Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Copenhagen Wheel - Anybody actually try one yet?
On Jan 15, 10:42*pm, Peter Cole wrote:
Andre Jute wrote: On Jan 15, 2:47 pm, Peter Cole wrote: Andre Jute wrote: It seems to me that maybe, in heavy city traffic with lots of braking some noticeable fraction of braking power, though never as high as 10 per cent under the most ideal conditions, might be converted to stored current. "stored current"??? Your estimate of 10% is based on what? An observation of my riding patterns. Work with batteries in audio circuits which I described and you cut. A WAG, which seems to be your standard method. Why don't you show us a worked case of a ride with numbers, eh, Colesy? Doing a little work will soon expose your wishful thinking even to yourself. The work that could do, after further losses in the drive of course, must be evaluated against the energy expanded [sic] to pedal around the extra weight of the hub. Try as I might, I fail to grasp how whatever you get back from that hub could be less than a small fraction of the energy you put in dragging it around. Yet it's presented as a perpetual motion machine. No it isn't. The net recovery is a complex function of component efficiencies. That's what I said, Colesy. It is a very old idea, proven in diverse applications, and with technological development likely to become ubiquitous. On bicycles? When this Copenhagen wheel ceases to be vaporware, call me, Colesy. You might look into the KERS system, now dropped after a couple of years in Formula One auto racing. I did. I found that it has not been dropped. http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/08/1...-kers-to-stay/ LOL. Name the teams that will use KERS this year. "F1 cars will continue to use KERS in 2010. Name the teams that will use KERS. Despite widespread expectations that Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems would be dropped after just one year, the new F1 regulations published today includes provision for the devices. Name the teams that will use KERS this year. The F1 teams association had agreed not to use KERS next year but I m glad it s staying. Name the teams that will use KERS. There has been no change to the amount of power a KERS may produce in 2010. Cars are still limited to a maximum output of 400kJ per lap, approximately 80bhp for 6.6 seconds" Name the teams that will use KERS. Several players have criticized the KERS rules as being too limiting, both in power/energy limits and technology exclusion. Toyota, in quite an uncharacteristic manner, has been highly critical. http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/07/1...too-hasty-to-d.... "When the proposals were first announced Toyota engine boss Luca Marmorini said: * * *The adoption of energy recovery leaves me rather perplexed because the system chosen by the FIA is really primitive." Excuses, excuses. Here we're talking about violent braking for about half the time (not half the distance) that the car is on track, which then stores enough power in a very heavy system that (pro rata to power requirements) would simply immobilize a bike. Even F1 dropped KERS because the weight was just too much of a problem for most teams to design around. The storage then released enough power on demand for an extra boost (not full motive power, just a boost of a few per cent) for seven or eight seconds, or roughly one- twelfth of the lap. As I say, they've now dropped it because there are better ways of making cars more energy efficient. They haven't dropped it, nor has it proven to be ineffective even with design rules that allow for only very limited (in capacity and technology) systems to be used. So why can't you name any teams that will actually use KERS? Answer: the cars are faster without KERS. Bikes just don't brake that violently, that often, or for such a huge part of the time they are on the road. There is no reason to believe that a handful of global warming trendies in Copenhagen can beat the brainpower and money that auto racers in the richest sport on earth can throw at a problem. The "richest sport on earth" has long been troubled by financial problems LOL. A few manufacturers hit by the economic downturn dropped out. Next year there are more teams on the grid than last year. As usual, you haven't the faintest idea of what you're talking about, Colesy. and has artificially limited technology to cap expenses. You're an idiot, Colesy. You should distinguish between the governing body and the teams. The previous head of the governing body has just been forced out precisely because he tried to put a budget cap in place. The teams that matter threatened to split off into a separate series if he proceeded, then forced him out. As I said, you haven't the faintest idea of what you're talking about, Colesy. You read an outdated handout from one guy who has no power to do anything, and thought it was an answer. That's just about your standard method of debate, and it's despicable. Want to bet that champions this year spend a minimum of three times the budget cap, and more likely twelve times as much (about half a billion dollars)? Regenerative braking is one of those areas where financial concerns have trumped R&D. The Copenhagen Wheel is one where wishful thinking wasted more taxpayer's money, more likely. And, as I've just shown, the problem is a magnitude or two more intractable in a bicycle than in a racing car. I'm afraid you haven't shown anything, just made claims. Please feel free to "show your work" as the teachers say. Oh, I showed you, Colesy, and you cut my reasoning, and then came up with some old press release and tried to pretend it is the gospel. Show me one team, just one, that will use KERS this year. Show me just one team that stands a chance of winning the championship that will even try to work within the *optional* budget cap. You're wanking again, Colesy. The efficiency loss in the regeneration system, and the charging barrier loss too, have to be made up by another motor and all that is available on a bicycle is Shank's Mare, your shanks... You'll be developing well-defined leg muscles, Pete! There can be no argument that a hybrid bicycle, with or without regenerative braking, will require more net pedal energy from the cyclist over a given course than a plain bike. The principal benefit of a hybrid bike, charged during the ride rather than before, would be to lower the peak power requirements (at the expense of somewhat greater average power). I think the principal benefit of the Copenhagen wheel, should it ever cease to be vaporware, will be to make the poseurs down at the Kaffy Baisikkel feel "responsible". It's not technology, it's feelgood crap for shaveleg trendies. As motors and batteries get smaller, lighter and more efficient (and substantial progress has been made in recent times), The efficiencies and capacities get good enough that the cyclist can virtually trade a hilly route for a flat one, albeit with a slight continuous grade. The only thing that changes with improvements in technology is the effective slope of that grade. Hybrid bikes, like hybrid cars, allow small motors, and among would-be cyclists there are a lot of small motors. That's what I said, if less pompously: "You'll be developing well- defined leg muscles, Pete!" Try again, Colesy. Andre Jute *Global Warming is like Scientology, only with less science No need to get ****y, just admit you were wrong & get over it. You should practice what you preach so pompously, Colesy. I shot down every one of your points. So admit you were wrong and get over it. Or: Name one team that will use that KERS/Copenhagen crap next year. Andre Jute Charisma is the art of infuriating inadequates by merely doing one's homework |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Algore bails on Copenhagen shindig! | Vacuum Tubes | |||
OT Apple wheel | Audio Opinions | |||
e bow & tone wheel | Pro Audio | |||
Steering Wheel GP | Car Audio | |||
SS-888-Wheel on RAHE | Audio Opinions |