h a l f b a k e r yOn the one hand, true. On the other hand, bollocks.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Each rider's pedals are directly connected to a variable displacement hydraulic pump. The displacement of each pump is adjusted by the individual pedalling to power it, to produce the most comfortable amount of torque at his pedals.
The driven axle is driven by a variable displacement hydraulic motor.
The displacement is controlled by a computer, which works to keep the hydraulic pressure optimal.
[link]
|
| |
It's both for adjustable resistance, and to avoid having a long and potentially dangerous chain going the length of the bicycle. |
|
| |
Also, as a result of dirt and weather, a chain and sproket's mechanical efficiency can be as low as 80%, while a hydraulic system will have about 95% efficiency in all conditions. |
|
| |
As for weight... if the bicycle could be designed so that the hydraulic pipes double as structural elements, it wouldn't necessarily be heavier than a chain driven bicycle. |
|
| |
I love it. Weight be damned, hydraulics are among the most complex and least practical ways that a Halfbakery idea can be achieved, and I'm all for them for that reason. |
|
| |
Still working on a hydraulic cellphone. |
|
| |
Not bad, but a tandem recumbent would be very long.
If you don't like chains and want independent tandem drive, use drive shafts and a differential at the back ('inside-out' relative to a car - input through the two sides and output from the 'body'). Each rider can pedal as they please, and both supply power. |
|
| |
I think the most appealing thing about a hydraulic bicycle (for me, anyway) is the possibility of front wheel drive. |
|
| |
neutrinos_shadow, how do you propose that the power from the front pair of pedals (which are above and in front of the front wheel) go around / under / over the front passenger?
lurch, Why front wheel drive? Surely all wheel drive would be more useful? |
|
| |
Nope, I disagree with all-wheel drive. More complicated, heavier, less efficient, and for what? So you won't get stuck? Unlike a car, you can get off and pick it up. I like front wheel drive because there would be no tendency to "wheelie" going up a hill; because it can pull your front end around a corner with more authority, rather than pushing out and sliding; and because you can turn up to and past the perpendicular position of the front wheel while still riding. |
|
| |
//I think the most appealing thing about a hydraulic
bicycle (for me, anyway) is the possibility of front wheel
drive.// |
|
| |
There have been many examples of 2wd dirt bikes, it's
easy to get enough power from a motorcycle engine and
there's definitely more weight budget than a bicycle, yet
they're not popular. I think it's because you don't gain
anything. You can't really get better off road performance
than a well-ridden dirt bike. It might actually be an
example of solving problems with simplicity/removing
things rather than adding. |
|
| |
Take a car, drive it off road, get stuck, have a look at the
problem. "Ah, see, all the weight is on these wheels and
they're not driven... let's drive all the wheels". |
|
| |
"Well, that's much better, but I'm still getting stuck... how
about 6 driven wheels" |
|
| |
"I get stuck infrequently, but we can do better... tracks!" |
|
| |
Instead a dirt bike removes complexity. Problems with
open differentials spinning one wheel? Remove the wheel
& differential. Car weight over non-driven wheels? Only 2
wheels means weight is always on the driven wheel. Add a
rider who can move around and the problem largely
disappears. The only problem with the concept arrives
when the rider becomes a small fraction of the mass.
Making the Cargo Dirt Bike a non-starter. |
|
| |