your frame is crap

Shimano electronic shifting is not that ground breaking. ]

Umm… You missed the point.

Di2 10 spd was 2013, 2014 and on have been Di2 11 spd. DrewM is saying finding Di2 10Spd product might be difficult now as there is no longer manufacture support. That means Di2 10spd drivetrains were around at the consumer level for less than a handful of yearssomeone will chime in with the numbers

Getting back to your tangent, the difference being that the Shimano system is widely available for consumer purchase. And actually works!

Umm… You missed the point.

Di2 10 spd was 2013, 2014 and on have been Di2 11 spd. DrewM is saying finding Di2 10Spd product might be difficult now as there is no longer manufacture support. That means Di2 10spd drivetrains were around at the consumer level for less than a handful of yearssomeone will chime in with the numbers

Getting back to your tangent, the difference being that the Shimano system is widely available for consumer purchase. And actually works!

Thank You.

This year, the top ten bike brands will take a long, hard look at the off-road motorcycle industry[HTML_REMOVED]#8217;s successful model and recognize the foolishness of committing all of their development funds and manpower to develop a handful of superbikes that few can afford, and instead, redirect their efforts in earnest to build superbike performance into a larger number of mountain bikes that many can afford.

FROM: http://www.pinkbike.com/news/opinion-this-year.html

I've never been much of a RC fan, but this pretty much sums up how you could solve every issue in this entire thread.

Dirt Bikes are relatively cheap because of the huge amount of carry over year-to-year. Your amortization of engineering and development costs, and of molds, over a number of units isn't about the number of item X you make in a year, it's about how many you make over 5-10+ years.

You also can have a thriving aftermarket (accessories / tuning / customization) because those companies know they are investing in products that will have long term compatibility (imagine how many sets of levers Straitline had for Juicy's and Shimano XT/Saint/Deore brakes when all of a sudden BAM! Elixir and Servo-Wave!

Hmmm the 148 standard…a sinister, yet potentially (if successful) effective way for Big Company to squeeze Little Company just a bit more. Sounds like business as usual and I doubt there is any bro brah at the corporate level among these companies. The investment for molds for smaller companies like Yeti, Intense and Santa Cruz have put in for full ranges of bikes (and all their sizes) is pretty bloody high. Like Drew said about the Moto industry; I'm pretty sure the guys at Yeti, Intense and Santa Cruz would LOVE to sit on an existing design, at least for a couple years, before completely re-tooling.

Thank You.

I've never been much of a RC fan, but this pretty much sums up how you could solve every issue in this entire thread.

Dirt Bikes are relatively cheap because of the huge amount of carry over year-to-year. Your amortization of engineering and development costs, and of molds, over a number of units isn't about the number of item X you make in a year, it's about how many you make over 5-10+ years.

You also can have a thriving aftermarket (accessories / tuning / customization) because those companies know they are investing in products that will have long term compatibility (imagine how many sets of levers Straitline had for Juicy's and Shimano XT/Saint/Deore brakes when all of a sudden BAM! Elixir and Servo-Wave!

For all the flack he gets (or had gotten) the dude has some very good viewpoints on the industry. He's been around forever and has seen everything I'm sure.

In regards to the motorcycle industry, you are correct, as most brands tend to operate on 5 year rebuild plans. That is, complete ground up makeovers on dirtbikes, with year to year smaller changes. Some brands in mountain biking seem to completely revamp their lines every year. New carbon molds every 2-3 years, that kind of thing.

It also has to do with the number of units sold. Its also quite a bit different in that you have the big 5 (KTM, Honda, Yamaha, Kawasaki, Suzuki) each selling a handful of off road models. I wonder how many KTM 450sx's were sold in comparison to how many Giant Reigns were sold? I'm sure the numbers are out there. Let's say KTM sold 30,000 450sx's vs Giant sold 5000 of that one Giant Reign model. Get my point? There are a million mountain bike brands selling a bunch of models, with variances within the models. Some mtb brands offer four builds within the same model! That's just crazy. If they would offer two, they might not lose any sales, they could probably sell the same dollar amount spread over half the number of sku's.

Then the California equation comes into play, where there may be as many legal motocross tracks as there are good legal mountain biking areas. If bikes are similarly priced, you know the kid who lives near a track in suburbia with no trails will pick the moto all day long. Decent mountain biking areas seem to be more isolated and fragmented in comparison. If you look at the number of units sold, California largely dictates the motocross industry Worldwide.

I could be wrong on all these points, as it is only my semi educated viewpoint. In regards to the market though, the two "sports" couldn't be any more different.

Thank You.

I've never been much of a RC fan, but this pretty much sums up how you could solve every issue in this entire thread.

Dirt Bikes are relatively cheap because of the huge amount of carry over year-to-year. Your amortization of engineering and development costs, and of molds, over a number of units isn't about the number of item X you make in a year, it's about how many you make over 5-10+ years.

You also can have a thriving aftermarket (accessories / tuning / customization) because those companies know they are investing in products that will have long term compatibility (imagine how many sets of levers Straitline had for Juicy's and Shimano XT/Saint/Deore brakes when all of a sudden BAM! Elixir and Servo-Wave!

These are all fantastic ideas in theory….. It would be amazing if the bike industry could do this, and maybe, MAYBE it's almost reached a point of technological development that it is possible (belief that things can't get much better than they are now)

But, at the same time, I think we are still in an era (hopefully near the end of it) of proprietary, cock stroking "I though of this first" manufacturing mentality where they're still a ways to go.

Not to mention some smaller companies still trying to come up to the level of the big 3, rather than just finding a way to distinguish themselves.

Consumers will end up driving that. From what I have been hearing, a lot of people aren't really all that pumped at the idea of having to spend minimum $5K to get either a low end spec carbon bike, or a mid spec aluminum bike.

It also has to do with the number of units sold. Its also quite a bit different in that you have the big 5 (KTM, Honda, Yamaha, Kawasaki, Suzuki) each selling a handful of off road models. I wonder how many KTM 450sx's were sold in comparison to how many Giant Reigns were sold? I'm sure the numbers are out there. Let's say KTM sold 30,000 450sx's vs Giant sold 5000 of that one Giant Reign model. Get my point? There are a million mountain bike brands selling a bunch of models, with variances within the models. Some mtb brands offer four builds within the same model

Also don't forget that bike manufacturer's generally have to cut molds or weld fixtures for at least 4 frame sizes for each frame model. Big $$$ especially with carbon.

So glad I still use the bikes I've been riding for the last ten years they work fine ride well and I don't have to bow to the bike industries fashionistas.

Also don't forget that bike manufacturer's generally have to cut molds or weld fixtures for at least 4 frame sizes for each frame model. Big $$$ especially with carbon.

Using the KTM 450F example, I assume the 450 SX-F, 450 XC-F, 450 XC-W, 450EXC all use the same basic mainframe, with combustion and component changes to suit the end use?

Since we are picking on Giant Bikes right now, I'll continue to use the Reign as an example:
Four bike models
Four sizes
Four unique colourways
Two front triangle material choices
One rear triangle

Sixteen different products that need to be stocked by the distributor for the one model bike!

I don't even want to discuss what Norco is doing with the Range/Sights

I thought clearance was fine with a 29" Pike?

Never checked. Still might not pass safety standards though.

Since we are picking on Giant Bikes right now, I'll continue to use the Reign as an example:
Four bike models
Four sizes
Four unique colourways
Two front triangle material choices
One rear triangle

Sixteen different products that need to be stocked by the distributor for the one model bike!

I don't even want to discuss what Norco is doing with the Range/Sights

if you looks at norco and kona (i am sure others as well) they use one front triangles for most sizes, cut to different length at the seat mast and top tube/headtube junction to create the different sized bikes on small through large sizes. the problem being for tall (XL and up) riders it creates some weird reach issues.

if you looks at norco and kona (i am sure others as well) they use one front triangles for most sizes, cut to different length at the seat mast and top tube/headtube junction to create the different sized bikes on small through large sizes. the problem being for tall (XL and up) riders it creates some weird reach issues.

I don't understand what you are saying…
Have a look at the Range/Sight/Sight Forma carbon frames and tell me if you notice anything? Hint, it's right above the chainring!

if you looks at norco and kona (i am sure others as well) they use one front triangles for most sizes, cut to different length at the seat mast and top tube/headtube junction to create the different sized bikes on small through large sizes. the problem being for tall (XL and up) riders it creates some weird reach issues.

No, no they don't.

No, no they don't.

on the aluminium frames, yes. carbon. dont know.

on the aluminium frames, yes. carbon. dont know.

They miter the tubes to the appropriate lengths for each frame size then weld them. They DO NOT "use one front triangles for most sizes, cut to different length at the seat mast and top tube/headtube junction to create the different sized bikes on small through large sizes." Whoever told you this spewing garbage.