what do you think to this



Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dirtylitterboxo

Guest
Completely ugly. Should be strangled at birth.

Cheers, helen s

--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam-- to get correct one remove dependency on fame &
fortune h*$el*$$e**nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**[email protected]$*$a$$o**l.c**$*$om$$
 
M

Mseries

Guest
jamie g" <" wrote:
> http://www.phatbritain.com/3g%20S-Rod.htm

I think its terrible though I don't like those full suss and Y-frame bikes, I am a traditionalist
when it comes to bikes, diamond frame made of metal, top tube parallel to the road, 36 spokes per
wheel please.

Each to their own though.
 
T

Tony W

Guest
"Mark Thompson" <[email protected] (change warm for hot)>
wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > http://www.phatbritain.com/3g%20S-Rod.htm
>
> You lot are impossible to please - always whinging at the lack of
innovation and
> then, when it does come along, you whinge about the innovation!

Innovation yes -- fashion victim no.

Innovation is such as a quality recumbent, a Brompton or a Whyte. It must offer something
demonstrably better than a standard diamond frame safety.

The S bike is a fashion statement/victim.

What demonstrable benefits is it supposed to offer?

T
 
J

Jamie G

Guest
"Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mark Thompson" <[email protected] (change warm for hot)> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > > http://www.phatbritain.com/3g%20S-Rod.htm
> >
> > You lot are impossible to please - always whinging at the lack of
> innovation and
> > then, when it does come along, you whinge about the innovation!
>
> Innovation yes -- fashion victim no.
>
> Innovation is such as a quality recumbent, a Brompton or a Whyte. It must offer something
> demonstrably better than a standard diamond frame safety.
>
> The S bike is a fashion statement/victim.
>
> What demonstrable benefits is it supposed to offer?
>
A more comfortable ride? It is only intended for town use, and what's wrong with having something
that looks different if it doesn't offer any demonstrable disadvantages?
 
T

Tony Raven

Guest
Tony W wrote:
>
> Innovation yes -- fashion victim no.
>
> Innovation is such as a quality recumbent, a Brompton or a Whyte. It must offer something
> demonstrably better than a standard diamond frame safety.
>
> The S bike is a fashion statement/victim.
>
> What demonstrable benefits is it supposed to offer?
>

People ridiculed bicycles, the Brompton and Whyte when they were first introduced and its only
because time has shown them to be successful that that has abated somewhat. We only get innovation
because people dare to try and risk failure - and there's always a bunch of yahoos on the sidelines
ridiculing their attempts.

Tony

"All truth goes through three steps: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed.
Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer
 
S

Stuart

Guest
Oh go on, you will open your minds, you will, you will, you will!

A little different from the norm perhaps. But please let us not dis-miss the constant evolution of
the bicycle, no matter how odd or ridiculous the future may look.

S Fox.

jamie g wrote:
> http://www.phatbritain.com/3g%20S-Rod.htm
 
T

Tony W

Guest
"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> People ridiculed bicycles, the Brompton and Whyte when they were first introduced and its only
> because time has shown them to be successful that
that
> has abated somewhat. We only get innovation because people dare to try
and
> risk failure - and there's always a bunch of yahoos on the sidelines ridiculing their attempts.

The S frame appears to have a spectacular weakness in that the entire front end is supported only
through the top loop of the S. The back end is braced -- to some extent -- by the suspension
element. It the top and bottom loops are of similar stiffness -- ignoring the suspension element --
which seems a reasonable assumption given the sizing of the tubes etc. either the suspension element
is little more than decoration or the front of the bike is attached with something as stiff as a
rubber band.

Agreed that you need to risk failure to innovate. Alex Moulton's space frame designs never 'caught
on' but came from an attempt to rethink and analyse the requirements of the frame (indeed growing
from the earlier rethink of the whole bike with the earlier F frame, small wheel with suspension
designs -- which also looked 'cool' but which failed because it was too different). Likewise a Whyte
frame tries to answer real engineering problems. A Brommie may not be the best bike -- but it
preserves a fair bike within a package that folds very well -- so compromises are made for an
additional benefit.

The S frame's 'innovation' seems to be to look different and 'cool' rather than to answer
engineering problems. As such I doubt it will survive as a long term contribution to bicycle design.

If that makes me a yahoo sitting on the sidelines then sorry. Cool is not enough for this yahoo.

T
 
L

-Lsqnot Respond

Guest
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 04:05:25 -0000, "Tony W" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
>berlin.de...
>>
>> People ridiculed bicycles, the Brompton and Whyte when they were first introduced and its only
>> because time has shown them to be successful that
>that
>> has abated somewhat. We only get innovation because people dare to try
>and
>> risk failure - and there's always a bunch of yahoos on the sidelines ridiculing their attempts.
>
>The S frame appears to have a spectacular weakness in that the entire front end is supported only
>through the top loop of the S. The back end is braced -- to some extent -- by the suspension
>element. It the top and bottom loops are of similar stiffness -- ignoring the suspension element --
>which seems a reasonable assumption given the sizing of the tubes etc. either the suspension
>element is little more than decoration or the front of the bike is attached with something as stiff
>as a rubber band.
>
>Agreed that you need to risk failure to innovate. Alex Moulton's space frame designs never 'caught
>on' but came from an attempt to rethink and analyse the requirements of the frame (indeed growing
>from the earlier rethink of the whole bike with the earlier F frame, small wheel with suspension
>designs -- which also looked 'cool' but which failed because it was too different). Likewise a
>Whyte frame tries to answer real engineering problems. A Brommie may not be the best bike -- but it
>preserves a fair bike within a package that folds very well -- so compromises are made for an
>additional benefit.
>
>The S frame's 'innovation' seems to be to look different and 'cool' rather than to answer
>engineering problems. As such I doubt it will survive as a long term contribution to
>bicycle design.

It may well be **** in engineering terms, its claimed phationability will not last and to
conventional eyes it looks ugly. I couldn't care less about any of that because you won't find me
buying one and I doubt any of us are even outliers in the target marketplace.

But if it gets some of its target market on bikes then I'm all for it. New people on bikes is
probably the most relevant effect of bike innovation to me. I don't race so the latest laser cut
carbon fibre bidon is of no importance. I don't do downhill singletrack so improvements in 7 inch
travel suspension systems are meaningless.

More people on bikes - even **** ones - means more business for the LBS, safety in numbers on the
roads and more likelyhood that traffic engineers will take us seriously. All this is Good for Me.

If a bike design manages this then I couldn't be less concerned that it's made of depleted uranium
or looks hideous.

It is not necessary for a design to be 'good' to achieve this. Look at at the millions of ludicrous
micro-scooter contraptions that beseiged our pavements a couple of years back. I trained as an
engineer and my overwhelming thought was 'what utter shite'. But wouldn't it have been great if
they'd been bikes and wouldn't a few of the owners gone on to buy 'real' bikes later.

>If that makes me a yahoo sitting on the sidelines then sorry. Cool is not enough for this yahoo.

Remember also, the definition of innovation. To merely come up with a great idea and have it sit on
your desk is only 'invention'. To innovate you also need to deliver to market and for that, 'cool'
is essential.
 
S

Simon Brooke

Guest
"jamie g" <""> writes:

> http://www.phatbritain.com/3g%20S-Rod.htm

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

The object of a bike frame is to achieve the maximum stiffness with the minimum weight. That's why
the tubes are typically straight: they act as pure struts transmitting load long their length. It's
also why the frame is fundamentally made up of triangles.

The frame shown has something approaching the minimum stiffness for the maximum weight. Try again...

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

'You cannot put "The Internet" into the Recycle Bin.'
 
S

Simon Brooke

Guest
"Mark Thompson" <[email protected] (change warm for hot)> writes:

> > http://www.phatbritain.com/3g%20S-Rod.htm
>
> You lot are impossible to please - always whinging at the lack of innovation and then, when it
> does come along, you whinge about the innovation!

Innovation needs to be based on a sound understanding of the technical objectives. I don't believe
this is. Quite apart from the fatigue issue, how heavy is that frame?

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

'You cannot put "The Internet" into the Recycle Bin.'
 
S

Simon Brooke

Guest
"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> writes:

> Tony W wrote:
> >
> > Innovation yes -- fashion victim no.
> >
> > Innovation is such as a quality recumbent, a Brompton or a Whyte. It must offer something
> > demonstrably better than a standard diamond frame safety.
> >
> > The S bike is a fashion statement/victim.
> >
> > What demonstrable benefits is it supposed to offer?
> >
>
> People ridiculed bicycles, the Brompton and Whyte when they were first introduced and its only
> because time has shown them to be successful that that has abated somewhat. We only get innovation
> because people dare to try and risk failure - and there's always a bunch of yahoos on the
> sidelines ridiculing their attempts.

Yup, you're right. I'm still not convinced that this is a good innovation, though.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

'You cannot put "The Internet" into the Recycle Bin.'
 
T

Tony Raven

Guest
Tony W wrote:
>
> The S frame's 'innovation' seems to be to look different and 'cool' rather than to answer
> engineering problems. As such I doubt it will survive as a long term contribution to
> bicycle design.
>

It looks like another go in the long line of adding suspension through the frame flex - the much
copied Moots, the Ibis BowTi and the Slingshot. There is nothing instrinically wrong with using
frame flex in this way with the right frame materials. No-one is forcing you to buy one and you
haven't ridden one so give it the benefit of the doubt. Like most innovations the market will sort
them out and most will fail. Doesn't mean its not worth trying. After all, who thought of something
as stupid as a bike where you lay back on the seat and pedalled ;-)

Cue Fred Astaire singing Gershwins' "They all laughed"

Tony
 
J

Just Zis Guy

Guest
"[Not Responding]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Remember also, the definition of innovation. To merely come up with a great idea and have it sit
> on your desk is only 'invention'. To innovate you also need to deliver to market and for that,
> 'cool' is essential.

Hmmmm. Microsoft defines "innovation" as taking someone else's idea and pretending it's your own. I
define it as coming up with something genuinely new - like the Moulton or the Brompton. I can't see
much that's innovative about this bike, it actually looks rather conventional to me. But I am not
the target market.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
 

Nora Lenderby

New Member
Jul 24, 2003
36
0
0
"Tony W" writes:

> Alex Moulton's space frame designs never 'caught on' but
> came from an attempt to rethink and analyse the
> requirements of the frame (indeed growing from the earlier
> rethink of the whole bike with the earlier F frame, small
> wheel with suspension designs -- which also looked 'cool'
> but which failed because it was too different).

The F-frame Moulton was embraced by the public in part *because* it was different. I was given a Moulton Deluxe by my husband in 1963, and it gave me many years of faithful service. We were both won over by its modernity. A quarter of a million were built and sold between 1961 and 1974.

The reasons for the F-frame's demise are several, including competition from cheaper and more profitable (though technically inferior) unsuspended small-wheelers, a decline in dealer relations brought about by some reliability problems caused by the use of subcontractors in the rush to meet early demand, and Raleigh's eventual purchase and suppression of the brand and concept.

I recommend Tony Hadland's excellent book 'The Moulton Bicycle' to anyone with an interest in the process of bringing an innovative product to market, or the reasons for Britain's decline as an industrial power.

N. Lenderby (Mrs)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.