You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Starck’s town bike and Teams Design’s ntb”.
I assume that the “short distances” the platform would be used for really means “cycling on the sidewalk among pedestrians.” Aka shluffing, see http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2009/03/takin-it-to-streets-things-are-schluff.html
Personally, I think this type of cycling (or scootering) should be discouraged.
Since they don’t really shoulder like CX bikes, I assume that scooting would be to avoid pushing in situations where pedaling is forbidden/awkward. Right-foot-left-pedal scooting isn’t obvious/comfortable for everyone.
A bike for everybody should be accessible to everybody. The very low step over accommodates elderly riders.
I agree with the decision to make it a step-through design, similar the omafiets used by people of all ages in Holland. I just question the construction with the platform. An Amish scooter bike with pedals added (with a wide Q factor as Pierre points out below) just doesn’t seem like a good solution to me.
More or less as Jeff says, only think more motor light/free street rather than sidewalk. French market square, that sort of thing. It’s perfectly appropriate there and goes on quite a bit, which is why Starck thought to make provision for it.
It’s a much better bike than I expected. In fact, except for the scootering platform it’s just; a city bike, much as you can already buy right now, not a “design exercise.” If you prefer bolted on racks (and there are reasons to do so) and need the scootering platform you can get one at – Wal-Mart.
Which is as it should be. It’s what works.
. . .and need DON’T the scootering platform . . .
From the video I watched, Starck says the platform will be engraved with a map of Bordeaux so that if you get lost, you’ll have at hand ( or more precisely at foot).
A fairly dissapointing proposal as it both fails to have any elegance, visual appeal nor great functionality. Starck never pretended to create a stunning new bike, but what is the point of allowing a world known designer to produce a new bike design if it is as boring and uninnovative as this one?
It is not because he has proposed to do this design for free that such an approximative project should be accepted. In my opinion, the very short and dying applauses during the video when the bike is revealed show that the audience was definitely not enthusiatic about this design.
All this looks like a wated opportunity and I really think that this bike proposal should have been done through an international design contest.
I really think that this bike proposal should have been done through an international design contest.
The rendering clearly shows that Starck has little knowledge of bike design. Thousands of design students around the world would be able to do better than this.
-fitting this platform between the cranks will require an unusually long axle and create an uncomfortable pedaling position
– it will also induce a higher risk of a pedal touching the road in curves
– the rear rack isn’t designed as to prevent rear panniers to catch the spokes
– the front rack load will interfeie with the cable sleeves
– the bike will be heavy, even if made from alloy
– as Mark pointed out already, there are going to be serious structural issues with the frame unless a much bigger tubing diameter is used
“. . . what is the point of allowing a world known designer to produce a new bike design if it is as boring and uninnovative as this one?”
What is the point of innovation where none is needed? As noted I am pleasantly surprised that Starck understood that. All the bicycle needs now is what it has needed for 100 years; flat proof tires and and self-lubricating, long wearing chains. Those issues are for the materials engineers to solve.
The fault was, indeed, in hiring a world class designer to design that which already exists.
“there are going to be serious structural issues with the frame unless a much bigger tubing diameter is used”
And/or thicker. This is going to be a comparatively heavy bike. I believe it is intended as a model suitable for the city rental system, hence the city commission and the map thingy. The low step through itself is not any more innovative than anything else on the bike. You can buy one right now from Biria. It is one of the few aspects of the bike that has not caused any particular trouble ( and the troubles it does have are due to parts sourcing, not design).
the problem of the long wearing chain was solved long ago with a full chaincase. eliminating contamination of the chain makes the original lubricant last years (sometimes decades) instead of weeks or months.
I would like to see skirt guards with maps on them. No chance of reading the map while riding, but still convenient.
Front fender needs to be a little longer.
The platform could be 5″ wide and still have clearance for most cranks.
Structurally, it doesn’t look very durable.
It looks like it would be very incovenient to use as scooter because the pedals would be difficult to avoid hitting with your pusher leg/shin. You would have to swing the pushing foot far out to the side, and might forget to do it far enough to avoid hitting the pedals on every push.
Pretty funny to see this student’s work on the same post as Starck’s, as the student’s portfolio includes a watch that is a blatant rip off off the Starck O-Ring design for Fossil.
There are some extreme stepthrough designs like the Starck on the market, though I don’t think anyone has proposed using it as a scooter. The bikes Bixi uses in their bike share systems are have almost that much step through space, and a lady I pass a couple days a week on the way to work has this one and likes it well enough for her 1.5 mile commute: http://www.amazon.com/Biria-Through-3-speed-internal-Aluminum/dp/tags-on-product/B002F6FT4Y . As you can see it takes a fair bit of gusseting to make the design viable, I’m not sure you could have a flat platform in there that would be low enough for scooting.
Also, I know Starck is a bona fide industrial designer and not some hack, but the concept of putting a map in a place that is both A. visible but distracting to the rider and B. prone to be marred to illegibility within a few days is just patently ridiculous, though I suppose also charmingly sentimental.
Gusseting and the use of a tube instead of a plate. Small wheeled scooters are able to get away with a plate because of their short wheel base. The plate on the Starck design is subject to about 2-3 times the bending moment as that of a scooter. It’s going to fold on the first pot hole.
It look almost as elegant as some of the sanitaryware Starck has released under his brand. Maybe slightly less functional.
Philippe Stark stole our idea from 2010: http://www.behance.net/gallery/biciklinette/1031099
It is a shame that star designers rip off young talents without even considering to hire them or give them any kind of credit!
The biciklinette was made for the competition in Seul in 2010, by myself (I was still a student back then) and by my small team… It makes me really mad to see that today Stark makes the absolutely same bicycle without making any kind of contact with me or the other two members of my team. Please check out our bicycle and tell me is it possible that so much similarity can happen just like that…plus, when i got the idea for this one, back in 2010 I’ve searched all through the web to see if there is anything similar to this cross-bread of a bicycle and a scooter was made and found nothing…however nobody found it so important and so special to post our work, but now that Philippe Starck did the absolutely same thing it’s all over the internet!
However, I’m still riding mine in Belgrade, we made two more prototypes and keep working on them and making them better…Since I’ve been riding mine for three years now and I can say it is a great for a city like Belgrade that has little bic roots and where you have to ride on the sidewalk and you can ride it really slow passing people without having to step off the bike…