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
Let's not forget they operate from Andorra which is quite a good place tax-wise for individuals or companies.
10% on income for residents and companies, no sales tax, but there is a 4.5% VAT, there is no inheritance, estate or transfer tax and no tax is paid on Andorran investment income.
While it’s hard to know what’s going on at the big companies, I’ve recently heard the Stumpjumper 15 was the worst Specialized product launch in company history and will be going on sale soon.
Trek on the other hand hasn’t had a Nocal sales rep since last July. One of the biggest markets in the US. Dealers in the dark.
Saw a brand new Stumpy 15 Ohlins edition with a sale tag hanging from the handlebar in the window of my local Specialized dealer this week 😬
Between a not so great economy, huge amount of inventory out there that's already discounted, and changes that were marginal, outside of the shock, you get new products discounted right away.
Has anyone actually been paying retail? I picked up a discounted SJ15 frame the week it was released.
Specialized is having select models of stumpy15 and levo sl on dae atm. Pretty good discounts. Hopefully it’s a sign to reset prices going forward.
It could also be clearing house of overstock to make way for upcoming releases of models with shimano specs?
I saw a 2025 Slash+ being discounted already.
At this point there's no way any manufacturer will be able to sell their 2025 bikes at full MSRP in any kind of significant amount and I can easily see the situation being the same for 2026.
There's too many factors that will continue to do significant damage to the industry for quite a while.
Would be curious to hear from someone with a business or marketing background as to what a company is expecting us to pay when they decide on an MSRP. Coming out of Covid, has the mindset changed so that people simply won't buy anything at MSRP, so companies now set MSPR never really expecting the majority of units to be sold at MSRP?
Put differently, has the bike industry turned into one gigantic Men's Warehouse? If so, how does it come back from that?
Yeah theres a long list of reasons I could guess are to blame..most of it down to economy, I notice way way less people trading up to the latest model every year so I'm not surprised it hasn't taken off. As much as I would like to think people are getting wary of things like proprietary shocks, I doubt that has any influence here.
Usually you set MSRP price based on a target margin you want to hit to have X amount of net profit. Consumer price expectation is not really something quantifiable while your cost of goods, logistics & labor cost are all easily quantifiable. Comparable model market price can also be taken into consideration depending on your status and goals in a specific market.
Going off some reviews, it was questioned if the shock was a good enough reason to upgrade to the new bike.. The previous Stumpy Evo was considered to be a pretty good bike by most accounts.. If it was my money, a heavily discounted previous gen bike sounds pretty good to me if you have the 2 bikes side by side..
With all the above mentioned, Specialized launched it the stumpy 15 at the end of the season, and the alloy basically in the winter. Trek launched the Slash+ in the fall. They haven't even had a selling season to gain traction with customers. It says a lot that two big brands don't have confidence in the market that they won't even let bikes they've just launched get an actual riding season under their belts.
I noticed a trend going back before covid that brands weren't always waiting until certain times for a new product launch. It used to be summer/fall when the new model year was ready to drop or at Sea Otter to generate a buzz at the booth and online. They had it figured out close enough that the old bike was sold out or close to it and the new model was ready, so they dropped it. I suspect both Trek and Specialized pushed these 2 launches off as long as possible to make room in the warehouses here. And now Trek has the new Rail that just dropped and I've been hearing rumors of a new Levo that Specialized is pushing off as long as they can right now..
Any words on Alchemy? Pretty much sold out of every MTB aside from a couple XLs, and the gravel stock seems low as well.
It probably goes back to big brands like Trek and Specialized pulling out of trade shows - namely Interbike - and doing their own events. That makes a lot of sense from a brand's perspective, especially a big bike brand. You get to host your own event on your own timeline with a captive audience. One that's only there to see your stuff - your brand doesn't have to compete for attention on a crowded trade show floor. It also means you get to wine and dine a bunch of media in a cool location where they actually get to ride the bike somewhere besides Bootleg Canyon.
Man do I miss the old Interbike days!! Getting to mess with all the pros and getting to see all the cool stuff and the freebies were the best!!!
Very good point that I completely spaced on.. And, honestly I was able to understand why they did it.. The costs to attend Interbike were huge and the return for a larger company wasn't really there.. For smaller companies looking to get exposure, it could make some sense.. Even when I was at Marzocchi, we figured we could bring in our top 20 dealers for a weekend and spend less money than the week in Vegas..
Was in Golden last week and their space their space was vacant. Still had signage but nothing much left inside the space.
Rumors that IB is trying to make a comeback in '26. I honestly don't know why brands would want to attend given the cost and rumored location. The CABDA model seems better if they could manage to add a southeast and northwest venue to the mix.
Looks like they removed their phone number from the site as well. Had a hell of a time pulling the linkage apart on one of their bikes a couple years ago and called them up and they were super helpful. My guess is that they are done…
From my perspective, the key theme emerging in this thread over the past few days is just how significant of a headwind the plateauing of performance has become for the broader industry. I’ve been hammering this point for a while, but it’s worth reiterating: there’s nothing inherent in bicycle engineering that guarantees the new model will be meaningfully better than the old one.
Marketers do what they do best—convincing us that every new bike is a game-changer. Cognitive bias is powerful, and for years, we’ve all been conditioned to believe in the necessity of frequent upgrades (and I'd argue this was for good reason). But I think we’re collectively realizing that you don’t need to upgrade as often as before. More and more, it’s simply more cost-effective to replace what breaks and keep riding.
It’s a shame that product testers don’t have a standardized "test track" with a Top Gear-style 'Stig' to rigorously evaluate bikes and components. Something like that could cut through a lot of the marketing noise. Of course, you’d need a "best of three" format or similar, and track conditions do change, making true apples-to-apples comparisons tricky. But even a slightly more objective testing approach could make us all step back and say, "Whoa. The new bike isn't really any faster". If that kind of data existed, it would likely reinforce the trend of fewer new bikes being sold and provide a clearer explanation for the market shift.
Big picture, I think we’ll continue to see margin compression and lower sales volumes, possibly offset by an increase in replacement part sales. Serious riders might become more inclined to upgrade individual components, like a fork, rather than swapping out their entire bike.
Time will tell.
I mean I feel like the vast majority of long term reviews are by guys who are primarily riding their home trails. And the whole first look product launch is exactly what it is described as. In field shoot outs it’s common for testers to do exactly what you prescribed. Whether it’s the vital boys taking a trip to mountain creek or pinkbike using a test track somewhere in bc. I don’t think bike reviews are the end all be all of marketing. Really I think it primarily applies to people who don’t know much about the sport and are looking to buy into it. And even then there is probably a better way to differentiate yourself whether it’s a gmbn, investing in local bike scenes, and who your rider roster is.
it’s no surprise the spec 15 isn’t selling well when spec is blowing out enduros and evos at 50 percent off despite the overwhelmingly good reviews about what it has to offer. And while I have no issue with it personally I’m sure there is some weight weenie out there that wants the carbon model with a mechanical shifter. At least more of them than people who say oh man I really don’t want a hole in my chainstay and a few grams of weightsaving that is counteracted by a heavy derailleur. (Personally I lowkey like the idea of a clean looking bike that only has a nicely executed external brake routing for an expensive carbon model).
RE track: 1:04.
Yeah this might come as a shock to people but I don't think many brands are making excessive margins just because they can....after being in business a few years now I realise how quickly what looks like a healthy margin can get eaten up by overheads or a slightly below average monthly turnover. Covid showed that business which appear to be healthy still feel the squeeze once trading effectively stops!
Each brand has different pricing strategies but very few work in the same way as the high volume retailers in other industries, where they can routinely offer massive discounts. There are a handful but even those companies rely on constant turnover to survive
Point is if a bike brand needs to sell a bike for $10,000 to be sustainable, they aren't listing them at $14,000. Maybe $11,000 will give them some breathing room for market fluctuation but peoples tolerance for bike prices are wearing thin so I doubt many brands are charging a ton if they don't need to.
E-bikes in particular are an interesting one - I got out of bike retail just as they were hitting their stride but with the amount of complex parts and lack of reliability from some brands makes it look like shops lose a ton of time and money in support for those. So they need to be making good margin just to break even really. And from the consumer perspective they dropped a crapload of money on that bike so its reasonable to expect reliability, and if they don't get it then the aftermarket support should be excellent, which comes at a cost somewhere along the line...
Honestly while I agree bikes are too expensive now, I also don't think the industry as a whole is efficient enough or making enough margin to be functional. I think theres room for bikes to be made more reliable which would save the post-sale labour costs and therefore the MSRP doesn't need to be increased any further
in Brian Cahal's YouTube video, they take a 2016 Bronson vs 2024 Bronson on 2 tracks and their times are pretty much identical. Has to say something.
With e-bikes, the tech is changing so fast so I think a lot of potential buyers/upgraders are staying on the sidelines for a bit.
I haven't read the previous pages so I may be repeating something's that's been already said, but I'm thinking that's also why we see gearboxes and more exotic transmissions (2 chains) more often now.
The whole traditionnal mtb has "plateaued", the only or so thing that remains is the archaic but pretty efficient derailleur transmission.
One hunnid percent.
During Covid I sold off most of my bikes, because I only rode a couple of them and - my god - the prices used bikes were going for... I pared my collection down to my V2 Hightower and my road bike. Over the next couple years, I rode the absolute shit out of that bike and it became my all-time favorite. Fast forward a bit and the V3 HT comes out and my buddy at SC was like, "bruh you gotta get that new new!" So, I bought a new frame.
The new bike was good, but I didn't gel with it immediately and I ended up having all kinds of issues with the build. The issues were not SC's fault as I did a frame up build, to be clear. After having a couple of my biggest get offs ever in the first few months of ownership - including a hugey in Whistler that reaggravated a back injury - that thing had to go!
The whole process really got me thinking along the lines of Jeff's point. The V3 was bigger and burlier than the V2 and I did like the peppier feel of the suspension on V3, but was it a better bike or just different? Ultimately, I regret selling the V2 which makes it one of a small handful of bikes I feel that way about.
I now have a burly bike and a light(ish) bike and feel no urge to look for replacements.
re: same test track for reviews:
this is going to turn into a tangent...maybe we start a new thread about it? it's a fun topic. like bullet bassman said, whenever we've had a test session, it's always using the same trail(s) throughout the week of testing, so every product gets the same laps.
why not just use race results to pick the best bike if speed or data matters most?
any tester with solid riding skills on any test bike they've had a chance to get familiar with would probably lay down nearly identical times on the same track. so a stumpy would get a 3:16 and the bronson would get a 3:18 - is it really a meaningful metric for which bike is better? then, wouldn't every component need to be identical for a review to be *accurate*? (i've always hated the idea of control tires or control X component if reviewing a complete bike...the whole point is reviewing what you get out of the box for the price paid IMO. if tires suck, say the tires suck and that you'll be out $200 upgrading rubber if you buy this bike)
i can almost guarantee the fastest bike wouldn't always be the bike a tester liked most. in our fork shootout the highest scoring fork based on their criteria and rankings (zeb i think?) wasn't what jonny or jason wanted to take home (ohlins). so did the scoring/ranking really matter...it was basically a 3-way tie.
i think identifying with the reviewer, their riding style and their perceptions for how a bike/component feels on a trail is where tests and reviews are valuable (top gear seems that way too...sure X car is fast, but which was the most fun for chris harris is all i find interesting : )
(add-on) i forgot we did two "which is fastest" tests many years ago - DH - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFy2frdkeCw and enduro - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwUaLKUTDjs - i don't remember if the fastest bikes were the favorites.
Any top gear fans? We need a Stig
Not sure if this is related, but on the subject of how you identify with the reviewer I really appreciate it when reviews include stuff like the rider weight, height and the kind of suspension settings they use. Mostly helps when setting people up on bikes I'm not familiar with, but it also gives some context to what they thought of it and how much it relates to me or maybe a customer. Not all bike companies are great at supplying decent settings so having some kind of leg up for new owners can really help their initial impressions of the bike!
Post a reply to: The Bikeconomics (Mega)Thread