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

What caused Shimano's Coasting-program to fail? (2010)

yannigroth.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 115 posts

Re: What caused Shimano's Coasting-program to fail? (2010)

#51

Post by random5634 »

redelbee wrote: post #24

Increasing ridership can come from tech but I think it’s much more likely to come from better and more bike-centric infrastructure and norms. Separated bike paths, bike storage, showers at offices/work, etc would all make it much more likely for someone to decide to bike. We could tell people: Decide to bike and save money. Decide to bike and save health. Decide to bike and save the environment. We can tell people th…

I made a pretty concerted effort to bike (I used to bike to public transit every day at an old job and loved it).

At my current job I'd have to go through a very loud car tunnel without enough space for bikes. I've tried it a few times - just not workable. You have to ask - is this commitment worth dying over? Having your lungs filled with crap from being in an enclosed space with cars? Having your hearing killed.

So making the environment support biking would be great.

Re: What caused Shimano's Coasting-program to fail? (2010)

#52

Post by Doctor_Fegg »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #49
sideshowb wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the things you list are accurate... Also, more 20mph speed limits on urban routes useful to cyclists. Cheap and effective for creating a more cycling friendly environment.

To paraphrase current civil engineering doctrine: A sign doesn't do anything to turn a four lane boulevard into a road people drive 20 on. The enforcement needed to back up the sign is not the kind of thing people put up with in the western world (a few pockets of Europe notwithstanding). You need to actually design the road to make 20mph a reasonable speed.

Anecdata:

We recently instituted a 20mph limit across our town (I’m the chair of the town council and also a keen cyclist). We do regular speed surveys.

Not everyone sticks to 20mph. But no one drives above 30mph any more. When we had a 30mph limit, we’d regularly get people driving up to 40mph.

So it’s not perfect, but it does make a difference, here at least.

Re: What caused Shimano's Coasting-program to fail? (2010)

#53

Post by Glyptodon »

My opinion as a casual bicyclist:

* I bought a bike during the existence of these things and never knew they existed (and I'm casual enough that my bike has a cupholder).

* I'm certainly interested in less maintenance but have no interest in losing handbrakes, and if I did, would probably prefer fixie over coaster-esque.

* Seat storage seems neat, but bike seats are very finicky person to person in terms of circulation, numb feet/toes, etc.

* In my view single shifter is great and newer style single sprocket stacks that do 5 to 15 speeds off one shifter are where it's at.

* I suspect if there were good (in same price bracket) disk brake options on very upright riding stance bikes people who tried would like.

* A better default derailleur + shifter is probably an improvement casual bikers don't realize they'd love, but have no basis for ever getting.

* Casual bikers need at least one very low gear because we find hills miserable.

* Storage options can really make a bike for a casual rider, but they're less obvious to figure out than ideal.

* It confuses me that these would win design awards.

Re: What caused Shimano's Coasting-program to fail? (2010)

#54

Post by zimpenfish »

dashundchen wrote: post #23
jablan wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks, although I am hobbyist bike mechanic, I never heard of Coasting before. Frankly, doesn't sound very attractive - a complicated (proprietary) automatic gear system relying on functioning (proprietary) front hub dynamo... All that to address a practically non-existing problem: no one really has a problem learning how to use bicycle gears.

> All that to address a practically non-existing problem: no one really has a problem learning how to use bicycle gears. It's definitely easy to learn once explained, and every enthusiast knows - but as a cyclist living near a popular bike route, I see a lot of casual riders who appear to have no idea how to use their gears. The most common thing I see are riders with the cranked up in a high gear on flat land, and y…

> I see a lot of casual riders who appear to have no idea how to use their gears.

Same. Used to live near Greenwich Park and the number of people struggling up the hills around there in high gear was amazing. Even in low gear, I reckon they're a bugger for average cyclists.

Re: What caused Shimano's Coasting-program to fail? (2010)

#55

Post by zimpenfish »

OnlyOneCannolo wrote: post #39
dashundchen wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All that to address a practically non-existing problem: no one really has a problem learning how to use bicycle gears. It's definitely easy to learn once explained, and every enthusiast knows - but as a cyclist living near a popular bike route, I see a lot of casual riders who appear to have no idea how to use their gears. The most common thing I see are riders with the cranked up in a high gear on flat land, and y…

And even if people do know how to use gears, the gears are often in need of some adjustment, so people just stick to the ratios that happen to work.

One of the main reasons I stuck my geared bike on the trainer and bought a single speed for London commuting - gears are FAFF to maintain. Yes, there's video tutorials, etc., but there's still a non-zero amount of witchcraft going on.

Re: What caused Shimano's Coasting-program to fail? (2010)

#56

Post by VectorLock »

Glyptodon wrote: post #53

My opinion as a casual bicyclist: * I bought a bike during the existence of these things and never knew they existed (and I'm casual enough that my bike has a cupholder). * I'm certainly interested in less maintenance but have no interest in losing handbrakes, and if I did, would probably prefer fixie over coaster-esque. * Seat storage seems neat, but bike seats are very finicky person to person in terms of circulati…

I also bought a bike during this period and had never heard of the Coasting thing and this is exactly the things I was looking for in a bike.

Perhaps this was largely a failure of marketing.

Re: What caused Shimano's Coasting-program to fail? (2010)

#57

Post by analog31 »

brnt wrote: post #20
soared wrote: post #3

I spent some time learning the creative thinking process from an IDEO employee/teacher while in school. One of the early steps is defining your problem by interviewing consumers, which seems like where the misstep occurred. Being an avid cyclist with nearly no friends who bike, I've seen that they are not intimidated by "technology". They are afraid of looking like an idiot. If they ride with me I look really cool wi…

Dutch person here. The thing you foreigners don't get is that cycling shouldn't be regarded as a sport. All your problems with cycling stem from that misconception.

I live in a mid sized town in the US Midwest. My house is on a street that has been a popular thoroughfare for cyclists, for many years. The simple reason is that it connects A and B while avoiding busy roads. My breakfast table (and now my standing desk for working from home) look out over the street and I can watch the bikes go by all day. And I love bikes, so I notice every bike and its rider.

Judging from gear, attire, speed, etc., my impression is that the vast majority of riders are what you would call "casual" and not "sport" riders. Sometimes a sportive rider goes by, but it's not the majority.

I know a lot of cyclists, including myself. Most cyclists recognize the difference between casual / utilitarian and sportive cycling. Many do both.

I believe that the stupid American who doesn't grasp cycling is a myth of the past, if it was ever anything but mythical. The most popular bikes sold in the US today have no relation to any category of competitive cycling: Hybrids, cruisers, and low end mountain bikes purchased for riding on pavement.

We're adapting to different circumstances. Now, with that said, a peculiarity of Americans is that we don't obey traditionalist rules about the separation of work and pleasure. Thus, a person might choose a "fun" bike for riding to work. I've been guilty of such a transgression. But I also own and use a bike that would not seem particularly out of place in Amsterdam.

Re: What caused Shimano's Coasting-program to fail? (2010)

#58

Post by AYBABTME »

dheera wrote: post #35
redelbee wrote: post #24

Increasing ridership can come from tech but I think it’s much more likely to come from better and more bike-centric infrastructure and norms. Separated bike paths, bike storage, showers at offices/work, etc would all make it much more likely for someone to decide to bike. We could tell people: Decide to bike and save money. Decide to bike and save health. Decide to bike and save the environment. We can tell people th…

Yes, this. We need BIG changes in cycling infrastructure. My old bike commute in the Bay Area involved stupid shit like this: https://i.imgur.com/YajWMoY.png Having to constantly switch between pushing along sidewalk and waiting ages for pedestrian lights, dealing with broken road sensors where I had to wait for a car to come behind me and "rescue" me so the light to turn green, having to go back and forth in zig zag…

Lack of a pedestrian/bike path on the Bay bridge is also mind bogglingly dumb.

Re: What caused Shimano's Coasting-program to fail? (2010)

#59

Post by maccard »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #49
sideshowb wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the things you list are accurate... Also, more 20mph speed limits on urban routes useful to cyclists. Cheap and effective for creating a more cycling friendly environment.

To paraphrase current civil engineering doctrine: A sign doesn't do anything to turn a four lane boulevard into a road people drive 20 on. The enforcement needed to back up the sign is not the kind of thing people put up with in the western world (a few pockets of Europe notwithstanding). You need to actually design the road to make 20mph a reasonable speed.

I live in a city that dropped speeds from 30 to 20. The change didn't happen overnight, but the average speed has dropped from >30 to >20, which is a world of difference

Re: What caused Shimano's Coasting-program to fail? (2010)

#60

Post by exabrial »

I think one think urban planners [and HNers] get wrong about bike usage is bike lanes and mixing bikes with cars. That works in overcrowded coastal cities, but for the vast majority of the country, a different approach is likely optimal.

Bentonville, AR I think has cracked the puzzle. They built mountain bike trails... literally everywhere. You're hanging out with your buddies north of town and want to grab a pizza for lunch? Awesome, hit this rad piece of singeltrack and shred your way to to za and beer. They even replaced a bunch of sidewalks with singletrack. This is not only better for the environment (it's literally just tamped dirt), but easier to maintain (a tamping machine and water truck vs a fossil fuel burning asphalt paver).

Another success that's been less explosive, but worthy mention is streamway buffer trails. Rather than tossing bikes into traffic, which intimidates casual riders, and probably isn't safe where bike culture isn't a thing... municipalities put asphalt trails next to watersheds that need erosion control. The benefit is two fold, a shorcut throughway that's dedicated for pedestrian and bike traffic, plus civil engineers can use the bike pathway itself as a durable flood zone.

Post reply on HN