Round Tail Bike
 

I wasn't sure where to post this. What are your thought's on this beaut?

It seems like a great concept, but it's plain old ugly to me.

http://roundtailbike.com/

http://www.ohgizmo.com/wp-content/up...dtail_bike.jpg

Hmm... isn't triangulation stronger better than circularization? On the other hand, it may have just the right flex to make for a smooth ride.

""It seems like a great concept, but it's plain old ugly to me.""

didn't someone say that to Orville and Wilbur? is it suposed to be a shock absorbing thing?

Seems like it requires more material than a triangle, and triangles are plenty strong as proven over the past 150 years or so.

This seems to be the theory:

What type of "standard double-diamond frame?" What material? What tubing size and type? Sounds like more hype than fact.

Yes, it's supposed to lessen the shock of going over rough tarrain by 50%.

http://roundtail.ca/main/benefits

Sounds like an answer to a question that nobody is asking . . . . . . at least not very loudly, in any case.

Its a question that aging racerboys who've spent nearly all of their time on CF and Aluminum probably would like to know

...or I suppose you could just build a standard diamond frame out of Steel and call it a day. :rolleyes:

I would be concerned that after a bit of rough trail riding, it would transform from a round tail bike to an oval tail bike.

I'll refrain from comment. However, here's the video clip the roundass bike inspires:

http://youtu.be/gFRSawe33sA

Sorta NSFW

Looks to me like it's not quite C&V...

This is ridiculous.

to criticize an attempt to create a new bicycle design is sort of like criticizing the pneumatic tire while riding a wooden wheel bike. It may not look great cause we are used to diamond frame bikes, but invention is the mother of progression. Without invention we are doomed to remain the same. This guy is from Windsor Canada? Hey, so we are talking about an inventive development and it's not coming out of some asian market! North Americans are good for something other than customer service! Woo hoo!

I'd take one for a ride just see what it is all about. At my age, I'm into comfort.

I'm not criticizing the attempt to innovate, I'm criticizing the marketing which is vague and short on detail. It makes it sound like BS, which maybe it is.

Yes, to poo-poo invention in general is short-sighted. However, this particular idea won't go anywhere useful. Sometimes, we can tell. There are lots of reasons the diamond frame is still with us. It's been tried and refined for a century or so. Alternatives come and go. I'm sure this will go pretty quickly, if it ever comes.

There have been suspension systems on bikes for a darned long time, especially if you could the pneumatic tire. Modern day bikes use a lot of expense and weight to replicate the function of a sprung saddle, and sometimes it's worth it, and sometimes it's not. This pair of circles won't be.

This is not a new idea... we build these reproductions.

http://breakingchainstakinglanes.wor...ign-revisited/

The Cygnet is a beautiful riding bicycle and my partner has his own... he curbs out at 270 pounds and does not find that there is any problem with the stiffness of the frame but the complexity of designing and building these exceeds that of a normal diamond frame.

One might also look at the Pedersen which is another design that hearkens back to the turn of the 20th century...

http://www.pedersenbicycles.com/

And...

http://www.moultonbicycles.co.uk/

The tooling would seem to be the limiting factor as far as I'm concerned. They'd have to change diameter for larger frame sizes.... unless they want to go with the current one to three sizes fit all trends.

Hmm... doesn't sound right to me. Could be a comfy riding bike and all. It looks like it allows the rear wheel to be further forward like on Tri bikes, but sounds like a bit too much hype in the marketing to me. The Cynet looks interesting, but I'd be curious about the price point, as the reviewer mentioned it is far from her means.

good points all.
Acht! The Cygnet does look like a bike I'd love to try

In this iteration, no, it's not C&V. But as a retread of Hetchins' "vibrant stays" and Bates "diadrant" forks, it is arguably on-topic. I believe Alex Moulton did extensive testing on both of the latter and decided they were snake oil. Either way, what you get is a frame that definitely stands out visually and you can claim it has a standout ride. In other words, it's a marketing ploy pretending to be a design improvement.

The biggest difference I see with this bike and the other's is it's simplicity compared to the others which look very exspencive to make and look as though they have a lot more parts to fail compared to the this one.

If it wins Paris-Roubaix, then I'll give it a second thought. Otherwise, I'm old enough to know this is another attempt to blow smoke up ones' a55. It'll appeal to those who simply want to stand out in a crowd. (Some people just can't live without this kind of attention.)
There are far more efficient and tested designs to yield a comfortable ride.
I think they did themselves a disservice by presenting a race prepped bike. They should have went after the city/commuter market. More success of acceptance from those buyers.

I hate this thread. I was able to forget about the existence of Moultons and Pedersens - now I find myself searching ebay and craigslist. A pox on you Mr. Sixty Fiver!

Innovative, perhaps, but I see nothing about weight. It looks like playground equipment to me...

http://i741.photobucket.com/albums/x...5404bfe9_o.jpg