A description of the Coasting system at Park Tool, https://www.parktool.com/blog/calvins-corner/shimano-coastin...
Cycling uptake starts with cycling infrastructure, very few people have a problem learning how to ride a bike.
It's definitely easy to learn once explained, and every enthusiast knows - but as a cyclist living near a popular bike route, I see a lot of casual riders who appear to have no idea how to use their gears.
The most common thing I see are riders with the cranked up in a high gear on flat land, and you can see them almost standing or straining to turn the crank. I cringe to think about the pain they are inflicting on their knees.
IME once you spend a few minutes teaching someone about their gears, they're usually shocked at how much easier and more efficiently riding is, and enjoy cycling much more.
However I would think straining hundreds or thousands of time on a ride vs a few dozen squats for a set has a much bigger potential for injury.
I'd also add it's not uncommon to see riders with their bikes unadjusted for their size, e.g. they might be in an already weird position with their seatpost too low.
Internal gear hubs make a lot more sense for casual cyclists -- they are easier to learn, they can be shifted when the bicycle is not moving, and they are far less likely to drop a chain during shifting than derailleur gearing. They are also better protected from weather and impact.
Almost all of the utility bicycles I've seen in Japan and Europe had internal gear hubs. I didn't see many people commuting on the kind of bicycles that American cycling advocates seem to prefer.
Same. Used to live near Greenwich Park and the number of people struggling up the hills around there in high gear was amazing. Even in low gear, I reckon they're a bugger for average cyclists.
Wait, is this not what you are supposed to do? How do you go fast then?
I hang out on some cycling subreddits and they commonly get questions from new cyclists that are totally clueless about how gears work. Some of them have it it completely backwards, ie start in a high (slow) gear and progressively shift down to a low (fast) gear as you get up to speed.
I always thought it was intuitive, but I guess I also got my first 5 speed bike around 7 years old or so, I can't really remember. I do remember having an RC car with 2 speeds Ang getting the principles pretty quick: gear one would accelerate faster but top out quick, while gear 2 had slower pick up but higher top speed.
Automatic shifting on bike is not a good idea. While people are terrible at shifting at first, they can learn to get better. Automatic shifting never improves.
It's meant to be simple, but basic maintainability is a nightmare. Changing a tire requires 3 tools and about 10 steps just to pull the tire off. Thats bonkers. Pretty much eliminates any chance of roadside tire fixes.
They would completely be in the target market for this. If they were buying a bike, this is a system they would want. In fact, it's a system I would want them to have, because I'm sick of watching them struggle with a single gear and they really do not feel comfortable with multiple gears!
I've tried to explain the benefits of multiple gears and how it's actually simple, but they won't have it. They aren't that comfortable with riding a bike anyway, and they don't want something extra to think about on top of all the other things. I also don't think they are completely atypical.
I can also see this being a great rental option, and great for kids who want a step-up bike as they learn.
Your argument seems to be "advanced users don't want this" - but that's not the target market. Automatic gears on cars don't go into racing cars, and manual gearboxes can be easier to maintain and provide more control. Automatic gears on cars are actually really there to reduce complexity for the average driver, which is what this is for bikes.
Aside from mechanical issues, shifting gears when you don't expect it is about one of the worst experiences you can have on a bike. Being in a lower gear than you expect and spinning out or being in a higher gear and having no traction is terrible. The Nexus is super easy to shift (and can shift when you are stopped) has a bigger gear range, and is predictable.
Also, when bikes were launched, these didn't exist. Now it's likely you can get an all around easier ebike for about the cost of one of these so it's a no-brainer.
> Your argument seems to be "advanced users don't want this"
No. My argument is nobody wants this you might think automatic shifting on a bike is a good idea, but every time it's been done people hate it. It doesn't work like an automatic in a car.
The fact that it's far more difficult to change a tire means users are even less likely to learn basic maintenance. It's nice to say "They'll take it to the shop!", but that doesn't help when they are on the bike trail 4 miles from their car. With a somewhat normal drive-train another rider can give them an assist. With this, it's unlikely anyone has the tools with them to help out.
I'm saying I know at least two people in my immediate family who would want this, so I don't think nobody wants it.
It might not be any good, and informed purchasers might not want it after trying it, but I think people want the concept.
Shifting gears isn't what keeps people off bikes, the average 10 year old figures out shifting gears in about 20 minutes. What keeps people off bikes is the fact that most places in the US are unsafe for cycling.
More or less everywhere it's safe to ride bikes, bike ownership and use increases dramatically using existing shifting technologies.
This may shock you, but most people don't live in the US, and different people have different motivations for either cycling or not.
Although clearly you represent the everyman and can be the one-person-focus-group for the bike market!
The bike market represents the bike market. As I said, these have been around for 10+ years and nobody buys them. It's not my opinion that these are undesirable, we know they are undesirable based on sales numbers.
Bikes with Automatic drive trains aren't popular in the US. ... or Europe. ... or Asia. ... or anywhere.
They are more expensive, heavier, and harder to work on than traditional bikes. Half-assed automatic shifting doesn't make up for those issues.
Maybe I'm off base and people just didn't like them because they are ugly. Who knows, but since it's been 10+ years now I think it's clear they aren't the fix-all for getting people on bikes Shimano designers thought they were. Maybe, just maybe, your mom and your sister aren't the perfect bellwethers of the needs of skittish would-be-bike-riders in the world.
Your claim is that nobody wants them. I know at least two, which is more than 0.
They aren't popular yet, but I'm willing to bet that they will be with further development. Let's not forget that the first automatic gearbox for cars, the 1904 Sturtevant "horseless carriage gearbox", wasn't exactly a market hit - it took until the late 1940's for it to take off as a polished product and longer still to overtake manual transmissions (due to similar cited concerns about maintainability and the level of control).
In fact, I actually drive a manual transmission in my car because of those factors (and manual is still more popular in the UK), but clearly the majority of the market has moved on.