yeah but what's the point? At this price point alibaba monsters are far more powerful and real bicycles far more bicycle-like. These will sell a 10-20k units and fade into obscurity like Van Moofs and other disruptive bicycles before them.
People typically don't buy big ticket goods from a company named "YACCEEZY" like you might see on Amazon or Aliexpress these days.
It's worth noting that Hyundai had a similar issue when it entered the US market. It was an uphill battle to market itself to convince people to spend thousands of dollars of money on a no-name car brand.
bikes are already highly "modular" in that outside of ebike motor systems you can swap most parts. Bikes like the Rivian in the article would only work if ruggedized and sold to fleets. As a consumer you'd just get something from Specialized at this price point since it won't be worthless in 2 years time.
Agreed that bikes do often exhibit some level of modularity. But attaching a front or back cargo rack or kid carrier gets pretty finicky pretty quick: most e-bikers tend to just buy the (often quite expensive) 1st party gear, because it'll actually fit right.
This bike seems to have only a single major modular system, but it comprises such a massive part of the bike: there's a big stem-post that attaches to the drive unit. Being able to swap that stem-post out for other things allows for really big changes, imo. You could build some really cool really neat different top-sides atop this bike, with really weird cargo or kid shapes.
I would love to see smaller level modularity too. I'm really impressed by the Bronco, and how they've clearly worked very hard to make it a "car as a platform", opening up as much space as they can for aftermarket parts & 3d printing people to build everything from cup-holders/interior fixing to body-panels (dunno the best link for this, but for ex: https://thebronconation.com/more-bronco-modularity-fender-fl...). I see Rivian / Also tapping that energy here in a way that moves far beyond what bikes today offer.
I'm more familiar with racks for front and back. And it feels like those people with a very random assortment of connectors rod-clamps and other assorted hardware are invaluable friends to have for a lot of these installs.
There's usually some kind of screw mounts somewhere, different bikes with different geometries need lateral positioning & control & it feels like >50% of the time what comes with the rack doesn't quite work.
It looks like most of these bike seats assume the bike already has some kind of rack installed. If there's already two horizontal bars ready to go then yeah it should be pretty simple to install: the hard parts done.
I feel like this debate over bikes are modular / no they are not is kind of silly. There is some part swapping, and some affixment points, but these come with great inconsistency across bikes and parts. But much more so than that, it feels like there's such a limited of reconfigurability for most bikes. There's the same bike underneath whatever you do, and the number of serious affixment points strongly limits how you can build up.
The Thule seat clamps to the seat tube. Every normal bike you'd actually trust to hold up a child has a round seat tube. Not the piece of junk in the article, of course.
If you put miles on your bike and ride hills, you'll spend way more time fiddling with an allen/torx on the inboard pad or the adjustment barrel on the cable as your pads wear. The bleeding procedure for hydraulics is for sure messier, but still very doable in 5 minutes. When you do have air in the system, pumping the lever a bit gives you back some braking function.
Article says their recurring cost is $17.5k, they'll spend at least that amount in terms of human time tending to their cluster if they have to drive to it. It's also a question of magnitudes, going from $0.5m/mo to $0.05m/mo (hard costs plus the extra headaches of dealing with cluster) is an order of magnitude, even if you could cut another order of magnitude it wouldn't be as impactful.
What was your infrastructure like? Were the DDoSes affecting you at the application or network layer? I wonder if there's the case to be made for something like CF but integrated into your L4 and L7 LB infrastructure.
CFs single biggest piece of leverage on L7 DDoS is that once a node in a botnet attacks one of their properties, it usually can’t be used to attack any others for a substantial duration. Botnets rely on being retasked frequently so this dramatically reduces their effectiveness. Volumetric DDoS is even worse: you need to have the peering relationships and hardware to handle Tbps of traffic to an IP you announce. Doing either of these in your own infra is not feasible if you’re much smaller than a hyperscaler.
right, CF (along with Google and Meta) is already servicing double-digit percentages of the world's traffic so it can absorb whatever packets you can toss at it. On the other hand, I suspect most services are going to fall over at L7 first due to common patterns like pre-forked ruby/python servers that struggle to process more than 1k qps per node, unauthenticated user actions putting load on hard-to-scale resources like RDBMS, next to no load shedding designed into the system, etc.
