What driving factors behind up-tilted metal tube folding chairs?

Approximately a decade ago, I picked up some commodity folding chairs. The very pedestrian ones, black metal tubing with thinly padded seat and back. I thought that these would always be obtainable at marginal cost. They w ere basically magic -- super light, easy to reposition, and when folded awa y, they take no space at all.

Over the past 10 years, I've found that all such chairs are being designed with a noticable upward tilt, with the front elevated. This is terrible if you have back issues. For the black tubular ones, I have not found any ex ceptions, and I've spent weekends looking.

This modification is baffling in a number of ways. First, it doesn't seem to save any production costs. Second, the design oddity seems to have comp letely taken over all the entire market for such chairs. How is it possibl e that *every* *single* instance of such a product from every retailer in t he past ten years has adopted this design and abandoned "normal" design (no tilt)? This suggests that there must be some driving motivation for the d esign, which leads to the third bafflement. It doesn't seem to contribute anything functionally, and in fact, it aggravates back problems.

I'm a believer that there is always a rational explanation for how markets behave, but this lasting whole-sale change seems to defy that. Wondering i f there's something blindingly obvious that I'm missing, or whether there s ome dynamic to this market that is little known to outsiders.

Reply to
andymhancock
Loading thread data ...

On 04-Sep-17 12:54 PM, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote: ...

...

I'd guess it's that they're all the same chair made in the same Chinese factory just sold by different retailers and it's purely cost-driven of cheapest source.

Reply to
dpb

That possibility crossed my mind. But it still seems nonsensical. Even if it was made by one manufacturer, they must have been responding to some ki nd of impetus in order to expend the resources to modify the design so that it tilts upward. There doesn't seem to be a cost motive, nor does there s eem to be a motive in terms of functional benefit. On the contrary, it's a functional negative.

Reply to
andymhancock

Possibly it transfers some of the person's weight to the back making the chair stronger.

Reply to
edsamson60062

... gotta have that 1/2 ton rating ! in a folding chair.

formatting link

.. for the obesity problem

John T.

Reply to
hubops

On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 7:10:59 AM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@ccanoemail.ca wro te:

chair stronger.

OK. Thanks. Never thought that they may be deliberately make it uncomfort able to force people to lean on the back. So whereas the chair was generic before, it is now only good for members of an audience, i.e., bad for use at a desk, bench, or table (where leaning back prevents you from doing anyt hing at the desk, bench, or table). And of course, that makes a lot of fin ancial sense, since you sell way more audience chairs than chairs for indiv idual use.

It's all very perverse.

Reply to
andymhancock

Yep .. I know that if I was a chair manufacturer - my business model would be based on making an uncomfortable chair. Also - if I were a venue manager - my thoughts on purchasing folding chairs would be - buy the uncomfortable ones ! Duh. John T.

Reply to
hubops

On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 9:02:13 AM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@ccanoemail.ca wro te:

You missed the crucial detail that they make it uncomfortable to force peop le to sit back and lean against the back. Then is stops being uncomfortable , and if the posts til now have been on the right track, it makes the chair meet some kind of weight threshold. Sitting back is great for an audience . Not so great if you need to work in front of you on a desk, bench, or ta ble.

Reply to
andymhancock

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.