> What part is missing? It appears to have all the core parts of a bicycle to me?
* I am not an expert in pelican anatomy, but it appears that the bicycle's saddle, if present, would be very deeply inside this pelican (try drawing it onto the frame, and see what you get). Let's be kind, and assume that the seat is simply missing.
* The crown on the fork[1] is missing. The fork is not separate from the frame; so you can't turn the front wheel.
* Neither of pelican's feet are on the pedals (the left foot appears to be missing altogether)
* The wheels are way too small for that frame.
Note: Brakes and gears are nowhere to be seen, but OK, let's just assume it's a fixie (or a single-speed with a coaster brake). Let's also assume the red thing on the basket is there for decoration.
Also, the spokes on a typical bicycle wheel follow a cross-lacing pattern [2], at an angle to the radial direction, and you can see them crossing each other. But OK, let's let that slide.
My point is: sure, this thing at least passes as a bicycle. But it's not a good bicycle drawing.
I just think this is insanely pedantic. Most art is not photorealistic, and in fact imo having a crown on the fork may very well make this image worse by taking away from the aesthetic.
I think the seat post and the angle of the fork are issues but I just don’t think that the greatness of an image of a bicycle has anything to do with whether you can tell that the fork is a separate piece of metal from the frame. The prompt here isn’t about making an image so that an alien who has never seen a bike can make one, it’s about people recognizing that it’s a normal looking bike and the emotional response that comes from that. The emotional response the vast majority of people have looking at this isn’t “that bike won’t ride”
It's fun when a subject matter expert shows up and blows your mind with their level of knowledge on normally unnoticed intricate details that go into everyday things.
