New Year's Wishes
Where Should the Bike Biz Go?
Words by Cam McRae.
Date: 2012-01-19
New Year’s resolutions have become a bad joke. And, for those who make them, a yearly reminder of past failures. If this comes as a shock I’m here to tell you that real change doesn’t come half way through a bottle of cheap champagne at two thirty in the morning on January 1st. If you happen to be that one person who keeps resolutions I’m guessing you set realistic goals. Things like watch more reality TV, drink more beer and bench press half your weight.
This line in the sand dividing one year and the next on the Gregorian calendar is arbitrary, and was perhaps institutionalized because the senators who killed Caesar were feeling guilty. Another hangover-based decision. Winter Solstice would make more sense wouldn’t it? As soon as the days start to get longer the dream of after-work rides comes back to life, so why not start the year then?
Despite my one-man campaign we’re stuck with January uno and, arbitrary or not, I appreciate the opportunity to assess, evaluate and maybe even look at what we might like to change. Over a cup of coffee I started to think about how this could be applied to the bike industry. We’re pretty lucky to be served by companies that are less driven by the almighty buck than most. I’m cynical about a few things but the people I know in the bike business genuinely believe in making good products and improving our riding experience. It’s not all roses, but when you consider that most bike companies have avoided becoming part of some multi-national shareholder-run conglomerate we’re pretty lucky.
We all have our gripes though and I thought this might be a good time to ask riders what they would like to see changed in the bike industry. It could be about the way bikes are made, how they are marketed, priced or distributed or about how they ride. Maybe you’d like to see yet another new wheel size?
My wish is below – as well as some from Seb and Morgan.
Join the fray with yours as well.
Comments
Add your comments here! Note that all posts as guests will be put into a moderation queue.
Posted by cam@nsmb.com at 04:15 PM on 01-19-2012
Here’s my New Year’s MTB biz wish.
Sidney Crosby, Canada’s golden boy hockey star, has been sidelined with post-concussion syndrome for a year, apart from a brief return from Nov. 21st to Dec. 6th 2011. This has put head injuries and their lasting impact in the spotlight like never before. The more we learn about the brain the more we realize that these injuries can’t be shaken off like a charlie-horse. One of my good friends has started riding road and cyclo cross because he’s had too many bangs to the head. It’s that serious. Mountain biking is a dangerous sport and injuries are universal. If you have been riding seriously for more than a few years you have likely had at least a mild head injury.
With this knowledge I’d like to know why there isn’t the option to purchase a helmet that provides more protection than your average model. I’m not talking about a full face or an open face helmet. Those appear to be designed for maximum protection already. I’m talking about the head out your door for a ride helmet, whether it be XC or AM or whatever you want to call it. These helmets are marketed as light and cool and comfortable but protection is rarely mentioned (although POC is an exception in this regard). And why are XC helmets lighter and less protective than AM helmets? Does lycra somehow offer added cranial protection? Does it hurt less when you crash riding XC? I was once at a media launch where a company touted their new helmet, emphasizing that it weighed as much as a small banana. They never mentioned protection once.
So my wish for 2012 is for helmet makers to come out with a vented, comfortable helmet that provides extra protection for those of us who want it. This might make it a little heavier but I’m willing to pay that price to protect my melon from further damage.
What is your wish?
Here’s my New Year’s MTB biz wish.
Sidney Crosby, Canada’s golden boy hockey star, has been sidelined with post-concussion syndrome for a year, apart from a brief return from Nov. 21st to Dec. 6th 2011. This has put head injuries and their lasting impact in the spotlight like never before. The more we learn about the brain the more we realize that these injuries can’t be shaken off like a charlie-horse. One of my good friends has started riding road and cyclo cross because he’s had too many bangs to the head. It’s that serious. Mountain biking is a dangerous sport and injuries are universal. If you have been riding seriously for more than a few years you have likely had at least a mild head injury.
With this knowledge I’d like to know why there isn’t the option to purchase a helmet that provides more protection than your average model. I’m not talking about a full face or an open face helmet. Those appear to be designed for maximum protection already. I’m talking about the head out your door for a ride helmet, whether it be XC or AM or whatever you want to call it. These helmets are marketed as light and cool and comfortable but protection is rarely mentioned (although POC is an exception in this regard). And why are XC helmets lighter and less protective than AM helmets? Does lycra somehow offer added cranial protection? Does it hurt less when you crash riding XC? I was once at a media launch where a company touted their new helmet, emphasizing that it weighed as much as a small banana. They never mentioned protection once.
So my wish for 2012 is for helmet makers to come out with a vented, comfortable helmet that provides extra protection for those of us who want it. This might make it a little heavier but I’m willing to pay that price to protect my melon from further damage.
What is your wish?
Posted by sebkemp at 05:29 PM on 01-19-2012
I would like to see more simplicity, more common sense and less waste in the high performance mountain cycle trade. I want to see the whole industry take on the notion of Reduce, Recycle, Reuse.
I think a simple place to start from would be for bicycle manufacturers to reduce the amount of long stems they spec on their bikes, then recycle and reuse the piles of long stems that are sat around in boxes in bike shops.
The long stem is dead. It is a ridiculous dinosaur fossil that is left over from a distant time when bicycle geometry was modeled on the numbers of its road riding cousin.
There is nothing more annoying than having purchased a beautiful spaceship of a bicycle which was designed by geniuses to be ridden aggressively over technical terrain and finding out that you have to buy a new stem that is appropriate for the job. Why do are long stems still being specced on off-road performance bicycles?
Rather than short and average sized people being the ones to suffer and ‘upgrade’ their new purchase, why can’t it be the tall people who actually might need a long stem that have to upgrade their bike? If bikes came specced with good stem lengths then perhaps some of the mad men that think they need a longer stem would perhaps find they like the handling advantages of short stem. And if they don’t like it then there’s plenty of old crappy long stems kicking about which will make it easy for them to size up.
Reduce the length of your stem, recycle the old ideology of ancient bike geometry and reuse the piles of long stems we have kicking about.
It will make you, me and the planet happier.
I would like to see more simplicity, more common sense and less waste in the high performance mountain cycle trade. I want to see the whole industry take on the notion of Reduce, Recycle, Reuse.
I think a simple place to start from would be for bicycle manufacturers to reduce the amount of long stems they spec on their bikes, then recycle and reuse the piles of long stems that are sat around in boxes in bike shops.
The long stem is dead. It is a ridiculous dinosaur fossil that is left over from a distant time when bicycle geometry was modeled on the numbers of its road riding cousin.
There is nothing more annoying than having purchased a beautiful spaceship of a bicycle which was designed by geniuses to be ridden aggressively over technical terrain and finding out that you have to buy a new stem that is appropriate for the job. Why do are long stems still being specced on off-road performance bicycles?
Rather than short and average sized people being the ones to suffer and ‘upgrade’ their new purchase, why can’t it be the tall people who actually might need a long stem that have to upgrade their bike? If bikes came specced with good stem lengths then perhaps some of the mad men that think they need a longer stem would perhaps find they like the handling advantages of short stem. And if they don’t like it then there’s plenty of old crappy long stems kicking about which will make it easy for them to size up.
Reduce the length of your stem, recycle the old ideology of ancient bike geometry and reuse the piles of long stems we have kicking about.
It will make you, me and the planet happier.
Posted by morgman at 10:50 PM on 01-19-2012
Here on the Shore, we tend to like slacker bikes than our brethren to the south and east. While it is possible to ride here on a short travel bike, most choose a bike that would be at least one category up from what they'd choose in smoother locations. These days, they might be choosing a similar-travel 29er for that boost.
Rear travel control has increased significantly in the past decade. There is a reason the industry has split into so many different categories. On a scale of pedalability to shralpability, a slacker head angle often makes the former more difficult and the latter easier.
My wish is for more bikes with adjustable geometry. The industry is well on its way to riders being able to choose how their bike performs on the fly, with reliable travel adjust forks in both coil and air springs, adjustable platform dampers on shocks, and remote seatposts all becoming the norm. But what about an easy to change rear travel setting? Even a calculation of what a shock with 1/4" less length and stroke would do.
I understand designers want their bikes to handle predictably, but if you allow the customer to make part of that decision, you might very well sell more bikes. As long as you specified which shock lengths were approved for use, the predictability returns. (As a tinkerer, I'd probably still be thinking about what other shock and mount combinations would do.)
Of course, consumer choice is at a high right now. Yes, I can buy a bike that's perfectly tuned for my local riding conditions – but what if I want to take it somewhere else? Shouldn't my pedalable Shore bike also be able to take me on a smooth singletrack adventure in a flatter area?
So, how do we solve this problem? A reliable dual position shock? Two different shock mounts? Stiffer platform dampers that don't wear out DU bushings? A computer modelling program that I can figure out geometry numbers myself and tinker away?
Shore Mode on every bike. That's all I'm asking for.
Here on the Shore, we tend to like slacker bikes than our brethren to the south and east. While it is possible to ride here on a short travel bike, most choose a bike that would be at least one category up from what they'd choose in smoother locations. These days, they might be choosing a similar-travel 29er for that boost.
Rear travel control has increased significantly in the past decade. There is a reason the industry has split into so many different categories. On a scale of pedalability to shralpability, a slacker head angle often makes the former more difficult and the latter easier.
My wish is for more bikes with adjustable geometry. The industry is well on its way to riders being able to choose how their bike performs on the fly, with reliable travel adjust forks in both coil and air springs, adjustable platform dampers on shocks, and remote seatposts all becoming the norm. But what about an easy to change rear travel setting? Even a calculation of what a shock with 1/4" less length and stroke would do.
I understand designers want their bikes to handle predictably, but if you allow the customer to make part of that decision, you might very well sell more bikes. As long as you specified which shock lengths were approved for use, the predictability returns. (As a tinkerer, I'd probably still be thinking about what other shock and mount combinations would do.)
Of course, consumer choice is at a high right now. Yes, I can buy a bike that's perfectly tuned for my local riding conditions – but what if I want to take it somewhere else? Shouldn't my pedalable Shore bike also be able to take me on a smooth singletrack adventure in a flatter area?
So, how do we solve this problem? A reliable dual position shock? Two different shock mounts? Stiffer platform dampers that don't wear out DU bushings? A computer modelling program that I can figure out geometry numbers myself and tinker away?
Shore Mode on every bike. That's all I'm asking for.
Posted by Kieran at 08:14 AM on 01-20-2012
I'd like to see more standardisation in the industry so its easier to swop components in and out. For example its ridiculous how many axle lengths, widths and radius there are out there.
I'd like to see more standardisation in the industry so its easier to swop components in and out. For example its ridiculous how many axle lengths, widths and radius there are out there.
Posted by menotyou at 08:54 AM on 01-20-2012
What I would like to see is adjustable crank lengths for more ground clearance when needed that way I can run a bike with the bb almost on the ground. as for the helmet idea. there are very high standards for helmets in Australia so if your helmet doesn't pass all the test you cannot sell it in oz maybe every where else needs to do the same. by the way taking the piss with the cranks
What I would like to see is adjustable crank lengths for more ground clearance when needed that way I can run a bike with the bb almost on the ground. as for the helmet idea. there are very high standards for helmets in Australia so if your helmet doesn't pass all the test you cannot sell it in oz maybe every where else needs to do the same. by the way taking the piss with the cranks
Posted by walleater at 09:01 AM on 01-20-2012
Yes this. But only after GT drag out their old 700D rims out as we clearly need more wheel sizes. Oh and the 20mm to 15mm tapered fork axle definitely needs to be introduced too. I want the rigidity under braking of the 20mm axle but I don't want the extra weight on the drive side. Finally, Cannondale please make the 'Middly'. A fork going straight down from the headtube, with a narrow wheel on each side.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kieran
(Post 2609634)
I'd like to see more standardisation in the industry so its easier to swop components in and out. For example its ridiculous how many axle lengths, widths and radius there are out there.
|
Posted by nouseforaname at 09:09 AM on 01-20-2012
Semtex?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kieran
(Post 2609634)
I'd like to see more standardisation in the industry so its easier to swop components in and out. For example its ridiculous how many axle lengths, widths and radius there are out there.
|
Posted by barnz0rz at 09:55 AM on 01-20-2012
Way less "standards" and "variations" between manufactures and components. Everything is particular now to the point where it's hard for the average person, and shop employee for that matter, to understand what bearing will work with what BB, what headset standard this frame is, what hub is compatable with what fork or can be converted to work with it... blah blah blah, you get the idea. And if you do understand, your head is so full with info it still takes a fair amount of skill an know how to cypher through it.
It would also put less strain on both shops and distributors to have to carry so many different products and their options, thus reducing overhead and hopefully making everything cheaper for the end user? Maybe?
Way less "standards" and "variations" between manufactures and components. Everything is particular now to the point where it's hard for the average person, and shop employee for that matter, to understand what bearing will work with what BB, what headset standard this frame is, what hub is compatable with what fork or can be converted to work with it... blah blah blah, you get the idea. And if you do understand, your head is so full with info it still takes a fair amount of skill an know how to cypher through it.
It would also put less strain on both shops and distributors to have to carry so many different products and their options, thus reducing overhead and hopefully making everything cheaper for the end user? Maybe?
Posted by hampstead_bandit at 09:58 AM on 01-20-2012
I would like the bike industry to stop making cheap sh*t - what we commonly called "Bicycle Shaped Objects"
there should be a minimum level of quality for all bicycles, say entry level.
"entry level" here in the UK is around GBP£250-300 and that nets you a proper bicycle that a mechanic can build up safe to ride, is safe to ride, and has a reasonable durability in regular use
I love bicycles, and the idea of cycling is very important to the future of the human race, as HG Wells said; "Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race"
http://www.mtbe.co.uk/files/image_006_174.jpg
I hate BSOs because nothing turns new riders off bicycling quicker than their £69.95 supermarket or catalogue BSO, and you may never get these people back onto bikes
its also a huge waste of metal / manufacturing / distribution resources, just so some greedy supermarket corporation can make a quick profit alongside selling cheap clothing and baked beans :
I would like the bike industry to stop making cheap sh*t - what we commonly called "Bicycle Shaped Objects"
there should be a minimum level of quality for all bicycles, say entry level.
"entry level" here in the UK is around GBP£250-300 and that nets you a proper bicycle that a mechanic can build up safe to ride, is safe to ride, and has a reasonable durability in regular use
I love bicycles, and the idea of cycling is very important to the future of the human race, as HG Wells said; "Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race"
http://www.mtbe.co.uk/files/image_006_174.jpg
I hate BSOs because nothing turns new riders off bicycling quicker than their £69.95 supermarket or catalogue BSO, and you may never get these people back onto bikes
its also a huge waste of metal / manufacturing / distribution resources, just so some greedy supermarket corporation can make a quick profit alongside selling cheap clothing and baked beans :
Posted by old_school_n00b at 10:39 AM on 01-20-2012
http://pro-tec.net/helmets.php#bike
Pro-Tec's SXP multi-impact memory foam is one of the best innovations to hit the industry, ever.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cam@nsmb.com
(Post 2609402)
So my wish for 2012 is for helmet makers to come out with a vented, comfortable helmet that provides extra protection for those of us who want it. This might make it a little heavier but I’m willing to pay that price to protect my melon from further damage.
|
Pro-Tec's SXP multi-impact memory foam is one of the best innovations to hit the industry, ever.
Posted by jimcasey1768 at 07:08 AM on 01-21-2012
The POC Trabec Race MIPS helmet has a new system engineered to reduce concussions from twisting injuries, the MIPS system.
The POC Trabec Race MIPS helmet has a new system engineered to reduce concussions from twisting injuries, the MIPS system.
Posted by clarklewis at 01:11 AM on 01-22-2012
i wish for moar standards, especially for bb's and headsets.
i want front derailleurs to be made of a metal alloy that's even louder.
rear derailleur cages should all be made of paper-thin carbon fiber.
i want more gears squeezed onto my cassette and thinner chains, 9 or 10 just aren't enough.
we need more choice for wheel size. 28.25?
headtubes should come with POV video built in.
i wish for moar standards, especially for bb's and headsets.
i want front derailleurs to be made of a metal alloy that's even louder.
rear derailleur cages should all be made of paper-thin carbon fiber.
i want more gears squeezed onto my cassette and thinner chains, 9 or 10 just aren't enough.
we need more choice for wheel size. 28.25?
headtubes should come with POV video built in.
Stumble this!
Tweet this!
