Spectrum: A bike has to be light, stiff, aerodynamic and comfortable – these are the usual requirements. In order to be bought and loved, it has to look attractive, says qualified designer Tomas Fiegl. His agency's references include manufacturers such as Canyon, Bulls and Scott. An unusual look at the bike in the exclusive Velomotion interview.
Velomotion: Mr. Fiegl, in 1989 you and Achim Pohl created the Artifact Design Agency founded. Normally you accompany product development processes in the architecture and sanitary sector. How did you come to think about bike design?
Tomas Fiegl: I'm an ambitious racing cyclist myself. In 2006 I had the idea of turning my hobby into a job, at least in part. It all started with a saddle clamp that we developed for the Müsing company. This was even patented. As a result, I met Canyon owner Roman Arnold. Canyon became our client and the agency's bike design business continued to grow. Today it is a separate business area with a special team of designers with an affinity for bikes, lots of know-how and exciting orders. You could say we are specialists when it comes to bike design.
Who are your customers today?
Our biggest customer is still Canyon. Here we have actually helped to develop all the carbon racing bikes and time trial machines of recent years: the Ultimate series, the Aeroad, the old and the new Speedmax. only that new Ultimate CF SLX is not from our pen. In addition to Canyon, we currently work for the companies SKS, Brose and Klever mobility, in the past also for Bulls and Scott, among others.
Does your private enthusiasm for racing bikes help you with your orders?
Definitive. I contend that a good bike designer has to be emotionally involved to work for the bike industry. You have to be able to develop a feeling for this own, special world.
Why is the bicycle industry a world of its own and why does it need good design?
The bicycle world has been very technically driven, at least in recent years. When a company advertises its products or a trade journal writes an assessment, the focus is on parameters that can be measured. Current are the weight, stiffness, aerodynamics and comfort. Hard factors like this decide who wins a test in a bike magazine. Design, on the other hand, cannot be measured. It's subjective. But a customer also buys emotionally. The success or failure of a product is not only determined by the numbers and values, but to a large extent by the design.
Is there a rethinking taking place in the bicycle industry, considering design aspects more than before?
It is now essential to deal with good product design. At least the big wheel manufacturers almost all have the same technical knowledge. The only thing that remains is the differentiation via the design.
So can one say that the manufacturers are technically equal and that the one who presents a particularly attractive design or brand image has the competitive advantage?
At least he has the potential to secure an advantage. Of course, in the constructive Champions League, in which Canyon is also active, there are always special technical solutions that bring a measurable advantage. But that's getting closer and closer. And it's increasingly difficult to convey 30 grams less weight or 3 percent improved aerodynamics as a selling point. As a result, the emotional factors are increasingly coming to the fore. As far as design is concerned, the materials carbon and aluminum still offer a lot of untapped potential. Steel frames are largely exhausted, at least as far as tube shapes and cross-sections are concerned.
You say yourself that design is subjective. How does the designer still find solutions that enable sales success? Are there any methods?
The design must correspond to the brand image. For a company, this means first finding a handwriting for its own brand and then consistently following through with it. At ARTIFACT we believe that design should focus on the essentials. A reduced design language is independent and radiates quality. The almost classic insight "form follows function" applies. It has been shown that a clean, reduced design like the one we developed for Canyon is very well received in Northern Europe and North America. In southern Europe, the voices are becoming more differentiated. For example, Italian and Spanish cyclists love more color in the product. But here, too, we sense that simplicity in design is becoming increasingly accepted. Here we are again with the topic of subjectivity. Design issues are therefore an integral part of corporate strategy, closely related to sales goals and markets. As a company, you have to be true to yourself.
Does good design mean thinking of the bike as a whole and including all parts in the design process, from the frame set and wheels to the components?
A lot on the bike is screwed together additively. Many companies are involved with their individual components in order to put together an end product. This creates a patchwork look thrown together. That makes a bike unsteady. In recent years there have been increasing efforts to make the bike look like a single piece. System integration is becoming increasingly important. That's why you have to see the bike as a whole. We go far beyond the frameset. Especially the interfaces to other parts offer a lot of potential. For example, we helped develop the handlebar cockpit unit on the Aeroad model for Canyon. Other components are also increasingly being designed by manufacturers to fit the overall appearance.
How should one imagine the development process of a bicycle? There are the engineers who design the wheel and have specific plans and objectives. When will the designer join?
As early as possible. It is best for the designer to be involved when the specifications are being drawn up, i.e. when questions need to be clarified such as “What values do I want to achieve, what frame sizes do I need?” The geometry is fixed from the start, and we don’t touch it. We get schematic axis drawings that we then work with. An important aspect lately is aerodynamics. Wind tunnel tests dictate specific tube shapes and profiles. But the designer is always there, he doesn't wait until the engineers have done their work. The end product only optimally unites all interests if it is the result of continuous, interactive cooperation between all those involved.
Do tensions sometimes arise between engineers and designers?
Permanent (laughs). It has to be a healthy argument exchange. The designer has a different approach than the engineer, but both ultimately have similar tasks and goals. The best constellation for the development of a bike is when we have designers who bring a great technical understanding and engineers who have a creative streak. Fortunately, this is how we experience it in the cooperation with our customers. Nevertheless, there is definitely a tension. Good interaction between engineering, design and marketing is the key to success.
How long does it take from the first idea to series production?
For a carbon product in the road bike sector - and that's what we're dealing with with Canyon's premium products - it takes about a year and a half. For complex time trial cars, where a lot of system integration is done, it's more like two years. When it comes to aerodynamics, we are still at the beginning of development, and there will be many new and exciting solutions in the coming years.
What does the cycling-affine designer have to say about the disc brake trend on racing bikes?
It has a certain appeal in terms of form and aesthetics, because we no longer find any elements on the fork crown and on the bridge between the seat stays. The entire brake system is shifted to the axle area, which allows for a clean look. But I understand the purists who reject disc brakes on racing bikes. I recently took part in L'Eroica in Italy. These events are almost statements. Personally, I think both have their right to exist. I am critical of the current hype surrounding disc brakes. Due to the better aerodynamics, many manufacturers are even working more on solutions with rim brakes - especially for time trial bikes.
From your point of view, what developments in the bicycle are we facing?
The e-bike area is exciting. The electric bicycle has not yet become so emancipated in society that it is seen as a serious alternative to conventional bicycles or cars. I think that's also due to the design. Everything is currently being done to design e-bikes that don't look like e-bikes. I am convinced that as soon as electric bicycles are accepted as a product category, there will be completely different optical solutions. Then you can also see the motor, you can see the battery, there will be a completely new design language.
If you were to design a bicycle completely detached from viewing habits and market requirements, would it differ significantly from what we know today?
With racing bikes, the differences would be marginal, at least as far as the "stiffness to weight" requirement is concerned. Various attempts have already been made in the past to think outside the box and to establish unusual designs. But that hasn't caught on. The classic diamond frame is the best solution here in terms of design and appearance. But perhaps the ever-new aerodynamic findings will also bring new or sometimes long-discarded frame structures to light again.
With an e-bike, I would take a much different approach. The classic bicycle frame would certainly not be used exclusively. We are currently seeing two design trends on the market: One is trying. forcing the e-bike into the corset of the classic bicycle image, and the other trying to make it look like a motorcycle. On the other hand, I think an e-bike should look like an e-bike. So it would be important to design the engine and honestly bring it to the fore instead of hiding it. It is the heart of the product.
Mr. Fiegl, thank you very much for this exciting interview and all the best.