Ladies and gentlemen, the hyperbike...

[Tony Raven]

dkahn400 wrote on 22/01/2007 17:15 +0100:

>
> On the website it claims that removal of the front wheel is one of the
> development goals. That should make the braking interesting.
>

Perhaps it should be renamed the HyperZorb ;-)

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

[Buck]

On 2007-01-22 16:57:05 +0000, "dkahn400" <[email protected]> said:

> POHB wrote:
>> Mike Causer wrote:
>>> On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 11:57:25 -0800, Marz wrote:
>>>
>>> Unless that inventor has hidden a 5kW engine somewhere in that frame is a
>>> total bust.
>>
>> Those flywheels and turbines must be very special
>
> The flywheels and turbines are to make up for the weight lost by
> replacing the gas pipe construction with carbon fibre. This is yet
> another machine from an inventor who thinks he sees where the
> "inefficiency" is in conventional cycling. The blind alleys of cycling
> history are littered with prototypes of 50 mph bicycles built by people
> who completely misunderstood the problem. The only significant gains
> left to be made are in aerodynamics, and this contraption seems to do
> rather badly on that score.

He seems to be trying to claim that by diverting some of the kinetic energy
used while pedalling and cranking into a flywheel and then re-inputting
the stored energy of the spinning mass into the drive train, it will supplement
the riders ability to maintain high speed, which could work, unfortunately you
would need to be in a non gravitational vacuum, there is some elemental physics
missing from his design. Maybe he should try building a perpetual motion engine
to power it.

On a more important question, why do the people on them have wet suits on?
--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting
Mark Thompson <pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com>:
[Hyperbike]
>It did imply that they were going to use lighter materials to reduce the
>weight. Not sure about the 50mph mentioned - doesn't seem very aero, and I
>can't imagine my arms providing much power (not compared to thighs anyway).

The 50mph is nonsense. That figure's determined by looking at the wheel
size, gearing, and a comfortable cadence - no mention of whether it's
physically possible to push hard enough. You could equally well fit a
conventional bike with a giant chainring and claim it will make 50mph.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Saturday, January - a weekend.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>,
dkahn400 ('[email protected]') wrote:

> POHB wrote:
>> Mike Causer wrote:
>> > On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 11:57:25 -0800, Marz wrote:
>> >
>> > Unless that inventor has hidden a 5kW engine somewhere in that frame
>> > is a total bust.
>>
>> Those flywheels and turbines must be very special
>
> The flywheels and turbines are to make up for the weight lost by
> replacing the gas pipe construction with carbon fibre. This is yet
> another machine from an inventor who thinks he sees where the
> "inefficiency" is in conventional cycling. The blind alleys of cycling
> history are littered with prototypes of 50 mph bicycles built by people
> who completely misunderstood the problem. The only significant gains
> left to be made are in aerodynamics, and this contraption seems to do
> rather badly on that score.

Improvements can also be made in transmission; not in improving efficiency,
because current transmissions are exceedingly efficient. But in
reliability, there are improvements to be made. I'm also reasonably
persuaded that in the long run monoblades will replace forks at both ends
of the bike - there should be a small saving of weight, but a greater
improvement in ease of removing and changing wheels. Also, in the long
run, the diamond frame is not the ultimate frame; and we may well see
suspension for road bikes become mainstream.

The bicycle will continue to evolve. But - it will get lighter and smaller,
not bigger an heavier; and, as you say, aerodynamics are the biggest win
still to be won, and that won't be won on an upright.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; may contain traces of nuts, bolts or washers.

 

[Mike Causer]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 19:24:09 +0000, David Damerell wrote:


> The 50mph is nonsense. That figure's determined by looking at the wheel
> size, gearing, and a comfortable cadence - no mention of whether it's
> physically possible to push hard enough. You could equally well fit a
> conventional bike with a giant chainring and claim it will make 50mph.

That's nothing. Bruce Bursford's bike was geared for 250mph. He only
"reached" 207mph though. Just think what he could have done if he'd been
using his arms too.....


Mike

 

[Martin Dann]

Marz wrote:
> http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/01/hyperbike_hype.php
>
>
>
> I can't think of anything to add.....

It's a dark and wet night, you get a p*ncture in one of the wheels and
you are twenty miles from home. You have a puncture repair kit but no
spare tubes. Can you imagine trying to repair a tube that size?

Then you get part way up St. Michaels hill, and the damn thing roles
back and flips over.

Of course you can't get it in your garage, so leave it locked up
outside. The next day you find some chav has come along and bent your
wheels and cut the cables.


Martin.

 

[POHB]

dkahn400 wrote:
> > Hadn't thought of that; but I went to the Hyperbike website, where
> > there's a link to an interview with the designer ["as any cyclist will
> > tell you, the worst thing about cycling is the seat..." ;-)]
> ...
> It also explains where the project 50 mph comes from. The 8' diameter
> wheels are going to rotate 4 times for each pedal cycle. That's a 394"
> gear. This will be achievable because the rider will use the whole of
> his upper body, and will not be "obstructed" by a seat.

I've tried standing up on my pedals but I still seem to be unable to
reach 50 mph

 

[POHB]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> > The only significant gains
> > left to be made are in aerodynamics, and this contraption seems to do
> > rather badly on that score.
>
> The bicycle will continue to evolve. But - it will get lighter and smaller,
> not bigger an heavier; and, as you say, aerodynamics are the biggest win
> still to be won, and that won't be won on an upright.

And the hyperbike riding position is about as upright as you can get,

but I'm still hoping for a bike that will fly! (less rolling resistance)

 

[Peter Clinch]

POHB wrote:

> but I'm still hoping for a bike that will fly! (less rolling resistance)

They've been around for /years/, don't you remember the Gossamer Condor
and Albatross?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:[email protected],
dkahn400 <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

> It also explains where the project 50 mph comes from. The 8' diameter
> wheels are going to rotate 4 times for each pedal cycle. That's a 394"
> gear. This will be achievable because the rider will use the whole of
> his upper body, and will not be "obstructed" by a seat. This simply
> confirms that the designer does not understand cycling.

Or, indeed, physics.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Nicht in die laufende Trommel greifen.

 

[Tony Raven]

POHB wrote on 23/01/2007 08:15 +0100:
>
> I've tried standing up on my pedals but I still seem to be unable to
> reach 50 mph
>

You need a bigger hill ;-)

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Dave Larrington
[email protected] says...
> In news:[email protected],
> dkahn400 <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>
> > It also explains where the project 50 mph comes from. The 8' diameter
> > wheels are going to rotate 4 times for each pedal cycle. That's a 394"
> > gear. This will be achievable because the rider will use the whole of
> > his upper body, and will not be "obstructed" by a seat. This simply
> > confirms that the designer does not understand cycling.
>
> Or, indeed, physics.
>
>
Or physiology.

 

[dkahn400]

POHB wrote:
> dkahn400 wrote:
> > It also explains where the project 50 mph comes from. The 8' diameter
> > wheels are going to rotate 4 times for each pedal cycle. That's a 394"
> > gear. This will be achievable because the rider will use the whole of
> > his upper body, and will not be "obstructed" by a seat.
>
> I've tried standing up on my pedals but I still seem to be unable to
> reach 50 mph

Hmm.... Sounds like you're not using your upper body.

--
Dave...

 

[Peter Clinch]

Buck wrote:

> On a more important question, why do the people on them have wet suits on?

That is answered in the site credits: "Fashion: Main St Beach Surf & Sport"

Quite why that is the case is not really answered itself, of course... ;-/

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Mark McNeill]

Response to Peter Clinch:
> > On a more important question, why do the people on them have wet suits on?
>
> That is answered in the site credits: "Fashion: Main St Beach Surf & Sport"
>
> Quite why that is the case is not really answered itself, of course... ;-/


Ar. Why use a model in a wetsuit when they could have had Alan Holmes
in plus-fours instead? ;-)

(He could prolly have got it up to 50mph as well, come to think of it.)


--
Mark, UK
"A cathedral, a wave of a storm, a dancer's leap, never turn out to be
as high as we had hoped."

 

[POHB]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> POHB wrote:
>
> > but I'm still hoping for a bike that will fly! (less rolling resistance)
>
> They've been around for /years/, don't you remember the Gossamer Condor
> and Albatross?

yes, and very splendid machines they were, but somehow they never
seemed to make it into mainstream production.

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:[email protected],
POHB <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> Peter Clinch wrote:
>> POHB wrote:
>>
>>> but I'm still hoping for a bike that will fly! (less rolling
>>> resistance)
>>
>> They've been around for /years/, don't you remember the Gossamer
>> Condor and Albatross?
>
> yes, and very splendid machines they were, but somehow they never
> seemed to make it into mainstream production.

Possibly not unconnected with one or more of:

o extreme fragility
o inability to fly in anything other than a flat calm
o bloody hard work to pedal
o product liability laws

;-)

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Three blind mice, see how they run. Is this /really/ the best
way to test shampoo?

 

[[email protected]]

dkahn400 wrote:
> POHB wrote:
> > Mike Causer wrote:
> > > On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 11:57:25 -0800, Marz wrote:
> > >
> > > Unless that inventor has hidden a 5kW engine somewhere in that frame is a
> > > total bust.
> >
> > Those flywheels and turbines must be very special
>
> The flywheels and turbines are to make up for the weight lost by
> replacing the gas pipe construction with carbon fibre. This is yet
> another machine from an inventor who thinks he sees where the
> "inefficiency" is in conventional cycling. The blind alleys of cycling
> history are littered with prototypes of 50 mph bicycles built by people
> who completely misunderstood the problem. The only significant gains
> left to be made are in aerodynamics, and this contraption seems to do
> rather badly on that score.
>
Depends on where you are cycling. But for urban cycling there's a very
significant gain to be had with regenerative braking if (when) the
motor/generator and energy storage device become small enough and light
enough and efficient enough.

This year has been very warm, but most winters in central London there
are days when I'd quite like a bike where I can maintain a steady power
output, even when stopped, just so I can keep warm[1]. This would be a
(relatively) simple enhancement to the above although might require a
third wheel.

Tim.

[1] the alternative is to either not stop for red lights or wear more
clothes but then I get too hot instead.

 

[Tony Raven]

Mark McNeill wrote on 23/01/2007 15:15 +0100:
>
> Ar. Why use a model in a wetsuit when they could have had Alan Holmes
> in plus-fours instead? ;-)
>
> (He could prolly have got it up to 50mph as well, come to think of it.)
>

I doubt it - he has nowhere to mount any panniers ;-)


--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]
[email protected] says...

> This year has been very warm, but most winters in central London there
> are days when I'd quite like a bike where I can maintain a steady power
> output, even when stopped, just so I can keep warm[1]. This would be a
> (relatively) simple enhancement to the above although might require a
> third wheel.
>
The massive high-speed flywheel would keep you upright - not so good on
the corners though.