1 Question - When is Change Worth It?
 |
Nothing seems to stoke the fires of hate more than a new, so-called standard.
Better referred to as simply being changes rather than standards, they are usually decided one or two years in advance, and can leave consumers scratching their heads over why things had to change at all. But the companies behind these changes are not evil conglomerates who only want to rape and pillage your bank account; they are run by people who also love bikes. But they're also most certainly businesses that are out to make a profit. In order to do that, they must sell product, and in order to sell the product, it has to be - or at least should be - better than what came before it. We'd all win in an ideal world: riders would get a better performing product, and companies would sell said product because it was better. But all too often it seems like these improvements are marginal at best, which raises the question of when it's worth it to make a change.
Predictably, a handful of companies declined to take part in this 1 Question, some citing the bitter comments that they assumed would follow, and probably feeling like there wasn't any possible way to come out looking good, regardless of their answer. If anything, that in itself is a pretty damn good indicator of the mindset of many mountain bikers in 2016.
We are all too familiar with the most recent examples of change, with some of them making more of an impact than others. Wheels moving from 26" to 27.5''. Gearing has gone from eight, nine, ten and now eleven-speed, with strong indications of twelve coming soon. Handlebar clamp diameters, bottom bracket interfaces, headset and steerer tube dimensions, and even hex versus Torx hardware all spring to mind. And then there's obviously Boost.
I could make some strong arguments both for and against everything on that list, as can many of you, but how do you decide if a technological change is worth the inconvenience?
Simon Cittati
Brand Communications Manager, RockShox and MTB Brakes
Brand Communications Manager, RockShox and MTB Brakes
 |
It would be easier to answer this question with a better definition of “inconvenience” – as in most product worlds, all technological advancements imply some kind of “inconvenience” for the existing products and their owners (i.e. a new engine technology will render a current car model obsolete).
This said, in our world technological advancements have two main drivers: our internal product development process, and requests that come from our OEM partners. In the first scenario, we are able to judge the “worthiness” of an innovation based on our own judgment, and we can also gauge this from the level of interest of our customers. Take 1X drivetrains for example: we started developing a solution in this direction by looking at what cross-country and enduro racers were already doing with their ten-speed drivetrains, which was taking the small ring and front derailleur off their bikes, and identified a number of products (X-Sync, wide range cassettes, to name the two main ones) as necessary to make this a true technological advancement – which resulted in our 1X group sets such as XX1, X01, X1 and GX.
With the second scenario, where one or more of our OEM partners ask us for a specific solution for a new frame or line of bikes, the decision is based more on technical feasibility and business opportunity. A good example of this is the Monarch Relay shock that is an integral part of the Ei system on Lapierre, Ghost and Haibike bikes.
This said, in our world technological advancements have two main drivers: our internal product development process, and requests that come from our OEM partners. In the first scenario, we are able to judge the “worthiness” of an innovation based on our own judgment, and we can also gauge this from the level of interest of our customers. Take 1X drivetrains for example: we started developing a solution in this direction by looking at what cross-country and enduro racers were already doing with their ten-speed drivetrains, which was taking the small ring and front derailleur off their bikes, and identified a number of products (X-Sync, wide range cassettes, to name the two main ones) as necessary to make this a true technological advancement – which resulted in our 1X group sets such as XX1, X01, X1 and GX.
With the second scenario, where one or more of our OEM partners ask us for a specific solution for a new frame or line of bikes, the decision is based more on technical feasibility and business opportunity. A good example of this is the Monarch Relay shock that is an integral part of the Ei system on Lapierre, Ghost and Haibike bikes.
Peter Vallance
Director - Mountain Product Management, Cannondale
Director - Mountain Product Management, Cannondale
|
At Cannondale, our mission is to make bike rides better and this guides our System Integration engineering approach. We want to actually make rides better, noticeably better, not just a few percent better to put in a PowerPoint presentation for journalists. This has led us to some very unconventional solutions like Lefty, HollowGram, and DYAD. Almost any rider can feel the difference those technologies deliver when they hop on one of our bikes. One of the best things about working for Cannondale is that we are not trying to appeal to every rider out there - we are happy to cater to those who appreciate our approach. Lefty freaks a lot of people out, but it's all in the name of advancement and performance.
In recent years, we've seen a ton of micro-innovation like new wheel sizes and rear wheel spacing. For wheel/tire sizes, we will only adopt a new one if we think it delivers a real benefit to the rider and we also have to consider lineup simplicity. Do we really need a platform in 27, 29, and 27+? That is confusing for everyone, and it limits the resources we can put into real innovation. For us to continue to make real, exciting leaps forward, the industry will need to stabilize on wheel/tire sizes by intended use.
So much effort goes into advancements that in reality falls too short for the rider. Boost, for example, affords the designer 3mm in extra tire clearance, chain stay width, or chain ring compatibility. For reference, 3mm is about as wide as the number '3' on a typical computer keyboard. While we recognize that real estate is ultra tight, and every millimeter counts, these specific 3mm are not worth the inconvenience they bring. For reference, our Ai system delivers 6mm of extra room, all while using a standard 142mm rear hub. The 6mm offset yields a stronger and stiffer wheel, but more importantly, it enables us to have very short chain stays and not compromise mud clearance or frame stiffness. To us, Ai is worth the slight inconvenience it brings.
We're confident that the industry will move past Boost soon and settle on something else and we can't wait to read the Pinkbike comments when that happens.
In recent years, we've seen a ton of micro-innovation like new wheel sizes and rear wheel spacing. For wheel/tire sizes, we will only adopt a new one if we think it delivers a real benefit to the rider and we also have to consider lineup simplicity. Do we really need a platform in 27, 29, and 27+? That is confusing for everyone, and it limits the resources we can put into real innovation. For us to continue to make real, exciting leaps forward, the industry will need to stabilize on wheel/tire sizes by intended use.
So much effort goes into advancements that in reality falls too short for the rider. Boost, for example, affords the designer 3mm in extra tire clearance, chain stay width, or chain ring compatibility. For reference, 3mm is about as wide as the number '3' on a typical computer keyboard. While we recognize that real estate is ultra tight, and every millimeter counts, these specific 3mm are not worth the inconvenience they bring. For reference, our Ai system delivers 6mm of extra room, all while using a standard 142mm rear hub. The 6mm offset yields a stronger and stiffer wheel, but more importantly, it enables us to have very short chain stays and not compromise mud clearance or frame stiffness. To us, Ai is worth the slight inconvenience it brings.
We're confident that the industry will move past Boost soon and settle on something else and we can't wait to read the Pinkbike comments when that happens.
Tom 'Tam' Hamilton
BTR Fabrications
BTR Fabrications
|
We're always aiming to offer the best possible riding experience to our customers. That's what drives us to run BTR, and it's the basis for why I think incremental enhancements are crucial. Testing and rolling out new technology and new features step by step is faster and more effective than trying to only launch new features in complete chunks, so it will bring better products to our customers sooner.
It's important that new technologies and features are made available to the customer as soon as they are ready so that the customer is buying the best available product at the time of purchase. There's just no sense in sitting on new technology which could improve products - it would be dishonest to the customer to sell an outdated model, and would give a poorer representation of our company. Quite often, it seems, other companies attempt to blind customers with the smoke and mirrors of new paint schemes, with the pretense that the 'new model' is an improvement over their previous offering. While I see no reason anyone shouldn't buy a bike in a colour scheme they like, it annoys me when it's touted as a new feature.
There is always room for improvement or refinement in design, even if the features and technologies involved don't change - this is why we all update our products periodically even though they're all still bicycles! As improvements are made in manufacturing techniques and materials, new features become possible and/or necessary, and designs must change to fully take advantage of the new technologies. No single company develops complete bicycles, either, so new features are often a reaction to new componentry becoming available. This is particularly the case for us small manufacturers, but we have the advantage of being able to react very quickly to new 'standards' if need be.
Deciding whether a technological advancement is worth pursuing is a matter of judgment; if there's a foreseeable benefit to the customer, then it must be worth investigation at least. In order to provide the best bikes to our customers we are constantly looking for ways to improve our products - from listening to feedback, to developing new concepts, or researching new materials, or honing our production methods. The ideas which reach our production models are generally only the top few which offer the most clear-cut benefits to the customer. We don't have any solid rules about which changes are worthwhile, except that it must bring benefits to the customers; we won't just change something for the sake of changing it. The majority of our judgement comes from experience, both as riders and engineers; we'll have a clear idea of our target and can calculate or understand whether a given change will bring a useful advantage to our customers.The pitfall we're all trying to avoid is to launch something which isn't ready. A product which fails in any way is (at best) disappointing for customers and damages reputations. We must have a very high level of confidence in a product or technology before it can safely be released; it's our duty to customers to do all that we can to prevent any failure which may cause an accident, and a broken product certainly won't perform well!
Just like a lot of consumers, we get very frustrated by new 'standards' which don't seem to serve any purpose other than to make older components obsolete. These moves seem as if they could only to be damaging for the industry, but the companies behind them surround the new products with a lot of hype in order to drive more sales. I won't name any names...
Technological advancements are really necessary for the development and growth of cycling. Across the board, the bikes we have now are so fast and fun and capable and reliable compared with what we rode even as recently as five years ago, let alone fifteen years ago and, in the grand scheme, that's very recent. Without constantly pursuing and implementing new technologies, this massive improvement would never have happened, and cycling would be much less enjoyable and exciting.
It's important that new technologies and features are made available to the customer as soon as they are ready so that the customer is buying the best available product at the time of purchase. There's just no sense in sitting on new technology which could improve products - it would be dishonest to the customer to sell an outdated model, and would give a poorer representation of our company. Quite often, it seems, other companies attempt to blind customers with the smoke and mirrors of new paint schemes, with the pretense that the 'new model' is an improvement over their previous offering. While I see no reason anyone shouldn't buy a bike in a colour scheme they like, it annoys me when it's touted as a new feature.
There is always room for improvement or refinement in design, even if the features and technologies involved don't change - this is why we all update our products periodically even though they're all still bicycles! As improvements are made in manufacturing techniques and materials, new features become possible and/or necessary, and designs must change to fully take advantage of the new technologies. No single company develops complete bicycles, either, so new features are often a reaction to new componentry becoming available. This is particularly the case for us small manufacturers, but we have the advantage of being able to react very quickly to new 'standards' if need be.
Deciding whether a technological advancement is worth pursuing is a matter of judgment; if there's a foreseeable benefit to the customer, then it must be worth investigation at least. In order to provide the best bikes to our customers we are constantly looking for ways to improve our products - from listening to feedback, to developing new concepts, or researching new materials, or honing our production methods. The ideas which reach our production models are generally only the top few which offer the most clear-cut benefits to the customer. We don't have any solid rules about which changes are worthwhile, except that it must bring benefits to the customers; we won't just change something for the sake of changing it. The majority of our judgement comes from experience, both as riders and engineers; we'll have a clear idea of our target and can calculate or understand whether a given change will bring a useful advantage to our customers.
Just like a lot of consumers, we get very frustrated by new 'standards' which don't seem to serve any purpose other than to make older components obsolete. These moves seem as if they could only to be damaging for the industry, but the companies behind them surround the new products with a lot of hype in order to drive more sales. I won't name any names...
Technological advancements are really necessary for the development and growth of cycling. Across the board, the bikes we have now are so fast and fun and capable and reliable compared with what we rode even as recently as five years ago, let alone fifteen years ago and, in the grand scheme, that's very recent. Without constantly pursuing and implementing new technologies, this massive improvement would never have happened, and cycling would be much less enjoyable and exciting.
Richard Cunningham
Tech Editor, Pinkbike
Tech Editor, Pinkbike
|
I can speak with some authority on technical changes and industry standards, because I have been riding that wave since the first mountain bikes appeared. I still own the first mountain bike that I built back in 1981, and the only parts which are interchangeable with the modern version are its pedals, grips, saddle and certain tires (if 26-inch wheels are still considered current). Its Schrader-valve tubes are as outdated as its geometry, materials, and construction.
In retrospect, all of the improvements that caused its obsolescence were justifiable, and like today, most created much controversy when they were instituted as “new, industry-wide standards.” Perhaps more important to this discussion is that I have also met with a great many of the individuals who instigated those changes and, with few exceptions, all of those people did so with the highest expectations that their efforts would result in a better mountain bike. They weren’t always right, but nobody is. The reason that bikes are so good now is because the industry is made of people who are stoked on them.
So, when is change good? As it applies to mountain bikes, change is good when it provides a tangible benefit to the rider. That benefit can be related to performance, comfort, durability, safety, value, or fashion – and, it can either be a necessary improvement or simply a desirable one. Face it, for almost all of us, a mountain bike is an expensive toy and a means of personal expression, so “want” and “need” are interchangeable terms for evaluating benefits.
Necessary vs. Desirable: The shift from the 25.4 millimeter handlebar-clamp diameter to 31.8 millimeters was a crucial change that provided a necessary safety margin of strength and additional stiffness in response to handlebars growing wider and riding styles, more aggressive. Secretly, most component designers admit that the addition of the larger, 35-millimeter clamp-diameter standard was mechanically unnecessary. True or false, the presumption by elite level riders that fatter bars equate to more precise steering overrides any need for further justification and 35-millimeter bars have become an essential product.
Evolutionary vs. Revolutionary: Incremental change is the substance of cycling and chipping off one gram at a time has resulted in impossibly lightweight and reliable frames and components. Wheel design is an example of how the process of steady improvement has produced outstanding reliability and performance while conforming to worldwide standards. Similarly, frame geometry, suspension travel, and additional cassette cogs creep forward at a speed that makes change easier to anticipate and more digestible for reluctant customers and bike makers alike. The flip side of evolutionary improvement is that it fails to teach us anything new. Revolutionary changes force us to rethink other aspects of the bike’s design. Beyond reliable stopping, disc brakes freed up suspension configurations, allowed wheel designers to optimize rim profiles and gave birth to through-axle standards. The 29er inspired wider hub standards, forced fork makers to recalculate offsets, pushed bike makers to abandon the front derailleur, gave reason to adopt the 27.5-inch format, and facilitated the plus-sized trail bike.
Us vs. Them: The prevailing notion is improvements that result in industrywide changes which are driven externally by popular demand are good – but that changes of similar magnitude which originate from bike or parts makers without popular consensus are bad. Changes crafted to satisfy the customer’s existing needs are an easy sell. But, an equal number of innovations that result in new standards are developed in secret to solve problems, add features, or to enhance performance in areas of the bike which riders are not yet aware of, or do not yet perceive a need for - “Show me something that I don’t think I need and then tell me in the same paragraph, that it will make my existing bike obsolete.” That’s a hard sell, and it may smell like a conspiracy, but it defines a job well done for the product designer.
Why the Big Secrets? It is logical then, to assume that if bike and component makers were more transparent with their future customers about upcoming changes, buyers would be able to make more informed choices and peace and prosperity would reign. But, it wouldn’t go that way. Customers and product designers operate in time zones that are years apart. Lead times to produce a new bicycle design average 12 months or more, while a new drivetrain can take up to four years to bring to market.
While you are signing the credit card receipt for your new 2016 bike, that same brand is secretly rolling out the 2017 model to key bike dealers, while the people who designed it are off working on the 2018 version. So, from the bike maker’s point of view, your new bike is, at least, two years behind the times before the ink dries on the receipt. The reality is that the current model is the best possible bike that they can actually sell to you, and keeping their new stuff secret is probably in your best interest. Imagine if your sales person said: “Hey, before you sign that Visa slip, how would you like to watch some videos of the 13-speed 2017 model and our 2018 Z-link suspension?”
In retrospect, all of the improvements that caused its obsolescence were justifiable, and like today, most created much controversy when they were instituted as “new, industry-wide standards.” Perhaps more important to this discussion is that I have also met with a great many of the individuals who instigated those changes and, with few exceptions, all of those people did so with the highest expectations that their efforts would result in a better mountain bike. They weren’t always right, but nobody is. The reason that bikes are so good now is because the industry is made of people who are stoked on them.
So, when is change good? As it applies to mountain bikes, change is good when it provides a tangible benefit to the rider. That benefit can be related to performance, comfort, durability, safety, value, or fashion – and, it can either be a necessary improvement or simply a desirable one. Face it, for almost all of us, a mountain bike is an expensive toy and a means of personal expression, so “want” and “need” are interchangeable terms for evaluating benefits.
Necessary vs. Desirable: The shift from the 25.4 millimeter handlebar-clamp diameter to 31.8 millimeters was a crucial change that provided a necessary safety margin of strength and additional stiffness in response to handlebars growing wider and riding styles, more aggressive. Secretly, most component designers admit that the addition of the larger, 35-millimeter clamp-diameter standard was mechanically unnecessary. True or false, the presumption by elite level riders that fatter bars equate to more precise steering overrides any need for further justification and 35-millimeter bars have become an essential product.
Evolutionary vs. Revolutionary: Incremental change is the substance of cycling and chipping off one gram at a time has resulted in impossibly lightweight and reliable frames and components. Wheel design is an example of how the process of steady improvement has produced outstanding reliability and performance while conforming to worldwide standards. Similarly, frame geometry, suspension travel, and additional cassette cogs creep forward at a speed that makes change easier to anticipate and more digestible for reluctant customers and bike makers alike. The flip side of evolutionary improvement is that it fails to teach us anything new. Revolutionary changes force us to rethink other aspects of the bike’s design. Beyond reliable stopping, disc brakes freed up suspension configurations, allowed wheel designers to optimize rim profiles and gave birth to through-axle standards. The 29er inspired wider hub standards, forced fork makers to recalculate offsets, pushed bike makers to abandon the front derailleur, gave reason to adopt the 27.5-inch format, and facilitated the plus-sized trail bike.
Us vs. Them: The prevailing notion is improvements that result in industrywide changes which are driven externally by popular demand are good – but that changes of similar magnitude which originate from bike or parts makers without popular consensus are bad. Changes crafted to satisfy the customer’s existing needs are an easy sell. But, an equal number of innovations that result in new standards are developed in secret to solve problems, add features, or to enhance performance in areas of the bike which riders are not yet aware of, or do not yet perceive a need for - “Show me something that I don’t think I need and then tell me in the same paragraph, that it will make my existing bike obsolete.” That’s a hard sell, and it may smell like a conspiracy, but it defines a job well done for the product designer.
Why the Big Secrets? It is logical then, to assume that if bike and component makers were more transparent with their future customers about upcoming changes, buyers would be able to make more informed choices and peace and prosperity would reign. But, it wouldn’t go that way. Customers and product designers operate in time zones that are years apart. Lead times to produce a new bicycle design average 12 months or more, while a new drivetrain can take up to four years to bring to market.
While you are signing the credit card receipt for your new 2016 bike, that same brand is secretly rolling out the 2017 model to key bike dealers, while the people who designed it are off working on the 2018 version. So, from the bike maker’s point of view, your new bike is, at least, two years behind the times before the ink dries on the receipt. The reality is that the current model is the best possible bike that they can actually sell to you, and keeping their new stuff secret is probably in your best interest. Imagine if your sales person said: “Hey, before you sign that Visa slip, how would you like to watch some videos of the 13-speed 2017 model and our 2018 Z-link suspension?”
Lars Sternberg
Marketing Manager, Airtime Engineer, Transition Bikes
Marketing Manager, Airtime Engineer, Transition Bikes
|
There are many layers to this here onion. Hopefully, we're ready to shed some tears, which is usually my immediate reaction when I learn about the next 'new thing'.
Regarding industry-driven changes; whether we all like them or not, sometimes they are necessary. And sometimes they are simply a pain in the ass. In the end, it's all a balance. For the most part, we're presented industry changes in very much the same manner as consumers are, just far earlier. ''Hey guess what, all those tires you have? They won't fit on the new wheels everyone's beginning to use.'' Yep, I was one of the last holdouts. It's just as frustrating for us to deal with given issues such as new tooling cost, additional manufacturing time, product compatibility issues, the waste and devaluation of newly outdated product on a consumer level. Not sweet. We do our best to approach every new change in product compatibility or function as if we were the end consumer and assess it as such, and we are are damn lucky we can still do so. If we decide to alter an existing product for adaptation it is because we believe in it.
Riding as much as we do, we've experienced the 'excited to build up a bike, only to realize you can't put it together because you forgot X changed and now it won't work with Y' issue just like you. So we are very cautious of which 'enhancements' will really be worth adopting or not. For instance, the 12 x 142mm hub/axle standard or 27.5'' wheel size. We are the size of company that we didn't want to be the first to integrate those things into our bikes, but we certainly weren't the last to move on them. After much internal deliberation, we determined that they were worthwhile enhancements and it was apparent that the entire mountain bike industry was moving that direction. Everyone was going to have to deal with the same growing pains. And now think about having to use a 10 x 135mm QR rear wheel on a 160mm travel bike that you ride DH tracks on. I know, crazy, right? I think everyone that rides mountain bikes at an enthusiast level can high-five after that one.
Then you have some of the adaptations that are currently evolving. At the moment, we feel a lot of the latest enhancements coming to the surface aren't really a benefit for us. So we're busy focusing on other things that we feel will be worthwhile (new acronym's included). I feel I can speak for the entire Transition crew when I say that when we drive an enhancement on one of our products, it will be immediately apparent to our customers why we did it.
Regarding industry-driven changes; whether we all like them or not, sometimes they are necessary. And sometimes they are simply a pain in the ass. In the end, it's all a balance. For the most part, we're presented industry changes in very much the same manner as consumers are, just far earlier. ''Hey guess what, all those tires you have? They won't fit on the new wheels everyone's beginning to use.'' Yep, I was one of the last holdouts. It's just as frustrating for us to deal with given issues such as new tooling cost, additional manufacturing time, product compatibility issues, the waste and devaluation of newly outdated product on a consumer level. Not sweet. We do our best to approach every new change in product compatibility or function as if we were the end consumer and assess it as such, and we are are damn lucky we can still do so. If we decide to alter an existing product for adaptation it is because we believe in it.
Riding as much as we do, we've experienced the 'excited to build up a bike, only to realize you can't put it together because you forgot X changed and now it won't work with Y' issue just like you. So we are very cautious of which 'enhancements' will really be worth adopting or not. For instance, the 12 x 142mm hub/axle standard or 27.5'' wheel size. We are the size of company that we didn't want to be the first to integrate those things into our bikes, but we certainly weren't the last to move on them. After much internal deliberation, we determined that they were worthwhile enhancements and it was apparent that the entire mountain bike industry was moving that direction. Everyone was going to have to deal with the same growing pains. And now think about having to use a 10 x 135mm QR rear wheel on a 160mm travel bike that you ride DH tracks on. I know, crazy, right? I think everyone that rides mountain bikes at an enthusiast level can high-five after that one.
Then you have some of the adaptations that are currently evolving. At the moment, we feel a lot of the latest enhancements coming to the surface aren't really a benefit for us. So we're busy focusing on other things that we feel will be worthwhile (new acronym's included). I feel I can speak for the entire Transition crew when I say that when we drive an enhancement on one of our products, it will be immediately apparent to our customers why we did it.
Wacek Kipszak
Pinkbike commenter as WAKIdesigns
Pinkbike commenter as WAKIdesigns
|
The first thing that comes to my mind is what counts as an inconvenience in the realm of mountain biking: a flat tire, chairlift out of order, or racing with a dislocated finger? Nah, I guess we are here to discuss the first-world problems related to bicycle standards, so let's focus on that. I reckon that realistically speaking, for an average, healthy mountain bike keyboard warrior, inconvenience boils down to the situation when the desired item is ''out of stock'' or ''discontinued'' while the latest toy, which is in stock does not fit his current bike. This means that instead of buying one missing component, he needs to make a set of purchases in order to keep his bike in running order or up to date. This doesn't seem to be much of an issue with new hub spacing since we can always hope that some small company can provide us with adapters and spacers. The introduction of 11-speed drivetrains is hardly inconvenient because all of us wear out or break our drivetrains eventually, so we may just go up one gear and enjoy the wide-range cassette without spending much more money.
The real problem starts when our three-year-old frame breaks like has happened to me. I had a decent 26'' wheeled bike, and if I were to buy counterparts of my fork, wheels, and tires to fit the 27.5'' wheeled frame, I would need to spend up to 1,500 dollars. That is a high price for blurry benefits of increasing the wheel radius by 12.5mm, a move that took a great effort to coordinate actions of four branches of the industry - just to make it happen all over again three-years later with the introduction of 27.5+ tires, which ironically makes for an exotic 29er, a wheel size that one of the world's biggest bike companies pre-sentenced to death when showing their 27.5'' bike range for the first time. The 27.5+ tire has a contact patch so much bigger than a 26'' tire that I can observe the difference with a naked eye from the distance of 12.5 meters. I become a climbing god by getting loads of additional grip, instead of one second every three minutes, given my surname is Vouilloz.
There's no problem with fine-tuning the system by changing one thing at a time, but when someone reinvents the wheel, the semi-solutions don't seem to be worth the producer's and customer's inconvenience while we can try to fix issues, like gearing systems attached to the swingarm, which adds half of a kilo to the unsprung weight, or having the same chain stay lengths for all sizes of a frame type, from XS to XL. I like it when the industry takes inconvenient risks by sending it big and acting a bit like riders on the FEST series. It is mountain biking, and we are all here for the thrills and there are no medals for keeping the steadiest pace while following competitors.
The real problem starts when our three-year-old frame breaks like has happened to me. I had a decent 26'' wheeled bike, and if I were to buy counterparts of my fork, wheels, and tires to fit the 27.5'' wheeled frame, I would need to spend up to 1,500 dollars. That is a high price for blurry benefits of increasing the wheel radius by 12.5mm, a move that took a great effort to coordinate actions of four branches of the industry - just to make it happen all over again three-years later with the introduction of 27.5+ tires, which ironically makes for an exotic 29er, a wheel size that one of the world's biggest bike companies pre-sentenced to death when showing their 27.5'' bike range for the first time. The 27.5+ tire has a contact patch so much bigger than a 26'' tire that I can observe the difference with a naked eye from the distance of 12.5 meters. I become a climbing god by getting loads of additional grip, instead of one second every three minutes, given my surname is Vouilloz.
There's no problem with fine-tuning the system by changing one thing at a time, but when someone reinvents the wheel, the semi-solutions don't seem to be worth the producer's and customer's inconvenience while we can try to fix issues, like gearing systems attached to the swingarm, which adds half of a kilo to the unsprung weight, or having the same chain stay lengths for all sizes of a frame type, from XS to XL. I like it when the industry takes inconvenient risks by sending it big and acting a bit like riders on the FEST series. It is mountain biking, and we are all here for the thrills and there are no medals for keeping the steadiest pace while following competitors.
Noel Buckley
Founder, Knolly Bikes
Founder, Knolly Bikes
|
There is always going to be a lot of consumer skepticism regarding actual performance benefits of touted incremental improvements, and in particular ''new standards''. However, in general, I feel that most companies are indeed trying to continually improve their product, or else they would be quickly outpaced by their competition. The question then becomes: What represents an advancement that's significant enough to truly warrant a purchasing decision? Conversely, what is a small evolutionary improvement that's perhaps hyped up but doesn't provide an actual noticeable performance increase? These are commonly a ''fix'' disguised as an improvement, or can simply be a marketing initiative designed to 'out-feature' a competitor. Constant standard changes can also feed corporate desires for increasing annual turnover by reengaging customers prior to their natural purchasing cycle.
The vast majority of products are best served with an evolutionary development cycle. This allows the design team to build on past experiences and to take into account a large amount of direct (i.e. formal development teams) or indirect (i.e. warranty or sales performance) product feedback. This process typically takes at least a year or more (for relatively sophisticated products) before the design direction is ready for the end user market. Once you factor in the additional cost and time of getting a new product up and running (tooling, marketing, and support as well as production timelines) a product lifespan of three to five years becomes necessary to justify the fundamental architecture of the product. Hence, the changes in a product year over year may not be that relevant, but looking back over many years will start to show large advancements in product design and performance.
Let’s look at two examples of rapid market adoption of new products: The introduction of the 27.5'' wheel size is a great example of a major switch in product specification that was proclaimed to be revolutionary, but which also caused a step backwards in many aspects of product design. The race to ''be the first to market'' with this new wheel size flooded the market with frames that eschewed all previous progress of 26'' wheeled frames. Many advancements that had evolved from two plus decades of 26'' wheel frame design were thrown out the window simply to mount 27.5'' wheels on mountain bikes. It took an additional two to three years for frame geometry and suspension kinematics to properly adapt to this new wheel diameter and not compromise on chainstay length, tire clearance, stand over height, front end height, pedaling / suspension performance, among others. These issues led to a ''fuzzy'' introduction of the 27.5 wheel size, where a significant amount of highly developed 26'' bikes were still outperforming newer 27.5 bikes for a few years.
Sometimes a revolutionary technology really does enter the market and take everyone by surprise. One of the best examples of this was the emergence of the platform shock in the early 2000's. This technology completely caught both the cycling community and established players off guard and resulted in a massive change in product specification. Even with some of the initial reliability issues, the benefits of the technology were immediately apparent and clearly outperformed existing products. The technology has continued to develop extensively over the past dozen years since its introduction, but undeniably the initial bump in performance was substantial. The final part of the decision-making process has to be financial. It's one thing to find a new set of tires that is absolutely perfect for your normal riding conditions: in this case, $100 or so could be a relatively small but very worthwhile investment. In fact, I can't think of many better investments for mountain bikes than quality tires! When it comes down to more expensive components (wheels, forks, frames or a completely new bike), then the question becomes more difficult, and unless you are really unhappy with your current product, the rewards need to be substantially greater.
While often difficult to wade through the sea of marketing hyperbole, it is still important for the customer to do their research and prioritize their purchases. What is the performance that you can live with? What represents an absolutely clear performance advantage and do you need it (do you even care)? Can you afford to be on the bleeding edge of product development, and if so are you prepared to deal with potential performance letdowns and possible reliability concerns? Are you better off making small improvements to your bike or are you at the point when you're probably better off just replacing everything? No one but the customer can really answer these questions, but after doing their homework, the perceived value should be there.
The vast majority of products are best served with an evolutionary development cycle. This allows the design team to build on past experiences and to take into account a large amount of direct (i.e. formal development teams) or indirect (i.e. warranty or sales performance) product feedback. This process typically takes at least a year or more (for relatively sophisticated products) before the design direction is ready for the end user market. Once you factor in the additional cost and time of getting a new product up and running (tooling, marketing, and support as well as production timelines) a product lifespan of three to five years becomes necessary to justify the fundamental architecture of the product. Hence, the changes in a product year over year may not be that relevant, but looking back over many years will start to show large advancements in product design and performance.
Let’s look at two examples of rapid market adoption of new products: The introduction of the 27.5'' wheel size is a great example of a major switch in product specification that was proclaimed to be revolutionary, but which also caused a step backwards in many aspects of product design. The race to ''be the first to market'' with this new wheel size flooded the market with frames that eschewed all previous progress of 26'' wheeled frames. Many advancements that had evolved from two plus decades of 26'' wheel frame design were thrown out the window simply to mount 27.5'' wheels on mountain bikes. It took an additional two to three years for frame geometry and suspension kinematics to properly adapt to this new wheel diameter and not compromise on chainstay length, tire clearance, stand over height, front end height, pedaling / suspension performance, among others. These issues led to a ''fuzzy'' introduction of the 27.5 wheel size, where a significant amount of highly developed 26'' bikes were still outperforming newer 27.5 bikes for a few years.
Sometimes a revolutionary technology really does enter the market and take everyone by surprise. One of the best examples of this was the emergence of the platform shock in the early 2000's. This technology completely caught both the cycling community and established players off guard and resulted in a massive change in product specification. Even with some of the initial reliability issues, the benefits of the technology were immediately apparent and clearly outperformed existing products. The technology has continued to develop extensively over the past dozen years since its introduction, but undeniably the initial bump in performance was substantial. The final part of the decision-making process has to be financial. It's one thing to find a new set of tires that is absolutely perfect for your normal riding conditions: in this case, $100 or so could be a relatively small but very worthwhile investment. In fact, I can't think of many better investments for mountain bikes than quality tires! When it comes down to more expensive components (wheels, forks, frames or a completely new bike), then the question becomes more difficult, and unless you are really unhappy with your current product, the rewards need to be substantially greater.
While often difficult to wade through the sea of marketing hyperbole, it is still important for the customer to do their research and prioritize their purchases. What is the performance that you can live with? What represents an absolutely clear performance advantage and do you need it (do you even care)? Can you afford to be on the bleeding edge of product development, and if so are you prepared to deal with potential performance letdowns and possible reliability concerns? Are you better off making small improvements to your bike or are you at the point when you're probably better off just replacing everything? No one but the customer can really answer these questions, but after doing their homework, the perceived value should be there.
Dave Weagle
Inventor, Product Designer, Design Consultant
Inventor, Product Designer, Design Consultant
|
For me, standards have to meet the litmus test of practicality, cost to riders, and longevity. No doubt there have been some useful standards over the years, built by consortiums of companies, beneficial to riders, and implemented widely (IS brake mounts, ISCG05, and tapered steerers come to mind), but recently, I see companies using what they call ''standards'' to act as a positioning device for their brands, with little regard for rider impact. Clearly Boost is one that's been met with huge rider criticism, and I think it's justified. It's just too small of a step. Why the heck did we abandon 20mm axles up front in the first place? For that matter, why didn't Boost become a 20 x 120mm front spacing with 36mm flanges? In back, our drivetrains are crammed into the same tiny space as before; we could have at least given some room to grow! Okay, yeah, it may have made wheels a whopping 20 grams heavier but damn, at least we'd be future proofed.
The problem is in part that you have big corporate machines whose marketing engines rely on them feigning some kind of technical innovation. In a boardroom, I'm sure that this stuff seems to make sense, but as a rider, when you have to buy a new wheelset with your hard earned cash, reality starts to hit. It becomes even more insulting when the ''standard'' completely changes again in a couple of years (and it will). Frankly, our industry needs to get its shit together and start talking openly before going to market with pointless incremental steps like Boost.
Listen, we know that 1x is here to stay. We know that that we're eventually going to 12, 13, 14-speeds in the back. We know that riders aren't going to start going slower on their trail bikes. It's inevitable. Why not position the ''standards'' to intersect with that near future rather than where we were three years ago? Bottom-line is that this mess is on the industry - all of us. We should be bringing large and meaningful steps to market industry-wide, and on a planned and publicly open schedule. Until that happens, we're asking the riders to foot the bill for the shortsightedness of a relative few, and it's not fair.
Sure, riders can vote with their checkbooks, but we live in a FOMO marketing-driven society and companies from computers to cotton balls bank on it. This can be fixed. Who knows, perhaps today can be the catalyst for change.
The problem is in part that you have big corporate machines whose marketing engines rely on them feigning some kind of technical innovation. In a boardroom, I'm sure that this stuff seems to make sense, but as a rider, when you have to buy a new wheelset with your hard earned cash, reality starts to hit. It becomes even more insulting when the ''standard'' completely changes again in a couple of years (and it will). Frankly, our industry needs to get its shit together and start talking openly before going to market with pointless incremental steps like Boost.
Listen, we know that 1x is here to stay. We know that that we're eventually going to 12, 13, 14-speeds in the back. We know that riders aren't going to start going slower on their trail bikes. It's inevitable. Why not position the ''standards'' to intersect with that near future rather than where we were three years ago? Bottom-line is that this mess is on the industry - all of us. We should be bringing large and meaningful steps to market industry-wide, and on a planned and publicly open schedule. Until that happens, we're asking the riders to foot the bill for the shortsightedness of a relative few, and it's not fair.
Sure, riders can vote with their checkbooks, but we live in a FOMO marketing-driven society and companies from computers to cotton balls bank on it. This can be fixed. Who knows, perhaps today can be the catalyst for change.
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
Ya...I've rebuilt my rear wheel 6 times instead of forking out cash for a new standard.wish more industry folks like DW would voice opinion and offer solutions...communication never hurts any industry.
www.pinkbike.com/photo/13129298/#cid10122049
It's odd that 2006 frame is really up tu date with some newest standards.
I have 1.5 headtube so tapered forks are no problem.
135x12mm rear axle - up to date. obviesly geometry is getting out of date (though i slacked HA -2deg. with Syncross's adjustable headset) but what is my point.
DW says of a forsightness of industry. Apparently that's what Iron Horse were doing in it's time.
Dave, why don't you get Iron Horse back from Dorel Industries and do stuff how you were back in the days.
That would just be perfect.
DW's comment on how there could be a real step forward into the next standard, as opposed to the micro-incremental cash-grab by Trek hit the nail on the head, and is one reason why I support other brands. It's very telling how the companies that foisted this thing on the industry, expecting to be applauded, now see the shit-storm and are notably absent from the discussion.
On the one hand we do have the mainstream media, pushing everything new (or worse pushing specific brands), under a really overactive manner they sound just like salespersons. This is quite apparent if we take notice of the language used to “cover” what the industry needs to push…
On the other hand we DO see (at least, the people who get actively involved onto the evolution of the machines we are ridding) many ideas getting “frozen”, for some time, in order to allow “air” for existing ones to sell…
Many times, nice ideas are getting either ripped or “buried” for the benefit of the mainstream policy of the sales model we have so blindly embraced.
I do agree with Mr. Weagle. He dares to address this situation…
My Session 88 has now seen five years of use, some years it's been ridden as often as four times a week. It's nearing the end of its useable lifespan. The plan was always to simply buy a new frame and shock, then swap all of my parts onto it, including my dead-reliable and plush Fox 40. My stockpile of rubber and wheels would stay healthily in the mix.
Now, since the universal switch to 650b, I really don't have much of a f*cking choice when I get a new downhill bike. I'm stuck with a wheel size invented by marketing department. The only real option other than that is to buy a used, possibly battered frame. The affordable option of buying a new 26" frameset: gone. My meticulously-maintained 40, my stack of wheels and tires... it all becomes USELESS. I guess I could just start over from square one and give the industry a bunch of money for parts that I already own (but in the "wrong" size) but it's not even about the money at this point. It's just a dick move by the industry as a whole. And really, who's to say they won't do the same thing again in another 2-3 years? After all, we were dumb enough to switch to 27.5...
It comes down to this: it's a blatant money grab at the expense of the riders, and one of the many reasons why I seem to be dedicating less and less time to this sport. I understand that businesses need to make a profit, but the whole 27.5 fiasco has been a slap in the face to riders who don't have (or want to spend) the cash to simply buy a new bike every year.
Bring back the Freeride/Park bike. Intense is giving us (close) to what's needed. www.pinkbike.com/news/first-look-intense-uzzi-275-interbike-2015.html and www.pinkbike.com/news/prototype-intense-spotted-at-fontana-california.html
Really nothing is 26 or 27.5 or 29. Those are just rough guesses as to what a rim plus tire is.
thanks guys - i forgot that wheel size started out as 650b - this was a good history lesson.
thanks for not being dicks about it.
584mm-559mm= 25mm.
25mm/2=12.5mm
I mentioned radius since it is the dimension that is more directly related to the roll over than diameter. In general 26-4-life folks will always say that 275 is not really 27,5" as it is closer to 26", while 650B early adopters will tell you that 650B tyres are taller. Many of us try to bend the truth or rip one page from a book, then burn 2 following ones, in order to be able to deal with reality
27.5x2.35 Schwalbe Magic Mary=708mm=27.9in
So small 26in tires are still 26in in diameter but your normal everday one is already 27in. And 27.5in tires are actually closer to 28in so this is why we should start taking about rim diameter and NOT wheel diameter (it will always vary depending on what tire you use).
I've grown accustomed to 27.5" wheels, and to spacing standards that are alien to what I have. Works for you, and you have the money? Great, more power to you. I'm done slinging sh*t toward you because if it works, so be it.
The other thing is what some of us ALREADY HAVE. A year ago, I purchased a a 2011 Stumpjumper EVO frame. Complete with 135mm QR rear axle. Works great for my wife and I, because we can go ride trail on Galbraith, AND still hook up the Burley trailer to the QR rear end so we can tow around our pre-schooler. And I hit jumps with it regularly, ride cross country, and it has relatively "modern" geometry. I fitted a 160mm 2015 Fox 36, some Magic Marys, and it's good to go.
Need carbon fiber? Go get it. Longer reach? Fine, have at it. Boost? Hey, if it makes your day better...
We do fine on our four year old bike. Times and standards have changed. Trails do so at a slower pace. That transition you hit a couple years ago will still feel the same...and the landing too. Can you always have a better tool at your side to do the job? Absolutely. Not always worth the price that the industry would have us pay, I say. YMMV.
It was hilarious when I looked him up on Strava, lol
Thank you.
Well, maybe not the best thing, everything on Pinkbike is awesome.
Most of it is awesome.
But this article was really really good.
Longest sentence I've ever seen on pinkbike.
I stuck with my tried and tested DMR and still got out every now and again.
Fast forward 5 or so years and a lot has changed, mainly wheel size and the introduction of a 15mm front axle standard.
So as I was working properly after university, I thought I'd catch up on all the developments I've missed and buy myself a super modern mountain bike. Here I am 2 years later with no new bike as I've sat and waited to see what the market settles on - wheel size, hub axle, stem reach, tire width, hub width. In the time I've waited the list has only grown. So I'm now at the point where I think I'm just going to try a load of bikes that I like and buy the one that feels the best. Otherwise I'll never get a new bike. The market can keep changing all it wants but as long as I'm happy in not bothered.
EDIT: I forgot bottom brackets on the list of ever-changing standards.
Why?
Simple....market research easily indicates that people with a measure of disposable income that have a hobby like mtb will happily (or unhappily) continue to pay for even the smallest but "oh so necessary" improvements.
We buy and they sell vice versa.
Sure, the back end of the industry is feverishly figuring out what they can make to "improve the ride" while we feverishly work at our stupid jobs to figure out a way to buy the next piece of bling.
Like they say in the mob and in politics: "it's just business. Nothing personal"
Why should mtb be seen as any different?
27.5" tyres and 11 speed, fine those are hear to stay and I don't mind investing into it. It's all the crappy little changes that stop me buying a new bike.
Can someone explain ? I guess its a joke but I didn't get it ?
I think.
But it works.
Mostly.
I am sure Deeight will be along with some data to prove it soon.
Selling forks for example would have been straight forward a few years ago. Few lines, varying on spec. Now, with multiple wheel, hub and travel sizes means if a retailer wants to keep up, they have to list a whole pile of SKUs all under 1 model, because if they don't have the right variation, the customer ain't guna hang around until they do, just trot off somewhere else. So all of a sudden, rather than stocking 2/3 lines under 1 model, they need 15 lines under 1 model of fork to keep everybody happy! That's a lot of money tied up in a few forks.
Then they'll be getting complaints as to why they hardly sell any 26" products or can't service these type products anymore, when in reality, they just aren't available from manufacturers!
Signed, every pinkbiker that rides down hills fast.
I had two 2006 DHR's: one broke in 2014 while the other in 2015. I still have a mint 2001 Monster T as well. I upgrade parts or frames when my breaks and then I buy the new standards (but used). My "new" ride is a 2013 DHR (Dave Weagel is the man) and I'm keeping it until it breaks.
As a man with a limited budget and limited skills I can tell you that I don't see the "zyx % increase in whatever* as much as i feel it in my reduced budget so unless it's a benefit I can actually feel, I'm not buying into the marketing hype.
I don't know about you guys but I'm not riding at a pro level (though I can sort of hold my own after 16 years behind the bars). My 2006 DHR can do the same things as my 2013 (yes really) and I didn't become a pro-level rider on my newer bike, though it did give me a bit of a confidence boost. Technological advances are great, even in our sport, but at what expense to us? $10k on a new bike that'll become obsolete in 3 years? No thanks, I'd rather save that toward retirement and much needed medical expenses lol
Changing... not soon. I just bought a brand new 2014 GT Fury DH bike form Jenson that was sitting in the warehouse for half the original price. Still a 26 and I guess it'll work just fine for my purpose which is... HAVING FUN ON MY BIKE!
Cheers everyone.
So what the actual riders want doesn't even enter into the equation? Bought my last bike with a rockshox fork . Replaced it with a fox 36 and now it's sitting in my storage because it's not worth my time to try to sell a crap fork. Will never buy a rockshox fork again out anything made by sram for that matter. Every product they make has a competitor that is cheaper and performs better.
Also, Dave is on the money. I am very frustrated that the 20mm front axle is fading away for absolutely no apparent reason and that there are 135/142/148/150/157 rear spacings. Why would SRAM make that stupid Boost in the first place? We already have a 150mm, are you daft! There is no explanation needed, as financially, evry friggin' thing makes sense, hell, selling people makes sense financially, that does not make it a good idea!
Every time I get on my bike (okay, sometimes it does take a little bit of coaxing) I get that unreal feeling of freedom that I got on my first ride when my Dad set me off across the grass on a big green 70's dragster - only a bike can give you that (okay, maybe Acid but we're not in Kansas Baby) - it really is sheer joy (mostly!). Even the simplest little bit, tyre, bolt, thingo - whatever - can be interesting: it's how our sport evolves, it's why it's fun and it takes us to amazing places
The second is that mountain bike industry is a very new business. It is going to take some time to get the optimal solutions per each issue, but I'm sure that it is going to happen. There is only one best wheel spacing, one optimal wheel size per each category, and so on.
So, let's try to survive in the market in these days cause the good ones are about to come.
Does the latest gear make you enjoy your ride any more than 'normal'? I don't think so. The bus ride is optional too, I'm staying with 26".
Buy a King hub and you'll have quality and it's convertable. You can still convert a Discotech hub to 142!
12 speed?
f*ck it I'm out
Where's my bmx
Do I really need 12/13/14 speeds on a bicycle? No thanks, i still think 10 is too much. Especially when you think about the cost.
Except nobody buys a car body then wants to build it up with their old engine interior suspension and wheels.
Adds a bit to this discussion I find.
Id rather see the opinions of some borderline pro or privateer riders who are trying to make it in the industry they are often the first ones to feel the industry changes and the pressure to keep up.
The question should have been :
Speak ,praise or predict one product or technology that is not made or advertised by your company .
Then you will see the true meaning of change on the sport
New suspension yoke that fits 2010 to present Enduros and allows any shock to be used...