Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 26 Posts

Padre

· Recovering Weight Weenie
Joined
·
8,814 Posts
Discussion starter · #1 ·
This was news to me...
https://ride454.wordpress.com/files/2006/04/TBrown1.jpg

who knows if this is just rumor or not?

"I have a source confirming that Specialized will have a 29er coming out for the 2008 season. Their original goal was to have it in the '07 line but they're running behind, hopefully taking the extra time to do it right. The bike should be available about a year from now.

I can't get anymore details as of now but I'll post them as I do."
 
The news I heard from my shop after a Specialized rep came to demo the 2007 line echos the same thing. What I heard was more along the lines of "...the earliest we could do it is 2008, due to the production cycles." Considering most large bicycle companies are now working on stuff into 2009 & 2010 right *now*, this makes sense to me.

Vague, but still promising that there could be something in the pipeline.

After most of the run of 29er Fast Traks was spoken for in a very short time, I think HQ got the message. I'd be curious to see if they go for an EBB/sliding rear dropout design or a gearie with the M4 Stumpjumper hardtail. My gut feeling is the M4, simply because there are no singlespeed MTBs from the company, but again, only a guess.
 
If they do get around to making a 29er they can stick it up their a$$. It's sh!t like this that makes me sick, especially when it comes to Specialized. I know a few people who ride and like their bikes, and the bicycle business is still a business, not a happy hand holding idealistic lifestyle or something, but enough already. Now given, only a handful of people may know the real story, but their suing of Mountain Cycle over their cyclocross bike the "Stumptown" was pretty well documented.
 
Save
huh?!

That is really strange, I was at a Specialized demo recently and the guy setting up the bike I was going to ride asked what I rode and just started firing away at how Mike whatever his name is Owner of Specialized will never make a 29er as they are just too slow and lathargic, and you ride without gears? or suspension? racers will NEVER switch over to 29ers. He races, and he knows guys in California and Colorado that have tried those circus bikes and they just suck. That is pretty much a direct quote out of this retards mouth. I'm really surprised too, I mean everything is bigger in Texas (the demo was in San Antonio), and you would think the Texans would be jumping all over this big wheeled stuff.
My reply: whatever dude, setup the '07 S-works epic and let me rip on it.
It made me miss my rigid 29er SS.

-Dan
 
Save
el-cid said:
If they do get around to making a 29er they can stick it up their a$$. It's sh!t like this that makes me sick, especially when it comes to Specialized. I know a few people who ride and like their bikes, and the bicycle business is still a business, not a happy hand holding idealistic lifestyle or something, but enough already. Now given, only a handful of people may know the real story, but their suing of Mountain Cycle over their cyclocross bike the "Stumptown" was pretty well documented.
Legal argument:
It is called protecting your assets. If you don't others may be apt to infringe. And after a bit of time of not protecting your assets (names, intellectual property, etc) a court may not do so either. Vigorously protecting a company's turf, is not a prickish thing to do, it is just good business practice. Specialized has had the name "stumpjumper" for quite sometime. While I suspect that Specialized knew that the boys at Mountain Cycle had no intention of infringing of the name/trademark, they still need to protect against anything that could be perceived a sleeping on their rights (called the equitable doctrine of "laches" in legal jargon) so that others that may actually want to use the "stump____" whatever bicycle to directly compete with Specialized's Stumpjumper.

While the portion that knows about this may be bugged, the general public most assuredly could care less, and probably many specialized's potential customers don't even know that there is a Mountain Cycle bike company at all. In the end, it is just good business.

For an example see the Jeep/Hummer conflict. There Hummer had for years used a grill that was arguably similar in design to Jeep's. Both had seven slots in the grill. Jeep (Daimler/Chrysler) could have cared less for a long time while American General was indendent of General Motors. BUT once GM purchased Hummer, it was an entirely different ballgame, as GM owned Hummer was to probably directly compete with jeep products. Jeep then claims trademark infringement, claiming that the two companies grills will confuse the market. GM in one of its defenses claims that jeep effectively slept on their rights too long to now claim infringement. The court agreed. It is just smart to vigorously protect all of your property.

Lawyer hat off:
Still as a lay person, it smacks of picking on the little guy, who had no intention of ripping off Specialized trademark. Obviously, I don't need to state the facts here, but Portland and Mountain Cycle have some ties to Stumptown/Portland. There is a stumptown cyclocross race as well. It just made sense for Mountain Cycle to name their cross bike the"Stumptown." I am not sure what discussions went on before the lawsuit was initiated, but perhaps they could have been done better to avoid the negative publicity if you are Specialized.
 
Law, be sure to click the link in my post too and read about the debacle with Stratos. Stratos had legally licensed (exclusively for the bicycle industry) the stable shock technology they were developing as their ID cartridges and when the big S wanted to use the technology they decided it would be better to sue Stratos into oblivion and bankrupt them instead of play by the rules and license it from them. "Innovate or Die" indeed... I do understand protecting readily obvious trademarked names and designs but for crying out loud, is there no business ethics anymore? OK, rant off, sorry guys.
 
Save
el-cid said:
Law, be sure to click the link in my post too and read about the debacle with Stratos. Stratos had legally licensed (exclusively for the bicycle industry) the stable shock technology they were developing as their ID cartridges and when the big S wanted to use the technology they decided it would be better to sue Stratos into oblivion and bankrupt them instead of play by the rules and license it from them. "Innovate or Die" indeed... I do understand protecting readily obvious trademarked names and designs but for crying out loud, is there no business ethics anymore? OK, rant off, sorry guys.
certainly some companies are more predatory than others. Perhaps in a touchy-feely industry like the bike industry (where aren't many of us sort of modern-day hippies, loving mother nature more than corporate nature?) that sort of behavior is not appreciated or tolerated. Regardless, Specialized's legal tactics seem to not be hurting them in a significant way so far, which is not saying that I condone what they do or have done.

I am done now with the legal crap. I would like to hear more about the supposed Specialized 29er. With all the brands jumping on board, I worry about a glut of 29er this year. If marketing is not strong enough, I worry that there may be a backlash and selection there after may diminish. I hope companies are smart about their initial offerings. No need to cannabalize the market already.
 
Wow. Although copyright protection is certainly critical in bettering commercial gain and screwing out the local innovator sucks...

This was a thread about 29ers from a large producer of mountain bikes.
 
el-cid said:
Law, be sure to click the link in my post too and read about the debacle with Stratos. Stratos had legally licensed (exclusively for the bicycle industry) the stable shock technology they were developing as their ID cartridges and when the big S wanted to use the technology they decided it would be better to sue Stratos into oblivion and bankrupt them instead of play by the rules and license it from them. "Innovate or Die" indeed... I do understand protecting readily obvious trademarked names and designs but for crying out loud, is there no business ethics anymore? OK, rant off, sorry guys.
If I remember correctly Stratos was sued by Avalanche several years ago for basically stealing their shock design. Stratos seems to have a problem with ignoring patent issues, including protecting their own.

It sucks, but I've always understood Stratos to be somewhat shady ever since the Avalanch deal happened a few years back. Hell, I didn't even know they were still making bike suspension.

As for a 29er, I'm doubting it. I have talked with a few Spec'ed guy, one in particular who works in R&D. He was pretty adament about them disliking 29ers. It was particularily funny as the guy rode a TriCross as his main bike, which is basically a 29er with thin tires and drop bars (similar to my karate monkey's old build).

The Ito
 
Could very well be.

All one has to do is take a look at Cannondale, who vehemently denied that they would ever produce a 29"er. Rumors spread and were consistently shot down over the course of three years. After being pressured by several of their reps and dealers, developement started on a 29"er hardtail.

Originally slated as an '08 product, the launch of the Caffeine 29"er got bumped up to a late '07 release, (it will be available in November sometime, about three months later than most of the rest of the '07 line).

So, as you can see, it is entirely possible that Specialized fully intends to bring a 29"er project to market in '08. If that's the case, it's most likely a well kept secret amongst a few insiders at headquarters. It's a known fact that they are bringing another tire to the 29"er party, so the rumor of a bike is making more and more sense.

Time will tell!
 
Specialized's riders aren't the core, they're the folks that stare blind on one company. With this strategy though, they do isolate themselves, and prevent being appreciated by the rider with a mind of his own.
 
Law said:
Legal argument:
It is called protecting your assets. If you don't others may be apt to infringe. And after a bit of time of not protecting your assets (names, intellectual property, etc) a court may not do so either. Vigorously protecting a company's turf, is not a prickish thing to do, it is just good business practice. Specialized has had the name "stumpjumper" for quite sometime. While I suspect that Specialized knew that the boys at Mountain Cycle had no intention of infringing of the name/trademark, they still need to protect against anything that could be perceived a sleeping on their rights (called the equitable doctrine of "laches" in legal jargon) so that others that may actually want to use the "stump____" whatever bicycle to directly compete with Specialized's Stumpjumper.

While the portion that knows about this may be bugged, the general public most assuredly could care less, and probably many specialized's potential customers don't even know that there is a Mountain Cycle bike company at all. In the end, it is just good business.

For an example see the Jeep/Hummer conflict. There Hummer had for years used a grill that was arguably similar in design to Jeep's. Both had seven slots in the grill. Jeep (Daimler/Chrysler) could have cared less for a long time while American General was indendent of General Motors. BUT once GM purchased Hummer, it was an entirely different ballgame, as GM owned Hummer was to probably directly compete with jeep products. Jeep then claims trademark infringement, claiming that the two companies grills will confuse the market. GM in one of its defenses claims that jeep effectively slept on their rights too long to now claim infringement. The court agreed. It is just smart to vigorously protect all of your property.

Lawyer hat off:
Still as a lay person, it smacks of picking on the little guy, who had no intention of ripping off Specialized trademark. Obviously, I don't need to state the facts here, but Portland and Mountain Cycle have some ties to Stumptown/Portland. There is a stumptown cyclocross race as well. It just made sense for Mountain Cycle to name their cross bike the"Stumptown." I am not sure what discussions went on before the lawsuit was initiated, but perhaps they could have been done better to avoid the negative publicity if you are Specialized.
Sorry man, I can not stand up for Specialized either. So when did Specialized coin the word EPIC? That is the same BS that forced WTB to change the name of the tire from epicwolf to exiwolf. The term epic has been used from surfers to god knows who for over twenty years if not more, and The Big S has the balls to trademark the EPIC. Sorry, just venting!
 
Padre said:
This was news to me...
https://ride454.wordpress.com/files/2006/04/TBrown1.jpg

who knows if this is just rumor or not?

"I have a source confirming that Specialized will have a 29er coming out for the 2008 season. Their original goal was to have it in the '07 line but they're running behind, hopefully taking the extra time to do it right. The bike should be available about a year from now.

I can't get anymore details as of now but I'll post them as I do."
Huh, what? When I click your link I see a Trek 69er. Where's the Specialized beef? :D
 
In the short term, they may even get increased sales from spewing negatively about 29", attracting the (of course huge) 26" holdout market, improving their position there. Till at one point they hold the monopoly in a further shrinking market... :)
Perhaps they'll launch a B-brand to sell 29"er. Or perhaps they secretly already own one...
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.