Jiggle

Alright, we get it, you're a tech savvy insider who can tell what is re-labelled and what is not. Good for you. How do the riders feel about this? Why would they let you write a piece on their bikes if they knew you were going to flick a booger at their sponsors? How do the sponsors feel about this?

In the past, a re-label elicited a quiet chuckle from the tech smart and accomplished its purpose to the rest of the bicycle buying public, to get the sponsor's name out while the riders could enjoy a little autonomy in riding what they preferred. Now we have industry people writing about it as a matter of course, "Oh btw, the paying sponsor's tire suck so badly the riders put stickers on some veloflex, snicker snicker."

Way to shoot yourself in the foot, industry person.

Trek Madone vs Emonda, the bikes of Ryder Hesjedal | Cyclingnews.com

Steele von Hoff's Factor One S superbike | Cyclingnews.com

rpenmanparker 

I'm not sure that the two cases you quoted should actually be called "relabels" as suggests an attempt to disguise the true source of a one off item demanded by a team leader. They are more likely cases of outsourcing. Yes, it is a relabel, but as a fixture in those product lines. IOW Mavic doesn't make tires, but as a wheel supplier, wants to complete the product line for loyal customers. Same as Bontrager. Trek doesn't make tires (I think). And maybe Hutchinson wanted into that part of the market but didn't have the equipment or capital to go it on their own, so they source the product elsewhere and sell it under their own name.

When I think of a classic relabel situation, it is more like this: a famous rider doesn't like Treks even though that is his team sponsor. To keep the prima donna happy the team gets him a frame from another maker, maybe even custom, and has Trek paint it up to look like part of their product line. Trek isn't involved in the deal at all except as a paint shop.

Perhaps what I am talking about is picking nits, but I see it as an important difference.

Jiggle

Mavic makes tires.....Tires for road bike and mountain bike riding, French manufacturing | Mavic EN

rpenmanparker 

Perhaps. But where does it say they are actually manufactured by Mavic? Tire making is a very specialized process. I would be very surprised if Mavic were actually doing it themselves. Anymore than Specialized, or as I said, Bontrager.

StanSeven

I don't see anything wrong about letting readers know what tires riders really use. Cycling is much more open now, but like everything else. The good old boys philosophy is going away.

Readers want to know and most of us find this very interesting.

rpenmanparker 

Lion Tyre Company, Thailand

See the link: Glory Cycles Product Reviews: Mavic Tire Review - Yksion Powerlink and Griplink

chaadster

To my mind, the reports don't really tell us much. A re-label suggests the exact same tire is available under both brands. It's possible the tires are "manufactured for" by one brand (Veloflex) for another brand (Mavic) to a particular spec that makes it unique from anything in the Velox brand line. That might include stuff like tread pattern, casing, tread compound or whatever.

So just because Veloflex makes someone else's tires does not mean all the tires are equivalent, and given the implicit doubt in the cited articles, it sounds like "re-label" is not the accurate term, but I'd certainly ask more questions of the tech guys/writers before drawing any conclusions.

As to the question of why mention at all, I think that's a valid question. In these cases, it seems to be to make fun of riders' choices, but without explicitly indicating the tires in question are exactly the same as what's available in the other brand, I agree it serves no purpose. I also don't think that those writers are in a position to know, and if they are, should say as much so that consumers can put the information to use, for example, in understanding the value of a prospective new bike purchase ("Do I have to replace tires right away"), or in comparison shopping ("I can get C-dale tire locally for less than mailordering Veloflex").

Jiggle

Mavic has no incentive to sponsor if they aren't going to get any benefit out of it. Maybe this is the way sponsorship is going to go, which is the way of the dodo. The whole idea is founded on the notion that pro use gives it legitimacy, which is in essence a way of informing a potential buyer about the product's quality. But now, in the age of information, we can tell scientifically which product is the best (or among the best). So the value of a sponsorship is diminished, along with the behavior of industry derpers like the cyclingnews guy.

rpenmanparker 

Good points. I would add that journalism is essentially in the toilet these days. The editorial standards are non-existent. Very likely the writer is too ignorant to know that very few major players make almost everybody's tires according to mutually agreed specifications. Commenting that Veloflex makes a Hutchinson tire is no more significant than saying, "Oh look, the sky is blue." But the writer thinks he has uncovered some gem of secret information.

What is significant is that Veloflex makes a Mavic tire for a specific team while Lion makes their tires for sale to consumers. That is in fact what I was alluding to in my comment about prima donnas. It just wasn't until I learned that Veloflex was not the principal supplier to Mavic, just a niche supplier, that I realized it really is a case of relabeling to fool the public as mentioned by Jiggle.

Igualmente

I would think it would matter if, for example, the bike had a Brand and Model name stated on the tire but a consumer who went out to buy that brand and model would not get anything even similar. Labels on equipment used in large sporting events are intended to sell products, so they should be considered a form of advertising.

tedder

On the bright side, journalism writes much better headlines than this post's subject line.

gsa103

Sponsor names are paid for. Even if they were using non-sponsored items they would be obligated to cover logos. Cycling is a little bizarre in that the teams control sponsors (much like NASCAR) as opposed to the major sports where the league controls sponsorship.

IFPCL

The articles aren't even snickery. The tire rebranding is barely a footnote - their mention is presented as a technical detail, not a "gotcha!" as you're suggesting.

himespau 

I think it's useful for me to know if I want to make a purchase, but if it turns out that Mavic wants us to think they're making the tires their sponsored team is using and it becomes public knowledge that the team is really using a different brand's tires, Mavic may begin to question the usefulness of spending its money that way and sponsor less. If everyone makes that decision, that would lead to fewer teams, which would be suboptimal. It could be that few enough people read those footnotes that Mavic isn't concerned.

Jiggle

But who is going to notice the brand of tire besides in an article? The majority of the buying public does not go examine bikes in the pits. They read articles.

MrCharlie

My god...do you work for Mavic or something?

StanSeven

You make some valid points. Hard to disagree with this.

NASCAR isn't a good example to use for anything. Years ago when Ford, Chevy, and Toyoto raced with two door cars and the only thing resembling the model was their logo, it became a joke to me. They all use essentially the same engines that were often outsourced to a single company to build, they was even more ridiculous. If NASCAR wants to have races between drivers and teams, there's nothing wrong with that. But saying Ford has more manufacturer points than anyone else is a farce. If they want to have manufacturers compete, go back to the old way and require manufacturers to race models the public can buy.

Jiggle

And if I did?

MKahrl

Tire makers can purchase tubular casings made by another company and attach their own treads to them and thus legitimately label them as theirs.

rpenmanparker 

Tire makers can obtain fully finished tires from other makers and legitimately label them as theirs. There are no limits to how a company manages its supply line with regard to branding its products.

andr0id

The whole concept of "Mavic making tires" insufficient to cover all the possibilities in the modern world.

Mavic can design a tire and have it manufactured in a tire factory Mavic owns.
Mavic can design a tire and have it made in a tire factory somebody else owns.
Mavic can pay somebody else to rebrand tires with Mavic logos and manufacturer them.
A company that owns a tire manufacturing facility will lease out its excess production to other companies all the time.


A fair dividing line is that if the tire left the factory with "Mavic" printed on the side, then it is a Mavic Tire.

If the team had to take the tire out of its Brand A box and then remove an existing Brand A label and paste Mavic over it, it is re-labeled.

Bah Humbug

Zipp Tangentes are actually Vittorias. Who cares?

Doge

I get my own label stamped on the casing before the tread goes on, get a tread combo that you cannot buy stock and my own coating/lack there of...
Does that make me a tire maker?

rpenmanparker 

Not every tire supplier is a tire maker. I have given good examples already: Mavic, Specialized, Bontraker-Trek. Many companies manufacture their own brand only. Others manufacture for other brands only. Still others do both. Not just tires, but many kinds of products. Men's wear stores like Jos. A. Bank have always sold store-brand shirts made for them by others. Kroger has its own dairy packaging plants. Smaller stores don't but may still sell store-branded milk. Costco sells Kirkland brand tuna packaged for them by Bumble Bee. If you think this type of business is "illegitimate", you are mistaken.

himespau 

No, that type of business is not illegitimate. What starts moving that way, however is when Mavic sells a particular tire (either made for them or someone else) and decides to call it the Mavic Super Extreme Awesome Tire. They then pay the team they sponsor to exclusively use that tire so they can say in their advertising the Mavic Super Extreme Awesome Tire is the best tire because it's the tire chosen by pros and Team X choses to ride it and nothing else. If that's true and all the members of team X do truly ride that tire, that's fine no matter who makes it for Mavic. But if a rider on Team X, Tobias Funke, decides that the Mavic Super Extreme Awesome Tire doesn't give him the grip he needs when cornering at speed so he decides that he needs to switch to using the Compass Gran Pass tire instead (which is made by Panaracer who could also make the Mavic tire or not, it doesn't matter), and covers up the Compass logo and puts on a Mavic logo instead and Mavic still uses the same advertising slogan, you've crossed the line to illegitimacy. Sure most of the riders have chosen to use it (in exchange for money) but not all of them have and Tobias is just pretending.