Evolving Bike Standards

Q: How should the industry manage the balance between innovation and unnecessary obsolescence? Is there even such a thing as unnecessary obsolescence?

Noah: I mentioned backwards compatibility above, and I think this is key. If the change is truly revolutionary, then by all means create a new product that’s totally different that’s not compatible with anything else.

But these changes we’re seeing aren’t revolutionary. For the most part, they’re evolutionary. And yet, it’s not much of an evolution if it’s completely incompatible with what’s already on the market.

Noah Bodman reviews the Devinci Spartan for Blister Gear Review
Noah Bodman, Whitefish, MT.

Tom: I’d like to see bigger jumps being made in technology. If you are already making a product that isn’t backwards compatible at least try to jump as far ahead as possible to create more time between these changes.

Marshal: With niche bikes and products like fat bikes, new products are driven by the demand of fringe users. But as mainstream brands jump into the mix, the market gets over-saturated. There simply are not enough fat bike riders out there to justify every single mainstream brand offering fat bikes, while hitting their minimum build quantities. The net result of this over saturation will be obsolete standards as the industry moves away from one “failed” category to the next. But the reality is that the category never actually “failed,” but rather that there was unrealistic expectations to begin with: too much production for limited demand.

Q: If people are having fun on a given product, doesn’t that always make the product worthwhile?

Noah: The problem is that mountain biking is already expensive, and we’re getting stuck with divergent, incompatible “standards” far faster than the sport is growing. So, for example, 15 years ago, Maxxis made a few tread patterns, and each one came in maybe 2 widths for 26” wheels. And back then, a really expensive tire might have been $50. Then came 29ers, and then 27.5, and now 27.5+ and 29+.

So now Maxxis is making these tires for a whole bunch of different wheel sizes, but the overall quantity of tires they’re selling hasn’t increased that much. So that just means everything is more expensive. The economies of scale are diminished.

The same goes for hubs, forks, frames, and every other piece of equipment that’s now getting made in smaller batches because we’re spread so thin across all of these different sizes.

There are some industries where manufacturers work together and develop cohesive standards that everyone actually agrees to (bikes have done this in the past; see: ISIS bottom brackets). There are other industries where the main manufacturers make basic, standardized equipment, and the niche-y weird stuff is made by smaller manufacturers and marketed toward a smaller market. (The bike industry did this too for a while. See: Surly’s entire existence).

But now the major players are jumping into every little odd niche the sport has to offer, and the result is that everything costs more for everyone.

In other words: more options aren’t always a good thing.

All bikes are fun. We don’t need a bazillion different incremental “improvements” to go out and have a good time riding around on dirt.

Marshal: It is irresponsible for a brand to overproduce and over-extend. A farmer can grow crops with slash-and-burn tactics, but slash-and-burn farming is not an effective long term strategy. That is exactly what is happening in the bike industry. Brands hop in with “me-too” products, introduce new standards that enable price competitiveness, and don’t commit to the product or standards long term. Slash-and-burn. It is the brand’s responsibility to understand a market size, and offer compelling reasons their product exists, and then support the end user long term.

Marshal, corning Silky Johnson at Sol Vista.  (photo by Ted Van Orman)
Marshal Olson, Silky Johnson at Sol Vista. (photo by Ted Van Orman)

A buddy of mine had a legitimate warranty issue of a known production problem on his frame. The manufacturer got him a new frame ASAP. Sadly, because of all the shifts in standards over the past 1.5 years, and no availability on the previous frame design, he had to buy new wheels & fork, new rear shock, new headset, new bottom bracket and new seatpost to assemble his new frame.

That is awful and should be embarrassing to the manufacturer, and the cycling community as a whole. This type of experience not only makes someone never buy an item from that brand, it sours them on riding bikes as a pastime. Lots of my former riding partners have said, “Screw it,” and they just run now, mainly because these experiences keep repeating.

Xan: In theory, yes—if a brand releases a product that pleases a consumer, then everyone should be happy. But in reality, this is the bike industry, and things are a bit more complicated. I think Noah and Marshal are right that this move is going to make our sport more expensive and that’s irresponsible to consumers. I hope that (1) the variety of incompatible standards will decrease and settle down within the next few years, and that (2) all of this Boost and plus size stuff will at least result in some fun bikes down the road. After all, shredding hard and having fun is all we should really want, right?

7 comments on “Evolving Bike Standards”

  1. Great article. Fully sold on the 1x, but I did not know manufacturers are designing bikes around the 1x. What bikes are designed around a 1x drivetrain?

  2. Great article! I’m not a luddite, but very expensive change has been happening at a pace that is turning me off. Or maybe, it is that MTB’s big advancements have been made and now “upgrades” are relatively minor, but still $$$.

    Specialized is (in)famous for “Innovate or Die”, and it looks like a lot of the bike companies are bought in to this line of thought. Is that because innovation can net marketshare? Or is because the Asian “catalog” products are duplicating existing designs (and lowering costs) at a faster rate?

    In the bike industry’s defense, and unlike 10 years ago, almost all quality bikes are now great. The base components are great. The geometry is great. Deore level bikes can be very capable now. Maybe we are driving change to make our bikes more greater-er! And always find a way to pay for it.

    On a side note, I recently had an option for carbon rims, but went aluminum. I don’t want to huck my meat into a boneyard on a 10k bike. Nor do I want 10k hanging off the back of my car. I just want to ride and think only about the 20 feet in front of me.

  3. I think it’s important to remember something: 15 years ago, mountain bikes were really, really crappy.

    Today, your average rider can walk into any shop that sells Giant, drop under $2k (MSRP is actually lower than indicated on the website) and walk out with one of these: http://www.giant-bicycles.com/en-us/bikes
    It’s not just a good bike, it’s a bike that will embarrass anything that’s more than 3-5 years old from any manufacturer. It’ll ride better and be way, way, way more fun. Probably faster as well, if you care about that. Spend more? It’ll be even better, though as usual there’s a case of diminishing returns as the price tag gets bigger.

    Yes, new standards can get annoying. You might be forced to upgrade your old, clapped out Stumpjumper from 2001 because finding a fork, hubs, a drivetrain, or whatever else to fit is next to impossible. Have you tried updating an iPhone 4 to iOs 9? Here’s a hint: you can’t and if you want today’s bikes to be as good as they can be, your Y2K POS bike has to go.

    I’m firmly of the belief that until roughly 2005, no bike company out there really had decent engineers, designers, or anyone other than excellent marketing people hired on as employees. Garage-level engineers, sure, but no one competent and it showed in terms of the crap they put out. Bikes got so bad that I (along with others I know) stopped riding. It wasn’t fun anymore. We witnessed a whole bunch of crap get put out and tested by consumers, the result of which was pissed off buyers and sales going down the drain. Today? Bike sales seem to be better, more people are cycling, and the chances of walking into a bike store and walking out with a bike that’ll end up sucking are pretty damn low. If we’ve got emerging standards and rapid product cycles to thank for that, I’m OK with it.

    I do wish bike companies took more time to fail in-house before releasing finished, ready-to-go versions of product to consumers. The 20 X 110 to 15 X 100 to 15 X110 axle debacle is a great example of something that should have NEVER happened and that proper design and development would have caught. Boost 148? Same thing. Forethought, it seems, is still something that most bike companies lack…

  4. I’ve got a 2011 Specialized Stumpjumper Elite. I love it. When I bought it, its “big innovation” was going to 2 gears in front — my 2002 Stumpy had three gears and worked just fine. My 2011 Stumpy has 26″ wheels. When I got it, if I recall, mostly Gary Fisher was pushing 29″ wheels, and no 27″-ers were even on the market. I’m perfectly happy with 26″. I’ve never understood why the purported trade-off to larger diameter wheels — more forward momentum but less agility in tight turns? — was actually worth it. But if I had $10 for every time someone in a bike shop has told me that I “must get” a taller wheel bike, I probably could have purchased one by now!

    The one “innovation” that probably added the most to the cost of my bike was the secondary “brain” shock in the rear. Yes, my bike is smooth in the bumps, but I’m not sure that its because of that shock. The 2011 is lighter than the 2002 (which is now my son’s bike), and that’s good. The front fork is a bit slacker: better on downhill, but a bit more labor on uphill. Honestly, the one “innovation” that I’ve gotten the most out of is one I added myself: I upgraded to Shimano XTR clipless pedals.

  5. The 26″ wheels were great, but I did find them a bit (way too) slow, all that effort into pedaling for diminishing speeds.
    29″ was a huge jump for my weak legs so 27.5″ is the Goldilocks fit for me.

Leave a Comment