Should we as consumers not be more influential in the cycling industry?

[Off_da_brakes]

The thread "Bike Shop Damaged My Frame Issue - Help!" has got me thinking. Are consumers, are we vocal enough in steering the cycling industry in terms of introduced trends/technologies/designs, which then have a potential impact on us at a future point in time?

 

Let's use bottom brackets as an example (for purpose of a principle). I personally choose to only buy bikes that have threaded BB's because for me the potential issues related to press fit BB's outweigh any benefits. My choice of my knock-off Chinarello was heavily influenced by the fact that the manufacturer offered a threaded BB. I settled on my Santa Cruz Bronson by virtue of its threaded BB. I'm looking at replacing the Bronson with either a Megatower or the New 2020 Specialized Enduro, both of which have threaded BB's. Same principle.

 

My point in this thread is not to continue the debate of the bike shop damaged my frame thread, nor debate the merits/demerits of threaded and press fit BB's or any other bike part for that matter.

 

My point is this. As consumers and a cycling community, should we not start making more principled purchase decisions around trends/technology/designs etc. that we perceive to be flawed or inadequate? The industry would hopefully be more responsive and not merely push "new design/technology" into the market to stimulate sales which we as consumers sometimes blindly accept. I acknowledge that there will never be full consensus on any given point nor are some of us technologically well versed. We ultimately steer the industry with where we choose to spend our money.

 

Perhaps a new thread section "New tech - yay or nay?

[Butterbean]

You're coming from this the wrong way, in my opinion.

 

Your example of press fit BBs. They started because pro teams were looking for marginal gains. And they got them with going from outboard bearings to pressfit.

 

The problem is, we as consumers don't consume based on longevity or logical requirements, but rather in many cases, emulation of the top performers in a segment. There are countless examples of this.

 

So in a way, we do very much drive the tech that's put into bikes, but not from an economical or logical perspective, more from a sense of, the pros ride this so I want that too. The more of that tech you can out into lower end bikes, the more talking points the salesperson has to speak to you and convince you to spend your dollars with them.

 

Two months and three BBs later you're cuslrsing your choice. Then yoh spend more on a part that fixes a problem that shouldn't be there in the first place.

 

We, as consumers, should rather take a long hard look at what is necessary, rather than what's cool. And then buy based on that. But we never will. It will be an individualistic change rather than a whole population change, and the money will pour in to the manufacturers.

 

So in essence, I agree, but I also think you're coming at this the wrong way. It's not the manufacturers fault. It's ours.

[bikebloke]

i think you misunderstand how multinational corporations work .... you dont tell them what you want ..THEY tell you what you need

 

#gravelbike #650b

[Off_da_brakes]

You're coming from this the wrong way, in my opinion.

 

Your example of press fit BBs. They started because pro teams were looking for marginal gains. And they got them with going from outboard bearings to pressfit.

 

The problem is, we as consumers don't consume based on longevity or logical requirements, but rather in many cases, emulation of the top performers in a segment. There are countless examples of this.

 

So in a way, we do very much drive the tech that's put into bikes, but not from an economical or logical perspective, more from a sense of, the pros ride this so I want that too. The more of that tech you can out into lower end bikes, the more talking points the salesperson has to speak to you and convince you to spend your dollars with them.

 

Two months and three BBs later you're cuslrsing your choice. Then yoh spend more on a part that fixes a problem that shouldn't be there in the first place.

 

We, as consumers, should rather take a long hard look at what is necessary, rather than what's cool. And then buy based on that. But we never will. It will be an individualistic change rather than a whole population change, and the money will pour in to the manufacturers.

 

So in essence, I agree, but I also think you're coming at this the wrong way. It's not the manufacturers fault. It's ours.

I see your point. However we look at the issue, nothing will change until we each change our approach. To then state the obvious, both the fault and solution lies with each of us.

[Eddy Gordo]

If you continue buying ready made bikes, then you have to accept the parts that come with it.

However, buying a frame and then all the parts you would prefer and afford, will make you bike more special and only you to blame for poor/excellent choice.

[Capricorn]

, nor debate the merits/demerits of threaded and press fit BB's or any other bike part for that matter.

 

My point is this. As consumers and a cycling community, should we not start making more principled purchase decisions around trends/technology/designs etc. that we perceive to be flawed or inadequate? 

 

Perhaps a new thread section "New tech - yay or nay?

 

with reference to the highlighted parts above, I think you are contradicting yourself somewhat. 

However, it's exactly the communication of the demerits of something that is the driver for change. Joe Public very rarely has a seat at the design table when the feasibility of a feature is being discussed by the manufacturer. Sometimes, feasibility for mass production and application is seemingly replaced by the trickle-down approach described by Guy with the Ritchey, where the halo effect of a pro-only feature is perceived by joe public is very desirable. This is the case in almost all industries.

In that case ,how then does joe public inform the manufacturer that something is not working at a non-pro level? quite simply, it's when something breaks, and we get cents and rands knocked out of us in exchange for the realization it wasn't the best decision on OUR behalf. If nnough of us have issues and communicate them up, the high the chance the manufacturers pay attention and make a change.

Note, i said "a change", because the change might still not be a cost-effective change relative to Joe Public: remember: we don't have a seat at hte design stage table.

 

I'm not sure if planned obsolescence is strategy applied by bicycle manufacturers, but the gadgets industry loves it because it keep the dollars rolling in. Mobile phone manufacturers are notorious for this.

 

Long story short, without influence at the initial design stage, we have to be pickier about our choices, even if it means avoiding our preferred brand. So i agree with you on that wholeheartedly. But as GwaR also pointed out, Joe Public is free to make a bad decision as well. So buy your thing, and if there's a lesson to be learnt, share it with us. 

[Butterbean]

I see your point. However we look at the issue, nothing will change until we each change our approach. To then state the obvious, both the fault and solution lies with each of us.

I think it's too much of a Utopian dream.

 

It's the same reason you always see the hardest ballies on tech that may not be the current latest and greatest. They've been doing it so long they don't fall for hype anymore, but ride parts that work, are reliable, and easy to service.

 

It's only once you stop trying to keep up with the joneses, you can ride the bikes you think are best, rather than what the industry thinks are best...

 

It follows for everything in life, unfortunately. Cars, phones, clothes, spouses, lifestyles... It's a choice between being impressive or being content...