The concept of a guwi



U

unisk8r

Guest
Just taking this topic out of another unrelated thread, because I find
it intriguing.

The idea of a geared ultimate wheel has been suggested. Like a guni,
the wheel would travel further than its circumference with each pedal
revolution.

The first substantive debate issue was essentially: how could this be
done with planetary gears but without a torque arm on a standard frame
(like a Schlumpf/Harper?Bonsch type guni)?

That's a very good question. One way might be some kind of attachment
to the rider's leg, but this could be a problem during dismounts
(whether planned or unplanned).

So must we use a planetary gear arrangement? Or could there be another
to accomplish the goal? Anyone?


--
unisk8r
------------------------------------------------------------------------
unisk8r's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/4660
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/67196


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
 
You could do it with a standard Schlumpf hub... but... you'd need to
extend the torque arm to at least the radius of the wheel so that it
pushes against the ground for it's fixed position. To stop it wearing
away, you'd probably want to put a roller (or small wheel) on the end
though.

It would need to be a lot longer if you plan on doing jumps and stuff
though otherwise it'll spin around when you leave the ground.

But riding a two wheeled geared vehicle kind of takes away from the
basic simplicity of an Ultimate Wheel.

STM


--
semach.the.monkey
------------------------------------------------------------------------
semach.the.monkey's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/12078
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/67196


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
 
dork-o-man would know.

Simply apply a DAKOROMAN DRIVE SYSTEM


--
pdc

"What doesn't kill you strengthens you, what kills you strengthens your
mother"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
pdc's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/8160
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/67196


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
 
Gearing down would seem to be easy (to conceive, anyway). Just sit the
externally-toothed axle in an open hub with internal teeth. There'd be
more to it than that to be able to transfer torque in other dimensions,
but I imagine it would be reasonably workable.

Gearing up is a different beast.


--
U-Turn

Weep in the dojo... laugh on the battlefield.
-- Dave Stockton
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U-Turn's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/691
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/67196


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
 
I posted about his in the DAKOROMAN thread. The biggest problem is that
you need something to transfer the torque to. I think the best way to
do this is to use a torque arm that is as long as possible but shorter
than the radius of the wheel with a heavy weight on the end. With a
schlumph style hub you could have the weight attached to an extended
torque arm. To keep things centered you should probably have a wheel
that is sort of shaped like this

[ so the weight can be more central side to side.

It would be even better if you could have the weight inside a hollow
wheel to limit the number of exposed parts

The amount of weight and the length of the torque arm would determine
how hard you could pedal this thing. for example a 29" UW with a 12"
torque arm and 10lb weight would be able to handle 10 foot-pounds of
torque before the weight "gerbils" in the wheel effectively turning it
into a poorly balanced BC. Higher gearing would produce more torque.

Hey this is starting to sound fun :D


--
saskatchewanian
------------------------------------------------------------------------
saskatchewanian's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/14180
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/67196


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
 
U-Turn wrote:
> Gearing down would seem to be easy (to conceive, anyway). Just sit the
> externally-toothed axle in an open hub with internal teeth. There'd be
> more to it than that to be able to transfer torque in other dimensions,
> but I imagine it would be reasonably workable.
>
> Gearing up is a different beast.



...............................................................

U-Turn, if you want to manufacture, please try [email protected]
and [email protected].

Thnks, Ioan "Dakoroman" OASA, Sydney, Australia.


--
dakoroman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
dakoroman's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/16388
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/67196


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
 
sorry, LOL.


--
jamessd

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCsb3y-YOSk
Add me, but tel me who you are :p:
[email protected]

Kieron wrote:
> I tell u wat they would have to be a very commited pedo to learn to ride
> a unicycle in order to mingle with us, steel one of us and rape us in a
> bush.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
jamessd's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/15102
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/67196


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
 
Wow that guy doesn't give up does he? Saskwatch has an intersting idea,
but i think the weight moving would alter the drive too much to
balance, it would be a simlar effect to riding with very bendy cranks,
pushing hard on the pedals would swing the weight rather than spin the
wheel initially.


--
kington99

Dave

- what a thoroughly post-modern subversion of the cycling genre -
------------------------------------------------------------------------
kington99's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/9417
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/67196


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
 
Good stuff so far! But the guwi in my head is still gerbiling...:eek:


--
unisk8r
------------------------------------------------------------------------
unisk8r's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/4660
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/67196


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
 
on leo's website he had a link about a motorised unicycle where the
rider sat inside of the wheel .The effects experienced by that setup
can give you an insight into how a rotation inside a rotation works and
thereby what would be involved in controlling it,and how the eccentric
weighting would be critical to make it work.


--
dangerdog
------------------------------------------------------------------------
dangerdog's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/16398
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/67196


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
 
kington99 wrote:
> Wow that guy doesn't give up does he? Saskwatch has an intersting idea,
> but i think the weight moving would alter the drive too much to
> balance, it would be a simlar effect to riding with very bendy cranks,
> pushing hard on the pedals would swing the weight rather than spin the
> wheel initially.



Dave, was it you that tried mounting a Schlumpf hub in a penny farthing
frame? Anyway, whoever it was found that it wouldn't work with a few
cable ties holding the torque arm to the fork as it snapped the ties.
If that's the kind of force the torque arm can resist, then I'd hate to
think how heavy some weights would be to acheive this effect.

STM


--
semach.the.monkey
------------------------------------------------------------------------
semach.the.monkey's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/12078
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/67196


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
 
semach.the.monkey wrote:
> Dave, was it you that tried mounting a Schlumpf hub in a penny farthing
> frame? Anyway, whoever it was found that it wouldn't work with a few
> cable ties holding the torque arm to the fork as it snapped the ties.
> If that's the kind of force the torque arm can resist, then I'd hate to
> think how heavy some weights would be to acheive this effect.
>
> STM



Yes it was me, and yes a schlumpf hub can easily snap half a dozen
cable ties securing the torque arm.

Employing some slightly ropey science, max torque generated is your
weight times crank length, the torque arm has 1.5 times this torque,
assume the balance weight is at twice the crank length from the centre,
for me the weight would have to be 75kg, more than twice what a man can
comfortable lift.


--
kington99

Dave

- what a thoroughly post-modern subversion of the cycling genre -
------------------------------------------------------------------------
kington99's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/9417
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/67196


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
 
semach.the.monkey wrote:
> Anyway, whoever it was found that it wouldn't work with a few cable ties
> holding the torque arm to the fork as it snapped the ties.

it was OK for a few changes and rides, but otherwise they weren't up to
the job. luckily the torque arm freeing up wasn't so critical on the
PF.


--
mikepenton

Uni - The Unicycle Magazine
'www.unicyclemagazine.com' (http://www.unicyclemagazine.com)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
mikepenton's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/7090
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/67196


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
 
Wouldn't adding a schlumpf hub (or any hub for that matter) make it
....simply not an ultimate wheel? If you did that you would have
yourself a GNAUWI, geared not an ultimate wheel. Ultimate Wheels don't
have hubs or cranks right? Either way, I would still want to see
someone riding a GNAUWI.


--
siafirede

James = my name
'This' (http://www.myspace.com/clawsout) = my myspace

Pump Air Not Gas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
siafirede's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/6057
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/67196


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
 
We're not talking about a central hub & cranks. An UW simply has pedals
mounted to it in the right locations. The guwi concept would simply be
a multi-part disc wheel, with the same pedal hole locations. Just that
there would be an outer ring section (with the rim part) rotating
faster than the section to which the pedals are attached, which fits
inside the rim portion.
Sorry I have no drawing program to visualize what's in my head, but
it's basically a 2-piece disc wheel that fits together, with the gears
inside.


--
unisk8r
------------------------------------------------------------------------
unisk8r's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/4660
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/67196


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
 
This should actually be fairly easy to make. I think that using a
jack-shaft gearing system would be the best way to gear this thing if
it is not to be shiftable.

At them moment I am thinking that using zero Q cranks on a square taper
axle might give the most flexibility and ease for DIYers to build
their own, but a "disk and doughnut" design could be slimmer, lighter
generally better if this was to become a manufactured product.

I will try to draw up some plans and scan them at school some time next
week and post them up.


I am liking this, maybe I shouldn't of dropped out of engineering
after-all.


--
saskatchewanian
------------------------------------------------------------------------
saskatchewanian's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/14180
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/67196


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
 
After making a few sketches and looking at some bearing websites it
became clear to me that using unicycle cranks and a central 17mm axle
to hold most of the bearings would be much cheeper, less complex and
probably stronger than the disk and doughnut/disk in disk approach.

In my drawing I have it down to 48mm wide plus cranks (which
unfortunately bring the total up to almost 100mm.) We could use
slightly smaller 17x38x10mm bearings but I used the unicycling standard
17x40x12 size in the sketches.


I will scan some of my drawings on monday at school.


--
saskatchewanian
------------------------------------------------------------------------
saskatchewanian's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/14180
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/67196


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
 
Forgot to scan yesterday. here is a preliminary drawing
[image:
http://www.unicyclist.com/gallery2/..._GALLERYSID=b4f385bafa4bad1ad5623f35adf88769]
basically it is just a hanging jack-shaft with a weight on the end
driving the left disk that would make the side of the wheel.

If anyone wants to build it I could make more detailed drawings from
different angles.


--
saskatchewanian
------------------------------------------------------------------------
saskatchewanian's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/14180
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/67196


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
 
Nice job there! I have a couple q's:

(1) How much weight do you think it would take so that the hanging
jackshaft doesn't "gerbil" around the central axle?

(2) Assuming the usual profile (thinness) of an ultimate wheel is about
the width of the tire at any given point (to minimize the "Q" factor,
the distance between the pedals), what could you do to minimize the
pedal width?


--
unisk8r
------------------------------------------------------------------------
unisk8r's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/4660
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/67196


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
 
I originally thought that that if you put 10ft*lb of torque into the
main shaft you would need 10lb of weight on a 1ft arm to prevent the
garbling on a stationary wheel. I realized this was wrong before I
posted it then put it aside and did my homework.

Once I started to work on the problem it became obvious I would need a
much lighter weight than I previously thought. The amount or torque
applied to the wheel is inverse to the gearing, so a GUWI with a
gearing ratio of 1.5:1 would have 67% of the torque go to the wheel and
the remaining 33% to the torque arm. A GUWI geared 2:1 would have the
torque split 50-50 etc.

So if you built a GUWI with 18 and 22 tooth gears to get a gearing
ration of 1.49:1 and are able to put 20lbs more into the front pedal
spaced 6” (152mm) from the center you would need a minimum of
3.3lb of weight on a 12” arm.

I hate using the imperial system unless I can make up my own numbers
(like 6 and 12”) but I doubt many people would be able to relate
to Newton meters like they do to Foot Pounds (or Pound Feet)


To Minimize Q you could have a smaller gearing system, possibly using
square cut gears instead of chains and then have the pedals. My
original drawing was using almost all pieces that are easily obtainable
in the biking/unicycling world. It would take a lot more custom parts
and therefore be much more expensive to minimize the Q.

I will post a new sketch with the reduced Q

Edit: square cut gears won’t work due to the twisting force they
would put on the hanging arm, a smaller chain system then.


--
saskatchewanian
------------------------------------------------------------------------
saskatchewanian's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/14180
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/67196


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back