The time taken to deveop a radical design turns out to be quite substantial. I have been developing my latest concept for far longer than I ever anticipated. Thinking that the first prototype would be enough to at least demonstrate the idea, I was frustrated at how long it took to get things working. Truth is, the first prototype never really worked properly anyway. But it still took months to find that out.

Looking back, I think each prototype has takes 3 to 4 months of  'full-time' development; say about 600 hours. Unfortunately, in relation to time resource, this is not the biggest surprise. As I have developed each prototype, I have made significant progress: each one confirms to me at least, that this is a really viable concept and that keeps me going. Here's the rub though; 600 hours for each prototype is one thing but I've built at least five of them and the idea is still what I would call 'in development'. (That's a year and a half of full-time hours, which have spanned about the last five years.)

The greatest risk I believe is not that I'm the only one who really believes in the idea at the moment. I think I'm pragmatic about the effort involved in  developing the idea and its pros and cons. (After 3000 hours in a shed, I could do with an excuse to pack it in.)  I am still quite confident that it is practical - the last prototype gave me a good feeling about that. But, as an inventor, casting my eye over various novel products and markets, I sense that a greater risk than my ergonomic bike being seen by peers as of no practical benefit, is that it may have no commercial impact. I'm not looking for excuses; I just think that inventing a better machine may not guarantee that it will sell. Its almost a reflex response to inventors and invention, "Invent a better mouse trap and they'll knock down your door". Or, "invent a better bicycle and its bound to be a success", to paraphrase someone I corresponded with. I'm not sure I'm convinced about that.