11 ms·

Velocipedia

430 points by modernerd 11y ago

atdt 11y ago
What is wrong with the topmost bike?
- gggggggg 11y ago
  No frame between rear wheel and front chainring. No strength.
  - amelius 11y ago
    But the front wheel is also missing that beam on a correct bicycle. Edit: implying: if the front wheel doesn't need it, why would the rear wheel?
    - exogen 11y ago
      Turning would be quite difficult on a bike with one. ;)
    - samastur 11y ago
      Distribution of weight is not equal.
    - Piskvorrr 11y ago
      I would like to see you turn a bike with front-wheel chainstays. Straight-only driving, turns are obsolete! :D Also, the front wheel is connected to the frame in a very different way than the back wheel: single strong tube, only diverging further on; and there is no requirement for the front wheel to be powered - therefore the front wheel can (and does) move WRT the frame, something the back wheel must not do. Yes, they're both wheels, but that's where the similarity ends; the rest of the requirements are very different.
      - Zarel 11y ago
        You can actually turn by leaning in the correct direction. This is actually the usual way to turn if you're no-hand biking. http://www.wikihow.com/Ride-No-Handed-on-a-Bike http://www.wikihow.com/Ride-No-Handed-on-a-Bike
        ranko 11y ago
        It's the usual way to turn when using your hands too - in fact, you (subconsciously) turn your handlebars the "wrong" way when cornering on a bike (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countersteering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countersteering). This is very counterintuitive and discussing it is a good way to start arguments...
        ccozan 11y ago
        I thought that countersteering is only for motorcycles? But then , cite "The entire sequence goes largely unnoticed by most riders, which is why some assert that they do not do it", end cite, is most probably true.
        randlet 11y ago
        You definitely countersteer on bicycles too!
        Piskvorrr 11y ago
        No. The effect is, of course, much more pronounced with motorbikes, given the greater mass and velocity - but anything resembling a bike can be countersteered.
        randlet 11y ago
        Countersteering is becoming more well known know amongst motorcyclists (thanks to more rider training and the internet), but some riders go there whole lives without knowing about countersteering. This is unfortunate because learning to consciously countersteer makes you a much safer and more skilled rider. The same holds for bicycles too I suppose.
    - ajuc 11y ago
      Front wheel is attached to a thick tube that is almost vertical (weight tries to compress the tube), and that tube is attached to another thick tube throught a wide strong pivot that keeps the angle between the tubes constant. Back wheel is attached to two thin rods at 45 degreee angle. Weight tries to push the seat down and push the back wheel away (to increase the angle). That's why we need another tube to hold the wheel at constant disntance (and to keep the angle fixed). You could probably make it work by creating similar strong joint keeping the angle between seat tube and wheel rods constant for the back wheel, but why? Hm, maybe to make a bicycle with both wheels turning :) Sorry for my English, never had to describe bicycles and probably all the techincal terms are wrong :)
      - LeifCarrotson 11y ago
        Also, the "chainstay" provides rigidity against the tension created by the rider on the top half of the chain, and the force of the wheel pushing the bike forward, which can be prodigious! PS your English is fine! Only noticed a throught->through typo.
    - Someone 11y ago
      It doesn't really _need_ it; the seat stay could be designed to be stronger, but there's more of your weight on the back wheel than on the front wheel, so the seat stay would have to be stronger and, hence, 'fatter' than the fork. And, since the angle between vertical and the seat stay tends to be larger than that between vertical and front fork, the seat stay already would need to be a bit fatter (the fork is relatively more compressed and relatively less bent than the seat stay) Also, the force you exert on the chain when riding the bike tries to bend the seat stay, too. That, too, would require a stronger seat stay. However, there is a better (in the sense that it makes the frame stronger at the same weight or gives you a lighter frame of the same strength): the chain stay. It introduces a triangle in the structure, and triangles are strong.
- leaveyou 11y ago
  it's missing the rods connecting the rear axle with the pedal's axle..
- zelos 11y ago
  The frame is missing the tube between the rear wheel hub and where the pedals connect - it would presumably splay out if you sat on it.
  - habi 11y ago
    If you're really lucky, then the chain would provide some strength. Pedaling would be really hard with such a tight chain, though.
    - Piskvorrr 11y ago
      ...and anyway, the frame would flex a lot, likely dropping the chain.
- provemewrong 11y ago
  Just to expand on what others said, the tubes that the frame is missing are called chainstays.
  - qznc 11y ago
    Is it really impossible to build such a bike? Given a strong enough material it would be possible. I have not idea about the structural analysis in this case. Does such a material exist?
    - arethuza 11y ago
      I can't see what the advantage would be though - if you do have a wonder material better to go with a more standard frame design and increase stiffness and/or reduce weight. NB ~20 years ago I did have an "elevated stay" frame which was neat in some ways - no chain slap and the chain didn't go through the frame. However, the frame failed catastrophically while I was at traffic lights....
    - Piskvorrr 11y ago
      "I have not idea about the structural analysis in this case." There's your problem. The chainstays are there for Good Reasons. http://www.mece.ualberta.ca/tutorials/ansys/BT/Bike/Bike.html http://www.mece.ualberta.ca/tutorials/ansys/BT/Bike/Bike.htm... If you take them out, now most forces on the bike effect one point in the frame, right beneath the saddle. Making the frame stronger requires more material (=weight) or better material (=price), whereas a rhombus of two triangles solves the problem efficiently. In other words, you are proposing a problem to which the current bike design is the solution.
    - provemewrong 11y ago
      Likely not impossible, but the crucial weak point would probably be the connection with the seat tube. Independent of the material, that place would need some heavy gusseting/reinforcement. That particular bike also has a very vulnerable connection to the head tube, as only the down tube connects to it. There are bikes without a rear triangle, but they (almost?) always lack the seatstay instead of the chainstay or have what could be considered something in between a chainstay/seatstay. Here are some examples: http://i.imgur.com/F1xkdc1.jpg http://i.imgur.com/F1xkdc1.jpg http://i.imgur.com/oTFbEy7.jpg http://i.imgur.com/oTFbEy7.jpg http://i.imgur.com/XxRNe5y.jpg http://i.imgur.com/XxRNe5y.jpg
gggggggg 11y ago
I was looking on my phone and didn't actually see the one by the doctor. Was it there?
- shultays 11y ago
  I would say 8th one on the right. it could pass as his handwriting or a bike
- pmontra 11y ago
  There are 4 of them. 3rd, 10th on the right, 11th on the left and 3rd to last on the right. It's "medico" in Italian, it could be "dottore" but it's a more general term.
- andreamez 11y ago
  I think it's the 10th on the right.
lucb1e 11y ago
Though being biased by this article, I do think I could have drawn one correctly. It's fun to ask peers though, surprising things go wrong. I even saw the double-chained one, surprised by that! (Chain attached to both front and back.)
rukuu001 11y ago
I couldn't draw a bike until I started fixing them. And I rode every day :/ Besides that, the renders are beautiful.
- ajuc 11y ago
  For me the most impressive thing is - these are not renders. (S)he had done it in photoshop.
  - logicrook 11y ago
    Renders also mean drawings. Scott Robertson's book "How to render" does not explain how to press the render button in Blender, it explains how to actually draw (render) a concept art.
    - rawTruthHurts 11y ago
      We already had grammar nazis. I guess it's time for the semantics nazis!
      - obj-g 11y ago
        How dare he correct someone who already tried to correct someone else (and was wrong). Why does calm clarification threaten you?
        tgb 11y ago
        I truly believe that the renders -> photoshop clarification was genuinely more useful than the 'renders can mean any kind of drawing (even though it's clear from context that the writer meant computer 3D rendered)' clarification. Not that the second one was useless, but calling the photoshop point 'wrong' is way over doing it.
        logicrook 11y ago
        > renders -> photoshop clarification was genuinely more useful Except 'the clarification' is wrong. If you have a render, it doesn't mean it's 3D. It can be 3D, 2D, a mixture of both (last is probably the most frequent). It's a render. This question can be more important than you think, since people may have the wrong expectations when they get a 'render' from the industry. Good post-processing (color balance, a bit of motion blur and other small effects) can work wonders to show off a product (e.g. video-game), while not being so representative of the end result. Which explains then the disclaimers on trailers and screenshots, which are not there to be pedantic. Anyway, I'm off sending Wittgenstein to the camps.
barnabee 11y ago
Great little project. Some of them clearly wouldn't work but some would be fun to try and make
userbinator 11y ago
bicycles facing left: 75 % bicycles facing right: 25 % That's unexpected. For some reason I'd think more would be facing right than left, and if I were to draw one it would probably be facing right too. I don't know why but it seems to feel more "natural". I just Googled images for "bicycle" and 32 out of the first 40 were facing right. I noticed all the renders were facing right as well, even if the original drawing wasn't. I wonder if the dominance of right-hand-traffic countries is related.
- ajuc 11y ago
  Most traffic signs and signs on bicycle roads have bicycles facing left, maybe that's why? https://rowerowapila.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/wp_000139.jpg https://rowerowapila.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/wp_000139.j...
  - glaberficken 11y ago
    I'm going with this one as well. Most other reasons I could think of would suggest opposite results than the distribution from these drawings. Next suspicion would go to some "hidden" variable common to the individuals that drew the sketches.
- mapleoin 11y ago
  I would draw it facing left and I think that's because of the way I learned to mount a bike: the bike-stand is on the left side so you need to have your last foot on the ground on the left side in order to pull it up.
  - hwh 11y ago
    Nice explanation! I'd also paint it that way and thought this was because bikes on advertisement materials are usually shown that way around.
  - alkonaut 11y ago
    This. It's the way you approach a bike to mount so that's the way it looks inviting in advertisements too. I'm not sure if "stand fixed to left side" is a rhs traffic thing or something global?
aidos 11y ago
Here are some labelled pictures to help everyone with the terminology when discussing various missing bits of the frame: http://www.pinkbike.com/photo/2899038/ http://www.pinkbike.com/photo/2899038/ http://www.eandsweb.com/trails/info/bike_buy.html http://www.eandsweb.com/trails/info/bike_buy.html
salmonellaeater 11y ago
The first bike is missing its chain stays, the bars connecting the bottom bracket to the rear axle and the ends of the seat stays. Wikipedia has a nice diagram with the names of all the parts of a bicycle [1]. There are real bike designs that have a monofork (a one-sided fork, e.g. the Cannondale "lefty"), a monostay, or a solid body instead of top & down tubes (e.g. many folding bikes or the extremely aero Ventum One [2]). The Giant Halfway [3] folding bike has all three features! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bicycle_diagram-en.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bicycle_diagram-en.svg [2] http://www.slowtwitch.com/Products/First_look_at_the_elusive_Ventum__4912.html http://www.slowtwitch.com/Products/First_look_at_the_elusive... [3] http://www.giant-bicycles.com/en-in/bikes/model/halfway/19053/76916/ http://www.giant-bicycles.com/en-in/bikes/model/halfway/1905...
- J-dawg 11y ago
  Another fun fact about chain stays is that modern bikes are not symmetrical on either side of the vertical plane. The drive-side chain stay is noticeably thicker on the right hand side (drive side) to deal with the very high stresses in this area. This photo shows this asymmetry quite clearly: http://velonews.competitor.com/files/2010/09/IB2010_cervelo14.JPG http://velonews.competitor.com/files/2010/09/IB2010_cervelo1...
  - msandford 11y ago
    That looks to me like the non-drive-side is thicker, rather than the drive side. It also depends on the bicycle. I've got a '53 Schwinn three speed that's made out of what seems like gas pipe and it's perfectly symmetrical. A number of my old steel road frames look similarly, and so does my current titanium road frame.
    - J-dawg 11y ago
      That's a good point! I completely got it the wrong way around and didn't look at the image properly before posting it. The non drive side must be thicker because of the torsional force on the frame when pushing on the pedals. Too late to edit my post!
LoSboccacc 11y ago
it's hard to imagine people getting a bicycle this much wrong http://www.gianlucagimini.it/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Gianluca_Gimini-Velocipedia-5.jpg http://www.gianlucagimini.it/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Gian... not that I'd draw it with perfect mechanical fidelity, but there are bicycle defining parts missing there.
- buro9 11y ago
  That's not very wrong, it's just missing things (rear triangle, drivetrain). At least you could ride downhill on it (though stopping may be an issue).
  - amadvance 11y ago
    I would say it's one of few that could not break as soon you get on :) It really looks like as a history bicycle, where you used foots to push. http://i.livescience.com/images/i/000/064/812/iFF/hobby-horse.jpg?1397180995 http://i.livescience.com/images/i/000/064/812/iFF/hobby-hors...
    - skykooler 11y ago
      Also known as a "Velocipede".
- userbinator 11y ago
  For a lot of people, "bicycle defining parts" probably means "two wheels and a seat", which is what all the drawings have in common. I wonder what a machine learning algorithm would do with those renders if asked to identify pictures of bicycles, since all the drawings and renders are unmistakably bicycle-ish to people but also not "perfect" bicycles.
- Someone 11y ago
  For comparison, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_bicycle#1817_to_1819:_the_draisine_or_velocipede https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_bicycle#1817_... also has bicycle defining parts missing, but we call it an early bicycle, anyways.
stygiansonic 11y ago
This is a great art project, and I especially enjoyed some of the stats at the end. The motivation seems to be thus: "There is an incredible diversity of new typologies emerging from these crowd-sourced and technically error-driven drawings. A single designer could not invent so many new bike designs in 100 lifetimes and this is why I look at this collection in such awe." I wonder what rendering software was used to generate the drawings?
- hbosch 11y ago
  From the gif in the article, looks mainly like just some clever (and impressive!) Photoshop. Reading on my phone, I suspected Keyshot and a 3D modeling program at first, so that was a big surprise!
fiddyschmitt 11y ago
What software does he use?
- helb 11y ago
  Photoshop, probably. These are image montages, not 3D renders.
deprave 11y ago
I'm curious, why does he call them "men's bicycle"?
- LeifCarrotson 11y ago
  Because women may need to ride a bike in a skirt or dress (less commonly now, but the tradition persists), so they had bikes with an extremely low top tube to step through.
- jadyoyster 11y ago
  A "men's bicycle" is a bike with a diamond frame (as opposed to step-through for a woman's bicycle), but it's a silly name really. More to do with comfort vs. performance than gender.
  - sundarurfriend 11y ago
    > More to do with comfort vs. performance than gender. Could you expand on that? Which bikes are on the comfort side and which ones on the performance side of the tradeoff?
    - jadyoyster 11y ago
      A diamond frame is stiffer and lighter, but you can only mount it by swinging your leg over the saddle or over the handlebars. A step-through frame is heavier but easier to mount.
- BasDirks 11y ago
  Because there are also "female's bicycles". Historically these bikes were designed for women. See the top two answers here: http://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/13826/what-are-the-differences-between-a-mens-and-womens-bike-frame http://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/13826/what-are-t...
- andreamez 11y ago
  I think because in Italy the different models are called "man bicycle" and "woman bycicle" ("bici da uomo" and "bici da donna", respectively). How are they called in English?
kombucha2 11y ago
Brooks saddles are a nice touch :)
trufflepiggames 11y ago
Great post, check that out! http://www.bridezilla-game.com http://www.bridezilla-game.com
lazyant 11y ago
This is exactly the same as in a Brain Games episode where the host had some college students draw a bike, only one got it right. http://natgeotv.com/ca/brain-games/about http://natgeotv.com/ca/brain-games/about
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
colanderman 11y ago
A similar challenge: draw an ant.
arxpoetica 11y ago
I was so disappointed when I realized these images were not real! Awesome project.
jameshart 11y ago
These have great metaphorical power for software engineering slidedecks. Not sure whether they best illustrate 'emergent design', 'the difference between a pretty UI and a good UX', or 'the difference between giving the customer what they asked for vs. what they need.'
ashitlerferad 11y ago
Disappointed this isn't about velociraptors :(
vilhelm_s 11y ago
For the psychology research he mentions, there is a paper, Rebecca Lawson, "The science of cycology: Failures to understand how everyday objects work", https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/~rlawson/PDF_Files/L-M&C-2006.pdf https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/~rlawson/PDF_Files/L-M&C-2006.pd... > The participants were given a single sheet of paper, folded in half. The bicycle drawing task (see Figure 1) and the forced-choice task (see Figure 2) were on the top and bottom of the first side, respectively, and a questionnaire was on the other side. First, the participants were asked to rate their functional knowledge of bicycles on a scale from 1 (“I know little or nothing about how bicycles work”) to 7 (“I have a thorough knowledge of how bicycles work”). Next, they were asked to draw the pedals, chain, and extra frame onto a sketch of a bicycle (see Figure 1). Then, they were asked to select which of four alternative pictures was correct for the bicycle frame, pedals, and chain (see Figure 2). > Over 40% of nonexperts made at least one error in both the drawing and the forced-choice tasks (see Table 1). In this and the subsequent experiments, error scores were almost as high on the forced-choice task as on the freehand drawing task, indicating that production problems were not the primary cause of people’s deficiencies.

Velocipedia

430 points by modernerd 11y ago

atdt 11y ago

What is wrong with the topmost bike?

gggggggg 11y ago
No frame between rear wheel and front chainring. No strength.
- amelius 11y ago
  But the front wheel is also missing that beam on a correct bicycle. Edit: implying: if the front wheel doesn't need it, why would the rear wheel?
  - exogen 11y ago
    Turning would be quite difficult on a bike with one. ;)
  - samastur 11y ago
    Distribution of weight is not equal.
  - Piskvorrr 11y ago
    I would like to see you turn a bike with front-wheel chainstays. Straight-only driving, turns are obsolete! :D Also, the front wheel is connected to the frame in a very different way than the back wheel: single strong tube, only diverging further on; and there is no requirement for the front wheel to be powered - therefore the front wheel can (and does) move WRT the frame, something the back wheel must not do. Yes, they're both wheels, but that's where the similarity ends; the rest of the requirements are very different.
    - Zarel 11y ago
      You can actually turn by leaning in the correct direction. This is actually the usual way to turn if you're no-hand biking. http://www.wikihow.com/Ride-No-Handed-on-a-Bike http://www.wikihow.com/Ride-No-Handed-on-a-Bike
      - ranko 11y ago
        It's the usual way to turn when using your hands too - in fact, you (subconsciously) turn your handlebars the "wrong" way when cornering on a bike (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countersteering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countersteering). This is very counterintuitive and discussing it is a good way to start arguments...
        ccozan 11y ago
        I thought that countersteering is only for motorcycles? But then , cite "The entire sequence goes largely unnoticed by most riders, which is why some assert that they do not do it", end cite, is most probably true.
        randlet 11y ago
        You definitely countersteer on bicycles too!
        Piskvorrr 11y ago
        No. The effect is, of course, much more pronounced with motorbikes, given the greater mass and velocity - but anything resembling a bike can be countersteered.
        randlet 11y ago
        Countersteering is becoming more well known know amongst motorcyclists (thanks to more rider training and the internet), but some riders go there whole lives without knowing about countersteering. This is unfortunate because learning to consciously countersteer makes you a much safer and more skilled rider. The same holds for bicycles too I suppose.
  - ajuc 11y ago
    Front wheel is attached to a thick tube that is almost vertical (weight tries to compress the tube), and that tube is attached to another thick tube throught a wide strong pivot that keeps the angle between the tubes constant. Back wheel is attached to two thin rods at 45 degreee angle. Weight tries to push the seat down and push the back wheel away (to increase the angle). That's why we need another tube to hold the wheel at constant disntance (and to keep the angle fixed). You could probably make it work by creating similar strong joint keeping the angle between seat tube and wheel rods constant for the back wheel, but why? Hm, maybe to make a bicycle with both wheels turning :) Sorry for my English, never had to describe bicycles and probably all the techincal terms are wrong :)
    - LeifCarrotson 11y ago
      Also, the "chainstay" provides rigidity against the tension created by the rider on the top half of the chain, and the force of the wheel pushing the bike forward, which can be prodigious! PS your English is fine! Only noticed a throught->through typo.
  - Someone 11y ago
    It doesn't really _need_ it; the seat stay could be designed to be stronger, but there's more of your weight on the back wheel than on the front wheel, so the seat stay would have to be stronger and, hence, 'fatter' than the fork. And, since the angle between vertical and the seat stay tends to be larger than that between vertical and front fork, the seat stay already would need to be a bit fatter (the fork is relatively more compressed and relatively less bent than the seat stay) Also, the force you exert on the chain when riding the bike tries to bend the seat stay, too. That, too, would require a stronger seat stay. However, there is a better (in the sense that it makes the frame stronger at the same weight or gives you a lighter frame of the same strength): the chain stay. It introduces a triangle in the structure, and triangles are strong.
leaveyou 11y ago
it's missing the rods connecting the rear axle with the pedal's axle..
zelos 11y ago
The frame is missing the tube between the rear wheel hub and where the pedals connect - it would presumably splay out if you sat on it.
- habi 11y ago
  If you're really lucky, then the chain would provide some strength. Pedaling would be really hard with such a tight chain, though.
  - Piskvorrr 11y ago
    ...and anyway, the frame would flex a lot, likely dropping the chain.
provemewrong 11y ago
Just to expand on what others said, the tubes that the frame is missing are called chainstays.
- qznc 11y ago
  Is it really impossible to build such a bike? Given a strong enough material it would be possible. I have not idea about the structural analysis in this case. Does such a material exist?
  - arethuza 11y ago
    I can't see what the advantage would be though - if you do have a wonder material better to go with a more standard frame design and increase stiffness and/or reduce weight. NB ~20 years ago I did have an "elevated stay" frame which was neat in some ways - no chain slap and the chain didn't go through the frame. However, the frame failed catastrophically while I was at traffic lights....
  - Piskvorrr 11y ago
    "I have not idea about the structural analysis in this case." There's your problem. The chainstays are there for Good Reasons. http://www.mece.ualberta.ca/tutorials/ansys/BT/Bike/Bike.html http://www.mece.ualberta.ca/tutorials/ansys/BT/Bike/Bike.htm... If you take them out, now most forces on the bike effect one point in the frame, right beneath the saddle. Making the frame stronger requires more material (=weight) or better material (=price), whereas a rhombus of two triangles solves the problem efficiently. In other words, you are proposing a problem to which the current bike design is the solution.
  - provemewrong 11y ago
    Likely not impossible, but the crucial weak point would probably be the connection with the seat tube. Independent of the material, that place would need some heavy gusseting/reinforcement. That particular bike also has a very vulnerable connection to the head tube, as only the down tube connects to it. There are bikes without a rear triangle, but they (almost?) always lack the seatstay instead of the chainstay or have what could be considered something in between a chainstay/seatstay. Here are some examples: http://i.imgur.com/F1xkdc1.jpg http://i.imgur.com/F1xkdc1.jpg http://i.imgur.com/oTFbEy7.jpg http://i.imgur.com/oTFbEy7.jpg http://i.imgur.com/XxRNe5y.jpg http://i.imgur.com/XxRNe5y.jpg

gggggggg 11y ago

I was looking on my phone and didn't actually see the one by the doctor. Was it there?

shultays 11y ago
I would say 8th one on the right. it could pass as his handwriting or a bike
pmontra 11y ago
There are 4 of them. 3rd, 10th on the right, 11th on the left and 3rd to last on the right. It's "medico" in Italian, it could be "dottore" but it's a more general term.
andreamez 11y ago
I think it's the 10th on the right.

lucb1e 11y ago

Though being biased by this article, I do think I could have drawn one correctly. It's fun to ask peers though, surprising things go wrong. I even saw the double-chained one, surprised by that! (Chain attached to both front and back.)

rukuu001 11y ago

I couldn't draw a bike until I started fixing them. And I rode every day :/ Besides that, the renders are beautiful.

ajuc 11y ago
For me the most impressive thing is - these are not renders. (S)he had done it in photoshop.
- logicrook 11y ago
  Renders also mean drawings. Scott Robertson's book "How to render" does not explain how to press the render button in Blender, it explains how to actually draw (render) a concept art.
  - rawTruthHurts 11y ago
    We already had grammar nazis. I guess it's time for the semantics nazis!
    - obj-g 11y ago
      How dare he correct someone who already tried to correct someone else (and was wrong). Why does calm clarification threaten you?
      - tgb 11y ago
        I truly believe that the renders -> photoshop clarification was genuinely more useful than the 'renders can mean any kind of drawing (even though it's clear from context that the writer meant computer 3D rendered)' clarification. Not that the second one was useless, but calling the photoshop point 'wrong' is way over doing it.
        logicrook 11y ago
        > renders -> photoshop clarification was genuinely more useful Except 'the clarification' is wrong. If you have a render, it doesn't mean it's 3D. It can be 3D, 2D, a mixture of both (last is probably the most frequent). It's a render. This question can be more important than you think, since people may have the wrong expectations when they get a 'render' from the industry. Good post-processing (color balance, a bit of motion blur and other small effects) can work wonders to show off a product (e.g. video-game), while not being so representative of the end result. Which explains then the disclaimers on trailers and screenshots, which are not there to be pedantic. Anyway, I'm off sending Wittgenstein to the camps.

barnabee 11y ago

Great little project. Some of them clearly wouldn't work but some would be fun to try and make

userbinator 11y ago

bicycles facing left: 75 % bicycles facing right: 25 % That's unexpected. For some reason I'd think more would be facing right than left, and if I were to draw one it would probably be facing right too. I don't know why but it seems to feel more "natural". I just Googled images for "bicycle" and 32 out of the first 40 were facing right. I noticed all the renders were facing right as well, even if the original drawing wasn't. I wonder if the dominance of right-hand-traffic countries is related.

ajuc 11y ago
Most traffic signs and signs on bicycle roads have bicycles facing left, maybe that's why? https://rowerowapila.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/wp_000139.jpg https://rowerowapila.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/wp_000139.j...
- glaberficken 11y ago
  I'm going with this one as well. Most other reasons I could think of would suggest opposite results than the distribution from these drawings. Next suspicion would go to some "hidden" variable common to the individuals that drew the sketches.
mapleoin 11y ago
I would draw it facing left and I think that's because of the way I learned to mount a bike: the bike-stand is on the left side so you need to have your last foot on the ground on the left side in order to pull it up.
- hwh 11y ago
  Nice explanation! I'd also paint it that way and thought this was because bikes on advertisement materials are usually shown that way around.
- alkonaut 11y ago
  This. It's the way you approach a bike to mount so that's the way it looks inviting in advertisements too. I'm not sure if "stand fixed to left side" is a rhs traffic thing or something global?

aidos 11y ago

Here are some labelled pictures to help everyone with the terminology when discussing various missing bits of the frame: http://www.pinkbike.com/photo/2899038/ http://www.pinkbike.com/photo/2899038/ http://www.eandsweb.com/trails/info/bike_buy.html http://www.eandsweb.com/trails/info/bike_buy.html

salmonellaeater 11y ago

The first bike is missing its chain stays, the bars connecting the bottom bracket to the rear axle and the ends of the seat stays. Wikipedia has a nice diagram with the names of all the parts of a bicycle [1]. There are real bike designs that have a monofork (a one-sided fork, e.g. the Cannondale "lefty"), a monostay, or a solid body instead of top & down tubes (e.g. many folding bikes or the extremely aero Ventum One [2]). The Giant Halfway [3] folding bike has all three features! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bicycle_diagram-en.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bicycle_diagram-en.svg [2] http://www.slowtwitch.com/Products/First_look_at_the_elusive_Ventum__4912.html http://www.slowtwitch.com/Products/First_look_at_the_elusive... [3] http://www.giant-bicycles.com/en-in/bikes/model/halfway/19053/76916/ http://www.giant-bicycles.com/en-in/bikes/model/halfway/1905...

J-dawg 11y ago
Another fun fact about chain stays is that modern bikes are not symmetrical on either side of the vertical plane. The drive-side chain stay is noticeably thicker on the right hand side (drive side) to deal with the very high stresses in this area. This photo shows this asymmetry quite clearly: http://velonews.competitor.com/files/2010/09/IB2010_cervelo14.JPG http://velonews.competitor.com/files/2010/09/IB2010_cervelo1...
- msandford 11y ago
  That looks to me like the non-drive-side is thicker, rather than the drive side. It also depends on the bicycle. I've got a '53 Schwinn three speed that's made out of what seems like gas pipe and it's perfectly symmetrical. A number of my old steel road frames look similarly, and so does my current titanium road frame.
  - J-dawg 11y ago
    That's a good point! I completely got it the wrong way around and didn't look at the image properly before posting it. The non drive side must be thicker because of the torsional force on the frame when pushing on the pedals. Too late to edit my post!

LoSboccacc 11y ago

it's hard to imagine people getting a bicycle this much wrong http://www.gianlucagimini.it/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Gianluca_Gimini-Velocipedia-5.jpg http://www.gianlucagimini.it/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Gian... not that I'd draw it with perfect mechanical fidelity, but there are bicycle defining parts missing there.

buro9 11y ago
That's not very wrong, it's just missing things (rear triangle, drivetrain). At least you could ride downhill on it (though stopping may be an issue).
- amadvance 11y ago
  I would say it's one of few that could not break as soon you get on :) It really looks like as a history bicycle, where you used foots to push. http://i.livescience.com/images/i/000/064/812/iFF/hobby-horse.jpg?1397180995 http://i.livescience.com/images/i/000/064/812/iFF/hobby-hors...
  - skykooler 11y ago
    Also known as a "Velocipede".
userbinator 11y ago
For a lot of people, "bicycle defining parts" probably means "two wheels and a seat", which is what all the drawings have in common. I wonder what a machine learning algorithm would do with those renders if asked to identify pictures of bicycles, since all the drawings and renders are unmistakably bicycle-ish to people but also not "perfect" bicycles.
Someone 11y ago
For comparison, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_bicycle#1817_to_1819:_the_draisine_or_velocipede https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_bicycle#1817_... also has bicycle defining parts missing, but we call it an early bicycle, anyways.

stygiansonic 11y ago

This is a great art project, and I especially enjoyed some of the stats at the end. The motivation seems to be thus: "There is an incredible diversity of new typologies emerging from these crowd-sourced and technically error-driven drawings. A single designer could not invent so many new bike designs in 100 lifetimes and this is why I look at this collection in such awe." I wonder what rendering software was used to generate the drawings?

hbosch 11y ago
From the gif in the article, looks mainly like just some clever (and impressive!) Photoshop. Reading on my phone, I suspected Keyshot and a 3D modeling program at first, so that was a big surprise!

fiddyschmitt 11y ago

What software does he use?

helb 11y ago
Photoshop, probably. These are image montages, not 3D renders.

deprave 11y ago

I'm curious, why does he call them "men's bicycle"?

LeifCarrotson 11y ago
Because women may need to ride a bike in a skirt or dress (less commonly now, but the tradition persists), so they had bikes with an extremely low top tube to step through.
jadyoyster 11y ago
A "men's bicycle" is a bike with a diamond frame (as opposed to step-through for a woman's bicycle), but it's a silly name really. More to do with comfort vs. performance than gender.
- sundarurfriend 11y ago
  > More to do with comfort vs. performance than gender. Could you expand on that? Which bikes are on the comfort side and which ones on the performance side of the tradeoff?
  - jadyoyster 11y ago
    A diamond frame is stiffer and lighter, but you can only mount it by swinging your leg over the saddle or over the handlebars. A step-through frame is heavier but easier to mount.
BasDirks 11y ago
Because there are also "female's bicycles". Historically these bikes were designed for women. See the top two answers here: http://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/13826/what-are-the-differences-between-a-mens-and-womens-bike-frame http://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/13826/what-are-t...
andreamez 11y ago
I think because in Italy the different models are called "man bicycle" and "woman bycicle" ("bici da uomo" and "bici da donna", respectively). How are they called in English?

kombucha2 11y ago

Brooks saddles are a nice touch :)

trufflepiggames 11y ago

Great post, check that out! http://www.bridezilla-game.com http://www.bridezilla-game.com

lazyant 11y ago

This is exactly the same as in a Brain Games episode where the host had some college students draw a bike, only one got it right. http://natgeotv.com/ca/brain-games/about http://natgeotv.com/ca/brain-games/about

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

colanderman 11y ago

A similar challenge: draw an ant.

arxpoetica 11y ago

I was so disappointed when I realized these images were not real! Awesome project.

jameshart 11y ago

These have great metaphorical power for software engineering slidedecks. Not sure whether they best illustrate 'emergent design', 'the difference between a pretty UI and a good UX', or 'the difference between giving the customer what they asked for vs. what they need.'

ashitlerferad 11y ago

Disappointed this isn't about velociraptors :(

vilhelm_s 11y ago

For the psychology research he mentions, there is a paper, Rebecca Lawson, "The science of cycology: Failures to understand how everyday objects work", https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/~rlawson/PDF_Files/L-M&C-2006.pdf https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/~rlawson/PDF_Files/L-M&C-2006.pd... > The participants were given a single sheet of paper, folded in half. The bicycle drawing task (see Figure 1) and the forced-choice task (see Figure 2) were on the top and bottom of the first side, respectively, and a questionnaire was on the other side. First, the participants were asked to rate their functional knowledge of bicycles on a scale from 1 (“I know little or nothing about how bicycles work”) to 7 (“I have a thorough knowledge of how bicycles work”). Next, they were asked to draw the pedals, chain, and extra frame onto a sketch of a bicycle (see Figure 1). Then, they were asked to select which of four alternative pictures was correct for the bicycle frame, pedals, and chain (see Figure 2). > Over 40% of nonexperts made at least one error in both the drawing and the forced-choice tasks (see Table 1). In this and the subsequent experiments, error scores were almost as high on the forced-choice task as on the freehand drawing task, indicating that production problems were not the primary cause of people’s deficiencies.