"Liquid Drive" bike prototype at auction

Rick Onanian wrote:

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:35:44 -0600, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Rick Onanian wrote:
... How about a bike shaped like a cow? That would be cool....

See http://www.chicagotraveler.com/cows/235.jpg

That's a trike. Close enough...where can I get one?

Tom Sherman - Planet Earth
--
Rick "Moooooooo" Onanian

Unfortunately, all the cows were sold four years ago.
http://www.chicagotraveler.com/cows_on_parade.htm

Tom Sherman - Planet Earth

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 00:20:11 -0500, Marcus Coles
wrote:
Disclaimer: Don't try it! The "FWD powerslide", as I call it, is
extremely dangerous and requires a commitment to keeping full
throttle through the whole curve. As soon as you let go of the

In my experience in all surface conditions, front wheel drive vehicles
will tend to push wider and wider as they are turned under power.
As this happens one must apply more steering which will turn around and
bite you if you back off and the weight transfers forward the wheels no
longer have to transfer power and round you go. At least this is my
take on the phenomena.

That was exactly my point, regarding both how it's done and why not
to do it. FWD cars do indeed push wider, so you steer more _and_
throttle more, and that's a FWD powerslide.

This effect can be quite nasty I have a couple of 100+ mph dry pavement
spins under my belt and a 60mph roll over, sometimes the unexpected will
make one turn down the wick too quickly no braking required.

Yup, in either type of powerslide, if you break the commitment, you
break your neck.

Stupid driving tricks should be avoided on public roads and always well
away from bicyclists.

Absolutely.

My off road bicycle experience is limited but I find on really steep
loose surfaces it becomes a balancing act trying to keep the front end
planted on the hill without the rear loosing traction, I can see under
these circumstances a benefit to having the front wheel driven although
I wonder if this benefit is out weighed by have to drag around the
mechanism the rest of the time.

Maybe, but it might be better than being tired and out of breath
from hiking the bike up the hill.

Marcus
--
Rick Onanian

Tim McNamara wrote in message ...
(Carl Fogel) writes:

I hope that you enjoy my naive questions as much as I enjoy your
answers. Honest to God, they're racing fixed gear tandems around
tracks? I love it.

I have a vision of two tandems warily jockeying for position on a
banked wooden oval, doing semi-trackstands and eyeing each other
like gunfighters in a bad Western.

I suppose that it's not like this really, but please don't spoil my
fantasy.

No, that's actually about the size of it. Tandem sprinting is a sight
to behold, with a couple of 200+ lbs sprinters on board trying to rip
the thing into pieces. Think of it as a quarter-ton of rolling fun.
At the velodrome here in Blaine MN, when the Olympic trials were held
here, tandem sprinting was one of the events. Marty Nothstein and
Erin Hartwell won; there was a horrible accident in the final when
Bart Bell (IIRC) and his stoker crashed, veering off the track into
the infield. The fork collapsed and they hit the infield hard. Bell
suffered head injuries- I have not heard how his recuperation went.
Does anyone know?

You might enjoy the book No Brakes! about track racing.

Try a Google search for "tandem track sprinting" and see what turns
up.

Dear Tim and Dave,

Loved the picture. Will look into the book.
These people look like serious loons, which
is always interesting.

Thanks,

Carl Fogel

In rec.bicycles.misc Carl Fogel wrote:

: Is the length of the chain-run a problem? That is,
: are longer chains less efficient, harder to shift,
: more prone to wear?

Triple the cost and weight of the chain...

Many recumbents use an idler wheel or two to manage the peculiar
chain routing. I would think this eats some efficiency, maybe a
percent or two? Then again some efficiency might be regained since
the chainline from chainring to cog is relatively straight.

All in all I'd consider it a minor issue in upright-to-recumebent
comparisons.

--
Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/hpv/hpv.html
varis at no spam please iki fi

"Dave Kahn" wrote in message
... Tandem sprinting is
spectacular. See
www2.ijs.si/~mleskovar/tandem1_2.jpg

I certainly feel sorry for the stoker on the Japanese team in this photo.
Shouldn't he have a little more ... headroom?

Carl Fogel wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote in message
...
Rick Onanian wrote:

... How about a bike shaped like a cow? That would be cool....

See http://www.chicagotraveler.com/cows/235.jpg]http://www.chicagotr-
aveler.com/cows/235.jpg[/url]

Tom Sherman - Planet Earth
Dear Tom,
Thank you for a wonderful picture. My only regret is that it looks as if
the handlebars are not the horns.
Moo!
Carl Fogel



That liquid propulsion would make it easier to mate awd with front wheel
STEER-no BULL.

Seems the "bikers" had both horns and handlebars in Blazing Saddles.



--

Tom Sherman wrote:
Carl Fogel wrote:

Ryan Cousineau wrote in message
...

[massive snip]

That's just the trick. Chain is so good, it defeats all other
options. You use belts or enclosures if the filth bothers you, but
that's it. Maybe some recumbents would benefit from a long, stiff
shaft drive, given their ludicrous chain issues.

Dear Ryan,

I love ludicrous issues.

I occasionally see recumbents wobbling along on my local bicycle path,
but have never inspected a dead one's anatomy--possibly there is a
secret recumbent graveyard.
Recumbent owners keep their bikes forever.
There are no low quality/low price recumbents (equivalent to discount
store bikes) and the majority of commercially produced recumbents were
made in the last 10 years. Therefore, unlike upright bicycles, one is
unlikely to find recumbents in dumpsters, along the curb, at police
auctions of abandoned bikes, etc.
Is the length of the chain-run a problem? That is, are longer chains
less efficient, harder to shift, more prone to wear?
Chain wear mainly occurs when the tension (power) side of the chain is
bent around the drive cog(s). Since recumbent chains are generally much
longer, they typically last much longer (assuming similar conditions of
use). I suspect that the cost per unit distance for recumbent chains
does not differ significantly from upright chains.
Shifting quality on a recumbent depends primarily on the quality of
derailleurs, shifters, cassettes and chainrings used. An advantage of
RWD recumbents is that the chain angle is lessened when the driven cog
does not line up with the driving chainring. One can get away with using
cross-gears much more so than on an upright. On the downside, recumbent
shifter cable runs are typically longer and more convoluted than those
of uprights are, and this can impact shifting in a negative manner.
Small drivewheel bicycles that use larger than normal chainrings
generally have poorer shifting quality - this is true of both recumbents
and small wheel uprights. I had 73/52 chainrings on a bike I used to own
[1] and front shifting was not the best. This is compounded by the lack
of large chainrings with ramps and pins. My current bike uses a
clever step-up jackshaft to avoid this problem and has excellent
from shifting.
[2]
Or is it the peculiar arrangements rather than the mere length?
For reasons of aerodynamics (reduced frontal area) and power production
(angle formed by the seatback, seat base and BB) unfaired performance
recumbents have the BB located higher than the seat. A direct chain run
from the BB to the rear sprocket(s) would pass through the rider.
Therefore, some combination of mid-drive, jackshaft, chain idlers, chain
tensioners and chain tubes is required for chain routing.
Any concrete answers or even wild speculation will be appreciated,
since I'd hate to shoot such rare creatures just to dissect their
chain anatomies. I can recall only a single tandem sighting in fifteen
years and fear that they may be extinct in these parts.

J.J. Audubon
[3 http://www.ihpva.org/incoming/2001/wbone2.jpg"]]http://www.ihpva.or-
g/incoming/2001/wbone2.jpg[/url] [4 http://www.ihpva.org/incoming/2002-
/sunset/Sunset001.jpg"]]http://www.ihpva.org/incoming/2002/sunset/Suns-
et001.jpg[/url]
Tom Sherman - Planet Earth



Supplmenting Tom's answer to Carl:

I'm assuming the Sunset is Tom's compound jackshaft drive that he wrote
of and the Wishbone is his older bent with big chainrings/chainring
gaps. Tom's compound drive solution to a chainring/ratio problem is less
of a penalty with recumbents than uprights since he probably otherwise
saved a friction loosing idler/pulley/tensioner in the routing process
as seen in his Wishbone pic. Note the extra routing idlers are on the
low tension portion of the Sunset chain, so friction loss is milder than
if the idlers were on the tense side of the chain. Rotator and
Cannondale are among several makers that have adapted similar compound
drive implementations, though Rotators avails themselves of the
opportunity for an extra derailleur.

My Vision R-32 (a medium wheel recumbent) is pretty bare compared to
other recumbents in having only a single idler-tensionner addition over
an upright, although I pay for less friction relative most other bents
with more thrown chains on rough surfaces.

The lowracers have more significant routing problems than other
recumbents with their more aerodynamic position.

There is a competing fwd/rwd philosophy in recumbent racing.

Fwd saves chain weight and frictional losses associated with the
complicated routing of a lowracer. With the traditional fixed boom fwd
frictional losses are only mildly better than rwd because a compound
drive is needed to stepup the small front drive wheel and steering
radius is still limited before the chain hits the front wheel. The
chains twist when the wheel is turned is introducing more friction in
turns and increased likelihood of thrown chains.

An example includes the Barcroft Oregon http://www.barcroftcycles.com/
There was a very thorough review thread last week on Bentrideronline of
the Barcroft Oregon fwd lowracer.

Swinging BB booms greatly simplify chain routing but make steering more
sluggish and if not precisely implemented-hard to balance-front
suspension implementation becomes really nasty. Here's a nice example:
http://traylorfwd.home.mindspring.com/carbon_fiber.html

A third approach has been used with for Stites chamelon (a commuting
rather than race trike) and a couple of others of a fixed boom with
U-joint interfacing a first chain drive on the boom with the second
chain drive going to the front wheel. Avoids the chain twist problems,
adds more loss in a turn-but you really aren't turning that much.
http://www.stitesdesign.com/wrap_hpv.html

A few people have tried fwd-rear steering to avoid the chain routing vs.
twisting issue but stability problems thus far make it impractical for
bikes, but trikes have done better.

All told, hydraulic drive efficiency losses appears too much to merit
its replacement for chain drive in recumbents to overcome the chain
routing losses of the recumbent typical of recumbents.

BTW, for a tandem racing alternative to fixed gear track bikes: both
Cook (of Barcroft) and Traylorfwd are also pioneers in both front wheel
drive lowracers and awd racing recumbent tandems. See the Barcroft
California on the same page and
http://traylorfwd.home.mindspring.co...k_article.html



--

Carl Fogel wrote:

Ryan Cousineau wrote in message ...

[massive snip]

That's just the trick. Chain is so good, it defeats all other options.
You use belts or enclosures if the filth bothers you, but that's it.
Maybe some recumbents would benefit from a long, stiff shaft drive,
given their ludicrous chain issues.


Dear Ryan,

I love ludicrous issues.

I occasionally see recumbents wobbling along on
my local bicycle path, but have never inspected
a dead one's anatomy--possibly there is a secret
recumbent graveyard.

Is the length of the chain-run a problem? That is,
are longer chains less efficient, harder to shift,
more prone to wear?

Or is it the peculiar arrangements rather than the
mere length?

Are recumbent chain problems worse than tandem chain
problems?

Any concrete answers or even wild speculation will
be appreciated, since I'd hate to shoot such rare
creatures just to dissect their chain anatomies.
I can recall only a single tandem sighting in fifteen
years and fear that they may be extinct in these parts.

J.J. Audubon

Go for a ride in or outside Victoria BC on a beautiful day. You will
see tandems flying past in their miriad colours, in harmony with the
"single" bikes of greater number.
Bring your binoculars, and your bicycle watching experience will be
enhanced. - there are birds too, if you like watching them as well.
Bernie

Tom Sherman wrote in message ...
Carl Fogel wrote:

Ryan Cousineau wrote in message ...

[massive snip]

That's just the trick. Chain is so good, it defeats all other options.
You use belts or enclosures if the filth bothers you, but that's it.
Maybe some recumbents would benefit from a long, stiff shaft drive,
given their ludicrous chain issues.

Dear Ryan,

I love ludicrous issues.

I occasionally see recumbents wobbling along on
my local bicycle path, but have never inspected
a dead one's anatomy--possibly there is a secret
recumbent graveyard.

Recumbent owners keep their bikes forever.

There are no low quality/low price recumbents (equivalent to discount
store bikes) and the majority of commercially produced recumbents were
made in the last 10 years. Therefore, unlike upright bicycles, one is
unlikely to find recumbents in dumpsters, along the curb, at police
auctions of abandoned bikes, etc.

Is the length of the chain-run a problem? That is,
are longer chains less efficient, harder to shift,
more prone to wear?

Chain wear mainly occurs when the tension (power) side of the chain is
bent around the drive cog(s). Since recumbent chains are generally much
longer, they typically last much longer (assuming similar conditions of
use). I suspect that the cost per unit distance for recumbent chains
does not differ significantly from upright chains.

Shifting quality on a recumbent depends primarily on the quality of
derailleurs, shifters, cassettes and chainrings used. An advantage of
RWD recumbents is that the chain angle is lessened when the driven cog
does not line up with the driving chainring. One can get away with using
cross-gears much more so than on an upright. On the downside, recumbent
shifter cable runs are typically longer and more convoluted than those
of uprights are, and this can impact shifting in a negative manner.

Small drivewheel bicycles that use larger than normal chainrings
generally have poorer shifting quality - this is true of both recumbents
and small wheel uprights. I had 73/52 chainrings on a bike I used to own
[1] and front shifting was not the best. This is compounded by the lack
of large chainrings with ramps and pins. My current bike uses a clever
step-up jackshaft to avoid this problem and has excellent from shifting.
[2]

Or is it the peculiar arrangements rather than the
mere length?

For reasons of aerodynamics (reduced frontal area) and power production
(angle formed by the seatback, seat base and BB) unfaired performance
recumbents have the BB located higher than the seat. A direct chain run
from the BB to the rear sprocket(s) would pass through the rider.
Therefore, some combination of mid-drive, jackshaft, chain idlers, chain
tensioners and chain tubes is required for chain routing.

Any concrete answers or even wild speculation will
be appreciated, since I'd hate to shoot such rare
creatures just to dissect their chain anatomies.
I can recall only a single tandem sighting in fifteen
years and fear that they may be extinct in these parts.

J.J. Audubon

[1] http://www.ihpva.org/incoming/2001/wbone2.jpg
[2] http://www.ihpva.org/incoming/2002/sunset/Sunset001.jpg

Tom Sherman - Planet Earth

Dear Tom,

You know how to pander to my chain fantasies.
It's so much easier to ask than to think. I'd
never thought about how a longer chain should
last longer and cross-chain with less angle
between the front and rear sprockets.

Your two pictures delight me, though perhaps
not in the way that you intended. I feel like
someone who's never seen anything but labradors
stumbling over his first basset hound. Those
(no offense intended) are some weird-looking
bikes.

The recumbents that I see in my little backwater
in Pueblo, Colorado, must be the equivalent of
the inexpensive mountain bikes sold at WalMart.
The riders sit higher, their feet are lower, the
wheels are larger, and the chain runs seem much
more straightforward than that Rube Goldberg
contraption in your second--I mean your beloved
current bike, the one in your second picture.

If you'll pardon a somewhat personal question,
do the chains on the more complicated bike give
any trouble in terms of staying on? That is, do
you need some recumbent-specific chain-watchers
to tame the unruly beasts beyond the guide-wheels?

Thanks for a marvelous answer,

Carl Fogel

Carl Fogel wrote:
...
The recumbents that I see in my little backwater
in Pueblo, Colorado, must be the equivalent of
the inexpensive mountain bikes sold at WalMart.
The riders sit higher, their feet are lower, the
wheels are larger, and the chain runs seem much
more straightforward than that Rube Goldberg
contraption in your second--I mean your beloved
current bike, the one in your second picture.

This bike fits your verbal description.
http://www.easyracers.com/gold_rush.htm
It is one of the classic recumbent designs, but is hardly "x-Mart" in
quality or price (you can get a rather nice road bike for $3000 US).

Both my former and current bike are rare and unusual by even recumbent
standards - however they provide a good illustration of chain management
issues.

If you'll pardon a somewhat personal question,
do the chains on the more complicated bike give
any trouble in terms of staying on? That is, do
you need some recumbent-specific chain-watchers
to tame the unruly beasts beyond the guide-wheels?

The Wishbone (nickel-plated bike) had the worse chain management, as the
chain would fall off the idlers at a distressing frequency. This could
have been cured by a different idler design that included a "chain dog"
which is a pin or plate that forces the chain to stay in the idler
groove. Most regular production recumbents have these (this bike was
more of a prototype).

On the Sunset (red bike) the chain(s) can fall off the jackshaft cogs
http://www.ihpva.org/incoming/2002/sunset/Sunset005.jpg although that
is a rare occurrence. This is the one weak point in the bike's design as
far as I am concerned, and something I plan to have corrected at some
point.

Thanks for a marvelous answer,

You are welcome.

Tom Sherman - Planet Earth