[Closed] What happened to the mountain bike industry?

Can anyone (who doesn't work in the industry) justify 650b?

i'll have a go...

my wife has noticed (more than once) that i'm able to freewheel along trails that require her to pedal.

(me on a 29er, her on a 26er, both hardtails, yes i know there's much more to it than that, but it must be frustrating for her)

if 650b allows for a good chunk of the extra rollability, but in a wheelsize that can be packaged in a frame small enough for a 5footer, then it's got to be worth a go.

[i] mikewsmith - Member

Or in summary, didn't bother trying one but knows they are pointless.[/i]

Ah, you seem to have convinced yourself that I've never tried a 29er.
Go you! 😉

[i]Love my 29r XC bike excellent what it does, rolls better, bit quicker and very fit for purpose. [/i]
And I'm genuinely happy for you. Enjoy.
😀

well all your grumbling did seem based on speculation and reading too much STW... in many ways wheel size is irrelevant and to bang on about it so much is just a bit dull. Next bike I buy won't be selected by wheel size but just by demoing them and seeing what I like the best.

I don't think it's right that 29ers were some industry-led super plan. They've always been around in one form or another and smaller players (Surly, Niner etc) had been doing OK with them. From that, many riders were finding they worked better for their style of riding and the larger manufacturers just started to reflect that.

650B is a bit more difficult to justify. Calling it 27.5 was definitely a marketing ploy. However, with that step we might never have had B+ and that may be a case where the end justifies the means.

There's also very few 'standards' which have actually got tot he point where it's properly obsolete and you'd have to bin a bike because you can't get parts. You mgiht not be able to walk into an LBS and pick them up off the shelf but parts to keep most bikes form the last 50 years going are available from suppliers on order or via the internet

In fact has this ever happened??? I think some folk confuse obsolete with "can't buy the newest and shiniest for my 8 year old frame"

ahwiles interesting you pick that price point comparison as I had a 1994 Orange Clockwork with STX on it. Jump to today and I have a 29er hardtail that was around £1300 with SRAM X5 - which I'd consider worse than STX level. However, I accept that the brakes are better now and the RockSox Reba is massively better than the Orange's twangy steel fork (which wasn't great at the time!).

Is my modern 29er better than my old Orange then yes. Was it cheaper also well that depends on how you measure it but not massively.

If 650b disappears in favour of whatever (plus etc etc), I'll sack MTB off completely once my current bike dies. Just not prepared to be had over again.

BillOddie - Member
In fact has this ever happened???

i couldn't find a new headset for a 1.5" steerer + 44mm headtube combo...

Scotrouts, I agree that + might be a happy unintended consequence of 650b.

It doesn't change the fact that the introduction of 650b was a cynical, rapacious, greedy and entirely unjustified marketing exercise.

'We' fell for if.
Now the floodgates are open.

It's a trust thing - many people have lost that trust in the industry and the media that promotes it.

And don't you work in the industry?
🙂

Just not prepared to be had over again.

[i] mikewsmith - Member

well all your grumbling did seem based on speculation and reading too much STW... in many ways wheel size is irrelevant and to bang on about it so much is just a bit dull.[/i]

😆 I convey my view and experience of recent changes in the MTB sector and that's your response.

On the STW trying to start an argument scale I'll be kind and give you 1/10. Wind your neck in.
🙂

Edit:
[i] Rusty Spanner - Member
It's a trust thing - many people have lost that trust in the industry [b]and the media[/b] that promotes it.[/i]

A bit of this too, for me.

Well over 90% of mountain bikes in use must be straight steerer and 26.

Withdrawing the majority of after sales support for those bikes is indicative of how the 'community' stuff spouted by the industry is mostly bullshit.

From an interview with Steven Shand (of Shand bikes):

" It's easy to be an old crusty curmudgeon and moan about all these new 'advances' so I need to be careful here. There are certain things that are clearly driven by the need to streamline manufacturing processes and as a manufacturer myself, I can understand the desire for that. If it helps to bring down costs and doesn't negatively impact on a bicycle design then I can sort of live with it. If you're asking me if oversized BB shells make a bike better then no, I don't believe they do. I would go as far as to say that particular 'advancement' has meant less choice for the public as the big brands battle it out over the 'best' standard.

There's certain things I don't really understand and have given up trying to. Take tapered fork steerers for example. You have a fork that could be 500mm+ long, on the end is a wheel held together by a bunch of spokes and on the end of that you have a rubber tyre full of air at 50psi. Now someone's decided that the fork isn't stiff enough and that the best candidate for improvement is the 150mm long steerer that's supported by bearings at both ends? Really?? And it just so happens that in order to take advantage of this you need either a new frame, a new fork or probably both.
My final point on this is that while the engineering principals governing some of the latest changes are perfectly sound, the implementation is often poor. External bearing bottom brackets are a prime example here. If you move the bearings further apart and make them bigger, It doesn't take a genius to work out that that is 'a good thing'. But why don't bottom brackets last as long as they used to? Because they're mostly put together with shitty parts to hit a price point. The consumer thinks they're getting a better product because of the advances in technology but they're not reaping the benefits they should be. Up until about 2 years ago I was running a square taper WTB GreaseGuard bottom bracket in one of my bikes. It was running as smoothly when I removed it as it was when I first installed it in a bike 20 years ago. Why did I remove it? Because I needed a new crank and couldn't get what I needed in square taper anymore 🙂 "

had over? How exactly? Have all 26" parts been obliterated, have they all been banned?

On the STW trying to start an argument scale I'll be kind and give you 1/10. Wind your neck in.

Rusty Spanner - Member
Well over 90% of mountain bikes in use must be straight steerer and 26.

I can still get rubber, rims and spokes for 26" so how has "the majority of aftersales support" been withdrawn?

[quote=Rusty Spanner ]It's a trust thing - [s]many people [/s]a few folk whining on STW have lost that trust in the industry and the media that promotes it.
FTFY

And don't you work in the industry?

" It's easy to be an old crusty curmudgeon and moan about all these new 'advances' so I need to be careful here. There are certain things that are clearly driven by the need to streamline manufacturing processes and as a manufacturer myself, I can understand the desire for that. If it helps to bring down costs and doesn't negatively impact on a bicycle design then I can sort of live with it. If you're asking me if oversized BB shells make a bike better then no, I don't believe they do. I would go as far as to say that particular 'advancement' has meant less choice for the public as the big brands battle it out over the 'best' standard.

There's certain things I don't really understand and have given up trying to. Take tapered fork steerers for example. You have a fork that could be 500mm+ long, on the end is a wheel held together by a bunch of spokes and on the end of that you have a rubber tyre full of air at 50psi. Now someone's decided that the fork isn't stiff enough and that the best candidate for improvement is the 150mm long steerer that's supported by bearings at both ends? Really?? And it just so happens that in order to take advantage of this you need either a new frame, a new fork or probably both.
My final point on this is that while the engineering principals governing some of the latest changes are perfectly sound, the implementation is often poor. External bearing bottom brackets are a prime example here. If you move the bearings further apart and make them bigger, It doesn't take a genius to work out that that is 'a good thing'. But why don't bottom brackets last as long as they used to? Because they're mostly put together with shitty parts to hit a price point. The consumer thinks they're getting a better product because of the advances in technology but they're not reaping the benefits they should be. Up until about 2 years ago I was running a square taper WTB GreaseGuard bottom bracket in one of my bikes. It was running as smoothly when I removed it as it was when I first installed it in a bike 20 years ago. Why did I remove it? Because I needed a new crank and couldn't get what I needed in square taper anymore "

Everything he ever says is correct. Part of the reason I bought my current road bike is because almost all the others available have tapered steerers, which I personally think look ****, especially on a steel road bike.

The majority of people I ride with and see on the trails are still on those bikes.
That's based on MY experience, which is equally as valid as yours.

3-4 years?
That's the life expectancy of a bike, is it?

Maybe in your world, not in mine.

And don't you work in the industry?

I've worked in bike shops......

3-4 years?
That's the life expectancy of a bike, is it?

Maybe in your world, not in mine.

As said a lot in this thread STW seems to have a very select group of people who don't really align with the majority of the bike riding public, the great industry conspiracy doesn't seem to phase them or bother them.

Top kit has always been pricey, but £4k was the ceiling for a long time. There are plenty of bikes beyond this nowadays and you actually see them!

Things like forks seem a massively expensive upgrade now but maybe I'm stuck in 2005 when a top end set of forks werwe £500 or so.

One thing that I think may challenge the industry is the inroduction of younger riders. Where I ride, I don't see that many.

[quote=Rusty Spanner ]
And don't you work in the industry?

I've worked in bike shops......

Best I've managed was 5 1/2 before snapping...

Some of us can't afford to replace bikes that often.
Perhaps we're a just a

very select group of people who don't really align with the majority of the bike riding public

the question?
The majority of people on bikes I meet don't give a shit about the wheel size debate, the end of square taper, they don't bang on about being done over by "the industry" or trust or being conned. They ride the bikes they like, enjoy riding them and don't get all hung up on it. Most are younger or newer to riding and are not clinging to the we were here first/invented it "OUR SPORT" mentality that comes out in these sort of threads. I've been lucky enough to ride with loads of people over the world and most of the time the only real wheel size/standards/conned/had over conversations are held in jest over a beer.

A different take on the tapered steerer topic from Singular (thanks to barty "I'm the designer" p and his custom ti thread for the link!)

"Many fork manufacturers are now producing high end forks in a tapered version, sometimes *only* in a tapered version. There is only one real benefit to having a tapered fork and by extension a larger diameter head-tube. It allows you to join larger gauge tubes to it. Using larger diameter top and down-tubes and not needing much/any manipulation to join them to the head-tube, and not having them interfere with one another, makes for a potentially stiffer front end, rather than anything to do with an increase in stiffness of the fork steerer and crown.

So when we talk about a bike like the Swift, much of the reason for its vaunted ride quality and and smoothness is the profile of those top and down tubes. Large enough to be stiff under power, slim enough and with appropriate wall thicknesses to give a smooth ride and a frame which has a bit of give and doesn’t ‘ping’ off every bump and rock. So other than suspension fork compatibility (and we can only hope the big manufacturers will see the error of their ways before long) there is no reason to add a 44mm head tube to the Swift. Plus it would also look horribly out of proportion against the gauge of the top and down tubes.

For these reasons the forthcoming Buzzard will get a 44mm ID head-tube. That frame is designed for the kind of riding where it will be pushed a lot harder and have a lot more stress put through it. The difference in front end stiffness from the much larger diameter top and down tubes over the Swift is enormous. This is very noticeable whether using a 1 1/8? or tapered steerer fork.

So why are all the big manufacturers going to tapered? Because they need something new in order to sell bikes. It’s an easy thing for shop staff to sell; q. “why do I need a tapered steerer?” – a. “because it’s stiffer!”. No question as to whether it really is ‘stiffer’, or if so whether that stiffness is desirable for the intended use of the frame – but that’s perhaps a topic for another post…."

i couldn't find a new headset for a 1.5" steerer + 44mm headtube combo...

But you could have changed the fork to a taper fork and got a headset to fit that.

I think some folk confuse obsolete with "can't buy the newest and shiniest for my 8 year old frame"

Exactly my point. Not being able to fit new standards to an old frame does not make the old frame obsolete if parts are still available to fit it and keep it rolling and performing as well as when it was built.

Some things have to change to support new tech, others not so much*, but you cant expect all new tech to be backwards compatible with old, despite the fact that a lot of it is, or is with adaptors.

i couldn't find a new headset for a 1.5" steerer + 44mm headtube combo...

That's not a proper example though is it, despite the fact that 44mm was really a post-1.5 inch development meant for flexibility of tapered and 1 1/8th, the fact that you *could* fit 1.5 inch forks to it was almost a side-benefit as most people didn't (the full 1.5/49mm cups was the intended platform for 1.5 inch steerers), you're talking about a very specific mix of parts there, not a bike rendered obsolete.

Either way you could still:

> fit new bearings to your existing cups (or are they proprietary?)
> fit a tapered fork
> fit a 1 1/8th fork
> use a bottom cup upside down and and the old top expanding ring and cover
> other bodge like get a custom cup made locally (or in your shed with a lathe) to fit bearings of your choice.

But it sure as hell wouldn't stop me using the bike. what happened to that frame, did you throw it away or is it actually still in use, thus proving it's not obsolete?

*just check any of my bikes, you'll find me clinging to old tech like square taper internal BBs on most of them and even nice flexy comfy 1 inch forks on the road bikes), I just don't think new standards is a big a deal as some of the aggrieved make out

EDIT - as per below, i do distinguish between functionally better and worthwile developments vs not, and I use the ones that work for me and ignore those that dont.

I've come to realise that a good bike is a good bike.

The standards and compatibility issue only becomes an issue if you intend to upgrade parts or change stuff, most people don't,

For stuff that was popular OEM kit you can normally get spares up to and beyond 10 years after it was phased out. For instance you can still get chainsets to fit square taper bottom brackets although the choice is reduced and mainly lower end stuff.

Rockshox still do straight steerer forks.

Of course wheel size doesn't stop me from enjoying my riding - it's lush round here.
🙂

Most are younger or newer to riding and are not clinging to the we were here first/invented it "OUR SPORT" mentality that comes out in these sort of threads.

I don't have that mentality - the sport doesn't belong to anyone.
You're the one who seems incapable of understanding anyone's point of view apart from your own.

they don't bang on about being done over by "the industry" or trust or being conned.

I don't have that mentality - the sport doesn't belong to anyone.
You're the one who seems incapable of understanding anyone's point of view apart from your own.

I don't think the MTB 'activity' is in decline, I can see why the Industry thinks it is and in a way has contributed to it's own demise, I shall tell a story of my own little world that has gone from three bike shops to only one and the one that was most energetic, that organised rides, took folk out had to close because it couldn't make the margins.

Retail in the high street faces high costs, it also has struggled ever since the VAT rate went up to 20% which is a fifth of the business turnover and that last 2.5% in many cases was all the margin they had, now gone to George Osbourne.

People who open bike shops are rarely good business people and they get placed under all sorts of pressure, I suspect the internet nowadays counts for at least 50% of the business and most of that is least cost routed.

Then you have the reps ramming stock they can't afford if they want to hold brand X, this particular shop had a great formula, a shop, not a particularly high rent, coffee shop inhouse, rides nearby, both he and his mrs organised rides, some for ATB others for Mums even along canal tow paths that sort of thing and the business had real hope even at the height of the recession in 2011, 2012, but it failed.

It failed because he couldn't afford to finance the stock, the stock turn wasn't great enough he couldn't price match the likes of Wiggle and Chain reaction and the 'Industry' put him under too much pressure, so they fed him high price stock on the one hand and allowed bigger fish to discount it on the other.

So why would you consider opening a shop under these conditions? Without enthusiast shops on the ground you don't get folk introduced to something as specialist as trail riding, so they go on the road. Unfortunately the Road boom has also bust for the same reasons.

There are now too many brands taking ever decreasing slices of the cake, plus the internet opens our market to every tom dick and harry, bikes direct from China, ATB's direct from Germany, it's no surprise that anyone in the business must feel squeezed, think of all the 'new' brands that burst onto the scene, Ghost, Canyon, YT Industries, I don't know them all but this guy seemed to have a new brand almost every week and now I heard the other day Trek which is the one shop left in our area, is now selling direct over the Internet to compete, although I understand they will deliver via a shop at probably a reduced margin.

We have just started a cross over to mountain bike night for the roadies at our club to encourage them onto the path of true righteousness, but it's not exactly over subscribed and the 'proper' bikes are very expensive so on the one hand it's good as a consumer to see the prices tumbling, I can see why those attempting to profit from it would be in a stress. I also agree with the poster back there about the 27.5 thing and the incompatibility, it wasn't broke, they should never have tried to fix it for short term gain.

Anyway that's my three happorth too many brands and two big discount sites defining pricing and margins, no room for enthusiasts to operate and without enthusiasts who is going to grow the market?

@mindmap3 I think you're spot on re youngsters. I don't know what the average age of posters is on here but I see a lot of "I'm 40/50/60" type comments which suggests it might be quite high. I'm lucky in that I don't have a mortgage and have a high disposable income but if you are in your teens or early twenties then there's virtually no way you'd be in that position. Even so, I only have one MTB (I've a road and CX bike as well) as I don't feel the need to buy a bike just for the sake of it.

Top kit has always been pricey, but £4k was the ceiling for a long time. There are plenty of bikes beyond this nowadays and you actually see them!

Things like forks seem a massively expensive upgrade now but maybe I'm stuck in 2005 when a top end set of forks werwe £500 or so.

One thing that I think may challenge the industry is the inroduction of younger riders. Where I ride, I don't see that many.

Don't forget to factor in inflation!

I remember when RockShox SIDs first came out in 1998 @£600, ~£950 in today's money, a Boxxer was £999 ~£1600 now.

As you said at the beginning of your post, top end kit has always been expensive, but look at entry level and mid range now compared to then, in 1998 £300 got you a basic rigid, but just about offroad capable MTB with crap brakes and the lowest SIS derailleurs, £400 before a named Groupset appeared (Altus)

£300-£400 now gets you either a decent rigid MTB with hydraulic discs, or a front sprung model with decent cable stoppers.

and £300 now is <£200 in old money, back then you could just about get a Raleigh Max from Halfords with plastic cantis for £200

I mean look what £400-£700 gets you now, amazing value!
The top end may be going up in price, but the cost of entry and the mid range kit is better value than ever before, and the top end is not representative of what the general bike buying public buy.

Young riders are still around, they're probably riding at times you don't though! And the kids race entries are getting bigger and bigger round this way too.

mindmap3 - Member

Things like forks seem a massively expensive upgrade now but maybe I'm stuck in 2005 when a top end set of forks werwe £500 or so.

Which would be £700 today. You can spend more than £700 on forks but that'll get a very very good one (and o'course, today you can get forks for a couple of hundred quid that are better than a £500 one in 2005)

Is MTBing in decline or is it just not growing at the rate of road cycling (which is growing fast!)?

amedias - Member

That's not a proper example though is it,

i know what you mean, but it did affect me. From my point of view it's not an internet anecdote, it was a pain in the ar53.

Either way you could still:

> fit new bearings to your existing cups (or are they proprietary?)

that's what i did, problem was it was a crap headset with next to no sealing - hence looking for a new one.

> use a bottom cup upside down and and the old top expanding ring and cover

that's a pretty clever suggestion... (i can't *see* it working in my head, but it sounds worth a go)

what happened to that frame, did you throw it away or is it actually still in use, thus proving it's not obsolete?

sold with shagged headset.

anyway, i think we agree, i'm not convinced 'obsolete standards' is a bit problem, i just replied to a request for examples.

[quote=chiefgrooveguru ]Is MTBing in decline[s] or is it just not growing at the rate of road cycling (which is growing fast!)[/s]?Not from what I can see.

use a bottom cup upside down and and the old top expanding ring and cover

(i can't *see* it working in my head, but it sounds worth a go)

I've used exactly that in the past with a Hope bottom 44mm tapered cup and bearing, but with the top split ring and top cap from the old headset (compatible angle at bearing interface).

You could possibly even use the Hope *bottom* crown race on the top as long as there's enough leeway for it to compress. A normal 1.5 inch steerer diameter is 38.1mm, where as the crown race seat dimension on the steer is 39.7-39.8 so it *might* work depending on tolerances as there is some room for the race to compress down as it's a split design on Hopes.

If you're handy with a lathe you could easily make a new compression ring anyway.

I do feel for you, issues like that can be a real pain in the backside, but fortunately they are few and far between and don't drop up that regularly, and when they do there is normally always a way around it if you have the time to hunt out the bit you need or get creative.

Great post and after 21 years as a fanatical mountain biker followed by five on the road my answer is simple: "Mud and convenience".

I got sick of the constant filth, the wear and tear and the falls and small injuries as well as the need to drive almost every time I went out on the mountain bike. Now I can ride the roadie from my front door and come back two hour later clean but feeling absolutely beasted so I'm considerably fitter than when I mountain biked as well.

Many of us started mountain biking in the late 80s or early 90s, attracted by the comfort and ease of the new mountain bikes. At that time road bikes were still skinny steel and not very comfortable for an amateur but now thanks to SIS, padded handlebars, smooth-riding carbon frames, compact gearing and so on even an old fogey like me can ride like a god.

I think you're spot on re youngsters. I don't know what the average age of posters is on here but I see a lot of "I'm 40/50/60" type comments which suggests it might be quite high.

The issue of standards and designed in obsolescence has been raging for years. Mountain bikes aren't the only consumer product affected as anyone with an Apple iPhone will testify once they download an "update" that slows down their hitherto premium priced product.

Over the last few years, we've seen a proliferation of standards which make no sense at all. I've long blathered on about 15mm vs 20mm front hubs and why we have tapered head tubes when 1.5" would do the same job but better, but the cynicism over the recent Boost standard has enraged me to the point where I am pretty disillusioned with the whole pastime.

The wheel size thing still irks me. 26ers are ace and will continue to be ace in a way that's completely distinct from what makes a 29er ace. If you buy a new frame to replace a three year old bike tomorrow, then you'll have to spend on new forks and wheels, which means you might as well take the hit on a complete bike.

Being a mostly American-led market has been a factor, as consumers there seem more willing to spend the equivalent of £4k on a bike and overlook the fact that they won't be able to buy spare parts for the Fox fork or that none of the components on the bike will be able to be transferred to a new frame in two years time.

It's no wonder that the market is depressed, loyal customers are being treated badly and the ideas being trotted out by the industry are bordering on the ridiculous...certainly reading the reviews and listening to the feedback from other mountain bikers, the 27.5+ thing seems like a compromise too far.

Isn't that just a reflection of the media? We're the social media dinosaurs on here. All the youngsters are riding DH/jumps at the bike park and posting on bebo and myspace.

If you're right about the age demographic there's another aspect to it: one thing that attracts me to road riding is the "lore" and the subtlety and finesse of riding in a pack or with a group of buddies. There's the tactics, the techniques and the thrill of the speed; I think road cycling just appeals more to older riders.

I've realised that my frustration at the ever-changing standards in the MTB industry is inversely proportional to the frequency I ride my (26") mountain bike 🙂

If anything I've shifted away from road riding and I'm doing more mountain biking now. I love both, I just tend to flit from preferring one to the other depending on my fitness, the weather, the state of my bikes but perhaps more importantly which sport I've most recently been following in the media. When the UCI DH seasons starts it will be all about the MTB for me, but I guarantee that come Tour de France I'll be back out in my lycra.

^ Globalti, --- that .. bunched riding in traffic, staring at back wheels or your mate in lycra a bit too close and 'etiquette' etc, that's most of the stuff that puts me off road riding : )

Lore as in the history, that's good stuff though.