Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Copenhagen Wheel - Anybody actually try one yet?

159 views
Skip to first unread message

TBerk

unread,
Jan 14, 2010, 1:57:42 AM1/14/10
to
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-10417864-247.html

http://senseable.mit.edu/copenhagenwheel/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7y3qIQu3Gc

it's supposed to bring Peace on Earth, Goodwill towards Men, Whiten
and Strength Teeth Enamel, and cut down on Irritable Bowel Syndrome.
or so I've heard.

The basic premise seems, well, sound but I wonder about the shock
resistance, the cost, and the weight. And why not have one up front as
well?

So far, a lot of press, but no body i actually heard of has used one i
real life. Maybe it's too soon for such reports, but that's why i am
asking here.


berk

carl...@comcast.net

unread,
Jan 14, 2010, 2:46:01 AM1/14/10
to

Dear Berk,

Maybe I missed it, but . . .

Nothing about how much actual power is stored and released by rear
wheel braking.

Nor about how much the wheel weighs.

Nor about how much the wheel might cost.

The video shot of the cell phone screen shows the last ride was 3.2
km, averaging 15 kmh.

(You can get far better mileage and average speed resolution from a
sub-$20 WalMart cyclocomputer.)

That's a whopping 2.0 miles at a staggering 9.3 mph. On level ground,
you can stand on one pedal on the left side of a bicycle and push it
faster than that with your free right foot--I've done it.

How much energy storage would that kind of gentle riding produce?

And the people who put all that effort into the wheel picked that
example.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Ryan Cousineau

unread,
Jan 14, 2010, 2:48:42 AM1/14/10
to
In article
<97bc8163-8134-4fc9...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
TBerk <bayar...@yahoo.com> wrote:

The most important difference between the Copenhagen Wheel and other
hub-based electric-assist motors is that the Copenhagen Wheel is
currently not for sale.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

Andre Jute

unread,
Jan 14, 2010, 3:54:38 AM1/14/10
to

It sure is uber-trendy. And, like every other politically correct but
totally unscientific emanation of love-thy-environment softcore
religious porn, the Copenhagen Wheel is a huge waste of resources,
both in production and in operation. We can all guess why they don't
tell us the thing's weight or how much energy it will store or how
efficiently. Nor even the no-doubt excessive price, calculated on the
principle that "you gotta spend a lot to show you care a lot".

It's a feelgood fashion accessory for the limper wrists down at Le
Caff Racer. By the end of the summer it will be an embarrassing
memory, by next summer a public joke on cyclists.

Andre Jute
"The first American car was sold to an American on April Fool's Day,
1898." -- Ralph Stein in "Vintage and Classic Cars", Bantam Books,
1977

Peter Cole

unread,
Jan 14, 2010, 11:36:38 AM1/14/10
to

It's only being demo'ed, not in production yet.

It's an interesting collection of ideas. For a utility bike, there's
little debate about the practical advantages of a gear hub or a dynohub.
Since a dynohub and hub motor are basically the same technology, it
makes sense (superficially, anyway) to make the generator a
motor-generator. Recent advances in lithium batteries make integration
of a 100 w-hr or so battery add just a few pounds and perhaps $100 to
the cost.

Most people seem to be focusing on the regenerative braking aspect of
this scheme. Given that dynohub users commonly claim that 3W is almost
undetectable, I'd guess that higher draws might be noticeable but not
problematic, so the batteries could also be charged while riding.

The main advantage of a limited amount of stored power (and motive
power) would be hill assist and stop & go riding. In theory, this would
somewhat flatten a rolling course, since energy could be accumulated
during low power riding and expended during high power times (hills,
accelerations from stops, etc.). I employ a similar strategy in pulling
heavy trailers -- I gear the motor very low and only use it sporadically
for assist on steep grades and accelerating in traffic. It works very well.

It's very attractive to bundle everything -- gears, motor, generator,
charging & control electronics and battery into a single assembly.
Perhaps the sensor/computer stuff is a bit over the top, but these days
all that is essentially free, so the question becomes why not throw in a
few extra chips. Using a smart phone for the user interface likewise
makes perfect economic sense, particularly looking down the road a bit.

This is really a design for a hybrid bike rather than an electric bike.
Just as hybrid cars allow the use of a much smaller gas motor, this kind
of bike would allow riders with "small motors" (or those who would
prefer to ride that way) to enjoy the benefits of functional and/or
recreational bicycling with lower (peak) physical exertion. The tradeoff
for higher average load for lower peak load is one that perhaps most
cyclists would prefer to make, given the opportunity, and given a
relatively low weight penalty and reasonable efficiencies. I think the
technology has reached that point.

I'd estimate that a wheel like this would come out somewhere in the
range of 10 extra pounds or so, and could be mass produced for something
around $250. With numbers like that, it would be extremely attractive to
casual recreational and utility cyclists.

thirty-six

unread,
Jan 14, 2010, 1:29:41 PM1/14/10
to

I went to say something similar but gave up because it was too much
effort, thanks.

AMuzi

unread,
Jan 14, 2010, 2:11:55 PM1/14/10
to
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> In article
> <97bc8163-8134-4fc9...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> TBerk <bayar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-10417864-247.html
>>
>> http://senseable.mit.edu/copenhagenwheel/
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7y3qIQu3Gc
>>
>> it's supposed to bring Peace on Earth, Goodwill towards Men, Whiten
>> and Strength Teeth Enamel, and cut down on Irritable Bowel Syndrome.
>> or so I've heard.
>>
>> The basic premise seems, well, sound but I wonder about the shock
>> resistance, the cost, and the weight. And why not have one up front as
>> well?
>>
>> So far, a lot of press, but no body i actually heard of has used one i
>> real life. Maybe it's too soon for such reports, but that's why i am
>> asking here.
>
> The most important difference between the Copenhagen Wheel and other
> hub-based electric-assist motors is that the Copenhagen Wheel is
> currently not for sale.
>

So it has everything then. It's Magic and it's Vaporware!
Oughta sell like hotcakes.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

RimaNeas

unread,
Jan 14, 2010, 3:47:49 PM1/14/10
to
"AMuzi" <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
news:hinq9k$mt2$1...@news.eternal-september.org...

> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
> So it has everything then. It's Magic and it's Vaporware! Oughta sell like
> hotcakes.
>
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Liberal guilt and a gadget fetish... an entirely superfluous and moronic
affront to an elegantly simple vehicle. You will get more bang for your
buck re-cycling your methane output while pedaling.

Cheers, Shawn

PS: I usually keep such opinions to myself, but this tweeter-generation
abomination offends my engineering sensibilities. It is a sad testament to
our education system that such idiocy, and in my mind this exceeds even the
Segway thingy, warrants public attention.


landotter

unread,
Jan 14, 2010, 4:35:26 PM1/14/10
to

You got the balls to say that in front of a mall cop?

(PeteCresswell)

unread,
Jan 14, 2010, 7:02:38 PM1/14/10
to
Per Peter Cole:

>Most people seem to be focusing on the regenerative braking aspect of
>this scheme. Given that dynohub users commonly claim that 3W is almost
>undetectable, I'd guess that higher draws might be noticeable but not
>problematic, so the batteries could also be charged while riding.

I can't cite the source, but somebody who seemed to know told me
that the regen thing was mostly bogus. The reason being that
the battery cannot accept very much current compared to what's
generated by the motor when in regen braking mode. The batt
gets charged a little, but not much.

Maybe somebody with some experience can chime in.

My guess is that the wheel will use planetary gears bco
weight/size limitations on the motor (they still need room for
the battery) and something called "cogging" which is eliminated
when planetary gears and the associated freewheel are used.

Dunno what real cogging is in the mechanical world, but on ebikes
it is increased resistance felt when pedaling a non-geared motor
that is not running. One ebike seller characterizes it as
"about the same added resistance as the difference between fat
MTB tires and road tires. I would disagree and say it's quite a
bit more.

--
PeteCresswell

Andre Jute

unread,
Jan 15, 2010, 4:53:14 AM1/15/10
to
On Jan 15, 12:02 am, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote:
> Per Peter Cole:
>
> >Most people seem to be focusing on the regenerative braking aspect of
> >this scheme. Given that dynohub users commonly claim that 3W is almost
> >undetectable, I'd guess that higher draws might be noticeable but not
> >problematic, so the batteries could also be charged while riding.
>
> I can't cite the source, but somebody who seemed to know told me
> that the regen thing was mostly bogus.   The reason being that
> the battery cannot accept very much current compared to what's
> generated by the motor when in regen braking mode.    The batt
> gets charged a little, but not much.

Yes, I wondered about that. The fast way to build a constantly charge-
cycling unit is with a capacitor, which can store current, within its
design limits, much faster than a battery. That's how Shimano's full-
service Di2 automatic system provides so many services more from a hub-
dynamo + capacitor than the cut-down Dura-Ace Di2 which uses batteries
for power. But capacitors are far heavier than batteries. (As an
aside, Shimano in its literature describes the capacitor which stores
power for the CPU in the full or Cyber Nexus version of Di2 as "a
battery" -- possibly a translation error.)

My favourite method of biasing the driver stage of really high quality
tube amplifiers is with a rechargeable battery directly in the cathode
circuit, where it is on a constant trickle charge whenever the amp is
on. Compare for instance a design for a cheap student amp at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/Jute-EL34-SEntry.jpg, which uses a
resistor for the same purpose, to the plutocrat's amp at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/T39-KISS-300B-Ultrafi-crct.jpg,
which does the job with a rechargeable battery. Because those Western
Electric tubes cost more than any of my bikes, I always keep the
protos on the meters for weeks, and graph everything very carefully,
and I can tell you that even in that undemanding situation the battery
works at maybe five per cent of efficiency (I like it that way -- the
rest is a safety margin).

It seems to me that maybe, in heavy city traffic with lots of braking
some noticeable fraction of braking power, though never as high as 10
per cent under the most ideal conditions, might be converted to stored
current. The work that could do, after further losses in the drive of
course, must be evaluated against the energy expanded to pedal around
the extra weight of the hub. Try as I might, I fail to grasp how
whatever you get back from that hub could be less than a small
fraction of the energy you put in dragging it around. Yet it's
presented as a perpetual motion machine.

You might look into the KERS system, now dropped after a couple of
years in Formula One auto racing. Here we're talking about violent
braking for about half the time (not half the distance) that the car
is on track, which then stores enough power in a very heavy system
that (pro rata to power requirements) would simply immobilize a bike.
Even F1 dropped KERS because the weight was just too much of a problem
for most teams to design around. The storage then released enough
power on demand for an extra boost (not full motive power, just a
boost of a few per cent) for seven or eight seconds, or roughly one-
twelfth of the lap. As I say, they've now dropped it because there are
better ways of making cars more energy efficient. Bikes just don't
brake that violently, that often, or for such a huge part of the time
they are on the road. There is no reason to believe that a handful of
global warming trendies in Copenhagen can beat the brainpower and
money that auto racers in the richest sport on earth can throw at a
problem. And, as I've just shown, the problem is a magnitude or two
more intractable in a bicycle than in a racing car.

> Maybe somebody with some experience can chime in.
>
> My guess is that the wheel will use planetary gears bco
> weight/size limitations on the motor (they still need room for
> the battery) and something called "cogging" which is eliminated
> when planetary gears and the associated freewheel are used.
>
> Dunno what real cogging is in the mechanical world, but on ebikes
> it is increased resistance felt when pedaling a non-geared motor
> that is not running.   One ebike seller characterizes it as
> "about the same added resistance as the difference between fat
> MTB tires and road tires.   I would disagree and say it's quite a
> bit more.

The efficiency loss in the regeneration system, and the charging
barrier loss too, have to be made up by another motor and all that is
available on a bicycle is Shank's Mare, your shanks...

You'll be developing well-defined leg muscles, Pete!

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio
constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of
wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

Cicero Venatio

unread,
Jan 15, 2010, 8:02:06 AM1/15/10
to
It's a "game changer" if it does what it says it can do. To think that
hub generators have had a hard enough time just keeping a light lit at
full power, to now powering the whole bike has to be a giant leap in
technology. My worry would be a long steep descent, think of the energy
involved, could the wheel explode in flames?

Peter Cole

unread,
Jan 15, 2010, 8:14:11 AM1/15/10
to
RimaNeas wrote:
> "AMuzi" <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
> news:hinq9k$mt2$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>>
>> So it has everything then. It's Magic and it's Vaporware! Oughta sell like
>> hotcakes.
>>
>> --
>> Andrew Muzi
>> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>
> Liberal guilt and a gadget fetish... an entirely superfluous and moronic
> affront to an elegantly simple vehicle. You will get more bang for your
> buck re-cycling your methane output while pedaling.

I don't know what hybrid technology has to do with guilt, or why
liberals should have a monopoly on it. I suspect your politics colors
your reasoning -- such as it is.


>
> Cheers, Shawn
>
> PS: I usually keep such opinions to myself, but this tweeter-generation
> abomination offends my engineering sensibilities. It is a sad testament to
> our education system that such idiocy, and in my mind this exceeds even the
> Segway thingy, warrants public attention.

AFAIK, the "tweeter-generation" is gray-haired, at least according to my
teenagers.

I don't know what your "engineering sensibilities" are, nor where you
were educated (you say "our" education system, so were you educated
abroad, but hold US citizenship?). Perhaps you are so gifted and
diligent that you have overcome the handicap of a US engineering
education -- good for you! Although I didn't attend there, MIT
("Copenhagen wheel") does turn out passably educated engineers (I have
known many). Dean Kamen (Segway) only attended Worcester Polytechnic (as
did several other engineers I know), but then he has (probably a dozen
by now) honorary doctorates. I don't think my technical education (BS
EE/ME, MS Comp Sci, Northeastern) was "sad", nor do I think my kid's has
been. Was yours "sad", or just everyone else's?

Peter Cole

unread,
Jan 15, 2010, 9:10:13 AM1/15/10
to
(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per Peter Cole:
>> Most people seem to be focusing on the regenerative braking aspect of
>> this scheme. Given that dynohub users commonly claim that 3W is almost
>> undetectable, I'd guess that higher draws might be noticeable but not
>> problematic, so the batteries could also be charged while riding.
>
> I can't cite the source, but somebody who seemed to know told me
> that the regen thing was mostly bogus. The reason being that
> the battery cannot accept very much current compared to what's
> generated by the motor when in regen braking mode. The batt
> gets charged a little, but not much.

Newer battery technology (chemistries) have much lower effective
resistance. Super capacitor technology has been progressing rapidly,
too. Supercaps are already the go to technology for regeneration and
some manufacturers claim they'll beat batteries in specific storage soon.


> My guess is that the wheel will use planetary gears bco
> weight/size limitations on the motor (they still need room for
> the battery) and something called "cogging" which is eliminated
> when planetary gears and the associated freewheel are used.
>
> Dunno what real cogging is in the mechanical world, but on ebikes
> it is increased resistance felt when pedaling a non-geared motor
> that is not running. One ebike seller characterizes it as
> "about the same added resistance as the difference between fat
> MTB tires and road tires. I would disagree and say it's quite a
> bit more.

I'm having difficulty following you. I'm not sure what exactly you're
critical of. Continuous charging systems would introduce losses,
pedaling resistance would be a function of those efficiencies
(mechanical & electrical) as well as power delivered to storage.

I'm afraid I don't know exactly what the practical efficiency limits for
such a system are. I do know that rare earth magnets, LiFePO4 batteries
and supercaps have changed the rules somewhat, and with some new
science, particularly in materials, though there's no way of predicting
future developments, things seem to be progressing rapidly. The gadget
market (laptops, phones, etc.) has driven much of the research so far,
and now the hybrid and plug-in vehicle markets are taking over. I think
China's e-bike numbers last year were in the 20M range.

Currently, a 100 w-hr Li battery is about 2 lb. A 10% duty cycle and a
200w peak assist would give 4 hr of operation. This would also require a
20w continuous charge, say 40w (mechanical) at 50% overall efficiency.
Regenerative braking would subtract from that 40w, bringing down the
continuous load to perhaps 30w. That would be more than MTB tire drag,
but not a show-stopper at all.

(PeteCresswell)

unread,
Jan 15, 2010, 9:46:55 AM1/15/10
to
Per Peter Cole:

>I'm not sure what exactly you're
>critical of.

Nothing; but I'm wondering about the practicality of the regent
aspect.
--
PeteCresswell

Peter Cole

unread,
Jan 15, 2010, 9:47:41 AM1/15/10
to
Andre Jute wrote:

> It seems to me that maybe, in heavy city traffic with lots of braking
> some noticeable fraction of braking power, though never as high as 10
> per cent under the most ideal conditions, might be converted to stored
> current.

"stored current"??? Your estimate of 10% is based on what?


> The work that could do, after further losses in the drive of

> course, must be evaluated against the energy expanded [sic] to pedal around


> the extra weight of the hub. Try as I might, I fail to grasp how
> whatever you get back from that hub could be less than a small
> fraction of the energy you put in dragging it around. Yet it's
> presented as a perpetual motion machine.

No it isn't. The net recovery is a complex function of component
efficiencies. It is a very old idea, proven in diverse applications, and
with technological development likely to become ubiquitous.


> You might look into the KERS system, now dropped after a couple of
> years in Formula One auto racing.

I did. I found that it has not been dropped.

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/08/19/f1-2010-rules-kers-to-stay/

"F1 cars will continue to use KERS in 2010.

Despite widespread expectations that Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems
would be dropped after just one year, the new F1 regulations published
today includes provision for the devices.

The F1 teams� association had agreed not to use KERS next year � but I�m
glad it�s staying.

There has been no change to the amount of power a KERS may produce in
2010. Cars are still limited to a maximum output of 400kJ per lap,
approximately 80bhp for 6.6 seconds"

Several players have criticized the KERS rules as being too limiting,
both in power/energy limits and technology exclusion. Toyota, in quite
an uncharacteristic manner, has been highly critical.

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/07/17/f1-should-not-be-too-hasty-to-drop-kers/

"When the proposals were first announced Toyota engine boss Luca
Marmorini said:

The adoption of energy recovery leaves me rather perplexed because
the system chosen by the FIA is really primitive."


> Here we're talking about violent
> braking for about half the time (not half the distance) that the car
> is on track, which then stores enough power in a very heavy system
> that (pro rata to power requirements) would simply immobilize a bike.
> Even F1 dropped KERS because the weight was just too much of a problem
> for most teams to design around. The storage then released enough
> power on demand for an extra boost (not full motive power, just a
> boost of a few per cent) for seven or eight seconds, or roughly one-
> twelfth of the lap. As I say, they've now dropped it because there are
> better ways of making cars more energy efficient.

They haven't dropped it, nor has it proven to be ineffective even with
design rules that allow for only very limited (in capacity and
technology) systems to be used.


> Bikes just don't
> brake that violently, that often, or for such a huge part of the time
> they are on the road. There is no reason to believe that a handful of
> global warming trendies in Copenhagen can beat the brainpower and
> money that auto racers in the richest sport on earth can throw at a
> problem.

The "richest sport on earth" has long been troubled by financial
problems and has artificially limited technology to cap expenses.
Regenerative braking is one of those areas where financial concerns have
trumped R&D.


> And, as I've just shown, the problem is a magnitude or two
> more intractable in a bicycle than in a racing car.

I'm afraid you haven't shown anything, just made claims. Please feel
free to "show your work" as the teachers say.


> The efficiency loss in the regeneration system, and the charging
> barrier loss too, have to be made up by another motor and all that is
> available on a bicycle is Shank's Mare, your shanks...
>
> You'll be developing well-defined leg muscles, Pete!

There can be no argument that a hybrid bicycle, with or without
regenerative braking, will require more net pedal energy from the
cyclist over a given course than a plain bike. The principal benefit of
a hybrid bike, charged during the ride rather than before, would be to
lower the peak power requirements (at the expense of somewhat greater
average power). As motors and batteries get smaller, lighter and more
efficient (and substantial progress has been made in recent times), The
efficiencies and capacities get good enough that the cyclist can
virtually trade a hilly route for a flat one, albeit with a slight
continuous grade. The only thing that changes with improvements in
technology is the effective slope of that grade. Hybrid bikes, like
hybrid cars, allow small motors, and among would-be cyclists there are a
lot of small motors.

(PeteCresswell)

unread,
Jan 15, 2010, 9:47:36 AM1/15/10
to
Per (PeteCresswell):

>Nothing; but I'm wondering about the practicality of the regent
>aspect.

Oops... spell checker got me. "regent" shb "regen"
--
PeteCresswell

Peter Cole

unread,
Jan 15, 2010, 9:57:15 AM1/15/10
to

I'm not sure if the wheel has any other braking than via battery
charging. If the battery became fully charged the charging circuit
should be electrically cut out to prevent battery damage. If the
generator braking wasn't continued with a resistive load, a redundant
brake system would be required (e.g. hub brake).

Peter Cole

unread,
Jan 15, 2010, 10:01:42 AM1/15/10
to
(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per Peter Cole:
>> I'm not sure what exactly you're
>> critical of.
>
> Nothing; but I'm wondering about the practicality of the regent
> aspect.

Me, too. Unfortunately, that's very spec-specific. A very efficient
system that could recapture kinetic energy in stop & go and provide say
50% of the acceleration from stop would perhaps be pretty nice if it
weighed 10 lb or so.

Barry

unread,
Jan 15, 2010, 10:01:09 AM1/15/10
to
> There can be no argument that a hybrid bicycle, with or without regenerative
> braking, will require more net pedal energy from the cyclist over a given
> course than a plain bike.

Is it possible that on some hilly courses the net pedal energy could be less?
For example, if you live on top of a hill, coast down into town, then ride
back up with assist from the battery that was charged on the descent.


Andre Jute

unread,
Jan 15, 2010, 11:54:38 AM1/15/10
to
On Jan 15, 2:47 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Andre Jute wrote:
> > It seems to me that maybe, in heavy city traffic with lots of braking
> > some noticeable fraction of braking power, though never as high as 10
> > per cent under the most ideal conditions, might be converted to stored
> > current.
>
> "stored current"??? Your estimate of 10% is based on what?

An observation of my riding patterns. Work with batteries in audio
circuits which I described and you cut. A WAG, which seems to be your
standard method.

Why don't you show us a worked case of a ride with numbers, eh,
Colesy? Doing a little work will soon expose your wishful thinking
even to yourself.

> > The work that could do, after further losses in the drive of
> > course, must be evaluated against the energy expanded [sic] to pedal around
> > the extra weight of the hub. Try as I might, I fail to grasp how
> > whatever you get back from that hub could be less than a small
> > fraction of the energy you put in dragging it around. Yet it's
> > presented as a perpetual motion machine.
>
> No it isn't. The net recovery is a complex function of component
> efficiencies.

That's what I said, Colesy.

>It is a very old idea, proven in diverse applications, and
> with technological development likely to become ubiquitous.

On bicycles? When this Copenhagen wheel ceases to be vaporware, call
me, Colesy.

> > You might look into the KERS system, now dropped after a couple of
> > years in Formula One auto racing.
>
> I did. I found that it has not been dropped.
>
> http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/08/19/f1-2010-rules-kers-to-stay/

LOL. Name the teams that will use KERS this year.

> "F1 cars will continue to use KERS in 2010.

Name the teams that will use KERS.

> Despite widespread expectations that Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems
> would be dropped after just one year, the new F1 regulations published
> today includes provision for the devices.

Name the teams that will use KERS this year.

> The F1 teams’ association had agreed not to use KERS next year – but I’m
> glad it’s staying.

Name the teams that will use KERS.

> There has been no change to the amount of power a KERS may produce in
> 2010. Cars are still limited to a maximum output of 400kJ per lap,
> approximately 80bhp for 6.6 seconds"

Name the teams that will use KERS.

> Several players have criticized the KERS rules as being too limiting,
> both in power/energy limits and technology exclusion. Toyota, in quite
> an uncharacteristic manner, has been highly critical.
>

> http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/07/17/f1-should-not-be-too-hasty-to-d...


>
> "When the proposals were first announced Toyota engine boss Luca
> Marmorini said:
>
>      The adoption of energy recovery leaves me rather perplexed because
> the system chosen by the FIA is really primitive."

Excuses, excuses.

> > Here we're talking about violent
> > braking for about half the time (not half the distance) that the car
> > is on track, which then stores enough power in a very heavy system
> > that (pro rata to power requirements) would simply immobilize a bike.
> > Even F1 dropped KERS because the weight was just too much of a problem
> > for most teams to design around. The storage then released enough
> > power on demand for an extra boost (not full motive power, just a
> > boost of a few per cent) for seven or eight seconds, or roughly one-
> > twelfth of the lap. As I say, they've now dropped it because there are
> > better ways of making cars more energy efficient.
>
> They haven't dropped it, nor has it proven to be ineffective even with
> design rules that allow for only very limited (in capacity and
> technology) systems to be used.

So why can't you name any teams that will actually use KERS?

Answer: the cars are faster without KERS.

> > Bikes just don't
> > brake that violently, that often, or for such a huge part of the time
> > they are on the road. There is no reason to believe that a handful of
> > global warming trendies in Copenhagen can beat the brainpower and
> > money that auto racers in the richest sport on earth can throw at a
> > problem.
>
> The "richest sport on earth" has long been troubled by financial
> problems

LOL. A few manufacturers hit by the economic downturn dropped out.
Next year there are more teams on the grid than last year. As usual,
you haven't the faintest idea of what you're talking about, Colesy.

>and has artificially limited technology to cap expenses.

You're an idiot, Colesy. You should distinguish between the governing
body and the teams. The previous head of the governing body has just
been forced out precisely because he tried to put a budget cap in
place. The teams that matter threatened to split off into a separate
series if he proceeded, then forced him out. As I said, you haven't
the faintest idea of what you're talking about, Colesy. You read an
outdated handout from one guy who has no power to do anything, and
thought it was an answer. That's just about your standard method of
debate, and it's despicable.

Want to bet that champions this year spend a minimum of three times
the budget cap, and more likely twelve times as much (about half a
billion dollars)?

> Regenerative braking is one of those areas where financial concerns have
> trumped R&D.

The Copenhagen Wheel is one where wishful thinking wasted more
taxpayer's money, more likely.

> > And, as I've just shown, the problem is a magnitude or two
> > more intractable in a bicycle than in a racing car.
>
> I'm afraid you haven't shown anything, just made claims. Please feel
> free to "show your work" as the teachers say.

Oh, I showed you, Colesy, and you cut my reasoning, and then came up
with some old press release and tried to pretend it is the gospel.
Show me one team, just one, that will use KERS this year. Show me just
one team that stands a chance of winning the championship that will
even try to work within the *optional* budget cap. You're wanking
again, Colesy.

> > The efficiency loss in the regeneration system, and the charging
> > barrier loss too, have to be made up by another motor and all that is
> > available on a bicycle is Shank's Mare, your shanks...
>
> > You'll be developing well-defined leg muscles, Pete!
>
> There can be no argument that a hybrid bicycle, with or without
> regenerative braking, will require more net pedal energy from the
> cyclist over a given course than a plain bike. The principal benefit of
> a hybrid bike, charged during the ride rather than before, would be to
> lower the peak power requirements (at the expense of somewhat greater
> average power).

I think the principal benefit of the Copenhagen wheel, should it ever
cease to be vaporware, will be to make the poseurs down at the Kaffy
Baisikkel feel "responsible". It's not technology, it's feelgood crap
for shaveleg trendies.

>As motors and batteries get smaller, lighter and more
> efficient (and substantial progress has been made in recent times), The
> efficiencies and capacities get good enough that the cyclist can
> virtually trade a hilly route for a flat one, albeit with a slight
> continuous grade. The only thing that changes with improvements in
> technology is the effective slope of that grade. Hybrid bikes, like
> hybrid cars, allow small motors, and among would-be cyclists there are a
> lot of small motors.

That's what I said, if less pompously: "You'll be developing well-
defined leg muscles, Pete!"

Try again, Colesy.

Andre Jute
Global Warming is like Scientology, only with less science

Doc O'Leary

unread,
Jan 15, 2010, 1:16:47 PM1/15/10
to
In article <4b50837b$2...@news.x-privat.org>,
"Barry" <Ba...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

What it boils down to is whether or not a wheel + storage manages to be
more efficient than just the wheel. So for there to be a net gain the
energy available from regeneration has to, in effect, make the "heavy"
wheel lighter than the "light" wheel. In the most hilly, heavy
stop-and-go cases that *might* be the case (depending on the efficiency
of the components involved), but over the full distance of an average
ride, I doubt it'd prove to be a win for rider-only power. It's just
dead weight when it's not in use. The main advantage of putting a motor
on a bike is to let something else power it.

--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com,
and probably your server, too.

AMuzi

unread,
Jan 15, 2010, 1:19:41 PM1/15/10
to


Well, now that you make it sound attractive I should take
another look.

AMuzi

unread,
Jan 15, 2010, 1:35:05 PM1/15/10
to
>> There can be no argument that a hybrid bicycle, with or without regenerative
>> braking, will require more net pedal energy from the cyclist over a given
>> course than a plain bike.

Barry wrote:
> Is it possible that on some hilly courses the net pedal energy could be less?
> For example, if you live on top of a hill, coast down into town, then ride
> back up with assist from the battery that was charged on the descent.

Assuming perfect efficiency of all systems, no wind
resistance, no bearing or rolling resistance, probably yes.

In the real world, not a chance.

(PeteCresswell)

unread,
Jan 15, 2010, 4:24:06 PM1/15/10
to
Per Peter Cole:

>would perhaps be pretty nice if it
>weighed 10 lb or so.

My ebike add-ons weigh about 33 lbs: 18 lbs motor, 15 lbs 10ah
battery.

The high-end system is something called "BionX" and that still
weighs a little over 23 lbs... So there's a way to go before 10
lbs is achieved.
--
PeteCresswell

Peter Cole

unread,
Jan 15, 2010, 5:42:19 PM1/15/10
to
>> The F1 teams� association had agreed not to use KERS next year � but I�m
>> glad it�s staying.

No need to get pissy, just admit you were wrong & get over it.

Peter Cole

unread,
Jan 15, 2010, 5:47:33 PM1/15/10
to

From their web site, their lightest motor & lightest battery are 12 lb
total. I don't think they're state-of-the-art, and they're likely
offering more assist even in that model than I was talking about.

Andre Jute

unread,
Jan 15, 2010, 5:54:41 PM1/15/10
to
> >> The F1 teams association had agreed not to use KERS next year but I m
> >> glad it s staying.

You should practice what you preach so pompously, Colesy. I shot down
every one of your points. So admit you were wrong and get over it. Or:

Name one team that will use that KERS/Copenhagen crap next year.

Andre Jute
Charisma is the art of infuriating inadequates by merely doing one's
homework

Peter Cole

unread,
Jan 15, 2010, 6:20:53 PM1/15/10
to

The teams informally and mutually agreed to not use KERS in 2010 because
of cost, not because it didn't work as you claimed. Williams only agreed
2 days ago to drop it, the opinions were hardly unanimous.

You are an abusive jerk, you know.

(PeteCresswell)

unread,
Jan 15, 2010, 6:51:48 PM1/15/10
to
Per Peter Cole:

>From their web site, their lightest motor & lightest battery are 12 lb
>total. I don't think they're state-of-the-art, and they're likely
>offering more assist even in that model than I was talking about.

And even their heavier ones are significantly less than the 23
lbs that I quoted.

I should have gone directly to the source instead of relying on a
secondary source.

10 pounds wouldn't be that bad. My Rohloff hub wheels weigh
about 8.
--
PeteCresswell

Andre Jute

unread,
Jan 15, 2010, 7:16:30 PM1/15/10
to
Peter Cole insisted:

> >>>> "F1 cars will continue to use KERS in 2010.

Andre Jute asked:


> >>> Name the teams that will use KERS.

To which Peter Cole replied:


> The teams informally and mutually agreed to not use KERS in 2010

Now Andre Jute pulls him up on it:
That's not what you said earlier today, Colesy. Let me quote you: "F1
cars will continue to use KERS in 2010." That's what you wrote,
Colesy. So were you lying or were you genuinely ignorant?

Peter Cole

unread,
Jan 15, 2010, 11:01:45 PM1/15/10
to
Andre Jute wrote:
> Peter Cole insisted:
>>>>>> "F1 cars will continue to use KERS in 2010.
>
> Andre Jute asked:
>>>>> Name the teams that will use KERS.
>
> To which Peter Cole replied:
>> The teams informally and mutually agreed to not use KERS in 2010

No, I didn't you silly ninny. That was a link and quote to an article.

DougC

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 3:43:18 AM1/16/10
to
On 1/14/2010 12:57 AM, TBerk wrote:
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-10417864-247.html
>
> http://senseable.mit.edu/copenhagenwheel/
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7y3qIQu3Gc
>
> it's supposed to bring Peace on Earth, Goodwill towards Men, Whiten
> and Strength Teeth Enamel, and cut down on Irritable Bowel Syndrome.
> or so I've heard.
>
> The basic premise seems, well, sound but I wonder about the shock
> resistance, the cost, and the weight. And why not have one up front as
> well?
>
> So far, a lot of press, but no body i actually heard of has used one i
> real life. Maybe it's too soon for such reports, but that's why i am
> asking here.
>
>
> berk

I ain't seen one at all, but I expect the whole thing is an Al-Gore
piece of horse-shit clamoring for government funds (which is exactly
what the money-losing four-wheel ones will do, eventually).

People with the BionX setups have had regenerative braking for quite
some time now, and most agree that even under IDEAL conditions, it still
only adds around 5% more power to a ride.

So then think for a minute here: this Copenhagen Wheel imposes a greater
load on the rider all the time, but is supposed to "help" going up
hills. Fine. But there is energy loss in generating the power, energy
loss in storing the power and energy loss in using the power (up a
hill). See the problem yet?

My bet is, it never goes into production at all, because it's
retarded--quite literally. It looks exactly like an "academic"
experiment--made by people who have no real experience in the area they
are trying to "improve". Their intent may not be malicious, but it is
most-certainly misguided.

Nobody on e-bike forums asks for this sort of thing.
What I'd like to know is, of all the MIT people who thought this up, how
many are e-bikers right now? I would be willing to bet--none. It's sort
of like the "cold fusion" of e-biking.
~

Ben C

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 5:00:03 AM1/16/10
to
On 2010-01-15, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>> There can be no argument that a hybrid bicycle, with or without regenerative
>>> braking, will require more net pedal energy from the cyclist over a given
>>> course than a plain bike.
>
> Barry wrote:
>> Is it possible that on some hilly courses the net pedal energy could be less?
>> For example, if you live on top of a hill, coast down into town, then ride
>> back up with assist from the battery that was charged on the descent.
>
> Assuming perfect efficiency of all systems, no wind
> resistance, no bearing or rolling resistance, probably yes.

Wind resistance affects the rechargeable bike and the normal bike the
same, so it wouldn't change the relative amounts of pedal effort
required.

Same for most of the rolling resistance, although the rechargeable bike
will have a bit more other things being equal since it's heavier.

> In the real world, not a chance.

Theoretically it could be less because of the energy you lose on the
normal bike when you brake at the bottom of the hill. But yes, I doubt
it would be less in the real world.

But in the real real world the hybrid bike would have been plugged into
the mains before you left soaking up lots of good fossil energy, so you
would hardly have to pedal at all.

Ben C

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 5:25:16 AM1/16/10
to
On 2010-01-16, DougC <dci...@norcom2000.com> wrote:
> On 1/14/2010 12:57 AM, TBerk wrote:
>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-10417864-247.html
>>
>> http://senseable.mit.edu/copenhagenwheel/
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7y3qIQu3Gc
>>
>> it's supposed to bring Peace on Earth, Goodwill towards Men, Whiten
>> and Strength Teeth Enamel, and cut down on Irritable Bowel Syndrome.
>> or so I've heard.
>>
>> The basic premise seems, well, sound but I wonder about the shock
>> resistance, the cost, and the weight. And why not have one up front as
>> well?
>>
>> So far, a lot of press, but no body i actually heard of has used one i
>> real life. Maybe it's too soon for such reports, but that's why i am
>> asking here.
>>
>>
>> berk
>
> I ain't seen one at all, but I expect the whole thing is an Al-Gore
> piece of horse-shit clamoring for government funds (which is exactly
> what the money-losing four-wheel ones will do, eventually).

You already get a lot of incentives for hybrid cars, like almost no road
tax, exemption from the London "congestion charge" (since when did
Toyota Priora not cause congestion?), and other stuff in other
countries. That is effectively government funds.

Green illogic would really have taken a turn though if there were
extra incentives for electric bikes over conventional bikes!

> People with the BionX setups have had regenerative braking for quite
> some time now, and most agree that even under IDEAL conditions, it
> still only adds around 5% more power to a ride.
>
> So then think for a minute here: this Copenhagen Wheel imposes a greater
> load on the rider all the time, but is supposed to "help" going up
> hills. Fine. But there is energy loss in generating the power, energy
> loss in storing the power and energy loss in using the power (up a
> hill). See the problem yet?
>
> My bet is, it never goes into production at all, because it's
> retarded--quite literally. It looks exactly like an "academic"
> experiment--made by people who have no real experience in the area they
> are trying to "improve". Their intent may not be malicious, but it is
> most-certainly misguided.

There is definitely a market for electric bikes and lots of people use
them. It's easy for us superfit atheletes to underestimate the
double-whammy of being overweight and unfit but people who are have to
get off and walk up the slightest grade, and this is the reason why
cycling as an everyday form of getting around in affluent countries
(i.e. where people are fat and can afford cars) has only really caught
on in mostly flat places like NL and Denmark. The electric bike can
change that.

> Nobody on e-bike forums asks for this sort of thing. What I'd like to
> know is, of all the MIT people who thought this up, how many are
> e-bikers right now? I would be willing to bet--none. It's sort of like
> the "cold fusion" of e-biking.

I think e-bikes generally sell quite well in some places. All that iPod
gimmickry on the Copenhagen thing is obviously silly, but they do need
to get more trendy and beat the stigma that you're only using one
because you aren't man enough to pedal for yourself (which of course is
the real reason). So paint it red and make into a Web-2.0
social-networking wearable-computer gadget, it's worth a try.

Andre Jute

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 6:07:05 AM1/16/10
to
On Jan 16, 8:43 am, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com> wrote:
> On 1/14/2010 12:57 AM, TBerk wrote:
>
> >http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-10417864-247.html
>
> >http://senseable.mit.edu/copenhagenwheel/
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7y3qIQu3Gc
>
> > it's supposed to bring Peace on Earth, Goodwill towards Men, Whiten
> > and Strength Teeth Enamel, and cut down on Irritable Bowel Syndrome.
> > or so I've heard.
>
> > The basic premise seems, well, sound but I wonder about the shock
> > resistance, the cost, and the weight. And why not have one up front as
> > well?
>
> > So far, a lot of press, but no body i actually heard of has used one i
> > real life. Maybe it's too soon for such reports, but that's why i am
> > asking here.
>
> > berk
>
> I ain't seen one at all, but I expect the whole thing is an Al-Gore
> piece of horse-shit clamoring for government funds (which is exactly
> what the money-losing four-wheel ones will do, eventually).

Mmm. The Copenhagen Wheel was designed on your and my dollar. It's
into government funds already. And the electric cars Al Gore raised
money for, to be built in Iceland or Finland or somewhere equally
*tropical by next year, or at the latest by 2013* (heh-heh, snow where
I live for the first time since 1991) already received some
extraordinary amount of money. Al Gore is the most pernicious bagman
not just on Earth, but in the entire history of mankind.

> People with the BionX setups have had regenerative braking for quite
> some time now, and most agree that even under IDEAL conditions, it still
> only adds around 5% more power to a ride.

But the global warmies like Colesy went nuclear when I suggested the
Copenhagen wheel might at best ever reach 10%! What a bunch of wishful
thinkers. Whoever punched Colesy's ticket to practice engineering
should be investigated for taking bribes.

> So then think for a minute here: this Copenhagen Wheel imposes a greater
> load on the rider all the time, but is supposed to "help" going up
> hills. Fine. But there is energy loss in generating the power, energy
> loss in storing the power and energy loss in using the power (up a
> hill). See the problem yet?
>
> My bet is, it never goes into production at all, because it's
> retarded--quite literally. It looks exactly like an "academic"
> experiment--made by people who have no real experience in the area they
> are trying to "improve". Their intent may not be malicious, but it is
> most-certainly misguided.
>
> Nobody on e-bike forums asks for this sort of thing.
> What I'd like to know is, of all the MIT people who thought this up, how
> many are e-bikers right now? I would be willing to bet--none. It's sort
> of like the "cold fusion" of e-biking.

Exactly. The Copenhagen Wheel is an engineering hoax based on jam-
tomorrow thinking rather than on science, a solution in search not
only of a problem but of an enabling technology, in short wistful
thinking. It's a waste of the resources the smug promoters lecture us
on preserving, a money-grubbing exercise in hypocrisy, as you've
already noticed:

> What I'd like to know is, of all the MIT people who thought this up, how
> many are e-bikers right now?

Yeah, hallelujah!

No surprise that the Copenhagen Wheel is not in production, not
offered for sale, no launch date announced, no projected price, no
technical specifications--just some smug kids who ponce around
lecturing us on our responsibilities to Gaia.

Andre Jute
Reformed petrol head
Car-free since 1992
Greener than thou!

Andre Jute

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 6:23:56 AM1/16/10
to

You're just ignorant, Colesy, and you have a talent for finding
equally ignorant references. And when you lose the argument, which is
every time, you turn into an abusive jerk.

Ben C

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 6:37:28 AM1/16/10
to

The argument from F1 is weak either way because it's all about the
rules. If they'd specified you could store more energy than 400kJ or
whatever it was, they might have been more worthwhile.

On the other hand, if they'd said you could store as much energy as you
liked in the KERS, or have a turbocharger and more fuel of the same
weight instead, they would have been laughed out of the paddock.

A better test of whether the idea works is hybrid road cars, where IMO
it doesn't really. I reckon if you took the batteries and hybrid gubbins
out of a Prius but kept the feature where it turns the engine off when
stopped in traffic (you might need two ordinary car batteries), you'd
get even better mpg.

DougC

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 7:56:59 AM1/16/10
to
On 1/16/2010 4:25 AM, Ben C wrote:
> On 2010-01-16, DougC<dci...@norcom2000.com> wrote:
> .........

>> My bet is, it never goes into production at all, because it's
>> retarded--quite literally. It looks exactly like an "academic"
>> experiment--made by people who have no real experience in the area they
>> are trying to "improve". Their intent may not be malicious, but it is
>> most-certainly misguided.
>
> There is definitely a market for electric bikes and lots of people use
> them. It's easy for us superfit atheletes to underestimate the
> double-whammy of being overweight and unfit but people who are have to
> get off and walk up the slightest grade, and this is the reason why
> cycling as an everyday form of getting around in affluent countries
> (i.e. where people are fat and can afford cars) has only really caught
> on in mostly flat places like NL and Denmark. The electric bike can
> change that.
>
>> Nobody on e-bike forums asks for this sort of thing. What I'd like to
>> know is, of all the MIT people who thought this up, how many are
>> e-bikers right now? I would be willing to bet--none. It's sort of like
>> the "cold fusion" of e-biking.
>
> I think e-bikes generally sell quite well in some places. All that iPod
> gimmickry on the Copenhagen thing is obviously silly, but they do need
> to get more trendy and beat the stigma that you're only using one
> because you aren't man enough to pedal for yourself (which of course is
> the real reason). So paint it red and make into a Web-2.0
> social-networking wearable-computer gadget, it's worth a try.

Normal e-bikes {that contain storage batteries that are charged by mains
electricity} was not what I was speaking of.

My statement that "nobody on e-bike forums asks for this sort of thing"
was directed at an e-bike that has no significant battery storage or
charging capabilities other than what is generated by the rider's own
legs during normal pedaling.
~

Peter Cole

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 8:41:20 AM1/16/10
to
DougC wrote:
> On 1/14/2010 12:57 AM, TBerk wrote:
>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-10417864-247.html
>>
>> http://senseable.mit.edu/copenhagenwheel/
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7y3qIQu3Gc
>>
>> it's supposed to bring Peace on Earth, Goodwill towards Men, Whiten
>> and Strength Teeth Enamel, and cut down on Irritable Bowel Syndrome.
>> or so I've heard.
>>
>> The basic premise seems, well, sound but I wonder about the shock
>> resistance, the cost, and the weight. And why not have one up front as
>> well?
>>
>> So far, a lot of press, but no body i actually heard of has used one i
>> real life. Maybe it's too soon for such reports, but that's why i am
>> asking here.
>>
>>
>> berk
>
> I ain't seen one at all, but I expect the whole thing is an Al-Gore
> piece of horse-shit clamoring for government funds (which is exactly
> what the money-losing four-wheel ones will do, eventually).

Climb down off your soapbox. A little investigation will shoow you that
the project was funded by the city of Copenhagen, Ducati Energia and the
Italian Ministry for the Environment. Neither the group or project heads
are American. It just happens to be physically located at MIT.


> People with the BionX setups have had regenerative braking for quite
> some time now, and most agree that even under IDEAL conditions, it still
> only adds around 5% more power to a ride.

I think the BionX is a very different concept, otherwise Copenhagen
would have just bought them.


> So then think for a minute here: this Copenhagen Wheel imposes a greater
> load on the rider all the time, but is supposed to "help" going up
> hills. Fine. But there is energy loss in generating the power, energy
> loss in storing the power and energy loss in using the power (up a
> hill). See the problem yet?

No. It's a matter of weight, cost and efficiency. Without knowing those
specs it's impossible to say anything else. If I had a 10 lb device that
recaptured 50% of my kinetic energy at a stop for acceleration when I
resumed, I'd be interested for city riding.


> My bet is, it never goes into production at all, because it's
> retarded--quite literally. It looks exactly like an "academic"
> experiment--made by people who have no real experience in the area they
> are trying to "improve". Their intent may not be malicious, but it is
> most-certainly misguided.

Well you're entitled to your opinion, but you've presented little
evidence to support it. Given that the evidence (in terms of spec) isn't
available anywhere, it seems you're just ranting.


> Nobody on e-bike forums asks for this sort of thing.
> What I'd like to know is, of all the MIT people who thought this up, how
> many are e-bikers right now? I would be willing to bet--none. It's sort
> of like the "cold fusion" of e-biking.

My guess is that most of the e-bike forum members couldn't get into
MIT's graduate school, either.

Peter Cole

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 8:45:56 AM1/16/10
to
Ben C wrote:

> But in the real real world the hybrid bike would have been plugged into
> the mains before you left soaking up lots of good fossil energy, so you
> would hardly have to pedal at all.

I didn't see any mention of provision for mains charging with the
Copenhagen wheel.

I don't see the problem with mains charging. From a green standpoint,
pump to wheel efficiency is better, small IC engines are problematic
(ask China) from a pollution POV, and mains power allows a blend of
energy sources, including wind and solar. If I used a mains charged
e-bike (which I do), I can legitimately claim my bike to be 20% nuclear
powered.

Ben C

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 9:53:58 AM1/16/10
to
On 2010-01-16, Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
>
>> But in the real real world the hybrid bike would have been plugged into
>> the mains before you left soaking up lots of good fossil energy, so you
>> would hardly have to pedal at all.
>
> I didn't see any mention of provision for mains charging with the
> Copenhagen wheel.

Yes you and Doug are right, it has none. Which does make it rather less
useful than the average e-bike.

> I don't see the problem with mains charging.

No, and you can buy mains-charged electric bikes with a 30 or 40 miles
range.

> From a green standpoint, pump to wheel efficiency is better, small IC
> engines are problematic (ask China) from a pollution POV, and mains
> power allows a blend of energy sources, including wind and solar. If I
> used a mains charged e-bike (which I do), I can legitimately claim my
> bike to be 20% nuclear powered.

Indeed, for all those reasons the electric bike makes one of the better
electric vehicles today.

It's also classified as a bicycle which means no number plates, driving
test, insurance and all those hassles.

Peter Cole

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 10:41:55 AM1/16/10
to
Ben C wrote:
> On 2010-01-16, DougC <dci...@norcom2000.com> wrote:
>> On 1/14/2010 12:57 AM, TBerk wrote:
>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-10417864-247.html
>>>
>>> http://senseable.mit.edu/copenhagenwheel/
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7y3qIQu3Gc
>>>
>>> it's supposed to bring Peace on Earth, Goodwill towards Men, Whiten
>>> and Strength Teeth Enamel, and cut down on Irritable Bowel Syndrome.
>>> or so I've heard.
>>>
>>> The basic premise seems, well, sound but I wonder about the shock
>>> resistance, the cost, and the weight. And why not have one up front as
>>> well?
>>>
>>> So far, a lot of press, but no body i actually heard of has used one i
>>> real life. Maybe it's too soon for such reports, but that's why i am
>>> asking here.
>>>
>>>
>>> berk
>> I ain't seen one at all, but I expect the whole thing is an Al-Gore
>> piece of horse-shit clamoring for government funds (which is exactly
>> what the money-losing four-wheel ones will do, eventually).
>
> You already get a lot of incentives for hybrid cars, like almost no road
> tax, exemption from the London "congestion charge" (since when did
> Toyota Priora not cause congestion?), and other stuff in other
> countries. That is effectively government funds.

Since when did other forms of transport, personal or otherwise, not
involve government subsidy?

There has been some controversy about e-car promotion in urban areas,
particularly from the cycling communities. I have very mixed feelings
about the MIT project (funded by Audi) to do an enhanced version of a
"driving assistant" (dashboard navigation gadget) specifically for urban
driving.

> Green illogic would really have taken a turn though if there were
> extra incentives for electric bikes over conventional bikes!

Thankfully it didn't! But I suppose it's fun to think about misguided
people doing crazy things they haven't and won't.

> There is definitely a market for electric bikes and lots of people use
> them. It's easy for us superfit atheletes to underestimate the
> double-whammy of being overweight and unfit but people who are have to
> get off and walk up the slightest grade, and this is the reason why
> cycling as an everyday form of getting around in affluent countries
> (i.e. where people are fat and can afford cars) has only really caught
> on in mostly flat places like NL and Denmark. The electric bike can
> change that.

Wow. Talk about a first world POV. Take a brief look at China. Consider
that car sales in China this year surpassed US sales. Think of a Chinese
and Indian car culture world.


>> Nobody on e-bike forums asks for this sort of thing. What I'd like to
>> know is, of all the MIT people who thought this up, how many are
>> e-bikers right now? I would be willing to bet--none. It's sort of like
>> the "cold fusion" of e-biking.
>
> I think e-bikes generally sell quite well in some places. All that iPod
> gimmickry on the Copenhagen thing is obviously silly, but they do need
> to get more trendy and beat the stigma that you're only using one
> because you aren't man enough to pedal for yourself (which of course is
> the real reason). So paint it red and make into a Web-2.0
> social-networking wearable-computer gadget, it's worth a try.

The MIT group is the "Senseable City Lab". Their focus is improving
urban life via innovative use of digital technology. The idea of
bundling a bunch of functions into common generic hardware (smart
phones) via essentially a suite of software and built-in sensors is
really a no-brainer. The incremental cost is very small. Finally, the
cycle "computer" will actually be one.

Peter Cole

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 10:42:59 AM1/16/10
to
Ben C wrote:

> A better test of whether the idea works is hybrid road cars, where IMO
> it doesn't really. I reckon if you took the batteries and hybrid gubbins
> out of a Prius but kept the feature where it turns the engine off when
> stopped in traffic (you might need two ordinary car batteries), you'd
> get even better mpg.

You should inform Toyota, they seem to have overlooked this.

Ben C

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 11:52:25 AM1/16/10
to
On 2010-01-16, Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
[...]

>> You already get a lot of incentives for hybrid cars, like almost no road
>> tax, exemption from the London "congestion charge" (since when did
>> Toyota Priora not cause congestion?), and other stuff in other
>> countries. That is effectively government funds.
>
> Since when did other forms of transport, personal or otherwise, not
> involve government subsidy?

Cars in my country aren't subsidised-- we pay full price for the cars,
and more tax on fuel than gets spent on the roads.

Bikes weren't either until recently, although we do now have a
government-administered tax dodging scheme that basically gets you a new
bike for a bit more than half price.

> There has been some controversy about e-car promotion in urban areas,
> particularly from the cycling communities. I have very mixed feelings
> about the MIT project (funded by Audi) to do an enhanced version of a
> "driving assistant" (dashboard navigation gadget) specifically for urban
> driving.

Full electric car promotion in cities I could understand on grounds of
pollution, but it's not fair to give any bonuses for driving a hybrid
since they burn the same fuel and emit the same pollution as any other
car.

Full electrics are automatically promoted in any case because mains
electricity isn't taxed the way fuel is.

But in an urban environment, bicycles, whether e- or not, make more
sense most of the time than cars, because they take up less space.

[...]


>> There is definitely a market for electric bikes and lots of people use
>> them. It's easy for us superfit atheletes to underestimate the
>> double-whammy of being overweight and unfit but people who are have to
>> get off and walk up the slightest grade, and this is the reason why
>> cycling as an everyday form of getting around in affluent countries
>> (i.e. where people are fat and can afford cars) has only really caught
>> on in mostly flat places like NL and Denmark. The electric bike can
>> change that.
>
> Wow. Talk about a first world POV. Take a brief look at China. Consider
> that car sales in China this year surpassed US sales.

What about sales per person?

Andre Jute

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 11:54:30 AM1/16/10
to

Toyota is a commercial organization that saw a hole in the market for
a feelgood car to satisfy the need for social superiority of trendies
with disposable income. I say good on them for filling the need to the
perfect satisfaction of all involved and making a buck out of it. But
then I don't care that Toyota "wasted scarce resources" making a bunch
of Prius that in an engineering and environmental cost-benefit
analysis simply doesn't make sense.

So, dear Colesy, your snippy little comment is, as usual, ill-
informed: Toyota knows already. They just aren't admitting it in
public.

At least Toyota didn't try to build the Prius on the taxpayer's dime
as Al Gore is trying to build his doomed ripoff of the Prius idea.

Andre Jute
A little, a very little thought will suffice -- John Maynard Keynes

Ben C

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 11:54:30 AM1/16/10
to
On 2010-01-16, Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> wrote:

What makes you think they've overlooked it? The Prius is selling well,
and also gives Toyota generally a "green" image.

VW and others have made little 75mpg+ diesels, but they don't get the
same press.

Tom Sherman °_°

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 12:19:29 PM1/16/10
to

Ultimately, all our power sources are nuclear.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007

Andre Jute

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 12:29:08 PM1/16/10
to
On Jan 16, 11:37 am, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
> On 2010-01-16, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]

> A better test of whether the idea works is hybrid road cars, where IMO
> it doesn't really. I reckon if you took the batteries and hybrid gubbins
> out of a Prius but kept the feature where it turns the engine off when
> stopped in traffic (you might need two ordinary car batteries), you'd
> get even better mpg.

We're a long way from exhausting the gains in efficiency and economy
to be won from computer control of the automobile drivetrain including
means of deceleration.

Andre Jute
Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live -- Mark Twain

AMuzi

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 12:39:00 PM1/16/10
to

I was referring specifically to "go down hill" eneregy for
"go up next hill" use. All the internal systems convert
energy with losses and of course the external losses are
constant.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Tom Sherman °_°

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 12:58:32 PM1/16/10
to
(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per Peter Cole:
>> I'm not sure what exactly you're
>> critical of.
>
> Nothing; but I'm wondering about the practicality of the regent
> aspect.

Monarchy is immoral.

Tom Sherman °_°

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 1:01:39 PM1/16/10
to
Andrew Muzi wrote:
> Cicero Venatio wrote:
>> It's a "game changer" if it does what it says it can do. To think
>> that hub generators have had a hard enough time just keeping a light
>> lit at full power, to now powering the whole bike has to be a giant
>> leap in technology. My worry would be a long steep descent, think of
>> the energy involved, could the wheel explode in flames?
>
>
> Well, now that you make it sound attractive I should take another look.
>

Now on sale at Yellow Jersey - Flaming Wheels�.

Tom Sherman °_°

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 1:04:54 PM1/16/10
to
Peter Cole wrote:
> [...]

> Since when did other forms of transport, personal or otherwise, not
> involve government subsidy?[...]

Government subsidies are only proper when they are directed to the
already very rich.

thirty-six

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 1:05:42 PM1/16/10
to
On 16 Jan, 17:29, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 16, 11:37 am, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>
> > On 2010-01-16, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> > A better test of whether the idea works is hybrid road cars, where IMO
> > it doesn't really. I reckon if you took the batteries and hybrid gubbins
> > out of a Prius but kept the feature where it turns the engine off when
> > stopped in traffic (you might need two ordinary car batteries), you'd
> > get even better mpg.
>
> We're a long way from exhausting the gains in efficiency and economy
> to be won from computer control of the automobile drivetrain including
> means of deceleration.

The restriction is because of exhaust catalysts not permitting lean
burn technology to flourish. Fuel/air ratios in a spirit engine may
be 40:1 with a flame ball surrounded by an envelope of air. This is
the fuelling which should be used for the coast condition, instead a
catalyst equipped car requires a relatively rich burn of around 20:1
for the catalyst to function correctly. So for the same air
displacement, twice as much fuel is needed to keep the catalust hot
and reduce noxious emmisions. The engine technology was already there
in the late 80's but the widespread fitting of catalysts allowed
manufacturers who preferred not to develop engine technology to stay
in the market.

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 2:31:49 PM1/16/10
to
On Jan 16, 12:39 pm, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

> Ben C wrote:
> >
> > Theoretically it could be less because of the energy you lose on the
> > normal bike when you brake at the bottom of the hill. But yes, I doubt
> > it would be less in the real world.
>
> > But in the real real world the hybrid bike would have been plugged into
> > the mains before you left soaking up lots of good fossil energy, so you
> > would hardly have to pedal at all.
>
> I was referring specifically to "go down hill" eneregy for
> "go up next hill" use. All the internal systems convert
> energy with losses and of course the external losses are
> constant.

Actually, external energy losses are not constant. The higher the
speed, the greater the aerodynamic losses. And ISTM those aero losses
are what could be captured, to a degree, by a regenerative system.

If you coasted downhill at 30 mph, then crossed a small bridge and
started up a hill, you'd run out of inertia pretty soon and have to
start grunting in a low gear. If a regen system could capture energy
and therefore slow your downhill coast to 20 mph, you'd be able to use
a higher gear up the opposing hill.

Of course there are internal losses. But they're smaller than those
external aero losses, which are very near 100%.

- Frank Krygowski

Ben C

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 2:40:29 PM1/16/10
to
On 2010-01-16, Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 16, 3:42�pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Ben C wrote:
>> > A better test of whether the idea works is hybrid road cars, where IMO
>> > it doesn't really. I reckon if you took the batteries and hybrid gubbins
>> > out of a Prius but kept the feature where it turns the engine off when
>> > stopped in traffic (you might need two ordinary car batteries), you'd
>> > get even better mpg.
>>
>> You should inform Toyota, they seem to have overlooked this.
>
> Toyota is a commercial organization that saw a hole in the market for
> a feelgood car to satisfy the need for social superiority of trendies
> with disposable income.

I wouldn't be quite so cynical about it. I think they want to invest in
the idea to see if it can be made to work and maybe get a head start on
other manufacturers when it comes to making full electrics, or plugin
hybrids with a decent range, both of which would have some actual
advantages.

Message has been deleted

Ben C

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 2:59:02 PM1/16/10
to

Depends what you mean by "ultimately"-- the Big Bang wasn't a nuclear
explosion.

But what about using tidal forces to generate electricity? You're using
some of the kinetic energy of the Moon, much of which originated in the
kinetic and gravitational potential energy of the ball of dust the solar
system is formed from.

That ball of dust got its energy from a supernova, which is not a
nuclear explosion (although I'm not sure exactly what kind of explosion
it is).

Wikipedia says:

"Through a process that is not completely understood, some of the
gravitational potential energy released by this core collapse is
converted into a Type Ib, Type Ic, or Type II supernova."

AMuzi

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 3:00:01 PM1/16/10
to
>> Ben C wrote:
>>> But in the real real world the hybrid bike would have been plugged into
>>> the mains before you left soaking up lots of good fossil energy, so you
>>> would hardly have to pedal at all.

> Peter Cole wrote:
>> I didn't see any mention of provision for mains charging with the
>> Copenhagen wheel.
>> I don't see the problem with mains charging. From a green standpoint,
>> pump to wheel efficiency is better, small IC engines are problematic
>> (ask China) from a pollution POV, and mains power allows a blend of
>> energy sources, including wind and solar. If I used a mains charged
>> e-bike (which I do), I can legitimately claim my bike to be 20%
>> nuclear powered.

Tom Sherman �_� wrote:
> Ultimately, all our power sources are nuclear.


If by 'ultimately' you mean over the long term, when fossil
fuels, biomass, alcohol etc are gone and the sun burns out
(at which point no wind either), you're right.

Otherwise nuclear energy is just about the only main energy
source which is _not_ from sunlight, directly or stored.

(well, tide generators are lunar, not solar)

Ben C

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 3:01:41 PM1/16/10
to

I'm assuming our rider stops his bike when he reaches the town and then
starts up again later to go home. On a conventional bike, if you do
that, there's no way to carry over any down-hill energy back up the
hill.

Peter Cole

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 3:27:49 PM1/16/10
to
Ben C wrote:
> On 2010-01-16, Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Ben C wrote:
> [...]
>>> You already get a lot of incentives for hybrid cars, like almost no road
>>> tax, exemption from the London "congestion charge" (since when did
>>> Toyota Priora not cause congestion?), and other stuff in other
>>> countries. That is effectively government funds.
>> Since when did other forms of transport, personal or otherwise, not
>> involve government subsidy?
>
> Cars in my country aren't subsidised-- we pay full price for the cars,
> and more tax on fuel than gets spent on the roads.

As you've already said, hybrids are, aren't they "cars"?

Clunkers are:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/06/british-car-update-markets-equity-autos-scrap.html

Certainly oil is, via military "assistance".


> Bikes weren't either until recently, although we do now have a
> government-administered tax dodging scheme that basically gets you a new
> bike for a bit more than half price.
>
>> There has been some controversy about e-car promotion in urban areas,
>> particularly from the cycling communities. I have very mixed feelings
>> about the MIT project (funded by Audi) to do an enhanced version of a
>> "driving assistant" (dashboard navigation gadget) specifically for urban
>> driving.
>
> Full electric car promotion in cities I could understand on grounds of
> pollution, but it's not fair to give any bonuses for driving a hybrid
> since they burn the same fuel and emit the same pollution as any other
> car.

The whole idea behind hybrids is very high efficiency.

>
> Full electrics are automatically promoted in any case because mains
> electricity isn't taxed the way fuel is.

Yes, but a similar situation exists (at least in the US) for fuel oil
sold for heating and diesel. You can siphon your heating tank, but there
are stiff penalties. Similar things could be done for EV taxing if such
a policy was desirable. There are many ways to skin that cat.

> But in an urban environment, bicycles, whether e- or not, make more
> sense most of the time than cars, because they take up less space.

It's the space argument (both road and parking) that has some urbanites
up in arms over e-car promotion.

> [...]
>>> There is definitely a market for electric bikes and lots of people use
>>> them. It's easy for us superfit atheletes to underestimate the
>>> double-whammy of being overweight and unfit but people who are have to
>>> get off and walk up the slightest grade, and this is the reason why
>>> cycling as an everyday form of getting around in affluent countries
>>> (i.e. where people are fat and can afford cars) has only really caught
>>> on in mostly flat places like NL and Denmark. The electric bike can
>>> change that.
>> Wow. Talk about a first world POV. Take a brief look at China. Consider
>> that car sales in China this year surpassed US sales.
>
> What about sales per person?

What about it?

Ben C

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 3:30:30 PM1/16/10
to
On 2010-01-16, Phil W Lee <phil> wrote:
> Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> considered Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:52:25 -0600

> the perfect time to write:
>
>>On 2010-01-16, Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> Ben C wrote:
>>[...]
>>>> You already get a lot of incentives for hybrid cars, like almost no road
>>>> tax, exemption from the London "congestion charge" (since when did
>>>> Toyota Priora not cause congestion?), and other stuff in other
>>>> countries. That is effectively government funds.
>>>
>>> Since when did other forms of transport, personal or otherwise, not
>>> involve government subsidy?
>>
>>Cars in my country aren't subsidised-- we pay full price for the cars,
>>and more tax on fuel than gets spent on the roads.
>
> But comes nowhere near to covering all the other motoring related
> costs in healthcare, the environment, congestion, community isolation,
> etc.

Putting a price on something like "community isolation" doesn't make any
sense, but even for something like healthcare, it's very hard to account
for without knowing the cost of the alternatives.

If there were no cars, we could subtract the cost of treating people who
were injured in car crashes. But we'd have to add something back on for
the cost of the injuries suffered when they fell off their donkeys, for
there being no motorized ambulances, etc. etc. It all just gets too
counterfactual and meaningless.

You can reasonably add up what cars and roads cost to actually buy and
run. Beyond that you can argue about the social etc. merits and
demerits, but it's a different discussion.

> Once you put all the additional costs to the taxpayer into the
> equation, motor vehicles are subsidised at >20p/mile.

I'm interested to see how you arrive at that precise figure.

>>Bikes weren't either until recently, although we do now have a
>>government-administered tax dodging scheme that basically gets you a new
>>bike for a bit more than half price.
>

> Fistly, it's only available for a few, and secondly, the government
> doesn't even give up all the tax involved, much less give any subsidy.

I'm sure you're right. I was using the word subsidy loosely.

>>> There has been some controversy about e-car promotion in urban areas,
>>> particularly from the cycling communities. I have very mixed feelings
>>> about the MIT project (funded by Audi) to do an enhanced version of a
>>> "driving assistant" (dashboard navigation gadget) specifically for urban
>>> driving.
>>
>>Full electric car promotion in cities I could understand on grounds of
>>pollution, but it's not fair to give any bonuses for driving a hybrid
>>since they burn the same fuel and emit the same pollution as any other
>>car.
>

> But generally in lower quantities, and they still pay just as much tax
> on the fuel they do burn.

True.

>>Full electrics are automatically promoted in any case because mains
>>electricity isn't taxed the way fuel is.
>>
>>But in an urban environment, bicycles, whether e- or not, make more
>>sense most of the time than cars, because they take up less space.
>>

> And they help people to avoid getting lardy.

Not e-bikes.

> That gives huge benefits in the cost of healthcare.

How? Maybe they'll live a few years longer, but they'll still die of
something, and I don't see why it will necessary be of something cheap.

Peter Cole

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 3:31:56 PM1/16/10
to
Ben C wrote:
> On 2010-01-16, Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Ben C wrote:
>>
>>> A better test of whether the idea works is hybrid road cars, where IMO
>>> it doesn't really. I reckon if you took the batteries and hybrid gubbins
>>> out of a Prius but kept the feature where it turns the engine off when
>>> stopped in traffic (you might need two ordinary car batteries), you'd
>>> get even better mpg.
>> You should inform Toyota, they seem to have overlooked this.
>
> What makes you think they've overlooked it? The Prius is selling well,
> and also gives Toyota generally a "green" image.

Honda hybrids are also selling quite well, particularly in Japan.

>
> VW and others have made little 75mpg+ diesels, but they don't get the
> same press.

I think you miss the whole hybrid idea.

Peugeot is rolling out the 308, a diesel electric hybrid, a 75 mpg car
that people might actually want to drive.

There's nothing magical about diesel, particularly as a hybrid ICE.

Ben C

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 3:32:04 PM1/16/10
to
On 2010-01-16, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

And geothermal energy, which is basically nuclear, coming from
radioactively decaying hot rocks.

Peter Cole

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 3:33:03 PM1/16/10
to

Duh.

AMuzi

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 3:35:43 PM1/16/10
to
>> Cicero Venatio wrote:
>>> It's a "game changer" if it does what it says it can do. To think
>>> that hub generators have had a hard enough time just keeping a light
>>> lit at full power, to now powering the whole bike has to be a giant
>>> leap in technology. My worry would be a long steep descent, think of
>>> the energy involved, could the wheel explode in flames?

> Andrew Muzi wrote:
>> Well, now that you make it sound attractive I should take another look.

Tom Sherman �_� wrote:
> Now on sale at Yellow Jersey - Flaming Wheels�.

http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/FIRE.JPG

and special today :
http://www.yellowjersey.org/daily.html

Ben C

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 3:40:24 PM1/16/10
to
On 2010-01-16, Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
>> On 2010-01-16, Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> Ben C wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> You already get a lot of incentives for hybrid cars, like almost no road
>>>> tax, exemption from the London "congestion charge" (since when did
>>>> Toyota Priora not cause congestion?), and other stuff in other
>>>> countries. That is effectively government funds.
>>> Since when did other forms of transport, personal or otherwise, not
>>> involve government subsidy?
>>
>> Cars in my country aren't subsidised-- we pay full price for the cars,
>> and more tax on fuel than gets spent on the roads.
>
> As you've already said, hybrids are, aren't they "cars"?

Touche!

> Clunkers are:
> http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/06/british-car-update-markets-equity-autos-scrap.html

OK, that too.

[...]


>> Full electrics are automatically promoted in any case because mains
>> electricity isn't taxed the way fuel is.
>
> Yes, but a similar situation exists (at least in the US) for fuel oil
> sold for heating and diesel. You can siphon your heating tank, but there
> are stiff penalties.

Same thing here. They dye it red so plod can dip your tank and see what
colour the fuel is.

> Similar things could be done for EV taxing if such
> a policy was desirable. There are many ways to skin that cat.

Yes, and if enough people drove EVs, I presume they'd start doing that.

>> But in an urban environment, bicycles, whether e- or not, make more
>> sense most of the time than cars, because they take up less space.
>
> It's the space argument (both road and parking) that has some urbanites
> up in arms over e-car promotion.

Yup. Seems to me it solves none of the real problems of cars in cities.

>> [...]
>>>> There is definitely a market for electric bikes and lots of people use
>>>> them. It's easy for us superfit atheletes to underestimate the
>>>> double-whammy of being overweight and unfit but people who are have to
>>>> get off and walk up the slightest grade, and this is the reason why
>>>> cycling as an everyday form of getting around in affluent countries
>>>> (i.e. where people are fat and can afford cars) has only really caught
>>>> on in mostly flat places like NL and Denmark. The electric bike can
>>>> change that.
>>> Wow. Talk about a first world POV. Take a brief look at China. Consider
>>> that car sales in China this year surpassed US sales.
>>
>> What about sales per person?
>
> What about it?

Maybe there are a lot of poor people in China who can't afford cars and
so ride e-bikes.

There are many more people in China than in the US, so just because car
sales are higher, it doesn't mean everyone's affluent yet.

Nate Nagel

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 3:50:23 PM1/16/10
to

Sure there is, it's inherently more efficient than a spark ignition
engine (due to its ability to run on higher energy content fuels, and
also better efficiency of the cycle.) Also, Diesel engines as installed
in road vehicles tend to have less power but more torque, making them
actually more practical for the majority of buyers. To quote an old
saying, "you buy horsepower, but you drive torque." Most drivers don't
ever use the high-power, high-RPM capabilities of their engines save for
occasional entertainment purposes.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Peter Cole

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 4:35:08 PM1/16/10
to

>> What about it?

Yes, but gas bikes are as cheap or cheaper. China has a huge pollution
problem and that's the main thrust for e-bikes there.


> There are many more people in China than in the US, so just because car
> sales are higher, it doesn't mean everyone's affluent yet.

No, of course not, but China is growing economically at an astounding
pace. China has huge pollution problems and hasn't invested much in
clean coal or clean car technology. High levels of per capita auto
ownership could be a planetary ecological or economic disaster.

One reality of globalization is that local (national) standards for
emissions, fishing, mining, child labor, worker safety & all that other
good stuff (that we in the West have fought over for a century)
essentially get reduced to a no-pissing zone in a swimming pool. If
China develops the West's oil appetites, we're headed for a collision
over "strategic interests" -- if we're not there already.

Tom Sherman °_°

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 4:40:01 PM1/16/10
to
Andrew Muzi wrote:
>>> Ben C wrote:
>>>> But in the real real world the hybrid bike would have been plugged into
>>>> the mains before you left soaking up lots of good fossil energy, so you
>>>> would hardly have to pedal at all.
>
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> I didn't see any mention of provision for mains charging with the
>>> Copenhagen wheel.
>>> I don't see the problem with mains charging. From a green standpoint,
>>> pump to wheel efficiency is better, small IC engines are problematic
>>> (ask China) from a pollution POV, and mains power allows a blend of
>>> energy sources, including wind and solar. If I used a mains charged
>>> e-bike (which I do), I can legitimately claim my bike to be 20%
>>> nuclear powered.
>
> Tom Sherman �_� wrote:
>> Ultimately, all our power sources are nuclear.
>
>
> If by 'ultimately' you mean over the long term, when fossil fuels,
> biomass, alcohol etc are gone and the sun burns out (at which point no
> wind either), you're right.
>
The sun is nuclear powered.

> Otherwise nuclear energy is just about the only main energy source which
> is _not_ from sunlight, directly or stored.
>

Geothermal energy is nuclear - decay of radioactive elements, primarily
uranium.

> (well, tide generators are lunar, not solar)
>

Planets and moons are accumulations of products of stellar nuclear
reactions.

Tom Sherman °_°

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 4:50:24 PM1/16/10
to
Peter Cole wrote:
> [...]

> One reality of globalization is that local (national) standards for
> emissions, fishing, mining, child labor, worker safety & all that other
> good stuff (that we in the West have fought over for a century)
> essentially get reduced to a no-pissing zone in a swimming pool.[...]

This is good for the elites, so it is good for all of us according to
dominant "trickle down" economic theory.

Ben C

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 5:36:42 PM1/16/10
to
On 2010-01-16, Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
>> On 2010-01-16, Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> Ben C wrote:
>
>>>>> Wow. Talk about a first world POV. Take a brief look at China. Consider
>>>>> that car sales in China this year surpassed US sales.
>>>> What about sales per person?
>
>>> What about it?
>
>> Maybe there are a lot of poor people in China who can't afford cars and
>> so ride e-bikes.
>
> Yes, but gas bikes are as cheap or cheaper. China has a huge pollution
> problem and that's the main thrust for e-bikes there.

Sounds like a good idea. Somewhere in all this my original point was
lost, which was that non-enthusiast affluent people who can afford too
much food and cars only ride bikes in flat places. I don't see that
China refutes that.

>> There are many more people in China than in the US, so just because car
>> sales are higher, it doesn't mean everyone's affluent yet.
>
> No, of course not, but China is growing economically at an astounding
> pace. China has huge pollution problems and hasn't invested much in
> clean coal or clean car technology.

No, but presumably they will when they start to find things like acid
rain a problem. Do they still use leaded fuel?

> High levels of per capita auto ownership could be a planetary
> ecological or economic disaster.

Could be. It's very difficult to predict the future, but I still think
development and affluence for everyone is a worthwhile goal, both in its
own right, and because it results in stable population sizes.

So, long term, the human race might be better off in more of the
possible worlds in which everyone has a car or two than in ones where
they don't. It might be preferable to have 10 billion rich people in the
world rather than 7 billion rich plus 30 billion poor.

> One reality of globalization is that local (national) standards for
> emissions, fishing, mining, child labor, worker safety & all that
> other good stuff (that we in the West have fought over for a century)
> essentially get reduced to a no-pissing zone in a swimming pool.

Yes, and I agree that does suck. I'd rather pay a bit more for something
for it not to be made by slaves, but you don't always get that choice.

Peter Cole

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 5:47:00 PM1/16/10
to

Diesels become more attractive, for a variety of reasons, for large
engines. That is why trucks are almost all diesels and motorcycles
almost never are. Pure fuel economy favors diesel, but weight and
emissions create problems which become more difficult for small power
plants. While hybrids can effectively use diesel's narrower power band,
intermittent operation is not a diesel strength. Hybrid electric motors
make up for the lower torque of small gas engines. Obviously diesel
hybrids can be built, and likely will be in large quantities, but they
lose overall relative advantage in the smaller sizes that will be the
norm in hybrids and lightweight vehicles.

It will be interesting to watch the success of the first generation
diesel hybrids. My guess is that hybrids won't tilt the current ratios
much, and if they do it may be more toward gas.

Tom Sherman °_°

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 6:54:55 PM1/16/10
to

Diesel-electric hybrids dominate in railroad locomotives, large mining
equipment (e.g. dump trucks, drag lines) and other similar applications.

thirty-six

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 8:02:53 PM1/16/10
to
On 16 Jan, 23:54, Tom Sherman °_° <twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net>
wrote:

> Peter Cole wrote:
> > Nate Nagel wrote:
> >> Peter Cole wrote:
> >>> Ben C wrote:

With a variable ratio transmission a compression ignition engine can
be run at its design rpm for greatest efficiency. This does not
require an electric stage with conversion losses although it may be
useful to run two wheels with freewheeling clutches on electric and
two directly from the variable transmission/diesel engine. IC engine
only run part time to maintain temperature in stop/go condition and
keep motive batteries charged. Low variable speed work performed by
electric engine.

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Ben C

unread,
Jan 17, 2010, 4:14:19 PM1/17/10
to
On 2010-01-17, Phil W Lee <phil> wrote:
> Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> considered Sat, 16 Jan 2010 14:30:30 -0600

> the perfect time to write:
>
>>On 2010-01-16, Phil W Lee <phil> wrote:
[...]

>>> But comes nowhere near to covering all the other motoring related
>>> costs in healthcare, the environment, congestion, community isolation,
>>> etc.
>>
>>Putting a price on something like "community isolation" doesn't make any
>>sense, but even for something like healthcare, it's very hard to account
>>for without knowing the cost of the alternatives.
>
> I'm just using figures that the British Medical Association have
> published.
> I don't know why you think that's so hard to account for.

Tell me what healthcare would cost if there were no cars, and we can
look at the difference between the two figures.

[...]


>>> Once you put all the additional costs to the taxpayer into the
>>> equation, motor vehicles are subsidised at >20p/mile.
>>
>>I'm interested to see how you arrive at that precise figure.
>

> By not leaving out all the "inconvenient" costs of motor transport.

I'm not leaving out the inconvenient ones (I have to pay those,
unfortunately, like everyone else with a car). I'm leaving out the
putative cost of the consequences of motor transport because I think
that is an illogical way to account for things by anyone who does not
have a time machine.

Ben C

unread,
Jan 17, 2010, 4:28:29 PM1/17/10
to
On 2010-01-17, Phil W Lee <phil> wrote:
> Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> considered Sat, 16 Jan 2010 16:36:42 -0600
[...]

>>So, long term, the human race might be better off in more of the
>>possible worlds in which everyone has a car or two than in ones where
>>they don't. It might be preferable to have 10 billion rich people in the
>>world rather than 7 billion rich plus 30 billion poor.
>
> If all the world population is going to have cars, the total is going
> to need to be far lower.

Why? It's only a few times more cars than we already have, but there
will be more car factories.

mike

unread,
Jan 17, 2010, 5:16:38 PM1/17/10
to
In article <97bc8163-8134-4fc9-9d04-
365771...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, bayar...@yahoo.com
says...
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-10417864-247.html
>
> http://senseable.mit.edu/copenhagenwheel/
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7y3qIQu3Gc
>
> it's supposed to bring Peace on Earth, Goodwill towards Men, Whiten
> and Strength Teeth Enamel, and cut down on Irritable Bowel Syndrome.
> or so I've heard.
>
> The basic premise seems, well, sound but I wonder about the shock
> resistance, the cost, and the weight. And why not have one up front as
> well?
>
> So far, a lot of press, but no body i actually heard of has used one i
> real life. Maybe it's too soon for such reports, but that's why i am
> asking here.
>
Controlled through your smart phone? Can you ring anyone else's wheel
and control theirs too?

-- Mike

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Dan O

unread,
Jan 17, 2010, 6:12:39 PM1/17/10
to
On Jan 17, 2:41 pm, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
wrote:
> Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> considered Sun, 17 Jan 2010 15:14:19 -0600

> the perfect time to write:
>
>
>
> >On 2010-01-17, Phil W Lee <phil> wrote:
> >> Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> considered Sat, 16 Jan 2010 14:30:30 -0600

> >> the perfect time to write:
>
> >>>On 2010-01-16, Phil W Lee <phil> wrote:
> >[...]
> >>>> But comes nowhere near to covering all the other motoring related
> >>>> costs in healthcare, the environment, congestion, community isolation,
> >>>> etc.
>
> >>>Putting a price on something like "community isolation" doesn't make any
> >>>sense, but even for something like healthcare, it's very hard to account
> >>>for without knowing the cost of the alternatives.
>
> >> I'm just using figures that the British Medical Association have
> >> published.
> >> I don't know why you think that's so hard to account for.
>
> >Tell me what healthcare would cost if there were no cars, and we can
> >look at the difference between the two figures.
>
> >[...]
> >>>> Once you put all the additional costs to the taxpayer into the
> >>>> equation, motor vehicles are subsidised at >20p/mile.
>
> >>>I'm interested to see how you arrive at that precise figure.
>
> >> By not leaving out all the "inconvenient" costs of motor transport.
>
> >I'm not leaving out the inconvenient ones (I have to pay those,
> >unfortunately, like everyone else with a car).
>
> And like everyone without a car.

>
> > I'm leaving out the
> >putative cost of the consequences of motor transport because I think
> >that is an illogical way to account for things by anyone who does not
> >have a time machine.
>
> There are none so blind as those who choose not to see.
> To pretend that cars don't cause pollution, injuries, deaths, and
> consume resources that would be better used for other things is wilful
> ignorance. That you can't precisely quantify those costs does not
> remove them, or excuse ignoring them.
>
> You don't seem to have alternative estimates of those costs.

Here in the US, for example, the costs are truly incalculable. The
entire landscape and way of life - even their own context - is shaped
by them. To say that private automobiles are subsidized would be the
most exceedingly absurd understatement.

Reminds me of the global warming deniers: If the problem is way too
vast and deep to precisely quantify, they think they can pretend it
doesn't exist and just carry on as they always have.

Ben C

unread,
Jan 17, 2010, 6:19:00 PM1/17/10
to
On 2010-01-17, Phil W Lee <phil> wrote:
> Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> considered Sun, 17 Jan 2010 15:14:19 -0600
[...]

>> I'm leaving out the
>>putative cost of the consequences of motor transport because I think
>>that is an illogical way to account for things by anyone who does not
>>have a time machine.
>
> There are none so blind as those who choose not to see.
> To pretend that cars don't cause pollution, injuries, deaths

Sure, they do cause a small amount of pollution, injury and death. Name
something that doesn't. But they also have a lot of advantages. If you
want to put a price on the disadvantages, you have to put one on the
advantages too and subtract that from the cost.

On balance, people still pay over the odds to own them, which implies to
me that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages by a certain margin.

> and consume resources that would be better used for other things is
> wilful ignorance.

What better use do you have in mind for oil?

Ben C

unread,
Jan 17, 2010, 6:25:47 PM1/17/10
to
On 2010-01-17, Phil W Lee <phil> wrote:
> Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> considered Sun, 17 Jan 2010 15:28:29 -0600

> the perfect time to write:
>
> The world simply can't support "a few times more cars than we already
> have".

Why not? What exactly is the problem? To make cars you need basically
steel and energy. There are plenty of both of those things.

> It can't sustainably support the number we have at the moment, unless
> we reduce other demands on resources.

What do you mean by "sustainably"?

> Which continent do you plan on depopulating to release the necessary
> resources to allow universal car ownership for the remainder?

I wasn't planning on making the extra cars out of a continent.

> Or do you have an alternative way of reducing population by that
> number?
>
> You should also remember that if by "rich" you mean something
> approximating European expectations of wealth, we don't even have the
> resources to provide that for the current world population.

Which resources specifically are the problem?

Tom Sherman °_°

unread,
Jan 17, 2010, 6:28:51 PM1/17/10
to
Phil W Lee wrote:
> [...]

> You should also remember that if by "rich" you mean something
> approximating European expectations of wealth, we don't even have the
> resources to provide that for the current world population.

"The European Union (EU) is the world's largest and most
competitive economy, and most of those living in it are
wealthier, healthier, and happier than most Americans.
Europeans work shorter hours, have a greater say in how
their employers behave, receive lengthy paid vacations and
paid parental leave, can rely on guaranteed paid pensions,
have free or extremely inexpensive comprehensive and
preventative health care, enjoy free or extremely inexpensive
educations from preschool through college, impose half the
per-capita environmental damage of Americans, endure a
fraction of the violence found in the United States, imprison
a fraction of the prisoners locked up here, and benefit from
democratic representation, engagement, and civil liberties
unimagined in the land where we're teased that the world hates
our rather mediocre "freedoms." - David Swanson

Ben C

unread,
Jan 18, 2010, 3:27:03 AM1/18/10
to
On 2010-01-17, Dan O <danov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 17, 2:41 pm, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
[...]

>> You don't seem to have alternative estimates of those costs.
>
> Here in the US, for example, the costs are truly incalculable. The
> entire landscape and way of life - even their own context - is shaped
> by them. To say that private automobiles are subsidized would be the
> most exceedingly absurd understatement.

I agree with the first part: life would be so different without them
that the costs are incalculable.

But since they're incalculable, how can you be so sure they're positive
and not negative?

> Reminds me of the global warming deniers: If the problem is way too
> vast and deep to precisely quantify

Global warming is much less difficult to quantify-- you just measure the
temperature and see if it's going up at an unusual rate. So far,
fortunately, it isn't. You also look for a correlation with CO2, if you
think that's what's causing it to get warmer. So far no such correlation
has been found.

Andre Jute

unread,
Jan 18, 2010, 7:02:21 AM1/18/10
to
On Jan 17, 10:16 pm, mike <m....@irl.cri.replacethiswithnz> wrote:
> In article <97bc8163-8134-4fc9-9d04-
> 3657714db...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, bayareab...@yahoo.com

> says...
>
>
>
> >http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-10417864-247.html
>
> >http://senseable.mit.edu/copenhagenwheel/
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7y3qIQu3Gc
>
> > it's supposed to bring Peace on Earth, Goodwill towards Men, Whiten
> > and Strength Teeth Enamel, and cut down on Irritable Bowel Syndrome.
> > or so I've heard.
>
> > The basic premise seems, well, sound but I wonder about the shock
> > resistance, the cost, and the weight. And why not have one up front as
> > well?
>
> > So far, a lot of press, but no body i actually heard of has used one i
> > real life. Maybe it's too soon for such reports, but that's why i am
> > asking here.
>
> Controlled through your smart phone? Can you ring anyone else's wheel
> and control theirs too?
>
> -- Mike

Mass Transit = Mass Crash!

Andre Jute

unread,
Jan 18, 2010, 7:16:52 AM1/18/10
to
On Jan 18, 8:27 am, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
> > On Jan 17, 2:41 pm, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
> [...]
>
> > Reminds me of the global warming deniers:  If the problem is way too
> > vast and deep to precisely quantify
>
> Global warming is much less difficult to quantify-- you just measure the
> temperature and see if it's going up at an unusual rate. So far,
> fortunately, it isn't. You also look for a correlation with CO2, if you
> think that's what's causing it to get warmer. So far no such correlation
> has been found.

The correlation which has been found is the other way round. Global
warming (the natural kind which is the only kind) is followed by
increases in CO2 at a distance of 800 years plus/minus 200 years. Thus
global warming *leads* CO2 formation. Whether it is a causative
relationship is an open matter. What is certain is that it is very
obviously the reverse of the correlation that the IPCC and the global
warmies have claimed. The IPCC/global warmie case is ridiculously
unscientific: we don't know what causes global warming (which we can't
prove anyway without obscene lies), so it must be CO2 -- because? why,
because we just purely hate CO2!

Andre Jute
Why does a little common sense so infuriate all those quarterwit
fashion victims?

Peter Cole

unread,
Jan 18, 2010, 5:30:10 PM1/18/10
to
Ben C wrote:
> On 2010-01-17, Phil W Lee <phil> wrote:
>> Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> considered Sun, 17 Jan 2010 15:14:19 -0600

>> There are none so blind as those who choose not to see.


>> To pretend that cars don't cause pollution, injuries, deaths
>
> Sure, they do cause a small amount of pollution, injury and death. Name
> something that doesn't. But they also have a lot of advantages. If you
> want to put a price on the disadvantages, you have to put one on the
> advantages too and subtract that from the cost.
>
> On balance, people still pay over the odds to own them, which implies to
> me that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages by a certain margin.

This subject has been (and continues to be) heavily studied. There are
at least a couple of broad economic issues when discussing motor
vehicles compared to alternatives. First is externalized costs -- costs
incurred from driving not directly and completely borne by the driver,
and second, the fixed costs -- those costs that don't increase
proportionally with the amount of driving.

The first category amounts to the support of drivers by non drivers, the
second the support of high mileage drivers by low. Both distort the
economics of driving, and both can be estimated, perhaps not perfectly,
but reasonably well (see the studies, there are plenty online).

Every mode of transport has associated costs in these categories. From
the studies I've seen, driving is heavily supported in the West.

bicycle_disciple

unread,
Jan 19, 2010, 10:11:24 AM1/19/10
to
On Jan 14, 1:57 am, TBerk <bayareab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-10417864-247.html
>
> http://senseable.mit.edu/copenhagenwheel/
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7y3qIQu3Gc
>
> it's supposed to bring Peace on Earth, Goodwill towards Men, Whiten
> and Strength Teeth Enamel, and cut down on Irritable Bowel Syndrome.
> or so I've heard.
>
> The basic premise seems, well, sound but I wonder about the shock
> resistance, the cost, and the weight. And why not have one up front as
> well?
>
> So far, a lot of press, but no body i actually heard of has used one i
> real life. Maybe it's too soon for such reports, but that's why i am
> asking here.
>
> berk

Hi Berk,

I sounded off some concerns about the Copenhagen Wheel on my blog
today. You might find it interesting.
http://cozybeehive.blogspot.com/2010/01/practicalities-concerning-copenhagen.html

In short, for MIT to publish little whatsoever on the specifics of
this product is going to be a problem.

-Ron

TBerk

unread,
Jan 22, 2010, 3:47:51 AM1/22/10
to
On Jan 19, 7:11 am, bicycle_disciple <1.crazyboy.o...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Jan 14, 1:57 am, TBerk <bayareab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-10417864-247.html
>
> >http://senseable.mit.edu/copenhagenwheel/
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7y3qIQu3Gc
>
> > it's supposed to bring Peace on Earth, Goodwill towards Men, Whiten
> > and Strength Teeth Enamel, and cut down on Irritable Bowel Syndrome.
> > or so I've heard.
>
> > The basic premise seems, well, sound but I wonder about the shock
> > resistance, the cost, and the weight. And why not have one up front as
> > well?
>
> > So far, a lot of press, but no body i actually heard of has used one i
> > real life. Maybe it's too soon for such reports, but that's why i am
> > asking here.
>
> > berk
>
> Hi Berk,
>
> I sounded off some concerns about the Copenhagen Wheel on my blog
> today. You might find it interesting.http://cozybeehive.blogspot.com/2010/01/practicalities-concerning-cop...

>
> In short, for MIT to publish little whatsoever on the specifics of
> this product is going to be a problem.
>
> -Ron

Yeah, it seems to be pie in the sky so far. I'm thinking it's going to
be useful for short burst accel at most (getting restarted after a
stop, etc) more than relied upon to cruise without pedaling or
something.

Mostly on topic thread too, well mostly.

berk

bicycle_disciple

unread,
Jan 22, 2010, 4:31:27 AM1/22/10
to

Berk

I got an email reply from MIT's Senseable lab. Seems like the
professor and his grad students are out on a road trip. Said he'll get
back to answering those questions once he's done with it. I don't know
when that will be. Will keep you guys informed.

Oh, and a bicycle skylane. Females should ride it with their skirts
on :) http://cozybeehive.blogspot.com/2010/01/kolelinia-engineering-high-flying.html

- BD

0 new messages