| |
Main
Date: 28 Aug 2007 22:26:35
From: Greens
Subject: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
First, let me explain what this is. A surviveable bike is a bike that could
get hit by a car at let's say 40 mph and it's rider would survive with few
injuries.
You might think this is impossible at first, but there might be a way to
make it possible or at least get close to that 40 mph impact. I would think
the most important thing is that the cage surrounding the cyclist survives
without too much deformation. 2, the cage must either have a thick foam
lining or air bags to protect the rider's back front and sides, maybe even
above and below him.
A car hiting a bike from the rear is going to send a stiff caged bicycle
flying a long way. G forces will be high on impact. The bike will then hit
something else at considerable speed. It might be nice to have an airbag
that stays inflated until the bike finally comes to rest and the rider or
rescue removes him. Either that or it'll take multiple air bags which of
course add more weight and expense. Care must be taken to ensure the cyclist
isn't suffocated by the airbag. Probably all the airbags, front, rear, top,
bottom and sides should be deployed at impact to prevent injury. The area
below the cyclist might be a problem in the tertiatry impact. I think most
of the first and second impact will be absorbed by the other airbags.
No doubt this would be a tricky project. Cyclists don't have a lot of
horsepower to pull heavy cages around. The finished bicycle might require
that the bicycle be modified to hybrid human peddle and electric motor
power.
Well, what do you think? I've always been fascinated by making things
surviveable like those barrels going over Niagra Falls. Eventually they
succeeded in building something to survive the falls, but of course those
were propelled by current. Weight wasn't much of a consideration.
|
|
| |
Date: 31 Aug 2007 06:38:43
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
On Aug 29, 10:42 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote:
> It's not. All electric power does is relocate the tailpipe from the
> vehicle to a coal-fired power plant, nuclear power plant, or
> environmentally destructive hydroelectric dam. You're deluding
> yourself if you think electricity is "green."
Actually, I think economies of scale really do help
in reducing emissions from power generation. Also, in
the US a lot of electricity is generated from natural gas,
which is somewhat cleaner burning than coal or petroleum.
Leaving aside the various environmental costs of
car gas engines and different types of power plants vs
refineries, etc, (that is, refineries aren't necessarily
cleaner than power plants), let's just examine CO2 emissions:
pounds of CO2 per mile.
Gasoline: Burning a gallon of gasoline produces 19.6 pounds
of CO2 (see http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/factors.html )
An efficient car might get 30 miles/gallon in practical
use, so that is 19.6/30 = 0.65 lb CO2/mile.
Electric: CO2 emission by power plants in the US averages
1.35 pounds CO2 per kilowatt-hour; see
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2report.html#table_1
This table breaks it down by coal, gas, nonfossil, etc.
The average is really brought down by natural gas and
nonfossil fuel, but even coal alone averages 2.1 lb CO2/Kwh,
or only about 50% more. A typical number for electric car
energy use and range is 5 miles/Kwh (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_electric_vehicle
and other sources on the web). So the CO2 production
of an electric car is about 1.35 lb CO2/5 miles, or
0.27 lb CO2/mile.
By these estimates, the CO2 emissions from an electric
car at the powerplant are less than half of the CO2
emissions from a decent gasoline car at the tailpipe.
I didn't consider the various other noxious byproducts
and environmental effects of gasoline engines, refineries,
power plants, and so on, but in some limited sense,
electric really is cleaner than gasoline. However,
it isn't zero. If GM invents electric Escalades and
people drive them around all day, they shouldn't fool
themselves that they are saving the earth while
paving it.
Ben
|
| |
Date: 30 Aug 2007 07:11:39
From: Scott Gordo
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
On Aug 29, 11:07 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote:
> "_" <jtayNOSPAM...@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com> wrote in message
>
> news:j6qy3ozk4itg$.1e6tz22r83gsz$.dlg@40tude.net...
>
> > On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 01:07:14 -0400, Greens wrote:
>
> >> I dunno. How strong can they make a fabric? Maybe they can make a nano
> >> fabric that's super tough and light and you'll just boing off the car and
> >> fly off into space away from heavy machinery.
>
> > The problem is'nt solely impact; there is also the factor of sudden
> > acceleration. Consider rotational injuries to the spine/skull -
> > impervious
> > armour will have at best a zero effect, and much more likely a neagtive
> > effect.
>
> The cage is impervious, the airbags within are deformable and absorb the
> shock. Haven't you picked up on that yet? I'm not just suggesting we put a
> cyclist inside some hard cage. The shock of impact has to be absorbed. The
> energy has to be dissipated slowly. That's what the airbags are for.
Prototype:
http://images.contactmusic.com/images/reviews/bubbleboy.jpg
Scott
|
| |
Date: 30 Aug 2007 03:26:17
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Electric bicycles charged by grid power consume a lot less in
> > resources, by passenger-mile, than a human fueled by food.
>
> That contravenes common sense, certainly in terms of total environmental
> impact (manufacture, operation and disposal) but also in the
> per-passenger-mile sense as well. If you've got any literature to refer
> to for further reading, I'd be interested in seeing it. Always worth
> seeing what I am overlooking.
Here's one analysis:
http://www.ebikes.ca/sustainability/Ebike_Energy.pdf
"Despite the intuitive sense that electric bikes would require more
resources than
regular bikes, life-cycle analysis shows that they actually consume
2-4 times less
primary energy than human riders eating a conventional diet. This
conclusion is
largely due to the considerable amount of transportation and
processing energy
that is associated with our western food system."
This generalization could be reversed, I suppose, if you grow your own
potatoes and generate your own electricity with a vodka-fired steam
engine. In that case it would be more efficient to eat the
potatoes.
Chalo
|
| |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 20:34:31
From: mecej4
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
Greens wrote:
> First, let me explain what this is. A surviveable bike is a bike that could
> get hit by a car at let's say 40 mph and it's rider would survive with few
> injuries.
>
> You might think this is impossible at first, but there might be a way to
> make it possible or at least get close to that 40 mph impact. I would think
> the most important thing is that the cage surrounding the cyclist survives
> without too much deformation. 2, the cage must either have a thick foam
> lining or air bags to protect the rider's back front and sides, maybe even
> above and below him.
>
> A car hiting a bike from the rear is going to send a stiff caged bicycle
> flying a long way. G forces will be high on impact. The bike will then hit
> something else at considerable speed. It might be nice to have an airbag
> that stays inflated until the bike finally comes to rest and the rider or
> rescue removes him. Either that or it'll take multiple air bags which of
> course add more weight and expense. Care must be taken to ensure the cyclist
> isn't suffocated by the airbag. Probably all the airbags, front, rear, top,
> bottom and sides should be deployed at impact to prevent injury. The area
> below the cyclist might be a problem in the tertiatry impact. I think most
> of the first and second impact will be absorbed by the other airbags.
>
> No doubt this would be a tricky project. Cyclists don't have a lot of
> horsepower to pull heavy cages around. The finished bicycle might require
> that the bicycle be modified to hybrid human peddle and electric motor
> power.
>
> Well, what do you think? I've always been fascinated by making things
> surviveable like those barrels going over Niagra Falls. Eventually they
> succeeded in building something to survive the falls, but of course those
> were propelled by current. Weight wasn't much of a consideration.
>
>
>
Consider that what we have here is two vehicles of very different
masses. A train and an 18-wheeler form another such pair. If you watch a
few video-clips of trains smashing tractor-trailers, you may see why
survivability is going to be very elusive. The ability to convert
kinetic energy into deformation energy has to be designed into the vehicle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2oN3uTBa8w&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1qXG1J-jP8&mode=related&search=
-- mecej4
|
| |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 15:34:18
From: ross_w
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
On Aug 29, 3:13 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote:
> "Tim McNamara" <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote in message
>
> news:timmcn-2A6088.23190828082007@news.iphouse.com...
>
>
>
> > In article <0uydnUJCmPYTRUnbnZ2dnUVZWhedn...@adelphia.com>,
> > "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> >> First, let me explain what this is. A surviveable bike is a bike that
> >> could get hit by a car at let's say 40 mph and it's rider would
> >> survive with few injuries.
>
> >> You might think this is impossible at first, but there might be a way
> >> to make it possible or at least get close to that 40 mph impact. I
> >> would think the most important thing is that the cage surrounding the
> >> cyclist survives without too much deformation. 2, the cage must
> >> either have a thick foam lining or air bags to protect the rider's
> >> back front and sides, maybe even above and below him.
>
> >> A car hiting a bike from the rear is going to send a stiff caged
> >> bicycle flying a long way. G forces will be high on impact. The bike
> >> will then hit something else at considerable speed. It might be nice
> >> to have an airbag that stays inflated until the bike finally comes to
> >> rest and the rider or rescue removes him. Either that or it'll take
> >> multiple air bags which of course add more weight and expense. Care
> >> must be taken to ensure the cyclist isn't suffocated by the airbag.
> >> Probably all the airbags, front, rear, top, bottom and sides should
> >> be deployed at impact to prevent injury. The area below the cyclist
> >> might be a problem in the tertiatry impact. I think most of the first
> >> and second impact will be absorbed by the other airbags.
>
> > A far better idea would be to prevent the force application to the
> > cyclist- IOW, keep the cars from running into him/her. That can be
> > achieved in significant measure by teaching drivers how to drive
> > competently and cyclists how to cycle competently, and making sure that
> > road design accommodates cyclists.
>
> >> No doubt this would be a tricky project. Cyclists don't have a lot of
> >> horsepower to pull heavy cages around. The finished bicycle might
> >> require that the bicycle be modified to hybrid human peddle and
> >> electric motor power.
>
> > So you de-green the bicycle in dubious pursuit of "safety."
>
> >> Well, what do you think?
>
> > I think you need to get some perspective.
>
> >> I've always been fascinated by making things surviveable like those
> >> barrels going over Niagra Falls. Eventually they succeeded in
> >> building something to survive the falls, but of course those were
> >> propelled by current. Weight wasn't much of a consideration.
>
> > Hmmm. This may explain it.
>
> Bicycles are fun machines. They're not very practical unless you use them to
> commute. There's hardly anyplace to put a quart of milk on the way home. The
> electric cycles now, the extracycle can carry some things. The more you
> carry the more you need an electric motor assist unless you're happy going
> very slow. The bike becomes more practical. Riding it would just be
> something everyone did and it may be a little less green, but a 500 pound
> cycle all loaded up is a lot greener than a 3000 pound motor vehicle.
>
> Electric power is cleaner than gasoline power and much cheaper. I'm no
> expert, but I've been looking athttp://phoenixmotorcars.comand their
> battery the "nanosafe".http://altair.com
You've never been to China or the Netherlands have you? In Shanghai
and Beijing, most people use bicycles for everyday transport. Not your
$5,000 21 speed ones either, these are mostly $60 steel frame single
speeders. I was there a few years ago and it opened my eyes to the
possibilities. Some better off people have bikes with electric assist,
and some have scooters or motorcycles but few larger than 125cc.
Tradesmen and couriers get around on pedal tricycles with tray backs.
I've seen people there carting everything from livestock to upright
pianos on these things.
The difference is that Shanghai is set up with bicycles in mind, and
in the streets on any given weekday, there are thousands of them being
used as every day transport from doing the shopping to picking up the
government approved single child from the local school.
I actually saw very few fat people in Shanghai, but a lot of people
with very muscular legs.
Bikes can be much more than toys or fun machines.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 20:14:13
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
"ross_w" <rwonderley@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1188426858.739952.181420@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 29, 3:13 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>> "Tim McNamara" <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:timmcn-2A6088.23190828082007@news.iphouse.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > In article <0uydnUJCmPYTRUnbnZ2dnUVZWhedn...@adelphia.com>,
>> > "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> First, let me explain what this is. A surviveable bike is a bike that
>> >> could get hit by a car at let's say 40 mph and it's rider would
>> >> survive with few injuries.
>>
>> >> You might think this is impossible at first, but there might be a way
>> >> to make it possible or at least get close to that 40 mph impact. I
>> >> would think the most important thing is that the cage surrounding the
>> >> cyclist survives without too much deformation. 2, the cage must
>> >> either have a thick foam lining or air bags to protect the rider's
>> >> back front and sides, maybe even above and below him.
>>
>> >> A car hiting a bike from the rear is going to send a stiff caged
>> >> bicycle flying a long way. G forces will be high on impact. The bike
>> >> will then hit something else at considerable speed. It might be nice
>> >> to have an airbag that stays inflated until the bike finally comes to
>> >> rest and the rider or rescue removes him. Either that or it'll take
>> >> multiple air bags which of course add more weight and expense. Care
>> >> must be taken to ensure the cyclist isn't suffocated by the airbag.
>> >> Probably all the airbags, front, rear, top, bottom and sides should
>> >> be deployed at impact to prevent injury. The area below the cyclist
>> >> might be a problem in the tertiatry impact. I think most of the first
>> >> and second impact will be absorbed by the other airbags.
>>
>> > A far better idea would be to prevent the force application to the
>> > cyclist- IOW, keep the cars from running into him/her. That can be
>> > achieved in significant measure by teaching drivers how to drive
>> > competently and cyclists how to cycle competently, and making sure that
>> > road design accommodates cyclists.
>>
>> >> No doubt this would be a tricky project. Cyclists don't have a lot of
>> >> horsepower to pull heavy cages around. The finished bicycle might
>> >> require that the bicycle be modified to hybrid human peddle and
>> >> electric motor power.
>>
>> > So you de-green the bicycle in dubious pursuit of "safety."
>>
>> >> Well, what do you think?
>>
>> > I think you need to get some perspective.
>>
>> >> I've always been fascinated by making things surviveable like those
>> >> barrels going over Niagra Falls. Eventually they succeeded in
>> >> building something to survive the falls, but of course those were
>> >> propelled by current. Weight wasn't much of a consideration.
>>
>> > Hmmm. This may explain it.
>>
>> Bicycles are fun machines. They're not very practical unless you use them
>> to
>> commute. There's hardly anyplace to put a quart of milk on the way home.
>> The
>> electric cycles now, the extracycle can carry some things. The more you
>> carry the more you need an electric motor assist unless you're happy
>> going
>> very slow. The bike becomes more practical. Riding it would just be
>> something everyone did and it may be a little less green, but a 500 pound
>> cycle all loaded up is a lot greener than a 3000 pound motor vehicle.
>>
>> Electric power is cleaner than gasoline power and much cheaper. I'm no
>> expert, but I've been looking athttp://phoenixmotorcars.comand their
>> battery the "nanosafe".http://altair.com
>
> You've never been to China or the Netherlands have you? In Shanghai
> and Beijing, most people use bicycles for everyday transport. Not your
> $5,000 21 speed ones either, these are mostly $60 steel frame single
> speeders. I was there a few years ago and it opened my eyes to the
> possibilities. Some better off people have bikes with electric assist,
> and some have scooters or motorcycles but few larger than 125cc.
> Tradesmen and couriers get around on pedal tricycles with tray backs.
> I've seen people there carting everything from livestock to upright
> pianos on these things.
>
> The difference is that Shanghai is set up with bicycles in mind, and
> in the streets on any given weekday, there are thousands of them being
> used as every day transport from doing the shopping to picking up the
> government approved single child from the local school.
>
> I actually saw very few fat people in Shanghai, but a lot of people
> with very muscular legs.
>
> Bikes can be much more than toys or fun machines.
>
I was thinking of the USA. I know about Amsterdam the bike city of the world
and I heard about China. Looks great. Very healthy and probably safer
cycling, but people here are used to their cars and SUV's. I don't see how a
contractor on a bicycle can compete over here.
In China they also cook indoors with unventilated charcoal. Women in China
suffer from lung disease more than women in the US do even if they smoke.
It's rare for a chinese woman to smoke. The streets are full of coal smoke
from all the cooking and the new powerplants with the primitive high
emissions furnaces. I'd rather be in Amsterdam, Netherlands. In Amsterdam
you're six times less likely to be killed by a car because the laws are in
your favor. It's always the motorist's fault over there.
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 22:44:21
From: Paul Myron Hobson
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
Greens wrote:
> I was thinking of the USA. I know about Amsterdam the bike city of the world
> and I heard about China. Looks great. Very healthy and probably safer
> cycling, but people here are used to their cars and SUV's. I don't see how a
> contractor on a bicycle can compete over here.
Don't be daft. Cars are indeed necessary for certain things. I bet
contractors in China don't haul their I-beams with bikes either.
\\paul
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2007 20:01:29
From: John Thompson
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
On 2007-08-30, Paul Myron Hobson <phobson@gatech.edu > wrote:
> Don't be daft. Cars are indeed necessary for certain things. I bet
> contractors in China don't haul their I-beams with bikes either.
Maybe noy I-beams, but lots of other stuff:
http://downtheroad.org/southamerica/imagesb/New_Folder8/DSC00030.JPG
http://www.tropicalisland.de/india/uttar_pradesh/agra/pages/AGR%20Agra%20-%20cargo%20transport%20with%20oxen%20cart%20and%20bike%20rickshaw%203008x2000.html
http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
http://www.bikesatwork.com/hauling-cargo-by-bike/
--
John (john@os2.dhs.org)
|
| | | | | |
Date: 31 Aug 2007 00:03:08
From: Paul Myron Hobson
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
> On 2007-08-30, Paul Myron Hobson <phobson@gatech.edu> wrote:
>
>> Don't be daft. Cars are indeed necessary for certain things. I bet
>> contractors in China don't haul their I-beams with bikes either.
John Thompson wrote:
> Maybe noy I-beams, but lots of other stuff:
>
> http://downtheroad.org/southamerica/imagesb/New_Folder8/DSC00030.JPG
> http://www.tropicalisland.de/india/uttar_pradesh/agra/pages/AGR%20Agra%20-%20cargo%20transport%20with%20oxen%20cart%20and%20bike%20rickshaw%203008x2000.html
> http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
> http://www.bikesatwork.com/hauling-cargo-by-bike/
I've seen those photos. They're quite impressive indeed. But "Greens"
was suggesting that other posters wanted to replace *all* automotive
traffic with bicycles -- namely contractors hauling lots of gear over
sprawled out metro areas. Simply not feasible, even with a beefed up
train system.
\\paul
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 31 Aug 2007 00:44:06
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
"Paul Myron Hobson" <phobson@gatech.edu > wrote in message
news:fb83ts$beu$1@news-int.gatech.edu...
>> On 2007-08-30, Paul Myron Hobson <phobson@gatech.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Don't be daft. Cars are indeed necessary for certain things. I bet
>>> contractors in China don't haul their I-beams with bikes either.
>
> John Thompson wrote:
>> Maybe noy I-beams, but lots of other stuff:
>>
>> http://downtheroad.org/southamerica/imagesb/New_Folder8/DSC00030.JPG
>> http://www.tropicalisland.de/india/uttar_pradesh/agra/pages/AGR%20Agra%20-%20cargo%20transport%20with%20oxen%20cart%20and%20bike%20rickshaw%203008x2000.html
>> http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
>> http://www.bikesatwork.com/hauling-cargo-by-bike/
>
> I've seen those photos. They're quite impressive indeed. But "Greens"
> was suggesting that other posters wanted to replace *all* automotive
> traffic with bicycles -- namely contractors hauling lots of gear over
> sprawled out metro areas. Simply not feasible, even with a beefed up
> train system.
>
> \\paul
Funny, I don't remember suggesting that.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Aug 2007 07:37:31
From: Paul Myron Hobson
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
Greens wrote:
> "Paul Myron Hobson" <phobson@gatech.edu> wrote in message
> news:fb83ts$beu$1@news-int.gatech.edu...
>>> On 2007-08-30, Paul Myron Hobson <phobson@gatech.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don't be daft. Cars are indeed necessary for certain things. I bet
>>>> contractors in China don't haul their I-beams with bikes either.
>> John Thompson wrote:
>>> Maybe noy I-beams, but lots of other stuff:
>>>
>>> http://downtheroad.org/southamerica/imagesb/New_Folder8/DSC00030.JPG
>>> http://www.tropicalisland.de/india/uttar_pradesh/agra/pages/AGR%20Agra%20-%20cargo%20transport%20with%20oxen%20cart%20and%20bike%20rickshaw%203008x2000.html
>>> http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
>>> http://www.bikesatwork.com/hauling-cargo-by-bike/
>> I've seen those photos. They're quite impressive indeed. But "Greens"
>> was suggesting that other posters wanted to replace *all* automotive
>> traffic with bicycles -- namely contractors hauling lots of gear over
>> sprawled out metro areas. Simply not feasible, even with a beefed up
>> train system.
>>
>> \\paul
>
> Funny, I don't remember suggesting that.
>
>
JFT snipped it:
Greens wrote:
> I was thinking of the USA. I know about Amsterdam the bike city of the world
> and I heard about China. Looks great. Very healthy and probably safer
> cycling, but people here are used to their cars and SUV's. I don't see how a
> contractor on a bicycle can compete over here.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
HTH,
\\paul
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Aug 2007 07:43:13
From: Paul Myron Hobson
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
Paul Myron Hobson wrote:
> Greens wrote:
>> "Paul Myron Hobson" <phobson@gatech.edu> wrote in message
>> news:fb83ts$beu$1@news-int.gatech.edu...
>>>> On 2007-08-30, Paul Myron Hobson <phobson@gatech.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Don't be daft. Cars are indeed necessary for certain things. I
>>>>> bet contractors in China don't haul their I-beams with bikes either.
>>> John Thompson wrote:
>>>> Maybe noy I-beams, but lots of other stuff:
>>>>
>>>> http://downtheroad.org/southamerica/imagesb/New_Folder8/DSC00030.JPG
>>>> http://www.tropicalisland.de/india/uttar_pradesh/agra/pages/AGR%20Agra%20-%20cargo%20transport%20with%20oxen%20cart%20and%20bike%20rickshaw%203008x2000.html
>>>>
>>>> http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
>>>> http://www.bikesatwork.com/hauling-cargo-by-bike/
>>> I've seen those photos. They're quite impressive indeed. But
>>> "Greens" was suggesting that other posters wanted to replace *all*
>>> automotive traffic with bicycles -- namely contractors hauling lots
>>> of gear over sprawled out metro areas. Simply not feasible, even
>>> with a beefed up train system.
>>>
>>> \\paul
>>
>> Funny, I don't remember suggesting that.
>>
>
>
> JFT snipped it:
> Greens wrote:
>> I was thinking of the USA. I know about Amsterdam the bike city of the
>> world and I heard about China. Looks great. Very healthy and probably
>> safer cycling, but people here are used to their cars and SUV's. I
>> don't see how a contractor on a bicycle can compete over here.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> HTH,
> \\paul
ERRR. JT snipped it. *not* JFT. Apologies. For good measure, here's a
link to where Greens said the above quote:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/b3e9c811d4509d24
\\paul
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Aug 2007 12:42:21
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
"Paul Myron Hobson" <phobson@gatech.edu > wrote in message
news:fb8ush$ln5$2@news-int2.gatech.edu...
> Paul Myron Hobson wrote:
>> Greens wrote:
>>> "Paul Myron Hobson" <phobson@gatech.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:fb83ts$beu$1@news-int.gatech.edu...
>>>>> On 2007-08-30, Paul Myron Hobson <phobson@gatech.edu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't be daft. Cars are indeed necessary for certain things. I bet
>>>>>> contractors in China don't haul their I-beams with bikes either.
>>>> John Thompson wrote:
>>>>> Maybe noy I-beams, but lots of other stuff:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://downtheroad.org/southamerica/imagesb/New_Folder8/DSC00030.JPG
>>>>> http://www.tropicalisland.de/india/uttar_pradesh/agra/pages/AGR%20Agra%20-%20cargo%20transport%20with%20oxen%20cart%20and%20bike%20rickshaw%203008x2000.html
>>>>> http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
>>>>> http://www.bikesatwork.com/hauling-cargo-by-bike/
>>>> I've seen those photos. They're quite impressive indeed. But "Greens"
>>>> was suggesting that other posters wanted to replace *all* automotive
>>>> traffic with bicycles -- namely contractors hauling lots of gear over
>>>> sprawled out metro areas. Simply not feasible, even with a beefed up
>>>> train system.
>>>>
>>>> \\paul
>>>
>>> Funny, I don't remember suggesting that.
>>>
>>
>>
>> JFT snipped it:
>> Greens wrote:
>>> I was thinking of the USA. I know about Amsterdam the bike city of the
>>> world and I heard about China. Looks great. Very healthy and probably
>>> safer cycling, but people here are used to their cars and SUV's. I don't
>>> see how a contractor on a bicycle can compete over here.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> HTH,
>> \\paul
>
> ERRR. JT snipped it. *not* JFT. Apologies. For good measure, here's a
> link to where Greens said the above quote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/b3e9c811d4509d24
> \\paul
You emphasized and now stated twice that I used the word "all". According
to your own review of the posts, I never used that word.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Sep 2007 00:55:23
From: Paul Myron Hobson
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
>>> JFT snipped it:
>>> Greens wrote:
>>>> I was thinking of the USA. I know about Amsterdam the bike city of the
>>>> world and I heard about China. Looks great. Very healthy and probably
>>>> safer cycling, but people here are used to their cars and SUV's. I don't
>>>> see how a contractor on a bicycle can compete over here.
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>> HTH,
>>> \\paul
>> ERRR. JT snipped it. *not* JFT. Apologies. For good measure, here's a
>> link to where Greens said the above quote:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/b3e9c811d4509d24
>> \\paul
Greens wrote:
> You emphasized and now stated twice that I used the word "all". According
> to your own review of the posts, I never used that word.
1) The Chinese and Dutch bike cultures were brought up
2) In response, you said that such a bike-centric culture would not work
b/c contractors could not compete in US since a majority of folks are
accustomed to relying on automobiles.
3) That's a totally absurd statement b/c no one suggested that
contractors resort to hauling materials and equipment to job sites by bike.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Sep 2007 01:44:20
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
"Paul Myron Hobson" <phobson@gatech.edu > wrote in message
news:fbarbq$cav$1@news-int.gatech.edu...
>>>> JFT snipped it:
>>>> Greens wrote:
>>>>> I was thinking of the USA. I know about Amsterdam the bike city of the
>>>>> world and I heard about China. Looks great. Very healthy and probably
>>>>> safer cycling, but people here are used to their cars and SUV's. I
>>>>> don't see how a contractor on a bicycle can compete over here.
>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>
>>>> HTH,
>>>> \\paul
>
>>> ERRR. JT snipped it. *not* JFT. Apologies. For good measure, here's a
>>> link to where Greens said the above quote:
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/b3e9c811d4509d24
>>> \\paul
>
> Greens wrote:
>> You emphasized and now stated twice that I used the word "all".
>> According to your own review of the posts, I never used that word.
>
> 1) The Chinese and Dutch bike cultures were brought up
> 2) In response, you said that such a bike-centric culture would not work
> b/c contractors could not compete in US since a majority of folks are
> accustomed to relying on automobiles.
> 3) That's a totally absurd statement b/c no one suggested that contractors
> resort to hauling materials and equipment to job sites by bike.
>
Absurd?
http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/resources/2007/01/man_021605_big.jpg
|
| | | | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2007 21:28:26
From: Carl Sundquist
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
"John Thompson" <john@vector.os2.dhs.org > wrote in message
news:slrnfdeq39.s6s.john@vector.os2.dhs.org...
> On 2007-08-30, Paul Myron Hobson <phobson@gatech.edu> wrote:
>
>> Don't be daft. Cars are indeed necessary for certain things. I bet
>> contractors in China don't haul their I-beams with bikes either.
>
> Maybe noy I-beams, but lots of other stuff:
>
> http://downtheroad.org/southamerica/imagesb/New_Folder8/DSC00030.JPG
> http://www.tropicalisland.de/india/uttar_pradesh/agra/pages/AGR%20Agra%20-%20cargo%20transport%20with%20oxen%20cart%20and%20bike%20rickshaw%203008x2000.html
> http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
> http://www.bikesatwork.com/hauling-cargo-by-bike/
>
http://www.projectrwanda.org/coffeebike.php
|
| |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 15:37:34
From: Bellsouth Ijit 2.0 - Global Warming Edition ®
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
"Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote in message
news:0uydnUJCmPYTRUnbnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@adelphia.com...
> First, let me explain what this is. A surviveable bike is a bike that
> could get hit by a car at let's say 40 mph and it's rider would survive
> with few injuries.
>
> You might think this is impossible at first, but there might be a way to
> make it possible or at least get close to that 40 mph impact. I would
> think the most important thing is that the cage surrounding the cyclist
> survives without too much deformation. 2, the cage must either have a
> thick foam lining or air bags to protect the rider's back front and sides,
> maybe even above and below him.
>
> A car hiting a bike from the rear is going to send a stiff caged bicycle
> flying a long way. G forces will be high on impact. The bike will then hit
> something else at considerable speed. It might be nice to have an airbag
> that stays inflated until the bike finally comes to rest and the rider or
> rescue removes him. Either that or it'll take multiple air bags which of
> course add more weight and expense. Care must be taken to ensure the
> cyclist isn't suffocated by the airbag. Probably all the airbags, front,
> rear, top, bottom and sides should be deployed at impact to prevent
> injury. The area below the cyclist might be a problem in the tertiatry
> impact. I think most of the first and second impact will be absorbed by
> the other airbags.
>
> No doubt this would be a tricky project. Cyclists don't have a lot of
> horsepower to pull heavy cages around. The finished bicycle might require
> that the bicycle be modified to hybrid human peddle and electric motor
> power.
>
> Well, what do you think? I've always been fascinated by making things
> surviveable like those barrels going over Niagra Falls. Eventually they
> succeeded in building something to survive the falls, but of course those
> were propelled by current. Weight wasn't much of a consideration.
>
>
>
>
>
Better is to think more proactively. Instead of thinking in case of a car
smashing into the bike, you need to come up with ways in which no car can
even come close to the bike itself, say, proximity sensors and .50-caliber
machineguns mounted on the all 4 side of the bike with a hydraulic fire
switch on the handlebar.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 23:18:55
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
> "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote
>> First, let me explain what this is. A surviveable bike is a bike that
>> could get hit by a car at let's say 40 mph and it's rider would survive
>> with few injuries.
>>
>> You might think this is impossible at first, but there might be a way to
>> make it possible or at least get close to that 40 mph impact. I would
>> think the most important thing is that the cage surrounding the cyclist
>> survives without too much deformation.
-snip-
>> it'll take multiple air bags
-snip-
>> cyclist isn't suffocated by the airbag. Probably all the airbags, front,
>> rear, top, bottom and sides should be deployed at impact
-snip-
>> tertiatry impact
-snip-
>> heavy cages
-snip-
>> electric motor power.
>> Well, what do you think? I've always been fascinated by making things
>> surviveable like those barrels going over Niagra Falls. Eventually they
>> succeeded in building something to survive the falls, but of course those
>> were propelled by current. Weight wasn't much of a consideration.
Bellsouth Ijit 2.0 - Global Warming Edition ® wrote:
> Better is to think more proactively. Instead of thinking in case of a car
> smashing into the bike, you need to come up with ways in which no car can
> even come close to the bike itself, say, proximity sensors and .50-caliber
> machineguns mounted on the all 4 side of the bike with a hydraulic fire
> switch on the handlebar.
Even recoilless 50s would be heavy, probably not all that workable.
What's wrong with a smaller caliber pistol?
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2007 03:30:02
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
"A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote in message
news:13dch8981nv24a3@corp.supernews.com...
>> "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote
>>> First, let me explain what this is. A surviveable bike is a bike that
>>> could get hit by a car at let's say 40 mph and it's rider would survive
>>> with few injuries.
>>>
>>> You might think this is impossible at first, but there might be a way to
>>> make it possible or at least get close to that 40 mph impact. I would
>>> think the most important thing is that the cage surrounding the cyclist
>>> survives without too much deformation.
> -snip-
>>> it'll take multiple air bags
> -snip-
>>> cyclist isn't suffocated by the airbag. Probably all the airbags, front,
>>> rear, top, bottom and sides should be deployed at impact
> -snip-
>>> tertiatry impact
> -snip-
>>> heavy cages
> -snip-
>>> electric motor power.
>>> Well, what do you think? I've always been fascinated by making things
>>> surviveable like those barrels going over Niagra Falls. Eventually they
>>> succeeded in building something to survive the falls, but of course
>>> those were propelled by current. Weight wasn't much of a consideration.
>
> Bellsouth Ijit 2.0 - Global Warming Edition ® wrote:
>> Better is to think more proactively. Instead of thinking in case of a
>> car smashing into the bike, you need to come up with ways in which no car
>> can even come close to the bike itself, say, proximity sensors and
>> .50-caliber machineguns mounted on the all 4 side of the bike with a
>> hydraulic fire switch on the handlebar.
>
> Even recoilless 50s would be heavy, probably not all that workable. What's
> wrong with a smaller caliber pistol?
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> www.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
I went out tonight at midnight. The roads were almost deserted and dark. I
had my headlight on and was going downhill. Up ahead a car pulled up on a
side road and stopped, but he looked impatient. I slowed but had no
intention of stopping. It was my right of way and I thought it would send
the wrong message to stop and let him think I'd always stop. He stayed and
stayed and then when I was about 15 feet from him he lurched forward a
couple of feet and I had to swerve around him. Automatic firing 50 caliber
guns would have been just right in that situation.
I thought about that incident. At the time I thought maybe I should yell at
him or ask what he thought he was doing. He's practically a neighbor. He
couldn't miss me with my headlight, but he probably wasn't sure it was a
headlight. It might have been a flashlight. Still you got to wonder why he'd
pull out in front of a moving flashlight. It was like he tried to figure out
what was happening. Probably was getting annoyed that I wasn't moving as
fast as a car and then he thought maybe I shouldn't be driving on the road
and he should pull out into my path. Stupid. Either that or he thought I was
turning into his road, but I gave no signal. Again it might just have been
impatience.
I thought I should get the very bright lights after that and maybe a train
horn or just quit cycling. The next three hours were uneventful except for a
cat sleeping where the centerline would have been on a busier road. Sleeping
not dead. He was there again on my second pass, but gone on the third. I
half expected him to run into my path like so many other people have this
last week.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 17:54:27
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
"Bellsouth Ijit 2.0 - Global Warming Edition ®" <bjit@bellsouth.net > wrote
in message news:13dbiv79j1jd47c@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:0uydnUJCmPYTRUnbnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@adelphia.com...
>> First, let me explain what this is. A surviveable bike is a bike that
>> could get hit by a car at let's say 40 mph and it's rider would survive
>> with few injuries.
>>
>> You might think this is impossible at first, but there might be a way to
>> make it possible or at least get close to that 40 mph impact. I would
>> think the most important thing is that the cage surrounding the cyclist
>> survives without too much deformation. 2, the cage must either have a
>> thick foam lining or air bags to protect the rider's back front and
>> sides, maybe even above and below him.
>>
>> A car hiting a bike from the rear is going to send a stiff caged bicycle
>> flying a long way. G forces will be high on impact. The bike will then
>> hit something else at considerable speed. It might be nice to have an
>> airbag that stays inflated until the bike finally comes to rest and the
>> rider or rescue removes him. Either that or it'll take multiple air bags
>> which of course add more weight and expense. Care must be taken to ensure
>> the cyclist isn't suffocated by the airbag. Probably all the airbags,
>> front, rear, top, bottom and sides should be deployed at impact to
>> prevent injury. The area below the cyclist might be a problem in the
>> tertiatry impact. I think most of the first and second impact will be
>> absorbed by the other airbags.
>>
>> No doubt this would be a tricky project. Cyclists don't have a lot of
>> horsepower to pull heavy cages around. The finished bicycle might require
>> that the bicycle be modified to hybrid human peddle and electric motor
>> power.
>>
>> Well, what do you think? I've always been fascinated by making things
>> surviveable like those barrels going over Niagra Falls. Eventually they
>> succeeded in building something to survive the falls, but of course those
>> were propelled by current. Weight wasn't much of a consideration.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Better is to think more proactively. Instead of thinking in case of a car
> smashing into the bike, you need to come up with ways in which no car can
> even come close to the bike itself, say, proximity sensors and .50-caliber
> machineguns mounted on the all 4 side of the bike with a hydraulic fire
> switch on the handlebar.
>
That sounds very similar to my ceiling mounted fifty caliber school safety
turrets. They would be mounted above the fake foam ceiling commonly found in
schools so as to cause no alarm. Protected from sabotage by discreet
mounting, state of the art sensors would sniff the air 24 hours a day. If
smoke from small arms fire is sensed the turrets would immediately come to
life bursting down through the ceiling and homing in on the cause of the
smoke. They would then open fire on the assailant and neutralize him long
before the police or security can even arrive keeping casualties to bare
minimum of one or two.
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 19:40:37
From: DI
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
"Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote in message
news:1eqdnT6pl4STd0jbnZ2dnUVZ_tajnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>
> "Bellsouth Ijit 2.0 - Global Warming Edition ®" <bjit@bellsouth.net> wrote
> in message news:13dbiv79j1jd47c@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote in message
>> news:0uydnUJCmPYTRUnbnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@adelphia.com...
>>> First, let me explain what this is. A surviveable bike is a bike that
>>> could get hit by a car at let's say 40 mph and it's rider would survive
>>> with few injuries.
>>>
>>> You might think this is impossible at first, but there might be a way to
>>> make it possible or at least get close to that 40 mph impact. I would
>>> think the most important thing is that the cage surrounding the cyclist
>>> survives without too much deformation. 2, the cage must either have a
>>> thick foam lining or air bags to protect the rider's back front and
>>> sides, maybe even above and below him.
>>>
>>> A car hiting a bike from the rear is going to send a stiff caged bicycle
>>> flying a long way. G forces will be high on impact. The bike will then
>>> hit something else at considerable speed. It might be nice to have an
>>> airbag that stays inflated until the bike finally comes to rest and the
>>> rider or rescue removes him. Either that or it'll take multiple air bags
>>> which of course add more weight and expense. Care must be taken to
>>> ensure the cyclist isn't suffocated by the airbag. Probably all the
>>> airbags, front, rear, top, bottom and sides should be deployed at impact
>>> to prevent injury. The area below the cyclist might be a problem in the
>>> tertiatry impact. I think most of the first and second impact will be
>>> absorbed by the other airbags.
>>>
>>> No doubt this would be a tricky project. Cyclists don't have a lot of
>>> horsepower to pull heavy cages around. The finished bicycle might
>>> require that the bicycle be modified to hybrid human peddle and electric
>>> motor power.
>>>
>>> Well, what do you think? I've always been fascinated by making things
>>> surviveable like those barrels going over Niagra Falls. Eventually they
>>> succeeded in building something to survive the falls, but of course
>>> those were propelled by current. Weight wasn't much of a consideration.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Better is to think more proactively. Instead of thinking in case of a
>> car smashing into the bike, you need to come up with ways in which no car
>> can even come close to the bike itself, say, proximity sensors and
>> .50-caliber machineguns mounted on the all 4 side of the bike with a
>> hydraulic fire switch on the handlebar.
>>
>
> That sounds very similar to my ceiling mounted fifty caliber school safety
> turrets. They would be mounted above the fake foam ceiling commonly found
> in schools so as to cause no alarm. Protected from sabotage by discreet
> mounting, state of the art sensors would sniff the air 24 hours a day. If
> smoke from small arms fire is sensed the turrets would immediately come to
> life bursting down through the ceiling and homing in on the cause of the
> smoke. They would then open fire on the assailant and neutralize him long
> before the police or security can even arrive keeping casualties to bare
> minimum of one or two.
>
\
Does the name Bill B. come to anyone's mind?
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 18:27:41
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
DI wrote:
> Does the name Bill B. come to anyone's mind?
Heh.
"We aren't ready for a black, even half black, that much is true.
We better never be ready for a Hispanic or we are doomed.
A woman will get in sooner or later, as will a half-black."
-- Bill Baka
Bill "he /was/ entertaining" S.
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 20:19:12
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
DI who? wrote:
>
> Does the name Bill B. come to anyone's mind?
Where is Baka?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2007 10:52:34
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
In article
<46d60f05$0$16337$88260bb3@free.teranews.com >,
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0003@iinvalid.com > wrote:
> DI who? wrote:
> >
> > Does the name Bill B. come to anyone's mind?
>
> Where is Baka?
Hush your mouth.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 20:53:10
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
"DI" <di9999@cox.net > wrote in message
news:7moBi.103996$dI1.56426@newsfe08.phx...
>
> "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:1eqdnT6pl4STd0jbnZ2dnUVZ_tajnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>>
>> "Bellsouth Ijit 2.0 - Global Warming Edition ®" <bjit@bellsouth.net>
>> wrote in message news:13dbiv79j1jd47c@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>> "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote in message
>>> news:0uydnUJCmPYTRUnbnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@adelphia.com...
>>>> First, let me explain what this is. A surviveable bike is a bike that
>>>> could get hit by a car at let's say 40 mph and it's rider would survive
>>>> with few injuries.
>>>>
>>>> You might think this is impossible at first, but there might be a way
>>>> to make it possible or at least get close to that 40 mph impact. I
>>>> would think the most important thing is that the cage surrounding the
>>>> cyclist survives without too much deformation. 2, the cage must either
>>>> have a thick foam lining or air bags to protect the rider's back front
>>>> and sides, maybe even above and below him.
>>>>
>>>> A car hiting a bike from the rear is going to send a stiff caged
>>>> bicycle flying a long way. G forces will be high on impact. The bike
>>>> will then hit something else at considerable speed. It might be nice to
>>>> have an airbag that stays inflated until the bike finally comes to rest
>>>> and the rider or rescue removes him. Either that or it'll take multiple
>>>> air bags which of course add more weight and expense. Care must be
>>>> taken to ensure the cyclist isn't suffocated by the airbag. Probably
>>>> all the airbags, front, rear, top, bottom and sides should be deployed
>>>> at impact to prevent injury. The area below the cyclist might be a
>>>> problem in the tertiatry impact. I think most of the first and second
>>>> impact will be absorbed by the other airbags.
>>>>
>>>> No doubt this would be a tricky project. Cyclists don't have a lot of
>>>> horsepower to pull heavy cages around. The finished bicycle might
>>>> require that the bicycle be modified to hybrid human peddle and
>>>> electric motor power.
>>>>
>>>> Well, what do you think? I've always been fascinated by making things
>>>> surviveable like those barrels going over Niagra Falls. Eventually they
>>>> succeeded in building something to survive the falls, but of course
>>>> those were propelled by current. Weight wasn't much of a consideration.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Better is to think more proactively. Instead of thinking in case of a
>>> car smashing into the bike, you need to come up with ways in which no
>>> car can even come close to the bike itself, say, proximity sensors and
>>> .50-caliber machineguns mounted on the all 4 side of the bike with a
>>> hydraulic fire switch on the handlebar.
>>>
>>
>> That sounds very similar to my ceiling mounted fifty caliber school
>> safety turrets. They would be mounted above the fake foam ceiling
>> commonly found in schools so as to cause no alarm. Protected from
>> sabotage by discreet mounting, state of the art sensors would sniff the
>> air 24 hours a day. If smoke from small arms fire is sensed the turrets
>> would immediately come to life bursting down through the ceiling and
>> homing in on the cause of the smoke. They would then open fire on the
>> assailant and neutralize him long before the police or security can even
>> arrive keeping casualties to bare minimum of one or two.
>>
> \
> Does the name Bill B. come to anyone's mind?
>
No. Should I know him?
|
| |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 12:37:14
From: Jay Beattie
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
On Aug 29, 12:22 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote:
> In article <1188408177.989905.257...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> > > Greens wrote:
>
> > > > The finished bicycle might require that the bicycle be modified
> > > > to hybrid human peddle and electric motor power.
>
> > > So you de-green the bicycle in dubious pursuit of "safety."
>
> > Electric bicycles charged by grid power consume a lot less in
> > resources, by passenger-mile, than a human fueled by food.
>
> That contravenes common sense, certainly in terms of total environmental
> impact (manufacture, operation and disposal) but also in the
> per-passenger-mile sense as well. If you've got any literature to refer
> to for further reading, I'd be interested in seeing it. Always worth
> seeing what I am overlooking.
The health benefits of riding also have to be part of the equation.
Also, I eat no more food on days that I commute than on days that I do
not. It's free miles for me. On longer rides, I may eat more than my
usual calorie intake, but not by much. So what we have to look at is
the incremental increase in calorie intake, which, for the average
commuter, would be very little if any. -- Jay Beattie.
|
| |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 17:34:51
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
DougC wrote:
>
> It's quite telling to note that the only common major use of
> electric-powered vehicles is for trains, which use power-feed lines
> along their entire lengths, and so aren't ever dependent upon batteries.
Battery-electric forklifts and scissors lifts are common, as are golf
cars. The primary drawback of BEVs-- short range-- is largely
irrelevant when vehicles are used within relatively small sites.
The electric bike trades off payload for range, and thus expands its
envelope to include the distances most commonly traveled by bicycle.
Chalo
|
| |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 17:22:57
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> Greens wrote:
> >
> > The finished bicycle might
> > require that the bicycle be modified to hybrid human peddle and
> > electric motor power.
>
> So you de-green the bicycle in dubious pursuit of "safety."
Electric bicycles charged by grid power consume a lot less in
resources, by passenger-mile, than a human fueled by food. Granted,
humans are "biofueled", but agribusiness generally isn't. Batteries
are a big variable factor-- poor maintenance or regular deep
discharges can lead to frequent replacements, and thus higher resource
costs.
Bottom line is that a pedal-only bike is not obviously "greener" than
an e-bike.
Chalo
|
| | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 14:22:36
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
In article <1188408177.989905.257210@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com >,
Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com > wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >
> > Greens wrote:
> > >
> > > The finished bicycle might require that the bicycle be modified
> > > to hybrid human peddle and electric motor power.
> >
> > So you de-green the bicycle in dubious pursuit of "safety."
>
> Electric bicycles charged by grid power consume a lot less in
> resources, by passenger-mile, than a human fueled by food.
That contravenes common sense, certainly in terms of total environmental
impact (manufacture, operation and disposal) but also in the
per-passenger-mile sense as well. If you've got any literature to refer
to for further reading, I'd be interested in seeing it. Always worth
seeing what I am overlooking.
> Granted, humans are "biofueled", but agribusiness generally isn't.
> Batteries are a big variable factor-- poor maintenance or regular
> deep discharges can lead to frequent replacements, and thus higher
> resource costs.
>
> Bottom line is that a pedal-only bike is not obviously "greener" than
> an e-bike.
>
> Chalo
|
| | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 13:35:38
From: Paul Myron Hobson
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
Chalo wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>> Greens wrote:
>>> The finished bicycle might
>>> require that the bicycle be modified to hybrid human peddle and
>>> electric motor power.
>> So you de-green the bicycle in dubious pursuit of "safety."
>
> Electric bicycles charged by grid power consume a lot less in
> resources, by passenger-mile, than a human fueled by food. Granted,
> humans are "biofueled", but agribusiness generally isn't. Batteries
> are a big variable factor-- poor maintenance or regular deep
> discharges can lead to frequent replacements, and thus higher resource
> costs.
>
> Bottom line is that a pedal-only bike is not obviously "greener" than
> an e-bike.
I suppose you're kidding b/c the average, overweight American consumes
more food than I do and drives to the grocery store to get it.
\\paul
|
| |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 14:09:26
From: Alan Hoyle
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 22:26:35, Greens wrote:
> First, let me explain what this is. A surviveable bike is a bike that could
> get hit by a car at let's say 40 mph and it's rider would survive with few
> injuries.
> You might think this is impossible at first, but there might be a way to
> make it possible or at least get close to that 40 mph impact. I would think
> the most important thing is that the cage surrounding the cyclist survives
> without too much deformation. 2, the cage must either have a thick foam
> lining or air bags to protect the rider's back front and sides, maybe even
> above and below him.
This is exactly the opposite idea if you want to survive. The forces
on a person in an accident would be greater if the cage itself has no
deformation. What you want a cage to do is deform as much as possible
to absorb the energy of the collision, but not so much that it becomes
a danger itself to the occupants. That's the theory behind "crumple
zones" in cars: they absorb the energy of a crash, lengthen the amount
of time the impact takes, and decrease the instantaneous forces on
passengers. IT's also the reason side-impacts on cars are more
dangerous: there's simply less material to absorb the impact.
What you've suggested would be great in that the bike itself would
survive and it would fend off direct impacts to the rider in minor
incidents (like bumpers do on cars), but for anything more serious,
you still want something to absorb the energy through deformation not
make the collisions more elastic.
-alan
--
Alan Hoyle - alanh@unc.edu - http://www.alanhoyle.com/
"I don't want the world, I just want your half." -TMBG
Get Horizontal, Play Ultimate.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 10:55:21
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
"Alan Hoyle" <alanh@unc.edu > wrote in message
news:5jld0mF5k7sU1@mid.individual.net...
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 22:26:35, Greens wrote:
>> First, let me explain what this is. A surviveable bike is a bike that
>> could
>> get hit by a car at let's say 40 mph and it's rider would survive with
>> few
>> injuries.
>
>> You might think this is impossible at first, but there might be a way to
>> make it possible or at least get close to that 40 mph impact. I would
>> think
>> the most important thing is that the cage surrounding the cyclist
>> survives
>> without too much deformation. 2, the cage must either have a thick foam
>> lining or air bags to protect the rider's back front and sides, maybe
>> even
>> above and below him.
>
> This is exactly the opposite idea if you want to survive. The forces
> on a person in an accident would be greater if the cage itself has no
> deformation. What you want a cage to do is deform as much as possible
> to absorb the energy of the collision, but not so much that it becomes
> a danger itself to the occupants. That's the theory behind "crumple
> zones" in cars: they absorb the energy of a crash, lengthen the amount
> of time the impact takes, and decrease the instantaneous forces on
> passengers. IT's also the reason side-impacts on cars are more
> dangerous: there's simply less material to absorb the impact.
>
> What you've suggested would be great in that the bike itself would
> survive and it would fend off direct impacts to the rider in minor
> incidents (like bumpers do on cars), but for anything more serious,
> you still want something to absorb the energy through deformation not
> make the collisions more elastic.
>
> -alan
>
>
> --
> Alan Hoyle - alanh@unc.edu - http://www.alanhoyle.com/
> "I don't want the world, I just want your half." -TMBG
> Get Horizontal, Play Ultimate.
There's no room for a crumple zone on a bicycle. It would add too much
weight. The cage must remain intact and undeformed. This will transfer the
impact forces to the rider, but first it will set off the airbags inside the
cage. They will absorb the forces in my design. Of course I haven't spent a
hundred thousand dollars testing this or even looking up what an airbag is
capable of absorbing, but that's how my system would work. If the cage is to
absorb the impact, the occupant will get crushed.
First I've got to wonder if there is a material that is light that can
absorb the impact of a car. The reason why I think there might be is, well,
look at an example. Fill an ordinary party balloon with air and hit it with
a car going 65. Chances are very good the balloon will deform, but it will
survive. That's mainly due to the fact that it's very light and it just
deforms some, but it moves when it gets hit. A person suspended within the
balloon and out of the deformation zone will probably also survive. (imagine
an egg suspended in a balloon if you have trouble with the idea of a tiny
person) If the person (this is a hypothetical person of tiny weight) gets
too heavy, the person will resist moving and the balloon will continue to
deform until the car makes contact with the occupant of the balloon. The
occupant will get deformed and killed by the car.
The balloon skin in a full size model will be some sort of metal. The
flexible part of the balloon will be the airbags inside the cage. In your
model, the airbags will be the crumple zone. The cage transfers the shock to
airbags and to forward motion of the entire cage which will get kicked more
than a hundred feet. Air will help slow down the cage, but it will still
land hard and roll along where the ground and obstacles will further slow
it. That's why you need the airbags to stay open and reinflate after the
first impact.
It'll be a tricky stunt to pull off, definitely a challenging project and no
doubt very expensive to play around with.
What happens when a bicycle without a cage or airbags gets hit. The cyclist
and bike go flying, but not before they both absorb a tremendous amount of
force that can tear off limbs, break bones and rip open the body. Crushing
injuries are also possible since there's nothing to stop someone from
running over the cyclist once he's down and in fact that often happens in
bike accidents on busy roads. Even if it doesn't the cyclist endures more
injuries when he impacts the ground and other objects when coming down from
whereever he's been kicked. The cyclist might also impact parts of his own
bike.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu3oQwllD98
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 12:33:54
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
In article <J8OdnZeNj8RwGkjbnZ2dnUVZ_rGrnZ2d@adelphia.com >,
"Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote:
> "Alan Hoyle" <alanh@unc.edu> wrote in message
> news:5jld0mF5k7sU1@mid.individual.net...
> > On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 22:26:35, Greens wrote:
> >> First, let me explain what this is. A surviveable bike is a bike
> >> that could get hit by a car at let's say 40 mph and it's rider
> >> would survive with few injuries.
> >
> >> You might think this is impossible at first, but there might be a
> >> way to make it possible or at least get close to that 40 mph
> >> impact. I would think the most important thing is that the cage
> >> surrounding the cyclist survives without too much deformation. 2,
> >> the cage must either have a thick foam lining or air bags to
> >> protect the rider's back front and sides, maybe even above and
> >> below him.
> >
> > This is exactly the opposite idea if you want to survive. The
> > forces on a person in an accident would be greater if the cage
> > itself has no deformation. What you want a cage to do is deform as
> > much as possible to absorb the energy of the collision, but not so
> > much that it becomes a danger itself to the occupants. That's the
> > theory behind "crumple zones" in cars: they absorb the energy of a
> > crash, lengthen the amount of time the impact takes, and decrease
> > the instantaneous forces on passengers. IT's also the reason
> > side-impacts on cars are more dangerous: there's simply less
> > material to absorb the impact.
> >
> > What you've suggested would be great in that the bike itself would
> > survive and it would fend off direct impacts to the rider in minor
> > incidents (like bumpers do on cars), but for anything more serious,
> > you still want something to absorb the energy through deformation
> > not make the collisions more elastic.
>
> There's no room for a crumple zone on a bicycle. It would add too
> much weight. The cage must remain intact and undeformed.
Then it's useless.
> This will transfer the impact forces to the rider, but first it will
> set off the airbags inside the cage. They will absorb the forces in
> my design. Of course I haven't spent a hundred thousand dollars
> testing this or even looking up what an airbag is capable of
> absorbing, but that's how my system would work. If the cage is to
> absorb the impact, the occupant will get crushed.
Gump on a crutch, pal, come back from lala land. You are describing a
pedaled car, not a bicycle. Are you serious or just trolling? In
either event you have crossed the line into the ridiculous.
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 15:16:21
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote in message
news:timmcn-81C71F.12335429082007@news.iphouse.com...
> In article <J8OdnZeNj8RwGkjbnZ2dnUVZ_rGrnZ2d@adelphia.com>,
> "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>> "Alan Hoyle" <alanh@unc.edu> wrote in message
>> news:5jld0mF5k7sU1@mid.individual.net...
>> > On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 22:26:35, Greens wrote:
>> >> First, let me explain what this is. A surviveable bike is a bike
>> >> that could get hit by a car at let's say 40 mph and it's rider
>> >> would survive with few injuries.
>> >
>> >> You might think this is impossible at first, but there might be a
>> >> way to make it possible or at least get close to that 40 mph
>> >> impact. I would think the most important thing is that the cage
>> >> surrounding the cyclist survives without too much deformation. 2,
>> >> the cage must either have a thick foam lining or air bags to
>> >> protect the rider's back front and sides, maybe even above and
>> >> below him.
>> >
>> > This is exactly the opposite idea if you want to survive. The
>> > forces on a person in an accident would be greater if the cage
>> > itself has no deformation. What you want a cage to do is deform as
>> > much as possible to absorb the energy of the collision, but not so
>> > much that it becomes a danger itself to the occupants. That's the
>> > theory behind "crumple zones" in cars: they absorb the energy of a
>> > crash, lengthen the amount of time the impact takes, and decrease
>> > the instantaneous forces on passengers. IT's also the reason
>> > side-impacts on cars are more dangerous: there's simply less
>> > material to absorb the impact.
>> >
>> > What you've suggested would be great in that the bike itself would
>> > survive and it would fend off direct impacts to the rider in minor
>> > incidents (like bumpers do on cars), but for anything more serious,
>> > you still want something to absorb the energy through deformation
>> > not make the collisions more elastic.
>>
>> There's no room for a crumple zone on a bicycle. It would add too
>> much weight. The cage must remain intact and undeformed.
>
> Then it's useless.
>
>> This will transfer the impact forces to the rider, but first it will
>> set off the airbags inside the cage. They will absorb the forces in
>> my design. Of course I haven't spent a hundred thousand dollars
>> testing this or even looking up what an airbag is capable of
>> absorbing, but that's how my system would work. If the cage is to
>> absorb the impact, the occupant will get crushed.
>
> Gump on a crutch, pal, come back from lala land. You are describing a
> pedaled car, not a bicycle. Are you serious or just trolling? In
> either event you have crossed the line into the ridiculous.
If it has two wheels and it's human powered, it's a bicycle. Even if it has
a cage and airbags, it's a bicycle. It may not be what you think of a
bicycle, but this one is designed to survive an accident. Of course it might
look like a monstrosity. Styling for this bicycle is not a priority, not
even a consideration.
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 08:17:52
From: Tom Nakashima
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
"Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote in message
news:J8OdnZeNj8RwGkjbnZ2dnUVZ_rGrnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>
> There's no room for a crumple zone on a bicycle. It would add too much
> weight. The cage must remain intact and undeformed. This will transfer the
> impact forces to the rider, but first it will set off the airbags inside
> the cage. They will absorb the forces in my design. Of course I haven't
> spent a hundred thousand dollars testing this or even looking up what an
> airbag is capable of absorbing, but that's how my system would work. If
> the cage is to absorb the impact, the occupant will get crushed.
>
> First I've got to wonder if there is a material that is light that can
> absorb the impact of a car. The reason why I think there might be is,
> well, look at an example. Fill an ordinary party balloon with air and hit
> it with a car going 65. Chances are very good the balloon will deform, but
> it will survive. That's mainly due to the fact that it's very light and it
> just deforms some, but it moves when it gets hit. A person suspended
> within the balloon and out of the deformation zone will probably also
> survive. (imagine an egg suspended in a balloon if you have trouble with
> the idea of a tiny person) If the person (this is a hypothetical person of
> tiny weight) gets too heavy, the person will resist moving and the balloon
> will continue to deform until the car makes contact with the occupant of
> the balloon. The occupant will get deformed and killed by the car.
>
> The balloon skin in a full size model will be some sort of metal. The
> flexible part of the balloon will be the airbags inside the cage. In your
> model, the airbags will be the crumple zone. The cage transfers the shock
> to airbags and to forward motion of the entire cage which will get kicked
> more than a hundred feet. Air will help slow down the cage, but it will
> still land hard and roll along where the ground and obstacles will further
> slow it. That's why you need the airbags to stay open and reinflate after
> the first impact.
>
> It'll be a tricky stunt to pull off, definitely a challenging project and
> no doubt very expensive to play around with.
>
> What happens when a bicycle without a cage or airbags gets hit. The
> cyclist and bike go flying, but not before they both absorb a tremendous
> amount of force that can tear off limbs, break bones and rip open the
> body. Crushing injuries are also possible since there's nothing to stop
> someone from running over the cyclist once he's down and in fact that
> often happens in bike accidents on busy roads. Even if it doesn't the
> cyclist endures more injuries when he impacts the ground and other objects
> when coming down from whereever he's been kicked. The cyclist might also
> impact parts of his own bike.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu3oQwllD98
Kind of reminds me of a Boy Scout challenge of protecting a raw egg dropped
from 50ft. One of the rules was that the egg had to be visible.
What we did was make a lightweight cage out of tree branches. Then we
suspended the raw egg with rubberbands, so the egg could be seen.
In anycase it worked when we dropped it from 50ft. The egg didn't break.
It amazes me how NASCAR or INDY drivers can survive a crashes at high
speeds. As far as a survivable bicycle, I'm recovering from a bicycle
accident at
20+ mph., and I do think it's possible to build a bicycle to withstand a 40
mph
impact, however I wouldn't want to be the test subject.
-tom
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 12:35:37
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
In article <fb42n1$2s9$1@news.Stanford.EDU >,
"Tom Nakashima" <tom@slac.stanford.edu > wrote:
> It amazes me how NASCAR or INDY drivers can survive a crashes at high
> speeds.
The cars are destroyed in the process of protecting the driver. Also
the nature of the crashes has a tendency to disperse quite a bit of
energy by sliding along the ground and a concrete wall.
|
| |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 04:41:22
From: andresmuro@aol.com
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
On Aug 28, 8:26 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote:
> First, let me explain what this is. A surviveable bike is a bike that could
> get hit by a car at let's say 40 mph and it's rider would survive with few
> injuries.
>
> You might think this is impossible at first, but there might be a way to
> make it possible or at least get close to that 40 mph impact. I would think
> the most important thing is that the cage surrounding the cyclist survives
> without too much deformation. 2, the cage must either have a thick foam
> lining or air bags to protect the rider's back front and sides, maybe even
> above and below him.
>
> A car hiting a bike from the rear is going to send a stiff caged bicycle
> flying a long way. G forces will be high on impact. The bike will then hit
> something else at considerable speed. It might be nice to have an airbag
> that stays inflated until the bike finally comes to rest and the rider or
> rescue removes him. Either that or it'll take multiple air bags which of
> course add more weight and expense. Care must be taken to ensure the cyclist
> isn't suffocated by the airbag. Probably all the airbags, front, rear, top,
> bottom and sides should be deployed at impact to prevent injury. The area
> below the cyclist might be a problem in the tertiatry impact. I think most
> of the first and second impact will be absorbed by the other airbags.
>
> No doubt this would be a tricky project. Cyclists don't have a lot of
> horsepower to pull heavy cages around. The finished bicycle might require
> that the bicycle be modified to hybrid human peddle and electric motor
> power.
>
> Well, what do you think? I've always been fascinated by making things
> surviveable like those barrels going over Niagra Falls. Eventually they
> succeeded in building something to survive the falls, but of course those
> were propelled by current. Weight wasn't much of a consideration.
How about a car w/o an engine and you connect a crankset and pedals to
the differential. You can remove the stereo and AC to save weight.
Andres
|
| | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 09:29:51
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
<andresmuro@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1188387682.032787.222340@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 28, 8:26 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>> First, let me explain what this is. A surviveable bike is a bike that
>> could
>> get hit by a car at let's say 40 mph and it's rider would survive with
>> few
>> injuries.
>>
>> You might think this is impossible at first, but there might be a way to
>> make it possible or at least get close to that 40 mph impact. I would
>> think
>> the most important thing is that the cage surrounding the cyclist
>> survives
>> without too much deformation. 2, the cage must either have a thick foam
>> lining or air bags to protect the rider's back front and sides, maybe
>> even
>> above and below him.
>>
>> A car hiting a bike from the rear is going to send a stiff caged bicycle
>> flying a long way. G forces will be high on impact. The bike will then
>> hit
>> something else at considerable speed. It might be nice to have an airbag
>> that stays inflated until the bike finally comes to rest and the rider or
>> rescue removes him. Either that or it'll take multiple air bags which of
>> course add more weight and expense. Care must be taken to ensure the
>> cyclist
>> isn't suffocated by the airbag. Probably all the airbags, front, rear,
>> top,
>> bottom and sides should be deployed at impact to prevent injury. The area
>> below the cyclist might be a problem in the tertiatry impact. I think
>> most
>> of the first and second impact will be absorbed by the other airbags.
>>
>> No doubt this would be a tricky project. Cyclists don't have a lot of
>> horsepower to pull heavy cages around. The finished bicycle might require
>> that the bicycle be modified to hybrid human peddle and electric motor
>> power.
>>
>> Well, what do you think? I've always been fascinated by making things
>> surviveable like those barrels going over Niagra Falls. Eventually they
>> succeeded in building something to survive the falls, but of course those
>> were propelled by current. Weight wasn't much of a consideration.
>
> How about a car w/o an engine and you connect a crankset and pedals to
> the differential. You can remove the stereo and AC to save weight.
>
> Andres
>
I think there would still be a lot of very heavy parts on a car. The
http://rhoadescar.com uses something like this, but it's open and not
designed to be survivable. I was thinking why not use a regular car with
pedals and gasoline power. The pedals could power something, maybe the
stereo, lol. Something could be rigged up to give you the feeling that you
were propelling the car faster by pedaling faster. You'd have the safety
features of a car and the exercise potential of bike. Exhileration... well,
uh, you'd be protected from the weather too. It'd be rideable all year. It'd
be quite a mess, honestly, but I hate indoor stationary bikes. So boring.
|
| |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 21:59:40
From: Mark
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
Greens wrote:
> First, let me explain what this is. A surviveable bike is a bike that could
> get hit by a car at let's say 40 mph and it's rider would survive with few
> injuries.
Attach a cage of high strength steel to the cycle that surrounds the
rider. Three to four hundred pounds worth should do it for starters.
Reinforce with concrete about 12" thick. The weight will tend to make
the cycle frame and wheels sag, so brace it from below with concrete
pylons.
To avoid the pylons falling over and crushing cyclist's feet,
permanently anchor them in the pavement.
Then pour about 8-10 cubic yards of quick-set concrete over the whole
thing, and allow to set. Remember to leave breathing holes for the rider.
I think that should meet the criterion stated above. The car, however,
will be severely damaged on impact.
Mark J.
|
| |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 04:33:22
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
NO. try speaking with the ER crew.
|
| |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 23:19:13
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
In article <0uydnUJCmPYTRUnbnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@adelphia.com >,
"Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote:
> First, let me explain what this is. A surviveable bike is a bike that
> could get hit by a car at let's say 40 mph and it's rider would
> survive with few injuries.
>
> You might think this is impossible at first, but there might be a way
> to make it possible or at least get close to that 40 mph impact. I
> would think the most important thing is that the cage surrounding the
> cyclist survives without too much deformation. 2, the cage must
> either have a thick foam lining or air bags to protect the rider's
> back front and sides, maybe even above and below him.
>
> A car hiting a bike from the rear is going to send a stiff caged
> bicycle flying a long way. G forces will be high on impact. The bike
> will then hit something else at considerable speed. It might be nice
> to have an airbag that stays inflated until the bike finally comes to
> rest and the rider or rescue removes him. Either that or it'll take
> multiple air bags which of course add more weight and expense. Care
> must be taken to ensure the cyclist isn't suffocated by the airbag.
> Probably all the airbags, front, rear, top, bottom and sides should
> be deployed at impact to prevent injury. The area below the cyclist
> might be a problem in the tertiatry impact. I think most of the first
> and second impact will be absorbed by the other airbags.
A far better idea would be to prevent the force application to the
cyclist- IOW, keep the cars from running into him/her. That can be
achieved in significant measure by teaching drivers how to drive
competently and cyclists how to cycle competently, and making sure that
road design accommodates cyclists.
> No doubt this would be a tricky project. Cyclists don't have a lot of
> horsepower to pull heavy cages around. The finished bicycle might
> require that the bicycle be modified to hybrid human peddle and
> electric motor power.
So you de-green the bicycle in dubious pursuit of "safety."
> Well, what do you think?
I think you need to get some perspective.
> I've always been fascinated by making things surviveable like those
> barrels going over Niagra Falls. Eventually they succeeded in
> building something to survive the falls, but of course those were
> propelled by current. Weight wasn't much of a consideration.
Hmmm. This may explain it.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 01:13:05
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote in message
news:timmcn-2A6088.23190828082007@news.iphouse.com...
> In article <0uydnUJCmPYTRUnbnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@adelphia.com>,
> "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>> First, let me explain what this is. A surviveable bike is a bike that
>> could get hit by a car at let's say 40 mph and it's rider would
>> survive with few injuries.
>>
>> You might think this is impossible at first, but there might be a way
>> to make it possible or at least get close to that 40 mph impact. I
>> would think the most important thing is that the cage surrounding the
>> cyclist survives without too much deformation. 2, the cage must
>> either have a thick foam lining or air bags to protect the rider's
>> back front and sides, maybe even above and below him.
>>
>> A car hiting a bike from the rear is going to send a stiff caged
>> bicycle flying a long way. G forces will be high on impact. The bike
>> will then hit something else at considerable speed. It might be nice
>> to have an airbag that stays inflated until the bike finally comes to
>> rest and the rider or rescue removes him. Either that or it'll take
>> multiple air bags which of course add more weight and expense. Care
>> must be taken to ensure the cyclist isn't suffocated by the airbag.
>> Probably all the airbags, front, rear, top, bottom and sides should
>> be deployed at impact to prevent injury. The area below the cyclist
>> might be a problem in the tertiatry impact. I think most of the first
>> and second impact will be absorbed by the other airbags.
>
> A far better idea would be to prevent the force application to the
> cyclist- IOW, keep the cars from running into him/her. That can be
> achieved in significant measure by teaching drivers how to drive
> competently and cyclists how to cycle competently, and making sure that
> road design accommodates cyclists.
>
>> No doubt this would be a tricky project. Cyclists don't have a lot of
>> horsepower to pull heavy cages around. The finished bicycle might
>> require that the bicycle be modified to hybrid human peddle and
>> electric motor power.
>
> So you de-green the bicycle in dubious pursuit of "safety."
>
>> Well, what do you think?
>
> I think you need to get some perspective.
>
>> I've always been fascinated by making things surviveable like those
>> barrels going over Niagra Falls. Eventually they succeeded in
>> building something to survive the falls, but of course those were
>> propelled by current. Weight wasn't much of a consideration.
>
> Hmmm. This may explain it.
Bicycles are fun machines. They're not very practical unless you use them to
commute. There's hardly anyplace to put a quart of milk on the way home. The
electric cycles now, the extracycle can carry some things. The more you
carry the more you need an electric motor assist unless you're happy going
very slow. The bike becomes more practical. Riding it would just be
something everyone did and it may be a little less green, but a 500 pound
cycle all loaded up is a lot greener than a 3000 pound motor vehicle.
Electric power is cleaner than gasoline power and much cheaper. I'm no
expert, but I've been looking at http://phoenixmotorcars.com and their
battery the "nanosafe". http://altair.com
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 12:42:24
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
In article <Of6dnV-RVq8tYknbnZ2dnUVZ_s-pnZ2d@adelphia.com >,
"Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote:
> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> news:timmcn-2A6088.23190828082007@news.iphouse.com...
> > In article <0uydnUJCmPYTRUnbnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@adelphia.com>,
> > "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote:
> >
> >> First, let me explain what this is. A surviveable bike is a bike
> >> that could get hit by a car at let's say 40 mph and it's rider
> >> would survive with few injuries.
> >>
> >> You might think this is impossible at first, but there might be a
> >> way to make it possible or at least get close to that 40 mph
> >> impact. I would think the most important thing is that the cage
> >> surrounding the cyclist survives without too much deformation. 2,
> >> the cage must either have a thick foam lining or air bags to
> >> protect the rider's back front and sides, maybe even above and
> >> below him.
> >>
> >> A car hiting a bike from the rear is going to send a stiff caged
> >> bicycle flying a long way. G forces will be high on impact. The
> >> bike will then hit something else at considerable speed. It might
> >> be nice to have an airbag that stays inflated until the bike
> >> finally comes to rest and the rider or rescue removes him. Either
> >> that or it'll take multiple air bags which of course add more
> >> weight and expense. Care must be taken to ensure the cyclist isn't
> >> suffocated by the airbag. Probably all the airbags, front, rear,
> >> top, bottom and sides should be deployed at impact to prevent
> >> injury. The area below the cyclist might be a problem in the
> >> tertiatry impact. I think most of the first and second impact will
> >> be absorbed by the other airbags.
> >
> > A far better idea would be to prevent the force application to the
> > cyclist- IOW, keep the cars from running into him/her. That can be
> > achieved in significant measure by teaching drivers how to drive
> > competently and cyclists how to cycle competently, and making sure
> > that road design accommodates cyclists.
> >
> >> No doubt this would be a tricky project. Cyclists don't have a lot
> >> of horsepower to pull heavy cages around. The finished bicycle
> >> might require that the bicycle be modified to hybrid human peddle
> >> and electric motor power.
> >
> > So you de-green the bicycle in dubious pursuit of "safety."
> >
> >> Well, what do you think?
> >
> > I think you need to get some perspective.
> >
> >> I've always been fascinated by making things surviveable like
> >> those barrels going over Niagra Falls. Eventually they succeeded
> >> in building something to survive the falls, but of course those
> >> were propelled by current. Weight wasn't much of a consideration.
> >
> > Hmmm. This may explain it.
>
> Bicycles are fun machines. They're not very practical unless you use
> them to commute. There's hardly anyplace to put a quart of milk on
> the way home.
You really need to educate yourself about bicycles first. There are
millions of bicycles capable of carrying loads from groceries to 100 kg
of stuff. Your concept of a "bicycle" appears to be extremely limited.
Try getting all the back issues of "VeloVision" magazine. That'll get
you started. "A to B Magazine"
> The electric cycles now, the extracycle can carry some
> things. The more you carry the more you need an electric motor assist
> unless you're happy going very slow. The bike becomes more practical.
> Riding it would just be something everyone did and it may be a little
> less green, but a 500 pound cycle all loaded up is a lot greener than
> a 3000 pound motor vehicle.
Not "a little less green" but a whole lot less green.
> Electric power is cleaner than gasoline power and much cheaper. I'm
> no expert, but I've been looking at http://phoenixmotorcars.com and
> their battery the "nanosafe". http://altair.com
It's not. All electric power does is relocate the tailpipe from the
vehicle to a coal-fired power plant, nuclear power plant, or
environmentally destructive hydroelectric dam. You're deluding yourself
if you think electricity is "green."
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 15:00:43
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote in message
news:timmcn-DDA90F.12422429082007@news.iphouse.com...
> In article <Of6dnV-RVq8tYknbnZ2dnUVZ_s-pnZ2d@adelphia.com>,
> "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
>> news:timmcn-2A6088.23190828082007@news.iphouse.com...
>> > In article <0uydnUJCmPYTRUnbnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@adelphia.com>,
>> > "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> First, let me explain what this is. A surviveable bike is a bike
>> >> that could get hit by a car at let's say 40 mph and it's rider
>> >> would survive with few injuries.
>> >>
>> >> You might think this is impossible at first, but there might be a
>> >> way to make it possible or at least get close to that 40 mph
>> >> impact. I would think the most important thing is that the cage
>> >> surrounding the cyclist survives without too much deformation. 2,
>> >> the cage must either have a thick foam lining or air bags to
>> >> protect the rider's back front and sides, maybe even above and
>> >> below him.
>> >>
>> >> A car hiting a bike from the rear is going to send a stiff caged
>> >> bicycle flying a long way. G forces will be high on impact. The
>> >> bike will then hit something else at considerable speed. It might
>> >> be nice to have an airbag that stays inflated until the bike
>> >> finally comes to rest and the rider or rescue removes him. Either
>> >> that or it'll take multiple air bags which of course add more
>> >> weight and expense. Care must be taken to ensure the cyclist isn't
>> >> suffocated by the airbag. Probably all the airbags, front, rear,
>> >> top, bottom and sides should be deployed at impact to prevent
>> >> injury. The area below the cyclist might be a problem in the
>> >> tertiatry impact. I think most of the first and second impact will
>> >> be absorbed by the other airbags.
>> >
>> > A far better idea would be to prevent the force application to the
>> > cyclist- IOW, keep the cars from running into him/her. That can be
>> > achieved in significant measure by teaching drivers how to drive
>> > competently and cyclists how to cycle competently, and making sure
>> > that road design accommodates cyclists.
>> >
>> >> No doubt this would be a tricky project. Cyclists don't have a lot
>> >> of horsepower to pull heavy cages around. The finished bicycle
>> >> might require that the bicycle be modified to hybrid human peddle
>> >> and electric motor power.
>> >
>> > So you de-green the bicycle in dubious pursuit of "safety."
>> >
>> >> Well, what do you think?
>> >
>> > I think you need to get some perspective.
>> >
>> >> I've always been fascinated by making things surviveable like
>> >> those barrels going over Niagra Falls. Eventually they succeeded
>> >> in building something to survive the falls, but of course those
>> >> were propelled by current. Weight wasn't much of a consideration.
>> >
>> > Hmmm. This may explain it.
>>
>> Bicycles are fun machines. They're not very practical unless you use
>> them to commute. There's hardly anyplace to put a quart of milk on
>> the way home.
>
> You really need to educate yourself about bicycles first. There are
> millions of bicycles capable of carrying loads from groceries to 100 kg
> of stuff. Your concept of a "bicycle" appears to be extremely limited.
>
> Try getting all the back issues of "VeloVision" magazine. That'll get
> you started. "A to B Magazine"
>
>> The electric cycles now, the extracycle can carry some
>> things. The more you carry the more you need an electric motor assist
>> unless you're happy going very slow. The bike becomes more practical.
>> Riding it would just be something everyone did and it may be a little
>> less green, but a 500 pound cycle all loaded up is a lot greener than
>> a 3000 pound motor vehicle.
>
> Not "a little less green" but a whole lot less green.
>
>> Electric power is cleaner than gasoline power and much cheaper. I'm
>> no expert, but I've been looking at http://phoenixmotorcars.com and
>> their battery the "nanosafe". http://altair.com
>
> It's not. All electric power does is relocate the tailpipe from the
> vehicle to a coal-fired power plant, nuclear power plant, or
> environmentally destructive hydroelectric dam. You're deluding yourself
> if you think electricity is "green."
What we need is some numbers. For instance how much soot or whatever does a
car put up in the air every year? I don't have the numbers I admit. Compare
that to how much soot gets thrown up into the air by generating the power to
move an electric bike for one year the same miles. It's that simple. Finally
compare that to the soot thrown up by a human powered bike. Ha ha. Of course
that last one isn't going to be much. You should calculate what it takes to
grow the various foods that the cyclist eats, but again it wouldn't be much.
One number I have heard is that the electricity used to power 3 60 watt
bulbs for 3 hours will move an electric bike 50 miles.
What percentage of the population in the USA is using a bicycle to pick up
groceries and go to work? I can tell you around here that I've seen one guy
carrying loads and that's in an area with about 50,000 people. Everybody
else is in cars. Electric bikes might change that. Maybe a hundred people
will buy electric bikes to do those chores. I can't really say, but I'd bet
it's more than one.
If people thought they were safe, really safe and they could pick up
groceries and be treated with some respect, maybe even be rewarded, they
might hit the roads with their bicycles in big numbers, but cars are just so
nice. They have air conditioning and heat, comfy seats, speed, much better
safety and a big cage to insulate them from all the other motorist assholes
on the road. Who cares if you get fat and die. At least you're not out in
the open, an easy target for every jerk that comes along.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 14:53:33
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
In article <ubydnc-icLbgXEjbnZ2dnUVZ_t6onZ2d@adelphia.com >,
"Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote:
> >> Electric power is cleaner than gasoline power and much cheaper.
> >> I'm no expert, but I've been looking at
> >> http://phoenixmotorcars.com and their battery the "nanosafe".
> >> http://altair.com
> >
> > It's not. All electric power does is relocate the tailpipe from
> > the vehicle to a coal-fired power plant, nuclear power plant, or
> > environmentally destructive hydroelectric dam. You're deluding
> > yourself if you think electricity is "green."
>
> What we need is some numbers.
Facts are good.
> For instance how much soot or whatever
> does a car put up in the air every year? I don't have the numbers I
> admit. Compare that to how much soot gets thrown up into the air by
> generating the power to move an electric bike for one year the same
> miles. It's that simple.
Yes. Not just soot but also the other various pollutants. And not just
in combustion but in the extraction of those resources from the Earth,
the processing of those resources into usable form, the transportation
of those resources to the point of use, etc. There are a lot of energy
costs, human costs, environmental costs, etc. before the end consumer
makes use of the energy source.
> Finally compare that to the soot thrown up
> by a human powered bike. Ha ha. Of course that last one isn't going
> to be much. You should calculate what it takes to grow the various
> foods that the cyclist eats, but again it wouldn't be much.
You'd be amazed at the energy costs of growing food, harvesting it,
processing it, transporting it.
> One number I have heard is that the electricity used to power 3 60
> watt bulbs for 3 hours will move an electric bike 50 miles.
>
> What percentage of the population in the USA is using a bicycle to
> pick up groceries and go to work? I can tell you around here that
> I've seen one guy carrying loads and that's in an area with about
> 50,000 people. Everybody else is in cars. Electric bikes might change
> that. Maybe a hundred people will buy electric bikes to do those
> chores. I can't really say, but I'd bet it's more than one.
I see a growing number of people obviously biking to work, school, for
errands etc. I see people hauling loads, too; for example, Peace Coffee
does it's deliveries to stores by bike. And I have seen about half a
dozen electric bikes on the streets so far this summer, up from none.
There is a market for those machines- in each case the rider was a
person obviously limited in their ability to ride a standard bike from
obvious disabilities or age, primarily. It was great to see them out
there.
> If people thought they were safe, really safe and they could pick up
> groceries and be treated with some respect, maybe even be rewarded,
> they might hit the roads with their bicycles in big numbers, but cars
> are just so nice. They have air conditioning and heat, comfy seats,
> speed, much better safety and a big cage to insulate them from all
> the other motorist assholes on the road. Who cares if you get fat and
> die. At least you're not out in the open, an easy target for every
> jerk that comes along.
I choose not to live my life in such a paranoid mindset. I'm not saying
that lots of people don't think as you described, however.
The safety issue can be improved without roll cages for bicycles.
Improving driver and cyclist skills would be the biggest step- I see
incredibly atrocious driving and cycling every day around here, many
times a day. Improving road infrastructure would be another. I am not
particularly a fan of bike lanes and sidepaths because they tend to be
designed so badly as to create the illusion of safety while actually
being more dangerous. Just making roads wide enough and ensuring that
stop lights can be triggered by bikes would be adequate to vastly
improve the infrastructure.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 16:59:45
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote in message
news:timmcn-2499F0.14533329082007@news.iphouse.com...
> In article <ubydnc-icLbgXEjbnZ2dnUVZ_t6onZ2d@adelphia.com>,
> "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>> >> Electric power is cleaner than gasoline power and much cheaper.
>> >> I'm no expert, but I've been looking at
>> >> http://phoenixmotorcars.com and their battery the "nanosafe".
>> >> http://altair.com
>> >
>> > It's not. All electric power does is relocate the tailpipe from
>> > the vehicle to a coal-fired power plant, nuclear power plant, or
>> > environmentally destructive hydroelectric dam. You're deluding
>> > yourself if you think electricity is "green."
>>
>> What we need is some numbers.
>
> Facts are good.
>
>> For instance how much soot or whatever
>> does a car put up in the air every year? I don't have the numbers I
>> admit. Compare that to how much soot gets thrown up into the air by
>> generating the power to move an electric bike for one year the same
>> miles. It's that simple.
>
> Yes. Not just soot but also the other various pollutants. And not just
> in combustion but in the extraction of those resources from the Earth,
> the processing of those resources into usable form, the transportation
> of those resources to the point of use, etc. There are a lot of energy
> costs, human costs, environmental costs, etc. before the end consumer
> makes use of the energy source.
>
>> Finally compare that to the soot thrown up
>> by a human powered bike. Ha ha. Of course that last one isn't going
>> to be much. You should calculate what it takes to grow the various
>> foods that the cyclist eats, but again it wouldn't be much.
>
> You'd be amazed at the energy costs of growing food, harvesting it,
> processing it, transporting it.
>
>> One number I have heard is that the electricity used to power 3 60
>> watt bulbs for 3 hours will move an electric bike 50 miles.
>>
>> What percentage of the population in the USA is using a bicycle to
>> pick up groceries and go to work? I can tell you around here that
>> I've seen one guy carrying loads and that's in an area with about
>> 50,000 people. Everybody else is in cars. Electric bikes might change
>> that. Maybe a hundred people will buy electric bikes to do those
>> chores. I can't really say, but I'd bet it's more than one.
>
> I see a growing number of people obviously biking to work, school, for
> errands etc. I see people hauling loads, too; for example, Peace Coffee
> does it's deliveries to stores by bike. And I have seen about half a
> dozen electric bikes on the streets so far this summer, up from none.
> There is a market for those machines- in each case the rider was a
> person obviously limited in their ability to ride a standard bike from
> obvious disabilities or age, primarily. It was great to see them out
> there.
>
>> If people thought they were safe, really safe and they could pick up
>> groceries and be treated with some respect, maybe even be rewarded,
>> they might hit the roads with their bicycles in big numbers, but cars
>> are just so nice. They have air conditioning and heat, comfy seats,
>> speed, much better safety and a big cage to insulate them from all
>> the other motorist assholes on the road. Who cares if you get fat and
>> die. At least you're not out in the open, an easy target for every
>> jerk that comes along.
>
> I choose not to live my life in such a paranoid mindset. I'm not saying
> that lots of people don't think as you described, however.
>
> The safety issue can be improved without roll cages for bicycles.
> Improving driver and cyclist skills would be the biggest step- I see
> incredibly atrocious driving and cycling every day around here, many
> times a day. Improving road infrastructure would be another. I am not
> particularly a fan of bike lanes and sidepaths because they tend to be
> designed so badly as to create the illusion of safety while actually
> being more dangerous. Just making roads wide enough and ensuring that
> stop lights can be triggered by bikes would be adequate to vastly
> improve the infrastructure.
Still it might be a fun project. Better than the crap they put on myth
busters or a project for MIT. How light a cage can you make that will allow
you to ram the cage with a car going 40 and still have a healthy passenger
within the cage? Far as I can see it doesn't even have to have a bicycle
within, just a small lightweight cage with a person inside. It could become
the next extreme sport. Get in, get hit by a car, cage goes flying, air bags
pop, cage goes bouncing down the road and into a canyon, the person gets out
and gives the thumbs up.
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 14:01:08
From: Paul Myron Hobson
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
> In article <Of6dnV-RVq8tYknbnZ2dnUVZ_s-pnZ2d@adelphia.com>,
> "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote:
>> Electric power is cleaner than gasoline power and much cheaper. I'm
>> no expert, but I've been looking at http://phoenixmotorcars.com and
>> their battery the "nanosafe". http://altair.com
Tim McNamara wrote:
> It's not. All electric power does is relocate the tailpipe from the
> vehicle to a coal-fired power plant, nuclear power plant, or
> environmentally destructive hydroelectric dam. You're deluding yourself
> if you think electricity is "green."
While this whole thread is absurd, relocating the tailpipe does have
benefits. For example, a few thousand point sources are easier to
control/modify/update/etc than tens of millions of mobile sources.
\\paul
|
| | | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 14:40:40
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
In article <fb4c95$t0d$1@news-int.gatech.edu >,
Paul Myron Hobson <phobson@gatech.edu > wrote:
> > In article <Of6dnV-RVq8tYknbnZ2dnUVZ_s-pnZ2d@adelphia.com>,
> > "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote:
> >> Electric power is cleaner than gasoline power and much cheaper.
> >> I'm no expert, but I've been looking at
> >> http://phoenixmotorcars.com and their battery the "nanosafe".
> >> http://altair.com
>
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > It's not. All electric power does is relocate the tailpipe from
> > the vehicle to a coal-fired power plant, nuclear power plant, or
> > environmentally destructive hydroelectric dam. You're deluding
> > yourself if you think electricity is "green."
>
> While this whole thread is absurd, relocating the tailpipe does have
> benefits. For example, a few thousand point sources are easier to
> control/modify/update/etc than tens of millions of mobile sources.
There is that, but the emissions of coal fired powerplants tends to be
really quite noxious and- unlike motor vehicle tailpipe emissions- tends
to result in mercury contamination of the land and waters downwind. The
exhaust output of power plants tends to be somewhat indirectly related
to instantaneous demand as compared to motor vehicles. A billion tons
of CO2 coming from smokestacks is exactly the same as a billion tons of
CO2 coming from car exhaust pipes.
Diesels are touted as being more energy efficient and there is an
expectation that beginning in 2008 we will see a much greater market
share for diesel passenger cars as a result. OTOH there is research
indicating that diesel exhaust particulates are highly bioactive in
humans, absorbed by the lungs and combining with blood lipids to
activate certain genes and promote coronary artery disease.
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-me-heart26jul26,0,2928424.story?co
ll=la-home-center
There is significant research into maximizing diesel efficiency and
reducing pollutants. I spent a couple of hours talking with one of the
guys involved in the project linked below, who said their research
showed that it was possible to make diesels that were extremely low in
pollutant output:
http://www.me.umn.edu/centers/cdr/
Basically as always, it boils down to "there ain't no free lunch." We
can have lives of ignorant luxury at the flip of a switch and pay the
price in unexpected consequences, or we can think and make choices about
whether we really need that fifth TV in the house, whether the kids
really need their own video game consoles in their bedrooms, whether we
really need more cars in the garage than adults in the house, etc.
(Says the guy with three cars, four computers, air conditioning, six
bikes in the basement, two TVs, seven guitars and three amps, etc. for
two adults in the household... :-P Doing my share for global warming).
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 17:38:04
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote in message
news:timmcn-169FCA.14404029082007@news.iphouse.com...
> In article <fb4c95$t0d$1@news-int.gatech.edu>,
> Paul Myron Hobson <phobson@gatech.edu> wrote:
>
>> > In article <Of6dnV-RVq8tYknbnZ2dnUVZ_s-pnZ2d@adelphia.com>,
>> > "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote:
>> >> Electric power is cleaner than gasoline power and much cheaper.
>> >> I'm no expert, but I've been looking at
>> >> http://phoenixmotorcars.com and their battery the "nanosafe".
>> >> http://altair.com
>>
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>> > It's not. All electric power does is relocate the tailpipe from
>> > the vehicle to a coal-fired power plant, nuclear power plant, or
>> > environmentally destructive hydroelectric dam. You're deluding
>> > yourself if you think electricity is "green."
>>
>> While this whole thread is absurd, relocating the tailpipe does have
>> benefits. For example, a few thousand point sources are easier to
>> control/modify/update/etc than tens of millions of mobile sources.
>
> There is that, but the emissions of coal fired powerplants tends to be
> really quite noxious and- unlike motor vehicle tailpipe emissions- tends
> to result in mercury contamination of the land and waters downwind. The
> exhaust output of power plants tends to be somewhat indirectly related
> to instantaneous demand as compared to motor vehicles. A billion tons
> of CO2 coming from smokestacks is exactly the same as a billion tons of
> CO2 coming from car exhaust pipes.
>
> Diesels are touted as being more energy efficient and there is an
> expectation that beginning in 2008 we will see a much greater market
> share for diesel passenger cars as a result. OTOH there is research
> indicating that diesel exhaust particulates are highly bioactive in
> humans, absorbed by the lungs and combining with blood lipids to
> activate certain genes and promote coronary artery disease.
>
> http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-me-heart26jul26,0,2928424.story?co
> ll=la-home-center
>
> There is significant research into maximizing diesel efficiency and
> reducing pollutants. I spent a couple of hours talking with one of the
> guys involved in the project linked below, who said their research
> showed that it was possible to make diesels that were extremely low in
> pollutant output:
>
> http://www.me.umn.edu/centers/cdr/
>
> Basically as always, it boils down to "there ain't no free lunch." We
> can have lives of ignorant luxury at the flip of a switch and pay the
> price in unexpected consequences, or we can think and make choices about
> whether we really need that fifth TV in the house, whether the kids
> really need their own video game consoles in their bedrooms, whether we
> really need more cars in the garage than adults in the house, etc.
> (Says the guy with three cars, four computers, air conditioning, six
> bikes in the basement, two TVs, seven guitars and three amps, etc. for
> two adults in the household... :-P Doing my share for global warming).
UCLA links diesel exhaust to hardening of the arteries. One plus one equals
three when diesel is involved.
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/07/air_heart.html
Random fun factioid -
http://www.airinfonow.com/html/faq.html#Q5
50 miles on a jetski or 70,000 miles in a new sedan.
"Does my jet ski pollute?
Riding a 2-stroke jet ski for an hour produces as much air pollution as
driving a newer car 70,000 miles."
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 07:41:30
From: DougC
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
Greens wrote:
>
> Electric power is cleaner than gasoline power and much cheaper. I'm no
> expert, but I've been looking at http://phoenixmotorcars.com and their
> battery the "nanosafe". http://altair.com
>
Well, sort-of.
Electric POWER is much cheaper--but the odd little boxes that can store
lots of that power (so you can ride about without dragging extension
cords) happen to cost quite stunning sums of money. The cheap batteries
are big and heavy and don't take deep-cycling very well; the batteries
that are light and compact and do, are very NOT-inexpensive.
It's quite telling to note that the only common major use of
electric-powered vehicles is for trains, which use power-feed lines
along their entire lengths, and so aren't ever dependent upon batteries.
I've also compared gas-engined bicycles and electric-motor bicycles, and
I ended up buying a 4-cycle gas engine. You can say the electrics are
quieter and cleaner, but the overall cost is higher and the useful
practicality (range and recharging times) leave a lot left to be desired
of electrics--even if you do spend for the $1500 batteries.
~
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 09:23:10
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
"DougC" <dcimper@norcom2000.com > wrote in message
news:SPdBi.1$tb5.0@newsfe12.lga...
> Greens wrote:
>>
>> Electric power is cleaner than gasoline power and much cheaper. I'm no
>> expert, but I've been looking at http://phoenixmotorcars.com and their
>> battery the "nanosafe". http://altair.com
>
> Well, sort-of.
> Electric POWER is much cheaper--but the odd little boxes that can store
> lots of that power (so you can ride about without dragging extension
> cords) happen to cost quite stunning sums of money. The cheap batteries
> are big and heavy and don't take deep-cycling very well; the batteries
> that are light and compact and do, are very NOT-inexpensive.
>
> It's quite telling to note that the only common major use of
> electric-powered vehicles is for trains, which use power-feed lines along
> their entire lengths, and so aren't ever dependent upon batteries.
>
> I've also compared gas-engined bicycles and electric-motor bicycles, and I
> ended up buying a 4-cycle gas engine. You can say the electrics are
> quieter and cleaner, but the overall cost is higher and the useful
> practicality (range and recharging times) leave a lot left to be desired
> of electrics--even if you do spend for the $1500 batteries.
> ~
Also, check youtube for electric bicycle. You'll find dozens of videos by
different people riding their electric bikes that have up to 40 mile range.
Mostly these use the new motor technology, but older battery technology.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 13:11:05
From: Paul Myron Hobson
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
Greens wrote:
> Also, check youtube for electric bicycle. You'll find dozens of videos by
> different people riding their electric bikes that have up to 40 mile range.
> Mostly these use the new motor technology, but older battery technology.
Human powered bikes can go much farther and faster. They are also less
expensive and require less material and energy to manufacture.
\\paul
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 14:42:29
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
"Paul Myron Hobson" <phobson@gatech.edu > wrote in message
news:fb49b9$s0m$1@news-int.gatech.edu...
> Greens wrote:
>> Also, check youtube for electric bicycle. You'll find dozens of videos by
>> different people riding their electric bikes that have up to 40 mile
>> range. Mostly these use the new motor technology, but older battery
>> technology.
>
> Human powered bikes can go much farther and faster. They are also less
> expensive and require less material and energy to manufacture.
>
> \\paul
That's true, but middle aged people and older people are not in great shape,
certainly not all the time. They want some exercise. They don't want to
train for "le tour". Electric bikes would be a way of getting some people to
ride bikes instead of driving heavy cars. The more of us that there are the
better. And electric bikes get the equivalent of about 300 miles per gallon
of gas. They have pedals. They don't take up much space and soon you'll be
able to fully charge one in fifteen minutes or less. You'll have unlimited
range once electric cars become popular because gas stations will start
selling electric connections.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 21:32:11
From: Mark
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
Greens wrote:
> "Paul Myron Hobson" <phobson@gatech.edu> wrote in message
> news:fb49b9$s0m$1@news-int.gatech.edu...
>> Greens wrote:
>>> Also, check youtube for electric bicycle. You'll find dozens of videos by
>>> different people riding their electric bikes that have up to 40 mile
>>> range. Mostly these use the new motor technology, but older battery
>>> technology.
>> Human powered bikes can go much farther and faster. They are also less
>> expensive and require less material and energy to manufacture.
>>
>> \\paul
>
> That's true, but middle aged people and older people are not in great shape,
> certainly not all the time. They want some exercise. They don't want to
> train for "le tour".
Don't get out of the States much, do we? When I've been to Europe, I've
seen plenty of old folks rolling along on their similarly ancient
bicycles. I see lots of pictures from Asia of similar folk. These folk
aren't riding "le tour" either, but they aren't afraid of mild to
moderate exercise. I don't think the problem is with the bike...
Mark J. (also from "the States")
Electric bikes would be a way of getting some people to
> ride bikes instead of driving heavy cars. The more of us that there are the
> better. And electric bikes get the equivalent of about 300 miles per gallon
> of gas. They have pedals. They don't take up much space and soon you'll be
> able to fully charge one in fifteen minutes or less. You'll have unlimited
> range once electric cars become popular because gas stations will start
> selling electric connections.
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 09:19:55
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
"DougC" <dcimper@norcom2000.com > wrote in message
news:SPdBi.1$tb5.0@newsfe12.lga...
> Greens wrote:
>>
>> Electric power is cleaner than gasoline power and much cheaper. I'm no
>> expert, but I've been looking at http://phoenixmotorcars.com and their
>> battery the "nanosafe". http://altair.com
>
> Well, sort-of.
> Electric POWER is much cheaper--but the odd little boxes that can store
> lots of that power (so you can ride about without dragging extension
> cords) happen to cost quite stunning sums of money. The cheap batteries
> are big and heavy and don't take deep-cycling very well; the batteries
> that are light and compact and do, are very NOT-inexpensive.
>
> It's quite telling to note that the only common major use of
> electric-powered vehicles is for trains, which use power-feed lines along
> their entire lengths, and so aren't ever dependent upon batteries.
>
> I've also compared gas-engined bicycles and electric-motor bicycles, and I
> ended up buying a 4-cycle gas engine. You can say the electrics are
> quieter and cleaner, but the overall cost is higher and the useful
> practicality (range and recharging times) leave a lot left to be desired
> of electrics--even if you do spend for the $1500 batteries.
> ~
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/health-fitness/nanotechnology-7-07/striking-uses-of-nanotechnology/0707_nano_uses_1.htm
What This zero-emission, $45,000 Phoenix electric truck is powered by Altair
Nanotechnologies' NanoSafe battery, which can be charged in as little as 10
minutes. It travels about 130 miles between charges.
When Available in 2008 or 2009.
Maybe it's just promises. They say they're selling these electric cars right
now to fleets. The batteries are full of nano particles that hold more
charge and release charge more efficiently than any other battery ever made.
They cost a fortune, but costs are expected to come down dramatically in the
next 4 years. The car's range is expected to go up to 230 miles from 130.
Charging time is about 10 minutes. They told me battery costs will be
quartered in 4 years.
Maybe you didn't know about this but in the last thirty years or so electric
motors have gone through changes too. It used to be that electric motors
could only run at full power. That's no longer the case. The new motors
they're putting on bicycles run on varying amounts of electricity. I think
it's the coil that's stationary these days. Eh, look it up for accurate
info. The bottom line is that motors have changed and batteries have
changed. Gas is three times as expensive. The gap is getting narrower. Coal
burning power plants can now burn dirtier coal cleaner.
|
| |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 21:02:14
From: JeffWills
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
On Aug 28, 6:26 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote:
<snipo >
> A car hiting a bike from the rear is going to send a stiff caged bicycle
> flying a long way. G forces will be high on impact. The bike will then hit
> something else at considerable speed. It might be nice to have an airbag
> that stays inflated until the bike finally comes to rest and the rider or
> rescue removes him. Either that or it'll take multiple air bags which of
> course add more weight and expense. Care must be taken to ensure the cyclist
> isn't suffocated by the airbag. Probably all the airbags, front, rear, top,
> bottom and sides should be deployed at impact to prevent injury. The area
> below the cyclist might be a problem in the tertiatry impact. I think most
> of the first and second impact will be absorbed by the other airbags.
<snippey >
Cudgels head, dredges dusty memory....
IIRC, some impact testing done in the '70's found that ordinary
aluminum cans had an excellent energy-absorption-to-weight ratio.
You'd reduce the impact considerably if you created a full fairing and
covered it with uncrushed aluminum cans. Maybe those guys I see with
garbage bags full of cans are actually bike safety researchers.
Full fairings are actually pretty survivable, as long as you don't hit
anything:
http://www.easyracers.com/videos/mango_crash.wmv
I was present at the fastest HPV crash on level ground:
http://www.ohpv.org/albums/bm2003/atspeed/photos/photo_10.html
Frightening- when Sam fell on his side, he was going fast enough that
his shell developed lift and he took flight. Note Sam's dazed look.
Jeff
|
| | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 01:07:14
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
"JeffWills" <jwills@pacifier.com > wrote in message
news:1188360134.754558.211870@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 28, 6:26 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> <snipo>
>> A car hiting a bike from the rear is going to send a stiff caged bicycle
>> flying a long way. G forces will be high on impact. The bike will then
>> hit
>> something else at considerable speed. It might be nice to have an airbag
>> that stays inflated until the bike finally comes to rest and the rider or
>> rescue removes him. Either that or it'll take multiple air bags which of
>> course add more weight and expense. Care must be taken to ensure the
>> cyclist
>> isn't suffocated by the airbag. Probably all the airbags, front, rear,
>> top,
>> bottom and sides should be deployed at impact to prevent injury. The area
>> below the cyclist might be a problem in the tertiatry impact. I think
>> most
>> of the first and second impact will be absorbed by the other airbags.
> <snippey>
>
> Cudgels head, dredges dusty memory....
>
> IIRC, some impact testing done in the '70's found that ordinary
> aluminum cans had an excellent energy-absorption-to-weight ratio.
> You'd reduce the impact considerably if you created a full fairing and
> covered it with uncrushed aluminum cans. Maybe those guys I see with
> garbage bags full of cans are actually bike safety researchers.
>
> Full fairings are actually pretty survivable, as long as you don't hit
> anything:
> http://www.easyracers.com/videos/mango_crash.wmv
>
> I was present at the fastest HPV crash on level ground:
> http://www.ohpv.org/albums/bm2003/atspeed/photos/photo_10.html
> Frightening- when Sam fell on his side, he was going fast enough that
> his shell developed lift and he took flight. Note Sam's dazed look.
>
> Jeff
>
Cool videos. I like the idea of the bike bouncing off the bumper of an SUV.
Can's getting crushed will just lead to the entire bike getting crushed or
the bike getting caught on and dragged under the SUV.
I dunno. How strong can they make a fabric? Maybe they can make a nano
fabric that's super tough and light and you'll just boing off the car and
fly off into space away from heavy machinery. I think armadillos can do it.
They pull into their shells and squit out of the wheels of cars and then
they run away, probably to die in the desert.
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 14:58:51
From: _
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 01:07:14 -0400, Greens wrote:
>
> I dunno. How strong can they make a fabric? Maybe they can make a nano
> fabric that's super tough and light and you'll just boing off the car and
> fly off into space away from heavy machinery.
The problem is'nt solely impact; there is also the factor of sudden
acceleration. Consider rotational injuries to the spine/skull - impervious
armour will have at best a zero effect, and much more likely a neagtive
effect.
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 11:07:47
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
"_" <jtayNOSPAMlor@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com > wrote in message
news:j6qy3ozk4itg$.1e6tz22r83gsz$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 01:07:14 -0400, Greens wrote:
>
>>
>> I dunno. How strong can they make a fabric? Maybe they can make a nano
>> fabric that's super tough and light and you'll just boing off the car and
>> fly off into space away from heavy machinery.
>
> The problem is'nt solely impact; there is also the factor of sudden
> acceleration. Consider rotational injuries to the spine/skull -
> impervious
> armour will have at best a zero effect, and much more likely a neagtive
> effect.
The cage is impervious, the airbags within are deformable and absorb the
shock. Haven't you picked up on that yet? I'm not just suggesting we put a
cyclist inside some hard cage. The shock of impact has to be absorbed. The
energy has to be dissipated slowly. That's what the airbags are for.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 12:14:36
From: DI
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
"Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote in message
news:l-adnRaHIe9IF0jbnZ2dnUVZ_qmlnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>
> "_" <jtayNOSPAMlor@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com> wrote in message
> news:j6qy3ozk4itg$.1e6tz22r83gsz$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 01:07:14 -0400, Greens wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I dunno. How strong can they make a fabric? Maybe they can make a nano
>>> fabric that's super tough and light and you'll just boing off the car
>>> and
>>> fly off into space away from heavy machinery.
>>
>> The problem is'nt solely impact; there is also the factor of sudden
>> acceleration. Consider rotational injuries to the spine/skull -
>> impervious
>> armour will have at best a zero effect, and much more likely a neagtive
>> effect.
>
> The cage is impervious, the airbags within are deformable and absorb the
> shock. Haven't you picked up on that yet? I'm not just suggesting we put a
> cyclist inside some hard cage. The shock of impact has to be absorbed. The
> energy has to be dissipated slowly. That's what the airbags are for.
>
You're not really serious about all this are you?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 14:36:32
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
"DI" <di9999@cox.net > wrote in message
news:%PhBi.38488$xZ2.23692@newsfe10.phx...
>
> "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:l-adnRaHIe9IF0jbnZ2dnUVZ_qmlnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>>
>> "_" <jtayNOSPAMlor@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com> wrote in message
>> news:j6qy3ozk4itg$.1e6tz22r83gsz$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 01:07:14 -0400, Greens wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I dunno. How strong can they make a fabric? Maybe they can make a nano
>>>> fabric that's super tough and light and you'll just boing off the car
>>>> and
>>>> fly off into space away from heavy machinery.
>>>
>>> The problem is'nt solely impact; there is also the factor of sudden
>>> acceleration. Consider rotational injuries to the spine/skull -
>>> impervious
>>> armour will have at best a zero effect, and much more likely a neagtive
>>> effect.
>>
>> The cage is impervious, the airbags within are deformable and absorb the
>> shock. Haven't you picked up on that yet? I'm not just suggesting we put
>> a cyclist inside some hard cage. The shock of impact has to be absorbed.
>> The energy has to be dissipated slowly. That's what the airbags are for.
>>
> You're not really serious about all this are you?
>
Serious about actually trying to build a survivable bicycle - no. Seriously
wondering what's the best that can be done - yes. I've wondered about making
cars surviveable in side impacts too. This was before anyone had ever heard
of curtain air bags. Oh yea. I'm way ahead of my time.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 16:44:27
From: Colin Nelson
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
"Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote in message
news:l-adnRaHIe9IF0jbnZ2dnUVZ_qmlnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>
> "_" <jtayNOSPAMlor@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com> wrote in message
> news:j6qy3ozk4itg$.1e6tz22r83gsz$.dlg@40tude.net...
> > On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 01:07:14 -0400, Greens wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I dunno. How strong can they make a fabric? Maybe they can make a nano
> >> fabric that's super tough and light and you'll just boing off the car
and
> >> fly off into space away from heavy machinery.
> >
> > The problem is'nt solely impact; there is also the factor of sudden
> > acceleration. Consider rotational injuries to the spine/skull -
> > impervious
> > armour will have at best a zero effect, and much more likely a neagtive
> > effect.
>
> The cage is impervious, the airbags within are deformable and absorb the
> shock. Haven't you picked up on that yet? I'm not just suggesting we put a
> cyclist inside some hard cage. The shock of impact has to be absorbed. The
> energy has to be dissipated slowly. That's what the airbags are for.
>
>
Sounds like a Good Idea ... Have you considered starting a little bit
smaller ... You could try something like ... Helmets!
--
Colin N.
Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... But the wind is mostly in your face
|
| |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 22:22:33
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
Greens wrote:
> First, let me explain what this is. A surviveable bike is a bike that could
> get hit by a car at let's say 40 mph and it's rider would survive with few
> injuries.
>
> You might think this is impossible at first, but there might be a way to
> make it possible or at least get close to that 40 mph impact. I would think
> the most important thing is that the cage surrounding the cyclist survives
> without too much deformation. 2, the cage must either have a thick foam
> lining or air bags to protect the rider's back front and sides, maybe even
> above and below him.
>
> A car hiting a bike from the rear is going to send a stiff caged bicycle
> flying a long way. G forces will be high on impact. The bike will then hit
> something else at considerable speed. It might be nice to have an airbag
> that stays inflated until the bike finally comes to rest and the rider or
> rescue removes him. Either that or it'll take multiple air bags which of
> course add more weight and expense. Care must be taken to ensure the cyclist
> isn't suffocated by the airbag. Probably all the airbags, front, rear, top,
> bottom and sides should be deployed at impact to prevent injury. The area
> below the cyclist might be a problem in the tertiatry impact. I think most
> of the first and second impact will be absorbed by the other airbags.
>
> No doubt this would be a tricky project. Cyclists don't have a lot of
> horsepower to pull heavy cages around. The finished bicycle might require
> that the bicycle be modified to hybrid human peddle and electric motor
> power.
>
> Well, what do you think? I've always been fascinated by making things
> surviveable like those barrels going over Niagra Falls. Eventually they
> succeeded in building something to survive the falls, but of course those
> were propelled by current. Weight wasn't much of a consideration.
I have a 'cage' vehicle with a hot 283 V8 that seems to manage the cage
weight acceptably well. My bike doesn't need a 'cage'.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 11:03:08
From: Dorfus Dippintush
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
Greens wrote:
> First, let me explain what this is. A surviveable bike is a bike that could
> get hit by a car at let's say 40 mph and it's rider would survive with few
> injuries.
>
> You might think this is impossible at first, but there might be a way to
> make it possible or at least get close to that 40 mph impact. I would think
> the most important thing is that the cage surrounding the cyclist survives
> without too much deformation. 2, the cage must either have a thick foam
> lining or air bags to protect the rider's back front and sides, maybe even
> above and below him.
>
> A car hiting a bike from the rear is going to send a stiff caged bicycle
> flying a long way. G forces will be high on impact. The bike will then hit
> something else at considerable speed. It might be nice to have an airbag
> that stays inflated until the bike finally comes to rest and the rider or
> rescue removes him. Either that or it'll take multiple air bags which of
> course add more weight and expense. Care must be taken to ensure the cyclist
> isn't suffocated by the airbag. Probably all the airbags, front, rear, top,
> bottom and sides should be deployed at impact to prevent injury. The area
> below the cyclist might be a problem in the tertiatry impact. I think most
> of the first and second impact will be absorbed by the other airbags.
>
> No doubt this would be a tricky project. Cyclists don't have a lot of
> horsepower to pull heavy cages around. The finished bicycle might require
> that the bicycle be modified to hybrid human peddle and electric motor
> power.
>
> Well, what do you think? I've always been fascinated by making things
> surviveable like those barrels going over Niagra Falls. Eventually they
> succeeded in building something to survive the falls, but of course those
> were propelled by current. Weight wasn't much of a consideration.
>
>
You really need to get away from the car. I propose an ejection seat
triggered by an impact detector that throws you above the car. You would
only need airbags to soften your landing on the ground.
Dorfus
|
| | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 07:45:55
From: DougC
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
Dorfus Dippintush wrote:
>
> You really need to get away from the car. I propose an ejection seat
> triggered by an impact detector that throws you above the car. You would
> only need airbags to soften your landing on the ground.
>
> Dorfus
Anyone else here remember the Muppet Show, and Gonzo the Great's
exploding socks?...
(I haven't heard of any actual incidents involving expoding socks, but I
am watching and waiting, I'm sure it's coming)
~
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 23:02:29
From: Aeek
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 07:45:55 -0500, DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com >
wrote:
>Anyone else here remember the Muppet Show, and Gonzo the Great's
>exploding socks?...
>
>(I haven't heard of any actual incidents involving expoding socks, but I
>am watching and waiting, I'm sure it's coming)
Someone was touting a reactive jacket as a cycling safety item.
Hmm, reactive like modern tank armour? So you blow absord the impact
by blowing a hole in the car. Sweet. Not so good for bunch riding.
|
| | |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 22:05:02
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
Dorfus Dippintush wrote:
> Greens wrote:
>> First, let me explain what this is. A surviveable bike is a bike that
>> could get hit by a car at let's say 40 mph and it's rider would
>> survive with few injuries.
>>
>> You might think this is impossible at first, but there might be a way
>> to make it possible or at least get close to that 40 mph impact. I
>> would think the most important thing is that the cage surrounding the
>> cyclist survives without too much deformation. 2, the cage must either
>> have a thick foam lining or air bags to protect the rider's back front
>> and sides, maybe even above and below him.
>>
>> A car hiting a bike from the rear is going to send a stiff caged
>> bicycle flying a long way. G forces will be high on impact. The bike
>> will then hit something else at considerable speed. It might be nice
>> to have an airbag that stays inflated until the bike finally comes to
>> rest and the rider or rescue removes him. Either that or it'll take
>> multiple air bags which of course add more weight and expense. Care
>> must be taken to ensure the cyclist isn't suffocated by the airbag.
>> Probably all the airbags, front, rear, top, bottom and sides should be
>> deployed at impact to prevent injury. The area below the cyclist might
>> be a problem in the tertiatry impact. I think most of the first and
>> second impact will be absorbed by the other airbags.
>>
>> No doubt this would be a tricky project. Cyclists don't have a lot of
>> horsepower to pull heavy cages around. The finished bicycle might
>> require that the bicycle be modified to hybrid human peddle and
>> electric motor power.
>>
>> Well, what do you think? I've always been fascinated by making things
>> surviveable like those barrels going over Niagra Falls. Eventually
>> they succeeded in building something to survive the falls, but of
>> course those were propelled by current. Weight wasn't much of a
>> consideration.
>>
>>
>
> You really need to get away from the car. I propose an ejection seat
> triggered by an impact detector that throws you above the car. You would
> only need airbags to soften your landing on the ground.
How about a high energy beam that vaporizes the car if it comes too near? ;)
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 11:14:23
From: Dorfus Dippintush
Subject: Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?
|
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> Dorfus Dippintush wrote:
>> Greens wrote:
>>> First, let me explain what this is. A surviveable bike is a bike that
>>> could get hit by a car at let's say 40 mph and it's rider would
>>> survive with few injuries.
>>>
>>> You might think this is impossible at first, but there might be a way
>>> to make it possible or at least get close to that 40 mph impact. I
>>> would think the most important thing is that the cage surrounding the
>>> cyclist survives without too much deformation. 2, the cage must
>>> either have a thick foam lining or air bags to protect the rider's
>>> back front and sides, maybe even above and below him.
>>>
>>> A car hiting a bike from the rear is going to send a stiff caged
>>> bicycle flying a long way. G forces will be high on impact. The bike
>>> will then hit something else at considerable speed. It might be nice
>>> to have an airbag that stays inflated until the bike finally comes to
>>> rest and the rider or rescue removes him. Either that or it'll take
>>> multiple air bags which of course add more weight and expense. Care
>>> must be taken to ensure the cyclist isn't suffocated by the airbag.
>>> Probably all the airbags, front, rear, top, bottom and sides should
>>> be deployed at impact to prevent injury. The area below the cyclist
>>> might be a problem in the tertiatry impact. I think most of the first
>>> and second impact will be absorbed by the other airbags.
>>>
>>> No doubt this would be a tricky project. Cyclists don't have a lot of
>>> horsepower to pull heavy cages around. The finished bicycle might
>>> require that the bicycle be modified to hybrid human peddle and
>>> electric motor power.
>>>
>>> Well, what do you think? I've always been fascinated by making things
>>> surviveable like those barrels going over Niagra Falls. Eventually
>>> they succeeded in building something to survive the falls, but of
>>> course those were propelled by current. Weight wasn't much of a
>>> consideration.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You really need to get away from the car. I propose an ejection seat
>> triggered by an impact detector that throws you above the car. You
>> would only need airbags to soften your landing on the ground.
>
> How about a high energy beam that vaporizes the car if it comes too
> near? ;)
>
Well that was my other thought, a high velocity projectile that
neutralizes the force of the car. Since impact increases with the square
of the velocity a small but very fast projectile could stop the car dead
in its tracks.
Dorfus
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 22:30:37
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: Survivable bicycle, is it possible?
|
Dorfus Dippintush wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> ...
>> How about a high energy beam that vaporizes the car if it comes too
>> near? ;)
>>
>
> Well that was my other thought, a high velocity projectile that
> neutralizes the force of the car. Since impact increases with the square
> of the velocity a small but very fast projectile could stop the car dead
> in its tracks.
No, you need to match momentum (product of mass and speed), not kinetic
energy to stop the vehicle. This can be verified by the fact that
bullets do not knock over people or animals (outside of Hollywood, that is).
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
