A 'Make it with a Jig-Saw' wood 'velomobile'. Cheap and cheerful :)

Logic11

1 kW
Joined
May 2, 2022
Messages
343
A cheap, economic little runabout, easily DIY built from mostly wood with hand tools.
It has the obligatory E-bike kit fitted.
A Noddy Car! :) I like it!



This video (from a series) sort of sums it up best:

The nose could easily be made rounder for better aero.
The simple steering mechanism is interesting and might be an oval for better steering
 
The Mott Wooden Car Plans Are Ready!

Looking at the construction videos; I'd rather a car drove into me in this than just about anything else here!
Pretty tough double marine ply sides.
The steering column needs to be collapsible in a collision though!
It's pretty aero except for the nose, wheels and windscreen, but that's easily fixable.
I'm thinking styrofoam and a hot wire bent to the desired aero shape.
That would add a tiny bit of collision absorption too.

I doubt you'll find a 'Velomobile' for cheaper!?
 
I doubt you'll find a 'Velomobile' for cheaper!?

Or heavier.

Depends on your priorities.
With motor assist and regen, weight is less of a concern.
Especially if modded to be more aero in the nose.

It's 70 kg btw. With plenty of easy room for improvement.
 
Even the French Mochet from 1933 was more aero and lighter than the Mott. And that had two seats.

That's just silly.

Weight is always a concern in any vehicle, and most E- velo's are under powered by the standards of actual cars, so it's even more of a concern.

If you can't accelerate away from a stop light as fast as the cars behind you want to, you need more acceleration...less weight or more power. Less weight has many more payoffs, with less downside, than more power does.

More power means added weight ( for a given speed and range) more weight means you need more power, stronger frame and wheels, more battery...all adding weight. It's a vicious circle.

Less weight means you an get away with less battery, lighter frame, less power...

I've lightened several of my ICE cars over the decades. Five percent weight reduction is perceptible, ten percent is easily felt.
 
Last edited:
two major variations of the four wheel Mochet were made...(there was a two wheel design that did well as well, mostly in racing... until banned)

1926....https://www.lanemotormuseum.org/collection/cars/item/mochet-le-velocar-1926/

1945...https://www.conceptcarz.com/s16182/mochet-velocar.aspx

plus multiple others, including delivery vans and four seat versions, as well as sportier versions


Do a search for "plywood velomobiles" to find many much more aero plywood velos than the Mott.
 
Last edited:
Even the French Mochet from 1933 was more aero and lighter than the Mott. And that had two seats.

That's just silly.

Weight is always a concern in any vehicle, and most E- velo's are under powered by the standards of actual cars, so it's even more of a concern.

If you can't accelerate away from a stop light as fast as the cars behind you want to, you need more acceleration...less weight or more power. Less weight has many more payoffs, with less downside, than more power does.

More power means added weight ( for a given speed and range) more weight means you need more power, stronger frame and wheels, more battery...all adding weight. It's a vicious circle.

Less weight means you an get away with less battery, lighter frame, less power...

I've lightened several of my ICE cars over the decades. Five percent weight reduction is perceptible, ten percent is easily felt.

I couldn't agree more! :) Regen or not; Lightness is where it's at for efficiency!
But a light and safe (and aero) velo is Carbon and Aramid fiber and that's not cheap and easy!

The Mochet seems to be lighter due to more steel construction?
4 wheels makes it a car in most jurisdictions too! Getting 'The Balance' right on 3 wheels is a challenge.

Also it has it's aero backwards! :) A teardrop is most aero with the blunt end front and a sharp rear.
Then there's CDa which doubles in a side by side setup, so perhaps not as aero as you might think.
I would certainly round the Mott's nose!
 
Last edited:
I couldn't agree more! :) Regen or not; Lightness is where it's at for efficiency!
But a light and safe (and aero) velo is Carbon and Aramid fiber and that's not cheap and easy!

The Mochet seems to be lighter due to more steel construction?
4 wheels makes it a car in most jurisdictions too! Getting 'The Balance' right on 3 wheels is a challenge.

Also it has it's aero backwards! :) A teardrop is most aero with the blunt end front and a sharp rear.
Then there's CDa which doubles in a side by side setup, so perhaps not as aero as you might think.
I would certainly round the Mott's nose!
Hopefully, we've learned a bit about aerodynamics in a century ( though the two wheel record setting Mochet streamliner is very much a teardrop) and at micro/city car speed, simply smoothing airflow ( even if not "optimum") is worthwhile...*as long as it's light*

Yes, rollover resistance with a trike is tougher to get than with a quad, and to qualify ( in most jurisdictions right now ) as a "bike", three wheels is your upper limit. I think that a weight limited class of quads, with a top speed of 35 mph, that didn't need to meet "car" safety standards would create a niche for city microcar makers. Ply or blown plastic bubble skins on a simple welded steel frame would let micro manufacturers get something on the market quickly and cheaply. Stressed skin ply, with minimal internal framing, is about as simple at it gets. Facets with tape, zip ties, stitch and glue...ick.


Ease of boarding/dismounting would have to be a major design consideration, most current "performance" velomobiles fail at this. The "uprights", easy to board ( like the Pebbl and Elf ) fail on areo and cornering.

The Mott is too tall and narrow, with the front wheels too far forward, for good rollover resistance. Th driver also needs to be limber, with good upper body strength, to get in and out

Most production trikes are too low to feel even relatively safe in traffic, even with a body shell. The balance between rollover resistance and other considerations is tough to get right.

Few enthusiasts can do a FRP body from scratch, most that attempt it fail, or take years to complete the project. Almost anyone can cut and glue 3mm plywood, slap a few coats of water based varnish on it, and apply a vinyl covering. Mounting the body to the frame is the toughest part, but there are off the shelf solutions to even that.

Terracycle sells a front trike fairing mount that lets you lift the nose out of the way when boarding. A ply or corroplast tailbox and side panels with one of their "winter" faings, and you'd have a pretty clean velo with good ( not perfect) weather protection.
 
This deserves much better aero, and could get it without increasing complexity, mass, or build difficulty. It will take a few hundred hours of fabrication and experimentation to get it right.

For an aerodynamic open-wheeled design that is easy to fabricate and practical to use, look to the LeMans velomobile and salt flats Lakester hot rods for inspiration. That is what I did for my first two shells. My previous iteration only needed ~7-9 Wh/mile to cruise 30 mph with maybe 100-150W pedaling effort added, so about 400W total power to move down the road at 30 mph(which was indicated by my CA3 with throttle-only in use during testing). My mountain bike uses TRIPLE the power for the same speed.

I was getting upwards of 200 miles range at 30 mph on a 1.5 kWh pack.
 
This deserves much better aero, and could get it without increasing complexity, mass, or build difficulty. It will take a few hundred hours of fabrication and experimentation to get it right.

My thoughts exactly.
Looking at a the flat nose, my immediate thought was; "For light and EASY better aero, cut one of these in half for a more aero nose"
image

The size is probably wrong but there are other similar bottles.

The basics rule of thumb for the most aero nose is half an ellipse, where the full ellipse would have a 3 to 1 ratio, but a plain half circle is already a major improvement over what he has.

For an aerodynamic open-wheeled design that is easy to fabricate and practical to use, look to the LeMans velomobile and salt flats Lakester hot rods for inspiration. That is what I did for my first two shells. My previous iteration only needed ~7-9 Wh/mile to cruise 30 mph with maybe 100-150W pedaling effort added, so about 400W total power to move down the road at 30 mph(which was indicated by my CA3 with throttle-only in use during testing). My mountain bike uses TRIPLE the power for the same speed.

I was getting upwards of 200 miles range at 30 mph on a 1.5 kWh pack.

While these look like arse on a std bike something similar would actually suite the styling of the LeMans etc velomobiles way better.
IMG_4165_large.JPG

For the price he wants for them he can F-keep them though!

The top point of the wheel is moving forward at 2X the speed of the rest of the bike and and aero 'cubes' that drag, so fairing the top ~3rd of the wheel makes sense and this graph is probably more or less correct:
ft80psyz0nwdgcugdo8t.jpg

AERODEFENDER™

The difference aero makes to Wh/mile is incredible!
But accelerating weight is 68% of energy used, vs 14% for aero, for city driving a small car, so I'm not so sure about in town..?
Perhaps only when you want an enclosed body for weather and crash protection?
 
While these look like arse on a std bike something similar would actually suite the styling of the LeMans etc velomobiles way better.
IMG_4165_large.JPG

On a vehicle with 3+ wheels, you have increased crosswind stability, and therefore it would make sense to cover at least the top half of the wheel. This also assures no ground clearance issues even when going offroad, but gives you most of the aero benefit of covering the entire wheel.

If I had an offroad trike like a Steintrikes Mad Max, an open-wheeled design with the top half of the wheels faired would IMO be the best approach for making a body.

The difference aero makes to Wh/mile is incredible!
But accelerating weight is 68% of energy used, vs 14% for aero, for city driving a small car, so I'm not so sure about in town..?
Perhaps only when you want an enclosed body for weather and crash protection?

A car weighs generally 2,000+ lbs, while an e-velo, under 250 lbs. Aero plays an increasingly greater role in city fuel economy the lighter the vehicle gets. In dense downtown stop and go traffic with 30 mph cruising speeds, my 91 lb DIY e-velo can approach as much consumption as 20 Wh/mile when I get caught at every red light and frequently have to brake for cars in front of me. I do have regen, or else this figure would be higher still. This still is less than what it uses to cruise 50 mph on a state highway, whereas a small car will most likely get better highway efficiency than city efficiency.

The 7-9 Wh/mile I quoted is for conditions where I can maintain cruising speed 90%+ of the time. Every time I have to stop from 30 mph, I lose about 1/4 of a mile of range with regen, and 1/3 a mile of range without regen.
 
Last edited:
This deserves much better aero, and could get it without increasing complexity, mass, or build difficulty. It will take a few hundred hours of fabrication and experimentation to get it right.

For an aerodynamic open-wheeled design that is easy to fabricate and practical to use, look to the LeMans velomobile and salt flats Lakester hot rods for inspiration. That is what I did for my first two shells. My previous iteration only needed ~7-9 Wh/mile to cruise 30 mph with maybe 100-150W pedaling effort added, so about 400W total power to move down the road at 30 mph(which was indicated by my CA3 with throttle-only in use during testing). My mountain bike uses TRIPLE the power for the same speed.

I was getting upwards of 200 miles range at 30 mph on a 1.5 kWh pack.
The Mott *has* a few hundred hours of experimentation and fabrication in it, he's documented the whole process on youtube. There were a few false starts ( he thought a quad would be legal on the road where he lives, that turned out to be untrue)

I'm thinking that wheel pants on open wheels would make a lot of sense. If the vehicle was retro inspired, mostly simple curves ( easy with thin ply ) partial wheel pants would even look pretty good.

Here are a couple modern plywood homebuilt velo's that show whats possible...




Or you could do a alleweder style body in plywood...


Or borrow a vintage Morgan look...



cycle cars often have simple curves and three wheels...


Running some numbers on that Sanford, based on its top speed and HP output. It would require 2.2 HP to drive an exact replica at 30mph...so, 1600w? That's for a full size two seat version.

Shrink the dimensions by a third, does reduce drag by that much?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top