The Problem with Marketing the Recumbent isThe Name

wrote:

That's why I still think marketing is everything, and because they are
faster

The /fast/ ones are faster, but if you say you can blow away an upright
racer on something like an OkeJa then you're not marketing, you're lying!

they need to loose the 'recumbent' and negative short form of 'bent.

What's negative about 'bent?

If a name didn't mean much then Marion Morrison would never of
bothered to change his name.

It was a lot easier for him because nobody had ever heard of him.
'Bents date back to the 19th century, lots of people do know what they
are. If you come up with a new name you're unlikely to displace the
existing one because the bikes themselves will still be invisible enough
that your new term won't get wide recognition and among folk that
already know what they are they'll just think "why is he calling a
recumbent /that/?".

If a name didn't mean much then the automakers wouldn't bother
spending millions to get just the right one.
Imagine if a Toyota Corolla was a Toyota Snail. Who wants to drive a
snail? Or an Echo for that matter.

First up, they're all cars/automobiles as the base name, and you can't
change that. The Corolla is the name of the car/auto just as
"Streetmachine" is the name of my bike, "Fiero" is the name of my
wife's. Nothing in the chosen name there tells you anything, it's just
a name, but they're both "bikes".
Seconds, Toyota managed to come up with the name MR2, which is
em-ehr-deux en francais which isn't too far off the Toyota ****... so
much for spending millions...

The obvious advantage of the bicycle referred to now as the 'bent, is
it's superior aerodynamics to the diamond frame design.

Not necessarily. An HPVel Spirit is not particularly aerodynamic,
certainly less so than a diamond frame track bike. So what's the point
of a Spirit? comfort and rideability of the Spirit are vastly superior.
A lot of riders aren't actually that interested in the aerodynamics
(look at what most folk in NL ride for practical transport, aerodynamics
is about bottom of the list of priorities), so it's dumb to push that as
the main winning point across all recumbents. You've fallen into the
same trap as others who class them all as "recumbents": there are very
many very different designs with all sorts of priorities, but you're
just looking at a single one that is only a worry to a minority of cyclists.

A better name for the design would be along the lines of Aerodynamics.

If you try and sell an Anthrotech trike on its aerodynamics you'll be
laughed at, and rightly so.

I notice you call other bicycle designs 'uprights'.
Some descriptive words to consider combinations of:
Fast, streak, quick, rapid, swift, speedy, race, or: lightning,
rocket, missile, rush, surge,
bullet, arrow, zip, zoom,

Okay, how do any of those apply to either my upright Brompton or
8Freight, or my recumbent Streetmachine. The SM is pretty quick down a
hill, but that's not enough to sell a bike. OTOH it's amazingly
comfortable and very well built and carries luggage better than any
touring other bike I've come across, so why all this emphasis in
hypersonic booms?

There's a lot more to the world of recumbent cycles than you're making
out, you're simply concentrating on a small sector of the market.
Here's a recumbent cycle: http://drumbent.com/brox.jpg, do you think
it'll be right to describe that as a speedy swift zoom zipper?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch wrote:
...
Seconds, Toyota managed to come up with the name MR2, which is
em-ehr-deux en francais which isn't too far off the Toyota ****... so
much for spending millions...

"Is your car really named "Mister Two"?

The obvious advantage of the bicycle referred to now as the 'bent, is
it's superior aerodynamics to the diamond frame design.

Not necessarily. An HPVel Spirit is not particularly aerodynamic,
certainly less so than a diamond frame track bike. So what's the point
of a Spirit? comfort and rideability of the Spirit are vastly superior....

The late BikeE corporation made recumbents similar in concept to the
Spirit [1], but made the (deliberate?) mistake of marketing them as high
performance (i.e. faster than upright road bicycles) machines. A lot of
buyers were disappointed in the real world not matching the hype.


[1] This should really be the other way around, since the BikeE was the
first in that particular market segment.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.

wrote:

[recumbent bikes] are faster

Now that's marketing! %^P

Maybe they should be labeled "New and Improved! (TM),"
too. The problem is, many recumbent bike designs are not
inherently much faster over all. Not to mention that people
interested in going fast, bike racing, need the "proper" sort
of bike to compete.

That doesn't mean that recumbent bike design and marketing
cannot be improved, for instance to appeal to people who
want faster, more aerodynamic, more ergonomic designs
and who either don't mind that their bike is not UCI-like
or who actually seek a different frame style.

But seeking to characterize all recumbents, or even most,
as faster bikes just isn't true. And it misses a potentially
much larger market: recreational riders of all ages and
abilities. And current "non-riders". The main problems in
this market niche are price and familiarity. It's hard to
compete with a $300 upright bike, that can be, well,
a very good value. And it's hard to get over the ingrained
expectation of what a "bike" looks like.

The obvious advantage of the bicycle referred to now as
the 'bent, is it's superior aerodynamics to the diamond
frame design.

Depends.

A better name for the design would be along the lines of Aerodynamics.
I notice you call other bicycle designs 'uprights'.

Again the term "recumbent bike" isn't a usage type any more
than the term "upright bike" is. Both are a generally descriptive
terms covering a large range of bike designs. There are,
for instance, a group of upright bikes marketed as "comfort
bikes". There's market niche where the right recumbent
design at the right price point might be able to compete well.

Jon

On Jul 17, 3:44 am, Peter Clinch wrote:

Okay, how do any of those apply to either my upright Brompton or
8Freight, or my recumbent Streetmachine. The SM is pretty quick down a
hill, but that's not enough to sell a bike. OTOH it's amazingly
comfortable and very well built and carries luggage better than any
touring other bike I've come across, so why all this emphasis in
hypersonic booms?

There's a lot more to the world of recumbent cycles than you're making
out, you're simply concentrating on a small sector of the market.
Here's a recumbent cycle:http://drumbent.com/brox.jpg, do you think
it'll be right to describe that as a speedy swift zoom zipper?

I'd call it a peddle-home. (motorhome.)

hypersonic booms? because of the Varna Diablo speed record.

wrote:
On Jul 17, 3:44 am, Peter Clinch wrote:

There's a lot more to the world of recumbent cycles than you're making
out, you're simply concentrating on a small sector of the market.
Here's a recumbent cycle:http://drumbent.com/brox.jpg, do you think
it'll be right to describe that as a speedy swift zoom zipper?

I'd call it a peddle-home. (motorhome.)

hypersonic booms? because of the Varna Diablo speed record.

Hypersonic booms because you're solely concentrating on speed. Laying
back is a good way to improve aero and thus speed, but it isn't the only
reason and you need to account for that.

The Brox pictured would make a terrible place to stay: no facilities
like a motorhome, not even windows in the back. It's a bike/truck for
serious cargo lugging. It ain't quick.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
[...]
The late BikeE corporation made recumbents similar in concept to the
Spirit [1], but made the (deliberate?) mistake of marketing them as high
performance (i.e. faster than upright road bicycles) machines. A lot of
buyers were disappointed in the real world not matching the hype.

The main number one problem with the BikeE is that they never got the seat
the least bit comfortable, thereby defeating the whole purpose of a
recumbent.

Almost all recumbents will go fast enough (except uphill) for the general
user, but they MUST be comfortable. Otherwise, why bother? A recumbent
manufacturer who can't get the seat comfortable isn't worth a tinker's damn!
Such manufacturers deserve to burn in everlasting hellfire; purgatory is too
good for them. RANS was as successful as it has been because they got the
seat comfortable right from the beginning.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Edward Dolan wrote ON TOPIC:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
[...]
The late BikeE corporation made recumbents similar in concept to the
Spirit [1], but made the (deliberate?) mistake of marketing them as high
performance (i.e. faster than upright road bicycles) machines. A lot of
buyers were disappointed in the real world not matching the hype.

The main number one problem with the BikeE is that they never got the seat
the least bit comfortable, thereby defeating the whole purpose of a
recumbent.

For what it is worth, I was told by a couple of dealers that most of
their customers that found the BikeE comfortable for longer distances
were women.

Of course, the BikeE seat was plush and comfortable compared to the
original (pre Cobra) Easy Racers seat.

Almost all recumbents will go fast enough (except uphill) for the general
user, but they MUST be comfortable. Otherwise, why bother? A recumbent
manufacturer who can't get the seat comfortable isn't worth a tinker's damn!
Such manufacturers deserve to burn in everlasting hellfire; purgatory is too
good for them. RANS was as successful as it has been because they got the
seat comfortable right from the beginning.

The original RANS seat was a molded fiberglass bucket:
http://www.ransbikes.com/about%20rans/aboutstratus.jpg.

The molded bottom with foam pad and mesh back that came later and is
still in production is certainly a comfortable seat for most, but varies
with the quality of the foam pad (the 1999 yellow foam is the least
desirable).

The sling mesh with pad used by Lighting Cycle Dynamics and Earth Cycles
among others is also very comfortable, but it not well suited for urban
used with higher seats and/or riders with shorter legs, since the frame
makes putting a foot down more difficult.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.

Jon Meinecke wrote:
wrote:

[recumbent bikes] are faster

Now that's marketing! %^P

Maybe they should be labeled "New and Improved! (TM),"
too. The problem is, many recumbent bike designs are not
inherently much faster over all. Not to mention that people
interested in going fast, bike racing, need the "proper" sort
of bike to compete.

That doesn't mean that recumbent bike design and marketing
cannot be improved, for instance to appeal to people who
want faster, more aerodynamic, more ergonomic designs
and who either don't mind that their bike is not UCI-like
or who actually seek a different frame style.

There is a market for aging roadies who want something fast and
comfortable. Trek and Cannondale both missed an opportunity here, since
one or both of them could have developed a decent niche market with a
lightweight, high tech highracer.

But seeking to characterize all recumbents, or even most,
as faster bikes just isn't true. And it misses a potentially
much larger market: recreational riders of all ages and
abilities. And current "non-riders". The main problems in
this market niche are price and familiarity. It's hard to
compete with a $300 upright bike, that can be, well,
a very good value. And it's hard to get over the ingrained
expectation of what a "bike" looks like.

With the complications of the seat and drive train, a recumbent will
never match an equal quality upright in price.

The obvious advantage of the bicycle referred to now as
the 'bent, is it's superior aerodynamics to the diamond
frame design.

Depends.

A better name for the design would be along the lines of Aerodynamics.
I notice you call other bicycle designs 'uprights'.

Again the term "recumbent bike" isn't a usage type any more
than the term "upright bike" is. Both are a generally descriptive
terms covering a large range of bike designs. There are,
for instance, a group of upright bikes marketed as "comfort
bikes". There's market niche where the right recumbent
design at the right price point might be able to compete well.

The crank-forward design is the better candidate for this market, as it
can be less expensive with more "normal" handling than the true recumbent.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Edward Dolan wrote ON TOPIC:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
[...]
The late BikeE corporation made recumbents similar in concept to the
Spirit [1], but made the (deliberate?) mistake of marketing them as high
performance (i.e. faster than upright road bicycles) machines. A lot of
buyers were disappointed in the real world not matching the hype.

The main number one problem with the BikeE is that they never got the
seat the least bit comfortable, thereby defeating the whole purpose of a
recumbent.

For what it is worth, I was told by a couple of dealers that most of their
customers that found the BikeE comfortable for longer distances were
women.

Women suffer terribly on the usual upright saddle. But even so, the
BikeE never had a comfortable seat.

Of course, the BikeE seat was plush and comfortable compared to the
original (pre Cobra) Easy Racers seat.

And equally comfortable compared to the usual upright saddle.

Almost all recumbents will go fast enough (except uphill) for the general
user, but they MUST be comfortable. Otherwise, why bother? A recumbent
manufacturer who can't get the seat comfortable isn't worth a tinker's
damn! Such manufacturers deserve to burn in everlasting hellfire;
purgatory is too good for them. RANS was as successful as it has been
because they got the seat comfortable right from the beginning.

The original RANS seat was a molded fiberglass bucket:
http://www.ransbikes.com/about%20rans/aboutstratus.jpg.

This seat was comfortable and I never had any complaints against it.

The molded bottom with foam pad and mesh back that came later and is still
in production is certainly a comfortable seat for most, but varies with
the quality of the foam pad (the 1999 yellow foam is the least desirable).

Yes, you have got to get the foam right. That is true of the Vision seat
also.

The sling mesh with pad used by Lighting Cycle Dynamics and Earth Cycles
among others is also very comfortable, but it not well suited for urban
used with higher seats and/or riders with shorter legs, since the frame
makes putting a foot down more difficult.

I never found the Lightning seat comfortable, but the racing crunch position
may have had something to do with that. All sling mesh seats will require a
quality foam padding. Otherwise, they are murder.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
[...]
The crank-forward design is the better candidate for this market, as it
can be less expensive with more "normal" handling than the true recumbent.

I have never understood the crank-forward bikes. They seem neither fish nor
fowl. I do not see how they can be any more comfortable than an upright. You
have got to get some of your weight off your butt and onto your back in
order to get any comfort. Does the crank-forward design do that?

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota