Core77

Does No One Else Find This Ridiculous?

By Ray Hu - July 31, 2014

in Object Culture

Bike Grouch Alert: So it's come to this.

That there is Lucid Design's "Kit Bike," which, like an IKEA shelving unit, can be assembled from and disassembled into 21 parts for ease of transport. I didn't mind Paolo de Giusti's asymmetrical concept bike and I can appreciate the over-the-top hipster chic of Van Hulsteijns, but this is exactly the kind of thing that the general public will eat up with nary a thought about whether it would actually work. After all, it turned up in a couple of reputable design blogs, one of which notes that:

The bike frame is made from hollow aluminum tubes that twist together and can be secured with a key. Since the frame attaches only on one side of the wheels, the bike can be assembled and disassembled while it leans against a wall. When it's not in use, the parts and wheels can each be stowed in sections in a custom-designed bag.

Sounds too good to be true, right? Well, that's because it is.

Don't get me wrong—I personally would love to have a bicycle that I could snap together like a tent (a well-designed one, of course), but then again, I don't know if I would trust the contraption to hold up on the road. I'm no engineer, but the very thought of applying torque to that rear wheel—note that the hub is connected only at a single, non-driveside dropout—makes me feel like I'm breaking something. Meanwhile, if the grossly oversimplified componentry and lack of brakes can be written off, the fact that the drivetrain is on the wrong side suggests that the Bangalore, India-based firm lacks a basic understanding of a bicycle in itself.Furthermore, this isn't the first time that I've (ahem) railed against a Red Dot Design Award-winner—the organization had previously recognized dubious Saddle Lock—and I have to wonder why, exactly, these entirely impractical concepts are at all noteworthy. Naturally, the Oregon Manifest comes to mind as a more realistic approach to reinventing the bicycle, and even the farfetched Fliz made it to the prototype stage. (Full disclosure, I did write up another case of style over substance, the nCycle, but even that had some merit.)

The selling point, of course, is not so much the aesthetics or styling but the fact that the Kit Bike can disassembled for storage and transportation. Well, it so happens that S&S couplers or a Ritchey Break-Away are readily available options for a travel bike with standard 700c wheels. It's also worth mentioning that Kestrel introduced the modern seat-tube-less design in 1992 or so, and respected framebuilders from Yamaguchi to Icarus—note the ancillary stays throughout—have experimented with variations on the theme (commenters are welcome to share other historic examples; Thonet need not apply).

It's one thing to sketch a concept or even to render it, but to suggest that the Kit Bike is feasible, much less practical, is a disservice to design. I'd go so far as to venture that the Google Self-Driving Car is more realistic, but I'll leave you with this:

NYTimes via Paola Antonelli

Good in theory, perhaps, but absolutely absurd in practice.

o

Favorite This
Q
15

Comment

Comments

slippyfish

10 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

There is a widening gap between the kind of design concept projects that win contests, and the kinds of projects or work that you would put in front of a paying client. If for example you had a bicycle manufacturer client, its doubtful that you would present something like this and expect payment.
!Report as spam
Dave

10 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

With the boom of crowd funding, we are inundated with poor designs getting "coverage" online. This is generally where I think us Industrial Designers really stand out from the home inventor. How often have you looked at these products and thought, "What problem is being solved?" The author of the article, and commentators a like, have all pointed out the new problems this design is creating. So I won't get into that. I just don't get the very point of the design.

I think by now, people understand the size of a bicycle is that way for a reason. If you are trying to travel by bicycle, you need a machine that is fast, efficient, safe, and can quickly and easily get you from point A to point B. Where would you ride this deconstructable bike? Who wants to build up and tear down a bike each time they are going to ride? Is storing a bag of bike parts and wheels any easier then a fully assembled bike?

I don't live in a city with trains for mass transit, but this is the only place I even see a foldable bike making sense. But even this customer wants to quickly and easily transform from cycling, to riding the train, and back to cycling.

Build-a-bike?? Honestly, ain't nobody got time for that.
!Report as spam
JB

10 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

Has this won a red dot?? Don't think so.
its not on the red dot award listing is it?
Red Dot Concept winners are not announced until late September 2014...
Would be interested to see judges comments if it has won a dot...
!Report as spam
Ben

10 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

"Coming to a Halfords near you soon!"

I almost didn't comment because I see terrible bike concept after terrible bike concept getting coverage on design blogs, and tend to ignore them.

The bicycle is possibly the most misunderstood product of all because they are perceived as being simple, yet are very complicated. Perhaps thats what makes them such a timeless design.

The Giant Half way is a commercially successful bike that uses a single sided fork and seatstay/chainstay AND it folds. However it uses 20" wheels and has a tiny frame.
!Report as spam
the dude.

10 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

close but no banana.

the break points are way way way way off.

one idea would have been to "modularize" parts, that is to say/propose a single piece bottom bracket+chain stay where the crack remains in place, the pedals are removed and the rear "cog" remains in place. the wheel is dropped out of the dropout and the whole section is placed in a bag along with a.....

you know what, I hate this bike so much. whats the deal with the obsession for fixed gear looking bikes? that all happened 10 years ago. can we move on?
!Report as spam
J

10 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

I don't know who you are Ray, but from the deepest place in my heart, thank you for this article. This 'thing' (I refuse to call it a bike) frustrates me no end.

I saw it on aforementioned design blog (no clues but it rhymes with schezeen) and felt my blood boil, not only because it was getting coverage, but because it won a Red Dot.

I literally couldn't believe it and, as a recent ID grad myself, started to ask the question: was my degree really worth it?

If a company can just bosh out a CAD render and get some serious recognition in the design world, was it actually worth me spending 4 years suffering from sleep deprivation and having ideas and prototypes torn to shreds in tutorials and user tests?

Maybe I'm overreacting, or maybe I should drop the approach I'm going for at the moment and start making shiny things that don't work.

Ta for now.
!Report as spam
Nicholas Cage

10 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

Core77 is one of my favorite design platforms to visit every now and then. But I'm a little disappointed that you guys chose to have a separate post to bash a design concept, however impractical it may be. I mean there are MANY concepts out there that are pretty ridiculous but this is kind of low. There are always negatives and positives to a concept. But isn't that how design works in general?
!Report as spam
Nick

10 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

I just love the snappy little line of text that appears in the video telling us to "Imagine the possibilities" as if this is some Lego-like construction set.

"Well you can build a bike, or a... bike."
!Report as spam
Ray

10 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

Thanks for your comment Paul—it's based mostly on the fact that I just don't like the way it looks.

But on a practical level, it makes more sense have the drivetrain on the right side both in terms of overall serviceability (i.e. if you wanted to upgrade the crank, assuming it's a standard BB width/diameter) and for situations where you need to shoulder it (i.e. carrying it up/down stairs)... assuming, of course, you are right-handed. Or maybe it's meant to be disassembled for portage? Who knows.
!Report as spam
DC

10 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

Adding a seat tube could resolve most of the structural issues and just one more part to the bag (except the chainstay flex).
!Report as spam
paul

10 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

This â€” the fact that the drivetrain is on the wrong side suggests that the Bangalore, India-based firm lacks a basic understanding of a bicycle in itself. â€” is based on what?

There is no right or wrong side for the drivetrain, simply a matter of available parts (handedness of the threaded components), both then (ca 1880) and now.
!Report as spam
dc_design

10 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

Oh dear God. The first time you'd sit on that bike, it would sag 2-4" as the parts and their interfaces 'settle'. The minute you'd pedal it, the motion would either make it creak uncontrollably or eventually work itself apart. The minute you hit a bump, I'd be really worried...
!Report as spam
Lawrence

10 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

I stop paying attention to these fold-able concepts long ago, even through I am a owner of of a Breakaway.

You can fold anything to fit in your pocket, if you put enough hinges in them. It'll weight a ton, and hours to setup, cost a plenty as well...
!Report as spam
Steven

10 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

There are too many parts to make this practical. Commuter bikes that quickly fold up are more practical. This would take too much time to disassemble and put in a bag. Our world is fast paced so this makes no sense. Also, who would want to take off the chain and put it back on. It's messy and frustrating on normal bikes when the chain falls off and you have to fix it. Having that as part of the design to disassemble and reassemble would only lead to an angry biker. There are hundreds of better ways to approach this design.
!Report as spam
Luis

10 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

It's definitely no coincidence that the promotional videos don't include a single shot of a person riding the bike.
!Report as spam