undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmikae11mo ago0 comments

Being a bicycle geometry nerd I always look at the bicycle first.

Let me tell you how much the Pro one sucks... It looks like failed Pedersen[1]. The rear wheel intersects with the bottom bracket, so it wouldn't even roll. Or rather, this bike couldn't exist.

The flash one looks surprisingly correct with some wild fork offset and the slackest of seat tubes. It's got some lowrider[2] aspirations with the small wheels, but with longer, Rivendellish[3], chainstays. The seat post has different angle than the seat tube, so good luck lowering that.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedersen_bicycle

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowrider_bicycle

[3] https://www.rivbike.com/

0 comments

simonw1mo ago

This is an excellent comment. Thanks for this - I've only ever thought about whether the frame is the right shape, I never thought about how different illustrations might map to different bicycle categories.

mikae1OP1mo ago

Some other reactions:

I wonder which model will try some more common spoke lacing patterns. Right now there seems to be a preference for radial lacing, which is not super common (but simple to draw). The Flash and Pro one uses 16 spoke rims, which actually exist[1] but are not super common.

The Pro model fails badly at the spokes. Heck, the spokes sit on the outside of the drive side of the rim and tire. Have a nice ride riding on the spokes (instead of the tire) welded to the side of your rim.

Both bikes have the drive side on the left, which is very very uncommon. That can't exist in the training data.

[1] https://cicli-berlinetta.com/product/campagnolo-shamal-16-sp...

jojobas1mo ago

The Pedersen looks like someone failed the "draw a bicycle" test and decided to adjust the universe.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse