Ground breaking design or gimmick ?

[Bikerider85]

This is Bike Radar's bike of the week.
It's a crowd funded project in CF and lacks a seat tube. Anyone tempted?
https://www.bikeradar.com/features/bike-of-the-week/superstrata-classic/

[ReapThaWhirlwind]

Light ✓

Aero ✓

Road ✓

Futuresque ✓

Looks like it checks all the boxes for simp appeal.

[Bikerider85]

(10-22-2022, 01:43 PM)ReapThaWhirlwind Wrote:  Light ✓

Aero ✓

Road ✓

Futuresque ✓

Looks like it checks all the boxes for simp appeal.

I also think the design is impressive,
let's see what other people think about it

[ReapThaWhirlwind]

How do you think that bottom bracket material is going to hold up with all that torque and torsion without the seat tube to brace it?

[ichitan]

It is a weaker design. It will break sooner. I would never buy one.

[Criminal]

That site has not even tested the product so all they are going on are the specs.
Essentially, it isn't reviewing the actual bike (not tested), just the company and its process. A list of specs and components are not a review.
Some data provided was not specific: i.e. frame weight of 1.3 Kg/2.9 lbs. Does that include the fork? What is the fork made of; all "plastic", or a combination of materials (drop-out, steerer, etc.)?
The bike is called "Classic" and yet there is nothing classic about it.
It is not a lightweight bike for a road bike (hybrid or gravel) by any means. The site's bike's overall weight is 11.64 Kg/25.6 lbs without any pedals (add another half pound or more) installed (odd that no pedals were provided for a test bike given to a site that reviews bikes; surprised there was a saddle).
This bike would be considered entry level (more of a "sport bike") at best if used for racing given its weight alone (who knows how it actually performs). For it to be missing the seat tube and still be that heavy seems odd. I can give some concession to weight based on the disc brakes, but even with calipers it would still be considered a heavy road bike by standards from 30 or more years ago, nevermind compared to modern road bikes.
Their price seems steep for a bike that is supposed to be cheaper and easier to manufacture since it is essentially a software produced bike frame which will be pumped out of 3D printers.
No idea as to its stiffness is mentioned that I saw.
Nothing that I would pursue purchasing, especially as a new design and manufacturing method. Let me see how that frame holds up over a few years before I consider it a viable design and process.
Personally, I would like to see a cross-sectional view of the frame. I would like to see how much material was used in the high load, high torsion areas of the frame.

Plastics (Lexan, et al.) have been used before in the early 70's early 80's. The Original Plastic bike even had plastic components; complete flop, but thought to be a bit of a hoax (no proof of an actual bike produced for sale). Another plastic framed (Itera) bike with convention components which was also a flop for many reasons (they are being sold way overpriced as collectibles; certainly not worth riding).

[ReapThaWhirlwind]

Certainly, the company that produced it had their engineers weigh-in on the design, but also theory and practice can be two entirely different worlds. Their insights could be hopeful at best.

[Criminal]

Another important spec that was not mentioned was the frame's weight capacity. Can it be loaded up with commuter or touring accessories, rider's gear, and a rider up into the +200 lb area? It also would be helpful to know the stay length to determine its feasibilty for certain uses.
I was impressed with the "claim" that it can go about 60 miles on a charge with the e-bike variant; of course no spec was provided as to the e-bike version's weight, or the weight of the rider used for that range claim. Also, what terrain it was tested on regarding hills or flats.

[Lemon]

Thanks for sharing this @Bikerider85 !

I prefer classic road bikes but this is ... quite something.

[Brotim]

(10-23-2022, 04:31 AM)Criminal Wrote:  That site has not even tested the product so all they are going on are the specs.
Essentially, it isn't reviewing the actual bike (not tested), just the company and its process. A list of specs and components are not a review.
Some data provided was not specific: i.e. frame weight of 1.3 Kg/2.9 lbs. Does that include the fork? What is the fork made of; all "plastic", or a combination of materials (drop-out, steerer, etc.)?
The bike is called "Classic" and yet there is nothing classic about it.
It is not a lighweight bike for a road bike (hybrid or gravel) by any means. The site's bike's overall weight is 11.64 Kg/25.6 lbs without any pedals (add another half pound or more) installed (odd that no pedals were provided for a test bike given to a site that reviews bikes; surprised there was a saddle).
This bike would be considered entry level (more of a "sport bike") at best if used for racing given its weight alone (who knows how it actually performs). For it to be missing the seat tube and still be that heavy seems odd. I can give some concession to weight based on the disc brakes, but even with calipers it would still be considered a heavy road bike by standards from 30 or more years ago, nevermind compared to modern road bikes.
Their price seems steep for a bike that is supposed to be cheaper and easier to manufacture since it is essentially a software produced bike frame which will be pumped out of 3D printers.
No idea as to its stiffness is mentioned that I saw.
Nothing that I would pursue purchasing, especially as a new design and manufacturing method. Let me see how that frame holds up over a few years before I consider it a viable design and process. It's kinda like those polymer stocks and chassis for rifles. Unless it beats good ol' wooden stock in reliabilty and price - it just won't cut it. And for now, it has neither(just like stocks, just look at how many AK 47 do have polymer stocks? Answer is - not many)
Personally, I would like to see a cross-sectional view of the frame. I would like to see how much material was used in the high load, high torsion areas of the frame.

Plastics (Lexan, et al.) have been used before in the early 70's early 80's. The Original Plastic bike even had plastic components; complete flop, but thought to be a bit of a hoax (no proof of an actual bike produced for sale). Another plastic framed (Itera) bike with convention components which was also a flop for many reasons (they are being sold way overpriced as collectibles; certainly not worth riding).

Agree, price seems a bit too high for what this bike offers, but I guess they are trying to drag people in with design and "innovation".

[jeffg]

There are a number of companies figuring out how to 3D print frames. Once it is figured out and the printing technology comes up to speed, it will be very cost effective to manufacture frames this way. Nothing new with the missing seat tube, it has been done a few times before with Kestrel being one that comes to mind immediately.

[Criminal]

(10-28-2022, 06:43 PM)jeffg Wrote:  There are a number of companies figuring out how to 3D print frames. Once it is figured out and the printing technology comes up to speed, it will be very cost effective to manufacture frames this way. Nothing new with the missing seat tube, it has been done a few times before with Kestrel being one that comes to mind immediately.

You would think that the same theory would apply to carbon fiber frames; but not from what I have seen. Scott, Trek, and other brands all made in Taiwan (Giant factory?) have continued to remain the same or increased in price (frames alone). The fact that mass production of "cookie cutter" molded CF frames has not dropped significantly (given international economies, trade agreements, etc.) does not show that the consumer cost will be lower.

[jeffg]

Cost to manufacture is the goal and 3D printing holds a lot of promise in lowering the cost. It will also allow easy changes in production as tool changeups in the usual sense is not necessary. The companies that master it will not pass savings on to the end user, but keep as profit.

[meamoantonio]

(10-22-2022, 07:11 AM)Bikerider85 Wrote:  This is Bike Radar's bike of the week.
It's a crowd funded project in CF and lacks a seat tube. Anyone tempted?
https://www.bikeradar.com/features/bike-of-the-week/superstrata-classic/

i'm interested to know if the ride on this will be harsher or not with the absence of a seat tube

[Papa Dom]

got me thinking about the good old Trek Y Foil design. here is one for sale on eBay: https://www.ebay.com/itm/125326886204 (price: $1900)

[BaBaBiker]

(10-22-2022, 07:11 AM)Bikerider85 Wrote:  This is Bike Radar's bike of the week.
It's a crowd funded project in CF and lacks a seat tube. Anyone tempted?
https://www.bikeradar.com/features/bike-of-the-week/superstrata-classic/

Thx for the share!
Does anyone have any idea how much does it cost to produce such a 3d-printed bike vs a regular carbon road bike with the same specs?

[ichitan]

(10-30-2022, 03:39 AM)meamoantonio Wrote:  i'm interested to know if the ride on this will be harsher or not with the absence of a seat tube

The frame would flex more with the absence of a seat tube, providing a little suspension. This would also cause fatigue breaks.

The frame itself would have to be stronger. The weight you save by not having a seat tube, would be gained in the rest of the frame. To be equal strength, the frame would have to be heavier.

People sometimes design frames like this for aerodynamics, but for ordinary bikes it would be a weak frame.

They have probably done it to be an attention getter, to raise money in crowd funding. But for people who understand engineering, it is a weak design.

[johnmc21]

(10-22-2022, 07:11 AM)Bikerider85 Wrote:  This is Bike Radar's bike of the week.
It's a crowd funded project in CF and lacks a seat tube. Anyone tempted?
https://www.bikeradar.com/features/bike-of-the-week/superstrata-download sketchup 2022 crackeado-classic/

thanks for sharing this

[Jesper]

The TRUTH!!
https://manufactur3dmag.com/superstrata-3d-printed-bike-project/

"Customers expressed their frustration by dumping their bikes into trash bins/Source: Saigon News"

This is what Bikeradar, the same group that initially reviewed the design (Oct 19, 2022), finally had to say after providing only positive or neutral comments about this bike. Hate to say it, but I could have said most of that without ever having rode one aside from actual performance opinions.

Bikeradar (Feb. 2, 2023): "The crowdfunded Superstrata Classic looks distinct, but the poor-value parts package and sub-standard handling mean we cannot recommend it.
Pros: Distinct looks; claimed eco-friendly credentials
Cons: Heavy; sluggish ride; limited fit adjustment; some low-quality components; very poor value."

It only took Bikeradar 3 1/2 months to figure this out!

It seems Bikeradar had their heads up their proverbial anal sphincters on this one. They could have said all that in their initial review, but did not. I mean what is that site serving me if the only "pro" feature they could provide is "Distinct looks". I would rather have a great bike that looks plain and undistinctive than a "distinct" looking bike that is poor on every aspect that one would actually purchase a bike for. This bike should never have been made public until fully vetted by its makers, and tested by an indepent group of riders (both pro and amateur) before it ever made the light of day; and Bikeradar should never have said one word until someone there threw a leg over it and gave a true "field" test to provide a qualified review themselves. I know now that this bike must have "flown under" the radar of Bikeradar's, I assume, highly qualified and experienced team. Too many sites out there that are not taking due diligence in what they purport to be.

[meamoantonio]

(01-11-2024, 09:45 PM)Jesper Wrote:  The TRUTH!!
https://manufactur3dmag.com/superstrata-3d-printed-bike-project/

"Customers expressed their frustration by dumping their bikes into trash bins/Source: Saigon News"

This is what Bikeradar, the same group that initially reviewed the design (Oct 19, 2022), finally had to say after providing only positive or neutral comments about this bike. Hate to say it, but I could have said most of that without ever having rode one aside from actual performance opinions.

Bikeradar (Feb. 2, 2023): "The crowdfunded Superstrata Classic looks distinct, but the poor-value parts package and sub-standard handling mean we cannot recommend it.
Pros: Distinct looks; claimed eco-friendly credentials
Cons: Heavy; sluggish ride; limited fit adjustment; some low-quality components; very poor value."

It only took Bikeradar 3 1/2 months to figure this out!

It seems Bikeradar had their heads up their proverbial anal sphincters on this one. They could have said all that in their initial review, but did not. I mean what is that site serving me if the only "pro" feature they could provide is "Distinct looks". I would rather have a great bike that looks plain and undistinctive than a "distinct" looking bike that is poor on every aspect that one would actually purchase a bike for. This bike should never have been made public until fully vetted by its makers, and tested by an indepent group of riders (both pro and amateur) before it ever made the light of day; and Bikeradar should never have said one word until someone there threw a leg over it and gave a true "field" test to provide a qualified review themselves. I know now that this bike must have "flown under" the radar of Bikeradar's, I assume, highly qualified and experienced team. Too many sites out there that are not taking due diligence in what they purport to be.

I was waiting for this update, thanks for keeping us posted with this Jesper!