unusual bike designs ect

more. I was looking for the rarest bike made from IFORGETTIAM but lost it

here's what pops up..

http://sodapic.com/40-rare-iconic-bi...ver-collected/

On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 6:14:04 PM UTC-5, wrote:
more. I was looking for the rarest bike made from IFORGETTIAM but lost it



here's what pops up..



http://sodapic.com/40-rare-iconic-bi...ver-collected/

Some very weird stuff there. I'd have liked more information, especially on what the designers were trying to achieve. A few seemed to be merely the type of design exercises that emerge from "modern design" curricula, good only for attracting brief attention. But many were doubtlessly serious attempts to achieve ... something.

The problem for someone wanting to design a radically improved bike is that ordinary bikes are really quite good. Most radical ideas become evolutionary dead ends.

- Frank Krygowski

welders...

farther back away from world communications, the stranger the exercises for grinding your point of view.

and heavy !

On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:26:58 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 6:14:04 PM UTC-5, wrote:
more. I was looking for the rarest bike made from IFORGETTIAM but lost it

here's what pops up..
http://sodapic.com/40-rare-iconic-bi...ver-collected/

Some very weird stuff there. I'd have liked more information, especially
on what the designers were trying to achieve.

I prefer "What problem are they trying to solve"? The two questions
are similar, but not quite identical.

A few seemed to be merely the type of design exercises that emerge
from "modern design" curricula, good only for attracting brief attention.
But many were doubtlessly serious attempts to achieve ... something.

If there is no obvious problem being addressed, then it's likely that
it's a "concept" bicycle, which is more an artistic exercise, than an
engineering study. The problem is that (as I previously ranted), any
major changes to one part of a bicycle, requires changes to almost
every connecting component. The final result may look radical or
strange, but if you look carefully, they are side effect type changes
necessitated by whatever it was that "solved" the problem.

For example, the Moulton short wheelbase and small diameter wheels
necessitate an articulated hinged frame, with a rubber shock absorber
hocky puck because the smaller frame and spoke lengths are too stiff
to provide a comfortable ride. (There's a YouTube video on the topic,
but of course I can't find it when I need it).

There are also various molded plastic frames, that don't lend
themselves easily to cylindrical tube type geometries. These usually
result in a rib reinforced, futuristic looking frame.

If you really want to know what problem they were trying to solve,
it's easy enough to reverse engineer the 40 machines back to whatever
change necessitated a strange looking design. I went down the list of
all 40 and think I could probable guess about half without much
difficulty. A fair number seem to be attempting:
1. A more aerodynamic (i.e. horizontal) riding position without going
to a true recumbent design.
2. Higher crank and pedal ground clearance.
3. New materials.
4. Aero frames.
5. Compact folding sizes at the expense of riding efficiency and
comfort.
6. Failures to understand frame geometry strength, stress risers, and
the use of trusses.

The problem for someone wanting to design a radically improved bike
is that ordinary bikes are really quite good. Most radical ideas
become evolutionary dead ends.

I beg to differ. Dig out photos of concept automobiles from 10-20
years ago, and you'll see parts and pieces that are currently grafted
onto production models. It's the same with bicycles. Todays weird
looking is tomorrows mundane. For example, the history of aero bars
is far from simple:
http://triathlon.competitor.com/2010/07/insidetri/was-the-first-aerobar-really-not-the-first_11039
It came and went in various forms by various individuals, until about
15 years later, it was commercialized. Bicyclists are fundamentally
conservative (or reactionary) and it takes a while for changes to
become acceptable. If someone switches to cable chains, wins a few
races, and gets the product mentioned in the trade press, it would
still take many years for all but the lunatic fringe from accepting
the change.



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Friday, January 17, 2014 9:58:56 PM UTC-5, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:26:58 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski wrote:

The problem for someone wanting to design a radically improved bike
is that ordinary bikes are really quite good. Most radical ideas
become evolutionary dead ends.

I beg to differ. Dig out photos of concept automobiles from 10-20
years ago, and you'll see parts and pieces that are currently grafted
onto production models. It's the same with bicycles. Todays weird
looking is tomorrows mundane.

It might be interesting to list all the previous weird things that are on today's mundane bicycles. (Understand, I'm not talking about racing bikes.) I think disk brakes qualify, but what else?

For example, the history of aero bars
is far from simple:

http://triathlon.competitor.com/2010/07/insidetri/was-the-first-aerobar-really-not-the-first_11039

That history isn't much different from many other inventions. There are patent and history disputes regarding hundreds of inventions.

It came and went in various forms by various individuals, until about
15 years later, it was commercialized. Bicyclists are fundamentally
conservative (or reactionary) and it takes a while for changes to
become acceptable. If someone switches to cable chains, wins a few
races, and gets the product mentioned in the trade press, it would
still take many years for all but the lunatic fringe from accepting
the change.

I didn't quite follow your final sentence structure. But the question is this: Is bike design conservative because cyclists don't like change? Or is it conservative because what we have is really very good for most purposes?

I think it's the latter. Big improvements are hard to achieve, because people have been trying every possible idea for improvement for many generations, and what works is what's being used. Any transformative changes will require something that's not quite a bicycle - either auxiliary power or a velomobile, or both.

We'll see, of course, if we live long enough.

- Frank Krygowski

Jeff Liebermann writes:

On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:26:58 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 6:14:04 PM UTC-5, wrote:
more. I was looking for the rarest bike made from IFORGETTIAM but lost it

here's what pops up..
http://sodapic.com/40-rare-iconic-bi...ver-collected/

Some very weird stuff there. I'd have liked more information, especially
on what the designers were trying to achieve.

I prefer "What problem are they trying to solve"? The two questions
are similar, but not quite identical.

A few seemed to be merely the type of design exercises that emerge
from "modern design" curricula, good only for attracting brief attention.
But many were doubtlessly serious attempts to achieve ... something.

If there is no obvious problem being addressed, then it's likely that
it's a "concept" bicycle, which is more an artistic exercise, than an
engineering study. The problem is that (as I previously ranted), any
major changes to one part of a bicycle, requires changes to almost
every connecting component. The final result may look radical or
strange, but if you look carefully, they are side effect type changes
necessitated by whatever it was that "solved" the problem.

For example, the Moulton short wheelbase and small diameter wheels
necessitate an articulated hinged frame, with a rubber shock absorber
hocky puck because the smaller frame and spoke lengths are too stiff
to provide a comfortable ride. (There's a YouTube video on the topic,
but of course I can't find it when I need it).

It isn't the spoke length, per se, that makes the difference, but
rather the diameter of the wheel. A smaller wheel has a greater
vertical acceleration when encountering a bump in the road.

--
Joe Riel

On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 21:28:58 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Friday, January 17, 2014 9:58:56 PM UTC-5, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:26:58 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski wrote:

The problem for someone wanting to design a radically improved bike
is that ordinary bikes are really quite good. Most radical ideas
become evolutionary dead ends.

I beg to differ. Dig out photos of concept automobiles from 10-20
years ago, and you'll see parts and pieces that are currently grafted
onto production models. It's the same with bicycles. Todays weird
looking is tomorrows mundane.

It might be interesting to list all the previous weird things that
are on today's mundane bicycles. (Understand, I'm not talking about
racing bikes.) I think disk brakes qualify, but what else?

Well, I'll keep it fairly recent such as the last 50 odd years. If I
go back any further, the list might be too large. I think I can
safely say that if it's in the Nashbar catalog, it's mundane.

- Articulated suspension, hinges, springs and shocks inherited from
the downhill racers and dragged to ridiculous extremes for no
obvious benefit.
- Knobby tires, inherited from the mountain bikes and now found on
even kids bicycles. On pavement, good for minimizing traction.
- Side lighting. I'm seeing more and more night riders with LED side
lighting on the frame and wheels instead of the usual reflectors.
- Indexed shifters instead of friction shifters.
- Fixie machines, inherited from track bikes that became lost and
somehow ended up on the city streets.
- Detangler handlebars that do a full 360 without getting snagged on
the brake cable. I've seen a few of those riding around non-BMX
bikes. Useful for demonstrating spectacular spills and displaying
acrobatic feats of impressive stupidity.
- Bikes without brakes (I forgot what they're called). Borrowed from
BMX acrobats, where brake cables interfere with the stunts. Useful
for producing road rash, broken bones, automobile collisions, etc.
- Elaborate color paint patterns. Prior to about 1960, bicycles were
painted in mostly solid colors. Since then, computerized paint
systems have allowed impressively complex patterns.
- Maximum discomfort saddles. Possibly inherited from racing, these
saddles look sleek, aerodynamic, minimalist, light, and very
uncomfortable.
- Bolt on bar ends. A poor mans aero bar, which allegedly offer
several more riding contortions but really just simulate the
horns of a mad bull. Mostly useful for falling backwards on
hill climbs.
- Seat post quick release. Borrowed from the mountain bike racers,
where resetting one's center of gravity on the uphill and decent
is important, they're most useful on mundane bicycles for making
it easier to steal the seat tube and saddle.


For example, the history of aero bars
is far from simple:

http://triathlon.competitor.com/2010/07/insidetri/was-the-first-aerobar-really-not-the-first_11039

That history isn't much different from many other inventions.
There are patent and history disputes regarding hundreds of inventions.

Only successful inventors get sued. The rest don't have any money.

I wasn't so much referring to the patents, disputes, and invention
claims. Just the long delay between initial experiments and
widespread adoption.

It came and went in various forms by various individuals, until about
15 years later, it was commercialized. Bicyclists are fundamentally
conservative (or reactionary) and it takes a while for changes to
become acceptable. If someone switches to cable chains, wins a few
races, and gets the product mentioned in the trade press, it would
still take many years for all but the lunatic fringe from accepting
the change.

I didn't quite follow your final sentence structure.

Now that I've re-read what I wrote, I don't follow it either. I'm
munching on a sea salt dark chocolate bar, loaded with caffeine. Brain
is currently offline.

What I think I meant to say was that it really doesn't matter how good
an idea might be. It still takes a long time to convince the GUM
(great unwashed masses) that it's what a bicycle should look like.
Note that it's not whether the idea is good or beneficial. It's
whether the common perception that this is what a "good" bicycle
should be. If you look carefully at kids bicycles, and then roll
forward a dozen years, you'll probably see oversized versions of
bicycles that they rode around on as kids. Well, there will be a
small delay while the parents perception of what a bicycle should look
like is played out, but eventually, it will revert back to the
childhood bicycle. It gets worse as the riders are older, where they
will complain that a new frame geometry, new riding position, or new
handlebar, saddle, or shifter location are somehow "un-natural" or
uncomfortable.

But the question is this: Is bike design conservative because
cyclists don't like change? Or is it conservative because what
we have is really very good for most purposes?

Good question. I don't have a defensible answer. My best guess is
that bicyclists are conservative because they don't see any reason to
change. The same old bicycle that they rode when they were kids is
good enough. Maybe there's a nostalgia factor. My favorite bicycle
is about 40 years old and I plan to keep it forever. Same with my
really beat up Brooks saddle. Why, because they "fit" me (ignoring
that I've gain considerable mass during the same time period).

It's really a no win situation for innovation. We have the
aforementioned conservative cyclist, who is not very interested in
radical changes. He doesn't need these changes because in his mind,
the same old bicycle is "good enough". We also have the same
conservative cyclist who fails to appreciate even minor changes, on
the grounds that such minor changes are not worth the risks, learning
time, potential headaches, added costs, etc. These seem to be quite
common in this newsgroup. So, who's left that will accept either
major or minor changes? The fanatics, the last millisecond racers,
the technology buffs, and those that want the latest, no matter how
good, bad, or expensive. Trickling down from these to the casual
cyclist riding a mundane cycle takes a LONG time.

I think it's the latter. Big improvements are hard to achieve,
because people have been trying every possible idea for improvement
for many generations, and what works is what's being used.
Any transformative changes will require something that's not
quite a bicycle - either auxiliary power or a velomobile, or both.

If that were true, we would have exactly one standard bicycle design
that was good for everyone. It would be optimized for the largest
number under the bell curve and benefit greatly from the economics of
large scale production. One size, design, color, and pattern fits all
because there is no room for further improvement.

Obviously, that's not the case. Yet it's also difficult to attribute
the rather wide assortment of variations and mutations of bicycles to
greedy companies looking for product differentiation. More likely,
it's due to individual buyers wanting bicycles more closely configured
and tuned to their needs. In addition, those needs are not constant.
Over my lifetime, I've gone from department store trasher, to street
racer, to mountain bike, and now to comfort bicycle.

What this does to the market is fragment it severely. What that means
is that new innovations will probably NOT be widespread across the
industry, and initially become popular in small specialized corners of
the bicycle market. For example, it's unlikely my plastic bicycle
frame design will ever be sold to racers, off road riders, or
cyclocross riders, but might do well with kids, department stores,
commuters, and anyone that just wants to be different. However, if
the plastic bicycle becomes a sensation in these markets, the racers
et al will either follow with their own adaptation, or the UCI will
ban it in self defense. Either way, it will take a long time to float
to the surface of the bicycle market.

We'll see, of course, if we live long enough.

True. I've served my time as an evangelist for various unpopular
ideas. I've learned a few lessons, mostly accidentally. One
important one is that even the best ideas must be sold, the best
investors must be convinced, and that the world is full of critics,
but few supporters. I've learned that reputation has more pull than
being right. I've found that it's easier to get big money, than a
little money. I've been amazed that it's much easier to sell the
promise of an idea, than it is a working design. I've discovered that
there are many organizations (and government departments) whos sole
purpose is to prevent or obstruct change. I've learned that nothing
happens unless someone is pushing. I've learned that one must suffer
before enlightenment. I've learned that there's always more to learn.
My only regret will likely be that I won't live long enough to
understand everything.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 22:37:42 -0800, Joe Riel wrote:

Jeff Liebermann writes:
For example, the Moulton short wheelbase and small diameter wheels
necessitate an articulated hinged frame, with a rubber shock absorber
hocky puck because the smaller frame and spoke lengths are too stiff
to provide a comfortable ride. (There's a YouTube video on the topic,
but of course I can't find it when I need it).

It isn't the spoke length, per se, that makes the difference, but
rather the diameter of the wheel. A smaller wheel has a greater
vertical acceleration when encountering a bump in the road.

Agreed. I had to cut out a cardboard model to see that the path
followed by front axle with a small diameter wheel, is more radical
than the path followed by the front axle of a large diameter wheel.

However, I still think that spoke flexing does have some effect on
ride comfort. I once borrowed a bicyle with a 700c 24 or 28 spoke
radial laced front wheel. It was a very rough ride and my teeth hurt
from banging together on the bumps.

Incidentally, 20" wheels on a frame with no suspension and all the
springs where the spokes would normally fit:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1205277475/loopwheels-for-a-smoother-more-comfortable-bicycle



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

AE6KS ...


WHILE YOUR BACK ENGINEERING, BE Surly's triangulated seatpost/top tube ?

Bike frame tech's family tree has branches away from the road frame where concave development rules. But ugly ideas surface going for a different end, a perceived different end by different folk.

'Let's build a bike for Mars !' uncharted territory or izzit ?

Is if there's no communication abt the canals. Or racism, anti-Semitism...

Off course, ea$ier done in cycles than motor vehicles. Scrap up some tubing from under the bench....

Then there's the 'get attention' problem.

Nbar once had a junk bin of all kinds of cheap goodies from various failed LBS.

hidden in spring house.

On Saturday, January 18, 2014 2:39:04 AM UTC-5, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 22:37:42 -0800, Joe Riel wrote:

It isn't the spoke length, per se, that makes the difference, but
rather the diameter of the wheel. A smaller wheel has a greater
vertical acceleration when encountering a bump in the road.

Agreed. I had to cut out a cardboard model to see that the path
followed by front axle with a small diameter wheel, is more radical
than the path followed by the front axle of a large diameter wheel.

You ought to buy a copy of _Bicycling Science_ by D. Gordon Wilson. I think you'd enjoy reading it, and it covers that point plus a lot of what we discuss here.

- Frank Krygowski