Garfield Cat

This web site is interesting. I didn't know they are leasing and also doing roadside assistance. Take a look at the brands they own.https://pon.bike/

mstateglfr 

Pon Holdings owns a handful of quality bike brands, a handful of junk bike brands, has distribution rights in NL to a bunch of high end car brands, and has bought some bike shops recently.
I guess the site is interesting?...you can lease a family commuting ebike in NL or a bike in Germany. Cool, I guess. You can have someone drive to you when you are in NL and have a flat, but cant fix it. Cool, I guess.


The one thing I guess I do appreciate is that Pon hasnt torpedoed any of their quality brands...yet. Cannondale, Santa Cruz, and Cervelo are are still good.
Really though, Pon just directly owns Cervelo, Santa Cruz, some Euro brands, and also owns Dorel Sports. And Dorel then owns Cannondale as well as a bunch of brands that used to be good but were torpedoed in various ways thru the years by being sold and watered down.

Frkl

Even if you're not a fan or regular reader, this is worth it

https://bikesnobnyc.com/2022/10/11/shell-game/

Garfield Cat

It appears that Dorel Industries is the parent corporation of Dorel Sports which owns the various brands including Cannondale. https://www.bicycleretailer.com/indu...s-pon-holdings



MONTRÉAL (BRAIN) — Dorel Industries has completed its sale of Dorel Sports — which includes Cannondale, Schwinn, GT, Mongoose and other bike brands — to Pon Holdings, for $810 million. The planned acquisition was announced in October.

Dorel Industries said the sale will return $390 million to shareholders in the form of a special dividend of $12 per share.

“We are very pleased to have completed the sale of Dorel Sports to a great company like Pon. On behalf of the Board of Directors, I again thank the Dorel Sports team for their commitment to Dorel and their great achievements,” said Martin Schwartz, Dorel Industries' President and CEO.

“We believe that with this sale, Dorel has realized full value for Dorel Sports, for the benefit of Dorel and our shareholders,” Schwartz added.

mstateglfr 

I dont know what I am supposed to take away from that article. Like really, what was Snob's point? As usual, its some good points mixed in with unrealistic expectations that are formed in Snob's mind and applied to others(companies and people).
Seems like an article that expects perfection(Snob's definition of course) and rejects anything less.

Really though, what am I supposed to take away from that? Why isnt is acceptable for a company have the import rights for some car brands and also own some bike brands? Or is the takeaway that if I dislike an oil company sponsoring things, I have to also not use anything from Pon's brands because they have the rights to import some vehicle brands to NL?
...I think the 2nd interpretation is what the take away is supposed to be. If that is the correct takeaway, all I can say is 'meh'. It isnt applicable to anyone that isnt also outraged over an oil company sponsoring something. So given that, the article was far from 'worth it'.

Alan K

In general, I’m not interested in helping holding companies with my money, if I can help it.
But it is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid these global black holes.

Trav1s

I read of the sale months ago - call me crazy but find the idea of a Dutch company purchasing major bike brands a positive thing.

Now we wait...

scott967

If you follow BSNYC at all you know he likes to skewer Bike Advocates who take a holier-than-thou approach to cycling. Or the constant outrage over obstructions in the bike lane, as if obstructions in general aren't just a fact of life for anyone in NY.

scott s.
.

Frkl

It is a satire of purists who show outrage at one thing without self-reflection, yet benefit from something analogous (e.g. blissfully riding a bike from a company owned by a holding company that also sells cars) without realizing the analogy; who live in blissful ignorance of the complexity of the world in which they live, and for which they claim to know what's best. his point is not that it is or isn't acceptable, just that the outrage-class is rather selective and self-contradictory (without awareness of it) in their outrage.

Maelochs

I separate riding bikes from the corporate machinations which involve every product which is sold in numbers over several dozen of by companies with more than a few employees.

Eventually Every One of Us supports, indirectly, things we deplore. Who owns which banks, which corporations do those banks fund? The real estate fiasco of 2008 etc showed that even banks couldn't figure out who held deeds or interest in their own properties ....

Just a joke .... people drove to bike races and crapped on the old Sky team for replacing Sky (who was leaving) with Ineos, which is apparently a petrochemical company .... or drive to those races in electric cars, which over a lifetime probably cause more harm than petrochemical cars ... people rant about global warming on computers, which are not all solar-powered ....

The worldwide web of financing and politics and backroom, under-the-table deals .... when I buy peanut butter I might be funding weapons for terrorists ... or weapons for "freedom fighters" .... (In fact, US taxes were funding death squads in central and south America for a while, and missiles for Iran ) With the complexity of all that, we have no idea who or what we might be supporting indirectly .... I just don't worry about it.

Cervelo makes some bikes I lust over but it they go downhill ... well, I will find other bikes over which to lust. So long as I have working bikes in my garage and can go riding .... i just don't care.

But it is a little bit interesting to follow all the connections sometimes ... so thanks to the people who post this stuff, whatever each of us make of it.

Wildwood 

Support your local bicycle builder. They can use the business.
Co-Motion, Calfee, Tallerico = my 'new' bikes.

mstateglfr 

So it's a passive aggressive layered attack piece that likely goes at some of his own readers. And to make it work, he forces others into being simple in thought and understanding.
He creates a position for others to hols and then he attacks and takes that position down.


That is both complex and basic at the same time.

Alan K

Agreed!

I’m sure someone will soon be along pointing out where do the local builders buy their tubes for creating their frames and other components.
At least something is better than nothing!

Frkl

Yes, you are exactly right, how insightful! He does exactly this!

How outrageous that he constructs and then takes a position that he doesn't believe in, then so outrageously and exaggeratedly argues it, and in fact so much so that he actually shows the absurdity of the position he has adopted! Wow.

I can only assume that you understand completely what satire is: you do something you disagree with to a level of absurdity that suggests to an intelligent audience that in fact your actions are absurd. And thus, an author indicates that he or she disagrees with what they are arguing for.

Garfield Cat

Gee whiz, I did not realize what this would do.

I just wanted to let you all know about Pon Bike.

Germany_chris

He was criticizing the the people getting hot under the collar because Shell sponsored cycling...cause oil

mstateglfr 

The article was linked with a claim that it is required reading about Pon. That, to me, suggests the person is claiming Pon is at fault or frames Pon in a negative light. But the article is just a grumpy guy passive aggressively complaining about how some people dislike oil sponsorship while riding a bike made by a company that also imports ICE vehicles.

I just don't see why that is required reading about Pon. What exactly is Pon doing wrong? What is revealed about Pon?

That waswhybinasked what the point of the article was- because the article doesn't seem like required reading about Pon. Figured maybe I missed something. Ends up it just isn't required reading about Pon.

Frkl

It's probably not even worth pointing out, but the "required reading" bit was also satirical, because in what world would anyone seriously believe that Bikesnob is actually required reading? Moreover, there is an additional level of irony in the phrase because the idea that something is "required" is in fact anathema to Bikesnob's entire world view, whether it is wearing a helmet, not biking in jorts, never wearing cotton, etc. Indeed, he would probably make the point that just because someone called it required, you should therefore not read it, or, if you do, not take it seriously at all.

But again, you are correct that Pon isn't doing anything wrong. That is Bikesnob's point.

mstateglfr 

And this gets back to the problem of such humor when both written in articles and in message boards- it becomes ironic for some and sincere for others. It's just another version of the roadie rules- some think it's serious, some think it's a joke, some judge others for following it, some judge others for not following.
Some take his comments seriously, some take him ironically, some dismiss him as a waste of words.

I vertaiy didn't think motivation for linking thst article was satirical in nature. Who links an article that isn't required reading and is from years ago, and declares it as required reading? That's such an odd thing to do. I think the poster didn't understand the point of the article. But maybe I am wrong, who knows.

Bikesnob articles, like many 'ironic bordering on serious, depending on how I want to be interpreted at any given moment' articles do this- they create confusion and division due the meta nature of the commentary style.




So to sum this thread up, someone just discovered a global bike holding company exists, is impressed they rent and fix bikes in Europe, and some other person apparently posted an article in irony that paints the holding company in a bad light even though it doesn't paint them in a bad light.
Yep, it's a General forum thread for sure.

rsbob 

I know this isn’t meant for everyone, and certainly will hear about it; but the prospect of leasing a nice bike, for those without the means to buy one, is an interesting proposition. Considering the number of people who lease cars, this might be a viable option for some. From a business standpoint it would be interesting to look at the numbers. I would think the market would be very limited and marketing costs might be a real concern.

Lease a nice tricked out Cervelo for $20 to $50 a month? Interesting niche.

mstateglfr 

What I've seen between Chicago and minneapolis(only 2 I've looked before), road bikes rentals are $250-300 per week and are often multiple years old.

If someone could provide a high end Cervelo to lease for $20-50 per month, that would fundamentally change the entire industry.
Lease it for 4 years at the high end of that range and it would be a steal compared to what the market is right now.

rsbob 

It might help the people with ‘new bike itch’ every few years and bring a new revenue stream to bike manufacturers or even LBS.

Lamont Cobb

It's hard to keep up with all the different brands and who owns which brand. As always, caveat emptor, and do your own research.

Polaris OBark

Right on Q

dedhed

I thought this was about PORN bikes - disappointed