Opinion - Thinkers, Tinkerers, and Inventors

The cycling world needs people who are more concerned with doing things differently than just doing things the same way as everyone else. I'm talking about minds that look at something and don't just go, ''I can do that,'' but think "That's cool and all, but what if I did it this way?'' That sort of logic is why iPhones are so intuitive and easy to use; it's why air bags save so many lives each year; it's why donuts with bacon on top taste so damn good. There are, of course, thousands and thousands of other examples, many of which have had much more of an important impact on people's lives than things like cable operated derailleurs and the pneumatic tire ever will, but they all have one thing in common: someone, at some point, decided that they could do it better by doing it differently.

But why are we so hard on people who think like that? When you consider that most of us are happy to get through life by doing whatever it is that we do, pay our bills on time and squeeze in a bit of fun while being somewhat responsible, it makes the real bicycle thinkers, tinkerers and inventors out there, such as Graeme Obree and Robert Reisinger, look pretty f*cking awesome. Yet many of us are quick to shit on anything that looks different than what we're used to seeing, especially if we don't understand the whys and hows. Now, that's obviously not a trait that's exclusive to our group, but we do seem awfully quick to ridicule any out of the box thinking, a fact that can be confirmed by scrolling through the comment sections of many articles here on Pinkbike and elsewhere. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for calling a spade a spade, especially because that's part of my job description, but there's a line where it goes from genuine criticism to just being closed minded. Perhaps it is because it's a lot easier to type out a poorly worded insult than it is to use Google to do some quick homework, or maybe it's down to jealousy. Either way, it's a good thing there were no online forum haters to discourage Franklin and Tesla when they were tinkering about with lightbulbs and electrocuting themselves.




It's true that the cycling world isn't exactly rife with fresh ideas lately, but I believe that's because we've already been through the growing pains of the last three decades. And maybe that's a good thing - do we really need another round of suspension stems or bikes with two shocks? Of course not, but now, when there is a fresh concept, or one that's at least new to mountain biking, it's so often the case that we end up turning into one big, negative hivemind that tries to shoot it out of the sky like it's a lame duck. We like to revert to tired arguments about the so-called evil cycling industry just trying to line their pockets when something new or different gets shown, or we'll exclaim about how we don't need this or that to enjoy the sport. Fair enough, but more often than not the person saying that is riding a bike that's less than a few years old, which means it has things like disc brakes, really good suspension, and maybe even a dropper post or tubeless wheels and tires. Hypocrites, all of us.

Then again, all of the acronyms, trademarks and so-called innovations that are so often pitched as being 'the next big thing' are surely just making the average rider roll his eyes dismissively. I don't know anything about marketing, but it's just insane to me how some of these new products and ideas are presented to the buying public, and I can't blame anyone for being more than just a bit skeptical after reading about some of them.

The truth is that your bike, even if you parked it right now and kept it in pristine condition for the next decade, is going to be a relative heap compared to what we'll be able to get our hands on ten years from now. We need to realize that there's nothing wrong with that, and that things move forward not because someone in a suit wants to buy a new beach house and needs your money to do it, but because bikes are getting better due to people wanting to make better products.

I'm a diehard fan of auto racing, and while it's obviously still as marketing driven as any other sport, it's also far more about winning than anything else. Winning is, after all, one of the better ways to market a product. If you want to see some proper out of the box thinking, take a look at what Ben Bowlby is doing with his Nissan GT-R LM Nismo that is hoping to challenge the Audi and Porsche cars in the World Endurance Championship - this thing is a perfect example of what happens when you have to think differently. Audi dominates most of the WEC, and Bowlby accurately stated that he'd have very little chance of beating them if he designed a race car to the same basic, albeit very proven, principles given that his competitors have spent many years perfecting what he'd only now putting into practice. No, he had to take the drastically different and risky route of penning a radically different machine that, hopefully, will go faster than his competitors. The un-constraining WEC rulebook allowed him to build a 1,250 HP, front-wheel drive car that exploits aerodynamics in a different way than the proven four-wheel drive cars it's going up against, and while the jury is still out as to how it will fare, one has to admire Bowlby's rationale: you probably can't beat 'em by doing the same thing that they're doing.

And while my mind always seems to focus in on new bikes and gear, Bowlby's point could also be applied to everything in the cycling world, from media to training to trail building, albeit with a less competitive edge as required.

Mountain biking and auto racing have about as much in common as an LED television and a potato, but it is an inspiring place to look to when talking about doing things differently. Our little off-road bicycle world has much less money running through its veins, but we also don't have a rulebook that keeps progression from getting out of hand. There's nothing to keep a bright mind from coming up with something revolutionary, however, there are plenty of not so bright minds that seemingly don't want that to happen. I'm not clever enough to come up with any ideas worth pursuing, but I'd like to think that I am smart enough to be in a third group of people: those who welcome new ideas with an open mind and a willingness to see if they make sense. Which group do you fit into?