Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

An open letter to the bike industry

31K views 387 replies 136 participants last post by  fenix501 
#1 ·
An open letter to the bike industry

Dear Bike Industry,

I’m beginning to feel that you don’t have myself and my fellow rider’s best interest at heart, all you seem to be interested in is creating new “standards” and try to force people to buy them under the auspice that the new “standard” is better than before. I would like to think that most cyclists are a savvy bunch, but we do glom onto new tech with eagerness, a fault that you (the bicycle industry) seems more than happy to exploit.
Every year there’s a new bottom bracket “standard”. Something becomes a standard once it is in wide, common, and accepted use like a square taper bb. I have never felt the need to put any of these new, false standards on my bike instead of using a tried and true standard. I think you need to think about how you label all of these pointless bottom bracket options out there. The advantages are nominal to the rider, and only serve to create more niche markets and confuse new riders that get overwhelmed by all the “standards” that have been made. Shame on you. The people that can really gain any benefit if at all from any of these alleged improvements are pro racers, and pro races get their bikes and parts for free, we, the majority of the bike buying public have to pay for our stuff. Did my square tape bb suddenly stop working after years of loyal service and 1000’s of miles? No, it did not. My mountain bike is old for sure and my friends that have newer bikes are still behind me just like they are before they had a new bike with all of the new “improvements” in technology, I expected them to leave me in the dust being that I have only 21 speeds and they 30, but alas it did not happen. I also find it funny that I having 21 speeds never once thought I could make this traverse or climb that section of trail if I only had some more gears, and now you try and sell me less gears in the form of a 2 x10 drive train for more money than my 21 gears, do you take me for a fool? Shame on you bike industry. I can go on, how lame and pointless 31.8 bars are and how ugly they look, or how a 200 dollar seat post that drops can’t beat a 10 buck quick release seat post clamp and to take the 10 seconds to take in the view before you drop in is worth way more than another lever do-hickey on your bike, are you really that lazy? And the 29 wheels, really? Every time I see some poor 5.5” guy on a 29er, I just feel like the bike industry is made up of carneys and we are it’s willing dupes. And these massive head tube bearings they look like the wheel bearings in my van, there’s no way you can convince me I “need” that junk. At some point I just feel like you think I’m an idiot they will buy anything that you put before me, I think you think so little of us as a group that one can keep changing things endlessly chasing one’s tail in the pointless quest of improving something that needs no improvement, even the bike magazines are getting weary of your cavalcade of falsehoods, they are usually your ever loyal heralds but that is even changing.
I turned away from mountain biking magazines for few years and when I came back, mountain bikes no longer existed. There are xc, all mountain, free ride, downhill, etc. but there are no “mountain bikes” anymore. I still own and use a mountain bike, I understand that by creating labels and slicing the pie in ever-smaller slices you can perhaps sucker someone into buying a bunch of bikes that only get used for one type of trail. I guess that’s clever marketing and sales go up, but I think in doing so you alienate the beginner that will certainly be confused and intimidated by all the jargon and techo-babble when they go to their local shop and want a “mountain bike” Shame on you bike industry, I think you need a time-out to think about what you’ve done.
 
See less See more
#69 ·
Dear Mt Bike rider

Please understand as a mfg we need to constantly change our offerings in order to sell new bikes. If we did not give you the ability to show off bling to your buddies at the trail head you would never buy a new bike. We also understand that the vast majority of you suck and buy a bike that well exceeds your abilities. It is common knowledge that the avg rider is a cheap **** and will buy our products from an Internet site then whine when it fails and the LBS won't warranty it. Our engineers strive to build a sub 30# bike that will take 12' drops with a 230# rider or else we fear being lambasted on an Internet forum. It is also important to note that we have about 6 months to reengineer /manufacture new products since you winey ****s need the next model year earlier and earlier so we have limited r&d time. I especially appreciate comments on personal setup like bar withs and seat posts. What works for you MUST work for everyone else. Lastly, we apologize for offering an extremely hi tech product made from specialized materials that ends up being tortured in dirty, wet and dusty environments yet never receives ANY maintenance until it breaks and it's "our" fault.

Sorry
Mr bike mfg




Just havin fun.... I do agree theres some things that the mfg's should standardize for everyone's sake. Might help with keeping cost down too.
 
#72 ·
:thumbsup:That was good.
Dear Mt Bike rider

Please understand as a mfg we need to constantly change our offerings in order to sell new bikes. If we did not give you the ability to show off bling to your buddies at the trail head you would never buy a new bike. We also understand that the vast majority of you suck and buy a bike that well exceeds your abilities. It is common knowledge that the avg rider is a cheap **** and will buy our products from an Internet site then whine when it fails and the LBS won't warranty it. Our engineers strive to build a sub 30# bike that will take 12' drops with a 230# rider or else we fear being lambasted on an Internet forum. It is also important to note that we have about 6 months to reengineer /manufacture new products since you winey ****s need the next model year earlier and earlier so we have limited r&d time. I especially appreciate comments on personal setup like bar withs and seat posts. What works for you MUST work for everyone else. Lastly, we apologize for offering an extremely hi tech product made from specialized materials that ends up being tortured in dirty, wet and dusty environments yet never receives ANY maintenance until it breaks and it's "our" fault.

Sorry
Mr bike mfg

Just havin fun.... I do agree theres some things that the mfg's should standardize for everyone's sake. Might help with keeping cost down too.
 
#74 ·
Recently replaced my 1995 Stumpjumper with a 2012 Stumpjumper 29er. It's faster, more comfortable, and the stiff front end with its plush suspension fork total saved my bacon last week while I was ripping down a long, steep, and very bumpy downhill. Had I been on my 1995 Stump, I would have been head over heals. I was amazed at (and very grateful for) how the 2012 Stump's front end tracked like I was on pavement and let me regain control.

Also enjoy the realization every time I pull the brake lever I'm not wearing away my rim. And brake fade is thankfully becoming a fading memory.
 
#75 ·
If it weren't for changing standards, we'd all be on one of these. I wanna watch somebody take a 3' drop on this, or rail a corner at 20 mph, or ride it for more than 5 minutes before loosing feeling in their nether regions...
 

Attachments

#79 · (Edited)
I started riding in 1992 on a Bridgestone MB4. Today, my primary bike is a 2011 Specialized Enduro. They weigh the same and in inflation adjusted dollars they cost the same but the Enduro is 10 times the bike because of all of that new-fangled, marketing driven technology that the OP can do without.

I have a rigid single-speed for when I want to go retro (but it weighs 19 pounds) but I really like my hydraulic brakes, six inches of suspension, Hammerschmidt, dropper post, and the whole package that makes up today's super-bikes.

Seems silly to complain about advances in what are essentially big, useless toys. Last time I checked there were thousands of different bikes and millions of combinations of components to choose from. Specialized, my favorite company, by themselves make bikes for every budget and with every level of technology.

Seriously, they're just bikes. Buying one is not a huge decision like enlisting in the Marines or getting married. Heck, buying a new bike is fun. I like looking at different bikes and components. There are a lot of choices but isn't that part of the fun?

Mountain biking is fun, right?
 
#80 ·
I feel that there's more color needed on this black and white picture you're trying to paint. Personally, I subscribed to a lot of their BS. and some of it certainly is just that. However, I wanted a comfortable bike. I find a lot of just that in my new bike versus the 90s Hardrock I started on, and then "my" first bike, a 2006 Hardrock, and even the 2008 norco fluid v4 I rode around for a test year. if what you ride is comfortable, but I feel that your message is very strident and stark in comparison to how it is. It's the same with any consumer market, you end up with a bunch of people buying the high end gear they cannot entirely utilize. But that is a lot of people to bash on, and bashing on all of them would ultimately make you a hypocrite in the eyes of many alike because I am certain that in some way you subscribe to a form of elitism, even if its just counter elite-cyclist culture ideals.

By the way, is this Mark?
 
#84 ·
I think what's getting missed in everyones need to dogpile on the OP is this.

None of you have answered., near as I can tell, why it is that we as cyclists, desiring better stuff, need multiple, completely non intercompatible standards for things that can be bought from many different manufacturers.

It's a given, that you can buy a headset from many makers. Ditto for cranks, and hubs.

These components are all pretty basic, and at this point, pretty sussed out. Also, pretty well made, and durable, hence, they don't wear out too often. Gee, how do I get people to buy my stuff as they buy it once, and it lasts for years, because I'm good at what I do. I know, change standards! Why wait till they actually wear something out?

Do you, as a rider, really notice a huge difference, going from say, an aluminum hardtail with external bearing BB (nice, old school threaded BB shell), 1 1/8 " head tube, and a 135 rear end, to a hardtail with PF30, tapered head tube (I know, I know, which tapered standard you ask. I don't care, choose the one that gives you wood) and a 142 rear end?

Both bikes will have 80 mm forks.

I challenge anyone here to really truly quantify how their experience is SOOOOOO much better on the "modern" bike.

You can't.

That, is what I think the issue is. Nothing wrong with actual improvement. Plenty wrong with totally incompatible standards that force consumers hands to purchase more components from an ever shrinking number of suppliers, who charge ever more for their goods because of their now captive market.

Simple case in point. My fatbike. I have a Pugsley, with a 135 rear end. It works fine, but the chain is really close to the tire in granny and in certain situations it can catch and make the chain suck downward. The new rear 170mm standard was created to solve that issue, which it does well. Yes, new stuff, and standard, but it actually solves a problem. You have 135, 145 and 150 (and more too). Tell me how 142 is so much better.....
 
#85 ·
Tell me how 142 is so much better.....
Clean easy to use (tooless in most cases) 12mm through axle with no need for a different hub width, most quality hubs offer conversion kits as well.
If you don't understand how this is better than the flexy pos q/r system I really don't know what to say to you.

I also would not consider an aluminum hardtail a modern bike, try a full suspension trailbike from ten years ago and compare it to what we have now. Without question there is a night and day difference.
 
#88 ·
Every time I see some poor 5.5" guy on a 29er, I just feel like the bike industry is made up of carneys and we are it's willing dupes.
Every time I see a 6'4"+ guy towering over 26er like a circus bear on toy bike I can't help but think how ridiculous it was that 26" wheels were the ONLY standard for mountain bikes for so many years. We all have different body types and riding styles and the one-size-fits-all mentality of the early days of mountain biking is, thank Odin, long gone. I love my 29er, it makes me feel like a kid again because it just feels right. My 15 year old Ti Kona King Kahuna sure looks pretty propped up on a stand in my man cave, but I will never choose to ride it over my new Tallboy LTc. Bike industry, if you actually are listening, bring on the changing standards and innovations, I think most of us here are grateful they have finally arrived.
 
#89 ·
On behalf of the entire bicycle manufacturing industry, I will respond to your open letter.
Thanks.

We did not want to innovate so much, despite what some have said about us.
We would rather keep selling the same designs for years, and simply search for lower cost labor to manufacture and assemble the product.

Thanks again,

The Bicycle Industry
 
#90 ·
well, my friend who owns a bike shop can probably relate somewhat, since 29er became popular, they've had trouble selling some of their great 26ers. In our area, 26er is good, but thing is, there are people who've NEVER ridden a 29er, come in and claim they need one. He trys to say "here, we have some great 26er trail bikes as well....."
"NO it has to be a 29er".
"have you tried one yet? do you know what style you prefer? do you want to test ride both?"
"NO i have never ridden a 29er, but thats what i need".

okay.....

by all means, ride what you like, but popularity sometimes has people grabbing on before they know what they even want in a bike.
 
#91 ·
The points made are relevant, yes.

However, you're still missing the point. Multiple standards help no one.

142, sure, it's cute. So is 150, and it already exists, and you're already buying a new bike anyway, which is why this is even relevant. Nobody is retrofitting a 135 frame to a 142 hub. Hence, new bike, just buy a 150, cause hey, it's 8 mm wider, so thus, by your own admission, stiffer. Why limit your stiffness? I love the 150 mm spacing on my Lenz Lunchbox, no issues, stiff, never find myself going, "man, wish this was 8 mm narrower". :p

I'm sure smart folks could come up with adapters for the extra 4 mm per side, just like the 3.5 for the 142. It's just a pointless extra size in a field awash with sizes already.

No issues with TA QR's, like 'em. Did we really need 15 AND 20 in front? No, but at least no one has come out with a 17.5 just to be different, yet...

I'm sure Specialized and Trek are very happy selling everyone on another new standard though.

Taper HT's, we had 1 Point Five already, so there's your wider weld point/stiffener, which I do agree adds chassis stiffness.

Adding tapered simply muddies the water and allows the rider to keep their stem (phew, I was stressed about that!)

Tapered, offers multiple standards. Just ordered a taper headset for an inbound frame, only to discover, what was ordered for the lower cup, wasn't correct, awesome. :madman:

My fault for not doing in depth homework, yes. Necessary? No. Tapered should be just that, tapered.

Order a 1 1/8" threadless headset, no surprises. No multiple standards within the "standard"....

BB's, same thing, yes, bigger for stiffer, got it. So we've had BB30 for years via Cannondale. Now toss in PF30, BBRight, BB90, and you have a soup full of standards that would make a builder cry.

I'm all for innovation. I'm all for improvement. All for stiffer frames on FS bikes. I'm happily a Luddite about some stuff, but embrace new too.

How does having multiple contact angles and two diameters of direct fit headset bearings help anyone, other than make it impossible easily to buy replacement bearings for a customers headset? OEM stuff is a mix mash, and getting to the bottom of what you have is just more hassle for no valid improvement. 36x36, 36x45, 45x45 yada yada yada...


Not standing on a soap box saying steel and square taper is all we need, not at all. But having so many standards apply to the same parts, from the same year does nothing to improve anything, just makes mechanics lives more annoying, and doesn't allow you to buy a bike and plug in whatever you like.

Isis BB's sucked, but were a great example of the kind of thinking I'd like to see. One standard that all crank and BB makers who chose to, could use, free.

I could go on, but you guys would obviously rather have a million different standards, just because you can....

Flame away. :D
 
#92 ·
Multiple standards help no one.
That's a pretty broad statement. There are cases where multiple standards certainly makes sense, wheel size for instance, and other cases where a good argument could be made against them, headset or bottom brackets perhaps being good examples. Arbitrary and numerous standards are certainly not a good idea, and are perhaps what some here are reacting to, but to go to the other extreme and say we should have only one standard in all cases seems silly to me.

Take a more mature industry that relies on standards, residential construction. The unit of stick frame construction, the wall stud and floor joist, comes in various sizes: 2x4, 2x6, 2x8, 2x10, 2x12, each with their own accompanying hardware standards. Without these multiple standards, you would not able to build walls and floors with different structural, aesthetic, insulation, and sound proofing requirements.

The mountain bike industry is still young and in flux, perhaps one day it will mature like the construction industry and we can settle on groups of standards that make sense, until then just be thankful you have some choice.
 
#93 ·
OP, you're never forced to buy anything. Be glad MTB is a progressive sport....and not one mired in abject obsolescence. Mind you, I don't even ride with the latest and greatest...even though I can well afford it. But, since I'll never see myself racing - I'm perfectly happy with my two-year-old FS 26er with eight year-old parts. Why? Because the parts I do have are durable. I will replace them as they break....not with the same, but with 2012+ equivalents.

Your letter will only fall upon deaf ears and eyes. Having the upper edge simply does not mean you need to have the latest 29er with 2x10 componentry....but with what you are safely having enough fun on.:thumbsup:
 
#138 ·
Exactly, speak with your checkbook. example:.i will never buy carbon because i don't race and don't want to replace parts after minor crashes. i am apparently in the minority.

i like progress. i like disc brakes, 29ers, etc, but i also like square taper, steel, 8-9 speed. buy what works for you. i don't worry about emulating some racer or looking "pro". that's marketing ******** of the highest order.
 
#95 ·
Well, sure... and as a software engineer who works in the Internet industry, my life would sure be easier if everything was written in one language and if all browsers conformed to the exact same standard. Unfortunately that would stifle innovation and we'd all still be browsing with Netscape Navigator and Yahoo lists would still be the best way to track down information. Instead I'm required to know more than a half dozen languages and achieving compatibility across multiple browsers is a major time suck... but that's just the all part of the job description.
 
#97 · (Edited)
I'll side with Mendon, since he's essentially making the same point I was earlier. Some things are BS and have nothing to do with innovation and everything to do with making stuff incompatible and in the end more profitable for the industry.

I'm pretty sure no one here will be able to argue how changing chainring BCD and # of arms offers any sort of improvement at all, simply because there is no benefit.

Standard 110/74 5 bolt rings last longer than 94/58 BCD 5 bolt, and both are far stronger than 104 BCD 4 bolt cranks. I've never heard of people bending 5 bolt rings, unlike 4 bolt models.

Can someone tell me how this is an improvement please?

Here's several years of 4 arm XTR, with 4 different BCD sizes; how are any improved over the others? Do tell.....

146 BCD Shimano XTR M960 Hollowtech 4-arm outer
112 BCD Shimano XTR M950, M952 4-arm middle/outer
104 BCD Shimano XTR M960, 4-arm outer
102 BCD Shimano 2003 XTR 4-arm middle

(courtesy of Sheldon Brown, RIP)
 
#98 ·
Wow, I'm surprised how many people insulted the OP. Surely everyone is entitled to his/her opinion without fear of ridicule? But it's easy to go after someone on the internet, isn't it?

I'm just getting back into mtb (as in, actually buying stuff) for the first time since 1995. I have to say, bikes have come a long way. The technology on them is fantastic. I love my new 29er with hydro brakes and RockShox. That said, there are a TON of choices out there and I see the OP's point. I shopped for a new bike for 2 weeks and was no closer to deciding at the end than I was at the beginning. It's way too easy to spend a ton of money on a bike that might not necessarily be THAT much better.

At my local LBS, I rode a $650 bike, a $750 bike, a $960 bike, and a $1400 bike. You know what, I really couldn't tell much difference just riding around the parking lot and hopping the curb over and over. It can all be pretty overwhelming, which is, I think, the OP's point. That said, I think having too many options is a great problem to have. Just get out there and have fun with your bike!
 
#101 ·
Wow, I'm surprised how many people insulted the OP.
You mean the guy who posted an open letter on the internet in which he accused an entire industry of malicious intent, calling them "carneys" and blaming them for his own ignorance and confusion, all based on his personal paranoid conjecture without providing any hard evidence? Really, you're surprised? :confused:
 
#99 ·
A few people mentioned that "bikes are toys and are meant to splurge out on from time to time" or something to that effect. That comment speaks volumes about some cyclists disposable income. I'm sure many of us struggle to replace an inner tube when it's needed, let alone bigger purchases or even whole bikes.
My point is that I get a feeling that it's those with cash to burn who have little problem with new standards as they can easily afford, if not enjoy and want, to change parts/frame/complete bikes.
In my case I have the previous generation Niner S.I.R.9 and I'm really glad I have that model and not the new one as I'm not sure I'd be able to use an IGH with the new rear end. Nor would I be able to pull my BOB trailer with the new one.

Personally, I'm all for innovation (another 29er fanboy here). On the other hand I'm all for maximum compatibility between parts/frames. I guess the difficulty is achieving a reasonable balance.
 
#100 ·
I am sympathetic to MendonCycleSmith's plight from the perspective of a shop owner trying to keep stock of parts and tooling to deal with such a wide spectrum of standards. I believe that as much of a source of frustration this can be for the end user it is much more burdensome for a shop to try and keep that much money on the shelf.

But I do agree that innovation comes at the cost of multiple standards and that some, not all, but many of these innovations are worthy pursuits. I would hope this is a transitionary period and that at some point many of these innovations would go by the way side, but from what I've witnessed over the years I believe the market will become proliferated with proprietary features to accommodate things such as gear boxes or MTB transmissions for example.

I think this is good for the consumer, but a hardship for the local shops. I honestly cannot think of anything man has devised that conforms to a universal standard, we can't even agree on a standard unit of measure. The reality is that the world of bicycles is no different than anything else in regard to a wide array of standards.
 
#103 ·
The idea that "the industry" makes ANY decisions is ludicrous. Individual companies make decisions. On occasion a few companies will make one together, and in these cases it is usually in order to agree on some standard. No company makes a decision because it will benefit "the industry" they make decisions to benefit themselves.

In very few cases can it be demonstrated that a company introducing a new standard just for the sake of it being new would be profitable. If it does not provide some perceived benefit for the consumer, they will not make money on it. If you think that people are being duped as to actual; benefit, blame the mtb consumers for rewarding companies by buying their products.

The CONSUMERS are the ones completely responsible for what "the industry" sells. They sell what we buy. Otherwise they are out of business.
 
#107 ·
Respectfully disagree.
Case in point pf-BB. IMO this is a solution to simplify production for carbon frames, and is soley to lessen production costs.
In 30 years I've never x-threaded a BB shell, and seen very few where the user did so by installing the cups incorrectly.
All bearings require parallel surfaces to operate correctly, yet few frames come faced / chased, and believe this remains true for pf-BB's.

Threaded BB cups are reliable and easy to service.
Now, one needs a BB press to remove bearing cups, and there's a chance to misalign while installing, and a risk to oval-izing the BB shell.
[LBS mech managed to slip installing the pf-BB on my new frame, removed a big chunk of paint, did not acknowledge his mistake until caught,
then charged full $$ for the job - azzmunching idiot.]

Perhaps, I'm biased, yet do not see pf BB's as an improvement, only as a cost savings to mfg's, and believe strongly this to be
a new source of major headaches for the consumer. What size, ID, which model, replaceable bearings, $$, and very limited selections.
Will quit now before ranting about the limitations of direct-mount FD's -arrrggh!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top