I’m not surprised that figures are down this year compared to last. Surely a lot of that is to do with the fact that people buying new wheel standards has tailed off not because the bike industry is suffering. This years figures are relative to the bumper years they’ve had through gullible people upgrading their bikes. My heart bleeds, the bike industry can suffer for all I care. The way they try to engineer sales through new standards is a scandal. If you live by your sales figures you should die by them as well. Jog on.

Remind me what can’t you buy again?

That was a good podcast, with interesting points. I think the “You can still get 26″ rims” argument is kind of backwards though. If you have a 26″ frame and want something with more modern geo, you can’t just buy a new frame. You’d need new forks (650b) , new hubs/rims (boost) potentially a new BB, potentially a new shock (metric).

So lots of people understandably just don’t buy new frames or bikes. Also impacted by the drop in second hand value of 26″ and other “outdated” parts which then impact the amount of cash available for a new bike.

strategy?

Offer consumers a ‘cool’ bike that meets all current trends but avoids the sort of trinketry that’s become the norm during the boom.

It’s all well and good the industry players offering a Alu version of their flagship for 75% the cost of the carbon, but bikes aren’t a rational purchase, consumers want the carbon. So you sell the brand through Insta, Pinkbike vids etc and build your fan base, but given the choice between a new Alu / base build and a S/H carbon they’ll go S/H.

You don’t need a carbon frame to see bikes – Orange still make aspirational bikes without it.

I think the likes of Bird can benefit from a downturn, they can sell the brand, build the fan base and their range tops out as other brands are starting.

Can’t imagine why the industry is having these problems.

“What do I do with my old 78’s?”

[video]https://youtu.be/TxQqWSnsHoA[/video]

There should be a fairly inevitable correction after a period of very rapid growth in cycling as a pastime. Market is becoming saturated, fewer people are joining it and not that many of the existing customers can afford multiple bikes or bike changes at 2.5K plus each.

This.

Two things;

Folk wanting to buy bits for old frames are in the minority.

The average price of a new bicycle in the UK is around £300.

Whinge all you want about new standards and the media pushing £2k starter bikes but neither have a major influence on bike sales. Step away from the bubble.

The industry has been taking the piss pricing wise for several years

Agree. Was only a few years back that £4000+ on a bike would have been seen as very extravagant yet now looking through the pages of Cyclist I would say the average price of bikes they test, review are around £4K with many reaching £8K

scotroutes – Member
Two things;

Folk wanting to buy bits for old frames are in the minority.

Hasn’t that always been the case?
How have the figures changed recently?

Whinge all you want about new standards and the media pushing £2k starter bikes but neither have a major influence on bike sales.Step away from the bubble

Thanks for your permission to whinge.
🙂

Step away from the bubble?
Don’t you work in the industry?

And what effect do you think the media pushing £2000 as the amount a beginner should spend actually has?

And how about those new ‘standards’?
What do you think the point of introducing 650b and ditching 26
was?

To me there seems a lack of practical innovation in the industry. Sure we have different wheel/axle/headset sizes and 11 speed Di2 etc. However, I cannot yet justify replacing my decade old Mount Vision (old school 9 speed/26/1.125″ steerer/9mm QR) despite having earmarked cash, taken test rides and drooling over bikes generally. All I can say is the newer bikes are slightly stiffer, pedal slightly more efficiently and handle slightly better. I have spent more on fancy lights and clothing where (imho) the new stuff offers a big improvement. I think blaming Brexit is a bit easy…

I can’t see what the fuss is all about. I started off in 1989 and 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 speed all came and went in a decade. Discs then arrived and there were a few different standards. I remember suspension designs that tried every possible arrangement. I also remember how much something like a Marin Team Titanium cost and corrected for inflation it would cost a fortune today and be really rather mediocre.

kerley – Member
The industry has been taking the piss pricing wise for several years
Agree. Was only a few years back that £4000+ on a bike would have been seen as very extravagant yet now looking through the pages of Cyclist I would say the average price of bikes they test, review are around £4K with many reaching £8K

You are talking about Cyclist though aren’t you? It covers an extravagant European mega ride each issue and specialises in expensive bikes, which, let’s be honest, are more interesting to read about.

That’s like complaining that Evo or Porsche 911 World magazine are useless for finding which small runabout car you should get for a first time driver.

As for people not buying bikes because of standards changes, I bet some would be less reluctant to change if the replacements were 20% cheaper.

As has been mentioned previously all the new standard of the week crap the industry and media pushed out stopped me buying new mtbs, I used to have 5, now just a HT running retro specs. Have been doing more road but they are starting to pull the same crap there as well!

Plus the prices went crazy 5 or 6 years ago!

It seems to me that these days mountain bikes are so different to what I need. I know things evolve and change but the simple fact is I’ve not changed what cycling I do, and the locations where I ride haven’t changed either. I have no need for an Enduro Bike living in the south. I don’t need 150mm of travel, a stiffer frame, or a wider rear hub. At no point while riding have I though, “if only my rear hub was wider and my frame stiffer.” Yet the industry pushes these things onto me, almost saying that without these things I’m missing out. I thought SPDs, full sus and discs were excellent new developments and enhanced my cycling. Mucking around with wheel size (29ers being the exception), tapered head tubes and hub sizing havent added to my riding.

Hasn’t that always been the case?
How have the figures changed recently?[/quote]

In general there’s less of a demand to “mend and make do” they way folk used to. This isn’t bike-specific, it’s a general societal thing.

Whinge all you want about new standards and the media pushing £2k starter bikes but neither have a major influence on bike sales.Step away from the bubble

Thanks for your permission to whinge.[/quote]You know what I mean 😆

Step away from the bubble?
Don’t you work in the industry?

Not really. We do bike hire and cyclist transport. The closest we get to retail is simply buying bikes and bits just like any other end customer

And what effect do you think the media pushing £2000 as the amount a beginner should spend actually has?

None/little. Most folk who buy bikes aren’t reading about £2k bikes.

And how about those new ‘standards’?
What do you think the point of introducing 650b and ditching 26
was?

Personally, I think they’ve pretty much all been beneficial. As I was saying to a mate the other day, we’re all riding fatbikes now. It seems that since Surly started pushing 4″ MTBs all markets have seen a bit of a change towards fatter tyres (roadies, CX, gravel, even 2.6″ as a “normal” MTB tyre).

There’s nothing magic about 26″ as a wheel size. It’s purely accidental that we ended up with that. In fact, there were naysayers from the very early days. I regard 26″ as a bit of a passing fad (unless you’re fitting 4″ tyres of course).

Compare a top end mtbike from 1995 to 2005, that’s when the innovation was happening.
The last ten years have seen relatively minor changes/innovation so there hasnt been such a pressing need to update your bike unless you are riding races or mtb obsessed.

There have been some significant price increases in recent years. My wife bought me a Spesh Roubaix for my fiftieth, it was £1600. The following year, the same bike (but with slightly lower spec componentry) was £2200!

@twowheels – I had a Marin Vision from that time (the last of the box section frames), I’ve now a Cotic Solaris which is night and day a better bike.

The biggest problem with the bike industry is the plethora of incompatible “standards”, it’s getting as bad as sourcing motor parts: So that’s a 2010 model is it sir? Pre or post June? And does the chassis number end in a seven?

innovation needs money. If the “next mountain bike” should be better than the current one the industry needs to earn money.
That’s fair.

But what I don’t like: that the industry tells you that the bike you bought yesterday is already crap today. Don’t like this and don’t believe this.

On one side we really see innovation. On the other side the push for “DUBAI” style bikes and “deflation” for what you bought yesterday.

Difficult balance.
And also remember this number being true:

The average price of a new bicycle in the UK is around £300.

These £300 bikes won’t be mountain bikes so… ❓

Possible that the mountain bike part of the industry is NOT part of the

the bike industry which is suffering

❓

No idea.

In general there’s less of a demand to “mend and make do” they way folk used to.

I hear the opposite at the moment, what with the current economic situation.
People are holding onto things for longer.

None/little. Most folk who buy bikes aren’t reading about £2k bikes.

So no one consults the media before purchasing a bike?

There’s nothing magic about 26″ as a wheel size. It’s purely accidental that we ended up with that. In fact, there were naysayers from the very early days. I regard 26″ as a bit of a passing fad (unless you’re fitting 4″ tyres of course).

We didn’t need 650b to go wider.
And you didn’t answer my question.

While the ongoing saga of bicycle “standardisation” is probably helping to deter some of those with more niche cycling interests and bigger budgets, I can’t help thinking that a general reduction in bike sales across the UK could have more to do with a slow down in the “utility” and commuter markets…

“Normal” People spending £3-600ish on a hybrid or basic MTB to get to work on, it may be worth looking for a correlation in C2W uptake? Anyone know about that?

It’s probably also reflecting the more general economic picture, people are just not as flush and ready to spend this year, with cost of living increases being played off against discretionary purchases like shiny bikes…

Despite being a staunch Remainer, even I would struggle to blame the whole thing on Brexit, you could well argue that both reductions in consumer spending and Brexit are symptoms of some much bigger issues, but that’s a whole other thread…

And what effect do you think the media pushing £2000 as the amount a beginner should spend actually has?

And

But what I don’t like: that the industry tells you that the bike you bought yesterday is already crap today. Don’t like this and don’t believe this.

Genuine question – can someone post examples of each of these?

So no one consults the media before purchasing a bike?

Surprisingly few if my previous experience of working in a bike shop is typical.

26 vs 650B? I think it’s worthwhile. That’s based upon jumping back on a 26er after a spell on larger wheels. Thing is, so many other changes have happened in parallel that it’s difficult to separate out individual points.

If I was going to have a go at the bike industry (as if it is one big cartel) then it would be about annual bike product cycles. They diminish the 2nd hand price and result in retailers having to offload stock at stupid prices, having had to commit to bulk orders in order to get a decent margin. Knock that on the head and we’d also reduce the incremental standards creep.

my modern geo 26er with standard 15mm front 142 rear isn’t going to be replaced any time soon.

scotroutes-bloke:

If I was going to have a go at the bike industry (as if it is one big cartel) then it would be about annual bike product cycles. They diminish the 2nd hand price and result in retailers having to offload stock at stupid prices, having had to commit to bulk orders in order to get a decent margin.

great explanation.
I tried to describe it as:

innovation needs money. If the “next mountain bike” should be better than the current one the industry needs to earn money.
That’s fair.
But what I don’t like: that the industry tells you that the bike you bought yesterday is already crap today. Don’t like this and don’t believe this.

But scotroutes-bloke mentiones a very important point:

annual bike product cycles

Have to think about it.
But this might be a “marketing driven” cycle which is in fact silly and bad for a product like a bike.

I like bikes. Also out of the fact that a bike is not outdated after 2 years – or even one year!

hungry monkey-bloke:

And

But what I don’t like: that the industry tells you that the bike you bought yesterday is already crap today. Don’t like this and don’t believe this.

Genuine question – can someone post examples of each of these?
my impression – scotroutes bloke gave a good hint how it works:

If I was going to have a go at the bike industry (as if it is one big cartel) then it would be about annual bike product cycles. They diminish the 2nd hand price and result in retailers having to offload stock at stupid prices, having had to commit to bulk orders in order to get a decent margin. Knock that on the head and we’d also reduce the incremental standards creep.

Means the industry tried to turn a bike into a “fashion” thing?

Some of the issues might be.

For less than the price of a Santa Cruz V10 X01 you can buy a 2018 KTM 250 TPI. A far more involved and sophisticated piece of engineering.

The reluctance of a large section of the industry to embrace d2c and cut out unneeded middle men.

The reluctance of a large section of shops to embrace ecommerce.

my impression – scotroutes bloke gave a good hint how it works:

I see that as the natural progression of bike models – it is the same in every production industry – how many products are identical to the one that first came to market? Of course they want to sell you the new one – they’re businesses afterall.

However I’ve never seen any company say that the previous generation model is crap – which is what was implied by my initial post, and is totally different. Do VW say the mk6 golf is crap now that the mk7 exists? No. Likewise I’ve never seen spesh say the 2015 enduro is crap, just that the 2018 one is amazing.

It does sometimes feel that stw expect the bike industry to work in a way entirely different to every other production industry, be it cars, washing machines, mobile phones or pressure washers – of course the newest one is the latest and greatest – that’s how the world works….

To take the car industry as an example – how many iterations of Golfs have there been since its introduction 44 years ago?

Good example scotroutes

The model year cycle has been the bain of the industry for ever.

For everyone from suppliers to importers to shop to the customer.

hungry monkey – bloke:

It does sometimes feel that stw expect the bike industry to work in a way entirely different to every other production industry, be it cars, washing machines, mobile phones or pressure washers

your points are all valid.
And – maybe – you are right.
Possible that we expect too much from the bike industry?

And in fact – I personally expected the bike industry to be different from

every other production industry, be it cars, washing machines, mobile phones or pressure washers

Maybe an irrational wish.
And I have to admit: I’am pretty happy with my bikes…

TheDoctor – Member
As has been mentioned previously all the new standard of the week crap the industry and media pushed out stopped me buying new mtbs, I used to have 5, now just a HT running retro specs. Have been doing more road but they are starting to pull the same crap there as well!

That’s a good thing right? Had bikes stayed exactly the same you’d have bought five instead you’re still enjoying the one you have. ❓

Duplicate deleted.

And in fact – I personally expected the bike industry to be different from

Genuinely interested – why do you expect out to be any different?

Regardless of how frequent model changes are, I still don’t think anyone has shown that the bike industry has explicitly said that their previous generation kit was crap…

As with all these things, if you don’t like it, don’t buy it… 🙄

Genuine question – can someone post examples of each of these?

You wont find an example of bike manufacturers or the media saying last years bikes are now rubbish. It’s just when they gush about how a 6mm wider hub, 10% stiffer frame and different size wheels are better. They create the impression that what went before isn’t as good. People in their own minds translate that into rubbish. The industry knows thats how people work and count on it to sell new bikes.

They create the impression that what went before isn’t as good. People in their own minds translate that into rubbish. The industry knows thats how people work and count on it to sell new bikes.

Yes – it’s us – together with the bike industry.

You wont find an example of bike manufacturers or the media saying last years bikes are now rubbish.

Aah ok, that’s what people said tho.

It’s just when they gush about how a 6mm wider hub, 10% stiffer frame and different size wheels are better.

Ok, so if we assume that in back to back testing someone who writes reviews believes that whatever the new thing is is better, they shouldn’t say it? (I’m not asking if you personally believe it would be better or not)

The industry knows thats how people work and count on it to sell new bikes.

Well yeah, bike companies employ people in marketing departments to sell new bikes…

My point is that bike companies are subject to the exact same market forces and requirements of any other business, so why shouldn’t they act like other businesses? Stw forum gives the impression that the bike industry should exist in a bubble out with that of the rest of the economy…

I bought a new (to me) van recently. I couldn’t afford a 67 plate one so I got an 11 plate. Nobody at vw said it was shit. I also wasn’t bitter that vw choose to sell a brand new one at a price I couldn’t afford – I wanted a vw specifically but I guess I could have afforded a brand new van of a different marque. Likewise I don’t jump on car forums and complain that the latest Ferrari costs £350k and then go on about how ridiculously expensive cars are these days…

It was Singletrack that pushed the £2k beginner bike line btw.

Along with the opinion that people who buy Chinese lights aren’t serious MTB’ers.

I don’t read stw 😉

I’m not sure I can bemoan “new standards” all that much. I wailed like everyone else at 650b, how it was pointless, how 26 was the best, if it ain’t broke and all that, but you know what, it hasn’t been half as bad as we thought.

2014 was the year the mainstream, which of course started in Sept 2013 – here we are in 2018 (in bike terms) you can still buy a decent selection of 26 tyres and rims and there’s a couple of 26” forks still in circulation and I’m sure it’s far from impossible to keep your 26 bike going for years to come.

The stuff that’s come since – boost, ‘metric’ shocks and all that – does anyone really care anymore?

My point is that bike companies are subject to the exact same market forces and requirements of any other business, so why shouldn’t they act like other businesses? Stw forum gives the impression that the bike industry should exist in a bubble out with that of the rest of the economy…

I don’t disagree with this at all. The bike industry wants to sell bikes, the media relies on a buoyant Industry to sell their products. It’s just how it is, but how it’s done is not always in the customers best interest.

Boost with it’s irritating name seems to me to be the fall guy, but without good reason.

A lot of the standards for BB or bar clamp diameters, even headsets are to me an annoyance at worst, but boost made a very expensive part of a bicycle, the wheels, next to useless. A new BB or headset is something that I’d likely buy with a new frame.

142 wasn’t an inbetween step, it was a variation on 135 that most hubs used by people who like to swap frames could accommodate.

What does boost achieve that can’t be achieved with larger hub flanges or offset spoke holes in the rims? Clearance for (ever) wider tyres, I suppose, but short stays, should you want them are possible with 142 spacing. You can even fit a front mech, too.

I am mostly over my Boost induced rage, but Boost is the reason I’ve not bought a new frame (and accompanying BB/headset). If the industry wants a my few quid, make 142 rear spacing available on new frames.

What product category doesn’t continually improve and refine every year? What manufacturer doesn’t keep tweaking, launching new models?

This isn’t anything special about the bike industry, it’s how all consumer goods work. Who still has a first-generation iPhone?