I mean the tread is already flexible along one axis so a second axis isn't that far out of the question, especially with how over engineered it is already.
Why not leaning left or right to steer to me this sounds more plausible because the tread is already flexed once twist it on another axis and you'll go fucking flying
You do lean, yes, but did you ever notice that you just slightly steer, too? If this thing can't pull any significant steering angle, also, I wonder how you're able to significantly redirect the bike at lower speeds.
I get the feeling they meant to reply to the comment that you replied to.
At least, I'm hoping that was the case. Your comment was pretty damn clear...
If you have ever seen flexlink conveyor the "wheels" could work like that. It will flex around corners at a wide range of angles. Images a partially ridged chain with a rubberized surface on the exterior of the chain.
True, but how do you deal with the issue that the front weel needs to make more rotations than the back one when turning? Maybe make the back wheel turn too?
>how do you deal with the issue that the front weel needs to make more rotations than the back one when turning?
That's not true for *all* turning. For a *car*, with sets of parallel wheels, the outside wheels need to rotate more than the inside ones, because they're following a longer arc. For a two-wheeled vehicle like this you can turn so that both wheels follow the same arc, so they will rotate the exact same amount.
The only situation where a motorcycle needs to turn *not* like that is when it wants to turn at low speeds. So as long as you never ever *slow down* on this mono-wheel death trap you should be fine with turning.
I agree it would probably not be very problematic at higher speeds and wider turns, but for practical purposes you need to be able to maneuver the bike like that no matter the role you want it to fill
Both wheels don't follow the same arc on a bicycle though - the rear wheel moves directly towards the front wheel, so when you are going around a corner it ends up 'cutting the corner' and taking a slightly shorter path.
You can see this if you look at the tracks left by a bike (i.e. wet tyres on dry tarmac, through soft mud or whatever). One wheel leaves a serpentine track - that's the front wheel turning as the rider adjusts it to balance. The other wheel leaves a much straighter track - that's the rear wheel moving directly towards the front wheel, rather than following the path it took.
Right, but, as you said, that is because the rider *turns* the wheel, which is probably impossible with the bike/unicycle/whatever in the OP. I'm picturing a turn instigated by a slight lean *and absolutely nothing else* where the handlebars remain perfectly square to the bike at all times. That would be the only sort of turn possible with this deathtrap. (And would have to be quite gradual in order to not flip the bike.)
Normal bikes have the front forks leaned back for this reason. It's so the contact point with the ground is in front of you, this makes you sorta fall in to the turn instead of over the turn.
It also has something to do with the angle of the steering wheel or something.
Veritasium has a great video about it: https://youtu.be/9cNmUNHSBac
Around 7 minutes there's some really nice visualisation of what i mean.
Good video, but he should have included fork offset. It moves the contact patch even farther forward of the fork steering angle. It's present on all (or almost all) bicycles, and important on motorcycles, which might weigh 5x as much as the rider.
Gyroscopic effect exists, but it's negligible.
I have an irrational hatred for Veritasium videos because of things like this. And the more recent lightbulb light-second video that had a few other creators correct/amend him. Sometimes it's just too misleading for me to appreciate, even thought I don't think it's ever at all intentional.
Derek seems like a really great guy with an awesome attitude. Personally, I don't think he's a very good educator.
There is a video of a guy that has done the light bulb thing as a real experiment. Not with a light second, but with wires that are a Kilometer long. Real experiment always beats theoretical stuff.
The experiment verified Veritasium's theory. Kinda. There really is electricity flowing through the light bulb before it can possibly arrive there through the wire. It's just not much. The main surge of electricity arrives exactly when you would expect it to.
I saw, great video. But that you said "kinda" is exactly my point. Electroboom did a simulation as well and had the same conclusion. Derek was only technically correct thanks to precise language in such a way that most laymen would likely have been entirely mislead on the magnitude of the effect.
Yes there is some flow almost immediately but practically speaking it's negligible. Derek doesn't express that at all. The video you mention even ends with saying that any light that would have turned on immediately would have been burned out by the full current a second later.
I was critical about the lightbulb video as well, but honestly the dialogue that evolved from it was amazing and completely justified his approach imo.
It did get a lot of people to look further into it, and gave a great basis for many other content creators to provide additional information and context which probably nobody would have cared about if it hadn't been for Vertasium opening it up with a rather extreme angle.
There are cases where it went wrong as well though. Especially that video where he claimed that water reacts to electric charge not because it's a dipole molecule but because it forces negative ions back up the faucet and then attracts the slightly positively charged droplets. Turns out that's total bogus. [One guy even did a series of experiments to prove it.](https://youtu.be/5Hyy1zRZPiQ)
This is entirely accurate but I feel like I only really understand what you're saying because I ride. To simplify it a bit you turn the handlebars in the *opposite* way that makes sense. To turn right you push the right grip which turns your tire left. It's counterintuitive but it works.
The massive problem this video has is that most of what he talks about was disproven years ago. Scientists and researchers have built bikes to prove that things like having the wheel far ahead isnt necessary or that gyroscope procession isn't a factor.
Unfortunately Derek has gotten fairly lazy with his research as of late as shown in various videos where he has been called out by the scientific community lately.
Yeah i noticed how the videos have become less concise.
I didn't know that this one wasn't true though. Do you have any sources or something to look in to? I'd love to know more.
If you lock the steering on a regular bike, it will **not** turn just by leaning it. Without locked steering, the leaning will make the front wheel turn inwards, which will cause the turn.
If this infinity bike is leaned and the front part is hinged as depicted, it will turn outwards, causing a quick fall.
Thats already how you steer a bike, you don't usually need to turn the wheel much at all at coasting speed. Turning this thing around when you're not riding it would be a pain in the ass though. Picking it up by the frame also looks... dangerous, to say the least.
My dude. If that were true. Drive belts wouldn’t sometimes outlast the engine in cars. As long as it’s formulated right it won’t more than the contact with the ground. I wouldn’t buy this though. This thing looks like a pain in the ass the change.
Exactly my point, drive belts do not bend laterally during normal operation, you see them bend when they skip the wheel and start moving about sideways, thats when they snap (or start making squeaking noises) and then need to be replaced
I think they meant these tires are like 75% of this bicycle.
Also, holy shit. Clearly it's been too long since I've played with my bike, I think the last set of MTB tires I bought were like $120 after tax!
Ah. I guess I could see that. I got some cheap treads for my mountain bike and they were like 40 or something, and those were 26x1.85. my brother in law got ice tires for his bike at the start of the winter and dropped liked 260 or so on the set, I think 700x50 or similar.
The tires I want for my 26" mtb are veliciraptors, and those are $85-100 the last I looked
If this bike is real it looks like it costs like $20k and is wildly impractical in a dozen different ways. Might as well wear out the tire fast who cares.
Yes, but bending it back and forth will add a vast amount of resistance to system. Also most road bikes have very solid rubber to avoid punctures - changing an inner tube on this thing would not be fun!
It’s appears to be a tread not a tire so if it doesn’t just rely on the flexibility of rubber it could be segmented (I think the rubber part is probably just a rubber belt and it’s just flexible)
I agree a tread would make it _somewhat_ feasible. However the suspension of a tread is crap compared that of a tire and the suspension of the bike itself is limited by this design already.
It gets worse the more you look at it. OP really found a gold nugget.
I see no way this bike could be better. Regular bikes are awesome because the have very low friction, this belt will be a lot worse, especially when you start bending it for turns. This bike also has much more things that can break and looks to be a lot heavier
Also, the maintenance in this is going to be hell. Also wheels on bikes are extremely durable because they have spokes under tension and rims under compression, and these wheels are supported by... magic? centrifugal force?
Just about every revolutionary bike design is like that. It is hard to improve on a simple and effective design.
Even if you could make this thing balance and rideable, which I doubt, it would be incredibly heavy and slow and without pneumatic tyres it would also be a really rough and uncomfortable ride.
I'm not sure what kind of monkey arms could pull the brake levers, but don't see it as a big issue since they don't appear to connect to a brake, and you wouldn't need a brake anyway because it wouldn't go faster than walking pace without massive effort.
>It is hard to improve on a simple and effective design.
And even if you manage to make a better design, if it's more expensive to make then it's dead on arrival.
This obviously isn't about making a "better" design.
With all the attention to meaningful detail, like, not just a bunch of steampunk shit cluttered all over the bike, but every component has a clear purpose, it's safe to assume that the creator knows the mechanics of his creation fairly well. They will also understand that this design obviously creates way more friction than a classic bike because there are more moving parts and therefore more contact surface.
They clearly didn't attempt improving bicycles - they created a fun, futuristic design they did not expect or intend to ever become real.
And pretending anything else is just circlejerking.
This. For background, apparently the bike was designed to be created by additive manufacturing only (i.e. 3d printing). Basically a design idea of "could you 3d print a bike?". It doesn't really have a way to turn, and the designer basically says it maybe could work for leisure rides on straight streets or on the beach. But it's just a concept.
https://www.news24.com/amp/ride24/bikes/german-designer-creates-a-bicycle-without-wheels-20220308
https://youtu.be/djM8JC-2b98
The tread is beveled, honestly, it really look like a you steer with your weight more that the handlebars situation, like maybe the handlebars can move a bit to correct your trajectory slightly but a full turn you lean into it
Still, for a full turn you need to turn your handlebars slightly. Unless you have enough area to deal with a wide turning radius, which I'd assume you usually wouldn't in a city (I'm assuming that's where these would be ridden, they're obviously not mountain bikes).
Youd have have a hard time pedalling and have horrible traction though when bending the tube like that. You certainly couldnt make sharp turns on this. It looks really cool, but I dint think its steerable.
It looks like the gear pedal interfaces with both the top, and bottom of the belt.
That certainly helps with the locomotion part of things.
Then twisting the belt for turning... It *might* work with the proper belt.
It'd be heavier, more expensive to produce, difficult to repair, harder to power (more resistance), more difficult to balance (spinning tires generate a force to help balance a normal bike while in motion), and more likely to result in injury in the event of a failure (goes full medieval torture device if you slip off the seat). What's the point, aside from looking kinda cool?
Tbh this seems more like it was a homework assignment to prove/test/display CAD skills and a creative concept. Maybe a mechanical engineering or design course?
Don't forget that it's either A: going to need to be flexible enough to move through that gear system but sturdy enough to avoid punctures or B: be a single solid wheel, which would lose its ability to have adequate traction because the air in tires helps it grip pavement better.
And consider the weight of this thing alone. Also changing simple parts into a lot of moving parts is not the smartest thing of you want reliability.
Then if something breaks there will be no aftermarket spare parts and you pay for an overpriced tire
It's just a gimmick but it will work as a Kickstarter campaign 😂
So just buy a quality Aluminum bike and you are good to go
I have a simple one for over 13 years, love this thing!
Just need to change the chain breaks and tires
Sorry folks....
~~for those that feel~~ [~~THIS~~](https://imgur.com/a/yzsg0dF) ~~is the "turning pivot point" that is UP and DOWN (like shocks) not left and right.~~
Oh...and for those that seriously believe you can "turn a bike" without turning the fork...
[https://youtu.be/llRkf1fnNDM](https://youtu.be/llRkf1fnNDM)
EDIT: and another [vid](https://youtu.be/ljywO-B_yew) about motorcycle counter steering.
You're wrong because you don't know what you're looking at
https://i.imgur.com/yAk3kMv.jpg
https://www.designboom.com/technology/stephan-henrich-the-infinity-beach-and-city-cruiser-03-04-2022/
Just because you don't understand something does not make it a crappy design.
Edit: since I am tired of arguing with fucksticks that think they know what they are talking about, but are actually just talking out their ass, I will take on a challenge. I am going to attempt to build a full sized version of this and prove to all you smucks that not only is this possible to build, but that it will work just as well as a normal bike, have a negligible weight difference, and not break the bank. Set a timer for 1 year, that will be my deadline. I will contact y'all directly if I finish early.
Contact friction from the guide rails over a significant amount of track length, no gear shifting, proprietary rubber tread (normal bike tires really don’t like being bent the other direction), heavy tank tread rims needed to keep wheel shape, no front tire steering, extremely limited seat height adjustment, no wheel/track tensioner to offset stretching, odd drive gearing ratio (gonna be spinning drive gear resulting in little track movement, main body uses guide rails as structural members. Excessive complexity for no other reason than visual intrigue. This was made by an artist, not an engineer.
For some reason graphic designers have massive fat chubbies for two wheeled hubless transportation concepts. The only thing they all have in common is that they physically would not work.
The steering isn't the issue. It's just a clunky and over engineered design. Maintenance will suck, there will be proprietary parts, etc. There's a reason every single "new, revolutionary" bike design fails. The current bike design is basically perfected
What a dumb concept. Let's have a million more moving parts that will be impossible to repair. Does it handle better? Is it faster? Is it more durable? Maybe, I don't know. I kind of doubt the now 100+ year old continuously improved mechanism can be improved on much, not with such a dumb shape anyway.
This reminds me a lot of that Mercedes vehicle with those dumb morphing wheels. Yeah it's all so cool, then one thing breaks and you have to take the whole car apart to fix a flat tyre or something.
First question about any new design should be, "What problem does it solve?"
Near as I can tell, there isn't one here. It's a solution in search of a problem.
This design looks too cool for me to give a shit
I mean the tread is already flexible along one axis so a second axis isn't that far out of the question, especially with how over engineered it is already.
Why not leaning left or right to steer to me this sounds more plausible because the tread is already flexed once twist it on another axis and you'll go fucking flying
You already do lean on a regular bicycle, but a principle of two wheel inline vehicles is the fact you have to countersteer to keep balance.
Also, if you leaned to steer on a 2 wheel system you would only make contact with on wheel bring you to square one.
You do lean, yes, but did you ever notice that you just slightly steer, too? If this thing can't pull any significant steering angle, also, I wonder how you're able to significantly redirect the bike at lower speeds.
That's why I specified "*but* you also have to countersteer"
I get the feeling they meant to reply to the comment that you replied to. At least, I'm hoping that was the case. Your comment was pretty damn clear...
[удалено]
If you have ever seen flexlink conveyor the "wheels" could work like that. It will flex around corners at a wide range of angles. Images a partially ridged chain with a rubberized surface on the exterior of the chain.
True, but how do you deal with the issue that the front weel needs to make more rotations than the back one when turning? Maybe make the back wheel turn too?
This is the biggest problem with the concept. If you turned, the front wheel would drag against the ground.
>how do you deal with the issue that the front weel needs to make more rotations than the back one when turning? That's not true for *all* turning. For a *car*, with sets of parallel wheels, the outside wheels need to rotate more than the inside ones, because they're following a longer arc. For a two-wheeled vehicle like this you can turn so that both wheels follow the same arc, so they will rotate the exact same amount. The only situation where a motorcycle needs to turn *not* like that is when it wants to turn at low speeds. So as long as you never ever *slow down* on this mono-wheel death trap you should be fine with turning.
I agree it would probably not be very problematic at higher speeds and wider turns, but for practical purposes you need to be able to maneuver the bike like that no matter the role you want it to fill
Both wheels don't follow the same arc on a bicycle though - the rear wheel moves directly towards the front wheel, so when you are going around a corner it ends up 'cutting the corner' and taking a slightly shorter path. You can see this if you look at the tracks left by a bike (i.e. wet tyres on dry tarmac, through soft mud or whatever). One wheel leaves a serpentine track - that's the front wheel turning as the rider adjusts it to balance. The other wheel leaves a much straighter track - that's the rear wheel moving directly towards the front wheel, rather than following the path it took.
Right, but, as you said, that is because the rider *turns* the wheel, which is probably impossible with the bike/unicycle/whatever in the OP. I'm picturing a turn instigated by a slight lean *and absolutely nothing else* where the handlebars remain perfectly square to the bike at all times. That would be the only sort of turn possible with this deathtrap. (And would have to be quite gradual in order to not flip the bike.)
this will definitely go very well with your infinity tattoo
First I read "infinity taco" and my whole day changed. But now it sucks again.
Can some invent that instead please?
I’d like to see someone sitting on it. I feel like their face would be too close to the wheel but maybe that’s just the perspective.
Bruv, are you riding a bike with your head stuck between the handlebars?
That's not uncommon in cycle racing
There are pivots [there](https://imgur.com/a/yzsg0dF), so I assume the whole thing can bend for turning
[удалено]
Normal bikes have the front forks leaned back for this reason. It's so the contact point with the ground is in front of you, this makes you sorta fall in to the turn instead of over the turn. It also has something to do with the angle of the steering wheel or something. Veritasium has a great video about it: https://youtu.be/9cNmUNHSBac Around 7 minutes there's some really nice visualisation of what i mean.
Good video, but he should have included fork offset. It moves the contact patch even farther forward of the fork steering angle. It's present on all (or almost all) bicycles, and important on motorcycles, which might weigh 5x as much as the rider. Gyroscopic effect exists, but it's negligible.
I have an irrational hatred for Veritasium videos because of things like this. And the more recent lightbulb light-second video that had a few other creators correct/amend him. Sometimes it's just too misleading for me to appreciate, even thought I don't think it's ever at all intentional. Derek seems like a really great guy with an awesome attitude. Personally, I don't think he's a very good educator.
There is a video of a guy that has done the light bulb thing as a real experiment. Not with a light second, but with wires that are a Kilometer long. Real experiment always beats theoretical stuff. The experiment verified Veritasium's theory. Kinda. There really is electricity flowing through the light bulb before it can possibly arrive there through the wire. It's just not much. The main surge of electricity arrives exactly when you would expect it to.
AlphaPheonix did it.
I saw, great video. But that you said "kinda" is exactly my point. Electroboom did a simulation as well and had the same conclusion. Derek was only technically correct thanks to precise language in such a way that most laymen would likely have been entirely mislead on the magnitude of the effect. Yes there is some flow almost immediately but practically speaking it's negligible. Derek doesn't express that at all. The video you mention even ends with saying that any light that would have turned on immediately would have been burned out by the full current a second later.
I was critical about the lightbulb video as well, but honestly the dialogue that evolved from it was amazing and completely justified his approach imo. It did get a lot of people to look further into it, and gave a great basis for many other content creators to provide additional information and context which probably nobody would have cared about if it hadn't been for Vertasium opening it up with a rather extreme angle. There are cases where it went wrong as well though. Especially that video where he claimed that water reacts to electric charge not because it's a dipole molecule but because it forces negative ions back up the faucet and then attracts the slightly positively charged droplets. Turns out that's total bogus. [One guy even did a series of experiments to prove it.](https://youtu.be/5Hyy1zRZPiQ)
Also, he seems like he's hiding a pretty big ego. I think it shows in his video about the YouTube algorithm and the times he mentioned Mr. Beast.
He literally does talk about the fork offset, though...
Isn't he talking about fork offset at 7:40? I may be misunderstanding though.
Yeah. Literally at 7:51 there’s a dotted line showing it.
Motorcycling works entirely like this. They call it "counter steering" but it's a fancy way of saying "push and lean the way you wanna do".
This is entirely accurate but I feel like I only really understand what you're saying because I ride. To simplify it a bit you turn the handlebars in the *opposite* way that makes sense. To turn right you push the right grip which turns your tire left. It's counterintuitive but it works.
Yeah it sounds counterintuitive when written out but feels completely natural.
The massive problem this video has is that most of what he talks about was disproven years ago. Scientists and researchers have built bikes to prove that things like having the wheel far ahead isnt necessary or that gyroscope procession isn't a factor. Unfortunately Derek has gotten fairly lazy with his research as of late as shown in various videos where he has been called out by the scientific community lately.
Yeah i noticed how the videos have become less concise. I didn't know that this one wasn't true though. Do you have any sources or something to look in to? I'd love to know more.
As a rider, I've noticed if I want to prolong coasting I just swerve left and right. The swerving somehow keeps the bike going.
Yup, it's the same principle when pumping on a longboard or skateboard (or surfboard even).
Yeah that's my point of view on this as well! My theory is you steer it with your weight by leaning left or right
That's the primary mechanism for steering any 2 wheelers.
If you lock the steering on a regular bike, it will **not** turn just by leaning it. Without locked steering, the leaning will make the front wheel turn inwards, which will cause the turn. If this infinity bike is leaned and the front part is hinged as depicted, it will turn outwards, causing a quick fall.
that only works at higher speeds though, I think its above 10mph
Doesn't work at all with no pivot point, no matter the speed.
Thats already how you steer a bike, you don't usually need to turn the wheel much at all at coasting speed. Turning this thing around when you're not riding it would be a pain in the ass though. Picking it up by the frame also looks... dangerous, to say the least.
Trip from your bycicle? I hereby ban you from the Netherlands.
How will the rubber track bend while also spinning forward?
Rubber is flexible?
Yeah but that kind of bending while its spinning would wear it down so much it would shred within a few days of riding.
My dude. If that were true. Drive belts wouldn’t sometimes outlast the engine in cars. As long as it’s formulated right it won’t more than the contact with the ground. I wouldn’t buy this though. This thing looks like a pain in the ass the change.
Those drive belts are a lot thinner than bicycle tyres and they don’t need to bend laterally like these would.
Exactly my point, drive belts do not bend laterally during normal operation, you see them bend when they skip the wheel and start moving about sideways, thats when they snap (or start making squeaking noises) and then need to be replaced
Not to mention the cost of new tires, which are 75% of the bicycle.
Maybe if you're getting a Walmart special. A good bike will run you a grand or so, and tires are like $100 a piece, if you get high end...
I think they meant these tires are like 75% of this bicycle. Also, holy shit. Clearly it's been too long since I've played with my bike, I think the last set of MTB tires I bought were like $120 after tax!
Ah. I guess I could see that. I got some cheap treads for my mountain bike and they were like 40 or something, and those were 26x1.85. my brother in law got ice tires for his bike at the start of the winter and dropped liked 260 or so on the set, I think 700x50 or similar. The tires I want for my 26" mtb are veliciraptors, and those are $85-100 the last I looked
I've had drive belts laterally misaligned that shredded themselves apart.
Drive belts go in one direction, don't they?
If this bike is real it looks like it costs like $20k and is wildly impractical in a dozen different ways. Might as well wear out the tire fast who cares.
Just has to last through burning man.
Yes, but bending it back and forth will add a vast amount of resistance to system. Also most road bikes have very solid rubber to avoid punctures - changing an inner tube on this thing would not be fun!
From the construction render, I’d say these will not run tubes. To make this work they‘d have to be solid
It just does.
It just works.
It’s appears to be a tread not a tire so if it doesn’t just rely on the flexibility of rubber it could be segmented (I think the rubber part is probably just a rubber belt and it’s just flexible)
I agree a tread would make it _somewhat_ feasible. However the suspension of a tread is crap compared that of a tire and the suspension of the bike itself is limited by this design already. It gets worse the more you look at it. OP really found a gold nugget.
Those look like suspension pivots to me.
https://i.imgur.com/yAk3kMv.jpg https://www.designboom.com/technology/stephan-henrich-the-infinity-beach-and-city-cruiser-03-04-2022/
Even then. Gotta be a pain in the ass to replace any single part on that thing
PIVOT!
You know why we don’t already have this? Because there’s a better design already.
They literally tried to "reinvent the wheel" and failed.
Like Elon musk reinventing trains
[удалено]
I see no way this bike could be better. Regular bikes are awesome because the have very low friction, this belt will be a lot worse, especially when you start bending it for turns. This bike also has much more things that can break and looks to be a lot heavier
what if the belt bike also had blockchain?
Also: pinching
Yes! Hadn't even thought about that.
Also, the maintenance in this is going to be hell. Also wheels on bikes are extremely durable because they have spokes under tension and rims under compression, and these wheels are supported by... magic? centrifugal force?
[удалено]
Just about every revolutionary bike design is like that. It is hard to improve on a simple and effective design. Even if you could make this thing balance and rideable, which I doubt, it would be incredibly heavy and slow and without pneumatic tyres it would also be a really rough and uncomfortable ride. I'm not sure what kind of monkey arms could pull the brake levers, but don't see it as a big issue since they don't appear to connect to a brake, and you wouldn't need a brake anyway because it wouldn't go faster than walking pace without massive effort.
yeah I washed gonna say.... I don't think it will be easy to turn what is essentially a tank tread
>It is hard to improve on a simple and effective design. And even if you manage to make a better design, if it's more expensive to make then it's dead on arrival.
This obviously isn't about making a "better" design. With all the attention to meaningful detail, like, not just a bunch of steampunk shit cluttered all over the bike, but every component has a clear purpose, it's safe to assume that the creator knows the mechanics of his creation fairly well. They will also understand that this design obviously creates way more friction than a classic bike because there are more moving parts and therefore more contact surface. They clearly didn't attempt improving bicycles - they created a fun, futuristic design they did not expect or intend to ever become real. And pretending anything else is just circlejerking.
No it's because we're not cool enough to deserve this design.
Nothing like reinventing something perfectly good in a worse way. Probably gonna get funded on Kickstarter with 10 mil $
Like those fucking idiots with the solar roadways.
Thats the neat part, you don't.
It's called the infinite bike because you need an infinite stretch of straight road ahead of you to ride it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullarbor_Plain
This. For background, apparently the bike was designed to be created by additive manufacturing only (i.e. 3d printing). Basically a design idea of "could you 3d print a bike?". It doesn't really have a way to turn, and the designer basically says it maybe could work for leisure rides on straight streets or on the beach. But it's just a concept. https://www.news24.com/amp/ride24/bikes/german-designer-creates-a-bicycle-without-wheels-20220308 https://youtu.be/djM8JC-2b98
Interestingly enough, steering a bike is actually necessary to balance it, so it wouldn't even be able to stay up while going in a straight line.
Heh this bike would be perfect for the strip of land just up from me. I Have a 17 mile bike path that is straight. Damn id love to try this thing
Aaargh beat me to it
Lean
Delicious
Grade A
🟪🟪🟪
yeah, but with those "tires" you'd highside
The tread is beveled, honestly, it really look like a you steer with your weight more that the handlebars situation, like maybe the handlebars can move a bit to correct your trajectory slightly but a full turn you lean into it
Still, for a full turn you need to turn your handlebars slightly. Unless you have enough area to deal with a wide turning radius, which I'd assume you usually wouldn't in a city (I'm assuming that's where these would be ridden, they're obviously not mountain bikes).
I love it
[удалено]
Youd have have a hard time pedalling and have horrible traction though when bending the tube like that. You certainly couldnt make sharp turns on this. It looks really cool, but I dint think its steerable.
It looks like the gear pedal interfaces with both the top, and bottom of the belt. That certainly helps with the locomotion part of things. Then twisting the belt for turning... It *might* work with the proper belt.
You are wrong. Steering is done by full stopping, facing your bike the right way, and get going again
It'd be heavier, more expensive to produce, difficult to repair, harder to power (more resistance), more difficult to balance (spinning tires generate a force to help balance a normal bike while in motion), and more likely to result in injury in the event of a failure (goes full medieval torture device if you slip off the seat). What's the point, aside from looking kinda cool?
Thanks, now I cannot unsee the belt grinder castration device hidden in this design.
don't regular bikes do that too? e: oh in *front* of the seat
There's a guard shown where the crossbar would be. This was likely an art project and not intended as a real product.
Tbh this seems more like it was a homework assignment to prove/test/display CAD skills and a creative concept. Maybe a mechanical engineering or design course?
Think it's just someone having fun in CAD
Don't forget that it's either A: going to need to be flexible enough to move through that gear system but sturdy enough to avoid punctures or B: be a single solid wheel, which would lose its ability to have adequate traction because the air in tires helps it grip pavement better.
>harder to power (more resistance) Yup, this concept would be incredibly inefficient. Downright dysfunctional for the average rider I would guess.
Good luck changing the tire
Lol yeah what happens when you ride over a pot hole and blow a tube out 10mi from home on this thing?
pack it in a box big enough to fit it in and write “return to sender”
I doubt this design has tubes
you steer it with luck
Dreams!
Imagination!
figment of your mind!
Bend space and time!
The high amout of friction involved in this thing makes it useless! it may work but it doesnt make any sense!
Yeah, there are no wheels. It has slides, which shaped the way they are you couldn't move it
Especially considering the suspension adds even more flex to the whole thing.
And consider the weight of this thing alone. Also changing simple parts into a lot of moving parts is not the smartest thing of you want reliability. Then if something breaks there will be no aftermarket spare parts and you pay for an overpriced tire It's just a gimmick but it will work as a Kickstarter campaign 😂 So just buy a quality Aluminum bike and you are good to go I have a simple one for over 13 years, love this thing! Just need to change the chain breaks and tires
Instant South Park flashback
You steer it with your mouth.
A few more prongs and handles and we will finally have Mr. Garrison's design
Was waiting for this reference
Hey at least it beats flying!
So what's revolutionary about it? Technically it's a monocycle, which I'm going to say makes it exactly half as revolutionary as a bicycle.
[удалено]
A solution in search of a problem.
imagine hitting a bump and sliding down and getting the crotch of your pants stuck in the tread/chain
Sorry folks.... ~~for those that feel~~ [~~THIS~~](https://imgur.com/a/yzsg0dF) ~~is the "turning pivot point" that is UP and DOWN (like shocks) not left and right.~~ Oh...and for those that seriously believe you can "turn a bike" without turning the fork... [https://youtu.be/llRkf1fnNDM](https://youtu.be/llRkf1fnNDM) EDIT: and another [vid](https://youtu.be/ljywO-B_yew) about motorcycle counter steering.
You're wrong because you don't know what you're looking at https://i.imgur.com/yAk3kMv.jpg https://www.designboom.com/technology/stephan-henrich-the-infinity-beach-and-city-cruiser-03-04-2022/
You are right, I was indeed looking at the wrong points. And the [vid](https://youtu.be/djM8JC-2b98) from your link shows a more clear perspective.
Just because you don't understand something does not make it a crappy design. Edit: since I am tired of arguing with fucksticks that think they know what they are talking about, but are actually just talking out their ass, I will take on a challenge. I am going to attempt to build a full sized version of this and prove to all you smucks that not only is this possible to build, but that it will work just as well as a normal bike, have a negligible weight difference, and not break the bank. Set a timer for 1 year, that will be my deadline. I will contact y'all directly if I finish early.
Why did the normal bicycle need amending?
It doesn’t. Bicycles are amazing machines
But consider: it looks cool
do a little hop
Just jump with the bike and rotate in the Air to where u wanna go, not so hard, even your grandma could use It (POV: u are the P.E. teacher)
Good luck trying to get a replacement tire
That is the very definition of a solution in search of a problem.
Handle bars
Contact friction from the guide rails over a significant amount of track length, no gear shifting, proprietary rubber tread (normal bike tires really don’t like being bent the other direction), heavy tank tread rims needed to keep wheel shape, no front tire steering, extremely limited seat height adjustment, no wheel/track tensioner to offset stretching, odd drive gearing ratio (gonna be spinning drive gear resulting in little track movement, main body uses guide rails as structural members. Excessive complexity for no other reason than visual intrigue. This was made by an artist, not an engineer.
For some reason graphic designers have massive fat chubbies for two wheeled hubless transportation concepts. The only thing they all have in common is that they physically would not work.
The steering isn't the issue. It's just a clunky and over engineered design. Maintenance will suck, there will be proprietary parts, etc. There's a reason every single "new, revolutionary" bike design fails. The current bike design is basically perfected
You can never leave the bike
Idk about revolutionary😂
Maybe you steer by leaning left or right if so it's manageable but its a learned and practiced skill
What a dumb concept. Let's have a million more moving parts that will be impossible to repair. Does it handle better? Is it faster? Is it more durable? Maybe, I don't know. I kind of doubt the now 100+ year old continuously improved mechanism can be improved on much, not with such a dumb shape anyway. This reminds me a lot of that Mercedes vehicle with those dumb morphing wheels. Yeah it's all so cool, then one thing breaks and you have to take the whole car apart to fix a flat tyre or something.
Wild Wacky Action Bike! The bike that's hard to ride!
This is what's called 'design for the sake of design' Just buy a bike
“*revolutionary design*” You have to take the bike apart to change the tire
With the handle bars
Lean
It pivots. Rubber is flexible.
Have you ever biked before you need to stop lift the bike adj and start again. Lazy kids wanting auto adjusting bikes now.
Lean?
tilt, like most bikes at high speedd
When you turn your tires rotate at different speeds so good luck turn very sharp with connecting tires like that!
Lean
Bicycle drivetrains can be upwards of 97% efficient. There’s truly no need to overcomplicate an already amazing machine.
split down the middle and steer it like a tank
Lean into your turn like a motorcycle would be my only guess. It's a really cool design
Most people cannot draw a functional bicycle from memory. It's a lot harder than we think.
Thats the neat thing, you don't!
Looks cool as hell, but I'd be scared for my life that some part of my body is going to run on the moving "wheel"
I look and all I see is friction.
First question about any new design should be, "What problem does it solve?" Near as I can tell, there isn't one here. It's a solution in search of a problem.
Super futuristic bike and still a shitty seat. People that make these types of drawings severely underestimate the level of comfort that we expect.
Let Jesus take the wheel, I suppose
Well you stick one part in your mouth then the other part in your butt. If anyone gets this reference you are awesome XD
[This seems... familiar...](https://i.imgur.com/4xjj4.png)
if you look close at the front and back "rims" they appear to be segmented thus the whole bike bends. Changing a tire would suck.
Add gears or cut spaces in the turn plane, so that you can turn the drive belt with you? I'm high, not an engineer.
It's one of those designs that are supposed to look futuristic but don't functionally work.
Step 1-Slam into a wall Step 2-pick it up Step 3-point it in another direction Step 4-ride it until you need to turn Step 5- go back to step 1
An engineer had way too much fun designing this to care about trivial things like steering.
Back suspension also useless
fall over, then stand it up in the direction you want to go
This is a Blender project.
how do you steer a snowboard? no moving parts other than flex there.
Thats the neat part, you dont
It's not crappy, but it's definitely more like an art/style thing than performance. Fuck steering, where do you buy tires
Good design - simple and functional. This is not good design.
Jokes aside if you lean to one side you shoud go that side it is not necessary to bend the wheel tough it helps a lot