An Irish inventor claims to have invented a bike wheel that offers pedalling assistance without the need for a motor and battery. If his claims were true then the invention would have massive potential, revolutionizing cycling as we know it. We're yet to be convinced that it actually works though.
The wheel has been developed by Hong Kong-born Simon Chan and he says it is a
"basically... a simple idea." The Super Wheel has been in development since 2014 and Chan claims it uses springs and a "patented ‘Weight (mass) to energy conversion technology' (WECT)" to power the forward motion. Chan believes his wheel offers "over 30% improved assistance" but is hoping to increase that to 50% as his design gets more refined. Currently, no data has been published that demonstrates the efficacy of his invention and we are certainly very skeptical of his claims.
In his own words, the wheel works because
"the action/reaction force caused by weight compresses the springs in the upper section of the wheel and decompresses in the lower section. Using the centre as the pivot, this converts energy and reduces the frictional force in the opposite direction and facilitates the rotation."He later tried to explain it again to
irishtechnew.ie and said,
"SuperWheel is using the ‘Conversion of energy’ method to convert the reactive force of weight to turning power... The reactive force/energy is the extension/ link to weight, which is always there, but has never been used before. SuperWheel’s Weight-to-energy conversion technology diverting this force/energy to facilitate rotation, therefore, improve cycling efficiency."A video showing the wheel in action is below:
If that word salad doesn't convince you or you're as skeptical of the claims of 'free energy' as we are then there's a patent application for the system,
here. It's worth bearing in mind, patents are granted for originality, not functionality. It's also worth noting that the Royal Academy of Sciences in Paris stopped accepting proposals concerning perpetual motion in 1775.
It shouldn't be all that hard to prove if it works, and we'd be happy to try it the next time we do a Field Test efficiency test if Simon is keen.
Two versions of the wheel are available for pre-order now. One for riders under 75kg and one for riders over 75kg. The wheel costs €395 although we'd strongly recommend against placing an order until the technology is proven. More info,
here.
On a more serious note the thing is less expensive then many high end 12 speed cassettes, obviously they need to hire a new marketing manager to jack the prices up to match the benefits. Don't sell yourself short Super Wheel, you need Super pricing!
Next thing you know PB will be posting DT conceeding the election.
* ... but not kinetic
And even if you do give them the benefit of the doubt and ignore enough of their dishonest claims to assume they are saying what you say they are, it still would not help in any way whatsoever since it would just be another layer of efficiency loss in addition to the added weight and complexity.
But yeah, seems like it definitely won’t work.
At least this guy is out there making something interesting and trying to figure it out. It'll be pretty damn easy to test and see if it works so it's not like the guy will become a billionaire selling us all lies. It'll work or it won't. Sad how offended people are by just about anything.
Frankly, I think everyone should be offended by scammers. Though I have no idea how you managed to be offended by my last post.
The premise of this nonsense invention is that the hub sags a few millimeters and remains at that height. When it sags, it causes some springs to go into tension and some into compression. The springs in compression "push" the top spokes forward and the springs in tension "pull" the bottom spokes backward, establishing a torque that helps turn the wheel. Perpetual torque, leading to a perpetual forward push, which is perpetual free energy.
The inventor seems to have neglected that an equal and opposite reaction torque occurs - the laws of physics require this - and the two cancel each other out. It's like compressing the springs of your suspension: the bike sags and it just stays there; nothing further happens. Doesn't matter that this invention's springs are attached to the spokes because there's an equal and opposite torque working against it.
That said, it would be not only possible to design a system that is powered by a constant pumping motion, it's been done in multiple ways. It hasn't caught on because it's less efficient than regular pedaling. Here's what I previously wrote when the same question was asked:
Our bodies aren't the most efficient at changing direction in a straight line, so it would be better if we could make the movement circular. And our legs are more powerful than our arms, so we should probably use our legs for this circular motion. It would be better if our muscles didn't also have to support our weight while doing so, i.e. they were only doing the work of the propulsion, so we should probably sit on some sort of seat - a "saddle-like" device - while we do this circular propulsion with our legs.
The efficiency and speed potential is going to be incredible when someone invents such a machine.
The vouchers are granted by a government agency. The people responsible are not necessarily scientists, nor would it be efficient for them to thoroughly understand the science behind every application. Instead, they mostly look at whether a patent has been granted and the potential for profit from the invention. After all, the whole idea is for the invention to generate government revenue via increased tax revenue and/or decreased employment insurance payments. So, the first fault would be with a patent agent that may grant a patent to a "free energy" device. We might also put some blame on an agency that grants vouchers when only a provisional patent or patent application is in place.
Next, the voucher typically must be used at a university or other agency that is receiving government funding. "Keeping it all in the family", so to speak. Some of the responsibility may lie with these agencies to understand the projects with which they choose to work. Any university or technical institution should be able to spot the flaws.
In short, you can't blame a company for trying, but you can blame everyone who isn't looking closely at the applications that come across their desks.
I have been requested by the Nigerian National Petroleum Company to contact you for assistance in resolving a matter. The Nigerian National Petroleum Company has recently concluded a large number of contracts for oil exploration in the sub-Sahara region. The contracts have immediately produced moneys equaling US$40,000,000. The Nigerian National Petroleum Company is desirous of oil exploration in other parts of the world, however, because of certain regulations of the Nigerian Government, it is unable to move these funds to another region.
You assistance is requested as a non-Nigerian citizen to assist the Nigerian National Petroleum Company, and also the Central Bank of Nigeria, in moving these funds out of Nigeria. If the funds can be transferred to your name, in your United States account, then you can forward the funds as directed by the Nigerian National Petroleum Company. In exchange for your accommodating services, the Nigerian National Petroleum Company would agree to allow you to retain 10%, or US$4 million of this amount.
However, to be a legitimate transferee of these moneys according to Nigerian law, you must presently be a depositor of at least US$100,000 in a Nigerian bank which is regulated by the Central Bank of Nigeria.
If it will be possible for you to assist us, we would be most grateful. We suggest that you meet with us in person in Lagos, and that during your visit I introduce you to the representatives of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company, as well as with certain officials of the Central Bank of Nigeria.
Please call me at your earliest convenience at 18-467-4975. Time is of the essence in this matter; very quickly the Nigerian Government will realize that the Central Bank is maintaining this amount on deposit, and attempt to levy certain depository taxes on it.
Yours truly,
Prince Alyusi Islassis
(Oooof)
My revolutionary idea (involving trained squirrels and dozens of tiny tow threads) never got off the ground because of their lobbying.
@lkubica: Thank you.
The process of transferring, moving, storing, transforming, converting - however you want to phrase it - energy cannot be 100% efficient. Sometimes an imperfect conversion and storage of energy is still worthwhile, like regenerative braking in a car, but it's never perfect.
A general rule is that it's worthwhile only when you can capture energy that would otherwise be wasted, such as waste heat from the brakes or engine. It is not useful to perform such conversions on energy that's already being used in the most efficient method available. This is why we wouldn't, for example, run a generator on our bikes while we pedal to charge a battery that powers a motor to supplement the pedaling; it's better to just put all that power directly into the drivetrain.
So? You provide energy when you pedal, it stores some of that mechanically for when you need it.
No one is claiming to have made a perpetual motion machine.
How is it free energy?
It stores energy from you pedalling and gives you a boost when you're not. The energy comes from you pedalling, loading up the springs. The weight just helps transfer it to the coils in the wheel. The second you stop applying force to them they give that stored energy back as a quick boost.
No one is claiming free energy.
Start here and let us know once you have more focused questions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion
If it could store the energy for that duration, yes. But, it doesn’t. I posted a comment about how it works. In this case the stored energy in the compressed/uncompressed springs is equal to the energy needed to offset the inner hub when the bike is weighted. The energy isn’t released until you unweight the bike. Pedaling won’t release the energy. It’ll transfer the energy between the springs with additional mechanical losses. The only way to release the energy is to unweight the hub. Even then, the amount energy stored in the springs is minimal.
Where have they claimed free energy? I have t seen that written anywhere at all.
Yes it might be a bit gimmicky, but it does provide some assistance when you stop pedalling for a brief moment.
And it's still got all the losses associated with a rotating wheel, except now it has a bunch of extra friction added to the system with all the additional parts. This will be an energy consumer, not an energy saver.
In summary, it doesn’t store energy from you pedaling. It stores the initial energy of you sitting on the bike.
Maybe if you pump repetitively, you might move.
It would almost be like loading up the suspension on a bike with a rewards axle path. Yes, it will steal some energy right when you start pedalling and rise in its travel, but when you stop pedalling the spring will release and give you a quick boost.
Weight at pedal forces are closely related in bikes.
All they claim is a 30% increase.in efficiency. Bikes are like 96% efficient. A 30 reduction in power loss only equates to a system that is 98% efficient.
Now these numbers are had to quantify as it depends where you take the initial energy meausurments. If you're a noob that bounces up and down a bunch when you pedal, it will use that energy for forward motion. If your a pro that spins perfectly and your weight never changes on the saddle, then you won't see much gain at all.
Think about that though. Wouldn’t that be terrible? Having to compress a shock just to have it decompress to propel you forward? Seems incredibly inefficient. In reality, when the spring decompressed it’ll release less energy then you put in.
Think about how shitty most people are at pedalling a bike. The bounce up and down on the pedals in the highest hear they can. Is that efficient? No. Does this device improve their efficiency? Maybe.
It does work. It all depends how bad you are at pedalling a bike.
How? By proving that all of you have over simplified pedalling dynamics?
Most novice riders bounce up and down when they pedal as they just push the pedals down. This device takes that oscillating force wasted by bad pedalling and transfers it into forward movement.
I'm sorry none of you can understand this, but this is what is happening.
Yes, the system converts the vertical displacement of the internal hub into torque. So, unloading the bike will rotate the wheel forward. But, the opposite is also true. Loading the bike will want to rotate the wheel backwards. The only reason it doesn’t in the video is because the person is holding the bike.
You could convert lots of energy from a bike, the technology for energy harvesting is still too expensive for most commercial purposes.
Efficiency of the wanted conversion always comes into play as there are the unwanted conversions, sound, heat etc.
Ebikes are interesting as only a couple of companies really play in the arena and have it quite locked down. It's not worth the high end motor companies playing as they are so much more expensive. I have never taken an ebike drive apart (I guess its potted too) it would be interesting what technology they use for bike motors though. SVM?
Yes. From the patent, that’s how it works. If you look at the video squashing the bike doesn’t move the pedals.
So, the coupling is purely between the spatial displacement of the internal hub and outer wheel through the springs. That’s also what the patent shows.
But, it doesn’t even matter anyways since the springs are so tiny and the internal hub pretty much always “bottomed out” (which is done by rubber stoppers in the patent).
* For anyone who wants to get pedantic: Yes, energy generation and storage through suspension damping is possible while pedaling. It would be a small amount of energy on a mountain bike and effectively zero on pavement. This invention is claiming benefits on smooth terrain, so let's set aside the discussion of generation through suspension.
You expect all cyclists to be perfect and never waste forces with oscillating up and down. This is hardly ever the case.
This is essentially just a scavenging device for people who don't pedal perfectly.
As I commented previously, squashing the bike creates a braking torque on the wheel. So, it’ll negate the forward torque on the wheel when the internal hub returns to it’s original position.
Your interpretation, which is not what is being claimed, could work, but the amount of propulsion would be minuscule. It wouldn't be zero, though, and it wouldn't violate the laws of physics. It would require a clutch with instant engagement to avoid the reaction torque hitting the drivetrain, but that could be done. Calculate the vertical displacement of the rider and bike and you'll see the maximum amount of energy available via your interpretation is very small compared to the amount of energy provided via pedaling.
We could say "still better than nothing", but when the benefit is an order of magnitude less than you could get by spending an extra ten bucks on tires, it's not really better than nothing.
Right, but there isn’t even a reaction torque on the drivetrain which makes it even more flawed. A clutch won’t work, there’s only a linear force on the hub trying to recenter it.
I feel bad for this person. He is undoubtedly excited, feels he's found something amazing, and has invested a tremendous amount of time and effort. He's even applied for a patent. He's going to have his heart broken - maybe his finances, too - and it's all because he doesn't understand reaction forces. Obviously, he should know better. Obviously, he should consult - and listen to - reputable engineers (or the Pinkbike comments section). Obviously, alarms should have gone off when he realized he may have discovered free energy and/or improved on one of the simplest and most-studied machines. Even so, he's going to get hurt for a well-intentioned effort.
The patent doesn’t claim that though. It’s truthful in it’s claims and workings. The inventors claim outside of the patent isn’t even claiming that. It’s just a word salad version of the patent claims. The inventor obviously knows that it’s snake oil.
"Turn your bike to a super performance power assisted bike in minutes with unlimited range."
"Gives you more than a 30% power boost."
"The SuperWheel uses our patent pending [weight (mass) to energy conversion technology] (WTECT) system and can turn your bike to a high performance power assisted bike within minutes. Infinite power assistance, has no battery and no range limit, opening up infinite cycling possibilities."
"Using the centre as the pivot, this converts energy and reduces the frictional force in the opposite direction and facilitates the rotation."
That - and more - is being said to potential customers. At best, it's poor design and insufficient testing by inept designers; at worst ... I'm not a lawyer, but I'd be interested to know whether this qualifies as fraud.
Oh yeah, that shit is definitely bullshit compared to the patent. Which is why it’s definitely, purposefully, snake oil.
"Homer: Look at this perpetual motion Lisa built, it just keeps going faster and faster. LISA, get in here.
Lisa: yes?
Homer: Lisa, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"
www.kickstarter.com/projects/1202837765/z-torque-bicycle-cranks-ride-faster-longer-easier
Ummm... That’s bullshit too... Having a fixed kink in the cranks is no different than having a straight line between the pivots (The BB and pedals).
Yeah. Thought so. Need a /s nowadays.
Include a one way bearing or something on the pinion so it only works in the forwards direction.
The efficiency and speed potential is going to be incredible when someone invents such a machine.
Let's not be kind because the number isn't outlandishly high: the company is trying to take people's money by making claims that defy the laws of physics.
"Turn your bike to a super performance power assisted bike in minutes with unlimited range."
"The SuperWheel uses our patent pending [weight (mass) to energy conversion technology] (WTECT) system and can turn your bike to a high performance power assisted bike within minutes. Infinite power assistance, has no battery and no range limit, opening up infinite cycling possibilities."
These claims, and many other, are lies. Companies have obligations to test their products and to substantiate their claims. By not doing so, this is at least irresponsible, probably dishonest, and possibly fraud.
The springs are loaded with energy from your body weight (gravity is constant)... this “weight” is working against you anytime you are moving your body on a bike or otherwise. Using your pedal energy to initiate a roll, springs release stored energy (that gravity and your mass put into it), and springs continue to store energy with each compression (as the bike continues to roll). Store, release, repeat.
Essentially, the springs that are releasing stored gravity/mass energy are the assistance.
You can see from the demo that the bike accelerates from a stop with very little pedal effort.
The 'inventor' is Irish. He knows 'craic'. He's having a laugh. You are being trolled.
Don't ever forget what Abraham Lincoln said: "Don't believe everything you read on the internet".
As I've mentioned multiple times in this comments section:
1. The only net source of energy is the minuscule drop in potential energy of the hub when the bike is sat upon. This would provide so little energy as to be unnoticeable. While riding, there is no net source of energy. The energy would have to come from somewhere, but there's no source. As I've mentioned elsewhere, gravitational force - like any force - only supplies energy when movement occurs in the direction of the force, such as rolling downhill or sitting on a bike with this wheel and the hub sags a little. After that minuscule change, the energy input and output is net zero until getting off the bike, as which time it returns to the original state, which, if you're following, means the tiny bit of energy supplied by initially sitting on the wheel must now be supplied by your legs as you stand up a tiny bit farther - and you have to compensate for the tiny frictional losses.
2. Every product video shows happy people living their best lives due to the product. Do not be fooled so easily.
@Baller7756, please think about the implications of this. If every moving object could get 30% to 50% more energy by compressing some springs, every moving object would do so. A percent or two of improved energy efficiency is a big deal and here's someone claiming up to 50%. Breakthroughs happen, of course, so this doesn't prove anything, but I would hope it puts your bullshit sensors on high alert.
I encourage you to debunk this utter nonsense for yourself in two ways:
1. Free-body diagram. Draw it out and you'll see an unbalanced force would be required, yet there is none.
2. Thermodynamic system diagram. Enclose either the entire bike or the bike and rider and you'll see the claims of this product would require an additional energy input that does not exist.
This is pseudoscience that was debunked centuries ago. Because people with a poor understanding of physics may lose hundreds of dollars apiece by purchasing it, it deserves to be discarded with the harshness with which I'm treating it.
And your analogy about jumping is stupid - how do BMX bikes clear jumps? how do skateboards do it. they don't have suspension?
Oh yeah... BMX and skateboards have human suspension... they still compress before a takeoff.
When suspension stores and releases energy, it releases less than it stored. The stored energy came from a brief, intense compression and was released as a brief, somewhat less intense extension.
In the case of continuous forward motion:
1. Where do you propose the continuous input is coming from, such that a continuous amount of energy is being released?
2. How would you propose such a release of energy would be greater than the energy input by the rider, i.e. the rider has more energy available than without this wheel?
• The company claims the first run has been sold out.
• I can find no evidence of a university degree for Mr. Chan, let alone one in physics, let alone being a professional physicist. Several of us in this thread are engineers, however.
• The burden of proof is on the inventor, not the skeptics, and the evidence presented is nonsense pseudo-jargon with claims that defy the laws of physics. Why are you so keen to support this?
Physics. I studied it. And basically I do maths for a living.
I too am a Mechanical Engineer... of course I’m aware of these “laws” and concepts... I was just taken back by all the negativity and poopooing on this guys attempt at something different. Yes, it may fail the fight against the laws of physics, but many inventions lead to tangential discoveries and applications.
welcome all of you to your recently acquired Physics and Engineering knowledge.
I got my engineering degree the best part of a couple of decades ago. Your seemingly rude statement took me aback until I realized you must've acquired your knowledge prior to the work of Clausius and Rankine from 1850 to 1856 - perhaps before Euler's 1750 Law of Motion or even Newton's 1687 Principia Mathematica. In which case, your written English is impeccable - wouldn't even know Latin was your first written language! - and I'm nothing less than amazed at your adoption of modern technology, such as the bicycle (that's "velocipede" to you ).
Well-earned mockery aside, I appreciate your willingness to keep an open mind and yes, discoveries usually arise from a few initially failed efforts. The difference is that discoveries arise from avenues of exploration that are based on sound physics, with application, implementation, and construction being the barriers. Ideas that have, as their sole purpose, the violation of the laws of physics are intrinsically dead ends. This is such a thing and it does not deserve the benefit of the nonexistent doubt.
When you’re “boosting” a jump, you’re actually preloading the shock so that, when you hit the takeoff, your kinetic energy isn’t wasted into compressing the shock. The shock isn’t actually boosting you farther.
If you are a mechanical engineer, please just look and the patent and you’ll see it ain’t doing shit. It’s just coupling the spatial displacement of the hub to the rotation of the outer wheel through springs and linkages.
As to your other points, not only is there no evidence that Simon Chan is a physicist, he also never claims to be a physicist. He does claim that the wheel is for sale though (there's a pre-order section on his website), not only that he claims to have completely sold out of his current production run.
Since it's obvious that you are the guy who's speculating I would say why don't you buy his wheel to test it, except I don't want to see anyone become a mark for this guy. Not even the terminally gullible.
Why dont you ask your imaginary wife?
But yet the high school scholars on PB have spoken. experts at building dirt jumps.
No, he is not, and that's the problem. If the claim was what you think it is, then yes, that's actually possible and we wouldn't all have our pitchforks out. It would still be impossible to increase power output by 30% - 50%, as claimed, because an efficient bicycle on pavement does not waste that much energy, but slightly increasing efficiency by storing and releasing pedaling energy would not be impossible because that would not defy the laws of physics.
Please watch the videos, read the website, read the indiegogo page, and study the patent. The claim is that the act of applying weight to the wheel displaces it a few millimeters downward and the resulting spring forces provide a perpetual motive force.
The problem is that you - and several of the people defending the wheel - have misinterpreted the design and the claims. This is not a device for alternately storing and releasing energy, this is claimed to be a source of free and perpetual energy. It's likely you didn't even consider this could be the claim because of the absurdity, but that's really what's being claimed, which is why we're all so annoyed it's being regarded with credulity.
you cant just look at this thing and it starts making power.
I agree. Unfortunately, the inventor does not. That's the whole problem here.
@DonkeyTeeth: No, wire-spoked wheels are effectively rigid and could be more rigid than a disc.
Any wheel at a practical mass will have some flex, but the energy that goes into wheel flex are tiny, compared to the energy required to lift your mass, overcome air drag, overcome tire friction, etc. It's just not worth considering when there are ways for most riders to save orders of magnitude more energy.
To put it in perspective, shoes with buckles are known to be less efficient than shoes with laces, mostly due to the air drag of a chunky buckle hanging off the side of your foot. Few people care about this, yet I would guess the added drag from a buckle at 30 km/h (a typical average speed for a recreational road rider) could be tens or hundreds of times as great as the differences in losses within the wheel from a wheel with low losses to one with high losses.
You don't need to be an engineer to realize that for it to release energy it would need to store energy. So at the very least it would need to make pedaling harder some of the time. That is exactly what it is doing by moving up and down is stealing some of your pedaling energy to turn it into stored energy, and then releasing less energy back due to energy loss in the process. So just using basic logic there is a net loss.
Jumping off a lip is such a completely different situation. You are taking unused energy (your mass), storing energy in the fork by compressing it, and releasing it as you come off the jump. This is completely different to a situation where you are applying energy in a constant fashion, such as sustained pedaling.
In other news, water is wet, sky is blue, and beware the comments section.
Study the patent. The inner hub sits at the bottom of its range of motion within the outer hub. This moves the actuator arms such that the arms at the top compress the springs at the top, "pushing" the spokes forward, and the actuator arms at the bottom extend the springs at the bottom, "pulling" the spokes backward. Sounds like it's applying a torque to the wheel, propelling the rider forward ... except the reaction torque negates there. There is zero net torque applied to the wheel.
After initially sitting on the bike and setting the inner hub into its operating location, the invention does nothing but move the actuator arms back and forth and slide the two hubs relative to one another, all with associated friction. The torque is constant and zero.
Another reason why the inner hub does not bounce up and down: the rim brakes wouldn't stay on the brake track. No, it just sits there at the bottom of the the outer hub, moving the actuator arms like horses going up and down on a merry-go-round.
52 seconds in the video you can see a portion of lets call it the hub physically moves downward actuating the spring. I guess I assumed that it was bouncing and I'd have to look at the patent to see what the moving part is attached to but the rest of my logic still applies. If the force from pedaling is causing something to move that acts as a lever on the spring it's just stealing some of your pedaling energy to release it back to you later. This means it is making it harder to pedal in every situation where it is storing energy.
I'm saying the same thing as your bit about moving actuator arms back and forth.
Your logic is correct, that's just not what's happening.
Bikes dont have high end BLDC motors, they are far too expensive for bikes.
Would you compare them to Moog, Sensata?
I would love to do a tear down of a bike motor and drive. See what they use., but even a drill is potted.
Why would motor regen weigh lots?
There is not that much electronics.
And by the way, I have read the guy's website. I've watched his videos. I've seen the multiple ways he's describing and marketing his scam product. YOU are wrong about what he is claiming. YOU are wrong about how he says this wheel 'works'. Why not educate yourself before spouting off?
He isn't. He has never claimed that this is what it does, and what he actually claims it does has nothing to do with that. Since you have clearly not bothered to read anything about the device or the inventor's claims you are truly approaching this conversation from a position of ignorance.
Don't get me wrong: I love the enthusiasm of home inventors and many great things have come from such efforts. I'm all for home-made bikes with outrageous geometry and suspension, but we have to draw the line at "free energy" machines. Displaying such nonsense makes us all look foolish.
Lockheed Martin managed to sell the F35... Home inventors just need a bigger marketing budget.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8Yt4p_gJmY
There are two problems here:
1. The inventor claims the energy comes from your mass constantly "sagging" the hub downward, which compresses the springs. Yes, your mass does drop the hub and yes, the springs do compress, but this isn't some unlimited flow of energy. The net displacement happens only once; the continuous compression and decompression of the springs negate one another. If this device works at all (I'll address that in point 2), the maximum it can store and release is the potential energy from the net drop, which looks to be in the range of a centimetre, minus the losses from friction.
2. The compressed springs (top) "push" forward on the spokes and the stretched springs (bottom) pull backward on the spokes. Push the top, pull the bottom - it's applying a torque to the wheel! ... except all forces must be balanced when there's no net acceleration (which there can't be, or it would definitely be a claim of free energy), so the reaction torque cancels out this "propulsion" torque.
Listen closely to the video. They are claiming it makes you ride faster, like an e-bike, but never needs to be charged. Where is this energy coming from? They claim it's from gravity, but the only way gravity can "provide" energy is when something changes height. Since this is not happening, this invention cannot provide continuous propulsion. If the claim were that it provides a propulsion equal to the hub's sag only while the dropping is occurring, i.e. during the sitting down process, the propulsion would be comparable to someone throwing a tennis ball at your back one time.
Yes, gravity is always applying a force, but that doesn't mean it's providing unlimited energy. Riding along a flat road is, with respect to gravitational energy, equivalent to pulling on a rope that doesn't move: no work has been done (i.e. no energy).
1. The design intent is for the inner hub to remain "bottomed out" against the outer hub. It is not intended to bounce around. Thus, there is no motion from which to recover energy.
2. Even if it were intended to bounce around to recover energy, the reaction torque would just hit the drivetrain, putting additional load into your legs. That is of no benefit. It would only work if there were a one-way clutch that instantly engaged, which does not exist in this design.
SuperHighBeam, I cannot stress this enough: everyone who is defending this design is giving it the benefit of the doubt and ascribing functions to it that do not exist. I'll explain it once again:
The inner hub sinks down against the outer hub. In doing so, it actuates the levers. These compress and extend the springs. The designer has been so foolish as to think that compressing springs at the top ("pushing" against the spokes) and elongating them at the bottom ("pulling" against the spokes) causes a perpetual torque from the perpetual force of gravity. He is claiming force can be converted directly into power. It's in the name: "weight to energy conversion technology (WECT)". It really is as simple as it sounds and the very name of the thing spells out the attempted violation of the laws of physics. To be clear, I'm not basing my dismissal of the design on the name: I've watched at the videos, studied the patent, read the entire website, read the Indigogo campaign, and read the interviews he's given.
I'll say it again: the only way this device could work would be for it to recapture energy from bouncing, which would require a one-way clutch. Even with this added mechanism, the energy recaptured will be directly related to the displacement and it's going to be impractical for the displacement to be more than a few millimeters, which limits the recaptured energy - of which there is currently none - to a minuscule amount.
1. I don't really care what the design intent was. That is irrelevant to how it would actually function in real world use. When the bike "bounces" across the ground the bumps will be partially absorbed by the will and provide a small amount of propulsion
2. That is not possible in the presence of a free hub. The wheel would have to be spun backwards for there to be feedback through the pedals. A one-way clutch would not be necessary (that is essentially what a free hub is anyways). I will give you the benefit of the doubt though that propulsion will only be provided when the bike is partially or fully unweighted which probably isn't very helpful since traction would be reduced.
Again I do not care what he is claiming, I'm looking at what it actually does, which is converts bumps energy into a rotational torque when the bike is unweighted (i.e. inner hub moves away from the outer hub back towards the center).
It definitely would not work very well, and probably would not be very helpful at all, but it would be interesting to see what it does on singletrack. I am by no means advocating for full scale production of this system (I think it's stupid, overly complex, heavy, likely way too expensive, too weak, and incapable of delivering what it is advertised to do, but I'm sure it does something slightly novel even if worthless and gimmicky). It would make for a fun shortlived experiment and laugh.
The current configuration does matter and it does matter what the inventor is claiming because the company claims the first run has already been sold out. They’re taking people’s money. There is already a claimed amount of power output. If these claims are false, it casts tremendous doubt on every aspect of this product.
Doubt is not proof, of course, so let’s dig deeper. You claim to be a mechanical engineer, so I'll hold you to the standards of my peers.
First, you should understand the concept of reaction torque. For this device to apply a force at the ground, there must be a torque applied at the outer hub. This would apply a reaction torque to the inner hub, which is connected to the drivetrain. Thus, any force this system could apply to the ground is fully transmitted through the pedals. The rider is fully "on the hook" for force and power delivery. This design cannot help the rider, even if it were reconfigured to continually bounce. It is simply impossible.
Second, you should realize that the wheel does not need to actually move backwards for there to be feedback at the pedals. Simply altering the rate of rotation by applying a force to the drivetrain will feel "jerky" to the rider, even if the feet do not fully reverse direction.
This is why the only solution, with a single drive sprocket, is to have some sort of secondary clutch that would isolate the drivetrain from the torque applied to the wheel from the hub's vertical movement. I don't know how this would be configured, but at least it doesn't defy the laws of physics to create such a thing. The normal freewheel mechanism is not sufficient, as it does not isolate the rider from the torque that could come from vertical hub movement. As discussed, this isolation is necessary for this system - even if reconfigured - to provide a non-zero level of energy recovery. If a secondary clutch is not used, then two drive sprockets are needed, similar to how an e-bike transfers power into the drivetrain.
Now, since you claim to be an engineer, let's do some engineering. I'll choose some realistic numbers, but feel free to calculate it for yourself with arbitrary variables.
• Maximum vertical displacement of the hub: 10 mm (0.01 m)
• Average vertical displacement of the hub: 0.005 m
• Rider’s average power output: 100 watts (this is casual riding, even for a casual rider)
• Weight on the rear wheel: 65 kg
• Efficiency: Let’s give it 100% efficiency. Screw thermodynamics.
Let’s calculate the frequency at which the rider would have to experience impacts causing average displacement for the system to produce the claimed 30% boost in power (30 watts).
The potential energy available in each impact is mgΔh:
(65 kg)(9.81 m/s²)(0.005 m) = 3.12 J
Since a watt is 1 J/s, this poor rider would need to hit objects that use half the hub’s “travel” 9.5 times per second. This would be like riding the rumble strips beside a highway.
We could use stiffer springs, but this would mean the rider has to hit even more forceful impacts to get the same amount of displacement.
If we assume a higher, more realistic, pedaling output for the rider, a more realistic (lower) displacement for the hub, and an efficiency permitted by the laws of physics, each of these improved assumptions requires a greater frequency and/or intensity of impacts. Furthermore, the inventor claims the efficiency should improve to a 50% boost with future iterations. The rider would have to be strapped to a jackhammer to hit these numbers – and that’s with the addition of a secondary clutch in the system.
Once again: The current claims, with the current design, defy the laws of physics. A dramatically different design could recover energy, but it would be only a tiny fraction of a rider’s typical pedaling output, even under harsh conditions.
"First, you should understand the concept of reaction torque. For this device to apply a force at the ground, there must be a torque applied at the outer hub. This would apply a reaction torque to the inner hub, which is connected to the drivetrain. Thus, any force this system could apply to the ground is fully transmitted through the pedals. The rider is fully "on the hook" for force and power delivery. This design cannot help the rider, even if it were reconfigured to continually bounce. It is simply impossible." Yes there are balance torsional forces, one from friction at the ground the other from the torque induced on the wheel (no force at the hub). Take away the friction force and the wheel accelerates just as the video shows. The laws of physics are upheld. With the wheel already spinning in contact with the ground, bumps forces are transmitted into forces that match or reduce the friction forces (constant speed or reduced deceleration).
"Second, you should realize that the wheel does not need to actually move backwards for there to be feedback at the pedals. Simply altering the rate of rotation by applying a force to the drivetrain will feel "jerky" to the rider, even if the feet do not fully reverse direction." Yes but this is generally very subtle, and is due strictly to friction in the drivetrain components.
"This is why the only solution, with a single drive sprocket, is to have some sort of secondary clutch that would isolate the drivetrain from the torque applied to the wheel from the hub's vertical movement. I don't know how this would be configured, but at least it doesn't defy the laws of physics to create such a thing. The normal freewheel mechanism is not sufficient, as it does not isolate the rider from the torque that could come from vertical hub movement. As discussed, this isolation is necessary for this system - even if reconfigured - to provide a non-zero level of energy recovery. If a secondary clutch is not used, then two drive sprockets are needed, similar to how an e-bike transfers power into the drivetrain." The normal free-wheel is sufficient. This wheel would still have a freehub attached to it to prevent the drivetrain from spinning forward while rolling forward. A small degree of kick may be present, it would likely be very insignificant.
The 30% boost in power is totally bogus, but there would be some amount of power boost over bumpy terrain. How much exactly, not sure. It certainly would not be a lot though. My guess is 5-10% and it would be counterproductive under braking circumstances.
We do need to test this thing out. Just so we can expose the nonsense that this represents.
It only adds 5kg to the weight of the bike and converts your pedal power into rotational kinetic energy and then uses this to keep the bike moving when you stop pedalling. It can store as much as 77J of energy at 20kph and this will keep you going when your legs can’t.
It might look a bit like an unbelievably heavy back wheel, but it is much more than that - it’s a stylish, eco-aware lifestyle choice and will make you friends.
I am planning work to on a new model over Christmas that stores the energy as translational kinetic energy with the same benefit of keeping you rolling for longer when you stop pedalling.
It might like a beer belly, but it’s so much more than that, it’s a stylish, hip lifestyle choice...
Using zero scientific methods or proof of any actual gain, and showing a wheel spinning under its own weight when uncompressed (its spinning when uncompressed because the heavier part of the wheel was at the top before it was unweighted!!) that’s just the physics of gravity.
Plus, notice the wheel doesn’t actually have any springs in it for the “demonstration” literally proving that the springs in the design do a grand total of f*ck all!!
Holy shit if this guy actually sells any of this horse shit, the human race is doomed!
What a cretin!
-Asspounder 4000
www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/museum/overbal.htm
If you think it will work I have a bridge I can sell you!
not sure if anyone not from the uk would get that or if its still an acceptable term?..
if you find this in the below threshold bit i guess not! but i like it down there in the dirty bit its where my opinions belong.
I had a Slingshot and it really worked. When I rode a familiar section of flat, winding trail that I rode all the time (the "River" trail section of the Don Valley network) the Slingshot was noticeably faster than other bikes I'd ridden there, including my old Merlin. The thing with the Slingshot was, it only really worked with a rigid fork. As soon as you added suspension to the front you were cancelling out the "Sling Power" effect.
I would be curious to test ride a Super-Wheel to see if it actually works. I don't think I would go and order one blind, based on only company endorsements. But even if it only added say 15% more efficiency (like the advantage of toe-clips over flat pedals) that would still be something. All told, I'm skeptical, but a tiny bit hopeful. Based on what I remember from the Slingshot, I wouldn't dismiss this guy's claims out-of-hand. I would need to test ride it.
sooo... Would a flywheel concept even be viable? I mean if you could concentrate weight near the hub and after accelerating it out towards the rim it would hold speed better, right? Would it be worth doing though?
The one question you still refuse to answer is where this "wasted" energy goes. You conflate force with energy. Im in the motorsport industry. over 10 years ago we put an V8 Supercar (australia's premier race series) on a chassis dyno investigating force differential on unequal length trailing arms on a 4 bar trailing arm suspension. As part of that test we changed anti squat throughout all the range. Guess what ANTI SQUAT DOES NOT "WASTE" POWER.
Would you like to test if your bike has anti-squat if you add a front wheel with a motor and removed the chain? Do you believe it will not squat from acceleration? Try to emulate squat and bob from spinning the cranks without a chain and see how much the bike resists it. The chainforce is supplying the anti-squat force, and that's less chainforce going to the rear wheel for propulsion. It's like a tax that you don't notice because the designers aren't transparent about it, but the tax goes towards stability and a calmer experience.
There's actually a bike that jacks up to top out (Tantrum Shinning). That one is said to be actually efficient. There's an actual mechanical stop, unlike anti-squat that is basically is just putting out force to create a stalemate floating in the middle of some tug-of-war, to reduce bob. Not sure if it works based on excessive anti-squat, but it uses chainforce.
i.imgur.com/RpwLY01.png
i.imgur.com/FdQwWIW.png
Maybe these illustrations might help. Anti-squat levels adjust based on the bike's CoG height, what the chain line angle is (what gear you're in), and at what angle the swingarm is at. That's why the graphs show a change in anti-squat based on what point in travel the bike is in. The CoG for these graphs is probably estimated based on an educated guess and tuned based on trial and error.
Here's an analogy on vector forces, regarding how having a force not totally in-line and directly aligned with a telescopic susp fork leads to a portion being felt as harshness at the bar (upward vector force) and hang-up that slows the bike down (rearward vector force).
Vorsprung Susp on Harshness and Vibration: youtu.be/k-ydae6yOdA?t=271
Is the Super Wheel geo-based? Imagine using linkage geo with rods (instead of wire spokes) to move the instant center of the wheel to perhaps be in front of the actual hub. With the contact patch trailing the instant center... hmm, still would question if there's any energy wastage in current wheels to recover, as it basically is storing potential energy and adding a delay in returning it as kinetic energy as a torque (with conventional wire spokes storing it as increased tension and releasing it uselessly), adding a bunch of complexity and mass.
If you want that to happen and don't mind being the one providing the force with your pedaling, I guess you might describe it as a worthy investment instead of calling it a waste.
Point me to a mtn bike linkage design that provides anti-squat without chainforce.
Geo like steeper STA has helped to mitigate the problem that squat creates, making me question if squat is even a big enough deal. Oh and if you asked why Pole went from no anti-squat to utilizing it, they say so themselves on their site. polebicycles.com/what-is-anti-squat-and-pedal-kickback
Incorrect it is a REACTION force resulting from torque applied to the rear wheel.
It matters not if its supplied by a chain, a propshaft, an electric motor in the hub, applying the brakes (anti rise) or pixies standing on the chain stay pulling down on the spokes.
The only thing a chain (or belt) changes is how anti squat is calculated.
"Oh and if you asked why Pole went from no anti-squat to utilizing it, they say so themselves on their site. polebicycles.com/what-is-anti-squat-and-pedal-kickback"
are you ok? i never asked this question. Their force diagram they have isn't even how anti squat is calculated. And their dumb assumption about "lifting the rider" only holds true if the system continuously lifts the rider and the rider never comes down. How high does your bike lift you on a 1 hour ascent? 10000ft? 30000ft? do you need supplementary oxygen up there? ITS CALLED THE CONSERVATION OF ENERGY? WHERE IS THIS ENERGY BEING TRASFERED TO OUTSIDE OF THE SYSTEM THAT IT CANNOT BE RECOVERED?
This is a very easy question. WHERE DOES THIS ENERGY YOU CLAIM IS "WASTED" GO? where does it get transferred to? Or doesn't thermodynamics apply to you?
Where does energy go when you jump? Where does energy go in a tug-of-war stalemate?
You said: "Incorrect it is a REACTION force resulting from torque applied to the rear wheel."
Doesn't work like that for a driveshaft vehicle. It's all in the geometry of the rods to be aligned with the vehicle's CoG and the force from rearward weight shift on acceleration. It's similar to the principles of anti-dive.
That's not accurate for a typical FS bike either. A torque on the wheel can come from something other than the chain, such as a friction drive ebike conversion motor. Will this provide anti-squat force similar to something that drives the chain, if it's driving the wheel with similar torque?
It's all in the geometry of the rods to be aligned in relation to the vehicle's CoG height and the tires' contact patches, to divert the force from rearward weight shift on acceleration to the rods (dissipated in the chassis), so it doesn't go into the suspension.
There's a modern bike that has semi-low anti-squat that I forgot to mention: the '21 Specialized Status. I'm totally willing to try low anti-squat (and low kickback) again, but this time with new geo (steeper STA). I figure that a soft-pedaling feel, as opposed to a firm-pedaling feel, will be enjoyable without some dogmatic belief that it's inefficient (due to bob-phobia or whatever). Not the Spec specifically, but just being open-minded for my next bike.
"heat in your legs felt as resistance in the pedal"
So anti squat is creating some sort of friction force resisting the movement forward - where is this friction happening?
"flex/strain in wheel, tire, frame"
Do you plastically deform the frame every time you pedal? you are contradicting yourself now. remember when you brought up that energy isn't lost in a HT bike because of frame flex????
"Where does energy go when you jump?"
When you jump you gain gravational potential energy which is released when you fall back down. the only energy that is lost in that system is that which is transferred into heat by your muscles as they turn chemical energy into kinetic energy. (and a small percentage to frictional losses due to aerodynamic drag).
" Where does energy go in a tug-of-war stalemate?"
If we assume a complete stale mate - no feet sliding over the ground and no one losing grip on the rope
- Heat via your muscles turning chemical energy into kinetic energy. The only other way to transfer energy out is by plastic deformation (broken rope or god forbid broken bones), heat transfer due to friction on the ground or by hands sliding over rope.
"Doesn't work like that for a driveshaft vehicle. It's all in the geometry of the rods to be aligned with the vehicle's CoG and the force from rearward weight shift on acceleration. It's similar to the principles of anti-dive."
I do this everyday for a living - thats exactly how it works That force that creates the acceleration is the same torque that creates the reaction force to make anti squat (though we use varying degrees, depending on entire chassis setup, sometimes (but rarely) pro squat). the only thing that changes on a mtb is that a chain creates an extra plot point when calculating the instant centre much. Just like different suspension designs also have different methods of calculating the instant centre. Unless we are talking about telescopic suspension (a typical moutain bike fork) there is no instant centre and therefore no ability to create a reaction force resisting suspension movement. You take away that torque, you can change the suspension geometry all you want and there is no anti anything until a torque is applied.
You've clearly demonstrated that you don't understand the laws of thermodynamics and that you can't construct a force diagram. You constantly conflate energy with force to make points - they two are not interchangeable.
you are still wrong. see above.
"There's a modern bike that has semi-low anti-squat that I forgot to mention: the '21 Specialized Status. I'm totally willing to try low anti-squat (and low kickback) again, but this time with new geo (steeper STA). I figure that a soft-pedaling feel, as opposed to a firm-pedaling feel, will be enjoyable without some dogmatic belief that it's inefficient (due to bob-phobia or whatever). Not the Spec specifically, but just being open-minded for my next bike. "
You try what you want. my own bike has a pedal bob too, and for comforts sake I am prepared to take the transfer of kinetic to heat via the damper. but i don't race. and anymore than I have and I would get a different bike.
Uh, like every high pivot bike with an idler on the main pivot...
Had you blocked but maybe you're not irredeemable like others, and it was the alcohol talking...
You seem to deny the ground as someplace energy can go. You see the friction between feet and ground, but not the friction between particles of sand or dirt. You probably heard of hysteresis, internal friction on a microscopic level. A lot of missing elements into your understanding of the conservation that makes you believe that energy ends up going somewhere in large amounts, like focusing on leg muscles for a jump. Tension, compression, vibration, sound... energy is being converted into all sorts of things besides heat. You're not accounting for how much is grounded into the ground or into a human. People complaining of being all achy from a bumpy ride can be due to it absorbing a lot of energy, like heavy vehicle operators who do nothing but sit.
For a jump, energy can go into intense vibration in your skeleton if you land without absorbing it with your muscles. The vibrations run up your bones and eventually get dissipated in most cases, whether you land stiff and straight-legged or with your legs absorbing it over time and over a distance.
People use energy in a layman's sense to describe their power (watts). You take away the time component of it in your simplification. And I'm trying to say that without the distance component, energy is a force. Isn't the confusion with your belief that no bob (no movement distance) leads to no energy to be wasted, leading to your conclusion that anti-squat balancing the squat force leads to no energy, therefore energy goes to propelling the rear wheel like an HT?
Can you explain something like Taipei 101's tuned mass damper, and where energy goes during heavy swaying? The more detailed the answer, the more I'll give you credit for your understanding. Generalizations, simplification, heuristics are what I criticized in the first place, as Dunning-Kruger effect.
"Thanks. Your answer got me to understand your confusion. You got most of the answer I was expecting from the tug-of-war stalemate, which made me hopeful."
Im not writing a thesis to satisfy your stupidity.
"You seem to deny the ground as someplace energy can go. You see the friction between feet and ground, but not the friction between particles of sand or dirt. You probably heard of hysteresis, internal friction on a microscopic level. A lot of missing elements into your understanding of the conservation that makes you believe that energy ends up going somewhere in large amounts, like focusing on leg muscles for a jump. Tension, compression, vibration, sound... energy is being converted into all sorts of things besides heat. You're not accounting for how much is grounded into the ground or into a human. People complaining of being all achy from a bumpy ride can be due to it absorbing a lot of energy, like heavy vehicle operators who do nothing but sit."
Lol are literally kicking over the pieces on a chess board and then claiming victory.
You still haven't explained this mysterious transfer of energy that equates to loss of efficiency due to anti squat.
You couldn't explain it in the system of the bicycle so now you are trying to say that some how the extra energy is mysteriously lost in the human. Because that is not what you have been claiming. Your claim has been that opposing forces was somehow transferring energy out of the system. And now you want to bring up completely different topics and want analysis on a micro scale, when your initial claim was broad and general and you couldn't and still can't answer a simple question.
"no bob (no movement distance) leads to no energy to be wasted" my argument with no bob is that any time the damper moves in a suspension system kinetic energy is turned into heat. But you still seem to think that won't contribute to a loss of forward motion.
"People use energy in a layman's sense to describe their power (watts). You take away the time component of it in your simplification. And I'm trying to say that without the distance component, energy is a force. Isn't the confusion with your belief that no bob (no movement distance) leads to no energy to be wasted, leading to your conclusion that anti-squat balancing the squat force leads to no energy, therefore energy goes to propelling the rear wheel like an HT?"
Here you are still with you fingers in your ears about the thing in suspension that turns kinetic energy into heat energy which is why the use anti squat in bicycles to improve efficiency.
"Can you explain something like Taipei 101's tuned mass damper, and where energy goes during heavy swaying? The more detailed the answer, the more I'll give you credit for your understanding. Generalizations, simplification, heuristics are what I criticized in the first place, as Dunning-Kruger effect."
You are deflecting from answering a question that was put forward to you days ago. Why is that? Ill give you the answer - you are a coward who can't admit you where wrong. As for the Taipei 101, i know nothing about that building and I don't really care to spend time investigating it because you are trying so desperately to deflect, however I have experience with mass dampers used in suspension and there is ALWAYS a friction damper involved. And you know what they do - TURN KINETIC ENERGY INTO HEAT. MASS dampers don't absorb energy, they reduce the AMPLITUDE of movement. When you reduce the amplitude the frequency increases. The energy is reduced by a regular damper which as I keep saying TURN KINETIC ENERGY INTO HEAT.
"Generalizations, simplification, heuristics are what I criticized in the first place, as Dunning-Kruger effect."
I think you need to look in the mirror there cowboy.
And before you derail this any further Your original argument about AS was that opposing forces wasted energy. now you are trying to make arguments like hysteresis and microscopic friction.
You been drinking mate?
You are trying to prove that since balanced opposing forces have no movement, there's no energy and therefore none to lose. You're trying to equate it to other no-energy-scenarios as if there were no difference.
There's a quote from someone who lived on the ISS, Hadfield, that it's the laziest experience ever. They need to exercise in order to not atrophy for when they return to Earth.
You're trying to eliminate too many variables to understand some concept of anti-squat. You narrow your understanding of anti-squat to see it as all the same, not considering what is producing the force, and where it goes.
You seem to imply that if you didn't witness a rearward weight shift, by observing the squat it should've cause, then it didn't happen and/or you've eliminated it if it was due to a countermeasure. It's like your goal was to eliminate squat/bob, as if that was all the waste that exists.
I'm suggesting it'd help if you expanded your understanding of other things. Something like vector forces would help. It'd also help if you wouldn't limit your perspective of reality to only include what you and perhaps a select echo-chamber believe, and instead tried to accept a non-personal reality that is shaped by the collective effort to progress understanding deeper: theoatmeal.com/comics/believe
To me, it seems your argument hinges around:
- the rear damper is the only difference between FS and HT causing inefficiency...
- pedal-induced suspension movement is a complete loss of energy...
- anti-squat takes no energy if there is no susp movement (perfectly balances the squat force), as if the conversion in the damper is the only way energy can be wasted
You only threw out any counter-arguments. I'm not even sure what's going on anymore. You're trying to stand up for everyone who thinks like you? What else do you have besides the car dyno analogy and beer bottle on table analogy?
"the way narrow your vision to defend your belief... there's a word for this. There's also a word for switching to attacking the opponent instead of coming up with evidence to support your argument."
Remember when you started deleting comments and blocking everyone?
"You are trying to prove that since balanced opposing forces have no movement, there's no energy and therefore none to lose. You're trying to equate it to other no-energy-scenarios as if there were no difference."
Where did I say there is no energy. strawman argument. There is a famous guy, I believe he said something along the lines of "a body will remain at rest or constant motion unless acted on by an unequal force" Maybe you have heard of him?
"There's a quote from someone who lived on the ISS, Hadfield, that it's the laziest experience ever. They need to exercise in order to not atrophy for when they return to Earth."
Cool story bro.
"You're trying to eliminate too many variables to understand some concept of anti-squat. You narrow your understanding of anti-squat to see it as all the same, not considering what is producing the force, and where it goes."
Where have I eliminated anything. It is you who can't explain where the energy is transferred outside the system. It is you who keeps deflecting to other topics.
"You seem to imply that if you didn't witness a rearward weight shift, by observing the squat it should've cause, then it didn't happen and/or you've eliminated it if it was due to a countermeasure. It's like your goal was to eliminate squat/bob, as if that was all the waste that exists. "
Even if it is a rigid bike there is still weight transfer caused by acceleration. so no it doesn't seem at all. The elimination of bob is to counter the loss OF KINETIC ENERGY INTO HEAT ENERGY VIA THE DAMPER - you are refusing to recognise that. You have made a claim that the opposing forces of antisqaut to suspension squat is lost energy, you have yet to explain where that energy transfers to or buy what mechanism.
"Are you suggesting that when bob is eliminated, then weight is going into propulsion and your pedal stroke? Is this why you get the idea that a bob-less FS bike is as efficient as an HT?"
The elimination of bob is to counter the loss OF KINETIC ENERGY INTO HEAT ENERGY VIA THE DAMPER - you are refusing to recognise that.
"I'm suggesting it'd help if you expanded your understanding of other things. Something like vector forces would help. It'd also help if you wouldn't limit your perspective of reality to only include what you and perhaps a select echo-chamber believe: theoatmeal.com/comics/believe"
lol you can't even make a consistent argument, your story changes every time you touch the keyboard.
You refuse to acknowledge Thermodynamics and demand evidence while supplying none of your own.
And now you are trying to get all philosophical. You rely on passive aggressive rhetoric just like the coward you are.
- the rear damper is the only difference between FS and HT causing inefficiency... "
You still haven't explained what this other inefficiency is
"- pedal-induced suspension movement is a complete loss of energy..."
Nobody said that except you. The energy loss is OF KINETIC ENERGY INTO HEAT ENERGY VIA THE DAMPER. Ive been very clear about that.
"- anti-squat takes no energy if there is no susp movement (perfectly balances the squat force), as if the conversion in the damper is the only way energy can be wasted"
Where else is this energy "wasted" - why can't you explain this.
"You only threw out any counter-arguments. I'm not even sure what's going on anymore. You're trying to stand up for everyone who thinks like you? What else do you have besides the car dyno analogy and beer bottle on table analogy?"
What counter arguments. you need to defend your arguments and you can't. apparently a beer bottle siting on a table is wasting energy just by sitting there?
You use the term "it seems" a lot and like the coward you are you use it to put words or ideas into my mouth so you can refute them. nice try
What happens if you bend or dent the rim?
Not really possible to simply “re-rim” one is it hahahaha
Lol
The only thing that’ll make sense is a regenerative braking system.
But any advantage this may have, would not be in racing due to increased weight !
Should sell to a big bike brand, that can re-brand as weight gain/loss/ devise?
Like using an E-bike with motor turned off or running an elastic band round your brake leaver on descents to eliminate arm pump!
Bet people still believe that the result of no movement, after using one force (anti-squat) to balance out another (squat), equates to the most efficient pedaling. It's as if these forces aren't produced by the rider.
This is like susp in a wheel, but it returns stored energy as a torque. Essentially, it uses the energy from bobbing and squat to turn the wheel. This is in contrast to rear susp that uses (wastes) energy to counter bobbing and squatting.
False belief: balance of forces, such as stiff tubes resisting deformation under pedaling, leads to more power transfer since the chain has nowhere else to go but to the cassette (AKA path of least resistance).
Reality: it's all about total power being transferred to the wheel, period. Hardtail tubes are being flexed under power. It's not all going to the chain. A tube that flexes under pedaling will return the force that bent it when that strain is relieved. If the same amount of force made a stiffer tube flex a tenth as much, it still returns the force that bent it, esp if it's a springy material like steel. If that force that went into flexing the tubing was returned in a useful way, to propel the bike, the power transfer is more efficient.
Here's a video that demonstrates how frame flex is not necessarily lossy, with BB flex returning "energy" to turn the rear wheel (the reason why HTs are efficient): youtu.be/BH_AL4rxrp8?t=118
If pedaling is making the bike squat/sink, why can't the subsequent rise of the bike used to put power back into the pedals? You seem to think movement/bobbing is the enemy, and therefore must get rid of such movement. Is this not the same kind of thinking that led to bicycle suspension that's designed to *not* to move freely? I bet some suspension makers are puzzled by this demand...
The term to describe utilizing the bob and flex inherent in the bicycle to further propel the bike was coined "planing" (e.g. pedal strokes timed to utilize the bob in tires): www.renehersecycles.com/myth-4-stiffer-frames-are-faster
P.S. please stick your penis in between that beer bottle and table to test for "energy". Your pain allowance will be akin to the table's weight allowance. There will be compression and tension acting on both on a microscopic scale. Repeat on a grander scale with more weight than a beer bottle to convince me that there's no waste/loss...
P.S.S. Canceling out equal terms is a bad habit can lead to ridiculous proofs like the "proof that 1=2" (google it).
Suspension that moves freely can regain more efficiency by reducing suspension losses. Suspension losses are from the bike and rider going up and over obstacles rather than being sucked up by suspension. Going over these bumps is the equivalent of riding up a micro-sized hill, which costs you momentum. This is where enough gains can add up to result in FS being faster over HT on short courses.
If a brand wanted to improve power transfer efficiency even more, they could reduce anti-squat and rely on an improved Fox Live-like system to reduce geo change from squat, without compromising on being compliant enough to reduce suspension losses. Maybe some might even opt for a bike with less anti-squat, less damping, and instead use the technique to "plane" the pedal bob. It should be like hopping on a trampoline to additively gain jump height, adjusting to the trampoline's spring weight tuning, or like adding to momentum on a swing in concept.
My interpretation of this invention is that it questions if the force that sags spoked wheels is being wasted. When you put weight on a wheel, certain spokes carry the load, straining the spokes in tension. When the wheel turns, the spokes that carry the load change, and the previously strained spokes release their tension. Is this release in force basically wasted? As a bonus, it can work off of squat and bob too. The concept seems simple to me. Needs to be refined to reduce all the wobble with a better-tuned spring-rate at least, so the rim isn't dodging the rim brake pads.
Even using a ton of low speed compression (ie a lockout, unless it is truley a rigid lock) is still turning kinetic energy to heat.
Even suspension movement over bumps and ruts turns kinetic energy to heat - Every time your damper moves on you mountain bike - IT IS TURNING KINETIC ENERGY INTO HEAT ENERGY - THATS HOW SHOCKS/DAMPERS WORK. Thats energy lost to the environment that you cannot use anymore. Thats why hardtail are more efficient - because there is no bloody damper turning kinetic energy into heat!!!!
If your chain is dry or dirty - you are turning kinetic energy into heat energy.
If your chain is noisy (probably due to lack of lube or its dirty) - you are turning kinetic energy into sound
If your chain gets so much heat load from lack of lube and your amazing fitness levels that it glows red - you are turning kinetic energy into light energy as well as heat and most probably sound energy.
Which one of these transfers of energy to the environment best describes anti squat.
Maybe you haven't heard of a little theory called the conservation of energy.
The rest of your rant is just a word salad demonstrating you don't even understand high school level physics.
The fact that you believe the "super wheel" has any merit proves to us that you are an idiot.
Yeah it's definitely the "cancelling out" equal terms that leads to nonsense "proofs" and not at all the division by zero that every one I've ever seen sneaks in there.
Anti-squat is a vector force. It's converted from chain tension, which comes from your pedaling. With every pedal stroke, a percentage of that pedal stroke is going towards anti-squat. It's like tug-of-war with the swingarm, between anti-squat force and the squat force from the rearward weight shift (+other forces like downward force put into the pedals, pumping, bumps, etc.).
The force that results in squat is created whether the bike had anti-squat or not. The rider is supplying pedaling force as the source that's converted to a force that opposes the squat (anti-squat). No chain tension, no anti-squat. No chain, none of the kickback associated with anti-squat either.
My "word salad" tries to explain the difference between HT efficiency and FS efficiency. I believe you're an idiot if you think a FS mtb would pedal as efficiently as an HT mtb, even on flat smooth ground if anti-squat was perfected for this without mech lockout. What makes you convinced that anti-squat is not converting force without a mechanical lockout? What would you predict would be the power output difference on smart trainer, between an HT, FS with modern anti-squat value, and a FS with near-zero anti-squat (Pole Rinne Yla, Lone Parabellum, or a DJ FS like the Spec P.Slope)?
The super wheel is converting the downward force (that sags the wheel) into a torque force (that turns the wheel). It said clearly that 10 kg resulted in a moment of 7-8 Nm. On a conventional wheel, what does the force that sags the wheel get converted into? It's a question: if this force is wasted, then how much can be recovered, and is it worth it considering the many trade-offs like complexity, weight, expensive, ride handling, etc.? It's not free. It's a matter of trade-offs, where personal preference can come into play.
The premise is also a dumb part, in which you declare let x = y and do the problem with two different variables, when you can ditch the redundancy at the start. Clearer to see that x - x = 0, even though x - y means the same thing (when you let x = y).
In other words, it's like pointing out that people focus on the divide by zero part, but not the x = y part, substituting all the y's with x at the start. Or in other words, it's like ppl focusing on the bob part being some sort of error. They don't think about everything else that a rider's force goes into that can rob it. Anti-squat is one, but it actually provides something useful. Flex, tension, compression, and other strain on the bike frame and parts are seemingly ignored, as if the sole difference between a HT and FS is the damper, and not the fact that the swingarm can move without the damper (and move from chain forces).
I'm criticizing the simple-minded nature of people in general. If their back, ass, or wrists hurt, a typical simple-minded person will look to address that through some combination of reinforcing those body parts and taking the harshness out of the associated bike parts (more compliance in bar, grip, saddle, susp, frame, seatpost, etc.). Thinking about posture and how loads are spread out and relating it to fit is a level beyond some peoples' expertise. There are levels beyond this, regarding how the bike is engineered to carry these loads well. One bike could make ones knees ache when mashing, while another one could let someone lazily just pick their feet up and let their bodyweight propel the bike. What causes someone to stop going to the next level in complexity? Someone exceptionally simple-minded might resort to trying to claim some difference in my use of X and Y, instead of A and B, in regards to those nonsense proofs.
Only efficient on flat/ light grades?
It will steepen the headtube angle slighly, have all the tools you need to fix it hiden in compartments and will create water at will so no need for a water bottles. It is called Super Wheel, get with the program.