True, designers can be involved with an extremely diverse range of things and services. But each designer has their own domain in which they specialise, whether it be typography, lighting, furniture, web, or in my case sports equipment.
What you say about design schools repositioning themselves is true. But there are still fairly conceptual schools such as CSM and sadly they are actually responding to the current London market which is highly creative and not so technical. I left CSM for that reason and went to Brighton for a more fulfilling and professional course although less prestigious.
They designers who play around with objects and make them pretty can be very useful, in certain industries. You say there are too many, there are too many designers in general, it's just the trend I guess. I use FEA mainly because I my creativity is in the shape and structure of things with a strong drive for optimisation, and I would say that 50% of product designers are taught to use it and 20% of those taught actually use it in their design process. But again, it depends in which industry they are working.
Does Royce use FEA?
It is fair enough that they wish to focus on the basic properties such as stiffness, material and Q factor. But there doesn't seem to have anything clever about it, exept maybe for the triangular BB (though I hate the non-standard aspect of it),
I'm sorry that I have to beat my own drum here, it's very sad. But I do think we are facing some kind of design backlash. I guess that's what happens when some "scene" designer decides to get involved in bike design, giving all the other competent designers that are a lot less vocal a bad name.
And Nimhbus: most designers I know hate humanity with passion. But their job is to care about people's needs (and desires sometimes ;)) and that's not a science that engineers will necessarily focus on, that's all I meant to say.
True, designers can be involved with an extremely diverse range of things and services. But each designer has their own domain in which they specialise, whether it be typography, lighting, furniture, web, or in my case sports equipment.
What you say about design schools repositioning themselves is true. But there are still fairly conceptual schools such as CSM and sadly they are actually responding to the current London market which is highly creative and not so technical. I left CSM for that reason and went to Brighton for a more fulfilling and professional course although less prestigious.
They designers who play around with objects and make them pretty can be very useful, in certain industries. You say there are too many, there are too many designers in general, it's just the trend I guess. I use FEA mainly because I my creativity is in the shape and structure of things with a strong drive for optimisation, and I would say that 50% of product designers are taught to use it and 20% of those taught actually use it in their design process. But again, it depends in which industry they are working.
Does Royce use FEA?
It is fair enough that they wish to focus on the basic properties such as stiffness, material and Q factor. But there doesn't seem to have anything clever about it, exept maybe for the triangular BB (though I hate the non-standard aspect of it),
I'm sorry that I have to beat my own drum here, it's very sad. But I do think we are facing some kind of design backlash. I guess that's what happens when some "scene" designer decides to get involved in bike design, giving all the other competent designers that are a lot less vocal a bad name.
And Nimhbus: most designers I know hate humanity with passion. But their job is to care about people's needs (and desires sometimes ;)) and that's not a science that engineers will necessarily focus on, that's all I meant to say.