fietsbob

WhereI live, I'm OK with the Defender Ring lock and plug in to the lock with a pin chain that AXA (NL) makes .

My other Bike, I have an Abus ChainLock and Bordo Folding link Lock available.

Delmarva

I guess the concept was pulled. The link isn't working today.

gtvnt

There should be some temporary glitch. It's working again: https://www.coroflot.com/vitgean/The-...-the-Commuters

Vit

Reynolds 

I like the concept, but the weak point might be, as stated above, the lock/fork blade interface IMO.

gtvnt

This observation makes perfect sense, especially when the fork is not cylindrical.

Vit

RobertFrapples

I mean that I have one U-lock that I use for whichever bike I am riding at the moment. I would have to buy four locks instead of one if the locks are attached to the bike.

gtvnt

That's right, it's like every bike has got its own seat, though sometimes a single seat for several bikes can make sense. That's rather a matter of personal preferences.

fietsbob

Link worked this AM , a front lock , one issue I see is fork blades are tapered,
so vibration of riding or attempted pulling the wheel out might loosen the lock ,
unless tightened to the extent of crush deforming the tube of the fork blade.

gtvnt

This is a very reasonable observation indeed. The solution should better address this. Maybe some bosses inside the collar could help (though it might leave some marks on the fork blade if the lock is removed).

fietsbob

perhaps an OEM product , fork itself made to fit, bosses brazed on fork, before paint,
rather than clamp-on, an aftermarket part.

gtvnt

Yeah, sounds very logical as retrofitting might need a visit to a local bike repair shop.

onespeedbiker

The problem is the OP's lock isn't expensive enough and is not made of titanium..https://www.aspirevelotech.com/Mercha...IGR-BIKE-LOCKS

gtvnt

Last few minutes I'm trying to imagine a manager in a suite driving to his bank in Amsterdam and then installing this lock. My imagination fails, sorry.

tjh1960

Seems like a properly sized diamond-shaped clamping surface like you show in the diagram with maybe a half-inch of closed-cell foam (sort of like a workstand clamp) would work for a large range of fork sizes & shapes. That would also protect the fork and minimize rattling. Would just need to be clamped down tightly enough that friction would prevent a thief from just sliding the lock off the fork.

fietsbob

I had a diamond shaped aero Bar clamp, it moves around , slipped,
until it compressed the aluminum handle bar to a shape like itself.

Chris_W

It's a decent idea but I would mount it on the non-drive-side seat-stay instead of on the fork for a few reasons.
1. Security - the bike cannot be stolen by simply removing or cutting the fork (or twisting the mount off of the bottom of the fork if mounted on a tapering fork).
2. Tube protection - seat stays on fewer bikes are made of carbon than are forks.
3. Bike support - most of the weight of the bike is towards the rear, so this is the part of the bike that needs more support to keep it standing up; the support is probably coming from the thing that you're locking it to, so it would be better to have this closer to the rear of the bike.

tcs

Non-starter: the lock must be locked by the operator into the stowed position to prevent it from rotating into the front wheel. Look at any place where multiple bikes are locked up and you'll see that many people just don't use locks very well. This design has no fail-safe position to prevent it being very dangerous or even fatal to the operator.

gtvnt

Yes, this risk exists. To prevent it there is a rectangular "collar" on the hook which fits into the corresponding deepening in the lock. In this case the hook can't rotate until the key is inserted and the hook is extracted.

MichaelW

I see a number of flaws:
- Forks are conical, not tubular and loaded clamps can work their way down, becoming looser and rotating into the wheel.
-On a crowded "toastrack" style Sheffield stand, you have to remove the whole lock from the mount, thread it through the stand, avoiding other bikes, position your bike to match up exactly the removable part with the mounted part.
-On removing the lock, you have to delve down between the bike and rack (in your suited arm). You cant free the lock from the offside.
-can it be used with lamp posts. U locks can use the thinner , upper section of a post.

I fit my U lock under a bungie chord, on top of my rear rack. It is secure, instantly available and as versatile as any u lock can be.

gtvnt

Yeah, those seem to be substantial flaws indeed. Looks like OEM suggestion by Fietsbob is the way to realize the supposed advantages of the approach with minimal trade-off...

bboy314

Out of curiosity, what are the downfalls of regular u-locks you're trying to avoid?

gtvnt

IMO, the comparison chart below can be helpful (items in red). But apart of the "practical" issues there might be quite an important issue for the commuters - wishing to lock/attach their bikes with more style and dignity and with less risk to get dirty (like the frame lock). As the commuters usually park their bikes in relatively safe places, reasonable protection from casual stealing is enough - no need to carry big and heavy U-Locks or wind the bike with cables. That's what the BuLLLock is about (with all its own flaws ). The U-Lock can be stored at home just in case of a travel to THOSE blocks.

gtvnt

Just a follow-up:

Another point is TIME. Many bikes were stolen when their owners left them "just for 3 minutes" to buy something. I would suggest that one of the reasons was their reluctancy to mess with their U-Locks or Cables (and locking a wheel with e.g. a Frame Lock is not enough).

The BuLLLock is much quicker, so if you have to stop often, that could be a solution for you as well.

CACycling

Don't see how the BuLLock is any quicker than a U Lock or cable. In casual locking situations (which is all this is really intended to address), a U Lock or cable around the top tube and whatever rack/post is available seems at least as quick and much more adaptable.

FBinNY 

With respect, I don't get you. You initially post your concept, and ask our opinion about marketability. You get lots of opinions, mostly, like mine, negative, listing a variety of objections. Yet you persist in defending you concept, and arguing with those whose opinions you solicited in the first place.

Let's be straight, we don't have veto power over you going ahead, and if you believe in it enough, you'll probably go ahead if you want. But think about this; you're free to produce it, but if we're not liking it in the hypothetical, what makes you think we'll fall in love once it's made. The reality is that we'll vote with our dollars, and you'll be left hanging (IMO).

As I said in my first post here, there was a similar concept a few decades back. I've since remembered the name --- the Bolt---. I tried finding a photo or link, but it's been too long and I can't find anything. But it was a very short lived failure in the marketplace, probably for the same reasons mentioned here. I urge you to try to track the Bolt down, and compare it to yours, so you don't fall down the same rabbit hole.

If you can't find it on the net, you might call dealers in then Boston area, who might be able to give you real market based info, and possibly even have an old one collecting dust.