A collection of remarkable (and largely pointless) bicycle designs

tomasrojo

http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2010/01/hi-tech-low-tech-bicycle-madness.html

Courtesy of Bikesnobnyc

http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2010/01/grand-designs-hangin-it-out-there.html

who says, quite accurately, I think:

I'm not sure why designers feel as though they must constantly molest the cycling world with their idiotic and useless bike designs, since there are few machines in this world which require less improvement.

TinyExplosions

I don't know if I agree with that to be honest... there is definitely room for improvement in the bike in terms of efficiency and comfort etc... the main reason bikes are the shape they are is because of UCI imposed limits that ban bikes like Boardmans Lotus and others that could allow one to go faster for example:




There's always room for improvement, we shouldn't settle for what we have now!

tomasrojo

I suppose I'm thinking of bikes designed for me (going less than 20km/h, utility cycling). Fair point!

tomasrojo

Something I've wondered: would recumbents give riders an advantage over the UCI-permitted designs in the Tour de France/Giro/Vuelta? Not going uphill, obviously, but at any other stage?

seamus

I think what concept designers most frequently miss out on is the fact that utility cycling is popular because it's cheap and easy. If your average commuter's bike costs too much or has too many moving parts (lots of maintenance), then it's not going to be successful. Bike geeks may buy such bikes for the novelty and as Tiny points out, where performance benefits are gained and legal, the pros and enthusiasts will go for it, but the mass market will have no interest.

If improvements to bikes in general need to be made, it needs to be an evolution rather than an overnight change.

Lumen

Bikes are rubbish, there's loads of room for improvement.

Why can't I buy a cheapish 8kg bike with drop bars, STI shifters, integrated telemetry, and a maintenance-free drivetrain/braking system?

tomasrojo

Maintenance is a good point. I guess that's part of the appeal of the Dublin Bikes: someone else does that for you!

Turbulent Bill

tomasrojo wrote: »

Maintenance is a good point. I guess that's part of the appeal of the Dublin Bikes: someone else does that for you!

The DB is an excellent example of a utility bike: hub gears, good integrated light system, lock and storage space all in one (ok, heavy) design.

Maybe it already exists, but I'm surprised that someone like Cateye hasn't designed OEM products for manufacturers to integrate into their designs, rather than the mish-mash of bits most people end up buying.

seamus

Actually, I think shaft drive is due for something of an explosion in utility cycling - it's clean and will continue to function without maintenance through all the ****tiest conditions. A hollow(ish) chromo shaft can't weigh much more than a chain & chainrings. Though hub gears aren't light.

It might even get some ground with the hipsters - even fixies still need a new chain every now and again...

tomasrojo

I did wonder whether the Dublin Bike might have led to increased consumer demand for older-style utility bikes -- that people might find that they like the all-in-one design. I have seen more around lately (baskets, integrated lights, hub gears), so perhaps they have.

tomasrojo

seamus wrote: »

Actually, I think shaft drive is due for something of an explosion in utility cycling - it's clean and will continue to function without maintenance through all the ****tiest conditions. A hollow(ish) chromo shaft can't weigh much more than a chain & chainrings. Though hub gears aren't light.

It might even get some ground with the hipsters - even fixies still need a new chain every now and again...

What bikes use a shaft drive?

The chain drive is both excellent and awful. It's highly efficient and easy enough to replace. It also requires a lot of maintenance, and when you fail to maintain you ruin other components. I guess some loss of efficiency would be acceptable to a lot of utility cyclists for the luxury of less maintenance.

Hub gears do allow a completely enclosed chain, which does improve the chain drive somewhat in terms of maintenance requirements.

blorg

tomasrojo wrote: »

Something I've wondered: would recumbents give riders an advantage over the UCI-permitted designs in the Tour de France/Giro/Vuelta? Not going uphill, obviously, but at any other stage?

Time trials unquestionably. Anything flat. Overall would be likely. Here are the UCI and HPV (faired recumbent) hour records- the HPV record is 90.598km, the UCI 49.700km



The holder of the 24 hour record of 1046.94km has a chart indicating speed at different power outputs:

Critical Power speedbike 100w=45kph 150w=58kph 200w=67kph
Time-trial road bike 100w=28kph 150w=33kph 200w=37kph

These are phenomenal differences, 200w is not even all that much (would be over 24 hours obviously), certainly not in the context of a TdF rider, and they are not doing 67kph on the flat despite having the advantage of drafting!

Worth bearing in mind that many of the HPV guys probably would not have the sort of power a TdF rider has either, but they are going far faster.

tomasrojo

Yeah, I remember Richard's Bicycle Book lamenting that UCI wouldn't allow recumbents and that faired recumbents overcame wind resistance in ways that conventional bikes couldn't. That's a hell of a difference.

blorg

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yeah, I remember Richard's Bicycle Book lamenting that UCI wouldn't allow recumbents and that faired recumbents overcame wind resistance in ways that conventional bikes couldn't. That's a hell of a difference.

TdF in recumbents would be boring as hell to watch though. Even allowing them in TTs is going to reduce interest, compare:



vs

tomasrojo

Nicely retro-futuristic though.

BostonB

Looks cool to me