Stein March 5, 2009 11:44 AM This is a nice looking city cruiser bike, and it's got good stuff to it, but especially one claim cannot be left as is: "The Stylyx positions the rider lower and well behind the pedals to produce an energy efficient pedalling position making pedalling easier." This is just plain wrong. This position feels comfortable and easy when only very light power is needed. It's like sitting on a chair. But if there's even a slight ascent, requiring a bit more strain on the legs, this position will feel inconvenient and be clearly inefficient. Try stepping on someone's toe. To make it hurt, do you lean away with your leg stretched forwards, or do you put your weight over your foot. :-) On this bike, riders will stand up much earlier than on bikes where the rider weight is positioned above the pedals. Partly because in steeper hills, you'd lift your front wheel if you don't get some weight forwards. Also, this position will of course make the wind resistance considerably worse than more forward leaning ones. I've never tried the kind of seat this bike has, short and wide, taking the load off the crotch and loading the buttocks instead, but I think it's a very good concept. So good in fact that I've considered for some years to build something of that type myself. Conclusion: The bike looks nice and is probably very comfy at low speed in urban areas that don't resemble San Francisco. But please don't lie when trying to promote your product. "Efficient" is a word to avoid when talking about this one. stylyx March 5, 2009 10:01 PM Stein, it is you who is "plain wrong". Your comment that you have "considered for years to build something similar myself" indicates you are another self-appointed "great designer" who has never designed anything at all. Your summation of what "efficiency" is in propeling a bicycle reveals your limited knowledge of the leverage factors involved in each of the varying positions bicycle riders use with different bike styles and riding conditions. Your comment about "stepping on someone's toe", is quite a ridiculous analogy. Moving the rider's weight forward over the pedals is applicable to "road" bikes and mountain bikes, becaue of the pedaling posiiton, but in the case of a "behind the cranks" pedaling position like the Stylyx, the rider remains seated and uses pull-back leverage from the handlebars to create very efficient and effective power, as is the case with recumbent bikes, the most efficient power-producing bike design of all. Please refrain from making such ill-based and inaccurate comments. nehopsa March 6, 2009 01:33 PM Stein is OK: if you sit BEHIND the rear axis and sit there UPRIGHT then your point of weight is there. If you go on a steep incline you cannot compensate by "falling forward" (the principle of keeping balance in bike riding with just two (or one) point of contact with the ground) as you move much too slow and do not "fall forward" far enough. This is NOT a recumbent with rear wheel axis behind you. Without support behind your back, with your center of gravity back there, you MUST lean forward to compensate. Or rewrite the laws of physics.The mechanics of recumbent riding (even if it IS more efficient) is irrelevant here to keep your balance.(Or prove me wrong by the way of experiment. Have your already ridden this bike on a steep incline yourself? Anybody here? Without leaning forward???)Stein made a polite comment. Why such a reaction? He has his opinions. What else is this discussion page about? TexByrnes March 7, 2009 07:36 AM Strikes me that the first two comments are unnecessarily offensive. Stein calling stylyx a liar, and stylyx throwing his toys out of the pram in defending his erstwhile interesting and well thought-out concept. Takes the shine off the whole report doesn't it? Thank goodness for nehopsa! stylyx March 7, 2009 07:21 PM nehopsa ... Stein did not offer an opinion or make a "polite comment". He made an unequivocal statement as if he was an expert. A ststement that was totally wrong and showed little respect for the industrail designers, engineers and test riders who have participated in developing this product. Unfortunately, your comments are also incorrect. There was no reference at all to "keeping balance" and the rider DOES NOT have to "lean forward" to produce power in abehind-the-cranks bike. No need to "change the laws of physics" . The power is created throuigh pull-back leverage from the handlebers whilst pedaling forward. Yes .. of course the bike has been ridden up steep inclines, very successfully, whilst using pull-back leverage from the handlebars and with the rider remaining seated. The reaction is in respect for the people who have been part of developing this bike, who can do without "expert" options that are totally inaccurate. Evrac March 9, 2009 10:07 PM After reading these comments I felt I had to register just to comment on this. I'm a Mechanical Engineer and avid cyclist.Yes the bike will be comfortable, no sore back or bum, etc. No it will not be more efficient then a traditional bike.This claim: "The Stylyx positions the rider lower and well behind the pedals to produce an energy efficient pedaling position making pedaling easier." is misleading and/or false.Easier than what? If by easy you mean "relaxing" that may be true, but not for hill-climbing. When a cyclist stands up their whole body weight is transferred to the leading pedal. With this bike, to achieve the same force you must engage your arms in this "pull-back" motion you describe. This is not "Easier" by any stretch of the imagination. I am also convinced that on a steep climb, while sitting and pulling back, as you describe, that the front wheel would be very close to lifting off the ground. Try it with a tall overweight man, so that the seat is set fairly far back, the center of gravity well behind the rear axle, and then try to climb a hill seated without tipping over backwards.stylyx, you've been very unprofessional and rude in replying to the polite and constructive comments of others. Stein had some nice things to say about your bike, but I agree with him: it's not more efficient than a high-end road bike, or even a flat-bar commuter type bike. It's a comfort bike, for casual rides to go get coffee on flat ground. Let's call a spade a spade.If it was, in fact, more efficient, don't you think more bikes would look like this? Sure there are others, like Electra, with their "flat-foot" concept. Those, and yours', look like great bikes to get people back out onto bikes, but lets be honest, and polite. stylyx March 10, 2009 05:31 AM evrac... this may come as a shock, but almost all bike companies get numerous suggestions from “avid-cyclist/engineers”, who seem to think their “cycling/engineering” credentials make them experts in bicycle design and performance. Unfortunately not. No … the front wheel does not come close to rising off the ground when going up a steep climb, as the rearward position of the rider’s weight does not provide leverage to raise the wheel at all… even when deliberately trying to do so.The combination of beneficial leg angle, unhindered pedaling action and pull-back leverage from the handlebars definitely DOES provide an energy-efficient and easier pedaling action for bikles in this category. Using the combined effort of the legs and upper-body is far more effective than using the legs alone. (Are you aware of how much “pull-back” action there is from the Aero bars on a Time Trial bike to produce power?) You state … “Its not more efficient than a road bike”. Are you seriously suggesting that the riding action of “performance” bike riders is what should be used by recreational cyclists ? We have not been unprofessional in our responses at all. We have chosen to deal sharply and clearly with persons who have made outrageously incorrect statements. We do agree on being honest. And we never fail to be polite to anyone making an informed criticism or comment … but we do draw the line with people who appear to be self-appointed experts making wild and inaccurate statements. unreallyreal March 10, 2009 05:43 PM Wow, stylyx, really?: "We have chosen to deal sharply and clearly with persons who have made outrageously incorrect statements."You yourself have made outrageously incorrect statements so maybe you should be attacking yourself. In your response to Stein you state: "Your comment that you have "considered for years to build something similar myself" indicates you are another self-appointed "great designer" who has never designed anything at all."Do you have any material to support this insulting response to Stein? No, you don't, Stein could in fact be a great designer who has designed many things, maybe even a product you own. Is that not possible? Yes, it is, by the way.Instead of dealing "sharply and clearly" with "persons" maybe you should be a product evangelist instead of a product nazi. You're certainly not going to sell bikes with the crap you're spewing.If anyone was actually going to buy a stylyx do you think they'd really care about all the engineering comments that have been made? No, they would buy it because they are not a serious cyclist and want a comfortable bike and live somewhere without hills. Shoot, I might have considered buying one for my girlfriend had it not been for your outright attacks on other commenters.Grow up!P.S. That bike looks really fun to ride. I'd love to have a go at popping some wheelies, looks to be easy as it reminds me of the old banana seat bikes that had wheelie bars and you sat directly over the rear tire. stylyx March 10, 2009 08:20 PM Wow unreallyreal … no rational input to try and refute anything we have presented ? Just unbased claims and personal rants ! Its clear that it has distressed you to see a product developer refuse to put up with unfounded statements by would-be experts, rather than allow such ill-based comments go unanswered. We cannot help with your personal distress … and even when commenting on technical, design or performance issues, providing some level of knowledge and rationale is essential to gain a suitable response. Evrac March 10, 2009 11:41 PM Wow stylyx, you never cease to amaze. With each reply you become more defensive and rude. How can you so easily refute the engineering knowledge of someone you've never met? I'm the owner and designer of a bike component company, and have been designing frames and components for over 15 years. There seems to be two clear areas where there is dispute over your claims.1) That the bike is more efficient. Well, where is your proof? What scientific data have you collected on the subject? What measure of efficiency? Calories per km per percent incline? Aerodynamic drag? KW/hours? It's a pretty tall claim to back up. You really must allow us some skepticism. 2) That the bike won't tip over backwards. I'll make my claim again. Adjust the seat all the way back to suit a tall overweight man. Now if that man tries to climb a steep hill without leaning forward his center of gravity will be very close to the rear axle, if not behind it. Your comparison to recumbent bikes also doesn't apply because their rear wheel is much farther back and also because recumbents are very bad at climbing hills. That is why they require such low gearing.Anyways, my real point is that you are doing your new company a disservice by rudely dismissing the questions of others. Instead of replying with data or proof of your claims, you reply with statements about how we are all misinformed and undereducated and must defer to your vastly superior knowledge of bicycle design.