mysticnegro.com Kranky v3.0

So, iPath has launched it’s inaugural BMX team (under the leadership of Mike Aderlean, who’s had luck with skate shoe companies in the past). All I know about iPath is that they now sponsor Bob Burnquist and Doug Wimbush endorsed them for a while.  What I’m saying is, I don’t really have a dog in this fight except that I’m always amused and confused when a non-BMX company starts marketing to BMXers.  You know what happens.  First it’s “they’ll leave when the money’s gone,” yes, because they’re for profit businesses, that’s what they do, they make money.  Even if they were rider owned they’d leave when the money’s gone, nobody’s trying to give you shit for free. (It should be pointed out that this argument is selective.  When Haro announced Allen Cooke as their new brand manager kids younger than Haro stormed the internet to talk about how they’re horrible.)

Which is why in this round of “you suck, leave us alone!!!!” The “they just take and don’t give back,” cries stuck out to me.  Give back what, exactly?  No, seriously, can someone answer me this?  They make a product, that if you like, you buy.  So they’ve given you a consumer good.  They have a team which, I’m assuming, is getting paid either a salary or in free/reduced priced goods.  So, they’re giving riders a way to move out of they mamas’ houses.  They’re probably going to sponsor contests/events, maybe put out a video or two (web or otherwise) so that’s helping out promotors and giving entertainment.

So, what else does any company need to “give” to BMX?  I guess the argument can be made that they take business away from BMX owned brands.  Both of them (oh, let’s be honest, have you ever seen a pair of SCG shoes in real life?  Put your hands down if you actually know Steve Caro).  It’s a valid argument, I guess.  It’s horrible from a consumer choice standpoint, but I can see the argument.  But this “give,” thing.  What is it?  No, seriously, I’m confused and intrigued by what level of giving does a company need to be legit?  Someone enlighten me.

1988, when the mullets where plentiful and Dave Voelker would throw an undertaker.

ROOTS: Eddie Fiola – More BMX Videos

I’m working Special Olympics all weekend. My throat is sore (thanks for the PA, Katy, it’s the only reason I still have a voice) and my feet hurt. I can’t wait to get back tomorrow, if you’re in the Emory area come by so I can put you to work.

Anyway, it’s Friday, which is as good a time as any (and a better time than most) for some Exodus.

So, a couple things happened in the blogosphere while I’ve been struggling to make this place work again (I can now install and upgrade a WordPress blog in my sleep).

1. ESPN interviewed Jon Byers from Easter
2. Darcy from MacNeil posted a blog where he basically said Spanish BBs are better because they’re lighter and look better to his eye

As one would expect, comments came fast and furious from around everywhere.  Some were the typical “you suck!” without any explaination of why and some were pointing out pretty obvious things (like, well, the Spanish BB is lighter, but it’s also weaker, than the mid BB).  Which is all well and good, but it got my mind a thinking.  Which, as you know, is never a good thing.

At some point BMX bike tests died and they died a slow, horrible death.  Not that BMXbike tests were ever bastions of virtue and depth, starting as basically a multi-page ad for whatever company. In the end, every bike test in Ride was basically a Mad Lib whereby which the tester would fill in adjectives for the frame length (too long, too short, just right) the bar height (too tall, too narrow, too short, “too wide, but if I owned it I would cut them down) head tube angle (“more mellow than I’m used to,” “steeper than I’m used to”) and chainstay length (but, at the very end everyone stopped making anything but a 13.75″ rear end so this became moot).

You might wonder how the two things are connected.  Well, honestly, it’s quality.  Back when bike tests were in vogue there was the appearance of a place you could go and find out which products were good and which were crap.  That’s not as much around anymore, and as I stated above, it wasn’t so good when it was.  So now, people can make all sorts of claims about all sorts of things and there’s no real way for the average kid to figure out what’s real and what’s just hate.

Now, let’s be honest, what I’m about to say below isn’t apples to apples.  We’re dealing with an industy where the vast majority of products are made in less than a handful of factories with very little design variation.  Still…

JD Power and Associates have several surveys that occur during the live of products (and I’m specifically thinking cars) that deal with initial (90 day) and Vehical Dependability  (three year) surveys.  Basically a semi-random selection of owners are surveyed about their experience with a particular vehicle, you throw out the extremes and what you’re left with should be a fairly good representation of the typical owner experience.  Even better if you can get an honest accounting of warrantty claims from the manufacturer.

I’d like this.  At the very least it would get people to aggregate the shit talking kids in the Vital Product guide (“GT SUCKS, BUY FIT!!!!” “My friend’s cousin’s uncle’s stepson owned a Subrosa and I heard that he cracked the top tube jumping off a curb!!!!”).  Fact is, I can find out which car is a death trap, but I can’t even find out which bike company is the biggest pain in the ass to get a warrantty repair through.

For an industry that has so little separation from its customers, BMX has a long way to go to become truly consumer friendly.