puma931
|
| posted on 12/12/12 at 11:24 AM |
|
|
Cool electric bike that can stabalise itself with two gyros
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/9776325.stm
It does make you wonder would it be cheaper to have 3 wheels? not as cool but cheaper to make and lower comsumption....
|
|
|
|
|
loggyboy
|
| posted on 12/12/12 at 11:33 AM |
|
|
its all well and good pulling it with an 'SUV@ by the wheel so it slides, what about just hitting it with an SUV, or a pushing it beyond the
gyroscopes range.
Mistral Motorsport
|
|
|
Slimy38
|
| posted on 12/12/12 at 11:57 AM |
|
|
I don't understand the description though. The article says 'One of the most common accidents for motorcyclists is falling while turning a
corner.' Does that mean it stays vertical even going round corners?
|
|
|
tegwin
|
| posted on 12/12/12 at 12:01 PM |
|
|
We have seen dozens of concept "enclosed" bikes over the last 10 years...none of them seem to really take off... Seems to be a solution to
a problem that does not really exist!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would the last person who leaves the country please switch off the lights and close the door!
www.verticalhorizonsmedia.tv
|
|
|
maccmike
|
| posted on 12/12/12 at 12:01 PM |
|
|
that is very cool
|
|
|
designer
|
| posted on 12/12/12 at 12:55 PM |
|
|
It's not new. There was one exactly the same twenty years ago, it was always advertised in Popular Science/Mechanics and it even reversed. They
sent me a video in the early 90's.
|
|
|
wylliezx9r
|
| posted on 12/12/12 at 01:14 PM |
|
|
Why did he call it the C1 ? After what happened the last time 
I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered.
George Best
|
|
|
coyoteboy
|
| posted on 12/12/12 at 01:22 PM |
|
|
I think it could either lean round corners or stay level with that arrangement, but it won't stop people crashing them I suspect.
It is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist but I like it, it's neat and takes up little room, it's a sensible option for city
driving - it's not meant to be a bike (according to the designer IIRC) - it's meant to be a 2 wheeled car.
As a 3 wheeler it would be more unstable (the torque generated by those gyros is vast).
As for pushing it over - of course with enough force, but that's not really the point. The point is just to prove that it doesn't fall
over easily and you don't have to concentrate on it's stability. they were not trying to say "it won't fall over in an
accident".
[Edited on 12/12/12 by coyoteboy]
|
|
|
Ninehigh
|
| posted on 12/12/12 at 04:05 PM |
|
|
Oh yeah saw this saturday morning. Looks good to me, as long as you can get out either side for when it eventually does go over.
Quite interested to see what the side impact measurements are like too
|
|
|
Bare
|
| posted on 12/12/12 at 04:21 PM |
|
|
Recently saw on TV that some firm is building a Electric Unicycle with gyro stabilisation for urban uses.
Seemed to work very well in the adverts.
The wisdom/appeal of owning such remains as seriously dubious tho.
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 12/12/12 at 06:37 PM |
|
|
Would think he may need to rename as BMW might have something to say about crap reinventions of the wheel called the C1 - which fell over with
alarming regularity - including a bloke I know who I told not to buy one. He did, and it went over
Anway, on topic gyro stability is such an antiquated idea - how about this from 1914:
ATB
Simon
[Edited on 12/12/12 by Simon]
|
|
|
Confused but excited.
|
| posted on 12/12/12 at 07:29 PM |
|
|
1) I don't like the idea of all that kinetic energy being so close in the event of a shunt.
2) If you don't want it to fall over, wouldn't stabilisers be; a) easier, b) cheaper, c) more fuel efficient, d)safer and less
pointless.
It's like all these prats that think electric cars don't cause pollution. They may not in their immediate area but they are powered by
electricity from very inefficient (less so than modern internal combustion engines) power stations and thus actually cause more pollution than
petrol/diesel cars.
Tell them about the bent treacle edges!
|
|
|
coyoteboy
|
| posted on 12/12/12 at 09:26 PM |
|
|
quote:
1) I don't like the idea of all that kinetic energy being so close in the event of a shunt. 2) If you don't want it to fall over,
wouldn't stabilisers be; a) easier, b) cheaper, c) more fuel efficient, d)safer and less pointless. It's like all these prats that think
electric cars don't cause pollution. They may not in their immediate area but they are powered by electricity from very inefficient (less so
than modern internal combustion engines) power stations and thus actually cause more pollution than petrol/diesel cars.
OK, I'll bite....
1) Don't worry, it'll all be well housed within a burst resistant box, causing you no problems in a shunt. Well, no more than being
shunted.
2) Easier - no, probably not. Cheaper - maybe. More fuel efficient - doubt it - drag on stabilisers will be notably higher than power loss in a gyro.
As mentioned, gyros are used in satellites where power use is one of the primary limiting factors.
Not saying it'd be any fun to drive though.
As for power generation - I think you might have your figures skewed somewhere along the line. Most power stations are nominally 60% efficient.
Transmission losses account for about 1/3 of remaining power in worst cases, meaning you're looking around 33% efficient worst case well to
wheel. Petrol engines in perfect operating conditions might chuck out 37-38%, diesels a bit more, but as soon as you take them out of that lab-created
operating point and onto the road you're looking far closer to 20% and 30% (on a run), respectively.
Add to this the fact that power stations have far stricter controls on their output emissions (and they don't have cold startups where CATs
don't work). Battery discharge/recharge efficiency is what limits the efficiency of all electric cars, the motor drive kit can be made to work
at ~95% efficiency but the round trip efficiency of the battery charge/discharge is a bit less. All in all it's about even. Currently. For
"general use". In a city, with regen braking etc and good battery charge control, EVs get the award.
The big elephant in the corner, however, is the production of the lithium battery, but EVs are relatively un-developed tech - give them time, they
have to start somewhere.
Edited due to typo.
[Edited on 12/12/12 by coyoteboy]
|
|
|
40inches
|
| posted on 12/12/12 at 09:27 PM |
|
|
I still want a Carver
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 12/12/12 at 09:31 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by coyoteboy
quote:
1) I don't like the idea of all that kinetic energy being so close in the event of a shunt. 2) If you don't want it to fall over,
wouldn't stabilisers be; a) easier, b) cheaper, c) more fuel efficient, d)safer and less pointless. It's like all these prats that think
electric cars don't cause pollution. They may not in their immediate area but they are powered by electricity from very inefficient (less so
than modern internal combustion engines) power stations and thus actually cause more pollution than petrol/diesel cars.
OK, I'll bite....
1) Don't worry, it'll all be well housed within a burst resistant box, causing you no problems in a shunt. Well, no more than being
shunted.
2) Easier - no, probably not. Cheaper - maybe. More fuel efficient - doubt it - drag on stabilisers will be notably higher than power loss in a gyro.
As mentioned, gyros are used in satellites where power use is one of the primary limiting factors.
Not saying it'd be any fun to drive though.
As for power generation - I think you might have your figures skewed somewhere along the line. Most power stations are nominally 50% efficient.
Transmission losses account for about 1/3 of remaining power in worst cases, meaning you're looking around 33% efficient worst case well to
wheel. Petrol engines in perfect operating conditions might chuck out 37-38%, diesels a bit more, but as soon as you take them out of that lab-created
operating point and onto the road you're looking far closer to 20% and 30% (on a run), respectively.
Add to this the fact that power stations have far stricter controls on their output emissions (and they don't have cold startups where CATs
don't work). Battery discharge/recharge efficiency is what limits the efficiency of all electric cars, the motor drive kit can be made to work
at ~95% efficiency but the round trip efficiency of the battery charge/discharge is a bit less. All in all it's about even. Currently. For
"general use". In a city, with regen braking etc and good battery charge control, EVs get the award.
The big elephant in the corner, however, is the production of the lithium battery, but EVs are relatively un-developed tech - give them time, they
have to start somewhere.
[Edited on 12/12/12 by coyoteboy]
I was going to post exactly that but couldnt be bothered! Another plus for EVs is that some percentage (and rising) comes from non fossil fuel
sources, which is the main problem with IC engines.
|
|
|
