Stringbike

dhope

Interesting, wires instead of a chain



http://www.stringbike.com/
http://dvice.com/archives/2010/09/new-bike-design.php

kelsen

(sigh) Why do people insist on re-inventing things that don't need fixing?

don_don

Hmmm...

Looks, how can I say it? Shite?

dhope

kelsen wrote:

(sigh) Why do people insist on re-inventing things that don't need fixing?

We've no idea if it needed fixing until we see if the reinvention works better

lae

It's an interesting idea. If you could run the cables through the frame then it'd be great for low-maintenance town bikes. And I suppose it could possibly be lighter (especially if you replaced the roundy-roundy complicated pedals with simple up-down treadle type pedals). And I also suppose you could have a rear derailler operating in a similar sort of fashion to a conventional one. I wonder how much grip the cable has on the rear hub and how easy it is to make it slip...

It'd be good for folding bikes too because you can just fold up the drivetrain. A cable can bend in any direction, but a chain can only fold in one plane.

Also there's no reason why the pedals have to be synchronised or pedalled at the same time or same speed (unless you put a solid axle between them of course). If you were disabled, for example, and had one bad leg it could be helpful to unlock the pedals and just cycle on one leg for a bit. I dunno, it's just an idea...

BUT that pedal linkage looks complicated and heavy, and the pedal follows a weird path which your legs might not like. It's just a concept though.

If you like stuff like this, Bicycling Science has lots of interesting transmission ideas, if you can find it in your library.


And as for kelsen's comment, go back to riding a fixed-gear steel framed bike with cottered cranks and block chain if you don't like new ideas! Every single advancement in bicycle (or any) technology would have initially been worse than what was available at the time - concepts need development, some get developed but still haven't quite made it (like plastic or bamboo bicycles), some get developed into mainstream technology (like composite frames or disc brakes), and some fare very well in niche designs (like electric bikes, hub brakes or shaft-driven bicycles).

Besides, you don't know the first thing about it. It could well be more efficient, lighter, stronger, more reliable etc than a chain. And furthermore, you don't know what the design brief was - I don't know how you can say it's an irrelevance when you don't even know what they were trying to create in the first place!

Kiwi Kranker

frinkmakesyouthink wrote:

And as for kelsen's comment, go back to riding a fixed-gear steel framed bike with cottered cranks and block chain if you don't like new ideas! Every single advancement in bicycle (or any) technology would have initially been worse than what was available at the time - concepts need development, some get developed but still haven't quite made it (like plastic or bamboo bicycles), some get developed into mainstream technology (like composite frames or disc brakes), and some fare very well in niche designs (like electric bikes, hub brakes or shaft-driven bicycles).

Besides, you don't know the first thing about it. It could well be more efficient, lighter, stronger, more reliable etc than a chain. And furthermore, you don't know what the design brief was - I don't know how you can say it's an irrelevance when you don't even know what they were trying to create in the first place!

+1

dondare

This is identical to a drive that I saw in a book about 30 years ago.

deptfordmarmoset

I'm not too strong on engineering - I've only just figured out how the gearing works - but does the ''symmetrical drive'' part of it mean that the rear wheel has to have two independent freewheels? And therefore a wider and heavier rear wheel...?

deptfordmarmoset

I think this answers my question...

lae

No need for it to be wide or heavy. It's only a concept after all.

Think of how wide and heavy a normal cassette is - this bike only needs two 'freewheels' and they can both be just a little wider than the cable. Even with multiple gears it could potentially be very narrow - a cable is much narrower than a chain, for example. And lighter too.

AidanR

Without trying to be *too* dismissive this is an awful, awful design. Poke around on YouTube and there are a few videos of this. The up- and down-strokes are very quick, but the mechanism slows down markedly around the traditional dead points at the top and bottom of the pedal stroke. It also causes you to move your feet in an ellipse which is longer than it is high, which is also not what you'd like. There are two freewheels and at least 4 bearings needed in the cranks.

As an exercise in doing something different for sh!ts and giggles it's fine. But it ain't gonna catch on.

Bugly

the gearing is not at the rear wheel but rather by adjusting the lever length at the crank by moving the cable attachment point along the crank.

kelsen

frinkmakesyouthink wrote:

And as for kelsen's comment, go back to riding a fixed-gear steel framed bike with cottered cranks and block chain if you don't like new ideas! Every single advancement in bicycle (or any) technology would have initially been worse than what was available at the time - concepts need development, some get developed but still haven't quite made it (like plastic or bamboo bicycles), some get developed into mainstream technology (like composite frames or disc brakes), and some fare very well in niche designs (like electric bikes, hub brakes or shaft-driven bicycles).

Besides, you don't know the first thing about it. It could well be more efficient, lighter, stronger, more reliable etc than a chain. And furthermore, you don't know what the design brief was - I don't know how you can say it's an irrelevance when you don't even know what they were trying to create in the first place!

You read a lot into what was just a flippant remark! My comment is not against technological advancement in any way despite your inference. Putting aside the argument that this string drive concept may be useful in a multitude of applications elsewhere, but just looking specifically at the Stringbike, I agree that it's an interesting design, and as curious as the next person as to how well it works, but it just looks like an over engineered solution to a problem that doesn't exist. The basic design of the bicycle drivetrain has remain largely unchanged since the early 1900s. You can be sure people have tried to improve and reinvent it, but it still appears in the form as we know it today for one reason, it is simple and it works. Adding extra bits to an invention that is already the most efficient method of transport is just designing for the sake of design in my opinion.

Of course, I will gladly come back here and eat my words if one day everyone is riding around with these symmetric string drive systems on their bicycles. I very much doubt it though...

kelsen

Oh, and did I also mention that it's fugly!

SamWise1972

kelsen wrote:

frinkmakesyouthink wrote:

The basic design of the bicycle drivetrain has remain largely unchanged since the early 1900s. You can be sure people have tried to improve and reinvent it, but it still appears in the form as we know it today for one reason, it is simple and it works. Adding extra bits to an invention that is already the most efficient method of transport is just designing for the sake of design in my opinion.

Yep, derailleurs never caught on for exactly this reason; who needs the extra complication?

deptfordmarmoset

I think there's a certain kind of elegance to the design of the gears - they might get through a winter without you having to replace chain and cassette and they should be better protected than a dérailleur in the event of an off. And the site claims that the steeper the hill, the more efficient the drive becomes.

Having looked at the site in more detail, it seems like it would be a strange bike to ride but not necessarily a bad bike. It actually turns out that the mech will propel you forward even if you backpedal (though without pressure the pedals will return to a horizontal quarter-to-three postion) and it needs what is virtually a 3rd freewheel so that the bike can be moved backwards. All in all, I find it intriguing. I'd like to have a go on one.

lae

kelsen wrote:

You read a lot into what was just a flippant remark! My comment is not against technological advancement in any way despite your inference. Putting aside the argument that this string drive concept may be useful in a multitude of applications elsewhere

How can you just 'put aside' the fact that it could be useful elsewhere? Do you think that the designers just built the Stringbike with only the Stringbike in mind? "Hey Stringbike designer, someone from Trek is on the phone, they want to know if the String will work in a new folding bike they're making // No, we made the String for this single concept ONLY, which will remain in my garage and be ridden once a month!".

kelsen wrote:

but just looking specifically at the Stringbike, I agree that it's an interesting design, and as curious as the next person as to how well it works, but it just looks like an over engineered solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

It's a concept, of course it's over-engineered. Were the first chain drives lightweight and low-friction like today? No, they used massive 1" block chains. The first deraillers were heavy, clunky, could only cover three gears and were shifted by moving a big rod around. The first hub gears weighed about three kilos. The first CVT systems weighed about five kilos. The first carbon frames were heavier and floppier than the best steel frames. What on earth do you expect from something that's just been built?

And like I said in my last post, how on earth can you say that 'the problem doesn't exist'? What problem? You don't even know what the designers were trying to do in the first place! I've also identified, in my first post, a few problems that the Stringbike design could potentially already overcome (folding bikes, compact drivetrain, maintenance, unsynchronised pedalling etc).

Also the Stringbike does have the potential to be a lot lighter than a conventional chain - it's easier to make a light, strong cable than it is to make a light, strong chain. They just need to sort out the cranks first. And if you read about the Stringbike, you'll see that it can change the gear ratio without slippage or interference so it's possible to shift under full power and also shift whilst not moving. Whilst there's no word on gear range yet, it also means that they can do without a heavy complicated set of deraillers.

kelsen wrote:

The basic design of the bicycle drivetrain has remain largely unchanged since the early 1900s. You can be sure people have tried to improve and reinvent it, but it still appears in the form as we know it today for one reason, it is simple and it works.

Block chain, skip-tooth chain, Simpson lever chain, bushing roller chain, and finally bushingless chain. And not to mention belt drives and shaft drives which are quickly gaining popularity on niche machines today. As well as electric, hydraulic and pneumatic bicycles.

kelsen wrote:

Adding extra bits to an invention that is already the most efficient method of transport is just designing for the sake of design in my opinion.

It was the most efficient form of transport in 1900 too. So what was the point of improving it? Just designing for the sake of design?

And what's wrong with designing for the sake of design? Some day a bicycle designer might be thinking about the drivetrain on his new world-class bicycle and he'll say "hey, some guys in 2010 built a String drivetrain. It didn't come to anything back then, but it fits my design perfectly!".

And even if the design doesn't get used, at least the designers have learnt something from it. As a designer I can tell you that for every successful design there's a hundred unsuccessful ones.

kelsen wrote:

Of course, I will gladly come back here and eat my words if one day everyone is riding around with these symmetric string drive systems on their bicycles. I very much doubt it though...

Well not everyone rides the same kind of bike so I don't think there's a single drivetrain for everyone. It might even find success as a transmission system for something other than a bike. Will it become popular? I have no idea. Does that mean people just shouldn't bother inventing new stuff? Of course not.

don_don

After initially slagging it off (and kelsen getting all the stick :P ), I had a proper look at the website and yes, this does appear to be quite an interesting idea :oops:

Checking the 'maintenance' section, it actually looks like the 'freewheel' parts are integrated to the dropouts, rather than the rear hub, so a custom frame design is needed.

I take their point that the system will be more efficient for bikes with long chain runs, ie. recumbents, although I'm not sure how inefficient recumbents are anyway.

If they can make a fixed-wheel version then I might be interested

kelsen

frinkmakesyouthink wrote:

kelsen wrote:

You read a lot into what was just a flippant remark! My comment is not against technological advancement in any way despite your inference. Putting aside the argument that this string drive concept may be useful in a multitude of applications elsewhere

How can you just 'put aside' the fact that it could be useful elsewhere? Do you think that the designers just built the Stringbike with only the Stringbike in mind? "Hey Stringbike designer, someone from Trek is on the phone, they want to know if the String will work in a new folding bike they're making // No, we made the String for this single concept ONLY, which will remain in my garage and be ridden once a month!".

kelsen wrote:

but just looking specifically at the Stringbike, I agree that it's an interesting design, and as curious as the next person as to how well it works, but it just looks like an over engineered solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

It's a concept, of course it's over-engineered. Were the first chain drives lightweight and low-friction like today? No, they used massive 1" block chains. The first deraillers were heavy, clunky, could only cover three gears and were shifted by moving a big rod around. The first hub gears weighed about three kilos. The first CVT systems weighed about five kilos. The first carbon frames were heavier and floppier than the best steel frames. What on earth do you expect from something that's just been built?

And like I said in my last post, how on earth can you say that 'the problem doesn't exist'? What problem? You don't even know what the designers were trying to do in the first place! I've also identified, in my first post, a few problems that the Stringbike design could potentially already overcome (folding bikes, compact drivetrain, maintenance, unsynchronised pedalling etc).

Also the Stringbike does have the potential to be a lot lighter than a conventional chain - it's easier to make a light, strong cable than it is to make a light, strong chain. They just need to sort out the cranks first. And if you read about the Stringbike, you'll see that it can change the gear ratio without slippage or interference so it's possible to shift under full power and also shift whilst not moving. Whilst there's no word on gear range yet, it also means that they can do without a heavy complicated set of deraillers.

kelsen wrote:

The basic design of the bicycle drivetrain has remain largely unchanged since the early 1900s. You can be sure people have tried to improve and reinvent it, but it still appears in the form as we know it today for one reason, it is simple and it works.

Block chain, skip-tooth chain, Simpson lever chain, bushing roller chain, and finally bushingless chain. And not to mention belt drives and shaft drives which are quickly gaining popularity on niche machines today. As well as electric, hydraulic and pneumatic bicycles.

kelsen wrote:

Adding extra bits to an invention that is already the most efficient method of transport is just designing for the sake of design in my opinion.

It was the most efficient form of transport in 1900 too. So what was the point of improving it? Just designing for the sake of design?

And what's wrong with designing for the sake of design? Some day a bicycle designer might be thinking about the drivetrain on his new world-class bicycle and he'll say "hey, some guys in 2010 built a String drivetrain. It didn't come to anything back then, but it fits my design perfectly!".

And even if the design doesn't get used, at least the designers have learnt something from it. As a designer I can tell you that for every successful design there's a hundred unsuccessful ones.

kelsen wrote:

Of course, I will gladly come back here and eat my words if one day everyone is riding around with these symmetric string drive systems on their bicycles. I very much doubt it though...

Well not everyone rides the same kind of bike so I don't think there's a single drivetrain for everyone. It might even find success as a transmission system for something other than a bike. Will it become popular? I have no idea. Does that mean people just shouldn't bother inventing new stuff? Of course not.

Why am I not surprised that you're a designer!

It seems you're taking my comments as a personal affront against you and your profession. You're mixing two things up here a) That I don't like design and designers b) That I don't like the Stringbike. As I said before, I'm not against technological advances and all the potential benefits that research and development brings, and I can also appreciate the aesthetics and ingenuity of a well-designed piece even if it serves little or no purpose.

My comments are directed at, and only at the Stringbike. Everything that you say makes sense, and you've rightly pointed out areas where the Stringbike might be better than a chain drive; but as a cyclist and a consumer, I take one look at this bike and my first reaction is 'Why?'. I'm no designer, and you're right, I have no idea what the original remit was for creating it, but there are a couple of underlying reason which I would think are paramount to creating any new design (ones which often seems to be overlooked I might add)

1) Does it solve a problem?
2) Will it make money?

This may sound blunt to designers and artists who are passionate about their work and creations as you obviously are, but the harsh truth is that these reasons are key drivers in a market controlled by consumer demand. Perhaps the idea might evolve or have a unique application somewhere else, but right now I struggle to see how the Stringbike would achieve either of 1) or 2), and why anyone would choose it over a conventional design. Even if the objective was just to create a visually appealing bicycle, it still misses that mark in my opinion. Even if it is technically advanced, it looks like it's taken a step backwards in design. The chain and derailleur gears, despite it's faults (I never said it was perfect) embodies the revolutionary (sic) nature of the bicycle and there's something aesthetically pleasing about it's circularity and fluidity of motion in transmitting energy to the wheels. It just looks right.

To emphasise again, before you start banging my head with the theory and evolution of design, I'm referring to the Stringbike bike in its current form, because according to their website, it is not just a concept and can be purchased through Schwinn.

gtvlusso

Looks kinda ghey.....Happy with my chain drive.

There is nothing worse than soggy string.....could you use wet spaghetti in lieu of string in an emergency?

lae

kelsen wrote:

Why am I not surprised that you're a designer!

It seems you're taking my comments as a personal affront against you and your profession. You're mixing two things up here a) That I don't like design and designers b) That I don't like the Stringbike. As I said before, I'm not against technological advances and all the potential benefits that research and development brings, and I can appreciate the aesthetics and ingenuity of an well-designed piece even if it serves little or no purpose.

If it seems like that, then I apologise. I'm just quite bombastic in the defence of design for design's sake.

kelsen wrote:

My comments are directed at, and only at the Stringbike. Everything that you say makes sense, and you've rightly pointed out areas where the Stringbike might be better than a chain drive; but as a cyclist and a consumer, I take one look at this bike and my first reaction is 'Why?'. I'm no designer, and you're right, I have no idea what the original remit was for creating it, but there are a couple of underlying reason which I would think are paramount to creating any new design (ones which often seems to be overlooked I might add)

1) Does it solve a problem?
2) Will it make money?

Well what do you mean by 'problem'? A unicycle solves no problem. An expensive paint job on your bike solves no problem. Art, music, poetry solve no problems. Doing something different just for the joy of doing something different is as good a reason as any. It might sound corny, but making someone happy improves their life, and ultimately that's the goal of any designer. You said yourself that you "can appreciate the aesthetics and ingenuity of an well-designed piece even if it serves little or no purpose" - people will buy things just for that reason alone.

And besides, the manufacturer lists some very conceivable benefits in terms of traditional performance! You seem to be quite good at ignoring that!

Now given that the Stringbike is saleable both as a piece of design for design's sake, and because it may have some favourable characteristics, I think it most definitely could make money. All your arguments seem to be based on your consternation that the Stringbike has no 'real world' benefits but it quite clearly does!

kelsen wrote:

This may sound blunt to designers and artists who are passionate about their work and creations as you obviously are, but the harsh truth is that these reasons are key drivers in a market controlled by consumer demand. Perhaps the idea might evolve or have a unique application somewhere else, but right now I struggle to see how the Stringbike would achieve either of 1) or 2), and why anyone would choose it over a conventional design.

If I had a penny every time I heard this one... designers are not employed for their ability to think up something that is first and foremost an economically sensible idea. Not by a long shot.

It can quite easily achieve 1) as explained above. If it achieves 1), it will achieve 2). And I don't believe that there's any link between 1) and 2) either - there are countless products with no performance benefits at all that sell incredibly well.

kelsen wrote:

Even if the objective was just to create a visually appealing bicycle, it still misses that mark in my opinion. Even if it is technically advanced, it looks like it's taken a step backwards in design. The chain and derailleur gears, despite it's faults (I never said it was perfect) embodies the revolutionary (sic) nature of the bicycle and there's something aesthetically pleasing about it's circularity and fluidity of motion in transmitting energy to the wheels. It just looks right.

I would say that it's fun to watch it work and probably quite good fun to ride too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ei2ZB8Wtkjs
I'd also say that what it looks like is largely irrelevant if it achieves the performance that the manufacturers claim. And actually you did say that the current chain drive was perfect - you said that it 'doesn't need fixing' i.e. there is no conceivable way in which it could be improved.

(it also looks like it might help eliminate dead spots in pedal travel)

kelsen wrote:

To emphasise again, before you start banging my head with the theory and evolution of design, I'm referring to the Stringbike bike in its current form, because according to their website, it is not just a concept and can be purchased through Schwinn.

Being for sale doesn't mean it's set in stone, and it doesn't mean that the drive can't be used in other designs or in more suitable applications. It's a concept in that it's the first (or at least a very early) generation of working string drives.

gtvlusso

frinkmakesyouthink wrote:

(it also looks like it might help eliminate dead spots in pedal travel)

.

Kinda like a fixie then.....

asprilla

Apparently:

String Bike Site wrote:

..reciprocating movements of the swinging members.....provide a nice visual impression.

Can't say I buy into that.

dhope

Asprilla wrote:

Apparently:

String Bike Site wrote:

..reciprocating movements of the swinging members.....provide a nice visual impression.

Can't say I buy into that.

Prude

asprilla

dhope wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

Apparently:

String Bike Site wrote:

..reciprocating movements of the swinging members.....provide a nice visual impression.

Can't say I buy into that.

Prude

Allow me to point you in the direction of meatspin or leekspin, just not on a work PC.

kelsen

@frinkmakesyouthink

For all the pros and cons that you and I can come up with, until it has been independantly tested, we only have the manufacturer's word for what it can or cannot do, and no business would ever say anything bad about its own product or services (well, unless it's Ratners or Asda)

The bottom line is I'm not a fan of this particular concept, and my initial reaction is that which I go by. As a piece of design it does not invoke in me the same enthusiasm that for example this does - it ticks all the wrong boxes - pricey, low-tech material, no obvious benefits - yet still makes me gaze longingly at it.

As a designer, I'm sure you're able to appreciate a lot more aspects of the Stringbike that I am not able to, but I imagine public opinion would also feature highly in the design consideration. I hope you can see some valid points in my comments, particularly as it seems you're involved in bicycle design in some shape or form. Sometimes a negative comment can say a lot more about something than a positive one.

Admittedly, my initial reaction to the bike was a tad knee-jerk. You made a lot of good points which has made me look at the Stringbike in more detail and appreciate some of the detail which I initially overlooked. For that, you have certainly lived up to your moniker. I agree with you that it looks like a fun bike to ride and without a doubt the design is innovative and unusual and a lot of thought has gone into it. I still think it's fugly though!

lae

I agree, we'll have to wait and see how well it actually performs. That'll decide whether either the Stringbike or the String drivetrain become successful, or whether it remains a niche 'toy' product for people interested in engineering.

I also think it's fugly. If you could miniaturise the parts you could embed them into the bottom bracket and run the cables through the chainstays. That'd be a clean looking bike.