So many standards means no standards

reachdean

Observer
This post is meant to provoke conversation, so feel free to pile on if you think I (or the links I post) don't line up with your viewpoint.

I have to say, as someone who worked in shops as a mechanic, as the mechanic on a 12,000km across-Africa bike tour, and now as a bike journalist/writer, I'm confounded by the astonishing apparent lack of forethought in bike design these days. It seems that the multitude of new standards on bikes these days (wheel, hub, headset, drivertrain, take your pick) sort of negated the idea of standards altogether. I'm no opponent of progress, but I despise the way bike manufacturers are designing things that are obsolete within the span of a couple years. This stuff isn't cheap, and even though I work in the industry and can get deals, it still isn't cheap. My most modern mountain bike is a 2008 Devinci Remix. It's a 5&5 full squish with Fox suspension, XT/XTR drivetrain, and DT Swiss wheels. It weighs about 27 lbs. New, it cost just under $4000. It's almost impossible to find a modern equivalent within those performance, price and weight constraints. In part, I suppose that's because it's a 26" wheel, and the enduro craze is pushing development of beefier bikes. But the thing is, I'm 150lbs sopping wet. I don't count ounces, but I do count pounds on a bike. I'm also gentle on gear, so a lighter bike usually doesn't get punished by me.

I was just about ready to look at 650b bikes as a replacement for the Remix (though since it has no resale value at all, it's harder to justify shelling out for a new bike without some way to offset that cost). And then 27.5+ came along. Really?! I mean, I get the fatbike thing if you're riding on snowpack or deserts on a regular basis. But the problem to my eyes is that the bike industry is asking me to shell out $5000 for a new ride that may or may not have parts support in 5 years. So instead, I just won't buy anything. That's fine since it's more money in my pocket/more money for trips.

But here's the thing. Having ridden a variety of bikes, I get that some excel in certain key ways, but were talking about small percentage gains for huge costs. Having spent three weeks riding in the Sahara on an old 26" hardtail with 2.1 tires, I can safely say that it did pretty well, rarely bogging in sand, so I wonder, is it worth the pain in the wallet and the extra weight to get a bike that's better for deserts? For me, that's not my usual riding, so no, it doesn't.

I guess my take away to the bike industry is that yes, I'll spend $5000 on a new bike if you'll give me some confidence that I'll be able to maintain it for the 8-9 years I've kept each of my primary bikes. Right now, I don't have that confidence.

For further discussion, I give you the following links.

Innovation or Industry Scam

Don't Blame the Bike Industry
 

Kevin M

Observer
I am fairly new to mountain biking and cannot believe how expensive the equipment is. I have been riding motorcycles for years and when i went in the the bike shop to see $3000-$8000 bikes is quite common, my first thought was "i could get a new motorcycle for that". I cannot understand why everything is so darn expensive. It blows my mind.
 

Christophe Noel

Expedition Leader
I am fairly new to mountain biking and cannot believe how expensive the equipment is. I have been riding motorcycles for years and when i went in the the bike shop to see $3000-$8000 bikes is quite common, my first thought was "i could get a new motorcycle for that". I cannot understand why everything is so darn expensive. It blows my mind.

As a journalist, one frequently reviewing products, this conversation of product pricing makes me nuts. The reason is simple enough, there is really no sound argument to be made for money and what compels us to part with it. I recently posted a review of the Rocky Mt Sherpa on the home page, and just as it happened with the Salsa Bucksaw, some readers seemed genuinely offended that I would parade a $4500 bike under their noses.

Value is not always subjective. You can often quantify what you're getting in relation to the expenditure. Is a $4500 bike actually worth $4500? Yes. Almost always. Is it worth it to you? There's the rub.

To put this into perspective, I just spent $180 on a new skillet. Yep, a frying pan for my kitchen. It will be the last 12-inch pan I buy in my lifetime. I love to cook, will use it nearly every day, so it has $180 worth of value to me. For an avid motorcycle rider, plunking down $15,000 on their THIRD bike in the garage is a mindless investment. But, if they only ride mountain bikes once a month, they'll not likely plop down $4500 on a bicycle. It's all relative.

With regard to standards and the lack thereof, I am not particularly bothered by it. This is actually and old debate, one started years ago with the introduction of proprietary parts like some BB/crank combos, certain brake configurations, and so on. This compatibility conundrum really only effects those who want to mix and match or build up bikes part by part. Most consumers are buying complete bikes, riding them as-is, and then moving on to the next whip. As such, those compatibility issues are really, non-issues.
 

Kevin M

Observer
Value as manufactured

Value is not always subjective. You can often quantify what you're getting in relation to the expenditure. Is a $4500 bike actually worth $4500? Yes. Almost always. Is it worth it to you? There's the rub.
Agreed, but from an engineering perspective it is impossible to see how a mountain bike is "worth" $9,000 when a new WR250F is less than $7,000.
I like your analogy but your skillet will not be outdated in a couple years as new technology comes to market...I mean, it it a skillet. :)
 

Christophe Noel

Expedition Leader
There are some parallels between motos and bicycles that make for an interesting comparison. A good mtb tire these days is $120, way more than some motorcycle tires. But, imagine how many TKC 80s are made compared to a 45North Husker Du fatbike tire.

The same thing applies for the scale of building a carbon frame for production. If a company builds a new carbon bike, the tooling PER SIZE can run $20,000-50,000 just for the molds. If it's for something like a Trek OCLV frame from 1999 to 2006, they made squillions of frames with those molds so the price was pretty cheap per frame. On the flip side, making a run of fewer than 1,000 frames will drive the price per frame into the stratosphere. Motorcycles are usually built by the tens of thousands. Ever wonder why a KLR is dirt cheap?
 

Ryanmb21

Expedition Leader
Out of curiosity, what bike parts can't be found today for your 2008? I'm new the hobby only have ridden for the last two years.

Two years ago I did buy a Giant 29er, I like it a lot, but was supprised to learn that Giant already doesn't make 29ers anymore.
 

reachdean

Observer
First, I should say that I can still get everything I need for my bikes. All of my bikes use parts that were developed for standards that have been around for a while. That said, tire choice for 26" wheels seems to be diminished. There's still some good tires available, but fewer choice at any pricepoint, which I understand and can live with.

It appears that Giant still makes a handful of 29er bikes, but most have switched over to a 27.5 build.

I'd say a portion of this technical advance probably comes from how fragmented/individualized bikes have become. It seems marketing folks are keen to tell you that you need a bike for every little different kind of riding you do, and have developed hardware to match. One one hand that's great because in theory the best options will bubble to the top and new standards will be developed. However, I don't think that distillation has happened yet, so the industry is overloaded with options when there's - in my mind - little confidence that every current option will be supported in the longer term. I'm ok spending $5000 on a bike every 7-8 years, but in the interim I need to be able to buy parts to make repairs.

I find the whole specialty bikepacking segment fascinating and confounding. I am sure many of these bikes are theoretically "better" than what I currently use to bikepack. But I don't actually bikepack very often. I trail ride a lot. Plus, from personal experience, you want a bike that adheres to the most common standards worldwide if you're doing a lot of travel to far flung places. No matter how good the bike, or the prep maintenance, ride long enough and things go wrong. That's when you need to be able to find parts, and when broadly adopted standards pay off. It's why Toyota Trucks or the aforementioned KLR are good choices.

Christophe, your opinion that this is a non-issue makes sense if people approach bikes as they do car ownership. Maybe that's the way it's all headed - buy it, know nothing about it, break it, move on. On the other hand, it's hard to think that all this progress means I can get a bike of similar spec and design to my 2008 at roughly the same price provided I'm willing to buy one that weighs five pounds more than my current bike. That, I'm told, is "progress."

I also wonder whether this proliferation of designs only means higher prices for lesser stuff for precisely the reasons you alluded to above - that economies of scale on small production runs make for higher cost. A tire manufacturer now needs to choose - 26" 29" 29+, 27.5", 27.5+, for a tire that otherwise might have the same tread compounds. The tooling required for all of that probably means they'll opt to select a few sizes and skip the rest.

At the core, I'm not convinced we're seeing any technology that will actually SIGNIFICANTLY improve the sport. If I can be shown that both from an engineering standpoint, and from a seat of the pants, *** in a saddle standpoint, than sure. I just haven't come across that proof yet.
 

Kevin M

Observer
Motorcycles are usually built by the tens of thousands. Ever wonder why a KLR is dirt cheap?
Economy of scale...now it makes more sense, I guess i didn't consider production quantities. But, this will not change my first reaction when i see a $5000 mountain bike.
 

Christophe Noel

Expedition Leader
The real talking point here, as it has been for decades, is the dollar value relative to the point of diminishing returns.

This is most easily digested with road bikes. Road bikes are all about performance - speed. Within that, speed is the product of watts (power) vs drag. Drag is applied to a bike via mechanical drag, rolling resistance, aerodynamic forces and via good old gravity on climbs. Gravity is compounded by weight, but by that of the bike and rider. In short, if you take a $2000 road bike and a $12,000 road bike of the same relative weight and aerodynamic shape, then give them the same tires to match the rolling resistance, you then really only have mechanical drag to compare. It's been scientifically proven many times over that mechanical drag between a cheap bike and an uber bike are nearly the same. Imperceptible.

So, by the science, a $2000 road bike is just as fast as a $12,000 bike if the weight, shape and tires are equal. It's not like comparing a Ferrari 458 to a 1970 Ford Pinto.

Is a $12,000 bike "nicer?" Oh hell ya. But just not faster. With modern power meters and bar mounted computers, this is all easily measured. However, ask a rider who just spent $12,000 if their bike is faster than their previous $5,000 bike and they'll always say, "oh yes, much faster." We in the industry call that "stoke speed." :)

The point being, there is a point in the pricing evolution of bikes where the performance gains begin to fall off rapidly and all you are paying for is refinement. Uberness.
 

reachdean

Observer
Christophe, that's one way to look at it. The idea of diminishing returns has applied - as you've said - for a long time. I've often heard it expressed as a ratio of dollars to weight lost. For example, after a certain point, it costs about $1000 to shave a pound off a bike. Where we all fit in that spectrum of price is a personal deal based on our particular opinion of the value of a pound or whatever other technological improvement results in a significant price bump. Having been in the industry for a while myself, I hadn't heard of "stoke speed," though I am hardly surprised there's a term for the phenomenon.

However, I'm suggesting that as much as I love bikes, I'd be hard pressed to spend $1500 or $5000 on a bike right now. To me, the array of technical variety of standards doesn't instill confidence that the bike I would purchase at any price point is likely to have a spec that is well supported into the future (for me, I'm looking at a 6-8 year window typically). So price is a non-issue up to a point. I don't see myself opening up the top end of my spending range, but that's also an issue totally unrelated to bikes.

What has been of interest to me is taking a look at the tone of the comments at the two links I posted. I would have to do more reading in other places like Pinkbike for example, but I wonder if the comments section can be effectively used to identify the opinions of those most hardcore about mountain bikes. If so, the overwhelming response over the new selection of "standards" seems to be suspicion and frustration. Bear in mind, these are the people who are most likely to be buying the more expensive bikes where these technologies first start to appear. To me, it seems more like they're fatigued and feel like instead of going riding, they're being taken for a ride by an industry who's lost the plot. Or swapped it for a more devious Apple-inspired planned-obsolescence sort of plot.
 

Christophe Noel

Expedition Leader
This is all much ado about nothing, and I suspect it's little more than bike journalists reaching for editorial fodder. I do it too.

The reality is, every time a gear is added to a drivetrain, a new hub or BB width introduced, people cry and moan that they're being victimized by the big bad bike industry and forced to buy new crap. Two things jump out at me. First, when that new crap hits the market, those same people will sell their grandma's kidneys to be the first to buy it, so it's hard to feel sorry for anyone. Secondly, I can still find plenty of parts to keep my 15 year old 9-speed bikes rolling just fine. Hell, people are still finding parts to keep their 25 year old suspension forks operating! You've surely seen more than a few ancient ProFlex bikes still rolling around, right? Few bikes get piled on the heap because the parts to keep them rolling have vanished.

If the bike industry coupled to the people who support it have proven one thing, it's that riders and manufacturers feed off of change. It's why there is a constant evolution of bikes and even niches of riding. That's why "gravel grinding" and enduro are so huge now. Remember when it was cyclocross and fixies that were all the rage?

Riders, like me, are drawn to new riffs on cycling be it a style of riding or a new format of bike. No one is forcing anyone to hitch their wagon to every new change in the sport that comes along, but most can't wait to do it voluntarily.
 

p nut

butter
TLDR'ed, but this is essentially the same thing that has happened/is happening in all different industries. New innovations means that there isn't a mold...or standard...that these companies are having to base their new products on. Hence, NEW INNOVATIONS. Even at the start of the mountain bike boom, there were all sorts of crazy ideas and standards. Expect these to start gravitating to a certain standard, as further development, test results, etc. favor one or the other, but for now, it's a bit of a chaos. And that is OK. Let's move forward with creative ideas.

All of these wheel/tire standards?? Bring'em on! I mean, are you really put off by MORE CHOICES?? I like fat bikes. Really fat 26x5" bikes. I also like my midfat 29x3 bike. Any my super light 29x2 bike. And my 26x2 cargo bike. I really want a 24x4" trail fat bike. And/or a 27.5x3" midfat. And I can't wait for 29x4" when they eventually come out. If you really want to restrict yourself, go ahead. Head to Chipotle while being confined to one standard, by the way--because all they offer is the SAME THING in 3 slightly different iterations. It's like I'm taking crazy pills.

Regarding cost: You know you could buy a whole computer for the price you paid for the iPhone or Samsung (ALL costs factored in). Light and small takes R&D and $$$$, too.


(Ok, so I like Chipotle. Might head there tonight).
 

Co-opski

Expedition Leader
Christophe, I bet your skillet makes the best pancakes. Question for you, when does a pancake become a flapjack?

Riding is fun, ride what you have and try not lusting for what you see out their. Spend money on yourself for health. Could I spend $4500 on bourbon and good grass, yes? Do I? No. Could I spend $4500 on travel, bikes and ski gear? You bet I do. If I worked harder I think I would blow even more $ on travel, bikes and ski gear.
What gets me is the 1/2 merican 1/2 metric that bikes use. 26" 27.5" 29" 650, 44mm 90mm 1 1/8, 1 1/2 135 mm 150 mm 170 mm 190 mm ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh make the numbers stop. Going to abuse my bike now, teach it a lesson.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
185,529
Messages
2,875,562
Members
224,922
Latest member
Randy Towles
Top