Page last changed August 9, 2002 |
Contents: |
---|
|
The article explains that, in a "freewheeling" test, cycles with polyurethane tyres come to a halt at about 60% of the distance reached with normal inflatable tyres. The reason is that hysteresis losses absorb energy. As a tyre rolls, the rubber (or plastic) in contact with the road is compressed. Energy is used when the rubber is compressed, and this energy comes from the cyclist's pedal-power. As the wheel rolls on, the rubber uncompresses, but only a part of the energy is recovered; most of the energy is lost as heat. A polyurethane foam tyre is worse than an air-filles rubber tyre in this respect. At the moment, the grade of polyurethane is a compromise; a grade is used which is satisfactory both for the surface of the tyre and the foam interior.
To improve matters, Urathon are developing a two-shot moulding system. The surface is moulded from a thin hard-wearing grade of plastic, then filled with a foam than can contain more air than the grade previously used. Urathon claim that "freewheel" tests show that the improved tyre gives a figure of more than 90% (compared with the previous 60%), and further improvements may be possible.
So, what is the ideal material to fill bicycle tyres with? We need something that is light (polyurethane tyres are currently slightly heavier than normal tyres), and easily balanced (current moulding techniques have difficulty in getting an even density of foam at all parts of the tyre, giving wheel-balancing problems). And it should be cheap.
A very good substance is AIR. It is light, cheap, and naturally distributes itself evenly throughout the tyre. Best of all, it has very small hysteresis losses; when energy is used to deform an air-filled tyre, almost all of this energy is returned when the deformation is removed. Pumping the tyres to a very high pressure gives a limited improvement - the rubber is still there, it will still be compressed, and the losses will still occur.
For best performance, you need a tyre that is mainly air and very little rubber, which is why very thin tyres are so effective in minimising the power required to propel a bicycle. When you hit a bump, the energy lost in the rubber is small if there isn't much rubber; the thickness and weight of rubber is more important than the tread pattern.
This also applies to suspension systems. Imagine you are riding a bicycle at speed "v", and the total weight of cycle plus rider is "m". The kinetic energy stored in the moving bicycle is 0.5*m*v2
Suppose you hit a bump so large that the bicycle bounces into the air, and moves upwards with speed "u". The upward energy is therefore 05*m*u2. Where did the energy to throw the cycle in the air come from? >From the "forward" energy, which is now less than before; it is (0.5*m*v2)-(0.5*m*u2). The forward speed of the cycle had been reduced. Gravity dictates that the cycle will come down again, and hit the ground. Is the energy returned? Unfortunately it is not - much of it was lost on heating the tyre and (in the case of a sprung frame) compressing the high-hysteresis suspension medium. The cycle is now travelling more slowly than before the bump.
So energy is lost on the way up and on the way down. It is necessary to have "damping" in a suspension system, with unavoidable energy loss, or the machine would bounce violently on contact with the ground.
An ideal arrangement would be to use lossless air suspension, and absorb the energy in a storage device such as a large spring, whose energy could later be released to help you to climb hills or get away more quickly at traffic lights. But the weight of such a device would probably negate the improvements. In suspension systems, as with tyres, energy loss is minimised by improving the "air-to-rubber ratio". If a tennis ball were used as the suspension medium, it would lose less energy (because it is mainly air) than a solid block of polyurethane.
As a comparison, the "Gossamer Condor" man-powered aeroplane that was pedalled 22 miles across the English Channel weighed a total of 104 kg and required 200 watts to maintain level flight. The pilot - a Californian racing cyclist - maintained this power for several hours.
The problem for cyclists is hills, which require extra energy. It is very easy to calculate how much more: If a bicycle and rider of mass "m" is lifted upwards at a vertical speed "u", the power needed is m*g*u watts (where g=9.81 as always).
Suppose you and your bike weigh 100 kg, and are riding along at 5 metres/sec (about 11 mph) and you come to a gradient of 1:20 (upwards). If you maintain your forward speed, then your upward speed "u" will be 5/20 = 0.25 metres/sec. The power is therefore 100*9.81*0.25 = 245 watts. This is in addition to the power needed to overcome rolling resistance etc.
This is a lot of power. You can see that it is a pity, when descending a hill, to waste this power in the heating of brake-blocks. How much better to charge up a battery, or wind a spring.
Recent postings have shown that transmission losses are very small compared with other losses, and in any case little can be done about them, apart from regular lubrication. Rolling resistance is about tyres and has been considered.
So it is worth looking at air resistance. The resistance of a moving body is:
R = k*rho*A*Cd*v2 (where k is a constant).
"rho" is the density of the air, about which we can do nothing, apart from avoiding valleys.
A = the cross-sectional (frontal) area of the cyclist, as viewed from the front. Small people benefit here.
Cd = the Coefficient of Drag. If a thin sheet of plywood is cut out to be the same shape as the cyclist plus cycle (as seen from the front), it would, by definition, have a Cd of 1. A useful improvement to both Cd and to "frontal area" can be made by adopting a more aerodynamic posture, such as using "full drop" handlebars.
v2 means the square of the speed. At double the speed, air resistance is bigger by (22), which is 4 times bigger; at 3 times the speed it is 9 times bigger. If you ride much faster, this becomes very large indeed, and the energy loss in tyres and transmission become unimportant.
How low a value of Cd can be achieved? Without plastic nose-cones and pointed tails, not much (but maybe these could also be used as luggage containers, with zips and ingenious folding handles). One might hope for values of around 0.3 using a recumbent design. Motor-cars manage this sort of figure. The best and most "slippery" shape is a long slim glider fuselage, which could have a Cd of 0.05 or less.
The "square-law" speed calculation breaks down at very low speeds (by which I mean speeds much slower than those at which aircraft fly), but the accuracy is not too bad. At these low speeds, a correction factor called "Reynold's Number" has to be built into the calculation. Ask any cyclist what "Reynold's Number" is, and he will immediately reply "531". However, that is something completely different.
Cyclo-Manufacturing
1438 S. Cherokee St Denver, CO 80223 (303) 744-8043 |
Dear Spinskins,
I use a Birdy folding bike which has 18" x 1.5" (80 lb psi) tires made specially for this bike. Is there any way I could use your product on this unusual size tire?
<Spinskins> That's no problem. We do have to give you a special size but we can work that out. Just call our toll-free hotline at 1-888-477-4675 and ask for John. He can make the arrangements for you.A post of mine to another group suggests an alternative solution to this problem which appears to be quite amusing, e.g., get people to eat the stuff:
The plant is called puncture vine (tribulus terrestris) and it grows primarily on barren ground, ground that has either been sprayed with herbicides or is otherwise bare in arid regions. It does not compete with grasses or other roadside vegetation so it is easy to see. Know thy enemy and I think the major problem of flats will be solved. You can see this plant at: http://www.fortnet.org/CWMA/puncture.htm and http://chili.rt66.com/hrbmoore/Images/T-Z/Tribulus_terrestrus.jpg and http://gnv.ifas.ufl.edu/~fairsweb/images/lh/lhp58.gifJobst Brandt
Tube weights
|
Carcase weights
|
TUBES:
|
TYRES 305mm:
|
TYRES 349mm:
|
TYRES 369mm:
|
ME | Glass | (rear) | 26/8/97 | 0 miles |
Glass | (rear) | 02/1/98 | 540 miles | |
Gravel shard | (rear) | 17/5/98 | 1,250 miles | |
Rear tyre replaced | 14/7/98 | 1,570 miles |
JANE (bike 1) | Gravel(front) | 5/8/97 |
JANE (lightweight bike) | No punctures since built in September 1997 (with Michelin tubes) over a mileage of about 1,400 miles. However, the rear tyre was replaced at about 1,000 miles following damage, but it did not puncture. |
16" | 16x1.75 | ISO305 | used on BikeE |
400a | 400x47A | ISO340 | |
16" | 16x 1 3/8 | ISO349 | used on Brompton and Vision |
American | 16x1.75x2 = 47-305 |
Metric | 400A = 32-340 and 400x35A = 37-340 |
Imperial | 16x1 3/8 = 37-349 |
The Brompton Folding Bicycle FAQ |