From: jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org
Subject: Re: Metal water bottles?
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc
Message-ID: <5PEka.3943$JX2.305639@typhoon.sonic.net>
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 18:47:29 GMT

Pete Hickey <pete@bitman.uottawa.ca.delete.me> writes:

>>> I'm sure chemists can come up with a non-tasting plastic bicycle
>>> bottle as they have for many drinks from water to fruit juices.
>>> Apparently, the bottle buying public has not made this a priority.

>> One would think the polyethylene terephthalate (PET) commonly used
>> for commercially packaged beverages would be an acceptable
>> replacement for the low and high-density polyethylene (LDPE and
>> HDPE) commonly used for squeeze water bottles. PET would impart
>> less taste than LDPE or HDPE (which are not usually used for food
>> packaging).

>> Maybe there is a business opportunity here?

> It wouldn't make good business sense.  Many people regularly replace
> their bottles as they get older.  Making a bottle that would impart
> less taste, would mean it would last longer, therefore less sales.

That's an old saw that doesn't cut.  The competitive market takes care
of that when there is no monopoly.  In this case it is an open market
and if a taste free water bottle were offered, even at a higher price,
people would most likely buy it.  On the other hand, if Lance
Armstrong was seen drinking from a recognizable brand of bottle,
people would buy it regardless of how awful it tasted.  So maybe the
market isn't as free as it ought to be, the customers having their own
restrictive vision.

Jobst Brandt
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org
Palo Alto CA