"Design" for design's sake

secretsam

Was mulling over something the other day. You know those lemon squeezers that look like rocket ships? They're a (very pricey) "design classic".

Yet I saw a review of one once that said that functionally, it was cack and certainly worse than a £2.99 from Ikea, or wherever. So surely it's a piece of bad design - because it doesn't do it's job that well?

Bikes are full of great design - in engineering terms - but would any of them get the bearded world of "Design" excited?

pliptrot

Well most post-square-taper bottom bracker designs get a thumbs down from anyone remotely connected with engineering, and the Ultra-Torque design in particular is a design which is lemon-squeezer standard cack. Pinarello fork and stay shapes jump to mind as design for the sake of it, as do the current fad of "slightly suspended" road frames. Why, oh why, do the morons who write for the cycling press never mention hub design and the bearings in them, they just bang on about gearing. Hubs are worth far more than that, and most (probably all outside Shimano and Campag) are, er, cack.

Ben6899

pliptrot wrote:

Hubs are worth far more than that, and most (probably all outside Shimano and Campag) are, er, cack.

I may have misunderstood. Most (all) non-Shimano or non-Campagnolo hubs are cack? I'm not sure Hope, Royce or Chris King would agree.

team47b

Design is not always trying to perform, sometimes the aesthetic is all that matters, particular trait of the more well known designers who are only trying to impress others designers, it's a bit of an in joke by Starke.

Alessi says that the project was deliberately poking fun at the idea that form should follow function.

Not all designers are bearded...oh wait a minute

secretsam

pliptrot wrote:

Pinarello fork and stay shapes jump to mind as design for the sake of it

Bingo

And on another non-cycling front - stupid plugs with levers and rods instead of, say, a chain. Why???? :evil:

I'm going to put retro-fad quill stems in here. The threadless design is SO much better, allowing you to remove bars without taking all the stuff off, plus more secure, etc etc - so why are so many people fitting stupid quill stems from the 1980s?

pliptrot

Well, if it doesn't grow then it is designed. And when it comes to bicycles those who sell them to us have toiled relentlessly to persuade us that something extremely simple and low-tech is anything but. The better your technical education, the more you will be incredulous at some of the sh&&e put out there by companies trying to relieve us of too much money for a very basic machine. And if designing swoops, curls, bends and strange shapes does that, then expect more of the same. The current fad for aero frames is one such flight of fancy - no doubt that aerotech thing will save a little petrol when it's on top of the car on the drive to the latest over-priced event, but once you put it on the road it's just more marketing and more space in your wallet. It says something for the gullibility of cyclists that most bicycle vendors' ranges in "a highly competitive market" include bicycles that sell for more than an average month's salary and which are termed "entry level."

debeli

SecretSam wrote:

Bingo

And on another non-cycling front - stupid plugs with levers and rods instead of, say, a chain. Why???? :evil:

I'm going to put retro-fad quill stems in here. The threadless design is SO much better, allowing you to remove bars without taking all the stuff off, plus more secure, etc etc - so why are so many people fitting stupid quill stems from the 1980s?

I'm 112% with you on sink plugs. We have several at home which are rod-operated or swivelly-doo-dah or similar. All are awful and have failed over the years in one way or another. Yet I can still buy any size of plug on a chain from an ironmonger for pennies. Grrrr....

But you are wrong about quill stems. They are not perfect and not wonderful, but they do what they do, they stay where they're put and they offer huge ranges of adjustability in the vertical plane with little effort.

There was once a time when stem length, bar profile and professional bike fitting were not really discussed - and people just rode bicycles. If you got terribly serious, you could change the stem, but many didn't bother. Now, there are lardbutts like me fascinating over whether to go for a 90mm or a 100mm stem... which is all rather sad and pointless. The quill stem is from that age and it fitted that time. I now have bicycles (road and MTB) with both quills and threadless - and I prefer the quill in every case. I quite like that the adjustment of the bat height does not involve re-tightening the head bearings. To each their own.

Among retro features that are not design classics, I never really understood why gear levers on 'racing' frames were always mounted on the downtube. One of the most liberating features of early MTB design for me was the facility to change gear out of the saddle. When that (Ergo and similar) came to road bikes, it changed almost everything overnight in terms of climbing and sudden sprints. I didn't mind the old levers until they were replaced... now they seem slightly silly when I ride a bicycle fitted with them.

secretsam

Debeli wrote:

you are wrong about quill stems. They are not perfect and not wonderful, but they do what they do, they stay where they're put and they offer huge ranges of adjustability in the vertical plane with little effort...I quite like that the adjustment of the bat height does not involve re-tightening the head bearings.

Fair enough, and I take the point about head bearings - early on in my return to cycling (re-cycling???) I adjusted my stem but didn't lock down the head tube which could have been disastrous.

Debeli wrote:

There was once a time when stem length, bar profile and professional bike fitting were not really discussed - and people just rode bicycles.

Yup, I'm that old as well!

Debeli wrote:

gear levers on the downtube...When that (Ergo and similar) came to road bikes, it changed almost everything overnight in terms of climbing and sudden sprints. I didn't mind the old levers until they were replaced... now they seem slightly silly when I ride a bicycle fitted with them.

Agreed - of all the innovations, this is right up there as the real design advance of the last 20 years, along with lighter, brighter, longer-lasting battery lights.

Oh, and tyres that aren't made of gossamer and so don't get a visit from the P-fairy every day.

debeli

Secret Sam, this is no help at all.

I was rather hoping we'd fall out over this thread - and now I agree with all the points you've made. Apart from the quill stems one.

Further to disappointing me about the possibility of descending into an online mega-spat, this thread is also in danger of turning into a discussion about ideas which were really rather good.

So... to get it back on track I'd like to nominate big, fat, low-profile tyres on spanky alloy wheels on every car from a Bentley down to a Kia shopper. Where is this getting us? The tyre manufacturers are happy, the wheel makers are happy. I like 90% profiles on steel wheels. Enough grip, enough feel and often no need for power steering. We have a 1961 roadster on the most ridiculously narrow tyres on steel wheels. It is a dream to drive, despite making only 60 bhp. Our modern MPV and econobox hatches have tyres from Absurdistan. 195/55 15 on a shopping hatchback anyone? On bloody alloys? And.... breathe..... Your medication is ready now Mr Debeli....

But really....

And those bicycle wheels with too much writing on them.

And Crank Bros Candy pedals. Terrible. I have four sets (various bikes) and will buy more... but they have only one set of bearings and they last about a couple of years. I love them. But they are poorly designed and poorly built and cost too much. I hate them. I love them too. Where is my medication?

secretsam

Debeli wrote:

big, fat, low-profile tyres on spanky alloy wheels on every car from a Bentley down to a Kia

I've got a Kia. With alloys. But I kind of agree with you

Debeli wrote:

And those bicycle wheels with too much writing on them.

I've got some of those as well, I've read shorter books :roll:

tangled_metal

I once had a discussion along the lines of art and artifice. We were looking at railings made out of cast iron with a simple look but with the uprights having a kind of spindle shape to them. Black with gold painted rings around the part where the horizontal bars went into the uprights. The argument went along the lines that art is in the extras that are not needed to perform the duty as a simple barrier. The artifice would be if they were cheap and cheerful scaffolding bars libnked together with scaffolding joints. But they weren't they had a design element to look "good" which made them partly art as well as the artifice.

Not sure if this is relevant to the OP but in my mind all designs of anything has a part art and a part artifice. The point is at which end of the scale is it and how important you see one over the other. BTW I mean artifice as in simple engineering/design to perform an action. A chain could be pure artifice as is is not there to look good (art) so must be more artifice. If that makes sense.

With bikes you could say that hourglass stays are of a higher art content than pure artifice but if that is what you like then fair enough.

That Starcck lemon squeezer thing is more art than artifice but that is what it is meant to be. There are many cases of items not performing but looking good. Take a lot of cafe teapots, especially those chromed ones, that leak almost as much as they pour into your cup. Or hover mowers that cut the grass, mulch the grass up a bit then leaves them all over the lawn in clumps. They are a nice idea and look good when hovering over the lawn but really not a good finish to the lawn afterwards.

ai_1

Debeli wrote:

SecretSam wrote:

....There was once a time when stem length, bar profile and professional bike fitting were not really discussed - and people just rode bicycles. If you got terribly serious, you could change the stem, but many didn't bother. Now, there are lardbutts like me fascinating over whether to go for a 90mm or a 100mm stem... which is all rather sad and pointless...

That was before we had the internet and needed to find things to talk about. Discussions about bicycles when you don't have a serious and pressing problem have far more to do with being bored than wanting to talk about bicycles...admit it!

SecretSam wrote:

Debeli wrote:

gear levers on the downtube...When that (Ergo and similar) came to road bikes, it changed almost everything overnight in terms of climbing and sudden sprints. I didn't mind the old levers until they were replaced... now they seem slightly silly when I ride a bicycle fitted with them.

Agreed - of all the innovations, this is right up there as the real design advance of the last 20 years, along with lighter, brighter, longer-lasting battery lights.

Oh, and tyres that aren't made of gossamer and so don't get a visit from the P-fairy every day.

Agreed. Indexed gears integrated with the brake levers was a much more significant innovation for most of us than any other change in bicycles. Better lights have had a huge impact for riding at night, which is now possible at more than walking pace without a 50/50 chance of death. Although, if we're talking about cycling innovations this is may not quite fit. Light improvements are entirely the result of developments in battery technology and the advent of high power LEDs, neither of which were the result of the bicycle industry. Carbon fiber gets lots of attention but it really doesn't change things nearly as much as these two. I strongly suspect disk brakes will come to be seen as an important step forward in road bikes too although not nearly as revolutionary as the move from down tube shifters.

capt_slog

I can really see the points made about taking the shifters onto the bars instead of the down tube, this was a major innovation. I'm another 're-cycler' and found myself reaching down a few times in the early stages of my come-back.

But did they become possible because someone invented compression-less outers for the cables or did they have to be invented because of the move to bar mounted shifters needed them?

Sort of chicken and egg scenario.


The agonizing over bike fit is one I'd not considered until it was pointed out, and it is ludicrous. An owner of a fishing tackle shop once told me that most of the stuff he sold wasn't there to catch fish, it was there to catch anglers.

A lot of what we buy, (and the ethos we buy into) is very much along these lines. We're sold performance as if it mattered. But what the hell does it matter my gears don't change in the prescribed fraction of a second? I'm never in a sprint and it's never really going to make a difference if I lose a few seconds on a ride because my saddle weighs more than the next blokes.

ai_1

Capt Slog wrote:

I can really see the points made about taking the shifters onto the bars instead of the down tube, this was a major innovation. I'm another 're-cycler' and found myself reaching down a few times in the early stages of my come-back.

But did they become possible because someone invented compression-less outers for the cables or did they have to be invented because of the move to bar mounted shifters needed them?

Sort of chicken and egg scenario.

There's no advanced technology involved. The downtube shifters were simple, easy to manufacture and did the job adequately. I suspect the advent of indexed STIs was due to Shimano deciding there was a sufficient market and investing in manufacture rather than technological know-how reaching a point where it was possible. I don't know any reason it couldn't have been done decades earlier except that it may not have been affordable and therefore profitable. Manufacturing technology (CAD/CAM, etc) will certainly have made a big difference in feasibility.

Capt Slog wrote:

....We're sold performance as if it mattered. But what the hell does it matter my gears don't change in the prescribed fraction of a second? I'm never in a sprint and it's never really going to make a difference if I lose a few seconds on a ride because my saddle weighs more than the next blokes.

I both agree and disagree!
Improved performance for all from a competitive point of view is relatively unimportant since everyone benefits approximately equally. However if we take the example of modern tyres, you can get a relatively light yet durable tyre thanks to kevlar and other modern materials, that make for more enjoyable, comfortable and uninterrupted riding. It's not just about a performance edge, it's about easier maintenance and more enjoyable cycling. The same goes for groupsets with 9, 10 and 11 speed cassettes as compared with 5, 6 or 7. This has made cycling on mountainous terrain more accessible and much more enjoyable for riders of a much bigger range of abilities than was once the case.
Weight savings are over-hyped in my view. Low weight is nice but it's not a game changer in any real way. Everyone gets similar benefits in competition and I don't think it makes a significant difference to enjoyment among casual riders.

MisterMuncher

Pinarello stays and forks have pointless curves, but then so do a hell of a lot of top tubes these days, and I can't for the life of me work out why. I doubt it works better than a straight tube, and it looks much worse. Does it work with external cable routing to give you a clothes line on your bike?

harry-s

MisterMuncher wrote:

Pinarello stays and forks have pointless curves, but then so do a hell of a lot of top tubes these days, and I can't for the life of me work out why. I doubt it works better than a straight tube, and it looks much worse. Does it work with external cable routing to give you a clothes line on your bike?

I think you're taking things to an extreme now, MM. There's many times when I've been dropped off the back of a group, and no matter how hard I try, or what gear I choose, the gap keeps growing, and it's then I usually think to myself, "if only I had internal cabling, I know I'd still be in the bunch"

ai_1

MisterMuncher wrote:

Pinarello stays and forks have pointless curves, but then so do a hell of a lot of top tubes these days, and I can't for the life of me work out why. I doubt it works better than a straight tube, and it looks much worse. Does it work with external cable routing to give you a clothes line on your bike?

Are you certain Pinarello's curves are pointless? If they are claiming it's to introduce flex then that's got some merit, whether or not it's the best way to do it is debatable.
Similarly curves elsewhere on frames, such as top tubes, are not necessarily pointless. Straight lines use the least material and are by far the easiest solution when you're producing a structure from sections of straight material. However when you have the freedom to explore more complex shapes they become an additional tool to solve various problems. So, while I reckon a lot of the shaping of bikes is primarily stylistic I do not agree that curves are a bad thing.
As for saying curves look bad, well that's an argument for "Design for design's sake" I would think!
In many cases curves facilitate structural benefits and are a superior solution to straight lines. From an engineering design point of view curves are fantastically useful. From a manufacturing point of view they can be a pain. However they are not necessarily simply pointless fancy stuff.

capt_slog

Ai_1 wrote:

There's no advanced technology involved. The downtube shifters were simple, easy to manufacture and did the job adequately. I suspect the advent of indexed STIs was due to Shimano deciding there was a sufficient market and investing in manufacture rather than technological know-how reaching a point where it was possible. I don't know any reason it couldn't have been done decades earlier except that it may not have been affordable and therefore profitable. Manufacturing technology (CAD/CAM, etc) will certainly have made a big difference in feasibility.

It's not as easy as just putting the levers up on the bars. With frame/down-tube mounted levers, nothing moved and so the outers stayed the same length all the time. But when the gear changers went on the bars, the turns would make the cable lengths change with the older types of cable, and the indexing wouldn't work. Compression-less cables make the bar mounted stuff possible.

pinno

When I first started cycling, most things were pretty static and there were very few issues of compatibility. I think it was 91 that Campag produced the Ergo lever in response to Shimano and then the next few years saw the rise in Titanium, Aluminium and eventually Carbon has become almost a norm. Wheel technology has gone through the roof to the point that a pair of factory hoops are also standard whereas before, you would get handbuilts.
The rate of change from 1990 to 2000 was one thing but the rate of change now is phenomenal to the extent that one could be forgiven for feeling pressured into buying/upgrading for fear of looking and acting in an outdated fashion. That's the pity. Where once, you would oogle at Deeside Cycles/Ron Kitchings Everything Cycling and think about the next affordable upgrade and the next one and so on, you are faced with machines that look so different and are faced with mesmerising choice.

Perhaps we are looking at design a bit wrong. Perhaps we shouldn't concentrate on the individual parts but the sum of the parts. My bike(s) are so radically different from anything I rode eons ago in terms of feel, comfort and reliability, which is difficult to compare in that sense. I would never go back in terms of technology but I would go back in terms of attitude. As it has been said before, we just used to go out and ride. There was also a different mentality to group riding that also seems to be lost.

The bike is a stunning thing despite the lack of long point lugs and chrome. We ride thoroughbreds now whereas before we rode scaffolding that only looked like what the pro's rode, sort of.

pblakeney

pinarello001 wrote:

The bike is a stunning thing despite the lack of long point lugs and chrome. We ride thoroughbreds now whereas before we rode scaffolding that only looked like what the pro's rode, sort of.

Speak for yourself.
I now ride what the pros used to, and I lusted after.
I don't care about performance, or if anyone thinks it is old fashioned and out of date.
Anyone looking at me will also discount the hipster factor as well.

pinno

PBlakeney wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

The bike is a stunning thing despite the lack of long point lugs and chrome. We ride thoroughbreds now whereas before we rode scaffolding that only looked like what the pro's rode, sort of.

Speak for yourself.
I now ride what the pros used to, and I lusted after.
I don't care about performance, or if anyone thinks it is old fashioned and out of date.
Anyone looking at me will also discount the hipster factor as well.

Apols for being pedantic but we are talking about contemporary design.

Pics please

pblakeney

Not mine, but similar.

MisterMuncher

Allow me to rephrase that. I'm sure there may be some kind of engineering purpose to some of the curvy shaping out there. However, multiple other manufacturers manage the same, or better, result in stiffness, compliance, weight &c. without using such forms. As such, the curvy forms serve only as a visual indicator that "we did this thing". I will always prefer the unfussy looking solution. The issue is when they become part of the brand's design language. Pinarellos will have curvy stays, BMC and GT bikes will have an extra triangle, Cannondales a down tube like a drain pipe, Giants will likely have a sloping top tube, but the problem they solve no longer really needs that solution.

I don't want every bike to be a flat top tube, double triangle thing, far from it, but I want to know time and money isn't wasted making a brand x bike look like a brand x bike if a better solution exists.

ai_1

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19621728#p19621728]MisterMuncher[/url] wrote:

Allow me to rephrase that. I'm sure there may be some kind of engineering purpose to some of the curvy shaping out there. However, multiple other manufacturers manage the same, or better, result in stiffness, compliance, weight &c. without using such forms.

But why avoid using curves? It is straight lines that are the oddity in nature. Curves do most things better (structurally speaking). Straight lines are easier to manufacture when you're welding pipes together. If you're moulding a carbon one piece frame anyway, why wouldn't you optimise the design? I would take a very different view to you and say that we are now free from the constraints of straight lines and since we can easily use shapes that better accomplish the aims, we should do so. The fact that bikes with straight lines will also work is hardly the point. In many cases they are likely the less elegant solution to the structural problems (I mean engineering/mathematical elegance, not aesthetic elegance). Curves and variable material distribution can be used to tailor stress distributions thus optimising stiffness, flexibility and weight and material usage. A straight line will almost always be a compromise. Why the ideological stance that straight lines are better, less fussy, more honest, or whatever? Surely if you want to take an ideological position it should be to use the least compromised solution to each problem. For some (myself included) the ideal should ignore aesthetics and be solely an engineering solution. For others it's about appearances above all else.

As such, the curvy forms serve only as a visual indicator that "we did this thing". I will always prefer the unfussy looking solution. The issue is when they become part of the brand's design language. Pinarellos will have curvy stays, BMC and GT bikes will have an extra triangle, Cannondales a down tube like a drain pipe, Giants will likely have a sloping top tube, but the problem they solve no longer really needs that solution.

I don't want every bike to be a flat top tube, double triangle thing, far from it, but I want to know time and money isn't wasted making a brand x bike look like a brand x bike if a better solution exists.

I mean no offense, but I think your view is confused. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me you 're saying you'd rather designs weren't restricted by the perceived need to include curves and such which only serve to look curvy and meet a fashion or branding image. While I agree it's best that designers don't feel constrained by visual expectations, I think you're wrong to suggest that curves themselves are part of the problem. The problem is marketing that's driven hugely by appearances. The fact that you "prefer the unfussy looking solution" demonstrates that you yourself are bought into a preconception of how a bike should look. This view is exactly what drives the behaviours you seem to disapprove of. i.e. trying to look like a Cannondale, Pinerello, etc.

Good engineering design is about compromises, both physical, financial and, I suppose, ideological. The freedom to use whatever shape and material best serves the designers goals is a very, very good thing. The availability of good FEA software allows visualisation of complex structural interactions and allows engineers to go through iterations of different shapes to see what should best meet the design brief without even building a physical frame. The ability to mould carbon in complex shapes without massive cost impacts as there would be with metals is massively freeing. There are technological and financial constraints and there will be plenty compromises to be made in terms of the priorities for the rider too. Should the bike's design prioritise comfort, rigdity, weight, durability, cost..... Why add in a constraint that bikes should be made with straight lines. This adds a constraint and limits the available solutions. It's bad engineering, In My Opinion.

However you've also said you don't want bike X trying to look like bike X if that's not the best solution, which I agree with, but that solution may be all curvy

P.S.
Apologies for the massively over-long and convoluted post! :oops:

MisterMuncher

If a curve is the best solution, use a curve. Or a hexagon. Or whatever shape you like. If a shape is just being used for aesthetic purposes, then why bother?

It's not opposition to a particular aesthetic per se, it's aesthetics being over-prioritised. Show me why a curved top tube, or wavy forks works better and I'll be all for it. Take the Spesh Allez. A curved alloy TT so it aesthetically matches the Tarmac. Is it more rigid, lighter etc than a straight tube? The shape might not be a compromise in CF, but in 6061?

ai_1

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19621878#p19621878]MisterMuncher[/url] wrote:

If a curve is the best solution, use a curve. Or a hexagon. Or whatever shape you like. If a shape is just being used for aesthetic purposes, then why bother?

It's not opposition to a particular aesthetic per se, it's aesthetics being over-prioritised. Show me why a curved top tube, or wavy forks works better and I'll be all for it. Take the Spesh Allez. A curved alloy TT so it aesthetically matches the Tarmac. Is it more rigid, lighter etc than a straight tube? The shape might not be a compromise in CF, but in 6061?

Ah, well then I agree with you.

MisterMuncher

Put another way. Most current aero bikes look very similar, there's a very similar mindset in the engineering. Give it a generation or two, they'll begin to differentiate. This isn't a bad thing if it's the result of independent engineers finding different solutions. It's a bad thing if it's the result of John from marketing pushing for it to look a bit more like it's sister models. Telling one from the other is the thing.

pinno

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19621890#p19621890]MisterMuncher[/url] wrote:

Put another way. Most current aero bikes look very similar, there's a very similar mindset in the engineering. Give it a generation or two, they'll begin to differentiate. This isn't a bad thing if it's the result of independent engineers finding different solutions. It's a bad thing if it's the result of John from marketing pushing for it to look a bit more like it's sister models. Telling one from the other is the thing.

That's arguable. Modern cars all look very similar because manufacturers have placed them in wind tunnels and all come to the same aerodynamic conclusion. There may be an engineering optimum reached in frame design that will render bikes clone-ish [poor sentence construction, soz]. It would be interesting to see all the modern standard road frames in bare carbon, without the livery and decals just to compare them.
Each frame manufacturer is trying to achieve the same goal, more or less: Comfort, responsiveness and power transmission. I can see a huge convergence of styles and of course, there is always the current UCI rules which limit the parameters of design.

symo

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19621890#p19621890]MisterMuncher[/url] wrote:

Put another way. Most current aero bikes look very similar, there's a very similar mindset in the engineering. Give it a generation or two, they'll begin to differentiate. This isn't a bad thing if it's the result of independent engineers finding different solutions. It's a bad thing if it's the result of John from marketing pushing for it to look a bit more like it's sister models. Telling one from the other is the thing.

As an engineer I have often come via calculation to things that are already on the market. Maths don't change and so you are constrained to what the safety or other design limits will allow.