Not Completely Manifest

Okay, I know the custom builder bike cognoscenti is going to be ticked off about this, but what the heck is going on with the Oregon Manifest? Oh.....wait, let me fill in the blanks here....

No motor, not "fancy", but it is "Utility".

 The whole idea was for the Portland area constructors of bicycles to take up a challenge where they would build a specific type of bicycle, in this case, a "utility bicycle", then they would, according to all rules set up along the way, be judged on their creations. Then, they would be put to a test of riding them on a specific course, for which there would be a winner. So, something of a race ensued, as I understand it.

Now, while that is cool in and of itself,  I find it all somewhat amusing, and totally puzzling when fancy custom bicycles that cost the price of a good used car, (at least in these parts), are proffered up as a "utility bike" that should be seen as a "car replacement option".

Really? (And apparently, I am not the only person that feels this way. See the comment #1 on this Bike Rumor post here)

Ya know, it is great to see the passion, focus, and dedication to utility cycling that these folks show. I don't doubt their enthusiasm and drive one bit, but c'mon! These bicycles are not going to get the "non-cycling public' excited about ditching the Suburban or that aging Caravan. Like the commenter said on the Bike Rumor post, "I did not see a single machine that beat a Trek Soho or similar as an urban bike"

Hey, neither did I.

The thing is, these are geek-bikes for bike-geeks, and by the response from the bike geeks out here that I have seen, it worked. They made bike geeks feel all warm and fuzzy. Not that this is a bad thing, mind you, but it isn't advancing the goal of getting the "non-cycling public" into bikes, or even thinking about thinking about getting on a bike.

Electric Assist? I don't need no stinkin' electric assist!

Now when I actually am loaded down with cargo, and rolling down the street, or carrying my son on the Snap Deck, folks look at that. They see "someone doing the deed" on a bike that looks "normal", to the extent that it isn't "fancy", costs four digits, and is accessible to their minds eye.

I remember being stopped at a convenience store last summer by a guy who was generally stoked by my rig and the possibilities it presented. Did he get out of his car and go utility bicycling? I don't know, but my lowly rig, and "normal" clothed appearance made it something he could grasp.

The Oregon Manifest wouldn't work here. Maybe it does out there on the West Coast. If so, I apologize for thinking less of it, but here? Ha! Yeah........right. In my opinion, most folks, even cyclists here, are going to be on a similar page to the commenter I referenced.

What I'd like to see is an Oregon Manifest that is "readily perceived by the senses and especially by the sense of sight" as an accessible, realistically priced, practical bike that folks would see as something they would ride for fun and utility. Something not high priced. Something not so exclusive, but inclusive. Something that looks like a bike. (Really, that wouldn't be so bad, would it?)

Works of rideable art are fine and all, but "utility" means something far away from that for most folks. Especially if the folks you want to get out of cars are going to look at them as being something useable. Just my two cents.

Maybe me and the guy commenting on the Bike Rumor post are just daft ninnies that don't get it. But, I'm betting we're on to something here......

Not Completely Manifest

Okay, I know the custom builder bike cognoscenti is going to be ticked off about this, but what the heck is going on with the Oregon Manifest? Oh.....wait, let me fill in the blanks here....

No motor, not "fancy", but it is "Utility".

 The whole idea was for the Portland area constructors of bicycles to take up a challenge where they would build a specific type of bicycle, in this case, a "utility bicycle", then they would, according to all rules set up along the way, be judged on their creations. Then, they would be put to a test of riding them on a specific course, for which there would be a winner. So, something of a race ensued, as I understand it.

Now, while that is cool in and of itself,  I find it all somewhat amusing, and totally puzzling when fancy custom bicycles that cost the price of a good used car, (at least in these parts), are proffered up as a "utility bike" that should be seen as a "car replacement option".

Really? (And apparently, I am not the only person that feels this way. See the comment #1 on this Bike Rumor post here)

Ya know, it is great to see the passion, focus, and dedication to utility cycling that these folks show. I don't doubt their enthusiasm and drive one bit, but c'mon! These bicycles are not going to get the "non-cycling public' excited about ditching the Suburban or that aging Caravan. Like the commenter said on the Bike Rumor post, "I did not see a single machine that beat a Trek Soho or similar as an urban bike"

Hey, neither did I.

The thing is, these are geek-bikes for bike-geeks, and by the response from the bike geeks out here that I have seen, it worked. They made bike geeks feel all warm and fuzzy. Not that this is a bad thing, mind you, but it isn't advancing the goal of getting the "non-cycling public" into bikes, or even thinking about thinking about getting on a bike.

Electric Assist? I don't need no stinkin' electric assist!

Now when I actually am loaded down with cargo, and rolling down the street, or carrying my son on the Snap Deck, folks look at that. They see "someone doing the deed" on a bike that looks "normal", to the extent that it isn't "fancy", costs four digits, and is accessible to their minds eye.

I remember being stopped at a convenience store last summer by a guy who was generally stoked by my rig and the possibilities it presented. Did he get out of his car and go utility bicycling? I don't know, but my lowly rig, and "normal" clothed appearance made it something he could grasp.

The Oregon Manifest wouldn't work here. Maybe it does out there on the West Coast. If so, I apologize for thinking less of it, but here? Ha! Yeah........right. In my opinion, most folks, even cyclists here, are going to be on a similar page to the commenter I referenced.

What I'd like to see is an Oregon Manifest that is "readily perceived by the senses and especially by the sense of sight" as an accessible, realistically priced, practical bike that folks would see as something they would ride for fun and utility. Something not high priced. Something not so exclusive, but inclusive. Something that looks like a bike. (Really, that wouldn't be so bad, would it?)

Works of rideable art are fine and all, but "utility" means something far away from that for most folks. Especially if the folks you want to get out of cars are going to look at them as being something useable. Just my two cents.

Maybe me and the guy commenting on the Bike Rumor post are just daft ninnies that don't get it. But, I'm betting we're on to something here......

Commuter Bikes: They've Got It All Wrong! Part III

Note: This has turned into a bit of a series! Today I will tie things up with my take on exactly how the "Cycling Industry" has got it wrong philosophically concerning "commuter/urban" cycling. Thanks for reading!

The "standard" equipment for these "commuter/urban" bikes being proffered by the industry of late seems to be of high quality and (unfortunately) high price. I have stated in my previous two posts how the price of entry for someone looking to start a cycling lifestyle as a "utilitarian user" of a bicycle is a negative. Why is there a seeming disconnect here? I think it's a rather simple situation and easy to understand if we look outside of cycling.

Generally speaking, if one wants to start an activity in the recreational/sports categories one starts by "testing the waters". For example: If you were to start fishing, and never have fished a day in your life, you most likely will get a "starter set" that provides you with all the necessary gear at a low price for entry. Now mind you, this is typically gear that a "serious" fisherman wouldn't be caught dead with. However; I think we can all agree that first time fishers are not going to buy a $300.00 reel, $200.00 pole, a fish finder, a boat, etc.... No, they are going to spend enough to get started, maybe a $100.00 total, get a license and drop their line in the local watering hole. This is where a lot of "fisherman" are made, from casual users that get "hooked" on the activity. (Sorry for the pun!) The same is true for golf, tennis, and several other sports. Sure, we all know that getting better equipment enhances your first time experience, but the high price of "real equipment" doesn't stop these segments from gaining new users. The cheaper, entry level stuff along with a healthy dose of encouragement/excitement help turn users into serious enthusiasts. Of course, a lot of folks don't ever get beyond the entry level stages, but at least there is an entry point that doesn't require a huge cash out lay to try things out.

An example of the opposite situation is skiing, where equipment costs have kept new users in the rentals, (which have been upgraded to pro level stuff, so why buy anyway?) and access to the slopes has been getting more expensive as well. If it weren't for rental equipment, I'd wager the ski industry would be far, far smaller than it is today due to the high cost of entry into the sport.

So, while conventional cycling industry wisdom is to get these folks on commuter bikes that are of high quality with parts that will be reliable and work, reality is that the price for entry is way too high to attain this. So, is the cycling industry prepared to provide rentals and live off of high end commuter sales, or is there another way? I say that there is another, better way.

In my experience the new user of a bicycle has a couple of common traits that should tip off the industry to where to go with utilitarian bikes. First of all, most folks don't know what to do with derailleur drive trains. They are confusing and seem unnecessary to a new user. A lot of folks are looking for simplicity. This is where the Shimano Coasting idea is right, but the price is still too high, and the design is too user unfriendly. Unfriendly? Yes, I dare you to hand a Coasting bike to a new user and have them remove a wheel in less than an hour. Really, it's not intuitive or simple and that defeats the purpose in my mind. I know, I own a Coasting bike, and even I think it's a bit wonky.

Which leads me to point #2: People are afraid of flats. New users have no idea what to do when it comes to flats, and lets be honest, nothing ruins a buzz on your ride like an untimely flat. New users that are putting a bicycle to utilitarian uses can ill afford a flat at anytime. So, a system of foam filled tires, or something similar would take that complaint right out of the conversation. While "cyclists" will scoff at such heresy, new users will see it as a benefit. Heavy tires/wheels as a benefit? Yes. The industry needs to look into a cheap way to do this for new users. Until they become cyclists and want something better, (lighter/easier to pedal), utility and practicality where they are at in life is paramount.

Which leads me to point #3: New users of bicycles are not as afraid of "work" as you might think. I have noticed on several occasions where new users of bikes will buy a derailleur equipped rig, put it in a gear, (Usually, but not exclusively the highest/hardest gear) and ride it till the cows come home. I have seen on several occasions where people who actually enjoy "cycling" and call themselves "cyclists" are going at a sub 50 cadence down the bike path. Typical cycling wisdom would say these people need education and are using bicycles in a manner that is on the other side of "right". Well, I say at least they are using a bike! If we could just get out of our own way and realize that new users are just fine with single speed coaster brakes, we might just see an increase in users and eventually cyclists. A single speed utility bicycle with a simple coaster brake, high tensile steel frame that is strong, cheap, and heavy, and can do some work because it's outfitted with a rack and a kickstand would be the ticket. Never mind that it might weigh 40lbs, or be geared too high. Folks that are new users will just think they are getting a good work out. Really.

In conclusion: If the cycling industry wants to get people on board with using a bicycle as a daily "tool", then it needs to provide an easy, cheap point of entry, not unlike other sporting goods segments do. It needs to create a pool of "users" of bicycles which can grow into "cyclists", or enthusiasts later. Trying to jump a new user from zero to cycling enthusiast in one leap is not really working. Users first- cyclists second.

Commuter Bikes: They've Got It All Wrong! Part III

Note: This has turned into a bit of a series! Today I will tie things up with my take on exactly how the "Cycling Industry" has got it wrong philosophically concerning "commuter/urban" cycling. Thanks for reading!

The "standard" equipment for these "commuter/urban" bikes being proffered by the industry of late seems to be of high quality and (unfortunately) high price. I have stated in my previous two posts how the price of entry for someone looking to start a cycling lifestyle as a "utilitarian user" of a bicycle is a negative. Why is there a seeming disconnect here? I think it's a rather simple situation and easy to understand if we look outside of cycling.

Generally speaking, if one wants to start an activity in the recreational/sports categories one starts by "testing the waters". For example: If you were to start fishing, and never have fished a day in your life, you most likely will get a "starter set" that provides you with all the necessary gear at a low price for entry. Now mind you, this is typically gear that a "serious" fisherman wouldn't be caught dead with. However; I think we can all agree that first time fishers are not going to buy a $300.00 reel, $200.00 pole, a fish finder, a boat, etc.... No, they are going to spend enough to get started, maybe a $100.00 total, get a license and drop their line in the local watering hole. This is where a lot of "fisherman" are made, from casual users that get "hooked" on the activity. (Sorry for the pun!) The same is true for golf, tennis, and several other sports. Sure, we all know that getting better equipment enhances your first time experience, but the high price of "real equipment" doesn't stop these segments from gaining new users. The cheaper, entry level stuff along with a healthy dose of encouragement/excitement help turn users into serious enthusiasts. Of course, a lot of folks don't ever get beyond the entry level stages, but at least there is an entry point that doesn't require a huge cash out lay to try things out.

An example of the opposite situation is skiing, where equipment costs have kept new users in the rentals, (which have been upgraded to pro level stuff, so why buy anyway?) and access to the slopes has been getting more expensive as well. If it weren't for rental equipment, I'd wager the ski industry would be far, far smaller than it is today due to the high cost of entry into the sport.

So, while conventional cycling industry wisdom is to get these folks on commuter bikes that are of high quality with parts that will be reliable and work, reality is that the price for entry is way too high to attain this. So, is the cycling industry prepared to provide rentals and live off of high end commuter sales, or is there another way? I say that there is another, better way.

In my experience the new user of a bicycle has a couple of common traits that should tip off the industry to where to go with utilitarian bikes. First of all, most folks don't know what to do with derailleur drive trains. They are confusing and seem unnecessary to a new user. A lot of folks are looking for simplicity. This is where the Shimano Coasting idea is right, but the price is still too high, and the design is too user unfriendly. Unfriendly? Yes, I dare you to hand a Coasting bike to a new user and have them remove a wheel in less than an hour. Really, it's not intuitive or simple and that defeats the purpose in my mind. I know, I own a Coasting bike, and even I think it's a bit wonky.

Which leads me to point #2: People are afraid of flats. New users have no idea what to do when it comes to flats, and lets be honest, nothing ruins a buzz on your ride like an untimely flat. New users that are putting a bicycle to utilitarian uses can ill afford a flat at anytime. So, a system of foam filled tires, or something similar would take that complaint right out of the conversation. While "cyclists" will scoff at such heresy, new users will see it as a benefit. Heavy tires/wheels as a benefit? Yes. The industry needs to look into a cheap way to do this for new users. Until they become cyclists and want something better, (lighter/easier to pedal), utility and practicality where they are at in life is paramount.

Which leads me to point #3: New users of bicycles are not as afraid of "work" as you might think. I have noticed on several occasions where new users of bikes will buy a derailleur equipped rig, put it in a gear, (Usually, but not exclusively the highest/hardest gear) and ride it till the cows come home. I have seen on several occasions where people who actually enjoy "cycling" and call themselves "cyclists" are going at a sub 50 cadence down the bike path. Typical cycling wisdom would say these people need education and are using bicycles in a manner that is on the other side of "right". Well, I say at least they are using a bike! If we could just get out of our own way and realize that new users are just fine with single speed coaster brakes, we might just see an increase in users and eventually cyclists. A single speed utility bicycle with a simple coaster brake, high tensile steel frame that is strong, cheap, and heavy, and can do some work because it's outfitted with a rack and a kickstand would be the ticket. Never mind that it might weigh 40lbs, or be geared too high. Folks that are new users will just think they are getting a good work out. Really.

In conclusion: If the cycling industry wants to get people on board with using a bicycle as a daily "tool", then it needs to provide an easy, cheap point of entry, not unlike other sporting goods segments do. It needs to create a pool of "users" of bicycles which can grow into "cyclists", or enthusiasts later. Trying to jump a new user from zero to cycling enthusiast in one leap is not really working. Users first- cyclists second.

Commuter Bikes: They've Got It All Wrong! Part II

I had an interesting comment left from yesterday's post that I had a reply to and found out my comment wouldn't upload to my own blog! Well.............anyway, I figured I'd just turn it into a regular post. So here you go. The first bit is an excerpt from the comment that I wanted to respond to. My response will follow.

"No matter how bikes are marketed, sooner or later people come to the realization that it's sometimes WORK to ride them. Wind in your face, rear-end is gonna initially hurt, trial and error equipment preference 'til you sort it all out, legs are going to feel like rubber-bands, you're gonna show up where you need to go sweaty, it just might take you longer to get there, might get lost on the way trying to figure out a good route... but oh so gratifying cause you did it on your own and you did it.

The best commuter is comfortable, ugly, preferably inexpensive, something you don't really care ALL that much about, and is reliable. When riding your ugly but trusty bike, there will be days when commuting might just suck. Hmmm... how would you go about marketing that? "
ken y

First of all, "ken" goes into the physical complaints that a new user might have in regards to riding a bike for utilitarian purposes. Well, I would submit that a very large percentage of "cyclists" go through this ritual every spring. Pain in getting back into "cycling shape" is common, and most of the customers frequenting the shop I work at go through it. Every year. So yeah, there is that physical barrier to cycling that a lot of us that have tried the sport know about. The thing is, we're talking about folks that have not ridden bicycles for a long, long time. That's the point behind the Coasting idea. That's the people Shimano is supposedly trying to market to, and that's the market they are missing, as I pointed out yesterday.

These people haven't got a clue as to what will or won't hurt. They are all still in their cars. Yes, they would find out that there is a physical price to pay for riding, but if the payoff is good, the pain will be worth it. Even "ken" alludes to some of this when he writes "... but oh so gratifying cause you did it on your own and you did it." The sense of autonomy and practicality have to be seen in the activity for most to deem the physical part worth it as a utilitarian form of transport. That and the rising price of gas will no doubt start to motivate more and more to consider a bicycle.

However; my point yesterday was that the bicycle we have to offer is aimed at what "cyclists" deem necessary and not what new users feel they need, or are comfortable with. The Coasting bikes are close, particularly Raleigh's offering, but still way too expensive and too complex. (Fix the wheel attachment situation, for one thing) The bike needs to be like a wrench, hammer, or screwdriver: nothing flashy, complex, or task specific, just a tool that's easy to use and own. This is also something that "ken" touches on in his comment that I agree with.

Now as for the marketing of this: well let's just say that it could be done. It has to be done in a very different way than we see in cycling today though. What I see is cyclists preaching to cyclists. We don't need that sort of inbred marketing strategy. We need to talk to the guy in the Hummer, the gal that uses her car to drive down the street to pick up a pack of smokes, and to the kids behind the gaming consoles. We need to find a way to make riding a bike make sense to them from a utilitarian standpoint, not a cycling one. Make users first, the cyclists will happen later. That's my take.

Blog News: Here's a couple of new sites that I found really interesting from a cycling and personal standpoint. First up we have a couple of guys challenging themselves to go "car free" in the month of November. The site is still under construction, but this could be cool.......really cool! (It will happen in the month of November in Michigan and Iowa, for crying out loud!)

Secondly, there is a new bike shop being "born" here in the Mid-West. Take a look to see what a fellow big wheeled nut has up his sleeve here and follow the progress.

Commuter Bikes: They've Got It All Wrong! Part II

I had an interesting comment left from yesterday's post that I had a reply to and found out my comment wouldn't upload to my own blog! Well.............anyway, I figured I'd just turn it into a regular post. So here you go. The first bit is an excerpt from the comment that I wanted to respond to. My response will follow.

"No matter how bikes are marketed, sooner or later people come to the realization that it's sometimes WORK to ride them. Wind in your face, rear-end is gonna initially hurt, trial and error equipment preference 'til you sort it all out, legs are going to feel like rubber-bands, you're gonna show up where you need to go sweaty, it just might take you longer to get there, might get lost on the way trying to figure out a good route... but oh so gratifying cause you did it on your own and you did it.

The best commuter is comfortable, ugly, preferably inexpensive, something you don't really care ALL that much about, and is reliable. When riding your ugly but trusty bike, there will be days when commuting might just suck. Hmmm... how would you go about marketing that? "
ken y

First of all, "ken" goes into the physical complaints that a new user might have in regards to riding a bike for utilitarian purposes. Well, I would submit that a very large percentage of "cyclists" go through this ritual every spring. Pain in getting back into "cycling shape" is common, and most of the customers frequenting the shop I work at go through it. Every year. So yeah, there is that physical barrier to cycling that a lot of us that have tried the sport know about. The thing is, we're talking about folks that have not ridden bicycles for a long, long time. That's the point behind the Coasting idea. That's the people Shimano is supposedly trying to market to, and that's the market they are missing, as I pointed out yesterday.

These people haven't got a clue as to what will or won't hurt. They are all still in their cars. Yes, they would find out that there is a physical price to pay for riding, but if the payoff is good, the pain will be worth it. Even "ken" alludes to some of this when he writes "... but oh so gratifying cause you did it on your own and you did it." The sense of autonomy and practicality have to be seen in the activity for most to deem the physical part worth it as a utilitarian form of transport. That and the rising price of gas will no doubt start to motivate more and more to consider a bicycle.

However; my point yesterday was that the bicycle we have to offer is aimed at what "cyclists" deem necessary and not what new users feel they need, or are comfortable with. The Coasting bikes are close, particularly Raleigh's offering, but still way too expensive and too complex. (Fix the wheel attachment situation, for one thing) The bike needs to be like a wrench, hammer, or screwdriver: nothing flashy, complex, or task specific, just a tool that's easy to use and own. This is also something that "ken" touches on in his comment that I agree with.

Now as for the marketing of this: well let's just say that it could be done. It has to be done in a very different way than we see in cycling today though. What I see is cyclists preaching to cyclists. We don't need that sort of inbred marketing strategy. We need to talk to the guy in the Hummer, the gal that uses her car to drive down the street to pick up a pack of smokes, and to the kids behind the gaming consoles. We need to find a way to make riding a bike make sense to them from a utilitarian standpoint, not a cycling one. Make users first, the cyclists will happen later. That's my take.

Blog News: Here's a couple of new sites that I found really interesting from a cycling and personal standpoint. First up we have a couple of guys challenging themselves to go "car free" in the month of November. The site is still under construction, but this could be cool.......really cool! (It will happen in the month of November in Michigan and Iowa, for crying out loud!)

Secondly, there is a new bike shop being "born" here in the Mid-West. Take a look to see what a fellow big wheeled nut has up his sleeve here and follow the progress.

Commuter Bikes: They've Got It All Wrong!

(Picture Credit: Image snagged from Bicycle Retailer and Industry News site)

Rant Mode: ON...Okay, that's it! I've had enough and I ain't takin' it no more! This silly notion that if you make a "commuter bike" and offer it for sale it gives you some sort of "green credibility". Bah! I ain't buyin' this load of crap. Take a look at this image. It's a Chanel commuter bike, yes....that Chanel! You know...."Chanel No. 5"? Yeah........whatever!

And while I'm on the subject of these so called "commuter" bikes, who the heck is buying these things and actually commuting on them? C'mon, these rigs cost waaay too much money for the average joe that might actually get something out of commuting, or have to commute. The name "commuter bikes" is all wrong too. What is that anyway? "Commute" sounds like something you do at church, not anything I'd do with a bicycle, well, not legally anyway.

No, the industry has it all wrong. These self congratulatory "commuter/urban" rigs are cool .....to bike freaks! But let's be honest, a bike freak would ride to work on a Schwinn Typhoon if it was thought to be cool by his buddies. No, we're looking to get people out of their shiny metal/plastic/rubber boxes and out on something human powered with two wheels, or we ought to be. A "utility" bike, a bike that is practical, useful, and most of all cheap! That's what we need. A $250.00 rig that has sensible design, (read: not some funky Trek Lime modernistic take on two wheeled transpo) a dead simple drivetrain, (read: single speed, or at most a 3 speed internal geared hub), and is made with a coaster brake or a good canti set up. Something a step above "mart" bikes and maybe made from aluminum or high tensile steel. Fenders, kickstand, and reasonable, long lasting , tough tires. Sound heavy? Sound un-cool? Sound stupid? Good! Because bike geeks won't like it, and they shouldn't.

Who this bike is for are the people Shimano said they were after with the Coasting group. Great concept, bad execution. Don't get me wrong here. The Coasting stuff is super cool and fun to ride, but that's the problem. It appeals to bike people, and bike people don't need the "Good Word". We already "get it". It's the people out in those gas guzzling cars that we need to get on bikes, and they don't really care about what we care about. A bike has to be seen as something useful, advantageous to use, and practical to own. What good is a Coasting bike for riding to work, getting a gallon of milk, or to just cruise around on if you get a flat tire? Not too many people would have the first idea of how to get the wheel off of the thing.

So, get off of your "high horse", you industry wonks, and figure this thing out. Heck, the bikes going out to World Bicycle Relief have more common sense than a Coasting bike, a European fully decked out commuter rig, or for cryin' out loud, that Chanel bike! Lets get a dead simple, easy to maintain, cheap bike for the masses. Make like Henry Ford did with the Model T. A no frills, get er duuun rig. Build up a pool of "utilitarian cyclists" and then see your market base expand. Make ordinary people into users first, "cyclists" second. That's my take.

Rant Mode: OFF!

Commuter Bikes: They've Got It All Wrong!

(Picture Credit: Image snagged from Bicycle Retailer and Industry News site)

Rant Mode: ON...Okay, that's it! I've had enough and I ain't takin' it no more! This silly notion that if you make a "commuter bike" and offer it for sale it gives you some sort of "green credibility". Bah! I ain't buyin' this load of crap. Take a look at this image. It's a Chanel commuter bike, yes....that Chanel! You know...."Chanel No. 5"? Yeah........whatever!

And while I'm on the subject of these so called "commuter" bikes, who the heck is buying these things and actually commuting on them? C'mon, these rigs cost waaay too much money for the average joe that might actually get something out of commuting, or have to commute. The name "commuter bikes" is all wrong too. What is that anyway? "Commute" sounds like something you do at church, not anything I'd do with a bicycle, well, not legally anyway.

No, the industry has it all wrong. These self congratulatory "commuter/urban" rigs are cool .....to bike freaks! But let's be honest, a bike freak would ride to work on a Schwinn Typhoon if it was thought to be cool by his buddies. No, we're looking to get people out of their shiny metal/plastic/rubber boxes and out on something human powered with two wheels, or we ought to be. A "utility" bike, a bike that is practical, useful, and most of all cheap! That's what we need. A $250.00 rig that has sensible design, (read: not some funky Trek Lime modernistic take on two wheeled transpo) a dead simple drivetrain, (read: single speed, or at most a 3 speed internal geared hub), and is made with a coaster brake or a good canti set up. Something a step above "mart" bikes and maybe made from aluminum or high tensile steel. Fenders, kickstand, and reasonable, long lasting , tough tires. Sound heavy? Sound un-cool? Sound stupid? Good! Because bike geeks won't like it, and they shouldn't.

Who this bike is for are the people Shimano said they were after with the Coasting group. Great concept, bad execution. Don't get me wrong here. The Coasting stuff is super cool and fun to ride, but that's the problem. It appeals to bike people, and bike people don't need the "Good Word". We already "get it". It's the people out in those gas guzzling cars that we need to get on bikes, and they don't really care about what we care about. A bike has to be seen as something useful, advantageous to use, and practical to own. What good is a Coasting bike for riding to work, getting a gallon of milk, or to just cruise around on if you get a flat tire? Not too many people would have the first idea of how to get the wheel off of the thing.

So, get off of your "high horse", you industry wonks, and figure this thing out. Heck, the bikes going out to World Bicycle Relief have more common sense than a Coasting bike, a European fully decked out commuter rig, or for cryin' out loud, that Chanel bike! Lets get a dead simple, easy to maintain, cheap bike for the masses. Make like Henry Ford did with the Model T. A no frills, get er duuun rig. Build up a pool of "utilitarian cyclists" and then see your market base expand. Make ordinary people into users first, "cyclists" second. That's my take.

Rant Mode: OFF!