Oh, I don't discount the bike's value and I am proud of those guys for their accomplishment (and I love projects with PICs!) but it is a tough economy and bringing a prototype to market can be a difficult proposition in any economy. There have been various versions of auto-shifting bikes available for decades and they simply don't seem to be catching on. Perhaps if we had bike safe lanes in every community and workplaces accommodated locking up bicycles in a place protected from the elements, we would see more casual riders using these bikes to commute to work, but for now at least I see this as a niche market, and probably a relatively narrow niche at that. A well-designed auto-shifting bike that was cost-effective and reliable may get my attention as a casual bicyclist, but in this economy – I'll make my $200 Schwinn last a few more years...
Hey Nancy. As with most things in life, you must always consider the source. Your husband is a cyclist. The overwhelming majority of Americans are not cyclists. What about someone who currently does not ride a bike but wants a fun healthy activity in which to partake? This person might be turned off by the perceived complexity/specialty that they see in the more hardcore bicycling enthusiast (crazy looking expensive bikes, aero helmets, clipless/cage pedals, spandex, etc). I agree price becomes a greater issue for these non-enthusiasts but I don't see anything about the CSU bike that is particularly expensive. On a side note, does your husband drive an automatic car/truck/SUV? I have several friends that, if asked whether they would drive an automatic car, would emphatically say, "no." In fact, they might curse at me as well. But then there's the fact that 95% of cars sold in the US are automatics (up from 68% in 1980 and 78% in 1986). Automatic transmissions get worse fuel economy and they cost more than their manual counterparts. Why do you think people buy automatic cars/trucks/SUVs?
While their project is a great accomplishment for these young men, I think you are correct as to why it has not caught on. My husband is a cyclist and I just asked him if he would want a bike that shifted automatically and he gave a most emphatic "No!" When I queried him further it was because he wanted to have control of the shifting. Of course some people wouldn't care and may appreciate not having to worry about shifting - I fall in that latter category but then, I am much less likely to buy a high dollar bike.
I agree completely, Seansimp925. Whatever the limitations, it looks like our Gadget Freaks have leapfrogged the pros. Even so, there's nothing wrong with constructive criticism. An extensive article in the New Yorker recently showed that brainstorming without a critical element is not as productive as brainstorming that includes skepticism. That, of course, defies conventional assumptions.
Absolutely that's why we should show these guys support instead of poking holes because you or I might not be who they are targeting.
We know people are already paying money for the same concept that doesn't work very well. This could be a building block to bigger and better things and we could collectively help move that along by being constructive.
Hmm, Seansimps925, it seems that our Gadget Freaks have created a more intelligent automated shifting system than the pros. I suppose you could take the intelligence a step further and add intelligence that would allow the shifting system to learn the behavior of an individual rider on that rider's typical routes.
Robots that walk have come a long way from simple barebones walking machines or pairs of legs without an upper body and head. Much of the research these days focuses on making more humanoid robots. But they are not all created equal.
The IEEE Computer Society has named the top 10 trends for 2014. You can expect the convergence of cloud computing and mobile devices, advances in health care data and devices, as well as privacy issues in social media to make the headlines. And 3D printing came out of nowhere to make a big splash.
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This discussion will examine what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.