A little background. We are Industrial Design students at the University of Cincinnati and have a project to design and build e-bikes. Our group is focusing on the Urban/Commute market.
We want to gain some perspective in our market before we start designing and building our concepts. Any information you can provide us would be much appreciated. We are trying to get as many different viewpoints as possible and thought other designers would have some nice opinions on the matter
Done! I have a very diverse viewpoint on this subject so if you have any direct questions, let me know I’d be glad to share my expertise. I’ve commuted daily for 4 years in all types of weather, year round.
that was one of the better surveys I took. I’d love to use a commuting device,
that is muscel powered and E-assisted.
But nearly all concepts that fluctuate are too narrow minded, tailored to “bikers” not
centered on the average user (office clerk). In the Netherlands that lead to the young hippster
crowd using E-carts for the commute, that were originaly intended for elderly / handicapped
people.
Thanks for the responses to the survey everyone. They were insightful and helped us greatly during our research phase.
Our group is currently in our validation phase, so if we could get some comments that would be awesome. Mainly things you like, dislike, if you see potential in a design or any major problems we maybe over looked.
Here’s a quick break down.
All concepts feature Internally geared hubs with belt drives. They also all have a front drive electric motor.
Concept 1:
Lights integrated into frame.
A module battery configuration. Smaller configuration for lights only and full battery for when using the motor.
Electrically powered fork dropouts, this is so one can quickly swap out a powered and regular front wheel without fusing with wires.
Concept 2:
Rear racks fold up to minimize footprint.
Sides can be unzipped in order to open up side racks.
Battery slides out of seat tube - (gas tank detail)
Concept 3:
Double top tube
Carabiner in top tube allows for quick lock ups (for use in low risk areas)
Top tube allows bag to slot into frame (utilizing what is usually dead space on a bike)
Ok, I’m going to attempt to address my concerns solely based on my knowledge of bicycles and the challenges of bicycle commuting, and stay away from aesthetics for a moment.
Concept 1:
Why the modular battery approach? Why not have both options all the time? It’s cool to have some storage inside the frame, but a well designed rack/bag will do the same for much less money. Integrated lights are cool, but you wouldn’t really be able to see with those (not likely anyway) but they would certainly make you more visible to traffic in the dark which I like. I only wish it didn’t take up the entire surface. How would that look during the day? How would the plastic lens hold up over time?
Concept 2:
Looks like you have two variations, a long tail bike, and a standard bike. First, it seems like the U-lock will hit your feet when you pedal if it’s placed there. Not sure, but I think it will. Wood seems like a strange choice, or at least that much wood. Would get heavy, expensive, and not as durable as metal. What about combining metal with wood slats or something that gives you that aesthetic without the weight? There is something clever going on with how you have that rack expanding, I’d like to see more on how you plan on making that work.
Concept 3:
Probably the most achievable in the short term of the three (save for the front motor hub, I’ll get to that). I like where you’re going with the integrated frame/lock but think about how you’d have to use this. In all instances, can you lock your bike with the top tube? Not really. Down tube might be a better option, but remember the sacrifice you are making with structural integrity at those key areas.
In General:
I like the internal hub, that’s a no brainer. The simpler the better. However, on the motor assist portion, I’m not sold. I know e-bikes are huge everywhere, but how many feature a front drive system? I’ve ridden a front wheel assist bike before, and it’s very strange and not nearly as fun as a pedal assist system (see Trek+ series of electric assist bikes). Have you seen the size of those hubs? And the immense size and weight of those batteries? I believe they both belong to a Trek Europe brand, but they’re both massive. Hiding that battery in the frame will be a challenge.
Overall, I see the direction you’re headed but I’m not completely sold on them. With the first 2, why reinvent the bike frame? I know it’s the cool thing to do these days, but why? Also, if these bikes cost more than $2000, you are going to severely limit your customer base. Look at Civia, the first bike they came out with was nearly $3000 and was rife with issues. Weight, heel clearance, etc. And they set out to make a high-end commuter. Is that who you see buying these bikes? Or are you after the every day cyclist looking for a bike to ride to work?
Thanks for the response NURB I’ll try and address some of the issues you brought up.
The modular approach on this concept is to allow the bike to easily be used as a normal bicycle, a bicycle with integrated lights and a motor assisted bicycle. One would simply swap out the battery or front wheel and be able to quickly swap between these modes.
The reason behind that is both the battery and hub motor contribute a lot of weight. No need to peddle that around if you aren’t going to use it.
The idea behind the lights is to “be seen” and not “to see” with. Though it was brought up that it would be nice if they were bright enough to see with. Maybe an option that we can explore. But the comment about the longevity of the plastic lenses is a good point, that we haven’t thought about yet.
Concept 2:
Looks like you have two variations, a long tail bike, and a standard bike. First, it seems like the U-lock will hit your feet when you pedal if it’s placed there. Not sure, but I think it will. Wood seems like a strange choice, or at least that much wood. Would get heavy, expensive, and not as durable as metal. What about combining metal with wood slats or something that gives you that aesthetic without the weight? There is something clever going on with how you have that rack expanding, I’d like to see more on how you plan on making that work.
The correct version is a standard bike, with the rack attachment being the long tail. So the rack attaches to the frame and attaches to the rear stay in order give the rack a bit more rigidity. Though the way of attaching that rack still needs to be fully worked out.
The rack estends that far back in order to account for your peddle stroke. Though we would have to do a full mock up to make sure that nothing gets in the way. Also means that you can take off the rear rack system and still have a standard-ish frame.
The current rack as drawn does seem very large and over the top. There are concerns of it turning into a sail under high winds. However the suggestion of wood slats is a good one and I believe would lend itself to a better aesthetic.
Concept 3:
Probably the most achievable in the short term of the three (save for the front motor hub, I’ll get to that). I like where you’re going with the integrated frame/lock but think about how you’d have to use this. In all instances, can you lock your bike with the top tube? Not really. Down tube might be a better option, but remember the sacrifice you are making with structural integrity at those key areas.
The integrated lock idea seems to resonate well with those we show it too. But all have questions about its actual usability. I can see how it would not work in many situations. Lots of factors like height/size of what your locking to come into play.
It something we have to flush out further if we decided to go forward with that direction. Hopefully it can turn into something more than a novelty that gets some “wow cool idea” into something with more substance.
In General:
I like the internal hub, that’s a no brainer. The simpler the better. However, on the motor assist portion, I’m not sold. I know e-bikes are huge everywhere, but how many feature a front drive system? I’ve ridden a front wheel assist bike before, and it’s very strange and not nearly as fun as a pedal assist system (see Trek+ series of electric assist bikes). Have you seen the size of those hubs? And the immense size and weight of those batteries? I believe they both belong to a Trek Europe brand, but they’re both massive. Hiding that battery in the frame will be a challenge.
We had to make a sacrifice in order to get a belt drive and internally geared hub. Sadly there are no powered internally geared hubs on the market. Our group has ridden multiple e-bikes and we concur that rear driven bicycles feel less awkward. However, with current technology we are stuck with a cassette/derailleur/chain combo in order to use a standard pedal assist system.
The ideal system would be a internally geared/powered rear hub. Which we could easily say exist I wouldn’t be surprised if one of the major component manufactures in trying to develop this.
One advantage with the front hub also is the ability to quickly change out your wheel to a standard front wheel in case you feel like just riding to work without any assist. It’s lot more expensive to have an extra rear heel laying around than a front wheel.
We feel like the ability to also use this e-bike as a normal bike is an option that consumers would enjoy, but we could be mistaken.
Overall, I see the direction you’re headed but I’m not completely sold on them. With the first 2, why reinvent the bike frame? I know it’s the cool thing to do these days, but why?
The idea behind the two different frame designs is to try an design what the image of an e-bike might be.
We saw three main options. Hide the system so it looks like a normal bicycle, use a regular frame and bolt the components on (what most e-bikes currently do) or incorporate the components in a way that gives the bike a different look.
So we were hoping to create an image that resembled a bicycle yet was different enough to show that this was “more that a standard bicycle.”
Also, if these bikes cost more than $2000, you are going to severely limit your customer base. Look at Civia, the first bike they came out with was nearly $3000 and was rife with issues. Weight, heel clearance, etc. And they set out to make a high-end commuter. Is that who you see buying these bikes? Or are you after the every day cyclist looking for a bike to ride to work?
Keep 'em coming.
edit: ill address this in a little bit
Our group understands that there is a lot of different directions here and that they need to be flushed out a bit more, but we’re just trying to see which has the most substance and potential so we can move forward. Sadly we are on an extremely tight deadline. Our final crit is in 4 weeks. and we are hoping to have a full working prototype. So I’ll be sure to keep this thread updated with our groups progress.
One thing to keep in mind for a lot of bike commuters is ease of mobility when you have to lug your bike inside, or on a train/bus…
I have a trek soho and its a pretty bare bones bike, single speed and its great for the other parts of my commute besides the actual bike riding (getting into elevators…) The point is if you add too much to a commuter bike it might be hard to get around.
I would really like to see a new way to keep your bike safe when you away from it all day. If you’re commuting and you can’t bring it inside, you will have to lock it up. Leave it locked up too long in the city and you might come out to missing wheel, seats or the whole thing. I think the idea of a blinker or brake light is a good idea.
Major Disclaimer: I live in Greenville, SC, so nowhere even close to a metropolitan area.
That said, I’ve successfully designed a few high-end road bikes and have some experience to share.
I’ve looked over the attached images and must say I’m quite impressed. You guys(gals) have some great ideation skills! Kudos to you! I guess you have access to a Wacom tablet of some sort. Or Cintiq. But whatever…here are my thoughts…
Concept 3 seems to be the best approach. Always keep in mind that bikes should “appear” lightweight. I know that Cannondale originally battled this with their enormous aluminum tubes, but it still rings true. The massive carbon-fiber frames that look sleek are still seen by many as being heavy. I’d suggest keeping with the proven double-triangle design as much as possible and limit the size of tubing used.
Keep all weight as close to the hubs or bottom-bracket as possible. Pannier’s offset the balance of the bike.
I’m releasing the Cerevellum next week (all-new design to be released August 1st.) You can incorporate the Cerevellum technology into your concepts however you like. I think it would be a great accessory for your designs.
Integration is key here. I’m continually frustrated by the cycling industry when I see frames designed to accommodate every single component imaginable. And the same goes for the components themselves. I like what Cannondale started with their SI system. It’s a start!!
Good work on your design studies so far, and I like the way you have displayed you ideation for the various features. I commend your effort to design a usable product.
However I will give you my honest critique. I agree with NURB regarding the frame. Either stick with the classic triangulated frame or do something completely different with fabrication and material. Perhaps a hydro-extrusions technique or folded sheet metal…these guys in Australia come to mind actually: www.stealthelectricbikes.com/bomber/bomber.html
Perhaps this is more of a business question, but what about the monetization strategy? How would a company make money with this? Why should a commuter-bike-enthusiast or anyone else pay $2-3 k for your product? Are you sure it can be done for $2-3k?
So far, each one of your features could easily be substituted with an add-on component from an existing supplier. There are several manufactures that already sell each one of your features separately: Crumpler bags, NuVinci rear hub, Shimano Nexus rear hub, BionX electric assist, KNOG lights…etc…etc… Further more I would be more inclined to look at the brands: GLOBE cycles (TREK), ELECTRA or any other ‘urban’ commuter offerings and look closely at what they have constructed starting with the frame and rider’s positions. Its a personal preference of mine, but I really like Electra cruiser frames.
Who is you target market? What is relevant to them? Is there a cultural context that you can frame this project, or some aspirational brand identity that you can identify your ideal consumer with? IE: Harley Davidsons cruisers, Ducatti sport bikes, or Vespa classics? I think this was mentioned before…
Since this is a design exercise, maybe you dont need all the answers all of this. But if that is the case, then make sure you have nailed down the proportions and stance of your designs. If visual communication with cintique or wacom is holding you back, then just use photo-shop. With exception of concept #2 each of these looks like it has a mountain bike stance…low handle bars and pedal-crank directly below the rider. While this may be the most optimal power-output for a mountain biker, it does nothing for a commuter who is using an electric assit option. Again this is more about your target demographic and their aspirations.
The first one seems to have a couple of problems related to its frame design. The frame as is is going to heavier (weight is ALWAYS overlooked on commuter bikes), and that seat tube makes me nervous just seeing it. The seat tube takes the greatest load, often coupled with lateral loads and going over potholes. The zig zaggy element is going to have to be much more material (weight) to maintain the strength of a triangular frame. Also, I know its a knick-knacky thing that you probably already caught, but the u-lock thing should be a single (not double) loop, or else you have to lock your lock to your bike everytime, and given that your hand and key would be mashed against the wood, I don’t see it.
On the last one, the double top tube thing is questionable. A 3.75" gap plus in 1" (?) tubing on either side puts you at nearly 6" between your legs. I expect the user will be smashing their knees constantly or riding in a wierd knee-destroying froglike position on your commute.
In terms of safety, I think turn signals on a commuter bike are a good idea but terrible in practice. Bicycle lights are too frequently not seen by drivers. I think, day or night, a clear hand signal and looking over one’s shoulder is infinitely safer and more visible than a turn signal.
Another thing to think about is the things that nobody talks about when mentioning their needs for a commuter bike. One of the things that nobody likes but that nobody thinks to talk about is the prospect of their bag and lock and waterbottle cage rattling around constantly. It makes the whole bike feel tinny and cheap.
Love internally geared hubs!
Love racks!
Overall, the goal of designing a proper commuter bike that meets actual consumer needs is wonderful, and as far as I can tell has been done well by only a handful of bike manufacturers. I think you guys have identified all of the right needs (storage, lights, cleanliness, low maintenance) but I’m not sold on the way they’ve been put together, although the sketches are sexy as hell.
Thanks for all the responses guys. They were greatly insightful and helpful. They opened our eyes to a lot of things.
We are inching closer to our final crit. Only 10 days till this is all over and we can return to a semi normal sleep schedule. I’ll be sure to post a full post explaining our process and everything sometime after then.
Just giving you all a sneak peek.
Here is a rough form of our main structure.
We welded a steel structure. Then CNC’ed pink foam and fiber glassed. Now we are on the bondo stage. Everything is going smoothly except for this part.
Also be sure to check out our studio blog. http://uc-ebike-2010.blogspot.com/ Our professor keeps up with this and is play by play of what is going on within the class.
I hate to bring this up so late in the game, but you may have a significant issue with pedal clearance, unless you plan on using really short cranks. It appears that your bottom bracket is very low, at least where you have it mocked up anyway…
Ignore the wheelbase, I scaled it based on the wheel size, so it may be a bit off. However, I still think you’re a little low on the bottom bracket just by looking at it. I hope it’s just a function of the shape of those tubes.
Looks like you’ve got plenty of work ahead of you.
We are probably short about 4cm. Which for all purposes of the physical model is ok. The way we constructed the model was probably not the most accurate having to make the skeleton separate from the frame mill. Ideally it would all be perfect, but it is our first time building a frame from scratch and its based on a non-existent frame (though we’ve referenced specific geometry).
But that is something major to double check for our 3d model. We scared ourselves last night thinking the cranks would hit the chainstays during the pedal stroke and has to mount in the bottom bracket and cranks just to check (thankfully we are ok).
I can give a little more background on the process since I am one of the guys whose been building this frame prototype (there’s two of us mainly). We decided early in the quarter that we wanted as close to a functioning electric bike as possible. So to make a ridable bike we felt it was best to weld an underlying skeleton for structural support and mill foam for the form. Once we welded up the skeleton, which was a mash up of pieces of old bikes, ordered parts, and new tubing, we had to cut out the inside of our molds in order to fit the skeleton. That’s the stage where things became pretty challenging. Lining up all these things digitally isn’t a problem, but when it came to the prototype it was much more challenging. Then came the fiber glassing. That process is something we were familiar with but have never done on this scale. All in all lining up the foam, fiber glass, and skeleton gave us a fairly rough, yet extremely sturdy frame to shape into the final form.
All this really leads to a frame that’s close in both form and function. It will be ridable, and if we had a battery we could make it run with a motor. The rest of the components were kindly donated by SRAM. And with the amount of work still remaining and the little amount of time we are rushing and hoping that the rest goes fairly smoothly from here on out.
Thanks again for all the input. We’ve been getting help from whoever is willing to provide it.
Just toss on some 165mm cranks and you’ll be fine! That’s cool that SRAM donated stuff to your project. Nice to see a good company like that reaching out to students. Thanks for the insight on the project. You guys have taken on quite a bit of work for having never done this before. I hope it works out well for you guys.
As an avid cycle commuter I have had my back wheel stolen about 3-4 times during my adventures. An integrated cable lock similar to the system used in the Parisian hire bike scheme would help immensely, preferable with a retracting cable into the frame.
As your back wheel is often the 2nd most expensive thing on your bike, bar your brain I would personally seek to add to the security measure of your locking caribiner frame system concept with an integrated cable lock for your back wheel, and perhaps looking to lower the center of gravity by lowering the battery placement to the bottom end of the bike perhaps.
But overall, bang on the money, nice work I am looking forward to some bike prototype pornography in the near future
I wouldn’t be surprised if one of the major component manufactures in trying to develop this.
and we are hoping to have a full working prototype. So I’ll be sure to keep this thread updated with our groups progress.
