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
The worst part is someone saw that and thought "Yes, this is the high end bike i've always wanted" because its expensive, not because its good.
Are Canyon bikes subject to Amazon's dynamic pricing? Because the listed retail price for that bike on Canyon's own website is $2,299 (USD).
(For background: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amazon-surge-pricing-are-you-getting-ripped-off-small-business/)
I'm thinking Canyon should be able to maintain whatever pricing they want since they are the only seller.. As opposed to something like a light where you may have 20 sellers selling the same light. Sometimes you may have a MAP policy in place, but some people will try and sneak around that by dropping the price on Friday night and putting it back to MSRP before anyone gets back to the office on Monday morning..
I also would have assumed that Canyon would maintain control over pricing. But then why the absurd price shown in that screenshot?
I had considered a spectral 125 but the extra shipping and fees added at checkout made it more than other bikes I was looking at. I was curious what Amazon would have and searched, that fat bike was first thing that showed up at a ridiculous price.
We need to help bezos get another half billion dollar yacht.
Human error?
Been on the road a bit this past week but wanted to drop a few thoughts. I also saw I was tagged in a post linking to a solid BR article, but it got deleted so I'm reposting it here because it’s highly relevant to this thread and sheds light on Canyon’s financial health.
Canyon’s valuation has been written down. GBL, who owns ~50% of Canyon (I don’t know much about them), dropped the value of their stake from €460M to €261M even though sales were flat YoY. Worth noting: since GBL is based in Europe, they report under IFRS 9 (think of it like European GAAP). That means they’re legally required to mark the value of equity stakes to market each reporting period. This gets reviewed by third-party auditors. Because it’s an unrealized loss, there’s no tax-loss harvesting or other hidden incentive here. This is just fair value accounting doing its thing.
So why the haircut? Even though sales held steady, Canyon’s profitability cratered. Net loss widened from €14M to €38M, and EBITDA keeps sliding. We’ve all discussed why at length in this thread: softening consumer demand, bloated inventory, slowed industry innovation, and warranty issues (in this case, batteries).
Multiple compression is real. This part’s sneaky but critical. Unless you’re building AI infra/AI native software (me rn) or a new GLP-1 drug, your valuation multiple has probably come down. Investors used to pay higher multiples for the same financials. Now? Not so much. Free money dried up, rates rose, the Fed tightened, and the risk-on capital dried up. So even if Canyon’s financials were flat or improving, they’d likely still be worth less in 2025 than they were in 2022. That’s the brutal reality of how markets reprice risk.
Amazon. Not surprising at all. A lot of people don’t realize Amazon is basically just another sales channel. You pay to play, but if you control your own distribution and brand (like Canyon does), there’s little downside. What this tells me: they need to move units and they’re open to experimenting. Amazon crushes conversion because of trust (people tend to think "easy returns, fast shipping" - even if Canyon is filling all orders, which I bet they are) and a killer UI (even if it’s ugly, it works). It’s not for everyone, but if it lifts sales by even 2–8%? Worth it.
Hope that adds some color.
EDIT: I'm pretty sure the Canyon (or maybe YT?) CEO came from Amazon, right?
As always, thanks for the insight Jeff!
Canyon CEO comes from Nike (specifically Jordan) and Zara. Extensive experience developping e-commerce at both.
Nobl was really good with rim replacement and rebuild. I paid for new spokes and nipples. Really quick turn around.
MTB-adjacent news; the Warner Bros/Discovery Omincorp/financial dumpster fire that currently holds the rights to the UCI World Cup Broadcasts is being unpicked at great speed. Hopefully this makes watching World Cup broadcasts even more of a confusing and expensive endeavour, as seems to be the grand plan going forward.
Interesting read. I'll await further price increase announcements. 🤣
Taken from the article;
“By operating as two distinct and optimized companies in the future, we are empowering these iconic brands with the sharper focus and strategic flexibility they need to compete most effectively in today’s evolving media landscape,” said David Zaslav, Warner Bros. Discovery’s president and chief executive,
Hard to think of a better example of corporate speak. 🙄
Fun fact: Zaslav was paid $52,000,000 in 2024.
Slightly off topic question for the lovely people of this forum: If Yeti took the time to make carbon moulds for their dh bike, why not take it to market? Could they not break even or at least offset development cost selling it? I am sure they could get at least a few Boulder e bike dads to buy one for their biannual Trestle blue flow trip. DH bike sales have slowed a great deal for a reason. I am not sure how many v10s get sold but Santa Cruz offers it.
My only thought is why not make the bike aluminum if its just a race project? I guess this question is predicated on an assumption I have carried that aluminum=prototype, carbon=it better go to production at some point. I would love ot hear info from anyone with better knowledge of the finances behind dh bikes and production.
I don't know with yeti in particular... but from a friend with industry knowledge that I spend a bunch of time with. He theorizes that many of the DH bikes that are carbon, yet not being brought to market, are being made on CNC'd aluminum prototype moulds. These are fine for limited production where you're doing hand QA/QC for each product and can monitor the mould for degradation and for overall accuracy. This is quite difficult to do with any sort of scaling and hence, why steel moulds are used for production. From what I understand, there are a few brands using proto moulds for production (Crestline last I understood)... but it's hard for those brands to predict how many batches they will get before the moulds are kaput. Harder for a larger brand to manage that.
Id like to believe they are using a cheaper mold, ie ones that are not designed to handle thousands of frames.
I remember a video of some brand talking about the 3 different setups, 2 different molds, ones for more prototype style testing and other for big batches.
3rd being a mold that isnt IP owned by a brand but its infact owned by the factory... Theres usally a deal, after X amount of frames or years, the factory can use that mold for themselves(or similar, Cant remember the details fully)
That is fascinating! I guess it stands to reason that there are different levels of molds.
i asked about aluminum vs "real" molds for the yeti and was told they were real molds, not temporary. but, as noted in a few pit bits and things over the season, all the frame-specific component pieces are still just 3d printed at yeti. was also told production of this bike is the last thing on their minds right now, so...
If Yeti was making the prototype in-house then yeah full aluminum or like pivot and specialized did with alu lugs and custom wound CF tubes is the simplest way since you don't care about serialized production.
But Yeti are probably using their usual Asian carbon manufacturer that is only setup for full mold carbon production. I heard of mold cost being around 250k$ USD so if most of the Yeti DH riders can be on one or two size that is actually only a 500k$ mold cost unlike a normal production for public where you would have at least 4-5 size available. And apart from the mold, carbon production doesn't require any other big fixture or setup cost unlike aluminum where you need jigs, high MOQ butted tube orders and more trained workers.
Did you mean to post this in tech rumours? Unless this non-production bike is expected to bankrupt them.
A few thoughts:
On the Reserve warranty changes:
This isn’t surprising and doesn’t suggest the company is failing. It’s more of a “this isn’t sustainable” moment. Is it a little shady to shift direction after a big splash on the original policy? Maybe. But Santa Cruz isn’t the first to do it, and I’d still choose Reserves over most rims out there (if I wanted carbon). I suspect this will evolve like Patagonia’s warranty. They’ll keep honoring it, but after enough claims, you’ll get the side eye or a bit of guilt. Up to you to decide what’s right or wrong. I'm just observing.
Side note: it’s a bit ironic that some people push hard on sustainability in one breath, then complain about not getting a full replacement wheel every time they break a rim. I’m not saying anyone here does that, but I’ve noticed it elsewhere.
On Yeti’s DH bike:
Yes, molds are expensive, but having seen the behind-the-scenes with a few brands, there’s a lot more cost variability than people think. Molds are just one part of the upfront capital needed to launch a bike.
If I put on a CFO hat, I’d probably say launching a DH bike is a hard no. The sales volume will be low, inventory turns will be poor, warranties will be high, and margins aren’t amazing. The capex to really go to market with the bike and stock wharehouses with it could likely be used much more effectively elsewhere. I’d chalk the DH bike up as a marketing expense. It's probably no more costly than adding another rider to the team.
Small little adendum. I could see a world where they do a limited launch pre-order type of thing. Would it be worth it? Maybe, but probably not. They'd realistically have to move over 100 for it to really make sense and I'm not sure there are a 100 dentists/Yeti afficiandos/just-sold-my-company types out there.
Based off the cost for injection molding plastic tools in the west, I'd be surprised one single mold for a carbon bike in Asia is 250k. I'd say a set of molds to cover all the sizes and the production across a few model years will be 250k.
The materials and QA comment was also correct, steel is quite foolproof and enables you to work quickly. With aluminium you have to be really careful cutting off the excess of plies at the parting line to not damage the mould's hard edge on the parting line. Then there are also other materials you can make your small-batch moulds from, for example carbon itself. Which coincidentally is a really good material due to thermal expansion properties - the same as the part you are making, which is soooooomewhat true for steel and quite not true for aluminium (you can have dimensional and stability issues making parts in aluminium moulds).
The Industry Nine and We Are One merger is official:
https://industrynine.com/we-are-one-acquisition
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DKuJ60nyBZT/?igsh=MWJjYThld244a205dw==
The full interview over on the pink site is pretty cool. Dustin from WAO and Clint from i9 seem to really mesh well and the relationship may prove fruitful for both. Clint even half jokes about eventually transferring ownership to Dustin one day.
Your guess is rougly correct regarding the cost of tooling (molds) for a full size set of carbon bike frames. There's ways of saving on that $250K USD like limiting sizes (ie. 2 or 3 sizes instead of the full spectrum), but that's well within the ballpark.
As for the carbon vs alloy point, tooling to produce alloy bikes is often less expensive BUT this is largely dependant on how complex or not the frame design is. Complex designs can be much more complicated to manufacture in alloy, with more difficulties related to scalling and quality assurance, etc.
DH bikes and teams are first and foremost a marketing asset. Having a bike at the pointy end of the spectrum is good for your brand image and "arguably" helps you sell your other, more profitable bikes. But selling DH bikes in this day and age is rarely, if ever, a profitable endeavour.
I have good reason to believe for Yeti this cost is notably lower, but at the end of the day its still immaterial in the grand scheme of things. Running a DH team is a 7 figure endeavor. Developing a frame for a limited production run (20-30 frames) is a chunk, but its amortized over the life of the team (and bike) which is likely 4ish years. Its not a huge expense.
Going to market with the bike is a whole other thing from a capex/expense perspective.
This thread should probably be retitled something like "Industry news and discussion" since its original scope has expanded...and hopefully continues to expand into more positive news
We can rebrand it October 3 2025, when we will have the decisive answer as to whether more companies will be shutting down in the next 12-24 months from the time of original posting.
Them splitting up is them finally addressing the elephant in the room. That they have one property that’s very profitable now and is definitely dying. And another that is not profitable at all that’s really the only option going forward. The question really is where does cycling get lumped into and where does all the debt go. Maybe Jeff can provide some insight into this going forward.
Also if you think saslav got paid just imagine the lawyers and consultants. Only cost them half the value of their stock on top of it.
How down bad was WAO?
On another note I am excited to be able to use a warranty channel that doesn't need to clear customs and will use cheaper shipping.
From their interview on Blister's Bike and Big Ideas podcast, it doesn't sound like they were down much if at all. The takeover was discussed a bit, and is more about increasing capacity.
I'm sure tariffs played a role too. Getting US based distribution probably helps on that, even if its just that higher scale means lower wholesale cost for the tariffs to cut into.
Post a reply to: The Bikeconomics (Mega)Thread