If the UCI were open minded...

fokket wrote: sorry to bring up old post, but I wondered too what would happen if Trek and Giant shelling their R&D $$$ on recumbents, I guess Mike (Burrows) tried to convince Giant to manufacture, but who knows.

Here is a link to prove that Trek has been there, and bought the T-shirt!

Trek R200

Even Cannondale had a go, with the Easy Rider, here: Easy Rider (picture)

andy

The Cannondale looks more like a Raleigh Chopper than a Raleigh Chopper does.

IIRC the Trek was designed by one Brad Wagner, who used to post a fair bit to the HPV mailing list a few years ago, so ought to have known better.

1. Cannondale's rep for making sporty kit, and
2. The existence of the HP Velotechnik Spirit, which did much the same job for a lot less money.

Edited by legs_larry - 03 January 2007 at 11:22am

NickM wrote: While there is the £2000 Fujin SLII, I cannot see much of a market for any £4000 unfaired recumbent.

"Windcheetah HyperSport. Mike Burrow's sensational new version of his classic Windcheetah design, the worlds most advanced recumbent tricycle.

£3385.00 +VAT"

"Aeropack comprising a set of front and rear Airflow fairings, carbon fenders, computer, carbon bottle cage holder and mirror. The Aeropack represents a saving of £90.00 when compared to the individually priced components.

£1200.00 +VAT"

So that's nearly £4,000 for an unfaired trike and over £1,400 for a partial nose and a relatively small tail fairing, plus some other accessories to make the machine more day-to-day practical. Even if it still has no load carrying ability in that spec.

Don't get me wrong, I don't begrudge AVD a single penny of the above because it reflects their costs for that machine and the need to eat food.

And I quite agree there's not much of a market for a bike of this price, but that's sort of the point.

The "that £4,000 carbon thing with the bling wheels" was just a random suggestion as to why someone might make a buying decision really - the point is, you can (and some people do) spend that much and more on a DF bike - even though it's possible to spend a quarter as much on an equally capable machine.

Not every bike is sold purely because it costs less or is built in greater numbers than a similar one with a similar spec. A bike doesn't have to be a £4,000 piece of carbon bling to be saleable by a low-volume builder.

Example: On-One (.co.uk) - small volume producer, namely two blokes in a West Yorkshire shed designing decent bikes that are then produced in Taiwan, in small volumes (compared to a major producer). They survive and flourish by being good, not by making 10,000 units a month. In fact part of their appeal to many buyers is almost certainly the fact they are small and the bikes therefore relatively rare.


Back to the topic of "if 'bents were UCI-legal" - if they were, the 'bent market would almost certainly reflect the current road (DF) bike market, with a mix of mass- and low-volume producers. The existence of the former does not necessarily mean the death of the latter.

Again, that's my point!

Clearly there's no need to spend £4,000 on a bike or trike; the point is people do, even if only occasionally. Even though you can buy something that will do pretty much the same thing for a lot less money.