From great idea to successful product?

‍Some things are so good that it’s difficult to improve them. The conventional bicycle is an example. For a long time, any attempt to improve on the double triangle frame with spoke wheels, crank pedalling and a chain has been doomed to fail. Many have tried since this concept emerged in the 19 ^th century.
‍

An exploration of new materials and shapes

‍Since then, new materials have been used, which allow (or dictate) new frame shapes. This has led to a diversification of bicycle types, which has created markets with higher sales prices (e.g. mountain bikes, e-bikes). These modern versions of the concept may be better than the traditional ones, but the basic concept of the bike is still unchanged. Or it was until recently.
‍

A change of concept

‍American inventor Rodger Parker claims a technical innovation by changing the concept of the bicycle, based on the idea that pedaling with spinning pedals is not the most efficient way to transfer power to the rear wheel of a bike. Parker developed NuBike, an innovation that targets the heart of the bicycle: the pedalling mechanism.
‍

The core idea

‍NuBike operates through a multilink mechanism with pedals that are more than twice as long as those of a conventional bicycle, allowing the cyclist to transfer more than twice as much power. To operate those pedals you don't spin them around, you move them up and down.
‍

The claimed benefits

‍According to Parker, the vertical movement of the pedals is less stressful on the knee, hip and ankle joints. He further claims that the NuBike goes noticeably faster or further with less effort, due to the longer power stroke and longer ‘gravity push’ of the pedals, and that it puts an end to the many troubles resulting from chains (dirt, risk of ruined clothing, maintenance).
‍

Jumpstart: Fast forward to being sure

‍‍Let’s do a Jumpstart to assess the technical soundness of the NuBike innovation and see if it’s worth developing or funding. With the Jumpstart 3-step approach in mind, we’ll do a Reality Check and a Feasibility Scan, before coming coming up with a final verdict on the matter.
‍

Before trial and error, let’s do the physics first

‍One of the basic principles of Jumpstart is: before trial-and-error, let’s do the physics first. This is not always how innovators and developers like to work. They often find a prototype reflects the effort put into the innovation more convincingly than a few sheets of paper with a calculation. The advantage of doing the physics first is that you can rule out a lot of prototypes in advance, because you can determine upfront they can't work. This allows you to get to a working prototype much faster, with less effort and lower costs.

‍

Let’s put NuBike to the test

‍What about the physics of the NuBike pedalling system? NuBike claims the effort on the pedals is more constant than on a chain driven bicycle. Whether or not this is desirable has not been investigated. There is debate on this in connection with oval chain wheels, which have the same aim (see OvalVs Round Chainring - Where The Road Forks) .

Getting back to NuBike: is the effort on the pedals more constant? The figure below shows the height of the biker’s foot and its vertical velocity for a NuBike and a regular chain driven bicycle.

The curves are approximate, the geometric data are taken from photographs.
The NuBike curve for the position is slightly asymmetric; the down stroke is a little longer than for the chain drive. The velocity of the foot, however, varies all the time, there is no plateau in the velocity curve. The velocity in the upstroke is 25% higher than for the chain drive. The curves are indeed different, but only practice can tell if this makes the NuBike more comfortable. The claim of a more constant load, however, seems far fetched.

‍

The idea of using levers is not new

‍The principle of using levers to transmit power to the wheel is not new. The American Star bicycle uses a mechanism with levers, a leather strap and a drum with ratchet to drive the wheel from each side. This mechanism provides a much smoother transmission of force (but I leave the detailed analysis to the reader). The steering geometry, on the other hand, seems very strange, with pronounced negative caster. It is likely that positive caster would not have much effect because the rider sits almost right above the rear axle. This bicycle has a very large trail in the steering geometry; the front wheel touches the road far behind the point where the steering axis intersects the road, and this helps the bike go in a straight line.
‍

‍
Comparison of the mechanisms of the NuBike and the American Star show that the American Star has fewer pivots, but two leather belts extra. The biggest difference in use is that the two pedals on the American Star are independent, and can be pushed down at the same time for power bursts. The up stroke can be much shorter than the down stroke. Again, whether this is a real advantage is not clear. This is something to be determined empirically.

Another example of the historical quest to use leverage to transmit power to a wheel is provided by a manufacturer from Manchester, UK (The Claviger Cycle Co). Their lever-driven bicycle was patented in the US in 1889 by William Golding of Lancaster, UK.
‍

‍

Successful innovation or not?

Innovation is about creating and developing new ideas and products (or new applications of existing ideas), usually to solve a problem better than existing solutions. In the case of NuBike the innovation aims to bring about tangible improvements to riding a bike:

• A more efficient transmission of power to the rear wheel of the bike
• Less strain on the hips, knees and ankles from riding a bike
• An end to problems with chains (dirt, maintenance or tangled clothing)

A good innovation solves a problem better than existing solutions, without creating new problems. From that perspective and from the available evidence we cannot qualify NuBike as a successful innovation. It is a very interesting bike, it’s creatively designed, but it's not a successful technological innovation in the classical sense of the word.

Learnings from the NuBike case

For building a decisive innovation case we suggest the following steps:

1. Identify the problem. In the case of NuBike: painful knees, damaged clothes, dirt, low efficiency. Be clear and unambiguous of what it is you want to solve.
2. Find out if the problem is recognised by other people, and how bad a problem they find it. This is not always easy, because some problems are only apparent after a solution is presented; the solution creates awareness of the problem, the mobile phone is a good example of this.
3. Look for old solutions to the same problem (patents, the internet in general, old publications).
4. Come up with something new to solve the problem. Often innovators jump straight to this step after step 1, or the process starts here with an idea. It is worth going back to steps 2 and 3 if this is the case.
5. Before trial-and-error, let’s do the physics first. Much prototyping can be avoided by careful design based on physics (fluid flow, heat transfer, structural dynamics, etcetera), saving time and effort and providing insight.
6. Check if the new solution does the job and has the potential to be made into a reliable and affordable product.
7. Check if the product has clear advantages over other solutions. This is often difficult for the innovator, because (s)he is biased. Step 7 is important for that reason.
8. Protect the innovation by keeping it a secret until it is patented. In the meantime, get selected people excited so they can help you. Non-Disclosure Agreements can be used for this.
9. Make prototypes to test and prepare the market for the new product.

A final note

Of course it’s possible to sell new products that are not innovative but that in itself is not innovation.

The NuBike is an expensive bike to make and there is no reason why it shouldn’t work as well as a conventional bike. It’s a distinctive product that may attract attention from people who are interested in new trends and designs, and there will undoubtedly be enthusiasts who will buy it immediately if it is offered for sale.

This may qualify NuBike as a marketing innovation, but it doesn’t make it a good example of a successful technological innovation. For that more ‘real’ innovation is needed.

‍