Impressions from Bike to Work Day

On 19/05/11 16:40, Duane Hebert wrote:

Then why are they so rare? We actually have people here commuting on
bikes and we rarely see bents...

All sorts of reasons.

But start off with cost. They have big tickets. As a cyclist with a
pocketful of cash to spend, do you spend a lot on an incremental
improvement you /know/ will improve matters (basically, your existing
mount but better/lighter) or do you spend quite a bit more than that on
something where you have no experience of at all? Most will do the
former, and quite reasonably so.

Most 'bent riders (certainly this one) seem to say that it's very
important to try before you buy, because the difference between two
notional 'bents is usually much greater than two notional uprights. So
are you going to drop mucho $$$s on something folk say you must try,
that you typically can't try (because they're hard to come by to test
ride)? I'm an advocate, and I'd say don't do that...

Part of the problem is they are misunderstood in terms of function.
Asked to list bike categories, John Q. Cyclist might come up with
racers, tourers, commuters, folders and recumbents. All those are
/functional/ except the last, while in truth recumbents can (and IMHO
should) themselves be subdivided by function just like uprights. Mine
isn't first and foremost "a recumbent" but rather it's "a tourer". I
use it because it does touring better (for what I want) better than any
upright I could have had for the same money. But I think that most
people wanting a tourer won't look at recumbents, they'll look at
"tourers", and so on. And that leaves 'bents perceived as a
function-free curiosity, rather than as bikes designed for particular
functions that happen to have different seating arrangements.

So a lot of it is down to chicken/egg. You'll have lots of 'bents after
you've got lots of 'bents, as you need lots for a conservative group of
punters to see they're viable and for the prices to come down so they
can afford them. In other words, I can't see them really taking off in
the foreseeable market conditions.

(I don't commute on a 'bent, btw. Round here I use either a Brompton or
Moulton TSR because they suit my particular journeys and needs best, but
I can think of notional commute journeys where I'd be very happy on a
'bent).

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/

Per Jay Beattie:
I
haven't seen a case from any of my bicycle manufacturer clients in
ages

Last year, I testified in a suit against Cane Creek that I'm
pretty sure the plaintiff won.

Guy was riding home on a ThudBuster SUS post. Bolt sheared, he
crashed catastrophically as a result. Years of disability, lost
his job, multiple back operations and on-and-on.

I was sympathetic bc the same thing happened to me - although I
didn't crash... just got to know the top tube on much more
intimate terms than I wanted to.

"Sympathetic" bc when I called Cane Creek (not knowing that the
suite was already in progress) the response was un-helpful to say
the least.... and contained the standard "Well, this is the first
time we've heard anything like this, so you must have been doing
something wrong...."
--
PeteCresswell

On 5/20/2011 10:34 AM, Peter Clinch wrote:
On 19/05/11 16:40, Duane Hebert wrote:

Then why are they so rare? We actually have people here commuting on
bikes and we rarely see bents...

All sorts of reasons.

But start off with cost. They have big tickets. As a cyclist with a
pocketful of cash to spend, do you spend a lot on an incremental
improvement you /know/ will improve matters (basically, your existing
mount but better/lighter) or do you spend quite a bit more than that on
something where you have no experience of at all? Most will do the
former, and quite reasonably so.

Most 'bent riders (certainly this one) seem to say that it's very
important to try before you buy, because the difference between two
notional 'bents is usually much greater than two notional uprights. So
are you going to drop mucho $$$s on something folk say you must try,
that you typically can't try (because they're hard to come by to test
ride)? I'm an advocate, and I'd say don't do that...

Part of the problem is they are misunderstood in terms of function.
Asked to list bike categories, John Q. Cyclist might come up with
racers, tourers, commuters, folders and recumbents. All those are
/functional/ except the last, while in truth recumbents can (and IMHO
should) themselves be subdivided by function just like uprights. Mine
isn't first and foremost "a recumbent" but rather it's "a tourer". I use
it because it does touring better (for what I want) better than any
upright I could have had for the same money. But I think that most
people wanting a tourer won't look at recumbents, they'll look at
"tourers", and so on. And that leaves 'bents perceived as a
function-free curiosity, rather than as bikes designed for particular
functions that happen to have different seating arrangements.

So a lot of it is down to chicken/egg. You'll have lots of 'bents after
you've got lots of 'bents, as you need lots for a conservative group of
punters to see they're viable and for the prices to come down so they
can afford them. In other words, I can't see them really taking off in
the foreseeable market conditions.

(I don't commute on a 'bent, btw. Round here I use either a Brompton or
Moulton TSR because they suit my particular journeys and needs best, but
I can think of notional commute journeys where I'd be very happy on a
'bent).

Some good points. I have no interest in bents so far but I don't really
have anything against them. Was just chirping at Tom.

On 5/20/2011 7:34 AM, Peter Clinch wrote:
On 19/05/11 16:40, Duane Hebert wrote:

Then why are they so rare? We actually have people here commuting on
bikes and we rarely see bents...

All sorts of reasons.

But start off with cost. They have big tickets. As a cyclist with a
pocketful of cash to spend, do you spend a lot on an incremental
improvement you /know/ will improve matters (basically, your existing
mount but better/lighter) or do you spend quite a bit more than that on
something where you have no experience of at all? Most will do the
former, and quite reasonably so.

Most 'bent riders (certainly this one) seem to say that it's very
important to try before you buy, because the difference between two
notional 'bents is usually much greater than two notional uprights. So
are you going to drop mucho $$$s on something folk say you must try,
that you typically can't try (because they're hard to come by to test
ride)? I'm an advocate, and I'd say don't do that...

Part of the problem is they are misunderstood in terms of function.
Asked to list bike categories, John Q. Cyclist might come up with
racers, tourers, commuters, folders and recumbents. All those are
/functional/ except the last, while in truth recumbents can (and IMHO
should) themselves be subdivided by function just like uprights. Mine
isn't first and foremost "a recumbent" but rather it's "a tourer". I use
it because it does touring better (for what I want) better than any
upright I could have had for the same money. But I think that most
people wanting a tourer won't look at recumbents, they'll look at
"tourers", and so on. And that leaves 'bents perceived as a
function-free curiosity, rather than as bikes designed for particular
functions that happen to have different seating arrangements.

So a lot of it is down to chicken/egg. You'll have lots of 'bents after
you've got lots of 'bents, as you need lots for a conservative group of
punters to see they're viable and for the prices to come down so they
can afford them. In other words, I can't see them really taking off in
the foreseeable market conditions.

(I don't commute on a 'bent, btw. Round here I use either a Brompton or
Moulton TSR because they suit my particular journeys and needs best, but
I can think of notional commute journeys where I'd be very happy on a
'bent).

Well at least in the U.S. you frequently see recumbents on popular
touring routes so tourers do consider them and occasionally buy them.

For commuting recumbents are very rare yet other specialty bikes like
Bike Fridays and Bromptons, while not prevalent, are at least not
uncommon. I'm sure there must be some people commuting on recumbents
around here, but it's extremely rare.

Besides the issues that have already been discussed here, that make
recumbents less than ideal for commuting, another issue is storage. I
can put the Brompton under a desk, or park a cumbersome inside the
office, but a recumbent is too big and would have to be left outside.
The Brompton already is a curiosity that people are interested in, and
the folding/unfolding demonstrations are a distraction. Fun to ride
around the halls late at night though!

john B. wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2011 17:57:44 -0700, jcdill
wrote:

On 19/05/11 4:50 PM, john B. wrote:

While I do sympathize with the woman involved she did buy a cup of hot
coffee; she then did spill it on herself;
She was sold a defective product - it wasn't just a "hot cup of coffee"
it was a "scalding hot cup of coffee". It's like buying a bike with a
defective fork design and the fork collapses while you are riding it.
It's *defective*. That was the crux of the issue here - it was sold at
a temperature TOO HOT TO SAFELY DRINK, and thus was a defective product.
Yes, coffee should be hot, to a certain degree (e.g. 165 degrees), but
it should not be kept or sold hotter than that, at a temperature that is
too hot to drink and which can (and has) caused serious 3rd degree
burns. Yes, bicycle accidents happen but they shouldn't happen because
of structural failure due to poor design or manufacturing of the frame,
causing serious injury to the rider.

If you don't care if someone makes and sells a defective frame where
someone could be seriously hurt as a result, then I suppose you also
wouldn't care that someone made and sold a defective cup of coffee and
someone was seriously hurt as a result.

jc

A defective cup of coffee? How so.

Do you have a legal or industry recognized specification that states
coffee should be served at 165 degrees? As far as "TOO HOT TO DRINK"
no place I eat serves coffee so cold that you can grab the cup as soon
as it is on the table and gulp it down. you always need to saucer and
blow it.

But you ordered hot coffee and you got hot coffee. Hot is a relative
term and what is hot for one is warm for another. I think Frank posted
some figures that several millions of cups of coffee were sold and
they got what? 300 complaints it was too hot?

By the way your logic is faulty. A hot cup of coffee isn't a
structural failure or a poor design it is simply a hot cup of coffee.
Which I might also point out the woman had purchased since M.D. won't
give you the coffee until you pay for it. So if it was too hot why
didn't she return it?

But returning to your bicycle analogy, Muzi sells you a brand new
plastic bicycle and you head out. Wow, this is fast!! Then you
misjudge a corner or run a red light and Bang! You and your bike are
spread all over the pavement. Muzi is at fault. Right? Or was it the
manufacturer?


Either or both. Depends on the insurance coverage and assets
of each party. Nothing more.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On May 20, 7:39*am, john B. wrote:

The Piper J-3 Cub was built between 1937 and 1947 so one could be 70
years old and they are still flying.

I was up in a mid-1940s one several years ago. It seemed like a real
rattletrap. I couldn't get the door to latch. Then the pilot reached
back and wound a piece of coat hanger wire around the door handle, and
we took off. No warning labels on that one, either.

- Frank Krygowski

Peter Clinch wrote:
On 19/05/11 16:40, Duane Hebert wrote:

Then why are they so rare? We actually have people here commuting on
bikes and we rarely see bents...

All sorts of reasons.

But start off with cost. They have big tickets. As a cyclist with a
pocketful of cash to spend, do you spend a lot on an incremental
improvement you /know/ will improve matters (basically, your existing
mount but better/lighter) or do you spend quite a bit more than that on
something where you have no experience of at all? Most will do the
former, and quite reasonably so.

Most 'bent riders (certainly this one) seem to say that it's very
important to try before you buy, because the difference between two
notional 'bents is usually much greater than two notional uprights. So
are you going to drop mucho $$$s on something folk say you must try,
that you typically can't try (because they're hard to come by to test
ride)? I'm an advocate, and I'd say don't do that...

Part of the problem is they are misunderstood in terms of function.
Asked to list bike categories, John Q. Cyclist might come up with
racers, tourers, commuters, folders and recumbents. All those are
/functional/ except the last, while in truth recumbents can (and IMHO
should) themselves be subdivided by function just like uprights. Mine
isn't first and foremost "a recumbent" but rather it's "a tourer". I
use it because it does touring better (for what I want) better than any
upright I could have had for the same money. But I think that most
people wanting a tourer won't look at recumbents, they'll look at
"tourers", and so on. And that leaves 'bents perceived as a
function-free curiosity, rather than as bikes designed for particular
functions that happen to have different seating arrangements.

So a lot of it is down to chicken/egg. You'll have lots of 'bents after
you've got lots of 'bents, as you need lots for a conservative group of
punters to see they're viable and for the prices to come down so they
can afford them. In other words, I can't see them really taking off in
the foreseeable market conditions.

(I don't commute on a 'bent, btw. Round here I use either a Brompton or
Moulton TSR because they suit my particular journeys and needs best, but
I can think of notional commute journeys where I'd be very happy on a
'bent).

Pete.

http://www.incrediblethings.com.php5...eel-table1.jpg

or
http://preview.tinyurl.com/449m23q

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

WTF is Bike to work day? Here people get to work by bike
every day.

=v= For those of us who already bike to work daily, it's
a free cup of coffee, banana, and bagel. Ditto for those
who have a bike and are unemployed. For those who don't
bike to work, it's an opportunity to try it out.

=v= Today (May 20th) is National Bike to Work Day. The
Bay Area event comes a little early.
_Jym_

On May 20, 10:03*am, jcdill wrote:
On 20/05/11 4:28 AM, john B. wrote:

A defective cup of coffee? How so.

Do you have a legal or industry recognized specification that states
coffee should be served at 165 degrees?

It was well documented and established at the trial. *If you bother to
read up on the details of the case, you will find the answers to all
your questions.

We have read up on the details. That reading didn't answer the
question of why someone less cautious than the next 24 million
customers should be paid for their lack of care.

But you ordered hot coffee and you got hot coffee. Hot is a relative
term and what is hot for one is warm for another. I think Frank posted
some figures that several millions of cups of coffee were sold and
they got what? 300 complaints it was too hot?

It was too hot to be immediately consumed for ALL of the millions of
consumers.

.... just like a standard cup of tea. Why no comment on tea
temperatures?

*It also caused burns in hundreds of consumers, and over 700
of them filed claims for compensation because of the burns. *Most people
wouldn't file a claim if the burn was a minor burn, so we can assume
that many (if not most) of the 700 prior claims were for serious burns.

People won't file a claim for glass in the sandwich unless they put
the glass there themselves - yet that claim has occurred. People
won't file a claim for a human finger in the chili unless they put the
finger there themselves. Obviously, there are many false claims
against deep pocket companies, or companies with insurance.

Why no comment on false claims? Why pretend that every claim must be
legitimate, and count it against the company?

- Frank Krygowski

On May 20, 8:53 am, Jym Dyer wrote:
WTF is Bike to work day? Here people get to work by bike
every day.

=v= For those of us who already bike to work daily, it's
a free cup of coffee, banana, and bagel. Ditto for those
who have a bike and are unemployed. For those who don't
bike to work, it's an opportunity to try it out.

=v= Today (May 20th) is National Bike to Work Day. The
Bay Area event comes a little early.
_Jym_

Flying into town one morning, after an hour and a half pushing over
the hill and back down, this guy standing by a parked bike walks to th
eedge of the sidewalk waving a cup of coffee at me. I stopped. They
had a pit stop there with hot coffee and food. Somebody gave me a
patch kit. It was pretty cool deal :-)