Clarification of multiple problems with design (for DWFields)
DWFields, you have made several posting attempting to defend the value of this design against the numerous criticisms. In most cases your defense seems based on a lack of understanding of the problems. I will try to clarify the most serious problems:
1. Safety.
You claim additional safety relating the frame of this design to the cage of an automobile frame. This would only be valid for a car which required the drivers head to be sticking out the window wedged between two frame members with his arms wrapped around frame members to reach the steering wheel.
In this design, the frame had a relationship to the rider's head analogous to a bottle opener opener to a beer cap....not a protective frame. Broken arm potential also looks intimidating.
The frame further appears to disallow the possibility of wearing a helmet.
2.Function:
The lack of pedals or foot pegs creates a lack of ability for the rider to shift weight meaningfully to the left or right. The frame further limits the riders motion by limiting movement vertically. This is harmful because it limits the riders ability to change position for maneuvering, balance, or in an attempt to see beyond obstructions. Numerous problems come to mind.Quick transitions from flat to uphill or downhill to flat can create conditions where neither of the riders feet can touch the ground...and with nothing to put them on to shift weight, if balance is lost, it won't easily be regained. Similarly, when riding on a ridge or riding transverse to a gradient (uphill to one side and downhill on the other), the bike will have a tendency to take the rider down the hill since increased lean will be required to place the foot down on that side...and since rider position is so restricted.
Uphill travel has got to be difficult.....notice the video does not show any uphill scenes.
.
There are other problems but realistically the problems above are sufficient to eliminate it from consideration as a good idea.
