DIY plans for a motor in the crank area conversion
11-09-07, 12:10 PM
#26
e-Biker
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 951
Bikes: Gary Fisher, Strong GT-S eBike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
come spring i could build the shell for the bike from carbon fiber or fiber glass easley. would you build the shell on the frame or make wood forms and make the shell and bolt it on?
i can even make the form with Thick aluninum window screen and epoxy over it.
does anyone have a good supplier for the bb drive? close to canada?
i can even make the form with Thick aluninum window screen and epoxy over it.
does anyone have a good supplier for the bb drive? close to canada?
I think the real Racer-01 is a cabron fiber chassis cause i really don't see how you can get the part with the seat to work.
It would be interesting to create a replica but I have no clue how to build bike frames. I'm pretty good with electronics though.
11-10-07, 01:57 AM
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 540
Bikes: GT3 trike,Viper chopper, electric assist Viper chopper,Electric moped(Vespa style)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Look familiar, here's a review the type/brand is softride they used to be a popular triathlon bike. https://www.roadbikereview.com/cat/20...5_4228crx.aspx.
11-10-07, 05:51 AM
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 431
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Look familiar, here's a review the type/brand is softride they used to be a popular triathlon bike. https://www.roadbikereview.com/cat/20...5_4228crx.aspx.
Last edited by EbikeHawaii; 11-23-07 at 05:56 AM.
11-10-07, 01:43 PM
#29
Hooligan
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Base of the Rocky Mountains, Canada. Wonderous things!
Posts: 1,431
Bikes: 2010 Cannondale Hooligan 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
The look of that bike has nothing to do with BS *or* efficiency, its a result of a design based around passive suspension. Something thats been used on bikes for decades to provide a comfortable ride without needing restrictive, overweight maintenance hogs like suspension bikes, something which only becomes a necessity when you need improved wheel contact and is a waste up until that point. I guess as you deal in motors and not bikes though, that might not be as important to you.
Drivetrain efficiency on an e-bike doesn't rely on downward force and is instead applied directly at the wheel. For all purposes, suspension makes no difference in energy loss caused by flex and in this case you would be correct. For human powered applications though, passive suspension is more about dampening vibrations whereas suspension is about providing a pivot point once the load on the bicycle exceeds the preload on the shock.
However, this means that as soon as you want to sprint, stand, or climb, suspension loses energy big time, particularily rear shocks. This is the reason that rear suspension designs are always in flux while the DF has remained fairly stable over the years: the search for efficient full suspension geometry.
However, as you're always sporting words on how much lighter the bb drive is, i'll also remind you that there's more than an extra 10lbs of weight on your bike compared to some of these Softride models. You should also know that while the bb drive looks more efficient on paper, you're relying on the chain drive of a bicycle which sports an energy loss of its own - about 98% counting the best and finest parts in the world, and less once you're down to the average stuff (let alone a huffy) in the end, bb frame drives are better performers than hub motors, but they aren't much more efficient in energy use at all.
Mind you, the softride is an unorthodox rendition, it would end up being slightly less efficient than a solid diamond frame due to the increased flex, but a little bit of that might be regained by having very little aerodynamic profile between the rider's legs and behind the rider. Personally, i'll just take a steel frame with a mid wheelbase, some nice cork/gel tape, and a brooks saddle. Not as fast, but much less tacky and just as comfy. Plus, you can carry a rack, and 50lbs of junk.
If you want to talk about silly design, i'd ask why you're criticizing an unorthodox tri bike instead of questioning why you're claiming to build one of the world's finest systems and then slapping it onto a huffy, losing huge amounts of reliability, practicality, and efficiency?
Drivetrain efficiency on an e-bike doesn't rely on downward force and is instead applied directly at the wheel. For all purposes, suspension makes no difference in energy loss caused by flex and in this case you would be correct. For human powered applications though, passive suspension is more about dampening vibrations whereas suspension is about providing a pivot point once the load on the bicycle exceeds the preload on the shock.
However, this means that as soon as you want to sprint, stand, or climb, suspension loses energy big time, particularily rear shocks. This is the reason that rear suspension designs are always in flux while the DF has remained fairly stable over the years: the search for efficient full suspension geometry.
However, as you're always sporting words on how much lighter the bb drive is, i'll also remind you that there's more than an extra 10lbs of weight on your bike compared to some of these Softride models. You should also know that while the bb drive looks more efficient on paper, you're relying on the chain drive of a bicycle which sports an energy loss of its own - about 98% counting the best and finest parts in the world, and less once you're down to the average stuff (let alone a huffy) in the end, bb frame drives are better performers than hub motors, but they aren't much more efficient in energy use at all.
Mind you, the softride is an unorthodox rendition, it would end up being slightly less efficient than a solid diamond frame due to the increased flex, but a little bit of that might be regained by having very little aerodynamic profile between the rider's legs and behind the rider. Personally, i'll just take a steel frame with a mid wheelbase, some nice cork/gel tape, and a brooks saddle. Not as fast, but much less tacky and just as comfy. Plus, you can carry a rack, and 50lbs of junk.
If you want to talk about silly design, i'd ask why you're criticizing an unorthodox tri bike instead of questioning why you're claiming to build one of the world's finest systems and then slapping it onto a huffy, losing huge amounts of reliability, practicality, and efficiency?
11-10-07, 05:59 PM
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,006
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2504 Post(s)
Liked 745 Times
in
526 Posts
Suspension is not only an issue of comfort and when the riders energy will not be the prime source of motive power suspension losses are not as significant as on a conventional suspended bicycle. Suspension is getting sophisticated to the point where it can 'lock out' at normal pedalling inputs yet activate to absorb road shock. Front suspension is neccessary because when riding on surfaces other than tracks or closed courses an undue amount of surface irregularity negatively affects handling. If the front wheel cannot stay in contact with the ground it cannot properly steer the bike! Front suspension was invented well before rear suspension for that reason alone.
Hub motors are not more efficient and will not ever be until someone invents a multi-speed hub motor. Until then BB systems that can use either the rear cassette or an internal gear hub will get the most out of whatever motor is used at the BB. Hub motors have their advantages in designs that will have a limited speed range but their use in a vehicle that will be expected to traverse an unpredictable variety of terrain at a wide range of speeds cannot be claimed to be 'efficient'.
Nevertheless, I agree, aesthetics is not BS.
H
Hub motors are not more efficient and will not ever be until someone invents a multi-speed hub motor. Until then BB systems that can use either the rear cassette or an internal gear hub will get the most out of whatever motor is used at the BB. Hub motors have their advantages in designs that will have a limited speed range but their use in a vehicle that will be expected to traverse an unpredictable variety of terrain at a wide range of speeds cannot be claimed to be 'efficient'.
Nevertheless, I agree, aesthetics is not BS.
H
11-10-07, 08:52 PM
#31
Hooligan
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Base of the Rocky Mountains, Canada. Wonderous things!
Posts: 1,431
Bikes: 2010 Cannondale Hooligan 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Suspension is not only an issue of comfort and when the riders energy will not be the prime source of motive power suspension losses are not as significant as on a conventional suspended bicycle. Suspension is getting sophisticated to the point where it can 'lock out' at normal pedalling inputs yet activate to absorb road shock. Front suspension is neccessary because when riding on surfaces other than tracks or closed courses an undue amount of surface irregularity negatively affects handling. If the front wheel cannot stay in contact with the ground it cannot properly steer the bike! Front suspension was invented well before rear suspension for that reason alone.
Hub motors are not more efficient and will not ever be until someone invents a multi-speed hub motor. Until then BB systems that can use either the rear cassette or an internal gear hub will get the most out of whatever motor is used at the BB. Hub motors have their advantages in designs that will have a limited speed range but their use in a vehicle that will be expected to traverse an unpredictable variety of terrain at a wide range of speeds cannot be claimed to be 'efficient'.
Nevertheless, I agree, aesthetics is not BS.
H
Hub motors are not more efficient and will not ever be until someone invents a multi-speed hub motor. Until then BB systems that can use either the rear cassette or an internal gear hub will get the most out of whatever motor is used at the BB. Hub motors have their advantages in designs that will have a limited speed range but their use in a vehicle that will be expected to traverse an unpredictable variety of terrain at a wide range of speeds cannot be claimed to be 'efficient'.
Nevertheless, I agree, aesthetics is not BS.
H
without needing restrictive, overweight maintenance hogs like suspension bikes, something which only becomes a necessity when you need improved wheel contact and is a waste up until that point.
I already know all about suspension dynamics, trust me. A tri bike doesn't need suspension. Neither does a touring bike, a commuter, most bikes don't. I know people who ride light XC without suspension. Suspension is a comfort up until the terrain is unreliable, and in the city passive suspension works just as well on roads and paths as shocks. The design on something like a Softbike isn't just aesthetics. I think you ride a 'bent right? Well, its the same way the LWB's tend to ride smooth. You probably already know this stuff already though.
Front suspension is much more practical for everyday use than rear. You retain more energy comparatively, and gain a larger traction advantage. For domestic applications it can easily be skipped and comfort can be retained, but its a case of user preference. In the city, my peugeot px-10 rides more comfortably than does my full suspension fuji 2 diamond. I won't be hopping any curbs on the peugeot though.
On rear suspension bicycles, there are a few typical solutions to the energy loss, none of which are cure-alls. Rebounds and isolated geometry are great solutions for allowing the rear shock to work during big hits, but they work against the benefit of the shock for the rider on terrain that causes vibrations like rocks or roots. Lockouts need to be manually actuated, which isn't so bad if you've got a bar mounted toggle, but these are all solutions to a problem that doesn't need to be had for the everyday rider. Rear shocks belong on bikes being used on aggressive terrain.
As for hub motors, I never said they were more efficient. But the belief some people have that they're wholly inefficient is silly. There's no drivetrain loss, and the rated efficiency on a hub motor is quite good. One mistake some users make is to purchase the wrong motor for the job, not choosing one for their particular locale and then needing considerably more amps to generate enough torque for their needs, reducing their range.
On the flipside, my 408 goes 66kms off a charge on my battery, the torque and speed outputs are perfect for the intended application. The larger difference between bb/hub comes from the fact that the bb motor is capable of adapting itself to a larger degree of terrain. There's much more of a difference in potential performance than there is overall efficiency.
11-11-07, 03:56 PM
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 431
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Liese, you missed this part I think:
without needing restrictive, overweight maintenance hogs like suspension bikes, something which only becomes a necessity when you need improved wheel contact and is a waste up until that point.
I already know all about suspension dynamics, trust me. A tri bike doesn't need suspension. Neither does a touring bike, a commuter, most bikes don't. I know people who ride light XC without suspension. Suspension is a comfort up until the terrain is unreliable, and in the city passive suspension works just as well on roads and paths as shocks. The design on something like a Softbike isn't just aesthetics. I think you ride a 'bent right? Well, its the same way the LWB's tend to ride smooth. You probably already know this stuff already though.
Front suspension is much more practical for everyday use than rear. You retain more energy comparatively, and gain a larger traction advantage. For domestic applications it can easily be skipped and comfort can be retained, but its a case of user preference. In the city, my peugeot px-10 rides more comfortably than does my full suspension fuji 2 diamond. I won't be hopping any curbs on the peugeot though.
On rear suspension bicycles, there are a few typical solutions to the energy loss, none of which are cure-alls. Rebounds and isolated geometry are great solutions for allowing the rear shock to work during big hits, but they work against the benefit of the shock for the rider on terrain that causes vibrations like rocks or roots. Lockouts need to be manually actuated, which isn't so bad if you've got a bar mounted toggle, but these are all solutions to a problem that doesn't need to be had for the everyday rider. Rear shocks belong on bikes being used on aggressive terrain.
As for hub motors, I never said they were more efficient. But the belief some people have that they're wholly inefficient is silly. There's no drivetrain loss, and the rated efficiency on a hub motor is quite good. One mistake some users make is to purchase the wrong motor for the job, not choosing one for their particular locale and then needing considerably more amps to generate enough torque for their needs, reducing their range.
On the flipside, my 408 goes 66kms off a charge on my battery, the torque and speed outputs are perfect for the intended application. The larger difference between bb/hub comes from the fact that the bb motor is capable of adapting itself to a larger degree of terrain. There's much more of a difference in potential performance than there is overall efficiency.
without needing restrictive, overweight maintenance hogs like suspension bikes, something which only becomes a necessity when you need improved wheel contact and is a waste up until that point.
I already know all about suspension dynamics, trust me. A tri bike doesn't need suspension. Neither does a touring bike, a commuter, most bikes don't. I know people who ride light XC without suspension. Suspension is a comfort up until the terrain is unreliable, and in the city passive suspension works just as well on roads and paths as shocks. The design on something like a Softbike isn't just aesthetics. I think you ride a 'bent right? Well, its the same way the LWB's tend to ride smooth. You probably already know this stuff already though.
Front suspension is much more practical for everyday use than rear. You retain more energy comparatively, and gain a larger traction advantage. For domestic applications it can easily be skipped and comfort can be retained, but its a case of user preference. In the city, my peugeot px-10 rides more comfortably than does my full suspension fuji 2 diamond. I won't be hopping any curbs on the peugeot though.
On rear suspension bicycles, there are a few typical solutions to the energy loss, none of which are cure-alls. Rebounds and isolated geometry are great solutions for allowing the rear shock to work during big hits, but they work against the benefit of the shock for the rider on terrain that causes vibrations like rocks or roots. Lockouts need to be manually actuated, which isn't so bad if you've got a bar mounted toggle, but these are all solutions to a problem that doesn't need to be had for the everyday rider. Rear shocks belong on bikes being used on aggressive terrain.
As for hub motors, I never said they were more efficient. But the belief some people have that they're wholly inefficient is silly. There's no drivetrain loss, and the rated efficiency on a hub motor is quite good. One mistake some users make is to purchase the wrong motor for the job, not choosing one for their particular locale and then needing considerably more amps to generate enough torque for their needs, reducing their range.
On the flipside, my 408 goes 66kms off a charge on my battery, the torque and speed outputs are perfect for the intended application. The larger difference between bb/hub comes from the fact that the bb motor is capable of adapting itself to a larger degree of terrain. There's much more of a difference in potential performance than there is overall efficiency.
Secondly riding on dirt trails and pot hole roads without a full suspension up steep inclines with mostly motor power a hardtail bike skips the wheel like a SOB besides baging the kidneys.Yea you guys with low power who like to race down hills on smooth roads as fast as you can while pedaling hard you can spend 1000s on lightweight bikes and unneeded components but for efficiency and smoothness WITHOUT the need to pedal you all loose and pay too much attention on the bike itself. While you may have a lightweight bike what kind weight are you talking for all the lead acid batteries and heavy hub motors or extra power robbing components used in multi reductions used in most bottom bracket drives ? I would say that with even using lithiums the Huffy would still have a better power to weight ratio with the drive system it has with less components at a much better efficiency at any ebike speed or condition.The perk is and always be in the efficiency of the motor and drive system. The bike it's self is secondary for efficiency unless your motor drive is minimal and you pedal for over 60% of your power needed to meet YOUR requirement.To get the best of both worlds in a light weight ebike how hard would it be to make a lightweight aluminum frame with full suspension and a motor and battery mount allowing for a 5 lb 1600 watt motor with programable power limits?
Last edited by EbikeHawaii; 11-23-07 at 05:56 AM.
11-11-07, 05:11 PM
#33
Hooligan
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Base of the Rocky Mountains, Canada. Wonderous things!
Posts: 1,431
Bikes: 2010 Cannondale Hooligan 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
When i'm speaking about your huffy's weight, its in relation to how you mock the hub motor for being 15lbs, but pack an extra 10 onto your bicycle from having a far over-average weight system. It seems a bit hypocritical that you're talking about how easily all these people could save weight when you're packing an extra 10 with nothing but psychological gain? Alright, pick full suspension if you want, but go ask the mountain biking forum what they'd think about taking a huffy down the trails.
Whatever you choose, make the bike worth the kit, and make them work towards your needs. Full suspension for someone living in a city, carrying their things, and using the bike day in-day out is silly.
I think you've confused me for a roadie, unless you were just generalizing. I'm a college student, and I like my bikes to work. There's a world of difference between a bike that can be trusted to work and one that can't.
My 2001 fuji 2 cost $450 used. Its a full suspension, all mountain midweight. The other bike is made with a hardtail Rocky Mountain Concord frame from NYCbikes, A surly 1x1 fork, and a pile of various components between Alivio-LX. Neither of those bikes are pricey, extreme performers, lightweights, or head turners. What they are is reliable. And what these bikes let me do, is enjoy cycling on a decent rig while having a reliable system.
Were it to come down to different riding, i'd pick something else. But it would follow the same guidelines: pick what you need, pick a little more if you want, but never pick less.
Whatever you choose, make the bike worth the kit, and make them work towards your needs. Full suspension for someone living in a city, carrying their things, and using the bike day in-day out is silly.
I think you've confused me for a roadie, unless you were just generalizing. I'm a college student, and I like my bikes to work. There's a world of difference between a bike that can be trusted to work and one that can't.
My 2001 fuji 2 cost $450 used. Its a full suspension, all mountain midweight. The other bike is made with a hardtail Rocky Mountain Concord frame from NYCbikes, A surly 1x1 fork, and a pile of various components between Alivio-LX. Neither of those bikes are pricey, extreme performers, lightweights, or head turners. What they are is reliable. And what these bikes let me do, is enjoy cycling on a decent rig while having a reliable system.
Were it to come down to different riding, i'd pick something else. But it would follow the same guidelines: pick what you need, pick a little more if you want, but never pick less.
11-11-07, 05:39 PM
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 431
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
When i'm speaking about your huffy's weight, its in relation to how you mock the hub motor for being 15lbs, but pack an extra 10 onto your bicycle from having a far over-average weight system. It seems a bit hypocritical that you're talking about how easily all these people could save weight when you're packing an extra 10 with nothing but psychological gain? Alright, pick full suspension if you want, but go ask the mountain biking forum what they'd think about taking a huffy down the trails.
Whatever you choose, make the bike worth the kit, and make them work towards your needs. Full suspension for someone living in a city, carrying their things, and using the bike day in-day out is silly.
I think you've confused me for a roadie, unless you were just generalizing. I'm a college student, and I like my bikes to work. There's a world of difference between a bike that can be trusted to work and one that can't.
My 2001 fuji 2 cost $450 used. Its a full suspension, all mountain midweight. The other bike is made with a hardtail Rocky Mountain Concord frame from NYCbikes, A surly 1x1 fork, and a pile of various components between Alivio-LX. Neither of those bikes are pricey, extreme performers, lightweights, or head turners. What they are is reliable. And what these bikes let me do, is enjoy cycling on a decent rig while having a reliable system.
Were it to come down to different riding, i'd pick something else. But it would follow the same guidelines: pick what you need, pick a little more if you want, but never pick less.
Whatever you choose, make the bike worth the kit, and make them work towards your needs. Full suspension for someone living in a city, carrying their things, and using the bike day in-day out is silly.
I think you've confused me for a roadie, unless you were just generalizing. I'm a college student, and I like my bikes to work. There's a world of difference between a bike that can be trusted to work and one that can't.
My 2001 fuji 2 cost $450 used. Its a full suspension, all mountain midweight. The other bike is made with a hardtail Rocky Mountain Concord frame from NYCbikes, A surly 1x1 fork, and a pile of various components between Alivio-LX. Neither of those bikes are pricey, extreme performers, lightweights, or head turners. What they are is reliable. And what these bikes let me do, is enjoy cycling on a decent rig while having a reliable system.
Were it to come down to different riding, i'd pick something else. But it would follow the same guidelines: pick what you need, pick a little more if you want, but never pick less.
Last edited by EbikeHawaii; 11-23-07 at 05:56 AM.
11-11-07, 06:13 PM
#35
Hooligan
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Base of the Rocky Mountains, Canada. Wonderous things!
Posts: 1,431
Bikes: 2010 Cannondale Hooligan 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
A huffy isn't a strong frame. https://spokesmanbicycles.com/page.cfm?pageID=329
Taken as an excerpt:
From now on, in the bicycle lexicon of this series, I'll be using 4130 and CrMo interchangeably, even though not all CrMo's are 4130. CrMo is by far the most common of all the steels used to build high- quality bicycle frames. And I'm making an assumption that the readers of VeloNews who ride steel frames aren't riding Muffy's (That's the generic name for the Murray-Huffy style of bike you can buy at those fine American institutions like Kmart and Wal-mart.) Muffy-grade steel is barely above rebar on the steel "food chain"; rebar is essentially a blend of melted 1956 Chevys, washing machines and shopping carts.
When you say dirtbiking, do you mean "riding on dirt", or "eating up drop verticals onto hardpack/rock"?
There's a big difference. One you can do with pretty much any kind of bike, the other is where you'll find out what the difference between strength in your frame and new false teeth look like.
As for the climb, I can think of a lot of bikes that could do it without modification. The Stokemonkey and Heinzmann would laugh at carrying *one* person up an incline for an extended period of time, it'd be quite possible on any system that didn't stray too far from nominal output as long as the battery capacity was adequate.
Taken as an excerpt:
From now on, in the bicycle lexicon of this series, I'll be using 4130 and CrMo interchangeably, even though not all CrMo's are 4130. CrMo is by far the most common of all the steels used to build high- quality bicycle frames. And I'm making an assumption that the readers of VeloNews who ride steel frames aren't riding Muffy's (That's the generic name for the Murray-Huffy style of bike you can buy at those fine American institutions like Kmart and Wal-mart.) Muffy-grade steel is barely above rebar on the steel "food chain"; rebar is essentially a blend of melted 1956 Chevys, washing machines and shopping carts.
When you say dirtbiking, do you mean "riding on dirt", or "eating up drop verticals onto hardpack/rock"?
There's a big difference. One you can do with pretty much any kind of bike, the other is where you'll find out what the difference between strength in your frame and new false teeth look like.
As for the climb, I can think of a lot of bikes that could do it without modification. The Stokemonkey and Heinzmann would laugh at carrying *one* person up an incline for an extended period of time, it'd be quite possible on any system that didn't stray too far from nominal output as long as the battery capacity was adequate.
11-11-07, 06:36 PM
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 431
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
A huffy isn't a strong frame. https://spokesmanbicycles.com/page.cfm?pageID=329
Taken as an excerpt:
From now on, in the bicycle lexicon of this series, I'll be using 4130 and CrMo interchangeably, even though not all CrMo's are 4130. CrMo is by far the most common of all the steels used to build high- quality bicycle frames. And I'm making an assumption that the readers of VeloNews who ride steel frames aren't riding Muffy's (That's the generic name for the Murray-Huffy style of bike you can buy at those fine American institutions like Kmart and Wal-mart.) Muffy-grade steel is barely above rebar on the steel "food chain"; rebar is essentially a blend of melted 1956 Chevys, washing machines and shopping carts.
When you say dirtbiking, do you mean "riding on dirt", or "eating up drop verticals onto hardpack/rock"?
There's a big difference. One you can do with pretty much any kind of bike, the other is where you'll find out what the difference between strength in your frame and new false teeth look like.
As for the climb, I can think of a lot of bikes that could do it without modification. The Stokemonkey and Heinzmann would laugh at carrying *one* person up an incline for an extended period of time, it'd be quite possible on any system that didn't stray too far from nominal output as long as the battery capacity was adequate.
Taken as an excerpt:
From now on, in the bicycle lexicon of this series, I'll be using 4130 and CrMo interchangeably, even though not all CrMo's are 4130. CrMo is by far the most common of all the steels used to build high- quality bicycle frames. And I'm making an assumption that the readers of VeloNews who ride steel frames aren't riding Muffy's (That's the generic name for the Murray-Huffy style of bike you can buy at those fine American institutions like Kmart and Wal-mart.) Muffy-grade steel is barely above rebar on the steel "food chain"; rebar is essentially a blend of melted 1956 Chevys, washing machines and shopping carts.
When you say dirtbiking, do you mean "riding on dirt", or "eating up drop verticals onto hardpack/rock"?
There's a big difference. One you can do with pretty much any kind of bike, the other is where you'll find out what the difference between strength in your frame and new false teeth look like.
As for the climb, I can think of a lot of bikes that could do it without modification. The Stokemonkey and Heinzmann would laugh at carrying *one* person up an incline for an extended period of time, it'd be quite possible on any system that didn't stray too far from nominal output as long as the battery capacity was adequate.
YOU are in DREAMLAND! As far as frame strength on Huffy bikes being substandard YOU are also in cloud of your own reality.
Last edited by EbikeHawaii; 11-11-07 at 07:21 PM.
11-11-07, 07:40 PM
#37
Hooligan
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Base of the Rocky Mountains, Canada. Wonderous things!
Posts: 1,431
Bikes: 2010 Cannondale Hooligan 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
So You Say! Try It!... lol.... as long as the battery capacity was adequate ? For amp robbing systems you suggested how much total battery weight would be adequate to average 12 mph up a 10,005 ft high mountain in 3 hours without the use of lithium batteries ?
YOU are in DREAMLAND! As far as frame strength on Huffy bikes being substandard YOU are also in cloud of your own reality.
I recently got a "Honda Racing" Trail Pilot fully suspended bike for $99 at K-mart. It works decent.
They are also available at SportMart:
https://www.sportmart.com/product/ind...4&cp=713103.88
7561.1212018&parentPage=family
According to the specs, it has Shimano derailleurs. There is another low-end fully suspended bike by
Huffy, for $20 more:
https://www.cyclingforums.com/archive...hp/t-6049.html
YOU are in DREAMLAND! As far as frame strength on Huffy bikes being substandard YOU are also in cloud of your own reality.
I recently got a "Honda Racing" Trail Pilot fully suspended bike for $99 at K-mart. It works decent.
They are also available at SportMart:
https://www.sportmart.com/product/ind...4&cp=713103.88
7561.1212018&parentPage=family
According to the specs, it has Shimano derailleurs. There is another low-end fully suspended bike by
Huffy, for $20 more:
https://www.cyclingforums.com/archive...hp/t-6049.html
https://www.cyclingforums.com/archive...hp/t-6049.html
If you read it farther than 2-3 posts, it turns into nothing but a slam-fest against these cheap FS bikes. Its not uncommon knowledge that these bikes are largely a joke. If you're honestly using these things for off-road applications, I fear for your life.
Edit: Ah, edited those links out did you?
11-11-07, 08:30 PM
#38
Hooligan
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Base of the Rocky Mountains, Canada. Wonderous things!
Posts: 1,431
Bikes: 2010 Cannondale Hooligan 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Actually, I did forget about some of the newest suspension designs Liese, you're right in that some of them are really improving. I did a swap with a friend of mine for fun on one ride, his had an isolated linkage FSR design. Took the hits, but handled washboard conditions a lot more comfortably and didn't pogo unless you were sprinting.
11-12-07, 12:15 AM
#39
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 431
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Actually, I did forget about some of the newest suspension designs Liese, you're right in that some of them are really improving. I did a swap with a friend of mine for fun on one ride, his had an isolated linkage FSR design. Took the hits, but handled washboard conditions a lot more comfortably and didn't pogo unless you were sprinting.
11-12-07, 12:41 AM
#40
Hooligan
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Base of the Rocky Mountains, Canada. Wonderous things!
Posts: 1,431
Bikes: 2010 Cannondale Hooligan 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I wonder if you're being funny, or just clueless. I'm just not going to try with you anymore.
11-12-07, 08:36 AM
#41
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
And where might one reasonably obtain a FW crank that won't cost more then the whole bike ...??? I wouldn't mind if it looked like a paperbike as long as it worked...and was reliable ..
11-20-07, 04:09 PM
#42
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: hamilton,ontario
Posts: 441
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times
in
3 Posts
ya the seat would be hard to make without problems i was thinking with just the standard dowtube
still would look good.
i found this https://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/carbon_fiber.htm
Last edited by karma; 11-20-07 at 04:16 PM.
11-25-07, 04:08 AM
#43
Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: BOP. NZ.
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
mag wheels
yes, a very slick looking bike indeed! i found these wheels that i will be using on my bb build bike. https://www.tagwheels.com/
