Re: Trek and Cannondale recumbents

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

ryancycles@comcast.net aka Dick 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

"Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fjgvv2$n6c$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> ryancycles@comcast.net aka Dick 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.

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

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]

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 Dick 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

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 Dick 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

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 Dick 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

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

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/

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

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

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

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

<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 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

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/

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

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:30:54 +0000, Peter Clinch
<p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> 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!
>
>Pete.

Yes....I can remember all the way back to the early seventies.....the
BIG thing then was a Schwinn ten-speed. Big, Heavy, bt was the "COOL"
thing to have. I rode and rode it. Even sometimes taking to the
trails to see how far I could jump it. Didn't even think about the
possibilities of what would happen to those gears in the event of an
accident.

Now it's no longer the "COOL" factor for me. It more of comfort and
the ability to be "SEEN" by drivers on the road.

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.

"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.