The worst winter in decades inspired a design firm and frame builder to fashion a bike tough enough for this town.
http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/minimal-method-bicycle-concept...
Tags:
I've been frequent party to "best winter bike" discussions for over a decade and have never seen anything resembling consensus on what the best qualities for a winter bike are.... for every winter cyclist who thinks wide tires are best, there's one who thinks thin tires are best, etc.
I can't say any of the other main design points appeal to my needs....
I wonder how they arrived at their presumptions.
Vanmoof?
h' 1.0 said:
[snip]
I wonder how they arrived at their presumptions.
I agree. I might use this bike to go to the grocery store, but my commute? Only if I want it to take twice as long and to be twice as hard.
h' 1.0 said:
I've been frequent party to "best winter bike" discussions for over a decade and have never seen anything resembling consensus on what the best qualities for a winter bike are.... for every winter cyclist who thinks wide tires are best, there's one who thinks thin tires are best, etc.
I can't say any of the other main design points appeal to my needs....
I wonder how they arrived at their presumptions.
'This is the bike for Chicago"? Not without fenders it ain't.
The lack of chainstays/traditional down tube solves the belt replacement problem.
Think a mud/snow/debris guard for the belt would be a necessary addition even with a center-drive belt set up.
Wonder what this weighs in at? The downtube and seatpost have to be pretty burly to keep the tolerances tight enough on the belt drive.
* The illustration shown is not the design of the better Chicago bike.
Perhaps a front fender is forthcoming at the unveil?
Fran Kondorf said:
'This is the bike for Chicago"? Not without fenders it ain't.
I have to figure that the fenders were such a no-brainer that the designers didn't feel the need to be all design-y about it. Of course it's going to have fenders - right? What is there to say about it?
Of course, that raises further questions - wouldn't a utility-oriented bike designer mention something about the number of things you could attach to the bike, including fenders?
The silence that I find deafening here is - what about lights? There are certainly high-tech, utility-oriented lighting options that one could have considered and incorporated into the design. Given that a winter commuter is going to be in the dark most of the time, that's a big consideration. But not a word on that...
I guess we'll find out soon enough.
Fran Kondorf said:
'This is the bike for Chicago"? Not without fenders it ain't.
I'd rather have mounting points to attach my own lights than have a bike with lights built in to it. Case in point the near-useless rear lights on Divvies.
One of my top criteria for a bike to use in Chicago is that it can be placed quickly and easily in a bus rack.
Start putting all kinds of baskets and accessories and super wide tires on it and you kind of blow it.
I think multi-modal commutes would blow the designers' minds. People do that?
h' 1.0 said:
One of my top criteria for a bike to use in Chicago is that it can be placed quickly and easily in a bus rack.
Start putting all kinds of baskets and accessories and super wide tires on it and you kind of blow it.
I expect any bike built by Method to be beautiful. Here's one they built for someone I know. And believe me, it looks even better in person.
Someone on the Reader site said, "Way to go guys. You've built a Divvy." I almost spewed my tea laughing.
262 members
203 members
269 members
63 members
172 members