Riding in the Age of Confusion
Riding a bike used to be really simple. Like, ridiculously simple. Grab the handlebars, wheel it out of the shed, or the basement, or the garage, throw your leg over the seat, and go. Circles turning circles, a big wide smile leading the way.
And sure, riding a bike is still all of that. Will always be just that. It’s simple. It’s beautiful. It’s easy. But over the last few years, especially on a dual suspension mountain bike, the act of riding a bike has gotten a lot more, well, complicated.
When it comes to purchasing a medium to top-end mountain bike in 2011, there’s a sea of mega-tech-super-coded-info to wade through. PS5560GS tubesets, LEX-BB600 gearing systems, GNAR88MEGA Rocket suspension technology, MARS180 tire durometer, you get my drift. On most websites those dryly-named-digit-encoded acronyms get expanded into 3D animations, dorky interviews with industrial designers, inside looks into testing facilities and laboratories.
And more and more everyday, it’s presented in a language that’s harder and harder to understand—like teenage text dialect, but for bike nerds. And it’s industry-wide: from suspension manufacturers to frame designers, components, wheels, tires, and every other tidbit in between. And it only seems to be going deeper down the rabbit hole. Detailed explanations on exotic composites, arguments that breakdown super specific (and mostly subtle) performance differences between multi-pivot suspension platforms, custom shock valving, space-age polymer-infused aramid glass with nanotechnology (huh?), four-bar, Horst-Link, VPP, single pivot, magnesium, scandium, carbon, titanium, aluminum, cromoly, it goes on forever. And maybe that’s ok for the tech fanatics among us. Many of you are educated and care about how a bike works and why. But what about everybody else?
The potential problem with technology being used as the main selling feature of a bike is its undeniable complication. For most it's a different language. One they might find alienating. Especially those new to mountain biking. Let’s face it, most of us want to ride because the act of getting on a bike and going into the woods represents freedom. It’s simple. It’s away from the complicated day-to-day of modern life.
![photo]()
Use the car as an analogy. Those intensely complicated machines we all spend shitloads of cash on. But do we really care about the details of that technology? Do we really need to know the inner workings of that suspension system? The alloy structure of the manifold? The composite of the brake calipers? Think a motorcyclist actually cares about the valving structure of their front shock?
Sure, we care about the features. And we care about how well it works. Does it drive nice, or bad? And yeah, we really care about what it looks like, how much it costs, and if the company is going to take care of us if our particular car ends up being a lemon. But all the millions of dirty details? Really?
Even the snowsports industry seems to have strayed away from quasi-coded techno jargon marketing speak. We don’t really care if our snowboard or skis have a triaxal weave, or if they’re balsam or spruce or monocoque foam core or not. We just want to know if it shreds. If it will shred for a long time. And if we’re getting maximum shred for our buck. Sure, the more advanced gear junkies among us will question flex patterns and sidecuts, but these are features, much like amount of travel, or pedal performance on a mountain bike. It’s more about “what” this thing can do, and less about “how.”
When it comes to medium to high-end mountain bikes in 2011, however, a lot of what marketers present as the selling features of the bike come from the how, not the what. You see tech call outs worked into frame graphics. Shocks have a wide variety of settings and adjustments. Bikes arrive in boxes with explanatory DVD’s and multiple 100-page manuals. Suspension isn’t described as sweet or plush but linear, regressive, and progressive. Relatively complicated phenomena like brake jack, wheel path and rising rate suspension are explained in lengthy, shoot-me-in-the-face-I’m-so-bored communications. In all reality, the bike industry spends many millions of dollars on materials focused on explaining complicated technologies and performance virtues to people who—for the most part I’m willing to bet—couldn’t give two aramid nanotech infused scandium shits.
How many of your friends never check the air in their shock? Who don’t even know the difference between rebound, preload and compression? Who just ride to have fun, and don’t care nor want to care how their bike actually works. They just want to it to work.
So what is it about our sport that’s driven us into this realm of deep, long-winded articulation of every part of the bicycle? Is it consumer driven? Is this what we really want? Or is this what the industry thinks we want? Are we making purchase decisions based on technology or innovation? Or are we buying bicycles because our friends who’ve ridden them say they work great? Hard to know.
It begs the question, is technology the essence of our industry? Is that what we’re all about? Is that why bottom bracket and seat post diameter standards change every year? Sure, marketers do produce materials focused on the freedom and fun of the bicycle, and some are amazing, super inspirational pieces. But ever-increasingly it’s the innovation and technology story that’s percolating to the top as mountain biking's most important. For a sport totally anchored in experience and emotion, is that really where we want it to go?
And sure, riding a bike is still all of that. Will always be just that. It’s simple. It’s beautiful. It’s easy. But over the last few years, especially on a dual suspension mountain bike, the act of riding a bike has gotten a lot more, well, complicated.
When it comes to purchasing a medium to top-end mountain bike in 2011, there’s a sea of mega-tech-super-coded-info to wade through. PS5560GS tubesets, LEX-BB600 gearing systems, GNAR88MEGA Rocket suspension technology, MARS180 tire durometer, you get my drift. On most websites those dryly-named-digit-encoded acronyms get expanded into 3D animations, dorky interviews with industrial designers, inside looks into testing facilities and laboratories.
And more and more everyday, it’s presented in a language that’s harder and harder to understand—like teenage text dialect, but for bike nerds. And it’s industry-wide: from suspension manufacturers to frame designers, components, wheels, tires, and every other tidbit in between. And it only seems to be going deeper down the rabbit hole. Detailed explanations on exotic composites, arguments that breakdown super specific (and mostly subtle) performance differences between multi-pivot suspension platforms, custom shock valving, space-age polymer-infused aramid glass with nanotechnology (huh?), four-bar, Horst-Link, VPP, single pivot, magnesium, scandium, carbon, titanium, aluminum, cromoly, it goes on forever. And maybe that’s ok for the tech fanatics among us. Many of you are educated and care about how a bike works and why. But what about everybody else?
The potential problem with technology being used as the main selling feature of a bike is its undeniable complication. For most it's a different language. One they might find alienating. Especially those new to mountain biking. Let’s face it, most of us want to ride because the act of getting on a bike and going into the woods represents freedom. It’s simple. It’s away from the complicated day-to-day of modern life.
Illustration: moadesign.net
Use the car as an analogy. Those intensely complicated machines we all spend shitloads of cash on. But do we really care about the details of that technology? Do we really need to know the inner workings of that suspension system? The alloy structure of the manifold? The composite of the brake calipers? Think a motorcyclist actually cares about the valving structure of their front shock?
Sure, we care about the features. And we care about how well it works. Does it drive nice, or bad? And yeah, we really care about what it looks like, how much it costs, and if the company is going to take care of us if our particular car ends up being a lemon. But all the millions of dirty details? Really?
Even the snowsports industry seems to have strayed away from quasi-coded techno jargon marketing speak. We don’t really care if our snowboard or skis have a triaxal weave, or if they’re balsam or spruce or monocoque foam core or not. We just want to know if it shreds. If it will shred for a long time. And if we’re getting maximum shred for our buck. Sure, the more advanced gear junkies among us will question flex patterns and sidecuts, but these are features, much like amount of travel, or pedal performance on a mountain bike. It’s more about “what” this thing can do, and less about “how.”
When it comes to medium to high-end mountain bikes in 2011, however, a lot of what marketers present as the selling features of the bike come from the how, not the what. You see tech call outs worked into frame graphics. Shocks have a wide variety of settings and adjustments. Bikes arrive in boxes with explanatory DVD’s and multiple 100-page manuals. Suspension isn’t described as sweet or plush but linear, regressive, and progressive. Relatively complicated phenomena like brake jack, wheel path and rising rate suspension are explained in lengthy, shoot-me-in-the-face-I’m-so-bored communications. In all reality, the bike industry spends many millions of dollars on materials focused on explaining complicated technologies and performance virtues to people who—for the most part I’m willing to bet—couldn’t give two aramid nanotech infused scandium shits.
How many of your friends never check the air in their shock? Who don’t even know the difference between rebound, preload and compression? Who just ride to have fun, and don’t care nor want to care how their bike actually works. They just want to it to work.
So what is it about our sport that’s driven us into this realm of deep, long-winded articulation of every part of the bicycle? Is it consumer driven? Is this what we really want? Or is this what the industry thinks we want? Are we making purchase decisions based on technology or innovation? Or are we buying bicycles because our friends who’ve ridden them say they work great? Hard to know.
It begs the question, is technology the essence of our industry? Is that what we’re all about? Is that why bottom bracket and seat post diameter standards change every year? Sure, marketers do produce materials focused on the freedom and fun of the bicycle, and some are amazing, super inspirational pieces. But ever-increasingly it’s the innovation and technology story that’s percolating to the top as mountain biking's most important. For a sport totally anchored in experience and emotion, is that really where we want it to go?
Author Info:
Member since Apr 18, 2011
Must Read This Week
How to Watch the 2024 Mountain Bike World Cup [Update: Staylive Offering Access in New Zealand, South Africa & More]
60365 views
60365 views
[UPDATED] Final Elite XC Results & Overall Standings from the Mairiporã XC World Cup 2024
41259 views
41259 views
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
kinda hypocritcal isn't it?
seems like this author will write with a slant towards whoever is sliding him a paycheck or attention.
makes a ton of cash off shuttling, then slams shuttling...now he's slammin the tech and jargon side of the industry, but not before he gets paid/accolades to write about the progression and passion of technology.
bite the hand that feeds much?
In my opinion you can't always go forward without mistakes and errors in the concept of a product. Some standards makes sense, others dont. For example the new Headtubes of GIANT Bikes for 2012 makes no sense and is just marketing.
1/5 and 1 1/8 are the way to go, 68/73mm BB's, Hub Spacing 135mm and 150mm and 27.2/31.2 Seatposts would make it clear. Every other standards are just there to make more money and offer a greater choice but in fact you dont need this stuff.
chainwhip?! a peice of chain with a handle!
double butted?!
triple butted?!
"We just want to know if it shreds"
hit the nail on the head right there
i fully agree with the silly amount of tech on bikes these days, and i cant help but think this also might have something to do with the price hike on pretty much everything bike related. I mean it used to be for £500 you would get very top end set of forks and be happy with it. Now something top end (specially if it has a certain animal on it) will cost you well over £1000 and you still wouldnt be sure if your happy with it.
and just before i get negatively voted. I want to say im pretty sure that the race victories have very little to do with bikes these days, and a lot more with the riders. Give anyone on the current world cup race list a 5 year old bike and im pretty sure he will still beat me on a brand new V10.
Also PS i was at the last BUCS championship (student championships, the vid with plenty of students crashing...) and there was a guy in top 10 on a hard tail. Now tell me thats due to technology....
I want to take a magazine from 2001-2003 and just shove it in some Marz/Fox/Rockshox exec's face and demand to know what £300 - £500 has added.
My biggest gripe is that they inflated the whole market. They did not just add a top-end range of high priced products over the existing stock. They actually downgraded existing stock relative to their entire line. You add several £1000 forks into your line and suddenly the average price jumps from £300 to £600. So what do you do? You make your average forks more expensive. Not because you have improved the technology but because your products and your brand have grown, and because you can. But you mustn't forget to change the design! God forbid! Then you might give them ammunition to beat you with - to claim you are going hiking with prices, and taking f*cking marshmallows.
This applies to more than forks.
I realise that they are only making profits because they can and people are still buying. But its pretty unrealistic to suggest to buy somewhere else. Nor can someone just self-produce a fork. But this is where companies would love for us to forget the past. Not long ago they showed that decent forks could be produced for less money, or at least with a broader spread of costs between the products. They did this too when both they and the bike industry as a whole were smaller and less profitable. Most companies are larger now, more capable of weathering the storm, and yet I would suggest are taking excessive profits given that the producst they produce are equal in worth to a few years ago.
But what do I know, as a poor wickle student who always buys second hand. As for inflation of currency; DONT GET ME STARTED ON SPACE INVADERS COSTING 15p NOW!
I'm sure Fox/RS/Marz could sell a special edition-super-mega-quadshima-coated-dual-compression-overlord-spunkfast fork for £3k - because people want to FEEL they are getting the best (if that feeling is hype and marketing, then so be it). A lot of pricing is to do with perceived quality. Somethings are priced to be reasuringly expensive to the consumer...
Tin of Heinz baked beans anyone....or the supermarket own brand?!
Since im trying to persuade the market not to be willing to pay for it. I think I would say,
Tin of Heinz baked beans... or the supermarket own brand and can of stella?
I was just meaning that at only 500pounds more they are actually cheaper than a few years ago because of inflation, Relative to income though. The same thing mackeroo said, if then can they will. These companies are also spending a boat load on advertising and sponsorships and using the money made from forks etc to pay for it.
Great article, i share the same point of view as the author. Cool that PB published it!
And this is one brutal truth: wanna get faster, go train! Get fit, get skills clinics. It takes way less time to train 1hr per day on strength and cardio, fly for a clinic, than working to earn money for this expensive stuff. And guess what: riding being strong and fit on a crappy HT for hours and hours is way more fun than being weak on 10k bike. No way around it and we all know it, we just like to cheat ourselves
My thoughts on this.
Back in the day my Mountain Cycle Shockwave with Pro Stop brakes and 6" Risse Champ forks cost over ten grand. Today, for three grand I can go buy a Giant Glory 2 that is superior in probably* every way to what I had before. So adjusting for inflation the Giant is something like one fifth of the price.
Sure the Glory 2 is not at the top of the food chain like my MC was so it is a little wrong to compare the price, but as far as the stopwatch it would be faster. Quality is going up, price is coming down. Technology has trickled down.
* I say 'probably' because I still think the Risse Champs were the butteriest forks ever. Is it good or bad that a fork sags under its own weight?
That's the biggest success of commercialism: they got us so used to the bullshit, that we are fine with it.
This is why the economy experiences unintended consequences despite reams of economists on all sides. Economists make a valiant effort at trying to explain the economy as if it is a science governed by natural laws. As if demand is a comparable force to gravity. We know that science is only true to a high probability and is never absolutely true. But economists set out to do more: they presume to understand human psychology better than the psychologists could ever claim too. They believe that their vague scientific language is a means of actually reading our minds - for that is the logical conclusion of all this 'supply and demand' rubbish. They therefore proclaim to have explained the nature of our existence, albeit through economic systems of property, barter and production, but they havn't. No one alive ever has, or could ever. Economics is studied and talked of as if it isn't a quest to answer the central philosophical problems of the universe when it is.
And the moral of the story is: there is feck all anyone can do about it except try and know yourself what something is worth to you. You probably cannot get anything cheaper. Stop trying to explain prices and trust your instinct. No one can predict instinct. No one even knows what it is.
The article has a point though, all the acronyms and weird language the different brands use to market their products is confusing and intimidating to newcomers. Most brand feel there is a need to push something new into the market every year, and because in reality the simpler a bike is the better it works, they can't reinvent the wheel every year, so they come up every year with a new acronym for something that has existed in engineering for decades if not centuries. In my opinion it's the marketing guys hurting the sport with their intimidating "new technologies".
The point here is that for the people who don't understand, all of this bullshit is what guarantees purchase. If you're smart, and have seen (and gone through) a number of bikes through your life, you won't be fooled by the confused mumbling of some bike shop salesman convincing you that you won't go faster unless you employ this nano-piezo-electric carbon-fibre unobtainium bowden. The casual shopper, with a few thousand redundant dollars in their pocket, looking to impress with a shiny new full-suspension bike made of f*cking-perfectium, will be convinced. It's the placebo effect, nothing new. And I disagree with the author, that it's any different with cars. At least in Europe, you see so much incredible PR nonsense being poured down onto prospective buyers, it makes a true car enthusiast dizzy with disbelief. And it's the same everywhere. The only thing to do is to filter it all out, if you know what's going on. If you don't, I guess you'll have to make do with a product that's made of more materials and technologies than a NASA Space Shuttle
Also if your bike will ride completely else than the competition it's good to create a new acronym to distinguish yourself even if it looks similar to an untrained eye.
What you say is that it makes sense to stick a new, misleading tag onto every reiteration of one general design, which is unique only in the implementation details (e.g. the geometry). In the automobile analogy, that would be like assigning a unique 20-letter acronym to every car with a MacPherson strut, because presumably, every manufacturer uses ever-so-slightly different travels and angles on the whole set-up. Not quite substantiated in my opinion. To assign a specific marketing buzzword to the fact that one executes the design better than others (or so they merely believe) is absurd. Either you promote these technical details, which are impossible to (convincingly) link to any universal improvement in the overall experience, or you simply proclaim that a new bike is 'just better' or 'shreds harder', which is baseless conjecture per se.
I simply think it would be healthy if bike producers stopped making such a circus over things which don't deserve the attention. If they need publicity to sell what they make, they can put money into sponsoring riders in the spotlight. That usually helps in winning over the undecided. After that, every other marketing effort beyond presenting a fully detailed specification of the bike (in pictures and numbers, but no self-made jargon) is, in my opinion, garbage.
Also what you are describing is not too much tech speak it is too much marketing speak. It is also not imossible to convincigly link changes in bikes to ride experiance. For an engineer the differance of a slightly more/less rearward wheel trave, slight change or geo change is quite obvious. The main problem is the end user is in most cases not willing to educate himself on the subtle differances so it is hard to exmplain it to him. Yes there is no perfect bike but if manufacturers actually gave accurate technical data it would be much easier to find a bike that suits you, your riding locations and style the best. At least if you are willing to read a little.
Secondly, this is a subject I have studied slightly and I think norAZ summarises it succinclty - its basically how the individual interprets it. As a newbee (which I suspect most of the people here aren't) you sometimes want the re-assurance that there is some clever exotically named technology assisting your riding performance. As you get more wise and understand the fundamentals of VPP, Duometer, pedal platforms, etc. you begin to see past the jargon.
However, jargon is needed because there has to be some way of selling technolgy - and that means communicating it. The car analogy to a good example - if you've bought a VW Golf GTi, you want the consumer to know that it has got a better engine, suspension and general performance than a bog-standard Golf. Succinctly labelling it a 'GTi' communicates all those engine refinements, extra valves, high lift cams, etc. without going into the technical specification. The same needs to happen with bikes - the clever bits that go into a rear shock (for example) need to be communicated - how could most people tell the difference between a Fox Float and an RP3 without the symbols on the decal?
In summary: Jargon is needed to convey a technological message.
Silly names for things should be left at home though (I'm looking at you Santa Cruz APP!). Maybe Orange should use 'SASP Suspension' (Still A Single Pivot)?
What Is APP?
In the words of the lead engineer on this project, APP is "a kind of bogus acronym." It means Actual Pivot Point, and since we are an acronym-averse company, those three letters represent both a totally new suspension system and the fact that we don't take our marketing nearly as seriously as we do our engineering. The name "Actual Pivot Point" initially came about as a spoof on "Virtual Pivot Point," and was used in joking reference to our single pivot bikes when we first began working with VPP a decade ago. When it came time to name this new suspension system we were working on, the APP moniker resurfaced, and in spite of our best efforts to come up with something else that accurately described what was going on and sounded cool, the name stuck.
Please don't get me wrong, I hate negative comments, and I'm not on a downer with SC bikes, it just seemed like a good example of jargon gone too far in my opinion.
The above statement from SC (which I had read before) appears a bit contridictory. However, I'm sure many consumers will lap it up!
I think its quite marketing savvy of SC to try to play it cool, yet at the same time actually use jargon (APP is also a very 'now' term as well - iphone...).
I would argue that most of us are not pro's, we are average people with average jobs. Some fitter then others, some jump higher, but in the end just guys riding bikes having fun.
Try not to buy into the hype of the next great super cool gotta have it now thing. I have not idea how to do that...I am bike whore remember.
All this to say that with pretty much zero valuable information on all the bikes I ended up buying a bike from a local company that I thought I'd be getting the most bang for my bucks with the build they offered. Maybe not everyone is like me but it still means that all the millions they invested into marketing didn't have any impact on me, at all. I'd rather have them diminish the marketing expenses so they can also shrink the bike prices but that ain't happening anytime soon.
I didn't get my bike yet and I still wonder if X or Y option would have been better but I guess I'll most likely never know. As long as the bike is tailored to my riding needs, I don't think it being the optimal option or not will matter in the end as it will most likely be good enough anyway. Maybe someday when I get enough experience on different rigs it will help but right now, I feel it's just the marketing department trying to justify their salary.
I guess if you're an engineer and you took the time to analyze all suspension systems and you were lucky enough to try them all, it might be insightful to you but the average user doesn't understand/see the difference. I'm more of a person that looks at a product's benchmark standards and then I compare my potential options. You can't really do that in the bike world and that's why a whole lot of people seem to take a stab in the dark when dropping 5k$ on a new bike which is pretty sad.
I often hear this, for example a rider could ask another if he´s fork or rear shock works with air or oil?
Then I try to explain that every fork/shock have oil in them, it´s only the spring that can be an air or coil one, and the result is that they are very confused.
Also people don´t service their shocks, one can say that he´s suspension must be good because he send he´s shock from Finland to UK to get it "tuned", and that was in 2005, and the oil came off 2006 but the shock hasn´t been serviced since´that. Some don´t even notice, or some don´t care about the loss of performance, but especially in gravity disciplines it can increase the risks a lot, if you have a bad rear shock for example. One guy I know dropped with his bike and broke his leg so bad that he can´t ride anymore, all because his rear shock was a "pogo stick".
It´s a complicated sport, and I think riders should understand the basics of how their equipment works, but maybe manufacturers could do something to make it more simple. If one is not interested on the "how" part, he or she can always ask the bike shop to do the service. I think bikes are pretty service-free already, and the basic things can be done by the user (like air pressures, lubing the chain, checking bolts... anyone can do that), so with a decent full suspension bike, the user can leave suspension service, wheel truing, brake bleeding etc... for the bike shops to do. I think with right equipment it can be pretty care free for such a hightech sport.
Most of us don´t need those super-high-end bikes and components, it´s more important to have that decent bike that is not over complicated. Just get someone to do the dirty job if you don´t want to do it yourself, but anyway, it MUST be done, you can´t get away from that and it´s dangerous to neglect the service.
Latest and greatest is fun... But, going w less hyped products from a companies that really take time to test & produce quality gear is better for the sport.
get over it.
the marketers will market, the posers will pose, the rippers will rip, the beginners will begin, and the engineers will engineer.
whats the problem? this is some sort of new concept? its been going on in many industries for hundreds of years.
its cool we have all the tech, and jargon, and such.
give me a 'dorky interview' with someone who designs anyday over this type of 'article'.
e.g. "Tubeless" means something (self-explanatory)
"ISCG" mounts = International Standard Chainguide mounts
whereas something like "Overdrive 2" is clearly just marketing hype. Giant could easily have said 1.5" to 1.25" steerer tube instead.
That said, incremental changes in standards are good (occasionally). I'd hate to still be riding a 1" steerer fork with v-brakes and square taper cranks now!
We own highly specialised, high tech machines so more tech speak is obvious and it is also usefull. For now I still belive many companies give you little info. If I'm to spend 3k $ on a bike frame I want to know if it's regressive/progressive/linear and best know the whole curve, know the axlepath and have all the data i need so I can make an educated choice not a random guess just by testing few different test bikes that vary by components and it's hardly a scientific comparison. Especially if you are going with a different build than the bike you tested.
High end racing gear means high end racing terminology. Googling a few terms schouldn't be that hard. It's not the 1950s.
Again you pay up to 10 thousand dolars for a bike. That's 20 times more than what a basic trek costs. It's the equivalent of a 300k car. Why would you want less information about your bike? To make a less educated buy? Access to information in a modern world gives customer power. Why do you want to take that away from us? Yes some people don't want that power but than they can't complain their bike is not what they expected. For me still most companies use more marketing (the bike will shred, we have a wc team and other mumbo jumbo) than real technical info and we actually need more tech info so we can have the ability to buy a bike we want not a bike some marketing a*shole pushes(nothing against marketing guys, am one myself
Do you really want to buy your bikes based more on marketing and less on knowglede you can aquire?
An example for me is.. I've stated my search for a new frame. I've read up on many frames like the Ghost DH, Last Herb DH, Trek Session, Spec Demo, Intense, Scott Voltage and whatnot, and after looking through all the technical charts, graphs, measurements I could find, what mostly broke down on whether or not I liked the frame is actually how it felt when ridden. I will admit that alot of the information I read up on prepared me to find the subtle differences, but in the end it didn't help all that much in my final decision.
Walking away from that I felt like I all the technical jargon was more or less nothing more than advertising. I'm all up for technology, and especially if there was a more reliable way than a written review to present it, I think technology would be a much more useful tool. I wonder if there'd be room in the industry for a company that did nothing but experiment and analyse the engineering aspects of major industry bikes and provided a purely unbiased view.
I guess what I'm saying is.. Technology is great, and information about it to the customer is great, but I don't feel that the information presented to customers is all that informative.
a) it's not presented very clearly. Not because information is bad in itself. Most companies don't give you any accurate data but pseudo tech speak that actually is aimed at giving you less information. It's not to much technical info. It's too much marketing pretending to be it.
b) you said it yourself - you decided not to use it.
So if you decide not to use the information you kinda can't complain it's informative. Also looking at the bikes you've picked the differances should be far from subtle. I don't know why do you feel a low pivot bike like a session would ride similar to a ghost dh. They are widely different bikes.
Also again - I'm a strong beliver in demoing bikes but they often warry in components and that obscures how the frame really performs, that's why knowledge is quite usefull because you can see what's the components and what's the frame.
But as long as you're having fun posting, it's all good; grammer can be tough.
The bad thing is that the companies are clearly pulling tech out of nowhere to try to please the tech heads, and I would wager a good 80% of the stuff they say we need to upgrade to each year and most of the new standards, don't really serve to make the bikes or rides any better. They have to find a way to make us want to replace our derailleur each year. Otherwise, how will they make money? Stuff can't last too long, and they have to outdo it. But look at the success of a company like Transition. Super simple, classic designs (which a lot of techies think are garbage) but they've made super fun bikes and had great success. They don't have stickers all over their bikes describing the latest this and that, they just know what a fun bike is and they make it.
By comparison Cars ads don't go as much into the detail of suspension, differentials, engine setup etc, etc. even though there are considerably more complex than bikes.
So yeah, they should take it down a notch, and focus on the importance of geomtery rather than the fancy marketing of subtle theoretical engineering advandages.
After all, All the top riders in the world cup ride on different bike frame using different suspension systems, different drive trains, different forks etc. etc., and every race there is the surprise of a low key racer coming to the front and a big shot staying at the back.
Its all down to human skill in the end. So just shut up and ride
Technology makes the whole industry evolve and it also keeps the big wheel of money spinning.
We buy manufacturers stuff, they use that money for R&D and make next year's parts are even better (mostly). Same thing goes with any other growing market.
This article is totally useless, because there will always be people riding a wallmart bike or a full Alivio bike and there will always be people taking the sport more than casual who ride a full XX carbon bike.
And if people are confused, then that means there are too many poor informing bike shops. Passion draws confusion away.
hit the nail on the head right there
Sorry if your seatpost isnt compatible with your new bike.....sorry if your volvo's wheels arent compatible with your new Honda. Standards exist for competition, industry relies on competition, thats how the world goes round.
and if you're dissatisfied with the tech side of the industry, don't buy into it. (spontaneous order, creative destruction, grumble grumble)
Prime example.
I purchased a pair of 2007 recon 327 solo airs (80mm not lock out or anything) for £90 because i can understand the internals of the fork (which are simple) i simply removed the all travel spacer, ordered a motion control damper rebuilt the fork for a total cost (including original purchase price) of about £150 to be a 130mm recon 351 (with the exception of the 100ish g weight difference due to the 327s having a steel steerer rather than alloy) that at the time people were selling for £100 more on average and all it cost me was a little time and some reading.
I'm not one of these people (I have a steel hardtail with great functioning components dating back to 2005 on it). However I have a friend who buys a new XTR groupset every year! Why? Because its the latest and he can!
The industry needs people to spend the big bucks, and to be honest if it makes the consumer happy, then live and let live I say.
the nice thing is that the info is out there, so if you don't care don't look. if you do care- enjoy.
- Yes, yes we do, or at least all the ones I ride with.
And a "front shock" on a motorcycle, as on a bicycle, is called a fork.
That shows how mad its getting really.. You shouldn't rely on numbers and measurements to tell you how you like your bike, You should adjust things when you feel as though it needs adjusting.
On the side of too much jargon, yup i agree theres too much silly names an acronyms going on but in terms of the tech we have i think its great. Can you imagine someone from the early 90s trying to run any of the WC courses now ? theres no way in hell theyd get near the times being seen today. I personally think we're getting near the wall where all that can really be improved is weight and even then my bikes are more than manageable. I compare my canyon to my big hit and theyre worlds apart.
I think anybody that thinks they can run a bike without maintenance or understanding of roughly how it works is daft and to be perfectly honest i think people SHOULD have a basic understanding of what the hells going on which will mean learning to some extent what all the important acornyms mean. Im no car mechanic, but i know when my car isnt firing right or if the brakes are shot and the ABS isnt working. They should understand what its designed to do and how that may potentially benefit them or work against them.Ultimately there are people out there that just generally dont care and generally from my experience they fall in to 2 categories, die hard riders who will pound down anything like a nutter and not care they tend to be people that are just good at it, and people that either bust themselves or their bikes up and blame the bike generally due to the fact that its not setup for the job its doing.
Finally technology drives the world not just bikes, new stuff sells end of. how many people on Here bought 2012 parts over 2011 parts ? thats nothing to do with the tech inside them thats just to do with the longstanding idea that newer is better
The same will happen with mountain bikes. Performance is not solely dependent on the acronyms. I have horst and DW bikes and love them both. I would buy either again in the future. I didn't like the faux four bar and won't buy one again. I have forks from all manufacturers that I have loved. The piston cartridge damping is the common link in those. They are tunable as well, so if I don't like the action, I can re valve it. The working designs are being separated from the hype.
Bike tech is not all that difficult. Prices are dictated by supply and demand. Go shred...
The other point that I think gets missed is when people talk about £1000 forks etc. Great if you have that money, and the tech will filter it's way down eventually. But it's of no interest to me because I'm making do with secondhand toras since it's all I can afford. I guess my point is that everyone gets so hung up on the ultra high end parts and seems to forget that for every rider that can splash out on the latest dual crown wonders there's probably a dozen like me who just want something at a reasonable price that isn't entirely atrocious.
does anyone want ten speeds?
hows everyones experience been with ten speed?
sure the world championships were won on it (except troy's bike), but we all know that had nothing to do with it
how about a drivetrain that rarely wears out, shifts better, and doesn't need constant adjustment?
because all the technology required to push these "advancements" could be applied to what we already have which would only make what we have way better.
Steel...
Rigid...
Handmade...
Homemade...
Any questions tabarnak ?
mountain biking is my passion and i think no matter what its the best sport going
Of course certain subtlety and distinction is necessary, proclaimed innovation isn't always a figment of some wise guy from the marketing department. Certain standards and technologies have no doubt changed mountainbiking to the better. But very often these days, for need of producing the same amount of "wow" as in the previous years, marketers stray from what's real to what's imaginary. And that's just bull.
What you mean us uneducated grasping unwashed masses?
lol. just kiddin'. just think it's funny how you put it.
"Omega Metered Factored Gaussian Super Theoretical Forward Ultimate pivot technology"
If you have fun , good for you !!
Part of the complications also come from a natural progression of the sport. When we went from klunkers, to hardtails, to Full suspension sleds, it's no wonder things have gotten complicated. In a very short time frame too.
Life is complicated, and so is mountain biking. It's all what you make of it really. You have the choice to sit and obsess about little details, or you can just lube the chain and ride it like you stole it. That's why I like my Transition, just air up the tires, and off I go.