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

101–110 of 134 posts

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

#101

Post by dagw »

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?

For example, why wouldn't someone just buy a bike?

If you buy a bike you lose some flexibility. With bike sharing I can take the bus to work, take a bike to my meeting and then decide whether to take the bus or bike home depending on the weather and my plans. I can also do things like take the bus into town and then take the bike from the bus stop to the place I'm going, or bike into town and take the bus home with all my shopping.

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

#102

Post by dagw »

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…

The 'problem' you're looking to solve is not the hassle of bike "ownership" but bike access. If I take the car or bus to work I can't then take my bike to meet a client. If I take my bike into town I can't then take the bus home if the weather turns bad or I have a lot shopping to carry. If I take my bike into a 'bad' part of town to go to a bar I have to worry about the very real chance that it won't be where I left when I want to go home at night. Bike sharing solves all these problems.

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

#103

Post by rorykoehler »

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…

I have been riding bikes for over 30 years and I absolutely love contemporary bikes. They are just amazing. I can't believe you're complaining about them. Just crazy. The incremental improvements have really layered up over the years into something fantastic.

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

#104

Post by rorykoehler »

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.

It is true because weight is limited by the UCI limits. The bikes are so light now some riders have had to resort to adding extra weights to their bikes to pass the UCI inspection. The best rider on a $5k or $20k bike will still be in the mix regardless. I'd say they could even get away with a $2k bike.

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

#105

Post by mruts »

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 seen tons of people riding the CitiBikes in NYC. They seem fairly popular.

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

#106

Post by kgutteridge »

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 used the Boris Bikes in London 249 times last year, theres an annual pass that costs £90. I commute into the city by train so its a lot easier than using my own bike. In London at least the scheme seems fairly well used with around million hires a month in the summer months http://content.tfl.gov.uk/santander-cycles-quarterly-perform...

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

#107

Post by timwaagh »

rasz wrote: post #19
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.

these are racing bikes meant for racing. A racer might want 5% more aero, because that's the difference between winning that race or not.

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

#108

Post by usrusr »

dagw wrote: post #102
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…

The 'problem' you're looking to solve is not the hassle of bike "ownership" but bike access. If I take the car or bus to work I can't then take my bike to meet a client. If I take my bike into town I can't then take the bus home if the weather turns bad or I have a lot shopping to carry. If I take my bike into a 'bad' part of town to go to a bar I have to worry about the very real chance that it won't be where I left…

> I have to worry about the very real chance that it won't be where I left [it]

On the other hand, a personal bike that is only half as shitty as the typical bikeshare will be extremely loyal and never leave you for another rider.

But I get it, it's the public transport freedom which people who never experienced it rarely understand: if you always return to your personal vehicle having to do so feels perfectly fine. But when you got accustomed to ad-hoc modeswitching itineraries, being confined to returning to your personal vehicle feels strangely limiting, despite all the "wherever, whenever" of your own car/bike/boat.

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

#109

Post by thesmok »

paulcole wrote: post #79
gamblor956 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

It's a cycling cap. Helps to manage sweat and sunburns.

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

#110

Post by bhouston »

microtherion wrote: post #32
DanFeldman wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

There might be at least the perception that the CEO will spend most of their tenure plotting their next startup (and quite possibly poaching employees and intellectual property on the way out). Think Anthony Levandowski. Are there any well known cases of startup CEOs who were wildly successful as employees in another company?

Andy Rubin was a President/CEO/Founder of Android and then was at Google for a decade. Maybe he wasn't C-level though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Rubin
Post reply on HN