Adam, a few more thoughts on All This -
Is there actually potential for a new product for touring cyclists?
Extending the thread in Padrone's observation: There are examples of existing products which can usefully be tweaked, adjusted, etc.
For example: I've had a lot of problems keeping my rear derailleur in good adjustment for a reasonable length of time (& I seem to be not alone with this problem ... equally, lots of other touring cyclists
don't have the problem, or live with it.) So, I think there's a market for a quality 7- or 8-speed RD, running a wider chain, which is less sensitive to fine (mal)adjustments. But, how big is the market for such a device? Touring cyclists are a minority-within-a-minority, especially so in Canada, for example, and I think also in the US, although as usual, the absolute numbers there are at least ten times greater than here.
For many other products, there's a good item or two available (Arkel, Ortlieb, and Carradice panniers), and often, there's
much more choice of good-quality items than there was even a few years ago.
A further consideration is that, for many touring cyclists, simplicity is one of the most desirable--even
the defining attribute--of a bicycle. (This, even though many of us are gear and gadget freaks...) And,
weight is critical. Thus, Colin Chapman's guideline for Lotus back in the day, still holds for bikes: "Simplify and add lightness". Hence, there's an inbuilt check on complexity, weight, and electronics, the latter being The Avenue of The Day in current automotive design. (The Rohloff is complex, for sure, as well as pricey, so has to offer something special and stay within reasonable bounds of weight, to have a market.)
To answer your question, quoted above, then: No "trick new product" stands out for me. I don't think I've ever found myself saying, "Dang! I wish I had an XXX" (-- aside, of course, from an RD that holds its adjustment.) (And now I think/hope I've found an answer to that issue.)
The changes we might identify, then, are likely to be incremental improvements in existing products. Maybe that's my lack of lateral thinking, or my fairly superficial knowledge of bike design. But, faced with this scan of the horizon, and including Padrone's observations, I find myself doing what I usually do -- checking the premise: maybe we're asking the wrong question? In this case, I think that perhaps we are asking the wrong question. So, rather than looking for new products, better designs of existing ones, etc.--i.e., gaps in the market, or niches that could be better filled--I'd say we need to look beyond "products" narrowly understood.
There
are issues of design that bedevil/confront touring cyclists, for sure. But, from my viewpoint, they're issues of design and investment in transport infrastructure -- and this takes us into Big Issues of political economy, such as the Hegemony of the Car, the critical relations of power and interest among the state, the oil industry, and the auto and trucking industries, etc. The point here is not to introduce things so big that they pre-empt discussion, or so big that you can't solve them in time for your mid-December deadline (!!), but rather to highlight the limits of what market interventions & product design can usefully do to meet touring cyclists' needs & wishlists. Putting it differently: by looking at the broader social and political environment, and trying to act at that level, we may be able to reshape the "enabling environment" for product design related to cycling, and cycle-touring in particular.
I do not for a moment suggest this will be easy or straightforward. Re-thinking The Transport Question in modern capitalist societies will take us beyond what markets can do well--generate products for individual purchase/use/consumption; and a quick scan of public policy around countries nearby, tells me that governments and business seem unable, unwilling, or uninterested to go beyond what markets can do.
Re-working i.e., redesigning and reinvesting in) transport infrastructure, and the cultures of using that, will mean a major commitment of of public resources, as well as private. So, when I think of what a Canadian touring cyclist like myself
really needs, and what would
most allow me to use the exemplary products now on the market (some of which I'm privileged to have), the conclusion I
always reach is: investment in cycling infrastructure. There's not a uniform recipe for that, of course -- the specifics will vary greatly, even in a region like Eastern Ontario, where I live. But beyond my take on things as a regular cyclist, the biggest single reason offered by people here in Ottawa, as to why they
don't cycle, or cycle more, is that it's just not safe enough.
The way I'd reframe the issue, then, mindful of your deadline, and the fact that you're wrestling with the question of (technical) product design, is as follows: If and when we have some serious investment in cycling infrastructure, sufficient to make a qualitative change in the enabling environment for cycling (and in this instance, touring cycling), then we will have a major expansion of the touring-cycling population and market, and with that will come a demand for a much wider range of cycling products. Some of the pointers to that yet-to-be-realized future already exist in Northern Europe; the difference in North America, and in Australia too, will be that the distances are much greater, and population densities generally much less (except for parts of the US). Hence, a redefined cycling culture, infrastructure, and market will have to reflect that.
So, as one who's done his share of social-science research, and at the risk of sounding glib, I think you have a conclusion for your study: "Not a whole lot of demand for trick new products out there in cycle-touring-land, but there
is a major need/wish for a big investment in reshaping the landscape of Transport in Modern Society, literally as well as figuratively; that's where our design thinking should go; and my next research proposal will help to take us there. Read on ..."
Hope this helps, and doesn't just confuse things or create a Great Big Blue Thing with no handles to grab hold of.
Cheers,
John
