Mounting your battery, Center of Gravity.

TylerDurden said:
On the handlebars ain't that bad when you're moving (as long as it is close to the steering tube)... totally sux when parked.

I'll bet that's why it is even possible to have decent handling with a battery pack on the front forks as shown earlier in this thread. As long as the mass is near the axis of the handlebar/front fork rotation it allows quick steering.
 
Areas Of Agreement

file.php


Some things we might agree on as general statements about the effects of weight distribution:

:arrow: Rear hub motors make more sense than front hub motors because the location of the weight (which can be up to 25 lbs) is in the right place in the rear down low, but not as good when that weight is in the front.

:arrow: If you have a choice of a seat mounted battery (bolted high to the seat tube) and a saddlebag mounted battery the saddlebag location is better because it's lower. Obviously a bike with rear suspension rules this out, so you will have to compromise.

:arrow: When your goal is stability in a straight line then it's to your advantage to place batteries low and in front. This tends to slow down the responsiveness of the front end and make it more stable in a straight line. Don't do this if you want the reverse which is a quick handling bike. (so choppers are okay doing this, but mountain bikes or road racers probably should not) An extra bonus of low battery weight is that when at rest it's easier to park.

:arrow: The location that will produce the least ill effects is when you locate most of your weight in the middle of the bike. This is because it balances the front to back weight bias as well as reduces the rotational inertia. When in doubt, seek the middle.

...anyone want to add some other "general rules to live by"?
 
safe said:
:arrow: Rear hub motors make more sense than front hub motors because the location of the weight (which can be up to 25 lbs) is in the right place in the rear down low, but not as good when that weight is in the front.
Depends on the bike.

safe said:
:arrow: If you have a choice of a seat mounted battery (bolted high to the seat tube) and a saddlebag mounted battery the saddlebag location is better because it's lower. Obviously a bike with rear suspension rules this out, so you will have to compromise.
Depends on the bike.

safe said:
:arrow: When your goal is stability in a straight line then it's to your advantage to place batteries low and in front. This tends to slow down the responsiveness of the front end and make it more stable in a straight line. Don't do this if you want the reverse which is a quick handling bike. (so choppers are okay doing this, but mountain bikes or road racers probably should not) An extra bonus of low battery weight is that when at rest it's easier to park.
Depends on the bike.

safe said:
:arrow: The location that will produce the least ill effects is when you locate most of your weight in the middle of the bike.
That might actually be universally applicable.
 
TylerDurden said:
safe said:
:arrow: The location that will produce the least ill effects is when you locate most of your weight in the middle of the bike.
That might actually be universally applicable.

Agreed, but not for the reasons that Safe mentioned. Instead, because it's the most convenient out of the way location as long as you have sufficient space and clearance of the cranks, AND with batteries often being the most expensive part of an ebike, it offers the best protection especially for riding on an uneven surface.

John
 
It is fascinating how a thing that is so natural to all of us can be so hard to articulate. Any of us can get on most any bike, big or small, tiny or tall and just go. Our understanding of steering and balance is so deeply ingrained that we need not think, just do it.

I recall learning to ride. Was taught the myth about centrifugal force keeping it upright. I believed it and remember exploring that somewhat with the bike turned upside down, spinning the wheels and directly observing the force in that way. It did not seem sufficient to keep the thing upright. A new opportunity for that experiment came with my new front hub motor, holding it up a few inches and spinning at great speed. BTW, how many of us have little black skid marks all over the garage floor?

Learning was hard -- the first bike was too tall for me and I still have scars from that day 45 years later. But the notable thing was that there was a single moment where I suddenly just got it. One minute I could not keep it upright for more than a few feet and the next minute I was going around the block.

I've taught both my kids and several others and the experience seems much the same. Learning to balance is sudden. At first you can't, then, you can. It's very much like looking at an optical illusion like this one, where you first see one image, then suddenly the other ... image.jpg.

My ebike is fairly tall Schwinn with batteries on the rack in standard WE fashion. It handles in a certain way, which is not bad by my standards. In an earlier post I mentioned an eGo scooter, which is at the opposite end of the CG scale. It is easy to ride, very docile. The Schwinn is clearly more agile. Both are worthy vehicles. And different. Any of us could ride either, equally well. So interesting as all of this is, I'm starting to wonder what is the point? And did the OP ever get his question answered.

I submit that where to put the batteries has more to do with the purpose of the bike than anything. Are you a racer, a casual rider, a commuter? Will you be trail riding or riding freestyle or hauling groceries? What is more important to you, safety, comfort, speed, looks? This thread has tons of good information that would apply to each of these situations. But I think these kinds of questions need to be kept in mind as the answers are sought.

...

About countersteering (especially if you have doubts) -- If you have a light mounted on the handlebars, try this some night. Ride in a straight line and observe where the light hits the ground, some distance out in front. Then start a turn, and notice where the light beam goes. It will always swing, briefly, opposite to the direction of the turn. Try it hands off! Guess I noticed it since this discussion thread is still in mind.
 
While my gut instinct agrees with your "rules of thumb" Safe (and I'm even building a new battery pack to go in the triangle), my practical experience is the opposite.

The bike that handles pretty well is a front hub, rear rack setup.

I will be trying triangle battery, rear motor soon. I'll let you know which is better. Same bike.
 
Mark_A_W said:
The bike that handles pretty well is a front hub, rear rack setup.
We get back to what "handles pretty well" means...

In general for the quickest handling you want to pack everything into the tightest ball in the middle of the bike near where your bodies center of mass is located and in harmony with the frames geometery.

But stable handling can be something else... you can increase stability by doing the opposite of making a bike quick handling. One can choose a configuration that is more stable over one that is quick just because that person prefers such an experience. Handling becomes as unique as the personality of the rider.

SamSpeed has the right idea, you really need to assess what the rider wants to do before you can make any definitive statement about how weight should be positioned. One man's "stable handling" is another man's "sluggish response". :)

It's like in skiing... the short ski's are good for slalom and the long ski's are better for the downhill. No length is "superior" unless the definition of the contest is first defined.
 
Safe,

You really don't have a clue. Do you even own a bicycle? Bicycle stability is in the geometry of a bike not placement of weight. I weigh almost 200lbs than when I learned to ride, and that weight is up high on the bike. Guess what, a same geometry bike still rides the same. Take a bike that is easy to ride with no hands, ie stable, add 50lbs wherever you want and I could still ride it with no hands. The converse is also true.

Also, stop spouting off about anything related to physics, because you also don't have a clue there. The center front to back only comes into play wrt uneven road surfaces, otherwise with both wheels on the ground and not slipping every axis of movement of the frame starts at the rear contact patch, period. This means that you can't justify any other location with an argument about rotational axis. That's not to say batteries shouldn't go in the triangle. It's probably the best location if possible, just not for the reasons in the drivel you spew.

John
 
enertia bike does theirs this way - sorta in the same distribution as the optibike
(sad that both are overpriced)


http://www.enertiabike.com/content/view/19/24/
 
What would be the most optimum location on a bike for helium gas bags to conter those heavy SLA's?

:lol:
 
:arrow: But you forget...

Well placed weight doesn't "feel" like it's there. So it's as though my (now) 60 lbs of batteries feels about as light weight as 20 lbs on a seat rack when riding.

I'll make a proposition:

"Find any published online document about bicycle or motorcycle steering dynamics that disputes anything I've talked about here."

...you will not be able to because I'm just presenting (again and again) the "conventional wisdom" about the topic.

As a rule if you stick to the fundamentals you can't go wrong. (it's a "safe" bet)

So get started... look for the "radical new geometry theory" websites and present them.


file.php

file.php
 
dirtdad said:
dogman said:
Just carry the battery on one side, and a six pack on the other. Sooner or later everybody breaks down. Drink the beer while you wait for your ride home. :D :D :D

Warm beer? :!: A nice box of red wine would be OK at room temperature. And it might match your battery better.

Depends where you live :)
 
HAL9000v2.0 said:
Just checked at https://www.radicalnewgeometrytheory.org/Index/proof/apsoluteproof.htm and you are wrong.
Must be a member to see this page.

HAL,
In almost every post Safe states something that is wrong.

Safe,
Here's some reading material you requested, which someone linked previously
http://books.google.com/books?id=rJTQxITnkbgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=motorcycle+dynamics . So go do your homework and give the keyboard a break for all of our sakes. While you're at it go look up info regarding the world bike, which allows people to load their bikes with hundreds of pounds of weight centered front to back near the rear axle and as low as practical, while maintaining stability. Maybe if some better info soaks in you won't have to take the ditch next time an oncoming truck hogs the road a bit.

I'm sure everyone is tired of my posts in this thread too. I do apologize for allowing myself to be sucked to debating the world according to Safe, so I'll not respond anymore.

John
 
lostcoyote said:
maybe you guys can do some experimentation with a conventional bike using weights placed a bag that gets attched at various locations you set up for comparison.
use like a 20 pound weight and try these comparisons:

1. on the handle bars - lol
2. above the rear tire
3. low at the crank
4. low at the rear axle
5. low in the middle of the downtube


and then just see what you like best - set up a course where the turns are consistant and at the same speed.

(it would be a subjectiuve call in some of the comparisons)

I tried strapping a 20lb weight on the rear rack of a normal bike and the dynamics were fine while riding. Wheeling it around at low speeds and parking it showed the problem. But nothing that a strong kickstand couldn't take care of.

I also mounted the 20lbs in the frame seat-downtube with better results. I think when I get the Lifepo4 battery, I'll try and mount it there first. If that doesn't work, I'll mount it on the rear rack. Thanks for the suggestion! :D
 
The "World Bike"

123355744_b00cb5801b.jpg


...yeah, I'm going to go 55 mph on this bike. :lol:

But seriously, if your goal is to load up a lot of cargo this does make a lot of sense. The fact remains, if your goal is strictly performance you stick to the "conventional wisdom". If you have other needs for your bike there's a lot of room to explore alternatives. It's not that alternatives to the "conventional wisdom" are "bad" it's just that those alternatives are taken as a sacrifice to achieve some other goal.

We all don't share the same goals, so we all don't have to share the same bike design...
 
John in CR said:
Bicycle stability is in the geometry of a bike not placement of weight.
It's both actually.

John in CR said:
I weigh almost 200lbs than when I learned to ride, and that weight is up high on the bike. Guess what, a same geometry bike still rides the same.
I'm not surprised.
 
Last edited:
Papa said:
John in CR said:
Bicycle stability is in the geometry of a bike not placement of weight.
It's both actually.

Mass placement does indeed effect the bike's handling characteristics. Moving the CoG forward promotes oversteer - too far forward and the bike becomes overly sensitive or 'twitchy', and is potentially dangerous at speed. Likewise, rear biased weight distribution initiates understeer - too far rearward and steering becomes mushy and ill-responsive - it also degrades low speed maneuvering.

John in CR said:
I weigh almost 200lbs than when I learned to ride, and that weight is up high on the bike. Guess what, a same geometry bike still rides the same.
I'm not surprised.

This is because the laden CoM location hasn't changed, (or changed significantly). It should be a clue as to where your extra 'mass' should be placed. An intelligent bike designer would first establish optimum, laden CoG. Doing this, helps to preserve the bike's acceptable handling characteristics over a broader range of rider weights.

Papa,

That makes perfect sense, especially using the term "handling characteristics" and a broad definition of "stability". I've also seen "stability" defined narrowly, where the effect of weight is unclear to me, but geometry is dominant. I have a theoretical question though, since it's impossible to do so. Wouldn't added weight at the point of the rear contact patch have zero effect on handling characteristics and stability, other than the obvious effect of pulling more mass around with the bike, and isn't it a good starting point in predicting how battery placement will affect the feel of our ebikes?

Case in point. I have two 5kg lithium packs and only 1 fits in the triangle of my hardtail bike, which seems the obvious placement choice if space is available and the battery dimensions result in adequate clearance of the cranks because the battery is well protected, out of the way, and has minimal impact on handling characteristics on or off the bike. I split the other pack in half with the initial intention of hanging them rigidly saddlebag style near the headset, but the discussion in this thread leads toward mounting them in aerodynamic cases below the chainstay and rear axle. What are your thoughts?

John
 
Front To Back Weight Bias

This falls into the general category of "Front To Back Weight Bias". When you move all the weight back to the rear wheel it's not a bad location when you are talking about countersteer and roll behavior. So let's be clear it's "okay" for that. But having all the weight loaded up on the back will cause problems when going over bumps. The imbalance of weight front to rear will first cause things like spokes breaking (from too much pounding) and it will also tend to make the rear end kick up in the air after it passes a bump. If your speeds are slow it's probably okay, but if you were to try this setup on a mountainbike on a downhill it's not going to behave very well.

Abstract truth and practical truth are two separate things...

In the abstract we can all agree that having the mass centered is the best way to go, but practical issues force us to seek out other options. The rear mount location is probably the best of the "compromises" towards "change" of the conventional wisdom. When there is no alternative this makes sense.

But given a choice... always choose the conventional wisdom over other options. When in doubt "reform" your bike back to the wisdom of the past rather than "change" your bike to precarious alternatives. :lol:
 
Safe, you are completely insane.

A practical solution is a front motor and a rear battery.

Another is a rear motor and a frame mounted battery (yes it can be done).


I'd like to know how an Optibike is the "wisdom of past"? Your such a conservative biased loony you even let it get in the way of thinking about bikes.
 
Mark_A_W said:
I'd like to know how an Optibike is the "wisdom of past"?
People think in "patterns". You can take a thought pattern from one area and see how it might translate into another area. It's the essence of an IQ test, people who happen to have higher IQ's tend to pattern match more easily than those who have lower IQ's. (many people complain about this, but it's true, the tests are set up this way)

So when I equate "conventional wisdom" about human relationships to the "conventional wisdom" about bike design it's a pattern match. It fits rather well actually.

The Optibike and the Aprilia Enjoy and others all represent knowledge of bike design that you could have known about 50 or more years ago. They learned early on that the best handling came from weight centered in the middle. This does NOT mean that other designs don't work... it's just that they don't work to the same higher standard.

Many bike designs are possible... but when a bike is called upon to push it's limits (in something like a racetrack setting) the "conventional wisdom" always ends up winning. The racetrack is sort of a Darwinian experiment where only the best design (most fitting the truth) survives.

Betting against the "conventional wisdom" is not a good bet. :wink:

Traditions are the result of trial and error and they are usually better than someone that just makes something up out of the blue. It takes a long time for the "conventional wisdom" to become what it is and be so refined. Of course, you can lose all your wisdom in a generation... it's happened many times in human history. :|
 
safe said:
When you move all the weight back to the rear wheel it's not a bad location when you are talking about countersteer and roll behavior. So let's be clear it's "okay" for that.
Here's Tony Foale's nifty little (free) CoG and weight distribution calculator:

พนันบอลออนไลน์ ฟรี คำแนะนำในการเลือกเว็บพนันบอลที่เชื่อถือได้

After you establish your current CoG location (using a bathroom scale and a few books), then plug-in your numbers into this little cutie (also free):

 
Last edited:
Papa,

I believe there is something wrong with Tony Foale's CoG calculator. I can't make it come up with an answer where the CoG is below axle height, but if you place enough weight below axle level, then the CoG will be below the axle height.

John
 
Back
Top