The manufacturers themselves are not slow when it comes to identifying new market niches. All products have redundancy built into them - for without that, there would not be the stimulation to develop new technologies, new designs, and utilise new materials. A former BMW ergonomics designer once told me, "...that if you accept a component has only one function, then it has, ideally, only one shape..." and later "...form must follow function...". The transfer from XC to freeride is governed as much by equipment choice as it is by riders changing styles. The advantage of freeride, XC, DH to us, is that we can see the cross-pollination of ideas going from one style to the other. If we take this to the purest expression of form following function, then at some discrete point in time, one bike should satisfy all ride conditions. Of course, it does not work that way.

Suspension lock outs started with the frustration of someone saying something like "...damn this bobbing, right now I need a rigid fork..." and so lock outs were defined, refined, and marketed as the next step in suspension design. Someone else commented we need a stiffer headtube and sturdier headset, and so onepointfive was defined, refined, and marketed as the next step in headtube/headset design. The point I'm making is that as long as we have these different riding disciplines then so we all benefit. There are many good things about bikes now that were laughed at and mocked not so long ago.

There will never be a unified code that will ultimately say that we have reached the end of function and all that we need now is form. We don't need that. So long as we have these riding styles, so the endless game of component design will play leap-frog and that progress will give us better components. We don't all drive F1 cars, but some of that technology gets through eventually to the manufacturing cycle we have in our cars today. Our bikes would not be where they are now if it had not been for XC .v. freeriding.