What is wrong with the bike industry? Well first, the industry creates new standards for no reason other than to sell us new stuff. Second, the industry tells us one thing is really important before going in a different direction entirely and telling us that was what was really important the whole time. Third, the industry creates new categories that are just rehashing old categories and pretending they’re doing something new. Fourth, the industry relies more on marketing than real innovation.
Have I missed any? What a bunch of a$$h013s?
But is all of this really OUR fault?
Can we (and clearly, here, I’m playing both sides of the net) take some ownership for our bike and component buying decisions. If you’ve been reading my rants for any length of time, you’ll know one of my real pet peeves is weight weeniness. Making things lighter has been one of the primary projects of the bike industry for the last, oh, forever, and don’t get me wrong, all things being equal, a lot of that weight savings has been helpful. But you and I don’t live in a world of marginal gains. Shaving grams off our bikes doesn’t help. The dollar to dividend ratio is really poor.
This was never more obvious to me than at the end of what I’ll call the Rim-Brake Era. The top road bikes were locked in constant battle over who could make the lightest production model, and riders bought those bikes year-after-year-after-year. And then SHAZAM! Disc brakes. They weigh a pound, but now weight doesn’t matter, braking performance does. Consumers happily forgot they were obsessed with how light a bike they could build and clamored to be the first with disc brakes.
And obviously, I’m not talking about everybody. I know everyone reading right now is smarter than that.
I’m not going to dig too deeply into this next one, but I’ll just say PressFit bottom brackets and wonder how many people who gladly signed up for the “benefits” of those really thought it was going to enhance their riding experience. Are any of us so credulous (spoiler: yes)?
Who out there has ever thought, “Man, this bike is great but one more ring on the cassette would really put it over the top?”
To the extent the industry has formed certain habits, consumers have reinforced those habits, have even rewarded them. I suspect most of the complaints about the industry come from riders who are more thoughtful and deliberate in their spending and wonder why things they think will really help (like the aforementioned disc brakes actually) get delayed in favor of a 30g savings over last year’s frame or an aero seatpost.
Returning to disc brakes for a third time, some innovation really is good. I don’t know anyone in the business who is trying to create vaporware. I think they all believe in whatever their design mission is, even the ones pushing new standards. A certain amount of market failure is implicit in innovation. That BB386EVO (possibly a droid in the new Star Wars movie) isn’t really a thing, means the system is healthy.
And the industry does dumb, masochistic stuff too. For example, I sure do wish the production side of the industry would get away from model years. Forcing themselves onto that 365-day cycle pushes engineering and marketing to package whatever they’ve got, even if it isn’t really a game changer, because “Hey, the new season is starting.”
But more so, I wish consumers were a little more thoughtful and a little less gullible. I wish they asked real questions about the bike stuff they buy and maybe get away from buying for the sake of buying. I wish, and this is a big one, they knew what they really wanted.
Robot, I always look over at the automotive industry when considering various innovation woes in cycling.
Standards? Ha! Forget it. Chevy parts will not fit on a BMW or really anything beyond maybe a few other GM vehicles.
As for innovations, that will never stop and some will be better than others. Some will be beneficial and others less so. Car example 1: I don’t need a touchscreen in my car, but I do like having Carplay. It’s easier than how I’ve had my phone in use previously in my cars. It solves an access problem and makes it more convenient and maybe safer than looking at a small phone screen. Nice to have, but don’t need to have.
Car example 2: Roll over bracing wherein the vehicles roof must be able to support the weight of said vehicle if it’s flipped over. Sounds like a plus for safety, but has severely decreased driver visibility leading to increased “I did not see you” accidents and heavier vehicles which are more dangerous in said accidents.
Bike example 1: Disc brakes: Overall a plus, but probably not necessary on a road bike. They are on the contrary tremendously beneficial offroad and to go back to cars riding a rim brake-equipped mountain bike off-road (even a cable pull disc one, but that’s a fight for another time) is like driving a ’70s Nova on a track vs a Type R.
Bike example 2: Pressfit BBs. The benefit is solely for the manufacturers. That is not inherently a bad thing, but it does cause more headaches for the user far too often. Not needed and not nice to have.
I do believe that the weight = performance thing was always ill-informed and we brought that on ourselves.
I think the blame can be shared. After all, it’s supply AND demand, plus marketing.
I think generations are better than model years, like how Transition does their frames.
I suspect that this is true with most (all?) industries in a market-based system. Every producer is constantly pushed to innovate, if only to differentiate their product in the market to produce sales. Some of those innovations are useful, but many are just attention-grabbers. Think of computer software, or cell-phones. New features all introduced all the time, but most are unnecessary, unwanted, or just silly to most people. But they have to be there, or why would you switch to my product — or replace an older version — unless it promised something new and improved?