Notes on the prototype:
– Right side drive, of course
– Mag wheels (seems a little dangerous with a hub brake but at low speeds it’s probably fine)
– Gear ratio looks a little more manageable
– No front suspension
– Small but functional fenders
– Seat mast attaches to the frame outboard of the chainring. I don’t even want to know how that works.
– The cable would seem to come in and out of tension as you steer the bike because of the fork/”stem”/handlebar geometry. It would still serve the purpose of retaining broken parts, as Art points out above.
— The seat mast angle is less steep than in the renderings (STA might be as low as 60*), which puts the crank very far forward. Toe clearance is obviously pretty horrible, though that’s a problem with the strida as well and people buy it. I’m a little concerned about weight distribution, this thing looks like it would endo pretty easily.
– I think the belt is tensioned by loosening the bolts that hold the crank/seat mast assembly to the frame and moving it up the frame. Good thing it’s right side drive or fixing a flat would require taking apart the whole bike.

The spectre of fashion-led design decisions also make me look again at the overall geometry of the thing. Right angles? The original Strida was dreadful to ride. It felt unstable up hill, down dale, straight and level, at any speed (I just know, okay?). Plus, it looks like a folder, with all the compromises of a folder, but doesn’t fold. If it’s not meant to fold, why not a proper frame? And nice big wheels? Also, is there an actual front brake?

Only hipsters will buy this bike.

What really annoys me about these continuing attempts at a mono stay rear is that they try to replace a truly simple design based on sound engineering with an affected notion of simplicity in the form of a big dumb cantilever. I say this in almost every post on here, but it remains true: people like this guy who want to design things where aesthetics take precedence over engineering should design clothing or housewares. There are many more jobs, and they will be more likely to have successful, satisfying careers if their design goals align with the clients’. No bike company wants to hire a designer whose designs look pretty but are wildly impractical.

Also, the cable is not completely ridiculous. It will keep the front end of the frame from flying too far when the down tube breaks.

It only takes a few hours to knock-up a 3d rendering but engineering and building a working bicycle prototype surely takes months or years (I know this because I am attempting to build one myself) and I do not understand why you would go to all the trouble of building and testing the bike only to release these basic renderings.

It would be great to see some photographs, then people would be able to take your statement ‘I have built it and it works’ seriously.

I’ll add another critic concerning the wheels: If portability comes before aspect and fashion, there should be less spokes to reduce weight. That many spokes are structurally unnecessary and add considerable weight. This choice doesn’t quite match with your “minimum” concept.