Forgive me in advance for my cynicism. Whilst I appreciate the value of ‘concept’ vehicles and other flights of fancy I can’t help but be annoyed when I see what happens to the bicycle when product designers turn their attention to it. A bicycle is a beautifully resolved and mature piece of engineering. It has taken more than a century of continual development to get where we are today.
Occasionally new materials come along which, after a period of assimilation, are adopted whole-heartedly by the bicycle industry. We rather take it for granted nowadays but aluminium required a great deal of development before it became widely used and carbon-fibre composite construction has been knocking on the bike factory door for twenty five years. Every so often new technology (indexed shifting, suspension) or new thinking (mountain bikes) comes along which have a major impact on the world of cycling. Very rarely an engineering genius comes along (Burrows, Moulton, Andrew Ritchey, Paul Turner, George at Pacific Cycles and whoever the guy was who invented the Crank Bros Egg-beater pedal) whose influence exceeds that of most folk in the industry but aside from these few blips technological development has been very gradual.
Part of the reason for this is that bikes, for the most part, and unlike most other consumer durables, are not styling exercises. The components are there because they provide necessary function or structure. That top tube isn’t where it is because it looks pretty, it’s there to do a job. Its diameter, wall thickness, method of attachment and the precise mix of materials used to make it weren’t arbitrarily decided, they were essential design parameters.
It’s the nature of the thing. Bikes have small engines so they need to be light. Excess weight has been pared down over the decades until only that which is absolutely necessary remains. When you look at any half decent bicycle you are looking at a refined, pure, stripped-down, minimalist machine.
This? Oh gawd.
No. No. No.
WTF and LOL.
A second year industrial designer looks at the beautifully simple, elegant, refined and evolved top-tube of a bicycle and thinks; ‘That doesn’t look right’, it would look better with a kink/ hole/ spiral/ flower motif in it’. They make the mistake of thinking that the top tube was placed there because someone thought it looked good there. They don’t get it. It’s willful ignorance. And possibly arrogance.
I was checking out the finalists of The International Bicycle Design Competition recently. Some neat concepts, wonderfully fresh thinking, great rendering. Slick. The trouble is, even if you could build them most of them couldn’t be safely ridden. Structural integrity? Ahem. Nope. Steering geometry; castor, trail, rake, off-set? Not in evidence. Leg length adjustability? None whatsoever. Infinitely variable hydraulic transmission? Check. Hub-less wheels running on polytetraflourohelium bearings? Check.
I have no objection whatsoever to concept bikes, art bikes or even un-rideable low-rider show bikes. My real complaint is that the monkeys who work for the lifestyle magazines and gadget blogs pick up on these lifeless renderings and present them as the ’solution’ to the ‘problem’ of boring old bikes.
Without ever appreciating just how fabulous bikes already are.
Having said that….. some of these are pretty cool!!!