Two Things

Image courtesy of Salsa Cycles

The Cycling Industry Is Not Out To "Get You".  

With the advent of the 32" wheel diameter the oft heard cries of "foul" aimed at marketers and the cycling industry at large are being brought back to the fore. 

I read comments, (I know......you aren't supposed to read the comments!), on threads concerning the new 32" wheels and I see the same old complaints I've seen over the years. Complaints concerning internal cable routing, disc brakes, 27.5"ers, "Plus sized tires". and 29"ers, not to mention bottom brackets, head sets, and more component changes. 

"It's just another thing they've done to make us spend more money!"

This one is one of my favorite old saws concerning the bicycle industry. It is as if anything new comes along with a gun held to your head "making you buy it". This is such a ridiculous complaint and it deserves the utmost derision in return. It is just a stupid, knee-jerk, thoughtless comment. No one is making you spend your money. The consumer can vote by NOT spending any money on new tech, and often they do. Quit complaining in this manner and keep your credit card hidden, go out and touch grass. It'll be okay. 

I know I could go on because I've seen so much negativity lambasted at products people thought no one needed and were a waste of time over the years. Guess what? More often than not, those things become the hill someone else is going to die on concerning something that shouldn't be changed in the future. See 29"ers vs 26"ers, and now what people say about 29"ers vs 32"ers. I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of those who are against the idea of a 32"er were against the idea of a 29"er twenty years ago. They probably have forgotten all about this though. 

And the whole "standards" thing is a farce. There haven't been standards, in a strict sense of the word, EVER in cycling. There is the standard you came into cycling with, and which you think shouldn't ever change, yes. But in reality, cycling is in a state of constant change. Just ask any bicycle mechanic who has to buy hundreds of dollars worth of tools every year just to keep up with those changes. 

In one sense, this is the problem with cycling. Not that any company is out to get you by changing things, but that these companies keep inventing "new" things which we don't really need. Once in a while actual innovation to the betterment of all is achieved. (Threadless head sets, cartridge bottom brackets, 29"ers), and at other times it is change for no real benefit to anyone (internally routed cables, various bottom bracket types, XD drivers). So, this foments the idea that cycling is just trying to make it so you have to buy the latest thing. You do not "have to" buy anything. 

You just think you do..... 

Gravel Porn: Ben Witt on the Heywood 390 course

Doing It Right

Wednesday I saw some Instagram stories from the guys at the Heywood Ride.  They were out  for a long day of course-checking for their upcoming event on May 16th. 

This was for their longest route option. A 390 mile beast of a loop running through the Driftless Area. (IYKYK) 

There are shorter distances which, I imagine, most people will rather do, but these ultra-distance gravel routes always tug at my heart. No surprise there, I suppose. 

I was most chuffed to know that Marty Larson and Ben Witt "get it". They understand that you just do not simply throw a route out with a GPS track and expect it to work. It will not work. These guys know it won't work that way. This is why they drove the course to check everything out. And they found a problem they had to account for with a re-route. 

This level of care and attention to detail is worthy of your attending this event. If you have a hankering for a good time on a bike, I cannot recommend this ride strongly enough. Check it out. There is still time to get onboard at any distance or commitment level you want to.  

Has A Wealth Of Technology, Choices, And Exit From A Pandemic Made Us Cycling Poor?

A unique set of circumstances with a paradoxical twist has created new challenges for cycling.

 NOTE: Large doses of "my opinion" will be handed out in gloppy dollops today. You've been forewarned.....

N.Y. Roll suggested an idea in the comments to this past Friday's "FN&V" which prompted me to respond in the comments. While I enjoy the comments on this blog, most of the time, most of you dear readers don't ever see them. Especially those who read the post before the comments were made. 

So, I decided to make a post showing those two comments in their entirety here for you to consider. I'll have some comments after that. But first, some context:

Our most recent "Guitar Ted Podcast" was covering this issue with the recent depressed bicycle marketplace. I also posted a bit on Friday telling you all that an inter-office communication from Trek Bicycles President, John Burke, revealed that the company was going to "right size" its operations by cutting back 10% overall. Furthermore; its offerings would be trimmed by 2026 (because that is as early as they can do this), by 40%. 

Later it was suggested that this inter-office communique was not "leaked" by accident. Now you can debate that, but it would be plausible since it was also revealed after the fact that the cuts to employees already were happening before the article was released by "Bicycle Retailer and Industry News", who were the ones who supposedly "obtained the information".  Again, whatever.... The fact remains that Trek did not publicly deny or refute any of what was "leaked". You can decide how that all actually went down if you want to. 

Now, here are the comments I referred to earlier in their entirety edited for spelling/clarity: First up, N.Y. Roll - 

" NY Roll said...

not a fully fleshed out thought but maybe the bike industry and the fast changing standards on BBs, Axles, Thru Axle, Hubs, gear ranges and disc brakes 6 bolt vs ISO has created customer fatigue on Durable goods, and the market has forgotten that. In fact they are treating their products as expendable? But the customer is (in a) complete opposite area? Why would they want to keep buying when the perception and current thought is constant change? Customer fatigue may have set in? Amongst other things.

thoughts?"

Guitar Ted said...

"@ N.Y. Roll - File under: "We should be podcasting this!"

You definitely have a good point. As I read more and more about this inventory/soft sales epidemic affecting the bicycle industry, I also feel like the entire industry is a sort of Ponzi scheme where brands keep changing colors and styles slightly to entice new-to-the-market buyers so that they can create these halo products like 12K MTB's and gravel bikes for the nerds of cycling to drool over.

COVID prompted an unprecedented number of the lower end consumers to buy into cycling. They now do not *need* new product and likely will not for years. This has clogged up the supply chain which, in the past, required a certain number of these return sales or new sales to occur on a yearly basis. (See flat sales numbers all throughout the twenty-teens) Now that the "supply of buyers" has been spent all at once (COVID), we won't likely see anything close to the entry level purchasing we were used to seeing for many years. And even then, will those people ever come back?

Youth are not into outdoor activities. News and information is available now to everyone that tells us that we should be wary of business after COVID. And yes- that "fatigue" of the vicious cycle of more gears, new standards, and new designs is wearing quite thin now.

Added to this is the mechanic who is online grousing about how poorly the latest gear is from SRAM and to some extent, Shimano. I just now finished reading a mechanic's thread before posting this comment that had several mechanics explaining that SRAM 12spd NX did not work right out of the box and that GX worked, but was marginal. This is a world where as a company you cannot afford that sort of detail to be leaked out to the general public, but this is also not the 1980's. Companies need to adjust accordingly.

Take John Burke's internal memo to his minions that was - planned, or unplanned - a defacto public statement that Trek was laying off employees. (which has been confirmed by social media postings from recent fired employees.)

It's a mess out there!"

Comments: I often have lamented the fact that the cycling industry has taken the simple bicycle and tried to turn it into a "device" full of technology, batteries, and with a resulting increase in complexity, prices, and failure modes. Shouldn't cycling be seen as the antidote to rampant technology and complexity? Why should we buy bicycles with batteries that may burn down the house, adding anxiety to an already anxious existence? 

Why should we keep making all these things that cost more and more, getting service harder to come by, and increasing frustrations in a world that is rife with frustrations? Why should we keep ramming new product into a marketplace with mountains of product sitting around unused? Isn't that a waste of resources?

A simple, reliable form of transportation which, with proper infrastructure, can be a way to alleviate a multitude of modern maladies. But we are hell-bent on a path to make bicycles something they were never meant to be.

Blurred Lines Or Just Bicycles?

Once upon a time most road bikes had 32mm tires.

As I wrote yesterday at the end of the "FN&V" post, today I wanted to look at just what is going on at the brand level with gravel bikes, so-called "endurance road" bikes, and the influence of mountain bikes on gravel bikes. 

Things that once seemed unimaginable even just 10 years ago are now commonplace and things that seem like they are really "gravel" or MTB are called something entirely different by the industry. 

Tires kind of define the genre' and so it has been for many decades, but what was once a "road bike" tire fell out of favor only to resurface as a "road bike tire" that many see as being "gravel lite". 

Let me explain....

 If we go back 30 plus years ago, and when we think about the original "bike boom" which was fomented by the "Gas Crisis" of the 1970's, we can see something that resembles "endurance road" bikes from today. Especially if we are mainly defining that by tire size, which the media and brands seem to be doing. 

How is that the 1970's road bikes are congruent to today's technological marvels? Again, if we focus on tire size, most road bikes of the 1970's were using 27" X 1 1/4" size wheels. There were some 1 3/8ths tires, and a few 1" wide tires thrown in for good measure, but the vast majority of road bikes people were buying up by the thousands in the 70's were 27" X 1 1/4" wheel sized bikes. 

That's ISO 630 X 32mm for you metric folks. 

Trek Domane bikes come standard with 700 X 32mm tires.

They say "What comes around goes around", and while the 27"/ISO630 diameter tires have been left behind, the width, 1 1/4"/32mm, has resurfaced as the standard road bike sized tire. 

So, stretching that a few millimeters to, say 35mm, is that getting into "gravel" territory? Well, recall that 27" X 1 3/8ths was a fairly common size back in the 70's. That's essentially 35mm. So, while this all may seem like road bikes have gone mad with these wider tires, it really is a return to what once was commonplace.

So if we take into account a few things here, this really all makes sense. The return to wider widths on road bikes isn't "new", its just using what made sense for "all-road riding" for decades previous to the shrinking of tire widths which began in the 1980's. People forget. So, history is there to remind us that perhaps the cycling designers, marketers, and brands went astray for a few decades and are now "returning to their senses", as it were. 

You may see it as "they are just making up this stuff to sell new product!", and perhaps there is a little something to all of that. But there is also a historical precedent for 32mm-35mm tires as being "common" road bike tire widths. It certainly may have been spurred on by the gravel bike scene, but that does not erase the reasons these widths make sense, and have, for decades prior to now. 

The Salsa Cycles Fargo, November 2008. A bike way ahead of its time.

Now what of this MTB-like gravel bike stuff? That's really a "new" innovation, right? 

No, not really. 

Going back to the 2000's, it was a dream of many riders who were early adopters of 29"ers to have a flared drop-bar specific "adventure" bike. This having been an influence of earlier MTB folks from the late 1980's who used flared drop bars on 26" mountain bikes. 

That drop bar idea was paired with the then common 2.1" X 700c sized tire. Using these ideas, the "dream bike" would have lighter-duty frames than a full-on MTB matched up with modernized flared drop bars. This rig was thought up as the perfect bike to just hit up some easier single track, gravel, and to be able to hold its own on pavement when necessary. 

You could call this idea "gravel-plus", "drop bar MTB", or what Salsa Cycles called it, "an adventure by bike" bicycle. Credit Jason Boucher, then head of the brand, for spearheading this idea back in the late 2000's, an idea that was nearly shot down, by the way. I'm very happy it made it through the gauntlet of QBP's process, and that the Fargo, at least the Gen I version, was the bicycle that launched the legitimacy of more mountain bike-ish gravel bikes, bikepacking, and the drop bars on MTB bikes revival. 

Say what you will, but the fact is that the Fargo was a decade plus ahead of its time in terms of its affects on gravel bikes, and now 50mm + wide tires with drop bars and MTB geometry features is not such a crazy idea as it was in late 2008. 

But where does THAT fit in the gravel bike continuum? Well, a better question would be, "What is a "gravel bike" anyway?" For that matter, does "endurance road" have to be seen as encroaching on gravel bikes capabilities? Who says what is "gravel" and what is "not gravel" anyway? 

The bike industry. Bicycle mainstream media. That's who. 

If you feel comfortable using any bike on gravel, then it is a "gravel bike".

Marketing an idea is what makes money, and the public loves "categories", or the brands would not pursue those divisions and sub-sets for bicycles. People that don't know any better and want an easy, turnkey solution to perceived problems won't care to know what reality is, and this post's information would not make a whit of difference to those sorts of consumers. That said, there is history to look at, and the clarity for what may seem like random choices to pilfer innocent folks out of their money exists which actually makes sense.

Finally, these are all choices and we live in a "golden age" of bicycle choices for sure. At the end of the day, it all comes down to "just riding". Whatever the marketers or media calls 'em, they are just bicycles. 

I hope you get a good ride in soon and thanks for reading!

Signs Of The Times

"buycycle", a used bike purveyor, is coming to the USA.

Winter is not far off, and here in most of North America, the season for sales in bicycles and accessories is winding down. As a salesperson and mechanic in this sector of retail for 20+ years, I've seen the ebbs and flows of sales over the course of a year to know how this business cycle should work. However; things are not working well at all, and the signs are all over the place that upheaval is coming sooner than later. 

First, the obvious sign is all the unprecedented discounting of new bicycles over the course of the year. Most notable to me was the 20% off on Surly and 25% off on Salsa bikes sales that ran recently. Those companies rarely, if ever, have run any discounts on new inventory. Trek has been running an ongoing discount on their electrified bikes since February, and they have had discounts on accessories throughout the year at certain times. These are just a few examples.

The reason for all of this is the incredibly high levels of inventory at warehouses and dealers coupled with lackluster sales. Inventory has to be moved or the new stocks coming in will make matters worse, and, you know, there are bills to pay. Some companies are in pretty bad situations right now. Some have already filed for bankruptcy protection. 

Another sign is the eBike market, which for five years saw record growth and nothing but blue skies ahead. Now? In 2022 I'm seeing some concerning headlines coming out of that sector of the industry.

Used Bikes:

Trek announced recently that their dealers will be offering a used bike program and that Trek will be facilitating the sales of used bikes nationwide. Another company from Europe, "buycycle", who are used bike purveyors, are also coming to the USA to do business. (You may have seen their pop-up ads already)

The used bike sector is one of the only bright spots in the sales of bicycles right now. One problem - Almost none of that business is done in a retail setting. It's all private exchanges, for the most part, facilitated by Facebook Marketplace, Craigslist, and other forums on the internet like "Pink Bike". 

Theories abound as to why this is happening. Some point to the backlash after the wave of big sales during COVID. Others say it has to do with rising bike prices at retail that are not affordable. Whatever the reasons, retail cycling businesses want in on the action, and I look for this to be a hotly contested marketplace for a while. The only way this cools off is when, not "if", but when, new bike prices plummet due to discounting or from going out of business sales and those new bike deals turn a significant amount of people back toward looking at retail for a new bike. 

A lot of things might or might not happen here, but I do know that sales going into Fall and Winter at retail bicycle shops will naturally tail off to a very low level. That's how it works here. November and January are typically dire times at bike shops with December not far behind. The addition of tough times will only exacerbate things, I am afraid. Hang on to you hats! It's going to be a bumpy ride.

Two Things

Twisted and scarred spokes .

I've been dealing with some backlash from heat related riding over the past week and so riding has been on the down-low. Urban riding, mostly here, just to stay fit. So, I've no "Country Views" to share today, but a couple of things on my bench motivated me to write another "Two Things" post for your consideration today.

#1: Since I've taken the job at the Cedar Valley Bicycle Collective, repairs have been predictably similar in nature. I don't see a lot of things on my stand that I used to see on a regular basis. That's why when two identical wheel issues cropped up within days of each other, it made an impression on me. 

I should note that these were both off the clock, non-CVBC deals. I do get the occasional ask from friends and acquaintances for help with repairs, and this is what these two things were about. Both were related to over-shifted chains and damage to spokes as a result. I like wheel repairs, so these were nice diversions from replacing bottom brackets and stringing new cables and housings. 

I also like that I have bicycle mechanic friends and that I am able to lean on them from time to time for advice. This time I went to wheel builder Ben Witt, who is the owner of Heath Creek Cycles . He sent me in the right direction on one of my repairs and he can certainly build you a great wheel set. Check him out if you are in the market for a nice custom set of wheels. 

The other job was a much more straight forward deal and so I completed that one on my own. Now with both jobs done, who knows when I'll be breaking out the wheel tools again? But it's nice to know that I have the capability to help out friends and acquaintances when they are in need. 

Can we stop putting hardware in plastic?

#2: So, the other thing I noted was something I saw when cleaning up my bench a bit. Plastic bags, bits of shredded plastic bags, and just plastic in general. Can we, as bicycle folk, ask that brands and manufacturers quit using plastic to put their hardware bits in? 

I think we should.

The bicycle industry is a supposed "green" industry, focusing on human powered, non-fossil-fueled transportation and recreation.  The bicycle businesses have made a big deal in some cases about using less plastic in packing bicycles going to shops, but there still are all these itty-bitty plastic baggie, heat sealed packages that are ubiquitous throughout, not only the complete bicycle packaging, but within brands selling accessories as well. 

I wager that tons of these plastic baggies get thrown in the trash on a daily basis. That's criminal and totally unnecessary. I suggest we go to old-school paper envelope type hardware packaging that used to be common 60-70 years ago. Paper is easily recyclable, environmentally friendly (compared to plastic) and could easily be implemented tomorrow in our cycling world. 

So, a challenge to all bicycle businesses- Ditch plastic baggies, use paper, make our world better.

And that's "Two Things" for your Monday.

The "All-Purpose" Bike vs "Gravel Bike"

Trek's new Domane AL-4 (Image courtesy of Trek Bikes)

Back around 2010 or so, I was banging the drum for a bicycle that could be used from pavement to nearly mountain biking. A bicycle that could be ridden comfortably and easily on any road surface, maybe even smooth dirt paths. Most importantly, it had to be a bicycle that was versatile, more universally acceptable than not, and that it should have the flared, short reach drop bars. 

This bike would need bigger, more voluminous tires than the then current standard of 25mm for road bikes and it had to eschew any hint of "racing" geometry. It had to have accessory mounting points like rack and fender mounts. 

Since that time things like disc brakes, tubeless tires, and fancy electronic shifting at decent price points has also crept on the radar for my "all-purpose" road bike. But the majority of the things I mentioned above were what drove my ideas for the bike I wanted to see. Ultimately a lot of that was realized in 2014 when the Raleigh Tamland Two came about. 

Certainly these ideas were spurred on by my personal desires, but perhaps what is less obvious to outsiders is that I was sick and tired, as a mechanic at a shop, of trying to make road racing bikes do what the "every-human" wanted those bikes to do. The average cyclist was not of the same mold as Pro racers, and as such, that sort of bicycle design, which reigned supreme for road riding, was not right for 99% of the population. Yet we had boat loads of Pro racing geometry road bikes coming at us every year. Sure, there were exceptions to that, but almost none of those exceptions fit my mold for an "all-purpose" bike, and those bicycles still didn't do what a lot of people wanted to do.

My Raleigh Tamland circa 2014

And then "Gravel™" happened. Suddenly there was an influx of rebadged cyclo cross bikes, and eventually, many companies started actually building purposed geometry into their "gravel bikes". But then the versatility, the "every-human" aspect of "gravel bikes", started to disappear. 

Now we have "race rockets" and bikes that cost 5k and up for riding "gravel". That's cool, but hey! Are you really going to commute to work, go to the post office, or pay your water bill using a seven thousand dollar blinged-out gravel bike? 

I mean, you can do that, but really. C'mon! Most of those bikes are garage queens between training rides and events. I'm talking about bikes that are reasonably priced, versatile, and can ride any road. The new Trek Domane AL-4 seems, in my opinion, to hit on a lot of my salient points here. 

This is maybe just one example of many types of bikes like this, but you just don't see a lot of people pushing a bike like this on review sites that are "gravel oriented". So, many people probably are not aware that bikes like these are out there for your "every-road" riding. 

I gotta say a few nice things about Trek here, which, to be honest, I usually don't have a whole lot of anything to say about this company. However; they position this bike remarkably well in their marketing. They are careful to not call it a "gravel bike", to their credit, and as most of you know, I feel "gravel bike" is a very regrettable name choice for this category of cycling. Secondly, Trek mostly got the geometry and versatility points correct. The Domane AL-4 even has a flared drop bar with short reach! (Okay, it's only 4° of flare, but it's something!) The bike fits up to a 38mm tire, which is pretty good for many gravel roads. Not ideal, but we are not talking about the "ideal" crushed rock road bike here. 

Trek sells the Domane AL-4 for 1700 bucks with a ten speed, full Shimano Tiagra group. That's perfect for the every-human's needs. Not too expensive, but a bike that could be your commuter and adventure/country bike on weekends easily. Not so dear that you'd not want to run errands on it, but good enough for every purpose most folks want a bicycle for. 

Yeah, you kickstand freaks will cry foul, but otherwise? THIS is what "gravel" bikes should have been.

Trends And Prognostications For Gravel Bikes

Looking at what is being introduced this year for gravel bikes, which is, admittedly, not much, due to the circumstances, I am seeing a few things starting to emerge. I've written a bit about the "mountain bike-ification" of gravel bikes, and that is one thing, but not all new bikes are headed down that road.

If there is anything one can say about this "gravel category" of bikes, (can I reiterate how dumb this name was to be used for these bikes here again? ), it is that everyone, and every company, has its interpretation of what "that" means. 

It isn't like a gravel bike is one certain thing. Not like it was with say, 1990's XC MTB bikes, or French style rando bikes, or with road racing bikes. All niches of cycling that have a certain parameter that the bikes have to fit into to be "that" style. Gravel bikes still are kind of a "Wild, Wild, West" sort of genre, and that's fun. 

That said, things are pointing to a homogenization of the style and some of that is evidenced by trends I am seeing out there now. There are hints of what is to come in the future as well. This isn't going to be an all-encompassing look at all things "gravel", it is just my take on the scene. You may have a differing opinion, or some of your own examples to share. That's fine. Here are my thoughts....

Co-Op's ADV 1 650B bike (Image courtesy of REI)

650B Is Fading:

Early on in the gravel bike's developmental period, WTB introduced "Road Plus" tires which was an outgrowth of their idea from the MTB side where an optional wheel size was afforded to 29"er riders by using the 650B format. This resulted in "B+", or what has been now called "Plus Sized" tires. That idea was the basis for "Road Plus" which was an idea that would give gravel bikers an option to run a more voluminous tire in a frame normally limited to 40-42mm tires in a 700c format. 

Subsequently many gravel bikes were designed to accept either 700c or 650B tires and wheels. This "compromised" geometry choices a bit, especially when thinking about bottom bracket drop and chain stay length. However; recently designs have been put forth that handle 700c X 50mm or even slightly wider tires. This not only covers the needs of those who want volume in their gravel tires, but it works fine for 40mm-42mm tires too. This negates the "need" to accommodate 650B tires and wheels. The geometry can be tightened up and tuned for better performance with one wheel size. 

Now, that isn't to say that 650B is dead. I'm not intimating that at all here. But you are going to see less and less of that "multiple wheel size" capability in marketing and 650B will likely find its home in bike packing rigs, smaller sized gravel bikes, and niche offerings. Tire manufacturers will have a say in this as well. Less 650B offerings are already being noted. That's another indicator to me that the wheel/tire size is fading in popularity. 

The revised Santa Cruz Stigmata (Image courtesy of Santa Cruz Bikes)

Suspension & Dropper Posts:

Here is another trend. Suspension fork compatibility and dropper post routing on the same bike. These bikes, much like Santa Cruz's revised Stigmata, shown above, are "gravel bikes for mountain bikers". It's a trend I see more of, and I think it hints at something different around the corner to come. 

There is an element of folks out there that want a simpler off-road capable bike that can "do it all". Gravel bikes appeal to these folks with one big problem: They are not "off-road" bikes and that's where these folks also want to go. 

Gravel, as a concept, was never meant to be "that bike that does off-road/all-terrain". It was meant to be a bike for "all roads". Be those paved, not paved, or somewhere in between. Mountain biking, (again, another misused name if ever there was one), was thought of as being "that bike for everything off-roads". Now the gravel bike is being pushed toward that 'off-road' usage category and this will begin to morph into "something else". 

What that "something else" is, I am not sure of at this point. All I know is that 40mm of gravel suspension fork travel is a joke, and drop bars off road are not all that popular. Suspension forks on a gravel road is overkill and the forks are too heavy. Again, you can get a suspension stem and get better results than you can with a gravel suspension fork, and there is no maintenance. Suspension forks on gravel bikes is laughably inept and not a well thought-out concept for on-road or off-road usage. 

That's why I feel that at some point we will see a sea change. Suspension travel will have to increase, drop bars will make less sense, and then.... Hard tail revival? Maybe drop bars stick around and we get revised Fargos/Cutthroats? See what I mean..... 

SRAM "T" Type rear derailleur (Image courtesy of SRAM)

Drive Train Changes:

There will be a lot of changes to come in terms of drive train choices. First and foremost of these will be the death of the traditional derailleur hangar for both off-road/MTB and gravel drive trains. 

SRAM started the sea change to this new, "dual-sided" hangar type for a rear derailleur which essentially integrates the hangar into the main chassis of the derailleur, making the connection to the frame more solid. This was only made possible by through axles, and to a lesser extent, derailleur "clutches" which stabilize the pulley cage. Both these things help derailleurs become more resistant to being ripped off, bent, or damaged than the previous, flimsy designs of the past.

Shimano will adopt something similar, and frame designers are all about this change as it eliminates the need to make a derailleur hangar and it simplifies manufacturing of the frame. I see this as a win-win for consumers and manufacturers. 

Yes....old stuff won't work on new frames. (Possible exception is a UDH  hangar) But the industry has done this before. 1994: Threaded steer tubes are eliminated by "Aheadset", threadless head sets. 1 1/8th supplants 1' steer tubes at about the same time. I can go on... We all lived, and many of those old bikes are still around being ridden. It'll be fine....

Another thing I see coming is electronic shifting in a cheaper, more affordable format. It's being hinted at by SRAM with their sweeping range of AXS, but even more so by off-brand, Chinese manufacturers of really inexpensive electronic drive trains. We're talking a complete group set for the price of a couple of high end Shimano Di2 rear derailleurs here. The big brands (SRAM/Shimano) will have to respond at some point with entry-level, electronic 9/10/11 speed stuff that can be sold on a complete bike for less than 2k. This means that mid-level, less expensive electronic shifting bikes for gravel will also be a thing. 

Electronic CUES? I think so. SRAM will have to do something as well, but the common rider who sees an eBike/HPC as being "not where I want to go" and wants a more technologically advanced bike? I think that's a big chunk of the riding populace that would definitely bite on electronic shifting at a lower price point. Enterprising You Tubers are already showing us how it can be done and Chinese brands are only all too happy to oblige them and their subscribers. As I said- SRAM and Shimano are not going to sit idly by and watch this eat into their market share without a response. 

What do you think? Let me know in the comments. Thanks for reading Guitar Ted Productions.

Trends And Prognostications For Gravel Bikes

Looking at what is being introduced this year for gravel bikes, which is, admittedly, not much, due to the circumstances, I am seeing a few things starting to emerge. I've written a bit about the "mountain bike-ification" of gravel bikes, and that is one thing, but not all new bikes are headed down that road.

If there is anything one can say about this "gravel category" of bikes, (can I reiterate how dumb this name was to be used for these bikes here again? ), it is that everyone, and every company, has its interpretation of what "that" means. 

It isn't like a gravel bike is one certain thing. Not like it was with say, 1990's XC MTB bikes, or French style rando bikes, or with road racing bikes. All niches of cycling that have a certain parameter that the bikes have to fit into to be "that" style. Gravel bikes still are kind of a "Wild, Wild, West" sort of genre, and that's fun. 

That said, things are pointing to a homogenization of the style and some of that is evidenced by trends I am seeing out there now. There are hints of what is to come in the future as well. This isn't going to be an all-encompassing look at all things "gravel", it is just my take on the scene. You may have a differing opinion, or some of your own examples to share. That's fine. Here are my thoughts....

Co-Op's ADV 1 650B bike (Image courtesy of REI)

650B Is Fading:

Early on in the gravel bike's developmental period, WTB introduced "Road Plus" tires which was an outgrowth of their idea from the MTB side where an optional wheel size was afforded to 29"er riders by using the 650B format. This resulted in "B+", or what has been now called "Plus Sized" tires. That idea was the basis for "Road Plus" which was an idea that would give gravel bikers an option to run a more voluminous tire in a frame normally limited to 40-42mm tires in a 700c format. 

Subsequently many gravel bikes were designed to accept either 700c or 650B tires and wheels. This "compromised" geometry choices a bit, especially when thinking about bottom bracket drop and chain stay length. However; recently designs have been put forth that handle 700c X 50mm or even slightly wider tires. This not only covers the needs of those who want volume in their gravel tires, but it works fine for 40mm-42mm tires too. This negates the "need" to accommodate 650B tires and wheels. The geometry can be tightened up and tuned for better performance with one wheel size. 

Now, that isn't to say that 650B is dead. I'm not intimating that at all here. But you are going to see less and less of that "multiple wheel size" capability in marketing and 650B will likely find its home in bike packing rigs, smaller sized gravel bikes, and niche offerings. Tire manufacturers will have a say in this as well. Less 650B offerings are already being noted. That's another indicator to me that the wheel/tire size is fading in popularity. 

The revised Santa Cruz Stigmata (Image courtesy of Santa Cruz Bikes)

Suspension & Dropper Posts:

Here is another trend. Suspension fork compatibility and dropper post routing on the same bike. These bikes, much like Santa Cruz's revised Stigmata, shown above, are "gravel bikes for mountain bikers". It's a trend I see more of, and I think it hints at something different around the corner to come. 

There is an element of folks out there that want a simpler off-road capable bike that can "do it all". Gravel bikes appeal to these folks with one big problem: They are not "off-road" bikes and that's where these folks also want to go. 

Gravel, as a concept, was never meant to be "that bike that does off-road/all-terrain". It was meant to be a bike for "all roads". Be those paved, not paved, or somewhere in between. Mountain biking, (again, another misused name if ever there was one), was thought of as being "that bike for everything off-roads". Now the gravel bike is being pushed toward that 'off-road' usage category and this will begin to morph into "something else". 

What that "something else" is, I am not sure of at this point. All I know is that 40mm of gravel suspension fork travel is a joke, and drop bars off road are not all that popular. Suspension forks on a gravel road is overkill and the forks are too heavy. Again, you can get a suspension stem and get better results than you can with a gravel suspension fork, and there is no maintenance. Suspension forks on gravel bikes is laughably inept and not a well thought-out concept for on-road or off-road usage. 

That's why I feel that at some point we will see a sea change. Suspension travel will have to increase, drop bars will make less sense, and then.... Hard tail revival? Maybe drop bars stick around and we get revised Fargos/Cutthroats? See what I mean..... 

SRAM "T" Type rear derailleur (Image courtesy of SRAM)

Drive Train Changes:

There will be a lot of changes to come in terms of drive train choices. First and foremost of these will be the death of the traditional derailleur hangar for both off-road/MTB and gravel drive trains. 

SRAM started the sea change to this new, "dual-sided" hangar type for a rear derailleur which essentially integrates the hangar into the main chassis of the derailleur, making the connection to the frame more solid. This was only made possible by through axles, and to a lesser extent, derailleur "clutches" which stabilize the pulley cage. Both these things help derailleurs become more resistant to being ripped off, bent, or damaged than the previous, flimsy designs of the past.

Shimano will adopt something similar, and frame designers are all about this change as it eliminates the need to make a derailleur hangar and it simplifies manufacturing of the frame. I see this as a win-win for consumers and manufacturers. 

Yes....old stuff won't work on new frames. (Possible exception is a UDH  hangar) But the industry has done this before. 1994: Threaded steer tubes are eliminated by "Aheadset", threadless head sets. 1 1/8th supplants 1' steer tubes at about the same time. I can go on... We all lived, and many of those old bikes are still around being ridden. It'll be fine....

Another thing I see coming is electronic shifting in a cheaper, more affordable format. It's being hinted at by SRAM with their sweeping range of AXS, but even more so by off-brand, Chinese manufacturers of really inexpensive electronic drive trains. We're talking a complete group set for the price of a couple of high end Shimano Di2 rear derailleurs here. The big brands (SRAM/Shimano) will have to respond at some point with entry-level, electronic 9/10/11 speed stuff that can be sold on a complete bike for less than 2k. This means that mid-level, less expensive electronic shifting bikes for gravel will also be a thing. 

Electronic CUES? I think so. SRAM will have to do something as well, but the common rider who sees an eBike/HPC as being "not where I want to go" and wants a more technologically advanced bike? I think that's a big chunk of the riding populace that would definitely bite on electronic shifting at a lower price point. Enterprising You Tubers are already showing us how it can be done and Chinese brands are only all too happy to oblige them and their subscribers. As I said- SRAM and Shimano are not going to sit idly by and watch this eat into their market share without a response. 

What do you think? Let me know in the comments. Thanks for reading Guitar Ted Productions.

Playing The Long-Game In Cycling Gear

 I read a lovely article about sustainable choices for cycling gear and kit from 'cyclingnews.com' which you can check out here, if you like. It's titled "Buy it for life cycling tech - The antidote to Black Friday". The article was endearing to me, and this made me step back and think about why that article tickled my sensibilities so. 

When it comes to a lot of things surrounding "sustainable" gear, I think much of that thought is tied directly to what bicycle mechanics see come through their work stands. It doesn't take very long for a mechanic, or any service person, for that matter, to understand the difference between marketing hype, the desire to own the "shiny new thing", and what actually is reliable, long-lasting, sensible kit. 

Call it being a "retro-grouch", or "old school", and if you do, it is usually with a sneer and disdain for the individual who uses things that seem outdated or backward. Heaven help the person who actually promotes said gear, as they will be likened to some crazy old prophet who should just go away, or worse, be stoned, for their opinions on such matters. But is using old technology a bad decision? Not if you use it for reasons of durability, ease of use, ease of maintenance, or other prudent, practical reasons. 

And using such stuff really plays into the whole "bicycling is good for the planet" theme. A thought which most cyclists probably subscribe to, since much of this sort of cycling kit is long-lasting. Certain components and gear don't require being completely replaced because of sustainable design, and therefore such things put much less pressure on our resources when we choose to use them. 

And of course, there are some new things which fall into this category. I think that article I read mentioned in the first paragraph above did a great job of featuring some newer technology. For example, the disc brakes and modern design messenger bags, but I would also go further than that. Following is just one example of many, I am sure, which could be put forth.

A smartly designed set of carbon disc brake wheels should last for a decade-plus.

While it may seem that carbon rimmed, disc brake wheels would not be on the list of things that would fall into the sustainable cycling gear category, they actually can be something that lasts for a very long term. 

Again, they have to have serviceable hubs, readily available spokes, and smart design. I think a wheel set like the GRX Carbon wheels I am reviewing for RidingGravel.com now are just such a wheel set. They have serviceable cup and cone bearings, spokes made of steel that are readily replaceable, and the rim is smartly designed. I see no reason why a person could not ride these for a decade or more. 

Dead-reliable. Super-low maintenance.

That said, many of the older steel framed, friction shifted, basic bicycles are game for this longer view of cycling sustainably. These sorts of bicycles will be around longer than any of your newer electrified bikes, 12 speed carbon wonder bikes, or anything with electronically shifted derailleurs. 

But these are not very fashionable choices, are they? These bicycles won't likely get you noticed, have any rear-rack social status, or be pawns in conversations meant to impress others. No one cares about my 1986 vintage Schwinn High Sierra. But it just works. Friction shifted, roller cam brakes, leather saddle, and even older Mongoose wheels from 1984! 

The bicycle industry really doesn't seem to want this trend to take off either. The industry seems conflicted. They "plan obsolescence" on one hand (increasing gear count, electrification) and preach the benefits to the planet and to human health from cycling on the other hand. Sustainable kit doesn't make money as fast and in such quantities if you choose to use it. The cycling industry would rather have you feel that "my bike is old" and there are new, shiny 2023 bikes to look at. The idea is formed that "you really need to have THIS to do it faster!" This thing is LIGHTER! You can do those things with more ease than ever! 

And sometimes these things are necessary, good, and make it so more people can ride bicycles. That's cool. But there is a place for sustainability and practicality within all of that which gets pushed back and ignored by much of the cycling community. This is not healthy or a good use of resources.

It is a rebellious thought to reject the marketing strategies of the day. "Black Friday" and all that it stands for is at odds with "what works", is sustainable, and is reliable in terms of cycling kit. In the end, you do you. I happen to believe in a more sustainable outlook on cycling. Call it "buying for life" or just smart. Call it being dumb, being a retro-grouch, or backwards for the sake of being contrary, (I may resemble that last one a bit, actually!), but I think we could do with a bit more of it in the cycling world.

Playing The Long-Game In Cycling Gear

 I read a lovely article about sustainable choices for cycling gear and kit from 'cyclingnews.com' which you can check out here, if you like. It's titled "Buy it for life cycling tech - The antidote to Black Friday". The article was endearing to me, and this made me step back and think about why that article tickled my sensibilities so. 

When it comes to a lot of things surrounding "sustainable" gear, I think much of that thought is tied directly to what bicycle mechanics see come through their work stands. It doesn't take very long for a mechanic, or any service person, for that matter, to understand the difference between marketing hype, the desire to own the "shiny new thing", and what actually is reliable, long-lasting, sensible kit. 

Call it being a "retro-grouch", or "old school", and if you do, it is usually with a sneer and disdain for the individual who uses things that seem outdated or backward. Heaven help the person who actually promotes said gear, as they will be likened to some crazy old prophet who should just go away, or worse, be stoned, for their opinions on such matters. But is using old technology a bad decision? Not if you use it for reasons of durability, ease of use, ease of maintenance, or other prudent, practical reasons. 

And using such stuff really plays into the whole "bicycling is good for the planet" theme. A thought which most cyclists probably subscribe to, since much of this sort of cycling kit is long-lasting. Certain components and gear don't require being completely replaced because of sustainable design, and therefore such things put much less pressure on our resources when we choose to use them. 

And of course, there are some new things which fall into this category. I think that article I read mentioned in the first paragraph above did a great job of featuring some newer technology. For example, the disc brakes and modern design messenger bags, but I would also go further than that. Following is just one example of many, I am sure, which could be put forth.

A smartly designed set of carbon disc brake wheels should last for a decade-plus.

While it may seem that carbon rimmed, disc brake wheels would not be on the list of things that would fall into the sustainable cycling gear category, they actually can be something that lasts for a very long term. 

Again, they have to have serviceable hubs, readily available spokes, and smart design. I think a wheel set like the GRX Carbon wheels I am reviewing for RidingGravel.com now are just such a wheel set. They have serviceable cup and cone bearings, spokes made of steel that are readily replaceable, and the rim is smartly designed. I see no reason why a person could not ride these for a decade or more. 

Dead-reliable. Super-low maintenance.

That said, many of the older steel framed, friction shifted, basic bicycles are game for this longer view of cycling sustainably. These sorts of bicycles will be around longer than any of your newer electrified bikes, 12 speed carbon wonder bikes, or anything with electronically shifted derailleurs. 

But these are not very fashionable choices, are they? These bicycles won't likely get you noticed, have any rear-rack social status, or be pawns in conversations meant to impress others. No one cares about my 1986 vintage Schwinn High Sierra. But it just works. Friction shifted, roller cam brakes, leather saddle, and even older Mongoose wheels from 1984! 

The bicycle industry really doesn't seem to want this trend to take off either. The industry seems conflicted. They "plan obsolescence" on one hand (increasing gear count, electrification) and preach the benefits to the planet and to human health from cycling on the other hand. Sustainable kit doesn't make money as fast and in such quantities if you choose to use it. The cycling industry would rather have you feel that "my bike is old" and there are new, shiny 2023 bikes to look at. The idea is formed that "you really need to have THIS to do it faster!" This thing is LIGHTER! You can do those things with more ease than ever! 

And sometimes these things are necessary, good, and make it so more people can ride bicycles. That's cool. But there is a place for sustainability and practicality within all of that which gets pushed back and ignored by much of the cycling community. This is not healthy or a good use of resources.

It is a rebellious thought to reject the marketing strategies of the day. "Black Friday" and all that it stands for is at odds with "what works", is sustainable, and is reliable in terms of cycling kit. In the end, you do you. I happen to believe in a more sustainable outlook on cycling. Call it "buying for life" or just smart. Call it being dumb, being a retro-grouch, or backwards for the sake of being contrary, (I may resemble that last one a bit, actually!), but I think we could do with a bit more of it in the cycling world.

Reaction To The Specialized "Rider Direct" Announcement

 In the last "Friday News And Views" I reported on last Thursday's bombshell announcement that Specialized Bicycles was moving to a 'Direct to Consumer' scheme for retail bicycle sales (excluding e-bikes) which they have called "Rider Direct". (Link goes to a "Bicycle retailer and Industry News story which has been updated since Friday)

In this post I wanted to cover reactions to this story. While it is true that other, smaller brands have done consumer direct sales, this is about one of the so-called "Big Four" brands in the USA. Anchor retailers for the specialty chain bicycle market which have a huge influence upon what you experience as a consumer here in bicycle shops. Those brands are Trek, Specialized, Giant, and Cannondale. 

So, right up front I want to dispel the notion that this isn't a 'big deal' because other companies have been doing this. That is not the point here. It is the impact of the influence on the retail landscape in bicycle sales that matters here. 

The Stage: First of all, we are in challenging times from the perspective of how retail bicycle shops have been affected by a two-year long upheaval in inventory levels due to the pandemic. Shelves are only partially filled and certain bicycle models and types have been 'out of stock' for months with back-orders still to be fulfilled going back to 2021. Meanwhile, the industry in the Far East- where most of the Big Four brand's bikes are made - is taking off time right now for Chinese New Year and when they come back, they will be working on 2023 models. Shipping and warehousing issues have product sitting on ships and on docks worldwide and when- IF - the bottlenecks get cleared up, (some are saying by the end of this year), supply chain issues should clear up. Meanwhile, bike shops are left waiting on a glut of inventory which will have to be paid for eventually. 

The big question: "Will the sales be there when the inventory finally hits the floor?"

Now while all this is happening, consumer trends have changed. There is more on-line shopping than ever. At the same time, bike shops are failing or shrinking in numbers. Trek has gobbled up a lot of retail as a result, making them the #1 specialty bicycle retailer in the USA. Specialized, and I would assume Giant and Cannondale as well, have been pushed out as each new Trek acquisition becomes a one-brand store, whereas they used to be shops which sold multiple brands. 

In the meantime Canyon, and other smaller brands, have moved to D2C sales further eroding the market for independent bicycle retail outlets in sales and numbers. Enter in "Rider Direct".

The Effect: Immediate reaction to the news from the industry was mostly negative. Most fear that this is a big blow to independent bicycle retail.  This reaction comes from the continued observance by owners of retail shops of shrinking 'margins' for complete bicycle sales. Perhaps a quick mention of how bicycle retail works is in order here.....

Time spent unwrapping and assembling a bicycle is part of the cost.

When a bike shop sells a bike, it hopefully makes its full 'margin' on the sale. This is the amount of money above and beyond the cost of the bicycle to the retailer, but there is more to it than that simple monetary figure. Retailers must also include whatever wages their assemblers make across the time it takes to assemble each bike. For instance, if a shop employee making minimum wage, or slightly higher, assembles a bicycle and it takes an hour, (typical time for average bikes), that wage paid for that hour has to be accounted for in the 'cost to do business' on that particular bike. Add in any time spent handling the box the bike came in, which includes off-loading the bike from the freight company's truck, storing the box before assembly, and disposing of the waste after assembly. Add in your daily cost to keep the lights on, pay the rent, etc. Suddenly it is painfully obvious that only making 40% of the cost of a bicycle as 'profit' is not enough. 

A quick example: Bike cost to retailer = $450.00 - Margin target is 40%. Retail bike price = $630.00. Profit after sale = $180.00. (Note: A commenter to this post pointed out that I had confused "margin" with "mark-up". Here's the comment: "You are confusing markup with margin. Margin is calculated by profit on the sale divided by selling price. So if the retail price is $630, 40% margin would be $252. ($630 x .40)" ) 

That $180.00 is where the wages for assembly, handling, and cost of business has to come from. This is assuming no discounts and does not take into consideration how long a bicycle sits on a sales floor, in a back room, or in a box in a storage room/building/warehouse waiting to be assembled. And I am sure I am missing some costs here. Keep in mind also that expensive bicycles typically do not get sold at a 40 margin. Generally speaking, those bikes make even less money for retailers, AND they typically demand a higher paid technician to assemble them AND more time to set up. 

I could go way down a rabbit hole here- But suffice it to say that when "Rider Direct" was announced and that dealers were asked to make less margins due to this program, well- It didn't go over very well.

The Future: While some of Specialized's bigger dealers are saying they will try to deal with this and move on, there are indications that others are cancelling orders and/or are dropping the Specialized line. This further plants Specialized into the D2C camp where Canyon and others are doing business. Meanwhile, Trek has already pushed out some of their competition in brick and mortar retail by their voracious appetite for retail outlets. Where does that leave brands that were once a part of a local bike shop? While Trek dealers can- and sometimes do- offer alternative brands in their shops, Trek demands a high percentage of any retailer's inventory be Trek and Bontrager parts and accessories. (By the way, this figure can be 80% or higher- I know from experience) 

My feeling is that brands like Cannondale, Giant, and more 'second tier' brands like Kona, Marin, and the like, will have to follow suit with Specialized and especially if Rider Direct shows early success. This will mean more pressure will be exerted on the specialty bicycle retail sector as margins get squeezed even further due to online sales programs like Rider Direct, which only allows up to 75%, and as low as 50%, of what margins were previously. 

Meanwhile, I suspect that the numbers of independent, stocking bicycle retailers will begin to fall in numbers. That is a bad sign for consumers. First off- with more single-brand retailers you won't get unbiased information anymore. Secondly, you will have a harder time finding a bike shop in medium sized cities, (and smaller sized cities already lost their LBS's a long time ago), so even getting to see and test ride bikes will begin to be a thing of the past in many more places. 

Some dealers are saying online sales are such a small percentage of actual sales that things like "Rider Direct" don't matter. But it depends on how the brand prioritizes sales and distribution. Trek seems to be behind their dealers. It has been expressed in comments sections online that Cannondale and Specialized are not so dealer-centric and that both brands prioritize fulfilling online sales before dealer sales. If true that could mean bad things for dealers and consumers who like the physical aspects of going to a retail bike shop.

But- I could be 100% off my rocker here. We'll see. I think one thing is certain- things are going to change and change fast.

Reaction To The Specialized "Rider Direct" Announcement

 In the last "Friday News And Views" I reported on last Thursday's bombshell announcement that Specialized Bicycles was moving to a 'Direct to Consumer' scheme for retail bicycle sales (excluding e-bikes) which they have called "Rider Direct". (Link goes to a "Bicycle retailer and Industry News story which has been updated since Friday)

In this post I wanted to cover reactions to this story. While it is true that other, smaller brands have done consumer direct sales, this is about one of the so-called "Big Four" brands in the USA. Anchor retailers for the specialty chain bicycle market which have a huge influence upon what you experience as a consumer here in bicycle shops. Those brands are Trek, Specialized, Giant, and Cannondale. 

So, right up front I want to dispel the notion that this isn't a 'big deal' because other companies have been doing this. That is not the point here. It is the impact of the influence on the retail landscape in bicycle sales that matters here. 

The Stage: First of all, we are in challenging times from the perspective of how retail bicycle shops have been affected by a two-year long upheaval in inventory levels due to the pandemic. Shelves are only partially filled and certain bicycle models and types have been 'out of stock' for months with back-orders still to be fulfilled going back to 2021. Meanwhile, the industry in the Far East- where most of the Big Four brand's bikes are made - is taking off time right now for Chinese New Year and when they come back, they will be working on 2023 models. Shipping and warehousing issues have product sitting on ships and on docks worldwide and when- IF - the bottlenecks get cleared up, (some are saying by the end of this year), supply chain issues should clear up. Meanwhile, bike shops are left waiting on a glut of inventory which will have to be paid for eventually. 

The big question: "Will the sales be there when the inventory finally hits the floor?"

Now while all this is happening, consumer trends have changed. There is more on-line shopping than ever. At the same time, bike shops are failing or shrinking in numbers. Trek has gobbled up a lot of retail as a result, making them the #1 specialty bicycle retailer in the USA. Specialized, and I would assume Giant and Cannondale as well, have been pushed out as each new Trek acquisition becomes a one-brand store, whereas they used to be shops which sold multiple brands. 

In the meantime Canyon, and other smaller brands, have moved to D2C sales further eroding the market for independent bicycle retail outlets in sales and numbers. Enter in "Rider Direct".

The Effect: Immediate reaction to the news from the industry was mostly negative. Most fear that this is a big blow to independent bicycle retail.  This reaction comes from the continued observance by owners of retail shops of shrinking 'margins' for complete bicycle sales. Perhaps a quick mention of how bicycle retail works is in order here.....

Time spent unwrapping and assembling a bicycle is part of the cost.

When a bike shop sells a bike, it hopefully makes its full 'margin' on the sale. This is the amount of money above and beyond the cost of the bicycle to the retailer, but there is more to it than that simple monetary figure. Retailers must also include whatever wages their assemblers make across the time it takes to assemble each bike. For instance, if a shop employee making minimum wage, or slightly higher, assembles a bicycle and it takes an hour, (typical time for average bikes), that wage paid for that hour has to be accounted for in the 'cost to do business' on that particular bike. Add in any time spent handling the box the bike came in, which includes off-loading the bike from the freight company's truck, storing the box before assembly, and disposing of the waste after assembly. Add in your daily cost to keep the lights on, pay the rent, etc. Suddenly it is painfully obvious that only making 40% of the cost of a bicycle as 'profit' is not enough. 

A quick example: Bike cost to retailer = $450.00 - Margin target is 40%. Retail bike price = $630.00. Profit after sale = $180.00. (Note: A commenter to this post pointed out that I had confused "margin" with "mark-up". Here's the comment: "You are confusing markup with margin. Margin is calculated by profit on the sale divided by selling price. So if the retail price is $630, 40% margin would be $252. ($630 x .40)" ) 

That $180.00 is where the wages for assembly, handling, and cost of business has to come from. This is assuming no discounts and does not take into consideration how long a bicycle sits on a sales floor, in a back room, or in a box in a storage room/building/warehouse waiting to be assembled. And I am sure I am missing some costs here. Keep in mind also that expensive bicycles typically do not get sold at a 40 margin. Generally speaking, those bikes make even less money for retailers, AND they typically demand a higher paid technician to assemble them AND more time to set up. 

I could go way down a rabbit hole here- But suffice it to say that when "Rider Direct" was announced and that dealers were asked to make less margins due to this program, well- It didn't go over very well.

The Future: While some of Specialized's bigger dealers are saying they will try to deal with this and move on, there are indications that others are cancelling orders and/or are dropping the Specialized line. This further plants Specialized into the D2C camp where Canyon and others are doing business. Meanwhile, Trek has already pushed out some of their competition in brick and mortar retail by their voracious appetite for retail outlets. Where does that leave brands that were once a part of a local bike shop? While Trek dealers can- and sometimes do- offer alternative brands in their shops, Trek demands a high percentage of any retailer's inventory be Trek and Bontrager parts and accessories. (By the way, this figure can be 80% or higher- I know from experience) 

My feeling is that brands like Cannondale, Giant, and more 'second tier' brands like Kona, Marin, and the like, will have to follow suit with Specialized and especially if Rider Direct shows early success. This will mean more pressure will be exerted on the specialty bicycle retail sector as margins get squeezed even further due to online sales programs like Rider Direct, which only allows up to 75%, and as low as 50%, of what margins were previously. 

Meanwhile, I suspect that the numbers of independent, stocking bicycle retailers will begin to fall in numbers. That is a bad sign for consumers. First off- with more single-brand retailers you won't get unbiased information anymore. Secondly, you will have a harder time finding a bike shop in medium sized cities, (and smaller sized cities already lost their LBS's a long time ago), so even getting to see and test ride bikes will begin to be a thing of the past in many more places. 

Some dealers are saying online sales are such a small percentage of actual sales that things like "Rider Direct" don't matter. But it depends on how the brand prioritizes sales and distribution. Trek seems to be behind their dealers. It has been expressed in comments sections online that Cannondale and Specialized are not so dealer-centric and that both brands prioritize fulfilling online sales before dealer sales. If true that could mean bad things for dealers and consumers who like the physical aspects of going to a retail bike shop.

But- I could be 100% off my rocker here. We'll see. I think one thing is certain- things are going to change and change fast.