John in CR wrote:They run higher voltage so current doesn't get too high that it becomes overly difficult to handle for the power they want. Higher current affects everything from wire gauge to the controller components and layout. Look at the difficulties Arlo1 has encountered building a controller for the extreme current he's pushing.
dude your always a downer on anything over 24 volts power, live and let live my brother no need to down everyone that has a faster bike than yours.Chalo wrote:If it's for getting Sisyphus-style exercise-- sure, whatever. But most things like this are meant for abusing access and regulatory privileges extended to actual bicyclists, privileges that are both hard-won and constantly under attack.
It would be easier to welcome this kind of high power e-bike if it had a license plate and a valid registration sticker on it as a show of commitment.
For the average guy running 20A savings are just a few watts; also, the length matters just as much as the AWG you run, so a short run of 12AWG will be preferable to a long run of 10AWG. Calculators online allow you to see the wiring loss and determine if you need to run AWG6 or you can just get by with AWG12...John in CR wrote:They run higher voltage so current doesn't get too high that it becomes overly difficult to handle for the power they want. Higher current affects everything from wire gauge to the controller components and layout. Look at the difficulties Arlo1 has encountered building a controller for the extreme current he's pushing.
One can't ride a velomobile or trike on 75 miles of backcountry single track is a reason that comes to mind for doing it on a two wheeler.[/quote]Voltron wrote:So, why not put all that effort in a Velomobile or a trike? or something that is more aerodynamic for real long range with the added bonus of some hooligan driving?
That is why improving aerodynamics is not a brute force approach, its much harder to do than the brute force.Voltron wrote:There's only but so much aero package one can put on a bike that is doing single track and jumps. I don't think anyone is arguing its the perfect platform for sustained high speed pavement runs... but to have a bike that can go off road for long ways and take some minor crashes without blowing up a fairing, but still able to do a sprint up to 60 for fun on a straight bit of road sort of requires a certain amount of the brute force approach.
Yup, of course it sounds great, its great; I love my setup, and brute force (as in $$$$$) wasn't required to achieve it either. I've done jumps, those were a little scary b/c I've only jumped a couple of times on low ramps at "low speed", and my trike in particular doesn't have a rear suspension; but a full suspended trike could easily do jumps, if cars ca do jumps, so can trikes, its all about the suspension... Rocks, I guess you found the only thing at which my trike would suck... as opposed to sucking at everything else, that's fine... but while my trike doesn't have the front suspension travel long enough to go over crazy rocks and terrain, I am certain it could be done too.Voltron wrote:That all sounds great, and its obvious you love your setup.... but how is it on jumps and rock crossings?
Yeah, and I think that is the problem, you don't believe it to be possible. But the truth is I've gone through rough terrain like that here in Wisconsin, obviously at a considerable lower speed than when I commute (daily round year), but I've done it just fine. The trike isn't much wider than my shoulders, and about the same width as my eBike's MTB handlebar, and probably yours; the only bicycles I own that are much narrower than my trike are my carbon road bikes... so, just because it has three wheels doesn't mean it can't ride on rough terrain. It is actually pretty fun to ride terrain like that, without fear of falling too!! you have to be conscious of the rocks and other things just like you would on a two wheeled vehicle.Voltron wrote:That might be the moral you see... but you keep minimizing the point that this is optimized for long offroad back country trips, not for icy pavement commuting.
Its just hard for me to picture having much fun on a trike on trails like these, and California in particular has hundreds and hundreds of miles of connected backcoutry trails like these.
The moral I saw was that people have different ideas about what makes for a great setup,depending on their planned usage, and that there is no one right answer as to "the perfect ebike (or trike).
The thread title reads 100+ miles of fun per charge, mentions range anxiety... but based on the numbers he provided the real figure is more like 85 miles at the speed he claims, out of a giant 5.1 kWh battery; and a 60Wh/mile is a pretty dismal figure, you might find it normal, but hey, this would be the same as some guy who drives ginormous Hummer 1 (a pretty decent offroad vehicle), rated in gallons to the mile, decides to tow a giant gas tank and claim his vehicle can now run 900 miles on a fill... sure, of course... that is fine; but I wouldn't tout that as a long range solution, which is what this thread seems to be doing. Again, the OP sunk a wadload of money to achieve something, nothing wrong with that, but the same result could've been done with minimal aero tweaks and half the capacity (less weight too); emphasis in "minimal", as you don't need to run a fully faired eBike to get any decent aero improvements, but that is what separates the brute force from the non-brute force solution, the non-brute force approach is usually not very obvious.Voltron wrote:I don't want to hijack this thread or anything, and I'm starting to get it that your default position is trikes are great for everything and everything else sucks. I'm not denying you can bump along at a walking pace on some carefully picked trails, but I personally would miss too much all the weaving back and forth, the putting your legs into the jumps, and the ability to wheelie up over an obstacle instead of getting out and carrying a trike over , plus having all the weeds and dust in the face etc. to do a trike off road.
I'm possibly biased, but maybe others will chime in about which one looks more fun..
Voltron wrote:"Rocks, I guess you found the only thing at which my trike would suck... as opposed to sucking at everything else, that's fine... but while my trike doesn't have the front suspension travel long enough to go over crazy rocks and terrain, I am certain it could be done too."
Nobody is putting words in your mouth... but pretty clearly there you say non trikes suck at everything else besides rocks, and trikes could do those to... you know, if they wanted to.
You keep saying how aero tweeks and a trike are better solutions than a big battery. But when you want to ride fast off road your ideas don't work. And comparing a guy who wants a bike you can actually go back country exploring on without worrying about getting lost and going farther than planned, and having plenty of battery reserve left, to a gas guzzing Hummer driver is just stupid.
What kind of fairing are you visualizing for an off road bike, that is light enough, strong enough to withstand crashes, small enough to not impede rider mobilty, but effective enough to actually increase range much at normal offroad speeds?
I'm really not bashing trikes or quads, and I have an electric trike with suspension and enjoy it on pavement... but they just don't seem very fun off road to me, although I could see their usefulness for somebody with terrible balance or a petrifying fear of falling or something.
And that vid shows not even what I would call stunting... thats just normal mountain biking these days. It was more about trying to visualize a trike, maybe not driven by you but by some hotshot trike driver, actually going at any kind of decent speed over uneven terrain .Have you really never had to get out to go over something? That just seems unbelievable... do they not have any fallen trees across trails or big rock stairsteps where you ride? Because I usually have to carry over some of those on a high ground clearance full suspension bike. How do you do it on a trike?
Powervelocity.com wrote:Good discussion, guys. Everyone is right in his own way, I guess. Bikes and trikes/quads are technically different classes of vehicles with their own advantages and disadvantages - pick what's more important to you for your specific situation. No size fits it all.
I lean to bikes because of my pattern of use and set priorities. They provide better visibility and maneuverability on the road. I just feel safer sitting higher, seeing and being seen better by drivers. Yes, there is a penalty in terms of inefficiencies due to sub-optimal aerodynamics of a bike (just about any bike out there) but it works for what I am using it for almost daily.
Regarding whether 100 mile of range is possible or not at usable speed. I consider 35 mph a usable/practical speed. Yes, you can be more efficient at 20 mph but that's not practical for what I use the bike for: commuting 30 miles daily, for example. I would like to get to work and back using the same or less amount of time as driving a car. That's where 35 mph comes as a practical speed for city riding (in the US, at least) with occasional bursts up to 45-50 mph where speed limit permits. The total average speed, of course, as we know is likely to be 20 mph a best in a city with traffic lights, etc. taken into account.
At 35 mph normal cruising, my bike of 350 lbs gross weight (150 bike + 200 rider) will average 50Wh/mile. This will of course vary depending on headwind, temperature, etc. but I think it's a good reference value to use for calculations. With some pedaling, I can push consumption into 40's or, conversely, to 60-70's if I do lots of traffic light launches. The moral is that 100 miles per charge is achievable on a bike even with all of its imperfect aerodynamics. Can we do better on a trike sitting much lower to the ground? Sure, we can. Should we? It depends.