20 questions with Keith Bontrager

[GoldenEraMTB]

Shame really as he didnt really show much affection towards the old school MTB.

Quite surprised really.

Why? The forefathers (sic) of MTBing were innovators, they were people who wanted to push the sport and develop new technologies to improve the way that bikes performed. What makes you think that they should still not have that same attitude? I would guess that most people who have been in the business since the start would have the same view. Keiths right, bikes are better now, lets not let the rose tinted glasses of retrofarianism taint our common sense.

"bikes are better now" needs to be qualified a bit, no? Highend bikes are better now with better technology and the resulting material/design improvements.

but bikes in the $800 to $1600 range are not better now, and have not been for some time.

Hmmm, perhaps I'm wrong, but whenever I walk into the lbs now, I'm underwhelmed with the sea of grey...from one make to another, cookie cutter designs with an eye on the bottom line is all I see.

"better" is such a subjective word. Better for whom? Better what?

It doesn't surprise me that that Keith Bontrager would have this opinion for the reason that Russell stated, but at the same time, didn't Bontrager have a quote about cro-moly steel 4130 that holds it in high regard? Yet, it's a relatively ancient frame material, (albeit a great bike building material). So shouldn't he have a little more regard for the old school bike?

/rant


btw, good stuff

 

[mrkawasaki]

'History is what you choose to keep alive....'

I can find comprehension in the KB' innovate or die philosophy' and equally in Russell's warning about 'retrofarianism' ( love that! Weren't spliffing when we thought of that were we...?!) - however if CK teaches us one thing, it's about cherishing and protecting a heritage before it has slipped through our fingers...

It doesn't follow that, if someone restores, collects and continues to ride retro, that they are therefore a Luddite. Distinguishing between the halcyonic banter and the sober analysis of whether a piece of modern technolgy is more relevant to our lives, remains a personal and emotional endeavour - unless we're sponsored racers or scientists.

It would have been more appropriate and in the spirit of the article if he had perhaps patronised us a little more with some insights into the cutting edge as it was then - by our retro activities it's not implicit that we exist to challenge how he and others make their living now?! We're just organic historians keeping a folk history alive...

And another thing - can the guy that sold us a quality record player in the 80s then yet wants to sell us a quality CD or MP3 player now be a continued arbiter of truth....

Mr K

PS. Even if KB isn't that fussed about the continued relevance of history, it seems the marketing department are... ;-)

http://bontrager.com/history/

 

[GoldenEraMTB]

Re: 'History is what you choose to keep alive....'

I can find comprehension in the KB' innovate or die philosophy' and equally in Russell's warning about 'retrofarianism' ( love that! Weren't spliffing when we thought of that were we...?!) - however if CK teaches us one thing, it's about cherishing and protecting a heritage before it has slipped through our fingers...

It doesn't follow that, if someone restores, collects and continues to ride retro, that they are therefore a Luddite. Distinguishing between the halcyonic banter and the sober analysis of whether a piece of modern technolgy is more relevant to our lives, remains a personal and emotional endeavour - unless we're sponsored racers or scientists.
It would have been more appropriate and in the spirit of the article if he had perhaps patronised us a little more with some insights into the cutting edge as it was then - by our retro activities it's not implicit that we exist to challenge how he and others make their living now?! We're just organic historians keeping a folk history alive...

And another thing - can the guy that sold us a quality record player in the 80s then yet wants to sell us a quality CD or MP3 player now be a continued arbiter of truth....

Mr K

PS. Even if KB isn't that fussed about the continued relevance of history, it seems the marketing department are... ;-)

http://bontrager.com/history/

Exactly; well stated

 

[P20]

dyna, the wheels are post frame making days. They were on the top £3000 Kleins or available seperately for £600 with the ceramic racelite rims. Mine have been rebuilt onto Mavic Crossride Ceramics as i wore the Bonty ones out.

 

[novekili]

Why? The forefathers (sic) of MTBing were innovators, they were people who wanted to push the sport and develop new technologies to improve the way that bikes performed. What makes you think that they should still not have that same attitude?


The fact that he works for Trek and so he is biased.
Now, if you asked a race steel bike to be built by, let's say Groovy, with racing steel tubes, I really doubt the result would be inferior to a Trek Fuel in terms of performance.
I'd rather race a modern steel Scapin than a Trek full susser. And I don't consider myself to be a nutter for this.

Sorry if I'm a bit blunt but I'm quite fed up with these almost retired gurus who keep saying that steel bikes are for old romantic geeks. Maybe a 1990 Yeti (which I would still prefer to a superior Trek Fuel) is, but not modern steel steeds.

oops, am I getting blasphemous now?

 

[J i m s t e r]

My Bonty is steel and to be honest the difference between that and my ally bikes is negligible. The weight of a water bottle and a poo?

I suppose steel was the de facto standard back then, and everyone could work with it, but when China came on line, there was no reason not to move to alloy/caron/unobtainium once econmies of scale were better.

I don't blame KB for wanting to continue to improve the kit he's working with. I wouldn't give the finger-crucifix to any decent modern kit, but I have 3 perfectly good working bikes.

I am never going to give Lance Armstrong nightmares; I just ride for fun and to keep (relatively) fit. £5K eigenvectored-synthetic spider-web creations are off my radar completely. Wife and 2 kids. Real dads know the deal.

 

[novekili]

My Bonty is steel and to be honest the difference between that and my ally bikes is negligible. The weight of a water bottle and a poo?

I suppose steel was the de facto standard back then, and everyone could work with it, but when China came on line, there was no reason not to move to alloy/caron/unobtainium once econmies of scale were better.

I don't blame KB for wanting to continue to improve the kit he's working with. I wouldn't give the finger-crucifix to any decent modern kit, but I have 3 perfectly good working bikes.

I am never going to give Lance Armstrong nightmares; I just ride for fun and to keep (relatively) fit. £5K eigenvectored-synthetic spider-web creations are off my radar completely. Wife and 2 kids. Real dads know the deal.

True, and if you are not going to give L.A. troubles is not your Bonty's fault; I'm sure a fit guy could do big damages on a steel Bontrager. For sure more than a fit guy on a Trek Fuel.