Maybe some will start with the basic BuB model, attracted to its styling and relatively affordable price. Then, once they have experience with the realities of commuting or errand running on their BuB, and appreciate the cost of a higher end, more adequately equipped bike, move on up to the kind of bike you think this BuB should be…

The simple economic realities of manufacturing a bike to this price point means that some nicer features will be left off. Like the difference between buying a stripped down car (VW Golf), and one with more features (VW Passat wagon).

Lower entry price will entice more buyers who will hopefully maintain brand loyalty and sometime in the future entice them into higher priced, more well equipped products. If the Bub was spec’d like you think it should be, it would be as expensive as their current models… and why would a company introduce such competition for their own bikes within their own lineup…?

Kevin’s question:
Would it be possible to get this sentence translated into English? Because right now I don’t have a clue what Sean is writing about.

Certainly, it is cheaper and “decontented” compared to other much more expensive models in the Batavus line. That is the point. There are plenty of people who cannot afford to buy a Breuklen etc, but they still want to ride a Batavus because they know that the bike represents good value for the money.

Think of it like this, the BuB is a VW Golf and the Breuklen is the VW Passat. Many current Passat owners started out in a cheaper VW model and worked up the line. The same principle applies here.

Love the John Ruskin quote. I agree. Batavus should leave the inferior BSO market to Wal-Mart et al and concentrate on building quality bikes. Otherwise they are just ruining their reputation and brand name.

A Batavus bike should be able to live outdoors all winter…

In short, Batavus has a reputation for building solid, sturdy quality bicycles. …

That reputation is worth a lot more than $50. That’s a paltry sum compared with what I should be buying with a Batavus bike… Doing that requires a full chaincase, coatguard and dynamo lighting.

It is always possible to save some paltry sum by buying an inferior product. Batavus should not be one of them.

Original criticism was worth noting, this further griping is not. As the actual dealer pointed out: Batavus still has models that will fill the niche you outline; the new BUB bikes are not them.

It would be nice if people would splash out serious cash on a well-built, complete city bike with coat guard, fully enclosed chaincase, and generator lighting. It would be even better if Batavus could bring such a bike to market at this same price point.

But because this is not the case, and because to some customers that $50 will be the difference between this bike and any other with similar specs and price point, I commend them for their fully infomed, cost conscious decision at this price point.

Re: Retaining Batavus Quality

I certainly agree with you, here’s a quote by John Ruskin, which is similar to your statement and which says it all:

“There is nothing in the world that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and he who considers price only is that man’s lawful prey.”

Kevin’s comment:
$50 is a rather insignificant sum of money.

A Batavus bike should be able to live outdoors all winter. Every try to take a bike up a narrow Amsterdam stairway? Many of the stairs in Toronto are not a lot better.

A Batavus bike should last 50 years with minimal maintenance. Including a few years spent in a canal.

In short, Batavus has a reputation for building solid, sturdy quality bicycles. Bicycles that last forever with minimal maintenance and take me to work every day without getting a speck of dirt on my nice work clothes.

That reputation is worth a lot more than $50. That’s a paltry sum compared with what I should be buying with a Batavus bike – a lifetime of trouble-free transportation to everywhere I go. Doing that requires a full chaincase, coatguard and dynamo lighting.

It is always possible to save some paltry sum by buying an inferior product. Batavus should not be one of them.

However, in sunny Phoenix, Arizona, we don’t face those issues. (I don’t even need fenders on either of my commuter bikes.)

Better to have a nice, casual, upright riding position which the BuB would seem to provide.

In fact I think you quickly picked up on the differences between the new BuB and the other bikes in the Batavus line-up.

To address your comments:
(1) The BuB is made of aluminum and is a few pounds lighter (although no featherweight) than the Blockbuster, Frysland, et al.
(2) The BuB is targeted to the “new” bike commuter or someone without the need for a fully decked-out city bike. Hence the reasonable price of $550 for a high quality bike, but without the coat guard, dynamo lighting, etc.

Basically, if a rider desires all of the bells and whistles, they should look to the Blockbuster, Personal bike, Breukelen, etc. according to their needs and buying power.

On a side note, Batavus wrestled with the enclosed chainguard problem … but it would add another $50 to the base price. Instead they opted for the pictured chainguard and the KMC Rustbuster chain. I think this is a reasonable solution for most cyclist’ needs.

And as with any new product, constructive criticism is very helpful.

Bryan