"a $1,500 USD bike that can be connected to smartphones via bluetooth and track rider statistics, such as route and speed, in real-time."

So it's a bike with built in GPS? That connects to my phone, which also has GPS? What the heck. What am I missing that makes this product not such an obviously dumb idea? What can this do that I can't accomplish with a mobile app, or with a smart watch strapped to the handlebars?

Hey, David from Vanhawks here. One of the nice things about the Valour is that we will continue to develop the platform while you ride the bike - it will get better the longer you own it as we release new features. And, if you worried about whether we'll be around long enough to make that happen, I feel confident in saying yes.

Check out our latest news on our new structure here: http://blog.vanhawks.com/2017/04/26/in-case-you-missed-it/

Apps on cell phones can also be updated over time. I've got a GPS already in the cell phone that will measure speed etc, and as I replace the cell phone that hardware will get better over time and support more features from an app.

Bikes, on the other hand, don't tend to be treated as a disposable / frequently upgraded thing. You're asking customers to buy in to a fixed set of hardware for a dozen years. That means you've got to provide some really significant value to the equation, and offer something that is just not even remotely possible with an ordinary cell phone.

So far as I can figure the only thing you offer in that regards is blind-spot detection sensors, and that seems like something I could realistically expect to see from bicycle electronics companies within a reasonably short time frame, for way less than $500.

I'm still not sure what exactly your significant value-add is. I'm not trying to shit on you or your product. The bike looks great. I just think you need to think very carefully about how you are marketing it, and what exactly you're offering to persuade someone to pony up an additional $500 or so over a normal bike.

Isn't that also true for a "biking app"? It'll be improved over time as development is put into it.

And in addition, what happens if they go out of business and can no longer support the custom stuff? A normal bike can be rideable for decades if well-maintained. No digital stuff is going to last that long.

take a look at the site https://www.vanhawks.com/. It works exactly as you described with a phone app and it also has some hardware to integrate turn by turn directions.

That doesn't really answer the 'why does it need to be built into the bike' question.

In the short term, having this platform built in to a bike allows us to offer the turn by turn navigation with less distraction and much more robust data collection. That data collection will be used to improve the navigation based on real world feed back in the future.

In the long term, building this platform into a full bike means that we can offer plenty more - imagine being able to locate your bike if it was stolen or, imagine your bike could communicate with other vehicles around you to keep the rider safe.

This is not to say that we only offer full bikes in the future. However, having the full bike now is allowing us to perfect the platform and understand the full range of needs for our riders.

Still doesn't answer the question. What does it do that some other solution does not already do? I'm certainly not your target market, myself, since I know my way around the place I live and I am old enough to know how to find stuff on a map. If I happen to find myself someplace less familiar--I do sometimes go for long rides not knowing where I am going until I get there--Google/Apple maps are available at the touch of a button.

If you are offering bike location--how long before thieves/hackers figure out how to disable it? Will it work when the bike has no power? Will thieves be able to use the tracking signal to find expensive bikes to steal?

So you can track the bike as the thief rides away with it? :D

Misjudged is an understatement. There is no appetite for these over-priced "Connected" bikes. They are essentially taking a $1000 Chinese carbon bike and selling it for $1500 with the extra cost attributed to an integrated, non-upgradeable computer and some sensors, all of which can already be found in any given customer's existing smartphone, which can easily be mounted onto whatever bike the customer wants. I don't get why anyone would take a bicycle, something that has a useful lifespan of potentially decades and integrate it with technology that will become obsolete in less than a couple of years. Just because you can put a computer and sensors in something doesn't mean you should or that anyone will pay for it.

>They are essentially taking a $1000 Chinese carbon bike and selling it for $1500 with the extra cost attributed to an integrated, non-upgradeable computer and some sensors, all of which can already be found in any given customer's existing smartphone, which can easily be mounted onto whatever bike the customer wants.

i wonder how such logic would sound in the context of say Microsoft Surface Hub?! well, probably like billion dollar idea :) They sell those $5K TV for $22K like hot cakes.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/12/micro...

The same is true for juicero, internet connected refrigerators, and almost everything else connected to the internet. Plenty of people will pay more for things because they are internet connected

I dont think you want Juicero to be your example of a successful IoT startup.

I think the bike market is already in the process of being disrupted by online sales. Many shops are struggling or have already closed. There are several successful online-only brands in the mountain bike world such as Commencal, YT, and Canyon. One difference I see between those companies and Vanhawks is that they clearly offer the best value in their market segment (in terms of price). The Vanhawks bike is not directly comparable to other bikes out there, so it's hard to know if it's a good deal or not. I also wonder how many commuters will want to spend $2k on a bike. The mountain bike brands I mentioned are all aimed at enthusiasts and are able to leverage professional sponsorships and mountain bike specific media outlets to validate their product in the eyes of potential customers.

I spent $1400 on mine a few years back. A nice touring bike that is also good for commuting. And on top of that, I've added a dynamo hub, lights, reflective paint, switched out the fenders (twice), and other customizations. But then, I put more miles on the bike than I do on our car, so it's totally worth it for me.

On the other hand, I'd never buy this Vanhawk unless I could be certain, for instance, that the electronics would withstand New England winters (I can tell you that ordinary cycle computers do not!). I gave up replacing them because what they tell you is not needed for commuting. I know the route, I know how long it takes, I do it every day. Also, there doesn't seem to be bosses for racks or water bottle holders, which I consider pretty essential.

Purchasing a bike is a very tactile experience. How does it feel when you're on it? Anyone whose ever was a bike aficionado should know that. The only people I know who bought one and had it shipped (e.g., Davidson, Serotta, Rodriguez) still went to see one first.

How do you know enough about bikes to build one out of carbon fiber but don't get that?

You could say the same thing about shoes (Zappos) or mattresses (Casper). I think you're conflating your preferences with those of the entire market.

When I buy shoes on Zappos, I am trusting an existing brand that I've worn before (I wear the Nike Pegasus running shoes; the 33 model is basically the same as the 31s that I have on my shelf) and I'm happy to buy them from Zappos instead of a retailer.

I'd buy bike components online at Nashbar or Performance because I know what I'm getting from Fuji or Shimano. And Nashbar has slowly inserted themselves into that trusted space as well. But Vanhawks? I don't trust that yet.

If I'm being completely honest I think this depends a bit on disposable income. The guy I knew who bought a Davidson way, way back, knew a guy who let him borrow one. He had a family and coughing up that much money took some thinking.

The confirmed bachelor with many bikes, on the other hand, would try to do his homework but ended up with several he didn't like. He'd just resell them and try again. But biking was his thing. I think his bikes were worth more than his furniture.

If your bikes are not worth more than your furniture, you either have too few bikes or your furniture is too expensive.

I think if you sat down and added up the cost of all of your furniture, you'd be shocked at the total.

You know we're talking about a company that already failed with a mail order only business model, right?

I buy shoes online when I've already seen them. But have you ever owned a high end bike? The experience is a lot different for buying shoes (although if I were in the habit of buying $2000 shoes I might feel differently).

You don't usually buy another one, unless you broke the last one. You buy something new, or different.

In fairness, when I order from Zappos I order like six pairs and return five of them. Will Vanhawks be down with me doing that with bikes?

David from Vanhawks here - great question. As a long time cyclist myself, I would never want to buy a bike that I didn't get a chance to throw a leg over first - we are completely aware of this and, we will be working with a retail partner in the near future to offer this option.

It was important for us to create and refine the product while we found the right partner. In the coming weeks, we'll be starting a purchase program that allows both online and in-shop purchasing in select locations.

I doubt they ran into trouble because of their planned sales model. Fundamentally this is not a product I would expect to be commercially successful. All these weird trends like Kickstarters for "Connected bikes" and Bluetooth "smart locks" are not actually very useful to cyclists. Real improvements to cycling will come from investments in infrastructure, not by throwing technology at bicycles themselves.

Anytime someone from a company comes on here using buzzword nonsense, you know it's not going to end well. You're talking to the wrong group of people with that middle manager marketing speak.

> “gearing up for 2017.”

It's too late for that. 2017 bookings were completed last fall.

The article is dated Oct 18th.

I think they are still misjudging the market. Im a cyclist - ride about 3k miles per year. I know very little about this bike, however why do I need a connected bike? I have a computer that I can attach to any bike I like. Hell, a smart phone on a mount can be swapped between bikes. Plus, frames break. I would rather have a modular bike that I can swap the pieces I want between.

Maybe its just bad copy, but I already have a connected bike - everyone I ride with does. The only features i see that I might not have are blindspot detection (which i can get with a cheap mirror on my helmet if i wanted it), and a carbon fiber belt instead of a chain, which means none of my existing components which I've paid thousands of dollars for will work. The fixie is a little more compelling, but the price point is a little steep.

David from Vanhawks here - why do you need a connected bike? Maybe you don't. But, I sure like riding one. We are aiming to make commuting safer and more comfortable for riders. A big part of that approach is to remove distractions to the greatest extent that we can. Unlike strapping a device on to the handle bars, you can simply open the app, lock your phone and put it away. The ride recording starts and stops automatically and, your turn by turn directions are given through easy to follow light signals from the handle bar. Basically, we want you to keep your eyes on the road and not on your device.

The Valour also records a much more rich set of data that we will be using to inform cycling directions in the future. Most apps or devices record speed, time, distance, etc. We're recording much more.

I get what you are saying though - I have a Garmin that I use with multiple road bikes on country roads during the weekend. There, it is much easier to glance down to see how many watts I'm producing or switch screens to check my vertical metres per hour. However, when I'm riding across town to the office, I have a very different set of concerns.

Seems what you describe could be done through a BLE accessory that straps to the handlebar or at most an aftermarket handlebar with LEDs/sensors integrated, which talks to a phone app.

I'm part of the "athlete" market segment who is happy spending $2k on a "dumb" road bike and I also commuted on that dumb bike every day through the city.

The same applies to a power meter - if I want to know my watts I'd rather buy a PowerTap hub or crank and put it on the bike I want rather than having to buy a whole bike with it permanently integrated.

I wonder if, instead of building the whole bicycle you couldn't do great things by building awesome aftermarket components (e.g. try to be Anker, not Apple.)

That said, I know it's easy to be a naysayer, and I wish anyone who's working to innovate the cycling industry all the best! (Lots of <3 to Strava, Garmin & Di2)

I'm in the same market segment as you (i do triathlons). This bike is not meant for the athlete /performance cyclist. It looks like it's trying to target the person who only riders a bike to commute, or perhaps go for a leisurely stroll down a beach boulevard.

Which IMO is a fine choice, if they really do know that this segment even wants the product they're making, or if this segment is big enough.

I'm in a different market segment (as far as you can get from athlete/performance cyclist), but also think they're misjudging the market. I bike almost every day for commuting, grocery shopping, and visiting friends. Also occasionally longer overnight trips for fun. I can't understand why anyone needs the features of this bike, and even if they did, how does this $1000+ bike provide those features better than adding a few accessories to any bike of your choice?

I found that in real life, I noticed no difference with most of the features that command a premium. When commuting, I'm carrying a laptop, charger, and usually lunch. When riding for fun, I'm usually carrying plenty of water, food, and maybe a tent and sleeping bag. So why would I pay hundreds of dollars to save pounds on my bike with a carbon frame?

I do spend plenty on accessories, but they're in the opposite direction than what this bike offers. I bought as nice of a saddle as I could find, with no thought towards price. Same with comfortable hand grips. And a really expensive pannier that converts into a backpack - which is probably my best purchase.

Following that high publicity jeep hack, and I'm sure plenty of other car hacks that have followed, I personally consider it a feature that my bike is purely mechanical. This bike falls somewhere between "social network for dogs" and "smart refrigerator with livestream of your egg carton" in terms of why would I want this?

For half the price of this bike I got a 1500W mid-drive ebike conversion kit that I added to a $150 BMX bike which is ridiculously fun, with a programming cable allows for more than enough tinkering for my tastes. It's in a completely different class than a human powered bicycle for sure, but IMO many casual bicyclists would be well served owning a cheap e-bike and a cheap bicycle.

agreed that I'm not really sure which segment this hits. I have a $300 sturdy fixed gear for casual local trips as well as a $800 Cannondale Touring bike for the tent/sleeping bag type of multi-day ride. I think e-bikes are a great choice for commuting for most people as well.

100% agree. I've swapped bike computers 5-6x over the last 5 years. First road bike I ever bought is still compatible with all of them.

Presumably the investors saw something I'm missing, but I think the price point ($1300) is really high for a fully integrated system.

I like how the first 2 comments here say that: 1) online sales are destroying in-person bike retail 2) in-person bike retail can never be replaced by online sales.

Yeah. I would guess that over time, bike shops will morph into a) repair shops and b) showrooms that might, for example, get $x from each company for each test ride on one of their bikes (or something along those lines). A person who chooses to buy the bike would then get it shipped to the shop and built; eliminating inventory should also eliminate a lot of cost.

As for Vanhawks specifically, I think they have a very cool idea but their bikes are just a little too expensive for me. Which is actually pretty frustrating. I'd like one of their single-speed bikes, but the bike is $1300. Then shipping is $150. Then assembly is ~$50 – $100. Then a rack and fenders are more.

Something like a Priority bike is $900: https://www.prioritybicycles.com/products/thecontinuum and the company often offers free shipping. Fenders and a variable-speed transmission are included. Total cost is a lot lower.

I didn't mean to imply that I think retail bike shops will completely disappear. I was more trying to make the point that there are already a few successful online-only bike brands. So maybe Vanhawks' issue is their product, not the online sales model.