So, let's open our eyes to the power of aesthetics to inspire change. If riding a beautiful, user-friendly bike will get 100 or 1,000 or 10,000 people out of their cars, even just to grab some groceries, I think that's a positive shift. And maybe some number of those folks will keep riding for a long time or greater distances and inspire even more people to do the same.

The original point was how to reach the 97% non-cycling public and get them to take the 80% of trips that are under 5 miles, under their own power. Yes, building bikes that they won’t ride IS a waste of time. That means finding a bike that they WILL ride. To me that’s what makes engineering fun – designing/building a product that inspires peoples’ minds to override their lazy-ass tendency.
Nick Hein
Morgantown, WV

I *believe* in bicycle commuting in ways even most riders don’t, and for reasons most of them haven’t even thought of.

But there is no bicycle design, no combination of ooooh shiny and practicality, no magic rake of the forks or comfy seat that will get even a significant minority to ride a bicycle on a regular basis.

Not
Going
To
Happen.

I’m sad it’s not. I’d *love* it if it if potential employers didn’t look at me weird when I ask about shower facilities at the office. I’d be grateful as all heck if there were more and better places to lock my bicycle up, if cage drives were more aware of me.

But it’s SO easy to drive a car, and it’s *hard* to ride a bicycle.

On a bicycle you have to plan ahead, you have to think, you have to arrange your life. You have to know what the weather is going to be, you have to leave early when it’s raining or snowing (if you have the guts to ride in the snow). Riding *feels* more dangerous than driving a car.

Hell, it IS more dangerous, you get exposed to the world. The rain, the snow. The glass on the street, the neighborhoods along the way. You smell the city you move through, you hear it. It gets on your clothes and in your hair (if you have any). You get hot in the summer and cold in the winter you get wet in the rain. And you HAVE to deal with the world around you.

And most people don’t want that.

So fuck them. Building bikes for them is a waste of time.

It would be GREAT if even twice as many people could be convinced to ride bikes to work regularly–just the economy of scale to support them would eventually bring the price of *good* commuter bike down considerably.

I ain’t holding my breath though.

What was the question?

Oh yeah. Will these sorts of designs get more people commuting? Riding? Maybe if they price point is low enough. There just aren’t enough people out there willing to spend seven or eight hundred bucks on what is (to them) a toy.

The Electras are close in price. I’d buy one if I could get it shipped over here.

A: "They've never achieved market penetration any greater than 3%". At least not since the widespread advent of cars. The message to me is that for bikes to achieve the popularity of cars, they'll have to have the utility of cars. I agree that it's going to be a challenge doing that in a vehicle that weighs < 60 lb instead of 6000. Hey, I'm an engineer – that kind of challenge excites me. I submitted a couple of designs to the contest with features that I thought would help give some car-like utility.

I ride all of the different kinds of bikes that come into our shop. Even though we're in a small community, the 3000 bikes we've had donated represent a wide variety of designs and quality levels. The best bike for utility I've ever ridden is the HP Velotechnik Grasshopper (folding) that I bought this year. However, I don't ride it in the Winter because I don't want road salt all over my $3K ride.

The additional features I want are an enclosed/weatherproof drivetrain and a stowable fairing for more speed and rain protection. The current crop of velomobiles is suitable for people in less hilly areas than WV, but too heavy for the breathtaking hills we have here. They are also difficult to transport in a car (for the rare occaision when you need to) because of their large size.

I'd like to say how I've addressed those issues in my design submission, but I don't want to affect the judging. Or maybe I already have.

Thanks for the great conversation, I'm passionate about this as you may have guessed and I enjoy hearing from others who share the passion.

Nick Hein
Morgantown, WV

Matthew,
That doesn’t necessarily mean that coordinated components are not interchangeable with regular bike parts.

If the Trek is designed well, the hub and cranks are standard and the only non-standard parts you need are the chainrings, cog and belt. In fact, Trek would probably want to do it that way since it doesn’t require as many expensive custom parts, even if they make them themselves under their house brand(s) (as an aside- I wonder how much you have to replace to adjust your gearing)

Actually, that goes for parts in general, of course- yes you can get custom non-standard components made, but it is probably easier and cheaper to get modifications made to an off the shelf part wherever possible. Or even just use well matched stock parts.

Speaking of the Trek, I like how they make the horizontal dropouts slide back and forth like a Gios Compact. The nice/elegant part about that is that the driveside seat and chainstays are not welded together, just bolted to the dropout, so it makes it easy to put a new belt on by completely removing the driveside dropout.

Back to the coordinated parts and the question, “Do designs like these three have potential to appeal to a wider audience than the average cruiser or comfort bike?”

Yes. Remember the Shimano Sante component group? That was a nice, fashionable component group that many bike makers made coordinating bikes for. Certainly, it did appeal to a different audience than the average cruiser or comfort bike (how successful it was is a different matter). But for the most part, it was standard interchangeable components. What did that do for high end road bikes?

Actually, I can’t say for sure.
Yeah, I worked in a bike shop that carried a Sante-equipped brand or two, but that was a while ago, so I forget how well they sold.

Though they have an appeal, I’m not sure if that is still the same as resulting in increased sales. I can see how a nice looking cruiser or comfort bike may get people off the fence and buying now instead of waiting.

For more expensive products I think the styling is just a means of cannibalizing sales from another bike…. and selling coordinated clothing, helmets and accessories.

Reading back through the comments, regarding aesthetics vs. functionality vs. use- I’m reminded of Virginia Postrel’s book, “The Substance of Style,” where the premise is that people are more satisfied with designs they like- even if they have more problems with them, they are willing to overlook them (actually, was that this book or some other?)

Though people may buy the nice looking bike and then get rid of it pretty quickly, what is their satisfaction index vs. a comparable ugly bike? And does that change their attitude towards biking at all? (probably not)

But yeah, they’re fashion accessories- people will tire of them and dispose of them when the fad (as they perceive it) ends and they’re not hooked.

So, what would make a better bicycling gateway drug? Is it the commuter bike for the masses design? Is it one of the designs like Nick envisions? Is it Critical Mass type of events? Is it sustained higher gasoline prices?

Personally, I think it’s college campuses and their environs that are bicycle friendly. Certainly, it’s that and enthusiasts I met in collee that got me more into bikes.

However, it is the very interchangability of bike components that makes them so valuable. I can take a thirty year old bike and make it useful as new as a commuter. However, my refrigerator and stove, all very high end, are unrepairable. They have things like “sealed burners” that mean they cannot be rebuilt. My Volvo bearings just went and I had to buy a new, $500 wheel instead of replacing $30 worth of hub bearings. Again because they were “sealed”.

Components that are tuned to a specific model are great for manufacturers, but are the core component of planned obsolescence. No one will stock parts that are specific for one model, one year, so when a bike gets old, it will be thrown away, not rehabilitated.

Don’t argue for a system that creates waste and retards what makes bicycles the cultural phenomenon that they are now.

People will buy a thing to own it and then tire of it and dispose of it without ever improving the conditions under which more dedicated users of other forms of the thing operate.

It’s all cool.

I guess the question I should pose to Nick (and anyone else who wants to weigh in) is this- what is wrong with these bikes from a functional standpoint? The Electras in particular have many features that make them practical for short urban commutes (and the basic design is proven in other countries), so why are potential customers likely to hang them up after the first ride?

Design and styling are of tremendous importance for that initial sale — even the most jaded cyclists among us are attracted to a sleek shape and vibrant styling, no matter how much we try to deny it. What companies need to bring to the table is also a way to sell the utility, fun and functionality of those designs to encourage actual use!

Despite your comment about the superficiality of “bright colors and shininess’, I am sure that, as a designer, you will agree that aesthetics DO matter when it comes to selling any product (including bikes). Personally, I am more likely to opt for something like a Dura Ace equipped Tarmac SL over a brightly colored cruiser, but in either case, the “styling” of the bike is a big factor in the purchase decision. I am not going to even try to pretend that aesthetics are not a factor in bike choice for me or anyone else. Different styles appeal to different types of users and of course there are different performance/ functional factors to consider, but lets face it; when a customer walks into a bike shop, no matter what type of bike or price point they are considering, looks really do matter.