Yes. I believe that is a completely reasonable expectation. It requires LOTS more up-front investment and time into long term testing and development, so incremental changes aren't necessary. The refinements of downhill bikes that has been seen in the last decade shouldn't have taken more than a couple generations to achieve in my opinion. Not 6 or 7. With longer generation lifecycles, you can afford to have more inventory of spares laying around, and over a 10 year cycle, it should save money because the R&D wouldn't be as constant and repetitive and the tooling costs would obviously decrease. Seems it would make things better for everyone if someone were to bite that initial bullet.If pay someone an excessive amount of money for a custom fabricated anything my substantial outlay of cash does not mean I'll have, or should have access to spare anything. DH bikes are bespoke items that often see revisions on 90% of all fabricated parts from one model to the next, your 450 does not. You want bikes to be cheap, light, dependable, innovative, and supported beyond obsolescence? Based on what whimsical formula?
It's a major dis-service to the customer to not have parts available to keep their expensive toy running for years to come. Having to retire a bike that expensive because there's just no more parts available to keep it running 3 or 4 years later is just insane to me. These bikes are modular and user-serviceable for a reason, and it's absurd that their parent industry can't support that.
Boutique brands are a little different, but with them come some perks. My last bikes have been made by Frank The Welder. If I call him up and need a spare part that he doesn't have...well, he'll fvcking make me one. He's cool like that, and that's why I buy his bikes, among lots of other reasons.
I recently learned why train rails are spaced apart the distance that they are. It made me LOL. It's the comfortable distance between two horses asses. Or the centerline, but from the viewpoint of the person in the coach - the horses ass.I don't have an opinion on wheel size until I ride 650b a bit, but it's been mentioned before that the 26" wheel wasn't developed because it happened to be most optimized for trail riding. It just happened to be the wheel size already on the bikes that were converted into mtn bikes by some crazy hippies and became the standard. That doesn't mean it sucks, it just means that's why we started with 26.
I was told by some factory workers here in Taiwan, that the 700c road wheel actually owes its existence to oil drums. Since they were already round it was easy to cut the old drums into strips and with a little reworking, voila, a steel rim. Why 700cc? Because that's what size the drums were.
I have no idea if this is actually true, but it worth considering for a moment how our 'standards' are developed in the first place. Some evolve over time through testing and their own merits, others exist through pure happenstance.
Some of you planning for the wheelapocalypse need to take some deep breaths before you start building your bomb shelters.
Roads and transport routes were burned in at the distance apart between two horses pulling carriages, and the rails were laid on these existing routes at that spacing, and the vehicles were then designed around that.
Today that dictates how aerospace companies and heavy industrial companies have to make certain structural components for rockets or things like the space shuttle that need to be transported by train. The designers are pounding their heads against the wall trying to size things to fit this seemingly arbitrary cargo width, dictated by the size of a horses ass 100 some odd years ago.