General Cycling Discussion - Inventions : more power ... more speed

Hello,

Has someone heard of great inventions that could significally add more power/speed to the effort made by the rider?
I'd be very surprised if the basics of bicycles couldn't be realy improved after all those years of the same "old technology".
Have we reached the limits of the physics of cycling?

The only one recent article I was able to find was this one :
http://www.nature.com/nsu/020923/020923-12.html

There isn't any way we could go faster for the same effort ?
I wish we could get bicycles that goes around 60kmh on an average pace.

So, if you can, please share your links/thoughts on that matter.
Thanks alot!

Lengthening the crank arm increases the leverage available to the cyclist on the downward power-stroke. On the upstroke, which generates little or no power, a shorter crank arm reduces the amount of energy needed to return the pedal to its original position.

If you really want to increase power output, then apply power to the cranks through the entire cycle - in other words: SPIN!

But the real limit to increasing cycling speed is wind resistance. Much bigger improvements in cycling efficiency can be had by presenting a smaller smoother profile to the air. Fully-faired recumbents are the way to go.

Hello,

Has someone heard of great inventions that could significally add more power/speed to the effort made by the rider?
I'd be very surprised if the basics of bicycles couldn't be realy improved after all those years of the same "old technology".

Personally I like that "same old technology". It does have it's advantages. For one thing, it's relatively easily understood -- a big advantage if you break down whilst riding to work. To be honest I really don't want to lose that.


There isn't any way we could go faster for the same effort ?
I wish we could get bicycles that goes around 60kmh on an average pace.


Motorcycles can, but to be honest that pace is pretty redundant for urban commuting when the traffic is rarely travelling at more than walking pace anyway. Again, give me my conventional bicycle and immunity to traffic. As far as recreational rides outside of the city, I'd rather go along at a pace that allows me to enjoy the scenery.

Once we colonize on the moon, we'll be able to push 200 gear inches & cruise at 60 mph without much effort.

more speed = pedal faster

Thing is, bicycles can be unbelievably fast, you just have to know where to look. Outside the UCI is where. I'm not saying the UCI is a bad thing or anything, but they limit racing bicycles so much, and it all filters down to the cycling and general public (ask a guy or gal on the street what the fastest bike in the world is, they'll say Lance's, or Boardman's if they're old enough). But there are fully-faired recumbents that go I don't know how fast. And normal streetable 'bents that come pretty close.

152 MPH on a Husjak (sp) I believe is the present record .
Compiled at the Bonnevile Salt flats (where else)

I have not had a chance to read the article in J. Biomechanics yet, but I have a pdf version of it if anyone is interested in reading it let me know

Sounds like the biopace, which might have made things better for somebody who doesnt know how to ride a bike. More power could be obtained harnessing power from more muscles like the arms, jaw and eyelids, however this would be limited by the body's ability to deliver oxygen to thes muscles on a continuous basis. That is why cyclist use fancy drugs and altitude tents to up their red blood count so they can get the oxygen to their leg muscles.

For the best cruising speed I think a faired bike with the pedals behind the rear wheel would be best.

With bicycles, its not your high speed which gets you places quickly, but your lack of low-speed. A car is fast, but spends most of urban driving at very low speeds. Cyclist can average an easy 12mph, and still be quicker. Racing drivers talk about drivers being "quick" rather than "fast", because they win at the low speeds.
When "cycle facilities" force riders to stop, get off, push etc, they show a complete lack of understanding of why a person on a bike can travel 4x more effectively than a person off a bike.

I know what would make bikes go way faster: hover boosters. Geez, you'd think that after over 6,000 years of modern development, we'd be able to mass market these things by now. Don't worry, I know how to make them:

Just take a rombiframpton, a phase-distribullator array, a photon-trate pulse field generator, a volatile neutron-dispersion engine, and a goggleplux formulator.

Hook the formulator up to the photon-trate, adjust the modulating pulse to 69533.34 Hz, and stick the left field-transformer rod of the formulator up to the rombiframpton.

Turn on the rombiframpton and switch the interior channeling electron-distortion meter up to 4932 Kj/mol. Then fry the outer phulsar-tray.

Attach the right ft rod of the formulator up to the phase-distrubullator, and clinch the upper left geo-plug to a 342-meter burst.

The volatile neutron-dispersion engine is easy. Just do a standard phase-modulating hookup by means of the cryntanium-valve plug cables, but make sure that the pulsating AR beam is emitting waves at no higher than 342 nanometers.

That's it! Your very own hover-bike.

Thanks a lot to you all for all the replies.

It's interesting to notice the fact that most of the people always feel satisfied with what they have at the present time. I love cycling, but I have expectations that could improve my riding experiences.

My dream would be to have a bike that would cover twice the distance with the same power applied on the pedal. There should be a system that would allow you to gain much more power/velocity than the average bike.

As for the energy, latest advancements use heavy batteries ... which makes me wonder why they don't use the energy produced by all the moving parts of the bike.

You could say that I'm lazy, but I'm not. For every one of you, there is a limit in the number of kilometers you can do in a single day. Even with you best training, there is a line you can't cross. That's where technology should come and help us.


Posted by aluckyfiji - 03-15-04 at 07:19 AM
I have not had a chance to read the article in J. Biomechanics yet, but I have a pdf version of it if anyone is interested in reading it let me know

Can you tell me nore about that?

How about this new system


http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/03_exo.shtml
:D

That's it! Your very own hover-bike.

Cool! I'm off to Dick Smith's at lunch time.

152 MPH on a Husjak (sp) I believe is the present record .
Compiled at the Bonnevile Salt flats (where else)

That would be the paced record, no?

I believe the unassisted record is still held by Sam Whittinghmm in a faired recumbent. He did the flying start 200m topping out at just over 80mph.

http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/records/Fastest_Ever.htm

Thing is, bicycles can be unbelievably fast, you just have to know where to look. Outside the UCI is where. I'm not saying the UCI is a bad thing or anything, but they limit racing bicycles so much, and it all filters down to the cycling and general public (ask a guy or gal on the street what the fastest bike in the world is, they'll say Lance's, or Boardman's if they're old enough). But there are fully-faired recumbents that go I don't know how fast. And normal streetable 'bents that come pretty close.

That's because the UCI has narrowly defined bicycles to be a 'standard' bicycle. 'bents and other Human Powered Vehicles (HPVs) are not considered bicycles by the UCI. This goes back to the 1920's or 30's, when someone won a European race on an early 'bent, and he was subsequently disqualified by the racing authorities who determined that his 'bent did not qualify as a 'bicycle', thus setting back bicycling technology by about a half century...I can't remember where I saw this story, but it might have been in Pryor Dodge's book.

Speaking of new technologies to make cycling more efficient, remember those Shimano biopace chainrings from the 80's??? My LBS has hundreds of used biopace chainrings in stock today...

Speaking of new technologies to make cycling more efficient, remember those Shimano biopace chainrings from the 80's??? My LBS has hundreds of used biopace chainrings in stock today...

I wonder why they fell out of favor? It's still a great idea on paper and how many of us turn perfect circles anyway?

-mark

How does a fairing on a road bike stack up to aerobars for cheating the wind?

I think aero bars with a fairing would gain you a bit of speed, but the handling in a cross wind would be hell - like a disc fr wheel.

As far as mechanical improvements go in pedaling, the rotor crank makes a pretty dramatic improvement. I was skeptical and waited a year before finally buying one. I didn't like the idea of a half pound of extra weight over my present carbon crank. I found out though that the weight penalty even in climbing hills made no difference. I'm faster uphill and on the flats. I bested my very best previous 10 k time trial by over 1 min 42 seconds. This was the first time out with the rotor crank. Other than that, with a recumbent, lower is faster... a tailbox adds more speed increase than a front fairing.... a front combined with a rear tail fairing is faster yet, throw sides on and faster yet......... totally enclose yourself and that is the fastest you will ever go on a bike. The guys in our hpv racing group can average around 40mph in their streamliners. Streamliners require a lot of experience and time though to pilot them in real road situations. I prefer a tailfaired lowracer. I can do a century with the same watt output in 4 hours vs an upright roadie doing it in 5 hours. That is a very subtantial speed increase without too much involved in the bike construction. My only competition are roadies in large pacelines. Roadies going solo pushing as hard as they can are no match for a tailfaired lowracer on any course. Hilly courses included. Roadies in a paceline against a solo tailfaired racer are quite comparable. Lowracers in a paceline however are incredibly fast. With just two of my buddies on tailfaired lowracers, we have done 35 mph average for a distance of 50 miles on a flat course. This is taking 1 minute pulls each and doing rotation. It does take some experience doing this and some concentration at these speeds. You must maintain less than 12" apart to gain the full benefit of the draft. Any beyond the 12" and the draft is gone.

some pictures of tailfaired lowracers.

http://groups.msn.com/BicyclingForumPicPost/trainingsetuppics.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=5009

http://groups.msn.com/BicyclingForumPicPost/trainingsetuppics.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=4417

http://wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/racing2003/sub4/Sub4-2003.htm

http://wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/ariail/RF-AA-3-23-03-ride.jpg

here is a url for the rotor crank

http://www.fact-canada.com/Rotorcranks/Rotorcranks.html

I believe biopace fell out of favour because they increased the acceleration in some part of the leg at certain points in the pedal stroke so that injury could be induced. This was at racing cadences - no problem for 60 rpm riders.

The interesting thing about the article (the star gear located where the pedal is threaded into the crank arm), is that they conducted the study at 60 rpm and at 40 rpm
I wonder what happens when you get in the 90-100 rpm range?

You want more power and speed. Try one of these: :D

I wouldn't want to have to pedal that up a hill. It looks heavy.

But cute...just keep it on the track and off the road...

Once we colonize on the moon, we'll be able to push 200 gear inches & cruise at 60 mph without much effort.

Good thing I'm working to make lunar colonization possible...

I find a few bars of chocolate adds 2-3mph to a journey, of course, if you get the g/f to ring you with suggestive comments the return journey is twice as quick..........

The thing about a bicycle is that the design is very efficient to start with. The rider can get in better shape to put in more power. That is about all that can be done there. Not counting performance enhancing drugs.
Any devices that are added to the bike actually take some power to run, so there is not much that can be done there. That is why things like shaft drive and internal hubs haven't reall caught on. They lower the efficiency. So that brings us back to the same old things, weight and aerodynamics. Aero of the bike itself is a pretty small factor once you put a rider on top. They do shaped tubes and aero wheels, so any gains there will be miniscule. So we are down to the weight. Bikes are already so light that the gains will be very small. But I am sure that this trend will continue. The future will more than likely be some type of super light super strong plastic. Well, the marketing depts wont say that. They will say composite. Basically like carbon fiber. Carbon fiber in a resin.