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.
5th March, 2009 @ 6:44 a.m. (California Time)
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.
5th March, 2009 @ 5:01 p.m. (California Time)
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?
6th March, 2009 @ 8:33 a.m. (California Time)
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!
7th March, 2009 @ 2:36 a.m. (California Time)
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.
7th March, 2009 @ 2:21 p.m. (California Time)
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.
9th March, 2009 @ 6:07 p.m. (California Time)
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.
10th March, 2009 @ 1:31 a.m. (California Time)
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.
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.
10th March, 2009 @ 1:43 p.m. (California Time)
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.
10th March, 2009 @ 4:20 p.m. (California Time)
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.
10th March, 2009 @ 7:41 p.m. (California Time)
Evrac ... Good heavens, pardon us for daring to be certain of our product's performance and to rebuke people making wildly inaccurate statements about it.
Undoubtedly we should have bowed to your cycling "wisdom" and set about totally redesigning the product, to make sure it did not differ from the designs you personally consider to be acceptable.
You can undoubtedly tell more about our product than the CEOs and Product Managers of four of the world's largest bike companies with whom we shall be continuing discussions on licensing during the Taipei Cycle Show next week ... and who have obviously tested the product.
At first look, they queried whether the rear wheel might rise ... but then ... THEY remained open to be shown otherwise. Your insistence on somehow trying to "prove by theory" that the front wheel would rise, when it clearly does not, under any circumstances, is quite ridiculous and indicates you have not taken in any of the previous responses we have provided. (There are none so blind ... )
From the emails we are receiving... we aren't doing our company any disservice... maybe surprising some people that we would take such a public stand and bother to answer such rants, but undoubtedly gaining a good deal of respect and empathy from people who have had to deal with similar misleading statements from self-appointed "experts".
10th March, 2009 @ 11:38 p.m. (California Time)
As a marketer I couldn't resist commenting.
As a daily rider, the "energy efficient" claim also made me raise an eyebrow.
What made me raise another was the responses by "Stylyx." At first I hoped that Stylyx was a troll that had taken over the name of the product, and that a reasonable person would show up and delete his posts. Unfortunately it seems that will not happen.
Stylyx, you mention emails, respect, and empathy. I hope that translates into unit sales. I also hope that you hire someone for your marketing and PR, because whether you would like to admit it or not, you are damaging your prospects with your 'style' of response.
Instead of thanking people for their interest, you insult them. Why thank people like Stein? Because they are doing your market research for you. They are telling you, for free, the types of questions and doubts that you are going to have to answer in order to sell bikes.
When people doubt what you say, insulting them and saying, basically, "other people who aren't dumb like you know I am right" doesn't help your case. It makes you look dishonest and unpleasant. Not the type of person people like to give their money to for a product with plenty of competition.
If nothing else, if you find someone like Stein unpleasant, a simple post providing the facts would certainly have been sufficient. Otherwise, you might following your parent's advice: if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.
11th March, 2009 @ 10:32 a.m. (California Time)
Such temper! Anyway, Styl-x, we had such a seat position back in the day. Called it banana seat. It was easy to do wheelies. That was not a wide seat though. Are you doing yours as a gel pack like all the other current wide and soft I see out there? As for pulling the bars, yes, some athletic situations do it. I (and how many others?) don't like to fight the bar in the wonderful share the road realities. I thought that such "leverage" was the reason for toe clips so we could push/pull with the legs only. I reserve arms for steering (see above section re shared roadway)
Don't be harsh for opinions. Others have them. Read the marketing research, each such comment reflects hundreds, thousands of similar "opinions." We know there are armchair engineers aplenty...some are bike designers. I read of one who was amazed when the bike wheels on his tadpole cavitated/collapsed in a sharp turn. Shows people don't know the difference between bike forces and "car" forces.
I'm sorry you had to turn to China for production. Enjoy.
11th March, 2009 @ 6:40 p.m. (California Time)
Internal3m ... in deference to your more balanced comments and stated concern for our image, we provide this detailed response as our final attempt to clarify why we strongly defend the efforts of the people who have contributed to the development of the Stylyx bicycle ... and why we have not been prepared to tip-toe through a public debate to avoid offending self-appointed experts who have made statements like "You are plain wrong" ... "Why lie" ... "It won't go up hills".
The "avid cyclists" comments on "energy efficient" have compared a "behind the cranks" bike to performance road bikes, somewhat like comparing a Lexus to a Ferrari and stating the Lexus is not energy-efficient because it doesn't do what the Ferrari does. Within its category, the Lexus is VERY energy-efficient.
Prospective Stylyx users are people who have never ridden a Ferrari (Road bike) ... and never will. They are seeking a bike that not only provides them with total comfort and healthier support, but one that is far easier to pedal and more energy-efficient than other behind-the-cranks, hybrid, "comfort" models.
The frame geometry of the Stylyx bicycle was developed by an industrial design team who are winners of over 50 International Design Awards, using state-of-the-art "human-scale" software programs to ensure that the sizing and shaping of the frame created rider-positioning capable of producing an energy-efficient combination of pedaling and upper-body effort to propel the bike.
To achieve this, new, patented technology was developed, never before used in bicycle design.
(Stylyx Personal Positioning System) (PPS)
This rider-positioning technology was combined with a patented seat design to produce total comfort and healthy support, exact positioning and angling of the handlebars, very specific sizing and shaping of hand grips and the capacity to finely adjust the seating and handlebar positions to suit even the slightest differences in rider physique. The "drawing board" assessments of the ultimate seating and "reach" positions required to achieve the optimum in pull-back energy-efficiency from a behind-the-cranks pedaling positon were confirmed through rigorous trials and testing.
... now to "hill climbing"... another incorrect Lexus/Ferrari comparison by the "avid road bikers", who are pointing out to prospective Stylyx (Lexus) users, that their Lexus won't go up hills like a Ferrari. In fact, the unique Stylyx frame geometry, rider-positioning and appropriate gearing allows the rider to remain seated whilst using pull-back leverage to ride up all but steep hills, removing the need for the "off the seat" movement forward that recreational riders avidly seek to avoid and which is only relevant to the road bike users when assessing hill-climbing capacity.
That's it for us. We feel that going to this extent to clarify our designers' achievements shall be more than enough to satisfy any reasonably-minded viewer of this exchange.
11th March, 2009 @ 8:49 p.m. (California Time)
Well put, Mr. Andre.
The most outspoken skeptics can become the most outspoken evangelists if they get to try a product and it lives up to its claims.
Stylyx, you have missed out on a golden opportunity here to put Mr. Stein on one of your bikes and let the product speak for itself. Now that would make for some good reading.
11th March, 2009 @ 8:54 p.m. (California Time)
Well Stylyx, possibly you are correct in all your assertions, but having insulted almost all the contributors to this list of comments, I believe that you would benefit from a good marketing course, which would certainly include a quote from the old salesman's bible:
WIN THE ARGUMENT AND LOSE THE SALE!
12th March, 2009 @ 4:28 a.m. (California Time)
It seems I've provoked more than I intended. This revealed, as pointed out by others, that a lacking ability to communicate a message well, can make a small difference in priorities look like a total disagreement of facts.
To me it looks like Stylyx in fact is quite aware that the bike is a cruiser, not meant for efficiency. He is just unable to say that without engaging his pride. I like pride, but not the part of it that results in offensive behaviour. But, I must admit, being an overly proud person myself, I don't get easily offended. Tolerating others behaving somewhat erratic is natural, when I have the same tendency.
I think most of what needs to be said on this topic, already has been. Trying the bike would be what one needed to conclude. I've been travelling, so I didn't see this before now either. But it's too tempting to make another comment, so here I am.
"Pulling ranks": I've worked in the bicycle business for a long time, but don't now. I have been inside the most restricted labs where Trek develop their carbon wonders in Waterloo Wisconsin. I've talked to Lance Armstrong (briefly :-). I'm a (not too close) friend of Gary Fisher, (inventor of mountain biking and considered a bike geometry guru) and have been riding and discussing bikes a lot with him. I am a designer, but not of bikes, yet. I've also built lots of stuff, mostly hands on. Including a two time world champion one off racing sail boat. I do believe I understand some, if not all, of how bikes work.
I see nothing in what Stylyx explains that indicates that my previous post is wrong. I do, as mentioned, notice that he sees my post as a complete rejection of the design. It's not. I really do think it's a nice looking bike, and I really like the seat, and I believe it will be really nice riding it. To sum it up: There's nothing about this bike that I do not like, some things I really like. That should be good, right?
But Gizmag is a place you'd expect to see technically interested people. Texts here must reflect that. My first post was aimed at correcting a false claim in the text. I was not trying to make the bike look bad. I could have done that better. If you work for the company Stylyx, grabbing that opportunity would have been your job. Rather you make it seem like the bike is made by people one would not like to deal with. That though, is something you can easily improve by seeming more adult in your answers from now on. Your last post is an improvement, but still not quite there.
To the original point again: The claim in the text was: Efficient pedalling. No mentioning in what comparison, other than mentioning that the riding position will (correctly) be more comfortable than on bikes with the bent forwards position. Leading to the conclusion that the efficiency claim also relates to these. This still remains a false claim. Why it is, has been sufficiently explained.
I've spent plenty of time on the absolute top class racing bikes in all types of biking, (including once on a prototype of Lance's -05 TT) and still have some standing in my living room. (Apart from being to precious to leave anywhere else, they are works of art, that I think fit very nicely there. Yes I'm a nerd.)
Thus, I think I know a bit about efficient bikes too. You mention TT (Time Trial) bikes: "Are you aware of how much "pull-back" action there is from the Aero bars on a Time Trial bike to produce power?" Well, yes I do know how much. Zero! There's no way you can pull those in the basic TT position. (But if you stand up, moving the hands to the side bars, which almost never happens, it is possible to pull some, as om any bike.)
The riding position on a TT bike is made to be efficient, but with a huge compromise. Air resistance MUST be a minimum since it's working speed is much higher than normal bikes, and peloton wind cover is normally not available. So the TT has an extreme forward lean, (very uncomfortable, to degree it's hard to breathe due to the bend) with the weight much further FORWARDS to gain max power, since it's essentially a sprint bike. The handle bars look like they do because it gives less drag when the arms are close together and reduce projected frontal area.
Stylyx, you criticize others for being self proclaimed experts that know less than they believe. That might be true quite often, but it would be a good thing to avoid such comments if you intend to say things you do not know well yourself. The TT comment elaborated above isn't your only flawed argument. I suggest this discussion is left by Stylyx saying something like:
Sorry that the text in the article was a bit inaccurate and didn't mention that the claims were strictly directed at comparing with cruiser style bikes. (I guess some more would fit in here too.)
I like the bike very well. I do not like misleading comments about it. Users who are non experts deserve explanations that are not prone to misunderstandings. I also suggest Stylyx learns more about communication, or leave that task to someone else. Pros and the actual people behind the stuff communicating on a spot like this, is then a VERY nice thing.
13th March, 2009 @ 4:33 a.m. (California Time)
I went to the website hoping to find video demonstrating climbing hills. No such luck, what's there is your basic sales fare. It seems like a good cruiser bike. The feature design elements aren't particularly new - the main features of the seat are present in the Ergo's SEAT (wide, no horn) or the E3 saddle (flat area under the ischial tuberosities). It's a good assemblage of ideas for that market, though. It'd be well matched with a small hub motor to deal with those hills. A very implementation of step-through design - the masculine-types among us could ride this w/o worrying that it looks like a girls' bike.
15th March, 2009 @ 10:43 p.m. (California Time)
Well, now you're all famous, because I just linked this great expose of terrible marketing to Twitter and Facebook. I actually got sick of Stylyx's unnecessary bashing immediately, but couldn\\'t stop myself from watching the train go over the edge of the cliff. Great, but unfortunately unheaded advice for everyone. You tried.
Good byyyyyyyyeeeeeee Stylyxxxxxxxx
5th May, 2009 @ 9:52 a.m. (California Time)
Well Gary Ares.. we think it is pertinent for us to reveal here just who you are and expose your real motives for trying to denigrate our product line.
Gary represents a competitive product line that has received criticism through various posts for lying, making misleading claims, overstating the product's capacity, attacking the opposition, etc. (see url below)
These posts have undoubtedly not done Gary's reputation as a self-professed "marketing expert" a lot of good, but they should not be cause for posting an emotive, self-serving rant against a competitor.
Gary obviously has no worthwhile comment to offer on the product and chooses to try and attack our motives for defending our product against the erroneous comments of "self-appointed experts", such as he.
We shall continue to stand up for the people who have made the Stylyx bicycle a breakthrough in bicycle design and continue to respond to any ill-based rants of people whose motives are obviously based on self-elevation or promotion of a competitive product.
5th May, 2009 @ 8:50 p.m. (California Time)
I think it's good to exchange ideas and opinions, especially with the relevant people. But please don't make this a competition of who can be the most stubborn. Then I'd rather suggest getting a life. An example:
Writing this, I'm sitting in an old tired looking but cool sailboat on the River Danube, anchored in Linz, Austria. I have a wi-fi connection through the big "Lentos" museum next to us. We left Budapest 2 weeks ago, have been a lot of places, like Bratislava and Vienna. Passau in a couple of days. Amsterdam in about three weeks, and then we'll cross the North Sea, and then...
Life can be quite nice, if you can restrict stubbornness or stamina to where it's useful. It's 2 o'clock here now, so I'll go to bed. Let this thread do the same, but remember the right stuff from it.
7th May, 2009 @ 4:31 p.m. (California Time)
Most people won't get recumbants due to safety and just because it's so different. So I like this concept, a leisure bike. Will it do all that it says? Does Cheerios really make your heart safe???
18th May, 2009 @ 1:44 p.m. (California Time)
I'm actually proud of Stylyx... so many of these threads are just full of amateurish opinions that have no basis in science or reality... but they do undermine a well-thought, well-devised product that has exceptional engineering.
I have no clue whether this bike works, but I do like when we hear from the manufacturer with rebuttals to an off-the-cuff opinion.
There is a fine line on an official reply staying "above the fray" without getting caught up in the fisticuffs. Scientific, well-thought out replies are the best...it's hard to argue with engineering proofs and science. But, once the masses sense rudeness, well then, the dog-pile commences.
There are no apologies or retribution for inance remarks from anonymous readers, but official manufacturer posters are forbidden from being passionate about their product. In fact, there is always the possibility of a competitor poisoning the debate "anonymously" with false statements and rumors.
I would like to see more engineering and science of the system, with some links to articles and math/physics analysis. That usually speaks far more than anything.
PS: play nice everyone!
8th September, 2009 @ 8:50 p.m. (California Time)
Wow.. the comments on this article are the most intense ones i have seen on gizmag.
1st November, 2009 @ 10:02 p.m. (California Time)
I am not any owner of a bike, but I like the idea of getting behind the cranks. i tested one in PA and it was very comfortable.
I also think that Stylyx must be a plant for the [real company Stylyx\'s] competition. This guy would single-handedly chill the sales for Stylyx bikes anywhere he writes or speaks! What an evil thought pattern he has. I wonder how many sales he has nixed?
After reading the posts, i forgot what the question was...LOL
27th November, 2009 @ 8:47 a.m. (California Time)
[Stylyx], your bicycle is truly built for comfort, especially in riding long uphill! [Stein] should better understand first the vast mechanical advantage of inclined connecting-rods setup (as a unit acting like a crowbar or L-shaped lever) in order to appreciate the mechanical efficiency clearly evident here in plain truth and no LIES whatsoever. Furthermore, a much lower transmission gears would not be that important anymore, therefore simplifying the transmission mechanisms for economy models. The dynamic transfer of c.g. forward is simply achieved by pulling the handlebars to ease out the pressure/force to the seat without necessarily inclining the upper torso forward! Again, function-related efficiency is evidently showcased here. In addition, the rider gets a total body workout as the upper body muscles can be quickly involved without even a push of a button! Even more, ergonomics and physiological-related efficiency is achieved, with such technique the rider could effectively transfer/switch body strain from one muscle-group to another to normalize lactic-acid built-up. ([unreallyreal], please tell [Stein] to grow up instead.) As for [nehopsa], he should lean forward or even bring his whole body forward with this bike or any other bike with such upright rider position if the uphill incline is too steep enough, especially when the rider is taller - this bike never has any restraint mechanism for the rider employing such deft maneuver. Also, when crash is eminent, the cyclist has two additional getaway options, that are any of the sides, aside from the regular backward retreat from the seat, as there is no top-tube and seat nose to entangle a leg with.
Anyways, to be able to stand directly to the pedals in perfect balance, better watch another wonderful multi-featured bike I designed/invented partially featured in youtube: watch?v=kcJEbOdsIk0
[Internal3m], gee, I do hope you might help us market these two bikes I mentioned above :-)
3rd February, 2010 @ 9:41 p.m. (California Time)
PROPER RESPONSE IN DEFENSE OF STYLYX PRODUCT
I was compelled to write here so here it goes.
Thank you all for showing interest in Stylyx bikes. We take great pride in our designs.
I see some of you had some concerns. I invite you all to test ride our bikes and put our theories to test for yourselves. I can assure you that you will be impressed...
Bita Kerendian Partiyeli
13th January, 2011 @ 10:40 p.m. (California Time)
I have a back problem. I have a TREK today and it takes me around 15 minutes to go to my work (~3.5km). It is flat for the most part. There is only an 800 m slope that is mildly steep, but not crazy. I am not fast.
Is stylix for me? Will it really help me with reducing risks of back injuries? Will it be a really slower bike that defeats the purpose of using the bike as transport? Can racks be fitted in the back? Can a baby front chair be fitted to the bike?
18th October, 2011 @ 9:59 p.m. (California Time)
I live in the united states and have back problems and would like to know where I can purchase this bike and how much it costs. I will even be happy to be a product tester if needed. Thank you.
25th July, 2013 @ 12:24 p.m. (California Time)
This thread was started more than 5 years ago. I just did a search for "stylyx bike" since it was new to me as of this afternoon. I found no place online where I might buy one, but I did find a pointed comment in a forum in 2006 -- three years before this thread was started:
"I had a chance to see these and try one at Interbike. It was awful. It was heavy, had an unnatural feel, and the seat was designed to be leaned against rather than sat upon. I really like the RANS bikes, and I even think the Electra Townies are surprisingly decent bikes, but this Stylx thing was an abomination. It was generating virtually no interest by the crowd.
"There were plenty of stupid things at the show like the bike that has a walking motion. Or, the belt drive bikes or the elliptical machine emulating bikes, but the Stylx I thought was a strong contender for worst of show. My guess is that they took no orders and won't be around long."
Too bad really. I thought they might actually have hit upon something unique enough and desirable enough to become a big hit, but I guess not.
8th September, 2014 @ 10:44 a.m. (California Time)
Put a decent back support seat on it and it will be a nice comfortable bike to ride. Those stretched bikes are a bit hard to ride without one to support your back when pushing on the pedals. Having to pull on the handlebars has never been a enjoyable way to ride to me.
18th February, 2015 @ 9:22 a.m. (California Time)