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.