#11
|
|||
|
|||
Dynohub drag
On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 10:34:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 10/8/2014 5:49 AM, sms wrote: On 10/8/2014 12:39 AM, Lou Holtman wrote: It was just to show people that the drag with the lights off is so low that you don't need the complexity of a disengagement mechanism. The reality is that you did show that at all. You showed the difference between spin down time with and without the light on. You did not show the drag from an unconnected engaged hub versus an unconnected disengaged hub versus a non-dynamo hub. That data is available; see below. Lou was just giving an easy-to-understand demonstration, to make obvious how little problem there is with the drag. Juden's article does the same in a quantitative way. It was still instructive. It was surprising how much more drag their was with the light on in your test. I would have expected far less difference in spin-down time. A 50% efficient hub that is generating 3W requires 6W of input. Someone riding a bicycle at 15 km/hour is expending about 60W of power (I recall 1/10 HP which would be about 75W, though this is a little less). So it's an extra 10% input power with the light on versus off. Not huge, but not insignificant. A test of the SP clutch hub showed the following: O:17 Hub-engaged light-on 0:33 Hub-engaged light-off 2:53 Hub-disengaged https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji1wCW35Y0o But of course all these tests, yours and the one of the SP hub, are pretty meaningless. Spinning a wheel with your hand is not representative of actual riding. Also, there are other reasons for a disengageable hub besides less drag. Hmm... perhaps another reason is to increase complexity? There is detailed, yet easy to understand, data on the drag of these and other hub dynamos at http://www.ctc.org.uk/file/public/fe...ub-dynamos.pdf The first graph in that article shows slightly more drag for the SP than for the SON, although the difference is only about 0.4W at 30 kph. SP's own graphs at http://www.sp-dynamo.com/8seriesdynamo%20hub.html show differences of about the same magnitude, but in the opposite direction. Perhaps they were comparing with a different model of SON hub? In any case, a fraction of a Watt is hardly important. Juden's article makes that very clear, by converting drag to equivalent feet-per-mile inclines. I own neither of those hubs, so I don't particularly care. Seems to me the criteria for choosing between the two might be lower cost for the SP, vs. perhaps greater reliability for the SON (based on greater simplicity and SON's unique sealing technology). Any hub dyno with have slightly more drag with the light off, and a whole lot less drag with the light on when compared to useing a "bottle" dyno friction driven off the tire - which WAS the normal way of powering headlights a few decades ago if you didn't want to use batteries.(and rechargeables were not a viable option back then) |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Dynohub drag
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Dynohub drag
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Dynohub drag
On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 13:04:31 -0700, sms
wrote: On 10/8/2014 12:19 PM, wrote: Any hub dyno with have slightly more drag with the light off, and a whole lot less drag with the light on when compared to useing a "bottle" dyno friction driven off the tire - which WAS the normal way of powering headlights a few decades ago if you didn't want to use batteries.(and rechargeables were not a viable option back then) Actually there were several rechargeable systems back then. http://www.bikeforums.net/electronics-lighting-gadgets/837931-archives-defunct-bicycle-lighting-company.html was the most famous one. I was talking FOUR decades ago. The first rechargeable flashlight was only introduced in 1968, so rechargeable batteries were far from common in the mid to late sixties. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Dynohub drag
On 10/8/2014 2:16 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 13:04:31 -0700, sms wrote: On 10/8/2014 12:19 PM, wrote: Any hub dyno with have slightly more drag with the light off, and a whole lot less drag with the light on when compared to useing a "bottle" dyno friction driven off the tire - which WAS the normal way of powering headlights a few decades ago if you didn't want to use batteries.(and rechargeables were not a viable option back then) Actually there were several rechargeable systems back then. http://www.bikeforums.net/electronics-lighting-gadgets/837931-archives-defunct-bicycle-lighting-company.html was the most famous one. I was talking FOUR decades ago. The first rechargeable flashlight was only introduced in 1968, so rechargeable batteries were far from common in the mid to late sixties. Sorry, you said "a few decades ago." I took "a few" to mean three. 1984-2014 is a few decades. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Dynohub drag
On 09/10/14 08:10, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
I remember getting a Sanyo roller dynamo and light kit back in the 1980s. That light had the strangest pattern I ever saw and was useless. It was a very long 'T' with a very narrow beam to a narrow cross piece at tthe top of tthat 'T'. The cross beam at the head of the 'T' wasn't long enough to see much. Pity because the drag from the dynamo was very low and engagement against the tire was far superior to that of the sidewall bottle dynamo by Union that I'd tried before. That's what got me to move to battery lights. I used the Union dynamo supplied headlight but with either a Halogen or Krypton bulb and powered with a 6 volts battery. Same. The Sanyo headlight beam shape was ****. Probably enough to be seen, but not enough to see the road well at all. -- JS |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Dynohub drag
On 08/10/2014 22:16, wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 13:04:31 -0700, sms wrote: On 10/8/2014 12:19 PM, wrote: Any hub dyno with have slightly more drag with the light off, and a whole lot less drag with the light on when compared to useing a "bottle" dyno friction driven off the tire - which WAS the normal way of powering headlights a few decades ago if you didn't want to use batteries.(and rechargeables were not a viable option back then) Actually there were several rechargeable systems back then. http://www.bikeforums.net/electronics-lighting-gadgets/837931-archives-defunct-bicycle-lighting-company.html was the most famous one. I was talking FOUR decades ago. The first rechargeable flashlight was only introduced in 1968, so rechargeable batteries were far from common in the mid to late sixties. What did cars use? :-) Miners and hence cavers used NiFe cells or lead acids. I agree that later on NiCds started taking over, but that was late 80s. Of course now people have a helmet mounted LED and battery which is almost smaller than the lamp alone, let alone the lumping great battery pack one had strapped to one's waist. More light, for longer. And potentially insanely expensive... |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Dynohub drag
On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 17:16:59 -0400, wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 13:04:31 -0700, sms wrote: On 10/8/2014 12:19 PM, wrote: Any hub dyno with have slightly more drag with the light off, and a whole lot less drag with the light on when compared to useing a "bottle" dyno friction driven off the tire - which WAS the normal way of powering headlights a few decades ago if you didn't want to use batteries.(and rechargeables were not a viable option back then) Actually there were several rechargeable systems back then. http://www.bikeforums.net/electronics-lighting-gadgets/837931-archives-defunct-bicycle-lighting-company.html was the most famous one. I was talking FOUR decades ago. The first rechargeable flashlight was only introduced in 1968, so rechargeable batteries were far from common in the mid to late sixties. OK, Ever ready mase their first Ni-Cad rechargeable battery in 1968 - so they WERE available - but they were WAY above my "snack bracket" at the time. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Dynohub drag
On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 14:48:44 -0700, sms
wrote: On 10/8/2014 2:16 PM, wrote: On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 13:04:31 -0700, sms wrote: On 10/8/2014 12:19 PM, wrote: Any hub dyno with have slightly more drag with the light off, and a whole lot less drag with the light on when compared to useing a "bottle" dyno friction driven off the tire - which WAS the normal way of powering headlights a few decades ago if you didn't want to use batteries.(and rechargeables were not a viable option back then) Actually there were several rechargeable systems back then. http://www.bikeforums.net/electronics-lighting-gadgets/837931-archives-defunct-bicycle-lighting-company.html was the most famous one. I was talking FOUR decades ago. The first rechargeable flashlight was only introduced in 1968, so rechargeable batteries were far from common in the mid to late sixties. Sorry, you said "a few decades ago." I took "a few" to mean three. 1984-2014 is a few decades. Time has a way of getting away on us, for sure. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
dynohub repack? | Nate Nagel[_2_] | Techniques | 22 | October 20th 09 10:39 PM |
Sturmey Dynohub: Instructions? | (PeteCresswell) | Techniques | 0 | February 22nd 08 07:40 PM |
Shimano dynohub | Paul Boyd | UK | 25 | January 13th 06 12:25 PM |
SA GH6 dynohub axle replacement | gregory | Techniques | 4 | August 28th 05 10:46 PM |
Dynohub + LED | lance house | Techniques | 58 | September 12th 04 01:40 PM |