What is RSS?
Get our articles in your inbox:
A Dreamers Ideas To Make Mountain Bikes More Affordable
November 14th, 2008 by Guitar TedNote: This opinion piece originally appeared on my blog: “Guitar Ted Productions” on Wednesday, August 20th, 2008
With the news that 2009 bicycle prices were going to be significantly higher, I was left wondering how much it might cost now for someone to get into mountain biking, and 29″ers in particular. Of course, it never has been really cheap. Mountain bikes, all terrain bikes, or what ever you want to call them, have always been a bit pricey. At least what I like to call “real mountain bikes”.
And maybe that is the problem. Just what is a “real mountain bike” anyway? I mean, some folks are “mountain biking” on department store rigs, right? Well, for the sake of this discussion we will assume that the equipment must be serviceable, durable, and have a reasonable level of high performance off road. A bike that could be expected to give years of service with basic maintenance. The ability to fit at least two inch wide tires is also a prerequisite.
Okay, so what do you suppose a bike like that costs? $400.00? $500.00? Somewhere around there? I’m going to say that with today’s future pricing in mind, you are looking at $500.00 and up.
That’s a lot of cabbage.
Especially for those that these bikes are aimed at: the first time buyer/novice cyclist. Don’t bother talking accessories. That will make the price even higher. Before I go on, I get that mountain biking is an equipment intensive sport. However; if we want to continue to grow the sport, (and I think that by all of the trail advocacy efforts I see, it is fair to assume that we do), we need to re-examine pricing and just what an “entry level” mountain bike should/could be. Here are a few suggestions and ideas to that end.
Make It Basic: First time riders are not “tech intensive” for the most part. Usually you are talking about someone that is concerned about durability, price, and having fun. A decent frame, a drive train that lasts and doesn’t need to be fiddled with, and tough wheels. What would be so wrong with this: Develop an all aluminum seven speed drive train. Make it like the old STX RC stuff maybe, (although that had a bit of steel in it here and there), and get rid of the front suspension. Give it linear pull brakes. Give it a decent, tough frame. These days it seems aluminum wears well, but for this project, I would like to see a steel frame and fork. Give the customer a single speed option.
I know some companies are doing this already. It just needs to be given a wider audience.
Make It Versatile: Make the bike not just an all terrain bike. Make it a commuter ready bike. Sell it with skinny tires on it right off the floor. Rack mounts, fender mounts, a place for a kickstand. Again, I know versions of this have been and are out there, but the drive train usually isn’t up to snuff, well………because what I am talking about doesn’t exist! Not from Shimano or SRAM. That said, I know Marin did the Hamilton single speed in this vein and by all accounts I’ve heard, they sold well. (They also had a geared version, as well.)
Make It Upgradeable: Sell this “basic all terrain” bike, but give the customer an “upgrade” option. Sort of a “good, better, best” set of packages that could be bolted on at purchase by the bike shop. Or at least a model that could be upgraded into a full on mountain bike hard tail at some point. Include disc brake tabs, suspension corrected geometry, decent handling traits. If it is the single speed bike, give it a derailleur hangar too.
Those are my thoughts. Would it be enough to get the price down? Would any company be willing to manufacture this “generic bike”? Could we ever hope to get a really nice seven speed drive train from Shimano or SRAM? That is a tall order and those are questions I don’t have answers for. My guess is that you would say I am a dreamer and there is no way this would work.
Who knows. I can dream at least!
Forget 7 speed only for entry level. Give me a 7 speed group and I’ll ditch my XT 9 speed stuff in a heart beat! I have gone SS & 1 X 9 on my two bikes. I’d rather have just one bike - 1 X 7 or 1 X 5. A good thick chain with an option of a few gears that aren’t so fussy about being perfectly tuned.
All bicycles, off road or on road, should have adequate headlights, tail lights, side-marker lights and brake lights that must be worn on top of the bicycle helmet. We can’t have inconspicuous cyclists on public roads anymore: too many dented Hummer hoods.
I agree with Jamie about the 7 speed, although I would like to see an 11-34, non-mega range 7 speed cassette, I think canti brakes should go on entry level brakes, I find them easier to work on than v-brakes, and if nothing more it would be anotherselling point for med/up level bikes a/o an up grade point,
the one point about entry level bikes that I have never wrapped my head around- Why are enrty level bikes so heavy? if I was just starting out I would want I lighter bike, due to the lack of leg muscle.
This was an interesting read. I’ve given the topic a lot of thought and I’m still sort of perplexed. You have no idea how many people I see riding down the road on a department store full suspension mountain bike, bouncing along with every pedal stroke, working like a maniac to get that sucker up a mild hill. I suspect that they have no idea what makes a quality bike; they just know that the bike looked cool and full suspension is way better than no suspension, right? And given the choice between that and a simple, quality bike like you describe, they would still get the cheapy full suspension bike just because they don’t know any better. The irony is that simple bikes seem to appeal more to experienced cyclists who can look past the bling and really appreciate the finer points of bicycling rather than beginners who need a cheap ride to learn and have fun. I fully agree with you as to what a “beginner” mountain bike should be, but how do you market a bike like that to appeal to the masses? And especially at a $500 pricepoint. You and I both know that half a grand is very inexpensive for a decent mountain bike, but most people (who aren’t already cyclists) think that $500 is outlandishly expensive for a bicycle, especially one that doesn’t have suspension.
John: Thanks for your comment. I think we are talking about two different cyclists here though. The department store crowd is not really after a “mountain bike” so much as they just want some basic transportation. What I think might make those folks that are using department store rigs as mtb’s chnage their minds is just their own experiences. Once someone gets “the bug”, then the bike I am talking about will make a lot of sense.
Don’t be surprised to see department store “mtb shaped objects” to be priced much higher in the future. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see these “mart bike” duallys going for $200- $300 each by mid-summer. That gap to a “real” mtb will not be that big of a jump then.
Thanks Ted. Yeah, I guess I was mentally veering off into the wider “bicycle for the masses” theory. I was just thinking about your last paragraph and I think that OEM would make a bike like your example “generic” bike, if there was a market for one. And the reality is that its hard to get interest in a “plain” bike when “extreme” is what sells, at least right now. Maybe the hipster/fixie/single speed trend is changing some of that. And who knows. Steel is making a comeback. And so are retro designs.