Han Goes, an IBDC juror and also a keynote speaker at the Bicycle Trend Forum this year, had some very interesting comments to make in respect of the competition. To sum up, he observed that this year’s entries displayed a tendency towards pandering to what the candidates perceived to be jurors’ preferences. He felt that this year design schools and teachers had pressured designers to target jurors’ preferences, speculating that designers had examined winning designs in past competitions, noted the trends and abstracted them into what they considered to be a winning formula namely that a winning design should have *small wheels (a compact bike) *multi-purpose functionality *UD Design *folding mechanism *Electric power support. He pointed out that uniformity and congruence are not a problem per se; however abandoning “authenticity and independence” to pursue a strategy of purely pleasing the jury is not the right way to go. His recommendation was that in next year’s competition (The Future of Micro Mobility) there needs to be a re-alignment of focus to make sure that a high level of “disruptive, independent and authentic” innovation is maintained.

In my view, this might be a bit harsh. Designers do not operate in a vacuum but in the context of an industry that, like any other, trends in various ways, these trends acting as the foundations for expanded possibilities ie. innovation. The elements of the “winning formula” that he points to reflect the context in which the industry is reproducing itself at this point in time (folding portability, LEV orientation etc.). One could argue that the entries display a reasonable balance between radical (im)possibility and current trends. Both Han and Mark come together on one point: radical differentation as Mark put it and disruptive, independent innovation as Han Goes put it are a way forward towards achieving practical design outcomes in the future.

Anyhow, once again it’s been an interesting show.

My kids’ trike is exactly what came to mind when looking at your design. I remember when the kids were just old enough for the trike, the leg that was at the outside of the turn would not be able to reach the pedal at the bottom/front of the stroke because the pedal would move further away from their body. With the trike they couldn’t (even if they wanted to) lean into the turn to steer. I guess it just isn’t that big a deal with bicycles where the rider can lean to steer instead of moving the handlebars much.

I wasn’t aware of FWD recumbents. Found this video on youtube interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-PlGfFQV0A

Thanks for the reply and explanation.

I chose FWD because it allowed the crank to be as close as possible to the front wheel without interference. Unlike most recumbents that are too low and long with unusual steering angles, or recumbents with the crank way out over the front wheel, this allows a more compact wheelbase (about 1 meter), higher seating and a 70 degree head angle, making it much easier to maneuver and be seen in traffic. The plastic windshield would flex with the handlebar, and optional fenders would protect the rider from the elements