Re: Surviveable bicycle, is it possible?


"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:timmcn-DDA90F.12422429082007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <Of6dnV-RVq8tYknbnZ2dnUVZ_s-pnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Greens" <prbj@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:timmcn-2A6088.23190828082007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <0uydnUJCmPYTRUnbnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Greens" <prbj@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.


.

Loading