Hacker News Reader

Comment by anonymfus | Hacker News Reader

Also serious ethical problem of targeting such solutions for third world problems is that such products are not really intended to be produced in it.

Real third world bicycle is same as first world but with hand made steel frame, because frames are most overpriced components: http://i.imgur.com/qpw0a.jpg People use bicycles for decades and can afford to buy or exchange it by parts ever in third world countries. If such conventional bike cost 100 dollars and can last 20 years then cardboard bike must last at least 4 years to be competitive. And people with unstable income prefer long lasting solutions because there is probability that there will be no money in future to buy replacement.

View on HN

That rebar bicycle is completely a joke. This isn't "low cost engineering" it's "bike nerds got ahold of a welder and some rebar".

Rebar of that diameter isn't even commonly available.

It's also unusable heavy, and a needless waste of valuable steel scrap.

Sell that several hundred hunk of rebar, and buy yourself a brand new bicycle.

Here is a guy that did one as a sculpture at his university: http://rebarbike.tumblr.com/

Sorry, but that bike is stupid and you are wrong about the frames being overpriced.

[1] is a bike designed by people who know what they are doing for 3rd world conditions. It has evolved over years to something that will last 20 years easily in Africa and can be serviced by people on the ground there with no special infrastructure.

the result is a robust bicycle engineered specifically for rural African terrain and load requirements. Branded the World Bicycle Relief Buffalo Bicycle, it is designed, tested and assembled in Africa with close attention to end-user feedback and rigorous quality control.... Furthermore, World Bicycle Relief Buffalo Bicycles are compatible with locally available spare parts, ensuring that with proper maintenance they will last for years.

The frames are mass produced in Asia (I assume China) and I'd be surprised if they are more than $10 each (based on priced of frames available on AliBaba).

If you are interested in this then http://worldbicyclerelief.org/ does a pretty good job of not only distributing bikes but making sure they train mechanics and providing tools etc to avoid reliance on external parties.

[1] http://worldbicyclerelief.org/pages/the-bike

> If such conventional bike cost 100 dollars and can last 20 years then [$20] cardboard bike must last at least 4 years to be competitive.

No. We're talking about poor people. A $20 bike that lasts less than 4 years is much more attractive for many people than a $100 bike that lasts 20 years because they don't have $100 to spend on a bike.

> And people with unstable income prefer long lasting solutions because there is probability that there will be no money in future to buy replacement.

Prefer? Sure, but I think you're overlooking the fact that poor people often can't afford that luxury (sometimes due to their own poor decision making resulting in a vicious cycle but that's still the reality).

This isn't really on topic, but that bike with the rebar frame looks really awesome and is a really neat design --- looks a lot more sturdy/reasonably priced (if it's $100 total) than a cardboard bike.

Plain gauge steel tubing is superior in every way to using rebar.

Tubing is lighter, stiffer and cheaper. It can be used with conventional bike parts (bottom bracket, headset, seat tube etc).

A tubular steel bike gives you the option of using lugged construction, which in turn allows you to braze instead of high-temperature welding.

There really isn't much to like about the rebar bike at all.

Extremely heavy.

Also I would want to fall from that bicycle even less then from a normal one.

I can understand that. I have a scar on my leg from a close encounter with such rebar when I was 13 or sth.

Would it necessarily be much worse than falling on a motorcycle at relatively low speeds?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com