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.

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

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

Per Postman Delivers:
Short URL
http://xr.com/nm9o

Gives a whole new meaning to the term "VaporWare".
--
PeteCresswell

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