The "traditional" bicycle frame

[johnmdesigner]

The “traditional” bicycle frame.

It has occurred to me in the evolution of the racing bike that while there have been many improvements to the components we use, and to the materials used in building the frame that the geometry of the frame and its relation to the components has remained constant. Points of contact (wheel drop-outs, crankset, seat, handlebars) are all contained in a triangular shape. We spin a crank with our lower body to drive the rear wheel. But is the traditional bicycle the “biomechanical” ideal for humans to transfer their energy to the wheels?

I remember many years ago a friend of mine worked in the design department at Huffy.
Now before you laugh, they did do other things there besides design labels and banana seats. He talked about building a molded “beam” that would incorporate 2 axels and the bottom bracket. The wheels would slide over the axels instead of fitting between 2 dropouts. The “beam” would guarantee tight tolerances of all the moving parts and perhaps eliminate the energy wasted due to flexing. At this point almost anything could be constructed on top to support the rider in the required position. An ugly ride perhaps, but it did show that the industry was thinking of different approaches.

I also remember reading about the evolution of the typewriter keyboard and how studies showed that a re-arrangement of the keys resulted in more efficiency for the typist. But such things could never be changed because the current keyboard layout is accepted as a fact of life in our society and the effort to change it would be greater than to leave it alone.

Now I know that a bicycle is made of many components not all made by the frame maker and as such the manufacturers and the frame makers must conform to a certain design methodology that allow them to co-exist and to make a profit. And I admit, I wouldn't want to see Tom Boonen sprinting on the thing I described above. But I am curious – if the persons who make bicycles for a living feel that the “traditional” frame shape / gear set is the ideal tool for a cyclist and if you could change everything how would you re-design the way we ride (without giving away any of your secrets)?

Thanks for looking.
Patiently waiting for magical levitation.

[my2cents]

I remember reading somewhere that the 'standard' bicycle is an increadibly efficient way for a single adult human to move from one place to another. staying under approx. 17 mph and level paved surface was most efficient - any variation (headwind, hill, higher speeds decreased efficiency of course). Of course improvements can and will be made, but the standard is already pretty good.

[swoop]

there are few feats of engineering as perfect as the double triangle. i can't think of anything strcuturally that will work better...without in some way referencing the traingle.
but i'm just a shrink so what do i know?

[goonster]

Recumbents?

[Too Tall]

"But is the traditional bicycle the “biomechanical” ideal for humans to transfer their energy to the wheels??

Yes - The beauty of this equation is that proof is infact in the pudin'. Market is created, I'l grant you that however longevity and sustained use of traditional bikes may be irrefutable. People won't use things that don't work.

You may be able to show me better versions of the traditional bicycle however it's gain(s) will not take anything away from basic design of available / affordable versions which are part sum and substance of what you call and I call a "biomechanical" ideal....yada yada yada.

Come to the light...you MUST love the lug ;)

Seeeee how it glistens.....

[JonnyComeLately]

Recumbents?

Yeah -- I thought recumbents were supposed to be more efficient than standard bikes because of the reduced aerodynamic drag. While they climb more slowly, they more than compensate on the descents. (Or at least that's what I seem to remember reading...)

[Steve Hampsten]

I think a good analogy may be drawn using chairs and shoes: if you think of the "least worst" way to build either of those you have a good picture in your head of what a chair or shoe would look like - a Platonic ideal, if you will.

No chair or shoe is perfectly fitting or perfectly comfortable for long periods - it can't be - due to the pressure of the body upon the weight-bearing surfaces and for the body's need to constantly adjust and move about.

If we apply this to bicycles we see that a bicycle is a series of compromises: some compromises are ergonomic, some are engineering-based, others are financial, some are even aesthetic.

A beam bike might work, but it would need to be stiff enough to transfer power, flexible enough to ride comfortably and give a good road feel, light enough to compete with a diamond frame, and would need to be accepted enough in the market to sell.

Maybe some things - watches, forks, hammers, bicycles, condoms - really are as well-designed as they can possibly be. This isn't to say that people shouldn't try to improve on existing technology, but that the returns are usually pretty limited in relation to the effort expended.

[PanTerra]

Is this what you had in mind?

[Jeremy]

I also remember reading about the evolution of the typewriter keyboard and how studies showed that a re-arrangement of the keys resulted in more efficiency for the typist. But such things could never be changed because the current keyboard layout is accepted as a fact of life in our society and the effort to change it would be greater than to leave it alone.




I assume that you are referring to the Dvorak simplified keyboard. In 1936 August Dvorak patented the "Dvorak simplified keyboard". He claimed that it was superior to the QWERTY keyboard and that people would learn more quickly and type faster and more efficiently on his keyboard. He promoted it as a way for business and government agencies to save money by improving labor efficiency. The supposed superiority of Dvorak over QWERTY is often cited as an example of market failure, in that the "better" technology failed because of entrenched interests and an aversion to change.

However, the superiority of Dvorak is a myth. Belief in this myth comes from two primary sources: Dvorak's own promotional literature and a 1944 Navy study that seemed to show a siginificant advantage in learning and typing speed for people trained on Dvorak, as opposed to people retrained on QWERTY. The experimental evidence in Dvorak's promotional literature is suspect because the studies he commisioned were poorly controlled and deeply flawed. The Navy study seems better at first glance, but it is not. There is evidence that the authors of the study manipulated the methodology and the results to guarantee a favorable conclusion for Dvorak. One might wonder why a Navy study would cook the books in favor of Dvorak. The answer is simple. The Navy's top expert in the analysis of time and motion studies during WWII was none other than Lieut. Com. August Dvorak. What's more, the Navy experiment was conducted by Dvorak himself. Dvorak owned the patent on the keyboard and stood to reap significant financial gain if the Navy adopted the Dvorak simplified keyboard.

There have been a number of studies that have not only failed to reproduce the results of the Navy study, but have shown either no significant difference between the two, or a slight superiority of QWERTY over Dvorak.

Labor costs in America are high and business is very concerned about increasing labor efficiency. Business constantly adopts new, more efficient technology to effectively reduce labor costs. The reason Dvorak never took off is because it is not any better than QWERTY. I know this response is a little off-topic, but I think that the history is interesting.

Jeremy

[mosca]

I've often wondered what would happen if the UCI dropped all their equipment rules and just said "anything goes". Would The Tour then be ridden on recumbents? Imagine!

I've also wondered what would happen if the all the pro riders today were suddenly required to ride 30 year old bicycles. Would the average speeds change that much? Somehow I doubt they would. Aside from a few less gears and a few more pounds, those 30 year old bikes are amazingly similar to their modern counterparts. I know this is partly due to the UCI and their desire to keep a sense of tradition, visually, in the sport, but it also speaks well of the fundamental design that has lasted so long.

Not sure what's next, though. Maybe soon someone will put an engine on a bicycle, then we'll have something!!

[zeroking17]

I've often wondered what would happen if the UCI dropped all their equipment rules and just said "anything goes". <snip>


Here's a (p)review:


Moser's Hour Record Bike

[Too Tall]

"I've often wondered what would happen if the UCI dropped all their equipment rules and just said "anything goes". Would The Tour then be ridden on recumbents? Imagine!"

Imagine I just thew up a little.

Steve - You said condom. Most excellent ;)

Beam bikes for ultra riders
TitanFlex (it works)
Alsop (buh bye)
Softride (buh bye)
CoMotion (very limited production)
Spectrum (I think Tom only made one)
Bunch more I can not remember

Not Beam Bikes for Ultra riders
aboutazillionofem'

Talk about no impact on the market...yeesh.