Top.Mail.Ru
More Wacky Vehicles - Bram Cohen's Journal — LiveJournal
? ?

Wed, Dec. 28th, 2005, 09:56 pm
More Wacky Vehicles

The jumping vehicle I mentioned in my last post has some technical difficulties. It's hard to stay on the platform. Perhaps you should have something to hold on to, maybe based on an already proven jumping vehicle. The vehicle is highly dependent on 'up' being actually up for the piston to work right. Maybe the piston should be able to change direction dynamically. Perhaps it could be based on an already proven vehicle which does exactly that. Preferably a simple easy-to-build one.

Some of you may have already seen the inevitable, horrible conclusion. Yes, that's right, it's the POGO UNICYCLE. Instead of a seat, the pogo unicycle has a pogo-type assembly, sans spring. Both cranks on the wheel are turned in the same direction, and both of them are attached via fixed-length bars with pivots on either end to the bottom of the pogo mechanism, resulting in the standard mechanism for converting circular to reciprocating motion. It should be a fairly simple device to build (although note that it's important for the pogo assembly to not allow the handlebars to rotate relative to the base, unlike in normal pogo sticks).

The physics of the pogo unicycle are fairly interesting. The length of the cranks should be such that the distance the user bounces up and down should be about the distance they do on a pogo stick. The diameter of the wheel should be such that if the user is bouncing up and down at about the rate they do on a pogo stick then the amount of upward force on the bounce up is about the same as it is on a pogo stick. I don't have available numbers or formulas to calculate these things, if someone can supply them I'd much appreciate it. In particular, I'd like to know what the natural rate of moving forward on a pogo unicycle is.

Other than a bit of clunkiness caused by the obvious discontinuity of movement, the pogo unicycle should be about as efficient to ride and maneuverable as a regular unicycle. Whether it would be harder or easier to ride is highly unclear, one would really have to build one and try it to find out. It would undoubtedly attract a lot of attention riding down the street.

A less wacky vehicle which I also came up with cogitating on my last post is to make a step-machine bicycle. Simply put a step machine assembly on a bicycle (really just two steps pivoting about the same point in the front) and attach them to corresponding pedals via fixed-length bars which pivot on either end, again building the standard circular to reciprocating motion assembly.

In theory it may be possible for such a setup to have greater efficiency than regular bike pedals, but experiments trying to do that with oval-shaped pedal motions appear to have been a failure, and aerodynamics are inevitably going to suck because, duh, you're standing. I'm more interested in it simply to have the ergonomics of a step machine in a bicycle, and also to be just plain weird.

Step machine is just one of several different ergonomic interfaces for powering a bicycle. Several others which have already been tried are rowing, walking, and, uh, pedalling.

There's also the obvious pushing. Their web site says that real wheels make the bike much faster than those dinky little two-wheel scooters which are so ubiquitous these days (and were ubiquitous back in the 50's, or so, then went completely out of style). I'm not clear on why bigger wheels should be faster other than that there's less friction, and obviously they're way more stable and turn better.

I have a little confession to make about manual scooters. I had a really bad wipe-out on one a few years ago. You see, I bought a super-cheap knockoff on clearance for about $15. It was really cheap and the handlebars wouldn't tighten to a specific height, but they could still be used to turn, so whatever. I practiced riding it back and forth in my apartment, which basically meant doing a single push-off and gliding across the whole place, since I had a flat floor and a tiny San Francisco apartment. After I got pretty good at that, I tried riding it on the street. The first thing I noticed was that shifting weight from the ground to the scooter isn't completely trivial, and I was quite awkward my first day riding it. My second day went quite a bit more smoothly. I was also working on downhill, taking it carefully and sticking strictly to speeds I could handle. Apparently my skill at that was also going up pretty quickly, because (for those of you who know San Francisco) I was going down Bush street at the end of the second day. That wouldn't have been all that bad, except I was going down Bush street without using the brakes at all. I did notice that people were getting way out of my way, even when I wouldn't have come anywhere near hitting them had they stayed put.

Towards the end of my second day of riding, I was riding down the street in Oakland at night, kind of zoning out because riding wasn't requiring much thought, when I went over a section of street with an enormous number of cracks which was in shadow so I couldn't see it at all. Suddenly the handlebars pulled very strongly to the right - my guess is that the front wheel hit a crack with its left side only, causing the whole scooter to precess and pulling the bars away from me. I flew off the thing, and managed to roll on the ground in lieu of hitting it directly and getting a concussion (a little trick I learned the last time I wiped out, that time doing something even stupider). In the process I injured the ball of my right foot (because it was standing on the scooter - to have been injured that way I must have been going at a pretty good clip) plus skimmed my right knee, my right wrist, my right elbow, and seriously hurt my left wrist, my left shoulder (rolled on it) my left elbow, and got the wind completely knocked out of me.

At first I was most worried about my left shoulder, because that hurt a lot. After a few minutes I regained the ability to breathe, and rode the rest of the way home (I'd moved to Oakland by this time, hence the jump from San Francisco). By the time I got home I couldn't lift my keys with my left hand, because my left elbow had become non-functional. After about an hour my elbow was in excruciating pain, which it remained in for the next week, at which point it only hurt when it moved more than a millimeter off a 90 degree angle. It was months before I could straighten my left arm out completely, even after the pain had stopped. (Note to self: the next time you roll, hit the ground with the back rather than the front of your hand.)

The moral of this story could be to wear a helmet, knee, and elbow pads, although the more direct conclusions are that you should learn to roll well before riding in anything, and you shouldn't ride on vehicles which are practically designed to wipe out if you hit a crack in the sidewalk. All of which is my long-winded way of saying that small-wheeled manual scooters are an awful design of vehicle, and the big-wheeled kick scooters are probably vastly better.

Thu, Dec. 29th, 2005 07:10 am (UTC)
xinit

I was picturing the jumping machine as a kind of Segway with a see-saw style mechanism for two people.... something like the two person, hand-powered rail cars you'd see Butch and Sundance using....

I have seen something that was something of an inclined jogging track on wheels... you could walk on a rotating track, which would then power the wheels beneath. Very bizarre.

Thu, Dec. 29th, 2005 09:19 am (UTC)
bramcohen

I linked to that vehicle from this post.

Thu, Dec. 29th, 2005 08:56 am (UTC)
rik

pogo unicycle? have your testicles done something to offend you?

Thu, Dec. 29th, 2005 09:16 am (UTC)
bramcohen

Ahem. You stand on it and hold onto it like a pogo stick.

The Danny Devito part of this Arnold Schwarzenegger vehicle would be a pogo stick with no handlebars and a unicycle seat. That wouldn't work very well.

Thu, Dec. 29th, 2005 08:24 pm (UTC)
rik

ahh. i understand.

Thu, Dec. 29th, 2005 01:21 pm (UTC)
misterajc

Do you know about biopace chainwheels as a way of improving the mechanical efficiency of a bike? http://www.sheldonbrown.com/biopace.html . I've been using them for years and really like them.

Tyre pressure (or the equivalent for solid tyres) is a pretty important factor in the amoung of rolling friction on a vehicle. The higher the pressure, the less the rolling friction on a smooth surface, but the less well the vehicle can deal with an irregular surface. Thus mountain bikers may use lower tyre pressure for off road use.

The saddle may also be lowered for off road use, trading more control of the bike for lower pedalling efficency. For peak pedalling efficiency, the distance from the middle of the saddle to a fully extended pedal should be 106% of your inside leg measurement. A hundred years of research has gone into making bicycles more efficient, and I think it's pretty unlikely that any other sort of human powered vehicle is perform as well.

Thu, Dec. 29th, 2005 06:40 pm (UTC)
bramcohen

I've read that page about biospace wheels but am fairly skeptical that they really improve efficiency all that much. Even a 1% improvement in efficiency would make a technology completely dominate in racing, and that simply hasn't happened. The human body is pretty good at adjusting to just about whatever mechanical motion it needs to do, so most motions are done at close to peak efficiency.

The one real exception to that is that in sprints if you use more muscles you can get more anaerobic power output quickly before hitting the wall. So in principle rowing bikes should be able to go faster for short distances than regular bicycles, although the rowing bike page isn't in english so it's hard for me to tell.

Fri, Dec. 30th, 2005 01:35 am (UTC)
bramcohen

A more recent attempt to make cycling more efficient are rotor cranks, which have mostly very positive reviews on the web (unlike biospace chainwheels, which tend to be hated). They're also getting some notable usage in actual racing. The theory behind them is straightforward and reasonable, especially for steep uphills.

One could also get real benefit from a two wheel drive bicycle (some of which have actually been built) but the benefits probably only become significant on hills so steep that noone ever rides them on regular bicycles.

Fri, Dec. 30th, 2005 04:03 pm (UTC)
misterajc

Interesting. I had no idea biopace gears were so unfashionable these days. As I said, I've been using them for years and I find them easier than regular chainwheels. It may be that they are worse at high cadences (cadence is the speed you turn the pedals) that the racers use, but better at the 60 or so rpm that I putter along at.

Biopace gears won't work on a track bike, of course, as these are single speed there is no derailleur to take up the varying slack in the chain.

Of course, the single thing that you can do to make the most efficient use of the cyclist is to use toe clips or cleats, so that you can apply force on the upstroke as well as on the down stroke of the pedals.

The proponents of recumbent bikes say they are more efficient both because of the lowered air resistance and the fact that having a seat back to push against allows you to apply more force to the pedals. Adding a windscreen and additional streamlining to a conventional bike can also reduce the drag.

There are enthusiasts for different spoke arrangements. Radial spokes result in a stiffer wheel. The effect is similar to increasing the tyre pressure. The bike performs better on a smooth surface, but doesn't deal with an irregular surface as well. You're also much more likely to break a spoke, as the entire weight of the bike is hanging from one or two spokes on each wheel.

Tue, Jan. 3rd, 2006 02:59 am (UTC)
bramcohen

The reviews of biospace wheels range from 'did nothing' to 'found it really annoying'. The reviews of rotor cranks range from 'did nothing' to 'dramatic results in just days' (they apparently do less for people with very good technique). Apparently the big problem with biospace wheels is simply that they don't get rid of the dead spot, and that's the real problem.

Tue, Jan. 3rd, 2006 04:37 am (UTC)
misterajc

Hmmm. Cleats (and to a lesser extent toe clips) will get rid of the dead spot pretty well since they allow you to exert horizontal force on the pedals. They are more likely to be used by people with good technique, so that could explain why rotor cranks are more popular with less experienced cyclists.

Tue, Jan. 3rd, 2006 07:06 am (UTC)
bramcohen

I think that you're stuck using relatively weak muscles over the dead spot even with very good technique and cleats, but yeah, for people with less technique the dead spot is truly dead.

Time will tell if rotor cranks get adopted by elite cyclists. They're starting to make some inroads now.

Thu, Dec. 29th, 2005 07:22 pm (UTC)
chouyu_31

About 18 years ago, my brother recieved a scooter with 12" tires. In the intervening time, no curb, crack in the road, or even gravel roads have caused a crash. I'm also a fan of the fact that scooters with real tires don't fight physics - having the axle of the steering wheel almost directly in line with the steering column itself is a recipe for crashing.