Why are riders so against change?

lawman

Was watching a video from Bikemag on the new Santa Cruz Bronson launch and their head engineer Joe Graney asked what I think is a seriously good question; Why are people so against change in bike design?

As soon as a new standard or technology is introduced people will instantly jump into assault mode and question why it's needed, why it's been done and why it's different. I find it difficult to fathom why people are so bothered if it's actually an improvement on older equipment, yet people are still happy to get the pitchforks out and get all "to hell with new stuff! Whats wrong with what we already have?"

Be interested to see what people think, as I see any improvements as a good thing. Is it just because people are brainwashed by the whole "it's marketing bullshit, same shit, different name, new higher price"?

Here's the vid btw:

http://www.bikemag.com/gear/exclusive-v ... rail-bike/

pesky_jones

lawman wrote:

Is it just because people are brainwashed by the whole "it's marketing bullshit, same shoot, different name, new higher price"?

Who would be doing this brainwashing then? I don't understand who would benefit from warning cyclists not to be bought into marketing BS?

bluechair84

Because most people aren't riding to the limitations of what they currneltly ride, and can't fathom how new standards might make any difference to them. I don't notice the difference between my 135 thu axle and 135 QR!

styxd

Riding bikes is fun

New standards are boring, confusing and expensive.

junglist_matty

Simple answer: Bike enthusiasts THINK they know more than the bike designers and therefore rubbish any new design they don't like the sound of without even giving it a second thought.

rockmonkeysc

I see the benefits of 29" wheels but 650B is so close to 26" it makes no noticeable difference to most people. I have tried a Identiti AKA with 26" & 650B wheels and I couldn't tell the difference. Why buy in to new standards at a higher price if for most people there is no benefit.
Some things can be a step back as well, such at CTD.

pesky_jones

Nothing at all to do with squeezing the money sponge as much as they can then

clamps81

Money I would think. The dread fear that £2-3k you've chucked into your bike is now gone as bike companies innovate your gear into some sort of forced obsolescence and replace their entire lineup with whatever is flavour of the season. A sense of it being somehow forced on people. There is a degree of sense in this - 29ers aren't appropriate for everyone and nor are air shocks, but in reality I think it's mostly down to peoples urge to whinge about stuff on the internet. Providing people an open and anonymous platform within which to air their grievances will generally result in them being far more opinionated (and in far more colourful and ill-considered language) than they are in real life.

There's definitely an element of marketing BS and there being rather more competing standards for a given thing than is strictly necessary or desirable, but it's hardly a phenomenon restricted solely to MTB specifically and cycling generally.

I'll give 650B a test ride when the times comes for a new bike in several years as it seems like an interesting idea.

lawman

Pesky Jones wrote:

lawman wrote:

Is it just because people are brainwashed by the whole "it's marketing bullshit, same shoot, different name, new higher price"?

Who would be doing this brainwashing then? I don't understand who would benefit from warning cyclists not to be bought into marketing BS?

My point being are we so exposed to marketing everywhere we look these days that we automatically assume anything new or changed is just pure bullshit? A lot of people seem very set in their ways, "I like this it's fine so why the fuck am I being sold all this crap?". Why is their this resistance? The new Rockshox Pike for example has a 15mm thru axle. The amount of comments all over the net of people moaning "it's not 20mm ergo it's shit and I won't buy it". If they didn't know that, would they complain? Probably not. So why are people so against these small details that make them dismiss a product instantly?

junglist_matty

RockmonkeySC wrote:

I see the benefits of 29" wheels but 650B is so close to 26" it makes no noticeable difference to most people. I have tried a Identiti AKA with 26" & 650B wheels and I couldn't tell the difference. Why buy in to new standards at a higher price if for most people there is no benefit.
Some things can be a step back as well, such at CTD.

So you're saying that some people will notice a difference? If so, those "some" people may buy into the idea and like it.... An XC racer may want very slightly larger than 26" wheels but not 29" wheels and that different size wheel may well be the difference between a podium finish or not.... Just saying.

pesky_jones

lawman wrote:

My point being are we so exposed to marketing everywhere we look these days that we automatically assume anything new or changed is just pure bullshit? A lot of people seem very set in their ways, "I like this it's fine so why the fark am I being sold all this crap?". Why is their this resistance? The new Rockshox Pike for example has a 15mm thru axle. The amount of comments all over the net of people moaning "it's not 20mm ergo it's shoot and I won't buy it". If they didn't know that, would they complain? Probably not. So why are people so against these small details that make them dismiss a product instantly?

Fair enough, your first sentence does describe my attitude to be fair

Barteos

No, riders aren't against change in general but against marketing BS and pushing sales of marginal, largely irrelevant (for most) gains as something BIG and significant.

It's all about using one's brain to asses the benefits of new standards for one's type of riding/skills/fitness etc not just mindlessly embracing everything new like a brainwashed sheep.

lawman

junglist_matty wrote:

RockmonkeySC wrote:

I see the benefits of 29" wheels but 650B is so close to 26" it makes no noticeable difference to most people. I have tried a Identiti AKA with 26" & 650B wheels and I couldn't tell the difference. Why buy in to new standards at a higher price if for most people there is no benefit.
Some things can be a step back as well, such at CTD.

So you're saying that some people will notice a difference? If so, those "some" people may buy into the idea and like it.... An XC racer may want very slightly larger than 26" wheels but not 29" wheels and that different size wheel may well be the difference between a podium finish or not.... Just saying.

Point well made. In a world where we're constantly being sold on the idea of one bike to rule them all, basically compromise bikes between full on xc and DH, mid travel bikes have become accepted and loved by many. They don't go down as well as DH and don't go up as well an XC race bike, but they're pretty good at everything. So why are wheels in between 26" and 29" met with so much resistance?

supersonic

Barteos wrote:

No, riders aren't against change in general but against marketing BS and pushing sales of marginal, largely irrelevant (for most) gains as something BIG and significant.

It's all about using one's brain to asses the benefits of new standards for one's type of riding/skills/fitness etc not just mindlessly embracing everything new like a brainwashed sheep.

Exactly this. Why do we need so many BB and headset standards? We don't - but certain manufacturers have to say one is better than another to get a USP.

We have all benefited from materials technology with frames etc, and especially tyres, improved fork sealing and dampers, but some of standards seem to offer little or no benefit.

So to me it depends what it is, rather than than a closed question.

pesky_jones

Barteos wrote:

No, riders aren't against change in general but against marketing BS and pushing sales of marginal, largely irrelevant (for most) gains as something BIG and significant.

It's all about using one's brain to asses the benefits of new standards for one's type of riding/skills/fitness etc not just mindlessly embracing everything new like a brainwashed sheep.

I think this says it all, especially the second paragraph - really well put

junglist_matty

clamps81 wrote:

Money I would think. The dread fear that £2-3k you've chucked into your bike is now gone as bike companies innovate your gear into some sort of forced obsolescence and replace their entire lineup with whatever is flavour of the season. A sense of it being somehow forced on people. There is a degree of sense in this - 29ers aren't appropriate for everyone and nor are air shocks, but in reality I think it's mostly down to peoples urge to whinge about stuff on the internet. Providing people an open and anonymous platform within which to air their grievances will generally result in them being far more opinionated (and in far more colourful and ill-considered language) than they are in real life.

If there isn't any money, there isn't any innovation, the two come hand in hand.... Simply put, innovation is used to bring in more money and future innovation can begin. However if current innovation brings in no money, future innovation will be stopped (no money equals no jobs for inventors/designers equals no major innovation) and we'll be stuck with what we have today simply because "that's what people know, like and want".

warpcow

lawman wrote:

...met with so much resistance?

But are they really? More people I cycle with are not active on internet cycling forums/pages/whatever than are, so I've kind of assumed this is generally the case: that the majority of cyclists are not flooding forums with "26 vs 29", "SPD vs Flat", "RS vs Fox" type discussions. Sure there might be a newbie who pops up to ask the initial question, but the argument is always the same, with the same people around here. I'm not saying such discussion don't take place among cyclist in real life too, but they tend to be less polemical "I rode a 29er once and it was shoot, it must all be marketing BS"-type stuff. I find there's far more genuine interest in the possible advantages of new stuff than outright dismissal.

bennett_346

Because my 26 inch wheels have been winning cross country races and DH races alike for the past 15-20 years. XC bikes have not been winning DH races and DH bikes have not been winning XC races therefore a compromise that has a use can be made.

What good is spending the money on "new" standards such as 650b when i won't even feel the difference? I am simply not interested in that. It is driving the cost of new bikes up too, because of all the money spend on new machines, R&D etc when 90% of us are happy to ride current bikes. I wonder if it even hinders sales because of the rising price tags.

Some new standards and developments are just plain BS, simply put. Things like electronic suspension are a sensible new development as an identical frame can run normal shocks without electronics if you dont want them, whereas some new standards like axle sizes require you to change either your wheels or your forks or both for the sake of a bit of stiffness.

rockmonkeysc

junglist_matty wrote:

if current innovation brings in no money, future innovation will be stopped (no money equals no jobs for inventors/designers equals no major innovation) and we'll be stuck with what we have today simply because "that's what people know, like and want".

Thats not true, if one innovation isn't accepted then designers are sent to work on something better which will sell. People want innovation but occasionally "the next big thing" will not hit what riders actually want.

bennett_346

Mindless sheep actually harm future development as designers know they can design something pointless and uninspiring and people will buy it anyway.

rockmonkeysc

bennett_346 wrote:

Mindless sheep actually harm future development as designers know they can design something pointless and uninspiring and people will buy it anyway.

Very true.

supersonic

Tapered steerers have been the best move forward (even though is a not a new concept) in the last few years. With manufacturers pushing up stanchion diameters to ever bigger numbers to combat fore aft flex, it seemed a bit daft to keeo a 28.6mm steerer base in there, especially with longer forks.

15mm axles? Can hardly tell a difference.

felix.london

Exactly this;

supersonic wrote:

We have all benefited from materials technology with frames etc, and especially tyres, improved fork sealing and dampers, but some of standards seem to offer little or no benefit.

and this;

bennett_346 wrote:

What good is spending the money on "new" standards such as 650b when i won't even feel the difference? I am simply not interested in that. It is driving the cost of new bikes up too, because of all the money spend on new machines, R&D etc when 90% of us are happy to ride current bikes

SIS gears, obvious benefit. Front & full suspension mountain bikes, obvious benefit. Dropper seat post, obvious benefit. Ever so slightly bigger wheels and whole ranges called things like "Killer-B" - marketing BS

rockmonkeysc

It all reminds me of when I was in agricultural engineering. My employer used to come up with all sorts of pointless rubbish as innovations such as plastic lining on grain chutes to prevent grain wearing through them over time. It had never been a problem yet we sold a cure for it. Now I work in water treatment and I have been asked to design a wear sensor for a bearing on a machine, in 15 years we have never heard of one wearing out!
People will buy in to marketing bollocks if your marketing department and salesmen push it enough.

bennett_346

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Now I work in water treatment and I have been asked to design a wear sensor for a bearing on a machine, in 15 years we have never heard of one wearing out!

:?

cooldad

RockmonkeySC wrote:

It all reminds me of when I was in agricultural engineering. My employer used to come up with all sorts of pointless rubbish as innovations such as plastic lining on grain chutes to prevent grain wearing through them over time. It had never been a problem yet we sold a cure for it. Now I work in water treatment and I have been asked to design a wear sensor for a bearing on a machine, in 15 years we have never heard of one wearing out!
People will buy in to marketing **** if your marketing department and salesmen push it enough.

You are a poo recycler? That explains a lot.

rockmonkeysc

No, clean water treatment, not dirty, dirty sewage. Even through solidworks you could smell the sewage.

DCR00

Not against change when it looks like this

bennett_346

Mother of god...

cooldad

bennett_346 wrote:

Mother of god...

One of the rare times I agree with you 100%

bennett_346

What are you talking about? We agree all the time... to disagree...