Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
41 - 60 of 185 Posts
IMO, bike companies and the industry have struggled to offer real value. They will usually offer the highest end spec that has minimal gains over lower models, for extreme prices. On the lower end models they'll spec brakes with significantly less power/control and suspension that lacks the necessary/complex compression and rebound circuits to handle trails at speed. These two things would make a huge difference in the rideability of lower end models, but keeping these off lower end specs keeps the peasants as peasants. To get that, you end up having to pay for a crapload of stuff that doesn't really increase performance. In some cases, lighter weight helps, but not as much as people tend to think and unless racing hard, it's just not a big concern. Then there's 12 speed, which tacked on some weight...then 12 speed electric, even more weight. You could offer an 11spd mechanical bike with a significant weight advantage and the same/similar gear ratios, but nope, we had to go to 12 speed for no apparent reason. They want the low end 12spd stuff to just be an anchor. At the end of the day, they are trying to maximize profit, not necessarily give the best value or what benefits mtbers as well and mtbers are often chasing stupid things that don't really affect performance.
Absolutely. The bike industry as a whole has struggled to offer any real innovations in the past 20 years.

1980's: MTB as a new bike category. Index shifting. Disk brakes.
1990's: Suspension (that worked). Carbon fiber. Dropper posts.
2000's: 29er wheels finally go mainstream.
2010's: Plus size tires! I've got nothin'.
2020's: Air spring dampers that are almost as good as coil springs were in 1995.
 
IMO, bike companies and the industry have struggled to offer real value. They will usually offer the highest end spec that has minimal gains over lower models, for extreme prices. On the lower end models they'll spec brakes with significantly less power/control and suspension that lacks the necessary/complex compression and rebound circuits to handle trails at speed. These two things would make a huge difference in the rideability of lower end models, but keeping these off lower end specs keeps the peasants as peasants. To get that, you end up having to pay for a crapload of stuff that doesn't really increase performance. In some cases, lighter weight helps, but not as much as people tend to think and unless racing hard, it's just not a big concern. Then there's 12 speed, which tacked on some weight...then 12 speed electric, even more weight. You could offer an 11spd mechanical bike with a significant weight advantage and the same/similar gear ratios, but nope, we had to go to 12 speed for no apparent reason. They want the low end 12spd stuff to just be an anchor. At the end of the day, they are trying to maximize profit, not necessarily give the best value or what benefits mtbers as well and mtbers are often chasing stupid things that don't really affect performance.
Nah, they just overstocked because of a temporary spike and went cash flow negative.
 
YT has had poor customer service for many years even when they were thriving. They offered a lot of value back in the day, average value now; but seriously, stick to the brands with known good customer service if youb prioritize security, parts, to even receive your bike, etc.
 
Discussion starter · #47 ·
My father was a bankruptcy attorney. One thing he said which always stuck with me when I ran my own business was that he never had a client who went bankrupt due to charging too much. If anything, the opposite was often true.
I may be slow, but what do you mean by "...the opposite was often true." He always had a client who went bankrupt charging too much? He never had a client who went bankrupt charging too little? I'm missing clarity somehow.

Multiple PB commentors have received the following e-mail:

"Hello Young Talent,

We regret to inform you that, due to ongoing insolvency proceedings, your order has been put on hold. As your payment was received before the proceedings officially began, it is legally considered part of the insolvency estate.

At this stage, we are unable to issue refunds or provide further details about the status of your payment. We understand how frustrating and disappointing this situation is, especially without a clear resolution.

If you wish to explore your options, we recommend reaching out to your payment provider to inquire about potential next steps.

We truly regret that we cannot offer you a better solution at the moment, and we’re very sorry for the inconvenience this has caused.

Thank you again for your patience and understanding.

Sincerely,
Your YT Industries Team"

They had a 50% flash sale in the weeks leading up to this. Now I have no idea about how this sort of stuff works, but man it looks bad...
Holy cow! I would be absolutely livid at this! But I am sure, actually, that my American Express support people would just refund me the money.

Over-reaching retail prices were just one facet of the pandemic bike bubble that directly affected consumers. The root cause of all these business failures was unrealistic investment and expansion. PE "analysts" (will questionable qualifications) looked at bike businesses at the height of the bubble and said "Hey, if a $10 million business is profitable, surely a $100 million business will be 10x as profitable!" Um, no. The companies that came out of the bubble mostly unscathed were the ones that did not grow to fill the bubble. When the bike economy shrank back to normal, they were fine. Companies that threw money into bigger facilities and increased production were stuck with PE debt they could never pay off.
Bingo! I remember the guy who owns Esker said that the pandemic didn't affect their bottom line because they didn't take any more orders than they could fulfill, and they didn't feel the need to overinvest in scaling the business like crazy during the pandemic. He just decided he wanted to be the size that he is no matter what demand was. Turns out he was wise.

You nail it, it’s not only about real value, hobbyists are in a way “crazy” and we buy bikes (and other stuff) for non sense reasons.

I consider my Stumpy at 7K “reasonable”, but when I provide a clinic for beginners, guys as well as gals show up with bikes costing 10-15K.
They ride bikes costing as much as most pros do and they don’t have a clue about what they’re riding, with suspension not or complete wrong dialed in, wrong tire pressure, no idea when and how to use the dropper aso.
Nonetheless when I ad up the costs for my bikes and realize that I’m no longer riding professionally I can only justify it by the knowledge it’s a great hobby which gives me a lot of satisfaction.
But! I could achieve that for a LOT less money too.
It’s like Ducati and Alfa Romeo used to say, you don’t buy a motorcycle or a car, you buy emotion.
This reminds me of a story some co-workers told me. They made plans to go on a ride around Lake Washington (in Seattle) with a friend of theirs who had just recently got into biking. They showed up in t-shirts and shorts on their inexpensive road bikes. This guy showed up in full spandex kit with a high-end $10k+ carbon bike. They shrugged at first and went on the ride. Only a third of the way through, he dropped out because he couldn't hang.

IMO, bike companies and the industry have struggled to offer real value. They will usually offer the highest end spec that has minimal gains over lower models, for extreme prices. On the lower end models they'll spec brakes with significantly less power/control and suspension that lacks the necessary/complex compression and rebound circuits to handle trails at speed. These two things would make a huge difference in the rideability of lower end models, but keeping these off lower end specs keeps the peasants as peasants. To get that, you end up having to pay for a crapload of stuff that doesn't really increase performance. In some cases, lighter weight helps, but not as much as people tend to think and unless racing hard, it's just not a big concern. Then there's 12 speed, which tacked on some weight...then 12 speed electric, even more weight. You could offer an 11spd mechanical bike with a significant weight advantage and the same/similar gear ratios, but nope, we had to go to 12 speed for no apparent reason. They want the low end 12spd stuff to just be an anchor. At the end of the day, they are trying to maximize profit, not necessarily give the best value or what benefits mtbers as well and mtbers are often chasing stupid things that don't really affect performance.
This is one reason I am strongly considering building my next bike from the frame up. I'd rather make all my component choices and put together the bike I want, than get shoehorned into the spec they think maximizes their profit, and then I end up changing a bunch of components anyway.

Absolutely. The bike industry as a whole has struggled to offer any real innovations in the past 20 years.

1980's: MTB as a new bike category. Index shifting. Disk brakes.
1990's: Suspension (that worked). Carbon fiber. Dropper posts.
2000's: 29er wheels finally go mainstream.
2010's: Plus size tires! I've got nothin'.
2020's: Air spring dampers that are almost as good as coil springs were in 1995.
For 2020's, some people would say eBikes. Or e-things like electric shifting / electric dropper post. But that, of course, is controversial since so many of us (myself included) do not want to faff about with batteries and feel that it violates the spirit of our rides.
 
I may be slow, but what do you mean by "...the opposite was often true." He always had a client who went bankrupt charging too much? He never had a client who went bankrupt charging too little? I'm missing clarity
He had clients that went bankrupt by not charging enough.
 
For 2020's, some people would say eBikes. Or e-things like electric shifting / electric dropper post. But that, of course, is controversial since so many of us (myself included) do not want to faff about with batteries and feel that it violates the spirit of our rides.
Yeah, shoving a battery in something that worked perfectly without it is not innovation. (Here come the torches and pitchforks.) The appeal of e-(whatever) to manufacturers is clear: mo' money. E-bikes cost 5-6x what normal bikes do. Given similar margins, they end up with more money at the end of the day. Why make 30% on a $600 pedal bike when you can make 25% on a $3,000 e-bike? E-bikes are the largest growth segment for the industry. They are financially innovative.
 
You nail it, it’s not only about real value, hobbyists are in a way “crazy” and we buy bikes (and other stuff) for non sense reasons.

I consider my Stumpy at 7K “reasonable”, but when I provide a clinic for beginners, guys as well as gals show up with bikes costing 10-15K.
They ride bikes costing as much as most pros do and they don’t have a clue about what they’re riding, with suspension not or complete wrong dialed in, wrong tire pressure, no idea when and how to use the dropper aso.
Nonetheless when I ad up the costs for my bikes and realize that I’m no longer riding professionally I can only justify it by the knowledge it’s a great hobby which gives me a lot of satisfaction.
But! I could achieve that for a LOT less money too.
It’s like Ducati and Alfa Romeo used to say, you don’t buy a motorcycle or a car, you buy emotion.
Your to you “reasonable” $7k Stumpy is as “reasonable” to me as the $10k plus bikes are to you.

And you are right mostly everything is about emotions which is why we have 95% of overbiked riders here.

To me most stuff evokes emotions just different ones.

My 00 Suzuki SV650 brings me joy for being simplistic but having a great engine and looking cool even it is a budget bike.

My 23 Moto Guzzi V85TT for having italien uniqueness and design.

My pride and joy mtb is a 14 Heckler which is a bit dated but I also know it is not the bike that is holding me back breaking strava records. 😉
 
Absolutely. The bike industry as a whole has struggled to offer any real innovations in the past 20 years.
I disagree - though with the caveat that "offering innovation" means actually offering it to the public. For example, the modern dropper realistically came out 20 years ago (2004-2005). The Hite Rite was not that useful, as evidenced by the fact that it never went anywhere. And prototypes from the 90s that never got produced don't really mean much.

As far as innovations that meaningfully made MTBs better or offered something new and useful in the past 20 years:

1- Fat bikes. A sorta niche use, but if you live where there is snow, you can now ride many months when you previously could not. I've also found them incredibly useful in the muddy shoulder seasons.

2- Rear suspension design got massively better between 2000 and 2010 (half of that time being in the past 20 years).

3- The changes in geometry in the past 10 years has been an absolute game-changer, IMO.

4- While Plus tires were kind of a bust, one result of it was larger XC oriented tires. A 2.6” XC tire (or an XC frame to clear them) was crazy talk 20 years ago. I think it was a great development, as I would not be riding a hardtail anymore were it not for that.

I do think that since Geo settled down a few years ago, we are not seeing much. Just sticking motors and batteries more places.
 
It's been fun watching the convos around YT because you watch everybody pull out their biased narrative. They charge too much. They charge too little. This is what they get for being d2c. This is because they have bad CS. On and on.

This entire thing is just [Gestures Vaguely]. Vital has had a thread about companies going bust post-covid and it may be one of the longest standing/most posted in Vital threads in their history lol

If companies can potentially go bust in relatively normal times, no point in acting surprised when they're popping left and right during unprecedented times. If it was a bad CS thing Canyon would be gone, if it was a charging too much thing Pivot/Yeti would be gone, if it was a charging too little and/or being D2c thing, polygon would be gone.

Only thing I'm interested in knowing is how seemingly poorly is the EU sector doing and how generally ok is their US counterpart doing... If they are choosing to re-structure the company portion in their HOME country, and not the one in the country they expanded to.

And then of course, does that mean they're basically salvaging what's left in the EU to potentially continue a US-only operation? Would be very interesting/weird/silly.

If Kona can survive whatever they did and if Rocky Mountain can survive and if there may even be a chance at reviving the Nukeproof IP (any updates on that?)... I'm pretty sure YT can figure out continued operation.

(Sacking the Porsche-loving CEO and finding someone who may be more interested in running a company could possibly be a very good start... Dunno, not a business major lol)
 
I remember reading about shipping containers full of bikes being destroyed because it was cheaper to write off the value of the bikes than to leave them in storage. Just absolutely insane.
Obviously it's cheaper to write-off the value than store large items in perpetuity. The issue more was that it was cheaper to destroy them/write them off than to sell them at rock-bottom prices which would stop people buying the new models that are now being delivered from Taiwan and need to sell and would just keep the cycle going indefinitely.
 
I was gonna do that but they will probably take my money and not ship anything.
apparently, this is exactly what is happening. There are a lot extremely angry people in the PB comments that ordered and paid for bikes, including during the 50% off sale immediately before this news broke, that received an email from YT stating they're not getting their bike or their money back (at least in any reasonable time). Crazy

ETA: sorry, saw the email was already posted back on page 2. Still blows my mind that YT thought that was an appropriate response
 
41 - 60 of 185 Posts