What makes you a fan of a certain brand....?

[M-Power]

Re:

I had a Sat job in a bike shop bitd and got to test all the bikes and then I tried the 88 Marin Pine Mountain. It just blew me away, it was so light in comparison, with amazing handling. Always liked that 'light steel feel' ever since and of course Ti for the comfort and cool factor. Pic of one from RB. I could not afford it being a poor student at the time, even at trade price.

 

[Totoro]

I like Mountain Cycle, my San Andreas is ten years old this year and is still going strong except a little cable rub.

 

[JonTom]

Re:

What makes me a fan of a certain brand?

Well, I like most retro mountain bikes but I guess I'm a fan of Marin in particular - purely because it was the first MTB I ever bought back in 1995. And I still have it.

Funnily enough, my interest in Marin doesn't go much past 1996. The post-'97 Marins just didn't do anything for me. I know the full suspension bikes were sh*t-hot (I remember Paul Lazenby winning a national cross country championship on one) but I always thought this was the time when Marin began to take their eye off the rest of the range - and (in my opinion) the brand began to suffer because of it.

 

[al-onestare]

What makes be a fan of a brand?

Identity - something that links me with the brand, it could be something very very minor
Niche - specialism in something, could be a big brand but whoever they are and whatever they do, they are good at it
Accessibility - whatever it is, you can obtain it, but with some degree of effort or research
Fun - good people breed good products breed good times

Add all of those things together and for me at least, the brand becomes "cool" and therefore I'll buy (literally) into it. If I take Kona, then the reasons would be:

Identity - combination of magazines, reviews, research, first proper mountain bike, first proper rides, the name, the interest in volcano's...
Niche - retrobiking is niche by default, Kona are a biggish firm in that pool but in the grand scheme of cycling are fairly niche.
Accessibility - easy to get into but with rare enough models and variation of models, particularly the high-end, to keep interests and desires high.
Fun - they are just plain fun to ride and great to look at. I've tried others, admittedly a small number, and nothing has come close. They "fit" me.

 

[hamster]

I used to like Marins, but probably mainly until the end of the Zolatone era. Having owned a 94 Pine Mtn from new I swapped it for a 94 Kona a couple of years ago and realised what I had been missing. I still have my original MTB (1990 Marin Palisades) although it had spent the past 20 years as a drop bar tourer at which it excels. Marins always seemed to be good all-day bikes but not so thrilling for a quick charge out. Lots of Polaris winners seemed to have used Marins. Like JonTom I got left cold by them post-97.

 

[FSXStumpy]

For me, I've always been a fan of Specialized and Amp Research - Specialized, because my first proper mountain bikes were Specialized... First, a Hardrock, then a Stumpjumper M2. I dug the company ethos at the time (early/mid 1990's), the cutting edge materials, the light but not stupid-light equipment spec, and the bikes LOOKED right to me.

Amp, for the proper suspension designs, the disk brakes, that polished aluminum seat tower....

In the same breath, I never really "GOT" Cannondale, who always seemed to be trying too hard to look different without real cause (continues to this day with their amputee fork).

J

 

[wookiee]

Re:

Obviously for me its the Marins that light my fire...but only for a few years...1989-1993 were the dream years for me. I have had a 1990 Eldridge, 1991 Muriwoods, Eldridge and Team, 1992 Bear Valley, 1993 Muirwoods, Eldridge and Team Issue. Personally the 94-96 years were pretty ordinary until they made the Mount Vision in 1997. Still a great bike today, I have had 2 a 1997 and 1998 and also a 1997 Rift Zone. I did then have a 2009 Rift Zone and finally a Marin CXR 29er...but we wont talk about that! It was the bike that I longed for as a kid...I remember doing extra paper rounds riding my Raleigh Mustang (the white purple spray one that broke at every given opportunity), for months to save for my slice of the Marin pie! ...a Muirwoods! All I could afford at £320. How I wished I could have the Eldridge or Pine Mountain. And that is what made me chase the Team Marin dream, and that now lives in my garage!

As for other brands I remember going to a bike show at Crystal Palace back in 1991 and pawwing over Proflex, Alpinestars, Orange, Pace of the time. Kona never really did it for me? Why? Because a dick of a kid at school had one!

Doug

 

[Ollie]

Re: Re:

Kona never really did it for me? Why? Because a dick of a kid at school had one!

Doug

Best thing I've read all day .

 

[mrkawasaki]

I have always loved the history of the marketing MTBs, of the ad hoc amateur brand building and the establishment of the sport. It's so rare that such a large pastime is borne within our lifetime - golf, road cycling, tennis, football all have heritage and momentum that goes way back. I'm always tempted to roll out my snowboarding and skiing analogy when thinking about these early days. I think it's relevant in the sense that the early adopters (and you may be one of those) came at it all with a fresh angle and little traditional cycling baggage or allegiance, yet some umbilical cord existed, a relationship that had the added spice of rebellion, unconformity, differentiation.

Ironically those early sport/frame builders probably had a lot of 'road' in their bones and it'd be interesting to hear those leap of faith stories and battles of 'conversion'. Those first small steps by builders, presumably led by some sort of customer demand, could hardly be funded or backed with serious marketing campaigns as we know them today. Those early adopter tyre-kickers are rarely the target profile of marketers, being too well informed (or opinionated) and expensive to crack.

Of course there were maverick marketing success stories that went with intriguing products - Fat Chance had an anti-establishment approach that stands the brand in good stead even today; Klein hit gold with their last chance roll of the up-market dice (enabling them to sell their brand). But broader, sustained success would always fall to those with a balance of consistency and marketing budget enabling them to reach the second wave, the mass market where real money could be made. Good finances afforded text book building of mass market brands through repetitive advertising exposure, race teams and victories, personalities, media manipulation, shop promotions etc.

The ultimate goal of a brand is surely 'loyalty' - customers coming back for more or evangelising and converting others - here at least, the product has to stand up and be counted. How many of us bought the same brand of bike more than once?

Thinking back, in 1991/2 I remember I struggled to choose between Cannondale, GT and Kona - at the time, Kona had the marketing image I believed in; Cannondale had the glossy showroom appeal but I bought the Zaskar not because I related to the Long Beach, sun-kissed image but because of its ball-burnished rawness. It looked mountain-tough. It looked like it would last forever. Orange and PACE were on the radar but seemed too boutique and too cliquey - hard to buy into for a first bike.

Another point of discussion is brands that disappoint - where the hype just didn't deliver...!

 

[sinnerman]

I have always loved the history of the marketing MTBs, of the ad hoc amateur brand building and the establishment of the sport. It's so rare that such a large pastime is borne within our lifetime - golf, road cycling, tennis, football all have heritage and momentum that goes way back. I'm always tempted to roll out my snowboarding and skiing analogy when thinking about these early days. I think it's relevant in the sense that the early adopters (and you may be one of those) came at it all with a fresh angle and little traditional cycling baggage or allegiance, yet some umbilical cord existed, a relationship that had the added spice of rebellion, unconformity, differentiation.

Ironically those early sport/frame builders probably had a lot of 'road' in their bones and it'd be interesting to hear those leap of faith stories and battles of 'conversion'. Those first small steps by builders, presumably led by some sort of customer demand, could hardly be funded or backed with serious marketing campaigns as we know them today. Those early adopter tyre-kickers are rarely the target profile of marketers, being too well informed (or opinionated) and expensive to crack.

Of course there were maverick marketing success stories that went with intriguing products - Fat Chance had an anti-establishment approach that stands the brand in good stead even today; Klein hit gold with their last chance roll of the up-market dice (enabling them to sell their brand). But broader, sustained success would always fall to those with a balance of consistency and marketing budget enabling them to reach the second wave, the mass market where real money could be made. Good finances afforded text book building of mass market brands through repetitive advertising exposure, race teams and victories, personalities, media manipulation, shop promotions etc.

The ultimate goal of a brand is surely 'loyalty' - customers coming back for more or evangelising and converting others - here at least, the product has to stand up and be counted. How many of us bought the same brand of bike more than once?

Thinking back, in 1991/2 I remember I struggled to choose between Cannondale, GT and Kona - at the time, Kona had the marketing image I believed in; Cannondale had the glossy showroom appeal but I bought the Zaskar not because I related to the Long Beach, sun-kissed image but because of its ball-burnished rawness. It looked mountain-tough. It looked like it would last forever. Orange and PACE were on the radar but seemed too boutique and too cliquey - hard to buy into for a first bike.

Another point of discussion is brands that disappoint - where the hype just didn't deliver...!

I agree, and I think good marketing was an easier hook back then than it is today. And only because today consumers are far better informed.

Bitd, like you the choice was Kona Cannondale and GT, and only because that was all that was stocked.

As a very young teenager riding local road races/TT etc the Kona won out, as it was a familiar risk....Steel.

I did like the and see an advantage to me in the sloping top tube and was convinced on the Track 2 fork, when compared to the ride of the similar cannondale fork. I felt the slight weight penalty was worth it.

The Brodie was of course the ultimate but with not so much as a sample in the UK at the time the flagship was the Explosif. As for the marketing, I certainly saw the advantage of the U brake placement of the models , but the 2 different size tyres front and rear I didn't buy into, these were replaced before the bike was even collected.

going further back, I cant say I wasnt effected by Jacquie Phelan and the Muddy Fox advert, because I was.