Bicycles of the future

Sky Fly said:

2. Compact human-powered flying machines (OK, I know - this isn't really a bicycle). I watched a
documentary once on the Discovery Channel on someone who flew across the Channel using a human
powered... well, it looked a bit like a helicopter. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find
out any more about this. I think it would really be great if more research went into such
vehicles to the point where they could cheaply be mass produced and they were a lot more
compact that the vehicle I saw.

Unfortunately human-powered flight is inherently impractical. To get enough lift to get a person and
some wings off the ground, the drag is so high that only the super-fit can manage it, and the
structure is so flimsy (to save weight) that it would break in less than perfect weather.

Hang-gliders are OK for getting off hills, but only work uphill in exceptional conditions.

Colin McKenzie

Sky Fly said:

I'm always amazed that since its invention over a hundred years ago, there haven't been radical
changes to basic design of the bike. I think the last really significant change was the
introduction of gears, but that must have been over seventy years ago. (Note to Dark Siders -
recumbents, trikes, etc. do NOT count.) Perhaps this is so because there aren't any new
technologies or materials to incorporate into bicycle design.

Perhaps that is because the safety bicycle is well designed machine. I am not a Dark Sider, but why
don't they count?

Which technologies do you think contributed to the current design? Presumably the modern bicycle's
immediate antecedent was the "penny farthing"? The things that spring to mind would be mass-produced
mechanical components and pneumatic tyres. But I may be wrong, and I am sure that there are others.

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:57:34 -0000, "Sky Fly" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

(Note to Dark Siders - recumbents, trikes, etc. do NOT count.)

Clearly not, as their existence tends to nullify the entire thesis ;-)

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

In article said:

2. Compact human-powered flying machines (OK, I know - this isn't really a bicycle). I watched a
documentary once on the Discovery Channel on someone who flew across the Channel using a human
powered... well, it looked a bit like a helicopter.

Only human powered flying things I've heard of crossing the Channel look like very flimsy planes
with long straight non-rotating wings. Human powered helicopters helicopters exist, but flight times
are measured in seconds not minutes.

There was some sky diver chap recently with "wings" strapped on, but that wasn't human-powered it
was gravity-powered.

In article <[email hidden]>, one of infinite monkeys

at the keyboard of 'Sky Fly said:

I'm always amazed that since its invention over a hundred years ago, there haven't been radical
changes to basic design of the bike.

So you never upgraded to an Ordinary[1], or to a Safety bicycle[2]. Or to any of the things that
followed ..... ?

[1] AKA Pennyfarthing
[2] with a chain, and two similar wheels with spokes

--
Hutton: Nobody is asking why Blair was so keen to have a damaging inquiry into a minor side-issue of
going to war.

So, what has he successfully deflected media attention from?

In article <[email hidden]>, one of infinite monkeys at the keyboard of
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote: B

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(Note to Dark Siders - recumbents, trikes, etc. do NOT count.)

Clearly not, as their existence tends to nullify the entire thesis ;-)

But how new are they? Are they really anything more than a jazzed-up rickshaw?

--
Hutton: Nobody is asking why Blair was so keen to have a damaging inquiry into a minor side-issue of
going to war.

So, what has he successfully deflected media attention from?

Sky Fly said:

I'm always amazed that since its invention over a hundred years ago, there haven't been radical
changes to basic design of the bike. I think the last really significant change was the
introduction of gears, but that must have been over seventy years ago. (Note to Dark Siders -
recumbents, trikes, etc. do NOT count.)

Yup, they do. That is precisely the point. The reason there has been virtually no progress in
bicycle design is that the UCI (curse their name to the lowest pit of Hell) have persistently
blocked every useful innovation, so all bicycle designers can play about with is the froth.

Of course non-racing bikes shouldn't suffer as a result, but it is observable that they do.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

The Conservative Party now has the support of a smaller proportion of the electorate in Scotland
than Sinn Fein have in Northern Ireland.

Quoted message said:

2. Compact human-powered flying machines (OK, I know - this isn't really a bicycle). I watched a
documentary once on the Discovery Channel on someone who flew across the Channel using a human
powered... well, it looked a bit like a helicopter.

Can't see the Albatross as helicopter shaped but is this the thing you meant?

en2.wikipedia.orgGossamer AlbatrossOpen ↗

--
Yours S. addy not usable (not that you would try it) ( ) Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam
suffodiant! / \ www.killies.co.uk/forums/index.phpSky Fly wrote:

Sky Fly <[email hidden]> wrote:

: 1. A lightweight device which acts a kind of energy storage device and and allows you to divert a
: specified percentage of the energy you're using to pedal so that if you run into a hill or
: headwind later on, you can discharge the energy (at a rate you specify) to give you an assist.

This is one of the great things that home tinkerers keep "inventing". It's basically a waste of
time. The energy losses are too high to make it worthwhile.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune clune.orgclune.orgOpen ↗ "Technolibertarians make a philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook

"Colin McKenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sky Fly said:

2. Compact human-powered flying machines (OK, I know - this isn't really a bicycle). I watched a
documentary once on the Discovery Channel on someone who flew across the Channel using a
human powered... well, it looked a bit like a helicopter. Unfortunately, I haven't been able
to find out any more about this. I think it would really be great if more research went into
such vehicles to the point where they could cheaply be mass produced and they were a lot more
compact that the vehicle I saw.

Unfortunately human-powered flight is inherently impractical. To get enough lift to get a person
and some wings off the ground, the drag is so high that only the super-fit can manage it, and the
structure is so flimsy (to save weight) that it would break in less than perfect weather.

From what you say, surely all we are waiting for then is a super-light super-strong metal to be
developed, then? How light would such a vehicle need to be to make hpf a practical proposition?

--
Akin

aknak at aksoto dot idps dot co dot uk

Alan Braggins said:

it was gravity-powered.

Mmmm. Gravity.

My favourite source of energy.

Simon

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sky Fly said:

I'm always amazed that since its invention over a hundred years ago, there haven't been radical
changes to basic design of the bike. I think the last really significant change was the
introduction of gears, but that must have been over seventy years ago. (Note to Dark Siders -
recumbents, trikes, etc. do NOT count.)

Yup, they do. That is precisely the point. The reason there has been virtually no progress in
bicycle design is that the UCI (curse their name to the lowest pit of Hell) have persistently
blocked every useful innovation, so all bicycle designers can play about with is the froth.

I don't understand this. Surely, if bicycle designers come up with a hpv that is faster, lighter,
smaller, etc. the UCI have no power to block them from selling it to to a very grateful public. I
mean, they haven't been able to stop people from buying darxide stuff.

Quoted message said:

Of course non-racing bikes shouldn't suffer as a result, but it is observable that they do.

If this is true, the only reason I can think it has happened is that bicycle manufacturers need to
test their new designs with professional cyclists taking part in prestigious events. When these
designs prove their mettle, they eventually filter through to the more mass market type of bicycles.

--
Akin

aknak at aksoto dot idps dot co dot uk

"Arthur Clune" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sky Fly <[email hidden]> wrote:

: 1. A lightweight device which acts a kind of energy storage device and and allows you to divert
: a specified percentage of the energy you're using to pedal so that if you run into a hill or
: headwind later on, you can discharge the energy (at a rate you specify) to give you an
: assist.

This is one of the great things that home tinkerers keep "inventing". It's basically a waste of
time. The energy losses are too high to make it worthwhile.

Or its a flap-jack bar carried to be eaten just before the hills :-)

Arthur Clune said:

Sky Fly said:

1. A lightweight device which acts a kind of energy storage device and and allows you to divert a
specified percentage of the energy you're using to pedal so that if you run into a hill or
headwind later on, you can discharge the energy (at a rate you specify) to give you an assist.

This is one of the great things that home tinkerers keep "inventing". It's basically a waste of
time. The energy losses are too high to make it worthwhile.

Hey, that's my stoker you're talking about ;-)

Tony

In "]news:[email hidden],
Sky Fly <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

"Colin McKenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3FFEF5F1.C02706B@proof-
read.co.uk...

Quoted message said:

Sky Fly said:

2. Compact human-powered flying machines (OK, I know - this isn't really a bicycle). I watched a
documentary once on the Discovery Channel on someone who flew across the Channel using a
human powered... well, it looked a bit like a helicopter. Unfortunately, I haven't been able
to find out any more about this. I think it would really be great if more research went into
such vehicles to the point where they could cheaply be mass produced and they were a lot more
compact that the vehicle I saw.

Unfortunately human-powered flight is inherently impractical. To get enough lift to get a person
and some wings off the ground, the drag is so high that only the super-fit can manage it, and the
structure is so flimsy (to save weight) that it would break in less than perfect weather.

From what you say, surely all we are waiting for then is a super-light super-strong metal to be
developed, then? How light would such a vehicle need to be to make hpf a practical proposition?

No. I think the limiting factor is 70kg of human rather than 32kg of bike powered plane. Even a 10g
plane is still two thirds of the weight

Simonb said:

Alan Braggins said:

it was gravity-powered.

Mmmm. Gravity.

My favourite source of energy.

Simon

You *like* gravity?

I suppose if I had an Escher-like commute to work and back, I might like it too.

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 22:49:14 +0000, [email hidden] (Nick Kew)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(Note to Dark Siders - recumbents, trikes, etc. do NOT count.)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Clearly not, as their existence tends to nullify the entire thesis ;-)

Quoted message said:

But how new are they? Are they really anything more than a jazzed-up rickshaw?

1930s saw the earliest serious ones, AFAIR. Trikes, especially tadpoles inna Windcheetah stylee, are
a much newer invention.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

Sky Fly said:

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Sky Fly said:

(Note to Dark Siders - recumbents, trikes, etc. do NOT count.)

Yup, they do. That is precisely the point. The reason there has been virtually no progress in
bicycle design is that the UCI (curse their name to the lowest pit of Hell) have persistently
blocked every useful innovation, so all bicycle designers can play about with is the froth.

I don't understand this. Surely, if bicycle designers come up with a hpv that is faster, lighter,
smaller, etc. the UCI have no power to block them from selling it to to a very grateful public.

The only reason I don't buy a recumbent is cost. The entry level is far higher than for 'normal'
bikes. Only manufacturers can change this.

Colin McKenzie

Not Responding said:

You *like* gravity?

I suppose if I had an Escher-like commute to work and back, I might like it too.

Escher didn't include bicycles for the simple reason he couldn't find a way to draw it with the
stairs climbing in both directions ;-)

Tony