#!markdown
I'm more concerned about the impact this older-age aimed campaign will have in
the youth barely inserting themselves in the sport. Since the industry is
trying to look appealing to this fat wallet sector, both bikes and componentry
are getting more and more expensive. When I transitioned from being a casual
rider to what I consider a legit mountain biker 15 years ago, 350 bucks bought
you a mid/upper level fork, with what was considered long travel at the time,
proper hydraulic circuits and a decent chassis. Now you have to pile up at
least twice that amount to get almost the same performance. And I don't think
you can blame that price increment on the inflation. In fact, I think
inflation makes just the smaller portion of it.
See, in 2001 here in Argentina we had one of the worst economic crisis you can
imagine. Almost 53% of the populace was under the poverty line, and at the
same time one of the major newspapers publishes an article in its economy
section where they interviewed the CEOs of the three major sport brands
(Adidas, Nike and Reebok). They all coincided in something: those brands had
to increase their prices up to 200% because (according to their marketing
research) for the average consumer expensive equals quality and status. I
think the same logic can be applied to those older guys exhibiting their brand
new all-carbon all-XTR steeds next to their Audis in their garages. And
unfortunately that's driving the prices sky high, both for the top tiers and
the bottom line models.
Don't get me wrong, I'm aware of the trickle down policy Shimano carries on
for the technologies they present in the XTR line in the subsequent years. But
I still don't think you can follow the overly walked path of "they have to pay
for future innovation, hence the price increment". That's plain old BS.
Companies are planning their product lines up to five years from now, and the
research they have to perform to bring a new product to the market has been
paid long ago. And then again, the lower prices get expensive every year, not
just the top-of-the-line ones.
Also, the media reviewing just the $10K models doesn't really help at all. The
brands clearly hand down their best junk to you guys because they want
everyone to feel like there's no other way to ride, anything inferior is just
unrideable. Marketing consists of creating a need where there wasn't one. Be
honest, do you really need BOS suspensions, ENVE wheels and a XX1 gruppo to
enjoy the trails?
So, in a nutshell, I'm afraid the MTB culture is getting dangerously ruled by
the "if you can't afford it, then don't do it" motto. Some kid somewhere will
bust is ass working for a bike he simply can't afford to maintain if he rides
daily. A $200 cassette and a $70 chain every three or four months can lead him
to prematurely giving up the sport, simply because he was told he wouldn't be
able to perform up to his true limits unless he has all the flashy bits bike
fashion dictates are en vogue now.
June 3, 2015, 4:54 a.m. - Luix
#!markdown I'm more concerned about the impact this older-age aimed campaign will have in the youth barely inserting themselves in the sport. Since the industry is trying to look appealing to this fat wallet sector, both bikes and componentry are getting more and more expensive. When I transitioned from being a casual rider to what I consider a legit mountain biker 15 years ago, 350 bucks bought you a mid/upper level fork, with what was considered long travel at the time, proper hydraulic circuits and a decent chassis. Now you have to pile up at least twice that amount to get almost the same performance. And I don't think you can blame that price increment on the inflation. In fact, I think inflation makes just the smaller portion of it. See, in 2001 here in Argentina we had one of the worst economic crisis you can imagine. Almost 53% of the populace was under the poverty line, and at the same time one of the major newspapers publishes an article in its economy section where they interviewed the CEOs of the three major sport brands (Adidas, Nike and Reebok). They all coincided in something: those brands had to increase their prices up to 200% because (according to their marketing research) for the average consumer expensive equals quality and status. I think the same logic can be applied to those older guys exhibiting their brand new all-carbon all-XTR steeds next to their Audis in their garages. And unfortunately that's driving the prices sky high, both for the top tiers and the bottom line models. Don't get me wrong, I'm aware of the trickle down policy Shimano carries on for the technologies they present in the XTR line in the subsequent years. But I still don't think you can follow the overly walked path of "they have to pay for future innovation, hence the price increment". That's plain old BS. Companies are planning their product lines up to five years from now, and the research they have to perform to bring a new product to the market has been paid long ago. And then again, the lower prices get expensive every year, not just the top-of-the-line ones. Also, the media reviewing just the $10K models doesn't really help at all. The brands clearly hand down their best junk to you guys because they want everyone to feel like there's no other way to ride, anything inferior is just unrideable. Marketing consists of creating a need where there wasn't one. Be honest, do you really need BOS suspensions, ENVE wheels and a XX1 gruppo to enjoy the trails? So, in a nutshell, I'm afraid the MTB culture is getting dangerously ruled by the "if you can't afford it, then don't do it" motto. Some kid somewhere will bust is ass working for a bike he simply can't afford to maintain if he rides daily. A $200 cassette and a $70 chain every three or four months can lead him to prematurely giving up the sport, simply because he was told he wouldn't be able to perform up to his true limits unless he has all the flashy bits bike fashion dictates are en vogue now.