4 ms·

They used to have these on the Georgia Tech campus. The company was called viaCycle[1]; IIRC they have now shut down. I borrowed one of the bikes once. Because

by jogjayr 10y ago

They used to have these on the Georgia Tech campus. The company was called viaCycle[1]; IIRC they have now shut down. I borrowed one of the bikes once. Because all the tracking infrastructure and battery for the electronics were all on the bike (at least I think that's how the tech worked) the bike was quite heavy. At least I think that is the reason it was heavy. Not very fun to ride at all. I'll also confess I wasn't in great shape at the time. I liked the concept though and I really wanted it to work out for them. I'm a bit skeptical of bike share programs unless they're in high-density areas. The already-existing Bay Area Bikeshare is really expensive unless you're making <60-minute trips between 2 docking stations. I haven't tried any of the bikes but they look much heavier than the average $300 hybrid bike. Being out all the time can't be good for keeping them in top condition. [1] http://www.viacycle.com/howitworks/ http://www.viacycle.com/howitworks/ [2] http://www.businessinsider.com/smart-bike-sharing-startup-is-looking-to-blaze-a-new-path-2013-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/smart-bike-sharing-startup-is...

ezzaf 10y ago
They're also deliberately heavy to make them harder and less attractive to steal. Not an issue in a flat city, but much less fun on hills. Hopefully in the long run electric assist is practical to implement on these bikes which should ameliorate their weight.
- algesten 10y ago
  Barcelona has electrical assisted (docking) bikes.
  - lovemenot 10y ago
    Tokyo too
hkmurakami 10y ago
I imagine most of the weight is from the frame. Lightweight materials tend to be more expensive than their heavier (and more durable) counterparts for these sorts of things.
dantiberian 10y ago
The weight serves two purposes: * Makes them less attractive to steal and ride at high speeds * Makes them a lot more durable than a lightweight racing bike
scdoshi 10y ago
This has been a fun blast from the past. viaCycle was in YC (S12). And yes, we shut down in 2013 around 3 years in.
- p0la 10y ago
  Hey, I would love to hear more about your experience, would you be free for a quick chat ?
matt4077 10y ago
They are heavy because they need to be extremely sturdy. That said, weight isn't too much of a problem. They may be 4kg heavier than your fixie, but in return they tend to run extremely smooth because of the high quality components. The constant usage is actually a positive factor constant usage and good service. Compared to the bikes I see friends using, they are without a doubt more fun to ride. No grinding noises, extremely bright lights that actually work, tires at the right pressure etc.
- jogjayr 10y ago
  > They are heavy because they need to be extremely sturdy. That makes sense. > That said, weight isn't too much of a problem. This I would dispute. The way I see it there are two main consumers of bikeshares in the beginning (before the system hits critical mass and ubiquity): 1. People who don't own bikes, aren't regular cyclists 2. Cyclists who are visiting the area and didn't/couldn't bring their own bike with them Of those, 1 is likely to be the majority. When I tried viaCycle, I was in category 1. I was also in terrible shape (as some non-cyclists are also). When you're in that demographic, a few extra kilos in bike weight (plus hills) makes a massive difference to how the ride _feels_ and how likely you are to try it again. Overall I wonder whether, instead of promoting bikeshares, cities should try and foster a biking culture and make it easier to ride everywhere. Examples: 1. Mandate minimum amounts of bike parking for businesses (I don't know if any cities already do this), as they already do for car parking 2. Mandate minimum levels of convenience for bike parking at businesses. Eg. Valley Fair Mall in San Jose/Santa Clara has maybe 2 or 3 tiny bike parking stands, sometimes hidden away inside the car parking structures. Which means you're in for a long walk after locking your bike. It doesn't have to be like that. I understand that bike stands might be demand-driven; i.e they aren't installed because customers don't demand them. But it could very well be a chicken-and-egg problem and it doesn't cost much to find out. 3. Make street bike parking and locking safer (I'll admit I don't have any ideas for how to do this) 4. Make it easier to bring bikes onto public transport - This one is admittedly a tough sell in places with already-crowded public transport; but in most places like that you probably have the critical density needed for a successful bikeshare program. OTOH it could also increase public transport ridership in places that don't have that much population density. 5. Bike lanes with barriers - drivers hate them but if a city is determined to get more people biking, this could help. Many would-be cyclists are skittish about sharing the road with huge pickup trucks and texting drivers. 6. During the planning approval process (or whatever it's called) for new buildings, take into account pedestrian/bike accessibility. Eg. Buildings or complexes that are built on corner lots and only have parking lot entrances on either street side built for cars, but no pedestrian/bike entrance on the corner. Pedestrians/cyclists have to walk/ride all the way around to one of the car entrances or hop a fence/hedge or something. In theory it shouldn't even be hard for most existing parking lots on corners to add a small pedestrian/bike entrance. EDIT: formatting

by jogjayr 10y ago

ezzaf 10y ago

They're also deliberately heavy to make them harder and less attractive to steal. Not an issue in a flat city, but much less fun on hills. Hopefully in the long run electric assist is practical to implement on these bikes which should ameliorate their weight.

algesten 10y ago
Barcelona has electrical assisted (docking) bikes.
- lovemenot 10y ago
  Tokyo too

hkmurakami 10y ago

I imagine most of the weight is from the frame. Lightweight materials tend to be more expensive than their heavier (and more durable) counterparts for these sorts of things.

dantiberian 10y ago

The weight serves two purposes: * Makes them less attractive to steal and ride at high speeds * Makes them a lot more durable than a lightweight racing bike

scdoshi 10y ago

This has been a fun blast from the past. viaCycle was in YC (S12). And yes, we shut down in 2013 around 3 years in.

p0la 10y ago
Hey, I would love to hear more about your experience, would you be free for a quick chat ?

matt4077 10y ago

They are heavy because they need to be extremely sturdy. That said, weight isn't too much of a problem. They may be 4kg heavier than your fixie, but in return they tend to run extremely smooth because of the high quality components. The constant usage is actually a positive factor constant usage and good service. Compared to the bikes I see friends using, they are without a doubt more fun to ride. No grinding noises, extremely bright lights that actually work, tires at the right pressure etc.

jogjayr 10y ago
> They are heavy because they need to be extremely sturdy. That makes sense. > That said, weight isn't too much of a problem. This I would dispute. The way I see it there are two main consumers of bikeshares in the beginning (before the system hits critical mass and ubiquity): 1. People who don't own bikes, aren't regular cyclists 2. Cyclists who are visiting the area and didn't/couldn't bring their own bike with them Of those, 1 is likely to be the majority. When I tried viaCycle, I was in category 1. I was also in terrible shape (as some non-cyclists are also). When you're in that demographic, a few extra kilos in bike weight (plus hills) makes a massive difference to how the ride _feels_ and how likely you are to try it again. Overall I wonder whether, instead of promoting bikeshares, cities should try and foster a biking culture and make it easier to ride everywhere. Examples: 1. Mandate minimum amounts of bike parking for businesses (I don't know if any cities already do this), as they already do for car parking 2. Mandate minimum levels of convenience for bike parking at businesses. Eg. Valley Fair Mall in San Jose/Santa Clara has maybe 2 or 3 tiny bike parking stands, sometimes hidden away inside the car parking structures. Which means you're in for a long walk after locking your bike. It doesn't have to be like that. I understand that bike stands might be demand-driven; i.e they aren't installed because customers don't demand them. But it could very well be a chicken-and-egg problem and it doesn't cost much to find out. 3. Make street bike parking and locking safer (I'll admit I don't have any ideas for how to do this) 4. Make it easier to bring bikes onto public transport - This one is admittedly a tough sell in places with already-crowded public transport; but in most places like that you probably have the critical density needed for a successful bikeshare program. OTOH it could also increase public transport ridership in places that don't have that much population density. 5. Bike lanes with barriers - drivers hate them but if a city is determined to get more people biking, this could help. Many would-be cyclists are skittish about sharing the road with huge pickup trucks and texting drivers. 6. During the planning approval process (or whatever it's called) for new buildings, take into account pedestrian/bike accessibility. Eg. Buildings or complexes that are built on corner lots and only have parking lot entrances on either street side built for cars, but no pedestrian/bike entrance on the corner. Pedestrians/cyclists have to walk/ride all the way around to one of the car entrances or hop a fence/hedge or something. In theory it shouldn't even be hard for most existing parking lots on corners to add a small pedestrian/bike entrance. EDIT: formatting