PoorInRichfield

*** Disclaimer: This is today's useless post based on what's rolling around in my brain. There's no right or wrong answers to my questions, just looking for opinions.... ***

TL;DR
Is the trend towards in-house brand components, often created at the expense of compatibility with aftermarket parts, a good thing to you? Do you see the day when there will be bikes that are 100% manufactured by the same brand? (I.e., the death of Shimano and SRAM!!!)

For those that have time to read...
When I started biking decades ago, the trend at that time was that if you bought a Trek, Specialized, Cannondale, etc., about the only thing that was actually made by that company was the frame and maybe the fork. The rest of the bike was composed of components from other manufacturers and those components where typically interchangeable. Don't like the seat post the bike came with? Get another brand of seat post. Don't like the stem? Get another brand of stem. I liked it that I could customize nearly every part of my bike to be exactly what I wanted and the end result was a bike that was nothing like everyone else's bike.

Today, bikes from the bike manufacturers like those listed above are a different story. In many cases, almost the entire bike consists of components made or branded by the single bike manufacturer with only a few components being made by another manufacturer. In addition, many of the components that used to be interchangeable with another brand no longer are. For example, being a Trek fan, if I was to buy a new Trek Madone, just about every part on the bike is Trek or Bontrager branded (still Trek) with the exception of the main drivetrain components that are typically SRAM or Shimano... for now. Many of the parts on the Madone cannot be interchanged with aftermarket parts, like the stem, handlebars and seat mast, because those parts are now part of an aero and integrated frame package.

My 2 cents...
I used to hate it when I looked at a bike that would claim "Shimano Ultegra group set" only to find that various parts of the bike were not part of the Ultegra group set and were replaced with cheaper in-house parts. The headset was often the place where an off-brand was used like a Tange headset instead of a Shimano Ultegra headset. Sometimes it was the brakes or the crank arms, etc. Fast-forward to today, I have become less adverse to in-house brand components to the point where sometimes I actually prefer them. Once again being a Trek fan, I have nothing but praise for Bontrager wheels as they're tough, stay straight, and are often quite affordable based on years of experience with them. Heck, I've owned multiple sets of mid-ranged Mavic wheel sets over the years and I'd take my Bontrager wheels over the Mavics!

I favor in-house components because that allows manufacturers to "do their own thing" w/o being limited by the concern of compatibility with other brands. For example, I love it that many brands have figured-out ways to completely hide shift and brake cables. This almost always results in components such as custom stems and handlebars that fit no other bikes. Along those same lines, I like that company's like Canyon are experimenting with different styles of handlebars like their highly unusually gravel bike bars that are integrated into the stem. Some will like this design, some will hate it. If the design is a huge success, we'll no doubt see other brands copy the design. If it doesn't sell, the design will fade into history.

The only big disadvantage I see to in-house components is price... I think the consumer really loses-out when competition is eliminated because you have no other choice. For example, I recently needed to order a shorter seat post on my new Trek Domane. There is no such thing as an aftermarket seat post for the new Domane and Trek wants nearly $300 for a new seat post. $300 for a seat post!?!?!?!?! (That's not a type-o!) If there were 5 other brand seat posts to choose from, Trek couldn't charge that kind of price for such a basic part, but because there is no other option, they can charge whatever they want.

Examples
Some examples of in-house integration that pushes the boundaries of bike design that I personally like to see even if I don't have a need for it...

Canyon's dual-level gravel bars...



Trek Madone's aero handlebar / stem combo... "Look Ma, no cables!"...


One crazy-ass rear brake from Specialized...

Oneder

I don't think the big brands will ever die, the big makers used to make all their own stuff anyway and I assume many of these oem branded items are made by shimano and so on anyhow. If anything is likely to die it's death of these brands as people can get custom more and more. They don't really make sense for the price, if you are going to pay more than a walmart bike cost then you could be getting a custom ti frame and whatever components you desire anyway.

Troul 

For me, it's not an all or nothing decision. I like the meaningful limited unique touches of OEMI as long as I can finalize my bicycle with my own personal touches. By personal, I don't mean just accessories, but also bars, seats, wheels, brake parts, drivetrain equipment.
What sorta grinds my gears with OEMs these days; the way they lock in there shifting & braking configuration to make it near impossible to retrofit to other setups. IE: There was a bicycle I would have bought if it had the option to omit "E-Tap" shifting. It had mechanical brakes for the six bolt disc rotor & pad configuration, but electronic shifting? wth?

Bill in VA

This is my take also. I want to be able to use various components of my choosing.

While I definitely find Shimano brifters a great convenience, I do not like their changes every 2 years that orphans prior parts or whole assemblies, necessitating prowling eBay for spares when needed.

No way I would complicate it even more with boutique manufacturer proprietary parts that have nowhere near the market penetration or manufacturer longevity like components from Shimano or SRAM.

mstateglfr 

I have no interest in proprietary components.
Canyon's hover bar?...pfft.
Giant's dfuse seat post?...pfft.
Any brand's aero stem/bar combo.
etc etc etc

I like to build up frames, so these proprietary features are just annoyances in my eyes.
But i dont care if cables are external and i like threaded BBs, so my views may be in the minority.


No, I don't think entire bikes will be build by brands.
Currently, there are only a few brands that have the resources to develop entire drivetrains and even then, they would spend gobs of money just to get to where they are now- great shifting and drivetain options.

I don't think the other brands besides Trek, Specialized/Merida, and Giant are big enough to have the r&d necessary to accomplish fully in house quality bikes.
Scott or niner or Jamis, etc dont have the ability to develop and manufactur drivetrains. Nor do they have the scale to make it financially feasible.

Clyde1820

Choice with common standards. Much preferred.

I want the choice, now and in the future. By muddying or erasure of standards adhered to by the vast majority of component players, a given platform can come with a built-in obsolete date (component-wise). I'm all for a sub-par variant of a given bike being offered up by a maker with in-house or parts that are a couple steps down, so long as the higher-end models have a solid or full group set of quality parts from "top" makers.

Actually, so long as the mounting standards are adhered to, it affords the maker an opportunity to improve the beast but allows the owner to alter in the future if he/she sees the need.

But, if parts are integrated, then all of a sudden choice is eliminated from the owner. No alternative parts are available. One is thus forced to buy from the only game in town. Irrespective of the quality or suitability. IOW, it eliminates the "invisible hand" of competition from that component, almost assuring (in the long run) elimination of the "push" of competition that would keep quality high and innovation moving. Bad news, down that path, so far as I'm concerned.

I'm all for innovation. Within the standards. And if the industry's key players, as a whole, want to introduce a new standard (ie, brake mounting spot), I'm all for it. But without broad acceptance, there's no way I'd invest in a platform that forces me down a restricted, reduced-competition path. JMO.

vane171

It is like the debate PC vs Macintosh. Where the former you could build from parts, each from a different maker, Mac came assembled and there was no such thing as putting together your Mac.
'Aftermarket' components, like peripherals and programs for your computer were expensive and mighty few for Mac, compared to PC.

If the maker of computer (MAC), TV (Sony) or bicycles (SRAM groupset) locks you in to his standard, he can provide better integrated, balanced and what else have you, product. But it has its shortcomings. There is a place and market for both approaches, both have good and not so good points. The locked in standard is good for those who have deep pockets, who like luxury and don't want to be bothered with how the product is doing its thing, they just want to use it and have good experience from its use.

Like you may worry buying some specialty parts on eBay years down the road for your bicycle to keep it going, but the customer for whom such bike was intended will likely buy new model several years down the road before the special parts need to be exchanged, since he wants to have the latest trends and can afford them. Its not my league but I can see why the trend is there and its justification. If you are well to do and into biking, wouldn't you want to buy new bike every maybe three or four years to catch the new trends?

Russ Roth

I'm all for the innovation aspect of things, I like thru axle, disc brakes, would go electronic if I could afford to, bb386, t47 and a host of others but would agree that I really dislike proprietary brand items as you mention. Someone asked on here about building a felt frame but the seatpost was only used by felt for 3 years and the fork was also specific, not only does this mean you can't use old parts on a newer or alternate frame but your stuck looking for obscure parts if you crash and crack a carbon post or fork after a few years. I get chasing seconds when a race can be decided by one but planned obsolescence is stupid.

veganbikes

I hate dumb stuff. If you are making something proprietary that is likely to go out of use quickly no thanks, I like good reliable components. However I really hate stock bikes. They are usually rife with parts I wouldn't have used and generally are either to cut cost or to make it seem more premium.

Certain things are great especially if widely adopted, thru axles, boost spacing, T47, 24mm spindles, 30mm spindles, threadless 1 1/8 headsets, 44mm head tubes (so you can run either tapered or straight steerers)...are all great. Stupid bars and seat posts that don't fit but on a few bikes no thanks. Also any other really dumb stuff like that can go away. I don't need to hide every single cable. If I am doing that then why not just wireless brakes and shifting or add some copper into the tubes and connect via the tubes.

GlennR

Not sure what you mean by "(SRAM groupset) locks you in to his standard".

I have Red eTap and my brakes are Bontrager Speedstop. I had Rival and had a KMC chain and Ultegra cassette. I have Rival CX1 and a Cannondale crank and chainring.

Yes, shifters and derailleurs do need to match but there are plenty of options for the other parts.

Gresp15C

I own a Diamondback bike, and many of the components appear to be generics that they've stamped their brand name onto. The parts are all of good quality, and I just treat it as a source of comic relief.

PoorInRichfield

In regards to a full bike being a single brand...

I figure that one of the big players like Trek or Specialized wouldn't actually do the R&D to make their own component group, they'd just put their name on someone else's. Heck, Specialized is a good portion of the way there already... look at their "Drivetrain" page. They offer an S-Works crank sets with left / right power and an Ultegra crankset with their own brand of power meter. Both Trek and Specialized already make custom brakes to fit their aero bikes. That doesn't leave much left to develop... just the derailleurs, shifters, and casettes. If Campy keeps fading into the background, all it would take is for someone to buy 'em out and *bam!*... the know-how to make just about everything has been acquired.

Ironfish653

I think we need to make a distinction between 'house brand' components and 'integrated' components. I mean a standard 31.8 stem is pretty much the same whether it's an Oval, Salsa, or Bontrager. Same goes for FSA cranks, or KMC chains. The form factor and function are the same, regardless of who's brand is on it.

Integrated components are a whole other animal. A lot of the integrated components like the Madone internally-cabled bar / stem, and the brake on that Spesh (Shiv?) are done on high-level bikes in the name of AERO and speed. Same goes for foil-profile seatposts; it's the price you pay for getting the fastest bike you can. If you're that competitive that you have the budget or sponsorship to ride those kinds of bikes, you're not concerned about finding replacement parts 10 years from now.

My favorite MTB is my Cannondale F-1000, One of the reasons I bought that bike was the Headshok fork. It was lighter and better handling than the Manitou and Mag-21 that were it's contemporaries, and I really liked the way that bike handles. 20+ years on, it's on it's 2nd fork, and that one's on it's way out. I can either replace it with a conventional fork and possibly loose the handling and characteristics I really like, or send it halfway across the country to one of the few techs who still work on them, and hope it's repairable.

rosefarts

Matrix for trek in the 90s. CODA for Cannondale in the 90s. Specialized just used their own name.

This has been going on for a long time.

I honestly don't mind the weird integrated high end parts. I dislike the needlessly low end house brand crap that gets put on bikes. Bontrager lead filled seatpost and stem, high friction bearings, and steel belted tires. On $1500 bikes!

It's a way to maximize profit by putting cheaper components than would normally come on a certain level of bike. At least Bikesdirect is honest about it.

Leinster

My first ever geared bike had a Raleigh brand derailleur (pretty sure it was a rebadged Sachs-Huret), so it’s far from a new thing.

The new standards that have a good reason for existing become, well, standard. Hence the switch from freewheels to cassettes, threadless headsets, threadless BB (the reason is not always to the benefit of the consumer).

some of the headsets and seatposts coming out lately seem to go a bit far down a road where no others will follow, but they do at least seem to be going there for performance reasons. And it only seems to stretch to the upper performance tiers of bikes.

The Cannondale-brand stem, bars and post that came on my CAAD10 are good enough that I’ve put them on my most recent steel build. I notice that a CAAD13’s seatpost wouldn’t be able to make that transition, though. I do wish mine had a Si crankset, instead of the FSA I did get.

vane171

When I was considering the Force eTap and reading up on it, some people who ride a lot, and very likely also racing, complained something about when it will come to replace chainrings, chains, or maybe it was something to do with crank arms with power meter, or whatever (it was about Red eTap Axs, not Force but likely the same thing as far as that issue goes). I believe I read that in discussions under YT videos.

I didn't pay that much attention to it since I put on too few miles for that to become an issue for me, but obviously they knew what they were about. They complained it would be expensive and can't be substituted with parts from another groupset.

Miele Man

I don't like proprietary anything on any of my bicycles as there's simply too great of a risk that the part or parts for it will either be not available or very hard to find and expensive in a few years. Sometimes that means that even the frame is useless.

Cheers

PoorInRichfield

I'm with you on this! I also had a Cannondale MTB with a Headshok and loved it (I wish I still had the bike ). I thought the Headshok just made more sense from an engineering perspective but probably didn't gain acceptance in the market because a Headshok meant the frame and fork had to be compatible with each other, but not with any other frames or forks. I loved the Headshok so much that I currently ride a Cannondale with a Lefty fork and love it as well.. but it's even more of an odd-duck than the Headshok as the front wheel is no longer compatible with anything else. Obviously, the Lefty is about as non-standard of a bike part as you can get but I'm glad Cannondale "thought outside the box" and used some of their past motorcycle engineering to create a really unique product.

I think this is a good analogy. I'm a software developer and have always been on the PC-side of the debate for decades. Not because I think they're better, but because I want the ability to replace and "mod" my computer as I see fit. I stick to ThinkPad laptops because they are one of the few brands where I can replaces some of the parts myself. Per my other post regarding "bikes are not cell phones", we as a society pretty much view our phones and laptops as nearly disposable items. Rather than upgrade a laptop or phone, we just replace the entire thing every two years. Could this be the path that bikes follow? Especially with e-bikes? Manufacturers would love it if the average consumer "felt the need" to buy a new bike every two years because the old one is no good any more and it's too hard to replace the parts that are broken. If bikes become completely non-standardized between manufacturers, the ensuing "PC vs Mac war" of bicycles will following thereafter!

freeranger

This topic reminded me to order a shim for the seatpost on my mountain bike. The frame is a replacement and the seatpost (diff diam than the orig frame) is an odd size--even had trouble finding one back then, while the bike was still being made! Guess I'd better order a shim while one is still available.

Ferrouscious 

It's the AXS part of it. SRAM uses oversized chain rollers to improve wear characteristics. As a result, the chain, cassette, chainrings, and jockey pulleys are proprietary.

GlennR

Well... if you spend the money on Red, why would you cheap out when a part needs replacing.

It's like buying a Ferrari and going to Jiffy Lube for a oil change. Or complaining that you don't want to spend over $50 or a tire.

PoorInRichfield

Agreed... I think many of us are complete hypocrites in this respect. We're willing to pay thousands for a bicycle but get mad when each part of the bicycle costs more than $20. I'm totally in that boat... I want it all... I want the perfect bike, perfectly aero, perfectly light weight, perfectly comfortable, hand-made in America by my brother Ralf, and I only want to pay $20 for it or I'm going to complain.

If all bikes were designed and built to some mythical standard where every part on every bike was completely interchangeable with every other bike, that would help drive down prices to as low as they could go. However, that would also mean every bike is nearly identical to every other bike and if you don't like 'the standard bicycle' or have a unique use for the bicycle that isn't being met by 'the standard bicycle'... tough nuggies!

Clyde1820

Though, most "standards" for most parts makes sense. Eases some of the engineering costs for makers, too.

Like: 1-1/8" head tubes and separate headsets; or 73mm shell bottom brackets and X-size spindles; or 100/135mm hub spacing. Allowing headset makers to do what they do best; and BB makers to get it right, without frame makers forced to become expert in another realm of mfg; and wheel makers to do what they know.

Not that it's important all interfaces on all parts for all bikes adhere in all standards, which would limit innovation and creativity. But it sure helps, for the "sweet spot" of bicycle making. Easily upgradable by a maker, for up-rated model variants; easily swapped for something else, by an owner, in the case of a breakdown or desire to improve a part; etc.

GlennR

Bottom brackets are the #1 lack of a standard.

Ironfish653

A lot of the 'Standard' part specs are really a pretty recent development, from the 'post-boom' 1980s-and 1990s. Heck, the 1-1/8" ~31.8mm threadless steerer as 'standard' is only from Y2K.

Everything on each bike is spec'd for a reason; Cost, Durability, Performance, and some combination of the three. At which point on the scale do we set the 'Standard?'

Going back to the 'old days' isn't any better. You had English, French, Italian, that all fell to the Japanese ISO. Spend some time over in C&V and you'll see what I'm talking about. There's also a thread on a Rene Herse tandem, that's an absolute work of hand-built craftsmanship, but nothing on that bike is made to anything approaching standard.