Hello Vital MTB Visitor,
We’re conducting a survey and would appreciate your input. Your answers will help Vital and the MTB industry better understand what riders like you want. Survey results will be used to recognize top brands. Make your voice heard!
Five lucky people will be selected at random to win a Vital MTB t-shirt.
Thanks in advance,
The Vital MTB Crew
apparently they aren't doing too well...
Bummer to hear about the GT situation—really tough, especially given the history. I hope everyone who worked there lands on their feet quickly. My thoughts, in no particular order:
Brand Equity: As others have mentioned, the perception and value of a brand are crucial, especially during a time of performance consolidation (where performance variance is shrinking). GT has long struggled to define its identity, perhaps trying to do too much: a value brand that also fields a World Cup team; a performance company but also one with bikes in big-box stores.
Margin Erosion: While I can't say for sure, it seems that when a brand's perception weakens, it can only compete on price. Unfortunately, competing on price requires moving significant volume to stay viable. Ironically, the brands that have maintained strong equity—like Specialized, Trek, and Santa Cruz—are also the ones moving volume. This leaves GT stuck in no-man's land: clearly not a low-volume boutique brand, but also not one whose bikes are flying off showroom floors in high volume.
The Future (oh boy~): Nobody really knows what’s next. Companies usually keep these situations under wraps. Maybe the brand gets relaunched and the rumors are true—or maybe not. Having worked in company news for years, I’ve found rumors are often wrong, so take them with a grain of salt. Could someone relaunch GT? Sure, but it would take serious effort to turn the brand around, shift perceptions, and make it work again. It’s not just a product management challenge—it’s a cost accounting issue, a dealer network issue, and fundamentally a question of where GT fits in the world of mountain biking.
If I were tackling this, I’d start with data—PON likely has a goldmine of it. I’d use that to inform decisions, but the solutions need to span the entire company, not just GT.
The bankruptcy hearing was definitely on 9/11/2001 and that's when Schwinn was broken up into two with the bicycle side (Schwinn bike, GT, Riteway) going to Pacific and the fitness side (Schwinn Airdynes, "Spinning" bikes, etc) being purchased by Direct Focus aka Nautilus.
At that time I was managing a big IBD in Boulder, CO and due to the events of that day we sent all the staff home before opening while a few of the managers stuck around to receive packages and generally sit around in shock. We carried a fairly decent selection of mid to high-end Schwinn Road that MTB bikes, and Schwinn was at that time a hometown Boulder brand, so when word hit later that morning about the hearing, it was yet another bit of bad news on a generally ugly day.
I wonder if they could do something with GT and Cannondale like Fox did with Fox and Marzocchi or Easton and Race Face? Cannondale becomes the XC and Road race brand while GT is the trail and gravity brand? Maybe some crossover in gravel..
As a Canadian with less invested feels in the legacies and heritage of both GT and Cannondale, both these brands from the MTB side have descended into the epitome of dull corporate blandness, are not very innovative (Cannondale seems to have given up), not carried by a real LBS, and I have no idea why I would want to ride either. Both are generic big box brands here (GT at SportChek, Cannondale at MEC). Cannondales are still well regarded by the cardio community up here. PON has big lineup overlap issues here that seem ripe for solving with cutthroat corporate efficiency.
I raced a Zaskar in the early 2000's and had a huge soft-spot for GT back then. Has always been impossible to find a better GT in Canada, so I never did.
Just from a marketing point of view, GT have not been a cool brand for the past 20 years, their full sus bikes consistently had weird suspension layouts that never reviewed well, then they went a more traditional layout but some of ugliest frames ever.
I can only think of one brief time GT bikes were cool, when the Atherton's got on them and they made a big hitting enduro bike for Dan, while Gee was winning in DH. The secret behind the performance of those bikes? Slightly longer reach 🤣
At least Cannondale had the right branding idea, sponsoring Jerome Clementz due the enduro heyday and then Bryceland for their revival, they get a bit of cred for that although I never see any on trails around me in France.
GT could build a future as a premium E-bike brand building e-bikes for older riders that were kids in the '70s & '80s and still think of the brand as premium.
That said that window is closing fast as so many good e-bikes are being released. Soon, it'll be hard to stand out.
Especially when you look at the current GT ebikes and they are pretty mediocre at best..
Although I recall hearing some employee grumblings from time to time in BC in relation to their "Quebec accountants", I hope the former Procycle doesn't need to do anything with the brand (are they still separate entities and Procycle took the name, or were the all folded into each other; I never knew). The decade I worked at a dealer was marked with entirely positive interactions (how many brands will put you in touch with the guys who designed their e-bike motor for advanced troubleshooting? how cool is that!?) and it would be a crying shame to see any of those folks face difficulties from the slowdown.
this screenshot from a FB group was passed on to me - re: Rocky
I'm still bitter Procycle bought and killed Balfa back in the day! The BB7 was a way better bike and value than anything Rocky had been doing at the time.
Also, yes, there are things being heard past few days.
edit...looks like Spomer has the scoop while I was typing.
Wow.
Another one starts circling the drain.
I presume Rocky will be able to trade out of it, but RIP to bike development
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/rocky-mountain-announces-intention-restr…
Anyone know how much of a cash safety net Canyon are sitting on, and what is their distribution of sales in terms of road vs mtb?
Because they must be getting absolutely hammered on the ebike battery recall. They havn't been selling any full power ebikes for weeks, they are offering hundreds of euros in compensation to spectral:on and torque:on riders who have been told not to ride their bikes for the next few months. I'm sure they are getting tons of requests for refunds. This will massively damage their reputation, but maybe they make enough from the road side, which probably has more volume and higher margins anyway.
Regarding bike development... Are the 2 to 3 year cycles long enough? We had a lot of companies that used to do 2 year cycles but switched to 3 years claiming rushed products due to the a 2 year crunch.. Personally, I think the companies wanted more time to get the money back on expensive carbon molds. Maybe 4 years and there will always be some new components to help refresh a bike in that time.
Look at cars where the the product cycles are typically 6 years with a mid cycle update..
I guess I'm just thinking out loud..
I've got no idea as I don't work in the industry and specifically haven't seen the accounts for the companies.
But arm chair, id say 3 years would be fine now, as development has started to slow a lot compared to the 2016-2020 heyday of long drops, longer reacher much slacker every single year.
I was specifically mentioning development as that would be one of the first items to get cost cutting during this restructure.
Just a few weeks ago Rocky laid off a ton of staff, mostly marketing, tech support, sales types so far
https://www.bicycleretailer.com/industry-news/2024/12/19/rocky-mountain-files-bankruptcy-protection
Rocky Mountain announced plans to restructure its finances to avoid declaring bankruptcy but will continue operating normally.
Filing for a Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) ensures Rocky Mountain will avoid a business interruption "as much as possible," the brand said. The application with the Superior Court of Quebec Commercial Division offers protection under the CCAA.
"Despite strong demand for its bikes during the pandemic, the company struggled to secure supplies due to shortages and rising costs," according to Rocky Mountain. "Once the pandemic was over, the company had to contend with a sharp drop in selling prices."
Rocky Mountain said as margins tightened, financial pressure increased, leading to Thursday's decision "to become a resilient and successful long-term business."
It takes over 2 years to bring a frame to market. That's with perfect timing that leaves little buffer for setbacks. Of course you can take short cuts and do it quicker, say 18 months but that's skipping out on critical areas of the development phase. Ideally the industry moves to a 4 year cycle to slow down the pace of things. The race to first and shortening timeliness is one of the reasons why the bike industry is in the place that it is today.
Just read on news outlets that Rocky Mountain filed for bankruptcy protection. Hope things work out for them in the future.
Was it the five posts above you?
Just read on the news outlets that 6 different posts above me are reporting Rocky Mountain has filed for bankruptcy protection. I hope things continue to be posted above and below me.
Did you'll hear about Rocky Mountain, eh?
Hopefully they can pull through.. Would suck to lose another iconic brand..
The now ex rocky employee's are announcing their departure on FB etc....
I believe PON do not care about mountain bikes other than Santa Cruz, the effort isn't there and they're not even hiding it.
They let GT rot to death on a tight budget and open up the Cannondale website just for fun, it's all road and city bikes.
The Cannondale MTB segment from their ambassadors to their bikes is a total snooze fest.
The refreshed 2022 Jekyll & Moterra are still selling with the exact same builds and colors 3 years after launch, they're not even trying.
I doubt this will make a dent in Canyon. Aren’t they mostly a road/gravel/commuter brand? Reckon Van der Poel gets paid more than all of what Canyon spends on enduro racing. And the sponsor oodles of cross/road teams.
This is just silly; I'm no fan of holding companies or PON but they're the business to make money and they seem to be pretty good at it.
It seems wildly unlikely that they'd intentionally let one of their investments whither and die; they'd either kill it quickly or sell it, not sit and watch it devaluate over time.
I know this may sound crass, but the Rocky Mountain announcement, much like the GT announcement, doesn’t surprise me. Consolidation in the specialty cycling space has been anticipated for a long time. This consolidation doesn’t always mean brands acquiring other brands; it can also result from major players like Specialized or Trek dominating enough of the market to squeeze out mid-sized competitors. If a brand fails to offer something truly compelling—whether that’s performance, price, brand equity, reliability, or innovation—it’s going to struggle. Unfortunately, the nature of economies of scale makes this consolidation almost a self-fulfilling prophecy.
To draw a parallel (albeit a slightly apples-to-oranges one), consider Intel’s struggles relative to Nvidia over the last decade. Resting on your laurels and failing to adapt opens the door for competitors to overtake you. Love them or hate them, it’s hard to argue with how effectively Specialized and similar brands have executed their strategies over the past five-plus years and how compelling the value prop is from these types of companies. Everyone has to sell at the same price(ish), but Specialized is going to sell a lot more bikes, and their COGS is likely lower than say, Transistion.
Regarding model year cycles, I’ve touched on this before (including on the podcast), and I completely agree with the sentiment here: they need to be longer. With performance reaching a plateau, longer cycles allow companies to amortize costs over extended periods and, in turn, reduce risk—provided they launch products that truly resonate with the market. Longer cycles also require companies to be more deliberate about what they bring to market. Margins are tighter, and it’s harder to sell in this environment, but if you do hit the mark, the product can generate revenue for a longer period.
Lastly, I’m confident that PON employs many smart individuals. They may not always make perfect decisions, but I guarantee someone there has a solid grasp of cost-based accounting and financial analysis. GT has probably been on the chopping block for years, and their only regret might be not making the decision sooner.
Solid breakdown.
I was always wondering how there were so many brands trying to eat from the same plate in this industry. In every consumer industry right now we are seeing large brands dominate with distribution and a selection of successful boutiques playing in the value, performance or some super niche space, but the mid-size brands seem to be failing in every industry.
It's safe to say Canyon pays Van der Poel 3-4x what they pay for entire enduro budget (riders, mechanics, travel, gear, marketing).
But recalls can destroy companies if they don't have proper insurance/cash reserves.
Post a reply to: The Bikeconomics (Mega)Thread