ALENAX! or, Something bike-tech related for us to talk about

On 3/31/2020 5:30 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 March 2020 20:01:42 UTC-4, Mark J. wrote:
On 3/31/2020 4:43 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/31/2020 5:28 PM, Mark J. wrote:
So

Two puzzlers for you; you may want to examine the bike closely in the
video first.

1) The puzzler above, i.e. If you *just* had two opposing freewheels
on the rear hub, (see the video above to clarify) what happens when
you roll the bike backward in the garage?

Can it even be pushed backward? I don't think it can, unless there's
something else in that hub. It seems the double ratchets would forbid
backward rotation.


2) What happens if you install toeclips and pull up on the pedals?

I see a horizontal cable and pulley system linking the left and right
bottom ends of the two chains. Seems like if you lift up on the right,
the top run of right chain goes slack, so the horizontal cable goes
slack, so the other chain goes slack. Maybe the chain falls off the
sprocket and jams?

Heh. If I wanted to be cagey, I'd respond to your question in #1 with
"how far?" In fact, it can be rolled backward for whatever distance one
desires. *IF* it just had the opposing freewheels, you could maybe back
it up a foot or so, depending on how the cranks/treadles/levers were
positioned.

But as I said, there's some amazing Rube Goldberg stuff inside the rear
hub. I have the strong suspicion that the first rough prototype lacked
the funky hub internals and that they are patches on the design.
Honestly, it's hard to believe what I found in there.

SAY, CAN ANYONE HELP ME - Since comcast quit hosting personal webpages,
I need another cheap/free way to post pictures to the web. Suggestions?
Then I can post pictures of the Alenax rear hub internals.

To your answer #2, yes, you got it right about the chain slack. It
seemed fairly jam-resistant (until I broke it) due to some pretty close
cog and pulley covers that act as defacto chain/cable retaining devices.

Mark J.

I use Flickr to host my images.

This design is rther interesting in some ways. I mean alot of people riding normal bicycles basically jut push down on one crankarm and then push down on the other crankarm and never really pedal in circles as we think of it. I wonder if this design of bike was created to cater to such bicyclists? Then again, it does look like it could be of use to someone with limited knee flexation.

Thanks for the flickr suggestion. Here are five pictures - one of the
hub internals (left side, other side's internals are a mirror image),
four of the "shifting mechanism" internals.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/187680...57713706613201

Again, for a fairly complete overview, see the youtube video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAlFpcph1LM (not mine!)

My recollection about the initial marketing was that it was "better"
than those silly rotary bicycles. I think you still see that in the
document Jay posted; it added some comments about the rehab population,
but I think that was retconning on Alenax's part, myself.

My impression riding it was that it was radically different than, say,
independently ratcheted rotary crank arms. Note also the effective
"gear" the bike is in changes over the course of the pedal stroke. The
sensory effect is bizarre, to say the least.

Mark J.

On Tuesday, 31 March 2020 21:29:07 UTC-4, Mark J. wrote:
On 3/31/2020 5:30 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 March 2020 20:01:42 UTC-4, Mark J. wrote:
On 3/31/2020 4:43 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/31/2020 5:28 PM, Mark J. wrote:
So

Two puzzlers for you; you may want to examine the bike closely in the
video first.

1) The puzzler above, i.e. If you *just* had two opposing freewheels
on the rear hub, (see the video above to clarify) what happens when
you roll the bike backward in the garage?

Can it even be pushed backward? I don't think it can, unless there's
something else in that hub. It seems the double ratchets would forbid
backward rotation.


2) What happens if you install toeclips and pull up on the pedals?

I see a horizontal cable and pulley system linking the left and right
bottom ends of the two chains. Seems like if you lift up on the right,
the top run of right chain goes slack, so the horizontal cable goes
slack, so the other chain goes slack. Maybe the chain falls off the
sprocket and jams?

Heh. If I wanted to be cagey, I'd respond to your question in #1 with
"how far?" In fact, it can be rolled backward for whatever distance one
desires. *IF* it just had the opposing freewheels, you could maybe back
it up a foot or so, depending on how the cranks/treadles/levers were
positioned.

But as I said, there's some amazing Rube Goldberg stuff inside the rear
hub. I have the strong suspicion that the first rough prototype lacked
the funky hub internals and that they are patches on the design.
Honestly, it's hard to believe what I found in there.

SAY, CAN ANYONE HELP ME - Since comcast quit hosting personal webpages,
I need another cheap/free way to post pictures to the web. Suggestions?
Then I can post pictures of the Alenax rear hub internals.

To your answer #2, yes, you got it right about the chain slack. It
seemed fairly jam-resistant (until I broke it) due to some pretty close
cog and pulley covers that act as defacto chain/cable retaining devices.

Mark J.

I use Flickr to host my images.

This design is rther interesting in some ways. I mean alot of people riding normal bicycles basically jut push down on one crankarm and then push down on the other crankarm and never really pedal in circles as we think of it. I wonder if this design of bike was created to cater to such bicyclists? Then again, it does look like it could be of use to someone with limited knee flexation.

Thanks for the flickr suggestion. Here are five pictures - one of the
hub internals (left side, other side's internals are a mirror image),
four of the "shifting mechanism" internals.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/187680...57713706613201

Again, for a fairly complete overview, see the youtube video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAlFpcph1LM (not mine!)

My recollection about the initial marketing was that it was "better"
than those silly rotary bicycles. I think you still see that in the
document Jay posted; it added some comments about the rehab population,
but I think that was retconning on Alenax's part, myself.

My impression riding it was that it was radically different than, say,
independently ratcheted rotary crank arms. Note also the effective
"gear" the bike is in changes over the course of the pedal stroke. The
sensory effect is bizarre, to say the least.

Mark J.

That's an interesting concept but it sure does make for a complicated mechanism. I wonder how robust it was with old-time metallurgy on those parts.

Cheers

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 9:29:07 PM UTC-4, Mark J. wrote:
On 3/31/2020 5:30 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 March 2020 20:01:42 UTC-4, Mark J. wrote:
On 3/31/2020 4:43 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/31/2020 5:28 PM, Mark J. wrote:
So

Two puzzlers for you; you may want to examine the bike closely in the
video first.

1) The puzzler above, i.e. If you *just* had two opposing freewheels
on the rear hub, (see the video above to clarify) what happens when
you roll the bike backward in the garage?

Can it even be pushed backward? I don't think it can, unless there's
something else in that hub. It seems the double ratchets would forbid
backward rotation.


2) What happens if you install toeclips and pull up on the pedals?

I see a horizontal cable and pulley system linking the left and right
bottom ends of the two chains. Seems like if you lift up on the right,
the top run of right chain goes slack, so the horizontal cable goes
slack, so the other chain goes slack. Maybe the chain falls off the
sprocket and jams?

Heh. If I wanted to be cagey, I'd respond to your question in #1 with
"how far?" In fact, it can be rolled backward for whatever distance one
desires. *IF* it just had the opposing freewheels, you could maybe back
it up a foot or so, depending on how the cranks/treadles/levers were
positioned.

But as I said, there's some amazing Rube Goldberg stuff inside the rear
hub. I have the strong suspicion that the first rough prototype lacked
the funky hub internals and that they are patches on the design.
Honestly, it's hard to believe what I found in there.

SAY, CAN ANYONE HELP ME - Since comcast quit hosting personal webpages,
I need another cheap/free way to post pictures to the web. Suggestions?
Then I can post pictures of the Alenax rear hub internals.

To your answer #2, yes, you got it right about the chain slack. It
seemed fairly jam-resistant (until I broke it) due to some pretty close
cog and pulley covers that act as defacto chain/cable retaining devices.

Mark J.

I use Flickr to host my images.

This design is rther interesting in some ways. I mean alot of people riding normal bicycles basically jut push down on one crankarm and then push down on the other crankarm and never really pedal in circles as we think of it. I wonder if this design of bike was created to cater to such bicyclists? Then again, it does look like it could be of use to someone with limited knee flexation.

Thanks for the flickr suggestion. Here are five pictures - one of the
hub internals (left side, other side's internals are a mirror image),
four of the "shifting mechanism" internals.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/187680...57713706613201

Again, for a fairly complete overview, see the youtube video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAlFpcph1LM (not mine!)

My recollection about the initial marketing was that it was "better"
than those silly rotary bicycles. I think you still see that in the
document Jay posted; it added some comments about the rehab population,
but I think that was retconning on Alenax's part, myself.

My impression riding it was that it was radically different than, say,
independently ratcheted rotary crank arms. Note also the effective
"gear" the bike is in changes over the course of the pedal stroke. The
sensory effect is bizarre, to say the least.

By the way, the American Star "high wheeler" of the 1880s had a vaguely similar
drive mechanism. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Star_Bicycle

and especially https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A...rain,_1884.jpg

- Frank Krygowski

On 3/31/2020 7:24 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 March 2020 21:29:07 UTC-4, Mark J. wrote:
On 3/31/2020 5:30 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 March 2020 20:01:42 UTC-4, Mark J. wrote:
On 3/31/2020 4:43 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/31/2020 5:28 PM, Mark J. wrote:
So

Two puzzlers for you; you may want to examine the bike closely in the
video first.

1) The puzzler above, i.e. If you *just* had two opposing freewheels
on the rear hub, (see the video above to clarify) what happens when
you roll the bike backward in the garage?

Can it even be pushed backward? I don't think it can, unless there's
something else in that hub. It seems the double ratchets would forbid
backward rotation.


2) What happens if you install toeclips and pull up on the pedals?

I see a horizontal cable and pulley system linking the left and right
bottom ends of the two chains. Seems like if you lift up on the right,
the top run of right chain goes slack, so the horizontal cable goes
slack, so the other chain goes slack. Maybe the chain falls off the
sprocket and jams?

Heh. If I wanted to be cagey, I'd respond to your question in #1 with
"how far?" In fact, it can be rolled backward for whatever distance one
desires. *IF* it just had the opposing freewheels, you could maybe back
it up a foot or so, depending on how the cranks/treadles/levers were
positioned.

But as I said, there's some amazing Rube Goldberg stuff inside the rear
hub. I have the strong suspicion that the first rough prototype lacked
the funky hub internals and that they are patches on the design.
Honestly, it's hard to believe what I found in there.

SAY, CAN ANYONE HELP ME - Since comcast quit hosting personal webpages,
I need another cheap/free way to post pictures to the web. Suggestions?
Then I can post pictures of the Alenax rear hub internals.

To your answer #2, yes, you got it right about the chain slack. It
seemed fairly jam-resistant (until I broke it) due to some pretty close
cog and pulley covers that act as defacto chain/cable retaining devices.

Mark J.

I use Flickr to host my images.

This design is rther interesting in some ways. I mean alot of people riding normal bicycles basically jut push down on one crankarm and then push down on the other crankarm and never really pedal in circles as we think of it. I wonder if this design of bike was created to cater to such bicyclists? Then again, it does look like it could be of use to someone with limited knee flexation.

Thanks for the flickr suggestion. Here are five pictures - one of the
hub internals (left side, other side's internals are a mirror image),
four of the "shifting mechanism" internals.



Again, for a fairly complete overview, see the youtube video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAlFpcph1LM (not mine!)

My recollection about the initial marketing was that it was "better"
than those silly rotary bicycles. I think you still see that in the
document Jay posted; it added some comments about the rehab population,
but I think that was retconning on Alenax's part, myself.

My impression riding it was that it was radically different than, say,
independently ratcheted rotary crank arms. Note also the effective
"gear" the bike is in changes over the course of the pedal stroke. The
sensory effect is bizarre, to say the least.

Mark J.

That's an interesting concept but it sure does make for a complicated mechanism. I wonder how robust it was with old-time metallurgy on those parts.

My impression (and only that, no measurements taken) of the Alenax
execution was that it was relatively (relatively!) high quality. The
design, not so much!

IIRC, the pivot pins on the shifting "rockers" were starting to wear
(see below). All the rest seemed unworn, though likely the bike had
seen low mileage.

But the hub and crank/lever arm construction seemed relatively precise,
with a nice finish. The chromed proprietary parts were nowhere near as
badly rusted as the non-proprietary parts on the bike (those were pretty
much crap). I assume this bears on the quality of the plating. The hub
cleaned/shined up nicely, and bearings adjusted easily.

The shifting mechanism was fairly precisely made, though the
(off-the-shelf, I assume) internal spring was rusted nearly solid. It
was not terribly hard to restore the shifting to, ummm, what I assume
was its initial state - which was fully functional but not terribly
pleasant to operate.

The part that failed during, ummm, testing is visible upper-right he

https://www.flickr.com/photos/187680...7713706613201/

or especially upper-right he

https://www.flickr.com/photos/187680...7713706613201/

Specifically, as best I can recreate the failure, the through-pin at the
far upper right in the second photo failed, and/or the drilled steel
arm/band/linkage came off the pin. The linkage and chain then wrapped
around the hub sprocket. The "I" or "H" shaped metal bit in the far
upper right of picture #2 disappeared into the bushes.

That I/H bit is what slides along the arms (see photo 1) to effect the
shifting. All the cable control does is tilt the hard metal "rockers"
mounted inside the arms so that the slider is free to move to the next
space between an adjacent pair of rockers. It's a "four speed", i.e.
there are four positions the slider operates in. When shifting, forces
on the chain in different arm positions pull the slider up or down the
arm. When not shifting, the "rockers" lock the slider in place. See
the video, I think you can hear the shifts, and see where up- or down-
shifts occur in the pedaling cycle.

Shifting, even when you ease up on the pedals, impacts the slider and
rockers pretty hard, which I suspect led to the failure - a design problem.

Mark J.

On 4/1/2020 8:40 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 9:29:07 PM UTC-4, Mark J. wrote:
On 3/31/2020 5:30 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 March 2020 20:01:42 UTC-4, Mark J. wrote:
On 3/31/2020 4:43 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/31/2020 5:28 PM, Mark J. wrote:
So

Two puzzlers for you; you may want to examine the bike closely in the
video first.

1) The puzzler above, i.e. If you *just* had two opposing freewheels
on the rear hub, (see the video above to clarify) what happens when
you roll the bike backward in the garage?

Can it even be pushed backward? I don't think it can, unless there's
something else in that hub. It seems the double ratchets would forbid
backward rotation.


2) What happens if you install toeclips and pull up on the pedals?

I see a horizontal cable and pulley system linking the left and right
bottom ends of the two chains. Seems like if you lift up on the right,
the top run of right chain goes slack, so the horizontal cable goes
slack, so the other chain goes slack. Maybe the chain falls off the
sprocket and jams?

Heh. If I wanted to be cagey, I'd respond to your question in #1 with
"how far?" In fact, it can be rolled backward for whatever distance one
desires. *IF* it just had the opposing freewheels, you could maybe back
it up a foot or so, depending on how the cranks/treadles/levers were
positioned.

But as I said, there's some amazing Rube Goldberg stuff inside the rear
hub. I have the strong suspicion that the first rough prototype lacked
the funky hub internals and that they are patches on the design.
Honestly, it's hard to believe what I found in there.

SAY, CAN ANYONE HELP ME - Since comcast quit hosting personal webpages,
I need another cheap/free way to post pictures to the web. Suggestions?
Then I can post pictures of the Alenax rear hub internals.

To your answer #2, yes, you got it right about the chain slack. It
seemed fairly jam-resistant (until I broke it) due to some pretty close
cog and pulley covers that act as defacto chain/cable retaining devices.

Mark J.

I use Flickr to host my images.

This design is rther interesting in some ways. I mean alot of people riding normal bicycles basically jut push down on one crankarm and then push down on the other crankarm and never really pedal in circles as we think of it. I wonder if this design of bike was created to cater to such bicyclists? Then again, it does look like it could be of use to someone with limited knee flexation.

Thanks for the flickr suggestion. Here are five pictures - one of the
hub internals (left side, other side's internals are a mirror image),
four of the "shifting mechanism" internals.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/187680...57713706613201

Again, for a fairly complete overview, see the youtube video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAlFpcph1LM (not mine!)

My recollection about the initial marketing was that it was "better"
than those silly rotary bicycles. I think you still see that in the
document Jay posted; it added some comments about the rehab population,
but I think that was retconning on Alenax's part, myself.

My impression riding it was that it was radically different than, say,
independently ratcheted rotary crank arms. Note also the effective
"gear" the bike is in changes over the course of the pedal stroke. The
sensory effect is bizarre, to say the least.

By the way, the American Star "high wheeler" of the 1880s had a vaguely similar
drive mechanism. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Star_Bicycle

and especially https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A...rain,_1884.jpg

- Frank Krygowski

There is indeed nothing new under the sun, I'd say the Star is more than
"vaguely" similar to the Alenax in its fundamental design. That it took
100 years before another "treadle" bicycle was widely produced says
something about its effectiveness.

I really need to get the thing operable again so I can review and more
precisely describe the sensation of riding it. All I really remember
now is "really weird" in sensation and "mostly awful" in its ergonomics.
Obviously I need more detail to back up that assessment.

Mark J.

On 4/1/2020 6:38 PM, Mark J. wrote:
On 3/31/2020 7:24 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 March 2020 21:29:07 UTC-4, Mark J.Â* wrote:
On 3/31/2020 5:30 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 March 2020 20:01:42 UTC-4, Mark J.Â* wrote:
On 3/31/2020 4:43 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/31/2020 5:28 PM, Mark J. wrote:
So

Two puzzlers for you; you may want to examine the bike closely in
the
video first.

1) The puzzler above, i.e. If you *just* had two opposing freewheels
on the rear hub, (see the video above to clarify) what happens when
you roll the bike backward in the garage?

Can it even be pushed backward? I don't think it can, unless there's
something else in that hub. It seems the double ratchets would forbid
backward rotation.


2) What happens if you install toeclips and pull up on the pedals?

I see a horizontal cable and pulley system linking the left and right
bottom ends of the two chains. Seems like if you lift up on the
right,
the top run of right chain goes slack, so the horizontal cable goes
slack, so the other chain goes slack. Maybe the chain falls off the
sprocket and jams?

Heh.Â* If I wanted to be cagey, I'd respond to your question in #1 with
"how far?"Â* In fact, it can be rolled backward for whatever
distance one
desires.Â* *IF* it just had the opposing freewheels, you could maybe
back
it up a foot or so, depending on how the cranks/treadles/levers were
positioned.

But as I said, there's some amazing Rube Goldberg stuff inside the
rear
hub.Â* I have the strong suspicion that the first rough prototype
lacked
the funky hub internals and that they are patches on the design.
Honestly, it's hard to believe what I found in there.

SAY, CAN ANYONE HELP ME - Since comcast quit hosting personal
webpages,
I need another cheap/free way to post pictures to the web.
Suggestions?
Then I can post pictures of the Alenax rear hub internals.

To your answer #2, yes, you got it right about the chain slack.Â* It
seemed fairly jam-resistant (until I broke it) due to some pretty
close
cog and pulley covers that act as defacto chain/cable retaining
devices.

Mark J.

I use Flickr to host my images.

This design is rther interesting in some ways. I mean alot of people
riding normal bicycles basically jut push down on one crankarm and
then push down on the other crankarm and never really pedal in
circles as we think of it. I wonder if this design of bike was
created to cater to such bicyclists? Then again, it does look like
it could be of use to someone with limited knee flexation.

Thanks for the flickr suggestion.Â* Here are five pictures - one of the
hub internals (left side, other side's internals are a mirror image),
four of the "shifting mechanism" internals.



Again, for a fairly complete overview, see the youtube video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAlFpcph1LMÂ* (not mine!)

My recollection about the initial marketing was that it was "better"
than those silly rotary bicycles.Â* I think you still see that in the
document Jay posted; it added some comments about the rehab population,
but I think that was retconning on Alenax's part, myself.

My impression riding it was that it was radically different than, say,
independently ratcheted rotary crank arms.Â* Note also the effective
"gear" the bike is in changes over the course of the pedal stroke.Â* The
sensory effect is bizarre, to say the least.

Mark J.

That's an interesting concept but it sure does make for a complicated
mechanism. I wonder how robust it was with old-time metallurgy on
those parts.

My impression (and only that, no measurements taken) of the Alenax
execution was that it was relatively (relatively!) high quality.Â* The
design, not so much!

IIRC, the pivot pins on the shifting "rockers" were starting to wear
(see below).Â* All the rest seemed unworn, though likely the bike had
seen low mileage.

But the hub and crank/lever arm construction seemed relatively precise,
with a nice finish.Â* The chromed proprietary parts were nowhere near as
badly rusted as the non-proprietary parts on the bike (those were pretty
much crap). I assume this bears on the quality of the plating. The hub
cleaned/shined up nicely, and bearings adjusted easily.

The shifting mechanism was fairly precisely made, though the
(off-the-shelf, I assume) internal spring was rusted nearly solid.Â* It
was not terribly hard to restore the shifting to, ummm, what I assume
was its initial state - which was fully functional but not terribly
pleasant to operate.

The part that failed during, ummm, testing is visible upper-right he

https://www.flickr.com/photos/187680...7713706613201/


or especially upper-right he

https://www.flickr.com/photos/187680...7713706613201/


Specifically, as best I can recreate the failure, the through-pin at the
far upper right in the second photo failed, and/or the drilled steel
arm/band/linkage came off the pin.Â* The linkage and chain then wrapped
around the hub sprocket.Â* The "I" or "H" shaped metal bit in the far
upper right of picture #2 disappeared into the bushes.

That I/H bit is what slides along the arms (see photo 1) to effect the
shifting.Â* All the cable control does is tilt the hard metal "rockers"
mounted inside the arms so that the slider is free to move to the next
space between an adjacent pair of rockers. It's a "four speed", i.e.
there are four positions the slider operates in.Â* When shifting, forces
on the chain in different arm positions pull the slider up or down the
arm.Â* When not shifting, the "rockers" lock the slider in place.Â* See
the video, I think you can hear the shifts, and see where up- or down-
shifts occur in the pedaling cycle.

Shifting, even when you ease up on the pedals, impacts the slider and
rockers pretty hard, which I suspect led to the failure - a design problem.

I didn't realize it was only a four speed! I assumed you had a near
infinite number of positions for the chain attachment along those
swinging arms.

To make a more general comment: While I'd never try to defend the
concept of this drive train, it does illustrate how difficult it is to
properly execute a really new design concept. Sure, in lots of cases
it's done all the time - say, industrial machinery within a plant - but
it gets much trickier for bikes.

Why? Because the applied forces are often not well known, the operator
behavior is hard to predict, ergonomics are tricky under the best of
circumstances, maintenance can be sketchy at best, the parts are subject
to a sometimes harsh environment, weight is considered important so
safety (or design) factors can't be huge, etc.

Heck, just think about the troubles that popped up with the various
"modern" bottom bracket designs. And that at least _looks_ like a
relatively simple design problem.

This is why most bike developments have been evolutionary, rather than
revolutionary for over 100 years.

And why there are retro-grouches!

--
- Frank Krygowski