I will personally give the designer £1,000,000 if this ever makes it to mass production. There\'s not much I can say about how daft this bike, and the whole Seoul Cycle Design competition is, that hasn\'t been said already. This was the bike that was originally designed to transfer motive power using superconductors, which was then hastily changed to supercapacitors when the designers realised how silly it was.
The power losses of this bike\'s transmission system, and the very flimsy construction will make it almost impossible to ride and prohibitively expensive to produce.
It is worth having a look at the original brief for the Seoul Cycle Design competition, and comparing that brief with the bike you see here. http://www.designboom.com/seoul_cycle_design_competition.html
23rd November, 2010 @ 5:23 a.m. (California Time)
Another museum piece that will not see the light of day at any bike shop IMHO.
23rd November, 2010 @ 5:24 a.m. (California Time)
the designer of this bike has moved the goal posts a long way forward,, an amazing concept and a worthy winner, congratulations
23rd November, 2010 @ 5:38 a.m. (California Time)
Sometimes when I meet relatively high obstacle I can push a pedal with all my weight to overcome it.
Unfortunately, this trick won\'t be possible on this bike... as many other useful bike tricks, that we consider as \'regular\'.
Hiding the chain - is a good idea!
Using stepless gearbox - is a good idea!
Even using electric motor - is a good idea, sometimes.
But breaking direct connection from pedals to wheel - is VERY BAD idea!
Pavel B. Chernov.
23rd November, 2010 @ 5:53 a.m. (California Time)
Interesting concept, but there might be concerns about stopping and going. I don\'t believe regenerative brakes will hold on a hill. And one would hope that there is some latent charge somewhere to get you rolling since you can\'t use the crank to do that. Otherwise the first order of business at the beginning of the day is to hand-crank that baby until the battery/capacitor is charged. That, of course, means that the most energy-intensive portion of the ride (acceleration) is handled by the battery. The name Bicycle 2.0 makes sense, I give it a \"C\".
Bruce H. Anderson
23rd November, 2010 @ 6:19 a.m. (California Time)
man, where is the brake bar? How if regenerative braking fails, does it have a physical brake like EV?
Years ago there was this bike too, google image Estetique Hiroshi Tsuzaki, \"the wheels for this bicycle are made from superconductive material that produces a magnetic field when electrified by a pedal- powered generator ............ n stuff\"...
23rd November, 2010 @ 7:46 a.m. (California Time)
Nice work but we still need a direct drive to the wheel. In this config, I would use a belt drive to the CVT (not much different than the belt drive in a snowmobile - tried and true). I would also suggest a set of magnets which can be brought into proximity with the wheels in order to have positive stopping power (and can collect energy in the process). if you wanted to go a step further, you could make them anti-lock.
All in, if you can\'t sell this for under $2000 (retail) it won\'t make it except as a curiosity for rich people to hang in their trophy rooms.
How much does it weigh now and what is weight of the seat post battery pack?
23rd November, 2010 @ 8:49 a.m. (California Time)
All these naysayer posts. This is a concept and I like it.
It can be made to work, we have the technology or brains
unlike the couchsitters.
23rd November, 2010 @ 9:54 a.m. (California Time)
Power loss through the gen-motor arrangement would be about 35%! Or about 5 times the loss in a chain drive. Also, not many riders are capable of producing 500 Watts! This is a designer bike, not an engineered one. And if rfstev can make it work, he must have a connection to some higher plane of intelligence.
23rd November, 2010 @ 2:35 p.m. (California Time)
I have read the broad spectrum of opinions here and the yay-sayers and the nay-sayers...
Some thoughtful commentary indeed.
My number one gripe with this fandangled bullshit, is to get these idiot designers off their autocad airy fairy designs and actually make the damned things.
The competition - although I am clueless about the entry requirements, I would insist that ALL the designs be real world objects, and that the bike to be entered MUST have been ridden - without replacements (except for tyres and chains) along a diverse range of real world roads, that are part of a pre-defined route.
What is left of everyone of the designs, gets stuck on the podium.
While the 35KG shit box Chinese peasant bike - with pull rod brakes and one gear... that can carry dad, mum, 3 kids, the family pig, 10 crates of chickens, and 100Kg of vegetables..... well it might not be that flash - but it goes.
But the bike 2.0 - what a load of \"Oh thats a good idea\" untested, unproven, all the bugs ironed out, bullshit.
23rd November, 2010 @ 4:44 p.m. (California Time)
Unless they found some miraculous way to strengthen aluminum, the frame will not work. I have an EVWarrior electric bike with the frame design that obviously inspired (?) bike 2.0 (look it up). It had nowhere the frame strength around the headset to let it steer safely, plus a lot of frame flex under pedal assist even with an added chainstay tube.
I do second what rfstev said, though: This is a concept, and kudos to those who have the guts to try new ideas rather than just sit around and criticize.
24th November, 2010 @ 6:34 a.m. (California Time)
There\'s no kickstand. THERE\'S. NO. KICKSTAND. In all seriousness, this bike looks and probably feels inhuman. The handle bars, while appealing to my visually minimalistic preferences, are most likely awkward to use. The seat looks uncomfortable. The wheels... look flimsy. Honestly, look at any bicycle built in the 1930\'s, add a seat with a memory foam-esque material, replace metal with a lightweight, sturdy, recyclable material (pick one - there are plenty out there), wash the thing in a chrome/white finish, and give it a nicely concealed electric motor. Now you\'re done, and don\'t have to rely on flimsy tech/materials that, while they may sound shiny, do nothing but over-complicate a familiar concept. This competition is interesting, but ultimately completely useless.
24th November, 2010 @ 2:27 p.m. (California Time)
This bike is a huge step backwards by someone naive about cycling - this guy Nils Sveje is apparently a furniture designer by trade, probably with a limited interest in bikes. The first problem is the straight handlebars - they might be minimalist, or hip, or \"ironic\", but they would also cause uncomfortable bad posture. They\'re also not modern, having been tried and abandoned a century ago when people decided they didn\'t want to ride in pain. The second problem is that there\'s no front brake. The front brake is the more important one, because when you stop, the bike dives and puts your weight onto the front wheel. Front brakes are for stopping, rear brakes are mostly for skidding.
24th November, 2010 @ 2:35 p.m. (California Time)
WTF. Sorry for all the losers to have lost to such a far fetched fantasy design. Not the first time, that\'s for sure... Bike 0.2 is more like it.
27th November, 2010 @ 2:35 p.m. (California Time)
Another triumph of \"design\" over functionality. This design shows ignorance of bicycle design, the basic laws of physics and a total lack of experience in real world electrical engineering.
On the other hand he apparently can win at least some contests.
28th November, 2010 @ 4:55 a.m. (California Time)