3500 watt per wheel.

Status
Not open for further replies.

None

1 W
Joined
May 4, 2022
Messages
60
https://chinaplanets.com/Chinese-flight-called-extreme-bull-7000-w-electric-bike-on-which-you-can-only-sit/

https://alienrides.com/products/extreme-bull-electric-scooter

extreme-bull-bizarna-kolobezka-cover.jpg


https://youtu.be/omNhyveKiPo

https://youtu.be/ZTbrOaMpQpQ
 
Makes the rider look like a very dim bulb, though.
 
Low to the ground, probably handles far better than those upright standing e-scooters.
 
None said:
Low to the ground, probably handles far better than those upright standing e-scooters.

That would be true if it had three or four wheels. Two wheelers don't work like that, which is why so few of them are low-slung.
 
Chalo said:
That would be true if it had three or four wheels. Two wheelers don't work like that, which is why so few of them are low-slung.

Regardless the number of wheels, if you have majority of weight between front & rear wheel, at or below the level of the axles; the more stability you have with your vehicle.
 
None said:
Chalo said:
That would be true if it had three or four wheels. Two wheelers don't work like that, which is why so few of them are low-slung.

Regardless the number of wheels, if you have majority of weight between front & rear wheel, at or below the level of the axles; the more stability you have with your vehicle.

Again, incorrect for single track vehicles. The lower the center of mass, the more difficult it is to maneuver a two wheeler. That's why bikes aren't set up like that (except lowracer recumbents, which are hard to ride and incompetent at maneuvering).
 
Chalo said:
Again, incorrect for single track vehicles. The lower the center of mass, the more difficult it is to maneuver a two wheeler. That's why bikes aren't set up like that (except lowracer recumbents, which are hard to ride and incompetent at maneuvering).

Says the guy who has ridden exactly how many recumbent designs, exactly how many miles?

A bicycle with the motor and battery down low are more stable at braking, accelerating, and high speeds. How it handles at very low speeds depends, in part, on how high above that mass the rider is. A bike with a 24" seat height, like our Bolt hatchback, works great at low speeds, and if you do fall, you aren't going to break your collarbone, like on an 1890s "safety" bike.

This is for the benefit of others who may be swayed by your constant recumbent bashing.
 
Warren said:
Chalo said:
Again, incorrect for single track vehicles. The lower the center of mass, the more difficult it is to maneuver a two wheeler. That's why bikes aren't set up like that (except lowracer recumbents, which are hard to ride and incompetent at maneuvering).

Says the guy who has ridden exactly how many recumbent designs, exactly how many miles?

More than most cyclists. Enough miles to know them. It's not like there's much subtlety or refinement there-- they haven't even settled on a basic best design, because "best" isn't in their repertory.

Bikes steer by swinging the contact patches of the tires out from under the system's center of mass. The more mass you stick low down, at a distance from the CoM, the more angular moment you have to wrestle with. The lower the CoM, the quicker and less controllable the roll rate. Both these things harm controllability and balance.

Check how this low CoM recumbent goes around a turn:
https://youtu.be/J0WlUJzdVlU?t=0m30s

Does that look like good handling to you?
 
Warren said:
Chalo said:
Check how this low CoM recumbent goes around a turn:
Does that look like good handling to you?

Did you watch the video? It is a homebuilt carbon fiber bike, which he is demonstrating is way too flexy.

A normal bike could be every bit as flexy as that but still be able to make the turn in a non-crippled fashion. It's much more a matter of the bike's layout than the stiffness of the frame.

In the video description, he says it's "very comfortable and well-behaved", which I think we can assess for ourselves by watching the video. Let's just say I would not agree to supervise children he characterized as well-behaved.
 
None said:
Regardless the number of wheels, if you have majority of weight between front & rear wheel, at or below the level of the axles; the more stability you have with your vehicle.
Not . . . really.

Consider the extreme; all the weight of the vehicle is at the level of the tire contact patch. This can't happen in reality - this is just a thought experiment. In that case the bike will fall over no matter what you do, because turning the front wheel into the direction of the turn will not create a "righting" force as it does on a regular bike.

Now move the weight up slightly. Now you need a very dramatic turn to re-center the mass above the wheels because there is so short of a lever arm to use.

That being said, it is still possible to create a stable bike if the weight is centered low. I put hundreds of miles on a Longbikes Slipstream, which has a very low center of gravity, and it was still reasonably stable. However it was painful to manuever at low speed, and you often needed an almost full deflection to keep the bike upright.

Compare that to a Haluzak Horizon, which my wife rode for years. Much shorter wheelbase, and much higher center of gravity - but also more stable once you were underway.

And as always there are a lot of parameters that go into bike stability, so you can't just say "this bike will be less stable if the CG is lower." It depends on a great many other variables as well as CG.
 
Chalo said:
In the video description, he says it's "very comfortable and well-behaved", which I think we can assess for ourselves by watching the video. Let's just say I would not agree to supervise children he characterized as well-behaved.


So he says it is fine, and you say it is not, based on your prejudice. Got it.

Like I said, I am only responding to your posts for the sake of others who aren't aware of your bias. After years of your recumbent phobia, I know you will never change your mind. lol
 
Warren said:
Chalo said:
In the video description, he says it's "very comfortable and well-behaved", which I think we can assess for ourselves by watching the video. Let's just say I would not agree to supervise children he characterized as well-behaved.

So he says it is fine, and you say it is not, based on your prejudice. Got it.

Who's the one with a prejudice? My opinion is based on direct observations, and it agrees with the opinion of the cycle riding world as a whole about 'bents. You're the one who thinks they're awesome despite their many seemingly insoluble problems.

Recumbent two wheelers are special needs bikes or novelties. If you have that kind of special need, use one. If you crave novelty, try one and have fun. But what's the use in telling everybody they're superior/equal to real bikes when they're observably not? They are an iteration that keeps being tried and keeps failing to make a case for itself.
 
Direct observation proves that bicycles are a novelty for people with special needs, and insoluble problems, that keeps being tried and keeps failing to make a case for itself. The opinion of the transportation world, as a whole, says SUVs are the perfect form of transportation.
 
Warren said:
Direct observation proves that bicycles are a novelty for people with special needs, and insoluble problems, that keeps being tried and keeps failing to make a case for itself. The opinion of the transportation world, as a whole, says SUVs are the perfect form of transportation.

SUVs are the natural development of a vehicle based on a chair.

You do notice, I suppose, that recumbent bikes got a lot better when they added a wheel, and then a lot better yet when they added a motor?

Do you ever want to add a roof and some cup holders? (Sorry, you can't have cup holders. You can't use them when you have to keep both hands on the bars at all times to keep from wiping out.)
 
Upright bikes are a natural development of the hobby horse.

Two wheeled recumbents were never popular.

Most people buy a bike that looks like the one they learned to ride as a child. They buy it because they are getting fat, and think maybe they will ride a bike, like when they were a kid. Most end up gathering dust because they are god awful uncomfortable. They have run through the wide "comfort" grips, padded gloves, stem extenders, padded shorts, fat seats, suspension seatposts, and other sure fixes for the insoluble problems of the perfect upright bike, that their local bike shop was only too happy to sell them, without ever mentioning recumbents.

A very few folks, who are more persistent, may find out about recumbents online, and perhaps drive to one of the dozen recumbent friendly shops across the US. Anybody else who asks their local shop about them will be met by derision from a Chalo clone.

The folks riding a trike, instead of a two wheel recumbent, aren't going to ride an ass hatchet bike either.

I have ridden over 33K miles on my recumbent cargo bike. Over half of those miles were literally ridden with my hands hanging down at my sides, or in my lap. I have never ridden any two wheeled vehicle as stable as this.

I often shout to folks along the way that I paid $5K for the Autopilot option. lol
 
Chalo said:
Again, incorrect for single track vehicles. The lower the center of mass, the more difficult it is to maneuver a two wheeler.
Wrong.

Chalo said:
That's why bikes aren't set up like that (except lowracer recumbents, which are hard to ride and incompetent at maneuvering).

Recumbent is similar to the setup of this e-scooter, as a recumbent rider of many different recumbents, they are more stable and easier to ride than most upright bicycles.
The popularity of upright bicycle is the reason why most would think recumbents are more difficult to maneuver, since they are unfamiliar with recumbents.
 
None said:
Recumbent is similar to the setup of this e-scooter, as a recumbent rider of many different recumbents, they are more stable and easier to ride than most upright bicycles.

You're talking to someone who's ridden a bunch of different recumbents over a span of over three decades. You can fool yourself maybe, but definitely not me.

'Bents have had generations to establish themselves as normal, but they haven't. It's not because of some grand conspiracy; it's because they suck in a variety of ways. Terrible handling tops the list. If there are exceptions to this rule, why have none emerged and become normalized? The simple answer is that there aren't exceptions.
 
Chalo said:
You're talking to someone who's ridden a bunch of different recumbents over a span of over three decades. You can fool yourself maybe, but definitely not me.

Not only do I currently own multiple recumebents, I also own several motorcycles and scooters (with recumbent riding position) that are capable of triple digit speed with ease. I've ridden 2-wheel vehicles (motorized or not) for over 4 decades, over a million miles.
Not only in my experience, but just according to physics, the more weight you have between the wheel axles and low the the ground, the more stable the ride and the easier it is to maneuver.

Chalo said:
'Bents have had generations to establish themselves as normal, but they haven't. It's not because of some grand conspiracy; it's because they suck in a variety of ways. Terrible handling tops the list. If there are exceptions to this rule, why have none emerged and become normalized? The simple answer is that there aren't exceptions.

Popularity of recumbent vs upright bicycle popularity is not the topic discussion, but it's easy to see that recumbents are much more difficult to fabricate than regular diamond frame upright bicycles.
Terrible handling is just misconception that comes from the rarity of recumbent (lack of experience), more than likely most riders have never even seen a recumbent let along actually ride one long enough to get a decent comparison of the handling characteristics.

Why have none become normalized? simple answer: cost.
Due to low volume of recumbent sales & market share, production costs is much higher than regular diamond framed bicycles.
No companies don't want to lose money by producing limited production that have little demand in the market.
Trek, Cannondale are big name companies that had recumbent offers, but never updated their design after one single production run; likely have lost money on every single one they sold due to the non-standardize production, frame-prep, packaging & shipping.
My easy estimate would be that regular bicycle production easily out pace recumbent production a million to 1 in history of bicycle production, worldwide.
 
None said:
Why have none become normalized? simple answer: cost.
Due to low volume of recumbent sales & market share, production costs is much higher than regular diamond framed bicycles.
No companies don't want to lose money by producing limited production that have little demand in the market.
Trek, Cannondale are big name companies that had recumbent offers, but never updated their design after one single production run; likely have lost money on every single one they sold due to the non-standardize production, frame-prep, packaging & shipping.
My easy estimate would be that regular bicycle production easily out pace recumbent production a million to 1 in history of bicycle production, worldwide.

Well, cost, but also safety/visibility, a poor reputation for being able to climb hills (non-motorized), and the cool factor. Although the cool factor is relative, they do get attention because they are rare. They are also not very agile and wouldn't do well on a technical trail. They do have their benefits as well and allow some people who couldn't otherwise ride a bike do so.
 
RunForTheHills said:
Well, cost, but also safety/visibility, a poor reputation for being able to climb hills (non-motorized), and the cool factor. Although the cool factor is relative, they do get attention because they are rare. They are also not very agile and wouldn't do well on a technical trail. They do have their benefits as well and allow some people who couldn't otherwise ride a bike do so.

Recumbents do require different muscles to adapt to its climbing ability, but just as any bicycle; it's the rider that determines how well a bike can climb.
The more you ride, the better climber you are at the bike that you ride with.
Does a road bike or time trial bike rides well on a technical trail?
Just as different types of bicycle suit different type of cycling, recumbents are not meant to do everything well.

On safety/visibility, cars tend to give me more room on the road when I'm on my recumbent vs my road bike.
Why? because drivers don't often see recumbents on the road.

About visibility of the rider's field of vision, maybe one might be limited in how far they can turn their heads to see behind while riding a recumbent; but mirror can fix that issue, same as a road bike.
On a recumbent, the rider is not straining their neck to keep eye up on the road, which makes visibility easier to obtain for the rider.
 
None said:
Recumbents do require different muscles to adapt to its climbing ability, but just as any bicycle; it's the rider that determines how well a bike can climb.
The more you ride, the better climber you are at the bike that you ride with.
Does a road bike or time trial bike rides well on a technical trail?
Just as different types of bicycle suit different type of cycling, recumbents are not meant to do everything well.

On safety/visibility, cars tend to give me more room on the road when I'm on my recumbent vs my road bike.
Why? because drivers don't often see recumbents on the road.

About visibility of the rider's field of vision, maybe one might be limited in how far they can turn their heads to see behind while riding a recumbent; but mirror can fix that issue, same as a road bike.
On a recumbent, the rider is not straining their neck to keep eye up on the road, which makes visibility easier to obtain for the rider.

Now you are being dishonest. It is not different muscles, it is the inability to leverage your weight over the pedals. On a diamond frame, you can get out of the saddle and shift your weight forward to climb steep hills. A road or time trial bike may not be well suited for trails, but you can still bunny hop them and stand on the pedals to absorb bumps with your knees. Look up the Road Bike Party videos on Youtube to see what can be done with a road bike by a professional with the right technique. As for safety, because they are so low to the ground, recumbents are much harder to see than upright cyclists. Hence the flag most bent riders attach to their bikes. I am not trying to bash recumbents, they do have the benefit of a much more comfortable riding position and seat that allows people to ride that can't sit on a normal bicycle saddle. But they have many disadvantages also.
 
RunForTheHills said:
Now you are being dishonest. It is not different muscles, it is the inability to leverage your weight over the pedals. On a diamond frame, you can get out of the saddle and shift your weight forward to climb steep hills.

Actually, a recumbent with proper back support; a rider can exert more force than just his/her own body weight to the pedals.
Who's being dishonest?

RunForTheHills said:
A road or time trial bike may not be well suited for trails, but you can still bunny hop them and stand on the pedals to absorb bumps with your knees. Look up the Road Bike Party videos on Youtube to see what can be done with a road bike by a professional with the right technique.

Just because you saw some professional do it on youtube, doesn't mean that road bike or time trial bikes are well suited for trail riding.

RunForTheHills said:
As for safety, because they are so low to the ground, recumbents are much harder to see than upright cyclists. Hence the flag most bent riders attach to their bikes.

Have you ridden a recumbent in traffic yourself?
Mounting a flag is a great way to increase visibility to other moving traffic, I personally have never used one and still get more road space from cars when I ride my recumbent.

RunForTheHills said:
I am not trying to bash recumbents, they do have the benefit of a much more comfortable riding position and seat that allows people to ride that can't sit on a normal bicycle saddle. But they have many disadvantages also.

No one said there is no disadvantage to recumbents, just that more people overlook the disadvantages of regular upright bicycles and have no experience of the advantages of recumbent in general.
 
None said:
RunForTheHills said:
Now you are being dishonest. It is not different muscles, it is the inability to leverage your weight over the pedals. On a diamond frame, you can get out of the saddle and shift your weight forward to climb steep hills.

Actually, a recumbent with proper back support; a rider can exert more force than just his/her own body weight to the pedals.
Who's being dishonest?

Whatever, the hill climbing is moot with a motor anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top