Comments on: A Dreamers Ideas To Make Mountain Bikes More Affordable

By: John

John — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:10:40 +0000

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.

By: Guitar Ted

Guitar Ted — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 03:07:36 +0000

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.

By: John

John — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 02:22:00 +0000

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.

By: Quinn

Quinn — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:19:53 +0000

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.

By: Ross Nicholson

Ross Nicholson — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 06:13:39 +0000

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.

By: Jamie Link

Jamie Link — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 21:37:23 +0000

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.