bike companies

>>1100610
Did you design that? Looks like it has no real geometry specs and is just designed to look "cool"

"cool" looking bikes dont sell.

>>1100610
this is possibly the worst design of a bicycle I have seen

>>1100610
imagine crashing on that. Horrid. Dog shit design.

Looks cool as fuck OP

Did you do any research behind geometry or are you just drawing pretty pictures?

Bike companies dont hire people who draw pretty pictures

>let's drive the production cost through the fucking roof with muh gimmicky design for no real benefit that could be used as a selling point that validates the higher retail price.
Get real bub, noone will hire you purely because of economy.

>>1100610
Open your own

>>1100610
why the fuck would you have a chainstay that long and not a super slack ht angle
i mean, i kinda get the whole long, stable and low thing, but that's like the worst possible way to do it

>>1100610
>too lazy to render cables
>say you have wireless brakes

Study math so you can design frames properly, not based on weird designs that have no benefit.

Bicycles have been around so long, the fundamentals are really well laid out. Most of full time frame designing jobs now are in interest of marketing, not function, maybe this thread represents the frustration that causes.

SRAM in san luis obispo California seemed like a nice place to work on bike related stuff. Lezyne is also there. I think light and motion is not far.

A smaller company would probably be more rewarding.

Ortlieb does very practical engineering in bike bag design. They don't always hit the mark, but generally are practical and their bags are EVERYWHERE here (pnw) as a result. Topeak and planet bike are of the same vain.

>>1100960
(addendum)
Most bike companies have a very hard time making nice stuff consistently. A car part or airplane part lives such a prescribed life compared to a bike part. In the long term there's room for thoughtful, elegant design. Giro made a cycling shoe called the rumble VR which looks nice and is super practical, they seem to be ubiquitous as a result. It's got nothing revolutionary about it, it has LACES, but they got all the fine points spot on.

Exceptional designs in my mind come from: ortlieb/tubus, thomson, nitto, shimano (clearly have some exceptional engineers, despite their faults).

CETMA cargo, basically one guy, designed two simple front bike racks that are compatible with most bikes. They make him a living. They are thoughtful and elegant designs, enough to justify making in the US. Perhaps a litmus test of good design: if the people manufacturing it can be paid a first world wage.

File: 6.jpg (1015KB, 1132x1730px) Image search: [Google]

1015KB, 1132x1730px

>>1100766
>>1100767
>>1100768
>>1100769
>>1100867

wowy, I stepped on somebodies toes.

the whole project Is actually intentonally way overboard and out there. in a very basic way it's ment as a conversation starter. ever stumbled upon a concept car and thought "man that's kind of dumb"? this is like a concept concept car. it's a designstrategy
that tries to disrupt the way we look at things and hopes by considering things we would never think about normaly we might come to new interesting ideas,even if they are not the ones portraied. conversations about how that geometry is shit are totaly fine. maybe that conversation will lead to how the geometry actually should be without going "man I see mtb tires so the headangle must be the slackest".
there are also texts about the absolutly out there and weird components that would probably throw you guys in fits of rage.

also regarding the geometry, it's basically a mashup between the specialized sequoia and the mondraker podium. that dosen't mean it actually makes sense though.
the rest is based on pretty far out reaserch into other stuff , like synthetic biology and and material sience. the project even comes with a disclaimer that this is equal parts reaserch and wild speculation.

btw I'm not trying to sound like an ass here, you guys are really all entiteled to your own opinion.


anyway

>>1100960
>>1100769

thank you guys !

>>1101006

I also might have to add, I know stuff like this is pretty unusual for the bike industry.
that's just the field I did a lot of work in in university and I actually like how absurd it was to just go ahead and apply this workflow to bikes. that's the reason I did it.

I'm a sucker for progress and new tech , but in the real world in regards to bikes that just means that thru axles and disc brakes on road bikes get me really excited.

>>1101006
I don't like your design. Apart from what the other anon's have pointed out I think it doesn't look organic at all. The bulky front part just doesn't chime with the rear. It is not a harmonic. The drivetrain and stays are freakishly disproportionate and irritating.

How long have you been doing this?

File: innercity1.png (569KB, 800x626px) Image search: [Google]

569KB, 800x626px

>>1100610
You took too much design cues from a motorcycle. Motorcycle design doesn't transfer well in bike world. Like, wtf is that handlebar setup? A retard could come up with a better design

File: inner city bike.jpg (37KB, 736x551px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 736x551px

>>1100610
worse than the handlebar setup is the fat 14 spoke radially laced fat wheel

take your garbage ass weak designs elsewhere. I see no evidence of engineering background at all, all I see is a stupid color scheme and 'let's make it look cool' mentality

File: audi_bike_01.jpg (13KB, 350x200px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 350x200px

>>1101006
>it's a designstrategy
>that tries to disrupt the way we look at things
how the fuck is a double diamond design 'different?' jesus fucking christ you're a pretentious retard

>>1100610

>ultra
>attack
>camo colours
>looks like stupid motorcycle

American detected.

Also, you should have called it the "Oh, SNAP!"

>>1101006
>in a very basic way it's ment as a conversation starter. ever stumbled upon a concept car and thought "man that's kind of dumb"? this is like a concept concept car.
calling it a "conversation starter" doesn't change the fact that its a bad design
i can take a shit, point at it and call it a "conversation starter"
that doesn't mean it isn't shit

>>1101011
>>1101006

While I am a function over form guy, design plays a major role in selling anything to the general public. Cool looking items sell. Keep up the good fight to make bikes that make people like me turn their head. I might buy one some day.

Currently the general geometries are fixed due to the available materials. I am a fan of 4130 frames with flat top tubes, but I get jelly at some of the color schemes on the current AL/carbon frames. Some of them just look fast even standing still.

File: 10-things-ill-never-understand.jpg (29KB, 350x200px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 350x200px

>>1100610
>Thinner seat stays than chain stays.

File: comp_4.jpg (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>1101011
>>1101060
>>1101079
>>1101081
>>1101082

haha , I'm really sorry for upsetting you guys (guy ?) so much !
as I said there are may "reasons" for the design, documented in the accompanying texts. that still dosen't mean that the reasons or outcomes are "good" from a realworld point of view.
I get the strong feeling I shouldn't get into the details of for example the wheel or I'll seriously ruin somebodys day.
but anyway, I feel like you are still missig the point of the project. let me rephrase the conversation starter to some boderline outdated internet lingo; it's a troll bike and it seems to effectifly get to people on here.

however I also have to say , >>1101079 has a viable point. I have not once thought about it during the project but maybe I have taken too many design cues from motorcycles and maybe this is something to avoid for future bike projects.

>>1101082
I felt like it was vital to have the resulting bike as bike shaped as possible on the first glance, I guarantee you everything apart from the double diamond would horrify you.

>>1101084
the branding and colour sheme is actually a throwback to late 80s stuff like GT used to do . theyre branding and colour shemes were really overboard. I thought it was fun to give it a little anachronistic twist.

the whole project has a certain humor to it because as I stated now about 1453 times , I know how ridiculous it is.
check out that cool faceface "riserpost"

>>1101173

thanks man, a huge part of that project was about showing that I am flexible and adaptable. I applied a design strategy to a topic that really wasn't ment for it and tried to roll with it.
I also used a render engine I had to learn from scratch and used a different modeling workflow.
this is no real world design , it's just a weird move meant to show dedication and a certain skillset.

>>1101181
in the beginning of the project I thought about doing it in a participatory way letting /n/ come up with horrendous ideas that I'd try to shoehorn into a coherent glossy "product".
I wonder how that would have worked out.


man these post are getting long !

>>1101006
Why are you so bad at rendering that you can't render spoke crosses or cables or a real drivetrain?

>>1100610
Everyone here getting 'baited by a troll post. These are from a post a month ago on BikeRumor.

Almost a halfway decent set of renders. Bunch of turbo-dumb ideas from someone who's never actually worked on a bike, nor do they have any sort of experience with engineering or manufacturing.

>>1101181
>check out that cool faceface "riserpost"
Obvious troll is even more extra obvious.

>>1100965
Love my CETMA rack.

To add to your list - Cane Creek (formerly Dia Comp USA) is the reason why your modern threadless headset doesn't suck. They still make the benchmark bang-for-your-buck headsets.

>>1101184
It's better than nothing. I was thinking about this the other day, I (probably like other people) ALWAYS think my ideas are the best, like I'll see something, and think, "if I made one it would be WAY better" when in reality it would probably be just as shit.

>>1101006
>>1101181
You should have earned a degree in materials engineering, not industrial design. You obviously have very little knowledge of the mechanics of flexible structures or fibrous engineered materials. None of what you have posted is a design, they are artistic concepts. A competent engineer with a good sense of aesthetics is much more valuable than you.
>>1101187
I got got

>>1101187
>Everyone here getting 'baited by a troll post. These are from a post a month ago on BikeRumor.
Eh, so? It's not mutally exclusive. Ops long posts sound pretty sincere.

>>1100610
yeah it's kind of retarded but it's also kind of neat. Good luck dude, if you could land a job like that it would be awesome. Try for something with specialized, they are a really freindly company and will help you work on your own stuff if you want to branch out and start your own company later.

>>1100610
Here is my honest advice. If you want someone to hire you, you need to convince them you will sell them bicycles. Your design needs to be convincing and compelling. Your design needs to look beautiful or at least cool, be feasible to manufacture, and also be functional.

How does your design make riding more fun, easier, faster, better? What is it for? Make a story - is this for packing up for a camping trip with some fishing at the creek? For your lunch time rip from the office with Jerry from accounting? Who is going to buy this design? How will you compell someone to buy your bike?

Finally, do you ride bikes? Like for fun? Because you love bikes more than anything?

>>1101079
not OP but i can totally see someone using that kind of setup in a Tour Divide kind of event. wide comfy moustache bars for "offroad" use and aerobars for hotting the winds in the highway. The only sensible thing on the bike and you are shitting on it

Just market this shit as a bikepacking aero hitech bike and wait until it gets featured in the radavist. There is a reason why the 3T exploro exists.

>>1102936

it's purposed as a ultra endurance offroad racebike for multi day selfsupported events, basically tour divde.
and it got featured on bikerumors.

I feel like the top half of the thread either were just trolling OP or were kinda dumb.

I actually thought the bikerumor article was interesting.

>>1100767
>>1100766

It's clearly designed for that damn fucking mountain race. what the fuck is it called. The one with the dead dude. you know the one. Freds on Lauf forks who are 10 years too late to be cool doin it? To prove they aren't gay even though they are 50 year old dentists with fat wives?

>>1100766
>criticizing the design without even reading the article.
get gud. It's actually got some interesting ideas.

>bikerumor.com/2017/07/23/check-out-the-nxxt-ultra-adventure-bike-concept/

>>1103803
Interesting =/= good

A lot of the ideas are really dumb or infeasible with little thought for how they would actually function in the real world. There are plenty of idiots out their with ideas.

File: d48d959eee52bb74c25fdd226cbecf71.jpg (83KB, 600x787px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 600x787px

>>1103846
Communism in a nutshell

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality

just gonna leave this here and then continue appreciating original content.

>>1103803
>ideas
You mean pointles sci-fi technobabble? This is really shitty for a sci-fi bike, where are my unobtanium hubless wheels?

>>1101191
You think your ideas are the best because they cover up your lack of skill? I don't see what you're getting at.

>>1103803
>get gud. It's actually got some interesting ideas.
it has ideas, but no implementation, not even vague explanations about how things could work
>‘material gradient’ from graphene to a protein-based elastomer
you sound like one of those business guys who strings a bunch of words that sound good together then gets mad at the engineers for not being able to build it