Comments on: Interbike, Bike 2.0, and thoughts on imagination The blog about industrial design in the bike industry Thu, 28 May 2015 11:41:55 +0000 hourly 1 By: Bike2.0 Thu, 21 Mar 2013 21:40:14 +0000 […] Bicycle Design […]

By: Lachie Wed, 10 Nov 2010 03:09:52 +0000 Just wondering, is this bike being made, and if so when would it be released?

By: Binch Shin Tue, 28 Sep 2010 21:06:57 +0000 I agree with you basically 😀
Attractive designs what I used to click LiKE buttons on were telling me: “it might be more efficient”, “it might be more easy to use”, “it might be more comfortable”, “it might..”, “it might..”

Designers have to show possibilities instead of limitations, to people.

By: Torben Finn Laursen Tue, 28 Sep 2010 17:56:42 +0000 Good Bicycle Design and design in general is about seeing possibilities instead of limitations…

By: mommus Mon, 27 Sep 2010 09:44:16 +0000 @MrMo Supercapacitors aren’t much more sensible than superconductors. The weight, complexity and cost implications of supercapacitors (arranged in such a way as to work as described) would be hugely prohibitive.

By: Binch Shin Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:05:42 +0000 This one table encapsulates many of the critical issues caused by the wrong judging:

By: mrmo Fri, 24 Sep 2010 14:57:07 +0000 NOT THE UBER COOL SUPERCONDUCTOR, on the designers website is says supercapacitor, must be a typo, using these batteries in connection with ultracapacitors is a very common solution in electronics and does the job descriped.

By: mommus Fri, 24 Sep 2010 09:20:53 +0000 @ Binch Shin

I couldn’t agree more. The competition rules were broken by virtually every shortlisted bicycle. Some, as you say used technologies that the competitor had obviously seen on the discovery channel, and others were impossible to ride. Many of them had also been entered in other competitions previous to Seoul, or had been made public long ago.
It’s a real shame because it could have brouight some genuinely creative solutions for the city, but is now becoming a joke.
I hope the Korean govenment does something about it!

By: Binch Shin Thu, 23 Sep 2010 19:19:47 +0000 I’m surprised by this post ! Very happy to know there are people who try to tell the truth.. this is a touching speech of James, really.. thank you..

Today, in fact, I visited here to expose the strange judging, I hoped to let James know what happened finally,
① The Grand Prize Bicycle can’t exist in the real world because it is designed to use SUPERCONDUCTOR. There is no material which produces the superconductivity at room temperature. Its efficiency is the second problem.
② The Gold Prize Bicycle can’t work(run) in the real world because it is designed to be STEERED BY REAR-WHEEL. It can’t stand up while running.

The organizer prepared a clear guideline on their call-for-entry,
① Evaluation will focus on how well the concepts are expressed, specified, and how practical they will be to produce.
② There should be an emphasis on practical designs that can be commercialized within five years.

But how can we accept the results in Korea? Whose faults?
As a Korean, I can’t see my tax will be paid for the ABSURD designs :'(

And here I brought a hidden sad story: Mark Sanders tried to fix the wrong judging system. He warned the coming crisis to the organizer again and again from the beginning. But the organizer(and the other judges) continued as they did until they succeeded in collecting attractive drawings; very attractive but impossible to exist; or very attractive but impossible to work on this planet.

This problem was reported to Korean government by bicycle riders including me.

By: mommus Thu, 23 Sep 2010 09:07:18 +0000 I have to admit that Bike 2.0 is a very pretty-looking thing, it’s also (slightly) more realistic than some of the Seoul Bike entries, and the designer’s presentation is second to none.
However I can’t help thinking that, as ever, structural integrity has been overlooked in favor of aesthetics. That spindly little head tube, for instance, would twist and bend all over the place were one to ride it with any vigor. It also looks like the head tube can be wound back and fourth to adjust the wheelbase of the bike, so that mechanism (which isn’t show in any of the material) would have to be amazingly strong.
The electrical transmission seems to me to be just a convenient way of not having to deal with chains or belts. The efficiency losses and compromises incurred by using electrical transmission without a battery would mean that about half the rider’s energy would be transmitted to the road.
I can add a new word to my design-speak vocabulary today… “feasibility catalysts”