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

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.

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.
~

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

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.

James wrote:

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.

I almost, but not quite, bought a hydraulic drivetrain Cannondale
hybrid on eBay that some unfortunate character was trying to liquidate
after spending over $20,000 to build it. By bid was purely for a
technical curiosity rather than a fully functional bike. I was
offered another chance at it when the auction failed. I the end I
felt it was nicer to try to help the guy find a more interested buyer
than to lay down the $600 or so I felt I could justify at the time.

I was warned that the bike exhibited unwanted behavior at more than
modest pedal efforts. I assumed this probably involved ruptured
seals, but I never pressed the seller for more information in this
regard.

Hydraulic drivetrains on earth movers, forklifts and the like are used
not for their efficiency, but for the benefit of simplicity on
vehicles that must have hydraulic power systems anyway for their
lifts, blades, scoops, etc.

Chalo

On Nov 25, 5:59*pm, Chalo wrote:
James wrote:

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.

I almost, but not quite, bought a hydraulic drivetrain Cannondale
hybrid on eBay that some unfortunate character was trying to liquidate
after spending over $20,000 to build it. *By bid was purely for a
technical curiosity rather than a fully functional bike. *I was
offered another chance at it when the auction failed. *I the end I
felt it was nicer to try to help the guy find a more interested buyer
than to lay down the $600 or so I felt I could justify at the time.

I was warned that the bike exhibited unwanted behavior at more than
modest pedal efforts. *I assumed this probably involved ruptured
seals, but I never pressed the seller for more information in this
regard.

Hydraulic drivetrains on earth movers, forklifts and the like are used
not for their efficiency, but for the benefit of simplicity on
vehicles that must have hydraulic power systems anyway for their
lifts, blades, scoops, etc.

Interesting. I googled a bit and found several people have made, or
at least attempted to make real usable hydraulic drive bicycles.
Since none have yet made it big time, I'll assume they'll remain a
curiosity for the time being.

Cheers,
James.

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

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

On 11/24/2010 3:16 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.

Chalo

Well said.