Lots of "eh?" and "why?" from me but interesting all the same (maybe others see more potentional in some of it). I'm no mechanical engineer but some of the designs seem highly optimistic in terms of ability to work and / or manufacture.
Still it's good to see so much thought going into cycle innovation - regardless of how bonkers some of the proposals!
Lots of "eh?" and "why?" from me but interesting all the same (maybe others see more potentional in some of it). I'm no mechanical engineer but some of the designs seem highly optimistic in terms of ability to work and / or manufacture.
Still it's good to see so much thought going into cycle innovation - regardless of how bonkers some of the proposals!
Judging by the previous award-winners that I skimmed through (slow site and I lost patience) the competition seems to concentrate on original ideas rather than practicality. In a way that's understandable because most of the more workable entries are rehashes of Edwardian designs, chunky plastic bikes, flimsy folders or exercises in graphic design that add superfluous bits which don't enhance functionality. There are a few nice ideas for toys mixed in with the dross, but most of the stuff is definitely below the standard of that sideways-bike thing that Michael Killian has been trying to promote for years.
Lots of "eh?" and "why?" from me but interesting all the same (maybe others see more potentional in some of it). I'm no mechanical engineer but some of the designs seem highly optimistic in terms of ability to work and / or manufacture.
There have been quite a few ideas which have won awards etc. despite being impossible to produce without rewriting the laws of physics ridiculed on the Dans Data blog lately. I think most design competitions revolve around what looks nice as opposed to what might actually work well...
