brands can't meet the MOQs for that stuff, it takes bigger investments. Can't sell 3,000+ Bosch units a year? They aren't interested. All the tech the bike industry promotes as 'must haves' or aspirational is also all the tech the smaller brands struggle with. What's marketed by the big brand mainstream is an affective barrier to the future competition and that's something that's changed signficantly in the last 15 years.
Back on topic.
Good point.
I'd like the bike industry to stop churning out stuff that doesn't fit properly... perhaps I'm weird. 🤷♂️
This i agree with so much necessary damage happens from bad design.
Back to the ebikes.
My misses uses one as a fitness crutch so we go away for long weekends cycling she can keep up and enjoy it rather than dying, which is a good reason to use it, and this applies to everyone, they have removed the barriers to what made a course or route challenging, what used to be a technical black climb they just brute force straight up, fine, but then all of the skill and finesse which is needed and learnt the hard way is lost.
Not a feature as such but a philosophy....and I'm sure marketing bods have a term for it. We see the same with phones and all manner of sectors selling the public.
Flooding advertising/social media/reviews etc with ludicrously high end bikes you don't anticipate selling more than a handful of to change perception of what 'normal' and 'necessary' is. People see a £10K+ bike that they clearly can't afford but knowing that exists feel that anything less than the £6K version means they will be buying something not up to the job. When in reality to the £6K version could and should be plenty bells and whistles for anyone and the £2K version more than adequate.
they have removed the barriers to what made a course or route challenging, what used to be a technical black climb they just brute force straight up, fine, but then all of the skill and finesse which is needed and learnt the hard way is lost.
That's a similar argument to that used in downhill / anything technical on a descent though.
What you used to have to finesse (or walk!) down, any idiot can now plough down it on a decent full sus because bikes now are way more capable than anything from the 90's / 00's. The argument has been going on with literally every new bit of tech along with a bit of a gatekeeper attitude that "we" had to do it the hard way, "we" didn't have all this supporting tech but now any young whippersnapper can come along and ride stuff that "we" took years to learn.
I even got told that I should learn to ride road bikes on downtube shifters because these newfangled STIs made things too easy.
I even got told that I should learn to ride road bikes on downtube shifters because these newfangled STIs made things too easy.
Unfortunately, you do need to try a really old road bike with downtube shifters, its a very different world, but its also a very nice place to be!!
now any young whippersnapper can come along and ride stuff that "we" took years to learn.
I think this may be more about the lack of fear that 'Whippersnappers' don't have, but I am not saying the improvements in geo/tech its more around the issue that they end up stopped/ slow/walking down some dangerous tracks
Can I ask for more focus on ease of maintenance, reparability, durability and all things sustainable?
Well you can ask, but I think you know the answer. Until the bike industry becomes miraculously uncoupled from capitalism, it's always going to be driven by faux innovation and the need to increase profit / drive growth until we've consumed every resource we can lay our greedy 21st Century fingers on. Ocean floors and Mars, we're coming for you soon...
Fwiw, Shimano's LinkGlide seems like a laudable attempt to increase durability and is barely even acknowledged by the cycling media, see unbridled consumerism etc.
So basically:
10. I'd like the bike industry to stop focussing on more and more new things and growth to the detriment of everything else. See also pretty much every other industry you can think of.
10. I'd like the bike industry to stop focussing on more and more new things and growth to the detriment of everything else. See also pretty much every other industry you can think of.
Hear hear. tbh I think at the big company level it's as much about them competing with each other for attention as anything else. "Does anyone want this, does it solve real problems?" "We're not sure... but it's gonna be huge, it does new things! They will want it"
I think there are parts of the 'industry' that are doing a better job of making more durable products (in both use and appeal), we just need to look past the big brands with all the shiny new tech sold by influencers and big press launches. We need to do those small brands the favour of looking for them since the marketing machine thing tends to push the big budget kit in front of us first.
The niche complaint I have about e-bikes is that it allows/encourages erosion is some previously out-of-the-way trails. Some I used to ride were 'quite hard' to get to, so they were a once a while trail that you tackled when you felt you had the legs, this had two positives, trail use was quite limited and as a consequence, trail widening and erosion were limited. Last time I went to one of these spots I was surprised to see an increase in tyre tracks, but all became clear when I met the 5 or 6 e-bikers gathered at the start of the descent, one said to me "You did well to get up here on that, I've never seen anyone on a regular bike up here" The trail was obviously well ridden, and had gone from a narrow ribbon through the heather to a gouge in the hill-side...That's pretty much my only complaint about e-bikes though.
Other than that, I'd very much like whoever was responsible for flat mount brakes to be publicly shamed, and for it to become grounds for instant dismissal for any product manager that specs them on a mountain bike.
I think there are parts of the 'industry' that are doing a better job of making more durable products (in both use and appeal)
Slight tangent but there is a phrase in design philosophy called "emotional durability". Brighton Uni did a lot of good work on it a few years ago - making products more desirable to the user as they age so users are more likely to keep and value their goods more rather than less as they mature.
For example, a cup that starts white but has a glaze designed to pick up tannins gently as it is used with tea or coffee so over time a pattern emerges.
It wouldn't work for the big player box shifters of the bike industry but for smaller niche brands the idea that your bike evolves and wears it's scars with pride and possibly looks better. When combined with a trigger's broom mentality to a constantly evolving bike for life it 'could' be a winner.
People have been taking shortcuts and trashing trails for decades. There have been ‘Strava lines’ and corner cutting since biking began. You can’t blame that all on e-bikes.
The problem isn't a cheeky inside line appearing on a corner, sometimes that's an inevitable consequence of people looking for overtaking opportunities on a busy trail, or just trails that should have taken the more obvious line to begin with.
It's the e-bikes going straight up the slope where the trail has to switchback its way up in 3/4/5 loops. No one is riding those lines on a normal bike, and once they're established they become eroded when it rains, washing away the main trail where they pass.
I'd like the bike industry to stop churning out stuff that doesn't fit properly... perhaps I'm weird.
Brakes, with plastic pistons that seize
GXP BB's that don't retain the drive side bearing. This is an aftermarket issue, it's fine on some setups where there's minimal clerance between the spider and the bearing, but if it's more than a few mm (i.e. the chainline was manipulated by length of the axle) then the bearing falls out.
Gusset XD SS kits that can't be removed
Leaky Shimano brakes
Cracking Magura brakes
It's not really the industry (although the magazines only covering the companies that send the free stuff doesn't help) but trying to maintain the status quo of "I'd not trust brakes from ali express" is only a defensible position as long as the established brands don't fail, and they do, regularly.
The Shimano crank debacle
(older) SRAM mechs being made of CNC'd cheese.
It wouldn't work for the big player box shifters of the bike industry but for smaller niche brands the idea that your bike evolves and wears it's scars with pride and possibly looks better. When combined with a trigger's broom mentality to a constantly evolving bike for life it 'could' be a winner.
I think some of this is just user mentality. I've always viewed mtb scrapes and dings as battle scars and part of a journey together, I'm not sure you can make a scratched, dinged bike 'look better', but you can choose to view those imperfections - 'patina' at a low level - differently and not as a rationalisation to buy a newer, shinier model.
The main problem, of course, being that the bike industry actively wants and needs you to do just that aided and abetted by a media that both depends on the industry for revenue and tends to be staffed by jaded neophile hacks who love new stuff simply because it's more interesting/easier to write about.
That mug is cool, but it'll never work in the bike industry.
The exception might be if niche CNC workshops go back to making linkages for common FS bikes. But that seems a lot less prolific than it was in the 90's/2000's.
There was an article on one of the roadie sites about this relating to clothing and how the writer had felt compelled to amass a huge collection of kit. And his conclusion was that "we" need to collectively shift the window so that the person riding in tired faded kit is the "proper" rider, not the person who buys all the expensive gear several timers a year.
Personally I can't identify with that, my kits is often patched up!
But it's the same thought I applied to buying my road bike, I wanted a bike that I might realistically still be riding in 20 years time. Minimal logos that will date when next years model comes out, no wats saved at 40kmh to compare to the next best thing, no published weight to worry about, no fancy standards to go obsolete, lack of UDH is a concern but between T-type not existing on the road yet, product cycles, road kit just not getting worn out/damaged, and NOS availability I can't see it ever being a problem.
Same off-road, nothing has really moved on in the last 5 years, a lot of stuff has moved backwards (threaded BB's!) . Short of some currently unknown idea revolutionizing mainstream bike design (gearboxes, idler pulleys?) I can see people keeping their bikes for longer in the near future. That and the general industry slowdown means less R&D and therefore less chance of that development happening anyway.
I think there are parts of the 'industry' that are doing a better job of making more durable products (in both use and appeal), we just need to look past the big brands with all the shiny new tech sold by influencers and big press launches. We need to do those small brands the favour of looking for them since the marketing machine thing tends to push the big budget kit in front of us first.
Yes, one of the things I love about my Cotic is that it feels like owning it, is opting out of the ever-escalating carbon fibre arms-race between the big name brands. Five years after I built it up, it still looks great, distinctive, and not massively different from the current version. Plus all the suspension parts are easily available to buy from Cotic and within the mechanical nous of most competent home mechanics to fit.
Most importantly I still love riding it. It may not be the lightest or the plushest or the newest bike out there, but I'm not primarily a racer, I'm not obsessed with 'innovation' for the sake of it, or more precisely I guess, the idea that even if something works very slightly better, more smoothly, or efficiently, it somehow changes the fundamental experience of riding. Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of genuine innovation that changes the basics, dropper posts for example, but I really don't give a toss about new stuff that's mostly appealing because it's well, new. I don't need that transient dopamine high. Or if I do, I buy tyres...
I also get that this makes it harder for Cotic to thrive in the sense that I don't see a need or want to replace my mountain bike any time soon - I'm capable of telling the difference between 'ownership' in a consumerist sense and the actual experience of riding. I don't really have an answer to the 'buy less stuff' implications for brands, it's part of the essential conundrum of producing fewer things in a world predicated squarely on consuming more and more stuff, but I'd very much suggest that if you're in the market for a new bike, you buy a Cotic - or similar - and keep it for a long time.
That mug is cool, but it'll never work in the bike industry.
The first thing I thought is that a nice brushed Titanium frame is a bit like that, it either wears its battle scars well and builds a patina of use, or it can be easily brushed back to new again. In general, I'd like to see more good use of metals in frames and not the 'has to be carbon' mentality for performance bikes.
Not a feature as such but a philosophy....and I'm sure marketing bods have a term for it. We see the same with phones and all manner of sectors selling the public.
Flooding advertising/social media/reviews etc with ludicrously high end bikes you don't anticipate selling more than a handful of to change perception of what 'normal' and 'necessary' is. People see a £10K+ bike that they clearly can't afford but knowing that exists feel that anything less than the £6K version means they will be buying something not up to the job. When in reality to the £6K version could and should be plenty bells and whistles for anyone and the £2K version more than adequate.
This is just life in the 21st century. You see a product advertised anywhere - TV, mag, website whatever - and it won't be the entry level or mid-specced one, it will be the one with all of the bells and whistles which costs twice as much. Flick through a hobby mag and you'll see adverts for top end stuff which costs ten times as much as entry level. Do you think people aren't aware that cheaper stuff is available?
Yes, one of the things I love about my Cotic is that it feels like owning it, is opting out of the ever-escalating carbon fibre arms-race between the big name brands. Five years after I built it up, it still looks great, distinctive, and not massively different from the current version. Plus all the suspension parts are easily available to buy from Cotic and within the mechanical nous of most competent home mechanics to fit.
Most importantly I still love riding it. It may not be the lightest or the plushest or the newest bike out there, but I'm not primarily a racer, I'm not obsessed with 'innovation' for the sake of it, or more precisely I guess, the idea that even if something works very slightly better, more smoothly, or efficiently, it somehow changes the fundamental experience of riding. Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of genuine innovation that changes the basics, dropper posts for example, but I really don't give a toss about new stuff that's mostly appealing because it's well, new. I don't need that transient dopamine high. Or if I do, I buy tyres...
I also get that this makes it harder for Cotic to thrive in the sense that I don't see a need or want to replace my mountain bike any time soon - I'm capable of telling the difference between 'ownership' in a consumerist sense and the actual experience of riding. I don't really have an answer to the 'buy less stuff' implications for brands, it's part of the essential conundrum of producing fewer things in a world predicated squarely on consuming more and more stuff, but I'd very much suggest that if you're in the market for a new bike, you buy a Cotic - or similar - and keep it for a long time.
Much as I like Cotics (former solaris owner) and I like what they do as a company (for the most part) - everything you've typed I could easily apply to my Carbon Santa Cruz.
Less about choice of frame material (as my previous, aluminium Bird was much the same), and more about a design ethos of longevity and user servicability/repairability* and customer service support.
*I'm not expecting to actually do a carbon fibre repair, just as I'm sure BWD won't be breaking out the welder if his frame tubing has an issue. More about the linkage, bolts, hardware, and general accessibilty of the other botled on components.
Slight tangent but there is a phrase in design philosophy called "emotional durability". Brighton Uni did a lot of good work on it a few years ago - making products more desirable to the user as they age so users are more likely to keep and value their goods more rather than less as they mature.
That is really interesting. I was ponding this with regard to household items and materials the other day. Many old things made of natural materials pick up a ‘patina’ as they wear as do some older designs of modern items. That patina can enhance the attractiveness or appeal of the thing. New stuff tends to get scruffy and shabby and makes people reject items even if they still have utility. Think flag stones vs laminate or old oak furniture vs veneered mdf. Designing in longevity like that is cool.
can we call them performance enhancing bikes, that may take the edge off
I like it... the short and snappy version: Viagra Bikes?
that actually seems better because all they do is help the rider go up 🤐
I suppose it's hard for some people.
This is just life in the 21st century. You see a product advertised anywhere - TV, mag, website whatever - and it won't be the entry level or mid-specced one, it will be the one with all of the bells and whistles which costs twice as much. Flick through a hobby mag and you'll see adverts for top end stuff which costs ten times as much as entry level. Do you think people aren't aware that cheaper stuff is available?
That's not really the point I was making. I've tried googling and can't find the term for it though I've read it in the past but just can't remember it.
Of course companies will market with a focus on their highest level and shiniest product. But what I'm talking about is companies generating and even higher level product way beyond what there market can bear and sales will be negligible for in order to engineer their actual top model to be perceived as 'normal'. To inflate norms by engineering a perception that excess is not unreasonable.
How it was explained to me was if Macdonald's was trying upsell Big Macs and get more people to buy that instead of buying a standard burger one way of doing it is to introduce some sort of mega 4 patty burger. You don't expect to or care if you sell many but suddenly the Big Mac doesn't look so gluttonous. People come in attracted by the mega but can't really justify it so settle for the big mac where they'd previously have just bought the standard burger. The norm has been shifted to the right.
Why does it matter? Well as you say consumers can make choices and think for themselves. But as a sport over time the perceived cost/equipment threshold that it 'looks' like you have to be prepared to spend has gone up. This is at a time when bike design advances and manufacturing improvements means it should have gone down. As a total noob who walked into a bike shop tomorrow it 'should' be the cheapest in relative terms time in the sport'@s history to walk out with a tool to do the job. I'd argue it's the exact opposite at the perception level - what you'd think you have to spend the get going as a weekend warrior.
Much as I like Cotics (former solaris owner) and I like what they do as a company (for the most part) - everything you've typed I could easily apply to my Carbon Santa Cruz.
Less about choice of frame material (as my previous, aluminium Bird was much the same), and more about a design ethos of longevity and user servicability/repairability* and customer service support.
Oh totally, I'm not suggesting that Cotic is the only good call out there - thought obviously it is the best 😉 - I guess my unconscious bias against carbon is because 1. It's basically plastic with all that implies for the planet. 2. It's the frame material of top-end choice for all the big players in the market.
There's also a bit of me that loves steel-tubed frames as a throwback to the days when bikes looked like proper bikes, which is of course, irrational and biased, but there you go. I'm basically in favour of any brand that doesn't treat its products as disposable commodities to be replaced every couple of years by something newer and supposedly 'better'.
For context, I still drive around in a 1990 Mk2 Golf GTi, so I have form 🙂
Expensive bike/part specific tools -
- there seems to be a specific tool for servicing my DMR Vault pedals. £15+ please.
- specific lockring for Shimano EP8 motor, that'll be £30. Buy new bike with next gen of motor (EP8000) and it now needs a different lockring tool (though at least this is common with Shimano's XT cranks, though the crank lockring tool existed before the first motor so surely could have used it then rather than creating something new)
at least Aliexpress means there are cheap alternatives for a lot of these now if you can wait.
Also, bike designs that are are un-necessarily difficult to maintain. It looks like my Orbea Rise has a bolt on the inside of the shock yolk that needs to be at 12nM. But it also looks like even a small torque wrench and standard hex key attachment is too long to fit in the space - so I've got to seek out a super short set of 3/8 hex attachments or try to cut one down. To compound the pain I'm not sure you can get even a standard hex key in while it's on the bike without undoing the shock as the seat tube is in the way. Pretty sure this could have done up from the outside with a slightly less slick aesthetic.
re torx bolts : I think what you're probably seeing here is poor tools rather than poor fasteners. I'm not exactly a fan of torx but mostly just because their use isn't consistent. If everything is good quality, the torx is a better fastener in isolation.
This is just life in the 21st century. You see a product advertised anywhere - TV, mag, website whatever - and it won't be the entry level or mid-specced one, it will be the one with all of the bells and whistles which costs twice as much. Flick through a hobby mag and you'll see adverts for top end stuff which costs ten times as much as entry level. Do you think people aren't aware that cheaper stuff is available?
That's not really the point I was making. I've tried googling and can't find the term for it though I've read it in the past but just can't remember it.
Of course companies will market with a focus on their highest level and shiniest product. But what I'm talking about is companies generating and even higher level product way beyond what there market can bear and sales will be negligible for in order to engineer their actual top model to be perceived as 'normal'. To inflate norms by engineering a perception that excess is not unreasonable.
How it was explained to me was if Macdonald's was trying upsell Big Macs and get more people to buy that instead of buying a standard burger one way of doing it is to introduce some sort of mega 4 patty burger. You don't expect to or care if you sell many but suddenly the Big Mac doesn't look so gluttonous. People come in attracted by the mega but can't really justify it so settle for the big mac where they'd previously have just bought the standard burger. The norm has been shifted to the right.
Why does it matter? Well as you say consumers can make choices and think for themselves. But as a sport over time the perceived cost/equipment threshold that it 'looks' like you have to be prepared to spend has gone up. This is at a time when bike design advances and manufacturing improvements means it should have gone down. As a total noob who walked into a bike shop tomorrow it 'should' be the cheapest in relative terms time in the sport'@s history to walk out with a tool to do the job. I'd argue it's the exact opposite at the perception level - what you'd think you have to spend the get going as a weekend warrior.
A loss leader? Usually costs the company to make as they don't make any profit on it, but it brings people in to buy other 'lesser' products.
to introduce some sort of mega 4 patty burger.
Oh, Halcyon days...
McDonald's is bringing back the Double Big Mac - but it won't stay for long | Metro News
Gone through my bikes and changed every possible bolt to 5mm hex. Too many weird and wonderful fasteners. Yes, it's a compromise as not every bolt is as light as it can be, but it helps.
Speaking of Park tools and Torx 🙄
It was just a chainring bolt as well, my Aldi centre aisle special ratchet set finished the job...
one thats slipped through in the original article
"Although other brands are hopping on board this aesthetic, I think Spesh was the first to bring out helmets with peaks set bizarrely far-too-high. High to the point of actually being pointless. Even if you don’t live anywhere that sunny, these high peaks now make dusk rides an exercise in squinting and, quite frankly, dangerous."
Totally agree with this.
Apparently the "cool kids" in BC, if they have an adjustable peak, ride with it in the up position. If true, then I'm happy to be labeled old and uncool for having a usable peak.
I remembered narrow wide jockey wheels this morning. All they do is cause noise and grumbling when the chain skips off them in bumpy terrain and is on the wrong teeth.
As for e-MTBs - they're such a waste of a crucial resource we need for the green transition and have so much higher emissions associated with their production compared to normal MTBs (which have fairly low impact and aren't robbing key minerals from more important uses) that they should stop existing. E-bikes for transport, fine - they're a key part of the green transition, E-mtbs are a total waste. The benefits they bring a minutely small number of people with health issues does not outweigh the environmental damage to the wider population.
Has anyone mentioned flat mount disc brakes? Just change for change's sake in my view and a more faffy than post mount.
And while I'm at it, cables & hoses down the underside of the downtube in the way of everything that comes off the front tyre & stopping you heli-taping. If they must come down the downtube, why note the topside of the tube? They'd happily run either side of the bottle cage bosses so shouldn't cause a problem.
Apparently the "cool kids" in BC, if they have an adjustable peak, ride with it in the up position.
More lift for the big sends
I remembered narrow wide jockey wheels this morning. All they do is cause noise and grumbling when the chain skips off them in bumpy terrain and is on the wrong teeth.
Up until now I was unaware of the existence of narrow wide jockey wheels and I have to say my life was better for it.
I would like the cycling industry to stop peddling both electric Mountainbikes and road bikes.
I don't, eMTBs are just better IMO. Not better in every way, but over-all better. I'm 50 now, but I'm fit and well, I don't need one, but I love them.
remembered narrow wide jockey wheels this morning. All they do is cause noise and grumbling when the chain skips off them in bumpy terrain and is on the wrong teeth.
This. Whoever signed this design off deserves to be made to set up every mech with them on forever. A truly stupid piece of design engineering
More lift for the big sends
Probably goes without saying that I don't do big sends... but do have my peak in the high position if using goggles. Adjustable peaks, so you can pop you googles up there, or drop the peak down for low sun, have their uses. It's the "always high as to not stop sun or rain" peaks that Benji was complaining about, I think. Adjustable is good.
Adjustable peaks, so you can pop you googles up there, or drop the peak down for low sun, have their uses.
goggles and half shell helmets is something I thought (and was happy) went away. not sure we can blame "the industry" for that, more likely it was minor gravity pros and influencers with goggle sponsors who didn't want to wear a full face helmet on easier terrain.
Has anyone mentioned flat mount disc brakes? Just change for change's sake in my view and a more faffy than post mount.
Yes, it was mentioned earlier, as was the lack of access to post mount bolts when mounted on chainstays. Now as I see it, because flat mount bolts from the bottom upwards, it solves that issue.
Of course what it doesn't solve is having mismatched calipers on the front and back of your MTB.
Those Specialized helmets (and similar brands) look terrible and the visors are just a waste of time like that. I’d rather have a smaller, lower peak that works better both aesthetically and practically.
goggles and half shell helmets is something I thought (and was happy) went away. not sure we can blame "the industry" for that, more likely it was minor gravity pros and influencers with goggle sponsors who didn't want to wear a full face helmet on easier terrain.
I think it went away once the ews mandated full face helmets.
Another one. The way the axle on fox 36s narrows so it’s harder to line up and then needs a pinch bolt tightening up as well. Why? Has anyone ever managed to drop a front wheel out of a fork that doesn’t have a pinch bolt. Just more unnecessary complications