trek and cannondale recumbents

[ryancycles@comcast.net]

Some comments about Trek's recumbent. I like to think that maybe I had
a little bit to do with Trek"s short lived recumbent. Trek's head
engineer back in the nineties was Bob Reed, who I believe designed
Trek's OCLV carbon fiber bikes. Bob was a fan of recumbents and owned
and rode one of my bikes. He gave me some discontinued rear suspension
parts from one of their mountain bikes which I used on a prototype
suspension recumbent. Unfortunately Bob was killed in a car accident,
ending my unofficial association with Trek. And although Trek came out
with a recumbent in 1999 I believe the support within the company was
never really there. I was at Interbike that year. Lance Armstrong was
at their booth and of course hundreds of race fans were lined up all
day to get his autograph. The bike was not part of their display, it
was leaning up against a pole with no information displayed. None of
the people at the booth were interested in talking about it.
Definitely the "Red headed Stepchild". Another example of attitudes
determining the fate of a product. The local Trek dealer here in the
Boston area had one on the floor for about 3 years, never sold it.
Wheel and Sprocket sold about 60 of them in the first couple of months
they had them. I thought it was a pretty nice bike. I don't think I
had anything to do with Cannondale's recumbent although I did visit
them to try and talk them into buying me out. Their recumbent was also
not a bad first effort, but then they committed Hari Kari by trying to
get into the motorcycle business.
I have a picture of my son riding the one and only suspension bike I
built at:
http://picasaweb.google.com/ryancycles/BikeStuff

**** Ryan

[Edward Dolan]

"Harry (Lincoln, Nebraska)" <hbrogan57@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mem0m39lf32gtcn8khkou5rd0ff529cc5p@4ax.com...

ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS! NOR DOES HE EVEN INCLUDE ANY OF THE PREVIOUS
MESSAGE TO WHICH HE IS RESPONDING. WHAT AN IDIOT!

> O.K....here's the MAIN thing.......
>
> I ride for ME and NO ONE ELSE!!!!!
>
> I ride because I ENJOY IT!!!!!
>
> I do NOT ride to satisfy other people.
>
> I own NO AUTOMOBILE and I ride either one of my two bikes.
>
> ONE is a Trek 3900 that has been customized.
>
> The other is a Sun Tadpole Trike.
>
> I find the I spend more time on the trike than the upright and am even
> considering selling it.

This should have been posted as an original message, but poor old Harry of
Nebraska is too confused to know much about anything other than what he
likes. He should stick to cornhusking like all good Nebraskans and leave
cycling to us cognoscenti.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Tom Sherman]

ryancycles@comcast.net aka **** Ryan wrote:
> Some comments about Trek's recumbent. I like to think that maybe I had
> a little bit to do with Trek"s short lived recumbent. Trek's head
> engineer back in the nineties was Bob Reed, who I believe designed
> Trek's OCLV carbon fiber bikes. Bob was a fan of recumbents and owned
> and rode one of my bikes. He gave me some discontinued rear suspension
> parts from one of their mountain bikes which I used on a prototype
> suspension recumbent. Unfortunately Bob was killed in a car accident,
> ending my unofficial association with Trek. And although Trek came out
> with a recumbent in 1999 I believe the support within the company was
> never really there. I was at Interbike that year. Lance Armstrong was
> at their booth and of course hundreds of race fans were lined up all
> day to get his autograph. The bike was not part of their display, it
> was leaning up against a pole with no information displayed. None of
> the people at the booth were interested in talking about it.
> Definitely the "Red headed Stepchild". Another example of attitudes
> determining the fate of a product.

From an outside point of view, with Bob Reed gone, it appeared that no
one at Trek took the effort to work the minor bugs out of the R200
before final production.

> The local Trek dealer here in the
> Boston area had one on the floor for about 3 years, never sold it.

I saw similar NOS R200s at several dealers. I assume that Trek made
their dealers take at least one (does Mike J. care to comment)?

> Wheel and Sprocket sold about 60 of them in the first couple of months
> they had them. I thought it was a pretty nice bike.

And the remaining 160 R200s got blown out by mail order:
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/browse_frm/thread/b323659cdb81ddc0/822d4f0fb1380074?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=r200+charade+doty#822d4f0fb1380074>.

> I don't think I
> had anything to do with Cannondale's recumbent although I did visit
> them to try and talk them into buying me out. Their recumbent was also
> not a bad first effort, but then they committed Hari Kari by trying to
> get into the motorcycle business....

The Cannondale Bent was overpriced compared to the very similar HP
Velotechnik Spirit:
<http://www.hpvelotechnik.com/produkte/spirit/index_e.html>.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

<ryancycles@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:27278980-fe93-4ceb-819a-3864b4b88ba8@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Some comments about Trek's recumbent. I like to think that maybe I had
> a little bit to do with Trek"s short lived recumbent. Trek's head
> engineer back in the nineties was Bob Reed, who I believe designed
> Trek's OCLV carbon fiber bikes. Bob was a fan of recumbents and owned
> and rode one of my bikes. He gave me some discontinued rear suspension
> parts from one of their mountain bikes which I used on a prototype
> suspension recumbent. Unfortunately Bob was killed in a car accident,
> ending my unofficial association with Trek.

I knew Bob Read quite well; one of the most-brilliant people I've ever come
across, and yet able to explain relatively complex things in a manner that
ordinary people (like myself) could understand. In fact, he took it as his
personal mission to make sure that you actually understood the reasons why
something was done the way it was. He was also very different from many
engineers I've met when it came to running a product meeting. There would be
some arduous task at hand (the original OCLV 5200, for example) that
threatened to bankrupt the company due to the amount of resources (time &
money) consumed. So Bob would listen to the various people explaining why
something couldn't be done within that time frame, within that budget, and
meet those specs. And then he'd say that didn't matter. That the future of
the company and cycling were on the line, and it would have to be done
better than spec, in less time, and under budget. And that's how it would
get done. He loved challenges.

But...

> And although Trek came out
> with a recumbent in 1999 I believe the support within the company was
> never really there. I was at Interbike that year. Lance Armstrong was
> at their booth and of course hundreds of race fans were lined up all
> day to get his autograph. The bike was not part of their display, it
> was leaning up against a pole with no information displayed. None of
> the people at the booth were interested in talking about it.
> Definitely the "Red headed Stepchild".

The R200 was actually largely the word of Brad Wagner, not Bob Read. Brad
was responsible for quite a few of the details on that bike, and stayed with
it long after it became the bastard stepchild. For several years after it
was no longer in production, he was still working on refinements to the
drivetrain, for example.

>Another example of attitudes
> determining the fate of a product. The local Trek dealer here in the
> Boston area had one on the floor for about 3 years, never sold it.
> Wheel and Sprocket sold about 60 of them in the first couple of months
> they had them.

Chris at Wheel & Sprocket was quite the champion of that bike, and did quite
well with them. We, on the other hand, sold only a small number (between
5-10 I think) to already-converted 'bent folk, with one exception... a guy
who uses it to commute on a regular basis, but normally rides a "wedgie."
For him, it's just a very practical bike for how he uses it. Trouble is,
most 'bent customers are extraordinarily polarized folks. They seem to
believe that all the world's cycling problems are created by normal bikes,
and that we should all be on 'bents, and go to great lengths to discredit
any & all arguments that a 'bent might not be as good for some things than a
wedgie.

Also, the typical 'bent customer has done his/her (although almost entirely
guys on 'bents) research and almost always knows more about the product than
a typical salesperson. This creates a very uncomfortable situation for all
but the most-secure salespeople.

The combination of those two things pretty much killed off any desire to
sell recumbents in most bike shops. I, personally, found it interesting to
engage the 'bent folk, and had no problem with the fact they were teaching
me things, not the other way around. But I can understand why many
salespeople might think there are better ways to spend their time than being
lectured about bikes by a customer. And that's often how it would come
across.

>I thought it was a pretty nice bike. I don't think I
> had anything to do with Cannondale's recumbent although I did visit
> them to try and talk them into buying me out. Their recumbent was also
> not a bad first effort, but then they committed Hari Kari by trying to
> get into the motorcycle business.
> I have a picture of my son riding the one and only suspension bike I
> built at:
> http://picasaweb.google.com/ryancycles/BikeStuff
>
> **** Ryan

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

[Wilson Warmouth]

"Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fjgvv2$n6c$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> ryancycles@comcast.net aka **** Ryan wrote:
>> Some comments about Trek's recumbent. I like to think that maybe I had
>> a little bit to do with Trek"s short lived recumbent. Trek's head
>> engineer back in the nineties was Bob Reed, who I believe designed
>> Trek's OCLV carbon fiber bikes. Bob was a fan of recumbents and owned
>> and rode one of my bikes. He gave me some discontinued rear suspension
>> parts from one of their mountain bikes which I used on a prototype
>> suspension recumbent. Unfortunately Bob was killed in a car accident,
>> ending my unofficial association with Trek. And although Trek came out
>> with a recumbent in 1999 I believe the support within the company was
>> never really there. I was at Interbike that year. Lance Armstrong was
>> at their booth and of course hundreds of race fans were lined up all
>> day to get his autograph. The bike was not part of their display, it
>> was leaning up against a pole with no information displayed. None of
>> the people at the booth were interested in talking about it.
>> Definitely the "Red headed Stepchild". Another example of attitudes
>> determining the fate of a product.
>
> From an outside point of view, with Bob Reed gone, it appeared that no one
> at Trek took the effort to work the minor bugs out of the R200 before
> final production.
>
>> The local Trek dealer here in the
>> Boston area had one on the floor for about 3 years, never sold it.
>
> I saw similar NOS R200s at several dealers. I assume that Trek made their
> dealers take at least one (does Mike J. care to comment)?
>
>> Wheel and Sprocket sold about 60 of them in the first couple of months
>> they had them. I thought it was a pretty nice bike.
>
> And the remaining 160 R200s got blown out by mail order:
> <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/browse_frm/thread/b323659cdb81ddc0/822d4f0fb1380074?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=r200+charade+doty#822d4f0fb1380074>.
>
>> I don't think I
>> had anything to do with Cannondale's recumbent although I did visit
>> them to try and talk them into buying me out. Their recumbent was also
>> not a bad first effort, but then they committed Hari Kari by trying to
>> get into the motorcycle business....
>
> The Cannondale Bent was overpriced compared to the very similar HP
> Velotechnik Spirit:
> <http://www.hpvelotechnik.com/produkte/spirit/index_e.html>.
>
> --

The Cannondale Bent was one of Bentdom's greatest disappointments. For a
company noted for performance uprights to come out with an expensive easy
rider recreational recumbent was a real letdown. Cannondale seemed to have a
great opportunity at the time and they blew it.

Trek blew their opportunity too. They may as well have hung "not for sale"
signs on the R200's in the dealer's showrooms. A friend bought one of the
blowout bikes. He seldom rides it. I've thought about making him an offer
on it, but then he lets me ride it whenever I wish. I have actually grown
quite fond of the bike. Even though I prefer LWB bikes I find the R200 to
be good handling and comfortable with enough performance to not to be
embarrassing. I would prefer a simpler drivetrain and I'm still not sure
the rear suspension is necessary, but with that said the bike has been
troublefree for several years now. I haven't thought much about how to set
it up for any kind of touring. I think there are other bikes much more
suited to touring.

I see the R200 as a good day rider. It was a true bargain at the blowout
price. The bike was well made and nicely finished. I might reconsider
making an offer on the bike in January when the Christmas bills start
arriving.

[Tom Sherman]

Wilson Warmouth wrote:
>
> The Cannondale Bent was one of Bentdom's greatest disappointments. For a
> company noted for performance uprights to come out with an expensive easy
> rider recreational recumbent was a real letdown. Cannondale seemed to have a
> great opportunity at the time and they blew it.

Yes, I would have thought a large tube diameter, aluminium alloy frame
(would have fit with Cannondale's heritage) highracer would have fit the
market of a roadie looking for something more comfortable and/or different.

> Trek blew their opportunity too. They may as well have hung "not for sale"
> signs on the R200's in the dealer's showrooms. A friend bought one of the
> blowout bikes. He seldom rides it. I've thought about making him an offer
> on it, but then he lets me ride it whenever I wish. I have actually grown
> quite fond of the bike. Even though I prefer LWB bikes I find the R200 to
> be good handling and comfortable with enough performance to not to be
> embarrassing. I would prefer a simpler drivetrain and I'm still not sure
> the rear suspension is necessary, but with that said the bike has been
> troublefree for several years now. I haven't thought much about how to set
> it up for any kind of touring. I think there are other bikes much more
> suited to touring.
>
> I see the R200 as a good day rider. It was a true bargain at the blowout
> price. The bike was well made and nicely finished. I might reconsider
> making an offer on the bike in January when the Christmas bills start
> arriving.

The R200 had too much of the Not Invented Here syndrome. They would have
been better off building on the experience of others, and making a RANS
V-Rex and Lightning P-38 type bicycle, rather than the odd duck of the
R200. The R200 had a bottom bracket too low and a seat too upright for
performance, was not set up to be a commuter or touring bicycle, and was
too expensive to be a comfort bicycle. The other alternative would have
been a better quality, but lower priced BikeE competitor - something
that Trek could have pulled off with its resources. Or better yet, both.

However, with both the internal and dealer resistance to the product,
recumbents from Trek and Cannondale were doomed, no matter their quality.

If I were running a large bicycle manufacturer, I would set up a
separate marque and distribution channel for recumbents. Current upright
dealers would get the first opportunity in their market area, after
which specialist recumbent dealers would be solicited. Dealers that
failed to sell a minimum number of units would be dropped for those who
would be willing to make an effort.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Dec 9, 12:48 pm, "Wilson Warmouth" <w...@gagme.com> wrote:
>
> Trek blew their opportunity too. They may as well have hung "not for sale"
> signs on the R200's in the dealer's showrooms. A friend bought one of the
> blowout bikes. He seldom rides it.

So, why does he not ride it more? What are his specific dislikes?

- Frank Krygowski

[Edward Dolan]

"Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fjhcdv$n8s$1@registered.motzarella.org...
[...]
> The R200 had too much of the Not Invented Here syndrome. They would have
> been better off building on the experience of others, and making a RANS
> V-Rex and Lightning P-38 type bicycle, rather than the odd duck of the
> R200. The R200 had a bottom bracket too low and a seat too upright for
> performance, was not set up to be a commuter or touring bicycle, and was
> too expensive to be a comfort bicycle. The other alternative would have
> been a better quality, but lower priced BikeE competitor - something that
> Trek could have pulled off with its resources. Or better yet, both.

The BB on the Trek was not too low. It was just right, but you do have to
get the seat lean back right in order to be comfy. But Trek should have gone
long wheelbase in any event. Recumbents need to be set up to be an around
town recreational bike. No one uses bikes much for touring or commuting. I
do agree with you that the price was too high.

> However, with both the internal and dealer resistance to the product,
> recumbents from Trek and Cannondale were doomed, no matter their quality.
>
> If I were running a large bicycle manufacturer, I would set up a separate
> marque and distribution channel for recumbents. Current upright dealers
> would get the first opportunity in their market area, after which
> specialist recumbent dealers would be solicited. Dealers that failed to
> sell a minimum number of units would be dropped for those who would be
> willing to make an effort.

I think you are right about having separate dealers for recumbents.
Recumbents are sufficiently different from regular bikes and have an appeal
only to a small segment of the market. It is very difficult to sell
recumbents to just anyone.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[ZBicyclist]

Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> If I were running a large bicycle manufacturer, I would set up a
> separate marque and distribution channel for recumbents. Current
> upright dealers would get the first opportunity in their market area,
> after which specialist recumbent dealers would be solicited. Dealers that
> failed to sell a minimum number of units would be dropped for those
> who would be willing to make an effort.

That might make sense, but it's complicated for Trek in a way it isn't for
some manufacturers.

For a manufacturer like Breezer, most anybody can order from them, and most
nobody seems to carry their complete line. (In the interest of full
disclosure, I'm not in the business and just speculating). So, if you just
carried the recumbent, or just the folders, that would be fine.

Trek, though, tends to try to run a more vertically integrated structure.
Trek dealers seem to sell either mostly or entirely Trek. Other shops have
no Trek. On the website of the closest Trek dealers to me, one has only
Treks and a few Specialized, one has Trek and a bit of Raleigh. Therefore,
when I go into such a shop, I expect to find a pretty fully line of Trek
expertise -- obviously not every model in every size in inventory, but a
pretty wide selection. And, I wouldn't expect to find a Trek in a shop that
didn't feature them (Performance, for example).

Trek has enough associated brands (Klein, Lemond ...) so that they could put
one out under a different brand ... but then they'd lose part of the value
of the Trek name.

More serious is the fact that products without a champion fail. It sounds
like the guy who was championing the Trek recumbent left. At the shop level.
most shops don't really understand recumbents well. It's like your bank
trying to sell you mutual funds. When you find out they know less than you,
it doesn't motivate you to buy the product.

--
Mike Kruger
the CIA created more controversy today by acknowledging that it
accidentally returned several interrogation tapes to Blockbuster.
[Andy Borowitz]

[Tom Sherman]

ZBicyclist aka Mike Kruger wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> If I were running a large bicycle manufacturer, I would set up a
>> separate marque and distribution channel for recumbents. Current
>> upright dealers would get the first opportunity in their market area,
>> after which specialist recumbent dealers would be solicited. Dealers that
>> failed to sell a minimum number of units would be dropped for those
>> who would be willing to make an effort.
>
> That might make sense, but it's complicated for Trek in a way it isn't for
> some manufacturers.
>
> For a manufacturer like Breezer, most anybody can order from them, and most
> nobody seems to carry their complete line. (In the interest of full
> disclosure, I'm not in the business and just speculating). So, if you just
> carried the recumbent, or just the folders, that would be fine.
>
> Trek, though, tends to try to run a more vertically integrated structure.
> Trek dealers seem to sell either mostly or entirely Trek. Other shops have
> no Trek. On the website of the closest Trek dealers to me, one has only
> Treks and a few Specialized, one has Trek and a bit of Raleigh. Therefore,
> when I go into such a shop, I expect to find a pretty fully line of Trek
> expertise -- obviously not every model in every size in inventory, but a
> pretty wide selection. And, I wouldn't expect to find a Trek in a shop that
> didn't feature them (Performance, for example).
>
> Trek has enough associated brands (Klein, Lemond ...) so that they could put
> one out under a different brand ... but then they'd lose part of the value
> of the Trek name.

True, Trek would not attract the novice recumbent buyer that sees the
Trek name and assumes that it must be a good bicycle therefore, if a
separate marketing channel was used. However, giving the resistance or
disinterest by most Trek dealers in selling recumbents, that might have
been a better option. They could have used something like "__ by Trek"
for recumbents.

> More serious is the fact that products without a champion fail. It sounds
> like the guy who was championing the Trek recumbent left.

Sadly, no. As **** Ryan mentions in the original post, Bob Reed was
killed in an automotive accident.

> At the shop level.
> most shops don't really understand recumbents well. It's like your bank
> trying to sell you mutual funds. When you find out they know less than you,
> it doesn't motivate you to buy the product.
>
Again, it appears that most Trek and Cannondale shops not only did not
understand recumbents, but many actively resisted them.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <fjhi67$h6d$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:

> ZBicyclist aka Mike Kruger wrote:
> > Tom Sherman wrote:
> >> If I were running a large bicycle manufacturer, I would set up a
> >> separate marque and distribution channel for recumbents. Current
> >> upright dealers would get the first opportunity in their market area,
> >> after which specialist recumbent dealers would be solicited. Dealers that
> >> failed to sell a minimum number of units would be dropped for those
> >> who would be willing to make an effort.
> >
> > That might make sense, but it's complicated for Trek in a way it isn't for
> > some manufacturers.
> >
> > For a manufacturer like Breezer, most anybody can order from them, and
> > most
> > nobody seems to carry their complete line. (In the interest of full
> > disclosure, I'm not in the business and just speculating). So, if you just
> > carried the recumbent, or just the folders, that would be fine.
> >
> > Trek, though, tends to try to run a more vertically integrated structure.
> > Trek dealers seem to sell either mostly or entirely Trek. Other shops have
> > no Trek. On the website of the closest Trek dealers to me, one has only
> > Treks and a few Specialized, one has Trek and a bit of Raleigh. Therefore,
> > when I go into such a shop, I expect to find a pretty fully line of Trek
> > expertise -- obviously not every model in every size in inventory, but a
> > pretty wide selection. And, I wouldn't expect to find a Trek in a shop
> > that
> > didn't feature them (Performance, for example).
> >
> > Trek has enough associated brands (Klein, Lemond ...) so that they could
> > put
> > one out under a different brand ... but then they'd lose part of the value
> > of the Trek name.
>
> True, Trek would not attract the novice recumbent buyer that sees the
> Trek name and assumes that it must be a good bicycle therefore, if a
> separate marketing channel was used. However, giving the resistance or
> disinterest by most Trek dealers in selling recumbents, that might have
> been a better option. They could have used something like "__ by Trek"
> for recumbents.
>
> > More serious is the fact that products without a champion fail. It sounds
> > like the guy who was championing the Trek recumbent left.
>
> Sadly, no. As **** Ryan mentions in the original post, Bob Reed was
> killed in an automotive accident.
>
> > At the shop level.
> > most shops don't really understand recumbents well. It's like your bank
> > trying to sell you mutual funds. When you find out they know less than you,
> > it doesn't motivate you to buy the product.
> >
> Again, it appears that most Trek and Cannondale shops not only did not
> understand recumbents, but many actively resisted them.

Boring, if true!

The problem with this line of reasoning is that around 1980, a bunch of
clever types came up with a distinctive new type of bicycle, one which
had some fascinating advantages (and obvious disadvantages) relative to
the conventional drop-bar road bike.

At first, a few outsider builders, mostly with little or no previous
bike-building experience, started assembling these things. The design
mutated, was refined, defined, re-defined, re-refined, and the process
continues to this day, with a variety of competing technologies and
various active designs.

That's sort of like the recumbent story, but of course I'm talking about
mountain bikes.

Of course, I see a difference in that as soon as these things were
available, demand drove their sometimes-reluctant constructors to make
more, and several creators were basically driven into becoming
professional bike makers to meet the demand for the things. Most of the
early creators ended up either being bought out by big bike companies or
becoming big bike companies (sometimes both). Most of the major bike
makers on the planet now offer at least a token machine, and there are
many high-volume bike makers who are primarily mountain bike makers.

Indeed, the mountain bike has become the standard template for crappy
department-store bikes, a role previously occupied by 10-speeds.

The mountain bike didn't especially require any careful nurturing by
particular dealers or makers. The demand spent years being too strong
for extant sources to fulfill. The demand was consumer-driven: bike
shops and manufacturers ignored the market at the peril of leaving lots
of obvious business on the table. To the extent that incumbent dealers
or bike-makers ignored the demand, new businesses sprang up and rapidly
prospered. In many markets, the newcomers rapidly dwarfed the
traditional makers and sellers, and even today (when some of them have
substantial and important road-oriented product lines) those newcomers
have become the dominant bike vendors in their regions.

Recumbents have dedicated adherents, avid builders and experimenters,
even dealers dedicated to the market. What they do not have is consumer
interest in volumes worth talking about.

It's not a conspiracy, it's a response to the very real shortcomings of
'bents.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing

[Edward Dolan]

"Ryan Cousineau" <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:rcousine-14814D.16451309122007@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
> In article <fjhi67$h6d$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> ZBicyclist aka Mike Kruger wrote:
>> > Tom Sherman wrote:
>> >> If I were running a large bicycle manufacturer, I would set up a
>> >> separate marque and distribution channel for recumbents. Current
>> >> upright dealers would get the first opportunity in their market area,
>> >> after which specialist recumbent dealers would be solicited. Dealers
>> >> that
>> >> failed to sell a minimum number of units would be dropped for those
>> >> who would be willing to make an effort.
>> >
>> > That might make sense, but it's complicated for Trek in a way it isn't
>> > for
>> > some manufacturers.
>> >
>> > For a manufacturer like Breezer, most anybody can order from them, and
>> > most
>> > nobody seems to carry their complete line. (In the interest of full
>> > disclosure, I'm not in the business and just speculating). So, if you
>> > just
>> > carried the recumbent, or just the folders, that would be fine.
>> >
>> > Trek, though, tends to try to run a more vertically integrated
>> > structure.
>> > Trek dealers seem to sell either mostly or entirely Trek. Other shops
>> > have
>> > no Trek. On the website of the closest Trek dealers to me, one has only
>> > Treks and a few Specialized, one has Trek and a bit of Raleigh.
>> > Therefore,
>> > when I go into such a shop, I expect to find a pretty fully line of
>> > Trek
>> > expertise -- obviously not every model in every size in inventory, but
>> > a
>> > pretty wide selection. And, I wouldn't expect to find a Trek in a shop
>> > that
>> > didn't feature them (Performance, for example).
>> >
>> > Trek has enough associated brands (Klein, Lemond ...) so that they
>> > could
>> > put
>> > one out under a different brand ... but then they'd lose part of the
>> > value
>> > of the Trek name.
>>
>> True, Trek would not attract the novice recumbent buyer that sees the
>> Trek name and assumes that it must be a good bicycle therefore, if a
>> separate marketing channel was used. However, giving the resistance or
>> disinterest by most Trek dealers in selling recumbents, that might have
>> been a better option. They could have used something like "__ by Trek"
>> for recumbents.
>>
>> > More serious is the fact that products without a champion fail. It
>> > sounds
>> > like the guy who was championing the Trek recumbent left.
>>
>> Sadly, no. As **** Ryan mentions in the original post, Bob Reed was
>> killed in an automotive accident.
>>
>> > At the shop level.
>> > most shops don't really understand recumbents well. It's like your bank
>> > trying to sell you mutual funds. When you find out they know less than
>> > you,
>> > it doesn't motivate you to buy the product.
>> >
>> Again, it appears that most Trek and Cannondale shops not only did not
>> understand recumbents, but many actively resisted them.
>
> Boring, if true!
>
> The problem with this line of reasoning is that around 1980, a bunch of
> clever types came up with a distinctive new type of bicycle, one which
> had some fascinating advantages (and obvious disadvantages) relative to
> the conventional drop-bar road bike.
>
> At first, a few outsider builders, mostly with little or no previous
> bike-building experience, started assembling these things. The design
> mutated, was refined, defined, re-defined, re-refined, and the process
> continues to this day, with a variety of competing technologies and
> various active designs.
>
> That's sort of like the recumbent story, but of course I'm talking about
> mountain bikes.
>
> Of course, I see a difference in that as soon as these things were
> available, demand drove their sometimes-reluctant constructors to make
> more, and several creators were basically driven into becoming
> professional bike makers to meet the demand for the things. Most of the
> early creators ended up either being bought out by big bike companies or
> becoming big bike companies (sometimes both). Most of the major bike
> makers on the planet now offer at least a token machine, and there are
> many high-volume bike makers who are primarily mountain bike makers.
>
> Indeed, the mountain bike has become the standard template for crappy
> department-store bikes, a role previously occupied by 10-speeds.
>
> The mountain bike didn't especially require any careful nurturing by
> particular dealers or makers. The demand spent years being too strong
> for extant sources to fulfill. The demand was consumer-driven: bike
> shops and manufacturers ignored the market at the peril of leaving lots
> of obvious business on the table. To the extent that incumbent dealers
> or bike-makers ignored the demand, new businesses sprang up and rapidly
> prospered. In many markets, the newcomers rapidly dwarfed the
> traditional makers and sellers, and even today (when some of them have
> substantial and important road-oriented product lines) those newcomers
> have become the dominant bike vendors in their regions.
>
> Recumbents have dedicated adherents, avid builders and experimenters,
> even dealers dedicated to the market. What they do not have is consumer
> interest in volumes worth talking about.
>
> It's not a conspiracy, it's a response to the very real shortcomings of
> 'bents.

Oh, for heaven's sakes, the mountain bike was not all that different from
the road bike. It sits you upright on a diamond frame. That is the basic
design. Recumbents are entirely different You are comparing apples to
oranges.

As the mountain bike increased in sales, the road bike decreased in sales.
That right there ought to tell you something.

The mountain bike has replaced the road bike for kids in department stores
because it is a far superior and more friendly design, however minor. The
road bike with its drop bars in fact is quite a crappy design for anyone who
is not a racer. Almost everyone is better off on what is now known as a
hybrid, which is basically a mountain bike that doesn't bend you forward
like an idiot racer. None of these type of conventional bikes regardless of
their minor variations are the least bit comfortable. They are all torture
racks!

Please stop thinking about recumbents because you haven't a clue.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Tom Sherman]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> In article <fjhi67$h6d$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> ZBicyclist aka Mike Kruger wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> If I were running a large bicycle manufacturer, I would set up a
>>>> separate marque and distribution channel for recumbents. Current
>>>> upright dealers would get the first opportunity in their market area,
>>>> after which specialist recumbent dealers would be solicited. Dealers that
>>>> failed to sell a minimum number of units would be dropped for those
>>>> who would be willing to make an effort.
>>> That might make sense, but it's complicated for Trek in a way it isn't for
>>> some manufacturers.
>>>
>>> For a manufacturer like Breezer, most anybody can order from them, and
>>> most
>>> nobody seems to carry their complete line. (In the interest of full
>>> disclosure, I'm not in the business and just speculating). So, if you just
>>> carried the recumbent, or just the folders, that would be fine.
>>>
>>> Trek, though, tends to try to run a more vertically integrated structure.
>>> Trek dealers seem to sell either mostly or entirely Trek. Other shops have
>>> no Trek. On the website of the closest Trek dealers to me, one has only
>>> Treks and a few Specialized, one has Trek and a bit of Raleigh. Therefore,
>>> when I go into such a shop, I expect to find a pretty fully line of Trek
>>> expertise -- obviously not every model in every size in inventory, but a
>>> pretty wide selection. And, I wouldn't expect to find a Trek in a shop
>>> that
>>> didn't feature them (Performance, for example).
>>>
>>> Trek has enough associated brands (Klein, Lemond ...) so that they could
>>> put
>>> one out under a different brand ... but then they'd lose part of the value
>>> of the Trek name.
>> True, Trek would not attract the novice recumbent buyer that sees the
>> Trek name and assumes that it must be a good bicycle therefore, if a
>> separate marketing channel was used. However, giving the resistance or
>> disinterest by most Trek dealers in selling recumbents, that might have
>> been a better option. They could have used something like "__ by Trek"
>> for recumbents.
>>
>>> More serious is the fact that products without a champion fail. It sounds
>>> like the guy who was championing the Trek recumbent left.
>> Sadly, no. As **** Ryan mentions in the original post, Bob Reed was
>> killed in an automotive accident.
>>
>>> At the shop level.
>>> most shops don't really understand recumbents well. It's like your bank
>>> trying to sell you mutual funds. When you find out they know less than you,
>>> it doesn't motivate you to buy the product.
>>>
>> Again, it appears that most Trek and Cannondale shops not only did not
>> understand recumbents, but many actively resisted them.
>
> Boring, if true!
>
> The problem with this line of reasoning is that around 1980, a bunch of
> clever types came up with a distinctive new type of bicycle, one which
> had some fascinating advantages (and obvious disadvantages) relative to
> the conventional drop-bar road bike.
>
> At first, a few outsider builders, mostly with little or no previous
> bike-building experience, started assembling these things. The design
> mutated, was refined, defined, re-defined, re-refined, and the process
> continues to this day, with a variety of competing technologies and
> various active designs.
>
> That's sort of like the recumbent story, but of course I'm talking about
> mountain bikes.
>
> Of course, I see a difference in that as soon as these things were
> available, demand drove their sometimes-reluctant constructors to make
> more, and several creators were basically driven into becoming
> professional bike makers to meet the demand for the things. Most of the
> early creators ended up either being bought out by big bike companies or
> becoming big bike companies (sometimes both). Most of the major bike
> makers on the planet now offer at least a token machine, and there are
> many high-volume bike makers who are primarily mountain bike makers.
>
> Indeed, the mountain bike has become the standard template for crappy
> department-store bikes, a role previously occupied by 10-speeds.
>
> The mountain bike didn't especially require any careful nurturing by
> particular dealers or makers. The demand spent years being too strong
> for extant sources to fulfill. The demand was consumer-driven: bike
> shops and manufacturers ignored the market at the peril of leaving lots
> of obvious business on the table. To the extent that incumbent dealers
> or bike-makers ignored the demand, new businesses sprang up and rapidly
> prospered. In many markets, the newcomers rapidly dwarfed the
> traditional makers and sellers, and even today (when some of them have
> substantial and important road-oriented product lines) those newcomers
> have become the dominant bike vendors in their regions.
>
> Recumbents have dedicated adherents, avid builders and experimenters,
> even dealers dedicated to the market. What they do not have is consumer
> interest in volumes worth talking about.
>
> It's not a conspiracy, it's a response to the very real shortcomings of
> 'bents.
>
Interesting hypothesis, but it ignores one thing. Mountain bicycles (aka
ATBs) were picked up as being "hip" by the advertising and mass media
industry, and interest and sales definitely benefited from that. To this
day, people use ATBs as accessories on their SUVs (another product sold
mainly through mass culture, not need). The number of people who
actually ride off road is small compared to ATB sales.

Also, at the time ATBs were marketed as being more comfortable than
drop-bar road bicycles - not exactly a promise they have fulfilled, eh?
It seems that the manufacturers are now introducing "comfort bicycles"
to meet the unfulfilled need for a comfortable (to the non-hardcore
rider) upright. And the drop-bar road bicycle has returned to the
"crappy department-store bike" category.

Finally, the ATB only differs from the road bicycle (to the casual
observer) in tube size, tire width, and handlebar type. Not exactly a
stretch for for LBS staff to adapt to - heck, many shops will not even
work on recumbents, despite their overwhelming use of standard
components. The ATB also offers a category for the young racers typical
of many LBS staff.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <fji5jp$5g6$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:

> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > In article <fjhi67$h6d$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
> > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> ZBicyclist aka Mike Kruger wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman wrote:

[sales history of recumbents versus mountain bikes]

> > Recumbents have dedicated adherents, avid builders and experimenters,
> > even dealers dedicated to the market. What they do not have is consumer
> > interest in volumes worth talking about.
> >
> > It's not a conspiracy, it's a response to the very real shortcomings of
> > 'bents.
> >
> Interesting hypothesis, but it ignores one thing. Mountain bicycles (aka
> ATBs) were picked up as being "hip" by the advertising and mass media
> industry, and interest and sales definitely benefited from that. To this
> day, people use ATBs as accessories on their SUVs (another product sold
> mainly through mass culture, not need). The number of people who
> actually ride off road is small compared to ATB sales.

They were picked up as hip because, summarizing gracelessly, lots of
people noticed this faddish sales boom driven by the fact that ATBs were
fun.

Of course, ATBs faded from a fad into a substantial (though not
dominant) share of the "serious" bike market.

> Also, at the time ATBs were marketed as being more comfortable than
> drop-bar road bicycles - not exactly a promise they have fulfilled, eh?
> It seems that the manufacturers are now introducing "comfort bicycles"
> to meet the unfulfilled need for a comfortable (to the non-hardcore
> rider) upright. And the drop-bar road bicycle has returned to the
> "crappy department-store bike" category.

Comfort bikes look like rigid MTBs. It's more that the race/freeride end
of the market has specialized and gone upmarket, and the vestigial knobs
have disappeared from the comfort bikes.

> Finally, the ATB only differs from the road bicycle (to the casual
> observer) in tube size, tire width, and handlebar type. Not exactly a
> stretch for for LBS staff to adapt to - heck, many shops will not even
> work on recumbents, despite their overwhelming use of standard
> components. The ATB also offers a category for the young racers typical
> of many LBS staff.

I will defer to the old LBS hands here to describe the initial old bike
shop responses to the first ATBs. What I know is that large numbers of
shops in Vancouver can pretty much trace their genesis to the first days
of mountain biking: they were created to absorb the massive and pretty
much spontaneous demand for these new bikes, in some cases eclipsing
older bike shops which went out of business.

Nowadays, there are two important LBSen that are road specialists, about
that many triathlete-specialty shops, one recumbent-oriented dealership,
one or two dozen essentially MTB-oriented shops, and the great majority
of shops which have mixed floors of road and mountain bikes.

It's pathetic conspiracy theorization to assume that bad marketing has
been responsible for a failure of recumbents to capture the market share
you would expect.

If I thought that recumbents were underperforming their "natural" place
in the market, I'd put the blame largely at the feet of the horrible
first impression their low-speed handling makes.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing

[Edward Dolan]

"Ryan Cousineau" <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:rcousine-BD2D52.07243410122007@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
> In article <fji5jp$5g6$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>> > In article <fjhi67$h6d$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
>> > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> ZBicyclist aka Mike Kruger wrote:
>> >>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> [sales history of recumbents versus mountain bikes]
>
>> > Recumbents have dedicated adherents, avid builders and experimenters,
>> > even dealers dedicated to the market. What they do not have is consumer
>> > interest in volumes worth talking about.
>> >
>> > It's not a conspiracy, it's a response to the very real shortcomings of
>> > 'bents.

Recumbents are not for the masses. So what else is new?

>> Interesting hypothesis, but it ignores one thing. Mountain bicycles (aka
>> ATBs) were picked up as being "hip" by the advertising and mass media
>> industry, and interest and sales definitely benefited from that. To this
>> day, people use ATBs as accessories on their SUVs (another product sold
>> mainly through mass culture, not need). The number of people who
>> actually ride off road is small compared to ATB sales.
>
> They were picked up as hip because, summarizing gracelessly, lots of
> people noticed this faddish sales boom driven by the fact that ATBs were
> fun.

You mean regular road bikes were NOT fun?

> Of course, ATBs faded from a fad into a substantial (though not
> dominant) share of the "serious" bike market.

There is no such thing as a "serious" bike market. What planet do you live
on? Almost everyone in the world thinks of a bike as a toy for kids. Please
get real!

>> Also, at the time ATBs were marketed as being more comfortable than
>> drop-bar road bicycles - not exactly a promise they have fulfilled, eh?
>> It seems that the manufacturers are now introducing "comfort bicycles"
>> to meet the unfulfilled need for a comfortable (to the non-hardcore
>> rider) upright. And the drop-bar road bicycle has returned to the
>> "crappy department-store bike" category.
>
> Comfort bikes look like rigid MTBs. It's more that the race/freeride end
> of the market has specialized and gone upmarket, and the vestigial knobs
> have disappeared from the comfort bikes.

I agree with Ryan here. Comfort bikes are a misnomer for sure as they are
anything but. If you want comfort on a bike, you have to get a recumbent.
There are no short cuts. You must be on a seat, not a ****ing saddle!

>> Finally, the ATB only differs from the road bicycle (to the casual
>> observer) in tube size, tire width, and handlebar type. Not exactly a
>> stretch for for LBS staff to adapt to - heck, many shops will not even
>> work on recumbents, despite their overwhelming use of standard
>> components. The ATB also offers a category for the young racers typical
>> of many LBS staff.
>
> I will defer to the old LBS hands here to describe the initial old bike
> shop responses to the first ATBs. What I know is that large numbers of
> shops in Vancouver can pretty much trace their genesis to the first days
> of mountain biking: they were created to absorb the massive and pretty
> much spontaneous demand for these new bikes, in some cases eclipsing
> older bike shops which went out of business.

"You mean regular road bikes were NOT fun?" - Ed Dolan

> Nowadays, there are two important LBSen that are road specialists, about
> that many triathlete-specialty shops, one recumbent-oriented dealership,
> one or two dozen essentially MTB-oriented shops, and the great majority
> of shops which have mixed floors of road and mountain bikes.

All of the above goes to prove that cycling is not taken seriously by anyone
except for a few freaks. The popularity of MTB is proof positive of that.

> It's pathetic conspiracy theorization to assume that bad marketing has
> been responsible for a failure of recumbents to capture the market share
> you would expect.

Again, I agree with Ryan here. I don't think marketing, good, bad or
indifferent, has much to do with it. There is only a small group of folks in
the world who are smart enough to want a recumbent. And they will get one
whether they are badly marketed or well marketed. We don't even need bike
shops in order to accomplish our goal. Hells Bells, if worse comes to worse,
we will build one ourselves from scratch.

> If I thought that recumbents were underperforming their "natural" place
> in the market, I'd put the blame largely at the feet of the horrible
> first impression their low-speed handling makes.

Recumbents will never handle anything like uprights handle at any speed, but
that is not what recumbents are about. They are about comfort. Uprights are
torture racks for any ride longer than a couple of hours. Folks who are
happy on uprights simply don't know any better. In short, their ignorance is
abysmal!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Peter Clinch]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:

> If I thought that recumbents were underperforming their "natural" place
> in the market, I'd put the blame largely at the feet of the horrible
> first impression their low-speed handling makes.

Though most people never get that far, writing them off without so much
as a ride. No, it's got to be the UCI back in the 30s that really need
to take the blame!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Tom Sherman]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> In article <fji5jp$5g6$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>>> In article <fjhi67$h6d$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ZBicyclist aka Mike Kruger wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> [sales history of recumbents versus mountain bikes]
>
>>> Recumbents have dedicated adherents, avid builders and experimenters,
>>> even dealers dedicated to the market. What they do not have is consumer
>>> interest in volumes worth talking about.
>>>
>>> It's not a conspiracy, it's a response to the very real shortcomings of
>>> 'bents.
>>>
>> Interesting hypothesis, but it ignores one thing. Mountain bicycles (aka
>> ATBs) were picked up as being "hip" by the advertising and mass media
>> industry, and interest and sales definitely benefited from that. To this
>> day, people use ATBs as accessories on their SUVs (another product sold
>> mainly through mass culture, not need). The number of people who
>> actually ride off road is small compared to ATB sales.
>
> They were picked up as hip because, summarizing gracelessly, lots of
> people noticed this faddish sales boom driven by the fact that ATBs were
> fun.
>
> Of course, ATBs faded from a fad into a substantial (though not
> dominant) share of the "serious" bike market.
>
>> Also, at the time ATBs were marketed as being more comfortable than
>> drop-bar road bicycles - not exactly a promise they have fulfilled, eh?
>> It seems that the manufacturers are now introducing "comfort bicycles"
>> to meet the unfulfilled need for a comfortable (to the non-hardcore
>> rider) upright. And the drop-bar road bicycle has returned to the
>> "crappy department-store bike" category.
>
> Comfort bikes look like rigid MTBs. It's more that the race/freeride end
> of the market has specialized and gone upmarket, and the vestigial knobs
> have disappeared from the comfort bikes.
>
>> Finally, the ATB only differs from the road bicycle (to the casual
>> observer) in tube size, tire width, and handlebar type. Not exactly a
>> stretch for for LBS staff to adapt to - heck, many shops will not even
>> work on recumbents, despite their overwhelming use of standard
>> components. The ATB also offers a category for the young racers typical
>> of many LBS staff.
>
> I will defer to the old LBS hands here to describe the initial old bike
> shop responses to the first ATBs. What I know is that large numbers of
> shops in Vancouver can pretty much trace their genesis to the first days
> of mountain biking: they were created to absorb the massive and pretty
> much spontaneous demand for these new bikes, in some cases eclipsing
> older bike shops which went out of business.
>
> Nowadays, there are two important LBSen that are road specialists, about
> that many triathlete-specialty shops, one recumbent-oriented dealership,
> one or two dozen essentially MTB-oriented shops, and the great majority
> of shops which have mixed floors of road and mountain bikes.
>
> It's pathetic conspiracy theorization to assume that bad marketing has
> been responsible for a failure of recumbents to capture the market share
> you would expect.

Bad marketing? More like non-existent marketing. No hip, attractive,
young adults on recumbents in commercials for energy and soft drinks,
like there were for ATBs

> If I thought that recumbents were underperforming their "natural" place
> in the market, I'd put the blame largely at the feet of the horrible
> first impression their low-speed handling makes.
>
The low speed handling is not bad, merely different. People are used to
upright bicycles, not recumbents. For me, the occasional ride on my ATB
feels really odd at first, with all the body motion required to mount
and get started; and sitting WAY UP THERE on a perch is also odd.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

[Tom Sherman]

Edward Dolan wrote:
> ...
> There is no such thing as a "serious" bike market. What planet do you live
> on? Almost everyone in the world thinks of a bike as a toy for kids. Please
> get real!...

Actually, worldwide, most bicycles are ridden for transportation
purposes. It is only in the countries where most use motorized
individual transportation that bicycles are viewed primarily as toys.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

[gdewilde@gmail.com]

On Dec 10, 5:16 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> There is no such thing as a "serious" bike market. What planet do you live
> on? Almost everyone in the world thinks of a bike as a toy for kids. Please
> get real!

Here in the Netherlands a bike is a very serious means of
transportation. Most of them are older then 30 years.

If you live far outside town it makes sense to use a car.

If you need milk from 2 blocks away you utilise the velocipede or you
go walk even.

Walking is a very serious means of transportation.

> Again, I agree with Ryan here. I don't think marketing, good, bad or
> indifferent, has much to do with it. There is only a small group of folks in
> the world who are smart enough to want a recumbent. And they will get one
> whether they are badly marketed or well marketed. We don't even need bike
> shops in order to accomplish our goal. Hells Bells, if worse comes to worse,
> we will build one ourselves from scratch.
>

I talk to one about it one time.

He said it's scary people know exactly what they want. A normal bike
with nothing that wasn't in the picture when they pictured it.

The tour the France created peek oil? O_o

____
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress

[Wilson Warmouth]

<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b4367aee-24c9-44a4-b144-fdfdc64ab4f9@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 9, 12:48 pm, "Wilson Warmouth" <w...@gagme.com> wrote:
>>
>> Trek blew their opportunity too. They may as well have hung "not for
>> sale"
>> signs on the R200's in the dealer's showrooms. A friend bought one of
>> the
>> blowout bikes. He seldom rides it.
>
> So, why does he not ride it more? What are his specific dislikes?
>
> - Frank Krygowski

He has a son with a disability and thought a recumbent would work for him.
I told him about Trek's blowout deal on the R200 - a $1,680 bike for $600 I
believe. He bought it hoping his son would ride it, but he never really got
into it. The father has ridden it some, but he's not into it either. It's
just one of those things. No specific dislikes - just disinterest. So over
time it became a garage bike.

I'm thinking about buying it. I find it to be a fun day rider. It's a
different riding experience and that's something I enjoy.

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <fjkpvq$18e$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:

> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > In article <fji5jp$5g6$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
> > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> >>> In article <fjhi67$h6d$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
> >>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> ZBicyclist aka Mike Kruger wrote:
> >>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
> >
> > [sales history of recumbents versus mountain bikes]
> >
> >>> Recumbents have dedicated adherents, avid builders and experimenters,
> >>> even dealers dedicated to the market. What they do not have is consumer
> >>> interest in volumes worth talking about.
> >>>
> >>> It's not a conspiracy, it's a response to the very real shortcomings of
> >>> 'bents.
> >>>
> >> Interesting hypothesis, but it ignores one thing. Mountain bicycles (aka
> >> ATBs) were picked up as being "hip" by the advertising and mass media
> >> industry, and interest and sales definitely benefited from that. To this
> >> day, people use ATBs as accessories on their SUVs (another product sold
> >> mainly through mass culture, not need). The number of people who
> >> actually ride off road is small compared to ATB sales.
> >
> > They were picked up as hip because, summarizing gracelessly, lots of
> > people noticed this faddish sales boom driven by the fact that ATBs were
> > fun.
> >
> > Of course, ATBs faded from a fad into a substantial (though not
> > dominant) share of the "serious" bike market.
> >
> >> Also, at the time ATBs were marketed as being more comfortable than
> >> drop-bar road bicycles - not exactly a promise they have fulfilled, eh?
> >> It seems that the manufacturers are now introducing "comfort bicycles"
> >> to meet the unfulfilled need for a comfortable (to the non-hardcore
> >> rider) upright. And the drop-bar road bicycle has returned to the
> >> "crappy department-store bike" category.
> >
> > Comfort bikes look like rigid MTBs. It's more that the race/freeride end
> > of the market has specialized and gone upmarket, and the vestigial knobs
> > have disappeared from the comfort bikes.
> >
> >> Finally, the ATB only differs from the road bicycle (to the casual
> >> observer) in tube size, tire width, and handlebar type. Not exactly a
> >> stretch for for LBS staff to adapt to - heck, many shops will not even
> >> work on recumbents, despite their overwhelming use of standard
> >> components. The ATB also offers a category for the young racers typical
> >> of many LBS staff.
> >
> > I will defer to the old LBS hands here to describe the initial old bike
> > shop responses to the first ATBs. What I know is that large numbers of
> > shops in Vancouver can pretty much trace their genesis to the first days
> > of mountain biking: they were created to absorb the massive and pretty
> > much spontaneous demand for these new bikes, in some cases eclipsing
> > older bike shops which went out of business.
> >
> > Nowadays, there are two important LBSen that are road specialists, about
> > that many triathlete-specialty shops, one recumbent-oriented dealership,
> > one or two dozen essentially MTB-oriented shops, and the great majority
> > of shops which have mixed floors of road and mountain bikes.
> >
> > It's pathetic conspiracy theorization to assume that bad marketing has
> > been responsible for a failure of recumbents to capture the market share
> > you would expect.
>
> Bad marketing? More like non-existent marketing. No hip, attractive,
> young adults on recumbents in commercials for energy and soft drinks,
> like there were for ATBs

The marketing came after the popularity. People don't ride mountain
bikes because of Mountain Dew ads, they ride them because they're fun.

Okay, I admit it, I can't back that up. Here's an extremely glamorous
shot of Tom Ritchey on the cover of the May '81 issue of Bicycling:

http://oldmountainbikes.com/catalogs/ritchey/articles/b_may-81/ritchey_bi
cycling_cover.jpg

I want to drink a Mountain Dew just seeing that!

Since you've been asserting that mountain bikes gained a halo effect
from their use as lifestyle props in non-cycling advertising, perhaps
you'd like to submit some early examples? Anything before 1984 or so
would be especially interesting; it was around 1988 that mountain biking
was such a thoroughly embraced concept that it was up to me to pick
between a freestyle BMX** and a mountain bike when my parents bought me
a bicycle while I was in high school.

By 1983, Trek and Schwinn had mountain bikes for sale, with Raleigh and
Bridgestone there by 1984. That level of market entry indicates that by
1982 (given typical product lag times), the existence of the market was
clear enough that bike companies started to want in, and by 1983 the
sense was there that this was an very interesting bicycle category.

http://www.firstflightbikes.com/frames/museum.htm

> > If I thought that recumbents were underperforming their "natural" place
> > in the market, I'd put the blame largely at the feet of the horrible
> > first impression their low-speed handling makes.
> >
> The low speed handling is not bad, merely different. People are used to
> upright bicycles, not recumbents. For me, the occasional ride on my ATB
> feels really odd at first, with all the body motion required to mount
> and get started; and sitting WAY UP THERE on a perch is also odd.

No, seriously Tom, recumbent handling at low speeds is objectively bad:
their low moment of inertia about the roll axis makes 'em tippy (just as
tallbikes and highwheelers are eerily stable at low speeds*), and that
contributes to the steering that's much more fussy than that of an
upright bike, and there's not a lot you can do about that.

They're not menaces by any means, but it would take an awfully icy set
of veins to (as one example) trackstand a recumbent, but that's a trick
I can manage while seated on my uprights.

Back to my original point: blaming marketing failures on the non-arrival
of the recumbent boom is silly. It verges on being an unfounded
conspiracy theory. You know what mountain bikers did to convince people
to join their ranks? They rode their bikes. It was remarkably convincing.

I'm not discounting the possibility that recumbents could still boom.
They have some advantages in certain applications. But Tom, I think you
tend to understate the disadvantages, both visceral and practical.

*scary, because of the consequences of a bobble on such a bike, but very
well behaved until you get the bike tipped too far over.

**I think BMXes offer another interesting counterpoint to recumbents in
that like recumbents, they are so obviously compromised for normal
riding around town. Nevertheless, they have their own merits, purpose,
fans, shops, companies, and marketing. They're also good for kids.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing

[Edward Dolan]

"Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fjkqej$2c5$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> ...
>> There is no such thing as a "serious" bike market. What planet do you
>> live on? Almost everyone in the world thinks of a bike as a toy for kids.
>> Please get real!...
>
> Actually, worldwide, most bicycles are ridden for transportation purposes.
> It is only in the countries where most use motorized individual
> transportation that bicycles are viewed primarily as toys.

Bicycles for purposes of transportation is merely a stopgap measure until
the inhabitants can afford something motorized. Usually the first step is a
motorbike (scooter). Hanoi (Vietnam) is currently being overrun with them.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[ZBicyclist]

Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> Actually, worldwide, most bicycles are ridden for transportation
> purposes. It is only in the countries where most use motorized
> individual transportation that bicycles are viewed primarily as toys.

Worldwide, the most popular style by far is like this new one from World
Bicycle Relief:
http://www.worldbicyclerelief.org/_images/galleries/zambiajune2007/large/0607_modified.jpg
or these classic Flying Pigeons (a good article on the history of the
Flying Pigeon, by the way)
http://www.bicycling.com/article/1,6610,s1-3-12-15416-1,00.html
An upscale version is made by Pashley
http://www.pashley.co.uk/products/roadster-sovereign.html

Any color you want, as long as it's black.
Heavy but sturdy. Often double top tube for added strength and to support
loads.
Rack suitable for holding another person, a couple of milk cans or fuel
tanks, etc.
One gear
Fenders
Often rod brakes (not on this bike).
Kickstand
Chain cage to protect your pants
I'm sure there's a term to describe this handlebar style, but I don't know
it.

For what these bikes are used for, this is an eminently practical design.

[Tom Sherman]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> In article <fjkpvq$18e$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>>> In article <fji5jp$5g6$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>>>>> In article <fjhi67$h6d$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
>>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ZBicyclist aka Mike Kruger wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> [sales history of recumbents versus mountain bikes]
>>>
>>>>> Recumbents have dedicated adherents, avid builders and experimenters,
>>>>> even dealers dedicated to the market. What they do not have is consumer
>>>>> interest in volumes worth talking about.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not a conspiracy, it's a response to the very real shortcomings of
>>>>> 'bents.
>>>>>
>>>> Interesting hypothesis, but it ignores one thing. Mountain bicycles (aka
>>>> ATBs) were picked up as being "hip" by the advertising and mass media
>>>> industry, and interest and sales definitely benefited from that. To this
>>>> day, people use ATBs as accessories on their SUVs (another product sold
>>>> mainly through mass culture, not need). The number of people who
>>>> actually ride off road is small compared to ATB sales.
>>> They were picked up as hip because, summarizing gracelessly, lots of
>>> people noticed this faddish sales boom driven by the fact that ATBs were
>>> fun.
>>>
>>> Of course, ATBs faded from a fad into a substantial (though not
>>> dominant) share of the "serious" bike market.
>>>
>>>> Also, at the time ATBs were marketed as being more comfortable than
>>>> drop-bar road bicycles - not exactly a promise they have fulfilled, eh?
>>>> It seems that the manufacturers are now introducing "comfort bicycles"
>>>> to meet the unfulfilled need for a comfortable (to the non-hardcore
>>>> rider) upright. And the drop-bar road bicycle has returned to the
>>>> "crappy department-store bike" category.
>>> Comfort bikes look like rigid MTBs. It's more that the race/freeride end
>>> of the market has specialized and gone upmarket, and the vestigial knobs
>>> have disappeared from the comfort bikes.
>>>
>>>> Finally, the ATB only differs from the road bicycle (to the casual
>>>> observer) in tube size, tire width, and handlebar type. Not exactly a
>>>> stretch for for LBS staff to adapt to - heck, many shops will not even
>>>> work on recumbents, despite their overwhelming use of standard
>>>> components. The ATB also offers a category for the young racers typical
>>>> of many LBS staff.
>>> I will defer to the old LBS hands here to describe the initial old bike
>>> shop responses to the first ATBs. What I know is that large numbers of
>>> shops in Vancouver can pretty much trace their genesis to the first days
>>> of mountain biking: they were created to absorb the massive and pretty
>>> much spontaneous demand for these new bikes, in some cases eclipsing
>>> older bike shops which went out of business.
>>>
>>> Nowadays, there are two important LBSen that are road specialists, about
>>> that many triathlete-specialty shops, one recumbent-oriented dealership,
>>> one or two dozen essentially MTB-oriented shops, and the great majority
>>> of shops which have mixed floors of road and mountain bikes.
>>>
>>> It's pathetic conspiracy theorization to assume that bad marketing has
>>> been responsible for a failure of recumbents to capture the market share
>>> you would expect.
>> Bad marketing? More like non-existent marketing. No hip, attractive,
>> young adults on recumbents in commercials for energy and soft drinks,
>> like there were for ATBs
>
> The marketing came after the popularity. People don't ride mountain
> bikes because of Mountain Dew ads, they ride them because they're fun.
>
> Okay, I admit it, I can't back that up. Here's an extremely glamorous
> shot of Tom Ritchey on the cover of the May '81 issue of Bicycling:
>
> http://oldmountainbikes.com/catalogs/ritchey/articles/b_may-81/ritchey_bi
> cycling_cover.jpg
>
> I want to drink a Mountain Dew just seeing that!

The fact remains that ATBs were promoted as being cool, just the same
way that SUV were promoted as being cool a few years later. Both are
severely compromised for on road use by their off road capability, yet
most have been sold for use on the road. That can not be explained by
better functionality, since a city bike is better for shorter urban
rides and a drop bar road bicycle is better for longer road rides than
the ATB; just as the minivan is better for shuttling kids and crap
around the suburbs than a SUV. The popularity of ATBs is due to other
factors than suitability for use, since the numbers of regular off road
cyclists has never come close to matching ATB sales.

> Since you've been asserting that mountain bikes gained a halo effect
> from their use as lifestyle props in non-cycling advertising, perhaps
> you'd like to submit some early examples? Anything before 1984 or so
> would be especially interesting; it was around 1988 that mountain biking
> was such a thoroughly embraced concept that it was up to me to pick
> between a freestyle BMX** and a mountain bike when my parents bought me
> a bicycle while I was in high school.
>
> By 1983, Trek and Schwinn had mountain bikes for sale, with Raleigh and
> Bridgestone there by 1984. That level of market entry indicates that by
> 1982 (given typical product lag times), the existence of the market was
> clear enough that bike companies started to want in, and by 1983 the
> sense was there that this was an very interesting bicycle category.
>
> http://www.firstflightbikes.com/frames/museum.htm

Back when I was in high school in the mid 1980s, Bicycling (hey, I was
too young to know better) was promoting the mountain bike as a more
comfortable alternative to the drop-bar road bicycle due to the more
upright seating position and longer cranks! (We all know how well that
worked out.) Just as Jobst likes to complain about recumbent
evangelists, the cycling world was full of ATB evangelists at that time,
and they did their job well.

>>> If I thought that recumbents were underperforming their "natural" place
>>> in the market, I'd put the blame largely at the feet of the horrible
>>> first impression their low-speed handling makes.
>>>
>> The low speed handling is not bad, merely different. People are used to
>> upright bicycles, not recumbents. For me, the occasional ride on my ATB
>> feels really odd at first, with all the body motion required to mount
>> and get started; and sitting WAY UP THERE on a perch is also odd.
>
> No, seriously Tom, recumbent handling at low speeds is objectively bad:
> their low moment of inertia about the roll axis makes 'em tippy (just as
> tallbikes and highwheelers are eerily stable at low speeds*), and that
> contributes to the steering that's much more fussy than that of an
> upright bike, and there's not a lot you can do about that.

That is only a concern if you are one of those people who likes to roll
around at 10 to 15 kph speeds, or are riding technical off road trails.
The former will not be going that far, and is best served by a city
bike, since comfort is not a concern over short distances (e.g. the
Dutch utility rider and bicycle). The latter group is of course best
served by a true ATB that is NOT a good road bicycle.

> They're not menaces by any means, but it would take an awfully icy set
> of veins to (as one example) trackstand a recumbent, but that's a trick
> I can manage while seated on my uprights.

But who NEEDS to trackstand outside of the velodrome?

> Back to my original point: blaming marketing failures on the non-arrival
> of the recumbent boom is silly. It verges on being an unfounded
> conspiracy theory. You know what mountain bikers did to convince people
> to join their ranks? They rode their bikes. It was remarkably convincing.

Actually, no. Drop bar road bicycle and upright "comfort" bike sales are
increasing as a proportion of total bicycle sales, as the on-road
limitations of the ATB become more evident. Meanwhile, ATBs are becoming
more specialized for off road (and more expensive), and less suitable
than ever for road riding (e.g. full suspension XC, downhill, free ride,
etc.).

> I'm not discounting the possibility that recumbents could still boom.
> They have some advantages in certain applications. But Tom, I think you
> tend to understate the disadvantages, both visceral and practical.

And I think you understate the effect of the vast majority of LBS and
their staff having an ignorant and negative attitude towards recumbents.
People in the business with an open mind such as Mike Jacoubowsky and
Sheldon Brown are the exception, not the rule. Note what the other LBS
associated people who post to rec.bicycles.* have to say on the subject.

> *scary, because of the consequences of a bobble on such a bike, but very
> well behaved until you get the bike tipped too far over.

Contrast to falling over at low speed on a recumbent, which is a
non-event compared to doing so on an upright.

> **I think BMXes offer another interesting counterpoint to recumbents in
> that like recumbents, they are so obviously compromised for normal
> riding around town. Nevertheless, they have their own merits, purpose,
> fans, shops, companies, and marketing. They're also good for kids.
>
The most appealing aspects of BMX for children are the simplicity and
ruggedness, which eliminates the need for most maintenance and repairs.
Not to mention that the single speed is no disadvantage, since most
children (and their parents) can not figure out a derailer system and
end up riding around in one gear most of the time as a result.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

[Peter Clinch]

Tom Sherman wrote:

> The most appealing aspects of BMX for children are the simplicity and
> ruggedness, which eliminates the need for most maintenance and repairs.

No. I'd be amazed if there has ever been a significant number of kids
who prized "simplicity and ruggedness" as primary Lust Factors in a
bike. They want something that fits the current value of "cool". When
I was a lad it was a drop bar "racer", and the more gears you had the
more cool you had. We rode them through the local woods and never
actually changed out of top if we could get away with it, not something
which actually /worked/ that well, but functionality was never the issue!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <fjlo2k$g0t$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:

> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > In article <fjkpvq$18e$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
> > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> >>> In article <fji5jp$5g6$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
> >>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> >>>>> In article <fjhi67$h6d$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
> >>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> ZBicyclist aka Mike Kruger wrote:
> >>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
> >>> [sales history of recumbents versus mountain bikes]

> >>>> Also, at the time ATBs were marketed as being more comfortable than
> >>>> drop-bar road bicycles - not exactly a promise they have fulfilled, eh?
> >>>> It seems that the manufacturers are now introducing "comfort bicycles"
> >>>> to meet the unfulfilled need for a comfortable (to the non-hardcore
> >>>> rider) upright. And the drop-bar road bicycle has returned to the
> >>>> "crappy department-store bike" category.
> >>> Comfort bikes look like rigid MTBs. It's more that the race/freeride end
> >>> of the market has specialized and gone upmarket, and the vestigial knobs
> >>> have disappeared from the comfort bikes.
> >
> > By 1983, Trek and Schwinn had mountain bikes for sale, with Raleigh and
> > Bridgestone there by 1984. That level of market entry indicates that by
> > 1982 (given typical product lag times), the existence of the market was
> > clear enough that bike companies started to want in, and by 1983 the
> > sense was there that this was an very interesting bicycle category.
> >
> > http://www.firstflightbikes.com/frames/museum.htm
>
> Back when I was in high school in the mid 1980s, Bicycling (hey, I was
> too young to know better) was promoting the mountain bike as a more
> comfortable alternative to the drop-bar road bicycle due to the more
> upright seating position and longer cranks! (We all know how well that
> worked out.) Just as Jobst likes to complain about recumbent
> evangelists, the cycling world was full of ATB evangelists at that time,
> and they did their job well.
>
> >>> If I thought that recumbents were underperforming their "natural" place
> >>> in the market, I'd put the blame largely at the feet of the horrible
> >>> first impression their low-speed handling makes.
> >>>
> >> The low speed handling is not bad, merely different. People are used to
> >> upright bicycles, not recumbents. For me, the occasional ride on my ATB
> >> feels really odd at first, with all the body motion required to mount
> >> and get started; and sitting WAY UP THERE on a perch is also odd.
> >
> > No, seriously Tom, recumbent handling at low speeds is objectively bad:
> > their low moment of inertia about the roll axis makes 'em tippy (just as
> > tallbikes and highwheelers are eerily stable at low speeds*), and that
> > contributes to the steering that's much more fussy than that of an
> > upright bike, and there's not a lot you can do about that.
>
> That is only a concern if you are one of those people who likes to roll
> around at 10 to 15 kph speeds, or are riding technical off road trails.
> The former will not be going that far, and is best served by a city
> bike, since comfort is not a concern over short distances (e.g. the
> Dutch utility rider and bicycle). The latter group is of course best
> served by a true ATB that is NOT a good road bicycle.

Here's a funny thing Tom: almost every bike on the planet has been
ridden at 10-15 km/h. Bikes that can't do that well are badly
compromised. Here's another point: if we exclude the seriously technical
trails now tackled by serious mountain bikers, and limit ourselves to
the kind of low-challenge roots-and-ruts trail that can be found in a
lot of parks, a road bike or mountain bike (preferably sans rear
suspension) can do those things pretty well.

> > They're not menaces by any means, but it would take an awfully icy set
> > of veins to (as one example) trackstand a recumbent, but that's a trick
> > I can manage while seated on my uprights.
>
> But who NEEDS to trackstand outside of the velodrome?

Need is a very strong word. I suppose nobody needs to hop curbs, either.
But both are quite practical (and dare I say it, entertaining) things to
do in urban riding.

> > Back to my original point: blaming marketing failures on the non-arrival
> > of the recumbent boom is silly. It verges on being an unfounded
> > conspiracy theory. You know what mountain bikers did to convince people
> > to join their ranks? They rode their bikes. It was remarkably convincing.
>
> Actually, no. Drop bar road bicycle and upright "comfort" bike sales are
> increasing as a proportion of total bicycle sales, as the on-road
> limitations of the ATB become more evident. Meanwhile, ATBs are becoming
> more specialized for off road (and more expensive), and less suitable
> than ever for road riding (e.g. full suspension XC, downhill, free ride,
> etc.).

Discovering that mountain bikes have started waning (slightly) in
popularity now that they are the most common sort of bicycle sold in the
US, and 25 years after their introduction, does not do much for your
thesis.

As mountain bikes have become more specialized, they have become less
preferable as a city bike substitute. Indeed, the original serious
mountain bikes were mutated fat-tire cruisers, the closest thing to a
city bike that was available on these shores. By 1984, mountain bikes
were more like a 10-pounds-lighter city bike (plus knobby tires) than
any other bicycle of the era.

Meanwhile, the reactionary singlespeed trend (often coupled with a rigid
frame) is taking mountain bikes back to a simpler era.

> > I'm not discounting the possibility that recumbents could still boom.
> > They have some advantages in certain applications. But Tom, I think you
> > tend to understate the disadvantages, both visceral and practical.
>
> And I think you understate the effect of the vast majority of LBS and
> their staff having an ignorant and negative attitude towards recumbents.

It's possible, but I doubt it. The only figure I could find online
suggests that recumbents are around 0.4% of US bicycles by volume, and
4-6% by value. At a guess, that's a figure that has been eclipsed in the
last five years by the rise in demand for cyclocross bikes.

I think I understand CX bikes quite well, since I've raced the sport for
a couple of years, seen the great rise in the popularity of both the
sport and the bikes, and have built up a couple of CX bikes, too.

In essence, they can be thought of as superlight mountain bikes with
drop bars, or as road bikes with clearance for big tires. The single
notable innovation in modern CX bikes is the creation of the bar-top
interrupter lever, which makes the top-bar postion really practical.

They're selling like hotcakes, particularly to urban riders. Why? They
fulfill the desire for a sturdy and versatile machine.

CX bikes are practically the anti-recumbent: maneuverable in close
quarters, comfortable on a ridiculously wide variety of terrain, able to
conquer everything from curbs to potholes to stairs, compact, and light.

Note how well such a bicycle is suited to an urban environment. Those,
by the way, are the same people who find trackstands useful. I think the
single biggest thing stopping the ascendancy of recumbency is the fact
that the bikes are as awkward as a Hummer H1 in the city.

I once glibly summed up the state of recumbents as "the fast ones are
sketchy, the comfy ones are slow," and I stand by that. The kind of
recumbents that are demonstrably faster than road bikes (TT style) in a
time trial environment are generally very compromised in a wide variety
of ways compared to upright bikes. This bike, in general, is going to
commit all the weight positioning oddities, bulkiness, and generally
fussy bike-handling sins that are typical of recumbents. In exchange, it
will have a slightly higher top speed than a well-configured TT bike,
which is basically a road bike with an extra handlebar position and
funny wheels. The really fast recumbents are essentially unusable as
road machines.

Perhaps a little suitability trial might illustrate why I think people
find recumbents problematic. I have modeled all of the following tests
after elements of my basic bike commutes, and which I suspect are quite
typical of "serious" urban riding. Feel free to dispute the nature of
these tests: almost none of the moves or obstacles I mention are
absolutely necessary to my commute, though in most cases, avoiding them
would likely add minutes to a commute that is about 30 minutes long.

You can envision these tests as either time trials, qualitative,
pass/fail. There's a case for each approach.

1) Remove bicycle from shed. From a standing start, ride 50 feet on
grass, down a short (3' drop, ~50% grade) slope of grass, across a
sidewalk. Exit sidewalk, pause 1 second on hard-packed gravel surface
(simulating a wait for cross traffic). Start again, left turn to enter
roadway.

2) hill trial: from standing start, ride 1.8 km up 7% (average) grade.
At the halfway mark, peak grade is 15% around a moderate right-hand
curve. On an upright bike, my speed often falls below 10 km/h at that
mark.

3) curb hop: drop off a standard curb. Now, ride up a standard curb.

4) the office: dismount. Pass through four self-closing doors. The first
two have push-button opening, the last two do not. Climb one flight of
stairs with your bicycle. Lock to bike rack.

5) lane-split: ride 1 km between two lines of stopped traffic. At the
end, do a 90-degree right followed by a 90-degree left in 12 feet,
simulating the shift from centreline to curbside between two stopped
cars (assume 6' from bumper to bumper).

6) home again: from the roadway, do a sharp right. Now you are riding
the course from test #1 in the other direction. UP a short steep slope
to a grass lawn, then 50' on the grass, dismount, stow bicycle.

These are some of the obstacles I face on my commute. It's not all of
them. I would posit that if you want to figure out why recumbents aren't
very popular, it's because a lot more cyclists on this continent have
rides that look like my commute than have rides that look like, well,
whatever the rides are that make you like your recumbent so much.

I normally do my commute on an early-80s tourer set up with rack and
fenders. I have done it on my race bike, my cx bike, and my hardtail
mountain bike. About a year ago, it snowed heavily, and as a novelty I
chose to ride to work on my cyclocross bike (I also had some concern
that the transit system might fail, and I definitely did not want to use
my car).

The CX bike found traction where the cars could not, and happily
negotiated hub-deep snow when asked to. All that from what is basically
a road bike with knobby tires.

Can your bike do that?

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing

[Tom Sherman]

Peter Clinch, Medical Physics IT Officer, wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>
>> The most appealing aspects of BMX for children are the simplicity and
>> ruggedness, which eliminates the need for most maintenance and repairs.
>
> No. I'd be amazed if there has ever been a significant number of kids
> who prized "simplicity and ruggedness" as primary Lust Factors in a
> bike. They want something that fits the current value of "cool". When
> I was a lad it was a drop bar "racer", and the more gears you had the
> more cool you had. We rode them through the local woods and never
> actually changed out of top if we could get away with it, not something
> which actually /worked/ that well, but functionality was never the issue!

Let me rephrase - one of the most appealing aspects of BMX bicycles for
the parents of children are the simplicity and ruggedness, which
eliminates the need for most maintenance and repairs.

Most parents lack the time, tools and skills for proper bicycle maintenance.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

[Wilson Warmouth]

"ZBicyclist" <ZBicyclist@excite.com> wrote in message
news:rEx7j.3633$Vq.949@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>
>> Actually, worldwide, most bicycles are ridden for transportation
>> purposes. It is only in the countries where most use motorized
>> individual transportation that bicycles are viewed primarily as toys.
>
> Worldwide, the most popular style by far is like this new one from World
> Bicycle Relief:
> http://www.worldbicyclerelief.org/_images/galleries/zambiajune2007/large/0607_modified.jpg
> or these classic Flying Pigeons (a good article on the history of the
> Flying Pigeon, by the way)
> http://www.bicycling.com/article/1,6610,s1-3-12-15416-1,00.html
> An upscale version is made by Pashley
> http://www.pashley.co.uk/products/roadster-sovereign.html
>
> Any color you want, as long as it's black.
> Heavy but sturdy. Often double top tube for added strength and to support
> loads.
> Rack suitable for holding another person, a couple of milk cans or fuel
> tanks, etc.
> One gear
> Fenders
> Often rod brakes (not on this bike).
> Kickstand
> Chain cage to protect your pants
> I'm sure there's a term to describe this handlebar style, but I don't know
> it.
>
> For what these bikes are used for, this is an eminently practical design.
>
>

Thanks for the interesting links. Naturally I would go for the Pashley
Gov'nor.

[Peter Clinch]

ZBicyclist wrote:

> I'm sure there's a term to describe this handlebar style, but I don't know
> it.

"Moustache bars" is one I've seen quite a bit.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Tom Sherman]

ZBicyclist aka Mike Kruger wrote:
> ...
> An upscale version is made by Pashley
> http://www.pashley.co.uk/products/roadster-sovereign.html
> ...
> I'm sure there's a term to describe this handlebar style, but I don't know
> it....

North Road Bars. Now available in aluminium alloy from Nitto:
<http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/three.html>.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

[Wilson Warmouth]

"Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:5s7pibF17cilaU1@mid.individual.net...
> ZBicyclist wrote:
>
>> I'm sure there's a term to describe this handlebar style, but I don't
>> know
>> it.
>
> "Moustache bars" is one I've seen quite a bit.
>
> Pete.
> --

More akin to Priest Bars/ Dove Bars/ Albatross Bars

http://bessasandackerman.com/blog/?p=46

Moustache Bars look like this:

http://www.stanford.edu/~dru/moustache.html

[Edward Dolan]

<gdewilde@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:84299c99-4823-4d22-bc17-5522432ff631@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 10, 5:16 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>> There is no such thing as a "serious" bike market. What planet do you
>> live
>> on? Almost everyone in the world thinks of a bike as a toy for kids.
>> Please
>> get real!
>
> Here in the Netherlands a bike is a very serious means of
> transportation. Most of them are older then 30 years.
>
> If you live far outside town it makes sense to use a car.
>
> If you need milk from 2 blocks away you utilise the velocipede or you
> go walk even.
>
> Walking is a very serious means of transportation.

It is my impression that the Netherlands is as ****ed up as every other
European nation. Show me a modern Western nation anywhere that does not have
roads that are totally clogged with motor vehicles and I will move there
toute suite just to get away from the infernal combustion engine.

>> Again, I agree with Ryan here. I don't think marketing, good, bad or
>> indifferent, has much to do with it. There is only a small group of folks
>> in
>> the world who are smart enough to want a recumbent. And they will get one
>> whether they are badly marketed or well marketed. We don't even need bike
>> shops in order to accomplish our goal. Hells Bells, if worse comes to
>> worse,
>> we will build one ourselves from scratch.
>>
>
> I talk to one about it one time.
>
> He said it's scary people know exactly what they want. A normal bike
> with nothing that wasn't in the picture when they pictured it.
>
> The tour the France created peek oil? O_o

You need to work some more on your English. It is still not good enough for
Usenet.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[charlesA@TbarraballD.OTcom]

In message <rcousine-C6A774.00512812122007@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.ne
t]>
Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote:

[snip]

> I would posit that if you want to figure out why recumbents aren't
> very popular, it's because a lot more cyclists on this continent have
> rides that look like my commute than have rides that look like, well,
> whatever the rides are that make you like your recumbent so much.

Smashing post!

Thanks.

(I still hanker after a recumbent trike tourer...)

--
Charles
Brompton P6R-Plus; CarryFreedom -YL, in Motspur Park
LCC; CTC.

[Jon]

"Ryan Cousineau" <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote

> Note how well such a bicycle is suited to an urban environment. Those,
> by the way, are the same people who find trackstands useful.

Clearly, if you need/want to do trackstands, you choose a bike that
facilitates such. I cannot recall the last time I saw a commuter or
recreational rider doing a trackstand, but I don't live or work in a
central business district of a major urban city. Nor do I recall
seeing anyone on a club ride on road bike jumping a curb.

> single biggest thing stopping the ascendancy of recumbency is the fact
> that the bikes are as awkward as a Hummer H1 in the city.

That's not it. %^) Urban commuter "road warriors", at least in the
west, represent only a small percentage of bike sales. The *idea*
that recumbents are awkward/hard-to-ride/poor-at-low-speed
may be part of the marketing challenge for recumbents. There
are much more general reasons why recumbents are and will
likely remain a nique market.

> The really fast recumbents are essentially unusable as road machines.

True, but that's a false dichotomy. A lot of road-capable recumbents
are quite competitive with road uprights, given riders of similar
capabilities.

Three of us were doing a Saturday ride. Two on 'high racer' style SWB
recumbents, one on a medium-weight upright road bike. We're riding
along into a moderate headwind. On a slight downhill, the upright
rider is having to pedal to keep up while the recumbents are coasting.
Going up the hills, none of us are sprinting, and by all appearances
and heart rate monitor measurements, all are working about as hard
to maintain the same speed up hill.

> whatever the rides are that make you like your recumbent so much.

I haven't ridden an upright more than a few hundred feet in the past
ten years... Every ride is one that makes me like my recumbents! %^)

- Short errands to the store.
- Weekend recreational rides (12-18 mph) with friends.
- Late afternoon rides on the rail trail.
- After work "fitness" rides.
- Self-supported tours.
- Conversational rides (8-10 mph) with friends.
- ...

The *best* bicycle for someone has nothing to do with geometry.
The *best* bicycle for someone is the one they will ride.

Jon

[Peter Clinch]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:

> Note how well such a bicycle is suited to an urban environment. Those,
> by the way, are the same people who find trackstands useful. I think the
> single biggest thing stopping the ascendancy of recumbency is the fact
> that the bikes are as awkward as a Hummer H1 in the city.

Their actual awkwardness, or their *perceived* awkwardness? If you want
to tracksatnds and kerb hopping they're not so good, but there's plenty
of commuters that don't, and a compact like the HP Vel Spirit still
gives good pilot view and manoeuvrability in close traffic, but how will
people know without trying, and how will they try with hardly any
dealers, and how will there be dealers with such a small market and so
on around a circular argument.

> I once glibly summed up the state of recumbents as "the fast ones are
> sketchy, the comfy ones are slow," and I stand by that.

How many have you ridden? Do you really think something like an HPVel
Speedmachine or a Nazca Fuego is genuinely less comfortable than a UCI
compliant road bike? or looking the other way, are "sketchy"?

> The kind of
> recumbents that are demonstrably faster than road bikes (TT style) in a
> time trial environment are generally very compromised in a wide variety
> of ways compared to upright bikes.

But then a TT bike is generally very compromised in a wide variety of
ways compared to /other/ upright bikes. Or is there some other reason
why I very rarely see TT bikes outside of TTs, or what looks remarkably
like people training for TTs?

> The really fast recumbents are essentially unusable as
> road machines.

No, because velomobiles are "really fast recumbents", and are typified
by being eminently practical. They get to be really fast by having
superior aerodynamics from full bodies, which further allow a good range
of cargo options and weather protection. Models like the Quest, Mango,
Versatile and Leitra. Note that the 800+ mile UK "End to End" record,
from Land's End in the extreme SW to John o' Groats at the NE tip of
Scotalnd along normal roads, up and down all sorts of hills with no
special traffic-stopping provision, is held on a faired recumbent trike
(a bit like a velomobile, in fact).

> Perhaps a little suitability trial might illustrate why I think people
> find recumbents problematic.

All very well if those are typical, but I suspect a great many bike
commutes work along lines of "get bike out of shed, get on, ride x km
along roads and/or bike paths, get off at work, repeat in reverse".

> The CX bike found traction where the cars could not, and happily
> negotiated hub-deep snow when asked to. All that from what is basically
> a road bike with knobby tires.
>
> Can your bike do that?

No. But then, I don't want or need it to. If it's "hub deep snow" I'll
be on my cross country skis. OTOH, does your CX have tricycle stability
on sheet ice and keep the sleet off you as well as a velomobile? (like
to see you out-trackstand someone on a trike! ;-))

It's horses for courses. I don't think kerb-jumping is such a general
feature of the world's commutes that it renders recumbents a poor choice
for commutes. What /does/ render them a poor choice is they're hard to
find, vary so much between examples and from anything else you've ever
ridden that you can't mail-order with any degree of confidence, and they
don't have the dramatic cost benefits of mass production that uprights
do. For a half hour commute ride every day the comfort benefits of a
recumbent are pretty moot for most riders, especially in comparison to
the extra $1,-2,000 change they might have in their pockets, even
assuming there's anywhere close they can try a representative sample.
So, do you cross the country and spend a fortune, or get something local
and a fraction of the price which is perfectly adequate? Can't say that
the former looks appealing, even if they /did/ jump kerbs...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Edward Dolan]

"Ryan Cousineau&qu