Why you don't let students design real products

[Ferzerp]

I guess the concept of traction are lost on these students.

Or maybe these are racing bikes, slicks only?

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/09/19/...ng-developed-by-engineering-studen/#continued

 

[Crono]

They could add spherical tread patterns later on, seems like they are just testing the ability to move/drive on balls.

 

[phucheneh]

Maybe next year they should reinvent sliced bread, since they've obviously conquered that pesky wheel contraption.

Clearly, their cup overfilleth with retardation.

Their drive system is absolutely purposeless on a motorcycle. Yes, riding on spheres that could be rotated in multiple directions is an...idea. But not when the vehicle riding on them requires gyroscopic stabilization to, you know, not kill you.

Also, driving the sphere by pushing against its 'tread' surface? Yeah, that'll work well.

edit: although if they call it a Dyson and get that dumb, snooty English fuck to talk about it, people will buy it.

HELP ME MR. DYSON I CAN'T TURN MY VACUUM CLEANER. OR CAR/MOTORCYCLE.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

So basically the limit of your traction is entirely dependent on the amount of traction those tiny rollers have on the balls....

Sounds like it would be a very imprecise, spongy ride.

I mean, it's neat in the sense that maneuverability would be amazing. This bike could drive horizontally into a parking space for example.

A crotch rocket type thing that looks like it's designed to go fast is perhaps not the best foundation to use this concept on.

I'm thinking something where maneuverability is paramount above all else. That's essentially what you use ball joints for at a fundamental level.

 

[phucheneh]

So basically the limit of your traction is entirely dependent on the amount of traction those tiny rollers have on the balls....

Sounds like it would be a very imprecise, spongy ride.

I mean, it's neat in the sense that maneuverability would be amazing. This bike could drive horizontally it a parking space for example.

A crotch rocket type thing that looks like it's designed to go fast is perhaps not the best foundation to use this concept on.

I'm thinking something where maneuverability is paramount above all else. That's essentially what you use ball joints for at a fundamental level.

I didn't even consider that the traction limiter would be the...'ball driver'. Another fatal flaw.

Otherwise basically exactly what I was thinking: possibly the (very) early stages of a good idea; completely wrong way to use it. Frankly, I don't think this would be of use on anything big enough to carry people, unless it went very, very slow. Maybe some kind of machine for maneuvering through tight quarters at low speeds. Like in a factory or warehouse.

Or downsize everything and make wheel dollies for moving stored or in-transport cars around. (oh wait...we have casters)

I mean, really...ANYTHING but what they came up with. That bike would not even be able to move without training wheels. When I say 'gyroscope,' I'm not talking about something fancy. I'm literally just talking about how the spinning wheels are what keep a two wheeled vehicle from falling over.

 

[FuzzyDunlop]

slightly deflated they might work... if you didnt need gyroscopes to not fall over


EDIT: I guess i should read previous posts before posting.

 

[SSSnail]

That looks retarded. At some points, someone will have to say "Look kid, we know you try, but let's not get retarded, OK?"

 

[phucheneh]

It's just baffling to me that no one ever said 'hey guys...if you want anyone to take you seriously, maybe try this concept on a four-wheeled vehicle?'

And even then...I don't know why anyone would take them seriously.

It's kind of like this whole 'fix the economy by creating jobs' thing. Yes, fix the economy...by creating supply...

...no, dummies, you create DEMAND. Increasing supply without demand = economic fail.

Not to get too political or anything. But this is the same concept...they thought 'what can we make' before thinking 'what's needed.' Rich inventors tend to get rich by creating something that performs a needed task. OR simply performs it better and/or more cheaply than the competition.

If this is what 'educated' (that new word that means 'I got me this piece of paper hurr durr') minds are developing, I weep for our future.

 

[Fenixgoon]

there's this thing called a contact patch. i wouldn't be surprised if the balls actually had fairly large ones.

you have to think out of the box if you want to really change how things work.

this vehicle can move perpendicular to its direction of travel at any point. it has 0 turn radius. it actually has a lot of neat features. fleshed out, it could be something pretty interesting, even if it doesn't become a practical concept.

jeep debuted a 4 wheel steering jeep concept a few years back. i imagine you thought that was quite dumb as well.

 

[phucheneh]

there's this thing called a contact patch. i wouldn't be surprised if the balls actually had fairly large ones.

you have to think out of the box if you want to really change how things work.

this vehicle can move perpendicular to its direction of travel at any point. it has 0 turn radius. it actually has a lot of neat features. fleshed out, it could be something pretty interesting, even if it doesn't become a practical concept.

jeep debuted a 4 wheel steering jeep concept a few years back. i imagine you thought that was quite dumb as well.

Aside from vehicles that use 'four wheel steer' to make minute rear toe changes, that tech died for good reason. I don't believe there is a single car company out there still trying to use it to increase maneuverability.

And again, at least they thought they found a problem to address. 'We wants this vehicle to be more maneuverable.' It just didn't really work out that great.

'We want a vehicle that will immediately murder anyone who gets on it because it is fundamentally flawed' is not really a proper aspiration.

 

[PricklyPete]

I could see this having more industrial applications than commercial.

 

[Railgun]

Wow.

Lots of close minded folks stuck in the box here.

Other than Fenix, can no one really see how this would work?

Also, having driven 4-wheel steering vehicles in the past, they were great. Especially for low speed manoeuvrability.

 

[phucheneh]

Wow.

Lots of close minded folks stuck in the box here.

Other than Fenix, can no one really see how this would work?

Also, having driven 4-wheel steering vehicles in the past, they were great. Especially for low speed manoeuvrability.

Go find two big rubber balls and lie across them on your stomach.

Pretty hard to not fall over, huh?

Now use your arms and legs to try and roll the balls sideways underneath you.

'Having rudimentary knowledge of phsyics' does not equal 'close minded stuck in a box.'

 

[Railgun]

Go find two big rubber balls and lie across them on your stomach.

Pretty hard to not fall over, huh?

Now use your arms and legs to try and roll the balls sideways underneath you.

'Having rudimentary knowledge of phsyics' does not equal 'close minded stuck in a box.'

Just in case you missed it...

Inspired by the self-balancing technology found in the Segway

The spheres are controlled via three electric motors that provide small inputs to keep the rig upright

Rudimentary knowledge of physics is not as good as rudimentary reading comprehension.

It's also a proof of concept. IE prototype. IE not going to be doing 70 down the highway anytime soon.

 

[Doppel]

The contact patch could be big but yeah you'd need to not use rollers and instead I think some internal hard sphere upon which magnets are. Make the bike electric, and you'd never break those magnets, thereby bringing your grip limit back to tires. Of course that's a lot of rotational mass. There's really no need for this bike at all unless the idea is to make it able to move sideways like a segway--something motorcyclists have been clamoring for for decades (yeah right).

 

[JCH13]

Wow.

Lots of close minded folks stuck in the box here.

Other than Fenix, can no one really see how this would work?

Also, having driven 4-wheel steering vehicles in the past, they were great. Especially for low speed manoeuvrability.

It would work great, in theory-land, and is certainly a fun idea. However, I see no practical value to being able to slide side-ways on a motorcycle.

A tremendous amount of un-sprung weight, reliance on stabilization software and sensors, and not utilizing 100% of the available normal force for traction and braking come to mind.

In an industrial setting a Mecanum wheel is probably a much better idea.
Basic Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9t68QzUVNA
Industrial Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f_x0RgVzfc&feature=related

FTR: I've been thinking about this concept since I saw it about a month ago.

The contact patch could be big but yeah you'd need to not use rollers and instead I think some internal hard sphere upon which magnets are. Make the bike electric, and you'd never break those magnets, thereby bringing your grip limit back to tires. Of course that's a lot of rotational mass. There's really no need for this bike at all unless the idea is to make it able to move sideways like a segway--something motorcyclists have been clamoring for for decades (yeah right).

The contact patch isn't big... the "wheel balls" are hard spheres, carbon composite IIRC, so they're not very compliant.

 

[Kntx]

Wow lots of haters. Please show me the amazingly cool thing you did as a college project???

 

[Ferzerp]

Wow lots of haters. Please show me the amazingly cool thing you did as a college project???

I see this type of sentiment and am always baffled that the sayers of said sentiment actually think this position has any merit.

I can't climb a sheer rock face, but that doesn't mean I am unable to tell you that using kite string to secure yourself is not a good idea.

I can't play a stringed instrument, but rest assured that I can tell when someone else can't as well.

Any time someone has an idea (in this case, these students didn't have this idea, the ball and rollers balancing thing has been around a long while, tons of internet videos out there), and then tries to shoehorn it in to some application merely because they have an idea, it's typically a bad idea. Design needs to go the other way around. You have a problem, so you find the proper solution. This is "we have this solution (that we didn't come up with), let's find a problem for it!"

 

[JCH13]

I see this type of sentiment and am always baffled that the sayers of said sentiment actually think this position has any merit.

I can't climb a sheer rock face, but that doesn't mean I am unable to tell you that using kite string to secure yourself is not a good idea.

I can't play a stringed instrument, but rest assured that I can tell when someone else can't as well.

Any time someone has an idea (in this case, these students didn't have this idea, the ball and rollers balancing thing has been around a long while, tons of internet videos out there), and then tries to shoehorn it in to some application merely because they have an idea, it's typically a bad idea. Design needs to go the other way around. You have a problem, so you find the proper solution. This is "we have this solution (that we didn't come up with), let's find a problem for it!"

+eleventy billion

I support "creation for the sake of creation", but that doesn't make a motorcycle with balls for wheels a good idea.

BTW, here is some prior art on the subject of ball drives from 6 years ago. This robot was created by a HS robotics team in <6 weeks. They've never used the system since because it's not effective.

Picture

Video

 

[Ferzerp]

Here was more what I was thinking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI06lujiD7E

 

[Kntx]

I see this type of sentiment and am always baffled that the sayers of said sentiment actually think this position has any merit.

Not the same thing at all.

If you had read the article, you'd see the students working on the project specifically address the limitations and challenges the design faces. You then can't wait to make a post trashing their idea for reasons they themselves are aware of.

I think a group of college kids putting a bike like this together is worthy of praise. If you have criticisms, that is OK, but you can at the very least acknowledge the impressive workmanship before you shit all over their work.

 

[Ferzerp]

Not the same thing at all.

If you had read the article, you'd see the students working on the project specifically address the limitations and challenges the design faces. You then can't wait to make a post trashing their idea for reasons they themselves are aware of.

I think a group of college kids putting a bike like this together is worthy of praise. If you have criticisms, that is OK, but you can at the very least acknowledge the impressive workmanship before you shit all over their work.

"We know this is ill suited for what we're doing, but we're doing it anyway!"

Having this attitude instilled in them will take these students far (in government work).

 

[FuzzyDunlop]

Here was more what I was thinking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI06lujiD7E

I KNEW that I had seen this somewhere before.

 

[twinrider1]

It's being judged unfairly. It's a design project. They're learning how to think about and solve problems. If they stumble upon something useful, great, but it's not the primary goal.

Using this on a motorcycle is silly. Really, expecting anything that goes over 5mph to use this is silly. But a motorcycle is exciting enough to attract attention; and it's small size makes it easier to build.

 

[Ferzerp]

See, I don't agree.

Making a unicycle out of this: neat
Making a motorcycle: pretty dumb.