Originally Posted by
David Lewis
Thanks, and yes, I am well aware of the relationship between sport and industry, and I think it may be a contributing factor in the arrested development of the bicycle as a machine. It's almost as if there's a governing body telling people what they can ride...
I think if more bicycle builders had more input into how a bicycle functions, rather than the limited activity of building a frame to fit a specific set of parts, there would be other choices made that aren't available today. The inverse of this is the Efneo crankset, which seems like such a cool product until you find out it's limited to square bottom bracket spindles, and this seems like such a kneecapping to me. I could never consider using them, and I would like to, because they went on a mission to neuter the front derailleur and succeeded. They limited their scope to one specific interface and ignored all other options.
The recent Oregon Manifest that had 5 teams from around the country design the ultimate urban bicycle ultimately chose not to do much other than moving a few tubes around. The most important design element I saw was the Ti Cycles' headset design, which looked like an actual improvement over existing practice. The sintered frame was a cool idea too, but why did they stop at the frame?
Bookmarks