Wrong Way, Humanity!
There have been a few “innovations” I’ve seen over the last couple of weeks that have made me scratch my head and doubt humanity’s intelligence. Despite our success in paddling against the universe’s current of increasing entropy, every so often it seems we decide to do a U-turn and see if we can outrun the current and hasten our doom.
First up: Flexplay‘s dumbfounding EZ-D technology. The idea of EZ-D is simple: you buy an EZ-D DVD title for really cheap (like the cost of a movie rental), and once the package is opened the DVD slowly decays until it is unreadable by a DVD player. Why? So that the consumer doesn’t have to return the DVD, like they would if they had rented the DVD. Great, eh? Heaven forbid we have to get off our fat asses, hop in our SUV to return a video. Why bother using a DVD again and again, when we can use it once, and throw it away?
Second offender: the Browning Automatic Bicycle Transmission. Admittedly, it’s kind of a neat idea – except for the fact that it augments a green transportation technology with a computer and of course, a nice hunk of batteries. Come on! It’s a bicycle! It’s not like it requires a license to figure out how to operate the gears on a bike. Is this the kind of problem we developed a big meaty brain to solve?
My only consolation in the face of these abominations came from an author of children’s fiction, JK Rowling. This week it was announced that the latest installation of the Harry Potter series will be printed on 100% recycled paper. So, to summarize, the score for slowing our descent into oblivion stands as follows: advanced science – 0, authors of Wiccan children’s fiction – 1.
Okay, about this automatic bike transmission and it’s need for batteries. Wouldn’t it be easy to install a generator instead, like the ones they used to use for bike lights?
True – they *could* have added a generator. But they didn’t. Now, it’s possible that it wasn’t technically feasible, given that those generators don’t generate much power compared to the 4 “AA” batteries required by the automatic transmission to run the on-board computer and derailer actuators. However, I think there’s another, more likely, reason: the target market for these bike transmissions.
The target market for bikes incorporating the automatic transmission are the elderly, who want a nice simple ride. Last time I checked, those generators tend to soak up a fair amount of leg energy (definitely more than, say, switching gears manually I’d wager). Old folks probably wouldn’t really go for a bike that required them to do *more* work to ride.
If you interviewed people on the street about their biggest bicycle complaint you would find that being in the wrong gear is near the top. The automatic transmission is not a bad idea for people that
a) don’t ride a bike much
b) have never driven a standard vehicle
c) don’t ride a bike much
Personally; I know how to shift. I know about keeping the same peddling cadence to conserve energy and avoid overwork (which equals sweat more). I also know how my front to rear gear ratios play out so I shift at the right times. Most of the cyclists I pass in a given day don’t know this stuff. It is hard to learn by yourself.
21, 24 and 27(!) gears are really overkill for the average commuter/weekend rider. I only use about 8 of the 24 gears on my bike. No wonder people get baffled and stick with one gear (ack!) for all time and then hate riding their bike “with all those gears”.
Idea: a shift indicator on your handlebars so you don’t need to have an “autobike”. I think some speedometers have that…
Brendon, laziness is not the point. The point is to shift faster and more reliably, with no disengagement between gears. If you actually RTFA you’ll see they’re talking about racing, and being able to completely do away with shifters, cables and derailleurs. 🙂
Maybe so, but the racing market is not the market they were talking about when I saw them presenting the idea on the Discovery Channel. They were talking specifically about the elderly market as their prime target – people who just want to go for a casual ride without having to worry about gears.
The racing market is going to be a small segment for this bike, especially given that, as the author points out in the article, automatic transmission (and gears in general) are only applicable to specific race types. And, correct me if I’m wrong, but is this something a racer necessarily wants? When you think about every other racing sport (formula 1, stock car), what do they all have in common? Manual transmission.
I still contend this application constitutes technology overkill.
(Interesting side note: the article, written in 1995, mentioned the device only required a 9V battery. The TV show described that the current model requires 4 “AA” batteries – would that change have a significant impact on the weight profile?)
The 9V battery last 200-300 miles and new ones plan to go 1000 miles. The idea is to get rid of the click-click-slip….and then the derailer being slightly off and making a racket. Have you ever shifted under a hard load? The standard derailer doesn’t work so great. The browning transmission is a great idea. Be a little more open minded and get the facts right.
I think there’s a slight bit of confusion here – we’re talking about the Browning Automatic Transmission – not the straight Browning Transmission. The difference is the Browning Automatic Transmission augment the basis Browning Transmission with a computer, which is used to control the transition from one gear to another. Yes, the Browing Transmission is a desirable innovation – but the Browning Automatic Transmission is a different story.
The part I take issue with is the augmentation of a previously, fairly green, mode of transport with something that now requires “consumables” (i.e. batteries) and also requires an exponential increase in the number of chemicals/water and other inputs required to manufacture seems a bit counterproductive. Batteries are full of nasty stuff. Printed circuit boards and microprocessors require a lot of inputs and produce a lot of toxic byproducts. That’s the part of the solution that seems a bit excessive; maybe I’m being harsh, but that the way it seems to me.
Shimano does offer a Hub Dynamo for their Nexus Automatic shifting systems, no batteries required; and it will also power your lights. http://bike.shimano.com/media/images/cycling/SAC/ast_folder/609×190-hubdynamo_v1_m56577569830578337.jpg
people will ride bikes if they want to–derailleured or otherwise…devising a gimmick to make it “easier” will only work to get them to buy the bike–which is the reason for marketing (sell!)…my own experience is that working with new riders (young and old) to show how bike riding is fun, healthy, and a liberating thing keeps them on the bike…some will continue, some will park the bikes in the garage–later to end up in a garage sale…what bike riding does for the rider is provide inspiration, aerobic health, and confidence–all sadly lacking in this country…
D: why is a computer needed to change gears?
I thought I could tear apart the novel Reelight system.
Tack the magnets on the inside of the crank.
Power a light system.
Any surplus power makes the gear shifter shift a gear up.
And v.v..
Anybody know what the circuit would look like?
Dynamo controls a patent for an internal bottom bracket dynamo.