@Ken Perras - I think you might be reading this too personally if you feel this is calling you out. Besides, Rocky has always been one of the companies that, generally, does a pretty good job on things.
"Disposable" probably wasn't quite the right word for it. I'm not talking about parts that wear out. I'm talking about parts that probably didn't belong on there in the first place, and quickly find themselves removed from the bike. Which becomes a serious dilemma. Why can I buy an oh-so-close to kick-ass bike for $3000, but that has such silly choices made that keep it from being great? And is there actual value in that, if I need to spend $500 to take it to the next level? Could it have come to me off the floor like that at $3200?
This should probably be another article, but it feels like there's just too much "this is always the way we've done it" in this industry. Balancing where the money gets spent. Not wanting to mix and match components too much. Putting flashy things in the high visibility areas. I'm sure there are good reasons for a lot of this, and I'm sure this is probably the "right" way to sell bikes. But these are the things that consumers get frustrated by, and why we end up building custom. I realize you might need a certain tire spec to satisfy your German customers, but how the hell does that help me and why should I care?
And let's talk about being "cheap". What does that even mean? So much of the money that we spend on these things isn't because of performance. Pretty quickly, it becomes about adding flash and dropping weight. And I think that's the point...or something close to one. Do we really need to spend $10,000 to get a fully functional fork on a bike? And where do we draw the line on our definition of a cheapskate? <$4000? <$5000? At what point do the performance compromises stop?
May 9, 2017, 11:34 p.m. - Dave Tolnai
@Ken Perras - I think you might be reading this too personally if you feel this is calling you out. Besides, Rocky has always been one of the companies that, generally, does a pretty good job on things. "Disposable" probably wasn't quite the right word for it. I'm not talking about parts that wear out. I'm talking about parts that probably didn't belong on there in the first place, and quickly find themselves removed from the bike. Which becomes a serious dilemma. Why can I buy an oh-so-close to kick-ass bike for $3000, but that has such silly choices made that keep it from being great? And is there actual value in that, if I need to spend $500 to take it to the next level? Could it have come to me off the floor like that at $3200? This should probably be another article, but it feels like there's just too much "this is always the way we've done it" in this industry. Balancing where the money gets spent. Not wanting to mix and match components too much. Putting flashy things in the high visibility areas. I'm sure there are good reasons for a lot of this, and I'm sure this is probably the "right" way to sell bikes. But these are the things that consumers get frustrated by, and why we end up building custom. I realize you might need a certain tire spec to satisfy your German customers, but how the hell does that help me and why should I care? And let's talk about being "cheap". What does that even mean? So much of the money that we spend on these things isn't because of performance. Pretty quickly, it becomes about adding flash and dropping weight. And I think that's the point...or something close to one. Do we really need to spend $10,000 to get a fully functional fork on a bike? And where do we draw the line on our definition of a cheapskate? <$4000? <$5000? At what point do the performance compromises stop?