My son just had a nitinol plug placed in a small heart defect via a catheter. The mesh deforms to fit in the catheter at ambient temperatures, and then reforms to the plug shape at body temperature. And they’re hand-woven by Peruvian women because of the complexity of the design. Absolutely mind-blowing stuff!
I thought efficient air-conditioning using Nitinol[1] was exciting, With boring static titanium implants fusing my C1-C3 I find your son's nitinol plug in the heart weaved by the Peruvian women mind blowing. Where can I learn more about that tech?
Thank you! He's doing great. Instead of a monthslong recovery from open heart surgery, he walked out of the hospital the next day and was back at school the following week. It was a relatively small defect, so the operation was really just to lower his lifetime risk of endocarditis.
I seem to have misremembered the country--it's Bolivia, not Peru. My apologies to the very talented weavers. Interesting article about it here: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-32076070
Not sure I understand the appeal. It’s still a derailleur, isn’t it?
Lots of (higher end) bikes moved to internal hub systems like Rohloff [1] that have proven to be very reliable, maintenance free and (other than higher upfront costs) are superior to a derailleur in almost every way.
People are responding that the Rohloff is 'unserviceable'. I can say here what I can't explain to most cyclists I know: it's unhackable. I don't like disc brakes for the same reason (but at least there it's worth the trade-off for safety).
I love that bikes are made of simple mechanical parts about which, at a glance, I can at understand what they're doing, how they're doing, what's wrong, and what needs to be done about it. And I love that these simple mechanical parts can make me move, with just muscle input, so efficiently. I don't want internal hub systems, motorized derailleurs, hydraulic brakes, batteries, etc. They ruin part of my fun.
(Also, an aside about first-mover influence: Someone in France beat someone in the UK to the bicycle by a (few years?) in the mid-19th century, and we still talk about derailleurs, panniers, etc. Computers will still be described in English terms for another century.)
Rohloff's seem great (my brother rides one), but they do have one major downside: they are essentially unserviceable by the user. Yes, I know they don't tend to need much maintainance, but when they do, if you are not close to a Rohloff facility and/or Rohloff-experienced mechanic, you are screwed (for a while).
With an external derailleur, I could train you how to change out the gear set on your bike. Sure you might need to wait for a special wrench or two to arrive in the mail, and futzing with chains has gotten harder every time we added another gear in the rear, but you can do the math and decide if it's cheaper for you to take it to a mechanic. Personally I think people change their minds over time about what the correct gears are for them, so if you do it once, you'll probably do it at least twice.
And some people buy extra cassettes so they can change it up on a whim (based on where they're riding and with whom) in a matter of minutes. Being able to change your mind is the primary advantage of being able to do it yourself.
You can't change gear ratios on a Rohloff yourself, under any conditions, and the damned thing is part of your wheel so there's no swapping them either. Wheels have always been the hardest part of a bike to assemble properly, and the next two are headsets and bottom brackets. Simplified bottom brackets designs stopped being specialty hardware over 20 years ago, and headsets 10 years ago, so the wheel is now by far the most technical part. And you just welded your gear ratio choices to your wheel.
The downside of front and back chain rings was that you often didn't have 2 times Y gears, because there were overlaps, and if you or your bike manufacturer were not careful, sometimes exact overlaps. Having a 95:1 and a 96:1 ratio is useful when you are struggling to keep up with the guy in front of you and you need just a tiny bit lower gear, but you have to do a double gear change to accomplish that, and in the old days especially you might miss, so there was a non-zero chance that instead of keeping up by downshifting, instead he drops you while you swear at your derailleurs. Plus to even know that you practically had to print out your gear ratios and stick them on the neck of your handlebars (and I knew people who did) because if you're that tired, you aren't doing gear ratios in your head or from memory. Two 48:1 gears are just wasted much of the time, even despite this failure mode.
The Rohloff at least is going to be 14 gears, all unique and all sorted so you just need one click to spin faster or slower, so that is probably about as useful as 16 gears. 18 is a stretch, but I could see an argument, so 14 is probably 'enough' for most people (though I bet they'd sell more at 15).
But if you switch from rides on mostly flat terrain to hilly terrain and back, you're gonna need two rear wheels. And if you're on a trip you'll have to bring both if you're not sure, instead of throwing a wrench and a second cassette into your luggage. And if you're on a cycling tour you can't really bring two wheels, so going plains to mountains means compromising.
> With an external derailleur, I could train you how to change out the gear set on your bike.
Probably unnecessary. I just rebuilt my wife's campagnolo chorus rear derailleur, interchanging a problematic body and changing the arm length.
I also rebuilt her cassette, to give better ratios to match the new compact 50x34 set I had just installed, and to avoid jumping due to chain wear. That was after switching from 2006 era bar end shifters to 2011 bar end shifters.
In short, I am the specialist wrench you've been waiting for :)
>"Lots of (higher end) bikes moved to internal hub systems like Rohloff"
Those would be "higher end touring / commuter bikes. Road / racing bikes use motorized derailleurs like Shimano Di2 on high end. Rohloff and other internal gear hubs introduce noticeable resistance which is ok for regular riding and not really acceptable for road / race.
Gearboxes are seeing a little bit of usage on Mountain Bikes, this is largely around moving weight to the 'sprung' part of the bike to improve suspension performance and also protection/maintenance advantages
They still have resistance/efficiency and cost disadvantage though
https://pinion.eu/en/
Think you meant unsprung weight, yeah? The Pinion system seems to move a lot of complexity to the bottom bracket, which is generally on the unsprung part of the bike, the same as you would move weight away from the wheels on a car so they can stay attached to the road more of the time.
It's not like derailleurs are plagued with issues or costly maintenance as it is. It takes a lot of riding to knock them far enough out of spec where its a problem, and a tuneup at a bike shop is like $25. Pay that once a year and you will have like zero problems with your bike unless you crash it badly. If its a matter of protecting the derailleur from damage like on mountain bikes, you can install a guard for a few bucks.
Most people who I've seen winter biking are riding some beater $100 used mountain bike into the ground during winter over a nice bike. Remove the derailleur, and there are still a lot of components all over the bike that will get fouled up with corrosion, dirt, oily sludgy snow, etc, so its better to ride something disposable during that season.
I agree. My personal experience is that the chain and derailleur are by far the most fragile parts of the system (disk brakes are probably quite fragile too, but regular caliper/cantilever/v-brakes are not much affected by corrosion.) but on cheap bikes, chains are easy to replace and derailleurs have a lot of tolerance. So just cleaning them regularly and oiling them is generally good enough.
Some specialized winter bikes use a belt instead of a chain, but I find those too expensive, hard to service and maintain.
Seems dumb. It would take a lot of energy to heat up the wire over and over and energy is at a premium on ebikes. Especially if the chain wasn’t cooperating and more force were required which I assume would mean more heat would be required. Also that seems a little slow compared to an electromagnetic solution. The only advantage in my view is that it has fewer moving parts.
Additionally it sounds like they are planning on using some energy to maintain the heat in the wire:
"Heat would continue to be supplied to the operational wire periodically but not constantly in order for it to maintain its heated state and keep the chain guide in position. The system would be operated by "an electric current generator installable in a pedal crankset of the bicycle"
Although I imagine they could get around this with some sort of toggle spring mechanism to hold it in place.
Pretty sure that this is not going to work very well -
Time taken to heat a wire is probably slower than a servo motor.
Energy taken to heat the wire is also likely to be more than that required by an electric motor.
Also, this seems to be for a front 2 ring derailleur - which noone even uses anymore.
If you tried to make this work for a modern rear derailleur, you'd need a lot of wire.
On the contrary, 2x10 bike setups are getting more common these days even for MTB, all the manufacturers offer 2x10 setups.
One big advantage is that all combinations on a 2x10 are usable, whereas with a classic 3x9 you have to avoid being at high gear up front and low gear at the back, or you will be crossing the chain and damaging components / dropping chain.
I run a 1x10, and there is no problem with chain crossing. The 10/11/12 speed cassettes are basically not any wider than the regular 9 speed ones, so there is no more chain crossing than what you get for the middle ring on a 3x9. The optimization is all in narrower chains and sprockets.
That being said, I do run an upper chain guide to reduce probability of the chain falling off the chainring when the rear derailleur gets clogged with mud etc.
The vast majority of road bikes sold today still have a front 2 ring derailleur. A few manufacturers do offer 1x drivetrain options but they aren't very popular because even with 12-speed sprockets there is a more limited range of gear ratios and a bigger jump between gears.
I wouldn't dismiss the idea so quickly. This appears to be a stepping stone to automatic gear shifting. Memory alloy would be cheaper and more reliable than step motors.
> If a big player such as Ford decided to commit to e-bike development - and it seems likely that this will happen - we can expect to see the pace of innovation shift up a gear.
I could see the car companies getting into the eBike market. The biggest reason Segway failed was because it made you look goofy, not entirely for functional reasons.
I just bought an eBike and I'm convinced it's going to be a massive market going forward.
It's the perfect urban mobility option. No insurance required and no license, you can mount heavy high-end locks, cellphone, LCD, and other attachments/baggage without worrying too much about weight because the pedal assist is always available.
Most importantly it doesn't make you look goofy or less 'manly' like the traditional European scooters do (this is just a popular cultural phenomenon that does exists here in North America, not one I'm supporting, but is very important). And the benefits of going pure electric don't need to be mentioned.
Right now the only barrier is price and the designs have a long way to go. The eBike companies are finally finding a way to blend the battery into the bikes. So it fits a normal road bike style, not just the lower seat one.
As lithium batteries get cheaper and better designers/manufacturers hit the market it could be huge.
Same, I bought a bike from RadPower as well, since they are based in Canada where I am it only took 2 days to arrive. Their new RadCity Plus [1] looks good, a clear progression in design from the previous RadCity [2].
I found out you can buy https://eggrider.com/ and modify the computer controller settings (ie, increase the speed by overriding the governor). But otherwise I find the bike was more than fast enough.
One drawback being how easy today's derailleurs are to adjust and tune with simple tools. Run the cable, set the High, set the Low, and you're done.
> the Ford derailleur appears to be aimed at the e-bike market
...and possibly pros? They mention Di2 in here, I don't know anyone (outside of Freds) that are riding Dura-Ace-level grouppos that actually do their own maintenance, so this probably won't be targeted to enthusiasts.
Di2 (and SRAM's equivalent AXS) has been getting aggressively trickled down the groupset line and the price has been dropping precipitously. It's a bit obscured by the ongoing supply chain issues, though.
Electronic shifting will become a standard, or at least a common option, on mid-range 105/Rival bikes ($2-4k) within the next few years most likely. The same way hydraulic disc brakes have trickled down over the past several years.
I still ride mechanical myself, but have friends with electronic shifting and they rave about it. It's nearly zero maintenance because it's self-adjusting. Just lube it and clean it, and replace the chain every few thousand miles.
Even though electronic shifting may be "better" I still find a beautiful simplicity in the all-mechanical nature of a bicycle.
Is that a term now? It is no longer that the norm a bicycle, and you have to specify if it's uses electricity. Now you specify that you ride "mechanical"?
The world is changing or the e-bike sellers are doing some great marketing.
I was referring to my derailleurs being traditional cable-pull mechanical instead of electronic, not e-bikes.
I think human-powered bikes are still the assumed norm, but the surging popularity of e-bikes may start challenging that soon, especially for practical purposes as opposed to recreational purposes.
In my experience with SMA materials, the speed to contract is not the same as the speed to expand (one direction will be much slower). In practice, this means that there might be a time delay from one shift to the next in a case where the material now needs to go in the opposite direction.
Can you shift all the way to the top and then back down without any delays between shifts?
I can sort of see the appeal of getting rid of tiny servos or solenoids but for the front derailleur it has to work super smooth to be part of an auto-shifting system like they talk about. I think other forms of gearing make more sense for auto-shift or e-bikes. I for one wouldn't want the computer to suddenly shift chain rings on me.
Should just link to the Wheelbased article they cite. It is a great cite to follow for patent coverge though most stuff they cover may be not be of interest to anyone who isn't an avid mountain biker.
Cycling websites poaching stories from wheelbased has become somewhat of a thing at least this one cites them. Pinkbike had a string of stories come out on patents just after they appeared on wheelbased.
"Oh great," I thought, "Now my bicycle needs a battery."
Then I remembered that ebikes are getting extremely popular these days... I also remembered how much I hate dealing with cables on my bicycle. It would be very cool to see one of these in action.
I had a brief stint as a bike owner and the whole culture around it is maddening.
If I want a car, I go to a dealership and I can find a bunch of packages and customizations and there's a dealer to help. The cars have all sorts of technology and it's well integrated. You don't have to buy a car and decide if you want the bright headlights or the bad headlights and then pay extra to have them installed.
There's so much that a bike should/could have: automatic emergency braking, turn signals, automatic lighting, regenerative braking, gps/anti theft tracking, speedometor, rear radar, etc.
You can get most of those things, but then you have to install them all, there's no standard, each has to be charged separately.
Bike nerds ask about your derailleur and nonsense about tires and how the bike should be totally custom, and how turn signals are a stupid idea because you can just balance one-handed while waving and mirrors are bad because you can just look over your shoulder and it's all just a lot. And then they have the nerve to ask why more people don't bike?
Why don't more people bike? Because the entire biking community, culture, and market is built around making it hard and dangerous.
Edit: my point is that the biking community should embrace electronics/batteries since they're necessary for safety lights anyway, and use that as the foundation to build an integrated consumer product. If you want the world to switch to biking (I do) you can't treat it as a hobbyist market. Car manufacturers figured this out long ago.
Why don't more people bike? Because the entire biking community, culture, and market is built around making it hard and dangerous.
No, it is because in most countries road infrastructure is built for cars, not bikes. To make life even more dangerous for cyclists, the laws do not protect them enough.
Here in The Netherlands we have many separate bike likes, inside and outside cities, so-called bike highways, etc. Some city centers are even largely car-free (e.g. Groningen). E.g. from home to my office (~3-4km) roughly 70% of the stretch is on dedicated bike roads.
On average, Dutch citizens [1] make 250-300 bike rides per year, cycling 880km on average. Most people I know cycle to work, do groceries by bike, etc.
We do not have automatic emergency braking, turn signals, regenerative breaking, anti-theft tracking (though it becomes more common with e-biks), rear radar, etc.
First you have to make cycling safe by providing separate bike lanes where possible (preferably physically separated). Secondly, you have to change the culture. Most people in other countries do not even consider cycling to work as an option. Emphasize the health benefits, etc. You also need to educate drivers on how drive safely around cyclists (this is less of a problem here, since most car drivers are also cyclists, and tend to be aware).
The simpler answer is probably that biking requires physical effort and exposure to elements, before one ever encounters issues of road traffic, or gear optimization for safety. No doubt some combination of all these factors are at play. Neither of you are wrong about identifying issues, but presuming that a materially greater portion of the population would start biking if we could only solve this one aspect of law or gear seems to ignore the broader trend of people also disfavoring exercise and the need to be looking good at work (not sweaty or looking like the dog the cat dragged in).
> The simpler answer is probably that biking requires physical effort and exposure to elements
If this were the primary factor, the top cities for cycling would be places with mild climates and active-oriented population. That is not the reality as I see it.
> No doubt some combination of all these factors are at play
The primary factor is unambiguously the infrastructure. Among top cycling cities, the only common trait is good bike infrastructure.
> presuming that a materially greater portion of the population would start biking if we could only solve this one aspect of law or gear
No presumption needed, that is what literally happened in the Netherlands. They created good infrastructure, and went from basically zero cyclists in the 70s to the hefty majority they have today. The top cities for cycling (by ridership) in Europe are in northern climes with good cycling infrastructure. People in these cities are exposed to cold rain and snow.
Speaking to your broader point that people are getting lazier - I believe that humans are exceedingly adaptable above all else. If it is fast and convenient to get from A to B in a city by bike, people will ride bikes. That is what happened in the Netherlands and other top cycling cities.
Specifically all the issues I raised apply in an American city that is relatively good for biking. The bike lanes are still on the road, and drivers still swerve into them, so I want heads up on that.
Its also physically difficult to get comfortable biking if you're not used to it. That's fine, but when the roads are like mad max post-COVID, you don't want to be wobbling when you're trying to signal.
Yes, the roads need to have bike lanes, but at least in portland, there's a stunning lack of reflection on why more people aren't taking advantage of them.
E-bikes probably help with the appearance part. It is just weird seeing a market where the entire culture is so hostile to innovation or improvement. The biking community should really be trying to remove all the barriers and not just saying it will get better when every road has a bike lane, because it won't.
Heck, even trying to find a class to learn how to bike is a massive pain. Each town and city has a different standard for hand signals (which I think refutes the claim that drivers would be completely unable to recognize or understand a turn signal on a bike) and the laws are different everywhere around things like lights and bells.
> The biking community should really be trying to remove all the barriers and not just saying it will get better when every road has a bike lane, because it won't.
I think it's easy to confuse the cycling community fighting for bike lanes with them believing it's the optimal solution. The truth is, it's hard enough to get this bare minimum that it becomes the thing we fight over most often. But of course, the dream is separate bike infrastructure.
> Each town and city has a different standard for hand signals (which I think refutes the claim that drivers would be completely unable to recognize or understand a turn signal on a bike) and the laws are different everywhere around things like lights and bells.
I think you may be overthinking this part? Hand signals couldn't be more simple, and I can't imagine them changing much between cities. If you don't like letting go of the bars in traffic, that's another issue, and I agree turn signals could be helpful. Lights and bells ... I'd just get a bike with a bell and a dynamo light system from the factory. I can't imagine ending up on the wrong side of the law that way.
Your overall experience is super interesting to me, just want to say that, as someone deeply interested in cycling and the barriers to adoption.
While we're discussing it, does anyone know where to get road-standard rear lights for a bicycle? For riding at nights on streets with cars, I want the bicycle to look like a motorcycle: a pair of yellow flashing 'hazard lights' (because the bike is much slower than the cars), red light(s) that brighten when I brake (actually connected to my breaks - doesn't seem technically hard), maybe functioning turn signals.
It's visible, drivers understand it perfectly, and it's a very mature, well-tested road safety technology (unlike much bike lighting). It seems obvious to me, but I haven't seen it anywhere.
I understand where you're coming from, but also disagree.
Cycling has a lot of cliques. There’s an absolute world of difference between a Rapha boutique and a hole-in-the-wall that primarily services deliverymen. Unfortunately, most cycling shops are staffed by people who can't see past their own walls. (I'm a "fixed gear hipster doofus" who very much wants to select every part and service it myself. The notion of glomming "emergency braking" (this is actually a crazy dangerous idea), turn signals, etc. is deeply unappealing to me.)
There actually are bike shops that run exactly like car dealerships, and the number is growing all the time as the market extends in the direction of riders like you. Specifically, I would have urged you to find a Vanmoof retailer.
- automatic emergency braking: this is a terrible idea. I can't imagine any circumstance where ones bike would suddenly stop underneath them and not send the rider head-first into whatever made the bike stop.
- turn signals: This exists but I suspect that in practice you'd find it less useful than you expect. Drivers and cyclists simply don't expect to see them, so they'd be mostly confused or annoyed.
- automatic lighting: I agree. More importantly, lighting should be integrated into most bicycle frames
- regenerative braking: this exists
- gps/anti theft tracking: this exists
- speedometor: this exists, but if you're not an actual racer… why?
- rear radar: this sounds bizarre… but rear view mirrors actually are commonplace
You really walked into the wrong bicycle shop. I hope the experience didn't put you off cycling, it's the best regardless of your approach.
Rear radar also exists, Garmin Varia for example. I'd trust a helmet-mounted mirror more. The other thing about this overall vision for bicycles is that everyone has different needs. This sounds like a wishlist for a commuter e-bike, but it's not at all what road cyclists are looking for. And most of this does exist as an integrated package, from various ebike manufacturers. It's just expensive and heavy, and adds a lot of maintenance overhead for not much practical benefit.
AFAIK, it undermines the integrity of the helmet in a crash. Perhaps it's worth the trade-off, but also having some loose stick of metal flying around my head in a crash is conceptually unappealing.
I've never heard of the helmet integrity issue. Doesn't seem plausible with a sturdy commuter-grade helmet.
The way I think about safety equipment is that the most effective kind is the one that you always have with you, that doesn't run out of batteries.
Maybe the idea of having a mirror near your face is a concern, but hey, you're already in a bicycle crash, it's not going to be great either way. Wear some safety glasses for the flying debris. The best plan is to prevent that situation in the first place.
* "The strap and/or adhesive mounts could damage the helmet, especially if they’re installed less than perfectly."
* "the larger problem is the camera itself. A helmet is designed to have a surface without protrusions, and a camera represents a significant one. / ... "Anytime you add an external component to a helmet, you can change the performance of that helmet," says [Ian] Hall, [Consumer Product Safety Commission engineer]. "A helmet-mounted camera may become a projectile if it detaches in a crash, but a camera that remains attached could focus the forces applied to the rider’s head, increasing the risk of injury."
And from a Specialized helmet owner's manual: "Do not attach anything to your helmet, including mirrors or lights."
> automatic emergency braking: this is a terrible idea. I can't imagine any circumstance where ones bike would suddenly stop underneath them and not send the rider head-first into whatever made the bike stop.
Agreed, though I was thinking of anti-lock breaking, to prevent skids.
Bikes are optimized for cost and ease of riding (i.e. less weight when possible), so bikes avoiding bells and whistles by default makes perfect sense to me. If you add on too much then the bike shop prices themselves out of the market.
Bike ridership IMO is much more heavily determined based upon how bikable a space is. If it's an environment where you don't have access to safe roads/trails, nearby destinations, or places to lock your bike at a destination no one will bike. The bikes themselves may have quirks, but that's rarely the complaints people voice in the wild from my experience.
> Why don't more people bike? Because the entire biking community, culture, and market is built around making it hard and dangerous.
I think it has more to do with the lack of biking infrastructure. Instead bikes are forced to share car infrastructure or pedestrian infrastructure (where available). This makes it very difficult to get serious about cycling for daily use. Most times you're stuck competing with 3000+ lb death machines flying past within 2ft of you.
Bicycles are beautiful because of their simplicity. This is inherent and god help us if your vision of the bicycle becomes the norm. That would be like wanting Vim to come bundled with all of the functionality of Pycharm by default.
All of the things you want added to a bicycle are relatively cheap and easy to install on your own if you want them.
If you don’t you pay an expert at your local bike shop to do it for you. In fact, if you were in the process of buying a bike shop from an LBS you could tell them all of the things you wanted. They will literally build whatever bike you want lol.
But if the trivial amount of practice that it takes to “balance” while gesturing a turn signal is too much for you, maybe bicycling just isn’t your thing. If getting accustomed to navigating in Vim is too much for you, maybe you just need an IDE, instead.
> Bicycles are beautiful because of their simplicity.
and also the way that essentially a single idea can cover so many bases... high speed racing, hauling materials, going shopping, travelling with everything you need for thousands of miles, bombing down mountainsides, climbing up huge mountains ... all this from essentially one simple idea. So wonderful!
Fair gripes, although bikes have "dealerships" too that will typically help you select and maintain your steed.
The problem with lighted turn signals is that motorists don't expect them, and don't look for them. Pointing with your hand and head are just more safe and effective.
> how the bike should be totally custom
Ignore them. It should be what suits you, what makes you feel comfortable and safe when you ride.
> Why don't more people bike?
There's also not a lot of infrastructure outside of major cities (in the US). Unsafe for cyclists, annoying (at best) for motorists.
> the entire biking community, culture
Let's not paint too broadly, there are plenty of elitists, but big parts of the cycling community are inclusive; community rides, community maintenance co-ops, things like that.
While I agree that more standardisation would be beneficial, especially regarding electronics(!), the rest of the bike is fairly standardized (wheel / bottom bracket / pedal screw / steering column diameter etc.)
. Unfortunately, I think the introduction of electronics via ebikes and other "new" technologies for the bike are diluting that standardisation in my perception. For another view point of why biking may be shit in your area, I invite you to watch a few videos of this channel: https://youtu.be/ORzNZUeUHAM
Unfortunately, I think the introduction of electronics via ebikes and other "new" technologies for the bike are diluting that standardisation in my perception.
You would be surprised. My wife's e-bike was stolen without its battery. When she bought a new e-bike (of a different brand), she could just purchase it without a battery and use her old one.
(Lots of e-bikes in Western Europe use Bosch batteries/motors.)
I am not of the persuasion that a for-profit corporation can maintain a standard. A standard in my mind is an industry-wide effort to create an open, low baseline and barrier of entry without proprietariness. Even if 90% of bikes have a Bosch motor, that's not a standard if it's not open.
Standards always evolve and ultimately if the larger companies like Shimano, SRAM, or Taiwanese OEMs don’t adopt them, they’re a moot point.
Bicycle chainrings are the perfect example. There are established mounting patterns, but since the late 90s, Shimano’s MTB division and Campagnolo loved introducing proprietary BCDs.
And disc brakes have an established "International Standard" mounting standard, but no one builds actual I.S. mount brakes--it's either post mount or flat mount. (Yes, post/I.S. are practically interchangeable due to the adapter.)
Putting automatic emergency braking on a bike would be wildly dangerous and just completely stupid. When you have limited traction available it's often safer to steer around an obstacle instead of braking. Automatic braking would be likely to throw the rider off over the handlebars.
Garmin bike computers support turn signals with dual rear lights but I've never seen anyone use that feature. If you're turning near other traffic then you have to slow down anyway so sticking an arm out to signal isn't a problem.
A lot of riders already have multiple battery powered devices including bike computers, Di2 shifters, headlights, tail lights, power meters, radar, etc. But battery powered devices are expensive and heavy; many cyclists don't need or want some of them. Some people never ride at night and don't necessarily need lights. Bike computers and lights which support the ANT+ standard have automatic lighting.
The better bike computers have GPS tracking, anti-theft alarms, and support rear radars. Most bikes don't come with a computer because they're expensive and cyclists prefer to choose their own. If you buy a bike with accessories from a local store then they'll be happy to assemble everything for a nominal fee.
In Germany, all new bikes are required to have lights and bells. This is also why all the good dynamo-powered lights were from Germany for the longest time.
I think this should be adopted here in the US, especially because separated bike lanes from car traffic are rare.
The other electronics you mentioned are nice-to-haves, but nowhere near as critical. At some point the line between a bicycle and scooter/motorcycle starts to blur.
Depends. Dynamos can also provide a nice little 5W charging system for USB accessories. If you're touring on a bicycle, a dynamo is a nice thing to have, and if you have it, you may as well power the lights with it. Also allows incredible lighting design since there doesn't need to be any significant battery storage in the lighting unit itself.
I think this a little distorted, for a reason that applies to cars too. So let's start there.
You have decided you want a vehicle. You head to the first dealer on your local "Golden Mile" strip. The dealer (because they are nice) starts asking you about what you're looking for. Turns out that you want to be able to haul rocks and drive on mountain forest roads in the snow. Unfortunately, you're at a Honda dealer, and they have nothing for you. You head towards the local Ford dealer but along the way change your mind about what you're looking for. The Ford dealer asks similar questions, but now you're looking for a 50mpg sub-compact with essentially zero maintainance and significant interior space. The Ford dealer grimaces.
Now, getting more realistic, we turn to bicycles. They may (mostly) all have two wheels, pedals, handlebars and a chain, but in reality there's as much of a gap in functionality between an enduro mountain bike and a time trial/triathlon bike as there is between the Ford F150 and a Honda Fit (Jazz for HN's european contingent). And into that gap there are:
* touring bicycles
* commuter/shopping bicycles
* BMX bikes (which some set of young people still seem to like)
* full suspension mountain bikes
* hard-tail mountain/gravel bikes
I own a lot of bicycles, and if you told me that I had to have any of the features you've mentioned above on my custom built carbon tri bike, I'd be angry. Conversely, if you told me that I could not put fenders on my gravel/shopping Surly Straggler, I'd laugh you out of the room. I'm never going to need lights on my full suspension bike, because I never ride it in the dark, and I never need to lock it up. I don't want GPS system Foo on any of my bikes, because I prefer GPS system Bar. Ditto for the speedometer.
Now, is there a market for "the generalist bicycle", perhaps with all or most of the features you've mentioned? Maybe. Visiting western European countries suggests that there could be, but it might be function of urban design, land use, transportation planning etc., and not really a function of the bike itself.
I agree with you that cycling's status as a hobbyist market probably does do something to limit its appeal. I just don't think that the effect is that strong, and the main reasons people don't ride a bicycle is not its confusing which accessories to get.
If you put automatic braking on a bicycle, you're going to cause an emergency.
Braking force is not the problem. Hasn't been for 25 years.
Emergency braking on a bicycle requires the rider to shift their body weight to avoid catapulting themselves off the front of the bike and directly into whatever they were trying to avoid. There is no way to achieve minimum stopping distance without substantial cooperation from the rider. The center of gravity is simply too high. You might be able to use powered brakes on a trike or recumbent, but not on any upright bicycle.
I haven't had a real bike in ages and even back then it was entirely possible to launch myself off the bike using only two fingers, from the hoods, which offer terrible leverage. If anything Shimano made the brakes too strong.
Then I remembered that ebikes are getting extremely popular these days...
But for e-bikes, why not use internal gears? You do not really need the fine-grained shifting on e-bikes. Besides that, internal gears require less maintenance and allows for models that use a chain guard or belt drive (== less maintenance).
What are you doing where you are even dealing with cables? I've never had to do any maintenance on my roadbike myself. I just take it to the shop for a $25 dollar tuneup once a year and the bike remains in perfect working order without any other intervention. I don't even garage the bike. People always seem to complain about maintenance on bikes when justifying crazy brakes or derailleurs, but in my experience bike maintenance is absurdly cheap at most shops to the point where there is no reason to ever see grease on your hands unless you like to do that stuff as a hobby. Like $20 cheap.
The bike coop or mom and pop shops that mostly move low cost used bikes. Sure if I went to the most hipster bike shop in my town where the cheapest model is $800 I'd be quoted that too.
Ah nitinol. There's a term I haven't heard since Coevolution Quarterly was still in print. The "appropriate technology" crowd loved this material, but it seemed to vanish in terms of common place uses.
I'm thinking this is someone's daydream... or a way to make a cheap, simple, but cumbersome and imprecise shift mechanism. I can't see it being a practical product or feature of one.
> radical new derailleur that uses an electric current to heat up and move mouldable wires
So, this is just for bicycles with massive batteries, which could as well use internal gearing of some sort.
Derailleurs are finnicky. You calibrate the shifter for sure-fire upshifting with the index clicker lever, which sacrifices downshifting. When you downshift, you have to overshoot: give an extra pull to get the thing to shift, which is then retracted to the index position.
Maybe this is fixed in some True Scotsman's derailleurs that cost hundreds of dollars; mine cost some $60 (which is three times more expensive already than what you see installed on the majority of bikes in the sub $1000 category). It's a road bike derailleur on a road cassette: which is going to be the best shifting combination, due to the differences in adjacent cog size being small. I'm downshifting from 12 teeth to 13, 14, 15, ...
The reason shifting is imprecise is because when you move the parallelogram of a derailleur, that moves the upper wheel, called the jockey wheel. This indirectly changes the gear by moving the chain. This has to overshoot the shift position in order to work; it cannot just move from being centered over one cog to being centered over the next. The farther this jockey wheel is from the cog set, the more overshoot it needs to get the chain to jump.
Whimsically speaking, we could say that shifting the chain is a bit like getting a dog to go left and right using nothing but the leash.
You can play with how far the jockey wheel is from each cog to some extent. There is a "B screw" adjustment which helps with it somewhat. Mainly, the screw helps the other way: if the jockey wheel is riding too close, the screw can help get it away, but if the jockey wheel is riding far from the cassette, the screw is often ineffective in bringing it closer.
Mainly, because the cogs are of different sizes, the parallelogram geometry of the derailleur has to match the cog set style; this is one reason why there are road derailleurs and others. Road bike gearing has less of a spread between high and low, so the jockey wheel tracks at a different angle from the steep spread of a mountain bike cassette. (Road bikes often have only two rings in the front also, and so there is less spread between the maximum and minimum chain length. For that reason, the derailleurs also have shorter cages. Some road derailleurs models come in two cage lengths: you choose wisely based on your system.)
In general you will get much crisper shifting on a road cassette with a road derailleur because the steps in cog size are smaller. To execute a downshift, the chain has to "climb" onto a larger cog. This happens more easily if the larger one just has one or two more teeth.
I think that to have an effective system that is fully electric, it would be best to control the whole relevant configuration: the frame (how exactly the derailleur is mounted), and the cassette it is used with, and probably the front derailleur also.
The system will have to be able to move the derailleur quickly, and implement the proper overshoot and return. Cyclists expect fast gear changes.
Thing that can cause controlled movement. Find all the places where controlled movement is desired. Combine. Iterate.
What is likely worse is that this probably isn't at all practical and does not constitute an invention. It likely came out of a general call for patentable ideas from the engineering department. Ford will never ever do anything with this. It is only useful for preventing innovation outside of Ford.
Patentability has nothing to do with complexity. It's about novelty.
If the wheel were invented today, it absolutely would be patented. And for 20 years or whatever, the genius that solved that particular problem would reap well-deserved rewards for such a clever solution.
As far as this invention is concerned, I don't know enough about bicycling to know if this is something that's been considered and discarded before, or if literally nobody else has thought of it.
Either way, I think that makes it patentable. Either everyone else decided it wasn't worth it—and therefore nothing of value is being locked away by this patent—or they couldn't figure it out and therefore this is a novel invention for which the inventors should be rewarded for their R&D time.
Cycling is such a cool subculture. I keep “the Armstrong lie” playing in the background a lot. It’s just such a cool and impenetrable thing. It’s this weird artifact of wealthy suburbs like some kind of strange custom or tradition like the Japanese tea ceremony. Seemingly pointless and filled with double meanings and unspoken rules and yet nice in a way and complementary to a virtuous life.
i grew up in india riding bicycle almost on a daily basis. i strongly disagree with your comment. for some of us cycling is just freedom and way of life, it has nothing to do with 'weird artifact of wealthy suburbs' or 'Japanese tea ceremony' and i didn't grow up wealthy. it got me places and let me hang out with friends. also as a kid if you wanted to go fast and didnt have motorcycle or money for gas, this was the best approach.
Same in the Netherlands. Rich, poor, young, old, everybody rides bikes as a normal way to get places. Not sure what chip the GP has on their shoulder, but it definitely doesn't match with my experience.
In most of the U.S. biking to get to places is remarkably dangerous if not outright impossible. Your average cyclist is one who drives their bike somewhere to ride like a large state park with little car traffic and smooth hilly roads, rather than a bike commuter. That sort of cyclist tends to be wealthy with all the latest gear and clad in spandex in my experience. Its a nice situation for riders like me, I got a great deal on a roadbike with dura ace components since the seller was hopping on the gravel bike craze at the time and didn't care about selling their pretty nice bike for a huge loss.
I'd say it differently: most people in the US have no safe place to bike for transportation.
Most places are perfectly safe. I for example, have 100 miles of safe trails and rural roads to ride on, here in the American Midwest. But most people live in dense urban environments.
Even in your rural example, those trail routes I find are mostly just scenic rides through parkland rather than anything useful for commuting. People mostly drive their bikes there and ride back to where they parked afterwards. Smaller rural roads might be fine, but I bet you aren't riding along the shoulder of a four lane state highway with a speed limit of 55 miles an hour very often, and those are the main connective roads between job centers and housing among rural and suburban areas in the U.S.
My local town is quite safe and has trails criss-crossing it. But truthfully most Midwestern trails are 'trails-on-rails' and inhabit old railway right-of-ways. Usually pretty far off the beaten path to be sure.
For instance, I can ride 50 miles from my urban center (for what its worth) to the next one north, and be in countryside the whole time.
Well I don’t have any chip on my shoulder. Cycling is an upper class pastime in the United States. That’s just a plain fact. Nothing wrong with it either
