As Scott said: To my eyes it's almost like younger ID students are spending too much time learning the software and not enough time doing research.

The design is not only about to make thing pleasing to look at (the outcome of such designs are often useless products that turn in to trash too soon).
I dislike bicycles being al the same as most currently are. But in general the bike in question isn't so much different.

I argue my standpoint, that it doesn't solve any relevant or advertised problem, like "enhance speed, functionality, looks, comfort, resistance and durability" (ROFL & LOL). It is most probably heavier and less durable, the riders position is the same, it can still be stolen, you are still wet on it if it rains, if made of carbon fibbers, it would be even less environmentally sound… and so on and so forth.

I agree with Human_Amp, that good ideas can be found in such unrestrained concepts… in this case a more general and not particularly new one to use the flexibility of the material for softer ride. To bad the author didn't noticed it and equipped already flexible frame with unnecessary springs.

As for the blue ocean theory, I do not doubt the market. Many people like to be/look different, that is the main reason for chopper bikes to exist. I only argued the description, which was misleading.

Is is only a discussion and I am also pleased to be a part of (or to see) one.

I'm all for "small green, fragile ideas," but I suspect (in advance of facts!) that every one of those ideas was developed by someone with more than a passing knowledge of the field. Even so, I've given up on Dahon bicycles because I just don't like the trade-offs they make anymore.

In the comments so far, I resonate most strongly with the Antoine de Saint-Exupery quote, and the "Biker Buildoff" stories. I'd love to see the designer of that Hidemax bike standing to pedal up a steep hill.

I think some of the readers here are classic 'red ocean' cycling enthusiasts, and for them the classic bicycle design as used by athletes, with use of latest materials and process' is the only way to go … in the search for speed.

What interests me is how to get the other 90% of the population to use bicycles – not necessarily as athletic equipment to go as fast as possible, but as means of transport.

Working partly in the bicycle industry I love to see these sometimes wacky ideas – they are like ideas in branstorming (where the rules say .. no criticism, try and BUILD on others' ideas). They have often inspired me to make some real user focused improvements.

The same harsh words were probably said about many things that are different … Cyclone Vacuum cleaners, mountain bikes, Jet engines, Boat propellers, tiny boxes holding whole music collections, more than 640K of memory, folding bikes … all of which started out as small green, fragile ideas. Come on guys, dont stamp on these ideas before they get chance to grow.

1) What I admire about all these bicycle concepts are their ability to blow everything we knew about bikes right out the water.

2) But more often than not, the end result is something that cannot be manufactured, or too costly to make, or simply impractical from the usage standpoint.

Feel free to disagree.

Who can forget the fellow who had to stop for fuel every 27 miles (for three days!), or the classic episoid where the builder crafted a dual-wall thru-the-rear-fender hidden exhaust … that set his pants on fire during the ride!

I enjoy the bicycle concepts, but usually think, "Get back to me after you've built one and ridden it for three days."

The first anonymous poster is right on the money with his comments.

To my eyes it's almost like younger ID students are spending too much time learning the software and not enough time doing research.

What ever happened to that "new design" bike with the adjustable displacement bottom bracket? I see its has taken the market and racing set by storm…

Anon 10:02, I like the example of your friend’s concrete coffee table project. Good story. You point out that you like “good concept bikes that have some interesting element” but not “stupid, fanciful crap that could not and would not ever be built.” I think most people would agree with that, but I would argue that some totally impractical concepts might still have one or two interesting design elements. Over the years, I have seen quite a few bike concepts that I felt had no redeeming value and I have others that I thought were brilliant, but in reality most of them fall somewhere in between.

Suganick, I certainly don’t believe that product or industry knowledge is ever a bad thing. It is important to learn as much as possible about any product that you work on. As a designer though, you have to be able to think about the products that you create from the point of view of different types of users. That is something that every good designer should be able to do, but it does require conscious effort when you are very close to the product. In some cases, an outside designer can offer fresh ideas in the conceptualization phase, but it is probably going to take a designer or engineer with extensive product knowledge to really turn those ideas into a viable product.