It’s been a good week for getting back onto the design + prototype wagon. Here I’m prototyping the new (and well overdue) full leather ride pouch. After making it up, a few things are changing as more interesting ways to achieve the same thing but with added function cropped up. Once this process down 100%, it’ll be onto more bags and the like, which I have been wanting to do properly for too long now.

Also got the tubing sorted for one of the new frames in the works.

Done and dusted with Mountain Cycle, I was cleaning up my files when I came across a wad of drawing scans I did that defines the design process of the Mountain Cycle San Andreas 2.0; from the period of 2008-2011 I was involved with Mountain Cycle and in 2009 was tasked to design, manage and oversee (the Taiwan based owners chose to manage production and QC themselves) the first new line of frames the company had seen for some years.

The design process used to create such bikes, or products for that matter, is one that for many remains a mystery – it’s understood that somewhere someone does something and at the end a finished product is spat out of a factory but not much more. So rather than bury this away, never to be seen again, I thought some out there might find the whole process interesting, or at very least slightly entertaining.

Industrial Design is the design of, no, not industry but products. The more suitable name for the profession is ‘Product Design’ and for better or worse, it plays a central role in everyone’s everyday life, at least in the developed world. From the spoon you ate your cereal with, to the car (!) that drove you to work and the computer that you are reading this on, a Product Designer has spent more than a few hours to conceive, design and develop the numerous products you have interfaced with so far today. In the world of bicycles, for those companies that invest in design beyond the traditional, it’s no different.

It all starts with a brief.

The brief is completely dependent on the aims of the company and what it’s end goals are for the project in question. In some cases it may be as simple as designing something to fit a certain price point or market, to fill a gap in their line, or it could be far more in depth, tying in all manner of different factors to create what are called ‘masthead products’. For Mountain Cycle, designing the San Andreas 2.0 was to take the bull by the horns and design a bike that not only took on the namesake of it’s legendary predecessor, but which was also the masthead of the company. It was no small task considering the legendary status of the original and I knew no matter what we did, it was going to offend someone somewhere – as is usually the case in such projects where the core customers are emotionally attached to the original design.

2001, The original

The concept. An idea derived from the base criteria.

Even before I begun, I knew that the design was going to be a single pivot (SP). Not only was SP a mainstay of pretty much all previous Mountain Cycle frames but it’s also something I firmly believe is the ideal system for people that ride hard, a lot – it’s simple, effective and easy to maintain (read my thoughts on this here). With this in mind though, I also wanted to introduce a rocker into the system to fine tune the shock’s travel path and ultimately make it more suitable to an air shock.

Lastly, I always thought for an aluminium frame, the BB, swingarm and rocker pivots should all be part of the same central assembly to ensure good long term alignment and stiffness and with these key criteria in place, a rough ‘package’ of datum points was established to start working around as the basis for the design concept.

Early Concept sketch

The simultaneous greatness and failing of the original San Andreas was the Monocoque frame. Failing because monocoque frames generally suffer from a ‘one size fits all’ syndrome, either that or you require tooling for each and every size, tooling which becomes very costly to establish and a real issue to modify or update (pretty much like carbon frames). Add to this, the subframe sizing/multi-position solution employed by the original to work around the single size mainframe really was a little half arsed – nice in theory, not so great in practice as it repositioned the COG (center of gravity) differently on the same wheelbase.

For the new San Andreas, a more traditional arrangement needed to be employed, one that would allow for a relatively easy resizing of the frames while eliminating the need to modify the base tooling. This of course would not be in keeping with the gist of the original and while I knew we would put noses out of joint and offend people, the realities of modern Asian based volume production had to be allowed for – there is little room, or (often) interest, for flexibility or doing things out of the ordinary.

The most logical conclusion was to use a down tube (DT) and then create the feeling of the original monocoque and subframe, elements that defined the San Andreas, via a Top Tube (TT) arrangement – but one that could be trimmed to size. Doing this would be creating something that both took the San Andreas forward but also showed a lineage from the original.

Many have said that this style of design is closer to the older Mountain Cycle Fury of the early 2000′s, but interestingly a little known fact was that the ‘Fury’ frame was devised as a cheaper, easier to produce, San Andreas; I always have felt that the Fury should have been called something closer to San Andreas, SA 1.5 maybe, rather than Fury, making the continuation of the marquee over time easier. Looking at the Fury frame, one also realises that as a design it’s rather efficient so designing something in the way that was being looked at, but NOT be a new Fury, was not an easy ask.

Once the idea of a monocoque style ‘TT’ was settled on, the job was to design and define the form of the tube itself, as this was going to become the focus of the frame. By this stage, Sotto Group was involved to provide an engineering and suspension solution, so trading back and forth, we came up with the concept of passing the shock though the ‘TT’ via what became known as the ‘Shock Tunnel’. Doing this allowed a form to be created that was smooth and seamless, not broken or forced forward as would have been the case if the ‘TT’ were to be interrupted, or not, by the shock.

Having Sotto on board also meant we could employ a SP suspension system they had been working on that perfectly matched what I had originally been thinking about; but took the concept to the next level. The ‘Turntable’ system, as it came to be known, fine tunes the shock path and rate through a rocker that revolves around a patent pivot system. The net result of this was each bike designed to use the Turntable system could be fine tuned to achieve maximum effectiveness from the suspension, all the while being anchored in a central ‘block’ as I had envisaged.

With the core foundations now set in place, over a period of a month or so, the design and development of the frame took shape.

Click image for gallery

As can be seen, the original designs for the TT were a lot more ‘crisp’ with a far more developed aesthetic. The original design would have seen the whole ‘TT’ formed as a single piece through hydraulic pressure forming, also known as ‘hydroforming’. Unfortunately, the owners of Mountain Cycle ultimately chose not to make the spend on the initial tooling cost to create the hydroforming dies for budget reasons, so we elected to making the tube through the more basic monocoquue process of pressing two half shells and welding down the centre – the same way the original frame was made 20 years earlier. The cost savings using this method ultimately were marginal, as the increased amount of time required to set up the initial moulds, increased labour content, complex welding jigs, seam welding and resulting defect rate ultimately would outweigh the initial tooling investment of hydroforming over the medium to long term.

It was in moving to the monocoque process, that much of the ‘crisp’ detailing was lost from the tube; the pressing methods utilised to create the half shells are unable to achieve the finer level of detailing able to be gained through hydroforming. As a result, the final design ended up being much softer than originally conceived.

Once the from and overall mechanics had been decided and agreed on, Sotto built the frame in 3D via software called ProEngineer. As Sotto was to work directly with the factory in Taiwan for the pilot run process and the initial tooling set up etc., they undertook all the 3D work, something quite often undertaken by the Product Designer who then passes over to the engineer to refine and engineer further. Finally, once the frame was fully realised in 3D, we could assess the design more comprehensively and make alterations and amendments as needed.

Click image for gallery

After the final round of refinements were translated back into 3D and everyone was happy, the process began to tool up for prototyping and initial production.

Click image for gallery

While several steps both Sotto and myself deemed essential prior to actually starting on tooling and production starting were skipped, and as I had made the call to CNC all of the required parts for the initial runs (as opposed to going straight into costly and time intensive forging tooling as the factory would have preferred), pretty much everything worked out first time around with minimal of fuss (luckily); only a few minor changes had to be made, requiring new CNC parts, not modified or even new forging tooling, which would have taken months to do.

Click image for gallery

As the design team, we knew the end result could have been better in several areas but overall we all felt the end result is pretty damn good; the aims to create a design that could sit along side the original, as its successor, were met.

Click image for gallery

Following on from the San Andreas design, I kept the to the same thinking to create a ‘family’ and we very quickly progressed to design the Zen II, a scaled back and far more traditional design and then go on to produce the Shockwave Two DH frame, a visually far more aggressive version of the San Andreas 2.0 and one intentionally at odds with the current crop of ‘swoopy’ designs. Again, the use of hydroforming to form the Shockwave TT, rather than the monocoque method, would have produced a for more refined design but the end result, all felt, produced the desired results.

Click image for gallery

Overall the designs of both the San Andreas and Shockwave frames have polarised people, in a market that I personally feel is driven by a ‘chasing one’s own tail’ mentality. I wrote an article about this some time back, so won’t repeat it here but no one on the team is unhappy with the end results. Ultimately, we all felt the new bikes represent what Mountain Cycle stands for as a brand perfectly – bulldog, industrial machines for riders first. And that’s the job of good design – to embody what a brand stands for.

Click image for gallery

You can buy one here if you fee the need

So the total need as designer and product manager for a mtb company, to head to Taipei for what is one of the world’s largest industry shows and hit it up from a ‘we need to build bikes’ perspective, meant that the trip not only promised to be busy, but also rather interesting. What I was not prepared for was, how should I say this….. how much the industry seems to have peaked.

I’m pretty sure they were serious…

I had grand plans to do a photolog of all the cool shit I was going to see but instead I took two pics.* I saw a lot of stuff, two and a half massive floors of it in fact. Of those two and a half floors, I and others I spoke with felt you could easily bin 50% of it as it was made up of replications of the same thing (ie. same item, different colour, different name), blatant copies or just plain junk. Of the remaining 50%, I think there was some really nice stuff and maybe 1% of which made you think, ‘damn, that’s cool’. It was this that made me come away thinking that the industry has matured to the point that the achievements we are going to see from this point on will be either in the form of really well designed ‘solutions’ or really well engineered ones; the days of knock your socks off leaps and bounds are gone, as the technology that drives bikes seems to have finally hit the plateau.

So what did I see?

Well, overwhelmingly product design has entered the bike world in a serious way and there were many really well considered designs on the floor, both in the form of bikes and components. Frame wise, the little details are where it seemed to be at combined with carbon and hydroformed frames, technologies that allow designers to ‘sculpt frames’ much like they do cars and as a result, there were a lot of really nice looking bikes. I have no apprehension in saying that if a company is not investing in good design, its days are numbered.

Anodised is back (finally) but now included as part of the finishing kit as more than one company is using custom anodised hardware with laser logo etching – Lampierre had really nice custom cable guides that hold full length housings in a considered manner. The results are that a bike is becoming a complete brand package, such as a car, and self branded parts are almost a normality, which seems to be causing a lot of discussion.

We are all used to the likes of say Trek (and it’s million sub brands) and Specialized including a plethora of self branded parts on their bikes but this is no longer the domain of the big boys. With so many companies in Taiwan producing everything from pedals to seat collar clamps, sourcing something and slapping your name on it is a cheap no brainer. Where it falls down is when the parts sourced are not to the same quality as the bike to which they are fitted, which sadly is often the case. We saw more than one bike where a massive effort was placed into the overall design package but the ‘self branded’ parts, beyond their anodised finish and laser etched logo, were just cheap and somewhat nasty. The net result was that the parts pulled the bike as a whole down. Funnily enough, the quiet talk seems to be revolving around the actual value of putting your name on a part, when, if you have gone to a good supplier, the component’s brand actually adds more value to your package than you turning it into a ‘no name’ component by putting your brand on it.

Maxxis does shoes and very orange they are.

Component wise, Shimano was making noise about its electronic Dura Ace but wasn’t that called Mavic Zap nearly a decade ago? SRAM made lots of noise about everything it did and had an attitude to match. There was though serious apprehension displayed at SRAM when Shimano did not drop their 10spd system as expected and to be honest, I walked away from SRAM feeling they have become the company they once opposed so strongly. Personally I felt their products have gone backwards design wise, relying on basic ‘paint and graphics’ rather than ‘real’ design, while Shimano have shot ahead light-years (I never thought I’d say that) – the big S’ new kit is just so damn nice.

Suspension too has seemingly tapped out. The bike industry can say what it likes but the truth is there’s no where really left to go with it unless someone figures out a totally new way to make it work;  and no, Cannondale’s electric valving is not a contender and there’s a good reason for that – the idea of putting such a system in the average punter’s hands and expecting them to keep it working for more than a month seems a bit far fetched. Again, like everything else, the design and details are becoming more refined but the tech has slowed right down.

So what really stood out to me in 5 days of show?

FSA. Material combinations such as carbon and aluminium (in a new and unique way) to achieve strength, weight, looks and best of all cost savings was really clever. The 2011 offering from them is  looking really great and represent a nice progression to an already good line.

DT Swiss…. just because they make such nice wheels… and know it.

TW based Aerozine, who’s cranks are to die for being beautifully engineered and look good too. Unfortunately they have missed the whole marketing thing and have not handled distribution very well, which has soiled their image somewhat. Believe me though, their cranks are industry leaders.

Gates’ Carbon Drive belt drive system. I will say that this is the way of the future – internally geared bikes with belt drive. Judging by the uptake, the future is not too far away. Enough said.

The 1%…

FSA’s ‘Metropolis’ internally geared cranks. Sure SRAM makes a big deal of their Hammerschmidt system, but at the price they are asking I feel it’s going to remain the domain of ‘true believers’ only. The FSA offering, while aimed squarely at the city market (for now), is simpler, better looking and a fraction of the price. Watch them in a year or so, I feel they will do more than they want to let on with the system.

The Ashima PCB brake system really knocked me over. Pistonless brakes so simple in design, thus maintenance, yet so bloody powerful and progressive, you came away thinking “why did it take so long?” (this needs to happen in the suspension area for it to move out of it’s current funk). Not only that, add that each and every brake is tested and serial numbered to ensure quality and performance, and they have by far one of the best engineered and produced disc brakes on the market. Judging by their rush to put together OEM pricing, something Ashima had not anticipated nor intended, a lot of other companies also thought the same thing. Can’t wait to test them on the bike.

So in five days, that was it. We missed some things we wanted to see, not through lack of trying, it’s just that I am sure they had the magical moving booths (ie. we saw them on passing and could never find them again). We saw lots, and lots of carbon and we achieved what we set out to do – specify builds for late 2010 and early 2011 and sort out our factories. Overall though, it’s was just lots of bikes most of which are becoming more evolutionary rather than revolutionary (and sometimes just totally absurd).

On to Interbike….

*Disclaimer: There was a bunch of stuff people might have found interesting, just to find interesting, such as the huge variety of folding bikes etc. but I was interested in finding products that pertained to mountain biking only. I am sure there is more than enough stuff on the web that will cover off the plethora of stuff on display.

Designed by James Morton from the UNSW it’s called the Firefly, and is a very interesting take on the everyday red led blinker that we all use…
Product Description and Principal Function(s)

The Firefly light uses a Passive Infrared sensor in order to detect traffic approaching from behind the rider. Upon detection LEDs flash onto the back of the rider with varying intensity depending on the proximity of the traffic. The protruding arm of the device allows the light to illuminate the entire back of the rider at any angle. A set of LEDs also illuminate the ground beneath the rider; providing traffic with a proximity of depth which can be used to determine exactly where the rider is. While a rear tail-light provides strong rear presence and meets bicycle light requirements.

Why does the product represent design excellence and why do you believe it deserves an Australian Design Award?

Cycling in Australia is an activity growing exponentially in popularity. Unfortunately due to limited visibility and awareness of cyclists many riders are hit by motorists, resulting in serious injury or death. Firefly aims to eliminate this lack of road presence by making the rider appear larger, while also providing motorists with a form of feedback, resulting in fewer incidents between cyclists and motorists.

The Firefly bike light is a completely unique form of bicycle lighting. There is no known bicycle light that responds to the presence of surrounding traffic. The Firefly light is the only light to completely illuminate the whole back of the rider regardless of riding position, exploiting the vast space for increased visibility. This makes it the only bicycle light that gives the rider human characteristics so they aren’t treated as just another cyclist. As well as this unique back light, the Firefly also incorporates ground illumination to provide a perception of depth for approaching traffic, as well as a tail light feature, all in the one unit.

The design reflects the general aesthetics of modern bicycle design with skeletal aspects as well as aerodynamic features.

Concept testing showed vast improvements in rider visibility by directly illuminating the rider and creating a halo effect of light under the bicycle, while presenting a strong tail light presence.

By mounting the unit to the seat post the device can be used with all bicycle types and is compatible with existing bicycle accessories such as mudguards, panniers and backpacks. With such responsive back illumination there is no need for additional safety apparel such as safety vests. A built-in power port allows for powering additional lighting or accessories.

The Firefly is made from die-cast aluminum, providing a light, strong and durable skeleton on which the light is mounted. The underside is made from an injection moulded Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene which houses all the electronics as a sub assembly. This provides increased impact protection and resistance to the harsh conditions on a bicycle. The battery is easily accessible through the top Thermoplastic Elastomer cover which provides a water-tight seal protecting the battery and control button from the elements. The resealable cover allows for easy access to the battery for recharging. The flip up tail light is constructed on a sturdy aluminum frame to improve impact resistance while optical grade Polycarbonate lenses are attached to provide high performance light dispersion and full protection of internal components.

The Firefly is activated by flipping up the light which triggers the spring mounted hinge. Once illuminated, the rider can then scroll through the 7 different lighting options with the button located on the top of the unit. A quick release button allows for easy attachment and removal from the bicycle for improved security.

This is a completely unique product that has the potential to save lives. Thorough testing has proven its ability to illuminate the rider. It is competitively priced for entry into the existing market. The Firefly light is the future of safe cycling.

The basis for the design was simple enough, anyone who has had anything to do with motorcycles would understand it. The role of a frame, or chassis, is to connect the head tube to the rear wheel in the stiffest possible manner. On a bicycle you have to throw the bottom bracket into that, through which an unbalanced power delivery gets chucked at the frame. For a loooong time the only, and still the best, way to do that is with what is called a double triangle, aka, the everyday bike frame. This design is strength and simplicity at its best and allows for weights to be as low as possible and yet stay very strong. Through careful tube selection, a good builder can fine tune the frame for a light, smooth, silky ride.

The wobble comes when suddenly the rear wheel is suspended and needs to move. Throwing suspension into the equation means that fine tuning the frame is far less important, as suspension now handles a lot of what was trying to be done with a rigid structure – take out fatigue inducing bumps and frequencies. Reisinger solved this problem by throwing away the tried and tested double triangle, and tubes for that matter, and connected the lot through a pressed monocoque frame. Doing this allowed for the frame to be engineered to be tortionally rigid, have a wide, thus stiff, single pivot point for the swing arm and connect the head tube to the bottom bracket in one ‘single’ piece. For the rear end and right out of the moto world, a monocoque style swing arm swept up and over the cranks, thus allowing for a short chainstay length, and attached the rear wheel to the frame the simplest and stiffest manner possible. As an upside, it also allowed a direct and very simple connection of the shock to the frame. Stripped, the San Andreas could be a frame for a small motorcycle.

The end result of this was a frame that unlike any before it, and many after, was insanely stiff, strong, highly responsive and light. When you think that Reisinger then attached his own ‘Pro Stop’ disc brakes (with floating rotor) and upside down forks, you can see that even now, let alone 1991 when he debut the frame at Interbike, the Mountain Cycle San Andreas really was a piece of mountain biking design brilliance.

Today, the San Andreas still manages to turn heads in amongst the river of designs that it inspired, yet none have endured in the way that it has, 20 years on. If it were a car or a motorcycle, it would be considered a classic and while one will find the bike in the Museum of Contemporary Art in San Francisco, not many realise that there are people out there who either are looking for or are still running San Andreas frames in various incarnations; it’s rare to find a rider who had one and moved it on not later regret the decision. The bike has a mystic appeal and once you get used to its personality, you won’t want to part with it.

Personally I have had three San Andreas’ over the years. In 1993 I bought my first, which had the 2″ travel elastomer rear shock and 1 1/4″ headset. It was one of the first of the production bikes to come out of the California based Mountain Cycle. I’ll never forget my first ride on it, equipped with canti brakes and down steep fire trails that I knew so well on my steel GT. The bike picked up so much speed and was so direct in its response that, cutting the lines I took with the GT only got me into increasingly larger amounts of trouble until I had to stop, shaking. Welcome to the brave new world. I rode that bike over everything, from fire trails to steep goat track climbs up the sides of mountains, to me it defined what a mountain bike should be.

San Andreas ‘DNA’. Designed by Kenisis, it had (has) it’s issues and did the original no favours…

In ’96 I let the frame go and moved to all sorts of other bikes until, in ’05, I bought another after the custom bike I had waited months for to arrive turned out to be a total dud and was promptly sent back. The second San Andreas was from the ‘new’ Mountain Cycle, owned by Kinesis and I bought it just as Mountain Cycle was closing its doors. The ‘Classic’, as it was then being called, had a few refinements but by in large it was the same frame as my ’93 model. More travel, which yielded a skyscraper of a bottom bracket and with the VPS shock/head angle adjustment system, this was what ended up being the final production frame. As a quick side note, Kinesis also made a new San Andreas it called the ‘DNA’… which ended up being a marketing disaster as it was a XC and light AM design being pushed to Free Ride and DH. Net result? The DNA broke…. lots. Anyway, I threw a Rholoff and a Pushed Fox shock on my ‘Classic’ and it once again became the ultimate trail bike – simple and almost maintenance free. Several years later though it was stolen from my garage and yes, I was truly pissed off as Mountain Cycle had since vanished from the scene and after nearly 20 years, the San Andreas was no longer in production.

In late ’07 I managed by sheer fluke to find an old 2000 San Andreas front end at local legend repair shop [Gripsport.com.au] and had mated it to the spare ’03 rear end I had laying around (don’t ask); the rear end from the old frame was snapped clean in half. The chop job was perfect though and one would never know, unless they were well versed in the various incarnations of the frame. The older frame lacked the VPS system, which to me was a good thing as Kinisis did a bang-up job in crap engineering, which saw many of the machined VPS blocks peel off the frame along with the seat towers. Mine did. Fifteen years on I was once again back on board what I still consider one of the best MTB frames ever made.

The question though is ‘does the old school set up cope with the added travel and new school kit hanging from it?’ In Robert Reisinger’s words:

“… the original SA was designed with 2″ travel front and rear, but as travel grew so did the acceptable BB heights over the years and the SA’s original frame was modified to provide more travel with a higher BB too. However, as it got higher, it became more of a design issue that we addressed in different ways over the years, however a new re-design of the frame was always on the books to do but never found the time. That being said, as components changed too, with smaller chain rings, it made the problems of performance even worse, so we started to incorporate the changes into the new frames.

The SA, in my opinion, needs a re-design… “

g

End Pt 1

Note:

It should be known that G does work for Mountain Cycle in the role of design director (his blog: mag100.com). That said, the above article reflects what has been a long time relationship with the San Andreas and indeed, the current version was assembled prior to signing on with Mountain Cycle. G’s opinion, as well as that of Mountain Cycle, is that the San Andreas can teach us all that design, when done well, does not age.

“The NYC Helmet is designed with every rider, every season, and a greener environment in mind.

As unique and dynamic as the City of New York itself, the NYC Helmet is an innovative modular system consisting of two components: a protective polystyrene inner shell and a soft fabric outer cover with integrated straps. This design allows its owner to customize and personalize the outer cover, which easily separates from the protective shell for easy storage and cleaning” (Fuseproject)

A really solid idea to get people to wear helmets in a country where they are not mandatory. The idea of designing a helmet that can be seem as part of a greater ‘unit’, in this case NYC’s planned bike share system, and then making it look like something applicable to the environment and can be user defined, is just damn smart thinking. I am pretty sure the large amounts of casual riders/commuters you see wearing skate/bmx style lids is an indication that not everyone likes the UFO aesthetic of most helmets these days and a simple idea like this can go a long way.

What’s best about this is that the whole notion/problem of how to lock a helmet up when you don’t want to carry it, has been resolved in such a simple way…

[Fuseproject]

This morning and we were greeted with this concept being touted as the bike of the future….. available in the next 20 years!

Unveiled by Olympic cyclist Chris Boardman, the bike, supposed to be a vision of commuter bikes to come, boasts carbon fibre just about everything, enclosed braks that stop hubless wheels and punctureless tyres. To top it off, the onboard computer does all the usual as well as handle a fingerprint recognition, ‘unbreakable’, locking system.

Hmmmm…..

From the UK’s Daily Mail [here]:

“Boardman, who led a research team for British Cycling in the run-up to the Beijing Olympics, said the bike would not be ‘financially feasible’ for 20 years.

However, the 1992 Olympic gold medalist for the four-kilometre pursuit added: ‘It could be built now if there was a will. All the technologies are already there, it’s just that nobody’s put them all together before.’

He told the MailOnline: ‘What will happen is elements of the design (such as solar powered lighting and integrating components into the frame) will be
feed into near future bike designs.

‘Boardman bikes will be doing some of this in the next one to two years.’

Tom Bogdanowicz, campaign manager at London Cycling Campaign, said: ‘Some of the ideas behind this bike are clearly things cyclists want. But it really needs to be affordable.’ “

Hmmmmmm……….