Cyclopic Spokeless eFolder

Well here is something new, a spokeless electric folding bike that looks like a futuristic penny farthing!





The Cyclopic folds into the front wheel to create a very compact design for transport and storage. Low maintenance and cleanliness is another highlight with a full enclosed drivetrain and puncture proof tires from Tannus.

Setting aside efficiency issues of hubless wheels,
the seat sits almost directly over the rear wheel's center.
That's some pretty awkward riding geometry.

I know - it's almost like a penny farthing in a lean back sort of way. The fold is pretty clever, though. And it's electric so maybe the user wouldn't be pedaling very hard.

Does it Exist. or just in CGI Until patent is granted..

Hubless wheels can Be the electric motor..


....

Rather than getting sprayed onto you, the mud gets packed into those tubes for tires ane then the bike stops, so you do not need to deal with any maintenance - trying to transcribe these claims onto some actual practical experience.

This bike scares me,...LOL!!! I'd be deathly afraid to even sit on it. Us chubby guys tip over quite easily!

I think it would handle like driving an articulated front end loader, but a front end loader has four wheels so you do not have to balance it.

Resembles a dyson.

A suspended seatpost would have been nice. I suspect the ride is harsh.

They laughed at Wilbur and Orville , too.
But then ,they laughed at Bob Hope, as well.

I'm sure we've all see a score of "bikes" imagineered by designers over the years. They're pretty much all as silly as this one.

Why do they all seem to hate spokes?

The proportions don't even remotely work. For it to work with no head tube and the seat so close to to the smaller wheel, that would have to be a 36" or so front wheel. I've got one here, it's a bit unwieldy and too big to carry it hanging from your arm the way pictured on their site. Even if you assume the pedals are just decoration, there's no reason to put them way up at the height of the axis of the rear wheel, look at a picture of an adult on a unicycle where the cranks actually need to be at axle height and it becomes obvious that would take a far taller seatpost than pictured. Essentially their pedals are too high to use, but if they're not going to be used then pedal strikes aren't an issue and they could just have low moped running boards.

Seems like this was sketched by an artist who's never ridden any sort of cycle device - notice no one on their "meet the team" lists any familiarity with any sort of cycling at all; you'd think a bike company would have at least someone who'd pose on or with a bike...

The whole concentricity idea is silly anyway; it forces a large diameter wheel which is an immediate portability issue, while yielding a very narrow package, which isn't all that much an asset, and then you actually sit over the small wheel leading to worse ride quality than wrangling that big one on and off trains and busses should earn you. If you dispense with or fold the pedaling mechanism, you could fold two 24" wheels beside each other and have decent ride quality in a still fairly narrow package but with a maximum dimension that will fit in a train/bus overhead luggage bin where this would not remotely.

If they want to argue that the idea actually has merit, the most obvious thing they need to do is build one up with their proposed proportions using ordinary off the shelf spoked wheels that let the bike function, but not fold (putting cranks inside a spoked wheel's circumference but not concentric with its axle is a problem that Huni-Rex for example solved using a chain on each side, or they could just make a purely electric prototype - though trying to put them there is one of their more obvious mistakes). Actually get on that and ride it, and they'll realize the proposed design is not going to work well.

Here at least is a picture (I suspect render/photosohp - notice the valve stem that wouldn't survive a single rotation) that reveals the proportion problem:

https://www.standard.co.uk/tech/elec...-a4110151.html

Notice where the seat is compared to where it needs to be?

And of course articles just get generated from a press package without any actual *thought* put into considering what has been proposed.

Pennys are front drive.

The 1879 Lawson Bicyclette, an actual rideable bicycle:



Folding joint also the steering axis? "Simsons already did it." US Patent 378253, 'Folding Velocipede', E. G. Latta, 1888:



131 years later and still a bad idea.

Yet another clueless designer thinking hubless wheel is cool.

Hubless wheel is stupid idea in general, as you can see from this actual one made by Yale students.

"front wheel (diameter): 1020 mm"

So a 40 inch wheel - pretty much confirms my argument that this proposed one with a little more handlebar would need something close to the 36in range on front for the proportions to work. Maybe 34", though the next available size down for prototyping is 32.

Not exactly most people's idea of folding bike portability.

A folding , segmented wheel, penny farthing bike was pictured in the "Brompton Bicycle" book ...

You have to buy the book to see the picture ..

There was a guy who cut a 36er wheel into three pieces to fly. It's counterintuitive but a few pins are all the existing joint typically needs, so two more can work too. He'd build up the wheel in baggage claim with the frame as a jig and ride off.

Seems a little easier with a pneumatic tire than rubber retained by a twist and solder wire.

Or, you know, just Google it.

For a modern folding (and transforming dwarf) penny, check out the MC2.

https://www.mc2bike.com/index.html

My search did not show it, [tcs] but I don'r write IT code.. either..

Yeah, the cool aesthetics of the hubless wheel were a big part of why I went with the Geoorbital wheel for my Montague --- the negative riding aspects (vibration/harsh ride, heavy due to the motor/battery) would make me leery of a non-powered implementation.

Wow that's...something.