30Lb Motorized bike?

[Mark Wolfe]

Interesting article, but will it stand up to r.b.t scruitiny?

http://www.manufacturing.net/dn/index.asp?layout=articleWebzine&articleId=CA279140

--
Mark Wolfe http://www.wolfenet.org gpg fingerprint = 42B6 EFEB 5414 AA18 01B7 64AC EF46 F7E6 82F6
8C71 Mohandas K. Gandhi often changed his mind publicly. An aide once asked him how he could so
freely contradict this week what he had said just last week. The great man replied that it was
because this week he knew better.

 

[Jon Isaacs]

>Interesting article, but will it stand up to r.b.t scruitiny?
>
>http://www.manufacturi

To quote from the article:

"Denver—If the world's streets are teeming with motorized bicycles a decade from now, then
engineer Stephen Katsaros believes the internal combustion (IC) engine will have played a key role
in that revolution.

The Denver-based patent agent is convinced that battery-powered bicycles are not the answer to the
world's traffic dilemmas, and his gasoline-based Revolution Motor serves as proof of that belief.
"There's a real move toward electric (bikes) right now, but those bikes all weigh around 80 lbs and
only have a range of 10 to 15 miles," Katsaros points out. "The problem is that it takes about 377
lbs of lead-acid batteries to equal the energy stored in a pound of gasoline."

His Revolution Motor provides a lightweight, energy-efficient alternative to the electric bike by
employing a 27 cm3, two-stroke engine and a gear train that neatly fits within the 3-inch-wide
confines of a conventional bike frame fork. "

------

A couple of points here:

1. Two stroke motor means it will have a difficult time meeting any pollution requirements. I
believe a small 2 stroke like this will pollute the air more than a large SUV.

2. At the last SD Velodrome swap meet I picked up a Cruiser style bike with a SRAM Sparc Electric
Assist unit. I currently have $72 invested in it and it is only slightly heavier than a similar
bike without assist. My guess is that it weighs between 35 and 40 lbs.

http://www.sram.com/product/featured/sparc/index.asp

Interesting ride and the power assist is a significant factor.

3. One advantage of electricity is that one does not fool with gasoline. An electric bike can be
brought into buildings and stored inside the house without problems, gasoline is a potential for
fire problems and messes.

Bikes like this, whether it is a whizzer from the 40's (which are kind of neat and use a 4 stroke
side valve motor I believe) or more modern bikes with weed eater motors are around and available as
kits. They don't require a hub conversion ( I wonder how that suspension fork handles the mass of
the motor).

I don't see much difference.

Jon Isaacs

 

[Mark Wolfe]

So that was you I passed going up Regents? I passed some guy uphill on a motorized electric bike
awhile back. I wasn't too impressed, as it wasn't hard to catch and go by this electric thing. I
usually maintain a 15-16 mph average on my rides around SD.

Jon Isaacs wrote:

>>Interesting article, but will it stand up to r.b.t scruitiny?
>>
>>http://www.manufacturi
>
> To quote from the article:
>
> "Denver?If the world's streets are teeming with motorized bicycles a decade from now, then
> engineer Stephen Katsaros believes the internal combustion
> (IC) engine will have played a key role in that revolution.
>
> The Denver-based patent agent is convinced that battery-powered bicycles are not the answer to the
> world's traffic dilemmas, and his gasoline-based Revolution Motor serves as proof of that belief.
> "There's a real move toward electric (bikes) right now, but those bikes all weigh around 80 lbs
> and only have a range of 10 to 15 miles," Katsaros points out. "The problem is that it takes about
> 377 lbs of lead-acid batteries to equal the energy stored in a pound of gasoline."
>
> His Revolution Motor provides a lightweight, energy-efficient alternative to the electric bike by
> employing a 27 cm3, two-stroke engine and a gear train that neatly fits within the 3-inch-wide
> confines of a conventional bike frame fork. "
>
> ------
>
> A couple of points here:
>
> 1. Two stroke motor means it will have a difficult time meeting any pollution requirements. I
> believe a small 2 stroke like this will pollute the air more than a large SUV.
>
> 2. At the last SD Velodrome swap meet I picked up a Cruiser style bike with a SRAM Sparc Electric
> Assist unit. I currently have $72 invested in it and it is only slightly heavier than a
> similar bike without assist. My guess is that it weighs between 35 and 40 lbs.
>
> http://www.sram.com/product/featured/sparc/index.asp
>
> Interesting ride and the power assist is a significant factor.
>
> 3. One advantage of electricity is that one does not fool with gasoline. An electric bike can be
> brought into buildings and stored inside the house without problems, gasoline is a potential
> for fire problems and messes.
>
> Bikes like this, whether it is a whizzer from the 40's (which are kind of neat and use a 4 stroke
> side valve motor I believe) or more modern bikes with weed eater motors are around and available
> as kits. They don't require a hub conversion ( I wonder how that suspension fork handles the mass
> of the motor).
>
> I don't see much difference.
>
> Jon Isaacs

--
Mark Wolfe http://www.wolfenet.org gpg fingerprint = 42B6 EFEB 5414 AA18 01B7 64AC EF46 F7E6 82F6
8C71 Your job is being a professor and researcher: That's one hell of a good excuse for some of the
brain-damages of minix. (Linus Torvalds to Andrew Tanenbaum)

 

[Paul Southworth]

In article <[email protected]>, Jon Isaacs <[email protected]> wrote:
>1. Two stroke motor means it will have a difficult time meeting any pollution requirements. I
> believe a small 2 stroke like this will pollute the air more than a large SUV.

That occurred to me as well, and the other problem with a little two-stroke is noise. If you build
your bike with a chainsaw motor, it's going to sound like a chainsaw.

But I have to say the bicycle itself looks surprisingly real and functional/ridable as a bicycle,
unlike most of the "battery cart" style bikes which are clearly a crappy bike with terrible range
and would be a misery once the battery is quickly exhausted.

>2. At the last SD Velodrome swap meet I picked up a Cruiser style bike with a SRAM Sparc Electric
> Assist unit. I currently have $72 invested in it and it is only slightly heavier than a similar
> bike without assist. My guess is that it weighs between 35 and 40 lbs.
>
>http://www.sram.com/product/featured/sparc/index.asp

Sounds like a great deal for a fun bike/toy. I would have done the same.

--Paul

 

[Eric Murray]

In article <y9pca.33475$A%[email protected]>, Paul Southworth
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Jon Isaacs <[email protected]> wrote:
>>1. Two stroke motor means it will have a difficult time meeting any pollution requirements. I
>> believe a small 2 stroke like this will pollute the air more than a large SUV.
>
>That occurred to me as well, and the other problem with a little two-stroke is noise.

Two-stroke engines can be made to produce relatively low polution. Certainly better than an
equivalent power sidevalve four stroke.

> If you build your bike with a chainsaw motor, it's going to sound like a chainsaw.

The problem chainsaws have is that they need to have small mufflers. A large muffler will get in the
operators way. Muffler 101 says you can have good power, low noise, or small size; pick any two. On
a bike, there is room for a decent muffler (and an expansion chamber exaust system, which uses the
exaust sound waves to produce more power).

Eric

 

[Bluto]

Mark Wolfe <[email protected]> wrote:

> Interesting article, but will it stand up to r.b.t scruitiny?
>
> http://www.manufacturing.net/dn/index.asp?layout=articleWebzine&articleId=CA279140

"Katsaros estimates OEMs can cut the total weight of a motorized bike to about 30 lbs."

Note that he does not disclose the actual weight of his machine.

Inasmuch as OEMs *can* cut the weight of a pedal-only bike to the 15 lbs. range, the "estimate"
might not be entirely bogus-- just implausible.

I'm holding out for fuel-cell-powered bikes, though.

http://www.mhtx.com/novars/

Chalo Colina

 

[John Albergo]

--------------010604000504080301080702 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Jon Isaacs wrote:

>>Interesting article, but will it stand up to r.b.t scruitiny?
>>
>>http://www.manufacturi
>>
>>
>
>To quote from the article:
>
> "Denver—If the world's streets are teeming with motorized bicycles a decade from now, then
> engineer Stephen Katsaros believes the internal combustion (IC) engine will have played a key role
> in that revolution.
>

What revolution? Motorized (internal combustion) bicycles have been around for generations - they're
called motorcycles! And for the most part, our streets are hardly teeming with them. Why would a
minimalist version succeed far beyond the niche that motorcycles have now? Far less power, far lower
top speed. Limited range. Not for highways. Much easier to steal. In short, take all of the reasons
why bicycling is not mainstream transportation and then remove the best part of cycling - self
propulsion. Why bother?

--------------010604000504080301080702 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta
http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=UTF-8"> <title></title> </head> <body> <br>
<br> Jon Isaacs wrote:<br> <blockquote type="cite"
cite="[email protected]"> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre
wrap="">Interesting article, but will it stand up to r.b.t scruitiny?

<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.manufacturi">http://www.manufacturi</a> </pre>
</blockquote> <pre wrap=""><!----> To quote from the article:

"Denver—If the world's streets are teeming with motorized bicycles a decade from now, then
engineer Stephen Katsaros believes the internal combustion (IC) engine will have played a key role
in that revolution.</pre> </blockquote> <br> What revolution?  Motorized (internal combustion)
bicycles have been around for generations - they're called motorcycles!  And for the most part,
our streets are hardly teeming with them.  Why would a minimalist version succeed far beyond the
niche that motorcycles have now?  Far less power, far lower top speed.  Limited range.  Not for
highways.  Much easier to steal.  In short, take all of the reasons why bicycling is not
mainstream transportation and then remove the best part of cycling - self propulsion.  Why
bother?<br> <br> </body> </html>

--------------010604000504080301080702--