# Shark tank 5/4/12 custom bicycles?



## omnibus (Sep 25, 2001)

Anybody else think the sharks got suckered on this one?

Those "custom" bikes looked to me like spray painted junk yard bikes with minimum customization, maybe chromed handlebars and home made seat covers. Take a bunch of rusty old bikes and paint each a single color then just swap the parts.

$600 my foot. Maybe if they were BMX style bikes. I could be wrong but I think I'm right.


----------



## TheMerk (Feb 26, 2001)

Not a scam. Custom cruisers are all the rage some places, and people are willing to pay big money for a bike that's completely original.

They don't look like recycled junk yard bikes to me: http://www.villycustoms.com/


----------



## GoHalos (Aug 30, 2006)

I didn't pick up at all that these were used bike parts. Was something said on the show that I missed? I thought that these were custom new bikes, which I don't think are that overpriced for a custom bike.


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

I was very interested in the product from the guy who invented rollerblades. I don't think he has figured out the right application for it yet.

I like that the illusion boots came to the woman in a dream!


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

Oh yeah, and the air mattress for your truck - just buy a regular air mattress!


----------



## wendiness1 (Jul 29, 2005)

While I wouldn't pay that much for a bike, I think they're cool-looking and I'm sure there are plenty of folks who'll buy them.

As for the truck mattress . . . why? Who wants to climb into the back of their truck to sleep? If I'm doing anything remotely like that, there'll be a tent involved. At the very least, I'd put a mattress on the ground so I could access it easily not have to climb into the back of the truck and sleep out under the stars. I think this has an extremely limited market. And I'm pretty sure there are already air mattresses that have built in devices to blow them up.


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

I'm really amazed how much money people put into colossally bad ideas like AirBedz... 

I dunno why the Sharks were having such a hard time with ideas coming in a dream. Flying to Turkey on a whim (for business) seemed a bit weird, but at least it spared us from the Sharks whining about something costing too much because it was made in the USA.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

When I had a truck in high school, I had a foam mattress I could put in the back, and with a camper shell, it was a nice place to sleep or "hang out" 

If I still had a truck I'd buy one.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

GoHalos said:


> I didn't pick up at all that these were used bike parts. Was something said on the show that I missed? I thought that these were custom new bikes, which I don't think are that overpriced for a custom bike.


Wait, those bikes are USED parts?
I didn't hear that at all during the show.


----------



## omnibus (Sep 25, 2001)

After further inspection of the http://villycustoms.com website here's a breakdown of the deal.
Prices range from $604 to $1000 +, price difference depends almost exclusively on degree and quantity of colors and the use or non-use of swarovski crystals for decoration.

Frame is steel, no other option available.

Single speed, 3 speed available for around $100 extra.

Coaster brake on rear wheel only.

Shipping is a flat $68 via fedex.

No refunds, strict shipping damage rules.

What a great deal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## GoHalos (Aug 30, 2006)

inaka said:


> Wait, those bikes are USED parts?
> I didn't hear that at all during the show.


No, I don't think so, but the OP seemed to think so, so I was asking if maybe I missed something.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

GoHalos said:


> No, I don't think so, but the OP seemed to think so, so I was asking if maybe I missed something.


Ah ok, I missed that thinking they were announced as used parts.


----------



## GoHalos (Aug 30, 2006)

Now that I re-read the OP, maybe he's saying that you could get a similar look with used parts. I don't know - it didn't seem real clear to me.


----------



## jdfs (Oct 21, 2002)

omnibus said:


> After further inspection of the http://villycustoms.com website here's a breakdown of the deal.
> Prices range from $604 to $1000 +, price difference depends almost exclusively on degree and quantity of colors and the use or non-use of swarovski crystals for decoration.
> 
> Frame is steel, no other option available.
> ...


And they all are the same style. No mountain bikes or anything.


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

wendiness1 said:


> As for the truck mattress . . . why? Who wants to climb into the back of their truck to sleep? If I'm doing anything remotely like that, there'll be a tent involved. At the very least, I'd put a mattress on the ground so I could access it easily not have to climb into the back of the truck and sleep out under the stars. I think this has an extremely limited market. And I'm pretty sure there are already air mattresses that have built in devices to blow them up.


I can definitely see a use for it. Setting up and tearing down camp can take a while. I'd be happy to have a setup like that to be out doing photography. For photography, time is very limited for taking good photos. The last thing I'd want to be doing if I were out alone would be wasting that time packing up camp. Admittedly, that's not a large market, but it's at least one use.


----------



## crxrocks (Mar 30, 2004)

LordKronos said:


> I can definitely see a use for it. Setting up and tearing down camp can take a while. I'd be happy to have a setup like that to be out doing photography. For photography, time is very limited for taking good photos. The last thing I'd want to be doing if I were out alone would be wasting that time packing up camp. Admittedly, that's not a large market, but it's at least one use.


It's also great for hiking. If we are going to go on a really long hike, we'll sometimes sleep at the trailhead the night before.


----------



## DanB (Aug 14, 2001)

LordKronos said:


> I can definitely see a use for it. Setting up and tearing down camp can take a while. I'd be happy to have a setup like that to be out doing photography. For photography, time is very limited for taking good photos. The last thing I'd want to be doing if I were out alone would be wasting that time packing up camp. Admittedly, that's not a large market, but it's at least one use.


something like these?

http://www.coleman.com/products/10079


----------



## Jebberwocky! (Apr 16, 2005)

I just learned my Son is coming back home from AZ and bringing my (well his, soon to be mine again) Ford Ranger - and I think the airbed is a great idea. I have to look for a tent that fits the bed, that would be a killer combo. 

For those of you who do not see the need for a truck bed, you must no do much camping/backpacking or fishing trips.


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

But why can't you just use a regular air mattress? There are plenty of those already on the market.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

I was just going to say if he packaged a really nice looking and functional tent to mount on top of the truck bed, that would be a great combo.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

tiams said:


> But why can't you just use a regular air mattress? There are plenty of those already on the market.


The value added on this one was that it fits perfectly in the truck bed, including making space for the wheel wells, so it's edge-to-edge mattress without gaps around the edges. It's a good idea that makes sense... it's just that the market is really, really small.


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

Hank said:


> The value added on this one was that it fits perfectly in the truck bed, including making space for the wheel wells, so it's edge-to-edge mattress without gaps around the edges. It's a good idea that makes sense... it's just that the market is really, really small.


But you can't sleep on top of the wheel well, so it's not really any more sleeping area.


----------



## Jebberwocky! (Apr 16, 2005)

tiams said:


> But you can't sleep on top of the wheel well, so it's not really any more sleeping area.


who says you can't? The tight fit around the bed is a benefit. The one drawback (per my wife ) is that if you put a bunch of stuff with you you'll have to take it out of the bed to inflate the mattress.


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

Jebberwocky! said:


> who says you can't? The tight fit around the bed is a benefit. The one drawback (per my wife ) is that if you put a bunch of stuff with you you'll have to take it out of the bed to inflate the mattress.


Because there is a big, uncomfortable, hard, uneven, hump underneath you.


----------



## Jebberwocky! (Apr 16, 2005)

tiams said:


> Because there is a big, uncomfortable, hard, uneven, hump underneath you.


so says you - are you positive that there is no padding whatsoever by the wheel wells?

Besides, who would sleep next the to side of the bed?


----------



## Frylock (Feb 13, 2002)

jdfs said:


> And they all are the same style. No mountain bikes or anything.


I figured that was due to their size. They are focusing on a niche market to start, and to meet demand, they need to limit things somewhat.

I was surprised at how many bikes a year Barbara buys!


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

the thing that I see about the custom mattress versus a generic is that with a generic, you'll have big gaps around all the edges, where things can roll off and fall into the gap. Even if the wheel wells are unpadded, it's still a custom, 100% "fitted" mattress, so it won't move around and stuff won't get trapped in the gaps. Like I said, it is a sound idea, just no way to make A LOT of money at it.


----------



## omnibus (Sep 25, 2001)

Frylock said:


> I figured that was due to their size. They are focusing on a niche market to start, and to meet demand, they need to limit things somewhat.
> 
> I was surprised at how many bikes a year Barbara buys!


 Is "niche market" the same as the market where people care more about bright flashy colors than considerations of weight, adequate braking and reasonable prices?


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

For those "Boot Illusions" I would have MUCH better preferred to take FUBU's offer with a licensing fee and free myself up to do whatever else I wanted than Barbara's offer and have to be so involved.

Of course they could have negotiated that royalty fee but she was so enamored with Barbara.


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

pmyers said:


> For those "Boot Illusions" I would have MUCH better preferred to take FUBU's offer with a licensing fee and free myself up to do whatever else I wanted than Barbara's offer and have to be so involved.
> 
> Of course they could have negotiated that royalty fee but she was so enamored with Barbara.


And by the looks of it, the husband was really irritated with the wife just taking the deal without discussing it.

My fiancee happened to be in the room while I was watching and she said this was a really good idea and she thinks it will be a big hit.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

He wasn't the husband, just a "friend/business partner".


----------



## TheMerk (Feb 26, 2001)

omnibus said:


> Is "niche market" the same as the market where people care more about bright flashy colors than considerations of weight, adequate braking and reasonable prices?


You're completely missing the point of cruiser bikes. They're for a day at the beach, a trip to the grocery store, or a ride around the neighborhood.

They're not for tackling hills, so weight isn't an issue. Likewise, you only have the one gear, which limits speed, so a coaster brake is just fine.

In fact, if you did tackle a hill on a cruiser, you'd probably burn up the coaster brake on the way down.

They're for fun.


----------



## Frylock (Feb 13, 2002)

omnibus said:


> Is "niche market" the same as the market where people care more about bright flashy colors than considerations of weight, adequate braking and reasonable prices?


They are NOT going after the bike market. If you want a cheap bike, they are not targeting you. They are targeting people who want to make a fashion statement. It's no different than going to target and buying a $50 handbag or buying a $500 designer bag. They both function the same, but one is about the brand name and recognition. Same with the bike.

As for the boot illusions, I also thought she was nuts to go with Barbara there. Then again, she did get the idea from a dream, and go to Turkey with no plan. I wonder how Barbara will like dealing with her.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

I forget which item it was -- I THINK maybe the boot illusions one -- the onscreen graphic was screwed up. It said something along the lines of "25 cent per item royalty", but it was really a 25% royalty! VERY big difference!


----------



## nataylor (Apr 26, 2000)

Are you sure? A 25% royalty seems really high.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

I'm 99% sure. and it wasn't just a cents vs % sign difference (i.e. typo). The voiceover of one of the sharks said 25% royalty.. Unless someone proves me wrong, but I would bet money that it wasn't a 25 cent royalty.


----------



## Ment (Mar 27, 2008)

lol what the hell was that people powered uni-coaster. If *ANY* investor put money into that then dude is a svengali.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

I looked that guy up, and he and his brother DID invent modern in-line skates (brand name "Rollerblades")

But the Skybike was a total non-starter except for maybe Larry Ellison or Richard Branson who wants another toy in their backyard.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

mattack said:


> I forget which item it was -- I THINK maybe the boot illusions one -- the onscreen graphic was screwed up. It said something along the lines of "25 cent per item royalty", but it was really a 25% royalty! VERY big difference!


I remember Damon saying somethign like "for every dollar that comes in you get 25 cents" and then that graphic showed up. Makes sense in that context.


----------



## nataylor (Apr 26, 2000)

Hank said:


> I looked that guy up, and he and his brother DID invent modern in-line skates (brand name "Rollerblades")
> 
> But the Skybike was a total non-starter except for maybe Larry Ellison or Richard Branson who wants another toy in their backyard.


I could see those things installed at places like resorts. Take a spin around the property. Maybe have an easy and an advanced track for people who just want to sight-see or get a workout. Not a huge market, though.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Regarding the bed thing

I think what really bugged the Sharks (and they've said this before) is that that guy already had a full time gig. That's why his sales sucked and I'm surprised they didn't call him out on it. They don't seem to like people who don't invest 100% of their efforts into their own product.

That makes the guy's refusal even dumber.


----------



## Jebberwocky! (Apr 16, 2005)

he didn't want an investor, he wanted free publicity


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

$600 is not a lot for a quality bike. Not even close. That's just above low-end for anything other than the junk you can get at target. I think I paid $450 for mine and it was the least expensive model they had in the bike store. A really good road bike can run thousands.

However, it might be a lot for THESE bikes, which are of questionable quality from what little I can see.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Jebberwocky! said:


> he didn't want an investor, he wanted free publicity


I totally agree!


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

nataylor said:


> I could see those things installed at places like resorts. Take a spin around the property. Maybe have an easy and an advanced track for people who just want to sight-see or get a workout. Not a huge market, though.


Yeah, I was thinking ski resorts right off the bat.


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

The main "problem" I see with the sky track thing is that there was no way to pass anybody. So if the person in front of you is going slowly, you are forced to go slow as well. It did look fun though.


----------



## GoHalos (Aug 30, 2006)

inaka said:


> Yeah, I was thinking ski resorts right off the bat.


I think the inventor mentioned ski resorts during the presentation and/or the question and answer session.


----------



## GoHalos (Aug 30, 2006)

DancnDude said:


> The main "problem" I see with the sky track thing is that there was no way to pass anybody. So if the person in front of you is going slowly, you are forced to go slow as well. It did look fun though.


This is what I was thinking as well. Especially when he mentioned using this for transportation.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

nataylor said:


> I could see those things installed at places like resorts. Take a spin around the property. Maybe have an easy and an advanced track for people who just want to sight-see or get a workout. Not a huge market, though.


Definitely not a huge market, but it would be cool to see something like this at amusement parks, resorts, etc. but the infrastructure costs involved in building the track and buying the "pods" would be waaaaaaaay to expensive for this to be a moneymaker for the manufacturer or for a track operator.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

DancnDude said:


> The main "problem" I see with the sky track thing is that there was no way to pass anybody. So if the person in front of you is going slowly, you are forced to go slow as well. It did look fun though.


I don't see this as an issue. If you had them at ski resorts, you would likely have multiple turnouts or railroad-like switches, where it could go to outdoor pull-up drive-thrus for food/drinks, vista view areas, lodge access, etc.


----------



## nataylor (Apr 26, 2000)

You could have turnouts or even run two tracks parallel to each other and alternate riders so the chance of a backup is lessened. And I don't see the costs as necessarily being too much. There are resorts that build artificial lakes so they can rent out paddle boats and such. Specifically, I was thinking this would be cool if it ran around the Animal Kingdom Lodge at Disney world, or around the perimeter of a golf course.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

ARGH, trying to prove/disprove the 25 cent/% thing, but they play the ads between every break if you try to jump to another section. NBC and/or hulu seems to only play the ads every number of minutes, so if you try to jump around to see just the very end for example, you only have to watch (or mute!) one set of ads... so I give up for now.


----------



## nataylor (Apr 26, 2000)

mattack said:


> ARGH, trying to prove/disprove the 25 cent/% thing, but they play the ads between every break if you try to jump to another section. NBC and/or hulu seems to only play the ads every number of minutes, so if you try to jump around to see just the very end for example, you only have to watch (or mute!) one set of ads... so I give up for now.


I just checked it on Hulu (only had to watch the opening ads). You're right. He says "For every dollar that comes in, you'd get 25 cents." And the graphic says 25 cents per unit sold. A 25% royalty is a heck of a good deal for no ongoing work.


----------



## DanB (Aug 14, 2001)

Jebberwocky! said:


> he didn't want an investor, he wanted free publicity


well, not quite free


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

nataylor said:


> I just checked it on Hulu (only had to watch the opening ads). You're right. He says "For every dollar that comes in, you'd get 25 cents." And the graphic says 25 cents per unit sold. A 25% royalty is a heck of a good deal for no ongoing work.


It's a great deal if you're reasonably confident that the party keeping the 75% will be able to make the product wildly successful. But it's very difficult for an entrepreneur to give up 75% of their "baby" and let someone else have control and then just hope the money will be there on the back end. For many of these inventors/entrepreneurs, feeling like you're in charge of something successful is at least as important (and sometimes moreso) than just getting rich.


----------



## nataylor (Apr 26, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> It's a great deal if you're reasonably confident that the party keeping the 75% will be able to make the product wildly successful. But it's very difficult for an entrepreneur to give up 75% of their "baby" and let someone else have control and then just hope the money will be there on the back end. For many of these inventors/entrepreneurs, feeling like you're in charge of something successful is at least as important (and sometimes moreso) than just getting rich.


Sure. But I think some of these people, especially the ones with no industry experience, are deluding themselves if they think they can make the product more successful than the sharks that are experts in the industry, like Daymond. And obviously, by taking a $100,000 75% stake in the product, Daymond would have some motivation to make sure then product is successful (it's not like they're buying these up to kill them off). Also, Daymond wanted just boots. They would have had $100,000 plus 25% on boot licensing to invest in the rest of the business.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

nataylor said:


> Sure. But I think some of these people, especially the ones with no industry experience, are deluding themselves if they think they can make the product more successful than the sharks that are experts in the industry, like Daymond. And obviously, by taking a $100,000 75% stake in the product, Daymond would have some motivation to make sure then product is successful (it's not like they're buying these up to kill them off). Also, Daymond wanted just boots. They would have had $100,000 plus 25% on boot licensing to invest in the rest of the business.


Oh, I totally agree that they made a bad decision. I was just trying to explain the thought process these people go through. They're not just trying to come up with a way to make money. They've become emotionally attached to their creation and they want to be involved and in control all the way to the end.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> Oh, I totally agree that they made a bad decision. I was just trying to explain the thought process these people go through. They're not just trying to come up with a way to make money. They've become emotionally attached to their creation and they want to be involved and in control all the way to the end.


Exactly...and many people have fallen into this trap. I've seen the Sharks tell them straight up: You won't have to do anything and will just get checks in the mail, then you can go do whatever else you want to do.

That sounds AWESOME!!!


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Also, the 25% royalty was ONLY on the one product, right? Of course, the rest of their products were probably worthless, but still...


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Do I remember that Robert actually invested in something? Didn't he go in with Cuban on something?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

pmyers said:


> Do I remember that Robert actually invested in something? Didn't he go in with Cuban on something?


I think that was at the end of the previous episode, where Cuban and Robert each got 20% of Lollacup for $50k.


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

I just bought one of the Lollacups. I can't believe that no one had thought of a weighted straw before. They need to expand the market to adult beverage cups  Brilliant!!!

ETA: It was $20 CDN...I think I saw them for $16 on a US site. I guess their original price point of $10-12 didn't fly with the Sharks.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

I was just thinking back to how much I disliked when Foxworthy was on the show /shudder


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

btw I did buy one of those beer sleeve coolers for golfers from the guy on the show in a past season. It was actually 2 for 1 and I gave one to a buddy.

It was a shame the Sharks didn't realize how many "hackers" sneak beers onto a golf course! lol


----------



## GoHalos (Aug 30, 2006)

pmyers said:


> It was a shame the Sharks didn't realize how many "hackers" sneak beers onto a golf course! lol


From what I can remember about that episode, it wasn't so much that they didn't realize the number of people that do it, but that they didn't want to be part of a "rule-breaking" product.

Just about every golf course has a rule against brining outside beverages onto the course. Some don't enforce the rule as much as others, but that's another conversation. Now, don't get me wrong, my friends and I will sneak a few beers onto the course as well. I think the Sharks just didn't want the bad publicity/liability, etc.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

GoHalos said:


> From what I can remember about that episode, it wasn't so much that they didn't realize the number of people that do it, but that they didn't want to be part of a "rule-breaking" product.
> 
> Just about every golf course has a rule against brining outside beverages onto the course. Some don't enforce the rule as much as others, but that's another conversation. Now, don't get me wrong, my friends and I will sneak a few beers onto the course as well. I think the Sharks just didn't want the bad publicity/liability, etc.


I see your point and they may be true, but I specifically remember the sharks saying something like "If I'm going to spend $200 on a round of golf then I'm going to enjoy an expensive brandy. I don't understand why somebody would sneak beers" or something like that. Or I just could be remembering it wrong.


----------



## GoHalos (Aug 30, 2006)

pmyers said:


> I see your point and they may be true, but I specifically remember the sharks saying something like "If I'm going to spend $200 on a round of golf then I'm going to enjoy an expensive brandy. I don't understand why somebody would sneak beers" or something like that. Or I just could be remembering it wrong.


I just checked it on Hulu, and the first comment out of Robert's mouth was, "There is no course out there that will let you bring your own beverage. You know that." The Sharks were also concerned about that the coolers were not very unique and, as you said in your prior post, have a limited market. They basically said it was a terrible idea. Kind of harsh, actually. I think there is a market for it, as I've seen other products out there to sneak alcohol onto the golf course for many years (i.e., the hollowed-out fake driver with a tap).


----------

