W
Werehatrack
Guest
On 18 Jan 2007 18:55:41 -0800, "meeklyornot" <[email protected]>
may have said:
>I really am frustrated not knowing the percents on expensive tires
>versus basic ones impact wise on rolling resistance. Or even by what
>factor a cush mountain ride is more taxing then a sticker slain carbon
>road butterfly.
>
>I mean is it fractional, or multiples?
The range of weights of the riders will produce a greater amount of
variation than any differences in the bikes.
If you're looking to build a power-assist system with general
applicability and ready acceptance by the largest market share, then
design around a 250 lb rider, on a knobby-tire mountain bike, in
Denver, commuting 14 miles each way with no charger hookup at work.
Minimum parameters: 1000 charge-discharge cycles before the batteries
will fail to make the trip unassisted in 28F weather, total conversion
weight under 35 lbs, cruise speed of 14mph average, price without bike
under $350. I figure that we're effectively about 30 years away from
meeting that spec.
>Schwin has come out with powerassisted road bikes for adults. THat's
>interesting, and the quality might be there as they are about two
>grand, but PA for me means you can have better durability AND SAFETY
>ETC. without having to accept lesser range. Only on the kids model not
>yet out are they promissing that.
Power assist will have a much smaller market than power conversion.
This is a nation of couch potatoes. At $2000, Pacific will be selling
those bikes to the boutiques only; it's in the same market as a
Segway. (How many of *those* do you see?).
>Biomechanically generator effficiency might be so great that pedalling
>to charge all the time and running the wheels from motors not
>mechancally connected to our bodies at all is concievable.
Not a stinking chance. Read some EE books. Thsi Will Not Work.
Period, full stop, no kidding, don't go there.
> Pedal by
>wire technology I've never seen implimented though. Using more of our
>muscles across our bodies to convert glucose into electricity buffered
>much more effictively chemically outside our bodies then we can train
>ourselves to actually seems reasonable to me. It is after all what
>hybrid does for the internal combustion car. It allows the gas to not
>spin the wheels, to not waste so as to have adequate acceleration
>power, to not have to have the bulk that highway power requires either.
It sounds to me like you've been reading way too many issues of
Popular Science or Popular Mechanics. The blue-sky **** they publish
is just that; ****.
>Being able to respond to cognitively taxing circumstances, collision
>avoidance, without losing power, is a huge safety boon. Comparing
>lighweight vehicles to motorcycles loses that benefit. Nothing is
>nimbler then a vehicle that weigh less, not much more, then us alone.
>But it's not about grams. A few dozen pounds here or there matters
>squat if those pounds can contribute much more then we can. IS there a
>motorised bike list beyond the tidal force one anyone can recommend?
>THe 'need' seems to be being met as a disservice by novel,. amazing,
>but not production mature offerings.
>
>IT should cost much less to distribute a miracolously powered vehicle
>then bike fanatics routinely pay for there works of art with little
>(relatively) practical value. A few thousand bucks these days can buy
>peace if widely invested into flying carpet like contraptions almost
>everyone who can walk would pony up for. WHy is this not happening?
You are hereby invited, even encouraged, to go find an investor and
try to develop your dream. Be sure to report back with progress
often. The cynics among us could use a better source of amusement
than Washington. (Either one.)
--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
may have said:
>I really am frustrated not knowing the percents on expensive tires
>versus basic ones impact wise on rolling resistance. Or even by what
>factor a cush mountain ride is more taxing then a sticker slain carbon
>road butterfly.
>
>I mean is it fractional, or multiples?
The range of weights of the riders will produce a greater amount of
variation than any differences in the bikes.
If you're looking to build a power-assist system with general
applicability and ready acceptance by the largest market share, then
design around a 250 lb rider, on a knobby-tire mountain bike, in
Denver, commuting 14 miles each way with no charger hookup at work.
Minimum parameters: 1000 charge-discharge cycles before the batteries
will fail to make the trip unassisted in 28F weather, total conversion
weight under 35 lbs, cruise speed of 14mph average, price without bike
under $350. I figure that we're effectively about 30 years away from
meeting that spec.
>Schwin has come out with powerassisted road bikes for adults. THat's
>interesting, and the quality might be there as they are about two
>grand, but PA for me means you can have better durability AND SAFETY
>ETC. without having to accept lesser range. Only on the kids model not
>yet out are they promissing that.
Power assist will have a much smaller market than power conversion.
This is a nation of couch potatoes. At $2000, Pacific will be selling
those bikes to the boutiques only; it's in the same market as a
Segway. (How many of *those* do you see?).
>Biomechanically generator effficiency might be so great that pedalling
>to charge all the time and running the wheels from motors not
>mechancally connected to our bodies at all is concievable.
Not a stinking chance. Read some EE books. Thsi Will Not Work.
Period, full stop, no kidding, don't go there.
> Pedal by
>wire technology I've never seen implimented though. Using more of our
>muscles across our bodies to convert glucose into electricity buffered
>much more effictively chemically outside our bodies then we can train
>ourselves to actually seems reasonable to me. It is after all what
>hybrid does for the internal combustion car. It allows the gas to not
>spin the wheels, to not waste so as to have adequate acceleration
>power, to not have to have the bulk that highway power requires either.
It sounds to me like you've been reading way too many issues of
Popular Science or Popular Mechanics. The blue-sky **** they publish
is just that; ****.
>Being able to respond to cognitively taxing circumstances, collision
>avoidance, without losing power, is a huge safety boon. Comparing
>lighweight vehicles to motorcycles loses that benefit. Nothing is
>nimbler then a vehicle that weigh less, not much more, then us alone.
>But it's not about grams. A few dozen pounds here or there matters
>squat if those pounds can contribute much more then we can. IS there a
>motorised bike list beyond the tidal force one anyone can recommend?
>THe 'need' seems to be being met as a disservice by novel,. amazing,
>but not production mature offerings.
>
>IT should cost much less to distribute a miracolously powered vehicle
>then bike fanatics routinely pay for there works of art with little
>(relatively) practical value. A few thousand bucks these days can buy
>peace if widely invested into flying carpet like contraptions almost
>everyone who can walk would pony up for. WHy is this not happening?
You are hereby invited, even encouraged, to go find an investor and
try to develop your dream. Be sure to report back with progress
often. The cynics among us could use a better source of amusement
than Washington. (Either one.)
--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
