Motorised cycle discussion!

Northwind

Ryan Jones

Montevideoguy wrote:

In fact, it was one of these

Hold on a second here......

Engine ? Check !
Pedals ? Check !
Look like a full on cheeswand riding one? Check !

Looks like that unless you insist on towing enough spare parts to rebuild your bike three times over that Piaggio have already answered your needs long ago ! Fabian this makes your contraption a complete waste of time and therefore you should take up a hobby such as proper cycling

Andy

Northwind wrote:

Ahh a good old fashioned gif! For people who aren't funny or intelligent enough to think of something to say themselves

Northwind

A picture paints a thousand words my friend. And an animated one is like loads of pictures in a row, so that's got to be about 120000 words right there.

Northwind

PS, yer maw.

Fabian2

Lets just go through matters of importance:

The Piaggio is a step-through. I would ride a step-through if being paid to ride a step-through

The Piaggio doesn't have low range crawler gears.

The Piaggio is heavy

The Piaggio doesn't have 26 inch wheels

The Piaggio doesn't have disk brakes; the piaggio doesn't have any form of brakes worthy of note - particularly problematic when using full emergency braking power; stopping 6 trailers

and

The Piaggio doesn't have style; something my bicycle has in spades

Fabian2

I think the greatest issue issue being that the Piaggio is not allowed to be used on bicycle tracks or shared pedestrian/cycling lanes.

montevideoguy

Depends on engine size actually. If it's less than 50cc then you're jamming.


As for brakes...if you're pulling stuff on your contraption, surely there will need to be brakes on your dinky trailers (otherwise they'll slam into you when you brake hard)

montevideoguy

Ryan Jones wrote:

Montevideoguy wrote:

In fact, it was one of these

Hold on a second here......

Engine ? Check !
Pedals ? Check !
Look like a full on cheeswand riding one? Check !

Looks like that unless you insist on towing enough spare parts to rebuild your bike three times over that Piaggio have already answered your needs long ago ! Fabian this makes your contraption a complete waste of time and therefore you should take up a hobby such as proper cycling

I didn't look like a cheesewand when I was riding one... I was Captain Awesome...even used it as a getaway vehicle once when I stole some melons from a field. You can't come close to how cool I was when I rode mine

paul.skibum

I dont think Fabian's "creation" would be legal on bridleways in the UK would it? Only on BOAT's and green lanes. It is thereofore useless in our pleasant land. As is my typing.

Fabian2

Lets just say my setup works to perfection, as i'm the one who engineered it to be an example of exemplary design.

Non of the catastrophic scenarios described by members have played out to be true, considering safety is my No 1 priority.

My setup is perfectly legal for the locality of it's use; a Piaggio most certainly would not be legal for use on pedestrian; bicycle and shared pathways.

and yes,

My setup is brilliant; so the public keep telling me!

VWsurfbum

Fabian2
at the expense of a sensible comment on your cheesewand of a bike, you may need to increase the size of your Rotor's / discs (delete as applicable) for a little better stopping power.
BTW when i was looking at the engine mounts to the frame, it looks like it could be wearing the frame through? but it was just a passing look because it was offending my eyes.

Fabian2

Yes, i do agree with the disk size issue.
Currently i'm trying to find someone who has an off-cut of 3mm 420 stainless steel sheet.
I've already organised to get a 12" disk, laser cut, also adapter mounts laser cut to suit the attachment of twin BB7 calipers.

So far everything is ready, except for the procurement of 700 x 330mm off-cut of 420 stainless.
That's the big issue as i can easily acquire 3mm sheet 420 Stainless Steel from China if purchasing a minimum of 6 tonnes.

I'm sure every man and his dog involved in the downhill, mountain bike scene would want decent disk brakes and a double caliper option for redundancy purposes, but 6 tonnes of 420 makes for a mountain of disks, to last an empire 200 years.

Not even ebay could sell that much laser cut stainless.

nicklouse

why bother with twin BB7s? just fit some decent hydros.

Fabian2

The u-clamps holding the assembly onto the frame have 2mm thick aluminium sections, 25mm wide, formed and glued onto the face of the clamps. 6 layers of fabric tape are attached to the aluminium sections and then the assembly is clamped in position.

There is no way for the clamps to provide a localised high pressure contact point on any of the surface area.
Clamping pressure is evenly distributed around the frame tubes, avoiding stress points that could allow stress risers to occur.

The frame is 20,000 kilometers old and so far, showing no signs of fatigue related stress, though it is a problem for people who bolt up u-clamps directly to aluminium frames.
Under those circumstances, frames crack from localised stress, caused by uneven pressure distribution.

Safety is my No 1 priority: cracked frames don't happen on my watch.

Fabian2

Hydraulic brakes are good, but they are not the best option for redundancy, as running two hydraulic calipers from one master cylinder requires the master cylinder to move twice the fluid, causing a woefully spongey brake lever. Also if crashing the bike and ripping out a hydraulic line, it can't be easily replaced at the scene, like a simple cable system.
A cable system requires no bleeding or bleeding devices to be carried as part of the spares kit - just a cable outer, cable inner and mechanical brake lever - job done and almost entire braking system replaced in under 10 mins.

Kaise

Fabian2 wrote:

The frame is 20,000 kilometers old and so far

hmm at the speeds you say that thing travels at the frame must be circa 1983

Fabian2

I'm just over attentive to the safety side of things. The lack of braking redundancy at the moment bothers me; has done for a long time and i'm trying to get things organised as to eliminate this potential problem.

If a brake cable fails (front cable in particular) i want to know that i have another operational caliper and cable system to back up the failed unit.
In the aerospace industry (of which i once worked) everything was double redundancy as single component system failure was not an option.

The scenario of hitting a pedestrian, especially a child, if my brake cable fails, doesn't appeal to me - same can be true of a hydraulic brake system - there is no redundancy built into the design.

Kaise

im not going to get drawn in to the double redundancy arguement with you and i have 12 years of aerospace experience so trust me you are talking sh!te when it comes to brakes.

And plus you already have a secondary system, your back brake you dildo

now can you please help me uinderstand whether you are trolling or you actually are a d!ckhead

Fabian2

Although the back brake may be considered a redundancy item, it is effectively useless for the bulk of stopping power. Correct me if i am wrong but the back brake only provides approx 20% of total braking power.
In a situation requiring the bicycle to come to a rapid stop, the rear brake as the single means of braking is next to useless.

If you have 12 years in the aerospace industry and disagree with redundancy systems, then your 12 years experience must be called into question.

Your personal views do not influence my own views with regards to improving brake related bicycle safety, furthermore your views on this particular issue are completely irrelevant to a braking redundancy system.

getonyourbike

kaiser83
Unfortunately for us it seems that he is just a d1ckhead

KitsuneAndy

Fabian2 wrote:

Although the back brake may be considered a redundancy item, it is effectively useless for the bulk of stopping power. Correct me if i am wrong but the back brake only provides approx 20% of total braking power.
In a situation requiring the bicycle to come to a rapid stop, the rear brake as the single means of braking is next to useless.

If you have 12 years in the aerospace industry and disagree with redundancy systems, then your 12 years experience must be called into question.

Your personal views do not influence my own views with regards to improving brake related bicycle safety, furthermore your views on this particular issue are completely irrelevant to a braking redundancy system.

I imagine that with the amount of weight behind your back wheel, the back brake will be fine as redundancy. The back wheel will be unlikely to unweight to the point of it locking.

Plus you'll be travelling at what? 2mph?

Fabian2

Andy, you are completely right: with a loaded trailer the rear wheel does not want to break contact with the road surface, though it can be achieved with significant pressure applied to the brake lever.
In testing with the front brake disabled, and rapid and aggressive application of the brake lever, i have been able to lock the rear wheel, requiring the brake lever to be released to regain control with the bike running on a circular path.

It was this test which started me thinking about front brake redundancy.
Ideally you don't want to lock the rear wheel as your only means of redundancy when traveling around a bend, particularly on a shared pedestrian/cycle pathway.

At the end of the day, my concerns stem from being mindful of respect towards other individuals.
Some may call that attitude idiotic, but i stand by my logic.

Kaise

Fabian2 wrote:

If you have 12 years in the aerospace industry and disagree with redundancy systems, then your 12 years experience must be called into question.

call it in to question all you like, Double redundancy on aircraft is for safety critical systems or which you would consider your braking system. Fair enough but my arguement would be that the rear brake would be a secomdary system creating a back up.

I would not add another brake but more a means of secondary control to the existing caliper, ie two cables as these are the weak links in the chain.

Also in my humble opinion you are using the bike beyond its designed intent and are therefore not being safe anyway, which as you say, is primary in everything you do. The fact you carry so much weight should be questioned as the brakes you have on your bike will not provide the adequate power to stop the bike with all of the tools and you onboard.

Fabian2 pg3 wrote:

40kg Bicycle and the wieght of the trailers with tools etc 80kg = total 120kg

this is before the fuel in the tank and your ass sat on it. so lets be fair and say you weigh 80kg, this is an all up weight of 200kg (purely estimated) but i suggest you think about this first rather than the brake and secondary systems.

i would like to conclude this arguement by telling you to shove your stupid little bike and your onwanted opinions and thoughts on 200watt motor assisted bikes firmly wghere the sun doesnt shine.

but this is obviously only my opinion you understand which also covers the fact i dislike you.

Fabian2

That's exactly my intension, to use a dual pull braking lever with twin cables running to individual calipers.

You are also right that the whole kit and kaboodle with 6 trailers weighs in at around 200 kilos.
For this reason i limit my max speed on flat ground to between 15 and 20 kilometers per hour, and if coming across pedestrians, or other cyclists travelling in the opposite direction, i slow down to 10 kilometers per hour, less if passing pedestrians, typically just a little faster than walking speed.

The 6 trailer setup is purely for a bit of fun and mostly aimed at the giving children something novel that fits into their fantasy world. Kids go bananas seeing the setup; pointing at the trailers, counting the trailers, eagerly chatting about it.
It's lovely to see young children beam with radiance and become enthusiastically descriptive about the whole thing, particularly when they ask question after question then run back to mum and dad and eagerly tell them all about it.

Having said that, i do enjoy riding the extended setup, as it's a most novel experience.

Fabian2

That said, adults can sometimes be more excited about the setup than the kids

Kaise

Fabian2 wrote:

For this reason i limit my max speed on flat ground to between 15 and 20 kilometers per hour.

You'll never get to that speed this is something you admitted before

Fabian2 wrote:

a bit of fun and mostly aimed at the giving children something novel that fits into their fantasy........

Fabian2 wrote:

It's lovely to see young children...... riding the extended setup, as it's a most novel experience.

I think we have found something here, you mess with children!

SICK get out of this forum at once you evil evil man!

Fabian2

I would question your mentality if you even think along those line Kaiser.

Your inference is utterly repugnant, and for such an inference, you should very well be thrown out of the forum

Fabian2

Please reference what i've said Kaiser

Kaise

Fabian2 wrote:

I would question your mentality if you even think along those line Kaiser.

i would question your mentatlity and i am not the one that starting talking about children, those are quotes from your posts!