Suspension MUni

Discussion in 'rec.sport.unicycling archive' started by Pete66, Jul 5, 2004.

  1. Rayden

    Rayden Guest

    I do believe the only flaw in my last design is lateral
    forces like you mentioned. It would not be strong if you
    were to push it sideways, or push down on one side harder
    than the other. This is a serious problem though.

    --
    Rayden
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rayden's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/264
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/32510
     


  2. Rayden wrote:
    > *I still like my parallelogram design which would
    > eliminate windup *

    I don't think it would completely, there would be a
    little bit of slack in either direction when you pressed
    down on the pedals. They would wind up until they were
    touching, at which point they would begin to transmit the
    forces to the rim.

    Whilst they were not touching, they would just act like two
    shocks would, and wind up until they were touching.

    Depending on how much play there was, this could actualy be
    slightly harder to ride than a wheel where the shocks wind
    up, because there would be no resistance to the rotation of
    the pedals. If the parallelogram was dampened, then it might
    be less noticable, or if the two sides were as close as
    possible together, but that would mean it couldn't move very
    far before we had the same problem as with the earlier
    design with the telescopic pole.

    --
    theamazingmolio - A Unicylist, a juggler, and a prat

    Luke Duller ([email protected])
    Never trust anything you read on the internet
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    theamazingmolio's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/5931
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/32510
     
  3. Cyberbellum

    Cyberbellum Guest

    Rayden wrote:
    > * ... I still like my parallelogram design which would
    > eliminate windup... *

    I'm a bit confused about how the Rayden's design works.

    It looks like the corners of each parallelogram are hinged
    to allow the mechanism to deform from strictly rectangular
    to any parallelogram. If the rim side of the parallelogram
    is the fixed reference point then the hub side can swing in
    an arc but must stay parallel to the rim side. The idea is
    that staying parallel is the same thing as preventing
    windup. Have I got this part right?

    If this is correct, then each parallelogram allows the hub
    to move only in an arc centered on its rim side. Since there
    are four mechanisms there are four arcs, and since each arc
    swings on a different path there is only one place the hub
    can be. Each mechanism would effectively be a stiff pair of
    spokes and the hub would be locked into place as if it were
    part of a conventional wheel. Rayden, clearly this isn't
    what you have in mind.

    You describe the spoke legs of the parallelograms as
    telescopic, but if they telescope independently then there
    is no reason why the hub and rim sides of the parallelogram
    should stay parallel. What's missing is a method for keeping
    the telescopic legs equal in length as the parallelogram
    expands and contracts.

    This won't be easy to do because the telescopic legs must
    carry the pedaling forces. I've got to make another picture
    of this so I'll continue in a following post.

    --
    cyberbellum - Level 1.0 rider!

    Optimists think the glass is half full. Pesimists think the glass is
    half empty. Engineers think the glass is too big.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    cyberbellum's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/4550
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/32510
     
  4. Cyberbellum

    Cyberbellum Guest

    Diagram that goes with previous post:

    +-------------------------------------------------------
    ---------+
    | Attachment filename: slide1.jpg |
    |Download attachment:
    http://www.unicyclist.com/attachment/211691| +-------------------------------------------------------
    ---------+

    --
    cyberbellum - Level 1.0 rider!

    Optimists think the glass is half full. Pesimists think the glass is
    half empty. Engineers think the glass is too big.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    cyberbellum's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/4550
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/32510
     
  5. Rayden

    Rayden Guest

    I see what you mean. I'm having a bit of trouble visualizing
    how to prevent this. I drew this up and it might fix it,
    might not. I will include another picture showing why it
    would prevent the hub from spinning independantly.

    +-------------------------------------------------------
    ---------+
    | Attachment filename: parallelogram1.jpg |
    |Download attachment:
    http://www.unicyclist.com/attachment/211719| +-------------------------------------------------------
    ---------+

    --
    Rayden
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rayden's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/264
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/32510
     
  6. Rayden

    Rayden Guest

    The first image is how it should rotate. The third is how it
    would rotate without the extra piece. The 2nd is showing why
    the piece prevents one side from rotating without the other.

    And yes whoever asked about the parallelogram telescoping,
    it does, i just didn't draw that up in my models. This model
    of the parallelogram has it.

    +-------------------------------------------------------
    ---------+
    | Attachment filename: parallelogram1a.jpg |
    |Download attachment:
    http://www.unicyclist.com/attachment/211723| +-------------------------------------------------------
    ---------+

    --
    Rayden
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rayden's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/264
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/32510
     
  7. I like a lot of these ideas, but I'm curious as to why we
    want a suspension muni in the first place. A good muni right
    now already costs at least $400, and a greazt one runs about
    twice that. And none of these are suspended. Not to mention,
    most of them weigh a hefty 15-17lbs. The added suspension
    would add about 2 lbs at least, and at least another $200.
    Have you ever been in a situation where the squish of the
    tire was inadaquate? If you truly need suspension for your
    riding, the solution is not to build a suspension muni, but
    to lower your seat and practice. It's cheaper, easier, and
    more effective than building a suspension muni.

    --
    gerblefranklin - Trials Unicyclist

    Don't you think it's a cruel irony that acting like a G.I. Joe in the
    army can get you a Medal, while playing with one can get you thrown out?
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    gerblefranklin's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/4295
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/32510
     
  8. Rayden

    Rayden Guest

    gerblefranklin wrote:
    > *I like a lot of these ideas, but I'm curious as to why we
    > want a suspension muni in the first place. A good muni
    > right now already costs at least $400, and a greazt one
    > runs about twice that. And none of these are suspended.
    > Not to mention, most of them weigh a hefty 15-17lbs. The
    > added suspension would add about 2 lbs at least, and at
    > least another $200. Have you ever been in a situation
    > where the squish of the tire was inadaquate? If you truly
    > need suspension for your riding, the solution is not to
    > build a suspension muni, but to lower your seat and
    > practice. It's cheaper, easier, and more effective than
    > building a suspension muni. *

    And where is the fun in that? This has nothing to do with
    practicality.
    :)

    And besides, how many of the greatest inventions were
    practical before they were invented?

    --
    Rayden
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rayden's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/264
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/32510
     
  9. Cyberbellum

    Cyberbellum Guest

    Rayden wrote:
    > * The 2nd is showing why the piece prevents one side from
    > rotating without the other. *

    It looks like the mechanism just jams, which isn't the
    effect you need. Here are a few hints:

    +-------------------------------------------------------
    ---------+
    | Attachment filename: slide1.jpg |
    |Download attachment:
    http://www.unicyclist.com/attachment/211737| +-------------------------------------------------------
    ---------+

    --
    cyberbellum - Level 1.0 rider!

    Optimists think the glass is half full. Pesimists think the glass is
    half empty. Engineers think the glass is too big.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    cyberbellum's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/4550
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/32510
     
  10. Cyberbellum

    Cyberbellum Guest

    gerblefranklin wrote:
    > *I like a lot of these ideas, but I'm curious as to why we
    > want a suspension muni in the first place. *

    Gerblefranklin, you make a lot of good points. In
    another couple of pages I'll elaborate on them. In
    answer to your specific question, it isn't a matter of
    need. It's the challenge. Mountaineers climb mountains
    "because they are there;" engineers design things
    "because they are not there."

    Reminds me of this joke:

    "There are three kinds of people in the world. Some
    people see a crooked picture and ignore it. Others can't
    stand imperfection and fuss with it until it hangs
    straight. Engineers think, "this frame needs a solar-
    powered device with sensors and actuators to straighten
    it after it gets bumped."

    --
    cyberbellum - Level 1.0 rider!

    Optimists think the glass is half full. Pesimists think the glass is
    half empty. Engineers think the glass is too big.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    cyberbellum's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/4550
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/32510
     
  11. Vincelemay

    Vincelemay Guest

    > Originally posted by gerblefranklin I like a lot of these
    > ideas, but I'm curious as to why we want a suspension muni
    > in the first place. A good muni right now already costs at
    > least $400, and a greazt one runs about twice that. And
    > none of these are suspended. Not to mention, most of them
    > weigh a hefty 15-17lbs. The added suspension would add
    > about 2 lbs at least, and at least another $200. Have you
    > ever been in a situation where the squish of the tire was
    > inadaquate? If you truly need suspension for your riding,
    > the solution is not to build a suspension muni, but to
    > lower your seat and practice. It's cheaper, easier, and
    > more effective than building a suspension muni.

    Think of the mtb evolution. First there were no-suspension
    mountain bikes. Then came the front suspension, people
    started to ride down hills, and later the double suspensions
    appeared. Now biker do gap of 40 feet on their full 12'' of
    travel machines. Muni is still young and in full evolution.
    We are used to ride the ''hard-tail'' munis, but maybe fully
    suspended unicycles would develop another type of riding
    (more terrains rideable), or just make the super technical
    trails more comfortable. As for the weight and cost of the
    product, it doesn't matter to me: these will probably lower
    since there will be more and more of suspended munis.
    P.S.: And YES I've been in a situation where the ''squish''
    of the tire was not enought.

    --
    vincelemay - Quebec unicyclist
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    vincelemay's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/5812
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/32510
     
  12. Rayden

    Rayden Guest

    cyberbellum, you said the parallelogram would jam, but I am
    assuming that it would be built well enough so that instead
    of jamming it would transmit the force. Seems like it would
    work to me...

    --
    Rayden
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rayden's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/264
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/32510
     
  13. Cyberbellum

    Cyberbellum Guest

    Rayden wrote:
    > *cyberbellum, you said the parallelogram would jam, but I
    > am assuming that it would be built well enough so that
    > instead of jamming it would transmit the force. Seems like
    > it would work to me... *

    The middle diagram in your last sketch shows the upper
    telescopic leg bent, with the interior part jammed in the
    exterior part. Hence my assumption.

    The middle diagram also shows the left end and the right end
    out of parallel. Since this is the effect you are trying to
    achieve it seems that the design isn't all that effective.

    The short version is that, even though from a pure math
    perspective it seems promising, from an engineering
    perspective it would be impossible to make parts stiff
    enough to do what you want. The problem is with the basic
    geometry of the solution. Even a mechanism built like an
    engine block would allow some angular play in the rim
    element. I could go on and explain why, but that would
    require a page or two of math and solid mechanics and I
    don't have that kind of time or energy.

    The midday heat is over here in DC so I'm about to follow
    gerblefranklin's advice and go out for a ride. Yesterday I
    went a couple of miles on my 29"er with only one UPD (if you
    don't count the dozen or so UPDs just trying to get
    started). Today I think I'll work on my freemount with the
    20" unicycle. I still haven't managed better than a 10%
    success rate. I know I can do it - the 20" is such a toy -
    but I've got some sort of mental block going.

    --
    cyberbellum - Level 1.0 rider!

    Optimists think the glass is half full. Pesimists think the glass is
    half empty. Engineers think the glass is too big.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    cyberbellum's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/4550
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/32510
     
  14. Ken Cline

    Ken Cline Guest

    "Rayden" <[email protected]> writes:

    > Ok here is a question. Shock absorber versus spring. We
    > have all been assuming shocks would be better but why?
    > There has to be a reason. Of course we could build a
    > protype of each and see but I dont think that is going
    > to happen.

    I don't think dampers are a good idea. First, after
    compression during a drop, dampers would tend to make the
    wheel roll unevenly (eccentrically). Second, work dont on
    the damper would be wasted energy.

    Ken
     
  15. Ken Cline

    Ken Cline Guest

    "nickjb" <[email protected]> writes:

    > Ken Cline wrote:
    > > * ... Second, work dont on the damper would be wasted
    > > energy.
    >
    > This arguement is used against using suspension in
    > mountain biking but I know from my own experience and from
    > the racing world that overall it saves energy.

    I didn't make that argument about suspension bikes.

    I think there is a critical difference in the case of the
    suspension wheel. Here, the dampening would be placed inside
    the wheel. Every revolution you pedal, you'd be fighting to
    compress the dampeners that are engaged sequentially are the
    wheel goes around. All of that energy is wasted. Remember,
    the dampening action is against the rider's complete weight
    plus dynamic pedalling force. On a bicycle, you're only
    fighting the dynamic component of pedalling force.

    Anyway, the fact that dampening will make the wheel tend to
    ride eccentrically after a compression event is an even more
    worrisome concern to me. Any Dampening must be light enough
    to allow a significantly higher frequency than the maximum
    pedalling cadence.

    Ken
     
Loading...
Loading...