01 Aug 2011

There’s been an interesting tie-in or correlation at the moment, a convergence and dialogue over issues such as the paradigm shift in some societies towards an ‘economising’ of the consumer lifestyle, about sustainability, living within our collective means, and living appropriately post GFC.

There was an article in The Age over the weekend in which the author was reflecting back on 5 months in the US, and how he was shocked post financial crisis at what he saw as little if any change in the way people viewed the economy and the way they spent their money. He saw not even the GFC making any impact on the way people consumed and their dependance on credit to prop up their lifestyles, which was a stark contrast to what he viewed in the UK where he witnessed what he described as an almost ‘post-war’ (as in WWII) ‘Austerity’ in which the collective zeitgeist in the UK is being transformed into one of ’sensibility’ and ‘moderation’, where such things were viewed as virtues and a mark of intelligence and worldliness. In the US he declared, such ways of thought were laughable and defeatist and contrary to the Great American Dream, despite the GFC and huge tracts of the Mid-West abandoned as the property market went through the floor. More is still more, it seems.

Okay, so what has this to do with bikes, I hear you say. Well, there’s a couple of trains of thought I’ve been having recently. One is to do with carbon fiber. As everyone is aware (or maybe not) carbon is made from, well, carbon, which is for all intents and purposes a product fo the petro-chemical industry. For well over six months now (actually it’s probably 12) I’ve had most of everything I need to make a carbon fiber frame, but something was holding me back (I mean, aside from my laziness). The main reason I was looking into doing carbon bikes, is that there is a good wealth of local knowledge regarding it, and the barriers to entry are fairly low. Everything kinda points to carbon as being a good little project - however, there just isn’t the infrastructure to deal with the fall-out, and that bugs me.

In theory, carbon frames should last a long time and be fairly easily repairable, but the consumerist mentality and the lack of ways to recycle and repair the stuff makes it pretty damn ugly at this juncture. The scale of it was brought into stark contrast for me this month, with both the winning of the Tour by Cadel Evans and how that will put more bums-on-seats, and how some people view the compulsory use of helmets as being an inherently bad thing and there was a planned protest in Melbourne this weekend. Both more carbon bikes on the market and being sold, and more foam helmets being bought and sold are both not great for the big picture.

There was also another project brought to light this week, and that being the Toyota-Parlee ‘electric’ bike that uses a hacked Shimano Di2 shifting system, an iPhone and some sort of headset to actuate hands free remote shifting. Sounds like SciFi but the thing just looked like yet another white carbon bike to me - albeit one that looks like a prop from iRobot. As I was watching the video, I was reminded of the conversations I’ve had with my wife regarding why I think Electric Hybrid cars are dumber than the current crop of cars because they have a whopping lump of landfill in the middle called the batteries, have more embodied energy than the existing technology, and in the case of the Prius actually use more energy and petrol than a similar output Diesel. Not to mention we get our electricity here in Australia from this lovely stuff called Brown Coal.

Added to the fact that I find any link between car companies and bike companies fairly ironic, I found myself being more interested in the moral dilemma of being asked by a car company to develop an electronic concept bike rather than interested in the bike itself.

Technology for technology’s sake, is surely little more than a novelty, isn’t it? It’s novel in a way that technology companies’ drip feed the masses just to get decent ROI, and only invest in new technology once the old technology has been milked for all it’s worth. You could argue that the cable actuated derailleur system is part of that same process, and that 100 years or whatever has been enough, thankyouverymuch, but for me at least, I actually don’t want technology to interfere with my bike and also my cycling experience. Heck, I haven’t even had a computer on my bike for the best part of 10 years.

Of course I’m not a luddite - for from it - but the beauty and simplicity of the bike for me is totally ruined by carbon fiber and batteries. There comes a point where the ‘improvements’ really only exist to feather the nests of companies trying to be different, to make money where there was none, the whole P.T. Barnum sideshow extravaganza. There is no measurable performance difference for 99% of the population with most of this stuff, and a lot of it will lose favour with the consumer once Cadel switches teams next season, so why bother?

I think one of the inherent problems is that technology is inextricably linked to the consumerist lifestyle. Moore’s Law and the cues outside the Apple store upon release of the latest iWhateva dictate that once you’re on the escalator, it’s hard to get off. I don’t want my cycling experience to be like that. I always stress to potential customers that custom bikes are investments and that I’d be disappointed if I didn’t design for them a bike that they were still using 10 years from now. My ‘Daily Driver’ bike is one of the first Thylacines and is approaching that sort of vintage, and is adorned with older trustworthy parts such as handbuilt X3/x2 wheels, steel forks, and 9 speed Dura-Ace. The 10 year old Tange Technoglide headset has only just crapped out it bearings. The Tune rear hub has been eyebrow raisingly’ robust. Being able to change gears on this bike just by thinking real hard seems, well, stupid.

My new frame has made me think about the current state of affairs as it’s Stainless Steel. I want low maintenance, bombproof parts, that can pound out the miles and all I want to think about is the traffic lights and fellow road users, and all I want to hear is the mechanical whirr of the chain and the road beneath my tires. I want to be riding this bike in 2022.

That’s given me a thought. Maybe every year I should offer Original Owners of 10 year old frames some sort of reward? A new frame at a significant discount sounds a bit counter productive, but it certainly is a novel though. A free repaint? A slab of beer?

Leave it with me….

One thing you don’t have to leave with me however, is the question of being asked by Toyota to make a concept bike using the Prius as inspiration. Not that it would ever happen, but the answer would be pretty much “You’ve got the wrong guy.” Ironically, if you think a bit harder about the Prius, how would you equate a bicycle to it? It would be made of steel, because the Prius is made of steel. It would have Di2, but it would be an automatic, not a manual. It would have something solar powered to keep you cool because the Prius has that. It wouldn’t be a racing bike because the Prius’ home ground is the inner city commute, not the race track. In the video, they mentioned the Prius having a number of ‘firsts’, but it’s not an especially groundbreaking car in the same way that the Honda Clarity is, for example. I’d almost go so far as to attach the label ‘greenwash’ to it.

So all you’re really left with at the end of the day, is a car company throwing money at a small bike company to create a publicity tool - use a car with more embodied energy than the current technology and more environmental impact than alternatives as inspiration, and create a bike that really has nothing to do with the original concept of the car.

Ironically, more of the same problems, and less of the solutions. Projects like this exhibit none of the post GFC ‘Austerity’ which should inform a new way to live our lives which is realistic and sustainable. You’d never think a joint project from an ‘alternative’ car and a bicycle company would leave us still here, plowing the same old (oil) fields, and yet here we are.

Posted by warwick @ 10:31 am

2 Responses to “Austerity.”

1. Blake Witherow Says:
   October 16th, 2011 at 7:10 am

   Hi Warick,

   I just spent the greater part of this morning reading through your blog posts and I would like to comment on the Prius/Parlee concept bike. Having seen this bike at Eurobike (Oh the humanity…) I feel that this bike was a test to see what is possible. For myself, it was created to say “We can” This does not mean it is a good idea or has any merit.

   The design of the frame was the most interesting part and I have read that Parlee will be taking elements from this project and using them on current/future models.

   I think that what we have in this situation is trickle down technology. This project has shown that it is possible do funnel current technology into a new shifting methods. I guess the insaitable technology hungry market will decide whether it becomes developed further. Design has a role in evoking and challenging current perceptions. How else would society evolve. Admittedly Toyota and Prius are chalk and cheese but I credit them for pushing a new idea, even if you have to wear a laptop computer on your back.

   Party,

   Blake

2. thylacine Says:
   October 16th, 2011 at 8:38 am

   Hi Blake,
   Well, that’s a morning you’re not going to get back, but thanks for wasting your morning reading my crap anyway!
   I really fail to see how a bike that shifts itself through my brain impulses in any way improves my cycling experience. We’re trapped in a world of planned obsolescence where most technology only exists to perpetuate itself, and dazzle with it’s P.T. Barnumesque perceived benefits and virtues. The Parlee bike and the technology it embodies does nothing for me whatsoever, it solves no problems, does not enrich the on-road experience, and is environmentally backwards. It’s there only for it’s own sake - I don’t see any evolution of any meaning, aside from self-perpetuation and the eroticism of technology for its own wank value.
   From a pure design perspective, I like to look at a problem and then find a solution for it. For me, in terms of shifting, the only real ‘annoyance’ for me is having to shift down two cogs at the back when you shift up at the front. I can see how electronic shifting improves that aspect, but for a non-racer like me….I have to ask “At what price this ‘mild annoyance’?” More batteries in landfill, perpetuating Shimano’s insistance of planned obsolescence and the non-replacability of small parts, etc. etc.
   You also have to remember this is all coming from the guy still using 9-speed Dura Ace!
   I’m in the stage of my career where a lot of this stuff just holds little or no fascination. After Mavic Mektronic it was pretty clear where all this was going, it’s just that as a general rule, cycling is there for me to escape technology, not bury myself deeper in it. More power to people who analyse every ride they do with their Garmin and who think that ‘thinking’ their shifting is a veritable wet-dream, but it’s just not something I care about.

Leave a Reply