The Cycling & Health Tech Industry R&D Center (CHC) is organizing the 12th international bicycle design competition and invites entries. There is no entry fee!
You may read about it, especially the schedule and the rules, on the web page http://design.runride.com
You may register through this web page from May 1 to Aug 15, 2007.
You have until August 15 2007 to submit your work for preliminary evaluation.
Twenty-one finalists will be selected and notified by September 15, 2007.
These twenty one submit their final work by December 20, 2007. Final results will be announced on March 13, 2008, the first day of the 2008 Taipei International Cycle Show.
We enter a lot of competitions here. I think that we have tried this one twice and never made it passed the second round. The prize money is alluring but we have stopped entering it now because the level of detail required to complete a submission is too time consuming given the range that the design theme allows.
bike design is not easy, remember these folks think in the terms of mfg’ing millions of them and you really want to understand their existing production plant. The bike buisness is also pretty conservtive oddly enough and except for kiddie bikes dosent stray too far from the center.
I Have worked on bicycle projects a couple of times and they are definitely complicated. Just sketching them is tricky and prototyping a usable concept is even trickier. The depth of exploration on this product over time and internationally makes innovation time consuming. To me that is what would make developing a winning solution rewarding.
However, although I understand the value to competition organizers, solving even a majority of these issues makes this competition a high risk investment. Generically I would say a winning entry into this competition may take 120-200 working hours while other competitions are usually less than 60. To me the time ROI issues are also complicated by the range of possible winning solutions in terms of mechanics, aestehtics, materials and demographics.
Or maybe I am just bitter on this because we have never placed. Anyway, we are staying away from it for now but I am looking forward to seeing the winners.
Dont be bitter, be fun to see your entry though. I did a lot of design/engnieering/r and d in that market for 6-7 years and its a loonie bin. If your looking at the compitition from a standpoint of roi (as you should) then its a net loss, unless you just budget x ammount and swing for the fence…with the full knowlage that anything you come up with will be ripped off licky split no matter what.
from their description of the 11th competition - pretty unique take on things:
“Designers participating in the IBDC most likely are not coming from within the bicycle industry. That is probably the main reason why they are less inward oriented, less product fetishists and less biased on misconceptions like for instance the wheel mythology. Their orientation is more conceptual and they donâ€™t carry that heavy burden of the bicycle industry tradition. When implementing their new ideas and concepts into designs, they are less biased and immediately understand that in order to create new and additional functionality …wheels are in the way! So they start from scratch and only reserve limited space for the wheels. In doing so, they take away the big limitations which are deep-seated in the traditional process of bicycle development.”
This is part of an essay called “Reinventing the Wheel”.
Fun sketching/rendering contest. I don’t think I can/should enter this competition.
I think that we entered three times. Once was a coated cardboard bike that shipped flat and slotted together. I will attach an image. I know, I know it was gimmicky and probably a nightmare to implement but at teh time we were dealing heavily with container maximization issues and what more can I say. We used the same entry for a material RFQ as well. The company that makes the coated cardboard was looking for a showpiece. The other one was a harvesting vehicle for use in row crops…I am not sure where the image of that one went and I am too lazy to go find the backup disk. The third was an ultra-long distance camping type concept. It was pretty cool.
Anyway, what I mean by ROI in this case is that the chances of placing and/or using the entry as a good PR vehicle. OPUS, Architecture for Humanity and Shonan World Design represent good competitions for our model because we win, place or end up with a good showpiece on a somewhat consistent basis. Same is true for many of the designboom copetitions. This system works for us and has become a great vehicle for mixing things up internally.
The cardboard bike is interesting, dont know if its even workable but thats beside the point in a lot me of these compitions. You do have the right mindset, design for a compition is like any other client, you expend x to get y and do something that they will like.
That leads me to the question, did this concept fail to place because the concept was not strong enough, the execution was not strong enough or the aesthetic was not strong enough? Or maybe it was a little of each?
In many competitions being a strong in any one of these categories will sometimes get you something but my suspicion is that for this competition an entry must be strong in all three. Which is understandable but less appealing to our model.
IMO, the consept was kinda bogus, maybe as a kiddie bike ok, but not as a adult model. If this was your presentation rendering then its kinda light on details and looks a bit muddy. The over all appearance just dont fly for me either, busy as hell…hey just my opinion.