https://bicycledesign.blogspot.com/20...-assorted.html
https://www.coroflot.com/public/indiv...set_id=387021&

this is the first one of these concept bikes i've seen in a while that i think is still a feasible bike. not sure how practical it is for commuter needs... but it's cool. i like the integrated headlights/taillight. looks like he actually BUILT it too, instead of just a CAD program or something.

Put some carbon fenders on it.

I'm guessing this thing isn't meant to be locked up.

what's the point of commuting on something that would be far too valuable to let out of your sight.

also it's hideous.

Insurance fraud?

The only thing it's missing is clipless pedals and some fenders. Oh, and automatic gearing makes baby Raptor Jesus cry.

it's inevitable that someone always brings up practicality with these projects. it's a DESIGN THESIS. the POINT is to impress a panel of academics sufficiently to where they give you a degree.

But part of design is good, practical industrial design. Something that's elegant, but functional. Design isn't just about aesthetics. If he had created something that didn't just look pretty and go fast but also pandered to commuter needs, then maybe he could call it a commuter bike.

Indeed.

CF has its merits, but not in a commuter. The appalling failure mode and vulnerability to knocks rules it out of sane consideration.

The integrated seat post is also a bad idea for a commuter. For a minor weight saving you make the bike much harder to re-sell and ensure that a rider who starts with his saddle too low will never be able to adjust it.

And I think that hydraulic brakes with that sporty geometry would make the bike a endo factory in the hands of most commuters.

As it is, the bike is pretty - but as a commuter it's a bad design.

The only thing that makes sense to me is the integrated lights. Especially if they were dynamo powered.

i agree, but remember that his target market is not commuters, bike riders, bike mechanics, bike builders, it's some stuffy old design academics who have spent their lives fussing over the aesthetics of illustrations and models and probably think that just being a ridable bicycle makes it functional enough, especially with the fancy lights.

for instance, i've seen a lot of REALLY cool looking furniture that has great design elements and probably garnished a lot of praise, but frankly just isn't that comfortable to sit on. the fact that it allows you to sit on it is often function enough.





i agree it's crappy as a practical bike, as long as no one actually assumes that it's going to end up on any LBS showroom floors. it was made for a grade.

I'd like to see what the Eames would have come up with.

probably a recumbent

I dunno. I think whoever's evaluating his thesis is a bit smarter than that. Aesthetics and feel mean a lot to designers, but they mean nothing in the face of poor functionality. That second chair you posted doesn't look terrible at all. It would be just as comfortable as sitting on some random park bench. At least it looks nicer. Obviously the first one, however, is a concept made entirely for the sake of pleasing the eye. I doubt very much that it was produced.

Designers, even high-class, avant-garde ones, know a lot about what people want and need in a product; that's why we buy their stuff.

The whole beef here is that this guy is calling his project a "commuter cycle," so he's trying to pass it off as functional: the integrated headlights, the chain guard, etc. If it was completely about design, the bike wouldn't have either of those things (except maybe the chain guard; maybe a chain ruins the clean lines), and instead would basically just be a rolling piece of art.

The same article linked by the OP has plenty of other examples of GOOD bicycle design. Even conceptual ones, that are award-winning, not for being just eye-pleasing, but extremely functional, sensible and ingenious from an engineering/industrial perspective. Here's a good one:

https://www.treehugger.com/files/2009...le-pumping.php

That guy needs to get some foot retention.

It would be great if one of these super-sharp guys/gals started from practicality and then beautified/modernized. Every thought should be evaluated for practicality, longevity and ease of maintenance. After that, DESIGN beautification without trading in a bit of the practical nature. But, I suppose if that happened you would just end up with a Breezer Uptown.

I happen to own a carbon commuter bike. Specialized S works carbon tricross, fitted with a single 40t ring on the front , and 11-32 on the rear. panaracer T serv 32c tires. swept handlebars, locking skewers, spray painted primer grey, fenders go on it in the winter. about 16 pounds. It is easily the strongest bike Ive ever owned. easily handles urban abuse. I lock it up all the time in high crime zones. doesnt really look flashy,,,,folks who think carbon is weak have no experience with carbon cross bikes

He misspelled hydraulic, and managed two errors in the spelling of lighting. One letter grade off for poor attention to detail.

Need the carbon frame to offset the weight of that Nuvinchi hub.

I want a horn *here* *here* and *here* because I can never find one when I'm mad.