Market Fragmentation Is Bad for Both Companies and Cyclists
We are facing yet another innovation in the cycling world: 32-inch wheels. Some manufacturers are also experimenting with intermediate sizes, such as 30.5 inches. Another change added to the many introduced in recent years, in an industry that seems to be moving at an almost schizophrenic pace. Sometimes, just a few months are enough for a recently purchased bicycle to be perceived as outdated.
We are not suggesting that all of this is negative. Technological innovation has made it possible to achieve extraordinary levels of performance. But this continuous evolution has also produced a side effect that is rarely discussed: the progressive fragmentation of the market.
Every new standard introduces different components, dimensions, tools, and manufacturing processes. Companies must adapt, invest, redesign, and manage an increasingly wide variety of products. All of this generates costs that inevitably end up being reflected in the final price of bicycles. The result is a market that is increasingly complex, more expensive for companies to operate in, and more costly for consumers.
The Manufacturers’ Perspective
Put yourself in the shoes of a manufacturer for a moment. Every technological change requires investment.
Think, for example, of a company that manufactures wheels. Moving from a 29-inch wheel to a 32-inch wheel does not simply mean making a slightly larger product. It means changing manufacturing processes, equipment, components, and purchasing new machinery.
The same applies to electronic shifting systems, braking systems, bottom brackets, and all the other components that have undergone major transformations in recent years.
These investments are necessary to remain competitive, but they must be recovered through product sales. And the faster technology changes, the less time companies have to recover the capital they have invested.
There is, however, another aspect, perhaps even more important, that is rarely discussed: the cost of inventory that loses its value. A company does not only bear the cost of introducing new technology. It must also deal with everything it has already produced or purchased that, with the arrival of a new standard, risks becoming difficult to sell. Think of a manufacturer of bicycle workshop tools. The company has designed, manufactured, and stocked hundreds or thousands of specific tools for a particular bottom bracket standard. When that system is replaced by a new one, some of those tools can rapidly lose their commercial value, even though they still work perfectly. These products remain in warehouses, take up space, and represent tied-up capital. Selling them often requires substantial discounts, sometimes without even recovering their original cost. And this phenomenon does not affect just one company. It affects the entire supply chain: from component manufacturers to bicycle builders, from distributors to retailers.
In other words, when we buy a new bicycle, we are not just paying for the technology it contains. We are also helping to cover the cost of the technology the market has decided to abandon.
The Consumer’s Perspective
We have seen how these costs inevitably end up being passed on to the final consumer. But there is another aspect, one that is discussed far less, which contributes to making bicycles increasingly expensive: the consequences that certain innovations have on the choice of materials and components.
Let’s take the example of 32-inch wheels once again. We have already experienced something similar with the transition from 26-inch to 29-inch wheels in mountain biking. A larger wheel requires, assuming the same construction characteristics, a greater quantity of material: more rubber for the tire, more material for the rim, and longer spokes. This results in an increase in weight when using the same materials and construction methods. To compensate for some of this additional weight, manufacturers often need to use carbon rims, more sophisticated tires, and lighter components. All solutions that inevitably drive up the price.
In short, a technology that offers better performance in certain areas may require more expensive components to avoid compromising performance in others.
Furthermore, technological development is primarily concentrated at the top end of the market. Cyclists who purchase top-of-the-range bicycles can enjoy almost exclusively the benefits of these improvements, because manufacturers are able to compensate for the disadvantages of new technologies through sophisticated materials and components. Those who simply want a reliable, functional bicycle without spending a fortune find themselves in a different situation. In the past, they could purchase a good product even in the mid-range segment. Today, they risk ending up with a bicycle that is significantly inferior to high-end models and, in some cases, without even experiencing a noticeable improvement over bicycles from the previous generation.
The result is that the entry price for a bicycle considered high-performance continues to rise. Not always because cyclists need better performance, but because achieving certain levels of performance with new technologies may require greater investment.
Today, we can use rear sprockets with 34 or even 36 teeth, achieving gear ratios that would once have been unthinkable on a road bike. This is undoubtedly an advantage when climbing. But to manage such a wide range of gears, derailleurs need a greater chain-wrap capacity and longer cages. And this is where a mechanical compromise comes into play. A longer cage changes the leverage system through which the derailleur maintains chain tension. To ensure adequate tension, the springs and derailleur mechanism must be appropriately designed. However, increasing the resistance of the system can affect the smoothness and precision of shifting. Designers must therefore find a balance between two requirements: keeping the chain sufficiently tensioned and ensuring precise, smooth shifting.
The result is that, under certain conditions, the chain may be less stable than we would like. A simple practical comparison is enough: take a road bike from 2006 and one from 2026 and observe how their chains behave when subjected to movement and vibrations. The difference can be quite noticeable. It is no coincidence that chain stabilisation systems and specific clutch mechanisms have been developed to counteract these movements.
Of course, being able to tackle demanding climbs with 34- or 36-tooth sprockets is a huge advantage compared to the past. But we have gained this advantage by accepting new mechanical compromises, which are rarely mentioned when a new drivetrain is introduced.
This means recognising that every technical choice involves a compromise.
How Much Is Progress Really Worth?
Will the new 30.5-inch and 32-inch wheels really represent a step forward? Perhaps yes. Perhaps not. The first tests in mountain bike competitions can certainly provide interesting insights, but they also leave many questions unanswered. World Cup races take place on closed, extremely technical circuits. Courses that often have very little in common with those regularly ridden by most enthusiasts. Furthermore, so far, 32-inch wheels have been tested in World Cup races on the fastest and most flowing courses, such as those in the United States. These are precisely the conditions potentially best suited to the characteristics of these new wheels. This does not mean that the results obtained are without value. It does mean, however, that we cannot automatically consider them representative of the benefits an average cyclist might experience.
Will the improvement be significant and noticeable to most cyclists? Or will it be only a marginal gain? But that is not the real point.
The real question is whether, in a bicycle market that is generally struggling, the introduction of yet another commercial standard is really necessary. And above all, whether some improvements, sometimes minimal, are being amplified by marketing to fuel a constant need for renewal. Are we really sure that the overall impact of this new innovation will be positive?
