Opinion: The Courage to Create
Rollo May in his book, “The Courage to Create,” speaks about the darker side of creativity - about the demons that people face who take it upon themselves to forge something tangible from an idea that was once beyond the scope of their peers.
May points out that in its conceptual form, an idea can be perfect, but with each step of the creative process, that brilliant, idealized vision is compromised as the inventor struggles to express it through his or her personal limitations and those of current technology. To be creative, one must be able to face continual disappointment, knowing from the beginning that the end product can never match its idealized form. Knowing that it could have been done better. All of us are creative by nature, but less than a handful in a hundred have the courage to create.
Our sport often mistakes cleverness for creativity. There is little risk to be clever. There is no downside to conjuring up ways to make an existing product lighter, stronger, faster or more attractive. When asked, almost every mountain bike rider would describe next year’s ultimate bicycle or product in reference to the ones they currently like, only much better, and perhaps in a different color. Most of us conceptualize the future by projecting a composite image of familiar things that we desire - which makes us easy prey to clever products masked as innovation.
Domahidy Designs Titanium All-Mountain Pinion Hardtail
On the contrary, the risk of failure or rejection for a groundbreaking product is close to 100 percent. One must identify a potential problem, project a solution, and then develop that into a product at considerable expense for customers who, in most cases, have yet to identify any need for it.
How do you know if you need or want something if it does not yet exist in your imagination? Unless you are the rare visionary, you can’t - and it is human nature to reject those things we neither need nor understand.
Many of the mountain bike’s most profound innovations, like clipless pedals, the Gravity Dropper, tubeless tires, suspension and disc brakes faced pointed opposition from both experienced riders and opinion makers who espoused that because they didn’t perceive a need the new technology, that nobody else truly needed it. Of course, history and the iPhone bear witness that the moment an unrealized innovation is demonstrated to have benefit or appeal, most naysayers switch camps and typically, they become the sharpest critics of the old regime.
Gravity Dropper Turbo
It is understandable that those who have reached the top of their mountain bike games would be the most inclined to reject the possibility that someone out there has developed a new riding style or a product that would (at least temporarily) lead to their obsolescence. Yet, there are hundreds of creative minds working out ways to do just that, and you can be sure that some will achieve success – but not without help.
As brave as one needs to be to accept the risks and overcome the sometimes daunting negativity that is part and parcel of the creative process, the effort would be stillborn unless its potential was recognized and supported. First Adopters may lack the creative impulse to invent, but they possess the intuition and understanding to recognize the value of innovation and most importantly, they have the courage to act upon it.
Someone figured out how Sam Hill was riding. Somebody bought the first Gravity Dropper seatpost. Some took a risk on the first dual-suspension trailbikes. Many riders fell over themselves figuring out Shimano SPD 737 pedals. Some will remember wrestling with tires, dripping with Stan’s sealant, or howling through the woods with their new disc brakes.
Someone figured out how Sam Hill was riding. Somebody bought the first Gravity Dropper seatpost. Some took a risk on the first dual-suspension trailbikes. Many riders fell over themselves figuring out Shimano SPD 737 pedals. Some will remember wrestling with tires, dripping with Stan’s sealant, or howling through the woods with their new disc brakes.
Scott LT700 Plus
Once again, as the sport appears to be entering a period of intense innovation, we will have the opportunity to create, resist or invest. Two of those choices require courage.
Author Info:
Member since Mar 23, 2011
Must Read This Week
How to Watch the 2024 Mountain Bike World Cup [Update: Staylive Offering Access in New Zealand, South Africa & More]
60454 views
60454 views
[UPDATED] Final Elite XC Results & Overall Standings from the Mairiporã XC World Cup 2024
41407 views
41407 views
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
I think this conspiracy theory debunking is really getting out of hand. Deeply repressed Paranoia is coming out in people as the line between commercials, reviews and opinions is as blurred as ever. It may be hard to know when exactly is someone trying to sell something to us but it's never bad to be mindful and not jump into controversial conclusions too quickly. At least for me, it's been quite clear that RC wrote this article
against this silly trend of high cost, small resizing or increasing gear number, because as the article suggests it takes balls to create something different than remix a song that's been playing on the radio for 20 years.
Sorry, as much as SRAM Eagle further pushes the possibilities of the brilliant XX1, that gaves N/W chainrings and wide range casettes, it is nothing more but a remake of some old sci-fi movie with new 3D effects. They can still makeit electronic to push it further and that's where classic drivetrain development (aka polishing a turd) ends. Give us gearbox SRAM.
Want some innovation and new ideas? Want to dare to be different? Drop your prices. Make products that don't break after 4 rides and if they do, warranty my part quickly vs the usual 4 months.
"As brave as one needs to be to accept the risks and overcome the sometimes daunting negativity that is part and parcel of the creative process"
Yeah, like having the balls to charge $10k for a mountain bike. Trust me, I fully understand the "creativity" it takes to justify an unjustifiable value
Then don't.
Vote with your money, you have choice, there are cheaper options which are good enough.
Prices are what they are because of supply and demand.
I will argue bikes have never been more affordable for what you get.
I was sitting at a buddy's the other day enjoying a beer after a ride and his ancient Rocky Mountain Oxygen Race was laying against the wall. It was in well used stock form. He said he paid $1500 for it. That would have been about 15 years ago. what a heap of shit: hardtail made of beer cans; Marz air shock of some sort; rim brakes.
I believe $1500 15 years ago was more impact to the wallet than $3000 today and what one can get for $3k is nothing short of amazing: a totally thrashable, light(ish), dependable dual suspension bike,
And for $1500 today, one can get a pretty nice hardtail without too much drama.
No, I think bikes are more affordable now unless you want the latest thing to come out which, of course, is not worth the price of admission. Look at any high end mountain bike for sale from years gone by: the return on investment is brutal compared to any low end or middle of the road bike and that will always be the case.
The industry has matured to the point where this is all we are going to see. Market segmentation is ongoing and continuing to make smaller and smaller categories. We now have bikes made at every amount of rear travel: 80,100,111,115,120,125,130,134,135,140,150,153,155,160 etc. The majority of manufacturers have reached parity in performance at any given category. It literally doesn't matter which bike you buy because they all work very well. Now it's anything to differentiate the product and be able to write good ad copy. Refer to SWAT door in new Spec frames....so ridiculous. But every review of those bikes has inches of copy devoted to this feature that has nothing to do with how it works as a bicycle! This is where we are now. Bells and whistles.
"First Adopters may lack the creative impulse to invent, but they possess the intuition and understanding to recognize the value of innovation and most importantly, they have the courage to act upon it." Wow. Good to know you equate buying things with courage. What about the courage to deny what the industry is trying to force upon us? What about the courage to question and resist systems that work less well but cost more money? The courage to question carbon which is far less durable and much more expensive than metal? The courage to talk about rising prices, warrantee claim rates, service intervals, useful life, resale value, all of which have been trending the wrong way for us consumers?
I thought, after reading the Bontrager Spring Collection adpiece, how sorry i feel for the PC staff writers.
Apparently we were glad to welcome one Vernon Felton to PB.
Genuine question, not a dig Vernon, but how does it feel to have to put your name to that stuff?
At least at Dirt magazine when it used to be printed.... on paper...the content was the content andvthe ads were the ads; and yes, I used to read the ads and firgive them for bring ads; you knew what they were.
That is no longer true as the internet, snd thise who deliver its content, tread an increasingly thin line between enlightening us and pulling the wool over our collective eyes and wallets.
I feel sorry for my daughter's generation who may have to fight to get the net back; it has been highjacked by SNS lurking branded bullshit.
Give me back my printed copy of Dirt magazine, where ads were ads and content was genuinely journalistic content all the time, you, you, abomination... The bloody internet.
But I have an issue with the current "innovation' cycle. It use to be that top riders would get some black box tech that gave them an edge in competition. That tech was super secret and eventually trickled down to us mere mortals. I remember drooling over spy photos of prototypes, itching for the day I could try it out. Now, it truly has started to feel like marketing/profit driven innovation.
Don't get me wrong - I am a self admitted capitalist. These companies need to make money to keep the high zoot carbon rigs rolling down the trail for all of us to enjoy - but it's different now. For example, I am reserving full judgement on 650B+ until I try it but something feels funny. This wasn't some tech that was developed in secret and gave Clementz an advantage over Graves and changed the landscape of racing. This wasn't developed in the pits of the WC race scene. This was kludged together by a marketing/engineering group to drive up profits.The innovation cycle has changed. They come up with a product, rush it to market and then hand it to a pro and tell them to go pump it on the InstaTwitBook (a la Matt Hunter on a Turbo Levo).
650b+, boost, Pick you axle size 'Standards', 1x12, 12x1, whateverwhatever..... all, or some, or none of these things may or may not be good for the consumer. It's the smoke and mirrors that bother me. Let's call 650B+ what it is: it is a higher traction, easier to ride/corner, additional 'new' standard that is being touted as the latest thing everyone needs. This will be absolutely great for getting new and intermediate riders more involved in the sport and help them progress. That is a good thing. But don't lie to me and tell me that this is the future we have all been waiting for and it took years of innovation and engineering to get here. I don't see Barel winning on Plus size, do you?
I don't want companies to stop coming up with these types of ideas - far from it. The products will live and die on their own merit. I just want them to be honest about why they are doing it.
650B came about for 2 core reasons. 1) To give racers an edge on rolling speed while preserving nimbleness when compared to a 29er. 2) To sell more bikes. I am generally ok with this. I grumbled about the 26" bikes in my garage becoming out of date but at the end of the day 650B is working well and seems to have given the sport a fresh and new advantage. It came across as forced and not many were thrilled to see 26" get pummeled into the ground but there was no denying that there was certainly some mechanical advantage to it.
Now lets talk B+.As @fartymarty pointed out - Surly really was the first to come to market with this. It wasn't need driven, race inspired, or consumer driven. It was birthed from some people wanting to have fun on a bike. That is great. I support that. Here is where I put on my Conspiracy hat. Bike companies saw this coming and knew exactly what they were doing. You see, companies, for the most part, don't care so much about the "step change" in performance that innovation brings, they care about the step change in EARNINGS that innovation brings. Companies could have released a new range of tires that ranged from 2.5-3.0 that would fit existing 650B frames and provided the same super fun benefits that B+ bikes have. But that only brings a small incremental net sales gain. You know what brings in big gains? New Frames, new completes, new hub standards and new forks for those new frames. We are now in a world of planned obsolescence and the elimination of backwards compatibility because it doesn't suit company growth models to have you ride a bike for more than 5 years.
You'll notice that Anneke Beerten is running a prototype 2.5" Shwalbe in Chile right now - How is it that we have complete B+ bikes with 3" tires available to market almost overnight and we are now just seeing wide footprint tires just being tested by top tier riders now? This is important whether you race or not because these are the people that will find the limits and flaws of a technology fast than anyone else - and that equals a better product for you and I.
Surly was content to bring a new concept out and let it grow organically and that is the MTB world I came up in - a new product lived and died on its adopt-ability and adaptability. If riders wanted it they would support it. Maybe I will be proven wrong but I would not be surprised if we see some B+ bikes on the EWS later this season. Not because its the right bike but more because its in the sponsorship contract.
If plus tires are for beginners then how are they going to pedal them uphill. Or do we promote beginner riders shuttling only?
@Duc1098 I completely get and agree with your conspiracy theory. The big companies are cashing in. The Krampus has a 135mm rear hub and can run 3" tyres. Admittedly the chain stays are not stupid short but this whole boost rear end thing just seems like a way to make the current obsolete. It can't go on for much longer as they will have exhausted all possibilities... although gearboxes will make everything obsolete but at least that's a step in the right direction.
As an aside did you see the Dirt write up on the Spec 29/650+. They had a good play with it in various guises.
Sure, being an early adopter (either as a producer, taking someone's 'out there' idea and refining it to make it workable, or as an early adopting consumer, buying something you see promise in and reaping benefits before everyone else despite the howls of laughter from your buddies) may take courage - but there's also the follower mentality of buying the next great thing because you get swept up in the fad, only to find much later that you fell for what turned out to be a blind alley.
the article form RC seems like the spewings of a marketing department. Sycophanticly Trying to pat themselves on the back for their 'innovation' and calling it cleverness / creativity or whatever the cool word is.
I think we are due for some more dramaric changes than 12-speed. There are more pressing improvements that could be made that could prove unpopular at first, like a completely new take on the rim/tire interface - or some as simple and useful as a keyed steerer tube and stem that automatically aligns the handlebar.
Dramatic changes - while the commentariat will be calling for gearboxes as the panacea to everything that ails modern MTBs (right, because we all break derailleurs all the time, and obviously nobody has figured out how to do decent suspension with chain/derailleur systems), and manufacturers will insist that 27+ is more than a (remarkably effective) nice product for very specific requirements, I'd think that truly functional variable geometry and intelligent suspension would be the next big thing in the effort to build truly quiver killing bikes. Can't wait to see what they do with that.
But, I totally agree with your first point on resistance being equally important to innovation. You need all types of people to innovate an industry, from early adopters, to bandwagoners, to holdouts, to critics. What's lame is when people waste their time bashing others just because they are part of another group. For every dud (for example, first year Fox CTD), there's often a homerun (for example, Float X2). The guy who's not that great of a rider that shows up to the trailhead with the latest new part is a big reason for why the company was able to develop that part in the first place. But the guy that waits to buy is a big reason for how weak products get scrapped or redone.
What it is not, however, is innovation in the sense of solving an entirely new problem, or solving a problem with a completely new approach. That sort of innovation is rare, at least it is rarely successful. You mention Elon Musk - Tesla has been innovative on the refinement front. Lots of patents on how to improve known solutions to known problems. But they've not reinvented the electric car. Donate they refiners, or innovators? I'd argue they've pushed so hard on incremental improvements, they've created a qualitative difference.
Seriously, why is this not standard on all steerers and stems!?!?!?!?!
Some small guidelines on the spacers, frame and stem could also help.
I am taking a stand against e-bikes on singletrack.
This part of your article sums it up RC
PROBLEM - Shareholders demanding more profit.
SOLUTION - Create new standards, categories and wheel sizes.
90% of new products add no tangible benefit to the average rider.
There are 2 things I need as a rider that will really make a difference
1, An affordable, reliable and preferably light weight gearbox
2, Tires/Rims that reliably hold air in all situations
Thats it from me, I gotta go repair a flat and straighten out my hanger so that I can go for a ride!
@Pinkbike, you looking for an intern?
The only thing is that improvements can have more effect, due to evolving something that has already been evolved.
I heard that it was proven that human beings didn't get smarter over time. The only reason we have modern stuff now such as electricity, clean water on the 18th floor, etc, is because we build our knowledge on stuff that others have already found out.
We do have more knowledge, but we're not smarter.
Same with inventions in our sport. It keeps on getting better, but it has always been evolving very fast. Its just that that revolutionary part from 10 years ago means nothing to us anymore now.
The only thing we seem to have become better in is inventing new useless "standard". F-off with that shit bike industry...
the rep from Shmam said it himself: people at Shmam would only get used to
change if it was incremental. thats a bonus for any industry. any industry.
incremental innovation keeps people buying/trading up.
lots a riders feel like they gotta have the latest...
industry loves these people
I saw the article merely as the musings of someone who's wondering what the next true innovation will be, and how do we prepare ourselves as riders to receive it?
Please bike gods.....give me the courage to resist
Can that someone tell me how?
I see it, and it inspires me to ride better, but I will never do it. But, that inspiration engages me in a way that no bit of bike bling will ever do.
I say that because I believe that almost all of sport is about the riding and only a bit is about the bike. Taking it forward by showing others to ride better puts the gear tech in its rightful place, IMO.
Just sayin...
Please, just once leave the Sram cookies and Shimano tea and write the truth!
Twist shifter ............95,0 g
Crank arms.............434,5 g
Chain tensioner.......122,0 g
Chain ring 30t...........51,0 g
Gearbox Spider.........40,0 g
Rear sprocket 26t.....37,5 g
---------------------------------------------- 3130g
cranks xt 36-26t .......718g
bb xt .........................82g
XT-11-42 cassette .... 447g
xt rear derailleur .......275g
xt front derailleur .......136g
xt front shifter ...........132g
------------------------------------------------ 1790
weight penalty ........... 1340g (3.95 pounds)
Pinion has 2 cables so I didn't count fr. derr cable. It could also be said that a simple ss rear hub would be lighter than a standard rear hub and a dishless wheel would be lighter at the same strength.
Obviously some new products allow you to ride in ways not possible before. Hydraulic brakes offered a level of power and control that allowed for new ways to ride trials, for instance. Hydraulic rim brakes were a true bicycle innovation as far as I know, hydraulic disc brakes were simply an evolution of what was already common in motorsports. I don't know who was first with bicycle disc brakes, but at least Magura and Grimeca made motorcycle and moped brakes as well (though I don't think Grimeca still makes bicycle brakes anymore). So yeah, if you were into trials back then and those hydraulic rim brakes came out, getting them would indeed revolutionize your ride as they say nowadays. But with those dropper posts really, what's the point? The argument I read in the media is that dropping your seat allows for more control. I get that. But what happend to just leaving the seat low for the entire ride and just raise it with a qr for your ride to and from the trails? Get fit and learn to stand up climbing, now that will revolutionize your ride! It won't require any new gear except for maybe a qr seat clamp if you don't have one already. It may not be an option for those competing in enduro racing. But for most of us (the ones who buy their components) there is nothing wrong with getting tired on a ride. If it really is what you want and think you need, then yes have one. But as with the first bicycle suspension, you know there are massive reliability issues and vulnerability in case of a crash so much so that you'd actually want the next more improved version, then just wait for the next more improved version. If you do that, you prove you have more of a vision for innovation than the one who just gets the current latest product.
forrealthobro: bikes are tools for fun. they deliver. mountain biking is solved.
still fertile ground though: arguing semantics, the desire to be RIGHT, absolutism fueled by insecurity...these will always have dedicated people slugging it out.
what about you guys?
Do you really think an extra cassette cog and some pointy chainring teeth qualifies as creative innovation? For the record: I don't. You may have missed the third paragraph.
"For the most part, those people knew they were investing their time and money on innovations that were not yet perfect, so they must have believed that they were participating in something greater. They were."
You just wrote a long article to justify the Microsoft approach of making the end users be the beta tester being applied to the biking industry. Wonderful.
For the record "There is no downside to conjuring up ways to make an existing product lighter, stronger, faster or more attractive." - There is one major one, the inconvenience and requirement for the end user to pay top dollar for something that't not actually that great, purely to support the stepping stone to the next "new technology" that's already been created.
What, like last week.
The American companies are the worst thing happened to cycling. All marketing no substance.
Specialized, SRAM etc etc. they have a strong appeal to newbies-like 99% here.
RC you know better, but you need to do your job.
'Nuff said
Also, care to point me to the research about the IQ of marketers/sales people? Obviously you would not make a good sales guy as your "100% focus on filling their pockets" statement shows you haven't got the slightest idea about selling anything. But I kind of feel for you. Sales people are the guys who used to bully you at school, so you comforted yourself by thinking you would be the last one laughing in the adult life. And now they earn a lot more than you despite your (unfounded) sense of intellectual superiority. Unlucky mate.
'nuff said.
" no point to engage a conversation right now"
" nuff said"
That means you were going to shut up, right? Thank you for doing just that.
Please just find me another Avid BB7 brakes in any other manufacturer and I will shut up... I mean another mechanical disk brake with the same power and better than most hydraulic options.
To the avid bb7 comment: yes they are great brakes. That is why sram bought avid. In mid 2000. Because avid was a great brake maker. 5 years after sram purchase, Avid brakes are considered garbage by most. Why?
Same with all the other stuff you wiki about sram. Read between the lines. And sometimes, facts, are completely omitted. Ie sram did not come up with gripshift. They bought the german company who made gripshift. And they made it so cheap that never took off.
Besides the fact that rotating shifters have been around since the 50's – at least – sram grip shift were a disposable product. they did not hold in place.
There was a german or french brand that made a similar system. Which worked good, no slip, stay in place, did not fall apart. I tried both. Night and day. Sram bought the company and I assume used their technology for the shifter. I think they also had the rear derailer. It is easy to rewrite history missing a couple of details. Sram came out with a product called grip shift. Yes. Was it something new? No. Did it work well? By all accounts no. Did they buy another company to take their technology. Yes. They are definitely a smart business, but they claim 1milion times more credit. They are just another micro shift. With 100 times more money. Enough money, they can claim whatever they want and have the media go along.
SRAM is hot. Super sexy. XO red letters on a shiny black cranks. It gives people boners. Shimano makes fishing reels. We ride bikes ultimately because of emotions. SRAM convey the idea much better. It is exciting to look at their stuff. When you see pictures on internet. Because nowadays this is how buyers make decisions at large. When I got the 1x11 on a new bike–because no place for front derailer– it did look ace. Until I rode it. Huge turn off. Gear jumps are huge. Chainline is the worst. Chain/chainring/cassette have considerable wear after 30 miles. Shifting is poor. The rear derailer hanger is under a lot of lateral pull. Can't back pedal on large cogs. Etc Etc. I would love to see the face of Shimano engeenriers when they got the 1x11 system in their hands. Shimano was forced to come out with 1x11 just to be on the market.
Ultimatley I am taking care of my own business. And want to use the bike to have fun. Don't want to have to spend tons of money every 4-5 years because some company needs to make money. And sell me an inferior product. All shine-no substance.
@Earthmotherfu yes a forum on the subject may be interesting, but how is it going to sustain since no advertisers will be willing to support it?