Ohh I get it and I’m sure most in here do but to the average rider you are fighting the marketing hype from the big companies and right now at least that is aluminum is inferior to carbon.
Ease of repair, warranty, and potential versatility of the frame are big factors, as is price, weight and to a certain extent how easy the company to deal with. Obviously geo is important, but there are lots of bikes with good geo these days.
Guerrilla Gravity’s modular frame was a big selling point to me. The ability to run it as a short travel bike today and a long travel enduro bike tomorrow is pretty rad.
Guerrilla Gravity’s modular frame was a big selling point to me. The ability to run it as a short travel bike today and a long travel enduro bike tomorrow is pretty rad.
Do you actually reconfigure your bikes? It seems many people like the idea of adjustable geometry, multiple wheel sizes, etc., but I've met only a couple who have actually used such features.
Guerrilla Gravity’s modular frame was a big selling point to me. The ability to run it as a short travel bike today and a long travel enduro bike tomorrow is pretty rad.
Do you actually reconfigure your bikes? It seems many people like the idea of adjustable geometry, multiple wheel sizes, etc., but I've met only a couple who have actually used such features.
The GG is more configurable than just flipping a chip between high/low though. Sure there's additional investment involved, but the idea of being able to re-configure the GG from a short travel - long travel or vice versa could add longevity to the bike. For example if you bought the bike to ride gnarly tech terrain where you live, but next year you had to move for work and now the local trails are all flow...well you don't necessarily need to buy a new bike!
That being said I agree that most people won't ever be re configuring their bike from day to day depending on which trail they are going to ride. Hell, I can rarely be bothered to adjust tire pressure LOL.
Guerrilla Gravity’s modular frame was a big selling point to me. The ability to run it as a short travel bike today and a long travel enduro bike tomorrow is pretty rad.
Do you actually reconfigure your bikes? It seems many people like the idea of adjustable geometry, multiple wheel sizes, etc., but I've met only a couple who have actually used such features.
The GG is more configurable than just flipping a chip between high/low though. Sure there's additional investment involved, but the idea of being able to re-configure the GG from a short travel - long travel or vice versa could add longevity to the bike. For example if you bought the bike to ride gnarly tech terrain where you live, but next year you had to move for work and now the local trails are all flow...well you don't necessarily need to buy a new bike!
That being said I agree that most people won't ever be re configuring their bike from day to day depending on which trail they are going to ride. Hell, I can rarely be bothered to adjust tire pressure LOL.
That's what I'm getting at:
1. Do the presence and extent of a frame's configuration options increase sales? 2. Among those who have purchased frames with such options, how many use these options and to what extent?
I had 2017 Slayer with ride 4 adjustment. In the spring I’d make her a little steeper. For park season I'd put her in the slackest position. Once the park closed, back to the steeper setting for pedalling around. Realistically I only moved the adjustment twice a year. Definitely not worth paying more for but if it’s there might as well use it.
I set my Knolly to the slackest setting and haven't gone back but if I lived somewhere with mellower terrain I might put it in the steeper setting....or buy a different bike.
I like the idea of the flexibility on the TR250 when I had it (travel/head angle + chainstay) but after faffing a few times when I first got it, I proceeded to not touch anything after about 2 months until it cracked and got replaced.
I'm either not good enough, not sensitive enough to changes or, most likely, too damn lazy to try and optimise things. I barely even adjust tyre pressure for conditions because I just want to get on with riding, rather than be constantly fiddling trail side.
I like the idea of the flexibility on the TR250 when I had it (travel/head angle + chainstay) but after faffing a few times when I first got it, I proceeded to not touch anything after about 2 months until it cracked and got replaced.
I'm either not good enough, not sensitive enough to changes or, most likely, too damn lazy to try and optimise things. I barely even adjust tyre pressure for conditions because I just want to get on with riding, rather than be constantly fiddling trail side.
On my Remedy I ran it slack and never even tried steep.. On my Megatower I've only ran it slack and short chain stay setting. Pretty confident that's likely where it will stay too.
It seems nearly everyone runs their adjustable geometry in the low & slack positions, raising the question of whether ideal geometry is considerably lower and / or slacker than typical geometry.
In my case with GGs “options” while Im not rushing out to buy all the seatstay kits for 4 different bikes, its the fact that I have those options that made a big difference in my considering them, well that and the whole made in USA thing.
I moved my bronson to the high setting. .3 degrees difference at HTA and SA (non detectable) 4mm hight on bb (definitely less pedal strikes). When I get a new shock with a climb switch I’ll set it back to low as majority of low bb issues were climbing.
i move my bike into the High position sometimes but its only if im doing more of a cross country-esque ride. honestly i could care less about options like that though, if i could afford it id just have a dedicated xc bike