Re: The AI specified bicycle features of the future

On 5/26/2024 12:29 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Sat, 25 May 2024 14:09:39 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
 

On 5/25/2024 1:51 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Fri, 24 May 2024 14:44:04 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 5/24/2024 10:47 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

(mega chomp)
>

Remember, this is a conceptual design, but who knows? The future might
surprise us with even more incredible innovations!

>
Meh...I'll just stick with the basics....

>
Did you notice that the CoPirate AI generated list of features didn't
include anything that would be considered innovative or revolutionary?
All of the items suggested were existing for failed products.  Nothing
futuristic or attention grabbing.  That's to be expected because the
data used to train the AI was probably limited to existing products
because Microsoft doesn't make any money advertising science fiction
bicycles.  If you're brain storming for revolutionary ideas, then
CoPirate and probably Google Gemini, both of whom are funded by
advertising, are unlikely to be very useful.
>
Hmmm... basic bicycle?  Like this?
>
"A Prehistoric STONE bike?"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSIiBetTgjk>  (19:54)
To bypass the construction and go directly to the first ride:
<https://youtu.be/SSIiBetTgjk?t=965>

 

Makes sense. Bicycles reached their apex before 1900* (steel
frames, neutral handling geometry, tubular tires and fixed
gear).
>
Typical example:
https://luxlow.com/bicycles/vintageroadtrackbikes/1898-antique-davis-dayton-model-22-special-road-racer-bike-2950/
>
All features after are refinements and/or geegaws.
>
*one might quibble that coaster brakes date from 1899.

 If someone offered such a bicycle today, I'm not sure how well it
would be received with one fixed gear, coaster brake, wooden rims,
solid rubber tires (no visible valve stem), no water bottle mounts and
a rather stiff looking saddle.  Weight might also be an issue.  I'll
admit that I'm spoiled by modern conveniences and really wouldn't want
to degenerate into retro minimalist cycling.  I live in the hills,
where the lack of gears, a front brake, and pneumatic tires would make
cycling on such a minimalist machine a painful and hazardous exercise.
When I was much younger, the lack of such conveniences were not much
of a problems.  At my advanced age, they are now a necessity.  One
size does not work for everyone.
 What I suspect you may have done is listed all the marginal features
and bolt-on gizmos that have been added to the basic bicycle, and
passed judgment on each individually.  Yes, it is possible to design a
usable bicycle by removing a few marginal features.  However, you've
gone a step further and declared everything added since 1900 to be
superfluous.  It doesn't work that way.  In an ideal world, the rider
would pass judgment on each feature individually and individually
determine if they are necessary.  I would suspect that every rider has
at least one modern bicycle feature that they deem essential.  I can't
help it if the bicycle industry throws in everything as standard.
 "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler"
That's the simplified version.  The original quote wasn't sufficiently
simplified:
"Did Einstein really say that?"
<https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05004-4>
   

We're in general agreement. Still, well over a hundred years on, people do still ride simple (if not simplistic) bicycles.  There is a gulf as usual between 'adequate' and 'desirable'.
One quibble; Late 1890s mid to premium bicycles are on tubular tires not 'solid rubber' or even semipneumatics.
'no visible valve stem' may be either a photo edit or a 'just for looks' tire rather than a $$$ period correct tire.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971