The future of bikes and prices

[mas2]

I watched the Worldwide Cyclery video about the new rockshox stuff the other day and they were talking about how much better it is. I wasn't convinced and struggle with bike reviewing in general that are just so subjective and nitpicky. I think it's because the tech in mountain bikes (frames, forks, shocks, suspension layouts, geometry) has come to a real standstill/peak the last few years with only tiny incremental benefits. There's heaps more brands covering every point of differentiation and coming into the shifting and brakes area. Even carbon seems to have had its day. The only real unique/innovative stuff I have seen would be the Athertons new frames (Unique in terms of materials and manufacturing but of little real world value) and Guerilla Gravity's modular frame (I'm a fan). So if the tech is stable then the only thing that can really change is the looks/aesthetics. Yet still, it seems like the cost of bikes keeps going up and up even with brands like Giant.

I was also looking at e-bike pricing out of interest and it amazes me how something with a motor, battery, and gearbox can be equivalent to or even cheaper than a lot of mtb's with similar componentry. I know there will always be boutique/expensive bike brands but I struggle to see how the industry can continue along like it is when a second hand frame can cost $4k but a brand new ebike with good componentry costs $6k.

I just really wonder about the sustainability of the bike industry at the moment.

Thoughts?

 

[c3024446]

Ebikes must be the new thing keeping the LBS afloat. Must all be on Afterpay too because wage growth is non-existent. In 10 years we've seen 29ers, 27.5, droppers, 1x, back to 29ers. I always start thinking the end is neigh, but something else just comes along.....

 

[The Reverend]

It's a battle for the consumer's wallet or purse. Products are generally pretty good however these brands need to grow financially which either comes from attracting new customers - E bikes. Or incremental gains, however small - 27.5+, boost, dropper posts, 29", short offset, steel STA...

At the moment the hot trend is LT 29 bikes, sooner or later it'll be something else.

The costs are frankly ridiculous though I agree. When the new SC Megatower frame alone costs $5.5k, and you can't really put budget spec kit on it you're looking at $10k+ (more like $13k) for a decent spec.

Is the bike that good?

I'm after a new rig myself but find myself asking, is it really going to make that much of a difference?

Personally, I'm waiting for the bike with the sorted geometry: adjustable chainstays or longer rear centre to fit properly. Plus a decent STA (none of this effective STA lies that gets bandied about)

And one can't trust mag reviews - last year's model, which was amazing, is now full of problems and shortcoming which the new product solves amazingly enough. I saw that with car reviews all the time and pay no mind to any of them.

Also, do you really want to be a (high) paying development rider? The debacle of recent Yeti 29" bikes shows the contempt they have.

Also, I can't get past SRAM drivetrain and brakes on every single bike. I really dislike their kit (aside from the cassette driver). Means I'll buy frame only and build up accordingly.

Sorry for the rant!

 

[slider_phil]

E-Bikes are notoriously under spec'd for their pricing from what I've seen.

A similar priced non electric version is always loaded with a better drivetrain, suspension package, wheels and that sense of satisfaction that you only get from earning your downs.

 

[Nambra]

I don't think it's just the bike industry @mas2 (think most consumer goods: mobile phones, cameras, televisions, fridges, washing machines etc.) but I get what you're saying. I like the Worldwide Cyclery videos, but like any bike shop they want to sell more product so they'll be making out that the existing stuff has suddenly become unrideable rubbish. And SRAM is probably one of the worst when it comes to deliberate obsolescence disguised as innovation.

I find it a bit mind boggling that SRAM couldn't have come up with lower friction seals, tried different damper fluids and reduced internal friction on their forks years ago. The cynic in me makes me wonder if there isn't a 'release schedule' for such incremental improvements in their marketing strategy, to maximise sales to those that have to have the latest and greatest. Rather than release all the improvements at once, string them out over successive years and sell more product with less R&D effort.

@The Reverend, the Megatower frame is pretty pricey, but that's SC generally isn't it - you pay a premium for the brand, same with Yeti, no different to a BMW over a Commodore. At least SC has an excellent warranty, although I think Yeti now do lifetime warranty too, which must be music to the ears of all those SB130 and SB150 owners that have had problems with them. That heavy bias toward SRAM on new bikes is probably a response to Shimano's lack of a 1x12 drivetrain. For all it's imperfections, Eagle has been a marketing dream run for SRAM.

Is a lot of this a result of the increasing profile of the sport, pro level competitions and attracting bigger sponsorship dollars? It's almost like the whole industry is built on the premise that all riders should be buying a new bike every other season to keep up, and continually upgrading components in the meantime.

 

[mas2]

Ebikes must be the new thing keeping the LBS afloat. Must all be on Afterpay too because wage growth is non-existent. In 10 years we've seen 29ers, 27.5, droppers, 1x, back to 29ers. I always start thinking the end is neigh, but something else just comes along.....

Over the last 10 I can see some big innovation but in the last 5, not really. Droppers are great, I was/am happy with 1x10 and 42t, and my pick for next big thing is 29er front and 27.5 rear which is meh. Never thought about afterpay but you are probably right.

 

[mas2]

It's a battle for the consumer's wallet or purse. Products are generally pretty good however these brands need to grow financially which either comes from attracting new customers - E bikes. Or incremental gains, however small - 27.5+, boost, dropper posts, 29", short offset, steel STA...

At the moment the hot trend is LT 29 bikes, sooner or later it'll be something else.

The costs are frankly ridiculous though I agree. When the new SC Megatower frame alone costs $5.5k, and you can't really put budget spec kit on it you're looking at $10k+ (more like $13k) for a decent spec.

Is the bike that good?

I'm after a new rig myself but find myself asking, is it really going to make that much of a difference?

Personally, I'm waiting for the bike with the sorted geometry: adjustable chainstays or longer rear centre to fit properly. Plus a decent STA (none of this effective STA lies that gets bandied about)

And one can't trust mag reviews - last year's model, which was amazing, is now full of problems and shortcoming which the new product solves amazingly enough. I saw that with car reviews all the time and pay no mind to any of them.

Also, do you really want to be a (high) paying development rider? The debacle of recent Yeti 29" bikes shows the contempt they have.

Also, I can't get past SRAM drivetrain and brakes on every single bike. I really dislike their kit (aside from the cassette driver). Means I'll buy frame only and build up accordingly.

Sorry for the rant!

You just got a Prime didn't you?? And SRAM do have everything tied up on their end.

 

[mas2]

E-Bikes are notoriously under spec'd for their pricing from what I've seen.

A similar priced non electric version is always loaded with a better drivetrain, suspension package, wheels and that sense of satisfaction that you only get from earning your downs.

This is the e-bike I was lookign at recently: Cube Hybrid 160 SL
$6k, Fox 36 fork, DPX2, XT gear. Pretty good bang for buck.

 

[mas2]

I find it a bit mind boggling that SRAM couldn't have come up with lower friction seals, tried different damper fluids and reduced internal friction on their forks years ago. The cynic in me makes me wonder if there isn't a 'release schedule' for such incremental improvements in their marketing strategy, to maximise sales to those that have to have the latest and greatest. Rather than release all the improvements at once, string them out over successive years and sell more product with less R&D effort.

I did notice that they called it something like Grip 2.1
That's trying to have the the best of both worlds - Yep it's new and better but not that much better

 

[Flow-Rider]

I don't mind paying high prices for MTBs if the stuff would have lasted a bit longer and Australia is an actual prick of a place to buy replacement parts from as it makes it not viable for repairs, so you need to usually buy from overseas or replace the whole component. I think that our local dollar rate isn't helping much either. I stopped by a bloke on the trails the other day with a run out carbon Trance that cost $4200, he was told that the brakes were normally spongy and don't leave them in the sun or they'll just stop working, the bike didn't look like anything spectacular and not better than mine that was built for around $2000 dollars.

I suppose these big brands need money for sponsorship of riders and bringing new innovations to the market, less sales will equate to less of both in the long term.

 

[Minlak]

The bike industry has always been a trickle down proposition. Early adopters pay a premium and those that wait pay less. Of course the companies have strategies in place to ensure they make the most from any product. That is why they made the product isn’t it? Like anything the final upshot of value for money will be decided by the buyer. They will keep raising prices or lowering spec for the same value whilst people keep buying it.
Also don’t forget this exact same trickle down technology also means that the so called “lesser spec” gear is pretty good in reality. The SLX you buy today is the XT from yesterday. My road bike was a bargain mostly because I accepted rim brakes and 10 speed. The Tiagra stuff on it is the equivalent of the Dura Ace top of the line from a few years ago.
I think part of the problem is the spec snobbery that goes on in most buyers heads.

 

[Elbo]

Afterpay and living on credit is funding a lot of people's consumption. Just look at the rapid growth of such services, which are little more than pay day lenders. The amount of spending on gear I saw while working in the bike industry, from people I knew full well were not in the position to drop $10k on a new Santa Cruz or Rocky Mountain Powerplay, was astounding. I think it's reflective of a lot of society at the moment, but there seems to be a growing number of people who are much more protective of their hard-earned money and consuming less or with more consideration.

Keeping consumers dissatisfied with their kit is the name of the game. It's patently obvious the bike industry is reaching a plateau given the sorts of 'innovations' and reinventions we are seeing now.

Regarding the seemingly low entry cost of ebikes at the moment. I wouldn't be surprised if bike companies are using ebikes as loss leaders, sacrificing some profit now, knowing full well the extra battery and servicing requirements of ebikes will give them a greater return in the long run.

 

[The Reverend]

You just got a Prime didn't you?? And SRAM do have everything tied up on their end.

That was a whole year ago... It's practically ready for the natural history museum. ;^)
Seriously though, things would have to be pretty dire for me to see the back of that bike.
Also, significant birthday just passed and I don't collect other things, aside from bass guitars... Hmmmm.....

 

[safreek]

Just use afterpay to buy new parts, then go out and get a bargain 26r, face it, most of them haven't been ridden hard and work as well as 27.5 and better than a 29r(well, what wouldn't)

 

[mas2]

Thanks everyone for the comments, it's helping me get my thoughts sorted.

What I feel is that the main technological advancements for bikes in the last 10 years have mainly been in the components and that those high level features have now filtered into the lower range e.g. Deore brakes are fantastic along with cheap droppers. But over the last 10 years I haven't seen much in way of frame design innovation. I feel that geometry changes are important but just small incremental innovation and even that is coming to a standstill. Sure the Athertons have a new DW6 link in their new frames but to me I just think, so what? It might be 1-2% better than DW5 but I reckon someone with a DW5 bike would find it pretty hard to justify a frame change just for that. Aluminium frames have been around for so long that manufacturing must be nearly perfectly optimised and I reckon carbon frame tooling and manufacture would have also come down a lot. So if suspension design has plateaued and the manufacturing optimised then what else can be improved on them?

Here's my issue. I see something like a fork as being incredibly more technical to design and difficult to manufacture than a frame and yet, for some reason the fork is a significantly cheaper component.

It's time for Shimano to makes frames.

 

[rowdyflat]

With time you realize that all the above is the consumer capitalist model.
They do it with everything trickle down improvements .
Look at battery power tools , trickle the Lithium batteries ,slightly more power, brushless motors .
Bike tricks have been to differentiate into more classes tapered head tube, 29 , 27.5 ,27.5 plus ,1x 11 speed , 12 speed ,change the geo , shorten chainstays, steepen seat tube, blah blah ,ebikes, gravel bikes are just the latest.
True innovations come along rarely eg disc brakes, tubeless tyres.
Frames from 15 years ago are fine with modifications IMHO.
Surprisingly easy to increase the travel , longer rear shock [ if you can ] raises the bb and steepens head tube.
Lots of frames take 27.5 if thats the issue.
Its the ride not the bike but because everyone is led along by a tech obsessed country USA .......

 

[Zaf]

Removed by user

 

[hifiandmtb]

I think a huge technological advancement is that you can now own a long(er) travel bike that positively rockets up hills yet feels properly playful yet stable on the downs.

Shit like that didn't exist 10 year ago.

 

[safreek]

With time you realize that all the above is the consumer capitalist model.
They do it with everything trickle down improvements .
Look at battery power tools , trickle the Lithium batteries ,slightly more power, brushless motors .
Bike tricks have been to differentiate into more classes tapered head tube, 29 , 27.5 ,27.5 plus ,1x 11 speed , 12 speed ,change the geo , shorten chainstays, steepen seat tube, blah blah ,ebikes, gravel bikes are just the latest.
True innovations come along rarely eg disc brakes, tubeless tyres.
Frames from 15 years ago are fine with modifications IMHO.
Surprisingly easy to increase the travel , longer rear shock [ if you can ] raises the bb and steepens head tube.
Lots of frames take 27.5 if thats the issue.
Its the ride not the bike but because everyone is led along by a tech obsessed country USA .......

This man nailed it, the frames from 10 years are fine, just upgrade the parts. Face it, most if you have been conned.
I concede that bigger wheels may make the bike ride better, but I will still enjoy the old wheels

 

[Calvin27]

Here's my issue. I see something like a fork as being incredibly more technical to design and difficult to manufacture than a frame and yet, for some reason the fork is a significantly cheaper component.

Depend what frame and fork. With a lot of frames you are buying brand. Despite what they tell you, extra QA does not cost quadruple another branded frame. As for forks, they are pretty much more expensive than most hardtail frames at least from a retail perspective.

As for the future of bikes and pricing, It's going to go up. If you look at companies like giant for example, they have had a steady upward trajectory of pricing their bikes, in particular duallies and full carbon roadies. Generally you'd expect the worlds highest volume producer to get the cost of their carbon moulds right down, but that doesn't seem to trickle down.

Interesting video is CGN's cheap bike to superbike where they buy and ebay special and deck it out with medium spec 105 components. Basically the thing didn't perform too bad but not sure if this holds true for mountain bikes. I feel like mountain bikes have improved a lot more in 20 years but at the same time that we have plateaued recently since we decided changing hub spacing full circle was a thing.