Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: AMuzi Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech Subject: Re: The AI specified bicycle features of the future Date: Sun, 26 May 2024 16:25:43 -0500 Organization: Yellow Jersey, Ltd. Lines: 91 Message-ID: References: <8c915jh72csumpn470ur8ffo2v7odn6j8c@4ax.com> <1ja45jhruruii7ap5scg4i5hrv2amsiqvs@4ax.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sun, 26 May 2024 23:25:44 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ae6a1ec2539c482e79aa81c1623f8a9e"; logging-data="3796039"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX198Iu+AFBA7h2UstV+2p1/9" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:Db4Q1mzVLQe4iwIt/lJ+6pzYC2Q= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 5258 On 5/26/2024 12:29 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > On Sat, 25 May 2024 14:09:39 -0500, AMuzi wrote: > >> On 5/25/2024 1:51 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: >>> On Fri, 24 May 2024 14:44:04 -0400, Zen Cycle >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 5/24/2024 10:47 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: >>> (mega chomp) >>> >>>>> Remember, this is a conceptual design, but who knows? The future might >>>>> surprise us with even more incredible innovations! >>>> >>>> Meh...I'll just stick with the basics.... >>> >>> Did you notice that the CoPirate AI generated list of features didn't >>> include anything that would be considered innovative or revolutionary? >>> All of the items suggested were existing for failed products. Nothing >>> futuristic or attention grabbing. That's to be expected because the >>> data used to train the AI was probably limited to existing products >>> because Microsoft doesn't make any money advertising science fiction >>> bicycles. If you're brain storming for revolutionary ideas, then >>> CoPirate and probably Google Gemini, both of whom are funded by >>> advertising, are unlikely to be very useful. >>> >>> Hmmm... basic bicycle? Like this? >>> >>> "A Prehistoric STONE bike?" >>> (19:54) >>> To bypass the construction and go directly to the first ride: >>> > >> Makes sense. Bicycles reached their apex before 1900* (steel >> frames, neutral handling geometry, tubular tires and fixed >> gear). >> >> Typical example: >> https://luxlow.com/bicycles/vintageroadtrackbikes/1898-antique-davis-dayton-model-22-special-road-racer-bike-2950/ >> >> All features after are refinements and/or geegaws. >> >> *one might quibble that coaster brakes date from 1899. > > If someone offered such a bicycle today, I'm not sure how well it > would be received with one fixed gear, coaster brake, wooden rims, > solid rubber tires (no visible valve stem), no water bottle mounts and > a rather stiff looking saddle. Weight might also be an issue. I'll > admit that I'm spoiled by modern conveniences and really wouldn't want > to degenerate into retro minimalist cycling. I live in the hills, > where the lack of gears, a front brake, and pneumatic tires would make > cycling on such a minimalist machine a painful and hazardous exercise. > When I was much younger, the lack of such conveniences were not much > of a problems. At my advanced age, they are now a necessity. One > size does not work for everyone. > > What I suspect you may have done is listed all the marginal features > and bolt-on gizmos that have been added to the basic bicycle, and > passed judgment on each individually. Yes, it is possible to design a > usable bicycle by removing a few marginal features. However, you've > gone a step further and declared everything added since 1900 to be > superfluous. It doesn't work that way. In an ideal world, the rider > would pass judgment on each feature individually and individually > determine if they are necessary. I would suspect that every rider has > at least one modern bicycle feature that they deem essential. I can't > help it if the bicycle industry throws in everything as standard. > > "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler" > That's the simplified version. The original quote wasn't sufficiently > simplified: > "Did Einstein really say that?" > > > > > We're in general agreement. Still, well over a hundred years on, people do still ride simple (if not simplistic) bicycles. There is a gulf as usual between 'adequate' and 'desirable'. One quibble; Late 1890s mid to premium bicycles are on tubular tires not 'solid rubber' or even semipneumatics. 'no visible valve stem' may be either a photo edit or a 'just for looks' tire rather than a $$$ period correct tire. -- Andrew Muzi am@yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971