It has been seven years in the making, but the bicycle commuter tax provision has finally passed both the House and Senate. President Bush signed it into law last Friday as part of the “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008″ (read more about the Bicycle Commuter Benefits Act here, here, and here if you are interested). I realize that a tax incentive for bike commuters stuck into a massive financial bailout bill is not really design news, but the passage of the commuter tax benefit did get me thinking about changing attitudes toward bike commuting since I first started riding to work many years ago.
I write on the blog fairly often about various “commuter oriented” or “transportation oriented” bikes because, from a design standpoint, that is the product category that interests me the most. I know that infrastructure and road safety issues are the biggest factors in getting more people comfortable with the idea of cycling on the streets, but I believe that good product design can also be a major factor in persuading some of those people to consider using bikes for transportation. Historically, the U.S. bicycle industry has not done a very good job of reaching outside of the enthusiast realm with its product offerings. In the past, some people in the marketing departments at major bike companies have been happily preaching to the choir rather than working to actively grow the market and expand their customer base. To be fair though, the industry in the U.S. has changed a lot in the last few years. The product development/ marketing change has been noticeable in the 3 years that I have been writing this blog, but the industry still has plenty of room to grow. Products aimed at bike commuters seemed non-existent when I started occasionally riding to work after college in the early nineties. These days, it is great to see many different products on the market geared toward transportational cyclists including complete bikes, components, accessories, and clothing. Still, I think the products on the market now are just the tip of the iceberg. I believe that in the next few years we will see a greater focus on development of products for the many, many people out there who do not currently ride bikes at all (now is a good time to read Mark Sanders’ blue ocean post if you haven’t already).
Based on my interest in transportation oriented bicycle designs, some of you might be surprised to learn that my current primary commuting bike is an old road bike with slightly wider tires, a rear rack, lights, and mountain bike pedals (not the pedals shown here). My yellow Cannondale may be a beater with mismatched 8-speed parts and a dented frame, but the riding position is very similar to that of my good road bike. Even with a lock, spare tube, a few tools, and my lunch in the trunk rack, the bike is pretty light and responsive. For me personally, a road bike makes a great commuter because it is a type of bike that I love to ride anyway. Occasionally, I ride my other commuting bike (also pictured), a fixed gear that is set up basically the same way with a high seat, low handlebars, and an absence of extra niceties like fenders. Both of those bikes work for me, but I realize that they are not a good transportation solution for the average person. As someone who loves cycling, I consider my commute to be free riding time. I don’t want to lock up one of my good bikes outside, but I do want to ride a bike that feels a lot like the ones I ride for fun on the weekends. To use Mark’s example, I fit firmly in the “red ocean” of existing cyclists and that drives my choice in bikes for commuting. In contrast to cycling enthusiasts like myself though, the average person who may just be starting to entertain the thought of bike commuting to save money or reduce their carbon footprint, isn’t looking for a hard workout or a personal best time to the office. That potential bike commuter wants a bike that is comfortable, practical, and easy to use. They don’t want or need a trickle down version of a racing bike; they are looking for something that is specifically designed to meet their transportation needs- a bike that is easy to use, comfortable, and efficient, but also fun. I really believe that that creating an enjoyable user experience is the key to growing the number of cyclists in this country. As I have said, commuting on a road bike works well for me, but let’s face it- I am about as bike obsessed as anyone. I fully realize that my idea of a good time on a bike is not the same as the average person’s.
So what kind of bike would appeal to the average person who doesn’t currently ride? I don’t have all the answers, so I want to pose the question to all of you. What can designers at bicycle companies do to convince the general population, not those of us who are already cyclists, that riding a bicycle to work is more fun than driving a car? Design is all about solving problems, and I consider this issue to be one of the biggest stumbling blocks to the goal of getting more people on bikes. So let’s hear it, what are some features that the ultimate “blue ocean” commuter bike needs? What would make the average person perceive a bike as a practical, even more enjoyable, alternative to a car? There are already some really good bikes and components on the market that reflect industrial designers’ attempts to answer those kinds of questions. In this post though, I have refrained from mentioning specific products by name because I am interested in hearing completely new ideas. Realistic or “out there”, refined or not- just throw out your best ideas and observations in the comments section and let’s see what we can come up with as a group. Consider this a virtual brainstorming session on the concept of a commuter bike for the masses; remember no ideas are bad ones in the earliest stages of the design process, so lets hear them all.
Kind1, I totally disagree: the only thing that is stopping the production and sale of an affordable, simple, practical bike, is the north american bike industry. Also, how do you get 3x the cost? Does anyone know what landed wholesale usually is? I thought it was about 20% below dealer wholesale, and retail is usually 40-50%. Anyways, a long, LONG way off of 200% of (3x) the price.
You CAN’T convince me that Giant or Trek can’t produce a simple 3spd citybike for $200 landed wholesale (that’d end up around $360 retail).
As for the people in here who are going on about creating a new breed of human powered vehicles… Good on you, but lets be practical. The bicycle industry model works, it just needs a lot of refinement. And, you’re a lot more likely to actually get something done if you stick to practical ideas instead of recreating the wheel.
Brian,
I was quoting the production (or FOB) cost of the bike itself to come up with the 3X number, not the shops cost.
Let me back out of the $360 retail price you noted to support the 3X claim (for mass, its about 2 – 2.5).
$360 Retail – Shop requires 45% markup (lower retail, higher markup) so they are buying the bike for about $200, as you noted.
$200 Wholesale to dealers – Supplier has 25% markup, making landed cost $150.
$150 Landed Cost – Includes FOB factory price plus shipping/duties etc
$150 minus $15 (shipping from Europe/Asia to US) minus $14 (11% duty in this case) = $121 FOB Factory.
FOB cost to supplier/brand is $121 vs. $360 retail (3X)
Taking this a few steps further:
Factory marks up about 10% or $12
Production cost including assembly = $109.
Assembly costs vary, but figure another $10 – $20, leaving frame and component costs of $90-100. 3SP hubs are about $20 OE. The rest of the bike is now a $70-80 first cost – that is mass pricing in the current hierarchy of pricing.
I agree with your point about the NA bike industry, I was only pointing out that shops are taking the largest slice (granted on lower volume) of each bike and believe this contributes to some of the bigger issues.
James and Mark,
There are two major compressive elements on a diamond frame. One runs from the rider to the cranks and the other runs between the front and rear wheels. This forms and “X” with the two intersecting. The tensional elements run from the rear dropouts to the crank housing and then to the bottom of the steering tube on the bottom of the frame. On the top of the frame, another runs from the top of the rear dropouts, up to make a connection to the top of the seat tube, and then to the top of the steering tube. These “tensional loops” have turnbuckles in them.
On a single tube LWB recumbent(the original breakthrough prototype) the compressive element is arranged similar to a wishbone design with the two rear wheel tubes joining the main tube and extending under the rider to the crank. In our (IV) prototype, this crank housing was then attached to the steering tube by two vertical tubes extending forward. The tensional elements run from the bottom of the rear dropouts to a floating connection point joining to a single just in front of the rear wheel which then runs to the bottom of the center of the crank housing, with a turnbuckle device located along this single line. In this rendition, this single tensional element runs through a small tube connected to a vertical tube(upside down T) which connects under the rider around or through the main compressive element to the rider’s seat.
The main tube(compressive element) is a large diameter, extremely thin walled tube. The tensional elements are composed of exceptionly high strength stainless steel cables but can be formed from synthetic cables with appropriate coverings and connections. The frame is TENSIONED by the turnbuckle and has suitable strength to not be overcome by forces applied.
The rider, therefore, is over and supported by the tensioned cable while being positioned by the main tube. Furthermore, the force vector of pedaling cannot overcome the applied force input into the cable which eliminates frame twist and allows for an efficient transfer of power into the drivetrain and on to the axle being held in alignment with the rider and the front bike assembly. Horizonal flexure is eliminated and vertical flexure is taken up by the tensioning cable which is dissipated into the compressional tube and rider.
The bike frame becomes a “tensegrity” structure as theorized by Buckminster Fuller and artifacted by Snelsen.
The key to this type of structure versus the regular bike frame is “static” compressional or tensionally integrated frame around a compressive member. Frames can be “tuned” by the rider by the application of input tension via the turnbuckle. More “give” in the frame simply means less tension. A stiffer frame is simply more tension.
As to manufacturing, the costs will come down simply due to less die expense and other factors.
A frame can be constructed of “parts” at a retail outlet or shipped directly to a buyer. A “user” can deconstruct their frame and ship it in a much smaller box than ever before.
One other thing, before I send this off. The original prototype was constructed of salvaged steel of dubious origin but it was thin walled and definitely not an expensive product! It was found that the cheaper steel worked better than the chromemoly as it was a more flexible compressive member. The larger central tube of this recumbent design might fair better with two smaller diameter lightweight tubes. Substituting different materials will give slightly different outcomes but the tensional frame can be constructed cheaper and serve more efficiently than the compressional frame.
The tensional frame also opens more doors to variation and innovation than the compressional frame. But, that is just my personal belief and I’ve been working on this for years. The pathways from this frame are by far not envisioned with a compressional frame simply because a compressional frame is statically balanced and a tensional frame can be changed at will.
Now, I’m putting all of this out there fully realizing this is open sourced. These “discoveries” are the results of appication of workday experiences and “serendipity”.
I look forward to any discussion.
I think you're confused about markup vs margin. Shops usually only take a MARKUP percentage of 50%, not a margin percentage of 50%. That's why you'll see [retail x 1.5] as the most common markup for bikes.
Just look here to have that explained:
http://www.csgnetwork.com/marginmarkuptable.html
Shops do take a much higher markup on P&A, but usually under 50% markup, or a 33.33% margin, on complete bikes.
Suppliers that have a 25% markup you calculate by going [their cost x 1.25 = dealer cost].
I don't know much about the factory side of things, so I'll take your word that of a landed cost of $150, about $70 of that is in labour, factory markup and shipping. Assuming a $150 landed cost, 25% dealer markup = $187.50, and 50% retailer markup = $281.25, a long cry from 3x the landed wholesale.
And yeah, landed wholesale is legitimate, no matter how your retail structure works you're going to get bikes built in asia and shipped over here.
Am I totally out to lunch here? I don't think the retail model is that unworkable.
Hey Jay,
I love tensegrity structures.
Have you got any pictures or links to them – words just dont do elegant structures justice.
I also like alternative bike frames such as the Dursley-Pederson
http://www.dursley-pedersen.net/
it was the betamax of its time vs the diamond frame (VHS). Some versions were very light.
This may sound weird, but my perfect commuter bike would be a stretched Electra Townie. Something like a permanent extra cycle, light (as light as big bikes can get) and affordable. I saw the Scargo bike that answers that wish of mine, but at $5000 for a frame set, it’s a bit too expensive.
Gerry
Townies are simply too inefficient to be a practical commuter. Commutes are generally 10km+.
Hey Brian,
My apologies on the markup/gross margin. I meant GM. Was being sloppy pulling from an old spreadsheet.
The math still stands though based on the $360 bike.
This is based on how shop calcs their sales price and an average margin for the brand. Shops look for that 40-45% GM which is closer to 67% markup, not 50%.
If you wanna take off line, email me, you can get my address from my profile. would love to further the conversation.
Good post.. enjoy reading it. Cheers!
All Mountain Bike Action
Interesting how there are no coments regarding the practical issues relating to commuter bikes, except 1 mentioning that they can be stored in a corridor.
Frame design: For a bike that will not be cleaned as often as a race bike, nooks & holes are not good; so a monocoque style frame could be better?
Frame material: Al doesn't corrode, & rust 'kills' most inexpensive steel bikes.
Wheel size: 26" rims with high pressure fat tyres have more suspension & can run over potholes without much problem (& still be fast)compared to 700c. Their greater air volume allows them to go longer without re-inflation which is important for commuters.
Handlebars: In town flat bars are more practical than drops, as hands are always by the brake levers. Bar-ends can be fitted to provide more hand positions if required(and protect hands from scrapes).
Gears: One correct gear ratio may be enough in most cases (if no heavy loads need to be carried), but how many shops will be able to convince a novice of this (and be able to choose the correct ratio)? 7-9 derailleur ratios or hub gears are probably the best compromise.
Just a few observations.
Jam ess (England)
James from England :
All comments here and reflecting one or or another aspect of practicality. Maybe you didn’t read the comments enough.
James,
Clever Cycles in Portland,OR deals in exactly the same kind of bikes people have been talking about here. Check their amazing utilitarian options and read their philosophy.
Bianchi Milano. I bought one for my wife. Chain guard, mud guards, flat bar, comfy seat, internal hub. All the basics.
But more importantly, it is classy and beautiful. Great color, great lines, and she gets compliments. Her lycra/speed bike friends mock her, but everyone else thinks its cool.
After safety, Practical Function.
While long an avid cyclist, I did very little commuting before I gave up the day job. Why? Practical issues. Like rain. Night. Being timely for meetings. Carrying wads of clothing.
So bicycle (and infrastructure design) that focuses on practical issues will be key.
As in, very small so it can be stashed in an office, carried part way in the back of the carpool van, etc.
As in, some protection from the weather.
As in, no flat tires, lights that always work, and other things that let it always be on schedule going to work, and be a safe reliable way to come home from work.
Some great comments here, especially the Corvette piece. Adding on to a couple of things.
There’s a big distinction between what folks will need as their entry-level commuter and what folks will want (and be willing to pay for) after a couple years of commuting.
For entry level, I agree that cost has to be $500 or below.
Storage, esp. for rowhouses and apartments makes folding bikes attractive, but new riders are skeptical about their ability to last.
Everything should be in a single package. Expecting a new rider to purchase add-on lights, panniers, etc. is ridiculous. Fenders, lights, generator, chain guard, internal hub, rack (pref. with a set of panniers that can be carried and look like a messenger bag), and lots of reflective material should all be included in the base package.
I’m riding the Bianchi Milano and it’s a good start, but the lack of braze-ons for a rack is confusing and a generator and high-quality lights would be great.
Someone mentioned turn signals and for a lot of riders to lift their hand off the handlebars (and brakes) when approaching a turn is discomforting. Maybe something worth exploring.
As for more experienced commuters, I think there’s going to be a big growth in the demand for cargo bikes (with electric assist), but that requires a much bigger commitment of money and storage space.
Human_Amplifier
An apology for not getting back to you sooner. Yes, I did run across the Pederson design early on back in the eighties, and it always stuck back in my mind as to why it worked, and why did it work so well? My background is “varied” – very “varied”. So, I lead you to Snelson,http://www.kennethsnelson.net/ who first articulated (artifacted)what Bucky Fuller was speaking about and once Bucky saw what he’d done he coined the term “tensigrity”. Speaking with Terry O’Sell recently, he told me of someone trying to use a tensional cable on a mountain bike but the market place said no. He thought the concept worked well on what the designer had done but,,, You might note that both Bucky and Kenneth used static structures but I believe Kenneth when on to do some dynamic scultures but that just seems to float back in my memory. Serendipity. Contact James directly.
How about making bikes less likely to get stolen, huge concern in many countries. Can they be chipped, alarmed or else made in a way to discourage stealing.
The major factor is the commuting environment (namely bike lanes) and lack of showers at offices. Sort that out and there would be a big change.
Just found the blog and I love it. Being a part time bike commuter I have been testing various frames and formats, all singlespeed and fixed gear to this point, but I am making a transition to gears next week.
Cheap and durable is what I would focus on. Also, another point is body positioning. I think the bike should be a comfort styled bike where you ride sitting almost upright with the bars half way up your chest. Because not everyone has a shower at work, this position is probably the least competitive of riding positions there are for biking. Thus, I would think it would promote more casual cruising than racing.
Guess I forgot to finish my initial thought about the cheap and durable. The bike needs to be priced so that it makes purchasing a no brainer and it has to be able to withstand the elements, at least the rain. Sealed hubs, 3 speed drums, and as much aluminum as possible.
As someone mentioned, theft proof would be smart as well, so some sort of built in locking mechanism that would be hard to defeat, probably best achieved with U-bolt styled lock, however, the wheels and seatpost should be locked down as well so that the owner only needs to worry about securing the frame to something that won’t allow the bike to be dragged off.
Hi Jay, Thanks for the info on tensegrity – yes got it … there is a tensegrity sculpture hanging in Hong Kong airport (and many dotted around USA). The designer/engineer Andrew Batchelor has also researched them for more structural applications, in his case furniture. But his conclusion was that they are fine as sculpture but getting structural stiffness is difficult. Having said that, i am still intreged by their open, airlike elegance.
Check out the span bike – us pat 4400003 by Cornelis F. de la Haye; a dutch designer (look it up on http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html). It was made (and collapsed done to a thin bag of straight tubes (plus 2 wheels and a bunch of tension wires
) a highly inspirational design.
The Sling shot http://www.slingshotbikes.com/ uses a wire downtube which handles vertical loads perfectly.
Puma http://um.puma.com/ take a different view – cut the cable (which is also lock) and the bike will self destruct – designed as a good theft deterant.
Then there is the Graham Herberts lovely pure truss design the airframe:.. http://www.airframebike.com/
But my favourite (prototype only – but we can hope) is ..The Italian ‘Beli’ bike as shown on Larry Lagarde’s excellent folding bike blog ridethisbike.com/ see link: http://ridethisbike.com/2007/10/lightweight-folding-bikes-top-5.html which aims to be THE lightest folding bike using injection moulded compressive elements and tension wires. Details are sparse – I think most can be found on a plastics suppliers web site … get searching (and please post here).
The conclusion … as designers, if we think we have designed or invented something new, then we probably have not looked hard enough !!
Anyway – to turn all these ideas into ‘products for people’ head over to http://bicycledesign.blogspot.com/2008/10/commuter-bike-for-masses-design.html …. pens (or CAD) where mouths are
Good afternoon all – I’m new to this site, but you have definitely peaked my interest with this discussion! I am a professional designer in CT who commutes to work 2 – 3 day a week, approx. 12 miles one way. My first question for this assignment is how do you differentiate a “commuter bike” to the non-cyclist? It seems that a lot of us who ride regularly and are even light gearheads have a laundry list of things that WE would want in a commuter. We probably all have road bikes, mountain bikes, free-ride bikes, etc. but it is all the same to someone who doesn’t ride on a regular basis. How do you create a “commuter bike for the masses” without it being just another bike? Is it as simple as integrating all the features of a typical commuter (fenders, appropriate geometry and rider position, cargo space, lights, etc.) or is it something COMPLETELY different? Maybe it’s not a “bicycle” at all by it’s traditional definition – Perhaps it is a “human-powered vehicle” for the masses.
It seems like there are so many factors involved in getting people out of their cars. Weather, safety on the road, tight schedules, physical ability, and the list doesn’t end there, but you get the idea – It’s tough! It’s a challenge that I’m definitely looking forward to contemplating further!
No matter what, this thing has to be simple and intuitive, bottom line. When the consumer approaches anything, if they can’t figure it out, they’ll walk away. I think a lot of thought has to go into the emotional aspects of the non-cyclist purchasing an alternate mode of transportation. Our economy sucks right now, and people are spending a lot less. Consumers need concrete reassurance or incentive that purchasing a “human powered vehicle” is going to be worth the price of admission, not to mention SAFE!!! I think people love traveling in their cars because of that feeling of safety that you get when you’re surrounded by 2000 lbs of steel, aluminum, plastic and glass. That’s going to be a tough hurdle to overcome.
Regardless, I hope you will welcome these comments, and I look forward to hearing yours. I’ve got to get back to the drawing board! Peace,
Phil
West Hartford, CT
Thanks, Human_Amplifier for the sites. I’ve visited them and I wonder if you’ve read the descriptions on the patent? It was interesting reading for me. On the surface, it looks like a duck but is a different animal – even in the description, than the one I’ve described so far. I’ll give you that some of the features are the same but the area of non-continuous compressional elements between tensional points may seem like a small point but the fact is alluded to that Heavy rods are used in place of lightweight tubes and the rods fit into a matrix node for the sake of loads. The title description also says a “demountable” bike, not a tensional frame. It is not as if the use of the terms, tensegrity and tensional integrity in 1983, the year of issue, didn’t exist. So then the question for that type of design is, does it do what I’ve already described as far as routing all forces throughout the frame, and being lighter in weight as proposed?
The other designs you pointed to were intriguing. Thank you. I’ll look forward to our further discussions.
I’ve been leaning towards this type of bike as the perfect bike for a while now.
Surly Big Dummy with a Stokemonkey electric assist.
http://cleverchimp.com/products/stokemonkey/
Found at Clever cycles in Portland. (mentioned previously)
http://www.minimalvehicleproject.com/
Shows details of the Alessandro Belli Ultra lightweight bike
I like most of you love the most common bike design (safety bike) it is simple and effective design, which have proved itself during a century, but we should not forget before its existence it had to be invented! We should think outside the box, there is more than enough bikes to choose from, but 90% of them differs only by brand names.
I have asked on some MTB forum: “Why or when they do NOT go to work on a bike?” Here are the answers from most to least common: rain or snow, cold (less than 0°C), cargo or taking children to school, sweat, danger of bike being stolen, laziness, ice or snow on roads, time (being late), broken bike, long climbs, sickens, grease on clothes… The group was small and they were all biking enthusiasts, but it can give us the general picture.
Most of these problems can be solved, not necessarily in one product. Danger of bike being stolen is solved with folding bikes all shapes and sizes or with cheap bikes or good locks or even with urban furniture. Sweating can be reduced with proper and intuitive gearing, electro motors can help in difficult climbs. Problems of rain and weather can be solved with making enclosed bikes or clothing to put over regular clothes or some mean of deflecting rain using airflow.
The safety could as well improve, we now have disc brakes, but some people now fear of falling over the handlebar, I have heard of electro motors being brakes so ABS and such could also be easily implemented on bikes, these brakes could also charge batteries.
The elderly have poor balance so trikes are more appropriate for them.
Now I see the commuter bikes becoming more of a statement than a tool (I expect in the near future commuter bike being a choice of educated and wealthy people leading the way) We should remember, how cycling started among aristocracy (ridiculed by others), without pedals, on wooden wheels, and gained wider popularity as it has improved with inflatable rubber, gears… as always innovation is the key to make human powered vehicle more popular on todays free market. As the market will grow more affordable and better the products will get as it is with the cars today.
In response to different needs (in the blue ocean) we shall see different designs from recumbents, fixies, ordinarys, MTBs, BMXs, trikes, chopper bikes, folding bikes and other stuff that is hardly called a bike … because we must not primarily search for the bike. We should try to solve problems.
PS: I totally agree. “If you look at bicycle “cultures” around the world to see why they are successful, the main ingredients are safe routes, general infrastructure like parking and servicing and social acceptance. Nothing to do with bikes.”
Andraž
student of product design
Ljubljana, Slovenia