Stating the Blinder-ingly obvious

December 7, 2012

Knog Blinders

You’re a young company. You’ve designed a pair of bicycle lights. They’re great little units – bright, light, sturdy, and fastened by closing a neat metal clasp around a rubber strap. They’re also affordable. Best of all, you can recharge them by sticking them in a USB port. No more batteries!

So you get the first batch back from the factory, plug them into the back of your computer and… oh dear.

Knog Blinders not attached

You suddenly discover you can’t recharge them both simultaneously. The connectors are stubby and the lights are too big to fit closely together. Why didn’t you notice this sooner?

Obviously I’m speculating on the design process. Maybe the chaps at Knog knew from the moment they put pencil to paper that the Blinder 4s wouldn’t plug in straight out of the box. Perhaps they reckoned I would figure out I needed a couple of USB extension cables for recharging. But it’s reasonable for customers to assume they could just plug them both in, so it’s irksome that you can’t.

The reviews I’ve subsequently come across on blogs (Urban Velo, Pedal Consumption, Bike Soup and FLO Cycling) haven’t mentioned this obvious consequence of the lights’ design. This is because Knog appear to have sent reviewers only one light instead of two. A crafty move?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: