Ground breaking design or gimmick?

[Arrowfoot]

Looks like removing the seat tube was more to demonstrate a product difference rather than advance a functional or material advantage.

Goes to show that reinventing the wheel is still being pursued.

 

[Arrowfoot]

A more commercially successful approach when it comes to sale of new bike brands is to use an Italian name like the Canadians did and throw in "wind tunnel" a few times in the marketing material. Took a savant from Bristol to call them out in their engineering claims out after 2 decades. They threaten to sue and never did and the claims never re-surfaced. And the bike won TDF, Olympics and one of the best selling brands. And unlike the F1, its the rider more than anything.

 

[antnee]

No thanks. Why didn't they just build the bike in the conventional manner out of their new wonder material and see how it performed?
Also, I'm thinking that perhaps the new material has to be made thicker because it's not as strong as the normal stuff our bikes have been made from; thus causing a heavier frame.

 

[tyred]

Nothing new.

Here's one I prepared earlier in about 1880. Then some bright spark decided to add a seat tube.

 

[Reynard]

Lack of a seat post Is not a new idea. This, a certain fellow cycle chat members bike from 5 years ago.
View attachment 665383

Or the J.Laverack Curv.3 concept bike
View attachment 665417

These designs are interesting - but also very viable. Sure, there's no seat tube, but the saddle is on the end of a cantilever beam, which is another good way of supporting and distributing loads. You only need to look up at the ceilings of medieval churches and Great Halls (e.g. Westminster, where the Queen lay in state no so long ago) to see the principle in action.

 

[wafter]

As an engineer specialising in strength of materials, all I can say is that design goes against everything I was taught about creating a strong, stable structure.

There is a damn good reason why a triangle is one of the best ways of distributing point loads (in this case, the cyclist on the saddle) that there is. It's foundation / year 1 of an accredited degree course material. That will eventually fail where the chain stays meet the seat stays. And have all the rigidity of a blancmange.

So it's a very definite NO from me.

Plus one, for what my credentials are worth

All I can say for it is that it might have some engineered-in compliance at the seat, given the shape's inherent lack of geometric stiffness - so a nice comfy ride. Until it snaps.

In addition while not interested enought to properly read it, it seems they're not using "proper" CFRP but instead a chopped / random oriented / short fibre alternative; which will massively compromise strength too (and probably another reason why it's a bit of a porker as more material is needed to attain a given strength, on top of the sub-optimal shape).

10/10 will sink without trace.

 

[wafter]

A bike that weighs 3 kg more than my 20 year old bike, looks ugly, has various impracticalities, and may well fall to bits eventually... Er, no thanks!

Add a press-fit bottom bracket, "integrated cockpit", an electronic 1x drivetrain and it's an industry marketeer's dream

 

[berlinonaut]

This is Bike Radar's bike of the week. It's a crowd funded project in CF and lacks a seat tube. Anyone tempted?
https://www.bikeradar.com/features/bike-of-the-week/superstrata-classic/

In opposite to what bike radar claims neither the frame design nor 3d printing it is new. Urwan bikes from Magdeburg in Germany do both for a couple of years already and to my knowledge were the inventors. It is a small startup that managed to get a bit of market traction over the last years - I think I met them about like four years ago an at that time they were pretty new.

https://www.urwahnbikes.com/

What they said was that the frame design would enhance comfort and regarding the manufacturing process certain areas of the frame were "3d-printed from steel", which was a novelty.

There have been a handful of companies that have copied the design since then (and often claimed having invented it). Optically interesting but not my cup of tea.

 

[DRM]

10/10 will sink without trace.

All ready has, loads of complaints about non delivery, very expensive shipping & tax demands, bikes having components downgraded from what was ordered, rear brake calipers breaking off, seems like a bunch of scammers to me

 

[Zipp2001]

My two Zipp's are from 1993 and the Kestrel is from 1999. The Zipp's have a built-in suspension system in the beam. The painted Zipp has over 110,000 miles and was my daily ride for almost 10 years. Both Zipp's are now single speeds with the painted one as a carbon belt drive one. The Kestrel is a 1x10 and all bikes are still regular rides.

 

[Petrichorwheels]

am afraid looks to me like different for the sake of it - like so much bike design these days.
lots of new bikes I see, including stuff from the revered planetX (I just buy pants etc from them) especially if has suspension, looks plug ugly and about to break apart under the slightest stress.
probably won't (the designers doubtlessly know more about engineering than me), but the question remains - why - just why the ** why?

 

[Cerdic]

On the upside - it’s got pretty green paint…