Topic: Bike: Biz

:Can we offer you a new shifter?

By: g | January 1st, 2012 | No Comments » |

With much seeding and much faux social media’ing SRAM released yet ANOTHER gruppo onto the world, heralding in increased performance in… something. It undoubtably will change rider’s lives forever. All this while more and more people I know are ditching half or all of their gears to run 1×9/10 or single speeds. But the machine grinds on.

I am constantly called a cynic but the fact remains that after 4 years involved with, and ultimately piloting, a somewhat leaky ship, also regarded as a mountain bike company (not my own thankfully!), plus over a decade working in and around the cycling sphere as a whole, I can not help but admit I am one that does not wear the rose coloured glasses many in the industry do, and in doing so, see many aspects of the bicycle industry for the farce that it’s become. Not kind words I know but at the same time ones that I know I am not the only one saying.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags:bike industry sustainable

:Electronic Shifting anyone?

By: g | November 10th, 2011 | No Comments » |

No need to re-popst about Campy’s release of their electronic Record and Super Record shifting, it’s all over the shop already.

This is a comment I posted on one of the blogs highlighting it:

“Mavic Zap anyone?

Seriously though, seeing this as I eat my post ride breakfast seems quite apt. Riding this morning I was actually thinking just how well my 10spd Shimano shifters work. Effortless, responsive and all achieved with a simple cable.

At Sea Otter we saw the hydraulic shifting, then Shimano’s electric Dura Ace and now Campy’s attempt. I don’t poo poo on innovation, far from it. I was on board with suspension on MTB’s in the early 90′s and then disc brakes back in the late 90′s, all despite the ney sayers saying that these things were fads. Same with carbon. But I simply can not get my head around wanting to replace the mechanical simplicity, efficiency and ‘lightness’ of a cable to actuate derailleurs with electronics, batteries and ‘brains’. C-dale tried it with their fork and that died in the arse despite working well.

Sure, this might all be a technological step forward and bravo for companies finally achieving what Mavic etc. tried to do. My question is, is this really a step forward for riders, or just a new way to get people to spend more money in a market that’s flat lined?

For the vast majority of riders, the minute benefit that electronic shifting will provide will be far outweighed by the added complexity, high maintenance and replacement costs, ultimately making this sort of gear for those mid life crisis riders who have very fat wallets to spend on all the latest stuff.

Sorry for the rant.

Cheers,

g”

Tags:campy,electronic,shifters

:And more iPhone fun

By: g | October 17th, 2011 | No Comments » |

Mountain Cycle: Shockwave Two

:The Ride Journal

By: g | October 17th, 2011 | No Comments » |

A double page spread I did for ish #1 of “The Ride Journal”.

:MBA + 29er = sad, sad…sad

By: g | October 14th, 2011 | No Comments » |

Over the past year I have been receiving Mountain Bike Action, part of the deal when one spends money advertising (not for LG but my other gig). For some time now my impressions of it have steadily been sinking, thus it should be no surprise that the new issue I have here just managed to blow the ship clean in half.

For a few issues now I have noticed a clear conflict, or even contradiction, in the editorial from one issue to the next, call it ‘sponsored editorial catered to the advertiser of the moment’ if you will, but usually one month you’ll read one thing and then the next you’ll read he total opposite.

Well, this issue takes this to new heights. With nothing better to do on a Saturday afternoon, I sat down to have a flick through. On the cover, in the usual brash and loud style, is the ‘tabloid’ style headline “HOW & WHY 29-INCH WHEELS CONQUERED AMERICA”. Nothing new, this topic is in pretty much every issue in some form of positive/negative cycle. This particular claim though was the most brash and really made me groan - the previous issue I thought they had finally put this to bed by saying one is not better than the other, they are just ‘different’, something I happily would agree with.

So on opening the mag, temporarily forgetting the headline, I was knocked over by the size of an ‘in magazine’ advert, aka in-magazine-catalogue (as opposed to an insert or supplement) by a certain 29er brand. A lot of cash, and I mean a LOT, has been spent on having this put in the mag. And then it dawned on me. Half way through the mag I came to the headline article: “HOW & WHY 29-INCH CONQUERED AMERICA and why world domination is certain to follow”.

Seriously, what the fuck do you call that?

So, we have a massive insertion made by a 29er dedicated bike brand and then a 4 page editorial telling the reader, in a supposedly informed manner of course, just why the 29er is the way of the future.

(following pages showcases a pro’s bike - a 26″)

In any other industry, this sort of blatantly bias editorial content would be called out for what it is and the publication would be seen as a sham, or at very least shunned by most half serious/informed readers. For some reason though, the mountain bike industry just keeps accepting this sort of trollop and what’s worse, a certain sector of the market actually buys into it. I honestly am shocked at the blatant audacity of it all this time around.

If there was any doubt I was going to move advertising dollars elsewhere, this sealed it (I had already made the decision prior to Interbike). Even if advertising is just advertising, I for one care about the quality of the publication where our advertising resides. The last thing I want to do is help perpetuate this sort of lamearse content.