As I cruised through the halls of Anaheim’s Interbike ‘98 Bicycle Exposition, I was somewhat overwhelmed and truly amazed, at the sheer number of manufacturers promoting, displaying, and comparing their Freeriding products to that of their competitors. Almost every MTB manufacturer had at least one Freeride SKU (stock keeping unit) in their lineup for 1998. The consistent resemblance of product and operation are obvious. Plush full-suspension bikes with double-clamp suspension forks, riser handlebars and exotic paint schemes. Downhill full suspension style Mountain bikes for cross country application. The price points in this category ranged from under $1000 up to $4000.

Do we need this purported new concept? Maybe. Will it help to create additional sales for retailers? Possibly. Will all this hype for this so-called original category generate new interest in Mountain biking? Probably not. Is the terminology of this category correct? Definitely not. Is Freeriding a new innovation? I don’t think so. Freeriding is synonymous with freedom which is an analogue of cycling participation.

One of the true benefits and definite appeal of cycling is that once you have made your initial financial investment in equipment, ie: bicycle and helmet purchase, it does not require any monetary expenditure to participate. Every time I jump on one of my bikes to go riding, I enjoy the fact that the only cost of taking part in this activity, is the dedication of time and the burning of calories, not cash. I define this energetic participatory activity as what Freeriding is truly connected with. There are not too many other broad based appeal recreational activities that can boost the same claims.

As in the past, the manufacturers are attempting to define the direction of our industry. Don’t get me wrong, I think this category has it’s merits and advantages. But in order to improve the financial health of our industry, we must first be able to compete on a level playing field. Sixty-five percent of new bike sales are currently dominated by the mass merchandisers selling inexpensive bikes. Why can’t the major manufacturers give us quality merchandise that can be marketed by IBD’s profitably and retail for under $175? The time has come for all bicycle manufacturers to recognize the importance of their IBD network and provide retailers with a product at a competitive price-point advantage. The positive aspect of this vendor facilitation would only increase the total number of IBD cycling consumers, expanding unit sales to record levels domestically. This would not only benefit the bicycle retailers but increase manufacturers’ marketshare and profitably. Think about it - isn’t that what we are all pursuing?

 

Stuart Kleinberg
Spokesman Enterprises, Inc.
Cave Creek, Arizona