[tdc_worm]

just made the ill advised (according to some) decision to try out the full AXS setup. it may be foolish, but without early adopters there is no trickle-down...

anywho, without getting into the details on the AXS Eagle and Reverb, I got to thinking that there is plenty of real estate on the dropper control to add suspension controls, and tiny little wireless servos added to existing RockShox products. Now, on the surface, I have zero issue manually flipping a switch....unless I am in a race and have to slow down because I absent mindedly forgot to open the suspension back up.

that then led me down the path of Sram having a comprehensive line of bike build parts at their disposal to form a fully integrated group: cockpit, drivetrain, dropper, suspension, and wheelset (Zipp with TyreWiz). I think Sram has quietly made a power move that could box out the other players in the market unless there is significant collaboration. Seems like Shimano and Fox would be an obvious marriage, but the real elephant in the room is how it could monopolize the space and force smaller suspension/dropper/drivetrain competitors out of the market....

as long as reliability remains intact, i believe the consumer will demand integration, and the ability to bundle will be palatable to frame builders for their complete builds....

 

[Harold]

as long as reliability remains intact, i believe the consumer will demand integration, and the ability to bundle will be palatable to frame builders for their complete builds....

There's some SRAM stuff I like, or at least am fine with, and other SRAM stuff I despise.

Excessive integration as you describe will only serve to push me, and folks like me, away. I won't buy a new bike with a bunch of SRAM **** I hate (like their brakes and the reverb). I also am only interested in mechanical drivetrains and controls from anybody, so won't touch electronic shifting, electronic dropper controls, or electronic suspension controls. So when you talk about wanting more integration and talk about customers falling for that scheme, I see myself building frames from the ground up for the foreseeable future specifically to avoid that line of trash.

 

[DethWshBkr]

While i like electronic shifting, i dont want a ton of "integration".

Rather than "integrate" suspension and components and who knows what else, lets make suspension actual quality first!

 

[Schulze]

I'd go for integration, as long as it comes with modularity and customization options. And don't charge me $500 for a switch.

 

[mack_turtle]

I am all for newfangled electric gizmos if they make riding bikes more fun. I don't think everything is a "game-changer" if it's always going to be prohibitively expensive and not user-serviceable for most of the market.

I don't think integration is going to "force [anyone] out of the market," unless that market is dedicated racers and the 1% of riders who want all that stuff and have the $$$ for it. 99% of riders are fine with analog controls and are never going to spring for electric gizmos all over their bikes, so making affordable, smooth-operating, versatile, and durable components will still be the industry's bread and peanut butter.

Yes, peanut butter > butter.

 

[fredcook]

There are some products from a specific manufacturers I like, others from the same maker that I don't. But, I do like simplified integration. I would prefer to see integration across manufacturers, and not be limited within a brand. As a consumer, I won't be cornered into a single manufacturer only because their stuff integrates within itself.

If a bike manufacturer adopts and designs for a specific brand's proprietary integration, and that limits that bike to that components manufacturer, then I, for one, would not but into that brand of bike.

Regarding electronic controls... eh. I prefer the mechanical approach. I don't want to worry about dead batteries, Bluetooth glitches, etc., on top of the mechanical side of things.

 

[tdc_worm]

I don't think any of us are Sram or Shimano or Fox's biggest customers....that would be the bike manufacturers. In reality, the number of people that buy and build frames is relatively small compared to those that buy completes. Sram has a certain edge right now in that they can supply a more comprehensive build kit it one bundle, which I am guessing gives them a negotiating edge. where i think that boxes out competition is that the boutique stuff will be increasingly forced live in the aftermarket segment and used less in the complete build segment. if wireless becomes a thing, integration could become a challenge...

and i am probably using the incorrect word in "integration." I was speaking of integration in terms of all the gadgetry being integrated in to one ecosystem. i can foresee an ecosystem where seatpost height determines suspension system position, all user programmable via app. drop the saddle...the suspension opens for party mode. raise the saddle to trail mode, it firms up. have a +20mm saddle setting that locks out the suspension for efficiently returning to the top to re engage party mode.

again, the point of the spit balling is not about what sucks and what doesnt. there is plenty of parity in the industry and options for each us. its more based around bundling power and having a comprehensive ecosystem that doesnt play well with other boutique parts.

 

[Suns_PSD]

It's the future really but FOX and RockShox will have different solutions.

Live Valve will eventually be moved to the high end suspension over at Fox.

I like the idea of a simple SRAM remote that locks the shock out using existing wireless hardware, but then automatically unlocks when pointed downhill. Lots of ways to skin this cat.

You putting those new bikes together yet?

 

[Harold]

meh. f*ck that noise.

I want reliable before whiz-bang BS.

Good example. I don't want my seat height to depend on my suspension settings. Sometimes I drop my seat when I'm climbing. What if I want my suspension firmed up for a climb, but my seat down for tech?

I'm not fundamentally opposed to suspension that adjusts electronically based on terrain inputs. I'm also not fundamentally opposed to electronic drivetrains. I might use such equipment if I wanted a high-zoot race bike. But for my reliable daily rider, nope. And never do I want the bike to be making decisions for me like forcing the suspension settings and seat position to be linked.

And I certainly won't be buying a bike that is set up to ONLY accept components from one component manufacturer. Take, for example, a frame that ONLY has accommodations for Shimano Di2 wiring, and not mechanical cables. Or, now that AXS is a thing, no compatibility for mechanical cable routing OR Di2 wiring, and ONLY wireless controls. Or some wacky proprietary shock mounting system that becomes unavailable after a number of years (hmmm, where has that happened before?).

 

[life behind bars]

Are they going to go the way of John Deere and make it impossible for the end user to work on them at all? You can see how that worked out for Deere. The bike industry is cannibalizing itself for market share in an increasingly crowded market. When does the bottom fall out it?

 

[Lone Rager]

No e for me: e-shifting, e-droppers, e-suspension, e-bikes...

I'm not a total purist. I will use e-nav and e-lights.

 

[DethWshBkr]

meh. f*ck that noise.

I want reliable before whiz-bang BS.

Good example. I don't want my seat height to depend on my suspension settings. Sometimes I drop my seat when I'm climbing. What if I want my suspension firmed up for a climb, but my seat down for tech?

I'm not fundamentally opposed to suspension that adjusts electronically based on terrain inputs. I'm also not fundamentally opposed to electronic drivetrains. I might use such equipment if I wanted a high-zoot race bike. But for my reliable daily rider, nope. And never do I want the bike to be making decisions for me like forcing the suspension settings and seat position to be linked.

And I certainly won't be buying a bike that is set up to ONLY accept components from one component manufacturer. Take, for example, a frame that ONLY has accommodations for Shimano Di2 wiring, and not mechanical cables. Or, now that AXS is a thing, no compatibility for mechanical cable routing OR Di2 wiring, and ONLY wireless controls. Or some wacky proprietary shock mounting system that becomes unavailable after a number of years (hmmm, where has that happened before?).

Agreed.

I dont like "it can only use this stuff".
I also do not want anything to determine any settings other than me. I don't want anything to screw with the already poor damping on bikes. Before making the saddle height change suspension settings, I want REAL SUSPENSION SETTINGS!!!

If they want to make it possible to integrate suspension setting changes electronically with an electronic group, I want MANUAL control of it. (By the way...that exists, from Fox and Shimano YEARS ago. Fox iCTD and Di2. OP, read here...( https://reviews.mtbr.com/interbike-riding-the-shimano-xtr-with-di2-and-fox-ictd )

I dont even like electronic integration in my home, phone, or computer. I know i sure as heck dont want it on my bike.

 

[tuckerjt07]

If they want to make it possible to integrate suspension setting changes electronically with an electronic group, I want MANUAL control of it. (By the way...that exists, from Fox and Shimano YEARS ago. Fox iCTD and Di2. OP, read here...( https://reviews.mtbr.com/interbike-riding-the-shimano-xtr-with-di2-and-fox-ictd )

That's actually an interesting idea. With the right equipment electronic could give you even more fine control over the settings.

Another use case would be Shockwiz on steroids. It could work one of two ways. The first being user feedback based machine learning. It learns what you like and responds in that custom to you manner to suspension inputs. The second would be GPS coupled. It learns what makes you faster, empirically, not subjectively, in response to inputs.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

[DethWshBkr]

That's actually an interesting idea. With the right equipment electronic could give you even more fine control over the settings.

Another use case would be Shockwiz on steroids. It could work one of two ways. The first being user feedback based machine learning. It learns what you like and responds in that custom to you manner to suspension inputs. The second would be GPS coupled. It learns what makes you faster, empirically, not subjectively, in response to inputs.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Ha! An $18,000 bike with Fox iPerformace level suspension with 3 position electronic crappy damping, and Sram NX level 15 speed drivetrain weighing 37.6 lb.

 

[chazpat]

No e for me: e-shifting, e-droppers, e-suspension, e-bikes...

I'm not a total purist. I will use e-nav and e-lights.

Same, except I don't mtb at night so I don't need the lights. I'm not looking for my bike to be "perfect" for every condition. I like to keep it really simple, I often ride a rigid SS.

 

[tuckerjt07]

Ha! An $18,000 bike with Fox iPerformace level suspension with 3 position electronic crappy damping, and Sram NX level 15 speed drivetrain weighing 37.6 lb.

Where did you pull the three position bit from? The hardware to make it all work already exists.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

[fredcook]

... and i am probably using the incorrect word in "integration." I was speaking of integration in terms of all the gadgetry being integrated in to one ecosystem. i can foresee an ecosystem where seatpost height determines suspension system position, all user programmable via app. drop the saddle...the suspension opens for party mode. raise the saddle to trail mode, it firms up. have a +20mm saddle setting that locks out the suspension for efficiently returning to the top to re engage party mode.

Right use of the word. Just open to interpretation.

Your example is interesting, and as techy guy, I like to the idea. But... I'm also a mountain biker. Call me old school, but a lot of what I like about riding is it makes me think about what I'm doing. How do I need to set up the suspension for a particular trail? How much air in the tires? Should I or shouldn't I drop my seat? How do I position my body? What line do I take? For me, all that is a part of the experience. Maybe the industry will wind up going the integrated route you describe. And, who knows, maybe we'll have helmets with a heads up display outlining the best line to take on a technical descent. But for me, that will take away, in part, from the reason I like MTBing to begin with. But, I may be alone in this thinking. Maybe, there are two paths the industry can take... maintain the $2-3k all manual bike, as well as the $20k fully integrated with autonomous steering models.

 

[tdc_worm]

All good discussion, although I think most of the conversation has diverged to "I don't want to be cornered into a very specific algorithm AND/OR old school will always be more reliable."

if anything a cable actuated system will always corner you into one solution. with the AXS ecosystem, you can tailor the experience to you rather than being limited by a fixed mechanical wire. I can make my AXS drivetrain behave exactly like mechanical shifter. In the example I gave of tying the shock position to dropper position, many said "hell no." That's completely reasonable....and its also reasonable to expect the ecosystem to allow you to decouple one from the other via an app on your phone.

where a comprehensive ecosytem has an advantage is that it allows the rider to have complete control over the customization of their experience. if you start piece mealing parts together, you lose some the ability to customize due to lack of integration.

i think we can all remember a time when people had to carry a motorola pager in addition to their flip phone. or a time when you would mount a garmin nav to your windshield for road trips. now they are integrated into your smart phone or car's center stack. we can probably all remember a time when you would only buy a vehicle with a manual transmission. now they all have electronically controlled transmissions that learn your driving habits.

but we digress. its not a question of if its coming, its more of a question of whom is best positioned from a competitive stand point. (note i didn't say or imply that any particular brand has all the best parts...)

 

[Harold]

All good discussion, although I think most of the conversation has diverged to "I don't want to be cornered into a very specific algorithm AND/OR old school will always be more reliable."

if anything a cable actuated system will always corner you into one solution. with the AXS ecosystem, you can tailor the experience to you rather than being limited by a fixed mechanical wire. I can make my AXS drivetrain behave exactly like mechanical shifter. In the example I gave of tying the shock position to dropper position, many said "hell no." That's completely reasonable....and its also reasonable to expect the ecosystem to allow you to decouple one from the other via an app on your phone.

where a comprehensive ecosytem has an advantage is that it allows the rider to have complete control over the customization of their experience. if you start piece mealing parts together, you lose some the ability to customize due to lack of integration.

i think we can all remember a time when people had to carry a motorola pager in addition to their flip phone. or a time when you would mount a garmin nav to your windshield for road trips. now they are integrated into your smart phone or car's center stack. we can probably all remember a time when you would only buy a vehicle with a manual transmission. now they all have electronically controlled transmissions that learn your driving habits.

but we digress. its not a question of if its coming, its more of a question of whom is best positioned from a competitive stand point. (note i didn't say or imply that any particular brand has all the best parts...)

You're missing the point of the resistance to this concept.

I don't want my phone to have anything to do with my bike. I don't want to have to use my phone at all to mess with any kind of settings. I don't want batteries tied to core functions of my bicycle or its components. Whoever starts forcing these things and eliminates manual, mechanical control over these components is going to lose my money.

FWIW, I still drive a car with a manual transmission and no nav system integrated into the center stack.

 

[tdc_worm]

I'm not missing anything. You keep saying "I" "I" "I". You're points are all valid, reasonable and respectable, however, they are not germane to this discussion.

You will still have access to your mechanical stuff and will still be able to run as rudimentary as you like.

The bike manufacturers will still negotiate build kits, which, i am guessing, is where sram, shimano and fox make the majority of their money. The inability to compete in a comprehensive ecosystem will make it more difficult for the boutique vendors to negotiate their way in.

To stay on topic and use the navigation analogy: How many boutique stand alone GPS units remain on the market from Garmin, Magellan, Cobra, etc?

Parity in performance and reliability, of course, has to be maintained.