Any success with add on electric motors to Conventional Bikes?

[[email protected]]

On Apr 27, 10:55 am, Chalo <[email protected]> wrote:
> TBerk wrote:
>
> > I ask because I saw two different bikes (with what looked like two
> > different motors) in one day. Kind of surprising to see two in about
> > an hour's span.
>
> http://crystalyte.com/http://bionx....ttp://www.izipusa.com/http://goldenmotor.com/
>

The Bionx is a very cool system, but that's probably just because it's
Canadian. But seriously, it's well thought out, and has regen and
anti-theft (computer goes into 200% regen, which makes the bike almost
impossible to pedal away, while the battery can also easily unlock and
be removed). But it's a pricey system. The interesting news is that
Bionx recently got bought by Magna International, a major auto systems
manufacturer, so that says something...

After pedaling my cargo trike for two years and occasionally just
about popping my heart out of my chest on hills I added a Wilderness
Energy kit:

http://drumbent.blogspot.com/2006/07/cargo-trike-gets-some-help.html

A year after that the battery pack was upgraded from 36V to 48V:

http://drumbent.blogspot.com/2007/05/trike-gets-another-boost.html

http://drumbent.blogspot.com/2007/10/update-to-battery-pack-upgrade.html

My friend Juergen, who did the welding on the trike, also supplies
assist systems and Xtracycles. His website is:

http://acclivity.ca/electric_bike.html

Mark

 

[Ron Ruff]

There are a lot of good ways to integrate electric power into light
vehicles for getting around town. The problem is that our system still
promotes the "bigger and more expensive is better (and safer)"
paradigm. If we could start making the streets safe and easy for bikes
and light vehicles, instead of designing everything for 6,000 lb SUVs,
this would be a no-brainer.

 

[Dan Burkhart]

In article <[email protected]>,
Dan Burkhart <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Ryan Cousineau Wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > DougC <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > > I saw a homebrew with a clever-looking mount: heavy-duty custom
> > rack
> > > > carrying an electric motor directly above the rear wheel. Chain
> > drive
> > > > from the motor down to the non-drive side of the hub, where there
> > was a
> > > > second freewheel for the motor drive.
> > > >
> > > > I believe the rider was using a LHD BMX cog on the hub, and I
> > assume
> > > > (with no certainty) he was using some flavor of flip-flop hub.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Did it really have freewheels on BOTH sides? Or just sprockets on
> > both
> > > sides?... A number of kits use a chain drive on the left side, but
> > the
> > > sprocket on the wheel is just bolted on, literally through the
> > spokes.
> > > The engine drive side normally just spins all the time.
> >
> > I dug up my photos to review the evidence. It's definitely a LHD
> > freewheel. Indeed, the drive side uses a multi-speed freewheel.
> >
> > <http://www.flickr.com/photos/rcousine/2448067142/>
> >
> > > There are people who use a disk brake hub, and bolt a sprocket to
> > the
> > > disk mount. Also at least one company has made a double-drive hub,
> > with
> > > the normal freewheel on the right and a bolted-on "stationary"
> > sprocket
> > > on the left (Staton kits have these).
> > >
> > > Motorized-bike people have been wishing for a double-freewheel hub
> > for a
> > > /long/ time, and I'd not heard of any in production. There are
> > flip-flop
> > > BMX hubs that can take freewheels on both sides but I was informed
> > > (here, quite possibly) that the threading is the same direction on
> > both
> > > sides--so the left side can't be used for driving, unless it's
> > flipped
> > > over to the right.
> >
> > Motorized bike people need to pay more attention to obscure BMX parts,
> > where the Left-Hand Drive exists:
> >
> > <http://tinyurl.com/3kntpc
> > 54>
> >
> > The purpose of these off-side drives, aside from looking cool, is to
> > let
> > riders who prefer to do coping grinds on the right-hand side to do so
> > unimpeded.
> >
> > --
> > Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
> > "In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
> > "In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
>
> I have a bike on my floor with a left side freewheel driven by a
> Currie motor. and a 7 speed freewheel on the right.If you have seen the
> Schwinn e-bike that Canadian Tire sells, it is exactly the same machine
> with the Mongoose brand on it. I think the reason I have been unable to
> sell it is the fact that it is such a piece of **** I cannot bring
> myself to talk it up.
> I've offered it cheap just to get rid of it, but it's still here.
> Dan Burkhart
> www.boomerbicycle.ca

Either you like the rest of your floor stock better, or I'd like a copy
of your closeout catalog! .

For those curious, here's the Canadian Tire Schwinn:

<http://www.canadiantire.ca/browse/product_detail.jsp?PRODUCT<>prd_id
=845524443296291&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=1408474396672077&bmUID=12094308186
69>

It is rather Goldbergian.

Does the LHD motor connect to a freewheel on the hub, or does it
drag/regenerate (fixed cog) when not powering the bike? Any interesting
details about the parts? I assume the hub is some rather underspecified
flip/flop freewheel hub, possibly using a part originally made for a
tandem with a thread-on drum brake.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

It is a freewheel, not fixed, with left hand thread. Screw on drum brakes use a right hand thread.
The hub is dime store quality just like the rest of the bike.
http://i25.tinypic.com/2ug051w.jpg
I'm not sure what I was thinking when I let myself be talked into buying this thing. Obscure components are never a plus.
In future, I'll leave it to the likes of Canadian Tire to foist this **** on an un-suspecting public.
Dan Burkhart
www.boomerbicycle.ca

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:

>After pedaling my cargo trike for two years and occasionally just
>about popping my heart out of my chest on hills I added a Wilderness
>Energy kit:

How you like the Wilderness kit so far?

I've been thinking abt taking an old Ross mt bike I
have and using such a kit on it

 

[Brian Huntley]

On Apr 29, 12:50 am, Ron Ruff <[email protected]> wrote:
> There are a lot of good ways to integrate electric power into light
> vehicles for getting around town. The problem is that our system still
> promotes the "bigger and more expensive is better (and safer)"
> paradigm. If we could start making the streets safe and easy for bikes
> and light vehicles, instead of designing everything for 6,000 lb SUVs,
> this would be a no-brainer.

The recent rise and some-what legal status of electric scooters in
Toronto has lead to a lot of complaints about them using the bike
lanes. There's just nowhere to put them without ticking off somebody.

 

[Chalo]

JennyB wrote:
>
> >http://cleverchimp.com/products/stokemonkey/
>
> The retro-fit market is still rapidly developing and plagued with
> supply problems. Cleverchimp have not been taking any more orders for
> the last six months. I am very impressed with the concept, and will be
> getting an Xtracycle with a view no either ordering one when they
> become available again, or else building the equivalent.

My impression is that Stokemonkey production has been forestalled
pending some plausible way to make it meet the legal definition of an
electric assist bike (which in most of the USA means that is would
have to be incapable of traveling faster than 20mph on motor power
alone). It arguably already does this because the motor can only
apply power when the pedals are in motion. But all you have to do to
demonstrate that it is a non-compliant bike is remove feet from pedals
while motoring at over 20mph.

Here in Austin, sit-down e-scooters that have no pedals and can easily
exceed 20mph get a free pass from the cops, I guess because the
authorities like them better than the alternatives. I'm sure that
Stokemonkey would be even less provocative, but that's a benefit for
the end user. From the standpoint of Clever Cycles' exposure to
product liability, they have to make a product that's fully compliant
with legal standards or risk big trouble and/or the inability to buy
big trouble insurance.

If you want a Stokemonkey soon, you'd probably be better off rolling
your own. Todd Fahrner is my friend, and I believe he'll eventually
get around to bringing an excellent new version of Stokemonkey to
market. But at the moment, he has his hands full with a beautiful and
thriving new shop selling all kinds of interesting city bikes, and I
suspect it will be a while before he's willing to discuss Stokemonkey
again, and a while longer after that before new units are shipping to
eager buyers.

Any rear hub motor that can operate in reverse can be adapted to
function in the same manner as Stokemonkey.

Chalo

 

[Ron Ruff]

On Apr 29, 10:30 am, Brian Huntley <[email protected]> wrote:
> The recent rise and some-what legal status of electric scooters in
> Toronto has lead to a lot of complaints about them using the bike
> lanes. There's just nowhere to put them without ticking off somebody.

You may think it a bit extreme, but I'd be in favor of an entire auto
lane reserved for bicycles and very light vehicles... plenty of room,
then. If there is only one lane, then the cars can take a different
route.

 

[Ecnerwal]

In article
<[email protected]>,
Chalo <[email protected]> wrote:

> My impression is that Stokemonkey production has been forestalled
> pending some plausible way to make it meet the legal definition of an
> electric assist bike (which in most of the USA means that is would
> have to be incapable of traveling faster than 20mph on motor power
> alone).

All it takes is an intelligent controller, which should be a trivial
microprocessor project. For any of the brushless versions, it would be a
very simple task to design it right into the controller that a brushless
motor needs to run properly anyway. If speed <= 19.99 mph, apply power
to motor if asked to. If speed >20 mph, don't. Done.

Likewise, none (or nearly none - I think perhaps the expensive Canadian
model with the regen braking did) of the offerings available a year or
two ago when I looked into the hub motors bothered with this simple
controller approach to meeting the legal limits - there did seem to be a
lot of "just put on the motor that can go 35MPH and don't worry about
it, though *of course* we only sell those for *offroad* applications,
nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

The sad part being that up to 1KW is permitted, along with the 20mph -
and the only way to stay within 20 mph with a 1KW motor on the flat
requires active control. But when pointing your overweight electric
assist bike (or cargo-hauling trike, the sort of thing I was actually
thinking of applying this to, for cutting down on car use short-haul)
uphill, up to 1 KW (with a 20 mph limited controller) might be very
welcome indeed.

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by

 

[Chalo]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
> I assume the hub is some rather underspecified
> flip/flop freewheel hub, possibly using a part originally made for a
> tandem with a thread-on drum brake.

Left-hand drive e-bikes like that use RH/LH threaded hubs, not RH/RH
threaded hubs as used on tandems and BMX racing bikes.

A few freestyle bikes came equipped with RH/LH threaded hubs, and it
is these few hubs that I have been able to retrofit to add left-side
electric assist to a pushbike. Currie and Mongoose manufactured their
own RH/LH hubs in 135mm width with 10mm axles. They are crappy hubs,
but much more of a drop-in solution for an e-bike than a 110mm hub
with a 14mm axle.

Staton Inc. made some special RH/LH hubs for custom builders, but
their axles feature the most inept design I have ever seen on any bike
part. They seem to be intended to inflict permanent damage to your
bike's dropouts before breaking off at one or both of the snap ring
grooves cut into them. Just comically horrible:

http://www.staton-inc.com/Details.asp?ProductID=2769

The hub shell seems to be very nicely made (befitting its high price)
and would be useful to a home machinist who could make his own axle
parts. It's nice that they saw fit to produce the hub shell in 28,
36, and 48 hole drillings. Shame about that axle, though. It would
be difficult to come up with a worse bike part if you tried.

Chalo

 

[Chalo]

Ecnerwal wrote:
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > My impression is that Stokemonkey production has been forestalled
> > pending some plausible way to make it meet the legal definition of an
> > electric assist bike (which in most of the USA means that is would
> > have to be incapable of traveling faster than 20mph on motor power
> > alone).
>
> All it takes is an intelligent controller, which should be a trivial
> microprocessor project. For any of the brushless versions, it would be a
> very simple task to design it right into the controller that a brushless
> motor needs to run properly anyway. If speed <= 19.99 mph, apply power
> to motor if asked to. If speed >20 mph, don't. Done.

RIght. But Stokemonkey is a retrofit kit that has no way of knowing
what gearing ratios or what wheel size it is mechanically connected
to. The installation instructions could include a stipulation that
those values must be entered into the controller, but that's leaving a
lot to chance and the installer's competence.

Chalo

 

[Chalo]

Ecnerwal wrote:
>
> The sad part being that up to 1KW is permitted, along with the 20mph -
> and the only way to stay within 20 mph with a 1KW motor on the flat
> requires active control.

The real problem with legal e-bikes is that they are overconstrained.
I say limit them by output power, or by maximum speed, or by weight--
but choose just one of these things to use as a restriction, according
to whichever public concern is at issue.

Here in Texas, there is no power limit on e-bikes, but there is a
maximum speed limit (20mph) and a weight limit of 100 pounds. This
means that pedicabs and cargo trikes can't legally be fitted with e-
assist, even though that's one of the best and most appropriate uses
for e-assist.

Chalo

 

[Ecnerwal]

In article
<94432bc9-ac43-4f30-8138-df53e2d5b001@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Chalo <[email protected]> wrote:

> The real problem with legal e-bikes is that they are overconstrained.
> I say limit them by output power, or by maximum speed, or by weight--
> but choose just one of these things to use as a restriction, according
> to whichever public concern is at issue.

The other real problem is that they remain subject to a dizzying web of
conflicting state laws, such that you could be going along quite
legally, cross a state line, and be illegal. Which makes producing the
things for sale a dicey proposition, at best, and not worth bothering
with, mostly.

Some states did clean up excessively restrictive state laws after the
federal definition (which actually appears to be 750 watts, though some
states do permit 1000 watts) went through in 2003 - others did not, and
appear unlikely to do so.

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by

 

[Bill Bushnell]

Brian Huntley <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've never done it myself, but the only truly successful electric add-
> ons to conventional bikes I've seen and heard about have been hub
> motors, where you basically swap in a new wheel.

Hub motors make for a relatively easy installation, but if you ride in varied
terrain, a geared motor will offer greater overall efficiency.

I am partial to the Stokemonkey design, although on a conventional bike with
limited space, the smaller Cyclone motor might be easier to install.

I have a couple of projects on recumbents, one of which uses a Cyclone motor in
the style of a Stokemonkey, where the motor drives a sprocket on the left crank,
allowing the operator to run the motor through all of the bike's gears.

http://tinyurl.com/55fnkc

--
Bill Bushnell
http://pobox.com/~bushnell/

 

[A Muzi]

Ron Ruff wrote:
> There are a lot of good ways to integrate electric power into light
> vehicles for getting around town. The problem is that our system still
> promotes the "bigger and more expensive is better (and safer)"
> paradigm. If we could start making the streets safe and easy for bikes
> and light vehicles, instead of designing everything for 6,000 lb SUVs,
> this would be a no-brainer.

I use a system that fuels on sesame bagels and espresso, converts to
energy though a system known as 'meat'. Climbs OK, not like it used to
though.

Seriously what about a bicycle needs 'improvement'?
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

 

[Brian Huntley]

On Apr 29, 2:55 pm, Ecnerwal <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> The other real problem is that they remain subject to a dizzying web of
> conflicting state laws, such that you could be going along quite
> legally, cross a state line, and be illegal. Which makes producing the
> things for sale a dicey proposition, at best, and not worth bothering
> with, mostly.
>
> Some states did clean up excessively restrictive state laws after the
> federal definition (which actually appears to be 750 watts, though some
> states do permit 1000 watts) went through in 2003 - others did not, and
> appear unlikely to do so.

In Ontario, and by Federal Canadian law, a "power-assisted bicycle"
means a vehicle that:

(a) has steering handlebars and is equipped with pedals,

(b) is designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact
with the ground,

(c) is capable of being propelled by muscular power,

(d) has one or more electric motors that have, singly or in
combination, the following characteristics:

(i) it has a total continuous power output rating, measured at
the shaft of each motor, of 500 W or less,

(ii) if it is engaged by the use of muscular power, power
assistance immediately ceases when the muscular power ceases,

(iii) if it is engaged by the use of an accelerator
controller, power assistance immediately ceases when the brakes are
applied, and

(iv) it is incapable of providing further assistance when the
bicycle attains a speed of 32 km/h on level ground,


So there's no going over 500W here, it seems. I still can't seem to
find what's allowing those scooters on the streets other thank
lackadaisical policing. They don't have pedals, so (c) is violated.
Mopeds now need licenses, and the E-scoots I've seen don't have them,
so that's not it either.

 

[clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada]

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:39:57 -0700 (PDT), Brian Huntley
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Apr 29, 2:55 pm, Ecnerwal <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>>
>> The other real problem is that they remain subject to a dizzying web of
>> conflicting state laws, such that you could be going along quite
>> legally, cross a state line, and be illegal. Which makes producing the
>> things for sale a dicey proposition, at best, and not worth bothering
>> with, mostly.
>>
>> Some states did clean up excessively restrictive state laws after the
>> federal definition (which actually appears to be 750 watts, though some
>> states do permit 1000 watts) went through in 2003 - others did not, and
>> appear unlikely to do so.
>
>In Ontario, and by Federal Canadian law, a "power-assisted bicycle"
>means a vehicle that:
>
> (a) has steering handlebars and is equipped with pedals,
>
> (b) is designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact
>with the ground,
>
> (c) is capable of being propelled by muscular power,
>
> (d) has one or more electric motors that have, singly or in
>combination, the following characteristics:
>
> (i) it has a total continuous power output rating, measured at
>the shaft of each motor, of 500 W or less,
>
> (ii) if it is engaged by the use of muscular power, power
>assistance immediately ceases when the muscular power ceases,
>
> (iii) if it is engaged by the use of an accelerator
>controller, power assistance immediately ceases when the brakes are
>applied, and
>
> (iv) it is incapable of providing further assistance when the
>bicycle attains a speed of 32 km/h on level ground,
>
>
>So there's no going over 500W here, it seems. I still can't seem to
>find what's allowing those scooters on the streets other thank
>lackadaisical policing. They don't have pedals, so (c) is violated.
>Mopeds now need licenses, and the E-scoots I've seen don't have them,
>so that's not it either.


Some of the "e-scoots" I've seen in ontario DO have pedals, but you
would never pedal it more than a couple hundred feet, on a good day.
They attach OUTSIDE the foot boards (like 1.5 feet apart) and are
obviously only there to appear to be legal.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

 

[clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada]

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:39:57 -0700 (PDT), Brian Huntley
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Apr 29, 2:55 pm, Ecnerwal <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>>
>> The other real problem is that they remain subject to a dizzying web of
>> conflicting state laws, such that you could be going along quite
>> legally, cross a state line, and be illegal. Which makes producing the
>> things for sale a dicey proposition, at best, and not worth bothering
>> with, mostly.
>>
>> Some states did clean up excessively restrictive state laws after the
>> federal definition (which actually appears to be 750 watts, though some
>> states do permit 1000 watts) went through in 2003 - others did not, and
>> appear unlikely to do so.
>
>In Ontario, and by Federal Canadian law, a "power-assisted bicycle"
>means a vehicle that:
>
> (a) has steering handlebars and is equipped with pedals,
>
> (b) is designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact
>with the ground,
>
> (c) is capable of being propelled by muscular power,
>
> (d) has one or more electric motors that have, singly or in
>combination, the following characteristics:
>
> (i) it has a total continuous power output rating, measured at
>the shaft of each motor, of 500 W or less,
>
> (ii) if it is engaged by the use of muscular power, power
>assistance immediately ceases when the muscular power ceases,
>
> (iii) if it is engaged by the use of an accelerator
>controller, power assistance immediately ceases when the brakes are
>applied, and
>
> (iv) it is incapable of providing further assistance when the
>bicycle attains a speed of 32 km/h on level ground,
>
>
>So there's no going over 500W here, it seems. I still can't seem to
>find what's allowing those scooters on the streets other thank
>lackadaisical policing. They don't have pedals, so (c) is violated.
>Mopeds now need licenses, and the E-scoots I've seen don't have them,
>so that's not it either.


As far as the 500 watts is concerned - how are they going to know the
difference if the motor says 500 watts and is limited to 32kph?

With a series wound motor (I know, they virtually all use PMs) a 500
watt nominal will pull well over a Kw if forced.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

 

[Brian Huntley]

On Apr 29, 12:31 pm, Ron Ruff <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 29, 10:30 am, Brian Huntley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The recent rise and some-what legal status of electric scooters in
> > Toronto has lead to a lot of complaints about them using the bike
> > lanes. There's just nowhere to put them without ticking off somebody.
>
> You may think it a bit extreme, but I'd be in favor of an entire auto
> lane reserved for bicycles and very light vehicles... plenty of room,
> then. If there is only one lane, then the cars can take a different
> route.

Not so extreme. But we'd have to share it with TTC buses, in the real
world. And probably taxis. And, defactor, anyone thinking about
turning or parking in the next three blocks. And they wouldn't plow it
in the winter or sweep it in the summer.

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>,
A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ron Ruff wrote:
> > There are a lot of good ways to integrate electric power into light
> > vehicles for getting around town. The problem is that our system still
> > promotes the "bigger and more expensive is better (and safer)"
> > paradigm. If we could start making the streets safe and easy for bikes
> > and light vehicles, instead of designing everything for 6,000 lb SUVs,
> > this would be a no-brainer.
>
> I use a system that fuels on sesame bagels and espresso, converts to
> energy though a system known as 'meat'. Climbs OK, not like it used to
> though.
>
> Seriously what about a bicycle needs 'improvement'?

Well, for healthy and reasonably fit people, bikes are awesome.

Then there's my co-worker Tom. He's active in the local cycling-activist
scene, and likes to ride his bike on what I assume is about a 1-hour
commute to work (each way, if I'm guessing right).

He's had more than serious heart issue, and he's near retirement. For
him, an electric-assist bicycle makes the difference between riding to
work, and indeed, riding any distance at any speed, or not.

Not everywhere is Amsterdam, and not everyone is fit. In Vancouver, an
electric-assist bike could make some otherwise-daunting hills a breeze.
It also means you can ride farther or faster without changing into
special clothes or stinking up your non-special clothes.

electric bikes aren't for everyone (I own zero), but I think they're a
sensible idea.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

 

[A Muzi]

>> Brian Huntley <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> The recent rise and some-what legal status of electric scooters in
>>> Toronto has lead to a lot of complaints about them using the bike
>>> lanes. There's just nowhere to put them without ticking off somebody.

> Ron Ruff <[email protected]> wrote:
>> You may think it a bit extreme, but I'd be in favor of an entire auto
>> lane reserved for bicycles and very light vehicles... plenty of room,
>> then. If there is only one lane, then the cars can take a different
>> route.

Brian Huntley wrote:
> Not so extreme. But we'd have to share it with TTC buses, in the real
> world. And probably taxis. And, defactor, anyone thinking about
> turning or parking in the next three blocks. And they wouldn't plow it
> in the winter or sweep it in the summer.

That describes the streets I use now! You left out the
phone-drink-mapquest-music big truck zombies drifting across my lane.

What's 'defactor'?
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **