'New' Bike Models Every Year - Does That Make Sense?

Nov 29, 2017
by Vernon Felton  
Burning Question


Here's today's burning question: Does the tradition of rolling out new bikes each year still make sense? The "model year" system has been alive and well in the bike industry for decades now. You know how it works—every year, sometime between Eurobike and the annual Christmas-shopping orgy, new fleets of bikes roll into bike shops.

It's a new year, so we must have "new" bikes, right?

Well, maybe. And then again, maybe not. While the model-year production cycle might make sense for car dealerships desperate to lure you into years of credit-card bondage, many observers have pointed out that the same phenomenon seems a bit pointless in the bike industry. After all, bike models don't usually undergo wholesale transformations every 12 months. Why, then, must we keep rolling out "new" versions when the most noteworthy change many a model will undergo from one year to the next is limited to it transitioning from a "Violent Eggplant" paint job to something in a fetching "Enduro Blue"?


CRC visit. Ballyclare Northern Ireland. Photo by Matt Wragg.

Clearly, there are two sides to this coin. Plenty of bike companies (particularly the larger ones) still adhere to the model-year system. A growing number of small to mid-tier companies, however, follow a more on-the-fly business model in which they update existing models as new components become available and only roll out "new models" when they've actually updated the chassis. Which system makes more sense and how does all of this actually impact the average rider? We put the question to Andrew Juskaitis, Global Marketing Manager at Giant Bicycles, and Josh Kissner, Santa Cruz Bicycles' Product Manager.


Andrew Juskaitis Global Marketing and Product Manager Giant Bicycles
Andrew Juskaitis, Global Marketing Manager, Giant Bicycles
bigquotes...because we are so big and because we want to have great product and the latest and the greatest stuff available, because want to to keep track of our products, model year is just a necessary thing for us to do to make sure that at the end of the day the consumer gets the best possible bicycle from us.

So, what are the general benefits of bringing out new versions of bikes every year?

Even when there isn’t a significant frame update to a bicycle series (i.e. Anthem, Trance, Reign, Glory etc.), the component specification, frame details and colors/graphics always progress—which translates into providing customers the very best product (i.e. up-to-date) that they can purchase.

In some cases where market change is not as dynamic, such as select youth bikes as well as our Momentum line of mobility bikes, we do apply the “carry-over” concept where a model year can last a few years—but these are rare exceptions to our standard procedure of model year.


Similar question, but a bit more pointed: Why does the model year system work well for Giant?


Like car brands, model year has a practical use for us in terms of cataloging/bike dating/ bike tracking. This is especially important for customer service/support reasons. With over 156 models in the Giant USA product line (and over 500 in the global lineup), from a production/logistical standpoint, we simply have to organize this massive product range by model-year. Simply put, we HAVE to change SKU’s every year to keep production/warranty/sales on track.


Giant Bicycles

But what if a brand like SRAM rolls out a new, awesome component like they did with Eagle in the middle of the year. Let’s say some new drivetrain rolls out to the public in April of 2018, but the model-year 2018 Giant models sold at bike shops in late 2017 or winter 2018 don’t have those new components. Doesn’t that suck for consumers who want the latest parts on their complete bike? Wouldn’t the consumer get a better bike if Giant had a more flexible, on-the-fly system where new bikes are rolled out and updated, based on the availability of new parts?


So, what you just described there might be a great idea for a smaller brand that has that kind of flexibility, but would be a fairy tale proposition for a brand of our size. Small to maybe mid-size brands, like our friends at Pivot, may be able to move that quickly, but keep in mind that we own our factory, and at that factory every minute of production on every single day is booked one year in advance; so it’s simply impossible for us to take advantage of something that suddenly pops up mid-year like that.

Now also keep in mind that we, Giant, are big enough that we have significant pull with component manufacturers. I know that might sound arrogant, but it’s just a reality for us because we make and manufacture more quality bikes than any other brand, particularly when you factor in the bikes we build for others. The bottom line is that companies at Shimano, SRAM, Fox or RockShox come to us first and work with us to make sure that the timing of the release of their components is sync’d up to our manufacturing process.

Sometimes that works out. Occasionally it doesn't work. The new Dura Ace, for instance, will be available in April and that’s just not the right time for us, but sometimes component manufacturers will delay the availability of a product so that we can get it on our bikes first. We just have that kind of mass to make that happen.


Giant Launch in Southern Chilcotins BC July 2016. Photo Sterling Lorence
A new model every year? That's how Giant rolls.


So is this a question of scale then—does model-year bike production just make better sense for larger brands?


Absolutely, it comes down to company size. Naturally, that’s a double-edged sword—it has its pros and cons too. Again, we have to plan every minute of every day for production in our factory so that we are not going to be able to jump on something mid year that suddenly pops up because again, for us everything is negotiated 12 months in advance.

That mid-year component release is also, to be fair, a recent development in the grand scheme of things, isn’t it? There was a time when brands like Shimano rolled out their new components at Interbike—so that they were timed with the debut of new bike models. Product launches almost always happened on a very set and predictable calendar—typically between June and September. The advent of “next year’s” suspension forks consistently debuting in April, during Sea Otter, has been going on now for less than a decade.

Sure. It’s been going on for something like five years now. But showing a new product at Sea Otter and saying something like “The new Dura Ace disc brake will be available soon” isn’t the same thing as actually making the new disc brake available at Sea Otter. Marketing folks are trying to launch products at what they feel is the right time of year, but when will that product actually be available for us to actually put on our bicycles? That’s an entirely different question.

We’ve been burned on that a number of times in the past. For example, when SRAM hydro [ed. hydraulic road disc brakes] came out, we were very excited about putting that product on a bunch of our ‘cross bikes, so we built two bikes, using SRAM hydro…. Then lo and behold: production delays, production delays, production delays…

It was so bad that we had to cancel those models. The same thing has happened with other component brands that bring out new products that, for a variety of reasons, just arrive too late in the production cycle for us to put on our bikes.

In short, we’re a little gun shy about new products showing up at Sea Otter or some other launch in April or May—what really matters for us is when that product is going to show up at our factory.


Giant Bicycles
Giant manufactures everything in-house...including the unidirectional fabric used in their composite frames.


So you’re saying that consumers may have an expectation that you should have those new parts on your bikes mid year, the moment they show up at Sea Otter, when many of those products are still months away from being available to anyone?


Absolutely. There is just no way you are going to see a product at Sea Otter and Giant is going to launch a bike in July with that product on it. That timing is far fetched.

But again, Giant is so large a company and customer of those component brands that we’re often involved with new products a full year ahead of even early-season events like Taichung Bike Week—which is when a lot of other brands often first see the new components coming down the pike. So we generally stay ahead of the curve already when it comes to spec’ing the latest and the greatest.

For instance, Fox has a new electronic suspension system in the works and we’ve been riding every iteration of that suspension for the last three years. There are very few surprises for companies our size. We are aware of just about everything that will be important that’s coming down the line and we jump on those trends that we think will be advantageous for the rider.


Does the model-year system help or hurt bike shops?

That’s a great question. While it seemingly might cause dealers and consumers some headaches, what really matters to the rider is that they can rest assured that every year the product line improves-with the very latest frame updates, component specification and colors/graphics that they desire for their hard-earned cash.

I will say that because of who we are—because we are so big—the model-year system helps bike shops order the right product. It helps us keep inventory and manage inventory of the right product. Now for your consumers at the other end of the computer, it can be a bit confusing, I can imagine, or off-putting. But because we are so big and because we want to have great product with the latest and the greatest stuff on it, and because want to to keep track of our products...model year is just a necessary thing for us. It helps us make sure that, at the end of the day, the consumer gets the best possible bicycle from us.


Josh Kissner
Josh Kissner, Product Manager, Santa Cruz Bicycles
bigquotesOne way we differ from our larger competitors is the willingness to introduce new models or changes anytime we feel the bike is ready....

I suppose we could finish a project and just hold it until later, but why wait? So we generally just introduce bikes when they are done and ready to ship.


Santa Cruz has never been a strict model-year kind of brand. Why not?


We have had what we consider to be model years for as long as I can remember, and I've been here since 2001. Maybe we're just a bit more flexible about what that term means, and are willing to make exceptions more than other bike companies. One way we differ from our larger competitors is in our willingness to introduce new models or changes anytime we feel the bike is ready. Our engineering team is always working on new stuff, and we call the bike done when its ready - not based on some arbitrary time of the year. I suppose we could finish a project and just hold it until later, but why wait? So we generally just introduce bikes when they are done and ready to ship. We're way too excited to sit on that stuff for months.

In addition, we build all our wheels and bikes in our factory in Santa Cruz—and the team in assembly would get bored if they didn't have new bikes to build all year round. A new model intro in the fall or winter keeps things moving and we have great riding all year long on our local trails—so it's more natural for us.

Generally though, we don't introduce a new bike right before there are some big changes coming. For instance, we had to hold the recent Nomad back a month while we waited to get the latest suspension, GX Eagle, and the new Code brakes from SRAM. Well worth the wait for all of that stuff, and our dealers and customers end up much happier.

We haven't always done it right, but we're getting better. Our customers aren't the least bit shy about giving us feedback/criticism (not even a tiny bit) and we try to listen.


Santa Cruz, HQ.

Is this just a question of scale—does the model-year system simply make better sense for larger brands and less sense for smaller brands?


The model-year system makes sense for all of us, but certainly is more critical for larger brands. It is a bit hard on dealers (and manufacturers like us) to be so predictable, as I think people have learned what times of year are good for buying bikes, and when it's not. We'd rather be selling bikes all the time. I suppose we could purposefully be more erratic, but we'd rather deal with the former than feel like we're trying to trick anyone.


Most companies that don’t release a new version of each model in their line every year tend to be smaller brands. That was certainly true of Santa Cruz at one point, but the brand has clearly grown since the `90s. Given the PON acquisition, Santa Cruz seems poised to only grow larger. Will Santa Cruz eventually move to a stricter model-year bike roll out?


If you look waaaaaay back to the olden times (like 2005), bike parts didn't change nearly as often. An XT group stuck around for 5 years. Rear shocks didn't change for maybe three years. Back then, we could get away with rolling in changes when convenient, and it wasn't a big deal. We offered eight colors, so we didn't need to change them.....practically ever. Nowadays bikes are so competitive and quick-changing, I can't imagine going back to that pace. It's a lot of work for everyone, but look at the bikes we're riding now!

As far as the new owners, it doesn't impact that part of our business. We're still building bikes in Santa Cruz, and still have the same people and systems in place that we had three years ago. The big change is that we now have the resources we need (more engineers!) to make wheels and new bikes and keep everything on top of its game. That includes new paint schemes on a regular basis as well. No one wants a Sriracha color Hightower if all their riding buddies have them already. And we get bored of them too—we need to keep things fresh.


An overview of the factory where Bontrager hand builds wheels in Whitewater WI USA.
The factory floor--in this case, at Trek Bicycles.

Does the model-year system help or hurt bike shops?


I think the upsides outweigh the downsides for shops. Things have to change at some point to keep making improvements. The model year system at least adds some predictability to the cycle. I've certainly heard shops ask for a bit more stability/longevity so they can keep product on the floor current for longer, and that would be really convenient for us too. But having awesome product that is the absolute cutting edge will always be win out. New bikes get riders stoked.

I'm happy that the industry has more or less settled on a system. Not sure if the time of the year to make changes is necessarily the most ideal, but it could be worse.


Does the model-year system help or hurt the average rider?


I'm not sure if it hurts or helps... I guess it depends on when somebody wants to buy a bike. If you want the latest and greatest, time your purchases appropriately as an early adopter. If you don't, just look on the used market after the bike you're looking at gets a freshening up.

I certainly hear and understand the people who are concerned about the resale value of their two-year-old carbon spaceship, but you can't have it both ways. Either you want the super-rad shit that was just introduced, or you don't care as much. Fine either way, there will always be something to ride. Just don't get the latest thing and then ask that the whole world takes a pause while you get your money's worth and sell it on (to finance your next spaceship)!

CRC visit. Ballyclare Northern Ireland. Photo by Matt Wragg.

Does refraining from the model-year system allow some bike brands to be more responsive to mid-year product releases? In other words, does it allow you to shift spec at any point in the year if new forks, brakes or drivetrain components suddenly become available?


Where we differ from a lot of other companies is that we build all our bikes in-house, they aren't assembled in Taiwan or China and sent in a container to a warehouse twice a year. Our agility and ability to make exceptions to the model-year rule comes from the fact that we make bikes to order in our Santa Cruz Factory. If someone comes out with a new part that is just too life-changing for us to wait, we can make it happen quite quickly. I just have to bribe our purchasing team with beer and sample bike parts! This is our advantage as a smaller company that builds bikes ourselves every day. I can walk 50 feet and talk to our operations team, and go downstairs to the loading dock to see if new widgets have arrived yet. And if there's confusion about a mid-year change, we're all in the same building and can deal with it—it's not endless meetings with people from far-away lands.


Some industries are very wedded to model-years. The automotive industry is a good example. Other industries—such as the tech sector—seem to simply roll out new products as soon as new technology arises. Where should the bike industry fit in all of this? Does it make sense for us to continue along with the model-year approach to rolling out new product?


I couldn't say what drives the car industry to be so strict with their model years, but you need the year of a car's manufacture to determine its value, used or new. I'd hypothesize that the tech industry can be so flexible because they can update their products in a less obvious way, through software updates. Completely new models don't come out as often, but when they do come, it's usually timed strategically—almost like a model year. I'm pretty sure the iPhoneX timing to come out just before holiday shopping isn't coincidental—and big tech companies have conferences annually where they introduce new products. Hardware isn't visibly dated with a time-stamp (or model year) because they use software that is revised regularly, and people are comfortable with that system. We could call bike names with version numbers and update part spec & color at random times, but I'm not sure there is any reason to do that...

Posted In:
Industry News



310 Comments

  • 515 2
 Duke Nukem...is marketing for Giant Bikes???
  • 11 2
 LOL. first thing that came to my mind.
  • 7 0
 Nailed it!
  • 4 1
 Damn.
  • 36 0
 I forgot what I was going to write after that comment.
  • 10 2
 Toting the B.F.G-iant.
  • 9 0
 and if you disagree with him he will hunt you down and kick your ass into next Tuesday.
  • 22 2
 @Clarkeh: The BFG was from Doom
  • 7 0
 I'm gunna kick arse and chew bubble gum
  • 1 0
 @erniesbot: Whoops.
  • 3 4
 I don't know who Duke Nukem is, but damn, that's a great name!
  • 4 0
 Dolf Lundgren says: "I will break you"
  • 4 0
 @ryanbpoquette : As long as they don't use the same marketing scheme as Duke Nukem. Otherwise they would bankrupt in no time while leaving a lot of enthusiast fans with a crapy new bike that costed them way too much money for what it's worth.
  • 14 0
 SHAKE IT BABY!
  • 26 7
 Once again, you should be asking this questions to Bike shop owners and Consumers. Not this bunch of Overpaid idiots! They are the problem, not the solution.
  • 3 0
 @Clarkeh: DOOM guy toted the B.F.G-iant. Duke toted the R.P.G-iant
  • 13 0
 "COME GET SOME.......Overdrive 2 specific Fox Performance grade forks that have been sat in a bin for the last five years...."
  • 1 0
 @wallheater: any for sale?
  • 35 0
 Tell me again, how big is Giant?
  • 2 0
 The Boz
  • 7 0
 Just Liv with it.
  • 14 1
 I think that's the guy who said 29" is dead a few years back.
  • 1 0
 Omg I was trying to think of a match, it's perfect
  • 2 1
 @erniesbot: thank you... I was about to go postal and then I saw you made that clear. Those youngsters have no respect
@jclnv - or the guy who said you can't build a long travel 29er...
  • 1 0
 @jclnv: #29forlife #29aintdead #gobigorgohome... (PS I don't actually use twatter but feel free to steal my hastags)
  • 11 0
 I'm here to sell bikes and chew bubble gum and I'm all out of bubble gum.
  • 3 0
 @wallheater: someone should be banned from the bike business for that move.
Dicks.
  • 1 0
 @neimbc: i guess for you it could be mr trump
  • 1 0
 No but they are so big....
  • 2 1
 Dude.. I’ve got a cracked rib next to my sternum. Stop making me laugh so hard. It hurts.
  • 3 0
 @jclnv: yes, Juskaitis’s credibility was lost years ago.

“27.5 is the future of off-road”

“This is the boldest decision in the company’s history”
  • 1 1
 @neimbc: how old are you, 12?
  • 1 0
 Wrong! Not Duke Nukem,it is KURT RUSSELL!
  • 1 0
 @CHELIE: Never let the truth ruin a good story. Duke Nukem brings good memories. What's fun about Kurt fricking Russel other than being in the only movie in the history of cinematography where Steven Seagal dies within the first 15 minutes?!
  • 1 0
 @enrico650: I seriously doubt these guys are overpaid.
  • 1 0
 scrolled right to the comments after seeing his picture.
  • 1 0
 @BikesBoatsNJeeps: theyre overpaid because they were underpaid for so damn long
  • 205 2
 I like new bikes, they make old bikes cheaper
  • 30 0
 I got mine exactly this way. 40% off a 2017 model Smile ! good stuff!
  • 19 0
 BNOS - Brand New, Old Stock. FTW Big Grin
  • 3 0
 What happens to all of the old stock that doesn't get bought up?
  • 17 0
 @BrilliantNeon: you should be ashamed, riding a 2017 bike in 2017 when there’s a great 2018 bike available!
  • 14 0
 @NRogers27: Its taken out back. To watch the sunset... then they put a bullet in its head...
  • 2 0
 @BrilliantNeon: This is always the plan but i replace bikes on burn out (usually frame crack or a suspension component shits the bed and with depreciation it doesn't make sense to put a new $700 dollar fork on it) and burn out happens when it happens. Last round found a crack in my rear triangle in March which was horrible timing for buying a new bike.
  • 2 0
 @NRogers27: clearance deals on Jenson
  • 5 0
 "If you want the latest and greatest, time your purchases appropriately as an early adopter.If you don't, just look on the used market after the bike you're looking at gets a freshening up."

Early adopters make up about 15% of the total market going up to 50% as the early majority. With that trend and a new model every 3 years I feel like companies are losing money to the used market place. Within that first year of a new model, probably 50% of the old bike model were bought will be sold on the used market. With technology not changing that much and geometry not being "game changing" the consumer is in a winning situation at this point seeing huge discounts. Bike shops are going to suffer the most. The manufacturer will scale back production to keep in line with sales trends.
  • 1 0
 @NRogers27: repainted
  • 1 1
 And really old bikes, more expensive .
  • 2 0
 @Lastpikd: New standards and forced obsolescence is one way the manufacturers can combat the used market. Why would I buy a 2015 bike without boost if everything is coming with boost now?
  • 4 1
 @SeanC1: just because boost is out doesn't mean you can't buy non boost stuff anymore if anything it just means that non boost stuff is cheaper and thats fine by me. My bike rides just as good as anything with boost on it!!
  • 120 1
 Drinking game! Take a shot every time Andrew Juskaitis says "we are so big" . You'll be steaming in no time.
  • 44 4
 They're HUUGE! And great, so great. Just ask Don.
  • 54 2
 @dwojo: "Nobody builds better bikes than Giant. How do I know this? I know people. Lots of people. I know Juskaitis, and he's telling me they're YUUUGE."
  • 31 0
 @cuban-b: It's a tremendous company, believe me. They make incredible bikes, nobody's seen bikes like these before. Millions and millions and millions of bikes.
  • 7 0
 @maxlombardy: Billions and Billions.
  • 16 0
 @maxlombardy: It's funny every time. They said a joke couldn't be funny every time. I did it. I made one anyway. It's funny every time. Seriously. It's hilarious. The failing pinkbike won't cover it. It's too bad. It's the greatest joke of all time, and a lot of people aren't getting it. Horrible, just horrible.
  • 3 0
 @cuban-b: And you know what, we make the customers pay for them!
  • 1 0
 @maxlombardy: well played on the trump impersonation lol
  • 1 0
 @jrmaxson: Giant is simply makin' bikes great again !
  • 86 14
 No it doesn't make any sense and it generates more waste than anything else. People get resin in ther vaginas because carbon fiber cannot be recycled. Well 650B and Boost have generated more waste than anything else in recent MTB history.
  • 23 5
 E-bikes with carbon frame (and batteries), instant-waste components (like Reverb droppers), one season lasting non-wear and tear parts, clothing from terrible materials, etc... Pure waste-generation.
  • 13 8
 @elsorichard: I am on 3rd Reverb... they are not instant-waste components... it takes 2-3 years for me to sell one. Or maybe I am just more willing to fight with them instead of buying a new one unlike failure signalling trolls on Pinbkike...

Moral Superiority Front wins again!
  • 16 0
 Did someone say Moral Superiority Front?
That's me that is!

Wink Still recycling 26" hubs!!
  • 19 0
 @elsorichard: Same Reverb here for 4 years and not 1 hiccup with it.
  • 8 0
 Ain't that the truth, and all the retooling etc in the background for it all to happen. For the price of 2 seconds difference.. Had bikes of all sizes, and latest purchase? 26inch wheelsized and nothing boost, ride it more than the other bikes.
  • 6 1
 If people are worried about carbon in the ocean then don't buy a Giant Anthem because they crack before the chain is worn out.
  • 2 0
 @nug12182: Reverb is just an example (maybe not the best one, but yeah, I'm trolling a bit as an Avid fanboy Wink ), but I could have mentioned Bontrager Line Comp rims, which literally lasted for one day for me before bent so bad that I had to throw it to the trash. (no crash, no race, no casing on doubles)
  • 7 0
 @orientdave: Rebuilt my godknows-how-old Hope Pro2 hubs 2 weeks ago. Wink
  • 5 7
 @elsorichard: nah i know what you meant. It's cool. I just cannot understand how can so many people that go online have so many issues with them since very few people I know from the real world (that sounds soooo creepy right noooow...) don't have them, or at least solve them quickly for not that much money. For me such rims are almost all rims non high-end rims from WTB. Those ST i2x rims are just preposterously weak! Another kind of disposable products: Shimano Deore, Zee and SLX rear mechs. One small side shot and they go out of shape. How do I know? Because I wasted 2 (both into the spokes after the bike fell over/ after a crash) aaaaand I have straightened them. Into the vice, 2 shots with a hammer and they are straighter. For comparison Sram x7, x9, gx - they kill at least 2-3 meaty der hangers before they die themselves. Shimano and Sram hubs for fks sake, all of them! Disposable products. Often making spokes disposable too since you won't buy same sht again.
  • 12 2
 @WAKIdesigns:
>Shimano hubs
>disposable
You're f*cked
  • 16 1
 Show resin vagene and bobs
  • 8 12
flag WAKIdesigns (Nov 29, 2017 at 6:37) (Below Threshold)
 @mnorris122: sorry, experienced and informed opinion. If you want to f*ck with checking your hubs every second month be my guest. Especially the 15 and 20mm front hubs and virtually every single model with 12mm axles. I lost 4 Shimano hubs despite keeping them in good shape, opening them twice a year. I lost 3 XT wheels in the process. All it takes is one ride with seized/loose bearing and the hub is f*cked. One of my rear XT wheelsets got its freehub messed up. I got 2 XT wheelsets from my friend for free as doners for rims and spokes, why? Because their hubs were fkd. His GF lost her Saint hubs within a year of purchase of the bike.

Sorry, I have no sentiment for the romantic cup&cone system what so ever. And i know what you want to say: you just don’t know how to adjust bearings, well, turns out a total of 1000 people in the world knows, congratulations, that is 1 per 100 thousand of hubs mounted . That is why they are disposable, because 99% of these hubs die within 2 years of being used.
  • 3 0
 @WAKIdesigns: sounds like you just need some Onyx hubs.
  • 8 3
 @nug12182: DT Swiss - fanboi for life. Although, recently I decided to try Dirt Jumping and Skatepark so I need a loud ass hub to get some street creed. I am thinking of E-13.
  • 1 1
 @WAKIdesigns: Subjective experience shouldn't be a valid reference point to explain why a product is sh!t or no. Opposite to yours, in my case I have a SLX rear mech with three years of punishment and still working decently.
  • 6 0
 @WAKIdesigns: I forgot it, the prize to the most disposable, sh!tty, unreasonably expensive MTB Product: Mavic Crossmax Enduro Wheels.
  • 7 1
 @elkinfa19: I thought Crank Brothers were winning in all these department.
  • 2 1
 @lRaphl: hahahahahaha, apparently, if we put together a chain from used bushings from CB pedals, we could make a chain to the moon and back. having said that... I am still buying the latest Mallets DH next year... since the only alternative to CB pedal cage and clip in system is pedals with Shimano system that I dislike greatly
  • 2 0
 @WAKIdesigns: I've rebuilt a ton of Reverbs. I appreciate how rebuildable they are. Very little waste if you spend the coin to have it properly rebuilt by a non-moron.
  • 1 0
 @nug12182: Lucky you! Mine was broken right out of the box, got it fixed. Then the actuator went, got it replaced. then service bla bla bla. only had it for 9months. sold the bike.
  • 7 5
 Which discipline of mountain biking is the most environment-friendly? I think XC and Dirt/Street... Oh I know... Key-Boarding on Pinkbike!!! HAH! Dig that you self righteous mother effers!
  • 14 0
 @WAKIdesigns: Clearly BMX is the most environmentally friendly of all cycling sports. Everything is either steel or aluminum and most of the kids dont' shower, saving more water than the rest of us! They don't use tear-offs or Gu packets that get left around. There is no course tape. And their bikes are small so more can be made from the same amount of material.
  • 16 0
 @WAKIdesigns: you are loud enough without the hubs
  • 2 0
 @enduroelite: I always wonder what a nightmare its going to be if my Onyx hubs fail.Who knows how to fix their rear hub?Not me.
  • 9 1
 @WAKIdesigns: Funny how you complain about riders on the internet complaining about a product you've never had problems with then go on to complain about a bunch of products (on the internet) that alot of us have never had problems with.

Just had to note the irony.
  • 2 0
 @WAKIdesigns: how about Time clipless?
  • 1 0
 @WAKIdesigns: E-13 who makes disposable hubs (common knowledge), cranks (2 sets), bottom brackets (3), and chain guides (2)? Their rims and tires might be OK, but be warned: I've warrantied 7 of the 7 products I purchased from them before I wised up. There's 3 different generations of Hope hubs in my garage now.
  • 1 0
 @nug12182: When it does fail, Buy a Shimano Saint hub and forget about it.
  • 1 2
 @Slabrung: Times don't have a good platform. I prefer their feel and float over CB, but current Mallet DH race seems to be ahead of anyone else in terms of the platform, due to it's adjustability.
  • 3 0
 @enduroelite: Now this has been in line with my experience. I don't really use Shimano hubs these days because with constantly changing standards, they are not flexible enough. However if you want a cheap hub that just doesn't break, you want a Shimano XT/XTR/Zee/Saint hub. Take it apart each winter and clean it out, regrease and re-assemble, and you will have a hub forever. The fact that you paid $30 for it is just icing on the cake.
  • 1 0
 Same here!
  • 1 0
 @TheRaven: I destroyed two xt hubs in about 2 months.
  • 1 0
 @iamamodel: then you get a free brand new one...
  • 2 0
 @MorganBH: funny, I've had saint hubs for 4 years....no real problems. and got them for dirt cheap.
  • 2 0
 @MorganBH: Um...sorry to hear that? I destroyed a brand new $3000 laptop once in 5 minutes if it makes you feel any better.
  • 2 0
 @WAKIdesigns: No they are an insta-waste. You're on your third when lev users are still on their first. I warrantied more reverbs in the last 5 years than any other product. Utter crap. Just like model years in bikes.
  • 2 0
 @WAKIdesigns: E bikes have generated more waist than anything else in recent MTB history
  • 1 2
 @T-woot: I love it, especially that you mention the Lev
  • 1 0
 @nug12182: wow that is crazy, I'd say you got really lucky. But, how much did you ride it in those 4 years and do you service it regularly?

In the last 3 years I've had to warranty-replace 2 of them. Just this morning the damn thing got stuck down again (about 4 months of use since brand new this time) but I'm hoping it just needs a bleed.
  • 3 0
 @tsn73: Just to add to this...As a kinda bike dealer by hobby, i've seen alot of Reverbs...so I decided to go back and see if I could determine from my records how many i've actually had/sold. Turns out i've had 27 to date. How many of those have been issue free when I received them? One. One out of 27. Incredible.
  • 1 0
 Amen !
  • 1 0
 @TheRaven: 1 of 27 is crazy - if it was their only product they would be belly up. The drivetrain quality obviously makes up for the seatposts and brakes. I will say though that they have been awesome about replacing my reverbs and guides no questions asked. For me it's made me realize the value of buying a new discounted bike near the end of its run instead of used.
  • 3 0
 @elkinfa19: you mean the same wheel that won the EWS this year? Granted he's a pro and gets a lot of wheels ... but it seems like those wheels were pretty solid for him. Mavic has had some issues on some of their wheels but can't see how you can say this wheel is the "most disposable, sh!tty, unreasonably expensive MTB Product" - that's a little unreasonable and harsh.

On a general level (not pointed at you elkinfa19), all this bashing on Mavic, Giant and other brands needs to cool down ... brands like Mavic, Giant, Trek, Specialized ... they all have their +'s and -'s. So do the small brands !! But it seems like everyone is quick to protect the "little guys", at least until they start to turn into a big guy. Whether you like it or not, the big guys are driving innovation and providing products that help you enjoy the ride. It's up to YOU whether you choose to upgrade on a regular / annual basis. It's all about choices and the bike brands are not forcing you to make any choices ... those are all yours. Time to own them and just ride bikes. Stop complaining.
  • 1 3
 @TheRaven: what do you mean with "issue free?" I just bought a brand new Reverb. It's not issue free. I had to cut the cable to length and bleed it. Now it still isn't issue free, it is too long for my frame, I have to replace the connectamajig with the old connector. I also bought one of the first Reverbs back in 2010. It broke for the first time 2 years after. After the rebuild it lived issue free for a year more. I sold it for 60$. Then the used one I bought around 2013 had scratches on the shaft, still works fine after only one complete rebuild. Yes I have to bleed it like once per 3-4months. I am such a lucky man. It is just incredible how could I be so lucky with 3 Reverbs. I am really curious to go on car forums where people buy cars which obviously break, have hundreds of components that can break and almost none of them can be fixed at home garage. I wonder if they also whine on 20-100$ repairs?
  • 1 0
 @WAKIdesigns: They whine relentlessly. I work in the service department for a Lexus dealer. Lexus produces some of the most reliable automobiles, as such the expectation is for zero failures and almost zero maintenance. This is removed from reality.
  • 1 0
 @WAKIdesigns: Issue free means free of things that shouldn't go wrong. Having to re-size a cable is not an "issue" in this sense.

Unfortunately my records are not detailed enough for me to say exactly what was wrong with each post. A lot of them were fixed with (multiple) bleeds, but I feel like just as many had to go back to Rockshox. I was at the point where I was just dropping off 2-3 at a time at the LBS at one point: "Oh hey man, more Reverbs? Hahah ok i'll get them sent out".

I read a lot of puzzling things on the forums and comment sections of this site, but i've learned that more often than not, those claims do not translate to reality. Thus I put the most stock in the experiences that I and the riders I know have. In my reality, the Reverb is inexcusably bad.
  • 1 0
 @DARKSTAR63: That's what marketing will do for you. It is absolutely incredible the power that marketing has. It took until just a few years ago for people to realize that what was true of automobile quality in the 90's did not continue into the 2000's.

That said, the whole quality argument is mostly a moot point anymore, as the vast majority of automakers build a good car. That's what has given the appearance that Japanese automakers have gotten worse. They haven't...they are still building the same quality cars they were 20 years ago...its just that everyone else has caught up.
  • 1 0
 @TheRaven: Yes, and the better things get the higher peoples expectations become. I can draw a direct parallel to the bike industry. Looking back ten years to the bikes I rode and how they held up compared to today - I have not much to complain about.
  • 1 0
 @DARKSTAR63, @TheRaven. I come from Poland we are used to get fkd by everybody. So maybe that’s why I’m fine with servicing most of my stuff out of the box. The question one has to ask, who is better off in the long run. I spend one evening, 50$ and my product is fine. Or should I recall it in hope tge next thing won’t be recalled. The choice is yours. It is irritating that things don’t work out of tge box. Off course. Off course! But maaaybe...
  • 1 0
 @WAKIdesigns: Yea I mean RS droppers have too many sad stories for me to be interested. Iv'e owned several other brands and Fox transfer has become my go to. Easy set up, and so far no issues. Iv'e experienced a sharp decline in the quality of RS suspension as well when it comes to reliability. I agree though, if it can be sorted quickly at reasonable cost myself I do it. I want to ride is the bottom line I don't much care to waste time on who's responsible.
  • 1 1
 @DARKSTAR63: Agree.

Though i've never found RS to be a "quality" brand. Going back as far as I can remember, RS was always the go-to brand if you didn't have the money for Fox or Marzocchi. When you're young and broke, you also have the time to fix things, therefore quality isn't nearly as big of a deal.
  • 2 0
 @TheRaven: When you make an RS work it's more than fine. The issue is that until Charger damper RS had little to show with, Mission Control w/o flood gate was very good but not as good as Charger and defo not good as RC2 FIT. Meanwhile marzocchi went to shit, despite some good attempts with RC3 Ti, Fox shot themeselves in the foot with CTD, then they revamped it and shot the other foot, all after discountinuing decent RLC dampers for forks and RP23 for shocks. they came back with Fit4, they even made a fork compatible with both 15 and 20mm axles. Their axle clamping system was the best ever made. But then you can't just overlook the creaking CSUs being the result of nothing else but weight cutting war. Talas has always been a disaster. It will take some time to say whether DVO made an impact, same with Cane Creek and Öhlins. But for some folks to say that RS is crap is a stretch. I personally would never mount a Vivid or Monarch to any frame other than Xc racing bike, but their forks are really good, considering there is RST, Suntour and X-Fusion. One just has to open them and give them some love out of the box.
  • 1 0
 @tsn73: Its a testament to Sram marketing that they can still make them.
  • 2 0
 @WAKIdesigns: Of course, that's what I was saying - when RS products are working, they're great.

My point is that something that just works all the time is better than something that works better when it's working. My experience has always been that Fox stuff works out of the box and stays working. It's been that way for 18 years from my experience and the experience of those who ride/have ridden with me...even through the CTD years. I had a 2014 34 Float CTD and have ridden numerous Float CTD Boostvalve shocks and all have been trouble free...I never noticed that they were 10% less plush than a Pike. I've had three Pikes, and all were excellent forks when they weren't broken...but all of them broke. One actually broke five times in a single season.

It's not that "RS is crap". Not at all. Just that they don't compare to the likes of Fox.

Side note - on DVO - really high quality stuff from my experience...but you can tell they're a young company. They have alot of really odd quirks. Nothing that will keep you from riding, just some real head shaking design issues.
  • 1 0
 @TheRaven: CTD was issue free, totally true but it was messed up, even Pushing it didn't work. Every single bike with CTD shock that I rode and it's been maybe 10, owning only one of them, were bad. They never worked across the whole range of usage, they either worked on descends or on climbs, depending on how you switched it, but they were never all round. They were rather harsh and then then were blowing through travel way too easily as soon as you wanted to pump something. So reliable yes but performance was crap. As bad as motion control but blowing through travel Big Grin

I wanted Fox 36 Float but didn't have the money. At the time I bought the Lyrik, you could buy a Lyrik and a Pike in the price of 36. So it was a no brainer. That's because RS sells OEMs to German online shops and Fox doesn't. If the money allows I would love to jump on Öhlins RXF 36 Coil.
  • 1 0
 @WAKIdesigns: Why did you keep buying CTD's ?! I don't know I had good luck with RS during those years, Lyrik RCL2 coil, loved it. Couple Monarch's that I had good luck with as well. I have a Boxxer WC that I think is a 2015 and that's been good, so it's maybe not every newer fork out there... My current Fox 36 RC2 is the best piece of suspension I've ever ridden. Reliable and rides incredible. I have blown up a handful of RS shocks lately, and that has me moving into the Fox camp full time.
  • 1 0
 @WAKIdesigns: Profile Racing Hubs - they will hear you 10 minutes before you get there.
  • 1 0
 @DARKSTAR63: I didn't keep buying CTDs, I had only one bike with it, but i rode many test bikes with those between 2012 and 2015.

@cmanser - Oh my God, checked it on youtube. And on their page. I'd love one, but the price is steeeeeep
  • 1 0
 @WAKIdesigns: I missed the only owning one part.
  • 2 0
 @elsorichard: I've had Hope Pro 2 hubs on the bike since 2011 and I personally haven't done a thing to them. Unless the prev owner rebuilt them in the 2 years he had the bike, I haven't done squat to those hubs. 26" ain't dead! Maybe I should rebuild them, hmmm.....
  • 1 1
 @lightsgetdimmer: and the cassette didn't chew up your freehub body?
  • 54 3
 I don't know where you live Vernon, but here on Earth motor vehicles(that would be cars, trucks, motorcycles, boats etc..) don't undergo 'wholesale transformations' every 12 months either(neither do car dealerships conspire to 'lure' their customers into 'years of credit card bondage'. Auto manufacturers offer CLOSED-END financing, i.e. the vehicle you're buying is the collateral, and the loan is over a set period of time).
Motor vehicles tend to run in several-year cycles. A new model will come out, then 'til it's next 'update' several years down the road, it might get new colors(in the case of motorcycles, 'BNG's,"Bold New Graphics"), and it might not.
The last 'vehicle' that I know of that went through some-sort of re-vamping a year after it's 'major' update was the 2018 Specialized Enduro.- a BICYCLE.
Some research might have been a good idea before you started tapping on your keyboard
  • 3 1
 +999999
  • 7 1
 Actually in the USA there is a bit of a facelift for every year, at least I know that Ford Mustang gets that treatment, where every year they make small modifications as if bike brand changes from 11spd to 12spd. But I am 100% sure that European cars last for around 4-5 years before being facelifted and the same chassis usually lasts twice that. And as a fun fact the first vehicle that started the new year - new model was the Ford T as Ford discovered people would buy it more often if they changed the body work every year, so thank Ford for that.
  • 4 0
 @vid1998: Cars are not static from model year to model year within the existing model cycle. There have always been small revisions to cosmetics, trim packages, interiors, colors, etc every year until the next generation is released. The theory is this keeps things fresh, and allows the manufacture to adjust options based on consumer take rate, preferences, and costing. Sometimes cars are de-contented through their lifespan to improve margins. Bikes are similar - the frame might be the same for three years, but the paint and parts hung on it might change during that lifecycle.
  • 2 1
 It takes around 4 years for a car production cycle, most manufacturers are trying to cut this to 2 years. But it's a production rather than marketing constraint - in the end they're all in the business of manufacturing desire as well as products
  • 5 11
flag Boardlife69 (Nov 29, 2017 at 10:29) (Below Threshold)
 We can also thank Henry Ford and GM for helping to build up and finance Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party. This American idea of building up an enemy only to need to invade and liberate said country from sponsored "bad guys" is getting pretty damn old too. It used to happen once every two decades. Now they have never ending wars with model year countries. Why do you still celebrate Pearl Harbor as a "surprise" attack when Australia warned you days before? Why do still pretend ISIS is something other than the CIA and MO$$AD?
  • 4 6
 Sorry for the above rant. I accidentally opened up a real news website and it made my head spin at how many wars are being planned, as if we didn't have enough. Back to keeping my head in the sand, it's a beautiful world here in the sand, no wars, nothing. Light up another......
  • 4 0
 @Boardlife69: chill man, snow's coming
  • 4 1
 @vid1998: my source at a snobbish car company says face lifts come when the life of a stamping press for the body work comes to an end. And making a new one is always expensive as hell. So they may as well redesign it a bit and call it face-lifting...
  • 1 0
 @Boardlife69: because alex jones isnt real?
  • 1 0
 @frazzazi: the 4 yr Cycle is due to engineering, testing, production and tooling payback constraints.
  • 1 0
 @WAKIdesigns: Volvo took it's time with the XC90, if I remember right it was brought to the market in 2004 or 05 and it was replaced in early 2016, that's a long time even for a car and of course it had some changes and updates but the chassis remained the same. But cars are much older and more developed than MTBs so we can't expect such long life spans of a frame yet. Maybe in 20 years we will get to a point when a frame will remain mostly the same for a decade. But shit, I talk too much about cars on a MTB page...
  • 1 0
 @vid1998: the old XC90 is a classic, but every time I drive the new XC90, I die inside... if a car is meant to be so numb, it may as well drive itself. V90 is almost as bad. If your client gets an impression that your latest car is even more boring to drive than V70, then you know you f*cked up...
  • 1 0
 @WAKIdesigns: Shame... To me the most exciting car today on the European market is the Alfa Romeo Giulia, it looks better than anything today, has tons of character and from what I heard drives very nicely it just isn't very practical for a person who is interested in outdoor activities.
  • 1 0
 @vid1998: Volvos were never exciting to drive, I mean I drive mostly them so I can’t really compare. But out of the whole bunch, the V60 D6 AWD hybrid with active suspension is a pleasure to drive around corners at my poor driving skill. But then... it has a small trunk so why would you drive a Volvo that is a wannabe to cool cars?
  • 1 0
 @WAKIdesigns: Respectfully disagree. '04-'07 V70R's and S60R's were a bast to drive (I had an '06 S60R for 6 years). The prior gen T5-R's have a cult following in the states. The current and soon to be updated Polestar edition Volvos are sex on wheels and come fitted with 20 way adjustable OEM Ohlins dampers. The new XC90 is a little bland to drive but has a better aesthetic than anything else on the road now.
  • 1 0
 @bvd453: perhaps the roads in US are wider, if I go for a drive around town on curvy country roads V70is just too big. Polestars are sex on wheels but I don’t see a reason to pay so much money for a sporty V60 when you can have a sporty BMW 3 series for same money. And current BMWs are insanely pretty in my books. And if you want the S60 polestar you may as well opt for a M3. Also speaking of 04-ish cars from Sweden, I don’t know a single nostalgic Swede who wouldn’t chose a Saab 95 Aero instead of S60 if he was after a fast car. Its even in books for children, a thief drives a Saab and runs away from the Police in a Volvo. The dumbest Volvo is the V40. Drives worse than V60, dives under braking like an old Marzocchi and due to the rounded form the trunk is small and impractical. You can’t see sht in the rear mirror and the visibility dead zone is huge.

I just picked up aV70, but for practical reasons. Huge and reliable and disgustingly comfortable. After foldijg the seats I can load a modern 160 bike into the trunk without taking the wheels off. It’s definitely not a roadster for Italian mountain roads
  • 1 0
 @WAKIdesigns: The difference is rarity. There are something like 250 Pole*s shipped to the US each year and I've seen 2 on the road since they were first offered. I see 2 dozen M3's/M4's on the road commuting through Silicon Valley every day. M series = S works, Pole* = Nicholai. Also, you can't take your BMW to the snow. The Saab analogy is well understood. That make hasn't been sold here for a looong time, but the 9-3 Viggen was a unicorn in it's own right. And yes, V40's are just a gussied up Ford Focus.
  • 1 0
 @bvd453: I haven’t got a chance to drive a Polestar, the blue one looks super sick, but I drove plenty of other ones since until few days ago I was a member of Volvo car sharing system. The V60 with active suspension is absolutely sweet, the way it brakes and gets into the corner then gets out of it is like a well setup 160 bike. It’s a genuine pleasure, you hit the apex like a berm in the bike park. Mhwaaa. Especially the T6 with the motor in the rear that balances the car even further. Even on tight twisty roads, it just loves to turn. So I recommend that. But the latest breed of XC90 and V90 can be described as dead f*ck. Overly sensitive yet too fast steering, and virtually no feedback through the arse. I see how some people make like it but it just kills the experience for me and I actually find it dangerous. Both V40 and V60 provide enough feedback for me to know if the road is slippery at near freezing temperatures. Black ice is very common on roads around Gothenburg (where those bauties are made :d) and I don’t want to rely on ABS and traction control lighting up to tell me it’s slippery. V70 is still giving you hints through the steering wheel and your arse. But V90 disconnects you from the road almost completely. I went sliding with it once and it was just ridiculous, the car rotates and there is barely any sound or shaking of the steering wheel.
  • 1 0
 @bvd453: Now you have usefull BMW Ms on the snow as the new M5 gets AWD and it took some time for Mercedes to realise that AWD is a better option for a fast saloon or estate car (their AMG) as the common user of that car isn't a professional driver and a that car is suposed to be driven all year. Audi was the first one in this because of their tradition with Quattro.
@WAKIdesigns Now unfortunatly a lot of cars feel wooden or dead to drive. They have electric steering all sorts of electronics and aren't that much fun to drive.
  • 1 0
 @vid1998: the rumors are that the new BMW M2 is the breath of fresh air into this world of numbness. I am personally a poor driver who just likes to drive around turns from time to time, maybe drive gokart once a month. But I can still appreciate feedback. A dunny thing that I saw lately was a Mercedes C AMG being started next to me and then slowly turning onto the street. Dude revved the engine. A rather muted sound came up. Then some girl runs to the car and the dude inside rolls the side window. As he did it the engine sound amplified. It was ridiculous how much artificial engine sound was in the cabin. And here some people could start laughing. What a wank car. But I thought to myself... finally idiots have less negative influence on the outside world... Big Grin
  • 50 5
 we DEFINITELY deserve the latest graphics for our hard earned cash. Such marketing BS. Much wow.
  • 15 2
 ? Not sure I get what you mean.
People actually are sensitive to looks/newness etc.
People want it even though they don't always admit it
  • 6 0
 That's pretty much ski racing, change the top sheet graphics on a ski and ask over 1000$ For it. Then people and shops sell off their brand new old stock that is an identical ski with last years top sheet graphics for as much as 80% off msrp
  • 2 0
 I think Kainerm means that.... Giant makes new graphics. Now people "deserve" (or want) these new graphics. So now Giant is "forced" to sell them the new revision with the new graphics. It is a self fulfilling cycle.
  • 1 0
 @vtracer: that is pretty profound in its simplicity. i never thought about how little changes on a ski from year to year.
  • 3 0
 Agreed! The latest graphics are not always the most desirable, as they can be subjective to taste. I often found myself liking the older graphics/colours better than the newer higher priced release. Most times when you factor in the price adjustment due to new colours/graphics, the "older" graphics gain even more appeal Smile
  • 2 0
 As we know, Giant holds a frame for 3 years before updating it, if they kept the same graphics for the whole time, they'd be pretty boring. They''d get new parts every year, but never change the paint?
That is more of a no brainier spun into a selling point to me.

And if you can't figure out that, say a 2015 reign 1 vs a 2017 reign 1 is the same bike with different parts... that's on you.
  • 2 0
 @Uuno: Actually, my point was that just changing the paint scheme doesn't make it a new bike. The amount of emphasis he put on the "latest graphics" is just a sign that he's grasping straws to justify the new model year. It's sort of "lipstick on a pig" 'cause you didn't bother to change something meaningful about the bike, but you need something "NEW!" "HOT OFF THE PRESS!" "2018 MODEL!".
  • 1 0
 @Uuno: we also want the coolest thing in our riding group, exclusivity... the way we think and our social insecurities play as big a part as the financial and logistical considerations when it comes to Model year and timing of roll out.
  • 1 0
 @Kainerm: I heard a lot of marketing too, for instance:

"they can rest assured that every year the product line improves-with the very latest frame updates, component specification and colors/graphics"

Not always. In fact Giant, like the other BIG two spec too many of their own components. There are a lot of contradictions here too, such as how they have to schedule the factory and production a year in advance AND their bikes are the latest and greatest? AND they'll keep certain components in limbo to sync with their releases? Also, the SKU thing is bull@#$!, electronics (think computers) release various models constantly in a never ending stream. Companies like Acer and Dell figure it out, I think Giant could live without a model year and still manage to keep track of things.

I like knowing when to get deals, and that used bikes are cheap, but reading between the lines here most of what I see is falsehood, model year is marketing.
  • 38 0
 Doesn't matter if the bike companies want to release a new bike every year. We don't need to buy them.
  • 9 4
 But we do
  • 26 1
 @Uuno: But we don't, that's the funny part. New high-end bikes sales keep going down every year. Market is saturated, buyer confidence in industry is low, product differentiation is low. Industry is eating itself right now.
  • 4 0
 @TEAM-ROBOT: I think certain categories of high end bike sales is going down (DH and XC) but as for all high end bikes I think that's a bit of a blanket statement.

In 2017 the Trek fuel was the second highest selling bike Trek had next to their FX fitness series. The fuel EX7 to EX 9.8 was sold out at all the North American warehouses in Less than 8 months. So that's bikes ranging from 3000 something up to 7000 something. In comparison the FX series starts at juuuust under 500.

The truly oversaturated market when it comes to bikes is the dedicated Road category. All the big companies are coming out with some new "thing" on their road bikes just to try and sell a few each year, I mean shit even bike models that have always been carbon in certain companies' lineups are now in alluminum just to bring the cost down to try and sell more dedicated road bikes. We have carbon road bikes with Di2 shifting that are two years old and even at 40% off we can't sell....

By the way, Nice to see you back Team Robot
  • 5 0
 @TEAM-ROBOT: You're missing a massive factor: most people can't afford $3,000+ bicycles.
  • 4 1
 @TEAM-ROBOT: I'd like to see any sort of data to back that statement up. Whatsoever. A quick use of NPD would prove your point invalid.
  • 5 0
 I bought a new 2012 frame in 2012 to build up....still riding it. Doing my part.
  • 3 0
 @raditude happy to borrow your NPD login credentials any time.
  • 30 1
 What the hell did I just read.
  • 30 1
 Giant, we are so big.
  • 19 1
 They actually are though, they manufacture for loads of other companies too. Plus they make allot wheels for Harley Davidson to name another, they are a massive entity.
  • 6 1
 Alloy. Bloody auto "correct".
  • 2 0
 this is what I catch on this article, they keep saying that
  • 7 0
 They really are though. I don't see any Santa Cruz bikes on the streets of Shanghai when I've been there, but I see TONS of Giant commuters. They're doing way more overall volume than pretty much anyone else in the game, because they cover a wide range of markets and product ranges.... not to mention they build a lot of bikes for other bike companies as well. Everything he said is 100% true for any large mfg company.
  • 2 1
 Santa Cruz, beer and shit.
  • 24 1
 so uh, i guess like, Giant is kind of a big deal eh?
  • 12 0
 now i finally got the brand name .. its becaus e we are so huuuge
  • 1 0
 you know this, MAAANN!!!
  • 18 2
 Pointing a finger at the industry makes very little sense to me, its the consumers who consume. They drive it. People hunger for product and the industry delivers it, for a profit. Don't care for consumerism? Don't partake.
  • 3 0
 can't agree more. if you don't like it, don't buy it.
  • 13 0
 I seem to remember Transition trying for a long time to ignore model years so they could roll out improvements or changes whenever they came a long, but the consumers almost demand a model year as a way to easily determine how old a bike is and what parts are on a bike and Transition eventually got in line. I don’t see model years as so much a problem, but I wonder if the current rate of change, where bike costs are rising and value over time is dropping so quickly, is sustainable. Will consumers eventually get fed up with the rising prices and constant minor changes by keeping their money in their pocket? I know bikes are much more complicated, but I remember in the early days of snowboarding you were getting legitimate massive changes from year to year as snowboards, bindings, and boots matured. Eventually progress plateud to where the changes just weren’t that valuable year after year and you didn’t miss out on much by holding on to the same board for a few years. Seems like a similar maturing and plateau is occurring with bikes, while the industry desperately clings to their mantra that next years bike is going to translate into massive performance gains on the trail, but it just doesn’t in reality. So the industry resorts to tweaking standards a few millimeters here and there as a way to drive sales.

I don’t know. I should be asleep right now!
  • 13 0
 Banshee Bikes gets this. Recently they posted up a new colorway of their Prime on Instagram, I asked if any changes other than color. Response:

"no changes. we've gone away from model years to help offer bikes that stay relevant for more then just the summer."

Love live Banshee
  • 4 4
 that's because they're too small of a company to be able to re-design frames that constantly. Last I knew it was just Jay in asia with bikes made at pacific. it is a clever cover for their lack of size.
  • 16 0
 The companies do what makes them most money.
  • 27 3
 That is true but there is a terrifying, underlying stupidity to all of it. Companies work in the following pattern, as presented in "Men who stare at the goats":
- General, what is operation "xxx"?
- It was a scam to convince Soviets that we work on mind control.
- So why are we still spending money on this ridiculous program?
- Because Soviets took it seriously and started their own Mind Control Research Program
- That's good isn't it?
- No Sir, we cannot stay behind!

Quite simply if you have enough PR leverage, you can generate enough buzz to whatever you just did and make others do it. If Commencal and Hope came up with Boost, nobody would care, but Trek in cooperation with SRAM and Bontrager...
  • 2 0
 @WAKIdesigns: spot on eh
  • 9 0
 @WAKIdesigns: its all marketing and sheep in the end of the day.
Little Joey wants a bike that he thinks makes him 0.1s faster on a 2 hour ride and he is happy to throw $6000 at it.
A good coaching session and some gym work might be a better investment, but it isnt new and shiny and he cant show it off to his mates. Smile
  • 3 1
 @betsie: I agree that, to some degree, each iteration of bike is such an incremental change that most of not all riders would benefit more from skills training / fitness / holidays / etc.

However I do think that, for someone like myself who keeps a bike for a reasonably long time (5 years or so), there is often a noticeable difference between new and old. If it makes you happier and motivates you to ride more, and it is affordable for you (key point), then why not? If you can feel and justify the difference and it's not 'change for change sake' then it's not quite the cardinal sin some are suggesting imo...
  • 4 2
 @betsie: I think you are oversimplifying it. I personally know plenty of owners of high-end bikes and there are maybe 3 snobs and only one show off. The rest just likes the touch, the smell, the texture... of nice things. They are not snobs, they are comfortable, and you can't really blame anyone for being... comfortable. But don't quote me on that. I know more people with nice bikes than with shitty ones. And I just bought an almost brand new Volvo... I have V-neck pullovers too... Oh My God, I am one of them!!! I... I... suddenly feel a need to go to Scotland... no, not Innerleithen. St.Andrews!
  • 1 0
 I still have a large Mk2 Nomad (with Pushlink and -2 angleset) that has a set of Totems up front. I also have an XL Mega Tr27.5 with 26" wheels, Lyrik 170mm fork and -2 angleset (long, low, slack with long back end)

I take my Mega Tr out more often as it makes the trail more difficult, but is a hoot to ride as its long and slack. The Nomad with Push link is fantastic, its even been out to SantaCruz for a ride around on the trails out there (was out with work and they let me take my bike). It eats technical climbs and descents.

2 totally different bikes, designed for different purposes, both can bring joy on the same trails.

Even though the Nomad doesnt really get ridden, it blows me away when I take it out once or twice a year. Is the is the "new bike" effect as I don't ride it and have not gotten used to its quirks? I dunno, but its not worth selling as it has such a low value, so I just keep it, dust it off, hit some big mountain riding with it every now and then then put it back in the back of the shed.

Who knows if an old bike dusted off every now and then can give the same effect as a new bike, but bikes sure are fun Smile
  • 16 1
 Please interview Knolly. @KNOLLYBIKES
  • 5 0
 Right?!? THE BIGGEST BRANDS HAVE THE LOUDEST VOICES.. But sometimes the smallest voices have all the answers that nobody hears until the BIG voices become too LOUD and NOISEY.. Let us hear from the smaller unchanged brands like KNOLLY now and compare different marketing strategies and purposeful product intentions! Please & Thank you!
  • 3 1
 @Jaybirdy: If that were true then they wouldn't have made a carbon frame bike and followed the rest of the industry. If they don't follow, they become irrelevant.
  • 3 0
 @raditude: I'm pretty ure they chose to make a carbon bike because they wanted to make a lighter, stiffer, more capable bike with more features (like Di2 capability)not because the industry went that way.
Plus if the industry goes that way then it's less expensive for small guys to do their take on that stuff
  • 2 0
 @raditude: I don't think they'd be irrelevant.. they make amazing Alux Bikes! Just saying it would be cool to do a BIG brand VS Small Brand Comparison also.. And yea they went with a Carbon bike just recently, but they aren't trying to pump them out in every frame option available & they stay pretty true to Geo only changing minimally every other year or so~
  • 1 0
 @Lookinforit: You are forgetting that Trek sells comfort bikes and road bikes. They have infinitely more resources and capability to make a model, and redesign it quickly. Knolly just can't do that. There are huge risks for them to dive into something like carbon.
  • 2 0
 @Jaybirdy: see below comment. they don't have the cash to re-tool and make changes every year. it is a large risk. if the geo sucks or becomes out of fashion, they can't just dump a bunch of bikes and start fresh like trek can. people seem to think that the small guys are resisting or doing their own thing when it is a lack of capacity and resource. If it makes them money, they would want to do it. That's why you go into business. Otherwise you have made a really expensive hobby.
  • 10 0
 Joke's on them. My 2016 Transition Patrol Carbon is the same colour as the 2017 so noone knows I'm riding a 2016. Ha, suck it Giant!

I basically read Duke Nukem's (fantastic observation by the way, I practically snorted some sandwich out of my nose as I read that!) as blah blah blah, marketing BS, customers wants, blah blah oh and WE WANT ALL YOUR MONEY! KEEP BUYING OUR MINORLY TARTED UP STUFF because last years' model is OBSOLETE and will kill you if you ride it again.
  • 9 1
 Can't you have both?? When I bought my YT Wicked in late 2012 it had a spec list but said subject to change, in the end it came with a type 2 X0 mech and stealth reverb when the spec was a standard mech & external routing reverb.
  • 11 0
 You know the bike industry has us by the nads when financing companies are now profiting from the industry as well.
  • 11 1
 I’m surprised Ibis wasn’t mentioned in this. They don’t do model years (I don’t think?) and have a cult following.
  • 2 0
 The question is does the consumer recognize that they do not do model years? As a shop owner I would say no. Any time there is an update to components, graphics, color, etc usually toward late summer and fall the consumer is going to see that as a year model change regardless if the manufacture says they do not do year models. The model year system is so ingrained that I do no think that they, the manufactures, can escape it. Any significant change to components is going to look like a year model change. Usually when there are changes to components there are other small changes to the frame, paint, or graphics it will look like a year model change causing the previous model to be discounted at the end of the riding season.
If there were no model years there would be no reason to need to discount a bike at the end of the season because it carries over to the next season with out significant changes, this includes color and graphics. The industry's technologies are changing too fast to allow this to happen since, like expressed in the article, manufactures want to make sure their bikes have the latest and greatest.
  • 7 0
 I'm sorry but does anyone else think that referring to car sales and using car sales as an apology is completely stupid? Cars are one sure group that DON'T have a model YEAR. They have a model version. MKI, II, III, IV etc or revisions like the Porsche 911 996,997,998 etc. They have colour options that you can chose and don't change the colour every year, they aren't 'controlled' by 3rd party manufacturers releasing the latest new 'thing' or another extra gear. What are completely dumb and pointless argument.

There is one (okay 2) reason bike manufacturers have year models and that is revenue. Simple. It screws the consumer who loses a royal F-ton trying to sell last year's model which is possibly almost exactly the same. The problem as I mentioned before is also the 3rd party influence, and companies like Shimano have fallen into the same year model almost as the bike manufacturers. So naturally a new model is released to get the new SLX or XT or whatever. Seems the same with companies like SRAM and Fox etc too. Basically the whole industry needs to change not just the bike brand. Maybe an agreed 3 year full component overhaul for example. Instead of changing XT this year and SLX next year and Deore the year after, all are revised at once. But maybe that introduces a problem for manufacturers like Shimano for tooling etc.

Maybe the bike industry is kinda unique in its reliance on so many other 3rd party companies who are all constantly changing designs. And constant evolution of products. One thing is for sure is there is no quick solution. Companies like Evil and Transition for example may still be selling bikes with a year old sort because of non-yearly models. Like this year with them having 11speed GX instead of upgrading to 12speed GX. It is harder for small companies with smaller turnover, higher buy in cost and less need to constantly change when a frame is not due a redesign for a year or 2.
  • 1 0
 You are right but missed the point that most bike company's don't make bikes, they assemble them. They order bikes from one of the manufactures (Giant? or?) months ahead then try to sell them in the calendar year. When they finally get around to ordering new frames why wouldn't they change them up and call it a new model year. Even if it is only color.
when you have a smaller company not changing it up with a frame update it probably is because the havn't sold enough of their stock yet.
  • 2 1
 The US does have model years for cars... it's actually almost exactly the same as for bikes. Most years are cosmetic updates (body styling, paint colors, options), and true engineering revisions only happen every 4-6 years. But the nomenclature here is "2017 Ford Focus" or "2014 Toyota Camry", not "Subaru Forester MkIII" (generally).

I work in engineering for a large mfg company and to be honest, the Giant guy's explanations sound 100% legit to me, even if he is downplaying the marketing value of new model years somewhat. People might think it's simple just to let model sit and only tweak it when a new component comes out, but in an engineering/mfg/supply chain organization these things are coordinated months/years in advance. Companies can't afford not to do that because it means a lot of your people will be sitting around doing nothing sometimes, and working in a total frenzy at other times.
  • 1 0
 @bkm303: intersting. I can believe that US specific cars do that but models like the Focus which are sold worldwide is harder to understand. They dont do these revisions for other countries, so surely that is expensive solely for the US. Then again US sales are probably massive. Either way though, Ford may offer one revision about halfway between new models and that's it.

I understand that companies must plan years in advance for some changes maybe. But minor changes, the ones that come every year and require no specific changes to fundamental design like a revised groupset can be added to the year model without planning beyond planning for manufacture lead times.
  • 3 0
 @clarky78: to an extent, yes. But it depends a lot on how they run their supply chain, inventory, and factory operations - if you ordered 1000 derailleurs in Q1 because you got a bulk pricing/shipping deal, you're not going to stop putting them on bikes just because a new derailleur comes out in Q3. Even if you're not physically warehousing those derailleurs at your factory, switching to the new one might mean renegotiating a purchasing contract, which might just not be a high priority if your supply chain people are already busy with other things, or if you're not 100% confident that SRAM can ramp up production enough in time to meet your needs. There's a lot of inertia involved - if you want to be agile you either need to be tiny/boutique enough that you're ordering parts as needed, or big enough to make your suppliers do what you want (a just-in-time inventory system).

I don't think companies are using model years just to hustle more bikes, even though there is marketing value in that. It's more that if you want to negotiate purchasing contracts, you need to forecast volumes over some period of time.... and a year is a convenient amt of time. If you forecast and purchase every 6 months, that's twice as much work as doing it every year. If you forecast and purchase every 24 months, you'll get dorks on PB bitching about how the spec sucks and "why don't they have the latest and greatest".
  • 5 0
 I've got no issue with it, I'll buy a bike and ride it for 2-3 years. Then when it comes time to get a new one i'll get last years model in last years colours at a fraction of the price.

Currently running a 2016 Nomad and a 2016 TR500 (yes I would f%^king love a TR11 but the TR500 is such a great bike I can't justify it) and imagine they will both be with me until at least the start of 2019
  • 5 0
 I don't get it. Who cares about full bike builds? I consider the frame only when considering a new "bike." I may or may not buy complete, but if something new that I just have to have comes out, I don't have to buy a new bike to get it. Just get the new whatchamacallit. Much ado about nothing here. Boost spacing and metric sizing can kiss my a$$ though. That was a cluster f###. (though both my bikes have them)

All that to be said, I'm not a big fan of the victim mentality in consumerism. You don't have to spend your money just because a company makes something shiny and new.
  • 3 0
 The golf industry just went through this same thing. A massive expansion with tons of money to go around followed by a market correction after the secondary market got flooded with last year's just as good stuff. Companies like taylormade and Callaway grew quite rapidly and are now trimming down as the consumers slow down. The bike industry could learn a thing or two and stick to 2-3 year development cycles short of real actual progression. No 5mm extra of travel doesn't count nor does 3mm of extra air in between the axles. The one benefit of the golf bubble is that the golf industry ended up with a lot of well trained people jobless who ended up creating a lot of very cool boutique brands.
  • 5 0
 I am unclear whether or not Giant considers themselves a big company. I wish he would just say it directly...like at every turn of every question.
  • 3 0
 First of all, this is great topic and I love seeing Pinkbike continue to openly question and analyze the cycling industry. As someone who at one point, bought new mountain bikes yearly to a consumer who now expects my MTB's to last me 4+ years minimum, I feel model years are primarily for branding and offering color variations. Despite a myriad of sizing standard changes that have taken place in the mountain bike industry, I would argue that mountain bikes are staying "current" longer than mountain bikes did in the early 2000's.

It seems like frame design, specifically full suspension bikes, are nearing a plateau of sorts. At this point the majority of suspension designs on the market work exceptionally well and simply do not require yearly updates. the margin of difference between designs has narrowed significantly in the last 15 years. To me anyway, it feels like the majority of progresss in design and performance has become incremental. I think there are some exceptions as innovative companies implement ideas that break from the norm, but overall the bike industry technology growth would seem to be slowing and focusing on aesthetic updates, i.e. model year changes.

Maybe I was just harder on equipment 10 to 15 years ago, but my experience has been that overall components are lasting longer now and companies that follow the model year plan, do so simply for marketing and very small updates, which I'm ok with. Saw a couple mentions of Transition Bikes above and they seem to follow the idea of, lets make a solid design and run it for four years or so. Wasn't that the case with Giddy Up 1.0?
  • 3 1
 New bikes are always needed.. just don't tell people that they have 2 wheels, handlebars, stem, headset, seatpost, saddle, brakes, fork, shock, tires..... just like their old one, coz the new one comes with magic unicorn poo in the frame which will make them 10% faster, 15% less tired and 50% happier than their old bike.
Minion DHF got 5 start on MTBR.com in 2004.... The humble tire is the only contact point with the ground and hasnt really moved that much in 13 years, bike have just got a little slacker, longer and suspension has got better. Oh, we changed some gears, but gears are still a chain and mech.
The rest is all noise and marketing.
  • 2 0
 New models every year are only to lure in people that need the newest bike. The stigma of having to ride last years model eats away at many so they buy the latest bike even though 90 percent of the time it’s just a new paint job.
  • 2 1
 I actually strongly dislike brands that put a new model out every year. The reason being is that it is an obvious cash grab and it shows that their previous model was not well thought out if they have to re-design every year. The most recent enduro is a good example, they re-designed after less than a year. They should not have put the previous bike to market if it was flawed to the point it was re-designed so soon. Santa Cruz and Yeti are 2 companies that actually think through a frame design and dont have to dick around with a millimeter here and there every year.
  • 6 1
 Sure about that? Yeti I agree with but the obviously botched / rushed Hightower LT is exactly that.
  • 1 0
 @Racer951: since they were bought out I’m sure that going to change for the cash grab. But the previous gen nomad is the most prominent example I think.
  • 2 0
 @poozank: You will find its often not a case of them making the previous model not as good as it could be, but the fact that they plan at least a year in advance, things take time and ideas change.

They are not really re-designed because of 'flaws' so much (Not at the level of bikes we are not now, they are mostly all very good) but because they have found a way / a designer has been employed / a technology that exists that allow the bike to be better - you can only have 'perfect' for one tiny porton of time until things move on, ideas change and things develop.

You use the enduro as an example, the model it is replacing is very very good, the model replacing it will be slightly better, they are not saying the old one was critically flawed.

Using Santa Cruz is a bad example because of how they rushed the Hightower LT out - Giant etc dont do that.
They botched a Hightower front triangle onto a new arm / links to make an LT version because the market cried out for it, rather than doing it properly - The XL looks horrendous with the seat tube angle putting the saddle over the rear axle, they should have just made a new bike from scratch and they probably will for 2018/19 doing exactly what you suggest they dont.

Yeti on the other hand, they are pretty predictable, dont change too often and seem very well loved by owners.
  • 3 1
 @Racer951: they still change their colors every year. and what is that Turq bullshit. they upcharged for the same frame they used to offer as standard with the "enduro" frame that was heavier now becoming the normal level frame. Super cash grab move that specifically targets those loyal Yeti fans.
  • 1 0
 @raditude: fair point, didn't think about the 'levels' of carbon / ripoff they offer
  • 3 1
 @Racer951: Best marketing job ever by them. Here is a new fancy level of carbon, that is actually the same as what we offered, for a shit load more.
  • 1 0
 I used to want to get new bikes every season if possible. sell and trade up, but bikes have gotten so damn good that I think for the current configuration, we have almost peaked with how much we can refine the Geo. Only changes in many bikes from the past 4 years is slightly longer reach and ever so slightly slacker HT. In most cases, the changes are not enough for me to feel necessary to pony up the dough for a new ride. Boost was not a technical advancement, it was simply a standard change. I am waiting for the next big thing that actually makes me want to fork out cash for something with a clearer benefit. Like a proper gearbox bike. Pretty much, unless something else drastic is released, I would buy a new bike when rocky mountain makes there version of a Zerod Taniwha,
  • 1 0
 Redesigning the entire frame every year doesn't make sense, because it definitely isn't necessary and will cause issues with parts availability for warranty and crash replacement. However, adjusting the bike spec does make sense when selling complete bikes. Things like forks, wheels, drive train parts, etc develop independently of the frame tech, so it makes sense to upgrade as better and/or cheaper components become available each year. Also, changing colors can have benefits as well. Yes it is purely aesthetic, but when you're spending that much money, this is important. Maybe you hated last year's color, so you held off, but the new year's color is something you like and now you're willing to pull the trigger on buying the bike. Having spec changes and colors tied to model years makes sense so people buying used can have a better understanding of what they are buying and if the seller has changed/swapped out parts, Different colors also makes it easy if they are being truthful about the model year. There's a big difference between buying a one year old vs a 3 or 4 year old used bike.
  • 4 0
 the REAL problem is new standard in frames, wheels, suspensions, ecc. every 3 months.....
  • 1 0
 The model year makes sense when explained from Giant’s perspective. It also works well for those of us that know in the fall of each year, model year bikes get blown out and we can save 20-40% if we are able to time it correctly.
  • 1 0
 I think the time is coming when manufacturers are going to have to revamp their business practices to keep up with the software development and release world. Software is not strictly produced on a year to year release basis, and this is changing how everything is made as this change trickles through lines of business.

The Agile framework of continuously delivering new product through planning iterations is allowing development of various physical products to reach customers outside of the annual framework. Even large bicycle component manufacturers are moving away from the year end releases, so it isn't scale... it's assembly and internal silos in the manufacturing process. So if assembly of these parts not on an annual release basis, cannot keep up with annually released frames, does this not introduce risk to the bicycle manufacturing business model?

If I were in that wheel house, I would certainly start having those discussions. I would start looking at the emergence of smaller, more agile companies, customers buying just frames, and market share trending... analyzing to see if the cost of making the change outweighs the cost to do nothing (future risk), and the benefit of being more agile. Otherwise, a huge manufacturer could find themselves asking "Who moved my cheese" and withering away as they Hem and Haw.

What can I say, bikes got expensive... so to stay on two wheels some of had to go to school to get smart people jobs. Take some free advice, from a corporate consultant.
  • 1 0
 I see bikes as a good you hold onto for twenty years. The only time you ever need a new bike is for a new purpose. Of course you service them and maintain them, but you still enjoy their performance and geometry. These companies need to offer a premium product that doesn't wear out and maximize the available markets. Rigid xc bikes, trail race bikes, Enduro, cyclocross, road, and ect. If I know a bike will last twenty years I don't mind dropping four Grand on it.
  • 1 0
 Is this satire? I mean surely you don't seriously expect a bike to last that long right? Sure a frame 'could' last that long. Components not really. And to what benefit? I loved the bikes I had 20 years ago, 20 years ago. Now I'd find them entirely awful to ride because everyone else would be riding harder, faster and longer on the newer models. 20 year old bikes have only a place for nostalgia. A gentle spin just for old times sake.
  • 1 0
 Hey GIANT, I cracked my 2008 Glory DH, can you sell me a 2013/2014 Glory Frame...cheap...because you know... "model year" system so it's old... and 26 is dead ...so... cheaper...

Now talking serious, still sell those frames brand new?
  • 1 0
 most of these are not new bikes every year. changing the paint scheme or components doesnt make it a new bike. new geometry does. new features do. and because there isnt all that much more to invent until we get real good at newer materials like graphene or optimizing the stress on components, basically, there isnt a big diff in bikes year to year for the past few. which is nice, you dont need the latest, since what you have is just as good.
  • 1 0
 Year models only suit really the unsustainable idea of continuous economic growth. Buy more more more and bin last year's product.. It is kind of funny that the bike industry, that gives us the chance of so much pleasure on outdoors activities is adopting the same kind of capitalistic ideas that destroy that same wilderness that we as mountain bikers love so much... Instead we should have bikes that last a few years and can be fixed rather than dead end 'standard' editions and the feeling of devaluation that we constantly get. Innovation is great.. for some that can afford it or profit from it...
  • 1 0
 Global Marketing Manager 101:
Rule 1: Don't come across as an arrogant a-hole in an interview that reflects on your brand. Be humble and at least fake some interest in the greater good and show some empathy for the end user. If not they may turn their back on your brand and being so big won't be an issue anymore.
  • 1 0
 most bike models only seem to change annually if the manufacturer can score a better deal on the component kit than last year. beyond that, you might see new frame graphics &/or color schemes. geometry-wise, most numbers remain about the same. larger industry players like Specialized, Giant, Trek, etc. have all adopted the yearly model renewal, which makes sense because they're corporate & must push out new models to justify annual profit margins. rapidly changing MTB technical standards (BBs, wheel/rim sizes & 650B/29er convertible frames) have also contributed to the constantly changing face of new interfaces as Boost, 650B plus & the like. it's an evolving marketplace, but one that may need some regulation so smaller frame builders & LBS retailers don't get trampled trying to keep up w/all this newfangled technology BS.
  • 1 0
 I've never understood why companies release new bikes in the fall (for the USA)... why not release new bikes in the spring? New models are the start of the season, not tail end. I can see how that makes some financial/sale sense but I think a people are eager to buy in the spring just as much, if not more, than in the winter months.
  • 1 0
 For me buying a bike with longevity is key. I feel it’s all about who thinks their bike is going to have “proper” geometry a few years down the road. Trek is the worst right now, completely changing their lineup almostevery year making you think “fu@& I shoul have waited six months or whatever.” ( FYI I had a trek fuel 9.9 2011) Haven’t had that feeling with my 2015 Santa Cruz nomad c yet, even with the new one out. It’s still a awesome bike. It’s a ripper. Yea it’s not boosted, but took three years for Santa Cruz to change ithe design and makes me feel they made a great bike, and were willing to stick with it for that long because they knew so.
It ride great and still looks great!
It feels good to know they didn’t change their whole lineup right after I bought the bike, because they knew they had something good and stick with it.
Not a super Santa Cruz fanboy, I still drool over all the new bikes out, but still very happy with my purchase.
  • 1 0
 Sorry for the typos - got hit by a car on my mountain bike going to ride the trails last week and broke my arm.
  • 2 0
 Stupid Question. Answer is away mor sales mor profit. Pinkbike is slowly turning in to Buzzfeed. But then i do like Buzzfeed...
  • 1 0
 $100 for a decal package for my Hightower - Voila! Stealth Black "new" bike in my eyes....Vain, but cheaper than paying for a new "model" which, as stated many times, is usually a colour update at best...
  • 3 1
 Ever since the farsighted genius' at Giant decided nobody wanted a 29er, they lost all credibility with me. That's how small thinking turns buyers off.
  • 2 1
 You do realize that company costs rise when new models are added to the mix.. right? They are simply trying to forecast what will sell.
  • 1 1
 You lost sight of the fact they were able to make geo changes which resulted in far better handling bikes. 4yrs later and SOME 29" bikes are catching up with Giants ability to turn while going fast over the rough.
  • 1 0
 "New Model Every Year" means that a huge corporation can keep the fad train rolling, and ensure that everyone who believes "new is better" will continue to spend their money. By the way...this was just a huge commercial.
  • 4 2
 lolz at Santas Cruz acting like they are actually building bikes here in America. They are assembling them... and then your guy at the shop has to assemble it again.
  • 1 0
 I did not read through all 116 posts, so this may have already been repeated. New products give journalists writing materials. With that said, enjoyed reading your article. Great job!
  • 1 1
 Is everyone missing the main result of frequent new bike revisions on the consumer??

!!! D E P R E C I A T I O N !!! (I should start a new bike brand with that name....hmm....)

That new 2017 bike you just purchased earlier this year? Well it is has already depreciated more than you want to think about. Not only from you using it, but because the new 2018 model just came out! (sucker!!)

Depreciation is AWESOME if you shop used bikes! Like me! .....And Shitty if you buy new bikes.....

So basically, frequent new models drive down the value of the older models. Good for some, bad for others.
  • 4 0
 Miles ridden on bike / Amount Paid = Cost per mile . Awesome to look at that some time. I try to use it as justification for when i should upgrade something. IE I paid $3,000 on a bike and rode it for 6k miles. $.50 a mile. Time to upgrade. A lot of these guys with the $12k bikes that get ridden for even a thousand miles before reselling them, crazy poor investment.
  • 1 0
 @raditude: 6k miles! f*ck.... don't think I ride more than 600miles! Where do you get the time?! I hate to think how much time it takes to ride 6k miles... based on my annual 100 or so!
  • 1 0
 @oregonryder I do agree with you; depreciation is great. For me the sweet spot is buying last year's model on blowout, but still new, so that you get the warranty. I find that by the time a frame is nearing the end of it's run, a discounted brand new frame is only a few hundred more than the early-adopters are selling their used ones that are beat to shit and have no warranty.

I used to buy used frames but after destroying a SC carbon frame I was very happy to have that warranty. I had bought a deeply discounted v1 5010 at the end of it's run, and then by the time I needed to replace it, they supplied me with a new and improved v2 5010. Win-win.
  • 3 1
 For the love of god, please stop model years... you're slowly drowning the industry... Also, please stop making so much shit!
  • 2 1
 Yes, great selection and many options is so horrible.
  • 1 1
 We are the ultimate consumers living in a culture based on buying shite. The fact that you ask this question and get answers from the people selling the shite is quite ironic and pointless. The fact that Pink bike organizes a program to gives bikes to kids that cant afford them .Pure Gold.
  • 1 0
 No problem with model years per se, but if they could line up with calendar years that'd be just great. If you launch it for sale in 2017, it's the 2017 model, not the 2018 one.
  • 1 0
 I have a 2013 bike that replaced a broken 2005 bike. It rides. It climbs and descends and takes me to wherever I want to go. After reading this, tomorrow at first hour I'll go to my local Giant store to get a 2018 bike.
  • 1 0
 for a $4k+ product a manuf. "should" have the flexibility to equip it with the latest components.if not why don't they offer the updates for $$$??? kudos for the boutique brands who have the ability.
  • 5 4
 26" bikes are making a comeback, they will be marketed at KIDS size and with a price tag that the Dentists kids can only afford!
  • 3 0
 Yep, it's happening and the prices are high.
  • 2 0
 Every year the same: It's summer and they release the next year's models. Yeah, right, they're from the future, duh.
  • 1 0
 *for the future.
  • 1 0
 So, my 10 years old Covert is not longer a fuzz?! bummer... I will stick with it until its value as an antiquity is greater than the brand new last comefromthefuture buzz
  • 1 0
 @vernon felton where is the poll? came here expecting it! haha. of course new year, new bike is completely pointless, it's all bullshit. The industry wil soon realise this.
  • 1 2
 Giant's position that they HAVE to change skus each year for warranty and such is ABSOLUTE BS. It makes it EASIER for them, but they do not have to.... there are consumer products in various categories that have the exact same sku year on year but are traceable through lot IDs, serial numbers, etc... what a crock. I stopped reading the BS at that ridiculous claim.
  • 1 0
 The reign has been the same model for 2015-16-17 the only difference is the paint job. They didn’t change it till this year. Get you facts straight
  • 3 0
 I like the Santa Cruz guy better. But the Giant guy is kinda scary.
  • 1 2
 What does a carbon fiber mold cost?
50 000$ 100 000$ perhaps$
New frame of every model each year for every size.
perhaps 30 new molds each year.
Aluminum you just show them the blue prints and pick out tubing from a catalouge.
Gosh i wonder why carbon fiber is so expensive??
  • 1 0
 I'm not sure there is much truth to the $100K+ mould cost per frame for many of the smaller manufacturers.

E.g. Santa Cruz knocked up a proto carbon swingarm for the V10 before it was production on a 'jobshop' grade Haas machine, granted it was aluminium but considering they will change design after a year or two / not actually sell that many frames realistically I'm sure many moulds are aluminium rather than tool steel.

I cannot see any manufacturer spending $400-600k on moulds per model unless they are the size of Giant / Trek etc, I just cant see them getting the investment back, companies like Antidote etc manage on an even smaller scale.

As you say 30 moulds would be 3mil at 100k each and realistically they would need closer to 40 due to rear triangles - just cant see that being the case, I'm not saying a mould is cheap but Hope state around a week for a mould, sounds about right to me - 40hrs on a cnc machine is a few grand, material is a few grand, I would imagine an alloy mould, if made in-house could get down to 15k or less with ease.

Most of the cost of a carbon frame I imagine is in design / proto phase (moulds made just for proto frames) carbon material, layup labour, finishing labour and shipping all round the world.
  • 1 0
 @Racer951: Lets use your numbers .
40 molds
15000$ each.
600.000$
  • 1 0
 I think overarching point of the article is that model year bikes work for some companies and for others not so much. Whatever turns them and you on.
  • 1 0
 pas de probleme si ca peux dropper le prix des bike.... moin de recherche et developpement pour sortir des nouveaux modeles, couleur, build kit,
  • 1 0
 Did anyone else see the giant dude say something about fox electronic suspension? Why would you do that to me fox? I'm a bike mechanic, not an electrician..
  • 1 0
 @T-woot: yup, have had the same Lev since 2011 and haven't done shit to it, EVER. Pull the lever, it goes up, pull it again, it goes down.
  • 1 0
 Flooding the Market with too many new bike may cause the buyers market to crash, just my humble opinion.
  • 2 0
 Its the only way to know who's faster... way faster than you.
  • 1 0
 Does not make sense at all! And cars... C’mon guys I don’t know a single company that would sell a new model every year.
  • 1 0
 New model years keep dropping in July or sooner, Let's face it, nobody wants a 2019 model, Skip it and go to 2020 models!
  • 1 0
 Seriosly, bike co's want to sell bikes and make $$$$$$, & like the hokey pokey, that's what it's all about!
  • 2 0
 We're So Big that we have to............
  • 1 0
 I'm still reeling over the "years of credit-card bondage" line. Hilarious stuff!
  • 1 0
 make sense, old handmade frames now 300$ to were as taiwan new frames 2800-4000$
  • 2 0
 Dude looks Gnar- like he's just fed up with Hikers on his trails.
  • 1 0
 Funny with all the annual updates that are so important to Giant, there bikes never seem cutting edge.
  • 1 0
 Shorty way to treat customers. They get what they get because it's more convenient for us
  • 1 0
 Just the industry telling you that your bike is old and you need the new version/new color to be faster.
  • 1 0
 Welcome to the whole world. Your, clothes, tv, computer, house, car are all old. Why are we surprised when bike companies act like every other company.
  • 1 0
 "At Santa Cruz, we are small enough that I can smile for a photo without planning one year ahead for facial availability"
  • 1 0
 "...we have significant pull with component manufacturers. I know that might sound arrogant..." Hahaha, yup!
  • 5 4
 Bikes are like the car industry, it quickly evolves and is always changing
  • 3 1
 Maxxis Minion = 2004 or earlier... things are evolving at lightening speed.
Suspension got better until about 5 years ago where it has stood still.
Bikes have just got slacker, but you could buy a bike and angleset 5 years ago and just go up a frame size.
Enduro has made for some lighter trail bikes, so we have shaved off 1kg from a frame and put some plastic out there.

... the rest is all fashion.
  • 1 0
 I agree with you with this one too.
  • 2 0
 @betsie: Shave a kilo off of the frame, but strap on our lunches and toolboxes!
  • 1 0
 on that topic will there ever be Full Carbon Glory or Reign ?
  • 1 0
 reign adv exists, no carbon rear but for good reason imo
  • 1 0
 Its a monopoly. New paintjob and maybe upgraded parts.
  • 3 1
 Capitalism
  • 1 1
 I do actually want a Sriratcha red Hightower. How comes anyone wouldn't want one? best colour ever on bikes
  • 2 0
 Because money
  • 1 0
 Is that a 17' ? How retro.
  • 1 0
 Count me in for a "violent eggplant " nomad please.
  • 1 0
 Just waiting for the Summum carbon to drop in price by a 0 or two.
  • 1 0
 Surprised there is no user pole.
  • 1 0
 The giant glory has changed? Looks the same to me haha
  • 1 0
 I hope Andrew Juskaitis is wearing soap shoes
  • 1 0
 Do I get to choose the flavour of Kool-Aid that comes with my new Giant?
  • 1 0
 The Burning Question - do I have thrush?
  • 1 0
 To answer the question, no.
  • 1 0
 Nuke me... Smile (Little Fat said..)
  • 3 2
 Good article.
  • 1 0
 it doesnt make sense...
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2019. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.064315
Mobile Version of Website