The idea of Kickstarter is that with a compelling "ask" online a person can get funding for a great idea that would have otherwise been difficult if not impossible for most "regular" people to achieve. It is important to have a good network of online contacts who will use social media to plug your idea on your behalf, but first and foremost a person needs an attractive idea and to present it in a compelling way. While it can be good to be brief, it is possible to be too short.
I know this having bumped into the Bamboo Bicycle Modules Kickstarter proposal.
A minimalistic Kickstarter proposal if there ever was one
In addition to its brevity, another problem with this Kickstarter could be that it doesn't explain very well what it is offering, I suspect. For around 100 years, almost all bicycles frames were somewhat like tinker-toys in that bits of metal tubing where inserted into specially designed "lugs" and welded/brazed together - here the idea is that you substitute (your) bamboo for the tubing and use his special lugs to hold the bamboo together. He also offers some sort of magical way of holding the frame pieces together (that I don't think would work) rather than a traditional jig. And I still am not sure if he means that with his "modules" the bamboo is inserted into the things or if the modules are inserted in the bamboo. I find it puzzling that one is expected to use carbon fiber with the epoxy to hold the materials together. It seems antithetical to the bamboo approach to slather carbon fiber on it to hold it together.
Examples of lugs from the 1890s - available for purchase much like the "bamboo bicycle modules"
This Kickstarter's author seems not to have followed the usual approach of offering various levels of "awards" - his one option, for $600, is to get a set of the modules so you can build your own bamboo bike with them. Where is a T-shirt with a logo and a bamboo bike on it for $25? Where is getting a postcard if you give $1? And so on. While a couple of people have pledged a total of $102 (as of today), neither will receive a "reward." So far not one person has funded at the reward level and the fellow has about two weeks left.
So minimalism doesn't seem to garner good results. Or is it the quality of the proposal? Perhaps both.
If I write any more, my blog post will be longer than the Kickstarter.
Showing posts with label kickstarter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label kickstarter. Show all posts
Monday, January 20, 2014
Sunday, December 22, 2013
Kickstarter Risk Example - E-Bike Co. Goes Bust
I suppose I should take care not to appear obsessed with Kickstarter . . .
For a while I have looked at the Bike Portland blog fairly regularly because I guess I thought of Portland as somehow advanced in its support for cycling. Now I'm not so sure "advanced" is the right word, but anyway, it is a source of bike related news that can be stimulating to read.
They just had a blog post about a company ceasing operation - the company, Conscious Commuter, was trying to bring a folding e-bike for commuter use to market. Although not evident from their web site, they have packed it in - the Bike Portland blog post quotes extensively from an email sent out from the company to its Kickstarter supporters.
So yes, in addition to other funding sources, this company sought and got $25,000 through a Kickstarter effort. Thirteen of the people who contributed were at the $1,395 level, for which the "reward" was to be, "You are pre-ordering and will receive a numbered, signed, limited edition folding e-bike, numbered in the order your Kickstarter pledge was placed. In addition to special pricing, you will get another pre-release offer -- a 2 year warranty!" (Estimated deliver - March 2012.) Anyway - no, that didn't and isn't happening, as it turns out. Instead you get an email more than two years later that says, "We appreciate your support of Conscious Commuter. We wish we had been able to raise the additional funds needed to continue what we believed was a very promising business- but after two and a half years filled with momentous achievements and challenges, financial issues have forced us to close our doors." Actually the email says a lot of other blather. At this point anyone who gave them $1,395 is probably not too surprised.
Since this proposal was made in 2011, Kickstarter has tried to clarify that there is some risk in such things with their "Kickstarter is not a store!" blog post, that requires proposal to include a "risks and challenges" section (which the e-bike proposal didn't have) but in my experience these never say, "there is risk we spend the money on something other than producing the thing you think you will get."
Just from the fifteen minutes or so I have spent acquainting myself with this effort (admittedly after the fact) it appears they had problems staying on track. Even the Kickstarter people say, "under-promise and over-deliver" - instead they seemed to have tried to come up with every conceivable variant imaginable - the same bike without the electric drive, the same bike with the e-drive but you don't have to (or can't?) pedal the thing, even a version in carbon fiber.
A slick video pushing a carbon-fiber variant
Most amazing to me, for a project that involves Kickstarter funding, is the "about us" page on the Conscious Commuter site. (This page is most likely going to disappear soon, but no worries, I used the Internet Archive's "archive this" functionality to make a copy for posterity, which is here: https://web.archive.org/web/20131222164759/http://www.consciouscommuter.com/pages/our-people-1.) I mean, good lord, the company describes nine different management or adviser types and nothing about anybody who puts their hands on a bicycle!! You know, to make one. The 25,000 bucks from Kickstarter, less the five percent to Kickstarter and the credit card charges, wouldn't pay for this crew's $ needs for very long. (Yeah, I get that maybe one of these people was focusing on this full-time - but still, can't they say something about someone who gets grease on his hands occasionally?)
Again, it's easy for me to look at this critically more than two years after they created their Kickstarter proposal. Perhaps there is something be learned here. Hmm.
For a while I have looked at the Bike Portland blog fairly regularly because I guess I thought of Portland as somehow advanced in its support for cycling. Now I'm not so sure "advanced" is the right word, but anyway, it is a source of bike related news that can be stimulating to read.
They just had a blog post about a company ceasing operation - the company, Conscious Commuter, was trying to bring a folding e-bike for commuter use to market. Although not evident from their web site, they have packed it in - the Bike Portland blog post quotes extensively from an email sent out from the company to its Kickstarter supporters.
So yes, in addition to other funding sources, this company sought and got $25,000 through a Kickstarter effort. Thirteen of the people who contributed were at the $1,395 level, for which the "reward" was to be, "You are pre-ordering and will receive a numbered, signed, limited edition folding e-bike, numbered in the order your Kickstarter pledge was placed. In addition to special pricing, you will get another pre-release offer -- a 2 year warranty!" (Estimated deliver - March 2012.) Anyway - no, that didn't and isn't happening, as it turns out. Instead you get an email more than two years later that says, "We appreciate your support of Conscious Commuter. We wish we had been able to raise the additional funds needed to continue what we believed was a very promising business- but after two and a half years filled with momentous achievements and challenges, financial issues have forced us to close our doors." Actually the email says a lot of other blather. At this point anyone who gave them $1,395 is probably not too surprised.
Since this proposal was made in 2011, Kickstarter has tried to clarify that there is some risk in such things with their "Kickstarter is not a store!" blog post, that requires proposal to include a "risks and challenges" section (which the e-bike proposal didn't have) but in my experience these never say, "there is risk we spend the money on something other than producing the thing you think you will get."
Just from the fifteen minutes or so I have spent acquainting myself with this effort (admittedly after the fact) it appears they had problems staying on track. Even the Kickstarter people say, "under-promise and over-deliver" - instead they seemed to have tried to come up with every conceivable variant imaginable - the same bike without the electric drive, the same bike with the e-drive but you don't have to (or can't?) pedal the thing, even a version in carbon fiber.
A slick video pushing a carbon-fiber variant
Most amazing to me, for a project that involves Kickstarter funding, is the "about us" page on the Conscious Commuter site. (This page is most likely going to disappear soon, but no worries, I used the Internet Archive's "archive this" functionality to make a copy for posterity, which is here: https://web.archive.org/web/20131222164759/http://www.consciouscommuter.com/pages/our-people-1.) I mean, good lord, the company describes nine different management or adviser types and nothing about anybody who puts their hands on a bicycle!! You know, to make one. The 25,000 bucks from Kickstarter, less the five percent to Kickstarter and the credit card charges, wouldn't pay for this crew's $ needs for very long. (Yeah, I get that maybe one of these people was focusing on this full-time - but still, can't they say something about someone who gets grease on his hands occasionally?)
Again, it's easy for me to look at this critically more than two years after they created their Kickstarter proposal. Perhaps there is something be learned here. Hmm.
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
The Kickstarter Wheel of Fortune - Bicycle Turn Signals (Again)
There are very few new ideas - that is one lesson one quickly learns perusing Kickstarter. But some folks are able to package an idea in a way that is far more attractive, that much is clear.
Several years ago I had a blog post about a Kickstarter for bicycle turn signals built into gloves.
Failed Kickstarter proposal from September 2011
The fellow had a pretty ambitious goal ($50,000) and his product, as displayed in Kickstarter, looked in need of further development work. His proposal failed - he only got about 20 percent of his goal pledged.
I myself don't really get the logic for electric light driven bicycle turn signals, whether on your gloves or otherwise. I discussed aspects of why I think this in the earlier blog post but mostly I don't think they will contribute much to making urban cycling more safe. Such gloves would give information to vehicle drivers coming up from behind that the cyclist is turning - but this isn't a scenario where most accidents happen between cyclists and motor vehicles. Check out the top ten ways to get hit at BicycleSafe.com - none of them would be helped by rear-facing turn signals for the bicycle. (OK, arguably a signal could be used for #9 where you change lanes to get around parked vehicles etc and are hit from the rear by a car - but these signals wouldn't obviate their critical advice, which is Never, ever move left without looking behind you first. Is the motorist going to be more likely to give you room because you have an electric thing on your hand?
I read in the WashCycle blog about this new Kickstarter to fund essentially the same idea
This guy has a lower target dollar figure and it looks like he might make it (as of mid-January). So apparently 100s of people (who peruse Kickstarter and have extra money) think this is something they want to own - because this Kickstarter is very up front that the whole idea is to sell funders the device. Even though Kickstarter maintains that Kickstarter is not a store.
As far as how this connects with cycling history, it was big part of early cycling history in the 1890s that folks submitted patent applications for very similar "inventions" - over and over. See some on Flickr.
Many different versions of "no flat" tires were patented during the 1890s with springs in the tires - all of which failed
Several years ago I had a blog post about a Kickstarter for bicycle turn signals built into gloves.
Failed Kickstarter proposal from September 2011
The fellow had a pretty ambitious goal ($50,000) and his product, as displayed in Kickstarter, looked in need of further development work. His proposal failed - he only got about 20 percent of his goal pledged.
I myself don't really get the logic for electric light driven bicycle turn signals, whether on your gloves or otherwise. I discussed aspects of why I think this in the earlier blog post but mostly I don't think they will contribute much to making urban cycling more safe. Such gloves would give information to vehicle drivers coming up from behind that the cyclist is turning - but this isn't a scenario where most accidents happen between cyclists and motor vehicles. Check out the top ten ways to get hit at BicycleSafe.com - none of them would be helped by rear-facing turn signals for the bicycle. (OK, arguably a signal could be used for #9 where you change lanes to get around parked vehicles etc and are hit from the rear by a car - but these signals wouldn't obviate their critical advice, which is Never, ever move left without looking behind you first. Is the motorist going to be more likely to give you room because you have an electric thing on your hand?
I read in the WashCycle blog about this new Kickstarter to fund essentially the same idea
This guy has a lower target dollar figure and it looks like he might make it (as of mid-January). So apparently 100s of people (who peruse Kickstarter and have extra money) think this is something they want to own - because this Kickstarter is very up front that the whole idea is to sell funders the device. Even though Kickstarter maintains that Kickstarter is not a store.
As far as how this connects with cycling history, it was big part of early cycling history in the 1890s that folks submitted patent applications for very similar "inventions" - over and over. See some on Flickr.
Many different versions of "no flat" tires were patented during the 1890s with springs in the tires - all of which failed
Saturday, October 19, 2013
Another Kickstarter for Cyclists - the "Most Compact in the World"
From Fubi.com "The basic idea with FUBi was [i.e., is] this: a foldable bicycle that was very easy to store inside due to optimum compactness and at the same time would retain all the functionality and styling of standard full-sized bicycles!" and "FUBi is not intrinsically an ordinary foldable bicycle. It is a full-sized bicycle with a fold-able feature! There is a difference there."
This video, in my view, doesn't adequately address all the complexities of what they are proposing
The FUBi Kickstarter project page is the longest one I have ever seen (although I limit myself to looking at Kickstarter projects related to bicycling, so that may be a skewed sample). It is certainly the most ambitious project, in terms of the many novel aspects of the new bicycle they propose to build (and sell, eventually). Their Kickstarter seeks 90,000 British Pounds. (I don't understand why, at least where I live, it is given as in Pounds and not say Euros.) Most of the support so far is from a small number of people wanting to be at the head of the line to receive one when they are first available as a product. With 4,452 Pounds raised and 25 days to go, it doesn't look all that promising (based on what I understand about the usual trajectory for successfully funded Kickstarter projects) but maybe it will work out.
Folding bike patent, 1896 - the interest in folding bikes is of long standing
The FUBi people (or guy?) have a problem, I think - there is no "elevator ride" (that is, brief) way to explain all the aspects of the FUBi bicyclke - this is certainly not just a bike that folds up, but rather a collection of different innovative bicycle technologies, rolled up into a folding bicycle. Here are just some of the unusual (if not novel) aspects to the FUBi design:
* Truss frame design (which is the solution to providing stiffness for this folding bike, but can be a feature of any bike).
* The front and rear wheels have what are described as "an inverted hub as the center of hub is rotating, whereas on a regular hub the axis is fixed and non rotating" - the wheels are identical and only 50 mm wide (compared to 100 mm for a standard road bike front wheel).
* The drive cog set and rear derailleur are outside the chain and seat stays, which is associated with the used of identical narrow front and back wheels.
* The rear (and only) derailleur uses the spring opposite from a traditional modern derailleur - it pulls the chain up onto the larger rings rather than down to the smaller rings (while the rider applies pressure through levers to pull the derailleur in the opposite direction). This is described as a "totally new fast shift derailleur."
* Tension is applied to the chain by a separate system than the derailleur.
* Headset design has the front fork rotating outside of (in front of) the tube where the bearing are.
* The brakes and other aspects of the design are easily adjustable or simply allow use of several different diameter wheel sizes, thus the bike can be said to be usable in configurations ranging from mountain bike to road bike.
* FUBi claims that their bottom bracket, that uses ball bearings mounted directly into the frame and not a cassette is a plus or simplification but I'm not sure most people would see it that way and it isn't particularly unusual (at least not historically).
* And two different ways to fold it up - one fast, another so that it is reduced to the size of tennis equipment bag (and a small one at that - except for the wheels, of course).
I am not an expert of bicycle design and patents, but my impression is that the only piece of this (other than the overall folding design) that is truly new is the "fast shift" derailleur. (And maybe the wheel hub design?) But certainly the amalgamation of all these unusual design features in one folding bicycle is different.
One of 19 (at present) videos on YouTube from "FUBiworld" - how the frame assembles
Kickstarter now requires a "risks and challenges" section to each project proposal be completed - in other words, risks and challenges to the completion of the project if the funding is acquired. The FUBi people talk about some engineering issues, mostly to do with the use of titanium, possible problems with the supply chain for some parts, and building out their team - sure. But a more interesting risk or set of risks for someone putting money into this expecting to get a bike out of it (which is everyone who is putting more than trivial amounts of funding into it) is whether it is a good bike or not. By "good" I mean more than just "does it ride well and all the parts work," but also whether it is easily maintained over the long haul, because a good bike should last a long time. You know, as in at least ten years. To me, to take as obvious both that this bike would ride well and that it will be possible to maintain it in say 2025, seems doubtful - there is risk in particular with the design of the rear derailleur that if FUBi otherwise isn't a success that you end up with a bike that requires a part that isn't available.
A Panasonic Villager - a bike that demonstrates the problems with one-off bicycle innovations that don't catch on
This somewhat sad bike (note the missing left pedal) that I photographed (more for the odd frame design) was considered an innovative bike when made decades ago in that it had its freehub in the bottom bracket and not in the rear wheel - as a result, since no one else adopted this design, these bikes are not easily maintained (other than taking parts off of another example of the same bike). At the same time, the design of the bike is such that reworking the bike to use a standard design is also not possible - much like it would be impossible (I think) to redo your FUBi with a standard rear derailleur.
On the other hand, Kickstarter seems to be much about providing people who have some money they don't know what to do with the opportunity to have something really unusual, if only for a while (that it is unusual). So what the hell. Sure, FUBi.
This video, in my view, doesn't adequately address all the complexities of what they are proposing
The FUBi Kickstarter project page is the longest one I have ever seen (although I limit myself to looking at Kickstarter projects related to bicycling, so that may be a skewed sample). It is certainly the most ambitious project, in terms of the many novel aspects of the new bicycle they propose to build (and sell, eventually). Their Kickstarter seeks 90,000 British Pounds. (I don't understand why, at least where I live, it is given as in Pounds and not say Euros.) Most of the support so far is from a small number of people wanting to be at the head of the line to receive one when they are first available as a product. With 4,452 Pounds raised and 25 days to go, it doesn't look all that promising (based on what I understand about the usual trajectory for successfully funded Kickstarter projects) but maybe it will work out.
Folding bike patent, 1896 - the interest in folding bikes is of long standing
The FUBi people (or guy?) have a problem, I think - there is no "elevator ride" (that is, brief) way to explain all the aspects of the FUBi bicyclke - this is certainly not just a bike that folds up, but rather a collection of different innovative bicycle technologies, rolled up into a folding bicycle. Here are just some of the unusual (if not novel) aspects to the FUBi design:
* Truss frame design (which is the solution to providing stiffness for this folding bike, but can be a feature of any bike).
* The front and rear wheels have what are described as "an inverted hub as the center of hub is rotating, whereas on a regular hub the axis is fixed and non rotating" - the wheels are identical and only 50 mm wide (compared to 100 mm for a standard road bike front wheel).
* The drive cog set and rear derailleur are outside the chain and seat stays, which is associated with the used of identical narrow front and back wheels.
* The rear (and only) derailleur uses the spring opposite from a traditional modern derailleur - it pulls the chain up onto the larger rings rather than down to the smaller rings (while the rider applies pressure through levers to pull the derailleur in the opposite direction). This is described as a "totally new fast shift derailleur."
* Tension is applied to the chain by a separate system than the derailleur.
* Headset design has the front fork rotating outside of (in front of) the tube where the bearing are.
* The brakes and other aspects of the design are easily adjustable or simply allow use of several different diameter wheel sizes, thus the bike can be said to be usable in configurations ranging from mountain bike to road bike.
* FUBi claims that their bottom bracket, that uses ball bearings mounted directly into the frame and not a cassette is a plus or simplification but I'm not sure most people would see it that way and it isn't particularly unusual (at least not historically).
* And two different ways to fold it up - one fast, another so that it is reduced to the size of tennis equipment bag (and a small one at that - except for the wheels, of course).
I am not an expert of bicycle design and patents, but my impression is that the only piece of this (other than the overall folding design) that is truly new is the "fast shift" derailleur. (And maybe the wheel hub design?) But certainly the amalgamation of all these unusual design features in one folding bicycle is different.
One of 19 (at present) videos on YouTube from "FUBiworld" - how the frame assembles
Kickstarter now requires a "risks and challenges" section to each project proposal be completed - in other words, risks and challenges to the completion of the project if the funding is acquired. The FUBi people talk about some engineering issues, mostly to do with the use of titanium, possible problems with the supply chain for some parts, and building out their team - sure. But a more interesting risk or set of risks for someone putting money into this expecting to get a bike out of it (which is everyone who is putting more than trivial amounts of funding into it) is whether it is a good bike or not. By "good" I mean more than just "does it ride well and all the parts work," but also whether it is easily maintained over the long haul, because a good bike should last a long time. You know, as in at least ten years. To me, to take as obvious both that this bike would ride well and that it will be possible to maintain it in say 2025, seems doubtful - there is risk in particular with the design of the rear derailleur that if FUBi otherwise isn't a success that you end up with a bike that requires a part that isn't available.
A Panasonic Villager - a bike that demonstrates the problems with one-off bicycle innovations that don't catch on
This somewhat sad bike (note the missing left pedal) that I photographed (more for the odd frame design) was considered an innovative bike when made decades ago in that it had its freehub in the bottom bracket and not in the rear wheel - as a result, since no one else adopted this design, these bikes are not easily maintained (other than taking parts off of another example of the same bike). At the same time, the design of the bike is such that reworking the bike to use a standard design is also not possible - much like it would be impossible (I think) to redo your FUBi with a standard rear derailleur.
On the other hand, Kickstarter seems to be much about providing people who have some money they don't know what to do with the opportunity to have something really unusual, if only for a while (that it is unusual). So what the hell. Sure, FUBi.
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Kickstarter Your Solution to Cycling's Dangers
I wasn't intending to do consecutive posts on Kickstarter bicycle-related projects, but I bumped into a news item that brought another example of a bicycling related Kickstarter to my attention:
"Rideye is a black box for bicyclists-There are ways to get from point A to B other than driving a car. There’s the bus, walking, or bicycling . . . The most dangerous method of the aforementioned list though, is riding your bike."
Rideye solves this by providing evidence of motorist bad behavior for your future court case- you know, after you are injured. The story goes on (since it a "coolest gadgets" site) to talk about the many technical attributes of the device (that I'm not much interested in - and I'm not going to address the "most dangerous" statement, which is based on ???).
This oversubscribed Kickstarter makes a compelling argument for a product to insure your safety - well, actually not so much
The device's main claim to being a "black box" rather than simply a GoPro Hero clone is that it has a crash sensor that stops the recording (in the event of a crash ~) - this may seem superfluous except that since the device records in a 2.5 hour loop, if it didn't shut off when there is a crash, it could easily record over your evidence. (I personally find this the weakest aspect of the whole idea - if I'm going to video what happens on the chance of an accident, I for sure want video of what happens after the accident, like audio of the driver when he/she jumps out of their car and shouts, "oh my God, I didn't see you! It's all my fault." Oh well. You don't get that with this because it will have shut down.)
I get the idea that if a motorist does something illegal and you record it on video you have some better chance in court, but I don't get how that helps with safety in the usual sense. While aviation blackboxes are in part about assigning blame they are mostly about trying to prevent future crashes by understanding past ones. How a blackbox that helps assign blame helps making a particular cyclist who buys one more safe is not at all clear. The Kickstarter states, "Last year my friend was seriously injured in a hit-and-run doing the thing he loved most, and I promised him he would never have to ride with that fear again." If by having a camera to record your crashes you somehow feel better protected against the physical injuries you might suffer, there is some logic working there that I don't get. At all.
Not to say that video isn't useful for legal cases involving cyclists who are involved in accidents that are not their fault - it can be. There is a very long (and depressing) blog post on GreaterGreaterWashington that described in detail how a cyclist used Metro DC police video to show he was not at fault (and despite police assumptions that he, the cyclist, was at fault). So if you want to have video of you riding for that reason, for evidence, that's great - but it does nothing for safety. The Kickstarter's statement, "Let's make cycling safer for everyone" is simply baloney.
In the first few seconds sample Rideye camera records copious evidence that will cause no end of legal troubles if he later crashes
Where I live and ride (Virginia and also ride in D.C.) we have contributory negligence - in fact, we have pure contributory negligence, which means that if my negligence as a cyclist contributed to the accident even 1 percent, I may be unable to get $ from someone whose 99 percent of negligence caused me harm. So if I was going to use this device, it would be important to record my own legally pristine cycling behavior at all times, or else what's the point? In the above "sample video" at 22 seconds, the cyclist rides between a parked car and a car in a traffic lane - so if the car door opens or something else happens, what is the defense? "The space was wider than my handlebars, so going into it at 12 to 15 mph made excellent sense."
From Russia, without the slightest love, a bike crash video from a bike cam - it's ok, he survives apparently with no serious injury
As a completely different way to think about this, I would point out that for cars, Russia leads the way with dashboard cameras used in this sort of blackbox let's-record-possible-evidence-in-case-we-crash kind of way. (And to my surprise, I found the above example of a bike cam video from Russia, too.) Doesn't this validate the Rideye Kickstarter? Well, sure, if you want to agree that for cyclists America = Russia. And based on the GreaterGreaterWashington blog post, maybe that is true. But keep in mind what the situation is in today's Russia - if you don't have video evidence, the first problem you have is with police bribery (not the courts) - in other words, you want to have video evidence so that you don't get in a bidding war with other drivers over how the accident is described by the Russian traffic cops. "But officer, my video shows . . . " And of course none of this Russian dash board cam stuff has improved the safety as far as how Russian drivers operate their vehicles even one iota - search "russia dash cam crash compilation" in Google if you don't believe me. (Also, you can look at the relevant portion of the entry in Wikipedia about Russian transportation - hey, didn't I get a master's degree about transportation in that country? No, since it was 30 years ago it was about Soviet transportation, so a different country. But . . . same Russians.)
Is it really that bad here? And is this really useful for cyclists?
Personally my impression from comments on the videos is that mostly people look at this and compare it pricewise to GoPro Hero products - they want video of their cycling, not possible evidence.
"Rideye is a black box for bicyclists-There are ways to get from point A to B other than driving a car. There’s the bus, walking, or bicycling . . . The most dangerous method of the aforementioned list though, is riding your bike."
Rideye solves this by providing evidence of motorist bad behavior for your future court case- you know, after you are injured. The story goes on (since it a "coolest gadgets" site) to talk about the many technical attributes of the device (that I'm not much interested in - and I'm not going to address the "most dangerous" statement, which is based on ???).
This oversubscribed Kickstarter makes a compelling argument for a product to insure your safety - well, actually not so much
The device's main claim to being a "black box" rather than simply a GoPro Hero clone is that it has a crash sensor that stops the recording (in the event of a crash ~) - this may seem superfluous except that since the device records in a 2.5 hour loop, if it didn't shut off when there is a crash, it could easily record over your evidence. (I personally find this the weakest aspect of the whole idea - if I'm going to video what happens on the chance of an accident, I for sure want video of what happens after the accident, like audio of the driver when he/she jumps out of their car and shouts, "oh my God, I didn't see you! It's all my fault." Oh well. You don't get that with this because it will have shut down.)
I get the idea that if a motorist does something illegal and you record it on video you have some better chance in court, but I don't get how that helps with safety in the usual sense. While aviation blackboxes are in part about assigning blame they are mostly about trying to prevent future crashes by understanding past ones. How a blackbox that helps assign blame helps making a particular cyclist who buys one more safe is not at all clear. The Kickstarter states, "Last year my friend was seriously injured in a hit-and-run doing the thing he loved most, and I promised him he would never have to ride with that fear again." If by having a camera to record your crashes you somehow feel better protected against the physical injuries you might suffer, there is some logic working there that I don't get. At all.
Not to say that video isn't useful for legal cases involving cyclists who are involved in accidents that are not their fault - it can be. There is a very long (and depressing) blog post on GreaterGreaterWashington that described in detail how a cyclist used Metro DC police video to show he was not at fault (and despite police assumptions that he, the cyclist, was at fault). So if you want to have video of you riding for that reason, for evidence, that's great - but it does nothing for safety. The Kickstarter's statement, "Let's make cycling safer for everyone" is simply baloney.
In the first few seconds sample Rideye camera records copious evidence that will cause no end of legal troubles if he later crashes
Where I live and ride (Virginia and also ride in D.C.) we have contributory negligence - in fact, we have pure contributory negligence, which means that if my negligence as a cyclist contributed to the accident even 1 percent, I may be unable to get $ from someone whose 99 percent of negligence caused me harm. So if I was going to use this device, it would be important to record my own legally pristine cycling behavior at all times, or else what's the point? In the above "sample video" at 22 seconds, the cyclist rides between a parked car and a car in a traffic lane - so if the car door opens or something else happens, what is the defense? "The space was wider than my handlebars, so going into it at 12 to 15 mph made excellent sense."
From Russia, without the slightest love, a bike crash video from a bike cam - it's ok, he survives apparently with no serious injury
As a completely different way to think about this, I would point out that for cars, Russia leads the way with dashboard cameras used in this sort of blackbox let's-record-possible-evidence-in-case-we-crash kind of way. (And to my surprise, I found the above example of a bike cam video from Russia, too.) Doesn't this validate the Rideye Kickstarter? Well, sure, if you want to agree that for cyclists America = Russia. And based on the GreaterGreaterWashington blog post, maybe that is true. But keep in mind what the situation is in today's Russia - if you don't have video evidence, the first problem you have is with police bribery (not the courts) - in other words, you want to have video evidence so that you don't get in a bidding war with other drivers over how the accident is described by the Russian traffic cops. "But officer, my video shows . . . " And of course none of this Russian dash board cam stuff has improved the safety as far as how Russian drivers operate their vehicles even one iota - search "russia dash cam crash compilation" in Google if you don't believe me. (Also, you can look at the relevant portion of the entry in Wikipedia about Russian transportation - hey, didn't I get a master's degree about transportation in that country? No, since it was 30 years ago it was about Soviet transportation, so a different country. But . . . same Russians.)
Is it really that bad here? And is this really useful for cyclists?
Personally my impression from comments on the videos is that mostly people look at this and compare it pricewise to GoPro Hero products - they want video of their cycling, not possible evidence.
Monday, September 30, 2013
Kickstarter - Not a (Bike) Store. Really??
I once saw one of the founders of Kickstarter speak at a conference. He was quite charismatic, in a laid-back hipster kind of way. But then I'm old.
About a year ago I noticed that Yancey and some of his other Kickstarterizing colleagues had a blog post to make absolutely positively clear that Kickstarter is not a store!!! "It's hard to know how many people feel like they're shopping at a store when they're backing projects on Kickstarter, but we want to make sure that it's no one."
Well, maybe. But in less than two minutes I found evidence otherwise. Searching for projects using the simple keyword "bicycle."
First off, we have "Fortified" that will kickstart a company to sell bike lights that last forever. Actually, they already kickstarted a theft-resistant bike light that I blogged about, which was a success (apparently) but now they are ready to move from theft resistant lighting to lasts-forever lighting - as an anti-capitalist attempt to keep big companies from selling us cyclists more crappy lighting (and other stuff - but they are starting with lights).
Fortified - kick in some $tarter money and you'll get some lights - but remember, it's not a store!
Mostly I have no problem with this product per se - in particular, the idea of fighting big corporations that sell people crap (so that they can sell it to us again later, again) is appealing. I am somewhat surprised that it is apparently appealing to others since this Kickstarter is over-subscribed by four-to-one and still has time to go. Wow!
But keep in mind, my comment today is that Kickstarter claims it is not a store. But here, other than nine people who signed up for a T-shirt, all the backers of this Kickstarter (and there are 845 of these supporters as of today) are backing at levels that insure (in theory) they got some of the early lights produced. Isn't signing up early to buy stuff something you can do at a store? (Like Amazon.)
My counter example is of a project that has effectively zero support because (I think) it isn't selling anything that anyone wants.
This is a good idea for developing world cyclists, but not so popular with Kickstarter "shoppers" (or however we are to refer to them)
In fact integrated shift-brake units are annoying and increase repair costs. My 1982 road bike with separate shifters on the down tube that are mechanically not much more complicated than what she is suggesting are very low maintenance, particularly compared to the combined Shimano 6700 Ultegra "brifters" (combined brake-shift units) that regularly eat shift cables and one stopped working altogether on one bike, requiring replacement. Ugh!
This simple easy to manufacturer, one-size-fits-all shift unit would be great for developing countries.
So, how much support for this project that could easily simplify life for thousands of Africans, how much support is there? Well, as of today, she has reached two (2) percent of her $10,000 goal with 31 days to go. She has four friends (one assumes) who have signed up at a funding level that would give them a "collectible bike shift lever" but . . . it just isn't as exciting an opportunity, apparently, as buying dramatic lighting systems for one's own bike.
Arguably regardless of what Kickstarter's principals wrote on this topic, it appears there could be some confusion among visitors of the Kickstarter site and some relate to it as a store.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sidebar comment about "last forever" bike lighting - bicycle lighting in this country is getting better steadily - a little slowly in some respects (I think) but the problem with saying a light would "last forever" is that it suggests that in a couple of years you won't want something else simply because better stuff has come on the market. I myself am in this situation, although I am trying to not be wasteful and buy some new thing when the old one works OK - but still, I have a 100 lumen light that has a rather substantial separate battery that was typical four years ago and now the whole thing could be the size of the light unit. And twice as powerful - but I'm not sure I even want that much light.
The "Fortified" lights are fine for lumens and battery power (I suppose) but I suspect that they are typical for how narrow and focused the light beam is - which is, not very. This is incredibly annoying as more and more cyclists trundle along trails at each other seeing who can blind whom first. The Fortified 300 lumen headlight, as the company itself puts it, "lights up the whole road" - well, great, but actually that isn't what is wanted. In Germany I'm told they have standards for such things - anyway, it is hard to imagine that we have reached bicycle headlight nirvana today and that whatever I buy today, at any price, I would want forever.
About a year ago I noticed that Yancey and some of his other Kickstarterizing colleagues had a blog post to make absolutely positively clear that Kickstarter is not a store!!! "It's hard to know how many people feel like they're shopping at a store when they're backing projects on Kickstarter, but we want to make sure that it's no one."
Well, maybe. But in less than two minutes I found evidence otherwise. Searching for projects using the simple keyword "bicycle."
First off, we have "Fortified" that will kickstart a company to sell bike lights that last forever. Actually, they already kickstarted a theft-resistant bike light that I blogged about, which was a success (apparently) but now they are ready to move from theft resistant lighting to lasts-forever lighting - as an anti-capitalist attempt to keep big companies from selling us cyclists more crappy lighting (and other stuff - but they are starting with lights).
Fortified - kick in some $tarter money and you'll get some lights - but remember, it's not a store!
Mostly I have no problem with this product per se - in particular, the idea of fighting big corporations that sell people crap (so that they can sell it to us again later, again) is appealing. I am somewhat surprised that it is apparently appealing to others since this Kickstarter is over-subscribed by four-to-one and still has time to go. Wow!
But keep in mind, my comment today is that Kickstarter claims it is not a store. But here, other than nine people who signed up for a T-shirt, all the backers of this Kickstarter (and there are 845 of these supporters as of today) are backing at levels that insure (in theory) they got some of the early lights produced. Isn't signing up early to buy stuff something you can do at a store? (Like Amazon.)
My counter example is of a project that has effectively zero support because (I think) it isn't selling anything that anyone wants.
This is a good idea for developing world cyclists, but not so popular with Kickstarter "shoppers" (or however we are to refer to them)
In fact integrated shift-brake units are annoying and increase repair costs. My 1982 road bike with separate shifters on the down tube that are mechanically not much more complicated than what she is suggesting are very low maintenance, particularly compared to the combined Shimano 6700 Ultegra "brifters" (combined brake-shift units) that regularly eat shift cables and one stopped working altogether on one bike, requiring replacement. Ugh!
This simple easy to manufacturer, one-size-fits-all shift unit would be great for developing countries.
So, how much support for this project that could easily simplify life for thousands of Africans, how much support is there? Well, as of today, she has reached two (2) percent of her $10,000 goal with 31 days to go. She has four friends (one assumes) who have signed up at a funding level that would give them a "collectible bike shift lever" but . . . it just isn't as exciting an opportunity, apparently, as buying dramatic lighting systems for one's own bike.
Arguably regardless of what Kickstarter's principals wrote on this topic, it appears there could be some confusion among visitors of the Kickstarter site and some relate to it as a store.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sidebar comment about "last forever" bike lighting - bicycle lighting in this country is getting better steadily - a little slowly in some respects (I think) but the problem with saying a light would "last forever" is that it suggests that in a couple of years you won't want something else simply because better stuff has come on the market. I myself am in this situation, although I am trying to not be wasteful and buy some new thing when the old one works OK - but still, I have a 100 lumen light that has a rather substantial separate battery that was typical four years ago and now the whole thing could be the size of the light unit. And twice as powerful - but I'm not sure I even want that much light.
The "Fortified" lights are fine for lumens and battery power (I suppose) but I suspect that they are typical for how narrow and focused the light beam is - which is, not very. This is incredibly annoying as more and more cyclists trundle along trails at each other seeing who can blind whom first. The Fortified 300 lumen headlight, as the company itself puts it, "lights up the whole road" - well, great, but actually that isn't what is wanted. In Germany I'm told they have standards for such things - anyway, it is hard to imagine that we have reached bicycle headlight nirvana today and that whatever I buy today, at any price, I would want forever.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Turn Signals for Bikes; or, Bad Ideas Persist
I have a daily Google "news alert" that brings up random news items that are the equivalent of running a search in news.google.com on the keyword "bicycle" for the preceding 24 hours. It doesn't generate much of interest for the most part.
I was amused to see an item about bike turn signals in a blog called cleantechnica.com, the "#1 cleantech or clean energy site in the United States." The author asks the question, "Why didn’t someone come up with this a long time ago?! Turn signals for bicyclists would be very useful and could go a long way towards reducing bicycle-vehicle collisions." He then quotes from and points to a longer piece on some other site that gives more details about a do-it-yourself solution to this perceived problem. The inventor asserts that, "unfortunately, few people know hand signals anymore, so [he] decided to make his own wearable turn signals that he could put on his arms and turn on by lifting his arm up from his side." These signals "use a mercury tilt switch and some electroluminescent (EL) panels that light up to show big bright arrows every time he lifts up the arm that corresponds with the direction he wants to move."
This CleanTechnica site lets you embed an entire page (more or less) in your blog entry. So here is the page:
Turn Signals for Bicyclists! (DIY) (via Clean Technica)
I was amused to see an item about bike turn signals in a blog called cleantechnica.com, the "#1 cleantech or clean energy site in the United States." The author asks the question, "Why didn’t someone come up with this a long time ago?! Turn signals for bicyclists would be very useful and could go a long way towards reducing bicycle-vehicle collisions." He then quotes from and points to a longer piece on some other site that gives more details about a do-it-yourself solution to this perceived problem. The inventor asserts that, "unfortunately, few people know hand signals anymore, so [he] decided to make his own wearable turn signals that he could put on his arms and turn on by lifting his arm up from his side." These signals "use a mercury tilt switch and some electroluminescent (EL) panels that light up to show big bright arrows every time he lifts up the arm that corresponds with the direction he wants to move."
This CleanTechnica site lets you embed an entire page (more or less) in your blog entry. So here is the page:
Turn Signals for Bicyclists! (DIY) (via Clean Technica)
Why didn’t someone come up with this a long time ago?! Turn signals for bicyclists would be very useful and could go a long way towards reducing bicycle-vehicle collisions. From lifehacker: Unfortunately, few people know hand signals anymore, so Instructables user CTY1995 decided to make his…
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Kickstarter Bike Light Opportunitie$
Kickstarter provides endless entertainment as one reviews funding proposals related to bicycles (among other things . . . ) and tries to understand why some are funded while others, alas, are not.
When you think about it, improving a bike's light or reflector system to enhance visibility and safety is an ideal Kickstarter direction - the costs to "kickstart" a new commercial product can be within Kickstarter's audience and if presented correctly, such products seem more about "fun" and being hip than simply about being safer (which is boring - and with Kickstarter, boring = no funding).
Today there are two "live" Kickstarter projects related to lighting products that I will look at . . .
As of today, this theft-resistant front light is already 225 percent funded - wow! What makes this proposal so darn attractive for Kickstarter funders?
* The video is clever, fun to watch, yet seems authoritative and the proposal's logic sensible - even unassailable.
* It addresses a real problem - theft of stuff off parked bikes. And we wouldn't want to end up like their friend, whose light was stolen and then was hit by a car.
* Even though designers and builders of a theft resistant bike light wouldn't need to be MIT engineers, these guys' bring those credentials (and wear the T-shirts to prove it).
* For $50 bucks support, they promise to send you one of the things to own, even though the "expected retail price" is $70 - so it's a deal! And note that the overwhelming support for this project is at this level. People are supporting this because they want one, and perhaps because they think they will get one cheap.
Electric lighting for bikes is this old - but even then they understood theft, as it notes the "principal object of the invention is to provide a bicycle with a detachable lamp, including a dynamo . . . "
Let me make a few critical comments . . .
* In the video, they show the critical bolt that makes this thing theft resistant. The video has been updated to state that they have, thanks to comments, changed the bolt design to make it more theft resistant. This, however, gets to the main drawback with this thing - which is that in the places where people steal lights off bikes a lot, you are operating on faith when you walk away from the bike and don't take attractive crap bolted to the bike with you, fancy bolt or no fancy bolt.
* Uh, this light just makes itself even more attractive for theft with it's "sexiness" (hipsterishness). Isn't that obvious?
* Well, I suppose other people are more organized and actually of late my bike tools are pretty well organized (sort of - in the sense that I can usually eventually find things) but really, do I want not one but two special allen key like things to have to keep track of?
* The design, which maximizes theft resistance, is otherwise not so great, MIT or no MIT. In particular, this is a "weight forward" design which means every time you hit a bump, the light is inclined to move down. Or up. So you then grab it and shift it back to point in the right place - but with the "tighten the metal clamp" approach used here, this isn't as easy as with the usual rubber ring holding light in place approach. I guess they figure you just tighten the clamp so tight it won't move. Maybe that will work. Make sure you have the special wrench with you.
The main issue I guess I have is that these characters say they see cycling in cities as a "battle" which is made clear in the first part of their video (which is in daylight and has nothing to do with lighting) that shows typical urban carefree youth riding in traffic illegally and idiotically. Motorists care about one thing - getting there faster. When you ride like a fool, they worry you might cause an accident that will delay their arrival wherever it is they are going and it makes them suspicious of all cyclists. Is this really helpful for the cycling community? Because like it or not, the motorists aren't going to perceive two cycling communities - the fool one and the other one. (/end of rant) Anyway, I don't think a mildly theft resistant light really helps with the urban bicycle "battle."
These urban warriors are learning as they go. Not only have the updated their anti-theft bolt design, someone pointed out that their understanding of guns wasn't very accurate. In their FAQ, they originally had this:
As you know, city biking can be a battle. We captured the struggle of the urban cyclist in our design.
Someone must have written in that the thing doesn't look like a gun barrel, but the revolving chamber where the bullets go. So now it reads:
As you know, city biking can be a battle. We captured the struggle of the urban cyclist in our design.
Hopefully that isn't supposed to suggest we carry while riding. And forgive me if I somehow doubt the urban battle credentials of someone who doesn't know the difference between a gun barrel and a revolver bullet chamber.
But wait - there is another Kickstarter bike light project underway, and unfortunately I actually have a twitchy impulse to back this one. Ack!
Oh, I hate to admit it, but for me unlike the gun-based project first discussed, this is sexy sexy sexy. Up to a point . . .
For someone who rides back and forth to work every day, particular during the season just ending (when it is dark either in one direction or for a while, both) an annoyance is the need to rely on batteries for lighting. It doesn't feel very green. (Yes, there are hub dynamos and so-called bottle dynamos but no thank you.) I have rechargable batteries but still, it isn't great.
This thing is like free power! A single unit that magically (actually it uses "eddy currents") pulls power from the rim of a spinning wheel without making contact, then drives LED lights facing either front or back that are in the same compact unit. Couldn't be simpler! (It does take away some of the power you would otherwise be using to propel the bike, but much less than a dynamo hub, apparently.)
And people like this idea - although as of this minute he has yet to reach half the $50,000 he is seeking, three more backers have joined just while I was composing this blog post. So I think he'll get to his $ target.
Again, this is a project where most of the backers are planning on acquiring the device (or devices - separate price if you want a front version and a back one). The pitch is that the price here is a good one (or at I think that is what is meant by "We will never produce it again in this form, so you get a unique fascinating high tech product much sooner than anybody else at a price considerably lower than the normal market price (if we succeed to jump on the market).")
So, where do I see problems with this? Well, like most simple generator set-ups that provide direct power to the light, when you stop, the light goes out. In order to have continuous light you have complicate things with chargers and batteries, which in this case would eliminate the elegance of the "all in one small unit" design here.
For myself, I'm doubtful that having a light that hangs off the side of the brake boss (as he describes it) would be a very durable location. For whatever reason, I would expect to break the one off the rear brake in about a day (by accident). And it wouldn't work with a bike with any sort of rack on the back, which for commuters is fairly common.
For some people, the less elegant approach of a generator unit that would have to be connected by wires to the lights would probably be better. The developer suggests that might be part of a future version. As clever and elegant as this is, I don't think I'll be signing away $199 today.
This Assistant Secretary of State didn't have to worry about theft or power for his lighting system in 1914, I suspect
When you think about it, improving a bike's light or reflector system to enhance visibility and safety is an ideal Kickstarter direction - the costs to "kickstart" a new commercial product can be within Kickstarter's audience and if presented correctly, such products seem more about "fun" and being hip than simply about being safer (which is boring - and with Kickstarter, boring = no funding).
Today there are two "live" Kickstarter projects related to lighting products that I will look at . . .
As of today, this theft-resistant front light is already 225 percent funded - wow! What makes this proposal so darn attractive for Kickstarter funders?
* The video is clever, fun to watch, yet seems authoritative and the proposal's logic sensible - even unassailable.
* It addresses a real problem - theft of stuff off parked bikes. And we wouldn't want to end up like their friend, whose light was stolen and then was hit by a car.
* Even though designers and builders of a theft resistant bike light wouldn't need to be MIT engineers, these guys' bring those credentials (and wear the T-shirts to prove it).
* For $50 bucks support, they promise to send you one of the things to own, even though the "expected retail price" is $70 - so it's a deal! And note that the overwhelming support for this project is at this level. People are supporting this because they want one, and perhaps because they think they will get one cheap.
Electric lighting for bikes is this old - but even then they understood theft, as it notes the "principal object of the invention is to provide a bicycle with a detachable lamp, including a dynamo . . . "
Let me make a few critical comments . . .
* In the video, they show the critical bolt that makes this thing theft resistant. The video has been updated to state that they have, thanks to comments, changed the bolt design to make it more theft resistant. This, however, gets to the main drawback with this thing - which is that in the places where people steal lights off bikes a lot, you are operating on faith when you walk away from the bike and don't take attractive crap bolted to the bike with you, fancy bolt or no fancy bolt.
* Uh, this light just makes itself even more attractive for theft with it's "sexiness" (hipsterishness). Isn't that obvious?
* Well, I suppose other people are more organized and actually of late my bike tools are pretty well organized (sort of - in the sense that I can usually eventually find things) but really, do I want not one but two special allen key like things to have to keep track of?
* The design, which maximizes theft resistance, is otherwise not so great, MIT or no MIT. In particular, this is a "weight forward" design which means every time you hit a bump, the light is inclined to move down. Or up. So you then grab it and shift it back to point in the right place - but with the "tighten the metal clamp" approach used here, this isn't as easy as with the usual rubber ring holding light in place approach. I guess they figure you just tighten the clamp so tight it won't move. Maybe that will work. Make sure you have the special wrench with you.
The main issue I guess I have is that these characters say they see cycling in cities as a "battle" which is made clear in the first part of their video (which is in daylight and has nothing to do with lighting) that shows typical urban carefree youth riding in traffic illegally and idiotically. Motorists care about one thing - getting there faster. When you ride like a fool, they worry you might cause an accident that will delay their arrival wherever it is they are going and it makes them suspicious of all cyclists. Is this really helpful for the cycling community? Because like it or not, the motorists aren't going to perceive two cycling communities - the fool one and the other one. (/end of rant) Anyway, I don't think a mildly theft resistant light really helps with the urban bicycle "battle."
These urban warriors are learning as they go. Not only have the updated their anti-theft bolt design, someone pointed out that their understanding of guns wasn't very accurate. In their FAQ, they originally had this:
barrel of a revolver?
4. Why does it look like the
As you know, city biking can be a battle. We captured the struggle of the urban cyclist in our design.
Someone must have written in that the thing doesn't look like a gun barrel, but the revolving chamber where the bullets go. So now it reads:
cylinder of a revolver?
4. Why does it look like the
As you know, city biking can be a battle. We captured the struggle of the urban cyclist in our design.
Hopefully that isn't supposed to suggest we carry while riding. And forgive me if I somehow doubt the urban battle credentials of someone who doesn't know the difference between a gun barrel and a revolver bullet chamber.
But wait - there is another Kickstarter bike light project underway, and unfortunately I actually have a twitchy impulse to back this one. Ack!
Oh, I hate to admit it, but for me unlike the gun-based project first discussed, this is sexy sexy sexy. Up to a point . . .
For someone who rides back and forth to work every day, particular during the season just ending (when it is dark either in one direction or for a while, both) an annoyance is the need to rely on batteries for lighting. It doesn't feel very green. (Yes, there are hub dynamos and so-called bottle dynamos but no thank you.) I have rechargable batteries but still, it isn't great.
This thing is like free power! A single unit that magically (actually it uses "eddy currents") pulls power from the rim of a spinning wheel without making contact, then drives LED lights facing either front or back that are in the same compact unit. Couldn't be simpler! (It does take away some of the power you would otherwise be using to propel the bike, but much less than a dynamo hub, apparently.)
And people like this idea - although as of this minute he has yet to reach half the $50,000 he is seeking, three more backers have joined just while I was composing this blog post. So I think he'll get to his $ target.
Again, this is a project where most of the backers are planning on acquiring the device (or devices - separate price if you want a front version and a back one). The pitch is that the price here is a good one (or at I think that is what is meant by "We will never produce it again in this form, so you get a unique fascinating high tech product much sooner than anybody else at a price considerably lower than the normal market price (if we succeed to jump on the market).")
So, where do I see problems with this? Well, like most simple generator set-ups that provide direct power to the light, when you stop, the light goes out. In order to have continuous light you have complicate things with chargers and batteries, which in this case would eliminate the elegance of the "all in one small unit" design here.
For myself, I'm doubtful that having a light that hangs off the side of the brake boss (as he describes it) would be a very durable location. For whatever reason, I would expect to break the one off the rear brake in about a day (by accident). And it wouldn't work with a bike with any sort of rack on the back, which for commuters is fairly common.
For some people, the less elegant approach of a generator unit that would have to be connected by wires to the lights would probably be better. The developer suggests that might be part of a future version. As clever and elegant as this is, I don't think I'll be signing away $199 today.
This Assistant Secretary of State didn't have to worry about theft or power for his lighting system in 1914, I suspect
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Kickstarter Bicycle Trailer Example
I have to wonder who decides and on what basis to accept the Kickstarter projects that are trying to get some bicycle-related product "kickstarted." Because a lot of them don't seem to be very compelling . . .
The BOB trailer hitch used for this project is part of a bike trailer product line - I assume that our Kickstarter proposal submitter is getting that part of his product from the BOB people and didn't just borrow the design.
A real BOB trailer, waiting patiently to be needed
The innovative aspect of this Kickstarter proposal is that the cargo area for this particular trailer is in a lockable aluminum box that fits onto the trailer frame. The box can be removed from the frame and the frame can be disassembled and the pieces can travel in the box, which is clever. In Seattle and such places a nice sealed box would be good to protect whatever you want to carry from the weather, but of course one could easily attach a box like this to a standard BOB trailer if one wants.
The proposal is a little disingenuous - you can get a basic BOB trailer for $300 (not the 380 he compares it to), or half the cost of this trailer. So he wants an additional $300 for the box, more or less. It's a nicely made German box, but $300 is kind of steep for what is, after all, an aluminum box.
However the pricing of his product isn't as much of an issue for me as the typical "I need $x,xxx to make this a reality" line with no further explanation of what the funds are needed for. The absurd Bicycle Contrail project proposal that I looked at least had a sorta budget:
I guess I'm being too picky, but I don't see how building 15 of these gets him any further down the road than having built the one prototype as far as having a sustainable manufacturing system on the one hand and someone to sell them for him or a way for him to sell them himself on the other.
The video is curious - it is over nine minutes long, which is pretty long for such a simple product. Turns out to be one-third product explanation and then six minutes of ground-level footage of the trailer bouncing around Seattle streets.
There is also a peculiar factual error in one statement - he says the trailer tracks directly behind the bike. Of course I may not correctly understand what he meant by that, but I take that statement to mean that the trailer tire would be on the same track as the rear tire of the bike, and that isn't possible - if you make a turn, the trailer wheel will track somewhat inside the line followed by the rear bicycle tire. Because the distance between the two wheels is slight, the amount we are talking about here is pretty small, but still, why say that when it isn't correct?
We'll see if he gets funding - the most similar previous Kickstarter project was looking for $35,000 for what was a rather larger scale bike trailer and did get commitments for more than $5,000 but fell quite short of its target.
As compelling as a heavy-lift bike trailer might be, it wasn't funded
Bicycle trailers are hardly a new idea, with or without a German box
The BOB trailer hitch used for this project is part of a bike trailer product line - I assume that our Kickstarter proposal submitter is getting that part of his product from the BOB people and didn't just borrow the design.
A real BOB trailer, waiting patiently to be needed
The innovative aspect of this Kickstarter proposal is that the cargo area for this particular trailer is in a lockable aluminum box that fits onto the trailer frame. The box can be removed from the frame and the frame can be disassembled and the pieces can travel in the box, which is clever. In Seattle and such places a nice sealed box would be good to protect whatever you want to carry from the weather, but of course one could easily attach a box like this to a standard BOB trailer if one wants.
The proposal is a little disingenuous - you can get a basic BOB trailer for $300 (not the 380 he compares it to), or half the cost of this trailer. So he wants an additional $300 for the box, more or less. It's a nicely made German box, but $300 is kind of steep for what is, after all, an aluminum box.
However the pricing of his product isn't as much of an issue for me as the typical "I need $x,xxx to make this a reality" line with no further explanation of what the funds are needed for. The absurd Bicycle Contrail project proposal that I looked at least had a sorta budget:
Here's where the money will go:Here though the statement that $9,000 is needed to built his first 15 copies and get the business started is to be taken as sufficient. (Yeah, I get that $9,000 divided by 15 units is the $600 he quotes for each unit, but for one thing, he doesn't get the entire $9,000 raised.)
$5,700 A down payment on the tooling to make the housing and the gears.
$2,800 To pay for the first 2000 pieces, half of which will be donated to non-profits.
$1,000 To visit the factory in order to ensure that everything is built to our standards.
$1,500 To help coordinate and promote our first non-profit partnership event.
I guess I'm being too picky, but I don't see how building 15 of these gets him any further down the road than having built the one prototype as far as having a sustainable manufacturing system on the one hand and someone to sell them for him or a way for him to sell them himself on the other.
The video is curious - it is over nine minutes long, which is pretty long for such a simple product. Turns out to be one-third product explanation and then six minutes of ground-level footage of the trailer bouncing around Seattle streets.
There is also a peculiar factual error in one statement - he says the trailer tracks directly behind the bike. Of course I may not correctly understand what he meant by that, but I take that statement to mean that the trailer tire would be on the same track as the rear tire of the bike, and that isn't possible - if you make a turn, the trailer wheel will track somewhat inside the line followed by the rear bicycle tire. Because the distance between the two wheels is slight, the amount we are talking about here is pretty small, but still, why say that when it isn't correct?
We'll see if he gets funding - the most similar previous Kickstarter project was looking for $35,000 for what was a rather larger scale bike trailer and did get commitments for more than $5,000 but fell quite short of its target.
As compelling as a heavy-lift bike trailer might be, it wasn't funded
Bicycle trailers are hardly a new idea, with or without a German box
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Unprecedented Kickstarter Bicycle Project?
Yeah, this isn't a current Kickstarter proposal but something from a bit over a year ago - but for some reason, I am only noticing it in my search results now. I love perusing Kickstarter projects involving bikes and trying to figure if or why they will or did get funded.
Here's what the project is about ~
So, what they meant wasn't really "community tool" but rather a "community building tool" - by seeing that other bicycles have been out there with their contrails, we would feel community. The benefits are listed (in order or priority, presumably) as "create public art; make biking safer; and, encourage more bicyclists." I don't see how it does anything about the second one and as to the third, it seems more like it encourages existing cyclists, not new ones.
My impression from looking at Kickstarter proposals for bike-related projects is that the video has to make a compelling case and usually "fun" bike projects do better than ones heavily focused on safety. This is certainly a fun project but I am surprised that as many people found the video persuasive - the little chalk lines are hardly noticeable unless you have had 20+ bikes ride by with these units, and is that really going to happen? But the young presenters seem very likable and earnest.
Anyway, how did this work out once they got their money? Apparently it didn't. With Kickstarter, if your proposal is funded, Kickstarter gets the money from the supporters and then takes their cut and the proposal originators get the rest (something over 90 percent). The accountability to do whatever they proposed is apparently pretty minimal. In the comments a year after the funding was achieved, several people write wondering what ever happened, as one put it, "Wow no updates since November 2010?!!!! Did you enjoy the holiday we funded or what?"
They have their own separate web site that does not appear to have been touched since October 2010 when they got their funding.
At any rate, what I meant by "unprecedented" is that there aren't very many truly new ideas related to cycling - one can often find patent applications from over 100 years ago similar to what is supposed to be a new idea today. This does seem to have that going for it - it is a novel idea. Didn't seem to get done, however.
Here's what the project is about ~
We want to encourage people to ride bicycles in their everyday lives, so we invented Contrail.
Contrail turns your bicycle into a paintbrush leaving a temporary mark of your bicycle's path.
You attach it to your bike and as you ride, it leaves a colorful line behind you. When many people ride with Contrail, the result is a colorful path which illustrates where bicycles are riding. We envision artists, non-profits and community organizations using our product to create art, promote their events and celebrate shared spaces.
Contrail uses washable, non-toxic chalking fluid made from eco-friendly pigments. Like a jet's contrail, the lines on the road will fade with time and rain.
So, what they meant wasn't really "community tool" but rather a "community building tool" - by seeing that other bicycles have been out there with their contrails, we would feel community. The benefits are listed (in order or priority, presumably) as "create public art; make biking safer; and, encourage more bicyclists." I don't see how it does anything about the second one and as to the third, it seems more like it encourages existing cyclists, not new ones.
My impression from looking at Kickstarter proposals for bike-related projects is that the video has to make a compelling case and usually "fun" bike projects do better than ones heavily focused on safety. This is certainly a fun project but I am surprised that as many people found the video persuasive - the little chalk lines are hardly noticeable unless you have had 20+ bikes ride by with these units, and is that really going to happen? But the young presenters seem very likable and earnest.
Anyway, how did this work out once they got their money? Apparently it didn't. With Kickstarter, if your proposal is funded, Kickstarter gets the money from the supporters and then takes their cut and the proposal originators get the rest (something over 90 percent). The accountability to do whatever they proposed is apparently pretty minimal. In the comments a year after the funding was achieved, several people write wondering what ever happened, as one put it, "Wow no updates since November 2010?!!!! Did you enjoy the holiday we funded or what?"
They have their own separate web site that does not appear to have been touched since October 2010 when they got their funding.
At any rate, what I meant by "unprecedented" is that there aren't very many truly new ideas related to cycling - one can often find patent applications from over 100 years ago similar to what is supposed to be a new idea today. This does seem to have that going for it - it is a novel idea. Didn't seem to get done, however.
Monday, December 26, 2011
Kickstarter Funded Bike Travel
Reading Kickstarter proposals and seeing what success they have is an interesting way of learning something about human nature. There aren't that many connected with cycling but the few I see are interesting. Most are seeking funding for products related to bicycles for which they believe there is a market; some are for projects that are for projects that use bicycles as the delivery system - vegan baked goods provided on a bicycle sales cart, for example. A few are proposals to fund bicycle travel of one sort or another.
I am puzzled why this fellow's proposal was approved by the Kickstarter folks - it doesn't seem a likely candidate. Kickstarter is mostly, in my observation, about fun and then secondarily some "feel good, do good-ism" but in more high level ways (like funding portaits of South Africans and their bicycles.
A mystery is how this fellow can have 245 Facebook friends and only raise a total of five (5!) dollars (from five people).
There is a long history of riding long trips around the United States or even around the world that started with the "ordinary" bicycles of the 1860s but grew with the development of the more modern "safety" bicycle that is much like today's bikes, funding the travel with ad hoc fundraising along the way. In the 1890s Annie Londonderry funded her travel around the world by raising the money as she went along, primarily by giving talks (for which she was paid) and selling various momentoes. At the end she supposedly received $10,000 from a wager that she couldn't complete the trip.
In 1904 two men used this route to win a $5,000 wager by visiting all 48 states in 18 months
Friday, November 25, 2011
Kickstarter Reflective Sticker = Success
This project, creating stickers for bicycle wheels, succeeded quickly
I find it interesting that this project was successfully funded through Kickstarter reasonably quickly. My observation is that Kickstarter bicycle projects that look for funding for bicycle lighting (which is what this is, more or less) that focus on "fun" are more likely to be funded that ones that focus on safety. This seems all about safety, although the video makes it look modestly fun (I guess) to have your wheels light up as complete circles with reflectors that run around the entire rim. The video is remarkably focused on the guy's technical process - perhaps that has an appeal to a certain Kickstarter audience? I have never seen so little video of the product in action.
It's possible that this was funded easily because of the low price point - compared to many Kickstarter projects you don't have to contribute too much to get the actual items when produced, if that's what you want (and apparently it is what people want).
The idea of having more visibility from the side for bicycles is harmless enough, but as usual with such Kickstarter projects, the video shows the bicycle with the product with no other lighting, front or rear, to emphasize the wonderfulness of this product. In reality, of course, this product does not replace good front and rear lighting for a bicycle. The Kickstarter come-on admits this, stating "Even though Fiks:Reflective Rim Stripes offer a huge increase in side visibility, you should always ride with front and rear lights at night" although it kind of suggests otherwise with the statement that "the special retroreflective material offers a [sic] increase in night visibility of bicycles from any angle."
An obvious question, not addressed, is whether the absence of a high level of side visibility for cyclists contributes to bike accidents - the answer would appear to be no. In urban areas, bike accidents fall into a number of categories - this bike safety page, How to Not Get Hit by Cars-important lessons in Bicycle Safety describes the most common. The right hook, which many cyclists do not much worry about, is the most common and side reflectors would address this not at all. In fact, of the ten listed, the only one where side reflectors might help would be the "left hook" where an oncoming car makes a left turn into a cyclist - and as someone who was involved in a major left hook bike-car accident years ago, the usual scenario involves a motorist waiting at a light for traffic to clear, the slower moving bike is screened from the motorist's view and he/she jackrabbits when the car traffic clear and hits the bike - having reflectors on the side would likely not help much for this.
One can also review statistical analysis done in reports such as this one from Colorado that is not necessarily easy to parse but which does suggest a little more utility for side reflectors (looking at the "broadside accident" category) than the Bike Safety page.
Of course one could simply make do with the simple side bike reflectors provided with many bikes.
A more traditional side-facing wheel reflector - not sexy enough, apparently
Other than my questioning how much this contributes to real improvement for operating a bike at night, I tend to question this statement, "Since the profile of rims vary from model to model, there will be a few sizes available to accommodate most modern rims." Rims of course vary endlessly and I can't imagine how a small operation will make clear which version will fit a particular wheelset so that the stickers fit well to create a good looking round reflective circle with the stickers laying nicely flat. One good idea is to have a black reflective version for black rims - then if it doesn't match up quite right it won't be so noticable.
It's not mentioned, but of course this product can't be used on older style box type rims since the only flat side surface available is the braking surface - no stickers on the braking surface.
Nowhere to put rim stickers on this classic
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
1895 Cycle Racing, Home Version
1895 Patent for a "Racing Index for Home Trainer Cycles"
From the patent application:
The idea of the invention is, to form a game or sport by which persons can contest against each other on home trainer cycles; a model on the track representing each contestant and the faster either person pedals his home trainer cycle the faster will the model representing him, travel on the model track.
In other words, you pedal your stationary bike and the little bike in front of you races your opponent (at the correct relative speed, hopefully).
Looks better from this angle . . .
Perhaps a modern version focusing on the exercise and "fun" aspects would be suitable for a Kickstarter funding proposal?
I think a proposal for funding a modern racing trainer duo cycle thing would do better than yet another Kickstarter LED cycle lighting proposal - enough, already.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
What! Yet Another Kickstarter Bike Lighting Project
If I strap LEDs to my bike's fork and seat posts, it becomes relevant???
Earlier in the day, I posted about another, successfully funded Kickstarter bike lighting proposal - well, I had forgotten to search on Kickstarter for both 'bike' and 'bicycle' and it turns out there is this one as well, for the 'LED by Lite' bicycle lighting system.
These folks are taking the more difficult fundraising approach and emphasizing safety over fun. (Fun proposals seem to do better on Kickstarter with bikes in my experience than ones emphasizing safety benefits.) They also introduce a "dashboard" and the ability to have your bike lighting system operate as a turn signal system - a recipe for previous failed Kickstarter proposals.
As someone who rides somewhere over 4,000 miles a year on my bikes, there are a number of issues with this thing. Mostly it is just too complicated - the idea of having these things attached all over my bike plus a 12 volt battery system is just a non-starter. It takes the clean elegance of a bike and messes it up.
I also don't think much of the turn-signal idea. I don't think electric bicycle turn-signals contribute to safety; they are more of a distraction/complication for the rider. What's important is that motorists see the cyclist - that's it.
While the LEDs are bright, no doubt about it, they end up being low on the bike, which is the opposite of what is wanted generally. That's why some people wear headlights and tail-lights on their helmets, for example - to get the "be seen" lighting up high.
Even if you concede the "be seen" function of these lights as OK, the "see" part seems a little sketchy as shown in the video - the front-facing white lights are housed in a defuser (that is waterproof and crushproof should a car drive over them, an interesting possibility presented in the video, that a car might be driving over them) that means there doesn't seem to be much focused light forward.
I switch between four different bikes, but three if you don't include the semi-serious road bike. A "lighting system" that can't be swapped between different bikes in less than 5 minutes isn't particularly useful for me just on that basis.
But what really fries my something-or-other is the notion that wacky technology like this is what's needed to make my bike a "relevant vehicle." I tend to assume that they simply are using "relevant" (oddly) to mean that the bike will be as visible ("relevant") as a car, but . . . anyway, ugh.
A Successful Kickstarter Bike Lighting Project
The "mini-monkey" wheel lighting system
This is one of a number of products out there trying to push the combination of making cycling in the dark safer (by providing a more visible bicycle) with a version of "fun" achieved with a bike that displays lighting patterns on the spokes.
The video shows riders chugging along with their wheels lit up nicely by these devices, making amusing patterns of light. As is usual with such videos, the riders don't have either headlights or tail-lights, so while they have lights they aren't following the law (in most jurisdictions) or common sense, for that matter.
The video spends a fair amount of time on technical aspects and not just showing how much fun this is, which is good. The design does seem better than some others - the "mini" aspect is that the unit that attachs to the spokes is small, so it doesn't throw off the wheel balance (much). The battery pack attaches to the hub, again to prevent the wheel from being unbalanced. Of course it does mean you have a wire running down a spoke to connect the hub unit to the lighting panel thing.
I am not much in favor of solutions (if one considers this a solution to the bicycle lighting problem) that don't scale well. If there were lots of cyclists all using this sort of lighting, it would be annoying and distracting.
Fortunately (again, in my view) at 50 bucks a unit (and what cyclist wouldn't insist on one for both wheels?) I don't think we'll be seeing too many of these around. I was also amused that they supply a steel security strap - nothing like having something new on your bike to attract "mini-theft."
What might be kind of cool would be something far more subtle (not making patterns) that would put a couple of LEDs on the wheels of bikes that have power generator hubs. I guess.
Anyway . . . they got over-funded, so good for them.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Kickstarter Funded Folding e-Bike
A Kickstarter project for an e-bike that is fully funded. It is a very attractive design.
Kickstarter page for folding e-bike
The informational site (that doesn't have much information yet.)
Since a $1,390 Kickstarter pledge meant one received one of the early bikes at a "special" price one can deduce that the expected sale price will be somewhere north of that. A Dahon electric folding bike with a more traditional derailleur shifting system can be had for around $2,000, so that's a point of comparison in the folding bike world. Performance has a Schwinn 8-speed comfort bike (no folding) with a 250 watt front hub for $999, which is probably the low(est) end for pricing for what is probably an OK (not for heavy use) electric bike.
Putting the battery in the frame seems lovely from a design standpoint but not necessarily very practical otherwise, but in the notes to funders, apparently it will be possible to attach supplemental batteries.
A strong advantage of this design compared to many e-bikes is that it looks to be reasonably light. In one of the videos, someone commented on the bike being light, which is hardly the first thing people typically say about e-bikes. The Schwinn mentioned above, near as I can figure out, must be around 50 pounds (or about 20 pounds more than it would otherwise).
Otherwise it has some issues, I think. Looking at the set-up, there appears to be a single brake lever yet one can see two brake units, front and back. A single brake lever that controls both brakes? I know this is technically possible but it seems highly undesirable. There does not appear to be any shifting mechanism for the pedal-drive system - the traditional drive system that the electric drive in the front hub supplements. Perhaps it just a single speed bike? And the use of a direct drive system rather than a chain (or a Gates belt drive, if one is insistent on getting rid of greasy chains) isn't something I find appealing, even if it is a elegant design element. I suppose since it is an electric bike, the loss of some pedal power due to the inherent inefficiency of direct drive is OK. Real bikes have tires that run on roads and sidewalks etc where there is dirt - in the rain, quite a lot of messy stuff, actually - so while you can get rid of the chain, folding the bike may still involve some mess.
I find most puzzling the use of "recycled aluminum" for the frame - presumably this is recycled aluminum appropriate for a bicycle frame and not just former beer cans. Or perhaps turning former beer cans into 6061 bicycle frames or similar is easy.
At least this bike project got funded!
Kickstarter page for folding e-bike
The informational site (that doesn't have much information yet.)
Since a $1,390 Kickstarter pledge meant one received one of the early bikes at a "special" price one can deduce that the expected sale price will be somewhere north of that. A Dahon electric folding bike with a more traditional derailleur shifting system can be had for around $2,000, so that's a point of comparison in the folding bike world. Performance has a Schwinn 8-speed comfort bike (no folding) with a 250 watt front hub for $999, which is probably the low(est) end for pricing for what is probably an OK (not for heavy use) electric bike.
Putting the battery in the frame seems lovely from a design standpoint but not necessarily very practical otherwise, but in the notes to funders, apparently it will be possible to attach supplemental batteries.
A strong advantage of this design compared to many e-bikes is that it looks to be reasonably light. In one of the videos, someone commented on the bike being light, which is hardly the first thing people typically say about e-bikes. The Schwinn mentioned above, near as I can figure out, must be around 50 pounds (or about 20 pounds more than it would otherwise).
Otherwise it has some issues, I think. Looking at the set-up, there appears to be a single brake lever yet one can see two brake units, front and back. A single brake lever that controls both brakes? I know this is technically possible but it seems highly undesirable. There does not appear to be any shifting mechanism for the pedal-drive system - the traditional drive system that the electric drive in the front hub supplements. Perhaps it just a single speed bike? And the use of a direct drive system rather than a chain (or a Gates belt drive, if one is insistent on getting rid of greasy chains) isn't something I find appealing, even if it is a elegant design element. I suppose since it is an electric bike, the loss of some pedal power due to the inherent inefficiency of direct drive is OK. Real bikes have tires that run on roads and sidewalks etc where there is dirt - in the rain, quite a lot of messy stuff, actually - so while you can get rid of the chain, folding the bike may still involve some mess.
I find most puzzling the use of "recycled aluminum" for the frame - presumably this is recycled aluminum appropriate for a bicycle frame and not just former beer cans. Or perhaps turning former beer cans into 6061 bicycle frames or similar is easy.
At least this bike project got funded!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)