What caused Shimano's Coasting-program to fail? (2010)(yannigroth.com) |
What caused Shimano's Coasting-program to fail? (2010)(yannigroth.com) |
They are afraid of looking like an idiot. If they ride with me I look really cool with a slick bike and low profile gear, while they are riding a walmart bike in baggy shorts with a dumb helmet, while visible to hundreds of people in cars.
IMO the solution is not a new bike - its better group rides. Most people don't show up to the gym and start working out on their own, they take a class at a gym with gear and other noobs. I believe the best way to get people off the couch and biking is letting them go to a gym, with a bunch of noobs, and ride bikes together. Don't spend $400+, spend $75/mo. (A bike is maybe ~70% of the total cost of bike gear).
I have a ton of cool resources from IDEO (now quite a few years old) and the creative thinking/ideation process, I can post them here if desired.
For those misunderstanding my example: The difference is looking like you know what you're doing, and looking like you have no idea what you're doing. Regardless of the situation (biking, at work, or talking to women at bars) not knowing what you're doing and having that be publicly visible can be a huge hurdle to overcome.
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.
Most commuters in my city that ride more than 5km to work have adopted at least some lycra as part of their kit. It handles sweat better in summer and can be rinsed of sand then spun and air dried in winter, so you aren't getting into cold wet gear for your ride home.
My city commonly has a sea breeze with a wind speed over 35 km/hr in summer. A lot of committed cycle commuters end up adopting road/racing bikes simply due to it being more efficient energy wise. Riding a hybrid or MTB into/across the sea breeze is significantly more fatiguing.
Many people here also cycle casually for exercise. These are more leisurely rides specifically for fitness. It is rarer for people to ride to the shops, restaurant or a friends house. Why? because they don't want to turn up sweaty in summer or wet in winter.
Note that cycling in general has grown in popularity in the past decade here, regardless of the above:
http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/6237-cycling-participation...
Australians are a sports mad bunch. We have had the Tour de France televised on a free-to-air channel for over 20 years now. Since the early 2000's this lead to many more people becoming interested in road cycling, especially men. This resulted in more cyclists on the roads (especially MAMILs). The increased number of cyclists on the roads, has in turn lead to more people being inspired to get on they bike for a leisure ride or to try cycling to work. Prior to that many people I spoke to would cite having to ride on the road as a big factor in deciding not to try cycle commuting as they perceived it as too dangerous.
So cycling as a sport has had a big part to play in getting more people cycling in general over here.
There's always been a lot of hand wringing by cycling enthusiasts in the US about increasing ridership, and being more approachable, better group rides may be one way to do it. There are a lot of obstacles here; road conditions (potholes), hilly in a lot of areas (it does not take a steep or long grade to flummux a introductory or casual rider!), but at the end of the day, cycling is just dangerous. American car culture is not friendly to anything else being on the road (talk to motorcyclists for example!). When I think back on some of the close calls I had, and accidents my friends had simply riding around, I'm kind of amazed I was ever that fearless.
One time I was riding on Second Avenue. The bike lane turned into a 30 foot deep sinkhole with a couple cones marking the hazard. By the time I noticed, there was a long flatbed truck in the lane next to me. I merged over and had what felt like an inch of space to ride in -- 30 foot drop to my death to the right, big unaware truck to the left. The truck moved over to the right for no good reason and the tires rubbed off most of the skin on my left arm. One more inch and my username would be talking_panckake. (Just kidding, I'd be dead!)
Another time I was riding on First Avenue. First Avenue has one of those bike lanes that's next to the sidewalk, and parked cars separate you from traffic. Some idiot, and I don't use that term lightly, decided to walk their bike off the sidewalk right in front of me, and position it at a right angle to the traffic flow. I was going too fast to stop that quickly and plowed right into the bike. (The rider noticed me and jumped back onto the sidewalk, saving himself from any injury.) My main memory was flying through the air and seeing my bike flying right next to me. I landed on my arm like an idiot and my right shoulder popped out. I popped it back in and rode 40 more miles that day... but it wasn't pleasant. I now have the ability to dislocate my right shoulder on demand!
I don't think those two events were what killed bike commuting for me, but I was pretty shy for a few months after each of those incidents. What killed it for me was the constant close calls that don't really make good stories (and a lack of shower facilities at my most recent workplace). I still bike early in the morning. Very few idiots out and I can go fast for a couple hours and then take the subway to work.
But yeah. I consider myself a seasoned cycling veteran, and in the last 3 or 4 years it just got to be too much for me. I moved to New York City in 2012, and honestly, things were great back then. But over the years, the city just got more and more crowded with cars, and there is no room for bicyclists anymore. (When I visit places like Montreal, I feel great. I think it's just a NYC thing.)
Or rather, only people that own low profile bike clothing think it is cool.
Bikes can get you to work, to the store, to a camp site, around the park, whatever. Cheaper, cleaner, and more fun than cars at the same time.
No one aside from you and other people who wear that unnecessary gear think it looks cool. Sorry.
I don't imagine this is why your friends won't ride with you.
The difference is looking like you know what you're doing, and looking like you have no idea what you're doing. Regardless of the situation (biking, at work, or talking to women at bars) not knowing what you're doing and having that be publicly visible can be a huge hurdle to overcome.
And if it's the helmet, bike, and shorts that are so embarrassing (they are not): how is going to a gym going to change that?
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 those reasons now but there is still a huge hurdle, and it has nothing to do with the bikes or technology. What if all bike companies (and component manufacturers like Shimano) spent all their R&D budgets on education and lobbying instead of better technology? That might work. Is any one company big enough to make a difference if it went at it alone? Probably not.
I don’t look forward to environmental catastrophe but I do think it could help move cycling into more of a mainstream solution. Then perhaps we could have the will to tackle some of the infrastructure and norm issues that keep cycling a hobby at best.
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.
EDIT: ARGH. I can't find the study I was reading during the summer. But from what I remember, roughly 25% of people were 35-45, 25% were 46-55, and probably the most amazing is the 56-65 group was around 20%!
It's supposed to be about every 10 blocks north-south and much further apart east-west. Downtown for most of the city is west. Every few streets there might be something that blocks cars (signage or physical barriers) or is supposed to slow them down (bumps, planters in the center of an intersection).
One problem is that they're not dedicated to bikes. So you're sharing the street with other cars. And it's gotten worse because the city is cutting 4-lane feeder streets down to 2 lanes. They call it "traffic calming", which is not what most people would call it. So frustrated drivers are moving over to residential streets and zooming down them as fast as they can.
It really seems like a lost opportunity to take the extra lanes and make them dedicated bike lanes. Have bollards in them that prevent cars from using them.
4 lanes (2+2) reduced to 3 (1+1+turning).
People have been fawning over the proposal for years, and are only now realizing what a disaster it is.
And the businesses that thought they were getting a boost, end up with traffic counts cut by more than half, since people now avoid the purposely created congestion.
I’m an advocate for IGH and drum or coaster brakes for casual commuter riders. Belt drives are nice too. These things have more drag than a derailleur and disc or caliper brakes, but this is offset by the maintenance aspect. What people don’t often realize is that IGH can have very wide gearing. A 3 or 7 speed IGH can have as wide gearing as a 24 speed, just with fewer gears in between and fewer gear combinations that are virtually the same. Another nice feature is you can change gears when stopped.
On the other hand, what seems to sell in North America is crappy bikes with full suspension and maximum number of gears.
In this case, Shimano should have simply sold the public on IGH and other existing low maintenance features, and got people on test rides. The automated shifting part seems useless and annoying. The real benefit is having fewer gears and one rather than 2 places to change the gear which is much simpler to manage. Actually IGH can’t shift smoothly under load so I can only imagine this automated system would feel clunky whenever you’re trying to accelerate or ride uphill.
Part of that problem is there's a certain cost floor to Derailleur based drivetrains versus Internally geared hubs, and when you're an ODM mass producing you're at a whole different level of price structure.
> Actually IGH can’t shift smoothly under load
Ehhhhh..... So The Nexus 8 speed will upshift under load OK, but downshift you typically will have to pause pedaling for at least a moment for the shift to complete. I had one on a tandem at one point and even with two experienced riders it could do the upshifts fine. I think? some other IGH manufacturers have/had models that could shift in both directions fine, but they were very expensive models.
From my time slinging bikes (which was around when Shimano kicked off their 'Coasting' program,) where Shimano missed the boat was they didn't offer a 5 or 7 speed with shifting capabilities close enough to the Nexus 8. That would have been enough for everyone to be happy.
As an aside, It's fun to see all the different kinds of shifters Shimano cooked up for their IGHs over the years to sell people on them...
I'm still not sold on Drum brakes, in any case, but I'm also a Mechancial Disc zealot FWIW.
* 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.
Perhaps this was largely a failure of marketing.
There's no equivalent to the Dutch department store bikes that, if memory serves correctly, were cheap but simple, low-maintenance, and better outfitted for casual riding (fenders, a light, a lock).
As the article suggests, I suspect it's more a problem of distribution. If IDEO suggested a $500 bike to be sold to casual riders at their local bike shop, well, that already exists. What doesn't exist (but could?) is a $275 steel three-speed at Walmart that's less performance-oriented than a $500 Trek but more practical than a beach cruiser.
On high end bikes, bling comes in the form of Anodized aluminum (or titanium), sexy colorful carbon fiber frames, colorful paint, or other parts that are colorful or polished without adding weight.
Performance->Weight->Bling in that order. Looks like Shimano's Coasting program skipped steps 1 and 2 and skipped to Bling.
This? Let me quote the directions for the most common bike maintenance issue—A flat tire.
> "The rear wheel is removed from rear-facing dropouts. Remove both left and right side covers. Remove brake arm fixing bolts and washers. Loosen axle nut. Note orientation of the non-turn washer. This washer is used to prevent the axle from rotating in the dropout.
> "Disengage the cable from the bell crank unit. Depress the adjusting rod and pull cable end from lever. Pull lever away from axle and remove adjusting rod. Use a 15mm wrench to loosen and remove axle nut.
> "Remove bell crank unit and cover fixing stay bracket. Disengage chain from chainring and pull wheel back and out of dropouts."
Compared to on a bike with a Nexus drive train:
- Release the quick release.
- Pull the tire out and disengage the chain.
This is not simpler. Traditional bikes are already fairly simple.
Quite the funny typo, considering what long-term bicycling can do to male fertility.
> What if all bike companies (and component manufacturers like Shimano) spent all their R&D budgets on education and lobbying instead of better technology?
The R&D budget of the entire bike industry is not going to move this needle.
What has moved this needle is the fact that automotive infrastructure has become a huge obstacle to growth in big cities. Most big cities cannot increase road infrastructure to support growth so they are more or less forced to support denser forms of transportation like cycling or stop growing.
The other big thing is eBikes.
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 patterns while cars got a nice direct road (not fair) -- all that made be not want to bike, especially in the heat or rain.
Seriously, get rid of ALL parking on El Camino Real. It's mind-bogglingly stupid to have parking on a major road. Turn the remaining space into a separated bike lane.
Or just mark off 1 out of the 3 lanes on El Camino Real as a wide bike lane. Our governments are just too chicken to do that.
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.
The truth is, even somewhere considered reasonably bike friendly like Germany, bikes are still clear second class citizens compared to cars, in terms of transportation investment. In terms of quality of infrastructure and amount of space allocated in cities, there's just no contest there.
And in the US, it's downright pathetic. The general attitude of city governments when it comes to bike numbers amounts to, "we've tried nothing, and we're all out of ideas!" Pointing to the clear success story of Vancouver BC actually putting forth a serious effort and getting results will get you nowhere, they'll keep on muddling through and feigning confusion as to why nobody wants to use their fragmented, dangerous bike network composed mostly of door zone bike lanes that suddenly end whenever it was inconvenient to continue dropping paint on the road.
I've lost track of all the painted bike lanes that suddenly disappear and then show up again 50m later because cars needed a dedicated turn lane right there, or the times the bike lane curves and yeets itself into the sidewalk with no warning. Even a quick glance at Google Maps with the bike lane layer on makes it immediately clear how badly bike networks are almost always implemented there.
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.
Re: showers at work. I've been wondering what is going to happen to cycling to the office once people start going back en masse.
For example, the shower unit at our office has only been available to people who work in the clean room environment since March, and I just can't see how we go back to common use in the foreseeable future.
And frankly, if people start going back to full-time without showers I'd probably like to see cycling use drop(or at least for people like me who tend to arrive lycra'd up on a road bike).
¹ Ridiculously that seems to include lights, computers, Garmin Varia, gears, etc at this point.
Cycling uptake starts with cycling infrastructure, very few people have a problem learning how to ride a bike.
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 you can see them almost standing or straining to turn the crank. I cringe to think about the pain they are inflicting on their knees.
IME once you spend a few minutes teaching someone about their gears, they're usually shocked at how much easier and more efficiently riding is, and enjoy cycling much more.
Automatic shifting on bike is not a good idea. While people are terrible at shifting at first, they can learn to get better. Automatic shifting never improves.
It's meant to be simple, but basic maintainability is a nightmare. Changing a tire requires 3 tools and about 10 steps just to pull the tire off. Thats bonkers. Pretty much eliminates any chance of roadside tire fixes.
They would completely be in the target market for this. If they were buying a bike, this is a system they would want. In fact, it's a system I would want them to have, because I'm sick of watching them struggle with a single gear and they really do not feel comfortable with multiple gears!
I've tried to explain the benefits of multiple gears and how it's actually simple, but they won't have it. They aren't that comfortable with riding a bike anyway, and they don't want something extra to think about on top of all the other things. I also don't think they are completely atypical.
I can also see this being a great rental option, and great for kids who want a step-up bike as they learn.
Your argument seems to be "advanced users don't want this" - but that's not the target market. Automatic gears on cars don't go into racing cars, and manual gearboxes can be easier to maintain and provide more control. Automatic gears on cars are actually really there to reduce complexity for the average driver, which is what this is for bikes.
Cycling as an activity has gone way upmarket in the last 30 years, as there aren't many new people in the sport and the main demographic is wealth older guys who spend obscene money on bikes.
The classic case is "Fat bikes", which were the unexpected success story a few years ago, and took over the industry by storm. All the sudden a ton of guys are getting another $4k bike, and people like me who always bought used aluminum or steel frames for racing (won't explode like carbon- have seen this happen multiple times, won't cost much to replace). The number of wealthy men in their 50s I know with $20+k of bikes is amazing. Sure, it's better than buying a fancy car, but it's a change from when I was a kid and most guys just had their commuter bike and road bike.
Schwinn made such bikes for decades. Folks stopped buying them.
Single speeds are amazingly cheap, simple, near-zero maintenance.. but are not good for casual riders unless your city/metro is very flat.
The UN member state equivalence abstraction does not shrink the practical differences in physical reality. Dutch transport infrastructure is built to a much smaller scale because that’s what’s politically warranted. It can ignore problems of the Alps, Caucuses, and Balkins.
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.
- On quieter roads in retail areas they added painted white lines, but most importantly they've enforced them so delivery drivers don't park over the cycle lane.
- On roads in busier areas that had street parking they've shifted the street parking inwards a couple of meters, and put a cycle lane between the street parking and pavement. This means the driving part of the road is narrower, so people drive slower.
- On other streets that were too small for a cycle lane and street parking, they have removed street parking and put up a cycle lane separated with small bollards (a few cm high, so can be driven over). These are usually in areas where you would have only driven at 20km/h. We have a lot of cobbled streets and they aren't (I'm wondering if it's intentional) very well maintained, so most are very uneven. The only issue with these is that delivery drivers do park over them, because now there is nowhere else for them to park. Of course people complained about the reduction in street parking, but that issue was quickly forgotten.
- They changed a lot of road directions (bikes are exempt) so that you cannot drive through the city center to get across the city. This did increase traffic a little in other routes (this happened at the start of this year, so hard to tell because of covid), but it means that as a cyclist you can easily cycle through the city center which has much less car traffic. Of course people complained, but again it was quickly forgotten.
- A few streets that were popular for commuters were tested being pedestrian only in the summer (case numbers here were fairly low then, so traffic levels were maybe 75% of normal). Again people complained, but the issues were quickly forgotten.
- Proliferation of food delivery services have meant there are much more bikes on the road, so drivers are more cautious.
A policeman in a car pulled up alongside my friend on his bike, said do you know you clocked 45mph though that 30 zone.
"Er I'm sorry officer..."
"Don't worry, legally that limit only applies to motor vehicles. I wanted to say well done."
Accepting these discomforts is part of cycling in my view. Iets always foreigners who complain about such discomforts (my wife is ons of thema ;)), Dutch people simply accept it.
The only problem with Australia is the majority are addicted to cars, so much do they can’t imagine going anywhere without them.
I have been cycle commuting to school, university and various workplaces since the 80's on BMX and MTBs. I started out commuting in casual clothes (school), continued with casual clothes when I began cycling significantly further to university, but needed to carry a change of clothes due to sweat or rain. I joined the university cycle club and was introduced (admittedly with considerable skepticism) to the benefits of lycra (less chafe, faster to dry) and eventually also bought a road bike. The road bike made a big difference to my commute times/effort.
As a post grad student I had access to showers in my department. So I could ride faster/further (for fun) then shower and change before starting my day. Almost all my work places since leaving university have had shower facilities that allowed me to continue cycle commuting. Almost all the other cycle commuters at those work places that rode more than ~5km would opt to shower also. Why? because they got sweaty or wet and dirty.
If the weather is so good for cycling why do people want the end of trip shower?
By far most people I have worked with will not cycle commute at all (too far, too hard, don't want to mess up their hair with a helmet, too unsafe on the roads, take too long etc). Of those that did cycle commute, many are not all year round commuters, for the reasons I outlined above.
You may be comfortable riding in all kinds of weather. My experience is that the vast majority of Australians are not - even when end of trip facilities are available.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmets_in_Australia
Fixies especially seemed like they would usher in more urban cycling (especially with people switching to singlespeed, but keeping the cool look), and messenger culture was a thing. There was no specialized equipment, except for perhaps tight jeans and moustache (optional for women).
However, no matter go interested people are, eventually reality hits you like a truck, or car door as the case may be, and your third bike gets stolen, and you get sick of it.
People would definitely use the infrastructure- there's no shortage of people who like to rides bikes, but are sick of dealing with crazy drivers and potholes and car doors and fedex/prime trucks parked wherever in the middle of the road.
You can find them with fenders and a rack pretty easily. They're a simple 2x5 drivetrain.
They start out very heavy. The wheels/braking is terrible. -but-. If you swap the wheels out for something modern, perhaps do some minor drivetrain upgrades you'll wind up with a still-kinda-heavy but amazingly capable and cheap city bike. Plus, in some areas it has a bit of a 'sleeper' effect and will get lower attention from thieves.
Electra still makes them but they're quite heavy and too expensive. One could buy a much more useful urban IGH or 1x derailleur bike for the same amount. Like a Kona Dew.
https://waterfordbikes.com/SchwinnCat/flschwinn_1961_1970/19...
They also had a delivery bike that almost anticipates the modern baekfiets. And some department stores such as Sears and Wards had similar lines at somewhat lower prices.
I have a early 60s Schwinn that is still in good working order despite no maintenance other than lubrication and new tires.
Am I? You typed this, not me.
>They are afraid of looking like an idiot. If they ride with me I look really cool with a slick bike and low profile gear, while they are riding a walmart bike in baggy shorts with a dumb helmet, while visible to hundreds of people in cars.
How exactly did I misinterpret that? You think you look cool and knowledgeable and that's why no one wants to ride with you. You don't, and that's probably not why they won't ride with you.
>The difference is looking like you know what you're doing, and looking like you have no idea what you're doing.
People who spend gobs of money on all of that gear don't look like they know what they're doing; they look like middle aged men and women cosplaying people who knows what they're doing. It's unnecessary and nothing more than a fashion statement.
I think it's you who misunderstands how most of the world views your spandex. And I have no "dislike for bikers"; I dislike the snotty attitude some of them have about their dumb, pointless, overpriced gear that, uh... makes them slightly faster while riding down Main street I guess? When I play baseball with my 7 year old I don't feel the urge to throw on cleats and eye black.
By "cyclist" do you mean "roadie"? This is a fairly narrow view; most cyclists use bikes for commuting, not for sport. I consider myself an avid cyclist and I find lycra kits extremely ridiculous; for my commute I just use regular work clothes. I'm actually a bit ashamed to use a bike when I cross these fat idiots with obnoxious colorful clothes on their carbon bikes, as I don't want to be identified with them in any way.
Edit: Seems you edited that bit out huh? Now I'm just angry. Ok.
Getting cars under control is certainly the first thing that must happen, but cyclists running red lights and being worried about their 'gear' are a nuisance everywhere. They are no more tolerated in the Netherlands than outside.
The focus needs to be on getting cars under control, period.
Bingo, the safest time to cross on a bike is when there aren’t any moving vehicles in the intersection, and your senses tell you there aren’t going to be any more, regardless of the color of the light. Apparently I’m that asshat and will continue to be as long as I’m sharing the roads with large steel blocks. I also advocate for anyone else cycling in the US to be an asshat too, because I don’t want them to die.
I drive too, but I seriously don’t get why people care about bicyclists running a red, what’s going to happen? You have a much better ability to hear and see on a bike. You can’t accelerate anything like a car. It’s safer for everybody for them get away from the cars at the light.
The last thing I want to do is accelerate alongside a bunch of high powered steel blocks with flesh bags at the controls.
Like I said, all problems stem from that misconception. You're right that crossing 5 secs before the light turns green is one of the safest moments, but as I will happily demonstrate if you'd make it to the Netherlands, intersections need not be traffic arenas. Those solutions are halfbaked and still within an ill conceived approach to traffic.
Reducing speeds is essential, increasing predictability too, and naturally cyclists are no exception.
I think we will have to ask ourselves the question in the future: do we want heavy machinery at high speed in populated areas including red lights for all other means of transportation - or do we want populated areas with no/almost no traffic lights and faster traffic for foot/cycling traffic?
Though admittedly, the weather in most of the US is unsuitable much of the time and likewise the terrain. The Netherlands is a small locale where these are not factors.
Aside from mechanical issues, shifting gears when you don't expect it is about one of the worst experiences you can have on a bike. Being in a lower gear than you expect and spinning out or being in a higher gear and having no traction is terrible. The Nexus is super easy to shift (and can shift when you are stopped) has a bigger gear range, and is predictable.
Also, when bikes were launched, these didn't exist. Now it's likely you can get an all around easier ebike for about the cost of one of these so it's a no-brainer.
> Your argument seems to be "advanced users don't want this"
No. My argument is nobody wants this you might think automatic shifting on a bike is a good idea, but every time it's been done people hate it. It doesn't work like an automatic in a car.
The fact that it's far more difficult to change a tire means users are even less likely to learn basic maintenance. It's nice to say "They'll take it to the shop!", but that doesn't help when they are on the bike trail 4 miles from their car. With a somewhat normal drive-train another rider can give them an assist. With this, it's unlikely anyone has the tools with them to help out.
I'm saying I know at least two people in my immediate family who would want this, so I don't think nobody wants it.
It might not be any good, and informed purchasers might not want it after trying it, but I think people want the concept.
Shifting gears isn't what keeps people off bikes, the average 10 year old figures out shifting gears in about 20 minutes. What keeps people off bikes is the fact that most places in the US are unsafe for cycling.
More or less everywhere it's safe to ride bikes, bike ownership and use increases dramatically using existing shifting technologies.
Internal gear hubs make a lot more sense for casual cyclists -- they are easier to learn, they can be shifted when the bicycle is not moving, and they are far less likely to drop a chain during shifting than derailleur gearing. They are also better protected from weather and impact.
Almost all of the utility bicycles I've seen in Japan and Europe had internal gear hubs. I didn't see many people commuting on the kind of bicycles that American cycling advocates seem to prefer.
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.
Wait, is this not what you are supposed to do? How do you go fast then?
I hang out on some cycling subreddits and they commonly get questions from new cyclists that are totally clueless about how gears work. Some of them have it it completely backwards, ie start in a high (slow) gear and progressively shift down to a low (fast) gear as you get up to speed.
I always thought it was intuitive, but I guess I also got my first 5 speed bike around 7 years old or so, I can't really remember. I do remember having an RC car with 2 speeds Ang getting the principles pretty quick: gear one would accelerate faster but top out quick, while gear 2 had slower pick up but higher top speed.
However I would think straining hundreds or thousands of time on a ride vs a few dozen squats for a set has a much bigger potential for injury.
I'd also add it's not uncommon to see riders with their bikes unadjusted for their size, e.g. they might be in an already weird position with their seatpost too low.
This may shock you, but most people don't live in the US, and different people have different motivations for either cycling or not.
Although clearly you represent the everyman and can be the one-person-focus-group for the bike market!
The bike market represents the bike market. As I said, these have been around for 10+ years and nobody buys them. It's not my opinion that these are undesirable, we know they are undesirable based on sales numbers.
Bikes with Automatic drive trains aren't popular in the US. ... or Europe. ... or Asia. ... or anywhere.
They are more expensive, heavier, and harder to work on than traditional bikes. Half-assed automatic shifting doesn't make up for those issues.
Maybe I'm off base and people just didn't like them because they are ugly. Who knows, but since it's been 10+ years now I think it's clear they aren't the fix-all for getting people on bikes Shimano designers thought they were. Maybe, just maybe, your mom and your sister aren't the perfect bellwethers of the needs of skittish would-be-bike-riders in the world.
Your claim is that nobody wants them. I know at least two, which is more than 0.
They aren't popular yet, but I'm willing to bet that they will be with further development. Let's not forget that the first automatic gearbox for cars, the 1904 Sturtevant "horseless carriage gearbox", wasn't exactly a market hit - it took until the late 1940's for it to take off as a polished product and longer still to overtake manual transmissions (due to similar cited concerns about maintainability and the level of control).
In fact, I actually drive a manual transmission in my car because of those factors (and manual is still more popular in the UK), but clearly the majority of the market has moved on.
