fdegrove wrote:Lovely old bikes but let's go back to the future:
Funny how so many people think "if it's good enough for $Random_Motorized_Vehicle, it is surely good enough for a bicycle". Like a bicycle is something of a lower technological level than a machine that runs on fossil fuel.
It is not. The level of efficiency required for a bicycle staggers the imagination. The human engine is a engineers nightmare: high, irregular force, low speed and almost no power. Motorized vehicles have plenty of energy to spend, and engines which behave much better.
This is why good bicycles are at the highest level of innovation allowed by the UCI (*f##k* them), or higher if compliance is not required. Cyclists know this. Motor guys don't, and regularly come up with solutions that work fine in a car or motorcycle, but simply suck on a bicycle. Shaft drive is the classic example.
In this bicycle it is less obvious, but I see several things that look like a nice new idea, but will not work well. They say the classic headset is a bad construction, but their alternative is almost a braking parachute. Same for the placing of the back wheel. And wheels without a quick release are just plain stupid if you don't invent the unflattable tyre at the same time.