Bike Dealer mag cover bent market health?

[Moosebear]

Originally posted by John Riley
I would say that they don't meet a compelling need (emotional or otherwise) for very many people. Seems to be a niche product, and I don't think that is about price.

Recumbents will one day explode on the market. They will be impossible to keep in stock. It will happen as soon as it is fashionable to be a "sporty aging baby boomer who is concerned with comfort". Marketeers will spin sexy images of virile sporting men, riding recumbents that don't crush thier bits.

Bikes are outrageously subject to the whims of fashion. Crappy Wall-Mart "full-suspension mountain bikes" with rust-ready pig-iron wheels... people look, and what they see is a hi-tech, cutting edge machine.

The same commercialization COULD happen within a few years to recumbents, although "comfort" as a main selling feature might be a harder pitch than "Pounds hard down mountains"

In the seventies, everyone was wobbling around on racing bikes with tubeless tires, as comfortable as a TV antenna.
It had nothing to do with what was practical for the purpose, and everything to do with flash and show.

Gene, I respectfully submit that some recumbents are perfect for most riders, but low-end bike configurations are driven by market whims. Recumbents are wierd right now, not trendy, not something cool. Nobody wants to look wierd is the pathetic old market driver. Mountain bikes are cool, but they will get tired as a fashion accesory. (except amoung that minority of purchasers who actually use them on trails)

I sought out my bikeE (which I modified with a RANS seat from Calhoune) for comfort. Like many on this board, I cherish looking like a geek. It is the best machine for comfortable, relaxed commuting I have ever owned. I ride about 30 miles every day running around the city, and I have never liked cyling more in my 30 years as a city cyclist. And my bits are not crushed.

Mind you, Toronto is admittedly fairly flat. I might have had a harder time adjusting to the spin if it were hilly.

But I am a pragmatically convinced devotee of the CLWB, now considering our local new Maxarya. (check out the review at Bentrider online, very good value) And mark my words, when the day hits when recumbents become trendy... next year, ten years... it will knock us on our butts, and we'll be screaming we were first, and we'll be so cool!

"That's right, my first bent was a '96....

Cheers,

 

[George Mackenzi]

"Gene Cottrell" <[email protected]> writes:

> I am one who rode a DF for years and due to medical reasons, decided to ride a recumbent rather
> than not ride at all. I purchased a Strada and for all my riding and trying, I couldn't come to
> terms with it. In 2500 miles over a three month period I never got one mile of enjoyment out of
> it. It was terribly slow in the hilly terrain I ride in and I could no longer keep up with my
> riding friends regardless of how hard I tried. I have now relegated myself to riding my upright
> once a week for a short 30-35 mile ride with the slow group of my club. At least I can enjoy
> getting out for a ride. I know there are those few who enjoy a recumbent and I'm glad for them,
> but I am one of the majority who can't enjoy a bent.
>
> Gene
>

I can imagine that some folks just can't get along with a bike like a Strada. I've ridden about 25
different recumbents, and I've yet to find one that I didn't like something about, but some of them
were certainly much easier to get along with than others. Each style has its merits and demerits,
and if the demerits of the Strada concern you than you can certainly say that you don't like the
Strada, but to say that you can't enjoy a recumbent at all is something else entirely. Do you really
have sufficient experience on recumbents to say that?

Also, to say that the majority of people can't enjoy a bent is absolutely ridiculous. Do you have
data? If not, speak for yourself.

Just so that you know where I'm coming from, I ride an upright most of the time.

 

[Risto Varanka]

George MacKenzie <[email protected]> wrote:

: "Gene Cottrell" <[email protected]> writes:

:> I am one who rode a DF for years and due to medical reasons, decided to ride a recumbent rather
:> than not ride at all. I purchased a Strada and for all my riding and trying, I couldn't come to
:> terms with it. In 2500 miles over a three month period I never got one mile of enjoyment out of
:> it. It was terribly slow in the hilly terrain I ride in and I could no longer keep up with my
:> riding friends regardless of how hard I tried. I have now relegated myself to riding my upright
:> once a week for a short 30-35 mile ride with the slow group of my club. At least I can enjoy
:> getting out for a ride. I know there are those few who enjoy a recumbent and I'm glad for them,
:> but I am one of the majority who can't enjoy a bent.

: I can imagine that some folks just can't get along with a bike like a Strada. I've ridden about 25
: different recumbents, and I've yet to find one that I didn't like something about, but some of
: them were certainly much easier to get along with than others. Each style has its merits and
: demerits, and if the demerits of the Strada concern you than you can certainly say that you don't
: like the Strada, but to say that you can't enjoy a recumbent at all is something else entirely. Do
: you really have sufficient experience on recumbents to say that?

Well why was the Strada too slow? Too hilly terrain, simply? 2500 miles in hilly terrain should have
already built up some muscles for riding hills on a bent. Unless the rider used to do 5000
miles/year for a long time on uprights... If you switch to bents, do you have to build that
endurance base first, all over again? I'm not such a serious rider, but from my experience it seemed
that at least some of it directly translates to bents. After say two months of riding I was able to
do about the same speeds and distances on my trike as previously on hybrid upright, but then again
our terrain is pretty flat.

Recumbents are expensive and even if you can sell your old one for good money it's often not easy to
find a buyer. And if you have to go through 3 different models to find the right one, or do
extensive research before a purchase, some would consider that a serious disadvantage of bents...

It seems that recumbents are clearly superb for riding long, flat distances on good roads. Maybe
bents are not a good option for the majority of people but there are still very large groups of
people who do the said kind of riding on uprights. In other groups there would still be some people
who would prefer a bent. These two result in the bent growth potential in my opinion.

--
Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/hpv/hpv.html varis at no spam please iki fi

 

[Jeff Potter]

[email protected] wrote:

> Recumbents are expensive and even if you can sell your old one for good money it's often not easy
> to find a buyer. And if you have to go through 3 different models to find the right one, or do
> extensive research before a purchase, some would consider that a serious disadvantage of bents...
>
> It seems that recumbents are clearly superb for riding long, flat distances on good roads. Maybe
> bents are not a good option for the majority of people but there are still very large groups of
> people who do the said kind of riding on uprights. In other groups there would still be some
> people who would prefer a bent. These two result in the bent growth potential in my opinion.

Why not use real world market realities?

Money is hardly the limiting factor in most shopping. In fact, there's a powerful shopping dynamic
that results in things that are more expensive being more popular and respected and desired.

LOTS of people have TONS of money/credit and LOVE to blow it. People who are into motorsports spend
money like it's coming from a faucet and complain not a bit. They're PROUD of it. They have MANY
redundant, developmental vehicles. It is VERY common to lose TONS of money on resale---well, HALF in
the first year is the rule, right? Motorsport people buy new rigs every year COMMONLY and sell at
huge losses. It is COMMON to start out on one rig then learn about what you really like and buy
another SOON without complaining. It's obvious that building up in quality as one develops skill
requires one to buy several vehicles. It's nothing to complain about. Be a man, might be what they
say. They're proud to get different stuff for different uses. They'll have a 'utility' ATV then a
racing one---and not use either---and each costs $5K+.

Then, who has to PREFER a bent? Why not just enjoy it from time to time? Or use it for what it's
good for. You don't have to have just one bike and hardly any bike buff does.

Shooting sports people have guns for DOZENS of functions, many of which they hardly use and prices
are $1000+ a unit commonly.

Bike people spend TONS of money on bikes. $500+ ROUTINELY on wheelsets that make no difference.
Hundreds fly every which way for pointless weight-savings. It's common these days to buy a new bike
every few years even though the old one is fine. Common sense is not affecting these people! --And
it doesn't affect the bent market either!

My point is that price and usefulness are NOT the fundamental reasons why bents don't sell. No other
market needs these factors! Nearly every other market is far more stupid in terms of price and
usefulness than benting! Yet many succeed. Perhaps the problem is the KIND of people who bents are
sold to: cheapskate whiners. Bikes and bent makers are probably wise to try to change their
marketing to try to sell to different demographics.

--

Jeff Potter
****
*Out Your Backdoor * http://www.outyourbackdoor.com publisher of outdoor/indoor do-it-yourself
culture... ...offering "small world" views on bikes, bows, books, movies... ...rare books on ski,
bike, boat culture, plus a Gulf Coast thriller about smalltown smuggling ... more radical novels
coming up! ...original downloadable music ... and articles galore! plus national "Off the Beaten
Path" travel forums! HOLY SMOKES!

 

[Moosebear]

Originally posted by Jeff Potter
[email protected] wrote:

>
LOTS of people have TONS of money/credit and LOVE to blow it.


Bike people spend TONS of money on bikes. $500+ ROUTINELY on wheelsets that make no difference.
Hundreds fly every which way for pointless weight-savings.


Perhaps the problem is the KIND of people who bents are
sold to: cheapskate whiners. Bikes and bent makers are probably wise to try to change their
marketing to try to sell to different demographics.

--

Jeff Potter
****

So if us cheapskates are a big problem, then the folk who spend $500 on wheelsets that make no difference are what, somehow wiser?

I think many 'bent riders are thoughtful individuals who see their machines in a very practical way, in relation to thier bodies and health. Spending $500 on things that make no difference is for people who are wanting to impress someone.

Most bentheads are not trying to impress, they are seeking machines that let them pedal ergonomically and efficiently at the best possible price.
If that makes us problematic cheapskates, hooray, I'll join the Cheapskates on Parade!!! )

 

[Jeff Potter]

Moosebear <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>... [ ]
> Most bentheads are not trying to impress, they are seeking machines
that
> let them pedal ergonomically and efficiently at the best possible price. If that makes us
> problematic cheapskates, hooray, I'll join the Cheapskates on Parade!!! )

I think that sensible people are of course a worthy market demographic. Mass-markets often sure
aren't very healthy for anyone involved. They're based on fads and wasteage. Who needs that.
However, there are also cheapskate markets where basically businesses can't survive.

For instance XC skiing is one of the cheapest outdoor activities and quite a few US people do XC yet
it's VERY hard for the Euro makers to even keep distributorships open over here. I'm not talking
maintaining lots of outlets, I mean ONE way for people to buy: Adidas makes great XC boots and now
they're simply not available in the US. For some reason the demographic XC appeals to resents
spending anything, including spending relatively small amounts on very good products of enduring
quality. It's kind of an abnormal market.

Take a similar sport like mtbike racing and even those who aren't faddists, who do it budgetstyle,
spend LOTS more than XC ski racers do and there doesn't seem to be a climate of resenting businesses
that charge for their services.

Now, you don't have to flipflop entirely the other way, as with SUVs, where purchases are rarely
related to commonsense, but it would behoove someone wanting to do biz in the field to at least try
to find customers who behave somewhat normally. I believe there are markets that respect paying for
what they get and understand that small outfits have to charge more: market basics.

Just like there are faddists, there are cheapskates and neither are good in the long run for a
market. So I suppose a happy medium is best. What kind of market would that be like? Who should
bent-companies emulate? Maybe no one: just be professional. Create a professional, positive image
and don't get sucked into ruts on either side.

I remember when mtbiking first started out that custom mtb frames weren't that popular. I recall
that Moots of Steamboat had to charge quite a bit for their frames. Nowadays this is common practice
and a thriving market sector. But back then Moots had to rely on their custom wheelchair sales to
pay the bills, from what I heard.

I guess you have to find customers who are willing to pay what something is worth. Sometimes a sport
finds itself simply in a demographic that makes this VERY hard.

For instance, muzzleloader hunting is a sensible field---not faddish or cheapskate---and there seem
to be many small outfits thriving in
it.

Archery is a big market. But I recall a friend who was one of the best custom self-longbow makers
(if not the best) and he had to shift markets because even tho there were millions in custom
compound bows, there was basically nothing in his niche. He shifted niches slightly to quality
production recurves and started selling like hotcakes. Yet his selfbows were a wonderful value,
hardly any more cost than his production recurves and pure works of functional, durable, worldclass
art. I sure wish I'd bought one while I could...but I was a cheapskate!

Markets...who can tell. It sure is nice to find one with reasonable customers, however! : ) --JP

 

[John Riley]

Moosebear <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

>
> So if us cheapskates are a big problem, then the folk who spend $500 on wheelsets that make no
> difference are what, somehow wiser?
>
> I think many 'bent riders are thoughtful individuals who see their machines in a very practical
> way, in relation to thier bodies and health. Spending $500 on things that make no difference is
> for people who are wanting to impress someone.
>
> Most bentheads are not trying to impress, they are seeking machines that let them pedal
> ergonomically and efficiently at the best possible price. If that makes us problematic
> cheapskates, hooray, I'll join the Cheapskates on Parade!!! )

The wheels cost a lot of money and don't make much difference. Recumbent bikes cost a lot of money
and _do_ make a difference, but there is resistance to the pricing of the recumbents. I think that
is where Jeff is referring to cheapskates.

If you are in Canada, don't take it personally. Canadians don't have much choice about being
cheapskates. 15% sales tax, lower dollar...although that seems to be changing.

It is probably not a good time to be making the cheapskate point in the US now, for that matter.
There is a lot of uncertainty, economic and otherwise. I think back when things were overheated
there was much less resistance to recumbent pricing and sales were better.

IIRC even the car market slowed in October. Talk about a wacky business. The car makers can't adjust
supply downward when demand falls.

John Riley

 

[John Riley]

[email protected] (Jeff Potter) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>... [...]
> Just like there are faddists, there are cheapskates and neither are good in the long run for a
> market. So I suppose a happy medium is best. What kind of market would that be like? Who should
> bent-companies emulate? [...]

I don't know much about it, but the exercise machine market looks more rational (froma business
standpoint) than the bike market. You can get a $200 exercise bike, but I bet the average selling
price of an exercise bike is much higher than the average selling price of a bike. I don't know
that that is because of anything different that the makers are doing. In some cases you have the
_same_ makers.

John Riley

 

[Sticker Jim]

"Gene Cottrell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "MLB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > Aren't suitable for most riders? How so?
>
> They don't climb well, they're not comfortable for most people (recumbent butt, numb feet, etc),
> they are not nearly as stable in turns, slow
response
> (not nimble like a DF), not very compatable riding in groups with DFs and
on
> and on and on.
>
> > I would attribute the fringe status mostly to lack of exposure for the general public, followed
> > by the high price.
>
> They're less expensive than a good DF. I paid twice the price of my
Strada
> for my Colnago and most of the people I ride with have bikes in the
$2500 -
> $3000 range and I belong to a club with over 600 members. Certainly price
in
> a small factor in the decision of people to buy or not buy a recumbent.
>
> > I think your idea will be disproved by the new Sun line the next couple of years.
>
> We'll see, history is not in it's favor.
>
> Gene

They don't climb well? They climb as well as the engine makes them climb. A friend of mine,who rides
mountain bikes pretty much exclusively, took my spare 42lb trike to try it out on our twice-a-week
road ride. He left everyone in his dust on the downhill legs of hills, and most of the riders were
left behind, including me, on the uphills. If people really want to smoke up hills, it's all in the
engine. Of all the people who have taken my bikes for a ride (some being gone for more than an hour)
none of them came back with any other physical condition other than "recumbent grin". If you claim
they are slow and unstable, you've obviously never seen people racing on them and like any other
bike, they are designed with certain handling characteristics and therefore favour certain riding
styles. The prices of bents and trikes usually START at about the price of good DF bikes and by
good, I don't mean bikes that Lemond wanna-bees with top line hardware and CF frames/wheel sets go
out and buy. A person who wants to go bike riding can go to the store and buy a supermarket bike for
$200 and it's more than high enough quality for most bike riders. For a couple hundred more they can
start seeing a marked improvement in quality and durability. For the average bike owner who's bike
spends the majority of its life in the garage, a DF bike is light years cheaper than even the
cheapest bent or trike.

In fact, if you DO read about history, it DID favour the bent, which is why all the "powers that be"
at the time in the DF cycling world slowly had them kicked out of and made ineligible for every
major cycling event. History favours the bent, short sited and narrow minded people however, do not.

If you don't like bents, which obviously seems to be the case, pony up beside Fab and be done with
it because the rhetoric you use for validation of your points has been disproved so many times,
you're either a complete skeptic or only just started following this NG. I'd bet on the former.

 

[Mlb]

While you are right that there are certainly folks able to keep up, I don't see ANYONE here that
doesn't think you pay a penalty climbing hills on a recumbent. The simple fact that you can't stand
up and change the muscles being used makes that clear. Can it be overcome? Sure, but it STILL takes
that strong rider MORE effort than it would on a light upwrong.

 

[Jeff Potter]

Ya know, we probably shouldn't even try to defend every aspect of benting as we tend to do. Are
bents different from uprights? Yes. Do they ride the same? No. They have different qualities and
rides have different rhythms on bents and uprights. Usually not much difference considering equal
riders with equal experience/adaption.

The two kinds of bikes can still ride happily together. However, head-height/position almost makes
more of a difference than speed-tempo. A low bent can be annoying to ride in the middle of an
upright pack. So benters tend to ride at the front, say. Then they can converse with uprighters
behind them. Even on highriders, a benter ideally rides in a different POSITION in a group, which
makes for less than ideal pack dynamics sometimes.

Anyway, bents are different and this is a GOOD thing.

John Foltz has a good take on all this hill stuff. He's a VERY strong benter. How does he put it?
(Do a search.) I think it's something like: in the end you end up ON PAR in your uphills but you do
have to work harder at it, and you pull ahead elsewhere and ride with a faster bunch so that it
seems like you're RELATIVELY going slower on the ups. You ARE going relatively slower on the ups,
but that's because you're faster elsewhere. Uprights have a flatter overall ridespeed: they go easy
on the uphills, then harder into the wind or on the flats because they're more like windcatchers.
Speed fluctuation is less overall on uprights as a result. But bents take off like a rocket on the
downhills or into the wind, so a fit rider has to work to keep up with them, then he might leave
them behind on the ups and laugh at them...but on an upright the benter never would've been riding
with this guy in the firstplace. Make sense?

On faired bikes this different rhythm of a ride becomes even more apparent. With my fullyfaired
superbike I put my hard efforts into TOTALLY different places in a ride than with my upright or
naked bent. In that case, it's all about conserving momentum. With a fullfaired superbike you don't
even have to pedal to go 30mph much of the time, but you better pedal hard *BEFORE* a hill. The
tempo of a ride is just ALL different. And this is GOOD. Of course on the fullfair superbike I don't
ride with upright groups AT ALL. It's pointless. I saw a racer group once get out of their saddles
and get agitated as I approached. It was humorous. I yelled, "See ya guys!" as I went past. They
were still twitching around out of their saddles as I checked my mirror. They were also getting very
small. They shouldn't even bother. With THAT bike we're basically talking car speeds. I use it for
very convenient errand-running.

I look forward to using it soon for city to city jaunts in the midwest here of about 50 miles done
in a reasonable timeframe for daily projects. The car drive then is 2 hrs RT. With an upright bike
it's basically out of the question as part of a normal day. With my fullfair it would be 4 hrs at an
easy pace: almost reasonable. Too bad my desired cities are just a LITTLE too far apart. A fullfair
superbike would be PERFECT for jaunts with 20-30 legs. An hour or less each way. Perfect. Totally
creaming what uprights can do. On par with cars. Different AND GOOD.

MLB wrote:

> >
>
> While you are right that there are certainly folks able to keep up, I don't see ANYONE here that
> doesn't think you pay a penalty climbing hills on a recumbent. The simple fact that you can't
> stand up and change the muscles being used makes that clear. Can it be overcome? Sure, but it
> STILL takes that strong rider MORE effort than it would on a light upwrong.

--

Jeff Potter
****
*Out Your Backdoor * http://www.outyourbackdoor.com publisher of outdoor/indoor do-it-yourself
culture... ...offering "small world" views on bikes, bows, books, movies... ...rare books on ski,
bike, boat culture, plus a Gulf Coast thriller about smalltown smuggling ... more radical novels
coming up! ...original downloadable music ... and articles galore! plus national "Off the Beaten
Path" travel forums! HOLY SMOKES!

 

[Jeff Potter]

PS: The fastest upright climbing is done while sitting. Of course when it gets TOO steep one
alternates. But one can REALLY blast up many hills while seated on an upright. It's very
efficient. Getting out of the saddle means the hill is so steep that muscle-shift is worth the
LOSS of efficiency. At shallower (but still significant) grades, good uprighters are blasting
along at 20mph seated---benters can do this just as well. At those "less than supersteep" grades
I suspect that bents are ON PAR with uprights.

MLB wrote:

> >The simple fact that you can't stand up and change the muscles
> being used makes that clear.

--

Jeff Potter
****
*Out Your Backdoor * http://www.outyourbackdoor.com publisher of outdoor/indoor do-it-yourself
culture... ...offering "small world" views on bikes, bows, books, movies... ...rare books on ski,
bike, boat culture, plus a Gulf Coast thriller about smalltown smuggling ... more radical novels
coming up! ...original downloadable music ... and articles galore! plus national "Off the Beaten
Path" travel forums! HOLY SMOKES!