Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Toys Technology

Building a Better Motorized Bicycle 373

Posted by michael from the room-for-improvement dept.
toyotaboy writes "Saw this in 'design news' magazine. It's a bicycle using an engine that looks like something pulled off of an R/C airplane. He uses a gear reduction system as well as a overrunning clutch to keep the engine running while stopped. Claims to get 20 mile range from its 1/4 gallon gas tank (80mpg). If you figure most engines like that are 30k rpm with 1:100 gear reduction, and an average bike rim is 26", you should get potentially 1,458,000 inches per hour, or 23mph! He goes on to say that similar devices in electric form (segway) fail because of their heavy 80lb weight and limited 10-15 mile range (and where do you recharge?) This thing can be filled back up at any gas station."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Building a Better Motorized Bicycle More

Building a Better Motorized Bicycle

Comments Filter:

  • Great (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sulli ( 195030 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @10:36PM (#5508612) Journal
    So not only you get to breathe everyone else's exhaust, you get to produce your own via a two-stroke engine directly under your nose? Yucko.

    • Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)

      by frdmfghtr ( 603968 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @10:56PM (#5508736)
      Agreed. Plus, a small engine that can be strapped to a bike for some power-assist is nothing new. Look in the back of any Popular Mechanics, Popular Science, or any similar type of magazine, and I bet you will find ads for this amongst the ads for do-it-yourself helicopters, hovercraft, and motorized wheelbarrows.

      Two other thoughts come to mind...

      (1) If you're going to go the distances that might make this useful, chances are that you're not a periodic, recreational biker. Thus, are you going to really want one of these on your bike in the first place?

      (2) If you ride short distances (around a college campus or in the neighborhood) do you want to have to smell the fumes and listen to the high-pitched whine constantly? These small engines generally don't have much in the way of mufflers or emissions control, so there's that to consider as well.

      When I flew model planes, the fuselage was covered with unburned fuel at the end of a flight. I would presume that noise and unburned fuel have been taken into account in this design, but it's still something to consider. The designer probably went further than taking a big R/C aircraft engine and bolt it to a clutch and drivetrain.

      Personally, I like the exercise and peace & quiet that comes with a nice bike ride, but as always, YMMV.

      • Re:Great (Score:3, Informative)

        by crush ( 19364 )

        He should redesing this to take advantage of one of the most efficient and enjoyable forms of transport: the modern roadbike.

        • Range: easily 20 miles
        • Speed: 18mph achievable once he gets fit.
        • Fuel efficiency: !

        Essentially this would mean dumping the engine and all the other crap he's added.

    • Re:Great (Score:4, Insightful)

      by t0qer ( 230538 ) on Friday March 14, 2003 @05:47AM (#5510084) Homepage Journal
      I've seen so many negative comments on this I wanted to chirp in something positive, sorry for being mr optimistic :P

      Anyways, first off I think at 23mph with the exhaust about 3-4 feet under your nose (Unless your a midget) you wouldn't have to worry about breathing in fumes. Site did say it has a centrifugal clutch which only activates the motor at a certain speed.

      Also I've been reading a lot of comments about pollution too. Do 2 strokes really produce that much air pollution? I've heard that the opposite is true because since it is a gas/oil mixture the remaining exhaust resembles diesel more than 4 stroke exhaust, which just settles to the ground (Yay it gets into our streams and rivers though, which is why MTBE gas is banned in CA waterways)

      I just wanted to play devils advocate, it looks like a really neat peice of engineering compared to those things I used to see in popular science.

    • Re:Great (Score:3, Informative)

      by ianp5uk ( 644680 )
      Exactly and all for what? 23mph, 80mpg! I had a little motorbike that did 80mpg and 45mph. Why not put the effort into improving a conventional motorbike, it has room for a larger fuel tank and big silencer. Much easier route to tackle the problem. I bet if you developed this model engine mountain bike into something people would buy in volume it would end up looking like a conventional motorbike. Alternatively pedal the damn thing and get fit as well.

    • Re:Great (Score:3, Interesting)

      by vertijoe ( 659091 )
      Here here. Bicycles have peddles. Use them, get healthy and see the world.

  • Good Vibrations... (Score:3, Funny)

    by malakai ( 136531 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @10:36PM (#5508613) Journal
    You gotta wonder where the vibrations on a two stroke engine mounted inside the bike frame are going to go....

    I'm not against it, i'm just saying, certain female population may find riding bickes are enjoyable as the first victorian females did... for prehaps not so obvious reasons.

    -malakai
    • That's why they call it the "two stroke tingle."

      I got a lot of dates when I had an RD400.

      KFG
    • My information is a bit dated, but don't two-stroke engines require oil to be mixed with the gasoline prior to combustion? Doesn't this lead to innefficiency and bad smoke?

      Doen't they also have problems with fuel in the exaust stroke and exaust in the power stroke?

      Have these problems been resolved or does the bike's weight overshadow the efficiency problems?

      • Re:two stroke? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Bishop ( 4500 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @11:42PM (#5508906)
        Modern two smokes run fairly clean. Oil is injected instead of mixed with the fuel in the gas tank. A well designed naturally carburated engine will expell most of the exhaust gasses. Larger 2strokes will use a supercharger to get the same effect. A 4 stroke will still be cleaner then a 2 stroke though. 2 strokes also tend to be louder as you need an unrestricted exhaust.

        While two strokes are inefficient, pound for pound a 2stroke engine will be more powerfull then a 4 stroke engine (the common type). A 2 stroke cylinder has a power stroke every revolution of the crankshaft. A 4 stroke only has a power stroke every second revolution.

        Grand Prix motorcycle racing until last year was all 2 stroke engines. What used to be the class of 500cc motorcycles is now the MotoGP class which allows 1000cc 4 strokes to compete with 500cc 2 strokes. Dirt bike racing is still dominated by the 2strokes, but that is changeing as manufacturers introduce new 4 strokes. From a racing technology point of few it has only been very recently that a 4 stroke engine has been able to compete with a 2 stroke engine that is half the size.
    • I believe the term used long ago (when the roads were very bumpy) for why victorian women shouldn't ride bikes (might replace men, oh no!) was...

      Bicycle Smile

  • Great idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by x159 ( 606875 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @10:37PM (#5508614)
    But what about the sound - When I'm riding my bike, I don't want to listen to the constant loud, annoying drone of a motor.

  • Two stroke engine? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by gpinzone ( 531794 )
    The environmentalists will be the ones having a stroke if this becomes popular. They don't even make 2 stroke lawnmowers anymore.

  • Old tech... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13, 2003 @10:38PM (#5508626)
    We have motorized bikes here in England.

    They're called 'Motorbikes'. We even have mini versions for teenagers called 'mopeds'. Clever, eh?

    • Hey mister inventor Honda calls them Mopeds (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Charcharodon ( 611187 ) on Friday March 14, 2003 @03:11AM (#5509716)
      No kidding those things have been around since the seventies and amazingly they get 80-100mpg already, the same as or better than what his mountain bike can do. You pedal them to start them and then ride. The funny thing is that you can still order brand new ones from Honda for under $1000. I wonder what his conversion hub is going to cost? All the extra parts that are custom made don't sound cheap. On top of that a mountain bike is not exactly the most comfortable commuter vehicle. If I were going to go to the trouble of riding a powered vehicle why wouldn't I just get the more comfortable moped that I only have to pedal to start? The other thing is the noise level; those small engines running at hi rpms are pretty loud. Between the comfort and noise I Might as well buy a 500-600cc bike that only gets 40-60mpg and as a bonus looks cool, is comfortable, and can actually can do 60mph/100kph+

      What I don't get is why every other "new" invention bashes electric by saying "this will tide us over till batteries get better and with gas you can fill up anywhere" I thought the whole point is to get away from gas once in for all. I have a good idea, how about spending a little more time and money on research on electric instead of fiddle farting around with glorified weed-whacker engines so we don't have to wait around. His claims of 85lbs for electric bikes are a bit off. They make NiMH electric conversions in the neighborhood of 20lbs. That's only ten pounds heavier than his "petite" 2 stroke. No gas or oil to mess with, no noise, no fumes, and nothing to have to tune up, just plug the thing in and go. I would also like to know where he rides where there is no electricity? Does he plan on using his bike for the two-hour commute into LA on the 405 during rush hour? Who would be willing to ride on a mountain bike for reasons other than sport far enough to actually run out of juice in the batteries, much less gas for his version. So range isn't really an issue since you could plug the thing in just about anywhere. This is another example of another fine product to "revolutionize" the world, as we know it. What this inventor has yet to figure out is those that are already willing to ride a bicycle to work are already doing so and that within a short period of time get in good enough shape to pedal it their damn selves, and don't need the extra weight and cost to get them up to the top of those theoretical "hills" these inventors always ramble on about as being the big determining factor as to why people don't ride bicycles. Here is a little clue for him, people who are too lazy to even pedal ten miles on a bike are certainly not going to want to even ride the same distance on a powered one. There's no heat & no AC for one, no protection from the elements, no comfortable bucket seat to park their fat ass in, no cd player, and where the hell are they going to plug in their cell phone and where are they going to put their McDonalds value meal #2 at along with all their junk they drag around with them? On top of that he hasn't even figured out the idea has already been done a thousand times, and that no one wants it. Don't take my word for it just look in the back of Popular Science or Popular Mechanics magazine you find half a dozen conversion kits "that if you order now you'll get free shipping". Aside from having no clue I do give this guy bonus points for finally containing everything in the hub instead of the ridiculous bolt on contraptions some people have come up with electric or gas.

  • Moped (Score:3, Insightful)

    by fredistheking ( 464407 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @10:38PM (#5508628)
    So exactly how is this different from a moped? 80 mi/gal for a moped is not that impressive.

    --
    • Because it can fit to pretty much any bike ever made, and without effecting the drive train? A wee bit more weight in the front and a slightly stronger front wheel are about the only things different.
    • Look at the picture - the point is that it is extremely lightweight - it is built into a standard bike-frame, it doesn't even look like a motor vehicle. This means there's none of the weight inconvenience of an electric or moped.

  • finally! (Score:4, Funny)

    by cfscript ( 654864 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @10:39PM (#5508633)
    all the freedom of being rained on without the benefit of exercise!

  • Mmmm.. fat people.. (Score:4, Funny)

    by MrCawfee ( 13910 ) <mrcawfee AT yahoo DOT com> on Thursday March 13, 2003 @10:39PM (#5508634) Homepage
    Fat and lazy people will be overjoyed that they do not acually have to push the petals.....
  • It's a really good idea, but we are still going to run out of fossil fuels eventually (not to mention the pollution problem...

    doesn't this just put off the inevitable a little bit more?

    (although, I must say I wouldn't mind one... altho I 'm not sure how it would handle with the engine on the front wheel like that)

  • Hey! (Score:2, Funny)

    by essdee ( 655531 )
    Some of us are too poor to afford motorized transportation. Eat my Razor-dust, you insensitive clod!

  • Bad for the Environment? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by trotski ( 592530 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @10:42PM (#5508648)
    Some may think that a super efficient small engine is a good thing. I argue that point.

    Although a small 2-stroke may put out much less greenhouse gas than a car or motorcycle, a 2-stroke engine of any size is very damaging to the air quality. A 2-stroke engine (such as the one on this bike) must burn large amounts of oil, it's simply the way 2-strokes work. Therefore, a lot more soot, and other impurities are blown out the exhaust. This is the smelly blue smoke you always see out the back of scooters, motorboats, chainsaws and other devices with 2-stroke engines.

    While this may be a more efficient form of transportation, if everyone who rides a bike road one of these our cities would be far more smoggy and smelly than they are today.
    • A couple comments;

      This is nowhere near a super efficient engine (in terms of power/fuel consumption) it has super low power/weight ratio but it's power/fuel consumption ratio sucks. He just took a commodity part for little unreliable radio controlled toys and somehow crammed it and it's powertrain into a bibycle fork.

      Not all two stroke engines burn a significant amount of oil; All four stroke engines burn some oil. Two stroke means it makes power each revolution; 99.9% of two stroke engines use a fuel/a
    • you are not correct saying that "a 2-stroke engine of any size is very damaging to the air quality."

      Perhaps you haven't noticed, but there are many new two strokes that run cleaner than 4 strokes. Go look at new outboard boat motors... a 2 stroke doesn't have to be dirty.

  • Let me get this Straight (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Herkum01 ( 592704 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @10:42PM (#5508649)

    This guy has basically invented a light-weight moped?

    American's despise moped's, they figure if you are going to get a a cycle you might as well get one that looks cool. That is why Harley's are so popular, becuase they look cool. I have a co-worker here that is willing to spend $5,000 dollar's every couple of year's to add accessories and get some improvements done on her bike.

    While the idea is neat, it will not take off simply becuase of american culture, and it sounds like a moped.

  • Yes, but ... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Somnus ( 46089 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @10:43PM (#5508651)
    Can it run uphill? Small internal combustion motors have very slim power bands, and I didn't see anything about gear shifting, nor a torque assist.

    Will it last? I'm no mechanical engineer, but spur gears and an overrunning clutch do not sound like overly robust components.

    All in all, I wonder if a moped is a better buy.

  • Any gas station? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Darnit ( 75420 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @10:44PM (#5508657)
    What about any electtical outlet for the Segway? The thing goes 10-12 miles on $0.10 USD. That bicycle goes 10-12 miles on $0.25 USD.

    Have you seen the pollution in growing nations that have cities full of 2 cycle engines on motor scooters? Damn man talk about stinky horrible asthma causing pollution.

    How about this one?

    http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/427.html [austinev.org]

    This bike is probably a little bit better than some stinky ICE bike. It also has the same range. Go figure.
    • Notice the weight difference. I think I like a bike I can carry down the stairs.

      Maybe a fuel-cell version?

    • Re:Any gas station? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by torpedo2k ( 552714 )
      Next time you flip the light switch think of where the electrons are coming from... a "stinky" power plant. Of which 55% of the US gets from coal. People are quick to jump on the electricity bandwagon without thought as to where it originates.

  • 2-stroke pollution (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tcd004 ( 134130 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @10:47PM (#5508678) Homepage
    I know a 50cc 2 stroke engine, which runs forever on on mere tea-spoonfuls of gasoline causes massive pollution. It's because of the release of so much unburned fuel into the environment (25 to 40% according to EPA estimates). Anytime you run a simple engine at such high RPM's you run into this dilemma. I've heard claims that a 2-stroke lawnmower running for 1 hour produces as many pollutatnts, (excluding CO2 of course) as 40 automobiles.

    I'm sure this engine is much smaller than that, maybe 8 or 15cc's but still too much pollution for the energy created.

    Who will get to 300 first, the MLB pitcher or the state of Texas? [lostbrain.com]

    tcd004

    • I agree that it sounds fishy. Here's some evidence:

      Study done using remote sensing on Yellowstone to determine hydrocarbon pollution created by snowmobiles:
      http://www.westbioenergy.org/snow/#T opic_15
      "Dynamometer studies and our data do not show significant effects on HC emissions, but the HC emissions are approximately sixty times greater than automobiles if compared to the Denver, CO fleet."

      I'll keep looking for more.

      tcd004

  • 2 stroke and other probs (Score:4)

    by YrWrstNtmr ( 564987 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @10:48PM (#5508685)
    1. The 2 stroke motor is a non starter. Being banned everywhere.

    2. Weight. Increased weight (and vibration) means more wear on the bike bits. Earlier structural failure and potential lawsuit.

    3. Speed advantage. None really 23mp? I can do that without the motor.

    4. Need and want. People who will not ride a bike (for whatever reason) will not ride this (in the US anyway).

    5. Special parts. Those spokes look a little short and too angled for real long term strength. Anticipate the wheel folding under load.
    • Does anyone on slashdot ride old motorcycles? 2 strokes can run clean.

      I don't know if this guy is making a carb or if he's running fuel injection, but FI keeps 'em pretty clean. There's even some legal ones here in The People's Republic of California. Look up Aprilia. If you run a 2 stroke with modern 2 stroke oil they don't smoke.

      They are being banned in places, but the world ain't America.

      You can ride 23mph with a motor, but most people are lazy. There's a guy at my work who drives each day. He li
      • nd since you can ride 23mph without a motor, why would having a motor to do that cause earlier structural failure?
        Sustained speed, weight, vibration. Mopeds are heavier than bikes for a reason.

        Spokes hold their strength.
        Yes they do. Correct length and angle spokes. Those appear to be at a very relaxed angle, significantly reducing their strength. But I may be wrong. I wish him luck.

        There's a guy at my work who drives each day. He lives 2 blocks away. No, really. That's less than a quarter mile. He

  • performance boost (Score:5, Funny)

    by Arctic Dragon ( 647151 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @10:49PM (#5508688)
    "If you figure most engines like that are 30k rpm with 1:100 gear reduction, and an average bike rim is 26", you should get potentially 1,458,000 inches per hour, or 23mph!"

    You can achieve 45mph by adding a Type R sticker, chrome wheels and a large carbon fiber rear wing, a la Honda Civic.

    bling bling

  • The Human-Powered Bicycle (Score:5, Funny)

    by Metallic Matty ( 579124 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @10:49PM (#5508689)
    It may not have a very high top speed; and needs to recharge overnight; but its very fuel efficent (only needs three full tanks a day) and enviromentally sound (all waste products are completely biosynthesised.)
    • <rant>
      These things really make me mad. You have to be incredibly lazy to want one of these things. Why put an internal combustion engine on the most efficient form of transportation? With the level of gear reduction on most bikes, you can ride up any hill you can walk up... These must be for people who can't even walk uphill.
      </rant>

  • couple of details not right... (Score:5, Informative)

    by AmigaAvenger ( 210519 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @10:51PM (#5508699) Journal
    I fly rc planes... I know about this stuff... The engines that turn 30k rpm are tiny glow fuel powered engines, NOT weedeater gas engines (max of around 10k) Glow fuel runs from $15 to $20 per gallon, not very cost effective! Also, the picture isn't clear enough to really show anything of the engine!

  • A ruined concept (Score:3)

    by NewtonsLaw ( 409638 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @10:51PM (#5508702)
    I wonder why the guy runined a great concept by fitting a two-stroke engine?

    Two-strokes not only create more polution but they're also significantly less fuel-efficient than a four-stroke engine of the same power.

    I mean, if you're after thrills rather than efficiency then why not just build a scooter like the one on this page [aardvark.co.nz]? :-)
    • uhhh... do you know much about engines? This is what two strokes are made for.

      Why isn't it a 4-stroke? Weight. Size. Power. 2 cycles like this one will produce gobs more power with smaller weight than 4 strokes. Plus they are simpler, easy to rebuild, and can be mounted in different positions because they don't have an oil sump.

      • Re:A ruined concept (Score:3, Informative)

        by NewtonsLaw ( 409638 )
        Why isn't it a 4-stroke? Weight. Size. Power. 2 cycles like this one will produce gobs more power with smaller weight than 4 strokes. Plus they are simpler, easy to rebuild, and can be mounted in different positions because they don't have an oil sump

        Obviously you haven't looked at the latest four-stroke model airplane engines.

        These things operate in any attitude (heard of aerobatics?), are not much heavier than a two-stroke of equivalent power, and offer much better fuel economy, less polution and less

  • Recharge vs. Fill up (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Frankus ( 38740 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @10:53PM (#5508709) Homepage
    It seems to escape a lot of people that electrical outlets are far more plentiful than gas stations. Save for those people that work (or live) at a gas station, an electric vehicle doesn't involve any extra stops. Finally, in the amounts that an electric-assist bicycle uses, electricity is basically free (as in beer), which is less and less the case with gasoline.

  • Powered bikes are cool (Score:4, Interesting)

    by syphax ( 189065 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @10:59PM (#5508749) Journal

    If this engine isn't an emissions disaster, and isn't too loud, it may be very cool.

    I have an electric power-assist (Currie) kit for my commuter bike. I use it for my 2 mile commute to work, and for running errands in a ~5 mile radius.

    It's great- I can pedal hard if I want to, or take it easy and cruise at 17-18 mph if I don't want to sweat (like on my way to work in the summer). I'm not lazy- I run marathons and stuff- but I find that I use the bike more often for errands than I used to, pre-motor.

    One of the only drawbacks is that the battery pack is heavy and awkward to haul up to my office to get charged every day. If I could get a kit with a *clean* gas engine, I'd be interested. But I have my doubts about this. For now, I'll stick with the clean electric (yeah, I know there are emissions associated with my bike's electricity consumption, but we're talking about 1 kWh per day).

  • This is not the solution (Score:5, Insightful)

    by The Ape With No Name ( 213531 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @10:59PM (#5508752) Homepage
    Two-stroke engines are great contributors to the incredible pollution of places like Dhaka or New Delhi. India is trying to get away from the ill-maintained motor scooters on gas/oil mixtures to hydrogen or, even more practical given the amount of animal manure available there, methanol. Discussion here [energy.gov] with insight from a guy working in this problem. Fossil fuels just won't cut it because of the double headed monster of carbon fuel pollution and a multiplier effect of unmaintained equipment burning that same fuel.
  • As a result, the starter allows users to work up to a couple of miles an hour before the engine kicks on

    That must be one hulava jolt.
  • well, as of yesterday i've been using the segway ht for 100 days and over 500 miles. slashdot wouldn't ever dream of releasing that story of course :-]

    i wrote about here:
    http://www.bookofseg.com/100days/ [bookofseg.com]

    the bike article says that there aren't places to charge a ebike, there are more outlets than gas stations. and for me, for my commute- i take my ht to work and charge it while i'm at work (it's not needed, but i do charge it since it's just sitting there). i don't see why the goal is to trash elect
  • The spokes up the front that are set at a very strange angle would not last very long. Soon as you take that thing off road, the spokes will start moving around and the while will become un-balanced. I doubt that the bike would be balanced. IE a good center of gravity. With the engine in the frame it will have to much weight up the front, or the back. It could also be top heavy. :( They should have built the motor into one of thoes 'cruzin' bikes that people ride up and down at the beach. (

    http://ww

  • Hybrind Segway! (Score:5, Funny)

    by peacefinder ( 469349 ) <alan.dewitt@gmAA ... inus threevowels> on Thursday March 13, 2003 @11:03PM (#5508776) Journal
    1) Hook the R/C motor to a generator
    2) Mount it to a Segway
    3) Watch Dean Kamen recoil in horror!

  • Home conversion mopeds (Score:3)

    by Sgs-Cruz ( 526085 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @11:06PM (#5508782) Homepage Journal
    Home conversion mopeds rock. I was bored. I was in grade 13 at the time (Ontario, up until this year, had 5 years of high school...). I put a 2-horsepower, 4-stroke motor on my bike. Used a Comet centrifugal clutch. It was quite an experience. First time, the chain seized, BENT the frame I built (looked like one of those newspaper carriers, but stronger), and broke the chain. I completely rebuilt it.

    The hardest part was attaching a #35 go-kart sprocket to the rear cassette of the bike. I had to cut little splines into the sprocket to make it attach properly. Anyway, it worked out great. Top speed of 52 km / h (I could get it faster, but then it's too hard to get going from a stop... only one gear, remember...) And oh man, does it ever attract attention around Burlington. I have been offered two jobs (At machine shops) simply based on the home-built moped. Overall, a great project. I'm now building an offroad go-kart and an on-road trike.

  • I actually own a '98 Tomos [tomosusa.com] Targa moped. It's got a 49.9cc two-stroke engine, two speed automatic transmission, a top speed of 35MPH and gets 100 miles to the gallon. Of course, since most everyone else on the road is doing 50MPH in vehicles weighing over 3,000LBS, you can easily see why I rarely ride it.

    Mopeds are amazingly simple and easy to work on, there's quite a few sites on the net where you can buy performence parts (real performence, not "riced out" fart pipes) and forums [mopedarmy.com] to discuss moped-related

  • If you figure most engines like that are 30k rpm with 1:100 gear reduction..

    30,000 rpm, hmmm? So, does that mean that only dogs will hear the piercing wail of the two-stroke engine? You wish!

    He goes on to say that similar devices in electric form (segway) fail because of their heavy 80lb weight and limited 10-15 mile range...

    Great. So this gets to fail because it's noisy as all hell. I can hear him now... "My failure is better than your failure".

    As far as the Segway v. RC-motor bike debate go

  • how do you stop? It seems like it would be difficult if you have an engine propelling you at 23 mph. I don't think standard bike brakes will do it...and how does the engine know when to turn off?
    • I have a bike computer on my bicycle, and it's not hard to exceed 23 mph downhill (28 mph isn't unusual). Standard bike brakes haul you up quite acceptably.

      Sheesh, in the Tour De France the *average* speed of the winner is over 23 mph, and those bike use standard block brakes (well, standard design. They're probably carved from the baby teeth of yetis or something similarly expensive). I hate to think what those guys do downhill...

  • battery-powered bicycles are not the answer to the world's traffic dilemmas because the problem is that it takes about 377 lbs of lead-acid batteries to equal the energy stored in a pound of gasoline.

    Wow, way to make an argument. Choose the heaviest oldest battery technology there is to defend the usage of one of the noisiest, dirtiest combustion engines that exists!

    Steve Katsaros is giving hemself a big pat on the back, but he's employing an engine that would gain huge benefits out of variable gearing,
  • I recently wrote an article [kuro5hin.org] a story at Kuro5hin about the moped I ride.

    As far as this thing goes, I wonder what the effect of having a considerably heavier, and powered, front wheel has on the handling and ride of a bicycle. Having the extra weight at the back (yes, I realise that this is going to be much lighter than the motor on my machine, but there's still a fair bit of extra weight in that wheel) seems like a better idea to me. Additionally, that range is no better than an electric bike. A few hund

  • Solution, I'd like you to meet Probl... wait a sec, where's Problem? Damn. Same thing happened when Segway was here!

  • But maybe this guy so-called "patent agent" would be doing a better service if he was out REJECTING sideways swinging, etc.
  • I have a 1981 Honda Twinstar CM200T motorcycle. It does ~60 mph with a 200cc engine that gets about 90mpg. Not too bad... And it's street legal.
  • http://www.ecycle.com/powersports/hybrid.htm

    (from their site)

    Target Performance Specifications
    Fuel Consumption: 180mpg
    Est. top speed: 80mph
    0-60mph: 6.0sec
    Weight: 230lb.

    Beta testing starting 2003
  • motorized bicycle...motorized + bicycle...i know! ill call it a motorcycle and make millions!
  • From http://www.northstar.sierraclub.org/Air_Toxics_AS C _small_engines.htm [sierraclub.org]

    One hour on a two-cycle engine snowmobile emits more air pollution than you would driving a car for an entire year. One personal watercraft like the Jet Ski can dump up to six gallons of raw fuel into the water in two hours. A two-cycle engine lawnmower pollutes as much in one hour as 40 new cars.

    Those little weedeaters you hear screaming all the time? Some of the worst contributors to the pollution problem. At least with ele

  • Most bike wheels have a circumference over 50 inches. The speed is going to be more like 10 mph, not 23.

  • Can I buy one with less hype and more facts? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Art Popp ( 29075 ) on Friday March 14, 2003 @12:37AM (#5509131)
    I can't entirely agree with most of the objections I'm reading. I have ridden my bike a long distance to work, and can see the use for this product. Most days it's nice to glide along quietly smoothly, and environmentally friendily (if friend has an adverb form). After a long exhausting day, going home 3 hours later than normal, in the rain, all I wanted to do was get home. There was no joy in the ride; It was work that I wasn't looking forward to. To be able to get the bike up to speed and spend 25 cents in gas cruising home would have been a significant advantage. One that would inspire me to pedal the bike to work more often as the risk of an arduous ride home would be reduced.

    But... If they want to sell me one of these kits they will have to be a little more fact-centric, and a little less like a Microsoft press release.

    "With a quarter of a gallon of fuel, he says most bikes will have a driving range of about 20 miles."
    Interesting, but what kind of mileage does the bike in the picture actually get? If you have a working prototype tell the story, and if it gets mediocre mileage tell us why, and what will be done to fix it in the version we buy.

    "The problem is that it takes about 377 lbs of lead-acid batteries to equal the energy stored in a pound of gasoline"

    Um, no it doesn't. At least not on my home planet. It's a shame that selling this item to the public seems to require such an obvious lie. Whatever cool formulas the chemists whip out aside, the forklifts at my client's work place use 350 lb. lead acid battery packs and run on them for 8 hour shifts. There is no forklift on the planet than can perform like they do for eight ours on 16 oz. (yes, I know that gas isn't the exact same weight as water, but it's close enough)) of gas. No way. Ain't happnin'.

    "If you had to start the engine and then get on the bike, you wouldn't be able to get your balance," Katsaros says. "This gives users an easy way to get started."

    Um, not so much. I started riding a motorcycle back when I had a full head of hair, and I can tell you for a fact I can reliably "start the engine, and then get on the bike." And, more usefully, other bikers and I can start the engine and engage it without duck-walking the bike up to speed so we can "get our balance." The feature of disengaging when the bike is going less than two miles an hour is there to avoid all the low-end gear + clutch crap that is necessary to to get a motorcycle going from a stop and still yield decent efficiency at normal speeds. It's a compensation for the simplicity of the design and a good trade-off in the cost/weight/functionality game. It's not a "feature for the benefit of the inept rider" any more than Code Red was a "security assurance feature for WindowsNT admins."

    I sure hope Mr. Katsaros understands that selling a geeky toy means marketing to geeks, who by their nature prefer facts to hyperbole.

  • 80 mpg? Big deal. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by brucehoult ( 148138 ) on Friday March 14, 2003 @02:15AM (#5509540)
    They say they get 80 mpg from this at up to 23 mph? Big deal. I consistently get 60 mpg from my 1100cc BMW motorcycle, with two people plus luggage, as long as I don't go over 70 mph or overtake aggressively.

    Smaller engined conventional motorcycles (under 250cc) get 100+ mpg.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close