Any success with add on electric motors to Conventional Bikes?



Andrew Muzi, back from Google Groups purgatory, wrote:
>>> 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!


I remember things being better during the Soglin regime.

> You left out the
> phone-drink-mapquest-music big truck zombies drifting across my lane.
>

At least you do not have multitudes of cretinous commercial school bus
drivers that change lanes without using their mirrors - the best
argument yet against busing of school children.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
 
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:09:07 -0500, A Muzi <[email protected]>
wrote:

>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'?


Dear Andrew,

Possibly "de facto" with some spacing and fat-finger flourishes?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
On Apr 29, 8:36 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:09:07 -0500, A Muzi <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >What's 'defactor'?

>
> Dear Andrew,
>
> Possibly "de facto" with some spacing and fat-finger flourishes?


Quite correct, Carl, and thank you.
 
On Apr 29, 10:58 am, [email protected] wrote:
> [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



I like it, but have had a few issues with it not working or stuttering
in the rain. We've never quite figured out where the water gets in,
or even if it's just condensation. Is it the controller box? The
handlebar-mounted throttle? One of the many connection points between
these bits and the motor or battery pack?

So one thing we've just done is swap out the stock connectors for ones
by Anderson, which latch together more positively. And to the backs
of each connector I'm going to dab in some RTV sealant, and that
should take care of any water getting in via the connections.

The motor seems tough, and I park the trike each winter outside
(though under dry cover) and even after some cold nights of -30C the
motor runs just fine the following Spring.

If you have the cash (and love hi-tech gadgets) the BionX is very
cool. It is not the right system for my trike's needs, but if I was
building up a 2-wheel e-bike I'd try to figure out how to afford one.

Mark
 
On Apr 29, 3:45 pm, A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
> Seriously what about a bicycle needs 'improvement'?


The ability to travel in cold, sleet, hail, snow, rain, and excessive
heat... in reasonable comfort. For general city transportation, an
enclosed (or convertable) light electric vehicle could replace most
cars, buses, and taxis. Much more efficient, safer, takes up less
space driving and parking etc. I'm thinking of it as a compliment to
bikes for people who don't want to ride a bike, not a replacement.
 
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:29:58 +0100, Chalo <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.
>

IMHO, the responsibility should be on the rider rather than the
manufacturer. After all, most cars can easily exceed the speed limit. A
restriction of 20 mph on ebike *use* seems sensible. While I would love
one that could chase down Vespas, any machine that does that regularly
ought to be treated as a moped.

> 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.
>

That's what I expected. Well, I'd better get an Xtracycle first, and see
how things go!

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

A direct-drive hub is quiet and simple, but very heavy for its power.
Would it be good to use a smaller, high-revving motor and gear it down?
I'm thinking of a primary chain from the pedals to a powered jackshaft
running about 200 rpm.

Ebikes seem to require fewer gears. Would an Alfine hub be a good match
for this application? What would be the effect on efficiency and
reliability of running it inboard too, at higher revs and lower torque?
 
On Apr 29, 10:58 am, [email protected] wrote:
> [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



I like it, but have had a few issues with it not working or stuttering
in the rain. We've never quite figured out where the water gets in,
or even if it's just condensation. Is it the controller box? The
handlebar-mounted throttle? One of the many connection points between
these bits and the motor or battery pack?

So one thing we've just done is swap out the stock connectors for ones
by Anderson, which latch together more positively. And to the backs
of each connector I'm going to dab in some RTV sealant, and that
should take care of any water getting in via the connections.

The motor seems tough, and I park the trike each winter outside
(though under dry cover) and even after some cold nights of -30C the
motor runs just fine the following Spring.

If you have the cash (and love hi-tech gadgets) the BionX is very
cool. It is not the right system for my trike's needs, but if I was
building up a 2-wheel e-bike I'd try to figure out how to afford one.

Mark

The only problem we ever had with the Wilderness energy kit came after it was exposed to the rain, and water got into the controller. I dissassembled it and gave the circuit board a good dose of WD 40. Fixed.
Dan Burkhart
www.boomerbicycle.ca
 
On Apr 30, 10:16 am, Dan Burkhart <Dan.Burkhart.38o...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> [email protected] Wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 29, 10:58 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > > [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

>
> > I like it, but have had a few issues with it not working or stuttering
> > in the rain. We've never quite figured out where the water gets in,
> > or even if it's just condensation. Is it the controller box? The
> > handlebar-mounted throttle? One of the many connection points between
> > these bits and the motor or battery pack?

>
> > So one thing we've just done is swap out the stock connectors for ones
> > by Anderson, which latch together more positively. And to the backs
> > of each connector I'm going to dab in some RTV sealant, and that
> > should take care of any water getting in via the connections.

>
> > The motor seems tough, and I park the trike each winter outside
> > (though under dry cover) and even after some cold nights of -30C the
> > motor runs just fine the following Spring.

>
> > If you have the cash (and love hi-tech gadgets) the BionX is very
> > cool. It is not the right system for my trike's needs, but if I was
> > building up a 2-wheel e-bike I'd try to figure out how to afford one.

>
> > Mark

>
> The only problem we ever had with the Wilderness energy kit came after
> it was exposed to the rain, and water got into the controller. I
> dissassembled it and gave the circuit board a good dose of WD 40.
> Fixed.
> Dan Burkhartwww.boomerbicycle.ca
>
> --
> Dan Burkhart



Yes, that's a good tip. Over the years I've told people that WD40
does not belong anywhere near a bike, because there are other products
that are much better for the various uses to which WD is put. But e-
bikes change that. You can actually use WD40 for its original intent
- water displacement in electrical systems.

Mark
 
[email protected] wrote:

>If you have the cash (and love hi-tech gadgets) the BionX is very
>cool. It is not the right system for my trike's needs, but if I was
>building up a 2-wheel e-bike I'd try to figure out how to afford one.


Thanks I will look up the BionX system

I really find the idea of an e-bike very intriguing!
 
Jenny Brien wrote:
>
> A direct-drive hub is quiet and simple, but very heavy for its power.
> Would it be good to use a smaller, high-revving motor and gear it down?


Gear reduction imposes wear, noise, efficiency losses, and points of
failure. If you can live with the implications, you can
(potentially) save some weight by using a gearmotor or reduction
gearbox. It's likely to be lighter and more efficient if you use
chain or toothed-belt reduction, but the physical size of the
components and packaging can exceed available space, and often that
means more maintenance, grime, and things that must be shrouded for
safety.

There are hub motors with gears and freewheeling clutches, but
obviously none of them would be suitable for running in reverse to
power a left-side crank.

All of the following geared hub motors are highly regarded:

http://ebikes.ca/ezee/
http://www.thesuperkids.com/500wabmcelbi.html
http://estelle.de/e/motoren.asp

> I'm thinking of a primary chain from the pedals to a powered jackshaft
> running about 200 rpm.


Small, non-hub bike and scooter motors will typically deliver their
rated power and efficiency at close to 3000rpm. For radio-control
vehicle motors in the same power range, the typical speed would be at
least 10,000rpm. Reducing these speeds to 200rpm at the output side
of a jackshaft is not trivial, and it implies either a gearbox at the
motor shaft or a very large input sprocket at the jackshaft.

Some Chinese brushed scooter motors use built-in gear reductions,
which could greatly simplify installation:

http://tncscooters.com/product.php?sku=106124
http://tncscooters.com/product.php?sku=106155

> Ebikes seem to require fewer gears. Would an Alfine hub be a good match
> for this application?


An Alfine or Nexus hub would be OK for a modestly-powered e-bike and a
normal sized or smaller rider. It would be prudent to raise the
primary gearing to minimize the torque applied to the gearbox. This
would make sense anyway, if one objective of the power assist is to
raise the top speed of the bike.

> What would be the effect on efficiency and
> reliability of running it inboard too, at higher revs and lower torque?


That would be easier on the hub mechanism, but it would be a bad idea
for a crank assist. Crank assist should be set up to power the cranks
at a speed that feels normal to the rider. Electric traction motors
usually deliver their highest power at about 50% of their free speed,
and their highest efficiency at about 80% of their free speed. So if
you feel best pedaling at 90rpm, then 90 crank rpm should correspond
to 80% of the motor's free speed. Variable gearing at the jackshaft
interferes with that relationship, and at worst could drive the cranks
at an untenably high speed with high power and cause you to beat up
your legs when you lose the pedals.

One of the elegant characteristics of crank assist is that, properly
implemented, shifting for the rider's comfort and performance will
tend to keep the motor in its most efficient speed range. And then
there need only be one set of changeable gears.

Using an Alfine hub fitted with a sprotor as a separate wheel drive
would be workable, but then there would be two separate shifting
mechanisms with different operating strategies. Not bad as a mental
exercise, but probably bad for efficiency and/or performance in the
long run.

Chalo
 
In article
<d02a18a9-a4c1-44c1-a27d-47d6d96fbde4@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
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.


Cannot work any better than bicycle lanes because
motorized traffic must turn left, turn right,
enter and exit parking lots, and, yes, delivery
vans must double park.

This is not difficult. Practice riding skills,
keep your head on a swivel, and you mind on
the job. Signal your intentions to those around
you, direct traffic when you can be of use.
Riding in traffic is good when you have the
skills and are confident.

At red lights I clear the right lane
for those who want to turn right on red.
I look behind me and acknowledge those
whom I may be in front of. Just before
green I clear the way and continue riding
the right side of the right lane.

--
Michael Press
 
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Chalo wrote:
>
> >All of the following geared hub motors are highly regarded:

>
> >http://ebikes.ca/ezee/
> >http://www.thesuperkids.com/500wabmcelbi.html
> >http://estelle.de/e/motoren.asp

>
> Could you fit these motors above on the REAR wheel
> instead of front wheel?


The first one (the eZee hub motor) is only offered as a front version
by ebikes.ca, but the BMC motor and the Heinzmann motor come in both
front and rear versions.

I built up an e-bike with a Heinzmann rear hub motor for a friend back
in 2000. It was a completely satisfactory piece of equipment to work
with. Its built-in torque arm makes it more trouble-free than some of
its more up-to-date counterparts. It is more expensive than most
others hub motors, like for like.

Chalo
 
> Cannot work any better than bicycle lanes because
> motorized traffic must turn left, turn right,
> enter and exit parking lots, and, yes, delivery
> vans must double park.


Well, of course that right-most lane would be at least 2 lanes for
smalller vehicles, and delivery vans can can GTF off the road when
they park... etc...

Yes, right turning cars and and such may enter... but the point is to
design the road system to make bikes and light vehicles the primary
means of transportation of humans. If it is slightly inconvenient for
SUVs... then they can cope... hopefully with some irritation... so
that we do not reward sociopathic (bigger is better) behavior.
 
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:20:38 +0100, Chalo <[email protected]> wrote:

> Jenny Brien wrote:
>>
>> A direct-drive hub is quiet and simple, but very heavy for its power.
>> Would it be good to use a smaller, high-revving motor and gear it down?

>
> Gear reduction imposes wear, noise, efficiency losses, and points of
> failure. If you can live with the implications, you can
> (potentially) save some weight by using a gearmotor or reduction
> gearbox. It's likely to be lighter and more efficient if you use
> chain or toothed-belt reduction, but the physical size of the
> components and packaging can exceed available space, and often that
> means more maintenance, grime, and things that must be shrouded for
> safety.
>

Is the rated rpm of a motor its no-load speed? Then whatever motor I use,
it's got to have a final output at no more than 400 (max efficiency at 80
cadence, geared 48x12). Maybe nothing will do that better than a hub
motor.

> There are hub motors with gears and freewheeling clutches, but
> obviously none of them would be suitable for running in reverse to
> power a left-side crank.


It took a long time to work out why the Stokemonkey did things that way!
The obvious solution with a geared hub motor would be to mount it so that
it spins on its axle and bolt a sprocket on the side.


> An Alfine or Nexus hub would be OK for a modestly-powered e-bike and a
> normal sized or smaller rider. It would be prudent to raise the
> primary gearing to minimize the torque applied to the gearbox. This
> would make sense anyway, if one objective of the power assist is to
> raise the top speed of the bike.
>

No, I'm more interested in range and load-carrying, but it makes me think
that if I were building a longtail ebike, it would probably have fat 20"
wheels and a crank-forward position. That would allow a small load area
above the front wheel and behind a fairing, and with similar carrying
capacity to a SUB would not be much longer overall than a touring bike.
 

Similar threads