Ellipse SF-X bicycle concept

I can’t keep this just for me. I want to share the tremendeous performances of my bicycle concept with other riders. As a working prototype it might not fire a stone heart of a fogy cyclist, but with refinement and technology I think my concept is a step forward for nowadays bicycle.
I hope I can some day ride a commercial version of my bicycle concept. I hope somebody with technical and economical capabilities will invest in my project.

Ellipse SF-X concept transforms the bicycle into a safety riding device that gives protection to the rider. The interconnected steering-suspension system integrated into Ellipse SF-X bicycle concept eliminates the probability of accidents by overturn the bike when the brakes are pulled on suddenly, especially on the front wheel. This is a revolutionary bicycle concept that keeps the stability of the rider-bicycle system whether braking or cornering. Ellipse SF-X bicycle is an All Terrain Bike that combines ingenious constructive solutions into a unique design concept to appeal to any rider.

Certainly a very interesting concept, though as a rider I’d have to actually get on it and ride it to eliminate some of my skepticisms.

My biggest concern is in terms of manufacturability, servicablity, etc. Seems like you’ve got some rather complex internal steering mechanisms built into the frame…what happens if one of those break?

What exactly is your target market? Mountain bikers? Commuters? It appears the prototype has 20" wheels or are they larger?

I think a real way to generate some legitimate interest would be to go to a nearby bike trail and let other riders on it. Get their feedback and video tape it. It’s easy to generate hype with some music and text…but really thats you talking, not the end user. If it’s really that good and you’re really interested in selling this (and the product can be engineered and produced for less than $10k a bike) then I’d suggest presenting it at Interbike.

well kudos, you built it not just drew it and that kiddo is big water in my book. I still know some of the heavy hitters in the international bike world and will forward this along to them if you like. A couple of thoughts, first patent protection, you got any? Second your only shown riding at low speeds, that would appear to me to be a issue with steering geomerty, but thats solveable. Third, remote steering with linkages is a big hassle, burried ones at that so you do have some real issues as far as a produceable, and consumer freindly design. All in all, well done.

pm me if you want me to zippy this out.

As a meticulous person that I am, I would like to answer to the questions/concerns step by step. OK, let’s do it, once again:

Q: …though as a rider I’d have to actually get on it and ride it to eliminate some of my skepticisms.
A: I gladly invite you to test this working prototype. Others who tried it were amassed of the bicycle comportment. Their words? In fact they couldn’t put their feelings in words, they were just “wow”. Their expectations were overwhelmed. What can I say, pay me a visit - contact w/ private message - then we will arrange somehow for a riding.

Q: My biggest concern is in terms of manufacturability, serviceability, etc.
A: As a matter of fact the bicycle was conceived to comply with the NPI process. The working prototype shown was made to prove the stability and the front-rear suspension interconnection as a whole bicycle-suspension-steering-rider system. This project is the result of a lot of years of research for end-user feedback and manufacturing processes. This project consists also in my degree thesis for my BSME. University professors were involved in the theory of my concept as much as for dynamics as for manufacturability and aftermarket processes such serviceability. It is not just my point here. You may say that I am protecting my concept because is mine, but things like manufacturability and service could not be proved with just a working prototype. This is my end because I do not have enough financial power to start myself a market product. I spent a lot to build this working prototype and I can’t compete with the bicycles manufacturers and nowadays technologies that they own. It was easy in the past to build a bicycle in a garage, as many of bicycles heads were started, but now this is no more a child job. I need investors to turn the world!

Q: Seems like you’ve got some rather complex internal steering mechanisms built into the frame…what happens if one of those break?
A: The steering mechanism is very simple and secure. That’s why its applicability on bikes (will work well also on motorbikes). Also the mechanism has its backup in case of failure to ensure nothing bad will happen to rider - proved by intentional break tests that will never occur during normal exploitation. A factor of 3 was taking in account for the break risk. Just a thought: would you question a car steering mechanism? If not, then think that my bicycle steering mechanism provide the same security amount or bigger than the one used by cars.

Q: What exactly is your target market? Mountain bikers? Commuters? It appears the prototype has 20" wheels or are they larger?
A: Mountain bikers. This is an Enduro/All-Mountain bike. And to let everybody know what this means:

There is a big controversy about the right size of the wheels that have to be used for a bicycle, but just because the “standard wheel size” is misinterpreted, this do not make a difference. It is just misconception or unacknowledge about vehicles dynamics. Please check yourself, there are a lot to be written about this subject.

Q: I think a real way to generate some legitimate interest would be to go to a nearby bike trail and let other riders on it. Get their feedback and video tape it. It’s easy to generate hype with some music and text…but really thats you talking, not the end user. If it’s really that good and you’re really interested in selling this (and the product can be engineered and produced for less than $10k a bike) then I’d suggest presenting it at Interbike.
A: What manufacturer, bicycle manufacturer, you heard about, come out with just a working prototype and lets the riders on street to test it?
No one. I bet. Failure is 100%. They test by themselves the concept, refine it, then come with a market prototype, that can be tested by other. What are my chances to promote just a working prototype to Interbike? People usually don’t understand the difference between the development phases of a product to became a market product. People usually take in consideration what is given not what a concept can be with further developments. Just check the history of the Cannondale urban bike concept - Jackknife/ON bike. How many years and how much refinement did take to that concept to became a reality in terms of marketing. And YES I will let other speak for my concept. This is the best I can do at this moment.

Q: well kudos, you built it not just drew it and that kiddo is big water in my book. I still know some of the heavy hitters in the international bike world and will forward this along to them if you like.
A: Yes, I would appreciate if you can do that for me. Thank you.

Q: A couple of thoughts, first patent protection, you got any?
A: Yes, and I am the sole owner since 1997.
http://www.osim.ro/publicatii/brevete/bopi698/rezumate/113334.pdf

Q: Second your only shown riding at low speeds, that would appear to me to be a issue with steering geomerty, but thats solveable.
A: The video purpose was/is to show the bicycle. At higher speeds what you can see is just a flash. I didn’t put those passages, and in fact I am not a good film maker and do not have professional techniques and equipment too. The video is a mix from a digital photo camera. My apologizes for the quality of the video. I assure you, there is no issue with the steering, as it said, the bicycle is more stable than the current bikes and gives to the rider confidence.

Q: Third, remote steering with linkages is a big hassle, burried ones at that so you do have some real issues as far as a produceable, and consumer freindly design.
A: No linkages, no movement-gaps, no bad handling feedback. How this sounds? It is a novelty whatsoever. People are afraid by novelty. This solution solve a lot of problems. Just the riders conservatism might be a problem with this “remote steering”, but just until they ride this bike.
“consumer friendly design”? We are so used to put our hands into the bicycle mechanisms, chain transmissions, derailleurs, brakes, suspensions… is this “consumer friendly design” sense that you give? We are so used to maintain these pour mechanisms that do not perform well in tough conditions, we messed up our hands to clean the bike after a riding. Is this the opened and friendly design you are concerned about? Take the example of the evolution of the bottom bracket cartridge which is no more a “consumer friendly design”. This is buried now in only one piece that you throw in the bin when its life cycle is gone. My point is that a good design and a good product is that one which is used without any intervention for the entire life cycle and this must be as long as you want to use it. To make a “consumer friendly design” in this sense was my goal. But anyway it is still serviceable if you want to.

Q: All in all, well done.
A: Thank you for your appreciation. With help from people that can understand my concept I can break the walls. This is what I need. There are big walls in front of innovative concepts…

I wellcome the new comments/concerns/questions.

PS: Sorry for my English, I take it as a romanian as I am…

one big problem, your patent is romainan, and that holds no water in US/EU/Japan etc . You will have to work with a US and E patent attorneys to get some coverage, and with out that your in a very nasty position.

Q: one big problem, your patent is romainan, and that holds no water in US/EU/Japan etc . You will have to work with a US and E patent attorneys to get some coverage, and with out that your in a very nasty position.

A: Romania is part of EU. The patent laws that govern in EU now is extended to Romania too. As of US & Japan the date of the invention reglementary deposit is taking in account when somebody wants to over patent it. In fact the same technical solution can’t be patented anywhere in the world. As a metter of fact who wants to produce it outborders of Romania and sell it, can do that by taking a big-big-big risk. As the owner of the patent I can extend anytime, everywhere my rights. I do not advise a manufacturer to come on this knife edge. All the production can be stoped just by a simple extension of the patent rights. I did the patent almost allone and I know very well the patent laws. Again I do not advise anybody to come in this kind of litigation.

I just have seen that I didn’t answer to the question below more “exactly”. I am doing now to clarify the things:

Q: What exactly is your target market? Mountain bikers? Commuters? It appears the prototype has 20" wheels or are they larger?

A: The working prototype has 20" wheels. And this because the “standard” size of the bicycle wheels in my country, at the time of conception, and for the bike class the design was conceived, was 20". As you can see in the world there are diffferent point of views about this subject. But anyway, my bicycle concept is very adaptable to the usage of different size of wheels. Though in general for bicycles the biggest dynamics performances are acieved by 20" wheels. My bicycle concept design can use wheels from 20" to 26" or bigger for the target class range for which I designed this working prototype - Enduro/All Mountain Bicycles. But the target market can be extended to kids bikes and city bikes too. The interconnected steering-suspension system that provides better stability and makes the riding more safty is the core of my design concept, and this can be implemented on any kind/class of bicycles.

im by no means any sort of expert in bike design/engineering, but i know a well thought out project when i see it.

the design looks great, seems to offer very identifiable benefits as per your description, and you seem very well versed in the technical and market aspects of the project.

great job. i wish you all the best with it. i’d buy one just for the design alone!

R

I watched your video and I’m not sure you have really substantiated your claims. This is could be just a translation issue but what exactly do you mean it offers protection to the rider, it was kind of an ambigious statement.

You also claim that the bike will stay level in any braking situation, yet in the next clip it shows the bike diving when hitting the curb. Perhaps you could look at BMW’s no dive suspension to ameliorate this issue.

You also say this has a higher traction output. How?

There are few other claims made as well that I don’t necessarily agree with, but I’ll leave those alone.

I applaud you for bringing your concept to life, and your suspension probably allows for much greater travel/dampening; I would just be careful in the claims you make. All in all great job, and I hope you get the chance to see this in stores.

Oh, and in a side note, keep track of when the bike went public because you have a year to show some sort of progress in obtaining a patent in the U.S. or else you may be ripped off. Regardless, your patent is only as good as the money you have to support it.

Definitely great job… everybody loves a video…

As a mountain bike enthusiast and product designer I have to to be honest with you. I think that it is great that you went through the effort to build a functional prototype of your design. However, no mountain biker I know of would take this design seriously. It is not clear exactly what problem it is that you are trying to solve. Is it the steering linkage/front suspension geometry? You are trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. The steering appears very unstable. Both the problem and the solution, in my opinion, appears contrived. Bicycles have been around since the 1800’s. They have gradually been refined and perfected throughout history. I am not saying that innovations can’t still be made here but with anything that has such a deep and rich history and that have gradually evolved over such a long period of time, a departure as drastic as yours cannot be seen as anything but a complete disregard for the history of the bicycle and the biking community. I am sorry but it just appears to be an irrelevant gimmick. Your video is full of technical jargon which appears to be put in there to look like you know what you’re talking about. Perhaps you do, but my impression is that they are just words floating in space, with no substantiated clam or connection to context. If you indeed intend this product to be used for mountain biking I would suggest you connect with the mountain bike community to get a better understanding of what trends, issues, concerns and recent innovations are current there. If you did that you probably would know that larger 29" wheels is an emerging trend, not smaller ones. That is why to me the design appears irrelevant, uninformed and unsubstantiated with a complete disregard for cycling history and the mountain biking community.

You asked for opinion. There you have it. I am sorry for being harsh but I am very very passionate about bicycles. Especially mountain bikes.

cool prototype. I work in the bicycle industry. Truly I believe that concept would be better suited for motorcycles and scooters. The mtb culture would not accept it based on the fact that it does not address current riding trends. Google search Whistler A-line or DirtMerchant or find a copy of the mountain bike video, Roam. You will see that your invention, while very cool, does not meet and doubtfully would meet the usage scenarios for modern mountain biking. Running over a curb without flipping over is a long forgotten worry and riding down a gravel road at the speeds you show is 1984. I hate to sound harsh but it has little application to the market.

That said the technology you created would be very interesting in a motorized, daily transportation application or a novelty item.

Whether or not you will make money off the idea is to be seen but I highly doubt it unless you start the company yourself or work out a realistic licensing agreement. Both would be risky financial ventures for you. From what I have seen in the bicycle industry there is truly nothing new. the only part of your invention that seems remotely patentable is the steering mechanism but I am almost positive there is prior art lurking around probably somewhere in Japan. Whether that be patents from bicycles or motorcycles almost every configuration under the sun has been filed for…

The other thing to keep in mind if you do try to shop the idea to cycling companies. ?They are for the most part hardened to “new revolutionary ideas.” (prototype or not). Whether you like it or not you will have a hard time convincing an experienced bike industry person of “new or revolutionary” or any other grand claim. Like was noted above, the bicycle is about refinement. It is a very mature product. More mature than the car! Due to this the reality is people in the industry will view your invention with skepticism based on a long history of claims and inventions that did not sell or could not be executed for the right price, weight and consumer appeal.

I share the same skeptical sentiments as everyone else here. Most notably your choice in wheel size. A “standard” wheel has many connotations. 20" is “standard” for kids bikes, and for BMX and freestyle bikes that adults ride. As far as All Mountain/Enduro bikes, you aren’t going to find anything smaller than 26.

I’d recommend 2 things.

  1. Make a prototype for 26" and 29" wheels
  2. Get yourself set up to go to Interbike and or Eurobike with this thing and see what sort of response you can get. You get everyone from end user, to bicycle company executives and celebrities at these events, that have spent the better part of their life dissecting things as meaningless as 1mm head set spacers.

Keep refining your idea. I probably wouldn’t ride it, but that doesn’t mean someone else wouldn’t.

Q: I watched your video and I’m not sure you have really substantiated your claims. This is could be just a translation issue but what exactly do you mean it offers protection to the rider, it was kind of an ambiguous statement.

You also claim that the bike will stay level in any braking situation, yet in the next clip it shows the bike diving when hitting the curb. Perhaps you could look at BMW’s no dive suspension to ameliorate this issue.

You also say this has a higher traction output. How?

There are few other claims made as well that I don’t necessarily agree with, but I’ll leave those alone.

I applaud you for bringing your concept to life, and your suspension probably allows for much greater travel/dampening; I would just be careful in the claims you make. All in all great job, and I hope you get the chance to see this in stores.

Oh, and in a side note, keep track of when the bike went public because you have a year to show some sort of progress in obtaining a patent in the U.S. or else you may be ripped off. Regardless, your patent is only as good as the money you have to support it.


A: Ellipse Sf-X concept transforms the bicycle into a rider extension, a riding device that gives protection to the rider. Ellipse Sf-X front and rear wheel suspension works interconnected offering a full suspension system that keeps the stability of the rider-bicycle system whether braking or cornering (which means rider protection). The front wheel suspension is conceived so that a direct contact between the wheel and the handlebar through the fork stem is avoided, in this way the shocks at the level of the handlebar are reduced at the minimum (which means rider protection).
The handling of the front wheel is done through a steering mechanism, which gives a better stability and maneuverability. This concept makes possible to eliminate the probability of accidents by overturn the bike when the brakes are pulled on suddenly, especially on the front wheel (which means rider protection). Although the anti-dive characteristic of the front suspension is a result of the bike geometry, the dive is not totally eliminated, giving to the rider a better feeling of the braking process and reducing the centre of gravity height and weight transfer along with it, hence allowing the rear brake to take on a bigger share of the stopping operation, increasing thus the braking efficiency (which means rider protection).

Moreover, the suspension system better absorbs the shocks transmitted at the handle bar level due to a rational approach of the obstacles in the direction of the reaction force for front wheel (also rider protection) and it turns up an anti-bob and anti-squat characteristic for the rear suspension by keeping a single centre for propulsion and rear suspension main-joint, since the pedal bottom bracket is concentric with the rear swing-arm pivot (which means higher traction output).

Dive/Braking-sag, Bob/Kick-back, Squat/Soft-pedal, are annoyances with bicycle suspension system. Ellipse Sf-X is a new bicycle concept that combines simple and ingenious constructive solutions into a unique design concept to appeal to any rider.

The compact structure of the bicycle frame gives the stiffness and the right forces distribution for such a purpose and also presents an aerodynamic shape, which contributes to obtain an appealing design. Ellipse Sf-X bicycle was conceived by aligning a frame design and geometry that allows the usage of different materials, such as aluminum, carbon fiber, titan, steel, magnesium or plastic materials. Also the parts consisting the suspension and steering systems are conceived to be built using widespread and mass production technologies for cost effectiveness, such as molding and casting.

I hope all of the above clarify the video statements and claims. If not I can explain them further. Just let me know.


The comment from “silentstar” I split it to better address all the concerns:

Q: As a mountain bike enthusiast and product designer I have to be honest with you.
A: Thanks for your honesty.

Q: I think that it is great that you went through the effort to build a functional prototype of your design.
A: Thanks for your appreciation. As a matter of fact building this mockup was for me the challenge. There is not enough to have just theories on papers to prove that a concept really works. And it seems that even with a functional model there is no much gain. A market prototype needs to be developed to fulfill the expectations.

Q: However, no mountain biker I know of would take this design seriously.
A: As I said in my first post “as a working prototype it might not fire a stone heart of a fogy cyclist, but with refinement and technology I think my concept is a step forward for nowadays bicycle”. For sure there will be one mountain biker in this world who wills not like/appreciate my concept, but I don’t want you to be that one. Thus I will try to clarify more in detail your concerns as follow.

Q: It is not clear exactly what problem it is that you are trying to solve.
A: My project task was to conceive, also in terms of manufacturing, a bicycle that can address the following problems of nowadays bicycles:

  • reduce/eliminate the risk of overturn the bike when the front brake is applied suddenly - increase the fore-aft/longitudinal stability of the rider-bicycle system.
  • increase the braking efficiency in other way than by improving the brake system – such as through dynamic optimization of the bicycle geometry
  • reduce/eliminate the risk of crash by suddenly flip of the front wheel when riding in soft soils or by hitting a curb, frontal impact or lateral impact – increase the side to side/transversal stability of the rider-bicycle system.
  • reduce/eliminate the issues generated by the usage of a rear suspension and a pedal-chain transmission, issues identified by the cycling world as “pedal kick-back”, “soft pedal” and “braking sag”.
  • provide a better usage of frame geometry in accordance with nowadays technologies and new materials available for bicycles industry – optimization of the bicycle manufacturing processes.

Q: Is it the steering linkage/front suspension geometry?
A: Please detail this question. What do you want to refer? The headset? The dual telescopic front fork? Head angle – geometry? Please detail your concern.

Q: You are trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.
A: Indeed, as per your definition of the problem.

Q: The steering appears very unstable.
A: What makes you think this? Please detail, eventually on the time frame of the video or somehow to make me understand what appears for you unstable.

Q: Both the problem and the solution, in my opinion, appears contrived.
A: As you mentioned the problem and its solution appears also for me no sense.

Q: Bicycles have been around since the 1800’s. They have gradually been refined and perfected throughout history. I am not saying that innovations can’t still be made here but with anything that has such a deep and rich history and that have gradually evolved over such a long period of time, a departure as drastic as yours cannot be seen as anything but a complete disregard for the history of the bicycle and the biking community.
A: Indeed “the bicycle” has a deep and rich history, but because the history of the bicycle developments is dotted with conservatism, that doesn’t mean we have to stay in the fashion just because is fashion. I would like to remind that period of time when the suspension systems were to be implemented on bicycles. Is anybody remembering the fashion? The gimmick riders’ statement “we do not need suspension on our bikes”. The time put his word on those conservatory statements and later on apologies did not make couple of years of involution to be brought back in the bicycle history. See the story below to make clearer what I am speaking about (I am sorry I couldn’t find on the net the original MBACTION article <>
– Richard Cunningham, addressing the Orange County Wheelmen cycling club about the new sport of mountain biking in 1983:
http://media.spic.tv/kgk_volja/kgk-volja.htm
The mountain biking world at that time has considered the bicycle suspension system as “a drastic departure that disregards the history of the bicycle and the biking community”. Nowadays mountain bikes are by definition devices that use suspension systems.

Q: I am sorry but it just appears to be an irrelevant gimmick.
A: You don’t have to be sorry for what you have understood.

Q: Your video is full of technical jargon, which appears to be put in there to look like you know what you’re talking about.
A: Believe me, I do know!

Q: Perhaps you do, but my impression is that they are just words floating in space, with no substantiated clam or connection to context.
A: As you say, it is your impression and what you understand. No comments.

Q: If you indeed intend this product to be used for mountain biking I would suggest you connect with the mountain bike community to get a better understanding of what trends, issues, concerns and recent innovations are current there.
A: You seem to be very knowledgeable about the mountain bike community and its needs. Could you please help me with a resume of this knowledge? What are the trends? The issues? Concerns? And recent innovations? I might not be up to date with everything, and I am also opened for advices.

Q: If you did that you probably would know that larger 29" wheels is an emerging trend, not smaller ones. That is why to me the design appears irrelevant, uninformed and unsubstantiated with a complete disregard for cycling history and the mountain biking community.
A: Only because I used smaller wheels to build a poor working prototype I have made you understand that my design is irrelevant, uninformed and …?!?
Only because I have investigated a concept and built something to prove its functionality I have made you believe that I disregarded the cycling history and the mountain biking community?!?

Q: You asked for opinion. There you have it. I am sorry for being harsh but I am very very passionate about bicycles. Especially mountain bikes.
A: You don’t have to be sorry. I understand your frustration because you couldn’t understand my bicycle concept. I also do not want to be harsh, please don’t take me like that. I am too very very passionate about mountain bikes. I think constructive opinions are better than destructive ones. In a collective effort we can make a better riding and build the bicycle for our future.

Now there are your concerns “velodesigner” that I am trying to address. Please also check for all my previous comments that might point a part from your concerns too:

Q: cool prototype.
A: Thanks for your appreciation.

Q: I work in the bicycle industry.
A: You’ve got the chance… Good luck for you!


Q: Truly I believe that concept would be better suited for motorcycles and scooters.
A: The concept can cover also these areas of products.
Q: The mtb culture would not accept it based on the fact that it does not address current riding trends.
A: Could you define please the mtb culture? This is too general. What are the current riding trends? Please be specific.

Q: Google search Whistler A-line or DirtMerchant or find a copy of the mountain bike video, Roam.
A: I have seen the movies, and a lot more others than those. They are cool. I like them.

Q: You will see that your invention, while very cool, does not meet and doubtfully would meet the usage scenarios for modern mountain biking.
A: Do you say that with my bicycle concept it can’t be a riding like in the movies? I may ask you, why not? I don’t see any problem.

Q: Running over a curb without flipping over is a long forgotten worry and riding down a gravel road at the speeds you show is 1984.
A: You may try to tell this to a particular person that was injured on September 14-16, 2007 at Chequamegon Fat Tire Festival, into an exactly same kind of accident involving a big obstacle, such a curb, and just try to address the same statement to the thousands of injured persons that suffered from flipping over with the bicycle, since 1984.
I had explained previously why the video shows riding at low speeds. Please see my previous comments regarding this subject.

Q: I hate to sound harsh but it has little application to the market.
A: Did you make a market study, or is just a thought of yours?

Q: That said the technology you created would be very interesting in a motorized, daily transportation application or a novelty item.
A: You sound like “the suspension system is a good application for motorized vehicles but there is no need of its usage on bicycles”…

Q: Whether or not you will make money off the idea is to be seen but I highly doubt it unless you start the company yourself or work out a realistic licensing agreement.
A: Do you advise to take off the video and all the other publication of my concept?

Q: Both would be risky financial ventures for you.
A: What do you mean by realistic licensing agreement?

Q: From what I have seen in the bicycle industry there is truly nothing new.
A: Yes, indeed, those kind of bicycles are everywhere around us.

Q: The only part of your invention that seems remotely patentable is the steering mechanism but I am almost positive there is prior art lurking around probably somewhere in Japan.
A: Could you be more precisely and identify the prior and probably concepts?
I would like to know about them. There is no power in your statement without having given the true source of information. Just to make a statement do not provide any help.

Q: Whether that be patents from bicycles or motorcycles almost every configuration under the sun has been filed for…
A: Are you question the validity of my patent? I do not understand your point here. I have mentioned previously about my patent.

Q: The other thing to keep in mind if you do try to shop the idea to cycling companies?
A: It is not that I would not try? It is how to?

Q: They are for the most part hardened to “new revolutionary ideas” (prototype or not). Whether you like it or not you will have a hard time convincing an experienced bike industry person of “new or revolutionary” or any other grand claim.
A: Why you say that will be hard? Can you tell me what’s in behind your statement? What are your thoughts vis-à -vis of bike industry policies, as a person working in bicycle industry?


Q: Like was noted above, the bicycle is about refinement.
A: Yes, indeed, we have to refine everything to come out with a better image of the bicycle as we all know it today.

Q: It is a very mature product.
A: Yes, indeed, <<the basic shape and configuration of a typical bicycle has hardly changed since the first chain-driven model was developed around 1885, although many important details have been improved, especially since the advent of modern materials and computer-aided design. These have allowed for a proliferation of specialized designs for particular types of cycling>> (Bicycle – Wikipedia).

Q: More mature than the car!
A: Yes, indeed, the bicycle was the first.

Q: Due to this the reality is people in the industry will view your invention with skepticism based on a long history of claims and inventions that did not sell or could not be executed for the right price, weight and consumer appeal.
A: The problem is that they might not even try to let aside this skepticism you are speaking about, and suddenly I am condemn because with my concept I put the bicycle world in a position to decide…

“NURB” concerns:

Q: I share the same skeptical sentiments as everyone else here. Most notably your choice in wheel size. A “standard” wheel has many connotations. 20" is “standard” for kids bikes, and for BMX and freestyle bikes that adults ride. As far as All Mountain/Enduro bikes, you aren’t going to find anything smaller than 26.
A: This is what I put together with my working prototype to achieve better dynamical performances than nowadays bikes, that are using larger wheels for the type/class of mountain bikes. There is a compromise between the performances and the market requirements. I am very well acknowledge about that.

I’d recommend 2 things.
Q: 1. Make a prototype for 26" and 29" wheels
A: Give me the money and I can build not just one prototype for 26” and 29” wheels, but thousands.

Q: 2. Get yourself set up to go to Interbike and or Eurobike with this thing and see what sort of response you can get. You get everyone from end user, to bicycle company executives and celebrities at these events, that have spent the better part of their life dissecting things as meaningless as 1mm head set spacers.
A: If I would had the money to built a market prototype to be shown to Interbike, then I would not made chat with you right now.

Q: Keep refining your idea.
A: I have already plans for the next 20 years of bicycle developments based on my actual concept. What I do not have is the money.

Q: I probably wouldn’t ride it, but that doesn’t mean someone else wouldn’t.
A: Probably…

To everybody on this post:
I am looking forward for your answers to my questions and further comments/concerns/questions. Thanks to everybody that watch this post.

A: If I would had the money to built a market prototype to be shown to Interbike, then I would not made chat with you right now.

Why on earth would you say such a thing? Take your 20"er over there next year, show it off. Who cares if its the only one you have. Isn’t the bike you have in your video a “marketable prototype”? Doesn’t the word prototype by definition mean that it needs refinement, needs more input and feedback? What better place to do this than at a huge bicycle tradeshow where you have the interest of those who have the power to make decisions like if you actually could market and sell this bike with success.

A: This is what I put together with my working prototype to achieve better dynamical performances than nowadays bikes, that are using larger wheels for the type/class of mountain bikes. There is a compromise between the performances and the market requirements. I am very well acknowledge about that.

This is where you need to do some research. As has already been stated here, 29" wheels are the emerging trend, and not just a trend like shag carpet. There are true advantages to larger wheels. I’ve heard Gary Fisher (aka the godfather of mountain biking) with my own ears say that the only reason mountain bikes used 26" wheels was because that is what they had to work with with old Schwinn cruisers.

I understand you didn’t just put this together last week, but if you really want to have a chance at this, get some bigger wheels on it, or put a motor on it for a scooter.

Q: Why on earth would you say such a thing? Take your 20"er over there next year, show it off. Who cares if its the only one you have. Isn’t the bike you have in your video a “marketable prototype”?
A: The bike shown in the video is a mockup = working prototype. It is not yet a “marketable prototype”.

Q: Doesn’t the word prototype by definition mean that it needs refinement, needs more input and feedback?
A: In technical terms prototype has different meanings. For the mass-media feedback the prototype you suggest as a term is a “market prototype”.
The difference between a “working prototype” and a “market prototype” is huge:

  • working prototype = is a model at scale 1:1 that is built by using conventional method and materials to just prove the functionality of a concept. Do not meet all the market requirements, just some as much as could do at this level of development.
  • market prototype = is a model at scale 1:1 that is built by using mixture of mass-producing and conventional methods and meet all (or at least 99.99%) of the market requirements such for a product on the shelf.

Q: What better place to do this than at a huge bicycle tradeshow where you have the interest of those who have the power to make decisions like if you actually could market and sell this bike with success.
A: Interbike is the best place to do that when you have a MARKET PROTOTYPE and the money to invest in. Or if you have already other products in business and just want to show your future development products that will be launched in the near future.
That means if you receive appreciation from the audience, you have the know-how and capabilities to start the production immediately and produce the PRODUCT.
I would like to point that Interbike and Eurobike shows are TRADE-ONLY EVENTS. They are not showcases for new concepts and investors or capital adventure businesses. You may check their websites for more information.

What’s the point then to make it to Interbike?

Anyway, it cost me $10,000 to showcase to Interbike with my working prototype as it is today. Can you give me this money? I could be there next year if I will have this money.

Q: This is where you need to do some research. As has already been stated here, 29" wheels are the emerging trend, and not just a trend like shag carpet. There are true advantages to larger wheels. I’ve heard Gary Fisher (aka the godfather of mountain biking) with my own ears say that the only reason mountain bikes used 26" wheels was because that is what they had to work with with old Schwinn cruisers.
A: Sir, I already answer to your point here. Why are you reiterating the same thing? See the answer again:

I’d recommend 2 things.
Q: 1. Make a prototype for 26" and 29" wheels
A: Give me the money and I can build not just one prototype for 26” and 29” wheels, but thousands.

Q: I understand you didn’t just put this together last week, but if you really want to have a chance at this, get some bigger wheels on it, or put a motor on it for a scooter.
A: Sir, I already answer to your point here. Why are you reiterating the same thing? If it was to make it a scooter then I shouldn’t call it “bicycle”. I bet you can do it better.

I can tell you’re rather passionate about this, but I’m hard pressed to tell you what your correct choice is from here on out.

I think the real bottom line is if you can’t take the financial risks yourself or get in touch with someone who is willing to give you the funding directly (which at this stage you don’t appear to be ready for) you’re dead in the water.

The reason I (and others) mentioned interbike is because it’s the biggest trade show – even if you don’t buy a booth, just flying into the show and bringing your prototype and riding it around in the parking lot might be enough. People will see your concept and it wil generate interest and discussion. Bring some tools and make some spare parts so if any of the more delicate components break you can fix it on location. I guarantee you’ll get attention just from how radical your design is…people are always interested in things that are different, and if you let people ride around the parking lot (low risk for damage) maybe you’ll just be lucky enough to get into a conversation with someone whos actually in a position to help you.

The fact is you don’t see small companies entering the game with such a big design because of the risk. Most companies work from the bottom up, starting with small cheap components, gaining recognition, and then moving onto larger more complex runs. I’ve been involved in the birth of 2 BMX bike companies and the death of one so I have a bit of experience in my own realm.

At this point it seems rather clear your goal is for someone from a large company to see your video, say “wow thats a great idea, lets hire that guy and make those!” but thats fairly unrealistic…not impossible, but very very difficult. Regardless of how cool your design appears, a company wants to KNOW that a product is marketable. As cool as your design seems, I think it’s safe to say judging by the feedback on here it’s being met with a lot of skepticism and conservative thinking. Unfortunately thats how the industry is, which as wrong as you may think it is, is a simple truth.

The flip side is you do what the companies I’ve been involved in have done – take out a bunch of credit cards and loans, plow yourself into debt and hope it pays off.

It seems to me the biggest issue you’re addressing is safety and stability. When I think of most mountain bikers they tend enjoy the inherent danger. They’re not worried about flipping over things, because if they do it’s their fault not the bkes. They’re very set on the parts and components they use. They like very specific geometries, and they like being able to easily change that geometry (whether it be a change to the frame, stem, fork, etc) The biggest design flaw I see in your setup is the fact that since the whole steering mechanism is integrated that becomes extremely complex.

Like I said, because the design is so radical it’s really impossible for anyone besides you or those who’ve ridden it to tell if the design actually feels and rides better than a regular mountain bike. And in terms of stabilty and dynamics for going off jumps and other heavy offroad use, it’s very hard to picture how the bike will hold up. If you had a video of you shredding across some impossible obsticles with ease, then maybe it’d be more convincing, but riding over small obstacles really doesn’t look any easier or more comfortable then it does on my Cannondale.

In short: if you want to sell this idea you need to prove, without any reasonable doubt that THIS is the next big thing. That your design holds SO many advantages over the traditional twin triangle frame that it is worth producing. On top of offering a great riding experience it needs to be manufacturable – within a reasonable price range, lightweight, durable, easily maintainable, and easily customizable (different geometries). If you legitimately think you can overcome all of those real world issues then you need to present your case in a very solid manner. User tests, a business plan showing marketing and manufacturing costs, and engineering tests proving that it will hold up to the abuse necessary.

If you can prove all that without a doubt to anybody, then your idea will get made. It’s not so much a matter of money, as much as it’s a matter of time, hard work, and a legitimately innovative product.

From whats been said here and what you’ve shown, I don’t think you’ve proven this is a worthy mountain bike, which is why many people are suggesting the commuter market where safety and comfort is a larger issue.

just flying into the show and bringing your prototype and riding it around in the parking lot might be enough

Exactly my point. Just about anyone can find their way into Interbike. I know of 8-10 people that went last week, and they don’t work for anything more than a local bike shop. Take it, show it off, get feedback. I never said to you “be ready for dealers to knock on your door wanting to sell it.”

Why do you get so angry when I suggest you try something as simple as larger wheels?
“Can you give me this money? I could be there next year if I will have this money.”

No offense, but this makes you sound like one of those crazy Nigerian email scammers.

Chill out and go ride your Ellipse SF-X.
I’ll be riding my 29er. See you on the trail.