• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

what's the point of a spokeless bicycle?

A hubless rear wheel probably would, other things being equal, create a signficant aero advantage, though I'd skeptical of whether it would be enough to outweigh the increased friction and likely increased weight intrinsic to such a design. The real reason why these exist is, of course, that they look cool.
 
Don Vito Corleone said:
A hubless rear wheel probably would, other things being equal, create a signficant aero advantage, though I'd skeptical of whether it would be enough to outweigh the increased friction and likely increased weight intrinsic to such a design. The real reason why these exist is, of course, that they look cool.
Click to expand...

i think the bike looks pretty awkward, but that's probably due to the tiny front wheel.
 
From a physics perspective, it looks like it would be more efficient because the force is being applied at the edge as opposed to the center so less torque is required to rotate the wheel. However from an engineering design perspective, it was dumb decision to put the gears at the bottom where dirt and debris can collect and ultimately damage them.
 
OMG! That's so awesome! What's next, a hubless unicycle?!?! A hubless tricycle?!?! A hubless big-wheel?!?! A hubless motorcycle?!?! The possibilities are endless! 😱

/sarcmark
 
If only this kid had a design orgy with James Dyson it could be cooling the riders ankles too! (and cost $45,000)
 
No chain + derailleur system which is prone to breaking.

But in trade you presumably have some kind of gearbox in there which may or may not be more sturdy.
 
her209 said:
From a physics perspective, it looks like it would be more efficient because the force is being applied at the edge as opposed to the center so less torque is required to rotate the wheel. However from an engineering design perspective, it was dumb decision to put the gears at the bottom where dirt and debris can collect and ultimately damage them.
Click to expand...

the efficiency of a bike isn't due to the location of the gears, but rather the ratio of the gears. Highest efficiency is achieved by having a large front gear and a small rear gear.

Bikes can already operate in the 90/99% efficiency range, so, the only reason to do this would be a weight thing.

I agree though, putting the gears on the bottom was a dumb idea (that and such a small front wheel makes it look unstable.) Though, placing the gears just about anywhere would still have the problem of collecting large amounts of crap every time something falls into the center. Current bikes are far less susceptible to gunk.

If you want a comfortable and efficient ride, you really can beat this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny-farthing . Safe is another issue.
 
I think their assignment was just to see if they could redesign how the bike worked as it's been the same since inception, and it looks like they did
 
dfuze said:
I think their assignment was just to see if they could redesign how the bike worked as it's been the same since inception, and it looks like they did
Click to expand...

Well, honestly, the bicycle design is a hard one to beat. It is so basic and efficient that screwing around with things is like screwing around with perfection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top