neil-carnegie profile

You could pick up a Bontrager post. Their 120 (or 125, I forget) can be reduced by 10 or 30mm via spacers very easily. Gets you down to 90mm now with plenty of growing room. 

The best travel / bottom out interference  mod on a bike I’ve seen recently was a friend who added a tube strap under his downtube which met the front tire before fork bottom with a result just as dramatic as you might imagine. He doesn’t keep it there any more.

It’s maybe a country specific price thing but the new Specialized Enduro ltd in the UK is cheaper than a Santa Cruz CS at £6500 and comes with Ohlins 38, Ohlins Coil, Code RSC and GX. Specialized are much less expensive here relatively than they used to be. 

100% with you on the boutique pricing tho. I can’t see how it’s good for mountain biking to be pricing so many people out of so many brands. E Bikes are going to make that even worse (for those that want one) too.

Hey Tim. Without saying anything that would get me in too much trouble at work, Trek dealer margins (and perhaps costs to run bike shops, given that most Trek dealers aren't rolling in the dough) are quite a bit higher than you suggest above. No idea what YT pay for OEM parts but it might also be a lot cheaper than you imagine. It does seem likely the Bontrager stuff costs Trek very little as you say though. Having worked on both brands, I think is it quite likely the 9.9 framesets are more expensive to produce. That's my last words - no interest in getting into a fight over it.

I've heard the pitch Trek make for it before. The most amazing thing about it is that on the larger (19.5 and up) bikes with it, the fork very, very nearly clears the downtube if you remove the chip. If they'd just made the headtube a few mm longer at the bottom (or set the bike up for an external lower headset, or you fit an bigger crown race) they could have had their straight downtubes and not needed it at all. I agree it's not noticeable riding the bikes, it just "solves" a non-problem and I worry about damaging it and/or the frame in a decent crash. It's not a big deal for me, but it is a classic bike industry "feature" if ever I saw one.

I'm just trying to re-read your post in a way where it doesn't seem like you think Trek are profiteering in a way YT are not and failing to do so. If that wasn't what your point was then I'm not sure what it was. You don't have like buying through the supply chain that is the mainstream bicycle industry, but many less experienced (or invested) people do, or lack the confidence to deal with an online direct sales brand.

I'm fully with you on the knock block thing though.

The profit on this bike to Trek will be just the same as YT make (roughly). Trek sell the bike to a dealer, YT sells it to you instead. That's how the whole direct sales thing "works". I don't understand why people find this so hard to grasp.

Well, on a "normal" day riding at home, I'd do about 30km ish and maybe 15-1600m vertical height gain and drop so my 9 days out is not so terribly different I think. Home for me is the Tweed Valley in Scotland, so steep and muddy is what we have too. Someone posted a video of one of our (my) trails on here a few weeks ago titled something like "north shore in Scotland" in fact. I think I'll stand by my assertion that 300km should not be considered a long time for a top end drivetrain but f you disagree, fair enough.

Nice out of the box summary, but 300km is about 8-9 days riding for me. I'd hope my £1000+ drivetrain is still working after the first month! I know a few fast SRAM supported riders who are very wary of Eagle, precisely because of concerns over increased chain and cage length and clutch / mech durability. Time will tell if it does last I guess. Also, part replacement costs are still ferocious over here in the UK too, so if you damage your pre-equipped Eagle bike then better brace for a big bill..

The whole arguement from the bike companies about e-bikes allowing
injured or ill users to take part in an experience otherwise denied to
them by their circumstances is quite frankly a wildly obvious strawman
to justify them selling much greater numbers of these bikes elsewhere. A
good friend of mine had a heart transplant when she was a teenager, has
just started riding a ebike and is having an incredible time being able
to ride with her husband for the first time in her life. That's an
amazing thing and I could not be more happy for them, but she isn't why
the bike companies are making these machines, as people in her sort of
situation are such a tiny minority that none of the major players is economically going to
design and produce a whole series of bikes for that tiny market.

Longish travel, slack, capable e-bikes are clearly targeted at one user group and
that is quite simply mountain bikers who don't (for whatever reason)
want to have to pedal up to the top of trails where there is no uplift
avaialble to service them. I get that it's a potentially large market -
there are a lot of people out there who don't want to have to make the
effort (short or long term) and want the experience of riding to be made
easier or more convenient for them but what the consequences of giving
them what they want are we just don't know and are something we should
probably be very concerned about. You do have to wonder if this short
term greed and desire for growth on the part of the bike companies might
have terrible consequences for the sport in the longer term.

The other thing I keep thinking about is that it's hard not to see the usual
bike industry arms race to have a "better" bike develop with ebikes
if they do catch on. Right now, they are more or less mountain
bikes with a massive assist, but how long before they are using bigger
tires, have way better range and or more speed? It's hard not to see
them getting more and more motorised quite quickly until the line
between an ebike and a motorbike gets less obvious.

(I'm in Europe where we 'want' them by the way)

The whole arguement from the bike companies about e-bikes allow injured or ill users to take part in an experience otherwise denied to them by their cucrumstances is quite frankly a wildly obvious strawman to justify them selling much greter numbers of these bikes elsewhere. A good friend of mine had a heart transplant when she was a teenager, has just started riding a ebike and is having an incredible time being able to ride with her husband for the first time in her life. That's an amazing thing and I could not be more happy for them, but she isn't why the bike companies are making these machines, as people in that sort of situation are such a tiny minority that no-one is economically going to design and produce a whole series of bikes for them.

Longish travel, slack, capable ebikes are clearly targeted at one user group and that is quite simply mountain bikers who don't (for whatever reason) want to have to pedal up to the top of trails where there is no uplift avaialble to service them. I get that it's a potentially large market - there are a lot of people out there who don't want to have to make the effort (short or long term) and want the experience of riding to be made easier or more convenient for them but what the consequences of giving them what they want are we just don't know and are something we should probably be very concerned about. You do have to wonder if this short term greed and desire for growth on the part of the bike companies might have terrible consequences for the sport in the longer term.

The other thing I keep thinking about is that it's hard not to see the usual bike industry arms race to have a "better" bike develop with these things if they do catch on. Right now, they are more or less mountain bikes with a massive assist, but how long before they are using bigger tires, have way better range and or more speed. It's hard not to see them getting more and more motorised quite quickly until the line between an ebike and a motorbike gets less obvious.

(I'm in Europe where we 'want' them by the way)