Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The birth and death of a bike company: What happened to SpeedX

cyclingtips.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 134 posts

Re: The birth and death of a bike company: What happened to SpeedX

#11

Post by Knufen »

RugnirViking wrote: post #2

Is it just me, or are there seemingly far more people trying to invest and profit off bikeshares than there are using them? I've lived in several cities in europe and i'm not actually sure i've ever seen anybody using them. Yet there seems to be tons of competing companies putting out bikes in the street. On top of that, they don't even seem to bother marketing or anything. The first I'll hear of a new company is see…

I live in Denmark and I see 10-15 people ok bikeshare bikes each time I commute. They either use the government ones or rent from private companies.

Re: The birth and death of a bike company: What happened to SpeedX

#12

Post by dajonker »

I always find it shocking to hear that so many people think crowdfunded projects have no risk, that it's somehow similar to ordering stuff from Amazon. Especially when people invest more money than they are actually willing to lose. Whose mistake is that? The customer for not understanding what they are into? Platforms like Kickstarter for not explaining it clearly enough?

Re: The birth and death of a bike company: What happened to SpeedX

#13

Post by nradov »

camjohnson26 wrote: post #9
RugnirViking wrote: post #2

Is it just me, or are there seemingly far more people trying to invest and profit off bikeshares than there are using them? I've lived in several cities in europe and i'm not actually sure i've ever seen anybody using them. Yet there seems to be tons of competing companies putting out bikes in the street. On top of that, they don't even seem to bother marketing or anything. The first I'll hear of a new company is see…

The main problem with bike shares is the ridiculously short time limit. If you could check one out for a few hours they’d be more useful, instead most are time limited to about 30 minutes. My sister used one once to bike by a lake front and she said she was stressed the whole time about not making it to the next station to reset the time limit before it expired.

They only charge an extra dollar or two to keep the bike longer. For most people it's not worth getting stressed about. I've used bikes shares in a several cities for 3+ hours and it was never a problem (although riding one of those crappy bikes for a few hours is kind of torture).

Re: The birth and death of a bike company: What happened to SpeedX

#14

Post by nradov »

It's a shame that there's been little innovation from road bike manufacturers in the past 10 years or so. The last major innovation was aero carbon frames. Since then everyone is just copying each other and trying to improve by fractions of a percent for weight, stiffness, and efficiency.

Most of the value and innovation has shifted to the groupset suppliers, with Shimano taking the lion's share of the market and a few smaller players picking up scraps. When all the important components come from Shimano it barely matters who manufactures the frame and assembles the complete bike.

At this point road bikes are about as good as they will ever be within the limits of available materials and UCI rules. It would be nice if one of the big bike manufacturers would make their own high-quality components to compete with Shimano. Or throw out the UCI rules and build a fast, comfortable bike for customers who don't care about competing in sanctioned races.

Re: The birth and death of a bike company: What happened to SpeedX

#15

Post by ChuckMcM »

DanFeldman wrote: post #7
ChuckMcM wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't just you. In a capital rich environment (where getting money for new ventures is easier than normal) a single success (even if it is just perception) and a low barrier to entry, can lead to many copycat companies appearing. And yes, they over saturate the market, and no you can't easily tell which will win and which will lose from the outside. For the "serial entrepreneurs" this is an easy way to stay employ…

> it can be surprisingly hard to get a job at BigCorp with CEO on your resume Why do you think that is? It's so common to hear advice that bigco's will always want to hire people w/ Startup experience, but does that not extend to the founders?

I can only speak for places where I've worked and hired folks, but the consensus seemed to be that people who seek out the CEO role are highly correlated with a need to control everything and less well correlated with "team players" (or people who can work with peers in a give and take sort of situation). In acquisition scenarios such companies are sometimes much more keen on keeping the VP of Engineering ("get things done") person than the CEO ("I'm the boss") person.

That and the cited "common knowledge[1]" that the population of CEOs contains a higher percentage of sociopaths than the general population. I have yet to work at a company that considered sociopathic characteristics as a "positive" for the company.

[1] I really have heard this from multiple sources but have yet to find any well executed study that shows it to be actually true so I treat such pronouncements with a bit of skepticism. I have heard more than a few people who are disgruntled at losing their job will blame it on their boss being a sociopath. Such externalization of causes feels good psychologically but it is also self serving.

Re: The birth and death of a bike company: What happened to SpeedX

#16

Post by richthegeek »

DanFeldman wrote: post #7
ChuckMcM wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't just you. In a capital rich environment (where getting money for new ventures is easier than normal) a single success (even if it is just perception) and a low barrier to entry, can lead to many copycat companies appearing. And yes, they over saturate the market, and no you can't easily tell which will win and which will lose from the outside. For the "serial entrepreneurs" this is an easy way to stay employ…

> it can be surprisingly hard to get a job at BigCorp with CEO on your resume Why do you think that is? It's so common to hear advice that bigco's will always want to hire people w/ Startup experience, but does that not extend to the founders?

Presumably a C-level is expected not to be satisfied with stepping down to a 'lesser' position, especially if those in charge of hiring at bigcos are the types who aspire to C-level status and thus see a rejection of C-level status as a rejection of their whole philosophy.

Re: The birth and death of a bike company: What happened to SpeedX

#17

Post by aurora72 »

There are no noteworthy novelties in this kickstarted bike. I'd personally venture to lose some money if I saw some real innovation and I wouldn't bother even if they failed to deliver the end product or the company went bankrupt. Here we see only some Chinese copy work.

Re: The birth and death of a bike company: What happened to SpeedX

#18

Post by zn44 »

RugnirViking wrote: post #2

Is it just me, or are there seemingly far more people trying to invest and profit off bikeshares than there are using them? I've lived in several cities in europe and i'm not actually sure i've ever seen anybody using them. Yet there seems to be tons of competing companies putting out bikes in the street. On top of that, they don't even seem to bother marketing or anything. The first I'll hear of a new company is see…

In London it's hard to find a free bike around the rush hour. They are all gone in case of tube strike or other public transport distraction

Re: The birth and death of a bike company: What happened to SpeedX

#19

Post by rasz »

nradov wrote: post #14

It's a shame that there's been little innovation from road bike manufacturers in the past 10 years or so. The last major innovation was aero carbon frames. Since then everyone is just copying each other and trying to improve by fractions of a percent for weight, stiffness, and efficiency. Most of the value and innovation has shifted to the groupset suppliers, with Shimano taking the lion's share of the market and a f…

Why bother innovating when its not needed? Expensive bicycles are in the same market as fancy watches. Its all just wealth signalling. Nobody needs 10% lighter frames, or 5% more aerodynamic shapes. If you want to drive faster or burn less energy you go electric, If you want health benefits you buy the shittiest heaviest bike you can find and pedal harder.

Re: The birth and death of a bike company: What happened to SpeedX

#20

Post by Scoundreller »

nradov wrote: post #13
camjohnson26 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main problem with bike shares is the ridiculously short time limit. If you could check one out for a few hours they’d be more useful, instead most are time limited to about 30 minutes. My sister used one once to bike by a lake front and she said she was stressed the whole time about not making it to the next station to reset the time limit before it expired.

They only charge an extra dollar or two to keep the bike longer. For most people it's not worth getting stressed about. I've used bikes shares in a several cities for 3+ hours and it was never a problem (although riding one of those crappy bikes for a few hours is kind of torture).

What, you don’t like pedalling a tank on 2 non-pneumatic wheels when you have to get somewhere?
Post reply on HN