"Designers" need help with the definition of "ergonomic."
Smart Planet apparently has no QC at all regarding the submissions it accepts. Not every retarded idea deserves media attention and this one is so bad it's embarrassing to think it came from someone of the same species.
Allowing the bikers body wt. to compress the chest cavity against/abdomen the straps is contradictory to the basic definition of"ergonomic:"
"Designed to minimize physical effort and discomfort, and hence maximize efficiency." World English Dictionary.
It also conflicts with optimizing basic metabolism - interferes with cardiac pumping efficiency, restricts with lung expansion and circulation in general - during physical exertion. The human rib cage is "free floating" with flexible attachment points for a reason - and anything that restricts it is counter productive - and generally unhealthy.
Once again we have "designers" with an insufficient amount of technical training (physiology,biology, engineering, etc.) to adequately define the design problem and be able to propose realistic potential solutions - at least ones that aren't absurd. Of course tossing out mechanical advantage in the propulsion system (gearing) is also - counter "ergonomic" and difficult to explain logically if not intellectually. All in all - this "design" is neither "ergonomic," nor does it represent any advancement in the concept of the bicycle.
