The Chainlink

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...

Views: 3245

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

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.

RSS

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service