Is a lightweight velomobile legally capable of 50mph feasible

This might be the most functional streamliner I have seen yet:


I really like how a person can put their feet down via those opening flats:

 
Some testing of very small diameter tires on a very small 4.5" drum:


Screenshot_20240720-202208.png

Some information (from the link) discussing the test and why it doesn't make a good comparison of small diameter tires vs. large diameter tires:

Screenshot_20240720-202435.png

P.S. Something additional that confounds these results is the concept of impedence. Impedence occurs when rough roads cause an increase rolling resistance as tire pressure increases. This is the opposite of what happens on a smooth drum where increasing tire pressure always results in lower rolling resistance.

Here is a good discussion on the concept of impedence:


 
Last edited:
Hysteresis loss is one kind of rolling resistance. If that were the whole picture, cycle racers would be using 16-17" wheels with low RR, like solar racers do. But in the real world, on real surfaces, the horrible ride quality of small wheels at speed is tangible evidence of kinetic energy being drained away as shocks and vibrations to the rider, from whom that energy won't be elastically restored. Good suspension can help quite a bit, but it doesn't fix the problem; dampers are just a controlled way to sink kinetic energy that got away as unwanted wheel displacement. So really, ranking the RR of donut wheels is sort of missing the point-- unless you only ride in clean skating rinks or gymnasiums, or carefully groomed racetracks and road courses.

Big wheels are a win both for hysteresis RR and shock/vibe RR, which is why fast bikes almost all use the largest size wheels that don't screw up the geometry of a short adult's bike frame, despite such wheels incurring both weight and aero disadvantages compared to smaller ones. If tall people formed a larger market, the fastest tires would be even larger in diameter.
 
fast bikes almost all use the largest size wheels that don't screw up the geometry of a short adult's bike frame, despite such wheels incurring both weight and aero disadvantages compared to smaller ones.
No, that's not true.

You got it the understanding the opposite of how it should be. I even wrote about it here previously -->

"One downside of smaller diameter wide tires is weight (re: the higher the tire volume the higher the weight). Another downside is aerodynamics. The reason for that is because for any given tire volume the taller tire always presents a smaller frontal area."
 
On a perfect road, the smaller wheel would hold its own in terms of efficiency, but on rough roads, the bigger wheel has advantages. Hysteresis, which represents by far the greatest energy loss in a wheel, is when a tire material flexes or deforms when it meets the road. Anything that contributes to this deformation process will greatly increase energy losses. Potholes, cracks and dips slow smaller wheels much more as the angle at which the tire enters and climbs out of a hole is much larger with a smaller wheel. Think of riding up and over a curb with roller blades or a skateboard vs with a truck. The bigger wheel will float right over any road inconsistencies. For ebike applications it might make sense to go with a smaller wheel, but these are largely due to increased torque you can achieve with high power fast wound hubmotors and the geometric constraints of the motocross-like frames often used for these ebikes. Builders of these machines are not concerned with the loss of a few watts through hysteresis, and dual suspension will take care of any vibrations. In the case of the velomobile, it would be important to squeeze out as much efficiency as possible, though wheel diameter will definitely be constrained by geometry.
 
For the opening question, there seems to be quite a wide opinion as to what is possible so I think I should narrow options down, so how light can a vehicle be which:
  1. Is comfortably (not borderline) legal at 50mph, so the braking should be as good as a typical car or motorbike/trike and the chassis, sub-frame, body parts, wheels, axles and suspension should be able to withstand the forces and vibrations imposed during acceleration, braking and cornering
  2. Is fully or mostly enclosed for aerodynamic advantage and protection from weather (for example the Northern Light 630 is mostly enclosed)
  3. Has 3 wheels which do no lean into corners, so notably this excludes vehicles like the Nimbus or Carver
  4. Has electric pedal assist or a pedal generator (hybrid drive)
  5. Can use any combination of velomobile, motorbike and car parts - the aim being, to be as light as possible, whilst being legal and safe (in terms of stability and braking)
  6. May have some crash protection, but has no requirement for this as it is classed as a motorbike/trike, not a car
  7. Has a height of at least 1.1m and a length less than 4m
  8. Can carry a payload of at least 125kg (275 lb), but ideally to up 205kg (450lb) so can carry one passenger
  9. Has a minimum range of 50 miles (80km)
To determine how light such a vehicle could be, you could start from a velomobile designed for lower speeds and determine the additional weight to make it more robust or start from a vehicle which can already do 50mph like the SAM EV or Archimo and remove weight. To be more methodical we should look at the weight of each component, so below is a guesstimate of the component weights (in kg) of the NL 630 which is legally capable of 28mph and can accommodate a driver up to 120kg (with additional luggage) and I think this version has no pedals:

ComponentNL 630 28mph50mph VersionComments
Chassis824
Suspension515
Wheel Rims and axles815
Tyres 1015
Brakes 26
Motor7171.5KW vs 4-8KW
Battery51848V20Ah vs 72V40Ah
Pedal Generator4
Body88
Other28
Total55130

A lot of this is guesses in that I just know the total weight for the NL 630 is 55kg and even more guess work for a 50mph version. "Other" is for anything less than 1kg, but I may have missed out some components, but just trying to give a starting point so please leave your comments on component weights for both 28mph and 50mph.

Note this vehicle is not completely enclosed and to be so would need extra weight for windscreen and side windows, plus windscreen wipers, demister and washer system.

The legal situation in the UK is that any self-built motorbike, trike or quad bike are all covered by the Motorcycle single vehicle approval (MSVA) which covers trikes up to 1000kg and quad bikes up to 450kg both of which need to be no more than 4m in length and basically trikes and quad bikes have very little additional legal requirements to mopeds/scooters (28mph motor bikes) so mainly just have to be mechanically sound, so notably has zero requirement for crash protection. I am not sure what the legal situation is in the US and other countries and whether such a vehicle is treated as a car or some other vehicle type.
 
Get rid of:

7. Has a height of at least 1.1m and a length less than 4m
8. Can carry a payload of at least 125kg (275 lb), but ideally to up 205kg (450lb) so can carry one passenger


...and all the other benchmarks not only become a lot easier to meet, but you can now keep the entire vehicle under 45 kg.

Imposing a minimum height of 1.1m not only raises height but also increases the minimum track width required for stability due to raising the center of gravity, thus increasing frontal area and/or drag coefficient, and thus the size of the battery needed for the specified range. 0.7 or 0.8m is still quite visible on the roads and confers many dynamic advantages(I speak from experience with having owned a Milan SL for 3 years now). Carrying a massive cargo load and/or a passenger greatly increases the laden mass that such a vehicle must be due to the added loading on all of the parts(brakes/tires/chassis/suspension/ect), and the form factor of the vehicle has to be modified to accommodate the second passenger which will add frontal area and/or drag coefficient, further increasing the size of the battery required for the specified range, and thus, mass

Whether 7 and 8 are requirements or not could mean the difference between a 45 kg vehicle that holds 50 mph using only 0.010 kWh/mile, and a 150 kg vehicle that requires 0.030 kWh/mile to do the same. And from a safety perspective, it is a lot easier to design crumple zones and roll cages for a lighter vehicle because there is less kinetic energy to dissipate in a crash.
 
Glad to see there are types of denatured ethanol compatible with fuel cells (See attachment).

Obviously being able to use denatured ethanol is going to make refueling the fuel cell very easy as you can buy it at any hardware or home improvement store.

Now we just need to figure how to use the waste heat of a fuel cell in a productive fashion. There should be something easy enough to implement as there are all types of waste heat driven processes....there is even such a thing as "waste heat driven refrigeration" which is sometimes called "heat driven refrigeration".

I'm no expert on fuel cells, but IIRC the membranes don't last long and are expensive?

As for using waste heat in a velomobile type chassis I think the Meredith Effect might be about the easiest, no extra stuff and weight required, method.
ie: a mild jet effect simply from the shape of the velo's shell and I believe the the aero shapes currently used are very damn close thx to the same laws of aerodynamics.

As I understand things you have a duct that increases in area to a maximum slightly ahead of the heat source to create a high pressure 'barrier' or one way valve of sorts.
After that the heating of the air expands it giving you the 'jet' of faster moving air out the back.

The literature says the effect only works above 400km/h or something, but back then they did not have the CFD modeling software available today, so I think it's worth a 2nd look..?


For std engines the heat and temperature in the exhaust is sufficient for pyrolysis:
The breaking down of HCs into methane like gasses that burn faster and more completely.

The temperature is sufficient for Steam Reformation too:
Methane + Steam = H2 + CO. (CO burns but badly)
But the pressures required to do so efficiently would make things heavy and dangerous.
Fortunately you can swap more temperature for lower pressure as was done by MIT and the like.
Look up:
MIT Plasmatron fuel reformer
for some interesting reading!
Basically it's nothing more than a giant spark plug, easily turned on a lathe, that provides the extra temperature and where the plasma arc also acts as a catalyst of huge surface area...
It worked so well it was bought out by shell companies and relegated to an exhaust after-treatment system, before quietly 'disappearing' of the scene completely.
Ye; if you own a lot of oil wells etc; buying controlling stocks in the industries that consume oil is a very good way of ensuring continued daylight robbery.

Then there's the Water-Gas Shift Reaction that operates at the temperatures akin to those found in the necessary cooling of the above gasses in an intercooler (large surface area) before entering the engine.
CO+H20 = H2+CO2

Throughout these reactions there are similar catalysts.
Zinc and Copper come up a lot.
These normally require huge surface areas, but every bit helps.
Copper is extremely interesting in that, unlike most metals, high temperatures reduce copper from 'rusty' to shiny bright..!
The kind of temperatures found in combustion chambers.
There is in fact a study where a copper coated combustion chamber etc makes a surprisingly large difference to engine efficiency by 'catalysing' the HC, steam and CO to H2 in the flame quenched areas close to chamber walls!
I'll provide links if anyone's interested.

Most important to note is that in an onboard system the easily achievable 'Methane' is already a win.
Any H2 one might be able to produce, Plasmatron or not, is a bonus.
Copper radiators are available and copper and zinc plating (of steel wool etc and combustion chambers) are pretty simple.

I have plenty of links available if you or anyone's interested.
 
Last edited:
No, that's not true.

You got it the understanding the opposite of how it should be. I even wrote about it here previously -->

"One downside of smaller diameter wide tires is weight (re: the higher the tire volume the higher the weight). Another downside is aerodynamics. The reason for that is because for any given tire volume the taller tire always presents a smaller frontal area."

I think Chalo has a valid point:
Imagine a wheel of HUGE diameter like a Ferris Wheel at a playground: How big does a pothole have to be for the wheel to fall into it..?
Does a car stop/kill you, or is it just a bump in the road?

Alternately; a skateboard wheel can be brought to a screeching halt by a piece of lose road gravel.

Then there's more contact area the larger the wheel.

The advantages of large diameter wheels on ride and grip should not come second to rolling and wind resistance calculations IMHO.
 
Back
Top