rustic wrote:

IMG00026-20091206-1457.jpg

not sure if ugly or just plain crazy.

Eccentric rear wheel?

Not particularly liking the top tube angle or the seat height relative to the bars...

15 cm handlebars too no doubt
trying to look like pennyF

that's pretty damn awesome I reckon. Good to see some very smart innovation with the crank too. 10x

ratrod wrote:http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/10/dreamslide-a-seatless-bike-that-you-surf/

wired.com wrote:To ride the Dreamslide you are obligated to wear a polo-shirt and tight flannel work-pants.

forward-facing bars; perfectly sized & positioned for catching on things & stopping the bike without you.

the axle system looks cool if a little awkward to understand

Dr. Fuentes wrote:The article claims the Dreamslide is a "cool alternative to a bike".

I'm sorry, but riding my bike is fucking cool. Looking like I'm wrestling with some bastard son of a Stepmaster and a Segway is less cool (IMO, naturally).

Yeah, more like; "alternative to a cool bike"

Neat idea though, I like it and I look forward to laughing at someone riding one soon

Thats gotta be the largest development in bicycle design in 100 years, no seriously, its a huge design change, and imagine cranks like that on ya current ride?

I'll agree that it is the biggest development in 100 years when they explain how the physics of their sliding crank overcomes the 'torque x rotating speed = power' problem.

Put it another way - how does this new arrangement deliver work without fatigue?

Looks like snake oil to me.

It's more of a lunge like motion, kind of like a cross trainer at the gym. Of course you're still going to do work, but with less energy wastage than riding a normal bike out of the saddle, where you spend a lot of effort just bobbing your body up and down.

The chain drive is something like 97% efficient, and the bicycle as a whole one the most efficient machines in history - I can't even get close to imagining that freak show being as efficient. Plus the mechanical complexity is ridiculous.

It's no bike replacement, probably developed as an infomercial fitness machine but I like where it's innovation could lead to for commuters etc.

I like the idea of cam phasing the pedal stroke closer to a running stroke, a quick recovery and more time pushing down with gravity as your friend but it'll never get past novelty for all kinds of reasons

+1 except it would be too expensive for an infomercial.

People have been playing with non-circular strokes since at least 1890, there have been many designs but this does seem a bit different.

The idea of arranging a higher ratio at the bottom of the stroke avoids the burning quads problem created by the lack of seat, it might work for gentle riding if given a good range of gears. Getting rid of the seat & post is a big plus for portability.

Having all the force go through a heavily loaded sliding surface seems ridiculously prone to friction and wear. Hey, isn't that one of the reasons why Split Cycle Technology was never going to work? I wonder what happened to all the investor's money.


The various attempts to use a non-rotating lever instead of a crank have not proved successful.


Gipiemme's Colrout crank. The pedal spindle is fixed to the ring and the rear pedal extension ensures that the ring stays in the same position throughout the stroke. It takes a while to see but it is no different to a conventional pedal & crank, except the effective crank centre is moved forward. If it was reversed this might be handy to sneak past the UCI rules on saddle-crank position.





I think this is the same deal. The arms are fixed but the length is adjustable to suit the rider.