I think it pretty ridiculous really.
The idea of making something efficient isn't, but that isn't really the way to do it. It is certainly better than the alternative.
They are taking a high tech solution for a basic problem.
There is already a company in N.Z. that has basically taken a mountain bike frame and attached a small 4-stoke to it. It retains the option to pedal either as a helper or primary.
front suspension, mono-shock rear, 90lbs. (sorry, no link)
from a practical point of view there are several thing to consider.
No one product will suit everyones needs.
There is a trade off between efficiency and simplicity.
The hybrid bike is probably more efficient than the mountain bike. the Hybrid has many more parts that have to be manufactured. It take energy to make the parts. Does the gain in efficiency over the lifetime of the bike out weigh the extra cost in energy to produce those parts compared to a low tech approach?
Price. At what price point is it a disincentive. Most people can't afford to spend 10K (just a guess) to save 2K.
For the Price of one of the fancy hybrids I could build 50 motorized beach cruisers. Which would save more resources?
All in all, it is just another yuppie feel good toy that will not amount to anything done as a senior project for a design school.
Apparently that boy was absent on the day they discussed the theory that good design begins with the proper approach
Quote:
|
... coil-over adjustable Penske Racing Shock
|
and racing shocks aren't the right approach by a good long way.
As a senior adviser I would have asked him these 3 questions
does it cost less that 1K? Can it be repaired and maintained by an untrained "mechanic" in any 3rd world country using only basic tools? can it be manufactured in the 3rd world using existing production facilities?
That company doesn't want to cut emissions in any meaningful way. What it wants is a saleable product that can be marketed as "eco-friendly" to an trendy,rich, feel good niche market .
I'm not impressed.
