Since the year 2000 when the Martinez Doctrine was promoted by the Orange County School District, of which Orlando schools is a part, and adopted by Orange County as a planning tool, problems have been building between the schools and the developers ac…

However; it’s interesting to note that the first run of Nanos was super small and the whole thing could have gone away and not been heard about again if it wasn’t for some very passionate individuals not associated with “big companies” (Certainly no one would ever mistake Wes Williams’ Willits Bikes as a big company!)

I truly think that the 29″er would have happened one way or the other, with or without Gary Fisher on board. The company that bears his name certainly lent some early credibility to 29″ers, that is for sure.

Take a look at Kirk Pacenti and the whole 650B thing for another example of what I mean. Of course, 650B won’t go far if a big manufacturer doesn’t get behind it, but you certainly have to agree that Mr. Pacenti is single handedly creating a new niche in mountain biking.

Salsa is one of the small fish. There are a lot of other small fish in the pond too. We just don’t have the influence to get things done the way the really large companies do.

That’s not to say that we don’t influence things. There are times when non-competing component manufacturers ask for our opinions on future product direction. But we just don’t have such direct and dramatic influence as to convince a fork maker come up with a new product.

Fun discussion though. Beautiful fall weather here right now which is about to prompt me to take another vacation day tomorrow! Get out and ride everybody!

I don’t want to do this forever (though it is fun) and please forgive me if I am wrong, but in this case did not Gary Fisher (Big company guy) and Mark Slate of WTB get the 29er ball rolling the first place? I vaguely remember linking to a blog from this site where the two of them were in an audio interview patting themselves on the back about their accomplishment. Again, it was a while ago and I could be wrong, but in this case, if I am right, the big manufacturer created the market. You could call it chicken and the egg, but I have think that the Fisher chicken was born from space dust and 29er fork demand came from the first egg If Fisher does not do 29ers, there are no forks, not from White Brothers or anybody else.

The WB fork might have created the competition that forced Fisher to get a better vendor, but Fisher created the market. That is the interesting thing with markets, they can be created without previous consumer demand, if a company has the presence and horsepower to do so. Before Fisher entered the 29er business, there was no 29er business and consumers were not asking for one.

As Cloxxki says. “There are few forks in our sport that we do NOT have to thank Fisher for.”

I would take it further and say that. “There are NO forks that we do NOT have to thank Fisher for.” One or two are just indirect.

Ted I will do my best to give you the last word (not an easy task for me).

Many brands on board now. Each has a couple models on offering. I’m expecting most of them will sell above their own expectation, little or no end-of-season discounting required.
For next season, they’ll add one or more 29″ models, and increase pre-ordered volumes, to not be left behind.
Brands still holding out, will see the competition striving, and will sell a lot of “no’s” to customers at demo’s and in shops. How can those others sell the big ugly bikes at such a low effort? weird, no-one in our company rides one… Time to swallow it, and think outside the regular box. Or budget a yearly 10-20% loss in sales.

[QUOTE] I can’t really agree that the major manufacturers are not of concern in product development. The major players account for the majority of bike sales and therefore drive product development. Without out of pocket cash and Treks massive buying power, we would not have any forks from Fox. The Fox forks only exist because of major manufacturer influence. I think it is relatively safe to assume that the Reba was developed because Trek/Fisher was able to move enough units with the old Marzocchi to get another company interested.[/QUOTE]

Ah! But why would a major manufacturer get into the market in the first place? It’s a case of “the chicken and the egg” to a degree, in my opinion. For example, White Brothers were more of an influence than Marzocchi in terms of 29″ers. Market demand was created by folks clamoring for those early WB forks, and wishing for better/more. I would counter that Fisher, seeing this, lobbied Trek honches to move on getting Rock Shox to manufacture a 29″er Reba. Once everybody saw the performance value in the Reba, and sales took off, the next step was getting Fox to bite. The 29″er forums on the internet were rife with requests for a Fox 29″er fork. This motivated Fisher to convince Fox to get on board as well. So, you see the whole enchilada was a step by step process initiated by the failure of Marzhocci on one hand and the ingenuity of a small independent manufacturer on the other. Sure, major manufacturers “ended up” getting on board, but by no means were the innovators. That will happen with the long travel bikes, just like it did with 29″ers in the first place.

[QUOTE] A specific area where a lack of 29er sales by major manufacturers still leaves us short is cranksets, which are passable in the Midwest, but are not properly geared for riding in steep mountain areas. The small ring is too big and leaves us two cogs short of 26″ bikes. I can order a custom ring, but many riders are not interested in that route. I have heard more riders mention the gearing as a deal breaker in Colorado than you might imagine. I am convinced it hurts 29er sales significantly as I notice a much lower percentage of 29ers in the mountains than I do in flatter regions. If the big players start selling a significant number of 29ers, Shimano might feel the market pressure required to make a new crank and rings for us, otherwise they will continue to ignore us.[/QUOTE]

Vic, here you finally go from “big manufacturers” to the real source of your complaint, Shimano. It’s well documented throughout mountain bike history how Shimano has frustrated the “needs” of the average mountain biker. Gearing in particular has been a source of debate for over 20 years. This new complaint from some 29″er guys in a market that is a small slice of mountain biking is going to be hard to see on Shimano’s radar. Heck, I’d argue that the BCD (bolt circle diameter) of current cranks is unnecessary and a hindrance not only for 29″er freaks, but all mountain bikers. If the complaint is seen as a segment wide complaint: not just a 29″er specific thing, then I think you will see some movement on this point.

Reality is that Shimano dictates to all manufacturers, big and small, what is “current standard technology”. It’s the antitheses of a market driven company, and not really applicable to my points.

[QUOTE] As I said in my previous post, the market, not superior technology drives development. Big companies have big marketing departments and big inventories at big stores, component makers recoup development costs by selling their wares to those big companies. Smaller companies may be able to take risks with ideas, but when those ideas need components from other manufacturers, they are slow to respond.[/QUOTE]

I see this remark as being a bit confused, Vic. Yes, “the market” (peoples desires) does drive the development of new technologies…..sometimes (See Shimano, above). I think that companies then respond to perceived demands with technologies suitable to satisfy those demands. However; when a superior technology emerges, often times the market for it is created. So, it works both ways depending upon the situation at hand. I think that in terms of mountain biking, it can be shown over and over again how one product is developed and then bigger companies take that idea, refine it, and call it their own. (Specialized being a prime example of this.)

[QUOTE] You can bet if Specialized requests a 5″ 29er fork it will arrive much more quickly than if Salsa, Lenz, Moots, and Intense combined make the same request.[/QUOTE]

No, I would say it’s definitely the other way around. As I have said, it is because these second tier companies are doing things that the bigger companies end up doing it, at least most of the time.

[QUOTE] I have posted in this forum before that without Fisher, we would have very few component choices and I still believe that to be true.[/QUOTE]

I’m assuming you mean “29″ers-29″er component choices”" and not the generic term. At any rate, I heartily disagree. Fisher did get the deal done…..eventually; however, the market was moving forward with or without Fisher. Keep in mind that early on, (2002-2004) Fisher dealers didn’t even understand the 29″er concept, nor did most of them stock the bikes. It wasn’t until small custom niche builders and small innovators like Surly and On One started to satisfy higher demands for 29″er products that Trek head John Burke was convinced to throw more marketing weight behind Fisher. While Fisher can ultimately be credited here, it wasn’t a foundation that the company laid. That foundation has to be credited elsewhere.

[QUOTE] Many of us who ride 29ers seem to be early adopters who like to work outside of conventions, so, I think it is hard for us to swallow that we are dependent in any way on big manufacturings influence. However, the truth is because of shared sizing standards, few drivetrain manufacturers and complex expensive to develop suspension systems, the big corporations are the dog that wags the tail whether we like it or not.[/QUOTE]

My conclusion is obviously different. Again, big companies don’t always drive the market. Many times it is the opposite. Even with restrictive options in drive trains, suspension,and other “standards”, 29″ers have not only gained a foothold, but are flourishing. I wouldn’t at all be surprised to see smaller companies ideas become adopted in terms of 29″er full suspension by bigger companies and be called “innovations” by them. Either way, it’s going to happen and soon!

[QUOTE]I’d also argue the point regarding endurance freaks and their love of 26″ soft tails, but I have said enough for now.[/QUOTE]

Yes, that’s a whole nuther subject!

I can’t really agree that the major manufacturers are not of concern in product development. The major players account for the majority of bike sales and therefore drive product development. Without out of pocket cash and Treks massive buying power, we would not have any forks from Fox. The Fox forks only exist because of major manufacturer influence. I think it is relatively safe to assume that the Reba was developed because Trek/Fisher was able to move enough units with the old Marzuchi to get another company interested.

A specific area where a lack of 29er sales by major manufacturers still leaves us short is cranksets, which are passable in the Midwest, but are not properly geared for riding in steep mountain areas. The small ring is too big and leaves us two cogs short of 26″ bikes. I can order a custom ring, but many riders are not interested in that route. I have heard more riders mention the gearing as a deal breaker in Colorado than you might imagine. I am convinced it hurts 29er sales significantly as I notice a much lower percentage of 29ers in the mountains than I do in flatter regions. If the big players start selling a significant number of 29ers, Shimano might feel the market pressure required to make a new crank and rings for us, otherwise they will continue to ignore us.

As I said in my previous post, the market, not superior technology drives development. Big companies have big marketing departments and big inventories at big stores, component makers recoup development costs by selling their wares to those big companies. Smaller companies may be able to take risks with ideas, but when those ideas need components from other manufacturers, they are slow to respond.

You can bet if Specialized requests a 5″ 29er fork it will arrive much more quickly than if Salsa, Lenz, Moots, and Intense combined make the same request.

I have posted in this forum before that without Fisher, we would have very few component choices and I still believe that to be true. Many of us who ride 29ers seem to be early adopters who like to work outside of conventions, so, I think it is hard for us to swallow that we are dependent in any way on big manufacturings influence. However, the truth is because of shared sizing standards, few drivetrain manufacturers and complex expensive to develop suspension systems, the big corporations are the dog that wags the tail whether we like it or not.

I’d also argue the point regarding endurance freaks and their love of 26″ soft tails, but I have said enough for now.