Gas Gas Future?

[nigel dabster]

was usually magnesium arms that broke

[eddie_lejeune]

depends on you land as well

[heavydabber]

I wonder if the FIM's increase in the minimum weight limit for WTC bikes wasn't intended to pass down into making production bikes a bit more robust?

When it gets to the stage that Joe Punter's £6k bike is so light that it's snapping in two, that's not doing anything for either the manufacturers or the sport in general.

A year or so ago there was an interview with Scorpa boss Marc Tessier where he predicted the coming downfall of a couple of un-named manufacturers. Enduro etc bikes were subsidising loss making trials bikes, which were sold too cheap and in insufficient numbers (and I don't know how you square that circle). He might well have been right though.

Edited March 7, 2015 by heavydabber

[baldilocks]

Trials dealers importers and factories going bust is a regular thing, its been happening since the 60s. However everyone still starts off using the same business plan.

[dan williams]

I remember when GasGas came into the U.S. market their bikes were priced under the competition. Not an unusual plan to take market share. In response the other manufacturers tried to compete on price. That causes an across the board downward pressure that is actually destructive to the sport. The argument that a lower price point brings more riders in seems logical on the surface but when you dig deeper it means insufficient profit for the factories to survive. Depressed used bike prices which slows turnover of new bikes so long term fewer dealers can make a go of it. And eventually failure of some brands that has to result in an increase of bike prices back to a more normal level.

This isn't just a new phenomenon. Trials is cyclical. The same thing happened with the influx of cheaper two stokes in Sammy Miller's day and the influx of cheaper Japanese machines in the 70's. Being a small market trials tends to feel the effects of any disruption more keenly than the rest of the market. Some manufacturers learned to be very careful not to play the game. Honda is a prime example. No one ever argued the Honda was too cheap. If anyone has the economy of scale to make a cheaper bike it's Honda but they looked at the cost structure and said here's what we must sell them for.

GasGas has to raise prices to survive. That will allow other brands to follow suit. I think in the long run paying another 10% for a new bike to have a healthy sport will be well worth it and riders will get that back in resale anyway. I do hope GasGas survives and has learned the strategy of, "We're losing money on each part but don't worry we'll make it up in volume." Usually doesn't end well.

[ian640]

I remember when GasGas came into the U.S. market their bikes were priced under the competition. Not an unusual plan to take market share. In response the other manufacturers tried to compete on price. That causes an across the board downward pressure that is actually destructive to the sport. The argument that a lower price point brings more riders in seems logical on the surface but when you dig deeper it means insufficient profit for the factories to survive. Depressed used bike prices which slows turnover of new bikes so long term fewer dealers can make a go of it. And eventually failure of some brands that has to result in an increase of bike prices back to a more normal level.

This isn't just a new phenomenon. Trials is cyclical. The same thing happened with the influx of cheaper two stokes in Sammy Miller's day and the influx of cheaper Japanese machines in the 70's. Being a small market trials tends to feel the effects of any disruption more keenly than the rest of the market. Some manufacturers learned to be very careful not to play the game. Honda is a prime example. No one ever argued the Honda was too cheap. If anyone has the economy of scale to make a cheaper bike it's Honda but they looked at the cost structure and said here's what we must sell them for.

GasGas has to raise prices to survive. That will allow other brands to follow suit. I think in the long run paying another 10% for a new bike to have a healthy sport will be well worth it and riders will get that back in resale anyway. I do hope GasGas survives and has learned the strategy of, "We're losing money on each part but don't worry we'll make it up in volume." Usually doesn't end well.

That’s a really good analysis Dan, both in terms of emphasising the cyclic nature of this market and in terms of looking at the strategy the manufacturers pursue.

I started trials in the early 80s and of the manufacturer’s around then only Beta - just starting out in trials at the time, and Montesa - a brand of Honda for a long time, remain.

But what your post illustrates to me, comparing the bikes available in the early 80s to what’s available now, is that there is little differentiation in the market. Only Honda offer something really different at present to the rest - that is selling on the quality of their product with a higher showroom price - both factors that help to make your product more attractive. Don’t think so on the showroom price? Why do folks buy a Rolex when a Casio will still tell them the time?

What is playing out here, yet again, is a market driven by cost and hyper-competition - most of the bikes available new are broadly similar in terms of product features and most cost about the same. It could be argued that this is bad for both the manufacturers and the consumer. The manufacturers don’t have much to increase their sales over the competitors, and they and their importers and dealers may not survive if they don’t maintain their market share. The consumers don’t have much choice because most of the bikes are similar. So hats of to the likes of OSSA, JTG and now Vertigo for trying to build a product that’s a little bit different. There are other ways they could differentiate themselves - for example by selling a brand rather than just a bike, but as far as I know, as far as off-road bikes go, only KTM have made that work of late, and they’ve had to play a long game to do it.

[dadof2]

http://www.trialscentral.com/component/attachments/download/1883

Take a look at the above results. This is a club with a good history, good terrain (including Blaze fell that WTC is using) and a good number of events

Serious lack of youngsters

Quite a few oldies and a bunch of novices, no sign of progression through intermediate to expert.

I know this is only one set of results but I chose it as it clearly demonstrates a problem. Unless something changes the sport will die or be greatly reduced and it won't just be Gasgas future in doubt.

I know I will get slated from some quarters but the development route trials bikes have gone down is a cross between Pandora's box and a cul de sac. Whatever the reason be it low volume manufacture, exotic materials or high development costs, trials bikes are too expensive for what is a pretty basic single cylinder motorcycle.

The FIM should announce dates on which exotic materials will be banned and increase the minimum weight limit by say 1 kg a year util it reaches 77 kg. To fit an expensive titanium exhaust to shave off a fraction of a kg and then have to cut costs elsewhere to compensate only results in things like poor quality bearings and unreliable ignition components being used.

[breagh]

A quick one as I'm off to run a trial the problem is no one knows about trials.

Secret sport and non existent promotion unless that can be addressed things wont progress!

[heavydabber]

That's a spot on analysis D of 2, especially with regard to the way trials bikes have developed. Have they/the sport just become too specialised? Are the bikes now just too expensive for something that only comes out of the shed once a week or fortnight and can't realistically be used for anything else?

If 100 people learn to ride a motorbike, either round a field or with an instructor, how many of them will actually take up trials? 10? 5? Less? Has the sport become so specialised and expensive in terms of skill and machinery that it's no longer attractive to the mainstream to participate?

We're talking £5k-£6k for a new bike and £300+ for a good set of riding gear. And that £5k-£6k bike is essentially manufactured as a disposable item to be changed every year for the newest model, the manufacturers would have us believe (with the depreciation hit). That is not a small amount of money for a couple of hours a week entertainment/competition, plus membership and entry fees, insurance, road tax etc etc. Certainly not in the current economy.

Edited March 8, 2015 by heavydabber

[hrmad]

Anyone got any more news about gas gas?

[neils on wheels]

The FIM should announce dates on which exotic materials will be banned and increase the minimum weight limit by say 1 kg a year util it reaches 77 kg. To fit an expensive titanium exhaust to shave off a fraction of a kg and then have to cut costs elsewhere to compensate only results in things like poor quality bearings and unreliable ignition components being used.

In your opinion.

I have a different opinion. I'd gladly pay more money to have a lighter bike. Legislating against progress is plain daft.

[lineaway]

We need more of a middle ground between the last two opinions. Broken frames and unreliable engines is not progress. Neither is adding weight to meet set standards. What we really need is a bike to get more new riders involved in our dying sport. Maybe a tlr230, electric start, disc brakes and street legal. Something that might be sold by the thousands, but not just for trials riders.

Edited March 8, 2015 by lineaway

[heavydabber]

In your opinion.

I have a different opinion. I'd gladly pay more money to have a lighter bike. Legislating against progress is plain daft.

Even if in the name of weight saving it is unreliable or inherently weakly constructed? There's a significant difference between progress and a blind alley. Look at road-racing two strokes from a few years ago. Tuned to the point of unreliability and eye-watering maintenance costs, new pistons at 500 miles, cranks at 1000 miles for instance. It wasn't sustainable, let alone affordable or environmental.

We can make bikes as light as you want with the technology that's available nowadays. The only limit is how many people can afford it. And most trials chaps don't have pockets all that deep....?

Edited March 8, 2015 by heavydabber

[neils on wheels]

Even if in the name of weight saving it is unreliable or inherently weakly constructed?

We can make bikes as light as you want with the technology that's available nowadays. The only limit is how many people can afford it. And most trials chaps don't have pockets all that deep....?

Light weight does not have to mean unreliable. I don't want an unreliable bike, I want a lightweight one that is reliable & performs well. As you say, the technology to achieve this is readily available.

FIM introduced an increased minimum weight limit a couple of years back, it was not popular with many. Dadof2's suggestion to further increase this minimum weight does not get my support.

[guys]

If you think heavy is the way to go, buy yourself a twin shock from the 70's.