Block user

Recent

Marlfox87 RichardCunningham's article
Mar 23, 2015 at 20:46
Mar 23, 2015
Pinkbike Poll: How Much Are Name-Brand Components and Interchangeability Worth?
Well said, both of you. @Kc348, your comment points out another difference between motorcycles and bicycles, namely the size of the industry. Unfortunately o don't have any hard numbers, but I believe its safe to assume that the motorcycle industry is much larger than the bicycle industry (especially of that industry is reduced entirely to mountain bikes). By the sheer difference in production quantity alone its not to unreasonable to expect the motorcycle industry to have a lower MSRP when compares to a bicycle.
Marlfox87 RichardCunningham's article
Mar 20, 2015 at 21:32
Mar 20, 2015
Pinkbike Poll: How Much Are Name-Brand Components and Interchangeability Worth?
A highly sophisticated rant: part 6 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!
Marlfox87 RichardCunningham's article
Mar 20, 2015 at 21:05
Mar 20, 2015
Pinkbike Poll: How Much Are Name-Brand Components and Interchangeability Worth?
A highly sophisticated rant: part 5 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.
Marlfox87 RichardCunningham's article
Mar 20, 2015 at 21:04
Mar 20, 2015
Pinkbike Poll: How Much Are Name-Brand Components and Interchangeability Worth?
A highly sophisticated rant: part 4 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.
Marlfox87 RichardCunningham's article
Mar 20, 2015 at 21:04
Mar 20, 2015
Pinkbike Poll: How Much Are Name-Brand Components and Interchangeability Worth?
A highly sophisticated rant: part 3 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.
Marlfox87 RichardCunningham's article
Mar 20, 2015 at 21:03
Mar 20, 2015
Pinkbike Poll: How Much Are Name-Brand Components and Interchangeability Worth?
A highly sophisticated rant: Part 2 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.
Marlfox87 RichardCunningham's article
Mar 20, 2015 at 21:02
Mar 20, 2015
Pinkbike Poll: How Much Are Name-Brand Components and Interchangeability Worth?
A highly sophisticated Rant: Part 1 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.
Selling
Mar 14, 2015 at 17:58
Mar 14, 2015

Specialized Status 1

$1400 USD
specialized status 1 Condition: new Bike has only seen a few rides. Great bike, just looking to move to a more all mountain rig. Buyer pays shipping and PayPal fees.

Added 3 photos to Bikes
Mar 14, 2015 at 17:53
Mar 14, 2015
Marlfox87 riffstills's photo
Mar 6, 2015 at 17:25
Mar 6, 2015
Not like my opinion means anything, but this photo feels like it works because it has the blur in all the right places.

Load more...
You must login to Pinkbike.
Don't have an account? Sign up

Join Pinkbike  Login
Copyright © 2000 - 2015. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv16 0.049015
Mobile Version of Website