Next week I should have a packet with some of the items i need to be able to build a mockup of a streamliners basic lines. It would tell a huge amount of information about the whole project, it's measures, my pedaling position and I really get the first feeling of the vehicle. Up to now, everything has been pretty much just an image of the concept, but soon that all will be put into some form. So the next few weeks are really, really interesting.
Until then I'v put my effort into training, this weekend was exceptionally hard. We had a coach from Denmark to put our physical abilities under a test. 16 hours of training, theory, all technical stuff and finally a brutal strenght torture..
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Friday, November 20, 2009
Low steering..
Front suspension, well I'v seen them a lot, but not like this. This is a idea that came from center pivot suspension. But instead of using center pivot hub I made one idea of using regular hub and using linear arms to replace the regular fork. This setup would be more sturdy, but because of many joints and bearings, definately will be more heavy, but what ever we wish to accomplish, ther's an idea behind it.
Few words about the design, hub is joined into arms by 4 bearings, and the arms are joined into control arms by aother set of bearings, control arm is joined into frame by bearings. The result is that when the arms are moved back, the other one moves forward, hub turns into desired direction and there we have a steering. I could say this is a low side steering or arm-steering.
Offcourse when upside fork is removed, we loose the upper frame where we can attach the transmission, but instead of putting it into above the wheel, in this idea the transmission is below the wheel, actually on side of the wheel.
Actually Im not sure is this any where good way to build a steering, but one advantage is that it is slim, very low in construction, but probably the heavy side because of the bearings and arms, at least its more heavy than regular upright fork.
Model is very simple, just to test the idea and see what is there to go wrong, and without testing, hard to say anything more about it.
Few words about the design, hub is joined into arms by 4 bearings, and the arms are joined into control arms by aother set of bearings, control arm is joined into frame by bearings. The result is that when the arms are moved back, the other one moves forward, hub turns into desired direction and there we have a steering. I could say this is a low side steering or arm-steering.
Offcourse when upside fork is removed, we loose the upper frame where we can attach the transmission, but instead of putting it into above the wheel, in this idea the transmission is below the wheel, actually on side of the wheel.
Actually Im not sure is this any where good way to build a steering, but one advantage is that it is slim, very low in construction, but probably the heavy side because of the bearings and arms, at least its more heavy than regular upright fork.
Model is very simple, just to test the idea and see what is there to go wrong, and without testing, hard to say anything more about it.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Adjustable cranks
Carbon cranks with adjustment from 150mm up to 180mm. Q factor is 135mm, but easily adjusted by lenght of the spindle. BB is with no threads, and oversized for strenght. Spindle is hollow titanium tube. Spider is integrated. Chainring is with 130mm spacing. Weigh is 1000g including spindle, cranks and chainring, but it's still a solid object so weigh should come down when putting this together in real.
Why?, The reason is obvious, components with decent qualities aren't available, qualities such as lenght, weight, Q-factor, BB's etc. are not packed in one killer-product package, you should have 3-4 cranks, and combine those into one. Thats what is done in here. Adjustable lenght, sturdy BB, simple design, custom narrow, aero.
The cause is the world of standards where bikeworld stands, this is my little tiny snap into it's anxiousness to keep oldish axioms no matter how bad they are in modern standards point of view. Good example is the BB. The thread size and the shell radius is from the age when Adam met Eve. The shell and it's components were good for the use at that time, but today where DH, sick jumps and rude bashing is the use where bikes and it's components are put, shell is ridicilously underbuilt as is the bearings. Even that ISIS is great as a crank attachement, it lacks in BB, bearing balls are smaller than a head of the needle..
ISIS-Overdrive would be a perfect combination of strenght and easyness, sealed concept in a modern size.. but it lacks the support from the market, there are no bikes out there to use the standard, thatway ISIS-OD BB's are not widely available, if not at all. Dynamic bike world, where the wheel is allmost reinvented every year, some things never change.
I ran an FEA analysis to this part, material was 6061 aluminium.
Why?, The reason is obvious, components with decent qualities aren't available, qualities such as lenght, weight, Q-factor, BB's etc. are not packed in one killer-product package, you should have 3-4 cranks, and combine those into one. Thats what is done in here. Adjustable lenght, sturdy BB, simple design, custom narrow, aero.
The cause is the world of standards where bikeworld stands, this is my little tiny snap into it's anxiousness to keep oldish axioms no matter how bad they are in modern standards point of view. Good example is the BB. The thread size and the shell radius is from the age when Adam met Eve. The shell and it's components were good for the use at that time, but today where DH, sick jumps and rude bashing is the use where bikes and it's components are put, shell is ridicilously underbuilt as is the bearings. Even that ISIS is great as a crank attachement, it lacks in BB, bearing balls are smaller than a head of the needle..
ISIS-Overdrive would be a perfect combination of strenght and easyness, sealed concept in a modern size.. but it lacks the support from the market, there are no bikes out there to use the standard, thatway ISIS-OD BB's are not widely available, if not at all. Dynamic bike world, where the wheel is allmost reinvented every year, some things never change.
I ran an FEA analysis to this part, material was 6061 aluminium.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Week off
So, to be short this time, being sick all week, really did't have too much effort to put into the project. But I managed to order my first components, also had some conversation about one another project I should go thru, so lots of stuff going on in here. And also made a really unique front wheel drive/steering system which might appear into these pages after i finish the idea in some level.
Next thing is to build a mockup with the components I'm having and also make some more designs.
-LRPilot
Next thing is to build a mockup with the components I'm having and also make some more designs.
-LRPilot
Sunday, October 25, 2009
24" front disc wheel
Since I have long legs (95cm inseam) I'd like to go with bigger front wheel too, front wheel is normally 20", but since my physical size accepts bigger wheels, I'd rather go with better rolling wheels than leave that advantage unused.
Many tests have shown and also practise, that the most aerodynamic wheel is a disc. On upright bike TT races, tens of seconds can be won with discs, and comparing the other things you CAN do to decrease your air resistance, is the helmet, frame, suit, shoes etc, minor things. But since we are not making upright bike here, helmet and suit is irrelevant issue.
No question wheel aerodynamics is important issue, so lets buy an aero disc ...ok..what are we talking about? Let's first see the requirements we have. Let's assume that the regular 8-10 cassette is too wide and you keep banging your leg into it causing driving to be impossible, whats our next step? narrow the hub and make it single speed. How about disc brakes you want to use? no problem.. ok..we might find something to cover our requirements so far, but when we add one thing, 24" size, we have no options left. Even that world seems to be full of bike components and all the variations you might think of, thats hardly so. Bike world stands on standards and compatibility. Also the usage limits the manufacturing, why build something what is not needed? But when we are buiding radical vehicle for radical usage, should we stick with the standard products?, in some items we should, but when there is not what we need? Thats why, lets create unique designs to perfectly suit to our purpose. Here is my few hours of work, and here are the specs so far:
Disc:
Size: 24"
Tyre: tubular 24" x 1"
construction: Carbon on honeycomb
hub:
construction: aluminium, thread-on freewheel, double-flange design, 6 bolt IS mount
bearings: double SKF 6000
freewheel: White Industries ENO, 1.37 x 24 tpi
weight: 260g inc bearings, (exc. axel & freewheel)
width: 60mm (exc. freewheel)
axle: 10mm
Offcourse this would mean that the gearing must be elsewhere, but it's to be seen later..
Also put some colourfull graphics to tease the imagination, text is just what came to my mind at first..
Many tests have shown and also practise, that the most aerodynamic wheel is a disc. On upright bike TT races, tens of seconds can be won with discs, and comparing the other things you CAN do to decrease your air resistance, is the helmet, frame, suit, shoes etc, minor things. But since we are not making upright bike here, helmet and suit is irrelevant issue.
No question wheel aerodynamics is important issue, so lets buy an aero disc ...ok..what are we talking about? Let's first see the requirements we have. Let's assume that the regular 8-10 cassette is too wide and you keep banging your leg into it causing driving to be impossible, whats our next step? narrow the hub and make it single speed. How about disc brakes you want to use? no problem.. ok..we might find something to cover our requirements so far, but when we add one thing, 24" size, we have no options left. Even that world seems to be full of bike components and all the variations you might think of, thats hardly so. Bike world stands on standards and compatibility. Also the usage limits the manufacturing, why build something what is not needed? But when we are buiding radical vehicle for radical usage, should we stick with the standard products?, in some items we should, but when there is not what we need? Thats why, lets create unique designs to perfectly suit to our purpose. Here is my few hours of work, and here are the specs so far:
Disc:
Size: 24"
Tyre: tubular 24" x 1"
construction: Carbon on honeycomb
hub:
construction: aluminium, thread-on freewheel, double-flange design, 6 bolt IS mount
bearings: double SKF 6000
freewheel: White Industries ENO, 1.37 x 24 tpi
weight: 260g inc bearings, (exc. axel & freewheel)
width: 60mm (exc. freewheel)
axle: 10mm
Offcourse this would mean that the gearing must be elsewhere, but it's to be seen later..
Also put some colourfull graphics to tease the imagination, text is just what came to my mind at first..
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
moving into 3D
Exiting moment, shape actually got it's depth in 3D, and you can turn it around and actually see it in real, if you have a good imagination...
Lots of stuff can be seen in this early 3d-model. Pedal box in 3d, wow! I can guarantee that it's tight allright..
Also the overall shape from every direction can be seen. Back section actually was pretty difficult to adjust, shoulder width and very quick shape transformation into very thin tale made the mid-section wider because of the smooth curves I tried to achieve along the lenght, pretty much unexpected situation, but it gave more room for legs to move and the airflow is better now than in my model I made without the aid of 3D. So I think 3D saved a lot in here..
Wireframe-model, not telling much about the design as a picture.. but its there, hiding somewhere inside the messy chaos..
Lots of stuff can be seen in this early 3d-model. Pedal box in 3d, wow! I can guarantee that it's tight allright..
Also the overall shape from every direction can be seen. Back section actually was pretty difficult to adjust, shoulder width and very quick shape transformation into very thin tale made the mid-section wider because of the smooth curves I tried to achieve along the lenght, pretty much unexpected situation, but it gave more room for legs to move and the airflow is better now than in my model I made without the aid of 3D. So I think 3D saved a lot in here..
Wireframe-model, not telling much about the design as a picture.. but its there, hiding somewhere inside the messy chaos..
Sunday, October 18, 2009
"LS"-project, what's that?
Perhaps many of us would think that this all is just putting ready made pieces together and building, but that's just the top of the project. In order to make things happen, you need a plan to stick with, you need to think, sketch, find out, sketch again, and at the same time keep yourself in a shape by doing hourly exercises, well back to where things start.
To be able to make things right at the first without endless iteration rounds, and costly material expences, you need to start from the scratch with no assumptions with no thoughts like, "yeah, I just do something and everything turns good, I think..", WRONG ! Streamliners are like individuals, unique designs made for one person only, the driver. What is good for someone, isn't necessary good for someone else, thats where you need sister-projects. But I found out that before you can start building your sister project I introduced few days back, I need "little sister"-project, which makes sure that sister project will be a success and I don't need to rip it apart because of some stupid mistake I forgot. So that is why I will do this, lets say "LS"-project before "S"-project.
LS-project is a first geometry construction where driver is planted into a machine and its geometry. In LS-project you make your first study of crank setup, seating position, seating angle, crank height, crank distance, your FOV and height and lenght study. When all these are, lets say, in some form, you need to confirm your decisions. Because the streamliner is a faired bike, you need to keep that in mind in every point of the project. No matter if you have the perfect seat and crank setup, you cant be sure if that is rational what comes to fairing. If your cranks stick out from the smooth line of fairing, what do you do? move cranks, or make fairing bigger? what if perfect crank and seat height will block your FOV (field of view)? what do you do, and with what costs?, do you loose your perfect crank position or do you loose your slick shape, which one is less worst? Anyone ever heard the word 'compromise'? xD
To avoid the worst, fairing and its design must be kept in mind all the time. When you have your crank and seat in place in this 'LS'-project, you need to determine the fairing aswell in this very early state. First things first, you need to determine your pedal box by rotating your pedals and making notes of your cranking.
I'v done several sketches and measurements of my feet and my pedal-box, but nothing beats the real world modeling.
Below is my LS-project. Actually it's a jig where everything can be adjusted to find the correct geometry. Once you have your pieces in place, you need to measure your pedal box and all the space you need to have inside the fairing. When having those measurements, you need to transform these measures into 3D world to be able to make a 3d-model sketch out of it, but that is just the half of the "LS"-projects story..
To be able to make things right at the first without endless iteration rounds, and costly material expences, you need to start from the scratch with no assumptions with no thoughts like, "yeah, I just do something and everything turns good, I think..", WRONG ! Streamliners are like individuals, unique designs made for one person only, the driver. What is good for someone, isn't necessary good for someone else, thats where you need sister-projects. But I found out that before you can start building your sister project I introduced few days back, I need "little sister"-project, which makes sure that sister project will be a success and I don't need to rip it apart because of some stupid mistake I forgot. So that is why I will do this, lets say "LS"-project before "S"-project.
LS-project is a first geometry construction where driver is planted into a machine and its geometry. In LS-project you make your first study of crank setup, seating position, seating angle, crank height, crank distance, your FOV and height and lenght study. When all these are, lets say, in some form, you need to confirm your decisions. Because the streamliner is a faired bike, you need to keep that in mind in every point of the project. No matter if you have the perfect seat and crank setup, you cant be sure if that is rational what comes to fairing. If your cranks stick out from the smooth line of fairing, what do you do? move cranks, or make fairing bigger? what if perfect crank and seat height will block your FOV (field of view)? what do you do, and with what costs?, do you loose your perfect crank position or do you loose your slick shape, which one is less worst? Anyone ever heard the word 'compromise'? xD
To avoid the worst, fairing and its design must be kept in mind all the time. When you have your crank and seat in place in this 'LS'-project, you need to determine the fairing aswell in this very early state. First things first, you need to determine your pedal box by rotating your pedals and making notes of your cranking.
I'v done several sketches and measurements of my feet and my pedal-box, but nothing beats the real world modeling.
Below is my LS-project. Actually it's a jig where everything can be adjusted to find the correct geometry. Once you have your pieces in place, you need to measure your pedal box and all the space you need to have inside the fairing. When having those measurements, you need to transform these measures into 3D world to be able to make a 3d-model sketch out of it, but that is just the half of the "LS"-projects story..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
