Bicycle Design Competition Concludes: Seattle Wins

On 8/20/2014 6:55 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 11:30:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Continuation...

Those contests seem pretty challenging. At this point in history,
significantly improving the bicycle is a lot like trying to
significantly improve the pocketknife.

I presume you've been ignoring my random postings of "concept" bicycle
designs.

No, I actually do read your posts and click your links.

Like most design concepts, they are futuristic, impractical,
weird looking, unbuildable, and unsellable. What I suspect you're
missing is that they don't try to generally improve the bicycle.

Honestly, I think the objective of the "design" exercise has little to
do with actually improving the bicycle, much like the objective of a
painting is not to produce better canvas. The artist/painter uses the
canvas as a medium to express his creativity, his concept of beauty,
etc. The bike designer uses the bicycle as a medium to demonstrate his
creativity and his capacity to innovate.

And as we know, if it's "innovative" it _must_ be good! Stodgy old
designs that merely work extremely well don't get the same adulation.

These guys seem to be doing the same, attaching built-in locks, racks,
lights, fenders (or water scrapers? What's with that??). Or at least
providing easy attachments for their proprietary accessories. Not a bad
idea if the built-in stuff works well, I guess; but a bit risky for the
consumer, who has to hope proprietary stuff will remain available.

Yeah, that's a potential problem. Whether it's worth solving is
debatable. You could assemble a standards organization to establish a
mounting hardware standard, that would fit any bicycle bolt on
accessory. That should promote interoperability and produce some
really strange looking bicycles.

Heh. Regarding standards organizations: When I taught a class in
robotics, one oft-used test question was something like "True or False:
The ANSI standard robot wrist allows almost all end effectors to easily
attach to almost any robot."

False, of course. Even in that then-new, technically sophisticated
industry, every manufacturer had its own idea for bolt circle size,
center boss size, thread dimensions, etc. ANSI had nothing to say about
it. We had to machine adapters for each brand of robot and gripper.



I'm a bit skeptical of the trendy electronics, though. My bikes last
for decades.

If it weren't for the obvious product liability implications, I'm sure
the bicycle vendors would be more than happy to reduce the useful life
of the bicycle through incompatibility innovations and wear
enhancement. I'm rather surprised that the bicycle industry hasn't
followed that of the automotive industry, which has the same problem.
They can't really build a vehicle that falls apart too quickly as that
would be unsafe.

I'm sticking it to the man. My Honda station wagon turns 25 next year.
My BMW motorcycle and my utility bicycle are 42. My touring bike is
28. Take that, you evil industrialists!

--
- Frank Krygowski

Portland won in the Portland Class....as did the other entries.

Seattle spent $$$ building the S Bike.

and even if graded down...costs $$$

poor people ride bicycles. People in Seattle drive $200000 Porsches to work.

we have a problem in design perspective here for goods headed to market.

butbutbut the elements are on the front line for uh what would you call it ?

UTB ? no that won't settle...

an enclosed belt drive 3/4/5 speed with long distance brakes cables grips.
a wheel lock.

addon extras like Chevrolet..need 4 wheels...add 785......without compromisering the basic concept which is ...?

all lock locks doesn't compromise

front wheel drive does yet FWD may be optimal for commuter commuters but where's the market.

I find cargo bikes very intriguing but will I buy one ? unlikely.

Seattle's design concept strides into that mobile platform device area.

sports commuting

commuting commuting

shopping commuting

shopping shopping

426 hemi coronet with stock car suspension

turbo Saab

VW Tuareg/Synchro et al

Japanese established a standards procedure. I have looked but not found the outlines. Bicycles are now reliable and durable given adequate maintenance

Design concepts presented here stretch credibility there

say one thing fersure, the contest makes the unseen CW wheel look good on paper

where the hell izzit ?

On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 8:21:59 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Portland won in the Portland Class....as did the other entries.



Seattle spent $$$ building the S Bike.



and even if graded down...costs $$$



poor people ride bicycles. People in Seattle drive $200000 Porsches to work.



we have a problem in design perspective here for goods headed to market.



butbutbut the elements are on the front line for uh what would you call it ?



UTB ? no that won't settle...



an enclosed belt drive 3/4/5 speed with long distance brakes cables grips.

a wheel lock.



addon extras like Chevrolet..need 4 wheels...add 785......without compromisering the basic concept which is ...?



all lock locks doesn't compromise



front wheel drive does yet FWD may be optimal for commuter commuters but where's the market.



I find cargo bikes very intriguing but will I buy one ? unlikely.



Seattle's design concept strides into that mobile platform device area.



sports commuting



commuting commuting



shopping commuting



shopping shopping



426 hemi coronet with stock car suspension



turbo Saab



VW Tuareg/Synchro et al



Japanese established a standards procedure. I have looked but not found the outlines. Bicycles are now reliable and durable given adequate maintenance



Design concepts presented here stretch credibility there



say one thing fersure, the contest makes the unseen CW wheel look good on paper
where the hell izzit ?

a review

http://www.wired.com/2014/08/teague-...-utility-bike/

On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 8:43:38 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 8:21:59 PM UTC-4, wrote:

Portland won in the Portland Class....as did the other entries.







Seattle spent $$$ building the S Bike.







and even if graded down...costs $$$







poor people ride bicycles. People in Seattle drive $200000 Porsches to work.







we have a problem in design perspective here for goods headed to market.







butbutbut the elements are on the front line for uh what would you call it ?







UTB ? no that won't settle...







an enclosed belt drive 3/4/5 speed with long distance brakes cables grips.



a wheel lock.







addon extras like Chevrolet..need 4 wheels...add 785......without compromisering the basic concept which is ...?







all lock locks doesn't compromise







front wheel drive does yet FWD may be optimal for commuter commuters but where's the market.







I find cargo bikes very intriguing but will I buy one ? unlikely.







Seattle's design concept strides into that mobile platform device area.







sports commuting







commuting commuting







shopping commuting







shopping shopping







426 hemi coronet with stock car suspension







turbo Saab







VW Tuareg/Synchro et al







Japanese established a standards procedure. I have looked but not found the outlines. Bicycles are now reliable and durable given adequate maintenance







Design concepts presented here stretch credibility there







say one thing fersure, the contest makes the unseen CW wheel look good on paper


where the hell izzit ?

a review

http://www.wired.com/2014/08/teague-...-utility-bike/

cockpit door syndrome

http://goo.gl/WwkGdG

On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 5:10:10 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/20/2014 6:55 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 11:30:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski

wrote:



Continuation...



Those contests seem pretty challenging. At this point in history,

significantly improving the bicycle is a lot like trying to

significantly improve the pocketknife.



I presume you've been ignoring my random postings of "concept" bicycle

designs.



No, I actually do read your posts and click your links.



Like most design concepts, they are futuristic, impractical,

weird looking, unbuildable, and unsellable. What I suspect you're

missing is that they don't try to generally improve the bicycle.



Honestly, I think the objective of the "design" exercise has little to

do with actually improving the bicycle, much like the objective of a

painting is not to produce better canvas. The artist/painter uses the

canvas as a medium to express his creativity, his concept of beauty,

etc. The bike designer uses the bicycle as a medium to demonstrate his

creativity and his capacity to innovate.



And as we know, if it's "innovative" it _must_ be good! Stodgy old

designs that merely work extremely well don't get the same adulation.


OTOH, many legitimate advances have started as "concepts." Personally, I wait about five product generations before buying. I can't remember when being an early adopter actually paid off. I'm still sore about buying first generation Goretex and all the incandescent lighting systems I have sitting around in the basement. I feel sorry (sort of) for the guys who bought Mektronic.

I could see the locking handle bar trickling down, and e-bikes are already here. The "wiper" fender seems like a non-starter in a real rainstorm. My perfect bike would have stadium lighting and not a bunch of one-watt LEDs. I think turn signals are dopey, but hey, maybe I'm just a Luddite and they're the next big thing.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 9:04:56 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 5:10:10 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/20/2014 6:55 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:



On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 11:30:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski



wrote:







Continuation...







Those contests seem pretty challenging. At this point in history,



significantly improving the bicycle is a lot like trying to



significantly improve the pocketknife.







I presume you've been ignoring my random postings of "concept" bicycle



designs.







No, I actually do read your posts and click your links.







Like most design concepts, they are futuristic, impractical,



weird looking, unbuildable, and unsellable. What I suspect you're



missing is that they don't try to generally improve the bicycle.







Honestly, I think the objective of the "design" exercise has little to



do with actually improving the bicycle, much like the objective of a



painting is not to produce better canvas. The artist/painter uses the



canvas as a medium to express his creativity, his concept of beauty,



etc. The bike designer uses the bicycle as a medium to demonstrate his



creativity and his capacity to innovate.







And as we know, if it's "innovative" it _must_ be good! Stodgy old



designs that merely work extremely well don't get the same adulation.





OTOH, many legitimate advances have started as "concepts." Personally, I wait about five product generations before buying. I can't remember when being an early adopter actually paid off. I'm still sore about buying first generation Goretex and all the incandescent lighting systems I have sitting around in the basement. I feel sorry (sort of) for the guys who bought Mektronic.



I could see the locking handle bar trickling down, and e-bikes are already here. The "wiper" fender seems like a non-starter in a real rainstorm. My perfect bike would have stadium lighting and not a bunch of one-watt LEDs. I think turn signals are dopey, but hey, maybe I'm just a Luddite and they're the next big thing.



-- Jay Beattie.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

no rear and side view visor tv ?

are you googleized ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StkJTSAq0dE

On 8/20/2014 9:04 PM, jbeattie wrote:


OTOH, many legitimate advances have started as "concepts."

I can certainly believe that. But I wonder what the percentage yield is?

Personally, I wait about five product generations before buying. I
can't remember
when being an early adopter actually paid off.

Hmm. I can't remember ever being an early adopter!


I could see the locking handle bar trickling down, and e-bikes are already here.
The "wiper" fender seems like a non-starter in a real rainstorm.
My perfect bike would have stadium lighting and not a bunch of one-watt
LEDs.
I think turn signals are dopey, but hey, maybe I'm just a Luddite and
they're the next big thing.


Regarding locking handlebars: I like having the capability to reach
about six feet with a cable lock. I value that more than resistance to
cutting; so much so that I made my own cable, quite thin (1/4"?) but
quite long. It's served me well since about 1985. I have a much
thicker cable lock, but using it is like wrestling an anaconda. And the
U-locks I have always stay in the basement.

E-bikes? Someday I may want one, I guess. I do plan on getting older...


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 20:10:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/20/2014 6:55 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 11:30:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Continuation...

Those contests seem pretty challenging. At this point in history,
significantly improving the bicycle is a lot like trying to
significantly improve the pocketknife.

I presume you've been ignoring my random postings of "concept" bicycle
designs.

No, I actually do read your posts and click your links.

Like most design concepts, they are futuristic, impractical,
weird looking, unbuildable, and unsellable. What I suspect you're
missing is that they don't try to generally improve the bicycle.

Honestly, I think the objective of the "design" exercise has little to
do with actually improving the bicycle, much like the objective of a
painting is not to produce better canvas. The artist/painter uses the
canvas as a medium to express his creativity, his concept of beauty,
etc. The bike designer uses the bicycle as a medium to demonstrate his
creativity and his capacity to innovate.


But most of the innovations seem to be smooth, hand rubbed, paint or a
snazzy little gizmo to mount the rear light. I don't believe I've ever
seen a discussion of "how I made this thing really stable at high
speeds, or "Made it steer quick as a ferret". And as someone said,
Beauty is only skin deep :-)

And as we know, if it's "innovative" it _must_ be good! Stodgy old
designs that merely work extremely well don't get the same adulation.

These guys seem to be doing the same, attaching built-in locks, racks,
lights, fenders (or water scrapers? What's with that??). Or at least
providing easy attachments for their proprietary accessories. Not a bad
idea if the built-in stuff works well, I guess; but a bit risky for the
consumer, who has to hope proprietary stuff will remain available.

Yeah, that's a potential problem. Whether it's worth solving is
debatable. You could assemble a standards organization to establish a
mounting hardware standard, that would fit any bicycle bolt on
accessory. That should promote interoperability and produce some
really strange looking bicycles.

Heh. Regarding standards organizations: When I taught a class in
robotics, one oft-used test question was something like "True or False:
The ANSI standard robot wrist allows almost all end effectors to easily
attach to almost any robot."

False, of course. Even in that then-new, technically sophisticated
industry, every manufacturer had its own idea for bolt circle size,
center boss size, thread dimensions, etc. ANSI had nothing to say about
it. We had to machine adapters for each brand of robot and gripper.



I'm a bit skeptical of the trendy electronics, though. My bikes last
for decades.

If it weren't for the obvious product liability implications, I'm sure
the bicycle vendors would be more than happy to reduce the useful life
of the bicycle through incompatibility innovations and wear
enhancement. I'm rather surprised that the bicycle industry hasn't
followed that of the automotive industry, which has the same problem.
They can't really build a vehicle that falls apart too quickly as that
would be unsafe.

I'm sticking it to the man. My Honda station wagon turns 25 next year.
My BMW motorcycle and my utility bicycle are 42. My touring bike is
28. Take that, you evil industrialists!
--
Cheers,

John B.

Frank on humor.....?

Suntour to Shimano ?

conceptual vs non cpnceptual

Kevlar - wire beads


?????

think of progress as a broad wave reaching the reality beach...some jelly fish reach land and evolve, some wash out...

show us your patent list ?

On 8/20/2014 8:04 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 5:10:10 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/20/2014 6:55 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 11:30:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski

wrote:



Continuation...



Those contests seem pretty challenging. At this point in history,

significantly improving the bicycle is a lot like trying to

significantly improve the pocketknife.



I presume you've been ignoring my random postings of "concept" bicycle

designs.



No, I actually do read your posts and click your links.



Like most design concepts, they are futuristic, impractical,

weird looking, unbuildable, and unsellable. What I suspect you're

missing is that they don't try to generally improve the bicycle.



Honestly, I think the objective of the "design" exercise has little to

do with actually improving the bicycle, much like the objective of a

painting is not to produce better canvas. The artist/painter uses the

canvas as a medium to express his creativity, his concept of beauty,

etc. The bike designer uses the bicycle as a medium to demonstrate his

creativity and his capacity to innovate.



And as we know, if it's "innovative" it _must_ be good! Stodgy old

designs that merely work extremely well don't get the same adulation.


OTOH, many legitimate advances have started as "concepts." Personally, I wait about five product generations before buying. I can't remember when being an early adopter actually paid off. I'm still sore about buying first generation Goretex and all the incandescent lighting systems I have sitting around in the basement. I feel sorry (sort of) for the guys who bought Mektronic.

I could see the locking handle bar trickling down, and e-bikes are already here. The "wiper" fender seems like a non-starter in a real rainstorm. My perfect bike would have stadium lighting and not a bunch of one-watt LEDs. I think turn signals are dopey, but hey, maybe I'm just a Luddite and they're the next big thing.

-- Jay Beattie.


Trouble is, you never know the future until it gets here and
smacks you. Mektronic is a good example. On a personal note,
KayPro CP/M computer, Rambler with pushbutton gearbox and a
dozen generations of credit card readers. OTOH my 1953
Raleigh was designed and built for the ages.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971