Dear Bike Industry - Opinion
I am not a marriage counselor. Nor am I an engineer. So maybe you should take what I’m saying here with a pound of salt, but I’m going to say it anyway—I wish the bike industry would get together, talk things over, find some common ground and get on the same f@cking page when they roll out the next big thing.
I’m not against progress; I just think the way we go about this evolution-thing is creating a world of prematurely incompatible parts and burnt-out riders.
![banner]()
PROGRESS DOESN’T SUCK
First, let me state for the record, that I am a-okay with the inexorable march of progress. Bikes change. In general, they get better. I know a lot of readers will disagree with me on that score, but really, it’s hard to deny.
I rode a 28-pound, 6.7-inch (170-millimeter) travel bike up several miles of steep, taint-mauling mountain the other day and not once did I think “This bike should be lighter or pedal more efficiently.” Not once. Calling that bike a “rocket” would be overstating the matter, but, sweetbabyvishnu, that long-travel beast climbed better than most trail bikes from six years ago. And on the way down? It was damn near as capable as a full-on downhill bike.
A 28-pound, park bike that you’d happily tackle all-day trail rides on? No shuttles or chairlifts required? You can sign me up for that shit all day. And, yes, we have progress to thank for that.
Having purchased my first mountain bike back in 1988, I can tell you that all those classic retro bikes may look cool, but are actually about as awesome to tote around as a ten-gallon sack of crap.
BUT AT WHAT RATE SHOULD THINGS EVOLVE?
![Charles Darwin]()
![X]()
OKAY, HERE’S AN EXAMPLE
Consider Boost 148. I am not opposed to Boost. At all. It makes sense. I understand that Boost 148 rear spacing pisses people off, but when wheel sizes grew bigger and spokes grew longer, wheels got weaker and flexier. This particularly affected rear wheels, which, thanks to being dished, have unequal spoke tension—the bane of wheelset durability.
Boost 148 spreads the hub flanges apart six millimeters, which improves the spokes’ bracing angle. The end result? Stiffer and stronger wheels. It’s impossible to argue with that. Really. You may not like that Boost suddenly outdated the expensive 142x12 wheelset you just bought, but it’s math. Not only did Boost 148 make for stronger wheels, it also allowed for shorter, wider chainstays to co-exist with larger tires. If you like to descend and you like tight trails, these are obvious wins. If you want to go plus-size with your tires, it opens up your options there as well.
So, yay, for Boost 148.
But here’s the thing—Why did we stop at 148? Why not go wider? I was one of many editors who asked Trek why they didn’t simply bypass the Boost 148 middle ground and go to downhill spacing instead. Trek’s thinking was that Boost 148 improved things without screwing up Q-factor or requiring entirely new cranksets and bottom brackets. You could shift the chainline outboard 3 millimeters by simply adopting crankset spiders with 3-millimeters more offset.
That logic seems sound. They (Trek and SRAM) were innovating in a way that didn’t require as much wholesale change. In fact, that sounds downright compassionate. And I think Trek’s engineers came to that conclusion sincerely. Hell, it seemed reasonable to me at the time. As it did to every editor out there.
But then Pivot shows up a year later with Super Boost 157, which affords even more rear wheel stiffness and strength, more tire clearance and still doesn’t jack-up your Q-factor or require entirely new cranks or bottom brackets.
I’m looking at the landscape of change here and it appears that Pivot’s use of older downhill spacing affords riders more of the benefits (stiffness, durability) and more flexibility (in terms of tire choice). Boost 148 works, but could Boost 157 work better? That’s the question. Frankly, it’s too early to call it, but here’s where I loop back to my premise: What if representatives from the bike industry got together and talked this shit over before they pulled the trigger? I’m guessing we’d have fewer “standards”; that would be a very good thing because right now, shit is changing so fast and furiously that riders are afraid of buying a new bike, fork or wheelset.
Why would anyone, for instance, dump a thousand bucks into a fork, for instance, when it might suddenly be incompatible with front wheels in a year or two? And wheelsets? Who in their right mind spends a grand on a wheelset after seeing 27.5 wheels with 142 axles enjoy the half-life of a fruit fly? I hear people say it all the time, “I’ll buy a new bike when things settle down.”
Well, things aren’t going to settle down. Ever. That isn’t a problem, in and of itself (again, that’s just progress and progress is thoroughly kick ass). But the rate of change? That’s gonna bite the bike industry in the ass, sooner rather than later. Riders are losing confidence in the very worthiness of upgrading their bikes and parts. And if that sounds too touchy-feely for the bike industry, let me be plain: A loss in consumer confidence is going to cut into the bike industry’s bottom line.
![vernon felton wrecked hippies]()
JUST A PIPE DREAM?
I’m not entirely naïve. I also understand that the reason companies don’t get together over tea and share their trade secrets is that—no shit—they are competing against one another in a free market.
Innovation sells a whole lot of bikes, so why would anyone give up their goods to the very companies that are trying to squeeze them out of the market place? Fair question.
I’m not, however, suggesting that Mike Sinyard of Specialized jump on a flight to Wisconsin and divulge his latest frame designs to John Burke at Trek. I’m neither stoned nor crazy. All I’m saying is that if one bike company is going to come up with a wider axle dimension or a widget that births all sorts of proprietary offspring, that they talk it over with a couple other companies first. Having more minds poring over such a thing would result in fewer half-steps and more breathing room between “advances” that render everyone’s bike incompatible.
I know what I’m saying here sounds crazy. The marketplace is not a hippie commune or a 1960-s style love-in. I get that. I’m not suggesting that companies give up their trade secrets, I’m just saying that when we start mulling the idea over of changing a “standard” that we put our heads together and come up with the best solution—one that benefits both companies and riders.
The bike industry has tried to do this before. It’s not entirely without precedent. I remember an Interbike (I think it was back in 2000), for instance, at which fork manufacturers met and decided which brake mount to go with—international standard or post mount. Sadly, they went “international standard”. It took another six or seven years to realize that Manitou was right about the superiority of the post-mount system and, yes, this whole historical tangent sort of invalidates what I’m saying here about the wisdom of talking things over, but, hey, at least they tried. I’m just asking that we at least attempt it.
Dear bike industry, do it for the children. Or the kittens. Or the dolphins. Or the long-term profitability. Take your pick. I don’t really care what the motivation is here, just do it. Get on the same page.
![wrecked vernon felton]()
MENTIONS: @vernonfelton
I’m not against progress; I just think the way we go about this evolution-thing is creating a world of prematurely incompatible parts and burnt-out riders.
PROGRESS DOESN’T SUCK
First, let me state for the record, that I am a-okay with the inexorable march of progress. Bikes change. In general, they get better. I know a lot of readers will disagree with me on that score, but really, it’s hard to deny.
I rode a 28-pound, 6.7-inch (170-millimeter) travel bike up several miles of steep, taint-mauling mountain the other day and not once did I think “This bike should be lighter or pedal more efficiently.” Not once. Calling that bike a “rocket” would be overstating the matter, but, sweetbabyvishnu, that long-travel beast climbed better than most trail bikes from six years ago. And on the way down? It was damn near as capable as a full-on downhill bike.
A 28-pound, park bike that you’d happily tackle all-day trail rides on? No shuttles or chairlifts required? You can sign me up for that shit all day. And, yes, we have progress to thank for that.
Having purchased my first mountain bike back in 1988, I can tell you that all those classic retro bikes may look cool, but are actually about as awesome to tote around as a ten-gallon sack of crap.
BUT AT WHAT RATE SHOULD THINGS EVOLVE?
So, yeah, change is good. But that doesn’t mean we can’t be more intelligent about how we change mountain bikes. The rate at which bikes and parts become incompatible with one another today is blinding. You buy a bike today and tomorrow there’s a whole new wheelsize, bottom bracket or axle standard popping up that renders what you bought…well, not obsolete—you can keep riding that thing and having just as much fun on it—but when you inevitably taco a wheel or destroy a fork, you find your options radically reduced.
Manufacturers might trickle out parts from the “old” standard for a couple years, but make no mistake, the pipeline on that stuff will clamp down right quick. Suppliers, distributors and bike shops can’t carry all those "legacy" drivetrains, tires, wheels and forks for long. At least, not in the numbers or variety that riders will demand. It’s not cost-effective. At some point (and that point rolls around faster and faster each year) you’re going to have a much harder time finding 26-inch wheels, tires, anything with a 142x12 rear axle or a non-Boost 110 fork.
Again, I understand that things change and I wholeheartedly embrace that change. The rate of change and the proliferation of “standards” that hate one another, however, has gotten out of hand and this, I wholeheartedly believe, is because so many companies are operating in relative isolation, pushing out new parts that are incompatible with everyone else’s parts and, moreover, aren’t as fully evolved as they could be.
Manufacturers might trickle out parts from the “old” standard for a couple years, but make no mistake, the pipeline on that stuff will clamp down right quick. Suppliers, distributors and bike shops can’t carry all those "legacy" drivetrains, tires, wheels and forks for long. At least, not in the numbers or variety that riders will demand. It’s not cost-effective. At some point (and that point rolls around faster and faster each year) you’re going to have a much harder time finding 26-inch wheels, tires, anything with a 142x12 rear axle or a non-Boost 110 fork.
Again, I understand that things change and I wholeheartedly embrace that change. The rate of change and the proliferation of “standards” that hate one another, however, has gotten out of hand and this, I wholeheartedly believe, is because so many companies are operating in relative isolation, pushing out new parts that are incompatible with everyone else’s parts and, moreover, aren’t as fully evolved as they could be.
Evolution doesn't suck.
Wider flanges, more stiffness, better strength...could "Super Boost 157" be a better solution than Boost 148? On paper it looks that way. Either way, however, it would have been great if more companies in the bike industry had collectively put their heads together on this one.
OKAY, HERE’S AN EXAMPLE
Consider Boost 148. I am not opposed to Boost. At all. It makes sense. I understand that Boost 148 rear spacing pisses people off, but when wheel sizes grew bigger and spokes grew longer, wheels got weaker and flexier. This particularly affected rear wheels, which, thanks to being dished, have unequal spoke tension—the bane of wheelset durability.
Boost 148 spreads the hub flanges apart six millimeters, which improves the spokes’ bracing angle. The end result? Stiffer and stronger wheels. It’s impossible to argue with that. Really. You may not like that Boost suddenly outdated the expensive 142x12 wheelset you just bought, but it’s math. Not only did Boost 148 make for stronger wheels, it also allowed for shorter, wider chainstays to co-exist with larger tires. If you like to descend and you like tight trails, these are obvious wins. If you want to go plus-size with your tires, it opens up your options there as well.
So, yay, for Boost 148.
But here’s the thing—Why did we stop at 148? Why not go wider? I was one of many editors who asked Trek why they didn’t simply bypass the Boost 148 middle ground and go to downhill spacing instead. Trek’s thinking was that Boost 148 improved things without screwing up Q-factor or requiring entirely new cranksets and bottom brackets. You could shift the chainline outboard 3 millimeters by simply adopting crankset spiders with 3-millimeters more offset.
That logic seems sound. They (Trek and SRAM) were innovating in a way that didn’t require as much wholesale change. In fact, that sounds downright compassionate. And I think Trek’s engineers came to that conclusion sincerely. Hell, it seemed reasonable to me at the time. As it did to every editor out there.
But then Pivot shows up a year later with Super Boost 157, which affords even more rear wheel stiffness and strength, more tire clearance and still doesn’t jack-up your Q-factor or require entirely new cranks or bottom brackets.
I’m looking at the landscape of change here and it appears that Pivot’s use of older downhill spacing affords riders more of the benefits (stiffness, durability) and more flexibility (in terms of tire choice). Boost 148 works, but could Boost 157 work better? That’s the question. Frankly, it’s too early to call it, but here’s where I loop back to my premise: What if representatives from the bike industry got together and talked this shit over before they pulled the trigger? I’m guessing we’d have fewer “standards”; that would be a very good thing because right now, shit is changing so fast and furiously that riders are afraid of buying a new bike, fork or wheelset.
Why would anyone, for instance, dump a thousand bucks into a fork, for instance, when it might suddenly be incompatible with front wheels in a year or two? And wheelsets? Who in their right mind spends a grand on a wheelset after seeing 27.5 wheels with 142 axles enjoy the half-life of a fruit fly? I hear people say it all the time, “I’ll buy a new bike when things settle down.”
Well, things aren’t going to settle down. Ever. That isn’t a problem, in and of itself (again, that’s just progress and progress is thoroughly kick ass). But the rate of change? That’s gonna bite the bike industry in the ass, sooner rather than later. Riders are losing confidence in the very worthiness of upgrading their bikes and parts. And if that sounds too touchy-feely for the bike industry, let me be plain: A loss in consumer confidence is going to cut into the bike industry’s bottom line.
For the record, I'm not confusing the bike industry with a hippie commune.
JUST A PIPE DREAM?
I’m not entirely naïve. I also understand that the reason companies don’t get together over tea and share their trade secrets is that—no shit—they are competing against one another in a free market.
Innovation sells a whole lot of bikes, so why would anyone give up their goods to the very companies that are trying to squeeze them out of the market place? Fair question.
I’m not, however, suggesting that Mike Sinyard of Specialized jump on a flight to Wisconsin and divulge his latest frame designs to John Burke at Trek. I’m neither stoned nor crazy. All I’m saying is that if one bike company is going to come up with a wider axle dimension or a widget that births all sorts of proprietary offspring, that they talk it over with a couple other companies first. Having more minds poring over such a thing would result in fewer half-steps and more breathing room between “advances” that render everyone’s bike incompatible.
I know what I’m saying here sounds crazy. The marketplace is not a hippie commune or a 1960-s style love-in. I get that. I’m not suggesting that companies give up their trade secrets, I’m just saying that when we start mulling the idea over of changing a “standard” that we put our heads together and come up with the best solution—one that benefits both companies and riders.
The bike industry has tried to do this before. It’s not entirely without precedent. I remember an Interbike (I think it was back in 2000), for instance, at which fork manufacturers met and decided which brake mount to go with—international standard or post mount. Sadly, they went “international standard”. It took another six or seven years to realize that Manitou was right about the superiority of the post-mount system and, yes, this whole historical tangent sort of invalidates what I’m saying here about the wisdom of talking things over, but, hey, at least they tried. I’m just asking that we at least attempt it.
Dear bike industry, do it for the children. Or the kittens. Or the dolphins. Or the long-term profitability. Take your pick. I don’t really care what the motivation is here, just do it. Get on the same page.
A kitten dies every time a new press-fit bottom bracket is invented. Save the kittens.
MENTIONS: @vernonfelton
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
How to Watch the 2024 Mountain Bike World Cup [Update: Staylive Offering Access in New Zealand, South Africa & More]
59579 views
59579 views
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
Gold!
Been in this game for over 20 years, working at and managing shops..... How many creaky-ass threaded BB's have there ever been?? ANSWER..... A SHIT TON! My last 4 Rocky Mountain Altitudes, with Press-Fit, have been fine......some we have sold have required maintenance.....As does EVERY PART of EVERY BIKE, if that bike gets ridden hard! So, to all you anti-press fit people, do you use threaded headset cups? I mean, they press in, so they must be terrible? What am I missing? Can one of you people please tell me where to get threaded headset cups!
f*ck Yeah! KILL THE HATERS
I buy my bikes based solely on the BB fitting... if it's pressfit I look elsewhere simple as
I'm always slow to change. Heck, my rig is 14 years old. HA!
FWIW, an outboard BB is just a set of cups screwed into the frame, into which the bearings are, you guessed it, PRESS FIT!
Not saying some frames don't mess up the execution, but there is nothing wrong with the principle of 'press fit' bottom brackets.
We will go to Boost someday, we will have to, but every little supposed revolutionary invention from Trek/ Specialized etc does not need to be applied to every single bike brand/model to make a great bike. Boost on a 275 trail bike is Really not needed in that 27.5 has way shorter spokes than what boost was created for. Those minuscule gains are not perceptible by anyone if all other parts being equal.
Now I say that and my current mtb uses boost 148 AND asymmetric rims (29er mind you), which i honestly cannot fault. its not too stiff yet it does not flex too much no matter how hard I hit it. Maybe that's what boost 157 plus thing tried to achieve.
+1 Vote for guys like this with your cash!
So even if it was Pivot's idea, the industry will only jump on Specialized or Trek's say so.
Metric shock sizing, while offering zero performance gains, at least was talked about and many of the shock manufactures are on board with it. New Slash uses a 63.5mm stroke shock = 2.53937"
The point is, the industry is mostly driven by the big players, and they seem to not want to collaborate at all since they are fighting for OEM market share more than anything.
Also the consumers are lemming sheeple. Prone to peer pressure tendencies in buying habits and vacuous fascination with style over substance. When the majority of potential customers are cube dwelling monkeys prone to sales pitches emphasizing technology and bling as a proxy for skill development why shouldn't industry forcefeed pap? After all Joe Bro gobbles it up.
I know this article was a gigantic rhetorical question. Let's face it. It's an industry of bros. Keep your expectations low. You won't be disappointed
@GeorgeHayduke - the ski industry is no exception to my characterizations although on the industry side they are much much better
The 600 yr-old publishing industry can't sell books any more without an Oprah endorsement.
You're describing contemporary American consumerism as a whole, not just our little recreational ghetto. It's an infinite regression of smoke an mirrors: for most consumers, the shining, "new & improved" image of substance has supplanted substance.
Frankly, I don't believe it is "visionary" captains of "mature" industries who fix these kind of problems. Quite the opposite. What it took to save the American beer industry was a grass-roots movement away from mass-market watery swill, and back towards taste & quality. Those cottage industry pioneers taught consumers to recalibrate their palates & values.
Consumers & value-minded manufacturers in our industry can push back too. Unlike Oprah's book club, I actually give a damn about the outcome.
I'm with Vernon.
Funny, I often mumble "Electric Bumblepuppy" while reading industry ad-copy...
I work in a shop, and honest truth, I just borrow bikes from our demo fleet because I can't get a straight answer from a bike or component rep on what size hubs I should build a wheelset with. Imagine what sort of tw0-faced snake oil salesman I look like when I sell a 12x142 bike and then Boost 148 comes out, only to get a new standard with SuperBoost 1-2 years later. Tomfoolery, the lot of it.
It's fun to always have what's "hot". if I had deeper pockets I'd probably do it too. It's a luxury that is getting more expensive every season. If you wanna keep up to your neighbour, prepare to pay. The marketing industry will keep offering more expensive options, cause people keep paying.
I'll gladly be a bottom feeder with a 160mm 30lb bike for $3K, forever
As an avid skier I often make parallels between the ski and MTB industries; and boy if we compare the two of them we conclude that we are truly getting f*cked in MTB. The ski industry being more diverse, the competition is more sane and favors the consumer. Conversely, the MTB industry behaves like an oligarchy: all parts are SRAM, Shimano and Fox, and the majority of bike companies have their frame made by the few factories in Taiwan (mostly the big ones in Taichung). The MTB industry is basically managed the same way than a subsaharian , underdeveloped country. Which makes sense I guess, due to the fact that this industry is barely 30 years old. Maybe it's going to be much better in a few decades, but unfortunately by then I may be too old for MTB and will have to start road biking, wearing spandex.
Even still, a nice ski/boot/binding package is going to be the better half of 2.5k. A ski helmet essentially starts at $150. You can spend so much more on ski apparel than cycling. Look at what a descente or spyder jacked costs. Mtb goggles are what? $50-100? Ski goggles start at $100.
Try AirBnB on ski trips, travel to mountains such as Revie instead of Whis, get your gear like everyone else at summer sales (my 40$ Burton jacket got all the abuse in the world, both on ski and board, on and off parks and backcountry, and still does the job).
Here are good 23$ ski googles for you : www.evo.com/outlet/goggles/giro-siren-womens.aspx#image=82387/398916/giro-siren-goggles-women-s-black-porcelain-amber-rose.jpg
And a 55$ ski helmet: www.evo.com/outlet/helmets/anon-wren-helmet-womens.aspx#image=83349/377308/anon-wren-helmet-women-s-pink-right-side.jpg
The main clientele who wear spyder and descente jackets are Vail's holiday c*nts that can't ski for shit, have tons of cash, show up with their private instructor and end up in the Chalet after two runs.
ho, and for the record, travelling around with your bike in a box costs much, much more than with a ski bag.
In favor of the mountain bike though, at least that I can ride 6 day's week, going before or after work for about 9 or 10 months out of the year, with splitboarding I can only hit it on weekends, and only 3-4 months a year. So in that respect, for me, the bike is actually a better value. Not that I'm not looking forward to some epic days on the splitty up on Red Mountain Pass this year. That shit looks fantastic.
If you bought mid-level split board gear then compare to a mid-level full suspension bike. And if you got nos good split board gear then compare to a good nos year-old bike.
But to be clear, I appreciate the advancement of technology in the industry, and I know some things will go by the wayside with time. Have you recently tried to source a non-tapered suspension fork? The choices are extremely slim, and nothing high end at all. I'd be happy forever on a 2x9 drivetrain, but again, not much there for components. So I get it, things will change. However, it would be great if the industry could get together on a few things: flat-mount disc brakes, thru-axle thread pitch, and hub spacing would all be great places to start, but the list goes on...
You don't have a clue.
Whistler bike park doesn't exist from Internet dirtbags like us trying to scrimp every penny. It exists because people pay to go there. They spend their dollars on renting a condo, eating at the restaurants, drinking some beers at the GLC, putting their kids in a day camp, trying their hand at the zipline, maybe buy a lift ticket or four. The benefit of that is that Lifties get paid, the lift gets paid for, the trail crew gets paid, the park patrol gets paid, and we get to ride at the biggest bike park in the world.
Ever looked at a rental on the hill in Revy during the winter season? It's a huge number, it's that number because it gets rented at that.
I have never had the luxury of renting on the hill there, usually end up on a couch of a gracious friend.
When you combine the cost of a jacket, pants, helmet, gloves, boots, bindings, probe, shovel, beacon, Avy course, and paid in season pricing it's a huge cost. That's if you went with just a jacket. If you went with a 3 layer setup, base layer, insulation, shell. That shit gets pricy real fast.
On a bike you need a helmet, and a bike. You likely already have some sort of shoes, t shirt, shorts.
I was just trying to illustrate that amongst some in the industry there is an underdeveloped business acumen. So when I said young I meant to imply immature.
Not to get snarky or defensive, but I've had the good fortune to ride a few miles on an 1850 Colombia Expert, so I am pretty grounded in the actual age of the industry.
Sadly I can't think of one. I can only think of niche highly technical industries but those are business to business. I fear you may be right that the vacuousness of consumers is the tail wagging the dog
A Bike Park Patrol member told me there was 2800 riders on Thursday of Crankworx. 1500 riders is considered a busy day for WBP. I've been told numbers above 25,000 riders for a ski day are common now.
Ok rant over...thanks again Vernon!
So, Bike Industry, TALK TOGETHER PLEASE. There'll be hiatus sometimes but surely this can work most of the times.
I'm exactly in the case of considering a Pivot Swithchblade for overall features. But Super Boost 157 +? How long are we gonna see that? That is currently the only bike in the world to sport that. Not even the newly released Pivot Firebird has it!
Maybe a "Coalition of the Willing" is set up and voluntarily entered by bike manufacturers. They could then discuss these things between themselves and agree solutions. At least this way we would have frame builders, component makers etc talking and forging the way forward in unity. And if you are buying a bike, frame or component with this "stamp of approval" you know you're going to be able to get parts until the end of days.
On another rambling rant I see carbon as a protagonist in the whole problem especially for the small to medium guys.... Carbon moulds for production runs are expensive. You have to either jump on the bandwagon or not. If you don't jump its hard to claim your bike is bang up to date with all the latest "standards". If you do you get blamed for the changes. It's a lose lose situation especially for the small / medium guys who have invested in expensive carbon moulds. The bigger companies probably wear out their moulds before the new "standards" are introduced. This is why a "Coalition of the Willing" makes sense especially for small / medium companies. Change will happen slower and people can buy with more confidence.
On a third note - why did we ever go from 36 holes to 32 holes. Im still running a set of 36 hole hoops on my 29er with 135mm hubs and they're still fine.
@fartymarty 36h makes sense for durability, but it's pretty dang heavy. widening flanges or making them taller gets you similar stiffness for much less weight. Also, rims are way better than the single wall, rim brake having Weinmann rims we rode in the heyday of 36h rims.
The only way to maintain market share is through obsolescence. It's the only way it can sustain it's growth. The emergence of direct to consumer sales models is seriously changing the game, so staple brands have to now value proof themselves with bigger and greater innovations. The problem is, there hasn't been any, save for OEM components. These companies have to market the ever-living shit of their subtle design changes, which cost money, which raises prices, which forces more subtle changes to stay competitive.
But the market never lies. People are obvious buying this stuff the above model is obviously working. The issue will be some years down the road if the aftermarket isn't big enough to support the fragmented obsolescence model. It's the PC market all over again. 400 brands making computers reduced to less than a handful over a decade. The market simply will never be big enough to support so much change.
Bike brands: Band together and create your own standards like other commodity industries and then focus your business models on providing your consumer the best value.
Consumers: focus on value not on latest tech if you want to this change.
But it's true, how does a large bike company plan for the future? How do they forecast projected sales figures?
Geometry can only go so far. Weight can only come down so much. The perfect amount of flex. Suspension. Gearboxes. Electrics. Bikes are pretty simple things.
I think we are 5-10 years away from this and then what is there for the industry? There was a good note above by@Veloscente related to the craft beer industry. I see bikes going the same way. Yes you could buy "big brand" but why would you when you can get a custom from someone who has made it with their own hands with love and care.
I see the bikes and the variety of wheelsizes, widths of axles, standards for mounting systems blah blah blah and the only real advance I have seen is carbon fibre frames becoming commonplace.
I'm happy with my 26"ers but I wonder, how long it will be before I can't get the parts I need.
Once geometry is sorted the last thing to do is stick a gearbox in the bike. This is probably 10 years away. There are other things like electric shifting and suspension but its a refinement on what we already have.
I still ride my 26" and don't see an issue with getting parts to fit - parts for the frame are another matter altho most things can be made at a cost.
Giant is the largest bike manufacturing company and like apple sits on dollar reserve, these guys don't mess about, very robust business with long term planning.
4 year development cycle on frame model, shimano 's largest customer, responsible for many innovations in manufacturing and standards.
A) doesn't fit the frames I have
Or
B) leaves me with a sense of fear it will be incompatible sooner rather than later.
Hell, I built up Stans flow 26 on Novatec 4in1 hubs 4 years ago and have beaten the hell out of them, even on a DH race, and there is nothing at all wrong with them. They are so bulletproof I got new stickers on them last week to make them look spanking.
There is nothing worse in my opinion than the feeling that the components one buys become incompatible before they have been properly used and abused.
Ride on (old but good stuff)!
I went out today and played hard with my bros, all 26 inch bikes, ahhahahh
I don't mind there being other options out there for us to enjoy and venture into but now that its a point of so many different sizes, I truely don't know where to begin. Then, here in Japan I live in a rural area so our bike shop only carries whats new and up to date as he is just trying to make a happy business but when a lot of the distributors stop carrying 26" tyres and forks, its going to make upgrades tougher and tougher. Today my buddy George, an average Japanese male a tad on the short side stated, " Why would I want bigger wheels, my 26" bike size XS feels too big for me"! ahhhhahahhah I was rolling! I too have Novatec hubs, they have been doing be great since 2010! It truely is a mess this industry has created, I feel sorry for the smaller brands that may have trouble shooting at what to produce next to keep their customers.
Thank you again for all the cool comments!
RideOn bros!
I work at a shop, and i do the rides, i build trails and i build bikes. Im deep in the trenches shoveling the sh!t, servicing coaster brakes as well as rebuilding forks and overhauling XTR. Im on the front lines of the bike industry, and i gotta say all this "innovation" is really hurting customer confidence. They dont know what to believe anymore or what to invest in for fear of obsolesence. plus it makes service a nightmare. I gotta pull out my decoder ring every time i swap cranks.
29ers: 27.5 becomes the happy medium standard, but now we see comapnies rolling out new 29s thanks to boost.
BB standards: dont even get me started on how many different sizes and adapters exist on road bikes, and now we see companies going back to threaded (bless them) even my own bike (kona 153) is reverse obsolete in this department.
Hub standards: do i even need to argue this one? Currently shopping for '16 and older models of bike so i dont have to scrap my "dream wheelset" that i built Some time ago. Cant even use the front wheel because its obsolete too.
Seatpost sizes: 31.6 ok no problem, 30.9 ok... Giant pivot we can deal, 34.9 why is this size beginning to pop up again? (Think specialized enduro kona honzo AL)
Chainring mounts: shimanos tried and true 4x104 is replaced by multiple sizes (see also: deore BCD) SRAM has multiple interfaces and sizes, race face good design but another type of direct mount, other direct mount systems are also emerging (think Hollowgram, rotor)
Handlebars: 35 millimeter clamp? Cant we just make the tubing thicker? Hold your horses WTB Padloc...
Hub body: sram XD great design dont like sram derailleurs dont wanna buy a new hub, shimano at least it hasnt changed but my cassette is eating away at my alloy hub body.
Tire width: 2.2-2.5 established standard, 27+ great small bump absorption and grip but the tires are heavy and rip in light casing also adds uncontrollable rebound variable, 2.6 is well on its way now as the "new wide"
It was nice being a part of this community but i think im gonna try ROLLER BLADING from now on.
2. All that and no mention of the titanic PF BB disaster? Far worse than axle standards IMO. How many people are now stuck with creaky frames? When MFG are recommending GLUEING in BB's ya gotta say WTF? There are still a number of mfgs in denial about this.
3. Boost: High flange 142 hubs were achieving wheel stiffness similar to regular size boost hubs but no one wanted to talk about that. Boost certainly had a positive impact on frame design, short stays, stiffer rear ends, ect. This needs to be communicated the correct way to consumers and it was not so people were pissed.
4. Why are Metric shocks being marketed as a "thing". Just add the new shock sizes, evolve and STFU. Instead, it is shoved down our throats like the newest, latest, greatest...BS. When you do shit like that it is clear you don't think much of the intelligence of your customers.
www.bikemag.com/features/opinion/web-monkey-speaks/web-monkey-speaks-dear-bike-industry/#kkMC1WO7MQuiwFu3.97
Vote with your money they say... I'll be sitting on the sidelines until they get their shit together.
It sure would be nice if the bike companies got their shit together though.
I know very little about dirt bikes and got a little excited.
The cynic in me is fully expecting a new thing better than boost 110 front hubs. Boost 110 with. 20 mm axle.
That being said, I'm pretty sure that if manufacturers can make regular BB width and Q-factor work with 148 mm rear, then the extra 1 mm on each side it would take to go to 150 can't be an insurmountable obstacle.
From an engineering stand point Q-Factor shouldn't be a thing. Foot width, lean angle, chain line... these are actual data points that can be measured. As soon as someone says Q-Factor I just think BS Coefficient.
If anything I would think a wider stance would give you better balance on the bike. In 5 years Trail bikes will catch up with DH, and everyone can throw out their Boost components to go back to a standard that has existed for years.
The chainline and brake position would still have had to change to realize the benefits of boost, just the number would have looked familiar.
Having a one by puts all the drive train weight in the worst place.
I have no trouble at all cornering with (long?) chainstays. In fact my bike feels very stable on steep trails.
All wheels larger than 26 inches will be heavier and less strong.with exact same builds.
Innovation or new ways to siphon your bank account?
1. The industry.
2. Racers.
3. The casual riders who just wants to go out for a blast.
On thing I consider a move driven by the industry is the shift to the PM brake standard. As more complete bikes were being assembled with disc brakes, facing the IS brake tabs became a bit of a handful compared to just slapping on a PM caliper. I think for the rider once you've got an IS caliper (on an IS frame or fork mount) properly aligned, it stays properly aligned. Whereas it is easy to whack a PM caliper offline and once the pads are worn like that, it gets pretty hard to get it right unless you pop in some new pads. I suppose this is the reason it were actually the top level brakes (Hope, Shimano XTR) which were last to make the complete transition to PM whereas the lower end brakes (Shimano Deore) and the OEM minded ones (Hayes, Avid) were quick to go PM only. Of course many riders also like the PM standards as it allows them to get their new brakes (bought on the internet) aligned without having to have the lbs facing the IS brake tabs. But still, PM isn't a similarly stable brake interface as IS is.
Then the racers, they just demand the best. If a new standard gets you a better performing bike then so be it.
Finally the casual rider. Sure higher performance is nice but it is frustrating when you destroy your old fork and find out that the replacement forks don't match your 20mm axle, IS brake caliper, 26" wheel and 1 1/8" (straight) headtube. There is no such thing as a better performing fork if it doesn't fit your bike.
There is never a good solution when the world has already tumbled into this mess of new standards. After all, they're all standards other component manufacturers will stick to hoping that that is what it will settle on for a fair while. I'd say we might need development branches. Like a no holes barred "performance" branche, like XTR stuff. You can buy this stuff knowing that it is currently the best performing (lightest etc.) stuff there is but fully aware that it is not here to stay. Then you can have a "works" like branch like Deore XT stuff that at least holds on reasonably long onto a certain standard. And then finally maybe the not so flashy "shut up and ride" brance like Deore that performs well and keeps producing stuff in the standards that also made it to the Deore XT branch. No need to keep making the funny XTR standards if they became obsolete as XTR buyers were already aware what they were getting into. I guess this will allow manufacturers to experiment and push the limits with XTR level equipment and look good on the race scene yet at the same time keep the industry going with the lower end properly performing gear.
www.pinkbike.com/news/hopes-hb-211-enduro-racer-nears-production-whistler-crankworx-2016.html
130mm rear end so no heel clearance issues. 0 dish wheel = strong, 17mm rear axle = stiff... Who knows if it will make production but I'll happily bet you'll start seeing these ideas pop up in other places soon
After testing a series of plus bikes in the last few weeks, my feeling is its bullshit. They ride like crap. They bounce when you don't want them to. They cant have strong sidewalls because its too heavy so they puncture easy and have 0 cornering knob support when you push them into corners and theres still lots of weight near the outside of the wheel means lots of gyroscopic feedback when you steer. Its just shit shit shit. And now I hear rocky mountain murmuring about 26+ what the flying f***. suddenly were back where we started 15 years ago with 3 inch Gazzdloddi's. maybe the answer is in exploring tread patterns rubber compounds and where we put rubber (and weight) in tyres to maximise support, grip, rolling speed and puncture resistance which surely is what were after anyway.
Making concept bikes public is a great idea, it gives product designers an opportunity to take other peoples ideas and run with them and therefore we arrive at a satisfactory solution without umpteen baby steps in between which we're forced to buy into if we want to keep our bikes updated.
Basically publicity and sharing of information and ideas is a good thing. It helps everyone in the bike industry from the designer to the manufacturer to the end user. lets do more of it!
So its just a matter being smart about your big purchases like frame, fork and wheels. Look ahead, how often do I need a new rim, tires, lowers etc. Probably not that often.
I dont see the whole obsolete thing either, I can readily find pads for my old juicy brakes, 26 minions are also pretty easy to find. What I do agree on is that its a f*cking nightmare to buy a new frame and know what stuff you have will fit.
Before it was only a question if it was either a dh bike with 83/150 or anything else 73/135.
The real issue is many of the minor tweaks provide differences on paper and sales talking points but don't make any difference in the real world for consumers.
Some improvements simply are not better for the consumer they are better for the company's profit margin. 1x lets Sram develop, stock and sell drivetrains with fewer parts and simpler cranks at a higher price for more profit. You change one set of issues with front derailleurs for another set of issues caused by the atrocious chain line on 1x systems with more than 7 0r 8 cogs... sprockets if you prefer. The added bonus being chains wear out faster so you have to buy new ones more often.
Press in BBs, sold as a weight reduction improvement are the creaky thorn in the sides of everyone unfortunate enough to buy a frame or bike with a press in BB.
2017 releases we've seen suggest this is the year of everything old is new again. Plus size tires... we get 12 year old bikes in our shop all the time with 26 x 2.6/2.7 tires all the time. companies are "reintroducing" threaded BBs... like they haven't been available for the last few seasons.
New shinny bikes and bobbles season is upon us and the industry will pay millions to hammer you with the latest trends you need to have to ride longer, harder, faster and do what you can't do with what you have. If your bike is appropriate for how you ride ignore the latest things getting the hype, do the maintenance your bike needs and use the savings to do some riding clinics that will really make the difference and enable you to clean that section you want to do.
I guess "alienate or rob all of our potential customers" is seen as a viable business strategy.
Smart.
I held off and now a V3 Nomad is what I ride and can tackle everything on it... Boost or another standard ain't gonna make me appreciably better...
If this is being done in the name of wheel stiffness, then why not innovate and come up with something that replaces the traditional spoke and rim design? Otherwise this 'minimal gains' crap will continue to outdate your new bike as soon as it rolls out of the LBS and make it completely backward incompatible.
That "discussion" alone would take up 5.8 million comments, hundreds of thousands of negative votes and would comparatively make peace in Ghaza look like child's play.
Bikes are def better than they used to be but I think more of the industry than not have completely turned a def ear to the average rider. average riders keep the bike business alive not the 1%'ers
I will forever be pissed about the nonsensical 27.5 so called upgrade & the forced death of 26. I may never buy a new bike again!
Speaking of new bikes ... the prices are insane these days!
Can't wait until next summer when non-metric shocks are harder to find than a 9mm QR on a 6 inch travel bike.
I thought my Bronson was set since it had 148 spacing... nope, next year I won't be able to get a shock for it.
If your feet are any larger than a child's you end up with heel clearance issues. That, or you're stuck with an awkwardly wide Q-factor and are forced to pedal like a duck.
I would like to see a brand that offers a 150 or 157 spacing from the trail shredder through the whole range up to the DH.
Libating with great beer and sipping whiskey, a few friends and I attempted to map out where the industry might end up with respect to hub sizes in the not too distant future. Mind you, we’re from Alaska and we’ve seen the complete birth and evolution of the fat-bike phenomena so our insights are likely relevant. In the last 10 years, I’ve witnessed ALL machinations of the fat-bike BB / HUB systems and it was painful. It took 8 years to FINALLY get to the 100BB, 150Front, and 197Rear standard (and I believe this will remain static for a long, long time).
Well…. trail / enduro / Plus bike designers have really just started their “fat” journey and already industry is repeating the same mistakes it made with the fatbike evolution. The long and short of it is “Boost” will prove to be an interim step to what I see as the logical conclusion to this "Plus" bike evolution. I predict the 83BB, 110Front and 157Rear will prove to be the final resting place for ALL modern mountain bikes. This will solve all the CL, drive-train, and tire clearance issues (regardless of 1x, 2x, or 3x) with Plus sized tires up to 3 to 3.5 inch tires.
Like you describe, “Boost” was a way to increase 29er wheel strength while minimizing Q-factor growth at the BB and no thought of “Plus” sized tires was considered. I contend 148x12 is not a good solution for the Plus size frame design because there will still be some CL, drive-train, and tire clearance issues. Anyone who rides a fat-bike KNOWS that Q-factor is a totally and completely overrated issue for the vast majority of riders. I’ve been moving back and forth from 68/73 to 100mm BB for 10 years and it’s simply a non-issue regarding off-road bikes. So, industry is behind the curve in this regard, but it will soon come to this realize the 83BB / 157HUB spacing is the solution they’ve been looking for. Pivot nearly got it right with their new Switchblade….
So, beware when chasing constantly moving targets. As for me, I’m content with my 142x12 rear and skinny 2.4-inch tires since I ride a fat-bike for 6 months of the year already. I’m going to wait this out because I believe the industry will shake up the standards again.
Regards
The EndUser
I also think that naming the new, standard sized shocks "Metric" is f**king moronic (because, whoa! I had no idea that shocks DIDN'T already have metric measurements!!!) but at least it indicates a desire to make suspension design/frame building, and shock sizing (and shock portability maybe?) slightly more predictable. I think?
All I really know is that I want to buy a Fox Float X2, but I am reluctant to drop $625.00 on a shock that may essentially get stuck on my 26" Yeti SB66c because any new frames a year or two from now may only fit standard "metric" shock sizes.
What do you think?
I have to wonder how much that procedure will cost though... I'd imagine at least close to as much as a new shock might.
Don't get me wrong, if I could swing the ElevenSix I would.
Me, I gotta sell a Nomad v3 to pay for the Wreckoning I just bought...
The consumer is not forced to buy the latest components or bikes. People have FOMO complex, so they *think* they need the next best thing, which keeps the industry innovating to stay competitive.
Your comment: Reliability and longevity should be the selling point, not "new and shiny". Well said.
I said exactly this in a thread a couple of weeks back!
Do you know how many times I have thought "Holy shit these wheels need to be stiffer"? Once. And that was recently on a Whyte T129. And frankly those wheels were a wobbly mess.
Everything else has been acceptable despite me destroying about 10-15 wheels in my time.
Also the automotive industry is required by law to make replacement parts available for our cars for 10 years beyond the model year. Bike companies are not required by law to make parts available. Once they change a frame, for example, they are not required to support the old model. I would not care at all about changing bike standards if I had a 10 year guarantee on parts availability.
And just as an fyi - there are a lot of cooperative technologies that automotive companies share in order to bring products to market sooner and more cost effectively. The bike industry should look at following this same model. I am pleased with the fact that Giant welds a great majority of frames for other companies like Trek, Specialized etc. More sharing of technologies could prove to be quite synergistic and profitable for the bike companies.
I ride a pretty fancy 6" bike right now (with 26" wheels!), but can't imagine re-upping due to cost and relentless outdating of standards.
The bike industry is somewhat opposite of where most things are going now too - providing better value and simpler products and services to people, because HEY BIKE INDUSTRY wages have stagnated vs inflation. We don't have the spending power that we did ten years ago. Lot of companies fighting for the top end of prices. The computer geeks who make salaries that can afford those bikes barely get to ride anyway.
The standards issue for me seems to be about part manufacturers which have been led strongly by SRAM/Rockshox in a fight for their slice of the profit. Over the last couple of years I've decided to avoid buying anything SRAM/Rockshox as I feel their aggressive tactics are a central issue.
www.lindarets.com/boostinator
Not a solution for every hub, but many of the most popular ones
I'm from Alaska and 135, 150, 160, 170, and 177 have been tried... and they all died. 197mm was always the correct solution regarding running 5-inch tires and 100mm BB and here it will remain.
I think 157Hub / 83mm BB will be the solution for standard mountain bikes. Why? Q-factor is a non-issue for most riders. I've been moving back and forth from 68/73mm BBs to 100mm BB for over 10 years without issue. Industry has yet to figure this out... they're making the same mistakes they made in the fat-bike evolution.
Regards,
The EndUser
Where is the problem with any of these new "standards"?
Why should innovation move slowly in the bike industry?
I've been mountain biking for more than 20 [EDIT: Make that almost 30] years now, and every invention that replaced something that had been established before received the same critical comments, about making things incompatible and forcing people to throw away their otherwise perfectly good 7 gear drivetrains, rim brake mount frames, 25.4mm stems, quick release wheels, straight steerer forks, and so on.
But in all those years, I have rarely met someone who a) rode the same bike/frame for more than a few years while b) constantly upgrading it with all the latest and greatest parts.
So, where exactly does any kind of problem occur for someone just wanting to ride his bike?
If I am so inclined, I can still today purchase spare parts for my 3x8 drivetrain, I can get 26" forks and tires, I can get new pads for my V brakes.
Sure, I will maybe not be able to ride the latest rubber compound on my old 26er, I might not find a square tapered bottom bracket for my new frame, etc. But I still can (and do) keep a bike from the 90s up and running.
If someone really "needs" to have next year's parts on his bike, in my experience this person will exchange their frame anyway after two or three years, and can then go for whichever new standard they like best.
Personally I have not yet (and am pretty sure I never will) bought a bike/frame with a press fit bottom bracket. There are alternatives out there for everyone. And anything that doesn't work will not be able to take over the market in the long run. So why bother?
Just recently i needed a new bottom bracket. I called all the shops here (including the ones in a bike destination like Saalbach) and asked for a screw in BB. No chance. They only had Pressfit. Are you kidding me?! There are no 83mm screw in BBs available in a bike region like Saalbach anymore?
As a consumer, the logical consequence for me is buying cheaper bikes from online retailers like YT. ANd even then i won´t buy the pricey high end option. They offer more value for money and at the same time once my shit is outdated, the loss in resale value isn´t that big.
Maybe there is an pill you can purchase online to make it wide, stiff, and boosted. Your hub.
Can someone please explain to me how can be chainstay shorter because of wider rear hub?? As I understand chainstay legth cant be shorter than radius of the rim + tire clearance and some clearance for mud...
On the other hand, great article but Im missing some words on the BB fiasco!
then all of your outdated stuff should pop off on ebay, so most of the less fortunate 2nd world dwellers could still ride kick@ss rigs for peanuts.
go bike industry, GOGOGO!
Rocky mountain have had Ride9 adjustability for a while, with great tire clearance, and arguably the latest implementation of their smoothlink chainstay pivot would be the ideal setup to run 157x12 rear ends without absurd levels of heel strikes.
Because they need to save something to put out in a couple more years to make 148 obsolete.
i also dig all the deals on new/old parts. my last build saved me mucho $$ just buying
2 year old new stuff. bike riders are suckers to peer pressure and marketing spin.
If this bike that I just paid $6000 for is so good, then why toss out new standards every couple years? Maybe it's not really worth it. Kind of reminds me what it was like to buy a computer 15 years ago and it was relatively considered a piece of junk within a year.
Seems to me the "rot" really started with the introduction of 29er wheels leading to stiffness issues. (although I have never ever seen a proper scientific study showing the measurable difference between say a QR axle and a 12mm screw in ...)
1. Buy a Banshee frame.
2. Stop casing stuff.
I could hold more sympathy for the notion of obsolete if it was no longer possible to buy what I need.
Still able to buy 135 hubs 8 speed brake blocks for rim brakes. Front mechs in every conceivable diameter.
Square taper bottom brackets. Standard 1" 1/8 headsets.
I'm genuinely not seeing a problem unless you've been hoarding parts that you can no longer use on a new bike.
In bikes, it's small linear improvements, which is far harder to justify. Computers still run the sane PCI-E, CPU sockets, and atx layouts, which makes even that obsolescence-based market seem downright logical when compared to what the bike industry is up to of late.
HINT: THE HD TV WAS PLANED AND CONCEPTUALIZED 20 YEARS BEFORE IT WAS BUILT.
quite similar to the cars;