Nico Vouilloz and Fabien Barel Discuss 29ers in DH 69

Big wheels - yay or nay? Two legends of the sport weigh in with their thoughts.

iceman2058
5/2/2017 3:53am
s1600 Fabien and Nico Audio slide Troy on trainer 645406

Strolling around the Lourdes paddocks on the morning of race day, we caught Nico Vouilloz and Fabien Barel having a little chat behind the Canyon pits. We took the opportunity to ask these two legends of downhill what they think of the arrival of bigger wheels in the World Cup, and whether or not the UCI should take a look at putting in place some rules or regulations regarding wheelsize in DH. Check the audio below to find out what they had to say!

Sadly, the weather threw a big spanner in the works and robbed us of getting a few more answers here in Lourdes. Troy Brosnan's run was ruined - he still sent the gully gap though, as the true shredder that he is.

Loris Vergier was looking calm, collected, and FAST in morning practice, ready to back up his fastest qualifier with a race win, to really put the big wheels on the map. It wasn't to be, he was last man down the hill and had to ride in a monsoon.


Want more? -> All Things Lourdes

Related:
Canyon
UCI Mountain Bike World Cup
Downhill
Lourdes, France
Troy Brosnan
Fabien Barel
Nicolas Vouilloz
69 comments

View replies to: Nico Vouilloz and Fabien Barel Discuss 29ers in DH

c50 IMG 2339 flat tire.jpg?VersionId=JFWzKCTUPPCh6Os9qZKSrViz8Ue 4
Zoro
7 years ago
@Brines, Isiah scored 53 last night and he's a generous 5.8! JK, I know he's an outlier, but had to point it out!!!
1
c50 68022 10100644556854875 1844876852 n 1402753821
matmattmatthew
7 years ago
I agree, I didn't think I would hear that from Niko. Didn't he essentially go out on his own and create the V-process because he wasn't happy with other frames. He had radical geometry and technology that was ahead of everyone else and won a ton of races. Seems like a pot/kettle situation.
4
1
avatar.png?VersionId=TkOXSLqxgAC412Y 1F6UyzOaMSkN
Lighthowler
7 years ago
When 27.5 came out the smartest thing the companies did was make sure they were not compatible with 26 with the exception of Scott Rocky Mountain.
People don't realise that the big companies have business analysts and strategy men who advise to ensure constant renewed business these analysts and advisors aren't even into bikes. Electrical companies test to ensure failures after a certain period for this exact reason.
Bikes due to safety and brand reputation ensure the renewed 2yr cycle of repeat business by changing standards and eliminating backwards compatibility.

All this waste and nonsense will be at the customers and fans expense while the industry laughs.
Not so much wolves in sheeps clothing more wolves in shepherds clothing.
c50 149187 936024901533 10205078 50991835 3734911 n
jeff.brines
7 years ago
Just to point something out, what you are suggesting goes against free markets and capitalism as a whole. Although "engineered" failure is kind of a thing (edit, outside the bike industry), failure/needing to upgrade generally has everything to do with cost/benefit/lifecycle than it is a "lets build this so they have to buy more". If its the latter, this is where a better company steps in to fill the unmet needs in the market with a superior product.

What I'm saying here is the bike industry is too small and too competitive for there to be some underlying conspiracy to keep us buying stuff we don't want or breaking stuff that otherwise wouldn't break at the same price point/weight/performance level.

As far as forcing us to buy new stuff based off legacy, last I checked I can still buy 26" tires and wheels. In fact, my last 26" bike is still kicking just fine. The same will happen with 27.5" if 29" does prove to be the advantage, which I'm still not sure is universally true. I've also refurbished a number of old bikes (threaded headset anyone?) with zero problems in terms of compatibility.

Innovation means you have to step outside the lines to find and edge. Thats what this is about, finding an edge to put a rider on top, and frankly - its one reason why I love racing.Nobody ever said every component that is engineered has to be reverse compatible.

Reminds me of video game systems in a way.... If you forced every video game to be reverse compatible with old systems the whole industry would come to a grinding halt.

and just cause something new comes out, that doesn't make super mario any less fun to play...
1
1
avatar.png?VersionId=TkOXSLqxgAC412Y 1F6UyzOaMSkN
Lighthowler
7 years ago
Heard of Dyson vacuum cleaners? Check your local recycling centre and you'll see a pile of em yet people still buy them and at greater cost than their competition.
Saying bikings a small industry isn't true, how much was Santa Cruz sold for.
Recent purchase of chain reaction by wiggle should be enough to show there is enough room for the conspiracy.

Sorry about the long post. Taken from wiki key points are making things unfashionable or less efficient i.e. 29 ers in downhill.



The industry knows people will follow time after time after time



Planned obsolescence or built-in obsolescence in industrial design and economics is a policy of planning or designing a product with an artificially limited useful life, so it will become obsolete (that is, unfashionable or no longer functional) after a certain period of time.[1] The rationale behind the strategy is to generate long-term sales volume by reducing the time between repeat purchases (referred to as "shortening the replacement cycle").[2]

Producers that pursue this strategy believe that the additional sales revenue it creates more than offsets the additional costs of research and development and opportunity costs of existing product line cannibalization. In a competitive industry, this is a risky strategy because when consumers catch on to this, they may decide to buy from competitors instead.

Planned obsolescence tends to work best when a producer has at least an oligopoly.[3] Before introducing a planned obsolescence, the producer has to know that the consumer is at least somewhat likely to buy a replacement from them. In these cases of planned obsolescence, there is an information asymmetry between the producer – who knows how long the product was designed to last – and the consumer, who does not. When a market becomes more competitive, product lifespans tend to increase.[citation needed] For example, when Japanese vehicles with longer lifespans entered the American market in the 1960s and 1970s, American carmakers were forced to respond by building more durable products.[4] A counterexample is Moore's law, stating that the rather competitive electronic industry plans for double computer capacity every 18 months, and the software industry plan for new program versions that require double computer capacity every 18 months.[5]
1
avatar.png?VersionId=TkOXSLqxgAC412Y 1F6UyzOaMSkN
Lighthowler
7 years ago
Producers that pursue this strategy believe that the additional sales revenue it creates more than offsets the additional costs of research and development

That's a key point knowing Santa Cruz will sell enough to offset r and d the point is the smaller brands don't sell enough to offset r and d therefore it's a possible strategy to " starve the competition" by continually changing standards.
This IS capitalism
c50 149187 936024901533 10205078 50991835 3734911 n
jeff.brines
7 years ago
Relatively speaking, the cycling industry is not big. Sales are somewhere around $6.1B per year. To put that in perspective, United Technologies (UTX) posted sales of $13.8B last quarter. Santa Cruz isn't a small company in the bike world, but it was sold for millions, not billions. In the grand scheme of things, it'd still be considered a "small cap" company.

I whole heatedly do not believe any manufacturer we we regard as "good" would ever do anything to artificially limit the life of their bike or force you to upgrade due to design. Maybe stuff will break, maybe better stuff will come to market, but that has more to do with the company doing their best to find a balance between weight, performance and price all driven by a hyper competitive market where razor thin advantages keep you in business or push you into bankruptcy.

As far as a 29" wheel on a longer travel bike somehow making other bikes obsolete as part of what you suggest, I again, say "no" simply based off the fact you can still get 26" parts. Nobody is forcing you to upgrade. If you race, well, by and large the idea of racing is all about going fast and finding an advantage. Again, nobody is forcing you to race either.

As your wiki article implies, you need an oligopoly for this to work. The bike industry is the opposite of this, with small manufacturers always willing to crop up simply because its such a fun sport (or so it seems!).
1
avatar.png?VersionId=TkOXSLqxgAC412Y 1F6UyzOaMSkN
Lighthowler
7 years ago
Wow 6 billion hardly small is it,

There's also a massive mark up on frames.

The oligopoly is provided by the consumer believing the new development is a must have and an increase in performance. 26 may not be obsolete but it's definitely no longer fashionable hence the lack of availability of new 26 inch bikes.

Industrial tricks within the psychology of consumerism usually rely on a naive consumer
Screen Shot 2020-05-01 at 9.45.53 PM.png?VersionId=kCnAWAb.At
erik saunders
7 years ago
oh boy... you guys are just about to go down the rabbit hole... the things i could tell you... i can say however that there is no nefarious "planned obsolescence"... the so-called additional sales revenue comes from people who just cant stop themselves from buying stuff... true story... the rest, you'll have to catch me for a beer and i can explain to you how the bike business works for real...
2
avatar.png?VersionId=TkOXSLqxgAC412Y 1F6UyzOaMSkN
Lighthowler
7 years ago
It's not hard to imagine a business consultant walking into one of the bike manufacturers offices and his jaw dropping when he's told proudly "our bikes are lasting 10-15 years"
"Dont you realise you could quadruple your profits if you make them last 3 years?"
"We can't engineer them to break!"
"Mmmmm how about continually changing the standards?"
"Yeah we could do that , get fox and maxxis on the phone!"

I think there's definitely signs of technological creep that suits the manufacturers rather than big jumps that suit the consumer, rather than making big changes like jumping from 26 to 29 let's make a standard in between!

I know a bit about the sharks that swim in business that's for sure!

Maybe it's not as sinister as I say but it could be, 20mm boost is this weeks new standard roll up roll up!
c50 149187 936024901533 10205078 50991835 3734911 n
jeff.brines
7 years ago
Again, we'll always disagree here but my 20 years of adventure sports experience says otherwise. My education in economics and dayjob in finance also says otherwise. You are arguing against how innovation works and how markets work.

Bigger companies can throw their weight around and cause a bit of turbulence for sure (Trek with boost for instance), but being a number of my close buddies are engineers within the space, they all say the same thing.

"Don't buy it if you don't like it, nobody is forcing you to upgrade".

Simple as that.

Nobody is forcing you to buy anything in the sport. Nobody is saying "to ride down this here hill you need 29" tires, boost, XXmm axles, XXmm wide rims etc.

Progress comes at the expense of change. A company must introduce something new, or die. And some of those innovations mean new standards, new wheels, new this or new that. "Progress" and "New" often go in the same sentence.

If its not worth the squeeze, we don't have to bite. What is incredible is the industry will continue to make legacy product. Maybe 10 years from now you can't buy the new XYZ fork for your 26" bike, but you can still buy a suspension fork of similar caliber for the era your 26" bike. Nobody is forcing you to buy anything new *unless you want something better*. I believe having something better is not a right, its not something you are entitled to.

Remember, in most any other technology driven sport, there is no standard. Period. You can't just take a Honda motor and swap it into a KTM chassis. Hell, you can't even take a wheel and swap it. I can't put my Polaris sled skis on my buddies Cat (without a bunch of modifying). I can't put fuel injection on my CB650 (well, I can, but it costs a ton).

You have to accept new standards or we have to accept little to no progress.

No conspiracy other than the fact the bike industry is (and always will be) populated by a bunch of nerds (like me) looking for an edge over my more talented friends. And I'll buy it if I have to...
2
1
avatar.png?VersionId=TkOXSLqxgAC412Y 1F6UyzOaMSkN
Lighthowler
7 years ago
Yeah Jeff we will always disagree,
I owned a successful engineering business for 18 years we shipped products worldwide, our products were for the offshore oil industry so I'm not without experience and insight myself. If you think these companies just employ bike fans you clearly have a naive view of the world.
1
c50 6ZZ 1 Q9ZVH
JMHV
7 years ago
After hearingJose Gonzales great summation about the state of standards, I can't even listen to guys talk about limiting progression without them sounding like little old ladies. But I still love all the old kooks.
3
avatar.png?VersionId=TkOXSLqxgAC412Y 1F6UyzOaMSkN
traildog
7 years ago
agreed, but I also think these guys were pretty candid about not being concerned with the "fairness" of new tech but rather the potential for the industry to self-destruct through too many options. it's the same argument for the tire width restrictions in CX- not that a wider selection of tires isn't beneficial, but that the small teams simply can't afford to have all the options glued up at once, so regulation is necessary to create a level playing field. I'm not particularly passionate either way, but do think there's got to be a balance between showcasing R&D while also creating a level playing field.
3
1
Screen Shot 2020-05-01 at 9.45.53 PM.png?VersionId=kCnAWAb.At
erik saunders
7 years ago
I think you really have made the right point here... a great example is the UCI decisions to limit the development of aerodynamic bikes in the 2000's and the decisions that all race bikes need approval and have to be available for sale to the public... before these rules, bikes were getting so expensive and specialized that athletes from poorer nations were not able to compete at the same level only because they lacked equipment... this was especially prevalent on the track where the bike makes such a difference that its impossible to win without the latest tech... thats a bad thing for the sport because its no longer a contest between athletes... you would have some nation like Ukraine getting smashed in the face in team pursuit by Italy or Australia because they were on steel round tube bikes... no chance to win just because of equipment... I dont know if DH is there... i think the equipment parity right now is good between privateers and full factory riders... the difference is in management of resources i would think... not in equipment... but if DH ever looked like track cycling in 2002 it would be terrible...
3
1
avatar.png?VersionId=TkOXSLqxgAC412Y 1F6UyzOaMSkN
groghunter
7 years ago
I made a similar point in the "should there be a 29er class" thread, but I focused a bit more on the industry consequences. DH is not road biking. At the end of the day, there will still be enough people willing to pony up cash for pro road teams to get decent field at events like TDF. & road bike R&D is cost positive, in that they sell enough of those bikes to break even, before considering racing.

DH is a cost negative for many brands. They don't sell enough of these bikes to justify making them, they have to rely on them as halo product to drive sales of other bikes in their lines. But DH isn't the halo event it once was. EWS has taken a big bite out of that apple, & has more participants, & is raced on bikes that actually sell well, to boot. Look at a brand like Rocky Mountain. After a long time not sponsoring a racing team, they have people on their bikes this year. If they need to now scrap a fairly new frame design, & do all new molds for a 29er version, they have to take a look at the cost/benefit of doing that, vs investing more in EWS. Arguing for spending on WC racing in that light is pretty hard. Heck, look at Devinci. If we're finding out about this in the last few months, they had to have had at least a rumor of it when they decided not to field a WC team this year.

But worse than that, DH is already weak, compared to road. They lose 3-5 teams, & some real competitive riders don't have a sponsor. Not a healthy outcome for the sport.

I mean, the UCI put their foot down on skinsuits, gearboxes(Honda team) & different wheel sizes on the same bike. This is obviously detrimental to a segment that is just rebounding from all the brands that couldn't justify leaping to 650b right away, where are they here?
3
avatar.png?VersionId=TkOXSLqxgAC412Y 1F6UyzOaMSkN
Lighthowler
7 years ago
I wonder how much money will be wasted collectively by canyon, propain, radon, Saracen plus others who have just finished developing a design plus norco who have only just finished a prototype that was due to enter production.
It will be interesting to see if Santa Cruz offer a rear triangle linkage upgrade to existing owners, my guess is they will make changes to ensure all the sc fanboys have to buy total frames.
It looks like the best and most likely action for teams is to cobble 29 frames out of existing 27.5 and use angle sets etc to correct geometry hardly the technological advancement everyone's raging about.
Also road cycling has a rule stating a frame cannot be developed to suit 1 rider. No wonder minaar was begging loris to go 29.
1
c50 kokl
russthedog
7 years ago
I'm not sure ews has actually taken much of a bite out of it? By comparison I can really see ews is participant driven (for the rider), but its not even close to dh in terms of glitz/glamour/ personalities/ attractiveness/ coverage etc etc etc. If you want to run a test look at ews athletes social media popularity compared to dh athletes - its not even in the same ballpark! Coverage is important. I don't know anyone that's stopped following the world cup events since the ews started, and many of the don't follow ews at all. Lots of them only race enduro events.

Personally for me having a good dh bike and team means I pay attention to the brand ad have trust you can make a bike that is competitive and durable. Marketing has worked on me! If I was to think about what I think about something like rocky mountain, I don't believe any of their bikes are cutting edge enough for me to get a performance advantage (not saying its true, just assessing my feelings). But spesh, mondraker, yt, canyon, trek, Kona, commencal, polygon - I feel they know how to make bikes that genuinely perform well. Again, just my feelings.

Once last addition from me is that I think the dh bike is the only MTb made without compromise, and that part of why it influences me so much. Handling and control are everything. As soon as you have to go up and down you have to compromise something....although not according to the marketing spiel out there lol.
1

Deals

See All »