Very agree on the final statement, paraphrased as thus: If you want the shiniest bits, it might also be worth it to also pay even more for the after-purchase support.
However,
"2016 Cannondale Jekyll... Just six years later this frame is completely worthless because the shock is no longer available or supported. ...and it begs the question of whether resale should be part of the purchase value consideration?"
I don't even think you need to take it as far as resale. Partly because big companies will almost never put any consideration into resale, because they get literally nothing* from any sale after the initial sale. What we might see as potential resale value from durability, they just see as "tough enough to take you anywhere!" marketing taglines.
But mostly because loss of support after just a handful of years hurts **actual value** just as much, if not more, than resale value. I didn't get bit by the Dyad situation*, but knowing how fast brands can switch from promoting something as the coolest shit ever to basically forgetting it ever existed, really puts things into perspective. Not only can a Dyad-equipped Jekyll owner probably not easily sell their 6 year old bike no matter the condition, they won't even be able to fix it to ride themselves.
*(Ok, maybe a tiny bit considering continued visibility of the brand vs that product going in the bin.)
*(Nor even know anybody who got bit by it. Closest match is that I do know some guys with DRCV shocks that had to do some finagling to replace them with conventionally sized shocks. But I think DRCV is still technically supported; they just hated it, which is probably justified.)
April 25, 2022, 7:30 a.m. - Justin White
Very agree on the final statement, paraphrased as thus: If you want the shiniest bits, it might also be worth it to also pay even more for the after-purchase support. However, "2016 Cannondale Jekyll... Just six years later this frame is completely worthless because the shock is no longer available or supported. ...and it begs the question of whether resale should be part of the purchase value consideration?" I don't even think you need to take it as far as resale. Partly because big companies will almost never put any consideration into resale, because they get literally nothing* from any sale after the initial sale. What we might see as potential resale value from durability, they just see as "tough enough to take you anywhere!" marketing taglines. But mostly because loss of support after just a handful of years hurts **actual value** just as much, if not more, than resale value. I didn't get bit by the Dyad situation*, but knowing how fast brands can switch from promoting something as the coolest shit ever to basically forgetting it ever existed, really puts things into perspective. Not only can a Dyad-equipped Jekyll owner probably not easily sell their 6 year old bike no matter the condition, they won't even be able to fix it to ride themselves. *(Ok, maybe a tiny bit considering continued visibility of the brand vs that product going in the bin.) *(Nor even know anybody who got bit by it. Closest match is that I do know some guys with DRCV shocks that had to do some finagling to replace them with conventionally sized shocks. But I think DRCV is still technically supported; they just hated it, which is probably justified.)