I don't think it's a conspiracy, rather I think it is in part due to perception of how some of these changes will be received. You can see it in the post above, they mention selling anything without Fox or RS will be a non-starter, but there are suspension products that are much better for most riders. People get set in their expectations and anything outside of that they just won't buy and there is no talking them into it. The same likely applies in other areas including travel numbers, kinematics, and geometry.
Talk to an average mountain biker especially in a lower elevation area, you'll find most of them only see head tube angles and travel figures. They see a XC bike with a 66 degree HTA and immediately go nuts because "that's too slack" (exact words). I've had this discussion countless times with folks who don't understand bike design. OTOH you have the same thing on the longer travel side, people saying the 2020 release Enduro is "too much travel" and writing it off as a park only bike without ever pedaling one or looking at the kinematics. You can see this all over comments sections when a new bike is released. Now imagine Transition or Specialized releasing current iterations of those bikes back in 2018, when people told me the Sentinel is "too much bike" for most people (and I live in the mountains), they'd write it off entirely having never touched one (and tbf they wrote that more conservative geo bike off for a long time for the same reason, so even that may have been pushing it). I saw this first hand with that very bike, when it released I was between the Smuggler and Sentinel, everyone told me the Sentinel was too much bike, 2 years later everyone said the Smuggler wasn't enough. People accept these changes very very slowly and anything out in left field people will write off.
So how does this tie into bike design? Designers have to boil the frog into major changes or people won't buy it. I can tell you for a fact this drives certain engineering decisions for some components and I'm fairly certain you'll see the same thing when it comes to bike geometry. If we eliminated this (IMO asinine) perspective on how most of the market views bikes, I think we'd see more drastic changes because brands wouldn't have to sell to a crowd that think two numbers make a bike. The vast majority of mountain bikers do not understand geometry, kinematics, or suspension and they drive much of the market.
Or if you don't believe me, read what people said about the Geometron years ago and compare it to what they are riding now. People en mass are difficult to please and opinionated, unwilling to try new things, and this drives a lot of product development.
Regarding XC, I think the geometry and kinematics in that area have improved dramatically to the point those bikes appeal to a wider audience and perform much better across varied tracks. I wouldn't want anything to do with a XC bike 8 years ago, but the new ones are kindof tempting. I also wouldn't write off what is coming in the DH and enduro space, I think we're about to see a huge leap in suspension performance and major changes to pivot layouts very soon. These may not be as sweeping as bike geometry, which has somewhat stabilized, but they are hugely impactful. There have also been a lot of improvements in tires, brakes, and suspension over the last few years that are somewhat low key but massively impactful to those disciplines.
March 26, 2024, 1:40 p.m. - Shinook
I don't think it's a conspiracy, rather I think it is in part due to perception of how some of these changes will be received. You can see it in the post above, they mention selling anything without Fox or RS will be a non-starter, but there are suspension products that are much better for most riders. People get set in their expectations and anything outside of that they just won't buy and there is no talking them into it. The same likely applies in other areas including travel numbers, kinematics, and geometry. Talk to an average mountain biker especially in a lower elevation area, you'll find most of them only see head tube angles and travel figures. They see a XC bike with a 66 degree HTA and immediately go nuts because "that's too slack" (exact words). I've had this discussion countless times with folks who don't understand bike design. OTOH you have the same thing on the longer travel side, people saying the 2020 release Enduro is "too much travel" and writing it off as a park only bike without ever pedaling one or looking at the kinematics. You can see this all over comments sections when a new bike is released. Now imagine Transition or Specialized releasing current iterations of those bikes back in 2018, when people told me the Sentinel is "too much bike" for most people (and I live in the mountains), they'd write it off entirely having never touched one (and tbf they wrote that more conservative geo bike off for a long time for the same reason, so even that may have been pushing it). I saw this first hand with that very bike, when it released I was between the Smuggler and Sentinel, everyone told me the Sentinel was too much bike, 2 years later everyone said the Smuggler wasn't enough. People accept these changes very very slowly and anything out in left field people will write off. So how does this tie into bike design? Designers have to boil the frog into major changes or people won't buy it. I can tell you for a fact this drives certain engineering decisions for some components and I'm fairly certain you'll see the same thing when it comes to bike geometry. If we eliminated this (IMO asinine) perspective on how most of the market views bikes, I think we'd see more drastic changes because brands wouldn't have to sell to a crowd that think two numbers make a bike. The vast majority of mountain bikers do not understand geometry, kinematics, or suspension and they drive much of the market. Or if you don't believe me, read what people said about the Geometron years ago and compare it to what they are riding now. People en mass are difficult to please and opinionated, unwilling to try new things, and this drives a lot of product development. Regarding XC, I think the geometry and kinematics in that area have improved dramatically to the point those bikes appeal to a wider audience and perform much better across varied tracks. I wouldn't want anything to do with a XC bike 8 years ago, but the new ones are kindof tempting. I also wouldn't write off what is coming in the DH and enduro space, I think we're about to see a huge leap in suspension performance and major changes to pivot layouts very soon. These may not be as sweeping as bike geometry, which has somewhat stabilized, but they are hugely impactful. There have also been a lot of improvements in tires, brakes, and suspension over the last few years that are somewhat low key but massively impactful to those disciplines.