• Tony Abbott

    We just came up with three innovations* (*novelties)

  • JJ

    Its great to see people mixing things up but those bikes look like a mechanics worst nightmare, let alone proprietary computer that you are stuck with if you want the stem…urgg

    • Cycling iQ

      As Matt dN mentions below, SpeedX is aiming to send the CT tech team a bike for review. It does seem like a ‘busy’ bike though, and I’ll be interested to learn whether this translates into problems for experienced mechanics.

  • Connor

    Great story, I remember watching the KS campaign….but of course, we’re all dying to know how it RIDES. If that goes at all well then its a success…’innovations/novelties’ or not…at that price point it would be a market disruptor. Aesthetically,it ain’t a bad looking rig at all.

    • We’re in the process of teeing up a review. :)

  • Arfy

    So people have forked out on a bike without knowing how it will ride or handle, I hope they did it for novelty purposes and don’t have too high hopes about performance. It would concern me that one of the most personalised components on a bike, the stem, is not a cheap replaceable component on this one (mind you this also puts me off of the integrated bar/stem combos we’re now seeing on other high-end bikes). I don’t mind the idea of integrating more tech, in fact I think there’s definitely a place for it, I’m just not sure this is the answer.

    • Cycling iQ

      I share your opinion about buying before trying, though it appears the price and hype overrode any such concern for a large number of people. SpeedX is also offering a 7 days “no-questions-asked” return and 30 days free exchange so, at face value, it’s a fairly low-risk buy in.

      • Ross

        Who pays the freight to send the bike back to China/Taiwan? LBS (the ones that would do it) can charge $100 or more to box a bike up ready for shipping and a freight company such as DHL would charge hundreds to ship it overseas.

        • Cycling iQ

          Here’s the reply from SpeedX:

          “In case something happens to the cycling computer than you need to unscrew the cycling computer (4 screws) and send it to one of our service centers. The bike will be still useable.

          If the customer want to exchange the bike within 30 days we’ll pay for the shipping. If the customer want to use the 7 days no questions we’ll also pay for the shipping.

          Basically we’re using the same service model as Canyon. The customer only pays for the shipping after self-done damage and service check. As a customer you’ll need to sent it to our regional warehouse/service center so you won’t pay 100’s dollars.”

  • With all that budget surely they could have Photoshopped some socks on to their model by now FFS.

    • Cycling iQ

      A close-up portrait of the same model without socks and a Sagan-esque winter coat was also included in the KS campaign. We refrained from showing it here, as we figured readers from Australia and the US East Coast might have been sitting down to lunch/dinner when the article was published. Didn’t want anyone blurting out their food in horror.

      • I’ve seen it in all it’s hirsute glory – food hasn’t tasted right ever since.

  • Saeba R.

    I can’t help but think that the customers who pledged to purchase this bike are the sort of customers who could get value out of the intangible additional services of local bike shops…

  • Steel

    So this venture is trying to break into two/three established industries.

    1. Bike manufacturing and supply
    2 training data (strava and garmin connect)
    3. Navigation /data recording (garmin et Al)

    That’s a tough ask given that all these established players seem to offer stronger products., just not in a single packaged form.

  • Patrick Murphy

    I just don’t get this at all, it seems like they have come up with ideas to solve an issue that doesn’t exist. What happens when the computer fails (it will)? Do you have to send the whole bike off?

    • Rodrigo Diaz

      We don’t get it because we’re not the market for this product – at least not now. There clearly is a desire for a highly integrated, carbon fibre bike at an affordable price. Probably not for someone who has a crit racing licence.

      Think of it as an iBicycle – the phone solved problems people didn’t “have”, but still hugely popular. I wouldn’t get one of these – I like to have a very good idea of how a bike rides or at least have significant backing (all my bikes come from my LBS and team sponsor). But that’s just me – lots of people buy WalMart bikes. And lots of people like apps and gadgets. And lots of people with bikes don’t race.

      I still see it as a positive thing – I’d rather people spend money on bikes than on cars.

      • Patrick Murphy

        Agreed on the last point. Don’t get me wrong, I really like innovation and adding in a tech element but I just feel that when you have so much that is integrated there might be issues. I hope it’s a success and if it entices more people onto bikes then great.

  • sheldon-san

    Some of the comments here appear belittling in tone. I am sure there would be more acceptance of the design, layout and innovation/novelties if it was from a European manufacturer (whose supply chain just happens to be based in China or Taiwan). I hope the bike rides as good as it looks and the IT is reliable; because this could be a game changer within the industry

    • Milessio

      Until they actually deliver bikes & components to customers, it’s all only hype/theory – remember the Zano drone?
      Even SRAM failed with their cross disc brakes!

  • Okay.

    Call me a purist, a hater or anything else. But I just don’t understand the amount of technology integration to one of the most simple mechanical designs made by man. The bicycle is supposed to be a simple mechanic wonder. I understand that it was merely a matter of time before this happened to the bicycle given the progress we’ve made with technology in the past century. Still, for me personally, I don’t like the fact of having to charge a bicycle (Di2 or E-Tap). Even less the complete integration of electronics with mechanics like this bike above.

    I’m not some old school guy (I’m 32) that still prefers to ride around in my old school steel frame. I have a steel frame, I have a carbon frame. Carbon frame is by far superior. But electronic shifting? Integrated computers? No, thanks. I still prefer cables. And I want my bike to be simple to put together, simple to diagnose and more importantly ready to ride at any given time.

    Plenty are going to disagree with me, and believe me I understand and have no problems with the technological advancements. I’ve ridden a bike with Di2 and it’s fantastic…I still prefer mechanical and there is going to be a percentage of like-minded customers in the industry that are always going to prefer mechanical over electronic and non-integrating cockpits.

    • Freddy Franks

      Cool chat

    • philipmcvey

      Good post. Simple answer to the tech integration question – it has very little to do with functionality and a whole lot to do with product differentiation. A new brand launched in to a hugely competitive market segment needs a unique proposition. As you rightly say the beauty of the bike is its simplicity, but that simplicity means that without adding superfluous tech it’s very difficult to make your new brand different from all the established ones. It’s a wonderful thing that a varied marketplace gives us massive choice; you can run with Di2 but you don’t have to. Mechanical is still going strong. Funnily enough I had a Di2 bike for about three years and thought I couldn’t live without it – now I own a bike running SRAM Force and I absolutely love the clunking, clicking and making long and short lever throws. I feel much more in tune with the bike and probably wouldn’t go back to electronic.

  • Rf Seo
  • Andy B

    I don’t really see what this is offering that I cant already get beside some sort of training app which is light on detail?
    If it included an integrated power meter id maybe see what they are getting at
    Stem length is such a personal thing too, changes with different frames id hate to be told “you must ride this length”
    doesn’t lend itself to changing length either
    I feel like if you were smart about purchasing you could get a tried and tested carbon aero bike with 105 & a nice garmin for a similar price
    very curious to hear the review on how it rides, that will determine its value I guess

  • dllm

    Believe it or not, Chinese brand software is dangerous. I didn’t say they try to steal data from you. Don’t sue me :)

    • Saeba R.

      They will know when you are out for a ride so will be able to b&e your home!!!

  • Mark Blackwell

    I really enjoyed this article, and others in the same “what’s-the-back-story” genre.

    This feels like the future to me. As much as I dislike the march towards more and more integrated, less and less standards-based bikes, that is the trend and the benefits are clear. It started with indexed shifting (rear derailleur, shifters, chain and cluster), moved to hubs (cassettes), on to brakes and front derailleurs (integrated shifters), and seems headed to computers (Di2 integration and possibly automatic shifting). Might be cold comfort, but roadies have it much better than MTBers, where hub widths and headset diameters also vary widely.

    • Saeba R.

      Standards and integration are not mutually exclusive. Shimano famously offered an integrated indexed groupset however it was based on standards. The fixing of a standard was part of the innovation. Although recently there appears to be a blowout of new standards…

      • Sean Doyle

        They aren’t standards. They are all just options or specifications.

        • Saeba R.

          Sorry but they Arlene standards. Industry standards.

          • Sean Doyle

            Which is a misnomer. They are specifications. They are not ratified or approved by any official acreditation like an ISO or JIS standard. There are some of the older standards that are but just about all of the new stuff is just company specifications that other companies can use or licence. I know it’s pedantic but for example BB30 is just a open specification that the industry uses. It’s not ISO, JIS, ANSI, ACME or whatever other standards body you want to use. As a specification it actually wouldn’t stand up to a standards certification.

  • Hunter Hao

    I especially like the part where they stole Canyon’s Aeroad design and plugged their phone-cum-bike-stem on top of it

  • Daniel Schmitz

    I find it so odd that they created this data driven product with so much integrated tech… yet there is no power meter included. The real innovation would be shipping a bike of that supposed quality at that price point with a power meter. that would be the game changer the industry would wake up to. It’s such an obvious inclusion on a bike like this that it really makes me scratch my head.

    • Cycling iQ

      I put the question of a power meter to SpeedX – the reply: “I cannot say what we’ll include in our future products, but we know there is a huge demand for it.”

      • MD

        So the company has pretty much told everyone other than beginner level roadies to wait for version 2.0….. Advise taken.

  • Sean Doyle

    I think the bike itself is pretty ugly. Proportions are all out and just looks disjointed. It’s as if they sat down and wrote down all the gimmicks and things companies are using and tried to put them all in one bike. Even having the electronics built in is not really innovative just something a little different. I get why it appeals to some people but those things are the opposite of what appeals to me.

  • Rob Booth

    Such interesting comments. That largely miss the point completely.

    Very first paragraph highlights the target market. Great spec at a good price. Not the 1% who want best of everything. To this end they offer a one stop solution for the new to average rider who rarely has any idea on what to buy. Witness the founders own stories, got fat, got bike to get in shape, enjoyed adding tech.

    In 1989 I bought a custom build 853 frame. Best part of bike was the Cateye cycling computer in the stem. Loved not having a separate mount.

    The model is not to sell to World Tour teams, cat 1 racers or even experienced bikers. As such they have a great chance at growing and succeeding. Who starts out wanting a power meter when starting to ride, FFS?

    • MD

      good point.

  • Janusz Gajos

    “…We didn’t realise it was so complicated,” Li acknowledges. “Each country has different VAT, duties and shipping methods. We also didn’t realise we would have so many purchases from so many countries…”

    I’m out.


Pin It on Pinterest

October 22, 2016
October 21, 2016
October 20, 2016