We Don’t Need Better Bikes. We Need a Better Bike Industry.

!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
The bike industry has mastered performance. But while products keep improving, riders are increasingly paying the price for fragmented systems, rising complexity and disconnected experiences. The 41 Leadership Summit in Leonberg in April 2026 didn’t just question where cycling is heading — it sparked concrete action around what the industry needs to become next.

It’s easy to criticize. It’s easy to meet up and talk. The harder question is: can you actually change something — and who is willing to do it with you?

After the 11 Brixen Papers from our last Think Tank openly exposed many of the structural problems within the bike industry, one thing became clear: we didn’t need another round of analysis.

We needed action. Alignment. And a new way of thinking — and acting. Because while the bike industry has mastered performance, riders are increasingly paying the price for fragmented systems, rising complexity and disconnected experiences.

The challenge is no longer building capable bikes. The challenge is making cycling feel more meaningful, accessible and relevant to more people again.

That was the goal of the 41 Leadership Summit in Leonberg.

Not another industry event where the usual suspects shake hands and repeat the same conversations — but an attempt to bring together forward-thinking people willing to question old assumptions and rethink what the future of cycling could look like.

And very quickly, one thing became obvious: the industry doesn’t primarily suffer from a lack of awareness anymore. Most people already see the fragmentation, the growing disconnect between industry thinking and rider reality, and the limitations of endlessly optimizing products in isolation.

The harder challenge lies elsewhere: changing behaviors, incentives and deeply ingrained patterns that no longer fit the reality cycling operates in today.

Over 3 days, we shifted the conversation:

• From product… to experience.
• From competition… to growth.
• From selling bikes… to designing systems that grow riders and the market.
• From institutions… to concepts that make our industry more powerful.
• From selling performance… to unlocking it.
• From industry-first thinking… to rider-first systems.

And maybe that was the most important outcome of Leonberg: not consensus — but momentum.

From Diagnosis to Action

New times bring new questions. And new questions require new answers. The structures and patterns that worked for decades no longer fit the reality cycling operates in today.

Large parts of the industry are still operating with assumptions that no longer match how people discover, experience and stay connected to cycling. Riders increasingly feel the friction — while the industry itself struggles with fragmentation, relevance and long-term growth.

The Brixen Papers were never meant to be opinion pieces. They were a diagnosis. Across 11 papers, we openly questioned many of the assumptions, behaviors and structures the bike world has operated around for decades: from industry fragmentation and lack of digitalization to marketing, retail, media and the question of what innovation in cycling should actually mean today.

Overview – The Brixen Papers
1. The Industry’s Next Innovation Isn’t a Bike – It’s Unity
2. The Eurobike Sabbatical – A Clear Answer for 2026
3. Ingredient Marketing – The Bike World’s Marketing Fiasco
4. The Bike Brands’ New Competitors
5. The Lack Of Digitalisation
6. The Dealer Gap
7. The Media and Marketing Problem – Too Dumb to Be Simple
8. The Ignored Majority
9. What Really Defines “Innovation” in Cycling – Product, Culture, or Storytelling
10. Defining Goals – What Industry Do We Want to Be?
11. The Panic Paradox

But criticism alone changes nothing. That’s why we started turning many of those discussions into concrete action — even before the Leadership Summit itself began.

During the E-MOUNTAINBIKE Awards Night, we openly presented both our findings and the first changes we’ve already implemented to help move the industry toward a direction that creates more value for riders, not just more products. Because while the bike industry is incredibly good at obsessing over technical details, it often loses sight of the bigger picture.

The Performance Gap – We Don’t Need Better Bikes.

We live in the most over-equipped generation in outdoor history. People buy high-end bikes. Brands push innovation and marginal gains. Media celebrates superlatives. And technically, modern bikes are extraordinary. But the real performance often never shows up.

As media, we constantly discuss cutting-edge technology and high-end products — while many riders never even experience the most basic foundations required to unlock their full potential. The gap between what modern bikes can do — and what riders actually experience — is enormous. And the data backs this up.

Our recent reader survey revealed an uncomfortable reality: more than half of all buyers (54%) received no individual bike setup when purchasing their bike. Nearly every second customer (47%) was never even offered a professional setup in the first place.

That means many riders spend €8,000 or more on a premium bike — and leave the shop with incorrect suspension settings, poorly adjusted controls and little understanding of how to actually use the product properly. In other words: they are riding a completely different bike than the one they read about in reviews. At the same time, more than 55% of buyers received no proactive explanation around technology, maintenance or warranty at all.

The uncomfortable truth: the difference between a well-set-up bike and a badly set-up bike is often bigger than the technical difference between two model years. Yet setup, onboarding and rider education are still treated as side topics instead of core parts of the ownership experience. And sometimes the industry’s reaction makes things even worse. We all know the jokes: “All the gear, no idea.”

But maybe that reveals a deeper problem. Instead of helping riders unlock the full experience, the industry often assumes too much knowledge too early. A premium product without proper onboarding does not automatically create a premium experience. Which raises an uncomfortable but important question: if the industry sells premium products, why does the ownership experience so often fall short of the product itself?

Maybe real progress doesn’t start with another marginal gain in performance. Maybe it starts with helping riders actually access the performance that already exists. Because the next frontier is no longer just technical innovation. It’s education, experience and capability.

Changing What the Industry Rewards

As a magazine, we are fully aware of the influence media has on industry dynamics, product development and ultimately on what brands prioritize. So why not use that influence to help create a shift?

It would be easy to openly criticize the industry while continuing to reward the exact same patterns in our own work. For years, the entire bike world — including media — helped amplify maximum performance, technical superlatives and increasingly marginal differences between products.

That’s exactly why we started fundamentally rethinking not only our testing criteria, but also what we choose to give attention and relevance to. Especially if it does not matter in the way that many might assume.

Because while much of the industry still focuses primarily on components, watts and torque numbers, we started asking different questions: Where does real rider value actually come from? What creates long-term satisfaction beyond the first ride? And which pain points has the industry collectively ignored for too long?

As a result, our focus for our bike tests is shifting toward three core dimensions:

1. Ride Quality & Rideability
2. Product & System Quality
3. Ownership & User Experience

And we’re already putting that into practice.

For the first time, our latest comparison test included a dedicated beginner test session on the trails. We expanded our evaluation through manufacturer interviews about service, warranty and value creation, alongside rider surveys focused on real-world ownership experiences.

At the same time, we deliberately kept all the nerdy details we genuinely love: back-to-back testing and benchmarking, standardized system efficiency measurements, reach-height analysis, center-of-gravity and weight distribution analysis, as well as quantified traction and uphill performance testing.

Because performance still matters. But performance alone is no longer enough. This is ultimately bigger than new test criteria. It’s a broader shift in how value is defined in cycling.

Our vision is simple: Riding a bike is only a fraction of the experience. Winning in the future means owning the entire journey — and helping riders unlock their full potential.

Because if we want different outcomes, we cannot continue rewarding the same things.

Does It Work?

What does a mayor have in common with a bike CEO? At the 41 Leadership Summit, the answer suddenly felt surprisingly obvious: both are ultimately judged by the exact same question: Does it actually work?

One of the most interesting perspectives during the Summit came from Leonberg’s mayor Tobias Degode. Listening to him speak about cities, citizens and public responsibility revealed how similar the underlying challenges actually are.

In cities, people care about simple but fundamental things:
Does public transport run on time?
Does support feel reliable?
Do problems get solved quickly and smoothly?

Cycling is no different.

Does the product deliver on its promise?
Does service work when riders need it?
Do warranty, maintenance and ownership feel intuitive and trustworthy?

Modern bikes have become extraordinarily capable — but also increasingly dependent on systems, software, integration and support structures. And once those systems stop working smoothly, riders end up absorbing the complexity themselves.

Because no consumer — and no citizen — evaluates strategy papers. People evaluate experiences.

No matter how sophisticated the strategy, vision or PowerPoint presentation may be, mayors and CEOs are ultimately judged by exactly the same thing: does the system work in real life? And that applies not only to cities and brands — but also to us as media. If media only amplifies performance while ignoring ownership, accessibility and rider outcomes, then we become part of the same disconnect.

Everybody Wants Change — Until Old Reflexes Kick In

What made Leonberg important wasn’t consensus. In many moments, quite the opposite. What was actually encouraging was how open and self-critical many discussions initially became. People openly acknowledged the fragmentation, the complexity and the growing disconnect between industry thinking and rider reality. There was a genuine willingness to question old assumptions and rethink what growth, value and relevance could mean in the future.

But at the same time, you could feel how quickly conversations gravitated back toward familiar territory: product strategy and technical solutions. Again and again, discussions that started around accessibility, participation, community or rider experience snapped back toward the industry’s traditional logic of performance and competition the moment things became concrete.

And maybe that revealed one of the industry’s biggest challenges: not a lack of awareness — but the dif…