Search results for:

but a very interesting concept

Haha "interesting"

sorry .. i didn't mean to be so rude. i don't think stretched fabric would ever work on a bicycle saddle. you need something to support your weight and enable you to pedal consistently.

Man i'm really gonna have to try to make a leather membrane for this model...

I used leather for the working prototype (think *Brooks *saddles - they consist of a suspended leather membrane on a metal frame) but was too scared to try to tighten a leather one up on this plastic prototype (it cost me £170!).

one word... wedgie.

Apologies for the thin-ness of the membrane in the photos - the ABS prototype can't take the stress of a full-thickness leather membrane.

I'm afraid you'll have to imagine that the membrane is made form 4-5mm thick leather (think Brooks) - the cloth material just being a veneer over it

+1, it seems to me that unless the fabric is very stiff (uncomfortable), you might rub the inside of your thighs on the frame when you pedal.

Yeah when i was testing the working prototype I noticed this, but the rapid-prototype (the one in the photos) is much thinner. Also, the material for the membrane should be a lot thicker, like 4mm thick leather etc. The cloth one on this model is just for show really.

Yeah it's quirky for sure. Student projects sorta have to be a bit off-the-wall because it's your last chance to go nuts before the world of work breaks your spirit

heres an image of the frame without the membrane

^i like

Some of you may remember that in the past I put a few questionnaires up on the forum for my student project...

Well here it is! (so far). I have included a final evaluation questionnaire for those of you who want to take part.

The concept of the design is that it is an integrated saddle/seatpost which is based upon ‘suspended’ saddles (think Brooks), but which features a membrane which is removable without tools. The easy removal of the membrane allows you to:

• Take the membrane inside with you if the bike is left out in the rain.
  
• Switch between membranes of different colours/materials quickly and easily for different uses/looks (tweed rides?).
  Removing the membrane may also deter theft of the bicycle, as the saddle looks pretty uncomfortable without it.
  
  

Thanks very much to everyone who has taken part in the surveys so far! Do not underestimate how valuable this has been to the development of my project! Thanks also to anyone who takes part in the survey on this thread, or on surveymonkey.com (link here).

My end-of-degree exhibition is coming up if anyone is in Brighton and wants to come along. There might be beers... PM me if you’re interested.

Q1: How do you feel about the design?

Q2: How aesthetically pleasing would you say that this saddle is on a scale of 1-10?
Ugly 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – 7 – 8 – 9 – 10 Pretty

Q3: Would you say that this saddle would be easier or harder than a normal saddle/seatpost to set up?

Q4: If you saw the saddle for sale, would you consider buying it? (I won’t hold you to the answer to this one!)

Q5: How would you improve the design?

Q6: Does the easy removal of the saddle membrane to deter theft/keep saddle dry make the saddle more or less convenient to use?

Q7: Do you feel that the product attracts you to touch it?
I want to touch it!
No strong feelings either way
I wouldn't touch it if you paid me to.

Q8: In which colour would you prefer the seatpost/saddle frame?
**- **Anodised silver aluminium

• Anodised black aluminium
  
  

Q9: Again, which colours/materials of membrane (the suspended bit you sit on)** would you choose?**

• Black leather
  
• White leather
  
• Tanned leather
  
• Leather with tweed lining
  
• Recycled seatbelts (black)
  
  

Thanks again to anyone who helps me by taking part!

Thanks for the positive feedback, guys! This is my personal favourite at the moment (reminds me a bit of the Molesworth illustrations):

Got bugger all to do with London or the forum. Sorry!

Does this mean pork will be cheaper?

Sakura in Hanover Street. My standard recommendation.

I'd like to recommend Fox's Chocolate Viennese, the biscuit for the discerning cyclist. :-)

+1
I'm also in favour of:

• Various HobNobs
  
• Party rings. Purple ones with yellow stripes FTW.
  

Ardnamurchan in Scotland. Magic.

different folks, different "positive and joyous things"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joncSCoF8eU

.

Even the most cursory google search brings up a wiki entry that contains some excellent peer reviewed articles on increasing temperature increasing the range and prevelence of diseases.

The obvious one is malaria but any arthropod bourne disease is likely in increase in the event of an altered climate.

^ http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090409/full/news.2009.361.html

Malaria will not spread due to warming of the globe. The main reason Malaria is currently a big problem in the 10/40 window (near the equator) is due to the lack of money in those areas, not the abundance of warmth.
http://www.sdnetwork.net/briefing_papers/malaria_climatechange.pdf

CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?
or
CO2 is a greenhouse gas but greenhouse gasses are not a problem?

Which is your position?

^ greenhouse gas does not = "pollutant" (is my position).

Sorry I really would like to stop posting on this thread as I have a feeling lots of people either have or will become pissed off with me (hence the apology cake). I will only say this: CO2 is not a pollutant IMO.

hope we can all still be friends!

Custard

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2082/2729854952_cc1716f5f0.jpg

^^ who died and made you the authority on epic wins? Sorry did watching men in shorts make you 'uncomfortable'?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAx5cLTJ3Ek&feature=related

not really, it's just a win no different then if his opponent was disqualified etc..

nice knockout however... but both of them are in there to knock each other-the-fuck-out so nothing too epic about it at all.

You try knocking a guy out in the first 2 seconds of a professional fight with a flying knee! Shit, I'd be impressed if you could even find a video of another fight which lasted less time online.

Sheesh! What do you want? knocking the guy out before the fight has started?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDafeHoypnA

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6036529.ece
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1717925/posts
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cleared-jury-decides-that-threat-of-global-warming-justifies-breaking-the-law-925561.html

CO2 is not a pollutant, no. It is a 'greenhouse gas' however, and thus can be treated as a pollutant.

^"This is drivel"

If anyone can present any decent evidence of any of the following statements being true I will be thoroughly impressed:

• CO2 has driven, is driving or will drive the temperature of the globe.
  
• The Earth has been warming over the last 10 years (I accept that CO2 levels are rising).
  
• If the Earth warms disease will spread, weather will become more extreme and polar bears will drown.
  

Evidence please.

Evidence to the contrary please.

Seriously I would love to spend all day compiling the evidence for this, but I would rather you did this for yourself if you are interested. As it stands, I will do my best to gather information for you without wasting too much of my own time.

Watch this space...

PS were you this critical when presented with the arguments in favour of GW?

^^^ it's a fight of course there's a win... will you post this equally in the epic fail thread too just to be advocated?

EPIC win. Standard loss on the part of the other guy, but let's not talk about him...

Putting aside the thousands and thousands of scientists who are in complete agreement, doesn't common sense tell you that if we pump massive amounts of pollutants into the atmosphere and cut down huge swaths of the worlds forests as we have been doing for the last 150 years, we are going to do some damage to our environment?

But if common sense isn't your thing, then just look at the IPCC. Hundreds of scientists from all around the world, meeting and coming up with a consensus opinion, which is that humans are making a significant impact on climate change

^There are scientists in the IPCC, but unfortunately how their findings are interpreted is entirely controlled by the governments that fund them. Some members of the IPCC are only 'scientists' in that they have doctorates in non-relevant fields. Also some of the scientists on the IPCC 'list' wanted their names removed from the reports, as conclusions drawn were contrary to their own findings. They were refused. Unfortunately there is not a concencus of opinion - and when people start talking about 'unrefutable' science you have to start questioning whether it is science at all.

i reckon the presumption that you can control the pollution is probably the sticking point. i'm sure the carbon emissions from burning mixed waste are pretty horrendous,

^Oh, and CO2 is not a 'pollutant'. It is actually a plant fertiliser, and the increase in Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased plant growth by something like 12% in the last 3 decades. As for CO2 driving global warming: It hasn't ever done in the past, and the fact that it is among the lesser greenhouse gases makes you wonder who no-one is worried about their 'water vapour footprints'?

the fact that the strong majority of climate change experts (and it's not a 51/49 split, it's much stronger than that) are in agreement that anthropocentric climate change is real and is likely to cause significant problems for human civilisation.

^ unfortunately the concensus is among politicians, not scientists. Many scientists are also afraid to speak out against the 'warmists' as there has been talk of Nuremburg-style trials against global warming (GW) deniers.

Many people I have spoken to about this matter who have no scientific knowledge on the matter believe that 'it can't do any harm in playing it safe' and going along with the CO2-as-driver-for-global-temperature theory just in case. Maybe they would be less happy to go along with this if they knew that around 12% of our taxes in the UK are now climate-change based, or that the billions of pounds spent by countries in attempts to reduce their carbon footprints could have eliminated third world debt, wiped Malaria off the planet and many other, more worthy things. Developed countries like the UK are also using GW as a means to hinder countries in Africa and Asia from developing economically.

Sadly GW is also taking the attention away from *real *environmental issues (plastic soup the size of Texas in the Pacific? when was the last time you heard about that on the TV? http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/the-worlds-rubbish-dump-a-garbage-tip-that-stretches-from-hawaii-to-japan-778016.html)