Hacker News Reader

Comment by _verandaguy | Hacker News Reader

Coming from conventional bikes, I don't understand who this is for.

Carbon fibre frames are prohibitively expensive and the market for them serves very involved, often professional or semi-pro cyclists whose performance bottlenecks are imposed by the bike instead of themselves. Ditto for some of the other details on the bike, like the medium-dish carbon rims — all for the sake of weight savings and aerodynamics (since carbon bikes will usually integrate things like formed handlebars and seat tubes, etc).

Suffice it to say, you'd rarely see a commuter using a carbon bike.

This bike, though, feels like a bit of an oxymoron. Expensive carbon frame with none of the aero features you'd usually see on one, including conventional handlebars.

A lightweight carbon frame weighed down by a battery.

High-performance rims and tyres but only one chain ring.

Low-profile seat stays with mud guards on both wheels.

A utilitarian, commuter feature set with a price tag that makes no sense at all.

View on HN

> whose performance bottlenecks are imposed by the bike instead of themselves

I'm a fluid dynamics researcher, and I'll tell you the money these people spend on "aero" and "weight saving" and "higher drivetrain efficiency" stuff is 99.9% snake oil. Unless you are among the top 1000 road bike racers in the world.

Increasing your exercise load by half an hour per week, or spending a little time understanding and implementing aerodynamically efficient body posture or other forms of technique, will both yield improvements that are several orders of magnitude higher than the marginal improvements achieved by spending $$$ on "aero" and carbon fiber.

I've seen detailed calculations of rider performance that indicate a 500 g saving in frame weight (which is huge), over the course of a 120 km race with 1200 m climb, will save you a whopping total of 15 seconds on ~4 hours of race time.

> I'm a fluid dynamics researcher, and I'll tell you the money these people spend on "aero" and "weight saving" and "higher drivetrain efficiency" stuff is 99.9% snake oil. Unless you are among the top 1000 road bike racers in the world.

So, biking audiophilia.

At least weight saving is easily measurable and indisputable. Audiophilia focuses mostly on areas that are not so easily quantifiable.

I've heard audiophilia derided as the practice of listening to the noise instead of the music, sand that was enough for me to get off the train and never think twice.

Carbon frames are worth it for the damping factor alone if you ride for more than an hour a week IMHO.

>spending a little time understanding and implementing aerodynamically efficient body posture

You might be interested in what we're up to [0], get in touch if it interests you.

[0] https://bodyrocket.cc

Ooo, nice. This is quite clever - still will require insight and effort from the rider, but it should be less of a shot in the dark, if it works. I'm not in your target market personally, but I like the approach.

Are you going all out with triaxial load in the seat post, or uniaxial (posterior)?

You're asking the right sort of question :)

Seatpost is actually one of the simpler sensors, without giving too much away it's sensing force in 4 different directions.

Is the 4th direction time?

Typically it would be a rotation (or torque, if we're talking load force/torque cells).

Limited in what I can say, but you're not wrong :)

I don't understand why you need to measure anything but instantaneous crank torque, speed, and (for completeness) pitch angle. Integrating power in vs acceleration out, the difference is loss. What am I missing? Does bad posture waste energy before it reaches the crank?

Depends if you want to answer “what” or “why”.

In an ideal world with zero friction, zero wind, constant air density and no other losses that would be true. There are a few outfits using this approach, so we are the outliers (being the only ones doing it via direct force measurement, for which we have the patent).

The difference between energy in and work out is, exactly, friction, wind, and "other losses", so you have not said anything meaningful. That is your right, but then why answer at all?

My understanding is that weight saved on anything that rotates has an even bigger impact, but that doesn't change what you've said. The vast majority of posers bragging about the 500 grams they've saved in parts are carrying an extra 10 pounds on their own frame.

the rotating weight thing is mostly myth, while true that rotating mass costs more to accelerate, cyclists don’t accelerate hard enough for it to amount to anything substantive. source: i did the math in excel

What do you mean by “accelerate hard enough?” Can I see your math?

The TdF pros disagree with you. Yes they can be traditionalist and have "pack mentality", but these people spend literally 6-10 hours on a bike straight.

In particular, when you are bonking and trying to keep up with a group or get up a mountain, you become PAINFULLY aware of the deficiencies in your equipment. An extra pound on your bike when trying to keep up with your group up a 8% grade will feel like you're carrying an anvil.

aero changes can be quite substantive even for amateurs. on the order of a minute or so per 40k tt

aero equipment and position and training are all orthogonal so it isn’t a question of picking just one.

I'm an engineer and a biker. If you only look at the numbers or try to run simplistic calculations, it's easy to think that bikers are just deluding themselves.

But there's more to it than just numbers on paper, and there's more to biking than just riding in a straight line from point A to point B. Carbon fiber frames aren't just about saving weight. The Carbon Fiber has different flexibility and damping properties that result in a different feel, for example.

My engineer friends make fun of me for spending $1K on a set of carbon fiber wheels, until I let them ride the bike. It only takes a few pedal strokes to feel how the reduced rotational inertia translates to faster acceleration. The advantages are even more significant when jumping or throwing the bike around, because the bike's moment of inertia is reduced significantly.

Carbon fiber handlebars don't save much weight, but the damping properties make for a minor reduction in fatigue. Carbon fiber Derailleur arms will again only save a few grams, but they're more likely to spring back from impacts than metal pieces that will simply bend. More expensive shifters have better bearings and cables that make for more precise shifts, meaning less fiddling over time and less mental effort to make sure I'm only changing 2 gears instead of 3.

The list goes on and on. Casual observers think we're just being silly and fooling ourselves with expensive parts. Meanwhile, I'm still buying the expensive stuff, enjoying it, and having zero regrets. At this point I just don't talk about it with any non-bikers because so many of them think they've got it all figured out.

> reduced rotational inertia translates to faster acceleration

\aside why not smaller (radius) wheels? Use higher gearing, and accept the bumpiness.

Though for touring aot commuting, there's something pleasant about higher inertia.

Larger wheels roll over obstacles better. That's why most mountain bikes are 27.5" or 29", which is about as big as you can go without causing too many other compromises.

Bumpiness isn't just a comfort issue. Your body ends up absorbing a lot of the up and down motion, which drains your forward momentum.

I'm a fairly serious mountain biker and I’m not sold on Carbon Wheels. I’ve seen plenty of them get destroyed on the trail where an aluminum model would probably have been ok. I will admit to having a carbon frame, but I’m now looking at some aluminum ones as the price difference is hard to ignore for about 2.5 kgs of weight.

As everything carbon-fiber, a lot depends on the quality of the build.

Look for "Danny MacAskill Tests Santa Cruz Reserve Carbon Wheels": he really tries to destroy those rims, and it takes him doing ridiculous things to do so. Aluminum rims would have cracked/ bent much earlier.

I'm a fairly serious mountain biker as well, and I'm wholly sold on carbon rims. In particular, I'm waiting on a set of rims to be delivered to rebuild some I9 Hydra Trail S aluminum-rimmed wheels with carbon.

I've been riding on carbon rims on both hard tail XC bikes and my full suspension trail bike for six years. I've also had aluminum rims on my single speed and hard tail trail bike. I can't count the number of times I've hit the carbon rim and had it be just fine, but all of my aluminum rims have some degree of denting from much lesser riding.

Between the bikes with carbon wheels there's about 12,000 miles of trail riding and they've been just fine.

After I dented the rim on the I9s and had a spoke break I decided a good winter project would be rebuilding the wheels to carbon rims because my previous experiences with them have been so good.

I think the primary benefits of carbon are stronger sidewalls (less likely to dent) and that they cannot be bent and thus can't go out of true (unless the wheel is built wrong). Yes, they can be broken, but it takes a LOT more than it would for a comparable aluminum rim.

(For reference, the rims I've beat on so hard are Light Bicycle RM29C07 and I'm replacing the stock rims on the I9 wheels with AM930.)

Good carbon wheels are incredibly strong. Carbon has the advantage of flexing where aluminum would deform.

You can watch Danny macAskill try to destroy bare carbon wheels (no tires) on concrete here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfjjiHGuHoc

I assume some of the horror stories come from people buying cheap carbon wheels or early models before they had layups and molds figured out.

If you're really concerned, add something like a cushcore to the inside of the tire for additional damping.

Your complaints are common, though. I've all but given on up trying to discuss carbon wheels with people in person because there are so many preconceived notions out there. It was the same way 5-10 years ago with everyone avoiding carbon handlebars for one reason or another.

if you do the math you can quickly prove to yourself that reduced inertia isn’t doing anything for you. you then either have to conclude that newtonian mechanics does not apply to bikes or perception can’t be trusted!

if you do a blind experiment, where you don’t know the wheels under you, or a third party adds weights to the rim you can demonstrate this. be sure to use the same tires, at the same pressure, as tires and pressures make massive differences in comfort feel and efficiency.

source: me, long time triathlete, cat3 bike racer, coach of a professional cyclist and state tt record holder, gear nerd who has done lots of power meter experiments and spreadsheets

Done it. The place I most notice lightweight wheels are when climbing slowly on steep mountain bike stuff. Climbing like this is not a steady application of power like steady riding on the road; it's a series of small accelerations. When doing this lighter wheels are incredibly noticeable.

You also probably won't see this in your PM data unless you're getting data on partial pedal strokes.

More steady power stuff like on the road, climbing fast, etc? I agree that lower wheel weight just isn't something you'll notice. (Very good evidence for this is riding a fatbike on a fast rolling dirt road ride vs. climbing very steep fire roads.)

> if you do the math you can quickly prove to yourself that reduced inertia isn’t doing anything for you.

This is exactly what I was talking about. People like to assume that a simple math equation tells the whole story, while ignoring the fact that bikers do more than just exist as rigid attachments to a bike that travels in straight lines.

I can do the math, but I can also swap wheels in a matter of minutes and feel the very obvious difference.

I'm talking about 29" mountain bike wheels, where the mass and moment of inertia is significantly more than what you see on 26" road bikes. It's palpable.

Maneuvering the bike in the air is another place where the mass difference is noticeable. Dropping 500g doesn't sound like much when you think about holding 500g in your hand, but it's a different story when that mass is on the ends of a 48" long wheelbase and you're trying to maneuver it in the 0.5s that you're in the air.

If you're just riding something like your tri bike in a straight line down a smooth asphalt road at a constant velocity then it obviously doesn't matter, though.

> I can do the math, but I can also swap wheels in a matter of minutes and feel the very obvious difference.

You’re not necessarily wrong, but I will point out that high end audiophiles will often say the same thing about their absurdly priced equipment, and then refuse to participate in a double blind test.

You meant 26 inch mtb bikes? 700c road wheels are also 29 inches

> if you do the math you can quickly prove to yourself that reduced inertia isn’t doing anything for you. you then either have to conclude that newtonian mechanics does not apply to bikes or perception can’t be trusted!

This is only true if you measure only along the forward/reverse axis.

Cyclists stand up, and rocking the bike sideways is easier with lighter wheels.

On mountain bikes there are even more cases.

If the pack accelerates out of a corner faster than me due to reduced inertia i will be off the back and can do the rest of the race on my own. That's something i have some experience with, unfortunately. If its a sprint i will lose the sprint. This is all normal mechanics. The only situation it doesn't do anything is in a flat time trial which starts with everyone already at the speed they will hold for the race, which doesn't have any change in road or wind conditions nor any corners. I doubt a race like that exists. maybe the triatlon comes closest because of the very long distances involved.

> I'm an engineer and a biker. If you only look at the numbers or try to run simplistic calculations, it's easy to think that bikers are just deluding themselves.

Bikes are all about diminishing returns.

If you spend $500, you get a bike that's probably twice as good as a $250 department store bike.

Spend $1000, and you get a bike that's half again as good as that $500 bike.

Drop 2 large and you get a bike that's 25% better than the $1k bike.

etc etc until you are paying $15,000 for a bike that's 0.5% better than a $10,000 bike.

We all find what part of the curve we want to participate in.

Personally, I think $4500 for a really nice looking eBike with some fantastic add-ons is a decent deal.

> Bikes are all about diminishing returns.

Pretty much everything is about diminishing returns though, so nothing special about bikes.

For instance I can (and have) build a Miata race car for $5K to do good laptimes at the race track. Or I can spend over $100K on a car to go a handful seconds faster per lap.

> Pretty much everything is about diminishing returns though, so nothing special about bikes.

Mostly truth. Some things more than others.

I'm a mountain biker, and I also ride fatbikes in the winter. There's a couple other reasons for carbon:

- Carbon fiber is a worse conductor of heat than aluminum. Use some carbon fiber bars, foam grips, and either carbon brake levers or aluminum ones with heatshrink tape over them and your hands will stay warmer in the cold. When it's REALLY cold and you're using pogies (grip area covers) this is particularly important as it means less heat wicking away from your hands.

- In my experience the sidewalls on carbon rims are a LOT stronger than aluminum. Sure, it's possible to break carbon, but it takes a lot more force than it does to dent or crease aluminum. I've ridden carbon rims hard on seriously rough trails, hitting rims on things which have dented my aluminum rims, and the rims are just fine.

- When building bicycle wheels one of the usual steps is truing the wheel, or adjusting the tension on each spoke to pull the rim into being straight and eliminating wobble. This is not a thing with carbon rims. With carbon rims they are SO stiff that instead you bring all the spokes up in tension evenly and then maintain this even tension and ensure the wheel is straight (no radial or lateral wobble). Unlike aluminum rims, changing the tension on just one, or even a handful, of spokes won't pull that part of the rim in whatever direction. The rims are just that stiff, and a well-built even-tensioned carbon wheel will last a long time.

- It's also possible to do far more complicated forming with carbon fiber than one can do with metal, particularly at reasonable weights. Having a very low stand-over height (good for technical mountain biking) with carbon is no big deal; just some engineering. With aluminum it requires a lot more material, which can add pounds (noticeable amounts) of weight.

In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.

Your post is what theory looks like when people forget the difference. Your theory leaves out tons of variables, including the condition of the road, and the differences in how materials deform under pressure. I've seen the stats you're referring to, and that's what it looks like in a lab with perfect conditions.

Go ride a $400 bike and a nice carbon fiber bike. The difference is much more substantial than 15 seconds per 4 hours. It's less fatiguing, the pedals feel stiffer (cheap bikes feel mushy in the pedals), my speedometer has a higher average speed, it's easier to climb hills (flat surfaces like in the lab are rare on real world streets--flat roads are almost never 0% grade), etc.

Sometimes you need to put down excel and actually do the thing you're theorizing about.

"Ride up grades, not buy upgrades"

I am involved in the distribution of very expensive bicycle components. The demand is massive. From my commercial experience, this sort of stuff has lots of similarities with other branded goods (bags, watches, designer clothes). It probably is built to a higher standard than mass-merchandise, but people buy it for more reasons than the tiny theoretical improvement in performance. I reckon more people buy a Rolex as a signaling device than because it more closely to Swiss Chronometer accuracy standards. I think the same for lots of bike stuff. Not really a value-judgement (I'm thankful for my customers) but in many cases, it's not a pure performance-per-dollar value calculation that they're making.

Cycling is huge here in Belgium, definitely as a hobby.

A semi-professional once told me how crazy it is that people with a beer belly spend a huge amout of money on their bike, just to get a few grams off. A proper diet could save them a few kilos for free.

My brother used to run a aftermarket Ducati performance parts company. “Racers” would swap out every bolt on the bike from steel to titanium (which is actually a terrible idea for a high end sports bike), yet leave the 15 lbs “toolbox” (which was a useless joke of a toolset) under the seat. Also, there’s a reason most jockeys (for horses) are tiny...

E-bikes are perhaps the most misunderstood category of bike products right now.

Traditional bikers have underestimated demand for e-bikes at every step of the way for one reason: Traditional biking has a massive selection bias effect that excludes anyone who isn’t in great physical shape. The deeper you are into cycling, the more homogenous your perception of what constitutes a biker.

You’re not going to see average consumers at the top of 20-mile mountain bike trail with steep terrain at 7AM. You’re only going to see equally enthusiastic bikers who are highly trained and discipline. It leads to a stereotype that these are the only people who care to spend a lot of money on bikes.

E-bikes turn that assumption upside down. They offset the physical fitness requirements and blow the doors wide open for anyone and everyone who wants to spend their way into the sport. Now those previously unreachable heights can be accessed by anyone with a credit card. It’s no longer just a niche hobby exclusive to those who can put years into building up their fitness and bike knowledge.

The total addressable market of e-bikes is much greater than the total addressable market of conventional high end bikes for that reason.

Ironically, this is creating a lot of animosity among traditional bikers. Previously, the most difficult uphill trails were lightly trafficked because only a select few could ride them. It was satisfying to be one of the few people at the top of a difficult trail at sunrise. Now, it’s not uncommon to be passed on the uphills by many people who are visibly out of shape, but use e-bikes to make up the difference (and then some). Some people are even hacking their e-bikes for more power or to allow power application without pedaling, turning them into electric dirt bikes that tear up trails. This is why we have so much regulation clamping down on e-bike access right now. Those regulations might be the biggest modulator in the size of the e-bike market.

Reminds me of when drones took off. Regulations took a while to catch up. At one point it was a huge nuisance with people flying little drones in every park. Fortunately now it’s died down with regulations and general knowledge of what’s acceptable, and I agree the same will happen with ebikes.

Did regulation reduce drone usage? Or just lack of interest?

I think you’re missing his point. He wasn’t saying e-bikes were bad or pointless, he was saying that the design decisions made around this bike don’t make sense for an e-bike commuter or a performance racer or basically anyone. I’m similarly confused.

I think you and op are missing the point though. This is a light weight ebike! Obviously it's not as light weight as a professional bike (or like any without a battery), but this cuts weight everywhere it can and still has a 45 mile range (plus an extended battery you can add on to extend the range).

On top of that people are already spending thousands of dollars on ebikes- this really isn't that much more expensive than a much shittier version. The "best ebike" according to Wired last year is the exact same price as this one but weighs five pounds more.

Look have a carbon ebike that's fairly close: E-765[1]. It looks more like a traditional road bike in geometry and handlebars. 29 lb, ~53 mile range. Removable battery.

[1]: https://www.lookcycle.com/us-en/products/bikes/e-bike/road/e...

Yes, the point is to be a light weight e-bike, but still, why? Make it out of steel or aluminium, making the frame 1 kg heavier, perhaps that costs you another 200g in the battery and motor to drive the same power. Aluminium and steel are better materials than CF in every way except weight - or if not, I'd like to hear why!

The 1-2 kg weight savings is useful if you need to carry your bike up the stairs to your top floor apartment. Or to ride it up hills in manual mode. Both of those seem like niche cases.

Edit: other responses tell me that modern carbon fibre frames are not much more expensive than metal, not much more fragile, and may be more comfortable. That makes it a more reasonable choice than I thought.

Have you ever seen a car with a spoiler? Do you think any modern consumer-directed car needs a spoiler? I think there is certainly a market that is willing to pay for the 'costume' upgrades. And there needs to be certain credibility behind it - a show off factor ("hey, check how light this is.") These bikes can be status symbols. There's a value in 'potential utility'. Also....people will pay premiums for certain phone colours.

The 1-2 kg weight savings is useful if you need to carry your bike up the stairs to your top floor apartment. Or to ride it up hills in manual mode. Both of those seem like niche cases.

These don't really seem niche. The lighter the better, simply because F = ma, the lower the mass, the higher the acceleration from the same amount of force from the battery applied. Or, higher range.

Light weight and stiffness change how a bike feels, far more significantly than it improves objective performance. A light, stiff bike with a fast-engagement hub feels sporty and fun, it’s that simple. It makes you want to go harder and makes you smile as you do it.

It isn't just 1kg difference overall. This bike weighs less than half of most electric bikes, comparable to an entry level road bike. ~8lbs less than a similarly priced lightweight electric bike with an aluminum frame(Specialized Turbo Vado SL), or a modern non electric commuter bike with fenders and a basket. There are some other carbon fiber ebikes, but they tend to be much more expensive and also are usually heavier(but with a longer battery range)

It isn't just about carrying it up the stairs to your apartment, it is the stairs taking the subway and getting off, getting on and off buses, going up and down stairs for parking garages when you get where you are going, the battery lasting a little longer overall, taking hills and accelerating a little faster. Especially for someone who is not a typical fit cyclist, the weight difference can be a the difference between this and not cycling at all.

For relatively short trips, mixing with public transit an electric kick scooter is a competitive option, cheaper, comparable weight or lighter. Slower and less utility though

Yeah, I saw a bunch of eBikes in use last time I was in Italy. They're heavier clunkers where 5/10 miles is a good enough range.

The implications of e-bikes go deeper than one might think. Consider that urban areas are entirely designed around the fact that fossil fuel transportation creates a lot of poisonous emissions. Once fossil fuel transportation is removed from city centers streets can be covered in poor weather, parking can be enclosed, street capacity can be multiplied by several times if e-bikes are popular. There are a lot of wins under this scenario.

Not just that but if you live in an American city an eBike can get you closer to that classic "walkable feel" of an older city or a college campus. With my eBike I can get to so many places that are about a 10 minute car ride away. A destination needs to be 30+ minutes away by car before the eBike just doesn't make sense or if it is raining.

I read that more than half of new bikes sold in the Netherlands (around half a million per year) are e-bikes.

It has become more difficult to underestimate the popularity of e-bikes, now that I get overtaken by a steady stream of pensioners every time there is a slight uphill.

I’ve never been so angry in my life as when I was chugging up a hill in lower gear just to have some lady in her office skirt blow past me, Louis Vuitton bag in her side saddle. I get the animosity. But kudos to her! I hope she’s still blasting past idiots like me!

Great points. I just bought two eBikes in the last six months and I love them so much. One thing that I really hate though is how hard it is to change flat tires and dealing with the bike shops. I can't imagine an older person being able to change the tires on either of my eBikes. I swapped out one pair for a pair that is somewhat easier to work with but it can still take me 20 minutes to put on a new tube. The bike shops in my area are horrendous. There are three that I just don't visit anymore. I'm trying to find good ones to use but they are so slammed right now due to covid that it can take 2 to 3 weeks for a large repair. And they have told me they won't do anything for my eBikes if I didn't buy them there. I love riding bikes but there is so much about the bike industry that I find infuriating.

If you have a hub motor ebike, installing puncture resistant tyres are essential in my opinion. I also have had bad experiences with local bike shops, and the cost of replacing a normal tyre with puncture resistant ones is made up as soon as you roll over glass (very common on my commute). Battling to get the rear wheel off and back on correctly again on my rear hub motor bike isn’t something I want to do again!

https://ampedcycling.com/puncture-resistance-what-can-i-do-t...

Haven’t gotten a flat since I went tubeless, you might want to give it a try. Changing and setting up the tire is more involved but once done you’re much less likely to have to do it again.

Yea both of my mountain bikes are now tubeless and I agree that it is much less of a hassle. My main point is that everybody is talking about how eBikes can get the older folks back out on the bike but when you start talking about tubes and tires you are right back at that ultra-competitive space where people are shaving grams etc. That is part of the bike culture that I do not like, I wish it was more like the Netherlands here in the US. I imagine lots of utilitarian bikes and decent shops all over the place. Here in the US the shops tend to focus exclusively on the high end. It reminds of high school athletics where the varsity football team gets 90% of the budget all to help out 5% of the students, just one more lopsided aspect of the US and our approach to physical fitness.

Decoupling transportation and exercise is valuable even if you are in shape.

why? if time is your most precious asset, coupling them makes the best value you can get

When I’m going for a run or to the gym I plan ahead, get enough sleep, eat a good meal well beforehand, change into suitable clothes and footwear, and shower afterwards. I don’t appreciate dealing with all of that in the moment I realize I need something else from the grocery store. Ebike is a godsend as it means I don’t just automatically drive. When I’m riding just to ride, then I’ll take out the traditional bike.

If you’re in a rush in the morning to get to work, arriving sweating after cycling intensively isn’t a nice experience especially if you don’t have a shower or changing facilities at work. Maintaining a higher speed while reducing or eliminating sweating, while taking cars off the road is a huge plus of ebikes. Maybe it’s a positive social change that will come out of Covid.

> if time is your most precious asset, coupling them makes the best value you can get

I regard time spend during my bike commute through the forests as very valuable. Sometimes I even slow down a bit to cherish the moment.

Huh?

So many advantages here. You save money, save time, and get more fit.

Carbon fiber frames are now quite common in mountain biking and road biking, many enthusiasts (just quite average riders) buy them.

I think this bike for wealthy commuters and city dwellers, could replace public transit or Uber rides. People seem to have taken up cycling in cities due to the risk of riding on public transit. And as someone else said, taking a 50+lbs (25kg) e-bike inside or even upstairs is a pain.

But I think most of all, this is sort of a "halo" product - the best bike they could build, probably very expensive, but "sexy" and definitely news-worthy - as this HN submission has shown. And in the future they can launch cheaper alu-framed versions of this bike when this bike has established LeMond's e-bike reputation.

I bought a full carbon felt road bike in 2013 (2012 model so heavily discounted) for 768 quid.

That's expensive for an average bike but entirely in the range for an equivalent quality alu bike - Carbon fiber simply isn't that exotic anymore.

I agree with the overall sentiment — who is this for? — but:

> carbon fibre frames are prohibitively expensive and the market for them serves very involved, often professional or semi-pro cyclists whose performance bottlenecks are imposed by the bike instead of themselves.

just isn't true. Many hobbyist/amateur/weekend warrior-type cyclist ride carbon bikes. They can be had at lowish prices (my first was £1000) to multiples of the price of this Lemond ebike. Almost all owners of such bikes are limited by their own ability, not the bike.

It's probably fair to assume a lightweight, high quality ebike would be pricey. Perhaps being carbon adds a bit more to the price but the material choice alone isn't totally ridiculous.

> High-performance rims and tyres but only one chain ring.

Single-ring setups with a wide-range rear cassette are actually a pretty good choice for a commuter bike. Less maintenance, less weight. A double chainring setup likely offers smaller gaps between gears but likely a comparable overall range from lowest to highest. On a commuter bike simplicity wins.

I guess ultimately this bike is some combination of publicity stunt and Veblen good. I can't imagine Lemond anticipates selling many of them.

> A double chainring setup likely offers smaller gaps between gears but likely a comparable overall range from lowest to highest.

This isn't true. This bike is using a 40 gear crank in the front with an 11-40 cassette in the back. That puts the gear ratio at 1.0 on the low end and 3.64 on the high end. The corresponding Shimano GRX setup with a double chainring would be a 46-30 in the front and a 11-34 in the back. This gives a 0.88 ratio on the low end and 4.18 on the high end, which is actually quite a big difference. One could argue that the difference in gear ratio on the low end isn't a big deal because this bike has pedal assist, but the difference on the high end is quite noticeable.

Only if you're in a hurry.

No one (basically) is going to care about the difference between a 46/11 and a 40/11 when the assist drops out at 25kph. If anything, you’re much more likely to be able to use the 40/11.

At the other end, the assist is going to cover a lot of gearing, and it’s going to make the gaps in a 1x setup a lot less important.

(FWIW, I ride a 1x42/11-42 and a 2x 50/34-11/32. And a triple on the tandem, and I lived with a cx geared 1x 39-12/28 for a few years. High gears are drastically overrated unless you’re racing)

I definitely agree that high gears are overrated except for racing, but when the bike markets itself as a lightweight semi-aero bike, isn't the point to go fast? If you're not going faster than 25kph, then why are you need deeper rimmed carbon wheels?

The 25kph cutoff is the legal limit for this category of ebike in the EU, 20MPH in the US.

I think some of the price of the carbon comes out of the marketing budget. In a way, the difference between a 4k ebike with cheaper looking parts vs a 4.5k bike with "premium" parts comes down on the side of spending the money.

I'd estimate that bike would sell for ~2k without the electrics. It's nice, but it's not super speccd. High end carbon rims are expensive, but they're not _that_ expensive compared to aftermarket aluminum rims. Niceish rims are basically 80-100 now. Carbon is probably 150 or so. (That's retailish, but not MSRP, what I could get them for, not what a bike co could get them for wholesale)

OTOH, it's lighter than my gravel/commuter, which doesn't even have electrics, so there's that. But I'd need rack/panniers for the commute, and I'd have range worries there.

What I'd like to see is a lightweight system that adds ~100W to my output for ~ 4hours. Something that's not painfully heavy if it's off, but makes the last hour of the commute better. (I do 2hrs each way when I do it.)

It’s not uncommon in the biggest urban markets to bring your bike indoors overnight. The ability to easily lift the bike and carry it upstairs or just pick it up so you don’t sully the carpet is important.

Low weight isn’t just for speed.

Exactly. Carrying at 50lb ebike up a three story walk up is a hassle, but 25lbs is relatively easy.

Using carbon fiber is saving on the order of 1 or 2 lbs though, not 25.

50 pounds is a full suspension eMTB. I think most commuters like this are in the 30-35 pound range.

I wouldn't be surprised if the total savings from carbon fiber on this bike is 4+ pounds. They use carbon everywhere, frame fork, seat post, wheels, handlebars... even the fenders.

I have an older ebike with a large battery and it is outrageously heavy and hard to handle for everything except the actual ride. Perhaps there’s a market for people who want an ebike that’s a little easier to get up apartment stairs? For riding I don’t see a need.

> Perhaps there’s a market for people who want an ebike that’s a little easier to get up apartment stairs?

A detachable battery might also help with this.

Or an aluminum frame that can deal with being banged around a little.

Your partner might not like what that does to the apartment walls.

If my partner leaves, there's more room for bikes!

The battery on my bike is perhaps 2 kg with the bike in total perhaps 26 ish. Removing the battery does not help except for hosing down a dirty bike or preventing theft of the battery.

In Europe a lot of the Bosch/Yamaha bikes have the so-called 'walk mode', where you hold down a button and the bike powers itself up whatever slope at walking pace.

For some reason I understand this mode is illegal in the US, but it makes all the difference over here - especially when going up stairs (or other 45 degree slopes).

My specialized has a walk mode. Not illegal in the states

If anything USA ebike laws are the most lenient in the world

My RadWagon has a walk mode, I'm pretty big though so never needed to use it.

A few months ago a friend fell off the wagon and was drunkenly riding his electric bike around town, and called in distress. I picked him up, and put his electric bike on my bike rack. I could barely lift it onto the bike rack, and on the ride home, I took a speed bump and it broke my bike rack. I live on a second floor, and ended up having to leave his bike in the stairwell. I would never use his bike because it was so unwieldy.

I absolutely see a use case for a motorized bike that weighs 26 lbs, and it’s the use case they lay out in their ad copy: it widens the accessibility of electric bikes. Maybe the tech costs too much, and that will hose the project, but the value prop is crystal clear to me.

>A lightweight carbon frame weighed down by a battery.

That's the entire point! To make an electric bike that weighs the same as a conventional bike. My aluminum frame road bike weighs about 23-24lbs, so having a 45-mile-range ebike weigh about the same is really cool.

And just like any emerging market, no, it isn't meant to be for the masses day 1, just as the Model S wasn't. This is iterative.

> Coming from conventional bikes, I don't understand who this is for.

People who want an ebike and have a good chunk of disposable income and are willing to pay (a lot) more to have the best experience on a bike. The weight and integrated lights and non-shitty look are particularly nice next to the typical ebike offering.

> Suffice it to say, you'd rarely see a commuter using a carbon bike.

The first thing I thought about seeing this bike is how great it would be for commuting. I live in a rainy city and work on the second floor. I've carried my fairly light non-ebike up to the second floor about 200 times and it's still no fun. Pulling a bulky ebike of those stairs is a hard no.

Likewise, I know a lot of apartment dwellers who have to carry their bike up to the second floor. Plus, in general older people. Lifting a 35 pound eBike onto your bike rack is a non-starter. A lot of my older friends who bought ebikes also bought newer lower bike racks because of the weight.

This bike isn't a general use-case bike for certain, but it's got a lot of appeal in my eyes. Doubt I'll buy one (an e MTB is way higher on my list!), but if I was looking to replace my commuter bike it would be up there.

It would seem foolhardy to lug a crazy-expensive, fragile carbon fiber bike up a stairwell on a regular basis. It would be easy to damage it that way.

A lot easier to lug my 16lb road carbon bike up and down stairs then a 30lb commuter

And if you don't, it quickly becomes someone else's bike. That's just the way the world works now. Given that you need to lug the bike around anyway, your choice is now down to the 26-pound version or the 35+-pound version.

> It would seem foolhardy to lug a crazy-expensive, fragile carbon fiber bike up a stairwell on a regular basis. It would be easy to damage it that way.

Spending $4500 on a bike that would be my daily driver is cheap compared to the car it's displacing.

Not sure where you got your intel about the durability of modern carbon fiber frames, but it would be just fine.

It's a lighter ebike than other ebikes, what's hard to understand about that? It's not to be compared to regular bikes, but other ebikes, because the property of being an ebike is the primary purpose, and anything is auxiliary. In this case, commuters want lightness in their bike so that they need to carry less and the bike range is higher (F = ma, where one wants to reduce mass).

Carbon fibre frames are prohibitively expensive

That's not necessarily true. Most carbon frames are expensive because they are high-end models, not because of the material itself.

I would be worried about durability though, if this is used like other commuter bikes. Carbon frames usually come warnings to not lean them against sharp objects, not sit on the top tube, etc. Unlike metals, the fibers are only strong in one direction. Anyone bumping into this bike by accident, e.g. when locking it against the same rack, might cause damage to the frame.

As a data point, my 2006 (carbon frame) Ibis Mojo mountain bike has seen quite a few crashes (in the woods) without sustaining any real damage. Maybe mountain bikes are less delicate?

There's almost certainly more margin built in to a mountain bike frame, but carbon fiber has a scary failure mode compared to metals no matter what- it appears absolutely fine until catastrophic delamination.

I had read a long time ago that a typical 3x9 arrangement has fewer "real" gears than 27. One reason is that you're not supposed to heavily use the gears that are the most opposed because it causes additional chain wear. Another is that some of the gears calculate to the same gear/inch.

https://forums.mtbr.com/drivetrain-shifters-derailleurs-cran... has a nice summary, including a picture from Sheldon Brown's website. https://www.sheldonbrown.com/home.html

Basically, there are 21 or 15 usable gears depending on how you want to calculate things. Then add to the equation that this is an electric bike and a single ring with 9 cassette gears seems reasonable.

This is really just tired old wisdom handed down from the days of wide inflexible chains. Modern 8-speed+ chains can cover the whole cassette with ease. Additional wear from the dreaded cross chaining is never going to be significant when the cogs already have profiled teeth. It's always funny to read the hand wringing from MTB riders about this when they don't even bat an eye at the horrible inefficiencies of 20psi fat tires.

I commute on a specialized turbo vado sl, a similar lightweight e-bike. An electric bicycle this light will handle more like a conventional bicycle, and it’s easier to lift up steps or load onto bike racks.

This bicycle looks less cartoonish than my specialized, weighs less, and costs about the same.

All of what you say is true, and it's stupid expensive but also aesthetically incredible and super light. I'd buy one if I had stupid money to throw away. I don't, so I won't, but the appeal is there.

You can buy a carbon bike at any mainstream bike shop, they aren’t just for pros anymore. I ride one because it feels amazingly sporty. I’m an enthusiast but not very athletic. The super light, stiff bike is just fun to ride.

The aero features like integrate stem and bars is mostly found on time-trial and triathlon bikes. In contrast you can get conventional road bikes, gravel bikes, and mountain bikes in carbon at any nice bike shop.

And if you buy directly from brands that do not sell through local shops (like Dare or Canyon) it can be even cheaper.

I commute on my carbon frame bike and use steel one only in winter now.

I'm waiting to buy into a sleak looking, sub 30 pound e-bike for commuting. I'll probably pay up to $3K for such a bike. There's advantages to having it be an e-bike over just buying a scooter or such, like storage, parking downtown, etc. so it'll be pretty easy for me to justify a budget for a bike, as long as it's nice.

I don't really like the external gearing of this bike, and not sure it needs standard Di2 type of components for shifting and whatnot....

This bike looks about 10x better than almost every other e-bike I've seen, so far. I'm sure we're about to see a lot of improvement in the next couple years of e-bike styling and tech...

Lots of hobbies (I want to say male hobbies, but presumably there are female examples as well) attract people buying equipment that cannot be objectively justified by the skill level of the practitioners buying it: The proverbial titanium head drivers in golf, fancy mics, amps, and instruments in music, tricked out hiking gear, etc.

This might be an increasing phenomenon in advanced middle age, as we have more money and less time to invest in our hobbies.

Signed, a guy who just bought a laser cutter today...

Darn, I have a laser cutter for sale very cheap - let me know if you ever want / need another one.

Hiking gear can be remarkably impractical for most people most of the time. Backpacks that are not even waterproof without a cover. Boots that are heavy and "supportive" but mostly just increase fatigue. Top opening backpacks that have to be unloaded to get at something. And weird shapes that reduce the effective volume. Clothing that is too light for cold weather without a "base" and "shell".

You're right about all the contradictions with this bike. It doesn't make any sense from either a utilitarian or sport point of view.

But fancy carbon bikes have a robust market with 40-somethings who like to ride and have significant disposable income, it's the market that "Rapha" is going for.

This bike is for a similar market which perhaps isn't quite able to get aero anymore but would still like something sporty that will help them up a hill, I guess.

You're spot on. I made this same comment elsewhere. There is a large market for this age group that isn't being tapped by bike makers. It's a shame, because biking is an incredible way for people to stay very fit and healthy.

When I used to commute via bicycle and also lived on the second floor of an apartment building that could only be accessed by stairs, weight mattered to me quite a bit. Nobody wants to carry a heavy bike up and down a staircase twice a day.

It feels like you are not really following the trends in bike designs.

Carbon frames are really common now, and are available in mid-range road, mountain or gravel bikes. You can even order one on AliExpress for cheap and build a decent road bike around it. And it’s not only the weight that carbon frame bike owners are after - the material gives much better ride quality than aluminium.

Deep rims are nothing spectacular either, their weight penalty is nicely offset by aero gains, and this effect is noticable even at non-pro speeds. With disc brakes there is less concern about the longevity of the carbon rim - so why not use it?

One chainring is all the rage in bikes now - since the advent of super-wide casettes with multiple cogs (reaching 13!) there is no real need to add a front deralieur. It’s a component that breaks down frequently, multiple chainrings weight a lot, the chain wears down more… The recent popularity of 1x11 or 1x12 drives is very well-deserved.

Mudguards and simple handlebars make this bike utilitarian and well-suited to commuting, while the other stuff is a collection of things that are common and highly praised by cyclists nowadays.

I mean no offense, but many of the advantages that you've cited are more of claimed advantages from the marketing departments of big manufacturer rather than proven advantages that the tech gives you. The author of the comment to which you replied does seem to understand the trends in bike designs these days and feels that these trends do not fit well into the market segment of e-bikes. I agree.

> it’s not only the weight that carbon frame bike owners are after - the material gives much better ride quality than aluminium.

The affect the frame has on the ride quality is significantly smaller than other components of the ride like the tires and seat post[0]. Carbon often has a very small weight improvement over a well made steel or aluminum bikes, so if you're buying an e-bike because you want pedal assist, I don't understand the need to shave 1 or 2 pounds off the bike.

> Deep rims are nothing spectacular either, their weight penalty is nicely offset by aero gain.

This appears to be true. Most of the aero penalty of the bike comes from the wheels and having deeper wheels does reduce the drag a lot.

> One chainring is all the rage in bikes now

It is all the rage, but it's not clear yet whether it's justified or just a ploy by the manufacturers to save costs on their end. The gear ratio of this bike goes from 1.0 on the low end to only 3.64. 1.0 is pretty good for going up hills, especially with the motor assist, but 3.64 is really low, especially for a bike trying to tout itself as really fast! I don't understand this choice. Most road bikes have a top end ratio of around 4.54.

> Mudguards and simple handlebars make this bike utilitarian and well-suited to commuting

The mudguards are nice, but I don't understand the choice of handlebars. Why do you want a super aero light-weight bike but then put flat handlebars on it so you can't get in an aero position like you can with drop handlebars. This doesn't make sense. Furthermore, the bike doesn't have mounting points for a front or rear rack, which is a huge downside for commuting, if not a dealbreaker.

[0] https://www.cyclingabout.com/why-impossible-steel-frames-mor...

[edit] you're right that trends do matter when affecting people's purchasing decision since most people aren't very informed about the actual pros/cons of the tech they're buying, but this doesn't undermine the original commenter's opinion that this bike doesn't make sense from a technical standpoint.

I agree with most of your points, especially that the demand is strongly influenced by marketing/fashion and percieved values of the product, not objective ones.

Diving deeper into gears and handlebars - I believe it’s a very consious choice.

- max speed with an optimal cadence (90 rpm) in this setup seems to be around 43km/h. This is plenty fast and definetely above typical commuting speeds. Even the electric support is more about better range/less sweat than making the bike fast, speeds appproaching 50km/h are close to the legal limits anyway

- with straight handlebars it’s comfortable to ride, no matter the level of personal fitness. Drop bars make you bend more - this isn’t very inviting and could drive off the customers that are accustomed to relaxed positions (that they know from riding in their SUVs daily). And with speeds mostly well below 40km/h there is no need to curl into the aero postion. Just put on some trendy glasses and the electric support will deal with the extra drag.

It really goes hand in hand and I’d be suprised if such bike would be released in other config.

Those are fair points. I guess I'm most confused by the inclusion of mid section rims. This makes me think they're targeting people who want to go really fast, but then their other choices don't pair well with going fast enough to get the gains out of the wheels.

Carbon frames aren't prohibitively expensive. Almost all of them are made in Taiwan or mainland China now and you can get cheap frames from the same factories that make the expensive ones. There was a time when carbon forks were expensive. They became commoditized 20 years ago. The same has happened now with the rest of the bike.

We have 1 car and 2 electric bikes rather than 2 cars. If you can reduce your car count, anything is worth it, give or take.

It's for the wealthy cyclist who is slowing down but still wants to ride with their crew.

I know a few guys like that, mostly for mountain biking, but they also buy them for their wives so they can go for a ride together.

I agree with you entirely, BUT

Isn't this how Tesla started ? A sportscar with subpar performance and impractical for many journeys due to limited range and charging options.

yes, but this is not the bicycle equivalent of a sports car. to put this bike in car terms, it's like if somebody tried to market a "Michael Shumacher signature edition" of the toyota corolla, and the only difference from the normal model was to swap out the steel body panels for carbon fibre ones.

this isn't a racing bike, it's a boring old commuter made with good quality but completely normal components, a few fancy materials in visible places and a famous cyclist's name attached to it.

> Carbon fibre frames are prohibitively expensive

Back in the 90s, yes.

Carbon frames are the mainstream now and have been for at least the last decade.

> I don't understand who this is for

I'd consider it if I was still commuting longer distances but covid put a stop to that. The range is a bit too short but if the additional external battery really delivers 70% more range as claimed, it would be a great fit for what used to be my commute.

Apart from the motor and a straight handlebar the bike pretty much fits into the gravel bike category, which is doing extremely well at the moment.

Those are rather versatile bikes, which one can use for anything between commuting, bikepacking and not-fully-competitive road racing. At least the mid-range bikes in this category are already out of carbon. It's far more common than exocitic nowadays.

The price of 4500$ actually doesn't feel too excessive, given that a Specialized Diverge with similar components is 3900$ (https://www.specialized.com/us/en/diverge-comp-carbon/p/1752...) - without a motor. But ok - Specialized is also one of the most expensive brands.

I bought a gravel bike this year (Trek Checkpoint), and I'm very happy with it. If I would have a strong use-case for an e-bike - like a longer commute - I would definitely consider something like that Prolog.

You're making several incorrect assertion. First while carbon frames are largely marketed at the expensive high performance crowd they are not very expensive to make (for example the production costs of top of the line specialized or trek frames which sell for 3000-5000 USD for the frame only, have cost including shipping to the US of approximately 300 USD). Second every professional cyclistbis always limited by their physical abilities, compared to many other sports, material has very little impact on the performance of pro cyclists. Mind you they still take that 1% gain because it can make all the difference between a win and a place in the top 10.

There are also significant amount of carbon commuter bikes around by other companies so this is nothing new. Particularly the prices of e bikes are significantly due to the motor etc.

Have you seen the market for bikes nowadays? All the mid 50s and 60s men I know spend at least $5k on bikes, and own several, and change them out. As less young people bike, the market has shifted entirely to the high end.

I don't get it either though- if I wanted a moped, I'd just buy a Vespa.

Plenty of cyclists in central London have carbon fibre commuter bikes and wear lycra and cleats for a sub-20 mile ride, stopping traffic lights every 2 minutes. I don't think logic has much to do with how most people choose cycling gear.

> Carbon fibre frames are prohibitively expensive and the market for them serves very involved, often professional or semi-pro cyclists whose performance bottlenecks are imposed by the bike instead of themselves

This isn't true. Most $1000+ road bikes have carbon frames.

Wholesale, a good quality no-nme Al frame is about $100, while an equivalent quality CF frame is about $250.

If you are using Shimano 105 or above level quality, a CF frame is a reasonable upgrade.

They do ride better than anything but the best Al frames since that can put more stiffness where required and less where bump absorbing is needed.

The rest of your comments just shows misunderstanding of the luxury market. BMWs sell when Toyota makes fine cars.

Carbon fibre bikes are very common in my circles, i.e. very amateur middle aged club cyclists. Nothing to do with professionals, semi or otherwise. Also see plenty of them when commuting in London.

One chain ring is the new thing these days, with 11+ cog cassettes.

Lack of aero shape probably facilitates putting the battery in there. Though they could do the handle bars and seat stays at least.

1x is a cost reduction measure disguised as a "new thing". Same price - less components = more profit.

I very much doubt that's true, as evidenced by cheaper bikes still sporting 3x chainrings. 1x is entirely about removing the front derailleur and all its associated complication. It's especially common in mountain bikes because they experience a lot more opportunity to break.

That's what the bike industry wants people to believe so they have motivation to buy upgrades. 3x cranks weren't dropping like flies for 99.9% of users.

Their MO is to always come up with what's going to be the latest new thing then use the media outlets to pump their idea to boost sales. Same thing is happening with the forced imposition of disc brakes on road bikes. Then it's going to be hookless rims that can only handle 75 psi max.

When I was racing last (cat 3) the cost was higher on road bikes! Don't know if it still is. It is still a preferable setup if you don't need the range of gearing if a double. Front derailleurs are are common point of failure and noise and you make it all go away. (with either the proper sort of front chainring or a clutched derailleur in the rear to make sure the chain stay son)

Drop weight and improve aero a bit too.

For mountain biking the simplification is wonderful. Front derailleurs were always a pain in the butt. With wide range cassettes 1x is just the way to go. It also frees up the left side of the handlebar for the lever for a dropper seatpost, which is a game changer in bike handling.

You completely misunderstood what this bike is for.

It's for making as money for the bike designer, manufacturer, and reseller as possible.

As such, it targets a market of people who have a lot of money and want to buy status symbols, the latest gadget, or virtue-signal some green thing or other. These people are highly unlikely to be pro cyclists or highly steeped in gear knowledge.

It's about profit, pure and simple.

I live in the Bay Area on the peninsula - I could easily name ten coworkers that have carbon bikes and usually more than one.

They also often commute on them.

They’re expensive, but the market exists (at least here). Ride portola loop or old La Honda on any given day and you’ll probably pass 100k worth of bikes.

Those people aren't going to be riding an e-bike, and if they are they won't be riding one with flat handlebars.

At least one does, but yeah I’m not sure how much that audience intersects.

I’ve also seen fancy specialized brand bikes with internal motors that give out an extra 250w of power. I suspected they were for older people that want to keep up on rides.

Main thing I was pointing out was that carbon bikes aren’t just for super athletes, they’re common where I live.

What’s wrong with the new 1x gearing? It’s pretty standard these days in mountain and gravel bikes. As long as the back cassette has a varied range you don’t lose too much gearing while getting the benefit of a simpler drive train, less maintenance and lower weight.

That makes an e-bike that is also fun to pedal with no assistance. It is a combined commuter and weekend bike and I think there is a market for it. Although I would not buy it, only the wheel upgrade at 1800e looks overpriced to me.

I agree with the general point you make, but carbon fiber bikes aren't that crazy expensive. I bought one for $1k 5 years ago and I love it, even though I don't do any racing or anything like that.

RE: single crank

Monocranks are a new trend with the 11 speed cogs, and electric assist will effectively flatten things so you don't need as many lower gears.

> A lightweight carbon frame weighed down by a battery.

My thoughts exactly. Who's the target audience? And at that price point?

The price point is comparable to the Specialized Turbo Vado 5 SL, a third-generation e-bike from another American company. The weight savings can make a big difference when you have to carry your bike up stairs or bring it on a train. Keep in mind that e-bikes compete with cars.

Maybe you're right. The Specialized Turbo Vado 5 SL seems to be 14.6kg, and this bike 11.8kg. If they're otherwise comparable maybe this bike actually makes some sense.

Both are lighter than most. Many e-bikes are over 50 pounds, sometimes way over. The Rad Runner is 75 pounds, the Strommer ST3 is 72 pounds, etc.

Ever carried a bike up some stairs???

This is for millions of people who don't blink at spending $4500, like an average person spending $15. It has all the right buzzwords and "LeMond" name in it so let's make some money. Most will probably use it once and let is collect dust.

> Carbon fibre frames are prohibitively expensive

Uh, no?

Do you know how many people commute to work in a Porsche 911? Same crowd.

Cause it’s fun

Why is it crazy that someone would spend $4500 on something they commute with every day? I mean, it might cost that much just to upgrade the seats and the stereo in a car.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com