The bicycle below was included as part of a
piece on design and economic depressions as an example of what designers can design that are utilitarian rather than new and fancy; "More cool bicycles like the Strida folding one that could help make giving up the car that much easier."
I submit that this is a horrible design for the following reasons:
1. The top tube is too short. In fact, it looks like the proportions between the top tube and the saddle/pedal distance are all whacked out.
2. The rack is too small for a "utilitarian" bicycle. You can't put groceries on it, you can't put laundry on it, you could probably carry a half gallon of milk and that's about it. If people are going to use bicycles for utility, they need to do more than just fold up.
3. What's up with the gear ratio? Just eyeballing it, I don't think any of the rear cogs would give you something akin to a "comfortable" gear, and if they wanted to market this as a car alternative or car accessory, it needs to be actually rideable by the average person.
4. (Maybe not important to cyclists, but definitely to Tito the Builder) It looks funny. Getting people on bicycles is hard enough even when they don't look funny, but you expect someone to eschew both their car
and their dignity? I think not.
Comments?
http://www.strida.us/home-page.aspEDIT: Looking at the comments, I'm not the only one who thinks the bicycle is silly.
Topic: When bicycles are designed by designers, not cyclists (Read 5146 times)
