Dalinci FF Design 2020

I will leave Eric Vloemans of Dalinci to explain his design, as described on his website:

From sketch to CAD and back, and back, and ...
Published on 26 June 2020

"Luckily, today's technology allows us to design and simulate ideas in a digital model, before constructing anything physical.  This surely will save time and money. 
Although this virtual environment has many advantages, it doesn't mean we cannot use ‘old’ methods any more!
For me, everything starts with a primitive sketch, on old-fashioned paper. Converting this sketch into a primitive 3D model allows early evaluation of function, proportions, and so much more. 
The 3D model can then be used as background for more detailed sketching, which in itself can be used again for more detailed 3D modelling.  This process continues until the project converges to its final stage."

Photo: Screenshot from Dalinci website: www.dalinci.be © Eric Vloemans 2020

Dalinci FF Design 2020

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Two FFers' comments from the Facebook FF page:

When Eric Vloemans put a link up to his FF design above, on the Facebook FF page, two long time FFers posted the following comments:

Richard Baughen (former owner of a Malcolm Newell Gold Wing Phasar) said:
"You’ve got to smooth out the airflow behind the rider's head and shoulders!! FFs look right with the rider installed. This one looks like you are making it look good without the rider."

Jan Nelder, builder and owner of several FFs over the past 30 years said:
"I say put the rider further forward relative to the front wheel (because there's too much weight ahead of you as it is, and it doesn’t feel good when riding, personal experience!)."

They're right you know...

Regrettably the air has no aesthtic sensibilities. It treats beautiful shapes with the same ruthless indifference that it shows a brick. According to it's own rules. The human body also has strong opinions about it's comfort and positioning. addressing the rules of the air, and the opinion of the human, has to be done before concept design can start. This is a vehicle. It must work. After that make it pretty.

Working vehicles

Oh, I don't know that it has to work. Jim Bede made vehicles that didn't and sold them. And they appear to still command significant money. Depends on the user requirement specification.

Nicer if it does actually work, of course.

Jim Bede's Pulse/Litestar

Arthur, it's a bit misleading to say that the Pulse/Litestar didn't work. It was a usable vehicle, after a fashion. Just a very strange one that was neither 'fish nor foul'. Essentially an enclosed motorcycle that looked as if it should lean round corners like an Ecomobile, but couldn't, due to the funky 'wings' and non-retractable outriggers. It is amazing how many were built and sold though. Nearly 350, between 1980 and 1990.
See here for more info and a photo of the one that got away from the USA and came to England: http://www.bikeweb.com/node/1342

different priorities

I struggle to describe it as an "Interesting Debate" but it's true that treating innovation as a route to a better world - through better products - is a minority concern. Clearly there are other motivations, although I have no idea that they are. Perhaps someone who sees the point in going through the process of making something completely pointless can enlighten simple souls like myself?

Sales of a few hundred useless items (in a population of several hundred million) scarcely justifies the use of materials and energy involved and in any case all non-functional innovations obscure and make more difficult recognition of innovations that offer some progress. So, no, I'm not a fan of useless innovation. The world does need more efficient, more managable and safer vehicles and a lot of other improvements besides.

It's very easy to go online and spend a day or so looking at quite astonishing feats of construction, from motorcycles with aircraft radial engines to tiny, working, scale models of multi-cylinder race engines. Acts of bizzare obsession. Meanwhile the world burns.

FF two wheelers offer a small package of real solutions to actual transport problems. I think that's worth doing. Even if it's "not innovative after twnenty years"* and only involves doing various forms of engineering properely (including engineering design). We can't all be pure, innovative, artists - and I don't want to be!

*The Niche Vehicle group, turning down a grant application from an FF project.

Art and FFs

Art is an important part of humanity. It can be defined as everything we do that isn't necessary for survival. I'm not an artist but I acknowledge that art is important. I agree that many vehicle builders rationalise what is essentially art by pretending to themselves and others that they are creating useful vehicles. People buy vehicles based on the appearance first and function second. Nowadays, commercially produced vehicles are presumed to work well enough. This buying mode probably leaves people dissatisfied to some degree when the function is less than they hoped for, but that's human nature. We shouldn't underestimate the need for people to have fun, but not at any price.

The transport problem has many facets, one of which is producing transportation options that use fewer resources. More efficient private road vehicles are a small contribution to solving a huge problem. Reducing the amount of movement is the real answer. Reduce demand first, then deal with what's required. The electric FF should have a place as a minor contributor to the small part of the problem, and aero efficiency will be a key. Whether the resource inputs match the savings is something I don't know. Reducing range and speed will help by reducing the amount of travel so a pedelec FF looks like a good solution as it reduces resource consumption at the same time. High speed, long range FFs like the eMonoracer, not so much.

Focus, focus

I have no problem with the idea that human society is a long way from ideal ways of living. These are big issues. However, this site deals with a specific little issue - making real efficiency and safety improvements in transport. Not all transport, just that transport that can carry people and goods further and faster than bicycles. Only two people and only some goods, say up to 80 Kgs (we can work on that) That's probably only 60 0r 70 % of all people traffic and only a similar amount of urban goods traffic. So absolutely worth doing.

But to be worth doing the vehicles involved have to work. Currently that's still being established. If it is, no doubt hordes of artists and other people will get jobs making them look pretty - or ugly, or whatever the current fashion is. (not my problem, don't give a shit). But if they don't work better than the current options (motorised bicycles) there is no point. I think the world has enough pretty junk, a lot of it with two wheels.

An artist, on a national radio program, defined "Art" as something useless. I have no interest in useless things. Sorry about that.


"However, this site deals with a specific little issue - making real efficiency and safety improvements in transport." Does it? Perhaps it should, but if so I don't think many people would be interested. We've seen the disinterest of the motor industry even when presented with the evidence. People are interested in FFs for different reasons. Some, no doubt, because they are novel, not because they solve a transport problem. It's some (most?) of this group who are interested styling over function. Like Royce, my interest is in function rather than styling, but there is a problem in that unless the styling is made attractive, the take up of the vehicles will be limited no matter how functionally superior these vehicles may be. It can be argued quite convincingly that the style is an important function of many manufactured products, even factory machinery.


Hi Royce
Being in this group means that we share at last part of a vision on two-wheelers. As a designer/product developer, I don't share your opinion of "make it work, than make it pretty". In today's context both should be part of the process of integral product development. I do agree that functionality is on the top of the list of what makes products valueable :-). But, if we want people to accept FF vehicles, they must be functional for sure, but emotion and shape will help at least to get them interested and attracted to the concept !


Thanks for the comments on my project !
Altough people in this group share for at least partly the same vision on two-wheeled vehicles, all of us have their own vision on what it should do, how it has to be built, performance, seat position and so much more. Since we're all people with a strong vision on things, it"s sometimes hard to agree with other opinions and goals.
For me it's a project I'm dreaming of since more then 20 years, and if I ever want to realise it, this is the time. I use the knowledge that is available here as input to try avoiding mistakes that were made before, and get usefull information and advice. I'm open for the opinion of people with loads of experience, and I will focus on constructing a functional vehicle instead of writing long essays here. I know what I want my built to be. It will not be the most exootic one, not the most aerodynamic, not the most ergonomic, not fastest nor the most stable or safe vehicle. I want it to be the best compromise of all these factors, that will open the eye's of the majority of people on the advantages of the FF-idea.
Greets Eric