Folding Bikes - Mark Sanders talks about design and how to attract more people to cycle

Design Presentation of Mark Sanders in Taipei, 2009
http://www.mas-design.com/Projects/IF/

Very entertaining & useful, thanks Amuro.

Mark's tips are spot on. Apparently Brompton has incorporated a lot of ideas from its Customers over the years, for example.

john

Great presentation.

I don't consider myself a cyclist...just a guy that sees the value of superhuman speed/stamina (specifically 4x) for everyday life. Thanks to designers like Mark Sanders and manufacturers like Brompton, Ming Cycles, Pacific Cycles, Bike Friday, Sinclair Research, etc, I think there is currently enough product to generally meet the needs of the "blue ocean" of noncyclists.

The problem is distribution. The intended usage, price range, and target audience of folders (at least the more practical ones like the Strida that don't require extensive mechanical work) are far closer to the offerings of Nike or New Balance than Trek or Cannondale. So why are folders sold next to Surley's instead of Air Jordan's? Noncyclists would never dream of looking for tran-sport in a sport (read cycle) shop, yet that's the only place these devices are sold. At present serendipity is the only way for the potential customers of human amplifiers to be given buying opportunities, which is just bad business.

If Nike can parlay the miniscule benefit of underfoot air pockets into one of the most popular brands in the world, then why can't folder manufacturers establish themselves with a product that verily quadruples the physical ability of their potential customers? Mark Sanders thinks the problem is the look of small wheels, but look at what Nike evolved from:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/2008-08_archeon_schnabelschuh.JPG/180px-2008-08_archeon_schnabelschuh.JPG

The Puma folding bike is sold next to the trainers and wicking vests in their boutique sport shops here in london. I saw one in a mall just yesterday. I suppose it's a start.

I love cool technology as much as the next guy, and agree it should be targeted toward a new market rather than the existing market which is, after all, a snake pit; but I don't think the technology is the problem.

In my opinion the problem --and this gets us off the "folding bike" subject, but here we are-- is safety or, more precisely, perceived safety. To oversimplify the matter... your "blue ocean" cyclist, if (s)he wants to ride at all, wants to ride in a non-vehicular manner. (S)he wants a nice a car-free zone in which to ride. But while blue ocean cyclists want bike lanes, bike paths, etc, the red ocean cyclists oppose them. I don't care who's right and who's wrong in this debate, but the effect is unproductive.

The Puma folding bike is sold next to the trainers and wicking vests in their boutique sport shops here in london. I saw one in a mall just yesterday. I suppose it's a start.

It should be a Strida and the packaging shouldn't use the word bicycle at all, but instead "walk/run faster/farther/easier with this human amplifier". And thats just the plain truth; I can only imagine what a good marketing team would cook up:
http://www.kicksaholic.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/07-03tee-jordan1.jpg


I love cool technology as much as the next guy, and agree it should be targeted toward a new market rather than the existing market which is, after all, a snake pit; but I don't think the technology is the problem.

In my opinion the problem --and this gets us off the "folding bike" subject, but here we are-- is safety or, more precisely, perceived safety. To oversimplify the matter... your "blue ocean" cyclist, if (s)he wants to ride at all, wants to ride in a non-vehicular manner. (S)he wants a nice a car-free zone in which to ride. But while blue ocean cyclists want bike lanes, bike paths, etc, the red ocean cyclists oppose them. I don't care who's right and who's wrong in this debate, but the effect is unproductive.

Yeah, but don't those same people think the sidewalk is a good place to ride? I don't see this as a stumbling block, especially since the same blue ocean doesn't choose to cycle even when they find themselves in the ideal situation.

For example, why do most folks walk or drive (instead of cycle) a half mile down to get a carton of milk? I don't think it's because their afraid, but because their shoes are already on their feet (or nearby), their jacket is in the closet, and their car is right outside the entrance while their bike (if they own one) is packed away with their other sports equipment and, most likely, in a state of disrepair. I think a mechanically simple folder small and convenient enough to sit ready next to the umbrella stash would be used, but most folks don't even know that such a thing exists because they're all hidden away in boutique sport shops.

.....
In my opinion the problem .... is safety or, more precisely, perceived safety. ........... But while blue ocean cyclists want bike lanes, bike paths, etc, the red ocean cyclists oppose them. I don't care who's right and who's wrong in this debate, but the effect is unproductive.

Spot on.

Keeping in mind that none of us are regularly reading market research.... ;)

I agree with some aspects of the "Blue Ocean" theory, but it's also quite clear that you need more than a marginally more compelling product to expand cycling usage by the general public. The history, and therefore public's general impressions of, bicycles are fairly substantial and is not going to change easily.

The only events I've seen in the last 40 years that significantly expanded (utility) cycling were the oil shocks of the early 70s and in 2007-2008. Bike sharing programs like Velib may also have an impact, but unfortunately theft and vandalism -- exaggerated as those reports may be -- impose costs that mitigate some of the benefits.

Are folding bikes compelling enough to break open the Blue Ocean market? Probably not. They are definitely more convenient, especially when equipped with belt drives and other low-maintenance designs. However, they do not overcome several of the issues he lists (safety, hard work, comfort, speed vs using a car) and some not quite discussed (bad weather, carrying large loads etc).

There is also the open question not of just "how do we get more people on bikes," but the question on the manufacturer's minds -- "how do I maximize profits?" At the risk of oversimplifying: it's quite plausible that a $4000 carbon fiber road bike will net the company $1000 in profits, and the $400 utility bike will net $100. The manufacturer has to sell 10 times as many utility bikes as fancy road bikes -- in a retail environment where a) floor space at specialty shops (aka your LBS) is limited and b) most bikes, particularly in that price range, are bought at Walmart.

So it may seem compelling to go after the "Blue Ocean" of cyclists, and clearly that has many social and environmental benefits. Unfortunately the economics of the situation likely does not provide strong incentives for manufacturers to follow that direction.

Keeping in mind that none of us are regularly reading market research.... ;)

I agree with some aspects of the "Blue Ocean" theory, but it's also quite clear that you need more than a marginally more compelling product to expand cycling usage by the general public. The history, and therefore public's general impressions of, bicycles are fairly substantial and is not going to change easily.

The only events I've seen in the last 40 years that significantly expanded (utility) cycling were the oil shocks of the early 70s and in 2007-2008. Bike sharing programs like Velib may also have an impact, but unfortunately theft and vandalism -- exaggerated as those reports may be -- impose costs that mitigate some of the benefits.

Are folding bikes compelling enough to break open the Blue Ocean market? Probably not. They are definitely more convenient, especially when equipped with belt drives and other low-maintenance designs. However, they do not overcome several of the issues he lists (safety, hard work, comfort, speed vs using a car) and some not quite discussed (bad weather, carrying large loads etc).

There is also the open question not of just "how do we get more people on bikes," but the question on the manufacturer's minds -- "how do I maximize profits?" At the risk of oversimplifying: it's quite plausible that a $4000 carbon fiber road bike will net the company $1000 in profits, and the $400 utility bike will net $100. The manufacturer has to sell 10 times as many utility bikes as fancy road bikes -- in a retail environment where a) floor space at specialty shops (aka your LBS) is limited and b) most bikes, particularly in that price range, are bought at Walmart.

So it may seem compelling to go after the "Blue Ocean" of cyclists, and clearly that has many social and environmental benefits. Unfortunately the economics of the situation likely does not provide strong incentives for manufacturers to follow that direction.

Three comments:
First of all, just because a folding bike is a vehicle that doesn't mean it needs to be viewed as competing with a car. Safety, hard work, comfort, speed would all be issues if one endeavours to replace a car with running shoes and, yet, in reality these are not even minor considerations because users of running shoes aren't trying to replace their cars with them. For blue ocean users folding bikes represent a significant improvement in enhancing physical ability. Whether or not that enhancement is enough to completely eliminate other products or just make current physical endeavours easier is a completely separate issue. One could easily imagine a world where instead of wearing sneakers, people ride around on A-bikes in their socks. That would be arguably safer, easier, more comfortable, and faster than the status quo without even recognizing the car issues. As a blue ocean user, this is what folding bikes did for me. It completely transformed my physical ability way beyond what I could have ever achieved with a regular bike or no bike. The fact that I didn't use a car either before or after has nothing to do with it.

Second of all, where did the idea ever come from that utility bikes should be cheap and nonfancy? This seems to be a self-fulfilling prophecy where people think that money can't enhance the utility of a bike over the most basic models. That's hogwash. Many many people pay $15k+ for utility cars. So there's clearly a huge market for very expensive utilitarian items which can meet the customer's needs. So it's not necessarily that a company has to sell 10 times as many bikes at $100 incremental profit, but that a company could be selling 10 times as many bikes at $1000 profit.

Third of all, I don't think the economics of the situation have anything to do with it. As I understand it, that's the whole point of the blue ocean philosophy: to transform the economics of the situation by redefining the customer, what the product can offer that customer, and, thus, what the product is (so the whole economic situation is different, from the supply to the demand). If folding bikes are only marginally more compelling then it's because most folding bike companies hedge against failure by not straying too far from the "red ocean". I find it very difficult to believe that bikes like the A-bike or Carryme could be considered anything but radically different from conventional bikes. Even the Strida is relatively normal by comparison. So lack of more than a marginally more compelling product is not an issue here. As noted by the presentation, it really boils down to marketing and distribution which are obviously both quite anemic in the folding bike world.

Just came back from Taipei Show! What a great event!

I didn't even know Mark Sanders was going to present until I got there - what an oversight on my part.

Anyways, I manage to squeeze a video clip onto my memory card & a bit of his presentation, here it is on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JotzISZaado

Enjoy!
TC

www.abiobikes.com

More information about the presentation HERE (http://bicycledesign.blogspot.com/2009/03/mark-sanders-keynote-presentation-in.html)., with flip book HERE (http://issuu.com/carltonreid/docs/notes)

Twitter feed/blog of Mark Sanders:
http://twitter.com/77A

Please, no more. There are already more than enough sidewalk and wrong-way bicyclists.

Mark Sanders is passionate about reaching the "blue ocean" market so it is sad that his original concept as embodied in his Strida design, over which he no longer has any influence since the IP was sold to Ming Cycles, has apparently strayed from that noble vision. The Strida, however, rather than appealing to the masses, is marketed in the U.S. as a fashion icon, not a low cost, viable transportation option for short commutes. While the Strida may not be "focusing on young, sporty males", the Strida does seem to focus on effete design collectors, at least here in the U.S. It really is a sad situation. Still, I hope Ming Cycles will change its market strategy for the Strida because I believe it can fill at least part of that blue ocean if it, as the the company producing the product, feels the same passion as Mark Sanders does. I'm hoping Sanders' partnership with Pacific Cycles comes closer to realization of his mantra.

Mark Sanders is passionate about reaching the "blue ocean" market so it is sad that his original concept as embodied in his Strida design, over which he no longer has any influence since the IP was sold to Ming Cycles, has apparently strayed from that noble vision. The Strida, however, rather than appealing to the masses, is marketed in the U.S. as a fashion icon, not a low cost, viable transportation option for short commutes. While the Strida may not be "focusing on young, sporty males", the Strida does seem to focus on effete design collectors, at least here in the U.S. It really is a sad situation. Still, I hope Ming Cycles will change its market strategy for the Strida because I believe it can fill at least part of that blue ocean if it, as the the company producing the product, feels the same passion as Mark Sanders does. I'm hoping Sanders' partnership with Pacific Cycles comes closer to realization of his mantra.

That's an excellent point. I was also thinking about the same thing as Mark mentioned about reaching out to the masses with something that is "low-cost" amongst other factors. $800 would seem on the high side for the blue ocean market. What was also interesting is that he mentioned his new IF model was targeted towards someone who likely drives a Porsche and want a bike that is so different and yet functional. Did I hear correct? Overall though, I think I get his message.

I hope that more + more US/Cdn cities will eventually embrace the notion of using bikes as a mode of transportation similar to such as cities like Amsterdam, Tokyo, and Portland!

Cost is one factor.

Safe cycling routes is the other.


Sell your stridas or SLOs at £110 and allow them to be used on pedestrian pavements until more cycle lanes are made, and you will see a huge increase in cycling - especially in the UK where there are thousands of miles of virtually empty city pavements, especially on routes that link residential areas and CBD, or residential areas and schools and offices.

In some ways, the makers of the SLOs are already more on Sanders wavelength than the gouging Ming distribution chain. As I've said many times, three ally pipes, a plastic seat and transmission, and two small wheels is no bargain at £500, especially when it is made in a low cost manufacturing nation. We know why Brompton is costly; it is made in London, virtually by hand. What is Mings excuse? They are virtually the same price now and the Brompton is a much more complex machine.