Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?

Greens said:

First, let me explain what this is. A surviveable bike is a bike that could
get hit by a car at let's say 40 mph and it's rider would survive with few
injuries.

You might think this is impossible at first, but there might be a way to
make it possible or at least get close to that 40 mph impact. I would think
the most important thing is that the cage surrounding the cyclist survives
without too much deformation. 2, the cage must either have a thick foam
lining or air bags to protect the rider's back front and sides, maybe even
above and below him.

A car hiting a bike from the rear is going to send a stiff caged bicycle
flying a long way. G forces will be high on impact. The bike will then hit
something else at considerable speed. It might be nice to have an airbag
that stays inflated until the bike finally comes to rest and the rider or
rescue removes him. Either that or it'll take multiple air bags which of
course add more weight and expense. Care must be taken to ensure the cyclist
isn't suffocated by the airbag. Probably all the airbags, front, rear, top,
bottom and sides should be deployed at impact to prevent injury. The area
below the cyclist might be a problem in the tertiatry impact. I think most
of the first and second impact will be absorbed by the other airbags.

No doubt this would be a tricky project. Cyclists don't have a lot of
horsepower to pull heavy cages around. The finished bicycle might require
that the bicycle be modified to hybrid human peddle and electric motor
power.

Well, what do you think? I've always been fascinated by making things
surviveable like those barrels going over Niagra Falls. Eventually they
succeeded in building something to survive the falls, but of course those
were propelled by current. Weight wasn't much of a consideration.

You really need to get away from the car. I propose an ejection seat
triggered by an impact detector that throws you above the car. You would
only need airbags to soften your landing on the ground.

Dorfus

Dorfus Dippintush said:

Greens said:

First, let me explain what this is. A surviveable bike is a bike that
could get hit by a car at let's say 40 mph and it's rider would
survive with few injuries.

You might think this is impossible at first, but there might be a way
to make it possible or at least get close to that 40 mph impact. I
would think the most important thing is that the cage surrounding the
cyclist survives without too much deformation. 2, the cage must either
have a thick foam lining or air bags to protect the rider's back front
and sides, maybe even above and below him.

A car hiting a bike from the rear is going to send a stiff caged
bicycle flying a long way. G forces will be high on impact. The bike
will then hit something else at considerable speed. It might be nice
to have an airbag that stays inflated until the bike finally comes to
rest and the rider or rescue removes him. Either that or it'll take
multiple air bags which of course add more weight and expense. Care
must be taken to ensure the cyclist isn't suffocated by the airbag.
Probably all the airbags, front, rear, top, bottom and sides should be
deployed at impact to prevent injury. The area below the cyclist might
be a problem in the tertiatry impact. I think most of the first and
second impact will be absorbed by the other airbags.

No doubt this would be a tricky project. Cyclists don't have a lot of
horsepower to pull heavy cages around. The finished bicycle might
require that the bicycle be modified to hybrid human peddle and
electric motor power.

Well, what do you think? I've always been fascinated by making things
surviveable like those barrels going over Niagra Falls. Eventually
they succeeded in building something to survive the falls, but of
course those were propelled by current. Weight wasn't much of a
consideration.

You really need to get away from the car. I propose an ejection seat
triggered by an impact detector that throws you above the car. You would
only need airbags to soften your landing on the ground.

How about a high energy beam that vaporizes the car if it comes too near? 😉

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Tom 'Johnny Sunset' Sherman said:

Dorfus Dippintush said:

Greens said:

First, let me explain what this is. A surviveable bike is a bike that
could get hit by a car at let's say 40 mph and it's rider would
survive with few injuries.

You might think this is impossible at first, but there might be a way
to make it possible or at least get close to that 40 mph impact. I
would think the most important thing is that the cage surrounding the
cyclist survives without too much deformation. 2, the cage must
either have a thick foam lining or air bags to protect the rider's
back front and sides, maybe even above and below him.

A car hiting a bike from the rear is going to send a stiff caged
bicycle flying a long way. G forces will be high on impact. The bike
will then hit something else at considerable speed. It might be nice
to have an airbag that stays inflated until the bike finally comes to
rest and the rider or rescue removes him. Either that or it'll take
multiple air bags which of course add more weight and expense. Care
must be taken to ensure the cyclist isn't suffocated by the airbag.
Probably all the airbags, front, rear, top, bottom and sides should
be deployed at impact to prevent injury. The area below the cyclist
might be a problem in the tertiatry impact. I think most of the first
and second impact will be absorbed by the other airbags.

No doubt this would be a tricky project. Cyclists don't have a lot of
horsepower to pull heavy cages around. The finished bicycle might
require that the bicycle be modified to hybrid human peddle and
electric motor power.

Well, what do you think? I've always been fascinated by making things
surviveable like those barrels going over Niagra Falls. Eventually
they succeeded in building something to survive the falls, but of
course those were propelled by current. Weight wasn't much of a
consideration.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You really need to get away from the car. I propose an ejection seat
triggered by an impact detector that throws you above the car. You
would only need airbags to soften your landing on the ground.

How about a high energy beam that vaporizes the car if it comes too
near? 😉

Well that was my other thought, a high velocity projectile that
neutralizes the force of the car. Since impact increases with the square
of the velocity a small but very fast projectile could stop the car dead
in its tracks.

Dorfus

Greens said:

First, let me explain what this is. A surviveable bike is a bike that could
get hit by a car at let's say 40 mph and it's rider would survive with few
injuries.

You might think this is impossible at first, but there might be a way to
make it possible or at least get close to that 40 mph impact. I would think
the most important thing is that the cage surrounding the cyclist survives
without too much deformation. 2, the cage must either have a thick foam
lining or air bags to protect the rider's back front and sides, maybe even
above and below him.

A car hiting a bike from the rear is going to send a stiff caged bicycle
flying a long way. G forces will be high on impact. The bike will then hit
something else at considerable speed. It might be nice to have an airbag
that stays inflated until the bike finally comes to rest and the rider or
rescue removes him. Either that or it'll take multiple air bags which of
course add more weight and expense. Care must be taken to ensure the cyclist
isn't suffocated by the airbag. Probably all the airbags, front, rear, top,
bottom and sides should be deployed at impact to prevent injury. The area
below the cyclist might be a problem in the tertiatry impact. I think most
of the first and second impact will be absorbed by the other airbags.

No doubt this would be a tricky project. Cyclists don't have a lot of
horsepower to pull heavy cages around. The finished bicycle might require
that the bicycle be modified to hybrid human peddle and electric motor
power.

Well, what do you think? I've always been fascinated by making things
surviveable like those barrels going over Niagra Falls. Eventually they
succeeded in building something to survive the falls, but of course those
were propelled by current. Weight wasn't much of a consideration.

I have a 'cage' vehicle with a hot 283 V8 that seems to manage the cage
weight acceptably well. My bike doesn't need a 'cage'.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Dorfus Dippintush said:

Tom 'Johnny Sunset' Sherman said:

...
How about a high energy beam that vaporizes the car if it comes too
near? 😉

Well that was my other thought, a high velocity projectile that
neutralizes the force of the car. Since impact increases with the square
of the velocity a small but very fast projectile could stop the car dead
in its tracks.

No, you need to match momentum (product of mass and speed), not kinetic
energy to stop the vehicle. This can be verified by the fact that
bullets do not knock over people or animals (outside of Hollywood, that is).

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Aug 28, 6:26 pm, "Greens" <[email hidden]> wrote:
<snipo>

Quoted message said:

A car hiting a bike from the rear is going to send a stiff caged bicycle
flying a long way. G forces will be high on impact. The bike will then hit
something else at considerable speed. It might be nice to have an airbag
that stays inflated until the bike finally comes to rest and the rider or
rescue removes him. Either that or it'll take multiple air bags which of
course add more weight and expense. Care must be taken to ensure the cyclist
isn't suffocated by the airbag. Probably all the airbags, front, rear, top,
bottom and sides should be deployed at impact to prevent injury. The area
below the cyclist might be a problem in the tertiatry impact. I think most
of the first and second impact will be absorbed by the other airbags.

<snippey>

Cudgels head, dredges dusty memory....

IIRC, some impact testing done in the '70's found that ordinary
aluminum cans had an excellent energy-absorption-to-weight ratio.
You'd reduce the impact considerably if you created a full fairing and
covered it with uncrushed aluminum cans. Maybe those guys I see with
garbage bags full of cans are actually bike safety researchers.

Full fairings are actually pretty survivable, as long as you don't hit
anything:
http://www.easyracers.com/videos/mango_crash.wmv

I was present at the fastest HPV crash on level ground:
http://www.ohpv.org/albums/bm2003/atspeed/photos/photo_10.html
Frightening- when Sam fell on his side, he was going fast enough that
his shell developed lift and he took flight. Note Sam's dazed look.

Jeff

In article <[email hidden]>,

Greens said:

First, let me explain what this is. A surviveable bike is a bike that
could get hit by a car at let's say 40 mph and it's rider would
survive with few injuries.

You might think this is impossible at first, but there might be a way
to make it possible or at least get close to that 40 mph impact. I
would think the most important thing is that the cage surrounding the
cyclist survives without too much deformation. 2, the cage must
either have a thick foam lining or air bags to protect the rider's
back front and sides, maybe even above and below him.

A car hiting a bike from the rear is going to send a stiff caged
bicycle flying a long way. G forces will be high on impact. The bike
will then hit something else at considerable speed. It might be nice
to have an airbag that stays inflated until the bike finally comes to
rest and the rider or rescue removes him. Either that or it'll take
multiple air bags which of course add more weight and expense. Care
must be taken to ensure the cyclist isn't suffocated by the airbag.
Probably all the airbags, front, rear, top, bottom and sides should
be deployed at impact to prevent injury. The area below the cyclist
might be a problem in the tertiatry impact. I think most of the first
and second impact will be absorbed by the other airbags.

A far better idea would be to prevent the force application to the
cyclist- IOW, keep the cars from running into him/her. That can be
achieved in significant measure by teaching drivers how to drive
competently and cyclists how to cycle competently, and making sure that
road design accommodates cyclists.

Quoted message said:

No doubt this would be a tricky project. Cyclists don't have a lot of
horsepower to pull heavy cages around. The finished bicycle might
require that the bicycle be modified to hybrid human peddle and
electric motor power.

So you de-green the bicycle in dubious pursuit of "safety."

Quoted message said:

Well, what do you think?

I think you need to get some perspective.

Quoted message said:

I've always been fascinated by making things surviveable like those
barrels going over Niagra Falls. Eventually they succeeded in
building something to survive the falls, but of course those were
propelled by current. Weight wasn't much of a consideration.

Hmmm. This may explain it.

NO. try speaking with the ER crew.

Greens said:

First, let me explain what this is. A surviveable bike is a bike that could
get hit by a car at let's say 40 mph and it's rider would survive with few
injuries.

Attach a cage of high strength steel to the cycle that surrounds the
rider. Three to four hundred pounds worth should do it for starters.

Reinforce with concrete about 12" thick. The weight will tend to make
the cycle frame and wheels sag, so brace it from below with concrete
pylons.

To avoid the pylons falling over and crushing cyclist's feet,
permanently anchor them in the pavement.

Then pour about 8-10 cubic yards of quick-set concrete over the whole
thing, and allow to set. Remember to leave breathing holes for the rider.

I think that should meet the criterion stated above. The car, however,
will be severely damaged on impact.

Mark J.

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

Quoted message said:

On Aug 28, 6:26 pm, "Greens" <[email hidden]> wrote:
<snipo>

Quoted message said:

A car hiting a bike from the rear is going to send a stiff caged bicycle
flying a long way. G forces will be high on impact. The bike will then
hit
something else at considerable speed. It might be nice to have an airbag
that stays inflated until the bike finally comes to rest and the rider or
rescue removes him. Either that or it'll take multiple air bags which of
course add more weight and expense. Care must be taken to ensure the
cyclist
isn't suffocated by the airbag. Probably all the airbags, front, rear,
top,
bottom and sides should be deployed at impact to prevent injury. The area
below the cyclist might be a problem in the tertiatry impact. I think
most
of the first and second impact will be absorbed by the other airbags.

<snippey>

Cudgels head, dredges dusty memory....

IIRC, some impact testing done in the '70's found that ordinary
aluminum cans had an excellent energy-absorption-to-weight ratio.
You'd reduce the impact considerably if you created a full fairing and
covered it with uncrushed aluminum cans. Maybe those guys I see with
garbage bags full of cans are actually bike safety researchers.

Full fairings are actually pretty survivable, as long as you don't hit
anything:
http://www.easyracers.com/videos/mango_crash.wmv

I was present at the fastest HPV crash on level ground:
http://www.ohpv.org/albums/bm2003/atspeed/photos/photo_10.html
Frightening- when Sam fell on his side, he was going fast enough that
his shell developed lift and he took flight. Note Sam's dazed look.

Jeff

Cool videos. I like the idea of the bike bouncing off the bumper of an SUV.
Can's getting crushed will just lead to the entire bike getting crushed or
the bike getting caught on and dragged under the SUV.

I dunno. How strong can they make a fabric? Maybe they can make a nano
fabric that's super tough and light and you'll just boing off the car and
fly off into space away from heavy machinery. I think armadillos can do it.
They pull into their shells and squit out of the wheels of cars and then
they run away, probably to die in the desert.

"Tim McNamara" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Greens said:

First, let me explain what this is. A surviveable bike is a bike that
could get hit by a car at let's say 40 mph and it's rider would
survive with few injuries.

You might think this is impossible at first, but there might be a way
to make it possible or at least get close to that 40 mph impact. I
would think the most important thing is that the cage surrounding the
cyclist survives without too much deformation. 2, the cage must
either have a thick foam lining or air bags to protect the rider's
back front and sides, maybe even above and below him.

A car hiting a bike from the rear is going to send a stiff caged
bicycle flying a long way. G forces will be high on impact. The bike
will then hit something else at considerable speed. It might be nice
to have an airbag that stays inflated until the bike finally comes to
rest and the rider or rescue removes him. Either that or it'll take
multiple air bags which of course add more weight and expense. Care
must be taken to ensure the cyclist isn't suffocated by the airbag.
Probably all the airbags, front, rear, top, bottom and sides should
be deployed at impact to prevent injury. The area below the cyclist
might be a problem in the tertiatry impact. I think most of the first
and second impact will be absorbed by the other airbags.

A far better idea would be to prevent the force application to the
cyclist- IOW, keep the cars from running into him/her. That can be
achieved in significant measure by teaching drivers how to drive
competently and cyclists how to cycle competently, and making sure that
road design accommodates cyclists.

Quoted message said:

No doubt this would be a tricky project. Cyclists don't have a lot of
horsepower to pull heavy cages around. The finished bicycle might
require that the bicycle be modified to hybrid human peddle and
electric motor power.

So you de-green the bicycle in dubious pursuit of "safety."

Quoted message said:

Well, what do you think?

I think you need to get some perspective.

Quoted message said:

I've always been fascinated by making things surviveable like those
barrels going over Niagra Falls. Eventually they succeeded in
building something to survive the falls, but of course those were
propelled by current. Weight wasn't much of a consideration.

Hmmm. This may explain it.

Bicycles are fun machines. They're not very practical unless you use them to
commute. There's hardly anyplace to put a quart of milk on the way home. The
electric cycles now, the extracycle can carry some things. The more you
carry the more you need an electric motor assist unless you're happy going
very slow. The bike becomes more practical. Riding it would just be
something everyone did and it may be a little less green, but a 500 pound
cycle all loaded up is a lot greener than a 3000 pound motor vehicle.

Electric power is cleaner than gasoline power and much cheaper. I'm no
expert, but I've been looking at http://phoenixmotorcars.com and their
battery the "nanosafe". http://altair.com

Greens said:

First, let me explain what this is. A surviveable bike is a bike that could
get hit by a car at let's say 40 mph and it's rider would survive with few
injuries.

You might think this is impossible at first, but there might be a way to
make it possible or at least get close to that 40 mph impact. I would think
the most important thing is that the cage surrounding the cyclist survives
without too much deformation. 2, the cage must either have a thick foam
lining or air bags to protect the rider's back front and sides, maybe even
above and below him.

A car hiting a bike from the rear is going to send a stiff caged bicycle
flying a long way. G forces will be high on impact. The bike will then hit
something else at considerable speed. It might be nice to have an airbag
that stays inflated until the bike finally comes to rest and the rider or
rescue removes him. Either that or it'll take multiple air bags which of
course add more weight and expense. Care must be taken to ensure the cyclist
isn't suffocated by the airbag. Probably all the airbags, front, rear, top,
bottom and sides should be deployed at impact to prevent injury. The area
below the cyclist might be a problem in the tertiatry impact. I think most
of the first and second impact will be absorbed by the other airbags.

No doubt this would be a tricky project. Cyclists don't have a lot of
horsepower to pull heavy cages around. The finished bicycle might require
that the bicycle be modified to hybrid human peddle and electric motor
power.

Well, what do you think? I've always been fascinated by making things
surviveable like those barrels going over Niagra Falls. Eventually they
succeeded in building something to survive the falls, but of course those
were propelled by current. Weight wasn't much of a consideration.

How about a car w/o an engine and you connect a crankset and pedals to
the differential. You can remove the stereo and AC to save weight.

Andres

Greens said:

Electric power is cleaner than gasoline power and much cheaper. I'm no
expert, but I've been looking at http://phoenixmotorcars.com and their
battery the "nanosafe". http://altair.com

Well, sort-of.
Electric POWER is much cheaper--but the odd little boxes that can store
lots of that power (so you can ride about without dragging extension
cords) happen to cost quite stunning sums of money. The cheap batteries
are big and heavy and don't take deep-cycling very well; the batteries
that are light and compact and do, are very NOT-inexpensive.

It's quite telling to note that the only common major use of
electric-powered vehicles is for trains, which use power-feed lines
along their entire lengths, and so aren't ever dependent upon batteries.

I've also compared gas-engined bicycles and electric-motor bicycles, and
I ended up buying a 4-cycle gas engine. You can say the electrics are
quieter and cleaner, but the overall cost is higher and the useful
practicality (range and recharging times) leave a lot left to be desired
of electrics--even if you do spend for the $1500 batteries.
~

Dorfus Dippintush said:

You really need to get away from the car. I propose an ejection seat
triggered by an impact detector that throws you above the car. You would
only need airbags to soften your landing on the ground.

Dorfus

Anyone else here remember the Muppet Show, and Gonzo the Great's
exploding socks?...

(I haven't heard of any actual incidents involving expoding socks, but I
am watching and waiting, I'm sure it's coming)
~

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 07:45:55 -0500, DougC <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Anyone else here remember the Muppet Show, and Gonzo the Great's
exploding socks?...

(I haven't heard of any actual incidents involving expoding socks, but I
am watching and waiting, I'm sure it's coming)

Someone was touting a reactive jacket as a cycling safety item.
Hmm, reactive like modern tank armour? So you blow absord the impact
by blowing a hole in the car. Sweet. Not so good for bunch riding.

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

Quoted message said:

Greens said:

Electric power is cleaner than gasoline power and much cheaper. I'm no
expert, but I've been looking at http://phoenixmotorcars.com and their
battery the "nanosafe". http://altair.com

Well, sort-of.
Electric POWER is much cheaper--but the odd little boxes that can store
lots of that power (so you can ride about without dragging extension
cords) happen to cost quite stunning sums of money. The cheap batteries
are big and heavy and don't take deep-cycling very well; the batteries
that are light and compact and do, are very NOT-inexpensive.

It's quite telling to note that the only common major use of
electric-powered vehicles is for trains, which use power-feed lines along
their entire lengths, and so aren't ever dependent upon batteries.

I've also compared gas-engined bicycles and electric-motor bicycles, and I
ended up buying a 4-cycle gas engine. You can say the electrics are
quieter and cleaner, but the overall cost is higher and the useful
practicality (range and recharging times) leave a lot left to be desired
of electrics--even if you do spend for the $1500 batteries.
~

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/health-fitness/nanotechnology-7-07/striking-uses-of-nanotechnology/0707_nano_uses_1.htm
What This zero-emission, $45,000 Phoenix electric truck is powered by Altair
Nanotechnologies' NanoSafe battery, which can be charged in as little as 10
minutes. It travels about 130 miles between charges.

When Available in 2008 or 2009.

Maybe it's just promises. They say they're selling these electric cars right
now to fleets. The batteries are full of nano particles that hold more
charge and release charge more efficiently than any other battery ever made.
They cost a fortune, but costs are expected to come down dramatically in the
next 4 years. The car's range is expected to go up to 230 miles from 130.
Charging time is about 10 minutes. They told me battery costs will be
quartered in 4 years.

Maybe you didn't know about this but in the last thirty years or so electric
motors have gone through changes too. It used to be that electric motors
could only run at full power. That's no longer the case. The new motors
they're putting on bicycles run on varying amounts of electricity. I think
it's the coil that's stationary these days. Eh, look it up for accurate
info. The bottom line is that motors have changed and batteries have
changed. Gas is three times as expensive. The gap is getting narrower. Coal
burning power plants can now burn dirtier coal cleaner.

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

Quoted message said:

Greens said:

Electric power is cleaner than gasoline power and much cheaper. I'm no
expert, but I've been looking at http://phoenixmotorcars.com and their
battery the "nanosafe". http://altair.com

Well, sort-of.
Electric POWER is much cheaper--but the odd little boxes that can store
lots of that power (so you can ride about without dragging extension
cords) happen to cost quite stunning sums of money. The cheap batteries
are big and heavy and don't take deep-cycling very well; the batteries
that are light and compact and do, are very NOT-inexpensive.

It's quite telling to note that the only common major use of
electric-powered vehicles is for trains, which use power-feed lines along
their entire lengths, and so aren't ever dependent upon batteries.

I've also compared gas-engined bicycles and electric-motor bicycles, and I
ended up buying a 4-cycle gas engine. You can say the electrics are
quieter and cleaner, but the overall cost is higher and the useful
practicality (range and recharging times) leave a lot left to be desired
of electrics--even if you do spend for the $1500 batteries.
~

Also, check youtube for electric bicycle. You'll find dozens of videos by
different people riding their electric bikes that have up to 40 mile range.
Mostly these use the new motor technology, but older battery technology.

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

Quoted message said:

Greens said:

First, let me explain what this is. A surviveable bike is a bike that
could
get hit by a car at let's say 40 mph and it's rider would survive with
few
injuries.

You might think this is impossible at first, but there might be a way to
make it possible or at least get close to that 40 mph impact. I would
think
the most important thing is that the cage surrounding the cyclist
survives
without too much deformation. 2, the cage must either have a thick foam
lining or air bags to protect the rider's back front and sides, maybe
even
above and below him.

A car hiting a bike from the rear is going to send a stiff caged bicycle
flying a long way. G forces will be high on impact. The bike will then
hit
something else at considerable speed. It might be nice to have an airbag
that stays inflated until the bike finally comes to rest and the rider or
rescue removes him. Either that or it'll take multiple air bags which of
course add more weight and expense. Care must be taken to ensure the
cyclist
isn't suffocated by the airbag. Probably all the airbags, front, rear,
top,
bottom and sides should be deployed at impact to prevent injury. The area
below the cyclist might be a problem in the tertiatry impact. I think
most
of the first and second impact will be absorbed by the other airbags.

No doubt this would be a tricky project. Cyclists don't have a lot of
horsepower to pull heavy cages around. The finished bicycle might require
that the bicycle be modified to hybrid human peddle and electric motor
power.

Well, what do you think? I've always been fascinated by making things
surviveable like those barrels going over Niagra Falls. Eventually they
succeeded in building something to survive the falls, but of course those
were propelled by current. Weight wasn't much of a consideration.

How about a car w/o an engine and you connect a crankset and pedals to
the differential. You can remove the stereo and AC to save weight.

Andres

I think there would still be a lot of very heavy parts on a car. The
http://rhoadescar.com uses something like this, but it's open and not
designed to be survivable. I was thinking why not use a regular car with
pedals and gasoline power. The pedals could power something, maybe the
stereo, lol. Something could be rigged up to give you the feeling that you
were propelling the car faster by pedaling faster. You'd have the safety
features of a car and the exercise potential of bike. Exhileration... well,
uh, you'd be protected from the weather too. It'd be rideable all year. It'd
be quite a mess, honestly, but I hate indoor stationary bikes. So boring.

Greens said:

First, let me explain what this is. A surviveable bike is a bike that could
get hit by a car at let's say 40 mph and it's rider would survive with few
injuries.

Quoted message said:

You might think this is impossible at first, but there might be a way to
make it possible or at least get close to that 40 mph impact. I would think
the most important thing is that the cage surrounding the cyclist survives
without too much deformation. 2, the cage must either have a thick foam
lining or air bags to protect the rider's back front and sides, maybe even
above and below him.

This is exactly the opposite idea if you want to survive. The forces
on a person in an accident would be greater if the cage itself has no
deformation. What you want a cage to do is deform as much as possible
to absorb the energy of the collision, but not so much that it becomes
a danger itself to the occupants. That's the theory behind "crumple
zones" in cars: they absorb the energy of a crash, lengthen the amount
of time the impact takes, and decrease the instantaneous forces on
passengers. IT's also the reason side-impacts on cars are more
dangerous: there's simply less material to absorb the impact.

What you've suggested would be great in that the bike itself would
survive and it would fend off direct impacts to the rider in minor
incidents (like bumpers do on cars), but for anything more serious,
you still want something to absorb the energy through deformation not
make the collisions more elastic.

-alan

--
Alan Hoyle - [email hidden] - http://www.alanhoyle.com/
"I don't want the world, I just want your half." -TMBG
Get Horizontal, Play Ultimate.