The birth and death of a bike company: What happened to SpeedX • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by tomglynch » Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 2:58 AM UTC

walrus01 wrote: post #77

> At the time, early 2016, aero was the next greatest advance in the cycling tech space; like the Giant Propels and Specialized Venges it was pitched against, the Leopard featured a snugly tucked rear wheel, a wind-cheating profile and hidden cabling. As a road cyclist - I'm no expert on this, but even in 2004 such a thing was becoming commonplace in Chinese CF frames and companies that were trying hard to copy Cerve…

I think you're mistaken. In 2004 Cervelo had just began offering their Aero bikes, but they were aluminium, not carbon. See the Cervelo Soloist Team.

The manufacturers using carbon like Time, Look were not producing anything 'aero'. Giant's TCR (ridden by T mobile) in 2004 was carbon front triangle with aluminium seat and chain stays. And again, not 'aero'.

Lots of interesting details from here: http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/teamtech04.php?id=tech/2004/p...

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

#82

Post by nradov » Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 2:59 AM UTC

flyinghamster wrote: post #53

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…

> Or throw out the UCI rules and build a fast, comfortable bike for customers who don't care about competing in sanctioned races. Recumbents are exactly that, but it's still very much a niche market. Furthermore, at any given component grade, a recumbent will cost more - and add a further premium if it's a trike.

Recumbents have terrible visibility (can't see over cars), suck for really steep climbs and sprinting, and are kind of unsafe for fast group rides with multiple cyclists packed close together.

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

#83

Post by paulcole » Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 3:01 AM UTC

CydeWeys wrote: post #80

paulcole wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If every gram matters why do they wear those little hats under their helmets?

Not sure what you're talking about? Can you provide photos?

Sorry, don’t do photos. Feels like an invasion of their privacy.

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

#84

Post by rasz » Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 3:28 AM UTC

bluntfang wrote: post #25

CydeWeys wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't get a shitty bike if you want exercise. Shitty bikes are unpleasant to ride, making the experience not fun, and discouraging you from doing more (and longer duration) riding. Also, safety is important, and shitty bikes are less safe.

This response to the person ahead of you makes me think you either don't know much about bikes or you missed their point. I think we all agree, buy something shitty and you get shit, especially with things you put between you and the earth. A medium quality bike, which costs an order of magnitude less than a "fancy" bike, will do literally everyone who isn't a cat 1-2 racer fine, objectively. Price difference is $1-5…

$300 actually buys you a fancy walmart bike, the really bottom quality uncomfortable ones hover around $100.

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

#85

Post by crummy » Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 4:02 AM UTC

bonestamp2 wrote: post #41

luqa wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my city (Milan, Italy) bike-sharing is an extremely common solution. I feel like the business model is the main problem. Low margins high-costs (you frequently need to replace thousands of bikes) and basically no moat. Every few years a new startup can enter the marketing with a better bike. The incumbents have to improve their or risk losing the entire market in a matter of weeks.

Can you help us understand why bike-sharing is popular in Milan? For example, why wouldn't someone just buy a bike?

It's genuinely less hassle. Where do I park my bike? How do I prevent it from being stolen? It got a flat tire, what do I do? These seem like simple questions but bike sharing provides such a simple solution to them, plus more: you caught a ride to the park but don't want to pay for a taxi back? Missed the bus? Need to get to a meeting a few blocks away but don't want to arrive sweaty from a run? The answer is there's a share bike already within sight of you that you can rent for (literally) pennies in seconds.

(They're also pretty heavy for anything but short distances and not always in great condition. And at least in Berlin where I lived you can get your own bike for $50 or so, which I had. But I still like the idea.)

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

#86

Post by rmason » Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 4:41 AM UTC

Meanwhile incredibly Detroit Bikes appears to be doing quite well. So well in fact that they're attracting multiple competitors in Detroit. Perhaps because they're not competing on price and some people still value American made?

https://detroitbikes.com/

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

#87

Post by track_me_now » Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 4:48 AM UTC

luqa wrote: post #31

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 my city (Milan, Italy) bike-sharing is an extremely common solution. I feel like the business model is the main problem. Low margins high-costs (you frequently need to replace thousands of bikes) and basically no moat. Every few years a new startup can enter the marketing with a better bike. The incumbents have to improve their or risk losing the entire market in a matter of weeks.

We have a new bike share in our city that started last fall. Their prices are higher than car share and the riders are scarier on bikes than behind the wheel.

They are electric pedal-assist bikes as well, and provincial laws require the use of a helmet. How many people who use a bike share bring their own helmet with them? How can a company create a business model that obviously & intentionally breaks the law? Because uber & airbnb taught them to disregard the rules, heavily subsidize your product and your users will force the change you require.

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

#88

Post by Nition » Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 5:04 AM UTC

rdiddly wrote: post #36

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've pondered that question too. Something like Uber or Lyft works partly because of the cost and burden of car ownership. It's attractive to use someone else's equipment if you don't have to buy, maintain, finance, fuel, insure, and store (park) similar equipment yourself, to the tune of thousands of dollars per year. But then you look at bike ownership. I almost want to put "bike ownership" in quotes because even t…

> Something like Uber or Lyft works

Neither of them is making a profit though!

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

#89

Post by ac29 » Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 5:43 AM UTC

analog31 wrote: post #42

rdiddly wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've pondered that question too. Something like Uber or Lyft works partly because of the cost and burden of car ownership. It's attractive to use someone else's equipment if you don't have to buy, maintain, finance, fuel, insure, and store (park) similar equipment yourself, to the tune of thousands of dollars per year. But then you look at bike ownership. I almost want to put "bike ownership" in quotes because even t…

Interestingly, a thing about Uber/Lyft is that the number of cars is limited because they are based on converting existing private cars to hired use. So Uber/Lyft don't eliminate private cars. The number of bike shares that can be pumped into a city is limited only by the capital that can be pumped in.

Judging by a billboard that I pass reasonably frequently, Uber is more than happy to "help" potential drivers without cars get them and start driving for Uber [0]. In theory, the number of cars available to Uber is also only limited by the capital that can be pumped in.

I don't know if the prices are currently subsidized, but there's no reason they couldn't be.

[0] I'm assuming it's this program: https://www.uber.com/us/en/drive/vehicle-solutions/

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

#90

Post by 7952 » Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 6:17 AM UTC

gamblor956 wrote: post #52

gameswithgo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could win the tour de france doing the road stages on a medium quality bike. (if you put good tires on it). Also given your price range, some of the objectively best bikes (meets weight minimum, good aerodynamics) are in the $5k range, and the more expensive ones are worse but have big name value!

That's definitely not true...at the level of the TDF, every gram of excess weight matters, and there's a vast weight difference between a cheap $5k bike and a "fancy" $20k bike. If you're not at the TDF level, there's no point in spending more than $2k on a bike since the difference in weight won't matter.

Actually the rules restrict minimum weight and they often have to add ballast. And reducing weight does have diminished returns at some point, particularly on flatter sections. I think the weight obsession is more aimed at selling to amateurs than making pros faster.