|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Seoul Cycle Design Competition Winner
Bike 2.0 takes Seoul Cycle Design Competition prize
By Ben Coxworth 18:06 November 22, 2010 http://www.gizmag.com/bike-20-wins-s...etition/17019/ Short URL http://xr.com/nm9o JR the postman |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Seoul Cycle Design Competition Winner
On Nov 24, 8:02 am, Postman Delivers
wrote: Bike 2.0 takes Seoul Cycle Design Competition prize By Ben Coxworth 18:06 November 22, 2010http://www.gizmag.com/bike-20-wins-seoul-cycle-design-competition/17019/ No chains to clean, but I imagine I'd get killed if I rode anything like that for long. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Seoul Cycle Design Competition Winner
On 11/24/2010 10:02 AM, Postman Delivers wrote:
Bike 2.0 takes Seoul Cycle Design Competition prize By Ben Coxworth 18:06 November 22, 2010 http://www.gizmag.com/bike-20-wins-s...etition/17019/ Short URL http://xr.com/nm9o JR the postman (yawn) Not a bike, just a daydream and a pretty picture. ----- These contests would be a lot more interesting (and have a lot less bull****) if they had to demonstrate at least one complete working example. ~ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Seoul Cycle Design Competition Winner
DougC wrote:
Postman Delivers wrote: Bike 2.0 takes Seoul Cycle Design Competition prize By Ben Coxworth 18:06 November 22, 2010 http://www.gizmag.com/bike-20-wins-s...etition/17019/ Short URL http://xr.com/nm9o (yawn) Not a bike, just a daydream and a pretty picture. Worse than that, there are plenty of technical materials available that explain why the "winner" is a design loser. Archibald Sharp's _Bicycles and Tricycles_, published in the 19th century, explains the shortcomings of the cross-style frame as employed in this bike. And David Gordon Wilson's _Bicycling Science_ has analysis that shows the maximum efficiency of a generator-motor pair to be somewhat less than the minimum efficiency of a poorly-maintained conventional bicycle. Bikes are not new. There has been a lot of design vetting to arrive at the systems we have. Non-cyclist industrial designers almost inevitably make large steps backwards when they seek to "improve" the bicycle, because they are ignorant of the drawbacks of their mistakes (which someone else usually made 140 years ago). These contests would be a lot more interesting (and have a lot less bull****) if they had to demonstrate at least one complete working example. That would be a fine constraint to place on entries to such contests. And then we'd see that most gee-whiz updates to the basic design of a bicycle result in slow, heavy, expensive, fragile, unpleasant riding machines. Chalo |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Seoul Cycle Design Competition Winner
On Nov 25, 7:16*am, Chalo wrote:
And David Gordon Wilson's _Bicycling Science_ has analysis that shows the maximum efficiency of a generator-motor pair to be somewhat less than the minimum efficiency of a poorly-maintained conventional bicycle. I wonder whether the designer could have actually implemented something that was more efficient using a small hydraulic pump and motor? Not that I know much about hydraulics, but I would have thought the efficiency of such a system could be much better than an electric generator and motor, though still way worse than a chain drive. JS. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Seoul Cycle Design Competition Winner
Chalo wrote:
DougC wrote: Postman Delivers wrote: Bike 2.0 takes Seoul Cycle Design Competition prize By Ben Coxworth 18:06 November 22, 2010 http://www.gizmag.com/bike-20-wins-s...etition/17019/ Short URL http://xr.com/nm9o (yawn) Not a bike, just a daydream and a pretty picture. Worse than that, there are plenty of technical materials available that explain why the "winner" is a design loser. Archibald Sharp's _Bicycles and Tricycles_, published in the 19th century, explains the shortcomings of the cross-style frame as employed in this bike. And David Gordon Wilson's _Bicycling Science_ has analysis that shows the maximum efficiency of a generator-motor pair to be somewhat less than the minimum efficiency of a poorly-maintained conventional bicycle. Bikes are not new. There has been a lot of design vetting to arrive at the systems we have. Non-cyclist industrial designers almost inevitably make large steps backwards when they seek to "improve" the bicycle, because they are ignorant of the drawbacks of their mistakes (which someone else usually made 140 years ago). These contests would be a lot more interesting (and have a lot less bull****) if they had to demonstrate at least one complete working example. That would be a fine constraint to place on entries to such contests. And then we'd see that most gee-whiz updates to the basic design of a bicycle result in slow, heavy, expensive, fragile, unpleasant riding machines. Chalo There's an up-side. When 'designers' do these idiot vehicles they are not mucking up the traffic flow with their 'innovations'. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Seoul Cycle Design Competition Winner
On Nov 24, 2:16*pm, Chalo wrote:
DougC wrote: Postman Delivers wrote: Bike 2.0 takes Seoul Cycle Design Competition prize By Ben Coxworth 18:06 November 22, 2010 http://www.gizmag.com/bike-20-wins-s...etition/17019/ Short URL http://xr.com/nm9o (yawn) Not a bike, just a daydream and a pretty picture. Worse than that, there are plenty of technical materials available that explain why the "winner" is a design loser. *Archibald Sharp's _Bicycles and Tricycles_, published in the 19th century, explains the shortcomings of the cross-style frame as employed in this bike. *And David Gordon Wilson's _Bicycling Science_ has analysis that shows the maximum efficiency of a generator-motor pair to be somewhat less than the minimum efficiency of a poorly-maintained conventional bicycle. Bikes are not new. *There has been a lot of design vetting to arrive at the systems we have. *Non-cyclist industrial designers almost inevitably make large steps backwards when they seek to "improve" the bicycle, because they are ignorant of the drawbacks of their mistakes (which someone else usually made 140 years ago). These contests would be a lot more interesting (and have a lot less bull****) if they had to demonstrate at least one complete working example. That would be a fine constraint to place on entries to such contests. And then we'd see that most gee-whiz updates to the basic design of a bicycle result in slow, heavy, expensive, fragile, unpleasant riding machines. Love the invisible front brake though. You gotta give him that, a real break (excuse me) through there. Well, this is like concept cars made for auto shows. A lot of what you see is just out of here, "style" not substance, but that's the game. Maybe there's a pearl or two in the foo-foo. --D-y |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Seoul Cycle Design Competition Winner
Postman Delivers wrote:
Bike 2.0 takes Seoul Cycle Design Competition prize By Ben Coxworth 18:06 November 22, 2010 http://www.gizmag.com/bike-20-wins-s...etition/17019/ Short URL http://xr.com/nm9o JR the postman I have the same feeling about chain drive as Winston S. Churchill had about Parliamentary Democracy, a terrible system until you compare it with all the others. I can just imagine my already miniscule wattage being further degraded by the conversion ineffciencies of this apparently hypothetical setup. Hybrid electric drive works best when a honkin' great diesel is driving the generator as in railroad locos or ships. Gotta love the picture though. It seems that in the twenty-first century we will all get ball joint wrists so we can be comfortably grip a dead straight length of broomstick placed where handlebars are today. PH |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Seoul Cycle Design Competition Winner
Per Postman Delivers:
Short URL http://xr.com/nm9o Gives a whole new meaning to the term "VaporWare". -- PeteCresswell |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Seoul Cycle Design Competition Winner
On Nov 24, 4:02*pm, Postman Delivers
wrote: Bike 2.0 takes Seoul Cycle Design Competition prize By Ben Coxworth 18:06 November 22, 2010http://www.gizmag.com/bike-20-wins-seoul-cycle-design-competition/17019/ Short URLhttp://xr.com/nm9o JR the postman First eight guys above to sneer at this bicycle all have one thing in common. They pray to an obsolete god called Efficiency. I'm afraid that efficiency as the chief yardstick of bicycle goodness has long been discredited by all those grimly unsmiling roadies in their smelly plastic clothes training (for what?) on the roads. It hasn't worked; the bicycle is a minority interest, or the poverty choice people in developing nations can't escape from fast enough. I've had an electronically controlled bike, albeit one depending solely on pedal power and driven by a chain. The chief difficulty with it was the bundling the multiplicity of vulnerable wires. The chief difficulty of the bike that won the design contest is not the frame. New metals and tecniques can make the crossframe, mono- chainstay design work. Chalo built one that was ridable. I rather like the Short-Cross-Concept, with adjustability on two axes by diagonals which automatically match virtual top tube length to inseam length as the seat is extended. Nor is the chief difficulty the losses between the dynamo in the bottom bracket and the motor in the rear axle. The chief difficulty is the small word 'wireless'. What will power these radio sets which connect the two ring controllers on the handlebars to the rear hub and to the optional battery in the seatpost. Batteries? Why? A wire has already been run almost all the way to the ring controllers to power the built-in front light. And that's the next problem, that the handlebars are wretchedly unergonomic, and, because the light is built in, cannot be replaced. No wonder this Swede who designed it has to work in Italy; he could be prosecuted in his home country for the RSI those handlebars will cause. You guys really want to forget to those 1970s ten speed wet dreams and drag yourselves into the 21st century. Lance is retired to lobby for cancer sufferers and fight prosecutors weaned on conspiracy theories. The biggest things holding back the bicycle from becoming everyday transport for almost everyone are, in order of deleterious effect: 1. An American sense of entitlement spelt S-U-V transmitted by Hollywood across the world as an aspiration. 2. Roadies. 3. That oily chain. 4. Drop bars. 5. The fallacy that bicycling is something you do in special clothes. Andre Jute Visit Jute on Bicycles at http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/...20CYCLING.html |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Unicon Xv Logo Design Competition | Ducttape | Unicycling | 5 | May 17th 08 08:21 AM |
Unicon Xv Logo Design Competition | Jkohse | Unicycling | 0 | May 15th 08 11:11 PM |
Unicon Xv Logo Design Competition | Jkohse | Unicycling | 0 | May 15th 08 11:09 PM |
International Bicycle Design Competition | Matt[_5_] | UK | 2 | April 27th 08 11:46 AM |
Unicycle Design/Creation competition. :D | Hazmat | Unicycling | 96 | July 11th 07 04:12 AM |