Re: The Problem with Marketing the Re***bent is The Name

Jon Meinecke wrote:
> <erness.wild@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
>> [re***bent bikes] are faster
> 
> Now that's marketing!  %^P
> 
> Maybe they should be labeled "New and Improved! (TM),"
> too.  The problem is, many re***bent 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 re***bent 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 op****tunity 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 re***bents, 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 re***bent 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 "re***bent 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 re***bent
> 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 re***bent.

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