Is This Bike The Worst Buy In Britain.

foy

Looks like specialized have finally lost the plot. 2014 camber full suspension bike rrp £1500. Specification is suntour xcr fork, x fusion rear shock, tektro disc brakes, shimano alivio shifters, who in their right mind would pay £1500 for a garbage specification like that. You can get a suntour xcr fork on ebay brand new for around £60.

paul.skibum

The Evo for 700 more is better but still a little over priced. But on the other hand they are 29ers so pricing them out of the market is a good thing. Also - don't like it how about you don't buy it?

The Rookie

That is pretty rubbish even by Specialized's standard, I guess they have given up on selling to people who actually know about bikes and want to sell only to those who think the name means a good bike.

benpinnick

Specialized have been know to sell bikes for more than the RRP of their parts. This kind of spec is no surprise.

cooldad

I blame Wiggle.

CitizenLee

Lesser spec = more profit to pay their lawyers bills for suing small bike shops :P

rockmonkeysc

CitizenLee wrote:

Lesser spec = more profit to pay their lawyers bills for suing small bike shops :P

It was a cafe and he deserved it. Cashing in on Specialized's name. Confusing customers and causing Specialized to loose millions.
Good thing the bike buying public have taken Specializeds side in this and it won't hurt their image at all.

Thewaylander

Scarily, back in 2007 when i got a spesh they were great value 1500 got you a hell of alot of bike, x9 and fox all round was great.

now they are super expensive.

welshkev

RockmonkeySC wrote:

CitizenLee wrote:

Lesser spec = more profit to pay their lawyers bills for suing small bike shops :P

It was a cafe and he deserved it. Cashing in on Specialized's name. Confusing customers and causing Specialized to loose millions.
Good thing the bike buying public have taken Specializeds side in this and it won't hurt their image at all.

yeah, there's been no backlash on spesh at all yet has there?

The Rookie

Thewaylander wrote:

Scarily, back in 2007 when i got a spesh they were great value 1500 got you a hell of alot of bike, x9 and fox all round was great.

now they are super expensive.

Hardly relevant without context, 6 years inflation will have increased that price by about 50-60% anyway!

rockmonkeysc

Unfortunately brand names do add value but in this case Specialized have over done it. If you compare it to the entry level Giant Trance 275 which is probably the closest competition the Specialized is very over priced or very under specced.

Angus Young

RockmonkeySC wrote:

CitizenLee wrote:

Lesser spec = more profit to pay their lawyers bills for suing small bike shops :P

It was a cafe and he deserved it. Cashing in on Specialized's name. Confusing customers and causing Specialized to loose millions.
Good thing the bike buying public have taken Specializeds side in this and it won't hurt their image at all.

Yeah, big bad Specialized, eh? Unfortunately it's not quite that simple. If you don't defend a trade mark, even against the 'little guy', your case is undermined and weakened should you need to defend against more serious abuse in the future. You can even lose a trade mark if you're not vigorous in its defence. Even if Specialized didn't care for a fight they'd have been compelled to engage otherwise they're inviting open season.

benpinnick

The Rookie wrote:

Thewaylander wrote:

Scarily, back in 2007 when i got a spesh they were great value 1500 got you a hell of alot of bike, x9 and fox all round was great.

now they are super expensive.

Hardly relevant without context, 6 years inflation will have increased that price by about 50-60% anyway!

Some context. An fsr comp in 2007 was £1500 (or thereabouts), a similar spec level to today's. 1500 is worth 1760 today allowing for compound inflation. An fsr comp today is 2500.

benpinnick

(I should point out this isn't unique to specialized, but I believe they are the worst case scenario).

welshkev

Angus Young wrote:

RockmonkeySC wrote:

CitizenLee wrote:

Lesser spec = more profit to pay their lawyers bills for suing small bike shops :P

It was a cafe and he deserved it. Cashing in on Specialized's name. Confusing customers and causing Specialized to loose millions.
Good thing the bike buying public have taken Specializeds side in this and it won't hurt their image at all.

Yeah, big bad Specialized, eh? Unfortunately it's not quite that simple. If you don't defend a trade mark, even against the 'little guy', your case is undermined and weakened should you need to defend against more serious abuse in the future. You can even lose a trade mark if you're not vigorous in its defence. Even if Specialized didn't care for a fight they'd have been compelled to engage otherwise they're inviting open season.

but as I read (I'm no expert but could be wrong) defending your trademark doesn't have to mean starting a lawsuit. they could have gone about it another way.

CitizenLee

RockmonkeySC wrote:

CitizenLee wrote:

Lesser spec = more profit to pay their lawyers bills for suing small bike shops :P

It was a cafe and he deserved it. Cashing in on Specialized's name. Confusing customers and causing Specialized to loose millions.
Good thing the bike buying public have taken Specializeds side in this and it won't hurt their image at all.

Indeed. I mean just because Specialized didn't exist until 60 years after the race was invented doesn't mean they don't have exclusive rights to the name :roll:

The Rookie

benpinnick wrote:

Some context. An fsr comp in 2007 was £1500 (or thereabouts), a similar spec level to today's. 1500 is worth 1760 today allowing for compound inflation. An fsr comp today is 2500.

You think bike inflation has been running at 2.6%? sorry I reckon general bike inflation (across all brands) has been running at nearer 7-8% - which would put a £1500 bike then at about £2350 now......

Angus Young

welshkev wrote:

Angus Young wrote:

RockmonkeySC wrote:

CitizenLee wrote:

Lesser spec = more profit to pay their lawyers bills for suing small bike shops :P

It was a cafe and he deserved it. Cashing in on Specialized's name. Confusing customers and causing Specialized to loose millions.
Good thing the bike buying public have taken Specializeds side in this and it won't hurt their image at all.

Yeah, big bad Specialized, eh? Unfortunately it's not quite that simple. If you don't defend a trade mark, even against the 'little guy', your case is undermined and weakened should you need to defend against more serious abuse in the future. You can even lose a trade mark if you're not vigorous in its defence. Even if Specialized didn't care for a fight they'd have been compelled to engage otherwise they're inviting open season.

but as I read (I'm no expert but could be wrong) defending your trademark doesn't have to mean starting a lawsuit. they could have gone about it another way.

True. And I haven't actually read the details. I agree, if they just came charging in rather than having a friendly word up front, then that's heavy handed. I've often wondered why big companies don't use this sort of thing as a PR win by finding an amusing/friendly way of closing these things out.

CitizenLee

Angus Young wrote:

RockmonkeySC wrote:

CitizenLee wrote:

Lesser spec = more profit to pay their lawyers bills for suing small bike shops :P

It was a cafe and he deserved it. Cashing in on Specialized's name. Confusing customers and causing Specialized to loose millions.
Good thing the bike buying public have taken Specializeds side in this and it won't hurt their image at all.

Yeah, big bad Specialized, eh? Unfortunately it's not quite that simple. If you don't defend a trade mark, even against the 'little guy', your case is undermined and weakened should you need to defend against more serious abuse in the future. You can even lose a trade mark if you're not vigorous in its defence. Even if Specialized didn't care for a fight they'd have been compelled to engage otherwise they're inviting open season.

How is the name of a town/race that existed long before Specialized as a company existed, Specialized's trademark to defend? Fair enough if the guy called his cafe "Stumpjumper" but this just looks like another case of corporate bullying.

rockmonkeysc

Could Giant sue George Michael for having a song called Faith? I hope so.

Angus Young

CitizenLee wrote:

Angus Young wrote:

RockmonkeySC wrote:

CitizenLee wrote:

Lesser spec = more profit to pay their lawyers bills for suing small bike shops :P

It was a cafe and he deserved it. Cashing in on Specialized's name. Confusing customers and causing Specialized to loose millions.
Good thing the bike buying public have taken Specializeds side in this and it won't hurt their image at all.

Yeah, big bad Specialized, eh? Unfortunately it's not quite that simple. If you don't defend a trade mark, even against the 'little guy', your case is undermined and weakened should you need to defend against more serious abuse in the future. You can even lose a trade mark if you're not vigorous in its defence. Even if Specialized didn't care for a fight they'd have been compelled to engage otherwise they're inviting open season.

How is the name of a town/race that existed long before Specialized as a company existed, Specialized's trademark to defend? Fair enough if the guy called his cafe "Stumpjumper" but this just looks like another case of corporate bullying.

They legally own the trade mark. 'End of' on that score.

Oh, and they are a bike shop (that happens to have 'cafe' in its name) that also sells 'home brand' product that carries the disputed name.

Just because it 'looks' like a case of corporate bullying doesn't mean it is.

CitizenLee

Well it's bullsh!t and just shows that money > common sense.

Catch you guys later, I'm off to patent some random words and place names and then call my lawyers on anyone using them, even historically.

Quick edit to ask a serious question - How can they trademark a town name, that existed for decades before they did as a company? That's what I don't understand.

Angus Young

CitizenLee wrote:

Quick edit to ask a serious question - How can they trademark a town name, that existed for decades before they did as a company? That's what I don't understand.

It's the complex relationship between name, brand (and resultant brand equity), product and product category that's being defended, not simply the name, although that will be stretched beyond comprehension is some cases such as when the two Apples went at it some years back.

CitizenLee

Angus Young wrote:

CitizenLee wrote:

Quick edit to ask a serious question - How can they trademark a town name, that existed for decades before they did as a company? That's what I don't understand.

It's the complex relationship between name, brand (and resultant brand equity), product and product category that's being defended, not simply the name, although that will be stretched beyond comprehension is some cases such as when the two Apples went at it some years back.

Thanks for the explanation, but I must be too much of a layman as that all just sounds like legal toss to me

I'm still not getting why is a company allowed to take something that existed for however long before they did, and then take it as their own?

For example, if I had the cash and providing no one else has, could I trademark "Aberdeen"?

welshkev

CitizenLee wrote:

Angus Young wrote:

CitizenLee wrote:

Quick edit to ask a serious question - How can they trademark a town name, that existed for decades before they did as a company? That's what I don't understand.

It's the complex relationship between name, brand (and resultant brand equity), product and product category that's being defended, not simply the name, although that will be stretched beyond comprehension is some cases such as when the two Apples went at it some years back.

Thanks for the explanation, but I must be too much of a layman as that all just sounds like legal toss to me

I'm still not getting why is a company allowed to take something that existed for however long before they did, and then take it as their own?

For example, if I had the cash and providing no one else has, could I trademark "Aberdeen"?

they haven't taken the name as a whole. just when it relates to bikes, frames, and components. wheels aren't apparently exclusively mentioned, but they are components, so I guess spesh are in the right to persue it.

Angus Young

CitizenLee wrote:

I'm still not getting why is a company allowed to take something that existed for however long before they did, and then take it as their own?

For example, if I had the cash and providing no one else has, could I trademark "Aberdeen"?

I have to admit, it is rather odd some of the things you can tie up as a trade mark.

As for 'Aberdeen', it would have to be associated with a company, product, service or concept and it's not guaranteed you'd get it, a judgement would be made based the merits of your application.

welshkev

Angus Young wrote:

CitizenLee wrote:

I'm still not getting why is a company allowed to take something that existed for however long before they did, and then take it as their own?

For example, if I had the cash and providing no one else has, could I trademark "Aberdeen"?

I have to admit, it is rather odd some of the things you can tie up as a trade mark.

when I lived in spain a lot of the big clubs and club nights (ministry of sound, clockwork orange, gatecrasher IIRC amongst others) only had UK copyright and some enterprising individual - not me unfortunately - trademarked them in spain and they had to pay him a fortune to use the name over there.

CitizenLee

welshkev wrote:

CitizenLee wrote:

Angus Young wrote:

CitizenLee wrote:

Quick edit to ask a serious question - How can they trademark a town name, that existed for decades before they did as a company? That's what I don't understand.

It's the complex relationship between name, brand (and resultant brand equity), product and product category that's being defended, not simply the name, although that will be stretched beyond comprehension is some cases such as when the two Apples went at it some years back.

Thanks for the explanation, but I must be too much of a layman as that all just sounds like legal toss to me

I'm still not getting why is a company allowed to take something that existed for however long before they did, and then take it as their own?

For example, if I had the cash and providing no one else has, could I trademark "Aberdeen"?

they haven't taken the name as a whole. just when it relates to bikes, frames, and components. wheels aren't apparently exclusively mentioned, but they are components, so I guess spesh are in the right to persue it.

Well right or wrong legally, I think the general response by the cycling community as whole speaks volumes. You just have to spend 30s on their Facebook or any forum to see how many people think they're being complete cockbags, again right or wrong legally notwithstanding. I'd guess that will probably affect their business/image/brand more than some random dude with a little shop.

Angus Young wrote:

CitizenLee wrote:

I'm still not getting why is a company allowed to take something that existed for however long before they did, and then take it as their own?

For example, if I had the cash and providing no one else has, could I trademark "Aberdeen"?

I have to admit, it is rather odd some of the things you can tie up as a trade mark.

As for 'Aberdeen', it would have to be associated with a product, service or concept and it's not guaranteed you'd get it, a judgement would be made based the merits of your application.

The local football club have probably already got it covered

welshkev wrote:

Angus Young wrote:

CitizenLee wrote:

I'm still not getting why is a company allowed to take something that existed for however long before they did, and then take it as their own?

For example, if I had the cash and providing no one else has, could I trademark "Aberdeen"?

I have to admit, it is rather odd some of the things you can tie up as a trade mark.

when I lived in spain a lot of the big clubs and club nights (ministry of sound, clockwork orange, gatecrasher IIRC amongst others) only had UK copyright and some enterprising individual - not me unfortunately - trademarked them in spain and they had to pay him a fortune to use the name over there.

Genuis, or a cnuntish way to make a quick buck?

I suppose you have to blame the people who made the laws, rather than those who exploit them.

welshkev

CitizenLee wrote:

welshkev wrote:

CitizenLee wrote:

Angus Young wrote:

CitizenLee wrote:

Quick edit to ask a serious question - How can they trademark a town name, that existed for decades before they did as a company? That's what I don't understand.

It's the complex relationship between name, brand (and resultant brand equity), product and product category that's being defended, not simply the name, although that will be stretched beyond comprehension is some cases such as when the two Apples went at it some years back.

Thanks for the explanation, but I must be too much of a layman as that all just sounds like legal toss to me

I'm still not getting why is a company allowed to take something that existed for however long before they did, and then take it as their own?

For example, if I had the cash and providing no one else has, could I trademark "Aberdeen"?

they haven't taken the name as a whole. just when it relates to bikes, frames, and components. wheels aren't apparently exclusively mentioned, but they are components, so I guess spesh are in the right to persue it.

Well right or wrong legally, I think the general response by the cycling community as whole speaks volumes. You just have to spend 30s on their Facebook or any forum to see how many people think they're being complete cockbags, again right or wrong legally notwithstanding. I'd guess that will probably affect their business/image/brand more than some random dude with a little shop.

.

oh I completely agree with you, I was just putting it from a legal point of view.

Angus Young

CitizenLee wrote:

Well right or wrong legally, I think the general response by the cycling community as whole speaks volumes. You just have to spend 30s on their Facebook or any forum to see how many people think they're being complete cockbags, again right or wrong legally notwithstanding.

That, though, is just the typical, knee jerk, little thought reaction you get to this kind of thing. The full story is often more complicated than suits your average internet ranter.

trooperk

The Rookie wrote:

That is pretty rubbish even by Specialized's standard, I guess they have given up on selling to people who actually know about bikes and want to sell only to those who think the name means a good bike.

Don't get me start on Specialize,my signature said it all.