Would you purchase a mountain bike based upon its performance only - if it wasn't outfitted top to bottom with name-brand components? Today, that answer would probably be "no," because the business model for the bicycle industry is completely dependent upon a name-brand supply chain that may be driving the cost of performance-level mountain bikes through the roof. Performance-level mountain bikes from the major brands are like supermodels - well recognized, sexy frames that, to a large degree, showcase expensive 'clothing' made by component suppliers like SRAM, Shimano, Fox, Renthal, Cane Creek, Mavic, and Enve. Bike brands have designers and engineers on board whose primary roles are to oversee that their frames are constructed properly in Asia and to ensure that they will interface with the latest and greatest suspension, brakes and drivetrain components, so their product managers will be unconstrained when they go on their annual shopping sprees to outfit them into complete bicycles.
By contrast, the automotive business model emphasizes name brand components to a much smaller degree. For example, should brand X suspension maker dazzle enthusiasts with a pricey new fork that features a composite air spring and 32 clicks of compression damping, Honda won't rush to outfit its 450 with the brand X fork. Instead, it would work with its existing fork supplier to add 33 clicks of compression damping and either develop or license a composite air spring to remain competitive. It should come as no surprise that your money goes much further when you purchase a car or a motorcycle. Consider the massive amount of technology that goes into a Honda CRF450r motocross racing bike compared to what it takes to build a Specialized FSR S-Works Enduro with a similar MSRP and you may begin to question the effectiveness of how bicycle makers do business.
Honda manufactures major components, like the CRF450r's engine and chassis and assembles it in-house, but similar to bicycle makers, Honda also out-sources a significant number of its components - like electronics, forks, shocks, body-work, radiators, cockpit items and brakes. But that is where the similarity ends. The automotive industry is much more closely linked with their component makers and their designers work together to integrate parts to fit specific models. There is no expectation beyond tires, spark plugs and electric fuses that parts made for Brand A will fit anything on Brand B - and customers are OK with that, as long as they are assured that spares and service will be readily available.
Honda either owns its key suppliers, or it owns a significant share in their businesses, which ensures a degree of cooperation and product integration that is beyond the comprehension of the cycling industry. As a result, Honda's engineers are free to solve problems and innovate without being constrained by artificial standards imposed by component suppliers simply to make one part fit everyone's product. If they need to change the bolt circle of a brake rotor, or widen the rear hub, they don't have to argue with a drivetrain maker or seek media approval to make the improvement.
If Honda wants a seven-speed transmission, its gear supplier isn't going to refuse because someone over there thinks a six speed is a better idea. But, Shimano had no problem blowing off the entire industry when bike makers begged them for a one-by-ten drivetrain. If Trek owned 30 percent of Shimano, you could bet your ass that Remedies would be sporting Shimano one-by drivetrains with narrow wide chainrings. As it stands, Trek had to pony up for SRAM drivetrains. It could be argued that integrated supply chains and the lack of strict standards for interchangeability of components between brands are the engines that power the motorcycle industry's stratospheric technological evolution. It could also be argued that imposing such standards may have had the opposite effect upon the evolution of the mountain bike.
The bottom line is that both motocross and mountain bike customers are interested in purchasing performance. The motorcycle buyer has learned to trust the likes of Honda to assemble a complete package that will deliver the performance they want. Mountain bike makers, however, have failed to earn that trust, so they prop up their credibility with brand name components in an effort to assure their customers that their products will perform well. For example: when the RockShox Pike fork and Cane Creek DB Air shock arrived on the scene, bike makers didn’t run back to their existing suspension suppliers and co-develop forks and shocks which could compete with the performance of the new leaders. Instead, they threw their old suspension suppliers under the bus and showed up at the bar the next evening wearing Pikes and DB Airs. The short term benefit was that their customers got the fork and shock of the moment, but a year earlier, those boys were telling their customers that Fox was the best - another breach of trust, and a lost opportunity to maintain parity in the suspension marketplace and to suppress price increases by bringing their existing suspension suppliers up to a matching level of performance.
The up-side of our reliance on name brand components and universal standards is that they have become an insurance policy which ensures wary buyers who have been burned by lame product specs and fads fanned by media hype, that they could replace their OEM components or even the frame, with a better-performing product in a pinch. The cost of that insurance policy is hidden in the inflated MSRPs of enthusiast-level mountain bikes. We pay huge premiums for elite-level branded products so we don't have to second guess whether the bike maker has done a good job on a non-branded alternative. We forego potential improvements to the frame and suspension because we would rather have the option to return to older, tried and true components.
As long as bike makers continue to follow the present business model, our reliance on name brands and component interchangeability may be as well founded as it is embarrassing. Honda has proven to its customers that they don't need to hedge, and its ability to sell a competitive motocross racer for the same money as a 160-millimeter-travel enduro bicycle could be perceived as a slap in the face and, at the same time, a GPS map showing an alternative route that the bicycle makers could take if they wanted to do a much better job of managing the costs and delivering on the performance of their elite and enthusiast-level mountain bikes. I've heard both sides of the story and I believe that using a strategy similar to the motorcycle industry, bike makers could drop the MSRP of their elite-level bikes by 30 percent without significantly eroding their performance or their profitability. They may not look as sexy, but you can't see the bike while you are riding it anyway. The real questions is: Would we trust them if they did?
That being said, I can see the point of the article, but I worry a lot about replacement parts if the MTB or bike industry in general goes this way... I've been burned too many times in the past by brands with proprietary parts.
Yes, some of the pack filler in supercross are riding off the shelf components, and other than suspension changes (so they don't die) there is not much changed from stock. Andrew Short just a year or two ago was riding a nearly bone stock bike he bought because he couldn't get a factory ride. It just shows how good stock mx bikes are now.
The dudes who are factory teams, yes those are highly modified. I think the only things that stays off the shelf are the frames and engine cases. And they switch out frames and engines every race, sometimes more, sometimes less.
There are a ton of similarities between both mx bikes and mtbs. But to compare pricing will only cause you grief. I would bet money that there are more mx bikes sold in California alone than there are mountain bikes over $1000 sold in the same region. That number comes right outta my ass, but you get the point.
For mtb brands to benefit from lowering their overall prices, they need to slim down the number of options per model that they offer. I mean, some brands have 4 or 5 parts kits per model! That's just crazy! Then add in 3-4 sizes per frame and all of a sudden there are a huge number of sku's they have to make and sell.
Then it has to be factored in the number of changes they go through every year. MX bike companies generally operate on a 5 year full remodel on their bikes with some small changes year to year. Except the YZ250, which is now largely unchanged in ten years. MTB brands seem to completely revamp their lines every year or two. That's just plain stupid. Unless your current model truly sucks, then leave it for a while. MTB brands are constantly trying to introduce something new, like suspension platforms or something that gives them a foothold, but in reality, the lowly linkage driven single pivot is the best bang for the buck platform they could make.
Lumped in with that are the ridiculous amount of "standards" trying to be brought to market every year or two. This does not help with keeping prices low. It ultimate hurts consumers.
Moto has had the racing and backcountry aspects figured out a lot longer. So they can really concentrate their firepower, whereas we have seemed to be firing shots in the dark and hoping it pays off next year when the new wave hits.
He went on to tell me that Roczen's Factory 450 was worth 125k (he would have no real idea), but I was getting Graves' factory SB5 for 10k.
But I don't need Roczen's Factory 450 - none of us do. At the same time, KTM produces a Factory Edition version of their 250 and 450 - an absolute mind-blowing production bike with top-shelf parts. Yeah it isn't a full-on factory bike, but again, I don't want one and don't need it. The Factory Edition KTM is just shy of 10k.
I see some ramblings about suspension - OE suspension on any of the current motorcycles is so good, that almost anyone out there can get along very (very) well with the suspension as-is. Set it up for your weight, maybe swap springs if you need, but that's it. You're good. Professionals who race, are a different story, but many of the guys out there are on production BASED suspension with mods from companies like Race Tech, etc.
Say what you want, but you get a LOT more out of a motorcycle for 10k. I don't care what comparisons you try to make.
It's a fairly pointless argument - I love to do both, but I'm not spending 10k on a bike without a motor. Principle keeps me from it.
Names/ Brands are useful because attached to those names are a reputation.
Its harder to trust something that isn't a name brand.
"Specialized S-Works Enduro 650: $9300 USD. Specialized is one of the most vertically integrated bike makers, relying upon name brands, in the case of the S-Works Enduro"
Specialized don't actually "make" anything. They are a design/marketing company that outsources all their production to off-shore vendors.
Their 'vertical integration' is anything but vertical:
-they are using vendors to manufacture their frames
-they are using vendors to manufacture OE goods like Specialized branded stems, bars, tires.
-they are sourcing branded components for drivetrain, brakes, etc.
-who then all supply an assembly plant(putting the bike together and boxing it up)
-who then supply the boxed bike to their territorial distributors
-who then supply the boxed bike to their retailers
-who then supply the assembled bike to the end user (customer).
Specialized are not unique in this respect. Most of the bike "brands" are design/marketing companies, very few have their own production facilities or domestic manufacturing capability (Trek are unusual with their domestic 'Project One' line)
@dirt88 - Yeah I have more in my Yeti SB95C than my KTM 250XC (2-stroke) as well. But as far as suspension goes, you would be surprised how much of the lesser-known pro motorcrossers (who are struggling to get from one race to another - the three-digit guys) are on stock suspension. Not many and eventually they'll have someone alter the internals, but I always hear about the privateer who "had to show up on raceday on a bone-stock bike". It happens. BUT, its very capable as-is.
Think about how much MORE is going on inside a motorcycle's fork and shock. A TON! I've done forks myself - both for moto and mtb. MTB forks (like the Pike) is so simple its insane. The shock may be a different story, but by-enlarge, my point still holds water.
Enve wheels for $2500. That's laughable. It goes on and on. But the mtb public is buying the products which fires up the companies and sets the bar for pricing.
I love this comparison as well: gear, more specifically, shorts. Take full-on moto pants for $119 (average price for mid-level pants). Compare them to super-flimsy, light-weight mtb shorts for $119 (and if you're lucky they come with a liner). Really? Come on!
Personally, I don't care who is riding what and apples to apples bs. If you think that with a carbon frame you can go as fast as with a dirt bike then.....wake up
Several time in the past, when Pinkbike had an article related to expensive carbon bikes or components your reaction was like: 'With that amount of money I can buy a real dirt bike'.
Now, you, the very same people, are saying that: I can spend $10.000 for buying Minnaar's V10 just because can' t spend $600.000 for Block's fiesta.....
Guys get a life...
xgames.espn.go.com/rally-moto-x/article/7265906/espn-magazine-breaks-ryan-villopoto-monster-energy-kawasaki
Tell you what, if you want a MX bike, f*cking buy a MX bike in your price range. If you want a MTB, f*cking buy a MTB in your price range. Then go ride and quit bitching about it.
A lot of mtb companies have fewer than 500 employees, so doing everything from frame to suspension design and manufacturing is simply not possible, so they have to rely on third parties, some of which might work with you and others might just shove their products down your throat.
Another aspect is logistics. The number of mtbs sold worldwide isn't even a grain of sand compared to the number of motorbikes. the difference is even bigger when talking about 3k$+ mtbs. that drives logistics and manufacturing costs through the roof, as producction runs and shipments are smaller.
Then you have the R&D costs, which you spread over number of mtbs produced, fewer bikes made, higher R&D costs per bike.
Double the price of a bicycle & you gain nothing. Nothing that really matters. Save a few grams of weight, probably sacrificing some meaningful form of strength or durability in the process. Double the price of anything with an engine, where things bicycle "engineers" don't have to deal with (& most likely wouldn't have a clue how) come into play, like thermodynamics & not only do you get a lot more for your money, you'll see substantially greater improvements.
Yeah MTB & FMB in particular is a relatively new sport, so chalk it up to growing pains if you want. I always considered that part of it was the myriad of companies trying to make bicycles. You have hundreds, yet only a handful that make motos. The ratio of buyers to manufacturers may be in the moto industry's favor but IDK. You still get what you get for the money you spend & that definitely favors the moto industry in a hugely disproportionate way.
Try to break the industry down with excuse after excuse after excuse & what you have at the end of the day is a bicycle. It's a few pretty simple parts which is all it needs to be & all it'll ever be. That's all we want it to be. It's a big reason why many of us like this sport. My dented, rusted, nameless 24" specific single speed hardtail with an old 66VF (with the arch broke off) & lots of BMX parts does all bicycling jobs 90% as well as any other & it never breaks. Take your names, your prices, your gimmicks, your "standards" & your excuses & shove 'em up your ass. You're not "excused". Either make it better rather than just different, or GFY.
Liking your comment:
"Try to break the industry down with excuse after excuse after excuse & what you have at the end of the day is a bicycle."
Years ago when I had my bike company Bombproof, my business partner who made his fortune in financial services, used to remind me when I'd get overexcited about something "Its just a push bike" (not even a motorbike!)
www.pinkbike.com/news/aaron-gwins-troy-brosnan-specialized-demo-prototype.html
You wouldnt care about about shimano/ sram, drivetrain and brakes, maxxis/ shwables (spelling??) tires
Bos has no cheaper models and almost no OEM. Plus a way lower marketing budget so fewer teams, pros and ads.
SRAM/ Shimano and other major brands have have the expertise to build good bike parts ( for the most part) and have refined their parts. Especially more conplex systems like shocks, forks
www.giant-bicycles.com/en-ca/bikes/model/trance.advanced.27.5.1/20508/80073
Carbon frame, carbon wheels, integrated dropper, stem, handle bar - all Giant. The rest, upper-end components, 46% less money than the Specialized cited in this article. The top-end is still 20% less $$.
People in MTB are giant suckers for paying for a brand. Kona/Norco make mean trail bikes too for good price-points but no references to be found...
I said yes to the poll - and I'll be buying a Giant!
I am not a pro. I don't have a sponsor that can just send my mechanic new parts overnight at no charge, and have them installed before I wake up. I do 90% of my own work on my bike, and that is that much less time I have riding. Give me something strong that can take a beating, and last a couple years. If its not the lightest carbon unobtanium part that is 2 grams lighter than the more durable, cheaper component so be it. If you can tell a part weighs 2 grams more, then you must have a team mechanic.
/rant I am gonna go ride my bike, drink a beer and maybe or maybe not clean it after.
Would be interesting to see if a company could make/have a part in most of the manufacturing and produce something both well functioning, reliable and cost effective, but as someone who switches out parts and likes trying different/new things (eg. tire junky), doing so at the expense of interchangeability would not be great (though with wheel sizes, BB standards, axle standards and everything else that's already becoming less and less).
And that's not going to change any time soon since not even the biggest bike companies can afford to stock giant warehouses full of parts for every bike they've made in the past 10 years.
A little more fair fight. Sure the Reign is 11%less than the Specialized but you could argue where that extra 11% is spent.
If you look at which bike has the best in slot for each part more points will go to Specialized for their build choice.
Sure Giant has a reverb, and guide rsc brakes, beating the command post (a debate for another day) and guide RS brakes.
But specialized boasts the better stem, bars, shock, and probably the biggest win in the wheel set.
giant gives you a under specd all mountain dt Xm 1501 all mountain alloy set vs the burlier wider, enduro level carbon rovals.
The point is there is certainly $1000 in upgrades to the enduro over the giant.
Both are killer bikes and both have their pros and cons. Both fit 2 budgets as well.
Your example of Giant is interesting, because they own their aluminium alloy and carbon fibre manufacturing facilities for frame / rigid fork and rim manufacturing.
However, they do not produce their own finishing kit (bars,stems,seat posts,saddles,tires) or clothing,tires,helmets, etc. Its all outsourced to other vendors because it makes commercial sense.
They manufacture, as a contractor, carbon fibre frames for canyon and colnago. They manufacture carbon for their own Giant and Liv brands.
They manufacture, as a contractor, aluminium alloy frames for many brands including Trek.
The value of their own products reflects their more vertical integration and massive buying power.
Also, the large companies may have enough money and power to pull this off but the boutique brands that just make a couple of parts are the ones who either rely on or push the standards so that everything fits together. I like that this empowers small businesses to focus on a couple of pieces and keeps the big companies in check yet I know that this system has created the annual joke of the new standard that is 10% stiffer and incompatible with last year. I just wish I could see who is yanking the chain that creates this game of crack the whip.
And that is a good thing.
The UK's LTHT market is full of small independent frame makers (Cotic, Stanton, BTR etc) who benefit greatly from the ability of the consumer to buy a frame and go from there. As an example, I was at a race last weekend here in Japan on a Cotic BFe. At the same race series there are people riding Cotic Souls, Stanton Slacklines and BTR Rangers and no two are the same.
The industry does, for the moment at least, encourage users (who can see past the bling) to be more involved, and that surely is a good thing. Yes, it means there are segments of the market for the "more money than sense" buyers, yet we don't have to get involved at that end if we do not want to.
Also, that brand name and interchangable parts allow room for the "little guy" that is making very limited frames, to have a bike that performed as good as the big dogs. there's countless frame manufacturers/ builders in the mountain and road bicycle world. yet very few choices in the moto world by comparison. I for one, like that parts can be changes around, that when my Trek Remedy is toast i can go buy a Santa Cruz Bronson, or a Knolly Warden and aside from maybe a new BB and fresh cables, that all those name brand parts i upgraded and blew my paychecks on , can be transfered over easily. try swapping a you Honda motor onto your Yamaha frame that easily.
The mountain bike world is pretty unique in that there are loads of different manufacturers creating similar items and competing with each other - but people - do not forget that competition is good for the consumer. Sure, you have the often cited $10k uber-bike, but on the other hand you have the $2k full suspension with loads more performance than a $3-4K XC hardtail from 5 years ago.
Competition is good . . . . . . . especially for consumers. And I know PB is full of commenters gawking and protesting at the prices of mountain bikes, but for every one of the complainers - there are a lot of us out there that are happy to pay to play. Sure, I thought $5k was insane when I first started biking, but now, I can't imagine (outside of long term financial investments) a better place to put that money.
SRAM, Shimano, Xfusion, Cane Creek, Race Face, etc - keep on doing what you do. It's a great world out there right now, and I love it.
Also, the motorbike industry does not appear to be completely reinventing the vehicle with every new innovation. The Mountain bike does
However, I believe that the big three are exceptions not the norm, and to expect all frame makers to convert entirely to in-house products would either bankrupt them in R&D costs or ruin the brand recognition all together (*cough* Mongoose *cough*). And as exceptional as the big three are, even they have decided to leave highly specialized product manufacturing to companies such as Shimano, SRAM, and Fox.
Why would they do this? Especially if it meant lower MSRPs and more of that money back in their pockets. The answer is probably that the big three found out at some point that the increase in corporate in-house manufacturing resulted in a decreasing dollar/quality ratio (quality of the product decreased faster than the cost of manufacturing). Likewise, they also probably found that there was a similar drop off in dollar/quality on the other side of the spectrum with increasingly independent companies as well (cost of manufacturing increased faster than the quality of the product). In either case both the company and the consumer loses, because they must sacrifice either quality or money without a reasonable return.
The problem in my mind lies not with who is manufacturing what, but rather what are the consumers demanding and which companies are able to meet those demands.The companies that can know and meet those demands are those that will dictate the market. In the case of the bike industry the most innovative, and therefore, most crucial companies in cycling development are SRAM, FOX and SHIMANO. After that it's pretty basic economics. The consumer demands a bike that has X and Y capabilities, and companies A,B, and C create products that make it possible for frame makers to create these bikes (see example of RS Judy from before). This results in a really sweet bike for us, and a profit for both frame maker and parts manufacturer.
So rather than perpetuating the false dichotomy of interchangeability(independent manufacturer) vs price(in-house production), or raging at that incredibly vague but strangely omnipotent Orwellian Corporate Machine that is "The INDUSTRY", lets take some responsibility for ourselves and shift the focus towards the real issue that this poll it trying to address: namely, the relationship between Consumer(quality demands) and Manufacturer (price of production)
To steal from the article's final question, I'd would like to rephrase the poll to ask... "Would you trust an in-house brand to have the same product quality as an OEM brand?", and "Is the trust you have for an in-house fork the same as it is for an in-house seatpost?" When we know the answer to these questions maybe we, as consumers, can find a way to help orient our demands in such a way that every company from A to Z can make a profit giving us exactly what we want: FREAKING AWESOME BIKES FOR LESS THAN A USED CAR!
As long as people are willing to pay $100 for a piece of aluminum with two holes in it because it says Chromag Ranger on it there will be companies catering to that market.
95% percent of dh riders could use a alum. Spec. Enduro with the same results,
No need for the cruz v10 i bought and am moving to an enduro 6" bike.realizing no need for the carbon bling.
Bikes have crazy margins!
Seemed logical to presume you bought one, since, in your opinion it's worth way more. It was no comment on whether you should or shouldn't have bought either. I think i thought you were on about a second hand purchase.
Just do what I do every year..buy a frame set and add what you want to year. This day and age it doesnt really matter because the high end bikes are costing a fortune anyway. Full carbon frame in retail costs almost 4 x what the the customer will pay,suspension costs 3. x more...its a crazy business and somewhat a scam. Sometimes all they do is change the colour,add a better shock and change the stickers and it called an "upgrade"...what a joke. ATTENTION TO ALL BIKE/SUSPENSION/WHEEL MANFACTURERS - READ THIS ARTICLE.
We all expect cheaper Bikes in 2016!!
Imagine that some revolutionary product was developed by a different bike manufacturer and you had to sit, wait and hope that your bike manufacturer was able to reverse engineer it and offer something similar. That's nuts.
The loss of interchangeability limit consumer choice, would limit competition (because consumers would only be able to use products from one specific manufacturer - a monopoly type environment) and would discourage investment in the research and development of new product (because the number of potential consumers for any one particular product is inherently limited to owners of bikes which are compatible with that product). Further, only the biggest manufacturers would be able to invest the money needed to resarch and develop new components. This would make the market impractical for smaller manufacturers which would result in less bike consumer choice, less competition and higher prices.
Most cars sold today share parts made by the the same supplier. Transmissions, differentials, suspension components, electronic steering systems, etc... are all developed by specialized suppliers who sell to a host of manufacturers. Sure they work with the manufacturer to make sure it fits, but the overall product is substantially the same.
The loss of interchangeability would be a disaster for the consumer and the industry as a whole.
The example used in the article should have been that of KTM. This company produces the widest range of dirt bikes for the widest range of consumers in the industry. If you look a little closer you will be surprised to see that regardless of engine size etc. most of these bikes use the same shifter and brake pedals, and all big bikes use the same air filter. Triple clamps, linkage parts, forks, shocks, controls, clutch parts, wheels, brakes are interchangeable across most models. Oh yeah, and most bikes(except 125/150s which use magura clutches) use brembo brakes and clutches, so you're still getting the best spec in the industry without sacrificing parts availability. You can therefore buy a small bike as a beginner, do whatever modifications you feel are necessary(or look cool) and as you move into bigger, faster bikes you can still take most of your fancy parts with you.
The moto guys are not as concerned with flip-flopping brands to be on whatever color of bike won the magazine shootout this year either. They realize that any bike can go faster with more tuning or talent. Perhaps mountain bikers could learn something from that ethic since many people would sooner buy a new bike than get their suspension serviced/revalved.
This is unlike mountain bikes where there are multiple levels of performance for each model that offer different levels of component quality. You don't see people throwing aftermarket shocks or forks on their Yamaha, because their stock KYBs are extremely plush, perform flawlessly, and require little to no maintenance.
After all, it is companies like Fox and RockShox that are borrowing designs from moto suspension. Upside down forks and air springs have all been done by dirt bike companies in the 80s or earlier.
The only reason to dump the money on a dirt bike to reach the level of Ryan Villopoto is if you were Ryan Dungey or James Stewart.
Many riders already hate the small bit of proprietary components in the cycling industry, why would we want to add more? Also, do you really think this would reduce the cost of a bike? How many bicycle companies are there, and how many moto companies are there? In some ways, the industries are similar; however, in regards to this article, you're comparing apples to oranges.
This article also skips a lot of points. Yes, and S-Works Enduro or top-of-the-line **insert bicycle company here** with carbon everything is ridiculously expensive, but you're getting the exact same that the greatest riders in the world ride and race on, as mentioned above. Just in moto, a top-level MX riders race bike costs tens of thousands of dollars more than their practice bike. What's missed, is that you can get a VERY similar carbon Enduro Expert for $3,400 LESS! And you can get the aluminum Enduro Elite for HALF THE PRICE of the S-Works. And this trend continues on to just about every other company in the industry.
Parts spec at a certain price is very important to me. I am buying a bike this year. The Enduro Expert 650b fell off my short list because it has an unimpressive set of components for the price. I can buy a better-equipped Patrol for less money. Furthermore, I have become a huge fan of companies offering "optional upgrades" on new bikes to bridge the gap between price points. If I end up with a new Satan Cruz, I can select a Vivid Air upgrade or different brakes. Sweet! Choices are good, and no I don't trust the OEMs to get it right the first time. Except maybe for Transition.
Also the bike industry is spread very thin compared to the hand full of dirt bike companies. How much carbon fiber and cold forged Al. do you find on a stock dirt bike?
Im paying for hand picked parts. I dont mind.
But why do we expect some dinky bike company to be able to follow that business model? Does trek have a couple of hundred billion dollars stashed somewhere to buy out a bunch of suppliers and set up a bunch of R&D labs? No? So naturally they have to turn to an external supplier.
When the bike industry is as big as the auto industry, I'll expect prices to be the same. For now, it's like any other boutique.
Just ride your bike. What you paid for it is between you and your wallet (and maybe your SO if you forget to hide the receipts).
Think about it. A carbon road bike and a carbon DH bike cost the same. But, somehow bike makers can give mountain bike customers a FOX 40 fork, a Cane Creek DB shock, Disc brakes, and a rear suspension mech for free? When asked, (I always ask) the answer always begins with, "You have no idea how much technology goes into a road bike..." As a matter of fact, I do. And, I think it's laughable. OK, $10,000 carbon T-shirts, I'm fine with that. Honda just makes the punch line hit harder still.
I don't disagree road bikes are far too expensive for what they are, and that the level of tech does not justify the price, especially compared to mtb. I also don't disagree major brands are a ripoff, especially for complete builds.
I do disagree however with the idea that a company like Honda was a world-beater from Day One. Honda got its start by making cheap and reliable motorbikes. They did not attempt to compete on performance, and would not have had a snowball's chance in hell if they did. But they key point is that no one expected them to- they just wanted a motor bike to ride to work.
The same sort of perfectly functional bikes exist all over the mtb industry, they just don't get much press coverage. For example I can buy a SC Bantam for $2500 at my LBS (and a fair bit less online) that can shred 90% as hard as it's VPP cousin the 5010 that starts at a minimum of 1K more than that. The difference is that with it's carbon frame and advanced suspension design the 5010 to a large extent represents the absolute pinnacle of mtb technology available to anyone, anywhere today, and that is available direct to the consumer.
Basically, we as mtb consumers are spoiled. With some small exceptions (like Blackbox or RAD cartridges) it is possible for us to buy the absolute best mtb products available to anyone on the planet. If I wanted to buy the same moto that Ryan Villapoto rides (never mind that it's not really possible) I'd have to shuck out six figures, and the first digit probably wouldn't be a one. If I want to buy the same bike Jared Graves rides (minus the RAD dampers, maybe), the price tag doesn't even hit six figures. That's an order of magnitude difference- prices aren't the problem, our expectations are.
I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but if you like the moto model, than you must also know of the things that go along with it. Less companies to choose from, specialized dealership/service (more costly), and a brand driven market, not consumer like we have currently.
We all love shiny shit, and we all want shiny shit - but heck its your choice to buy it - this argument would apply if the bike companies would only offer a specific frame as a one bling kit built. But pretty much all offer a low -mid-high and finally bling kit...your choice which one you buy....
Now as far as changing "standard" that shit drives me bananas....
One thing they could definitely take from the motorcycle industry is a drive train that at least has the potential to last the life of the bike its in. Kudos to Shimano for not folding to the 1x nonsense completely. Sure they launched 1x11 XTR this year but it comes with a detailed explanation why they think its less efficient than their 2/3x11.
Not only is it ridiculous a bicycle costs as much a dirt bike does considering how much more tech is in that dirt bike.Its moronic we continue to be forced to accept drive trains that are completely exposed to the elements because the bike industry tells us there is no other suitable option.
One of my best friends is the best in Enduro in the country and he beat the competition on a 2003 yz250... in 2009 til 2011. He was just determined to win and so he did, at all the races.
For +98% of the people on earth, the question "10K, bike or moto?" gets the answer "Are you serious, moto all day!"
Yes 10-13K gets you a pro bike more or less, but you can also get a Carbon pro bike from YT for 4K so there you go. A Canyon or Bergamont go for roughly the same. You dont have to go pro mode all the time. And it is a disgrace what we pay for our components, no my dad cannot get four tires for the Polo for the same price I get my old Glory! Car suspension costs the same as bike suspension, a Tune bike seat costs almost as much as racing bucket seats, I mean its not quantity over quality but, really?
I bought a hand made DJ frame from a forum for 60€, an old DJSL 05 for 60€, old wheels I had. Rear is a 8yo Formula E-Hub and I'm killing most trail riders here with their enduro Luftwaffen. Just get the 10K, get a carbon Capra and Tues and for the leftover money buy a 2015 CB350 from Honda
In moto, the startup cost to "create" a brand and a bike and a presence is the cost of a hedge fund (not literally). Moto competes on price and you can't play. You cannot pick up a parts catalog, an engine catalog and place an order for 10k units of a 250 and slap your name on it.
The only way to DIFFERENTIATE brands in MTB is with HIGH END piece parts.
What would you do if you blew a wheel and had to wait 2 months for a new one? There goes half your season......... No thanks I'll stick to interchangeable parts.
just imagine the enginering , testing etc etc of just the engine
and its made in japan or europe
now imagine a bicicle made in taiwan..
it could be exactly the same bike used by your favorite racer but no way a pedal driven cost as much as a 100hp 100kg motorbike
no way
someone is making 700% profit over the real cost.
guess o it is
If you break up the price structure of producing a mtb and put the procurement budget into R and D... imagine the kind of gear we'd have... imagine the pricing.
I think mtb should focus on technology, not leave the component manufacturers to decide whats easy to develop or not.
What if (SRAM / Avid / Truvativ / Rockshox) or (Fox / Raceface/ ...Shimano?) just made a bike frame?
a big company like honda..yamaha..is like a giant octopus..with many tentacles..and in my country the tentacles has gripped our life...everyone from elementary school to graduate student..live with motocycle..thousands of motocycle sold per day...you can see in motogp there are several decalls written in indonesian language..such as "satu hati" (one heart) .."selalu di depan" (always in front)..the purpose is to raise interest of indonesian people...
and so many indonesian involve in motocycle industry..we cant live without motocycle...we cant replace motocycle with bicycle for everyday living..and then the company get a big profit...they can cut the cost..
meanwhile biking..especially mtb...has a spesific enthusiasts...with so many brands in there...
an mtb enthusiast..i think must have a bravery..enjoy the adrenaline rush...and i think only spesific people has it...and that spesific people also has enthusiasm to change..to upgrade everything on their bike...
so i think its unfair to compare between moto industry and mtb industry...but still this is a good and depth article that make us think about which is your soul in mtb....i choose no. 3..
While this article makes some very astute observations and some very valid points, there are a few things I disagree with. To start, however, lets talk about how the industry has already made the proposed shift away from independent manufacturers to in-house brands/umbrella corporations.
Over the past 10 years nearly every bike manufacturer, (with the exception of low-volume manufacturers and boutique brand) has incorporated an in-house brand into their stock builds. Most prominently are the big three, Trek, Giant, and Specialized, who have been able to develop their in-house brands to a quality that I believe are on par with that of boutique brands such as Race Face, Thomson, Mavic etc.
This shift has already led to frame makers being able to offer their products at lower MSRPs. Just compare the builds of a Trek Slash, or Giant Reign with that of a similarly priced Santa Cruz Nomad. You'll probably have some sweet handlebars or stem, but will be lacking in suspension and drive-train components. In this case the article's assertion that more products being manufactured in-house will results in a decreased cost with a minimal sacrifice of quality/performance is true. The problem with this assertion is that it's calling for a change that happened years ago.
Nearly all frame manufacturing companies use an in-house brand already to provide easily manufactured items such as stems, handlebars, seatposts, saddles, grips, tires and even dropper posts for a few companies. In fact, with the exception of boutique brands such as Santa Cruz, and Yeti, nearly all bikes are equipped entirely with in-house products with the exception of three key systems: Suspension, Drivetrain, and Braking. Not surprisingly these three key systems have been the primary domain of cycling powerhouse companies: SRAM, Shimano, and Fox. But more on them later.
Following the assertions of this article, one would assume that the next step in lowering MSRPs on Elite level bicycles would be for frame manufacturers to start producing in-house versions of suspension/drivetrain/braking products. However, history has dictated that this is not a good idea. For example many of the early woes of bicycle suspension were the direct result of frame makers producing their own in-house designs and standards that were unique to their bikes. Servicing these parts was a chore then, and its an even bigger one now.
This probably is why the RS Judy was so freaking awesome when it came out, and everyone wanted it. It provided a single product (that can still be serviced today) around which a frame maker could design a bike to meet the growing demands of consumers. It's true that suspension technology was in its infancy back then, and many naysayers would argue that today a frame maker could make their own in-house version of the Pike or the Fox 36 at a fraction of the cost.
But my answer to such logic is Specialized's in-house dual crown enduro fork. Sure it was light. Sure it was stiff, but compared to what was offered by RS and Fox at the time it just downright sucked. I still cringe when I see it. Luckily, we as consumers responded and Specialized quickly ditched that idea. The evidence, however, still remains to contradict the assertions of the article that a shift to an entirely in-house product line is what the industry needs. Primarily because when companies have tried to do this it has resulted in a noticeable decrease in quality.
I didn't really have a strong opinion about this one way or the other until you brought up that Enduro SL fork. Now, I have an opinion.
I had that fork; it worked ok...when it worked. When it didn't, since it was proprietary, I was forced to ship it to the nearest Specialized service center in SLC via my LBS, and three weeks later it would return, only to have something else fail. Specialized wouldn't train their own shop mechanics to work on them, so off it would go again.
I watched the majority of a beautiful PNW summer go by while my forkless bike collected dust. Never again. Bike companies that aren't well versed in producing suspension/drivetrain should leave it to others.
As for moto, despite what the author thinks, besides the frame and engine, most of the other parts are not house brands.
This doesn't mean that the problems proposed by the article are wrong. We just need to consider both sides before making an assertion. As it stands now the problem is two-fold. First, if we put to many products under one hat we risk a rapid loss of quality, and secondly if we specialize product manufacturing to too many independent companies we risk a huge spike in cost. The solution, is simply one of balance, and I believe that this balance has already been found.
Lets take a look at the current bike industry. On the low end we will find frame makers such as Raleigh, Redline, and Diamondback, which all belong to the same umbrella corporation as product manufactures Avenir, and XTC. According to the assertions of this article these bikes should be your best bang for your buck. Unfortunately they aren't. Thus further proving my point that too large of an umbrella corporation results in a significant loss of quality.
Likewise if we look at the high end of the spectrum we will find many independent frame makers such as Santa Cruz and Yeti. Take a look at the Nomad and you will find it has everything you could wish for in both quality and brand name swag. However, the sticker price is significantly higher than comparably built bikes that incorporate a selection of in-house components. This observation is in agreement with the observations of the article.
And then, in the middle of the spectrum, we see the big three. These frame makers have been able to become large enough companies that they can afford to produce almost anything in-house that they want, and they appear to be able to offer the best bang for your buck.
Now before you go and grab your digital pitchfork and start mobbing through the forums, take a moment to realize that without the innovations of companies A,B, and C we would not have the sport we have today, and that the reason why they have the power they do is because no other company has offered a viable alternative to our demands as consumers.
In fact, the majority of our problems emerge when we as consumers forget that nothing is free, and that even our demands have a cost. Right now the cost of our demands have empowered drivetrain/suspension companies and have forced frame makers to conform to the standards set by those manufacturers in order to stay relevant with consumer demands. Imagine what would have happened to Trek if they'd never made their disc brake mounts compatible with SRAM or Shimano. They probably would no longer exist as a company.
In the end, we as the consumer, have the power and we have proven it in the past. Remember when Shimano introduced crapid rise? That was supposed to be a new standard. The next innovation is shifting technology. But it sucked,(I mean really really sucked) especially when paired with those horrendous XT integrated levers. And you know what happened? Well they certainly didn't cram it down our throats and force it to be the new standard. They would never get away with that. What happened, and all their corporate power be damned, is that we told them that the product sucked. They took another look at their product and agreed with us. And then they got rid of it. If 29ers, 650b, boost+ plus standards were really as horrible as everyone here makes them out to be then they would have gone away a long time ago. The truth is the tried something new. It worked, and our bikes are all the more awesome for it.
So I'll wait until a new year model is released with euro an regular cable/hoses or
Just buy something else
I also crash a lot and still tend to keep my bikes at least seven years. That lifestyle is not for carbon anything. Avoid custom frames, avoid carbon, then what you have left is still affordable and reliable with the exception of decent suspension products. Add in all the unsold bikes from 2013, 2014 that are heavily discounted and it is not so bad out there shopping.
Why my car tires cost almost as much as mountain bike tires, that I'll never understand. Surely the cost of materials is not negligible.
Fox and Rockshox could be comlared to Kayaba and Showa (I believe a division of Honda is part owned by them) Lke, Kawasaki and even Yamaha have interest in Kayaba, yet both Honda and Kawasaki can have either brand in that same year on different models!eg a 250 with a Showa fork and a 450 with a Kayaba fork, while to some degree its less than MTB the still choose the best they can in there price model for that bike.
Moto or Motorcycles accessories components are every bit as big if not bigger than MtB jn aftermarket, so myth one debunked, and Id go and say that Moto and Enduro guys spend a crap load on components just like, higher end MtB consumers regardless of skill level!
also a key difference in Moto is stds, and has been for many years, while you could find some examples of different stds accross the major players they all run the same stds and compatibility or upgradeability is not an issue to the acutall bike itself, plenty of aftermarket options on almost anything.
Cost wise on business model is smarter in Motorcycles, but take into account these brands produce, road bikes, dirt bikes, 4 wheelers on a scale MTB is not at, they have plants RnD like a car manafacturer even owned by same parent company, yet bike division is seperate and, manafacturing facilities are not spread accross the globe on a micro scale!
No sale thank you very much.
Keep the business model as is and quit changing "standards". To me, the manufactures that influence and dictate these new "standards" have no idea what they are doing if they are constantly changing things.
Although you only have to look at KTM for example who don't fit the good bits needed as standard to get your bike to a readonable standard.
ÂŁ500 for an Akra end pipe and ÂŁ500 for a front + those carbon heat shield guards you'll need to fit the full system.
That's just the start, it really is endless with motorcycles just as it is with mtbs.
The branded companies all hedge their bets we'll dive under pressure of wanting the extra bits that should already come as standard on an elite bike.
I for one won't fall for that orange madness for ÂŁÂŁÂŁÂŁÂŁÂŁÂŁÂŁÂŁÂŁ perhaps if they were working as they should from factory but that's a whole can of worms...
I don't want to have to buy a new complete bike every time. Can you imagine if you now had to buy bikes as completes only? No thanks!
I do care about interchangeability, very few players in the bike industry are big enough to make parts cheaper than the current offerings economies of scale are very, very real. You are looking at spesh, giant, cannondale, maybe one or two others. Have you tried getting spares for the weird propriatary sized seatposts on specialized bikes? You can't even find them in concept stores most of the time.
As for the moto comparison, I think you need to pay a little more attention to what goes on their. I have a couple moto bikes and mountain bikes. You should look at how many times the big 4 Japanese brands have switched back and forth between fork and shock manufacturers the last few years to get the latest and greatest. More so than most bike manufacturers. The benefit of the industry is that there is still only about 3-4 fork options total for all bikes made for adults. Not hundreds like in mountain bikes. THAT is where the low cost comes from. Hundreds of thousands of bikes sold with the same forks drives manufacturing costs down. In the moto industry, rarely do people buy aftermarket forks. Ohlins is the only real option outside of the $10,000 A-Kit factory forks. People are far more open to, and understand the benefits, of just having your stock suspension tuned by a professional for you. I can't put a Showa shock on my KTM, but I don't need to. Any competent tuner can get the same performance out of both, it is the tune that matters. Additionally, when I buy a dirt bike, I don't have to think about what travel I want. 80, 100, 120, 130, 140, 150, 160, 170, 180, 200mm. Blah, why so many options? Simplify it, make production numbers rise, costs lower, and just learn who to tune forks to work right.
There is a fine line between a monopoly type situation where one brand makes everything so manufacturing costs are low vs many options driving competition which forces companies to discount for sales.
As for other name brand items in dirt bikes, they are generally LITTERED with them. And most of the time they are made in Japan or Europe, not Taiwan or China. Look at the component kits on bikes; Renthal, DID, FMF, Acerbis, Keihin, Nissin, Brembo, Braking, Excel, SDG, Neken, etc. Not house brands.
But again, there may only be like 2 Nissin brake options that come on ALL Japanese bikes and a single Brembo option for ALL KTMs.
Lastly, the botique aftermarket component manufacturers in the moto industry are FAR more affordable than the MTB world. That's where you see high prices in the MTB world. Moto aftermarket companies, making high end and custom stuff, still are able to make it in prices not out of line from OEM.
Pt1. There are 5-7 legit motocross companies. How many bike makers or brands are there? A lot more.
Pt2. Not enough money in bikes to enable the R&D to go full integration. Yeti relies on FOX for suspension and manufacturing for a reason. It can't afford to do it all in house.
Pt3. Cannondale did this back in the 2000 range. Most of their mtb's were spec'ed with their house brand components except the drivetrain. Didn't really grab the market then.
I like to customize my $h*+. Great in theory damn near impossible in practice.
inrng.com/2012/02/who-made-your-bike
cyclingiq.com/2011/11/06/vertical-limit-bicycle-industry-supply-chains
cyclingiq.com/2011/11/08/vertical-limit-the-long-and-short-of-bicycle-manufacturing
Suppliers for automotive + motorcycle + MX are under way tighter cost pressures than MTB. But US MX industry sold 81k units in 2014. Volumes could be a major differentiator in ability for MTB suppliers to price as efficiently as MX suppliers.
RC raises good points about reducing bike prices by reducing 3rd party OEM profit margins + branding / marketing costs + distributor price hikes when Tier 1 companies directly source components built-to-spec components from 3rd party suppliers. Can sales volumes can sufficiently dilute NREs to develop build-to-spec components?
The other aspect is demand function - what people are willing to pay in different market segments. Auto and MX are way tighter controlled based on competition and historical pricing. High end MTB hasn't been kept in check. MX should be more expensive than MTB.
:-D