The Bicymple?

Has anybody seen these?

Lower on the page it talks about producing an overdrive hub system. It’s freewheel, but maybe could be modified into a new geared unicycle hub?

Maybe, but the Bicycmple itself is so flawed as a concept. Risible.

Here’s a 36-er version :slight_smile:

Incidently, has this ‘bicymple’ got any connection to the ‘inner city bikes’ people? Cos it looks remarkably similar.

The bicymple appears to have a steer tube on both ends.

I think this makes it different from the video and inner city bike bikes.



If a ‘steer tube’ on the seat end is the only difference, I think that Inner City Bikes should be getting in touch with their lawyers, cos the bicymple looks like an out-and-out rip off: even their ‘concept’ section reads uncannily like the Inner Bikes one.

looks like a swing bike to me

Anyone riding one of those Bicymples would look ridiculous :smiley:

Seriously! Our one-wheeled bicycles make sense. But who ever heard of a two-wheeled unicycle! :stuck_out_tongue:

There goes a reasonable price…

It’s a very cool looking machine. But for transportation? Only for people who don’t know anything about seat height. Like that it should be adjustable.

But of whom? The idea goes way back. First example I saw was the Swing bike, followed by something Tom Miller built in the early 90s. Then there were a couple of commerically made, 24" versions also in the 80s. These were made as novelty bikes, which made them infinitely more practical. :stuck_out_tongue:

The Swing Bike was way cooler. Plus you could raise the seat, like a real bike.

Compared to what?

Since I’ve been around unicycles, I’ve seen many commercial attempts to re-invent the bicycle. When presented as a fun novelty cycle, they have much more chance of being accepted than when presented as a bike replacement. Because none of them are.

can not see youtube videos I think it must be pretty painfull during rear wheel turning… knees must hardly hit the frame (or connecting tubes, not shure what is that).

Well, the “Inner City” 36, with an overdrive hub and an adjustable seat height would be fun.

The swing steering on the other one, and the seat being so far forward make it no more than a toy.

The Inner City video is somewhat lacking in variety.

Honestly, it must be an April Fool’s joke. It’s just a few months late (or early).


The ideas behind the inner city bike are based around taking the bike design and stripping out some aspects that aren’t so necessary for city-biking.

Like getting rid of the gears and chain, which means almost unicycle levels of simplicity and ease of maintenance, but without the balance issues.

I really like the look of it, and can’t see any reason it wouldn’t be good, but, in the absence of actually having a go on it, can’t offer much of an opinion.

The idea behind the Inner City bike is not exactly “good” but it’s not exactly “bad” either.

The rear wheel steering thing on the Bicymple relegates it to novelty in my book. Maybe a sensible and skilled rider could find a genuine use for that additional manouevreability, but I think we all know how it will really be used.

The City Bike, however, is just two big wheels with direct drive to the rear and steering with the front. Add to that a hub gear and you have a slight improvement on a similar idea from 1898:

This had front wheel drive and steering, similar to the “Penny Farthing” or “ordinary” bike. However, look at this:

Here we have rear wheel drive, front wheel steering. This was considered safer than the Penny Farthing which had a huge front wheel (for speed), front wheel drive and steering (for simplicity) and could throw the rider into a dramatic face plant if anything suddenly stopped the front wheel.

I have ridden a real (as in veteran) Penny Farthing and a Crypto Bantam. The Penny Farthing was glorious, swaying along with fine views over the hedges. The Crypto Bantam was slightly weird, and a bit unsatisfactory because by today’s standards it is heavy. I have also ridden a circus bike (used to be sold by UDC) and a novelty swing bike - great fun for a few minutes then they begin to wear a bit thin.

If they are trying to reinvent the bicycle, then they need a goal, i.e. reinvent for what purpose?
To simplify: Been done, a single speed bike.
To internalize gearing: Been done, there’s even a CVT
To make it more compact: Been done, folding bikes, unis
To make it more stable and “safer”: Hmmm, now there’s an opportiunity.

Though it would take up more space, I found that the single most dangerous aspect of urban riding was being able to stay upright on slippery surfaces and to manage safe “emergency” stops.

A tricycle, two wheels in front, with suspension, CVT drive from the rear, baskets over the front tire to carry gear:

I’m guessing one purpose is to simplify- I wouldn’t say a single speed bike is the final stage in simplification- it still has a chain drive, which requires cleaning, greasing, maintaining, replacing and, to be fully sure of not getting stuck, the carrying of tools.

I think another goal may to acheive a ‘cleaner’ machine- again, eliminating the chain makes the thing pretty much as clean, and oil free, as a unicycle.

There are several oil free bikes around with toothed belts instead of chains.

And belt chains have their own issues, hence why they’re still relatively rare :slight_smile:

On the other hand, my 800 cc motorbike manages for 25,000 miles per belt, whereas my previous 660cc bike needed a new chain and sprockets every 6,000 miles or so.

Schlumpf makes an internaly geared crank, but there still needs to be a drive mechanism. The belt drives work pretty well, far less hard on fingers and clothing that get caught, greaseless, and they are pretty durable and weather proof.

I suppose you could put a geared wheel under the rider, then a couple wheels out front, sorta like a unicycle tricycle.

Still, it’s an answer looking for a question, most urban bikers aren’t really looking for anything new, many are into retro, fixy, etc… so a new “art bike” won’t get many buyers.