This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
A project of Volunteers in Asia
Rowland Whitt and David Gordon Wilson
Published by: The MIT Press 28 Carleton St. Cambridge, MA 02142 Paper copies are $ 6.70. Available from: The MIT Press 28 Carleton St. Cambridge, MA 02142
Reproduced by permission of The MIT Press. Reproduction of this microfiche document in any __ r . rorm is subject to the same restrictions as those of the original document.
,. c ._, . ..
.I. ,: ..,. ;.:.‘-:, .
-. _’ 8 -m . . .. . (.. ‘.. .-. , ” 2 - . . ., . ,._ . ,. . ..a, / I.. I .,. .I-.-. .‘:. ., i ,I, ‘i. .I
_ j :-. -...
;> ; ‘.._ i-, __. .,... ” , F.i.-: -1. . . __,
,.. : -_ ..- . .: _- .._ . ...,_ e,,. , . a
::,G&? “cp ;y$ 9 , :z ,. ‘& _:.::...x .;+ : ..:’ 3.2
.3 -. .:i-: ‘.‘: I
‘, *-I, : ’ ,“., .: .‘4 ..“fl
. ., >- --I..... , _*... .__ w.-- L;’ .*-..__ .
.’ A .. . _. -_ _ ,r sq
_ -- . .
Ergonomics and Mechanics
Frank Rowland Whitt and David Gordon Wilson
Cambridge, Massechusetts, and London, England
by Institute of Technology may be reproor mechperor by any without
The Massachusetts All rights reserved. duced anical, mission in any form including in writing
No part of this book rlxording, system,
or by any mesns, electronic
storage and retrieval
the publi,sher. Composer Univers, Printing Company
‘I :\is book was set in IBM and printed in the United and bound
by The Murray
States of America
first MIT 1977
Thii-d printing, Library Whitt,
of Congress Cataloging Frank Rowland. science: ergonomics
1. Bicycles and tricycles-Dynamics. 2. Man-machine systems. I. Wilson, David Gordon, 1928~joint author. II. Titla. TL41 O.W48 629.22’72’015313 74-5165 I SBN O-262-23068-2
world-reknowned heart specialist.al for the bicycle person to reawaken as a contributor to to think how much research is needed the truth of even tie most unimpor- . who did more than any other appreciation hea!th. most efficient and least we wish of modern vehicles.This book is dedicated to all those men and women whose efforts have produced the bicycle of todaythe simplest. lt is terrifying to determine tan t fat t. In particular. -Stendr. to pay our respects to the memory of Dr. Paul Dudley White. lethal quietest.
in still air) (on the level.-or wheels to cause that 2 Human power generation 16 Ergometers 16 Results from ergometer tests 18 Other methods of power determination 22 Breathing processes-the human “engine” 24 Cycling-speed versus breathing-rate relationships 28 Maximum performance 28 Muscle efficiency and the effect of different movements 30 Optimum pedaling rates 31 Pedaling forces 32 Measurements Cycling Cycling Cycling Gradient made during skating actual 36 40 42 bicycling 35 versus roller versus walking versus running resistance 42 (on the level. in still air) Should one walk or pedal up hills? 43 Comparison of human power with internal-combustion engines and electric motors 48 General 3 comments 48 How bicyclists keep cool 57 Use of data on heat transfer 58 Deductions Conclusions 60 62 62 Some speculations .Contents Foreword x xiii Acknowledgments Part I 1 Human Power Power needed for land locomotion Power needed by animals movement 3 compared with Power required by bicycles for other vehicles 4 Animal power 6 3 .
vii Con tents 4 Man-powered The coming Bicycle machinery and the bicycle machine 66 66 for Early applicatons road use 67 propulsion of muscle power to machinery of the man-propelled by means of pedals and cranks69 70 a new system More modern proposals for propulsion General conclusions 79 Historical note 80 Part II 5 Some bicycle physics ~~ Wind resistance Experimental Drag coefficient Tricycles Velocars 95 96 89 89 values 92 investigations Effect of riding position on wind resistance 98 Aerodynamic forces on riding bicyclist caused by passing vehicles 98 102 The wheel and its rolling resistance Definition of the term “rolling resistance” 103 The rolling resistance of railway-train wheels 104 The rolling The rolling resistance resistance tires of wheels on soft ground of wheels fitted 107 resistance on tire resistance 113 with 105 pneumatic Quantitative measurement of the rolling of pneumatic tires 108 Examination rolling of quantitative resistance 109 on tire rolling information The use of information Advantages and disadvantages bicycles 117 The effect of wheel for acceleration 120 of small-wheeled effort required mass on riding 122 Rough roads and springing Road and track bicycles 124 Opinions of early bicyclists 124 Early antivibration devices 125 The Moulton design 128 Dan Henry’s sprung lightweight 128 .
and gearwheels in nonmetallic materials 187 Frames in nonmetallic Frames in metals other Conclusions materials than steel 197 189 193 and speculations Part Ill II Other human-powered machines 205 Unusual pedaled machines “Off-the-road” vehicles Water cycles 206 Ice and snow machines Railway cycles 208 205 208 Air cycles 208 A pedal-driven lawn mover Energy-storage bicycles 214 212 . . chains. .. VIII Con ten ts 3 Resistances to motion friction 134 Chain-transmission Power absorbed Advantages Variable Life of bearings due to mechanicai losses friction 134 136 140 power by bearing 143 of ball over plain bearings gears 144 153 153 8 Braking of bicycles The friction Bicycle Friction Minimum Braking brakes between braking 153 of dry solid substances 156 158 during braking 162 D:Jty of br:lke surfaces Longitudinal stability tire and road distances 158 160 for stable vehicles on the rear wheel only Wet-weather braking 164 Adhesion of tires 167 Braking 9 by means of back-pedaling 171 168 Bicycle balancing and steering Analysis of bicycle stability 180 Frame and fork design 171 IQ Materials of construction for bicycles 185 Properties of materials of construction 185 Bearings.
Man-powered The Bicar Rowable 227 bicycle future 228 bicycle 230 230 234 236 240 recumbent and possible future vehicles 222 223 land transport competition Semienclosed The hopeful Appendix Some bicycle calculations Downhill speeds 234 Power required for t-till climbing Riding around curves 238 Tube materials and dimensions Index 245 .iX Con tents 12 Man-powered vehicles in the future 221 The present picture in the United States 221 The bicycle.
and to engineers and others working on approaches to lessen our dependence on high-energy-consumption transportation. It is not altogether surprising that some products of this combination appeared to have been conceived with but little attention having been paid to well-established scientific principles. Bourlet wrote other good books of this period. These books appear to have baen the last of their kind. manufacturers and businessmen whose opinions on the best methods of approach to production could be at considerable variance. The intense interest in bicycles during the Victorian “boom” period of the 1890s gave rise to much detailed literature on the mechanical side of the machine itself. The history of modern road vehicles shows that their evolution has been subscribed to by many types of inventors. Some of these particular products.This book is intended to be of interest to all mechanically inquisitive bicyclists. Sharp in 1896 is a very good example of the best of such technical writing. among which were bicycles. and their then published only infrequently cals on bicycling which survived century. but widespread specialization has occurred. P. Scott and C. It is now necessary to search scientific and engineering journals. to find technical information of the type written about by Sharp in his comprehensive book. seemingly but distantly connected with cycling matters. . authors carriage.” on was aspects of the to write material in those periodiinto the twentieth Technical advances have been made since 1896. as well as to teachers of elementary mechanics or physiology. were therefore: doomed to failure. A classic book written by A. It seems that after 1896 competent turned their attentions to the “horseless Only a few appear to have continued bicycling developments. It should also show other bicycle users how much scientific work has been put into the exploration of just a few of the less obvious use of a bicycle. R.
Bicycling is experiencing a wave of renewed . associated the detailed design of the maand are by “manumotor” producible with the forces oppose chine. and a look at new developments. unlike which could failures is to provide ennble with some There bicycle the are mo- to be avoided. . The basic principles treated here are concerned with dynamics rather than statics. and some of the designs which have resulted from their application. Also as a result of many years of experience in scientific research work recorded in many publications. Bicycling!. complete this book. and continue with the study of le power producible by humans in various ways. in a sound prediction improved performance which a change in bicycle design could be expected to give a rider. do not change with or of a modern a human which motion making wind bicycle. and other bicycling magazines. cooling effects on the rider and steering and stability. and some details of the results of an international design competition which he organized on man-powered land transport in 1969-1970. The basic text was prepared by Whitt partly as a compilation of articles written over the years as a contributor to Cycle Touring (Cyclists Touring Club). at least. A knowof the limits to any ledge of these basic facts can assist. time or fashion the same for a rider of a veteran and the laws governing and road conditions are unalterable The power machine by time or man. This is a book describing the measurements and experiments which have been made in connection with -Lne above basic principles.I hen we review the natural forces opposing motion and the applied braking forces.xi Foreword One of the aims of this book type of information potential future some basic princ:ples tion which. We start with energy requirements for transportation. Some unusual applications of “peoplepower” to transportation. The text was edited by Wilson who added the results of research and design studies carried out under his supervision at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
We believe that most of our readers still feel more comfortable with these units. and its use-or the use of something like it-is bound to increase. The bicycle presents itself as an even more efficient transportation energy than the dolphin. and engineers and inventors to change the future more wisely.000 machinery. pounds. imposition of ever-more will rigorous on pollution in the supply incentive without in our cities and the growing of energy for motorized that there will ways to allow through at least pounds user of be to find transportation. an increasing short distances [1360 it seems certain people to move themselves kg] of automotive about the aid of 3. we felt. units in square brackets in the text and in most of the graphs. old hands and newcomers. have been unwarranted. We hope that this book will enable bicyclists. women’s had a very significant emancipation and it has continued sport and recreation. . degrees Fahrenheit. However. Note on units This book was originally written using British (Imperial) engineering units-. role in the beginin the 1880s to be a popular as well as a means referred nings of women’s of transportation. To duplicate the tables would. I. and so forth. simultaneous Much of the new growth and will witPer. we have given equivalent S. Note on “he” Bicycling onwards.feet.xii Foreword popularity on stony controls shortages of a magnitude ground. that has amazed But with even be the the enthusiasts. to understand their pursuit better. and they remain in British units. We have frequently to bicyclists as males here only because of the awkwardness of using such devices as “his or hers” continually.
England.Acknowledgments Many individuals and organizations have helped to reproduce to make this book possible. secretary at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. has allowed the use of a considerable number of articles contributed to that magazine technical over the editor with of years by the senior author. Vaughan A. H. John Way.thc.rwrse have been able to relax from a too-heavy workload. Twitchett Veteran Cycle Society or Historical for testing pieces of historical for study and copying. Bush. largely at times when she WOUIC . and David and other members of the Southern Club. Evelyn Thomas. Anna Piccolo. has exchanged information both authors for many years and acts as an efficient and cordial clearing house of technical information on bicycling in the United States.and the Camden literature have loaned items of equipment E. editor of Cycle Touring (the magazine of the Cyclists’Touring Club). has cheerfully and competently typed the manuscript and tables and organized referen-ps and the index. Those who have given permission copyrighted material particular illustrations with appreciation. express their very sincere gratitude . To all of these geneious people the authors and appreciation. Frederick Arthur DeLong. William are acknowledged on the and are remembered here Beaumont. Bicycling!. Derek Roberts.
Human power .
move. which but in some ways is like the rolling rimless wheel. and electric vehicles rapidly appeared when lightweight engines of adequate power had been produced. Steam. pendent man had to develop of gravitational world forces which s/stems.Power needed for land loco3notion All things upon the surface of the earth. Winds blow and moving large quantities controllable and fluid developed of matter. with the help of gravity. as do snakes. in general.1. chance. cause water to evaporate and fall as rain. of using a separate inanimate source of power other than that of the muscles of the moving creature. like tabbits. The animal which from crawling. of inanimate “lever in various In living species like animals rivers flow. wears away land masses. but it is the sole remaining type that has a limited propulsive power. through as practiced bounding. All other wheeled vehicles have. yet came the for movement. as yet. At speeds of a few miles per crawling. The bicycle is only one of the many man-developed lever systems for land transport. internalcombustion-engine. The urge for more power and speed seems ever present in th e activities of man with. no sign of it being satisfied. degrees. been fitted with driving units of progressively increased power. now fully exploited.” ways are the usual basis for movement jects. In ancient times teams of horses or cattle succeeded single draught animals. which in turn. pushed against the ground to walking. or rolling mo- . order to survive. and indeobmovement. With the adoption another lever mechanism of a spoked of the wheel. by man. Power needed by animals or wheels to cause movement The relative power needed to move a vehicle or animal against ground resistance by various means is shown in Figure hour these sliding. leaping. 1. Climatic to varying changes. due to the move- ment of the earth itself.
for instance. Lever systems are intrinsically Figure 1. by the At higher the mo- subject. that is. walking data from Bekker’) has given him a system Nature in energy use than that employed animals. Graphs showing contribute how the individual for bicycles. such as those using pneumatic wheels on steel rails. the combination of foot pressure and crank revolution rate is not critical.ance approximate comparison. if skillfully used. the rider of a bicyrle is at a disadvantage. The sum total of wind resistance.1 (which shows that Nature. In this respect. in common with most other bicycles compared with that for other vehicles wheeled vehicles. because bicycle gearing that automatically adjusts to give an optimum pedaling rate is not yet available. io that wind for purposee=of can be neglected due to air fricwheel speeds.2 m/set] upper limit of Figure 1. at speeds greater than the 5 mile/h [2. can move over hard smooth surfaces at speeds at which air resistance is significant. such as is needed for low speeds. man’s progression. an automatic infinitely variable gear. to the total railway tires on pavement and steel . Power required by The bicycle and rider. the hesistance to motion tion assumes a dominant more fundamental tion and other leverage. Such a device would have advantages over varying conditions when a high povver output is wanted.1. her lever systems to be adjusted to the resistance stride of the walker changes. These resistances have been studied carefully over a long period for the commonly used machines.4 Human power tions absorb almost all the power exerted resis. Modern multi- geared bicycles can approximate. has also arranged automatically The encountered. For low power output. economical many other according includes in developing difference role and obscures between systems of movement based on and for more by for efficient. and machinery friction decides the rate of progress for a given power input to a vehicle. resistances trains. ground-movement resistance. according to the gradient.
21 1 Propuision-pawer ments for animals vehicles. are from Bekke! Some of the data z z c--i ‘0 0-J s ti c1 2 ‘.1 0.-0 In 1 n !2 CL 0 0 0. mile/h . 2 a C .1 Speed.5 Power needed for land locomotion Figure 1.1 0.1 requireand reference 1.
(low-power is included The basis for these data will be explained in more detail later. concerning the powers of “mopeds” motorcycles) and their performances in Table 1. In contrast. bicycles are impeded the most by winds. This advantage will be examined more closely later. cattle. horses. Our present purpose in comparing these various means of locomotion is to place the bicycle in a relationship to other common road vehicles. have been harnessed to machines to turn mills. Let us study how human muscle power compares muscle with that of other in the living things with For thousands less-developed dogs and humans to provide power similar equipment. and withThe to can be 1. Some relative power requirements are shown in Figure 1. With regard to the propulsion power required per unit weight.1.9 m/set] . In each case typical out special streamlining tricycle has been included effort of vehicles comparisons. Table 1. of years. lift water buckets.Human power and automobiles are given in Figures examples treatment 1.3 shows that a feature of modern automobiles is the relatively high power absorbed by tires. and even today parts of the world.4. When it was necessary and do other domestic the steam engine was invented. the bicyclist can be seen to need far less than the walker at low speeds. tasks needing power. railway trains are hardly affected by wind resistance below 40 mile/h [ 17. 1. Experiment showed that a big horse could a rate-of-lifting power maintain for long periods of raising equal to that . have been chosen in order to bring out reasonable incremental 10 percent deduced because it shows the needed for propulsion-up in races by information above that for the bicycle-as Published from the times achieved riders of the two types.2. to have handy a comparison between its power and that of a familiar source.5. Figure 1.2 shows that of all the vehicles. Animal power The power available for propelling a bicycle is limited to that of the rider.3.
requireand 0: 0.1 f 2 n 0.7 POWS needed for land Ioccmo tion Figure 1.1 Total power (tricycle) s . mile/h .2 Propulsion-power ments for bicycles tricycles.m ~ Speed. .
mrleih . 2.3 Propulsion-power ments Automobile Ibm. 2 5 2 5 :: 6 c 3 c c) a” 25- 20- 15- Total Air-drag power Speed.240 area.8 Human power Figure 1. frontal require- for automobiles. mass. 20 sq ft. 35- 30- 2 v.
E E E a . reference 2. p.OO( 80( n r .20( 1 .eior L s i?! k 3 2 40 201 Speed. 1.9 Power needed for land locomotion Figure 1.4 Freight-train power require ments. mile/h . Data from Trautwine. 1058..
5 require- Propulsion-power speeds. over a range of 30 I I I I 5 4-J F 2202 r I k 2 a 6 *YO 8 a” Walker / Speed. mile/h 0.3. Data from 1. 0 .Human power Figure ments Table 1.
0 2.2.2 0.5 37.05 1.500 3.o 560 7.7 56. Vehicle and weight Man walking 150 Ibm Origin of force Wind Rolling Total Wind Rolling Total Wind Ibm Rolling Total Freight train 1500 tons Wind Rolling Total the motion of various vehicles on smooth surfaces Resisting 5 mile/h 0.0 51 . Ibf 20 mile/h 40 mile/k Cyclist 170 Ibm (racing type) 0.8 0.9 35 7.535 force at various 10 mile/h speeds.700 4.640 3. in.060 12.750 Auto 2243 .500 9.9 13. Ibm Rider.5 140 7.2 13.8 0. Table 1.500 7. p.500 8.0 37.l 0. 24. Engine speed. Ibm Level-road max.0 37.1.0 40.9 37. Engine power.6 1. p.4 16 Sources: aCycling.9 4.1 14. rpm 3.400 4. 537. speed imile/h) 26 30 33 26 26 (aqprox) Wheel diam. Make Powella Mobylette Magneetb Raleigh hp 1. Power to propel mopeds. kycling.2 0.500 7.500 75 115 77 200 200 182 Moped weight..250 7.0 13.7 3. 27 June 1957.9 1 . 9 July 1958.2 0.0 37.35 1.0 93.9 1.Power needed for land locomotion Table 1. Estimated forces opposing in still air (typical cases).
1 to use is have for over 70 years supposed was a reasonable under continued analysis chapters and level conthat such a of this phenomenon showing Table 1. Detailed given in succeeding concerning the motion figure of bithat 0. could. It seems that a man tends to adjust his power output to rather less than one tenth of a horsepower [74. Longmans. hp Subject and conditions Horse galloping (27 mile/h)a Towing barge 2 min 4-5 (per ton) ‘i0h 0.6 watts] for a man cycling ditions.5 This figure kg] one foot [O-3048 m] in one minute.6 watts] if he intends to work for other than very short periods and is not engaged in competition.3.51 Sources: aReference 1.12 Human pbwer 33.67 (2% mile/hIb Man towing barge IOh 0. Period Power. .968.3 information put to the duration is given in Table and Figure 1.081 0. Power outputs of horse and man. Bicyclr?s and tricycles (London: Green & Company.6. 262. (and its equivalents of reduced weight with increased height or decreased time combinations) came to be universally accepted as the “horsepower. p. p. bReference 2. ‘A.000 pounds [14. Engineering textbooks giving calculations cyclists hp L74.2 relating of effort peak power out1.” Average horses. Sharp.058 0. in fact. 11.1 1 (1% to 3 mile/hIb Turning winchb 10h 10h 8h 0. pp 685-686. 18961.12 Treadmillb Climbing staircase= Turning winchC 2 min 0. Trautwine between Other expands total output upon the relationships per day and rate of output. work at a greater rate but only for briefer periods which were not useful.
C: Ergometer T. Nonweiler. E: Ergometer hand-crank data from E. (later data than reported on page 22).1 0. pp.2 0. the Physiological Society. D: Winch reference The College data from “Air of Aeronautics. man: srtidies on racing cyclists.0 I I I I I r I I I 0.” communication Ergonomics. “Physiological increasing methods of hrrman physio- logical worK capacity.6 power output durations. 1965. 4. 409-424. Miiller. Nonweiler. 2. no. 106. A: Cycling (estimated) data from T.5 1 of performance. October report 1956. Peak human for different of racing cyclists. resistance Cranfield. 8: Ergometer Loughborough personal data from University. min Duration . data from 2. 8. A.” England.73 Power needed for land locomotion Figure 1. 8P-9P. of of no.25 0. vol. “The work production Proceedings 1958.” 11 January pp.
Richard Rice points out that a bicyle and rider are by far the most efficient. [4. Queen rapid-transit system.47 m/set] with riders moving at 10 mile/h . S. and 7.6 km] for the rider and machine.000 passenger-miles or 100 ton-miles liters] f3.4 and informed opinion now suggests that this exertion is the maximum which could be expected without adverse effects on health for average men working for long periods.8 m/set] and the condition This range of speeds has been with average cycling since the of good rear-driven pneumatic- Recently the breathing rates of pedaling bicyclists have been measured.’ He calculates that a modest effort by a bicyclist which results in 72 miles (116 km) being covered in 6 hours could require an expenditure of about 1800 calories (7. Rice states that this figure is equivalent passenger-km] per gallon to over 1.6 watts] Wyndham et al.0 to 5. Information on the energy cost of locomotion of animals other than men can be found in references 5. long associated standardization tired bicycles. Assuming a weight of 200 pounds [90. a per ton-mile (km) for such the S. and 4 passenger-miles senger-km per liter].000 Btu). This power rect experiments depending breathing of the by di. the supersonic transport. show that at about this power output rather less than half the breathing capacity of an average man is involved.3 and using 0.70 .609 [ 146 tonne-km] fuel. and oil pipelines. Adams describes such experiments [4.1 hp [ 74.14 Human power power output is associated with a moderate capacity frac- tion of the maximum bicyclist.785 of equivalent by contrast. per gallon [ 1. The 3 pasbetween Queen Mary managed. In a review of the energy used (or tonne-km) and passenger mile varied means of transportation as Mary.6. [ 1. level can be shown to move a bicyclist resistance and machine on the level at 9 to 13 mile/h on wind of the road surface.27-1.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 1.” Ergonomics. 8. on the energy “Influence of age. C. 3. M. 17-29. flying “Locomotion: swimming. Massachusetts. 2. 22. Engineering. pp.. pp. and running. March Scientific American.” Scientific American. W. “Inter-and ferences in energy expenditure and mechanical efficiency. 5.. pp. vol. 21 July pp. energy pp. “System energy and future transportation. 9. 222-228.” Technology Review. H.” Science. 1972. N.15 Power needed for land locomotion References Chapter 1 1. vol. snakes move. C.: University Theory of land locomotion of Michigan Press. 81-91. 17. Kerkhoven. “Kenelly’s pp. 539-545. Y. Adams. Rice. 228. 685-687. Wilson. The civil engineer% reference book. 48-66. Mich. January Additional recommended reading Gans. Cambridge. J. no. sex and body of bicycle riding. technology. 7.: Trautwine & Company. M. February Schmidt-Nielson. G. vol. vol.” weight expenditure Journal of Applied Physiology.“ pp. Knut 1972. Bekker. . Wyndham et al. Richard A. law. vol. S. S. 1967. intra-individual dif4. Trautwine. 82-96. vol. 75. “How June 1970.” Work Study and 1963. L. 1966. (Ann Arbor. “Bicycle 1973. C. 16. (Ithaca. 1952). cost of Industrial 6. 21st edition 19371. Carl. C.
different laboratories by humans work has been carried to assess the outvarious Per- in order in carrying environmental conditions. In some cases to keep his or her pedaling .2 watts].” Ergometers The measurement of power capacity exerted by a human via his legs is considered to be the most convenient means of assessing his physical work ability.2 hp [ 149.2 Human power generation A great deal of experimental out in scientific effort expended tasks ir. handle- bars. Therefore some form of averaging the subject is usually is supposed employed. One problem is that human leg-power output varies cyclically (as does that of a piston engine rather than being smooth (as for a turbine).1. and the whole stand which remains 2. A device indicating instantaneous power (pedal force in the direction of motion multiplied by pedal velocity) would show peak values of perhaps a horsepower [746 watts] when the average is only 0. missible work loads for the lunar astronauts were decided in this way. The methods to those of an ordinary of resistance to a use (Figures measut-edevice is fastened during The cranks drive some form stationary employed for power ment range from the crude to the sophisticated . Most ergometers bicycle. saddle. 2. and cranks similar or brake.2). have a frame. The impeding effect of the wearing of industrial protective clothing and the general state of health of both invalids and athletes can be assessed by giving the subjects a task to perform upon a machine to which is attached a power-measurement device-a machine called an “ergometer. The pedaling ergometer is a very satisfactory means of converting leg motions into measurable power.
17 Human power generation Figure 2. Figure 2.2 Racing-bicycle ergometer. . of Renold Ltd.1 Pedaling Courtesy ergometer.
This topic in Chapter 3. assuming of course that the measurements have been accurately made. Bicycle exercisers. or the “viscous” or velocity-dependent drag.‘. may be the result. when he pedals an ergometer. does not reproduce for example. so that a pedaling technique completely different from the normal must be used. used an ergometer to find out what power output an ordinary nontrained bicyclist could maintain watts] over useful could periods of time. to get the cranks smoothly A third over “top dead center. it seems justified to give more credence to the higherpower findings. reduced and a sharply If the power- the conditions strange to the rider. adaptable is the characteristic beings are extrernely they will train their an extreme range of power-transmission devices with all of it feels output and conditions.3 that for prolonged periods be maintained ing rates of 20 to 60 revolutions per minute . ergometer of bicycling. integrated over a minute In other of crank or two to obtain ac- systems the power revolutions.18 Human power rate constant curate results. for instance. seldom reproduce the inertia of a bicycle rider and his machine. if tests by different experimenters of similar subjects show varied results.05 pedal(Figure was found hp [37. there may be almost no air movement.” discrepancy between area of possible results obtained on ergometers and in practice is the effect of cooling of the subject. repeated measuring muscles and responses to some degree of effectiveness use of any one device.3 *4 A bicyclist is normally cooled by the relative wind he causes. limited fully and his output may thereby is discussed be more by heat stress.’ can be and averaged electronically over any of alto desired number human though capability human A second problem with the measurement that. Results from ergometer ?ests Students at Dartmouth College in Hanover. which are sometimes fitted with “calorie meters” which make them crude ergometers.5 about with It 0. New Hampshire. Therefore.
28 to 0.05 hp [37.3b. The expenditure can be achieved about selected 0. The peak power obtained was 0.54 hp [402. It can be calculated of about 8 mile/h achieved that this power 13. R. for briefer provides This power powers tolerable to the Dartmouth periods student are shown as the nearly over a range lines on Figure speeds from a carefully 2. to take the Dartmouth College results as the more indicative of the power output of an average untrained (both utility rider.7 watts).These powers are somewhat above those of the Dartmouth students and are similar to those recorded for laborers turning winches. Extensive of Technology.6.3). Japanese experimental work6 confirming this finding is plotted on Figure 2.05 hp [37.3 1. It appears more logical. p.3 watts] of pedaling Therefore formance 30 rpm to 60 rpm. This is a on the and other biof speed commonly bicyclist power cyclists straight by an average “utility” a check result and therefore measurement.g experimental with has been carried out at Loughborough saddle height To date the vital importance in relation the use of a correct .6 m/set] would no give a bicycle road speed.Human power generation 2.4. wind. similar acter to that associated with the report in char- from Dartmouth College.* of about (Compare ergometers University of to period are described was recorded. Other ergometer experiments.7 watts] for 1 minute and for 60 to 270 minutes the powers were 0. 8.19 hp (208 to 141. as indeed experience has shown. ergometers by Miiller.3a). work Some tests with hands cranking) output watts] A power Table hand-powered for a prolonged 0. on the level with . D. are summarized in a table given in reference 10. “optimum’‘-perfor the machine gear is not necessary of a utility bicyclist. as shown in the data recorded on Figure 1. however. Wilkie of the University of London were instructed to exert themselves to their limit in order to record their maximum power outputs for varying periods of time. The subjects used by Dr.
The relationship speed to torque of in in part a. The horizontal straight maximum durations reference lines in b show power noted.Figure 2. I 40 I 60 I 80 I 100 I 120 I 140 Pedaling speed.’ al2r 6 llo- 0. revolutions per minute .38 hp (15 set) 5- 0. 2. 0 . Power as a function pedaling speed is shown part b. for an for the average pedaler lines are from The curved data from (a) 25- 20- 15z . 34.3 College ergom- Dartmouth of pedaling is shown output eter tests.095 hp (60 to 120 set) 0.05 hp (indefinite time) 0.
revolutions per minute .Human power generation (b) 0 0 15 set - Inflpfinit~ tin-m Ref 34 20 40 60 Pedaling speed.
6 is likely to lessen as more ergometer experimental work is done. by the the work has given rise to the published figure of 1. Already quantitatively. The other way of estimating the power ted by a bicyclist is to calculate it from the times achieved over measured distances combined with measured resistances of wheel rolling and air friction which have been obtained from separate . C. methods can deliver. Data for curve ence 32. test results.Hun-m power Figure 2.5 18 22 47 26 Data for curves A.5 0.2 0. 8. E.1 r” I 01 I 10 I 20 I 30 I I I 40 50 60 Pedaling rate.4 tests from Curve A B C D E F Peak efficiency(%) 12. This is recorded as the isolated point B on Figure 1. G 26 26 for the range of power outputs H Optimum from data in reference 6. Other methods of power determination There are two other the power which measure the oxygen practical intake. Curve G is estimated from data in reference Curve pedaling rates H is extrapolated by FRW 6.6 and is important in showing that the gap between the curves given in Figure 1. and F from reference D from 6. refer- Power-output several sources. revolutions I I I 90 I 100 70 80 per minute the pedals has been proved. this will of assessing One is to exer- a bicyclist be discussed later. G z 0.3 k 3 2 0. as was suggested above.5 hp [ 1119 watts] output for one bicyclist for a brief period of 5 seconds. I I I I I I I I I I I I 0.4 c.
mopeds fitted This can be verified by the fact that engines of about [1119 watts] output achieve about 35 mile/h [ 15. Force the local level is ex- (and weight) .” and have Most systems of units different units for mass and force. The acceleration constant equal. England.23 Human power generation experiments. Such a rider could obviously not reach the speed of 40 mile/h [ 17.” to racing bicyclists resistance under various condiTire-rolling has been measured a racing in overand mechan1. and m in pounds and gC is a Ibm ftllbf of attraction a is in feet per second2 to 32. Wind-tunnel investigations carried out at Cranfield College. units. sec2. The two types of pound Newton’s first law: F = ma/g.5 and is based on a rider of 150 Ibm” [68 kg] with a machine of 20 Ibm [9. is unity. A pound weight in pounds units.5 bhp by manufacturers bicyclist coming over the years.174 is defined as the force for Imperial due to the earth’s gravity on a pound mass at sea level (where a. The force we call weight at other levels of gravity (for instance at a high elevation on a mountain) is given by Newton’s law by substituting of gravitational acceleration for a.07 kg] riding in a racing (crouched) position. All information quoted previously may be correlated in a graphical summary of power output against forward speed. but in the English (“Imperial”) system the common unit of “pound” occasionally causes confusion unless this differentiation are connected through is used. If the rider adopted a more upright position and rode a more nearly “average” machine. recently have provided invaluable data on the wind resistance presented tions. to be possible *We are using the “lbf” for “pounds notation “lbm” force.” for “pounds mass. is 32. (See Table 1.5 hp 11119 watts] lated that at 40 mile/h exerts about wind and rolling with ical friction. force.174 ft/sec2).88 m/set] shown. it is probable that the powers required would be increased by about 20 percent on the whole.65 m/set] .g. I. the local value of the gravitational acceleration.88 m/set] resistances 1. It can be calcu[ 17. Here F can be expressed mass. In S.1). This is given as Figure 2. and confirmed in practice.
The rider and the bicycle would both weigh less on the moon. it is actually the mass that we must use. when we calculate the power output of a rider “weighing” 150 pounds or the power necessary to accelerate a 25pound bicycle.24 Human power for short petiods with “racing” machines and racing positions. but the rider’s muscle output and the power needed for acceleration would not change on account of the reduced gravity.” above that oxygen Laboratory experiments on the calorific value of the chemicals known to be associated with the human breathing processes have shown that when one liter per minute of oxygen is used. causing it to produce perspiration in order to keep its temperature down to a tolerable limit. as pounds force (Ibf) it is and to give the weight . a power output of about 0. as described experimental by Wyndham et al. For instance. when the additional energy required to move a rider or bicycle appropriate newtons. Some additional confusion may arise in the distinction between mass and weight because we often loosely refer to the weight of a person or object when we really mean the mass. said to be only about 25 percent e. Muscular action is. shows that an average man pedaling on an ergometer produces about 0.6” F (2’ C)12* 13-17 is acceptable in most circumstances. Hnce most “weights” will be translated into pounds mass (lb.3 watts] should be obtainable. Breathing processesthe human “engine” The power from muscular action derives from the “burning up” of human-tissue chemicals via the oxygen typical taken in from the air in the lungs. It is desirable therefore for pressed in newtons. up a hill is being calculated. The acceler- ation is in meters per second’.m) and kilograms (kg)..1 hp [74.4ficient. However. The rest of the missing energy appears as heating effects in the human body.4 hp [298. A common view is that no more than 3. The extent to which the body temperature can rise through heavy work is a controversial matter. therefore. and mass in kilograms. A investigation.6 watts] absorbed for every liter per minute of oxygen (at by his lungs from absorbed the air breathed a rate of about 24 liters of air per liter of oxygen) when he is at rest.
/ 1 / / I// /CYkl I I 1 1 I 1 I I /w I /I 0.Human power generation Figure Walking power 2.007 1 2 4 5 Speed. mile/h 10 20 30 40- .5 and bicycling requirements.01 0. 1 Total I /of-i-k / I..
drip rate of 0. perfect engines. as must the human body.26 Human power exercising moving humans that their water perspiration off their skin. a speed an actual by watts). A steam turbine fed with high-temperature steam is more efficient than one using steam at lower temperatures. OK.5 hp (372.8 is cooled far more effectively sweat evaporation.8 . efficient than a thermodynamically the efficiency by power efficiency G output w Q2 of such an engine No engine can be more reversible engine. At 27 mile/h [ 12. Kelvin. even an ideal engine. and does. the limitations here derive from the second law of thermodynamics. And can be shown to be given rate of heat input Q2 - = = where Ql Tl for all engines Q2 T2r2 for reversible. To achieve a thermodynamic efficiency of 25 percent.* and therefore from the levels at which heat is added to and rejected from the engine. Absolute . and T1 the temperature and Q1 the rate of heat rejection.1 m/set] to 0. OR. which can be calcilIated as follows: *One of the many ways of expressing the second law of thermodynamics is the following. would require that its fuel energy be absorbed at T2. on the Celsius (centigrade) zero is -460 OF I-273 “Cl .5 hp i372. rejecting heat at room temperature Tt. . Temperatures are given in degrees above absolute zero (degrees Rankine. However. T2 is the temperature and Q2 is the rate of heat addition. on the fahrenheit scale [degrees scale] 1.‘#8 Thermodynamic turbine plant engines such as steamengines and internal-combustion are also usually only about 20-45 percent efficient in converting fuel energy to mechanical work. As a consequence ergometer at a work can. evapcFast- rates and does not just drip air evaporates than slow-moving on a stationary sweat profusely watts] corresponding riding bicyclist far more quickly a pedaler air.
lg) more “excess” air. (There is similarity in a traditional steam plant. The human engine has. TJ of 80 OF (540 OR. tory equivalent” creiff. an additional characteristic not generally found in man-made machines in that some fuel must be “burned” to keep it going when it is at rest.25 = 4 4. however. 260 OF cannot the human to the restrictions be tolerated “engine” in the is one that of the second law directly must to It is a type of fuel cell in energy is converted mechanical power. The energy not converted to power appear. as heat.) For a man of average weight the oxygen absorbed by his lungs when he is at rest and apparently not using any muscles is about onethird of a liter per minute. upon in is found when about twenty-four liters must be the lungs for one liter of oxygen (This average value of the “ventilais given by Knipping about engine. require only about engines. 27 “C).540’R 3 4Tl T2=3= = 720’R = 260°F [127’C] for a room temperature Obviously body. passed through to be absorbed. in fuel must be burned continually to keep pressure up even when no power is being some which steam deliv- ered. This quantity is additional to any other absorption consequent the man exercising his muscles.27 Human power generation Tl efficiency G 1. as for heat engines and fuel cells. Thus it is seen that air than is needed to produce energy is used in the human engines. In ordinary a total of about air is breathed. such as internal-combustion air to ensure complete combustion 5 to 10 percent . and Mon380 percent Most other and steam excess of the fuel. one liter of oxygen five liters of air. However. Therefore is not subject which chemical of thermodynamics.T2 1 = 0.
5.04 kg] ) cycling on the level in still dir.6).6 watts! . than it appears that training at greater for prolonged power output fit man to work maximum intake The potential all other animals) is time dependent (Figure 1.1 hp [74.6. As this speed is one which can ordinarily be maintained by experienced but average touring-type riders.“’ ” Experience has also shown that 0.2 shows that when a rider is using about half his maximum oxygen breathing capacity his power output is about 0.36 m/set] when riding a lightweight touring machine (see Chapter 1). Maximum performance The performance and maximum than 3 liters addition of athletes oxygen per minute intakes ha:> been investigated. of humans [2. mentioned how breath- Using all the information Table 2. These conditions are thought to be such that an average fit man could work for several hours without suffering fatigue to an extent from which reasonably rapid recovery is not possible. the numbers given in Table 2. of much greater In a of his (and can accustom 50 percent periods. This rate of work is recommended for workers in mines.2 seem sound.23 which show average heat ioads of 4. Physiological experimenters credit some aspects of this phenomenon to the body’s capability supply in to call upon a type of reserve oxygen . (See also miscellaneous data given by Adams2’ and Harrison et al.9 kg cal/min for speeds 6% . Table 2.2 .6 watts] propels a rider at about 12 mile/h [5.2 has been drawn previously up showing ing rates increase for an average rider ( 150 I bm [68.13 mile/h these and other 2. For a nonathletic person the maximum oxygen breathing rate is assumed to be about 3 liters per minute.8 m/set] .1 hp L74.28 Human power Gas turbines in taking Cycling-speed breathing-rate ships versus relation- more nearly approach human lungs in about 200 percent excess air. It is assumed that for every liter of oxygen absorbed 24 liters of air have to be breathed.9 . Some of in Figure data have been collected have been recorded.
reference 3. Fletcher. 193-235. S.1 ntz. C. Respiration Oxford pp. Dill. MacCance. M. (London: 31 and J. Seed.” sity Press. 1955. Adams. 1962. 7. C. and S. W. S. 329324. 12. Malhotra. D.29 Human power generation Figure 2. 23. 9. reference Data for points Curves A and B from Curve C is based on data from reference Haldane. pp.6 expenditure from- pp. Z. Ray. N. expenditure in bicycle riding. “Energy expenditure and food intake of individual men. logy. B. vol. J. 21. S. A. M. G. 1922). Univer- L. 286-300. Un tersuchungen iiber den Gassweschel und Engegeseumsatz des Radfahrer (Berlin: Hirschwald. N. Journal of Applied Ph ysio- Measured data from oxygen-consumption test! J IV I3 LU Caloric expenditure. J.” British Journal of Gross caloric by bicyclists. 0. and “Energy Nutrition. kilogram calories/min .” Journal of Applied Physiology. vol. “Influence of body weight on energy expenditure. G. Marzulli. and R. vol. Edholm. Ramaswany. E. Widdowson. 1954. 1899). S.
Experimental investigations and reports seem to have been confined to the study of a maximum period of exercise of about 100 minutes.2 7 Muscle efficiency and From information given particularly by that in references in references the effect of different movements 28 and 29.33 and 0. but also supported 30.” Most of the energy given out after a minute is derived from aerobic breathing. These two outputs fit in well with the predicted trend proposed by Wilkiez5 curves of Figure 80 percent and with extrapolations 1. he is said to be using oxygen in an “anaerobic” manner. [ 10. Wilkiez4 and others quote no longer periods. for instance at the start of a 109meter dash..22 hp [246 and 164 watts] .6. At power outputs . stepping up and down. and 32. Maximum oxygen intake is affected by age to the extent of being about half at 80 years compared with that at the peak of about 20 years old. However. in time-trial of about achieved (riding 23 miles per hour unpaced) competitions. When is drawing upon this reserve. Every year.3 m/set] speeds are phenomena decide the over prolonged periods by a few riders for 12-hour events and for 24 hours several achieve [8. 31. useful estimates for longer periods can be made by analyzing British time-trial bicyclists’ performances for rides of up to 24 hours duration. Other physiological tail-off of power output of an hour upwards.18 m/set] for long periods are !ikewise using about the same proportion of their maximum oxygen intake. or walking up gradients-the usage of oxygen for a given power output is similar. it appears that whatever the muscular movement-pedaling. ‘_ 30 Human power addition someone to that taken in by the lungs. Using at nearly 20 miles per hour data from figures and tables in this chapter it can be estimated that these riders are working 0. Skiers have worked on end..94 m/set] .“: of the at an level for hours Bicyclists riding at 25 mile/h [ 11. That part of his oxygen supply which comes from breathing is “aerobic.
6 experimented be about .1 hp L74. upon can be likened of up-andmoveby down lever-propulsion of the latter McDonald. loss of as power through has often been suggested by advocates mechanisms. Information given by Garry and Wishart in connection with the measured breathing and oxygen-absorption at power which outputs rates of riders of ergometers of about 0. It appears that the Dartmouth gives some support to the existence ranges of pedaling rates for which College work of limited certain power outputs can be obtained. each individual has a certain maximum pedaling rate. though not pinpointing the peaks. The pedal push of the average his own weight and therefore high power must be obtained by high pedaling rates. at about 50 revolutions per minute. However.3b.3 hp [74.3b. the maximum effi- the net muscular bicyclists.6 watts]. ciencies are all about 27 percent. although no description is given of the experimental origin of the data. watts]. This efficiency that of touring In view of the above it appears that the pedaling does not suffer from back-and-forth any particular leg swinging.31 Human power generation ofO.33 Optimum rates pedaling The Dartmouth outputs.l output should action to 0. Brown propounded the existence of peaks in the power-output pedaling-rate curves of bicylists. gives interesting conclusions.7 upon. Hence the limits of pedaling speeds given by the lines on the graph.34 These peaks can be seen in the curves labeled “reference 34” on Figure 2. for nonracing is in the range common bicyclists. It appears that a maximum muscle efficiency is achieved by pedaling However. tolerable periods only.223. either there is only a small drop in efficiency 30 percent with a pedaling rate at about . even with zero resistance. rider is limited ments experimented The motion to the stepping and described College results for higher to untrained are shown as almost to about straight power lines riders for brief on Figure 2.
36 Limited distance data in connection with the shortof bicyclists high-climbing performances for some short periods of ahout 4 to 10 minutes show that power outputs of about 0.32 Human power side of this maximum. and beyond that when power 0. in the range 33 to (see Figure 2. must go up to get increased to Table 2. which was compiled for the brief from data given in other parts of this book. of about the is a it outputs per minute to the above findings.4 curve D). It appears that paced bicyclists tend to use very consistent but moderate pedal thrusts amounting to mean applied tangential forces of only about one-fifth of the rider’s weight.8 .3 to 44. Pedaling forces Table 2. [4. In these cases the pedal thrusts are considerable. 70 revolutions In contrast is accepted that is.6 m] gears) of about 12 miles per hour [5.2 one hour. compares the recorded pedaling rates of bicyclists of all types with estimates of the power outputs. These estimates in turn have led to estimates of the tangential forces at the pedals resisting the motion. however. which just lifts the bicyclist’s body.5.36 m/set] . The average actual vertically applied thrust could be up to about double this value (108 I bf) through poor skill in pedaling involving wasteful thrusting at the dead centers.7 m/set] . . No doubt this action results in the rider being to able to maintain a steady seat and an ability steer steadily.1.in. The peak vertical thrusts are greater37 but are still relatively small. pedaling to the foot speed above 50 It appears that there hence pedaling power. no doubt.7 hp [522 watts] are common with road speeds (on 60to 70. achieved.1 the tolerable alent to a tangential for riding periods force of about of 54 I bf [ 240. by the rider finding it feasible to pull hard against his handlebars times involved. thrust is about speed that a pedaler can apply According the equivnewtons] over prolonged periods. peaking at well over body weight.2 hp [ 149. thrust are required pedaler must increase hi.1 watts] revolutions limit per minute. This is vital at speeds of 50 to 100 miles per hour [22.
Wills L.Table 2. ft/min 493 Est’d power. 326-327. in. Pedaling speeds.” Cycling.1 56 61. Lambley l-l. H.6 0. L. 60 min 60 min 60 min T. mile/h 30 25 20. “Theo’s hour record.5 0.2 0. Vanderstuyft 57 set 52 min. W.2 0. “I call on America’s largest cycle maker. Davison. H. hp 7. M.5 0.05 0. 36 35 36 36 59 54 45 26 52 16 16 24 32 Distance.65 0. Cortis 12. track motorcycle paced Train-paced Road safety bicycle 1 25 100 480 100 Road. 11 March 1964. 4h i 24 h 4 h 28 rnin F. 53 56 59 90 68 64 90 106 139 144 180 191 104 90 85 80 81 68 68 75 75 Crank. pp.” Cwzling. p.3 1. in. 5 5 5 l/2 6 l/4 6 l/2 6 l/4 6 l/2 6 314 6 II2 6 l/2 6 l/2 6 l/2 6 l/2 6 718 6 718 6 718 6 I/2 6 718 6 718 6 718 6 718 speed. 28. tourist Sources: A.5 set 60 min 60 min ‘.2 set 29 set 11. w-n 190 150 116 136 182 170 145 126 134 143 133 134 198 102 99 84 93 50 61 74 85 392 330 446 619 520 473 445 456 488 454 454 670 370 368 310 316 180 220 266 305 Safety.5 0.” Cycling. p.’ Marcel “Pedaling speeds. 20 January 1933. Crank Foot speed. England.3 37 29.4 set 12. A.5 71 76 62 28. De Leener. Ryan A. min set 30 set 72 set 60 min Subject R. L. .3 Est’d thrust. Verschueren i!. Cycle Ordinary.” 1957.5 Gear.‘4 1 I2 Time.5 0.1 36. pp.35 1. Cycling. track II8 II8 1 I4 1 I8 Safety. Zimmerman A.4 10 12 16 18. Zimmerman Speed.09 0.25 0.6 1. Murphy H.6 1. Ibf 91 88 50 120 85 83 115 37 . C. Southall C. Temple U.1.5 1. 55-56.5 0. track miles 1. 8. 25 April the unbeaten king.5 0. 7 March 1970.11 0. A.8 25 23 22.8 39 40.5 1. E. ” ‘Vandy. Vanderstuyft L. Grant A.
1 hp [74. at other than optimum pedaling rates. power Thrust force (newtons) = pedaling (watts) speed (m/set)’ has carried out ergometer The senior author3’ experiments under constant-speed pedaling conditions in order to check the agreer.Human power It is easy to calculate and pedaling much thrust speed around equation Thrust force = (Ibf) power pedaling In S. particularly for power outputs above 0.6 watts] .I. Hence it was concluded that.000 speed (ft/min) (ft Ibf/min)/hp .4 by oxygen-consumption tests. expected measured from pedal thrusts are near those power requ irements.3g the ergometer It is known that pedaling does involve foot thrust components other than the simple vertical ones. It was found that at the optimum pedaling speeds (related to power outputs as in Figure 2. predominates. at least at power of 0.:qnt between the measured thrust and the calculated thrust.15 hp . Maybe the body is lifted unnecessarily or the legs are swung so that lateral thrust components occur. but apparently effect [ 119 watts] onwards. units from the crank length how for a pedal speed in revolutions output.4) the measured thrust agreed with the predicted thrust to a reasonable accuracy. Hoes et ai. i-iti\js found that at 60 revolutions per minute. At pedaling rates other than the optimum the measured average vertical thrust upon the pedal over its path was greater than that expected by amounts which could be predicted from the lowering in pedaling efficiency as given on Figure 2. per minute upon the pedals is required The peripheral circle stroke) the pedaling given horsepower (or the vertical can be used in the speed on the downward (hp) X 33. thrust is “wasted” somewhere in the system. these are relatively outputs the simple vertical small in thrust and.
T~.~~.S.35 Human pourer generation -- Measurements made Thorough sumption. actual by means of telemetry to substantiate the foregoing be?ween 2.33 and 9. A tentative conclusion is that racing bicyclists could use gear ratios higher than those usually employed. by the Japanese by equipping their several riders with during equipment4’ ments and recording results tend generally discussion.72 m/set] was obtained at 60 to 70 crank rpm and at the highest gear ratio of 111 in. gear ratio.~!. The peak efficiency (about 30 percent) at the higher speeds (30 and 35 km/h) [8. pedal torque.8. Such gear sizes are coming into use as the top gears of multispeed “While cranks of 6% in.~. L8. virtually for which identical a range of gear ratios gave ave~. and to show no significant effect of crank length on average speed over 1000 meters for the trained riders. are closer to 171 mm long. The best times and speeds were given when the highest gear ratio was used-about 111 inches [8. have given the nearest crank 170 mm. .85 ml -except for the shortest distance. oxygen working Figure consumption bicyclist. we available in metric sizes.~~A. bicycling Association riding been taken and accurate data relating and crank Bicycle behavior oxygen pedaling length Research conrate. since peak efficiency was not reached even at 111 inches [ 8. 200 meters.7 shows the relation a trained bicyclists athlete and heart rate for four subto an everyday of one distances The best performance over various jects ranging from of the competition using a range of gear ratios is shown in Figure 2.~.76 m] . An interesting cross correlation of efficiency versus crank speed for various average speeds and year ratios is shown in Figure 2.85 ml .9 for the bicyclist who produced the most work per liter of oxygen consumption. speed. (approximately 170 mm*) for the untrained bicyclists.~t~ differof but tended length of to with a crank ent crank lengths were inconclusive. have instruThe during actual bicycling heart rate. show best performances 6% in.
7 Oxygen-consumption measurements bicycling. being. the speeds used on the road were but moderate. particularly for time-trial comfor rates of when of racing.39 m/set] compared with 35 mile/h [ 15. 2i mile/h [9. however. plain of leg strain and it may be advisable most riders to continue slightly ridden with their lower gears which to the capacity give pedaling per minute time-proved some 90 to 100 revolutions of the individual.65 m/set] . I 3 litedmin I 4 . Cycling versus roller skating about insignificant . The Japanese riders did.10 it can be seen that for equal periods of maximum power output the record speed credited to a roller skater is less than that of a track bicyclist. changes From Figure 2. reference Data during from 6. The Japanese telemetry equipment was very light and probably brought in performances. having to carry equipment for the test. I 1 Oxygen I 2 consumption. If it is assumed that such record Figure 2. for two minutes effort. than the of oxygen This work the through Adams4 ’ and Whitt4 2 give summaries results obtained breathing bicyclist by earlier workers measurements a small handicap Japanese on actual of course involves of bicyclists when in motion.36 Human power bicycles nowadays.
750 1 I I I I I I I 200 m 0. 3 2 0. 3. I I I I I I I I . 0. a r . 400 m 600 m 800 m 1000 m 250 0.” in. gear ratio From on performance.- Teeth in chain wheel Teeth in rear cog 2. ‘.5 70 80 3 I 90 “Gear.8 of bicycle 6.37 Human power generation Figure Effect 2. reference Distances 1.5 I 100 4 110 .
339 sq m] of a very crouched list exerts 0.2 hp hp [ 122.5).38 Human power makers exert equal powers at their relative rolling speeds.) (73 in. = 0. which At 21 mile/h sq ft [ 0.2 hp to overcome Figure 2. rpm I 100 . sq m] . z 20 . .) 6.z 2 ITi 25 km/b 30 I 50 Pedaling rate.279 and machine.39 m/set] Assume that the skater has a frontal 3 sq ft [0. ’ 15 E tl ii 0. Therefore power needed by the skater 1.) (83 in. an estimate resistance of roller respective can be made of the skates as follows.164 Figure 2. area of bicyclist a bicy(see is less than the 3.65 [9. From 20 on energy reference (66 in.) (110 in. overcome air resistance air resistance = & X 0.9 Effect of gearing efficiency.3 watts] .) (94 in.
39 exerts m/set] 1. power absorbed = 1.39 Human power generation At 35 mile/h [ 15. the bicyclist 2. [9.E I I d 8/ c \I\ :: \ I Rowing Swimming I 0. [ 1.1 hp .936 hp [698. al .85 rolling kg] .936 hp X 375 (mile lbf/h)/hp 0. 154 I bm [0.5 I I I 20 10 5 2 1 Duration of performance. Roller skating I 1 \ Walking I 5. long tons.10 World-record speeds by human power in various modes.0. Hence.0687 resistance of skates = 243 Ibf/long ton.2 I 0. I 4 I I I I \ \ Cycling ‘: c ‘: L -.0687 long ton X 21 mile/h . = 0.0 If the skater weighs or 69.10). Figure 2.164 by the skates hp watts] . min I 50 100 .1 hp [820 watts] is exerting (see Figure and we assume that the skater at 21 mile/h the same power.0595 newtons per kg1 = 0.65 m/set] .
39 m/set] _ There are several current attempts at producing skates having large wheels of much lower rolling resistance to determine the effectiveness of this form of man-powered locomotion. and 45 and elsewhere. in liters per minute.5 as 11. of the use of very small wheels decrease in diameterat high speed the pneumatic of the pull steadily made resistance with and the rest to the less-easy running of the hard rollers tires of the bicycle.46 which is the main source for Table 2. in still air) roller skate (see Figure Crossof 10.5 Ibf per long ton (0.5th is however estimated from a simple geometrical model .3 have been drawn 43.0503 newtons per kg).8). can be interpreted maximum about tractive resistance 1/13th his weight. by a calorific-value constant of 5 kilocalories per liter of oxygen. The data of Dean. and other information suggests that this would increase greatly at speeds of 21 mile/h [9.40 Human power The above rolling resistance is very high compared with that of bicycle wheels. For the purpose in references of comparison. as meaning of the walker that the is This figure was given as early as 186gm4 7 A higher resistance of 1/7. assumed for the purposes The twentifold as the effect skates-about of the construction increase can be partly a thirteenfold compared of Figure explained in the 2.44. country skiers train in summer on a form large-wheeled Cycling versus walking (on the level.48 The tables show that for the same breathing rate the bicyclist’s speed is about four times that of the walkerThe metabolic-heat figures wrre obtained by multiplying the oxygen consumption. up from Tables 2-2 and information given 2. .3. required by the senior author value of abaut Measurements running showed to keep a skater a rolling 134 Ibf/long ton at low speeds. grven by Falls as a reasonable value for the circumstances.4’ This represents which the total “burn up” of human tissue If must ultimately be replaced by food.
0415 0. Metabolic kcal/min 24 19.5 16 12 8.75 2.3: References 43. 0.5 6 3.3. and 45.3 0.3 6 1.65 1. Breathing Tractive I iters/min hp Oxygen 4.11 0. Walking-breathing Tractive rates. hp 0.3 Air 115 93 72 50 29 18 13 9 7 rate.025 0.1 0.2.5 15 10.23 1.8 0 power.5 7.5 0. mile/h Racer 27 25 22 19 14. Cycling-breathing rates. 2.2 3. rate.41 Human power generation Table Speed.28 Air 44 26 18 12.1 5.5 6.0226 0 Sources for Tables 2.5 1.2 0.2 0 Tourist 22.141 0.5 21 18.076 0.5 10.5 heat.4 0.8 Metabolic kcal/min 9.46 3.5 2.53 0.83 1.5 2 0.38 0. mile/h 4.75 0. .05 0. Breathing liters/min Oxygen 1.5 3.33 2.2 0.71 0.44.9 1. Speed.8 3.1 1.4 3 2.008 0 Table 2.4 heat.1 0 power.2 and 2.
88 runners m/set] and racing on the track show that a bicyclist for the fura can reach 40 mile/h long (220 yards L201. The rider is slowed down to 25 percent speed and the walker is slowed down to about 55 percent speed. could be converted energy watts] from at 100 per(via muscuresult. Assuming and of a runner speeds.42 Human power each kilocalorie cent efficiency lar action). of the bicycle will ensure its use even as an aid to walking .89 m/set] to 1% mile/h LO. in still air ) The recorded bicyclists times for sprint [ 17. It can be calculated that a gradient of 4 percent (1 in 25) or a headwind of 10 mile/h [4. with tailwinds or downhill.17 m] ) and 30 mile/h [ 13.56 m/set] .9 m/set]) range. As a consequence the bicyclist notices difficult conditions more vividly than does a walker.5o between so that the difference ing is lessened in these circumstances.47 m/set] slows down a bicyclist exerting a constant 0.1 an action Dean shows that walking more efficient of oxygen consumption up a hill is slightly the point cycling than is level walking.05 hp [37. we can estimate that the powers needed for cycling are only about one-fifth that the powers needed for running at the same speed (15 to 20 mile/h Gradient resistance [6.3 m) while runner machine that the wind resistance of a bicyclist are similar on his at similar reaches only half these speeds. On the other hand. the bicyclist that in is aided to a far greater extent and it is probably very hilly country.3 watts] to about his slowest balancing walker speed of 2% mile/h [ 1.09 hp [67. A be developing the same power would slowed from about 2 mile/h IO. of view and walkshould to mechanical 0.41 m/set] for the mile (1609.7 to 8. this virtue than the walker. Cycling versus running (on the level.12 m/set] . Gradients and headwinds impede both bicyclist and runner or walker but to different relative degrees compared with level progression in still air.
6 90 revolutions remarkably time-trial provides estimates as distinct watts] .6.Human power generation When a bicyclist weight and as a consequence road. power above that for progress along the surface of the required a bicyweight of 170 Ibf [756 is = 0.5 that watts]. say 5 percent [ 11 -18 m/set] (1 in 20) and at 170 Ibf X 25 mile/h 20 X 375 (mile lbf/h)/hp Hence. The gear used was 47 in. Should one walk or pedal up hills? Noncompetitive walking bicyclists have the option of up steep hills. Some prefer Some bicyclists.4 and that there close to the fast 25-mile performances most convincing sound evidence from for all the power-requirement calculations. This performance is [40. Whether it is easier to ride or to walk steep gradients is a subject often debated .6 hp [447. He would be sorely stressed and could do this for only about two minutes.’ ’ Bradley a l-in-12 (8. it is seen from bicyclist climbing a hill of 1 in 20 (5 percent) must give out a power of 0. according to Figure 1. and it can be deduced that he exerted at least 0. Bradley gives interesting information about his climbing climbed feat in the Tour of Austria.97 hp [723. a racing newtons] a hill of.5 is m] shown proof in Table 2.76 m] . a vertical is required from his has to be lifted distance. pedaling at a rate of about per minute. to fit low gears to their and to ride as up much as possible.5 percent) pass on the Gross Glockner of 12% miles [20. [3.3 watts] .57 hp [425 Figure 2.117 m] length in about 57 minutes. simple hillwith the more easily accepted associated based on wind-resistance weight-raising calculatrons climbing bicyclists. bicycles to do so.407 or 0. is agreeprefer alleging that a change of muscle action able to them.57 -10. The additional list with to climb 25 mile/h a total or walker through extra power climbs a hill. however.233.
L. Burton.87 507. Tiley & J.00 0 37 miles miles A.82 miles 374.H. 1953 249. Bayley.4. C. J. 1961 C. Masterson. 1958 J. motor 1 km. R. Blow. start. 1967 1968 1967 1969 0 22 3 55 277. Blow 0 28 51 5 17 9 212. 1972.86 43 5 miles miles C. M. Tremaine. standing flying start.6 set 46. Radames. 1928. 1962. Cromack. 1 h. motor 127. unpaced standing start: 1 min 4.33 Women Bicycle 10 miles 100 miles 12 h 24 h Tricycle 10 miles 100 miles 12 h 24 h Tandem 30 miles B. 76 miles 503 yards paced. Mexico. 1 h. Crook.15 miles G.65 457. Meiffret. 1969 R. Masterson. Freiburg. 1969. Taylor. Moody. Amateur standing R. R. Mexico. Engers. 1969 H. 1969 E. Milan. J. B.6 set 49. 1951 1 11 36 . Burton. Burton. Sartori. 1960 J. Budd. Unofficial 1 h.25 427. Vanderstuyft.25 British Time mile/h amateur and unrestricted: paced.77 unpaced km/h) road records h min set trial competition Men Bicycle 25 miles 100 miles 12h 24 h Tricycle 25 miles 100 miles 12h 24 h D. 1969 051 3 46 281. track Professional 1 km. 1967.44 Human power Table 2. (204. E. E. Me:ck:!. 1966 1971 0 4 59 30 58 48 miles miles A.408 km Harris. F. Mexico. B. Watson. 1966 J.95 km 1 km. start: 1 min 8. Montlh&y. G. T. World’s Principal records unpaced 1952. Arnold. bicycling speed and time-trial records.
Poole. M. Arnold. A. P. D. F. A. Swinden W. Mills R. F. P. (PI. F. Duffield. Crimes. (872 miles) 1954 2 13 59 G. Randall. Crimes 81 2 2 2 10 14 58 J. Withers.45 Human power generation Long distance One thousand Bicycle Tricycle Tandem bicycle Tandem tricycle Land’s End to John o’ Groats High ordinary Bicycle Tandem bicycle Tricycle Tandem tricycle miles R. Arnold. Withers. A. M. 4960 days -- h min 2 2 10 21 40 37 1958 & 1964 P. Touring Club 1954 2 4 26 Source: Cyclist . Swinden W. J. Crimes & 2 18 9 J. J. F. 1886 5 1 1 23 45 46 1965 & 1966 1960 P.
say.6 watts] or 1 in 6. The bicyclist will be “lifting” a machine weighing. lf we confine attention to the everyday bicylist.67 from m/set] 0.1 hp E74. This can be calculated as 21 X 150 Ibf / (150 t30) ).67 m/set] Power losses in the low-gear neglected (see later). We will use the data previously developed to show that it should be more eft’icient to ride up to an approximately gradient.uch more than about of 15 percent [0.6 efficiency that the road speed which the balancing Overall efficiency of the muscular action riding bicyclist: Many experiments have carried out on the oxygen consumption alers. mechanism are also Overall efficiency of muscular action of a walker pushing the machine: Macdonald gives a summary of experimental consumption work concerning the oxygen gradients of walkers going up various at different speeds.“4 For a walking rate of 1% mile/h [0. Data Macdonald56 con- . assumes as a basis the body weight being lifted against gravity. we can assume that A commonly a gradient 1% mile/h difficulties encountered he is unlikely steep hill is thereby is one which point to wish to is one with fixed as limiting use m.7.46 Huma/. of the been of pedappear hp [74.67 m/set] up a gradient of 15 percent it appears that a metabolic percent is accepted gross efficiency This efficiency of 15 as typical. 30 Ibf [ 130 newton] in addition to his body (150 Ibf [667 newton] ). Ibf or 17. 5 * e53 The data given in Figure 2.4 typical in that for a power output of O-l watts] at the wheel at metabolic (gross) of 21 percent is reasonable. so that a factor is necessary for the efficiency when compared to body weight alone.5 percent (assuming there is negligible rolling or wind resistance at 1 “ISmile/h [ 0. It is assumed gives no of view. The bicyclist pushing his machine will be in a semicrouched position so that an adjustment to the efficiency f ram Dean55 as well as from must be made. power among bicyclists.
9 is not optimum. realized that this difference gives but a small margin for the extra friction involved in the bicycle transmission using a very low gear. there really appreciable advantage in riding even though a low gear is used.2 m/set] with the cooling experience of such a wind for level running.6 ml .Human power generation cerning the effects of walking in stooping posibicycle alone tions and when carrying the pushing of the 30. giving a pedaling rate of 26 revolutions per minute. a quarter of an hour. A matter not given prominence discussion is one concerned with cooling for a bicyclist’s relatively At a power output of 0. [ 1. However.5 X (100 the estimations appears that it is easier to ride up a 15 percent [0.67 m/set] for a period of.3 and 2. on the !evel. which according to figures 2. or 1 in 5.5 or a reduction miles per hour 30 percent. Unpublished data’suggest a body temperature ciable magnitude-l OF [0. Under he would be fairly comfortable overheated. at gradients of 20 percent. It is probable .3/17.67 m/set] pushing the of than to walk at the same speed of 1% by about 12. Calculations on the lines of the above show that the 15 percent gradient is perhaps a critical one and that is no the cycle in this type of the lack of wind high heat output.0 watts] he would. it is certain that an averagely clothed bicyclist will feel himself getting hot.55’C] rise of an appre. When climbing such circumstances and would not feel a hill at 1% mile/h [0.11 hp 182. of the previously overall efficiency mate this at about the 30 percent should be taken A lowering assumed 21 percent pedaling is bound to occur. gradient bicycle From small weights [ 130 newton] show that extra effort so that the walker’s weight 30) / 100 = 12. Let us esti18 percent. in practice the lowest gear avaitable may be of 20 in. be traveling at some 14 mile/h [6. As a consequence quoted It must be difference as about previously 18 percent.lbf absorbs 30 percent muscle efficiency percent. say.3 given above it based on his body is decreased to 17.
Other data on various heat engines and human performances General comments This chapter are given in Table 2. motor recently for propelling The other internal-combustion supplied units have been The small is A power with internalelectric motors light bicycles.6 watts] ). 22 mile/h for 12 h.12) of general data concerning specific powers and specific energies for various power sources.07 kg]. has dealt with the “human machine” as distinct from the bicycle itself. as is the longdistance bicyclist in his periodic snacks. Comparison combustion of human engines and [0. less m/set] power when the lower output is more the lowered Only two types of small power developed well known. shows that a gasoline engine and accessories of power and endurance equivalent to a man would weigh about 20 Ibm [9. say.1 hp [74.45 influence bicyclists to heat get off and walk at very low speeds of. Performance details for electric would of batteries propulsion show that this method of a man in the form motor (with an add about the weight and small electric output of about 0.48 Human power that such considerations than 1 mile/h loss from tolerable.57 We have added data for a racing bicyclist riding at 20 mile/h for 24 h. From time immemorial men have investigated the power output of humans and animals. W. type engine of the “moped” is a small electric storage batteries.5. even though bicycling performances are not strictly comparable to those for batteries because the batteries are not recharged. A Humber pacing tandem was in use in the 1890s and was fitted with an electric motor and a frame full of batteries (Figure The specification for modern “mopeds” 2. S.11). for use in factories by lead-acid scooter marketed uses this system. Farey summarized . There is a peculiar similarity between human energy capacity and that of lead-acid batteries. Gouse gives a chart (Figure 2. and 25 mile/h for 4 h. A touring bicyclist covering about 100 miles in 8 hours is included as point l .
Harold Cycle 2. bicycle. Data from reference 57. I 100 watt-II/kg I 200 I 400 1000 . ‘c .12 Bicyclists compared with engines and batteries. fii :: Zinc air kuu Racing bicyclist Silver ziilc w Sodium sulphur l Touring bicyclist I 10 I 20 Specific I 40 energy.u . 10 Batteries 4’ Nickel Nickel 21 cadmium zinc Lead acid l( y” ‘5 g g hi I% x .11 electric Reproduced Connolly News Ltd.Human power generation Figure Humber 1898. from with Motorcycle permission Story by from Motor Figure 2.
32 15 18.1 15 - 85 (aero 1 0.1 hp cu ft/hph other gases 525 4.0 11.2 12.5 43. gross & net Oxygen absorbed Theoretical air-lbm/ Ibm fuel Thermal efficiency percent Btu/lbm kg ca’/g co2 ‘2 Air consumption Throughput -Fuel Engine we Steam engine (non condensing) Coal 3.45 3. lbm/bhp I iter/O. Performance details of heat engines. dry and CU ft/ hph Absorbed liter/min.2 80.7 6 130 130 1.9 84 84 0.5 7.000 11.5 15 323 213 2. Calorific of fuel value N.79 29 .000 7. 1 hp h min Exhaust composition.5.6 11.75 40 800 Fuel Coal cons.3 20.Table 2.6 Spark ignition (car) Gasoline Gasoline 0.3 Steam engine (condensing) Coal 1. 0.
384. H. Mechanical world year book. B.596. vol. 1967). 849.75 IO.5.401-402. Respiration (London: Oxford University Press. p.04 3. 575. h min 1 hp Cu ft/ hph Absorbed cu ft/hph kg Cal/g cG2 O2 gases 0.56 1.8 26 80 540 60 116 Fuel cons.5 21 19. 276. 1962). .5 6. Sir Richard Glazebrook. 1 (London: Macmillan & Company. editor. pp. 584.Table - 2. 156. 1939).1 14. Best and N. gross & net Oxygen absorbed I iter/min 0. p. 6. S. 849. p.000 10.1 hp Calorific of fuel Btu/lbm value Exhaust composition. McLaren. 380. Performance details of heat engines Air consumption (continued).389. S. I I (London: Morgan Brothers. and other Throughput Fuel Engine Type Diesel marine (large) Human Oil Fat Carbohydrate 0. The physiological basis for medicalpractice /London: Baillieres. p. Best and NI B.5 83. Tindall & Cox. 153.0 39. H. Theoretical air-lbm/ Ibm fuel Thermal efficiency percent dry N. Mechanical engineering for beginners and others (London: Charles Griffin & Company. J. The physiological basis for medicalpractice (London: Baillieres.5 5. Taylor. 1922). TindalI & Cox. A dictionary of applied physics. 1922). 1917). p.6 4.5 Sources: Kempe’s engineers year book.6 9. 158.000 12.9 I6 79. C. Haldane. 689. pp. Taylor. Ibm/bhp liter/O. vol. 1939). R. 1967 (Manchester: Emmott 81 Company.33 1.
60 is one of the few to admit that practicing bicyclists are conservative in their views about accepting “everthing that the boffins (scientists) tell them. discussing rates. Howon ever. Reference 59 includes textbooks summarizing such experimental findings concerned with healthy humans. these textbooks do not concentrate pedaling bicycles. Since more rehave obtained to be of value to engineers. obtained recognized fined then specialized experimental prior to the 19th century.58 workers data and a very large amount of recorded data are available.” . Vaughan Thomas. To assemble data on bicycles. much sifting of relevant generalized I iterature must be carried pedaling out.52 Human power such data.
499-500. “A note on the estimation cyclists. effect capacity D. 1968. 222-224. C. Miiller. Production and Technical bicycle. vol. 9. G. Physiology ford: Pergamon Press.” Journal of Applied Physiology. W. Whitt. 4. H. 197 1.” of the energy of sporting Ergonomics. Loughborough 10. “The of wind speed on the maximum in man. 1956. T. Clifford.” Ergonomics. “Man Royal Aeronautical 8. “A hyperbolic and F. “Inter-and differences in energy expenditure and mechanical efficiency. and cranking. See reference 3 above. C. 1965. A. B. Weddell. pp. 9.. 1970). 253-259. 1960. 14. 4. 477-481. 12.” England. McKerslake. 9. D. and J. Vaughan Science and sport (London: Faber & Faber. Lucien Brouha. resistance Cranfield. 5. 3. Dyson. Wilkie. Hill. vol. 16. Trails and trials in physiology Clowes and Sons. Wyndham et al. H. (London and Beccles: William 18.” College. Thayer Hanover. intra-individual 1 I. expenditure Physiology. L. 1965). G. October 1956. pp. Exercisephysiology Academic Press. human pp. report College of Aeronautics. 1967). University of London Thomas. 3.” of the Bicycle Japan. evaporation vol. The no.** Journal of Physiology. H. (New York: 14. . 17. “Report institute. pp. no. 13. H. 147. as an aero-engine. F. “vol.53 Human power generation References Chapter 2 I. Falls.” pp. 7. “Air private communication. Society. A.” Journal of the 64. D. in industry. 2nd ed. R. University. methods of increasing “Physiological work capacity.” Ergonomics. 4 19-424. New Hampshire. R. pp. See references 3 and 4 above. Bonjer. 7. vol. 8. E. 409-424. 1968). no. pp. 1959. of racing cyclists. Wilhelm von Dijbeln. 6. (Ox- 15. “Report School on the energy-storage Dartmouth 1962. 19G2). “A simple bicycle ergometer. The mechanics of athletics (London: Press. ergometer Journal of Applied 2. Lanooy for cycling vol. 1954. Nonweiler. 1. 17-29. vol. of Engineering. no. 106. 1966.
M. January 1965. C. pp. 1932. A. See references 1. Saltin. 2. pp. 11 above. pp. pp. C. 1970. 31-47. “On the existence of a most efficient speed in bicycle pedalling and the problem of determining human muscular efficiency. W. no. vol. G. 33. See reference 36. vol. 425437. See reference 25. pp. 31. 977-981. See reference 7 above. speed and gradient. “The relationship between ventilating capacity and simple pneumonosis in coal workers. P. 17-30. 25. 1967. Knipping equivalent vol. Moncreiff.1961. pp. Garry and G. Dean. C. 23. 16-17.. See reference 21. “The ventilation of oxygen. pp.” Queensland Journal of Medicine. Part I I: Expenditures on walking related to age. sex and body weight of bicycle riding. sex. 8. 1. Ibid. Brown. 315-329. Bicycling.” Press. 35. 1944. R. no. 28. 16. Carpenter et al. vol. Ian McDonald.” Journal of Applied Physiology. 22. vol. R. 32 above. Ibid. J. Wishart. See reference 29. “Maximizing selection of motion human cycle power and load. 0. 3. Whitt.Human power 19. pp. W. W. 72./ournal of pp. .” British Journal of Industrial Medicine. 739-762.. “influence of age. 37. 24. 1956. 20. Astrand and B. F. height. 5 July 1944 (London: Temple 12-13. R. vol. “Statistical studies of recorded energy expenditures of man.” Human Factors.” Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews. pp.” Ergonomics. on the energy expenditure Applied 22. 32. Y. 13. vol. February 1971. 31. 1931. 34. July 1961. and 8 above. 30. 539-545. weight. Adams. vol. Physiology. See reference 29 above.” Journal of Physiology. Harrison output by suitable et al. 11 above. 7 above. 166-176. and A.” and practice.“. 12. 27. H. “Maximal oxygen uptake and heart rate in various types of muscular activity. “Ankling. 26. “Cycle gearing in theory Cycling. “An analysis of the energy expenditure in level and grade walking.
1962). “Measurement on pedal and crank during work on a bicycle ergometer lnternationale Zeitschrift Gr Angewandte Ph ysiologie einschliesslich A rbeitsph ysiologie. See references 60. pp. M. p. Bruton The Velocipede 18691.bicycles and tricycles: how to make and use them (London: George Routledge & Sons.” 51. A treatise on the steam engine. “An (London: 31 above. vol. Hoes et al. Sylvia Die kenson. 52. January 58. See reference 43.” vol. pp. “Steam cars. See reference 55. 33-42. by David Charles. See reference 47. 242-245. John Reprinted 1970. See reference 50. 31 above. Farey.” Crane Court. 40 See reference 41. of bicycle pedaling 53. 46. Bekker. 50-56. See reference 44. Whitt. (Ann Arbor. F.” Science Journal. 67.. See reference 42. 1. 49. 24-25. 1971. 21 above. See reference 57. 16 above.” Bicycling pp. M. 29 above. 1869). 45 above. Mich. 90. no. See reference Cycling. 54. experienced J. 59. 1956. See reference 48. See reference 13 above. 31 above. See reference above.” Journal of Physiology. velocipedeist. R. “The efficiency as affected by speed and load. of forces exerted 39. 25 6 above. 45. . pp. A. 65. Velocipedes.Human power generation 38. pp. 1929. 6 above. Gross Glockner ride.: University Theory of land locomotion of Michigan Press. See reference 56. 13-17 London. “Pedalling rates and gear sizes. G. vol. Gouse. 31 above. Velox. 3 above. 5-6. J. March 1973. 26. at different loads. 29 above. p. 1827. S. W. 6. “My July 1957. Bill Bradley.
A. 9. “Aerobic reference work capacity 1960. W. op basis van het energieverbruik. “The relationship between energy expenditure and performance index in the task of shovelling sand. 180. “Aerobic men. Scan- dinavica. et al. 6. “Lopen resistance Cycling. “Initial fitness and personality as a determination in response to a training regime. 23 February 1973. Alex. 9. 1896). H. Chapman “The Moulton bicycle.” 1970. Chandler. no. G. “Energetics of muscle. B 2. discourse. no. Wyndham. C. Bicycles and tricycles (London: Green & Company. vol. Astrand. J.” Friday-evening Moulton. I. . C. 1966. 1. to cycling. 1966. pp.56 Human power Additional recommended reading Allen. J. London. Huxley. Ergonomics. p.” Ergonomics. 9. N. Sharp. pp. Longmans. l-92. F. Chemistry in Judge. vol. vol. pp. 485-496. of fietsen? Hart Bulletin.” capacity and physiological fitness of Australian pp. R. 21 July and R. “Tractive 1910.” Acta Physiologica 169. 477-479. 49. 1966. and Chandler. H. R.” Ergonomics. 19251. Shephard. Binkhorst.” Britain. 371-378. November A. pp. Suppl. of men and women with special to age.” Hermans-Telvy -kiesen 6 June 1974.. A. The mechanism of the car (London: and Hall. pp. vol. Royal Institution. I-16. 59-63. no 5. p. A.
distances of 480 miles [772 km] being frequently covered (Table 2.2 hp [I49 watts] is dissipated in the air.4).’ Time trials (unpaced) are regularly held for 24-hour periods with.3 How bicyclists keep cool Bicycling can be hard work. Chapter output like any engine. however.94 m/set] about 0. It is very important not become We pointed overout in that the body. be much less than that of this the around for the moving is dissipated as air friction cooling subject’s body. Such time trials are of far longer duration than the usual few hours assumed by Wilkie. very amenable to analysis. for instance. ran at this power because little level. The cooling is a direct function of this lost power. As a consequence it can be said that’ under most conditions of level running the riding bicyclist works under cooler conditions than does an ergometer pedaler. The effect of adequate from Wilkie’s may be inferred with of ergo- finding from experiments meter pedalers 2e3 that if any capability . During bicycling the self-generated air blast is of such magnitude that it bears little resemblance to the draft produced by the small electric fans sometimes advised for cooling pedalers on ergometers. for instance. At high bicycling speeds most of the rider’s power is expended in overcoming air resistance. power. At. heated when producing of bicyclists 2 that the measurement on ergometers of the power is open to criti- cism because the conditions are critically different from bicycles. 20 mile/h L8. The performances for heat dissipation those occurring on bicyclists in “time of riding trials” are. say. Even if the little fans often used for ergometer the cooling power experiments effect would bicyclist. as the maximum period over which any data are available for human power output.
1.5 hp [373 watts] he can expect to have to give up after some ten minutes and will be perspiring profusely. Use of data on heat transfer Because there is no published information cerning experiments on the heat transfer conof actual riding bicyclists. Also of a riding bicyclist of shape difference heat transat and speeds on the level. pedaler to moving is being expended responsible that when It seems that the exposure air is principally It is also known for the improvement. Let us examine the relevant literature for suitable correlations of established heat-transfer data in order to find quantitative reasons for the above observations. peak perresistance other to show of the time trials can be analyzed 1 on wind information and this agrees with using data given in reference sources of similar that some 0.-diameter cylinder. However. In addition. The approximate forms used are a flat plate or 6-in. it is necessary to make calculations with suitable approximations of a bicyclist’s shape.233 m] distance trial involva duration of effort of nearly one hour. Again the striking difference produced by moving air upon a pedaler’s performance is very apparent.3#4f5 although the postures of the humanslying flat or standing adopted by a riding upright-vvere bicyclist. data from experinrents upon actual human forms can be looked at.3 hp [224 watts] over that period. calculations using estabfor both convective and evaporare given in Figure 3.58 Human power exceeding the subject formances and rolling published about half an hour’s watts] pedaling output is required. down to must keep his power in 24-hour resistance about 0.2 hp [I49 . a pedaler on an ergometer attempts a power output of about 0. that the effect not those The results of many lished correlations ative heat transfer shown various is the heat evolution power outputs indicates The figure upon the flux for a given temperature is not excessive in the case of convective . That is the same power output required to propel a racing bicyclist doing a “fast” 25-mile [40.
89. hp . See Table 2. refData for curves 6 and 7 and 9 and 11 from erence 12. 66. 19481. heat energy equivalents. cylinder. pp. dry 2/ 1 3 m/set 8 10 1% I 20 I I 40 ft/sec 2 I 3 I 4 I 6 I 1-o I Air velocity . p. Bicyclists’ body surface assumed to be 1. condi- transmission (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. p.-~diam~ . Heating and ventilating engineer 3 databook (New York: IndusStrock.-diam. humidity. 87.““i>yical surface. Convective heat flows.3 0. trial Press. temperature 80 percent.2. McAdams. 512. 37. wet. p. 19421. W. 1 and 2 7. Data for curve giving heat output are from cal power of racing bicyclist metabolic heat for mechani- surface temperatures 15 “C. 88.1 0. Heat Output of crouched racing bicyclist at speeds shown. cross flow ZtZ$Z!:ate.5 I I l/f / 6-in.69. tions: (constant). pp.2 0. 257.8 m2. 857. air relative Data for curves from reference data adjusted and some small Data for curve 3 from H.59 How bicyclists keep cool Figure 3. p= 223. 0. air (constant). Data for curve 5 from reference points 5. Data for curves 4 and 8 from reference 4. Data for point IO from C.1 and evaporative Assumed 35 “C.
8 square meters amounts also to 280 kilocalories per hour per square meter. In the case of evaporative difference actual a midway between results with human body heat transfer models from the and an data con- is 20 percent.8 “Cl.5 ft/sec [0. It is recommended that such hard work should be carried out only at a room temperature of 55 “F [ 12. moving because the pedaler’s the air. This figure when applied to a man with a body surface of 1. This value for the air speed would for bicyclists. no matter how long the period for which he works. As pointed out by Colin and Houdas’ for the same driving potential.60 Human power fer.457 conditions and point 9 for free-convection both predict about 280 kilocalories per square meter per hour as the heat flux for that air speed. It appears that value can be obtained cerning cross flow over wetted 6-in. about Deductions evaporative double pressure or temperature heat-transfer rates are heat transfer. Most of this heat is lost by evaporation of sweat.5 ft/sec [0. where line 6 for forced convection m/set] over a cylinder at 1. expressed as water-vapor difference. This is supported in Figure 3. data given in references 7 and 8 lead to the conclusion that we are being cooled by air moving at a velocity of about 1.457 m/set] . the design of shows that the be increased legs are also Information concerned with heating and ventilating plantsgt” maximum heat load produced by a hard physical worker has been long accepted as 2. those for convective Under normal free-convection conditions.000 Btu/h [586 watts].-diameter cylinders or flat plates. Because such a bodily heat loss for a pedaler on a stationary with a mechanical power ergometer is associated output of approximately . The evidence above leads to the conclusion that a man pedaling in such a manner that his body gives out a total of 2.1.000 Btu/h (586 watts) in average air conditions where free convection holds does not suffer from noticeable rise in body temperature.
8 m* If it is assumed that the pedaler’s body weighs 70 kilograms and has a specific heat of 0. At that bicyclist it was shown exert 0.8 kcal/min if the small heat losses through neglected.61 How bicyclists keep cool 25 100 25’ 2.000 33. breathing are X 1. the heat flow or about 40 ft/sec from to a speed of about about 608 kilocalories per hour per square meter (Figure 3.280 kcal/h/m2 -60 min/h = 9. that corresponds mile/h speed.000 Btu per hourarea of must be absorbed by the pedaler’s body. Thus the ergometer pedaler with a body 1.5 hp [373 watts] pedaling on an ergometer. 2.26 hp ciency). to Figure . incidentally. Such riders.5 hp [373 watts] .5 hp [373 watts].2 m/set] the moving rise in body temperature.5. all the heat lost by convection and evaporation in moving air-all of the heat in excess of 2.2 hp [ 149 watts] Earlier because he is unwilling that many cyclists According [ 12.8 m* absorbs 608 kcal/h/m* .84 Cal/g-2°C = 12 min 9. the tolerable time limit for pedaling is: 70 kg X 0.1).8 kcal/min From personal observations of highly trained racing bicyclists attempting to pedal ergometers at a power output of 0. If the cyclist exerts 0.84 calories per gram per ‘C. were all capable of racing in time trials of one-hour duration and more involving power outputs of nearly . working tolerate [ 194 watts] it seems that a pedaler for long periods a noticeable on an ergometer about to can 27 is 0. Hence the above estimations seem to be founded on sound theory. and that a rise in body temperature of 2 ‘C is acceptable before physical collapse.000 Btu/h X 778 ft Ibf/Btu 60 min/h thermal only effi- (ft Ibf/min)/h (25 percent produces = 0. a common range of endurance is 5 to 15 min.
thus vividly of hard work. of heat upon the performances Conclusions The heat-removal a working duration apparently human capacity of the air surrounding in deciding the are freeair conditions is a key factor Static of his effort.2 hp [ 149 watts] perature rises.) . used for testing the compared giving out with that tolerable the same mechanical Some speculations to a static worker air flow over a standing perspir- At least two ergorneters power capacities of racing bicyclists have incorporated air brakes in the form of fans. Quantitative estimations of an approximate nature can be made using established heat-transfer correlations based on air flow over wet 6-in lo.” con- going are given in a paper by Williams of ergometer pedalers.8 “Cl is assumed. Hence if greater heat is given out from working at higher rates than about 0.5 hp [373 watts] the value of flowing the tolerable period Experimental cerning the effect . Hence quite an amount of clothing can be worn power. no one to date appears to have thought ing the air from of the pedaler and seeing what effect of directthe fastsuch air brakes on to the body . (A room temperature [ 12.62 Human power 0.000 Btu per hour [586 watts] from the body surface of an average man. such that at low air speeds with convection conditions.152 ml diameter cyl inders (cross-flow)‘:’ or from data yiven concerning ing humanal The heat-removal capacity of the air around a moving bicyclist at most speeds on the level is such that much more heat can be lost than that produced by the bicyclist’s effort. demonstrating of air on the prolongation supporting findings the foreet al. However. the air is capable of removing 2. body temof 55 OF The fast-moving air around a bicyclist traveling on the level can be estimated to have a heatremoval capacity much above that of the stationary air surrounding a man pedaling an ergometer.
It is improbable that an air flow from such an arrangement could the flow give anything very far from. In view of the fact that at 0.457 in the power out of doors should of the pedaler. conditions around a heated feet per second free-convection output.2 hp [ 149 watts] for tolerable body temperatures.63 How bicyclists keep cool moving air had on the pedaler’s performance. would still be most interesting. and more into . The results. around that air movements m/set] quoted at any rate are much faster than the 1% above for body. the body must get rid of its hear by an evaporative process. Pedaling on an ergometer result in an advantage It is generally buildings accepted [0. ever. half bicyhowrates surrounding riding clist giving out the same power. indoor exercise seems rather unhealthy compared with riding a bicycle in the open air. an actual say. Maybe some expensive home trainers be better sold could designed of the exceedingly for wealthy by putting self-propelled businessmen cooling less into instrumentation equipment.
31-38. pp. “Circulatory reactions to work in heat. pp. P. D. October 4. 6. 17. 9-13.” no. 19361. vol.” pp. 761. by convection Journal of Applied Physiology. “Air 1956. of heat exchanges pp. J. Weddell. C. Absorption and (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. 10. et al. vol. McGraw-Hill 4 above. and J. Pigford. report The no. Kempe’s engineers year book. Houdas. II (London: Brothers. of racing cyclists. 1. 19521. natural convection Uniflow 8. 477-481. pp. 0. R. of buildings (Cheam. T. 22. Quest (City of London 9. Kell. R. R. 1960. College of Aeronautics. 12. 19621. pp. “hIan Royal Aeronautical 2. D. Chemical engineers handbook Book Company. Perry. Clifford. 625-638. vol. D.” Journal of Applied Physiology. L. Williams. Ibid. 106. R. “The (New York: pp. 1967. extraction. 13. 1943). the human 1969. Clarke. resistance Cranfield. L. Wilkie. and metabolic 11. and Y.958-965.64 Human power References Chapter 3 1. Nonweiler. G. effect of wind in man. Sherwood and R. vol. Cox and R. 1962. Heating and air conditioning Surrey: Architectural Press. 253- speed on the maximum Journal of Physiology. K. 64. 3. 5 above. vol.87-89. T. Colin human as an aero-engine.” Journal of the Society.” England. 1959. 5. body.. 780. Morgan Faber and J. See reference . “Experimental determinaticn of the of coefficient body. See reference 7. J. McKerslake. N.” 259. around versity). 70. “The capacity pp. evaporative 147. 339.
McAdams. and physiological with R. W. fitness McGraw- Hill Book Company. no. V. vol. Heating and ven tilating*s engineering databook Industrial Press. physical H. Heat transmission 1942). C. “Comparison of evaluating protective pp. 14. Strock. vol. and Goldman. Ergonomics. no. “A note on the estimation cyclists. J. 1948). of sporting pp. of the energy (New York: Whitt. 1. . H. 1972. 15. l-l 6. 1971.” as deter- of the response in a training Ergonomics. 3.” Ergonomics. minants R. 9. F. F. 419426. R. 337-342.” expenditure no. vol. Shephard. “Initial and personality regime. D. 2. pp. 1966. (New York: of the ther- methods wearing mal stress associated clothing.65 How bit yclists keep cool Additional recommended reading Martin.
3). with ones limb in the Middle Ages (Figure tools. An example of the latter type of “squirrel cage” can be seen in me !sle of Wight.1). This latter on a lathe. of buckets inside a walks well in order to raise water. A common method of using mar or animal power was to harness the walking man or animal to a revolving lever attached to a vertical axle (Figure 4. with a hand-cranked followed than that of grinding were per(after handle motion corn or raising water in large quantities the 8th century) by the use of the “bow” 4.2) or inside a circular cage. man and animals had to be harnessed to provide mechanical power necessary for grinding corn. to look at what dence there is to see if this line of thinking any value. and for other domestic or industrial work. Tasks of a lighter nature formed action action. hands free to handle man-powered a steady-motion involving action It appears that all the tasks associated in the earlier rather character and were often than rapid times were of heavy pushing . left the for instance. A more elaborate method was to let the man or animal walk either on an inclined disk (Figure 4. lifting water.Man-powered machinery and the bicycle The standard accepted of human vertical riding position using pedals application However. mechIt evihas and cranks has evolved over the years into an means for the satisfactory power to moving might therefore a bicycle. offer there are some who believe that alternative anisms and motions seems worthwhile advantages. brooke which Castle a donkey in turn moves a chain UK. prior to the advent in the of wind and water-mill power followed by steam and electric prime movers. where at Carisinside a wheel. Early applications muscle power to machinery of For thousands 17th century of years. where the foot alone was used.
Q”:. four tirnt.. to be t quit Irltet types at1cl 2.1 Horse-driven Courtesy Museum. esting No rapid chatqtls arl operator of speed of such wire of these likely etf fforn rnachirieiy accourits cali of the opet-atioti of tnachitm ht? fourici it) tefctetices 1 The coming of the man-propelled for road use machine Although uf otlly fitst sIt7iildt atlcl 01. of Science London. I 67 -Man-powered --p--p-Figure 4.y ovt:tpoles.itd p~ovtxl. atl(t boats havt! havt? tkferl t)et?tl uscrl t. . . thtet: the marl-pt hundretf opt’llocj yeat latld vtlhicles. . trlc:thocls those Thts three s. vehicle propulsion which by limb ust>tl s.ittltttlg tm:ilust? Thtl 0t occdsiotially tfilt Iiet t)y copyitlq copyity wt!tt’ farntliat t easonatdtt. f.~tes pt:t iori t)dck the I710vt?c1 Ianti padrlles. a lorlg ci.II ” _ >.’ > . The of i‘dctt: actiutis tot marl-moved whtxlet to rowity. rnoverrrtttlt. machinery and the bicycle -~-. wheel. ot oat’s. was ustxl dchit2vutl fat statiotlaty thostt was machtrlt!ty.
2 Rarnelli inclined with footmill. .Human power Figure 4. I Figure Middle 4. Burstall Faber & Faber. 1563). Courtesty Bow-action Imperial Chemical tries. permisReproduced sion from A history of mechanical engineering by Aubrey (London: F. Ltd.3 lathe of the of IndusAges.
They were propelled by the “rider” pushing the ground with his feet. predates the “Lallement patent” by several years and it is probable that other inventors had thought of the idea. made by Messrs.4 nleans of pedals and new system placing of cranks upon the front wheel of a bicy- cle is credited to Lallement of the Michaux concern who patented the idea when he arrived in America (1866). from resulted front wheel and a small trailing and broken so that when transmission necks the enabled Many skull fractures ordinaries.69 Man-powered machinery and the bicycle vehicles could their resistance not be moved to rolling heavy. It is recorded. the front wheel of a “hobbyhorse. and the “ordinary” or “penny farthing” evolved. because roads were propulsive and the The ma- was great: rough and vehicles The proved actions via levers. with hand cranks.52 ml .* appeared Even in the 1820s a cartoon the Prince had showing Regent in a position (of some embarrassment) apparently turning. hand cranks.3). Eighteenthcentury hobby horses were merely two wheels connected by a board with a rudimentary seat (see Figure 9. spills from development of the chain step-up a bicycle to be made on which the rider could sit between two wheels of equal moderate size. like were appropriate to the circumstances. it was termed the “safety” (1885). however.1). the to Bury and Hill ier3 and Scott.) [I . treadles.5 This machine. quickly. and in the early models the front wheel could not be steered. Mehew of Chelsea. that at the 1862 Exhibition a tricycle was exhibited with pedals and cranks on the front wheel. invention of the two-wheeled self-balancing chine by Macmillan in 1839 did perhaps machine.” “The hobby horse and boneshaker are two of the four principal stages of evolution of the bicycle. not outside an era of an easier-running achieved were probably of the treadle Bicycle propulsion cranks-a by According introduce but the speeds the suitability system of propulsion. The boneshaker (1860s) had a steerable front wheel with pedals (see Figure 9. know it today. pedaled wheel (1870s). This is essentially the bicycle as we . with a largediameter (around 60 in. In later boneshakers the front wheel was larger than the rear wheel to provide better gearing.
Although tests are very different.propulsion 1870 to 1890. This conclusion is supported by the fact that . relatively the heavy stationary by man’s muscle of a new propulsive power. and the introduction system was welcome. because it shows that the maximum oxygen consumption of subjects cranking by hand is below that of the same men when pedaling.) Pedaling is thus more suitable for human action to provide high power than is hand cranking. Hand cranking is discussed first because it appears to be the one about controvertible with pedaling which there is the most inmanner. that obtained or hand-operated of the the circumstances the general conclusion is easy to reach: hand cranking is not a competitor for pedaling. Subsidiary evidence” also supports this view. Using evidence given in references 7 and 8 a series of curves has been drawn on Figure 1.6 showing how pedal power compares with from men working with winches ergometers.6 There are several distinct methods of propulsion. In spite of the rapid general acceptance that pedaling with cranks was a very efficient and practical method ventors methods that of bicycle imitated propulsion. was. Scott illustrates many of the patents taken out by optimistic inventors from More modern proposals for .70 Human power Never in the long history chinery The bicycle easy running machinery of man-moved ma-. even in its earliest compared with turned frequently days. foot would-be centuries-old with very inpersisted in re-introducing movements heavy stationary machinery. (Other experiments show that the oxygen-usage efficiency is very similar for action by both arms and legs so that efficiency is not a confusing factor. evidence as to its value compared in the conventional Hand cranking: The power output of a human is dependent upon the duration of effort as well as upon the nature and conditions of the effort. had the feet been used to push cranks.
thut for a particular set of circumstances. from the point of view of efficiency of muscle usage. The matter has not been fully investigated as yet.” bicycles States for an attach(Figure 4.” Information given by Haldane suggests that great strain is placed upon the muscular actions associated with breathing bicycles.71 Man-powered machinery and the bicycle although drivers of hand-propelled performances. in no way come close to. the performances Hand cranking in addition mechanisms muscle power was granted “safety” as additional to pedaling: pedaling Hand-crank arrange- means for applying In 1873 a patent to the standard in the United ments date back a long time. to be so gifted. in for and more recently-several have been so fitted Creditable performances have been claimed spite of the acrobatic movements necessary the rider to work taneously. It does appear.4).” when a horizontal particularly position is adopted. work rather by Andrews could be and steer simul- Recent experimental ergometers” has shown.12 type. two muscle activities with surprisingly.that out simulta- can be carried neously with a small gain in power for a given oxygen consumption. however. an additional mechanism has its virtues. for instance.” As far back as the 1890s the general advice to riders was “to get over the work. In spite of these conclusions.” The riders of ergometers complain of knee strain when pedaling “sitting down. have proved to be record breakers “sitting-down for short track the 1930s “Velocar” . as the normal upright position. such as a need for an all-out high-speed effort. however. or explained medically. ment to an “ordinary. expected hand cranks Not all riders. hand-cranking Pedaling in the horizontal position: Tests by Astrand and Saltin on ergometers have shown that pedaling in the near-horizontal position is only about 80 percent as effective. invalid they carriages of achieve remarkable tricycle riders.
72 Human power Figure 4. 2 March 1897. (b Figure 4. (a) Sketch of bicycle on which Fontaine broke the London-to-York 1895. Courtesy (b) Bricknell handlebars.4 Hand-cranked bicycles.5 Reclining. Patent by I. Wales. . hand-cranked bicycle. F. Green broke records with record auxiliary Harry many “Goss” unpaced in of Bicycling hand gear using rocking this gear.
is. is also lost). 4.5. to some touringIt appears therefore wind resisless riding position type riders that for some conditions tance resulting outweighs possible thrust advantageous the drawbacks the reduced the lowered of the apparently levels. during each stroke. 1969.13 They pointed out that the usual rowing action is a motion in which. Semirecumbent bicycles have appeared at intervals. and “forced” Free motions were those in which the ends of the stroke were defined by the rower braking the kinetic forced energy-that motions.73 Man-powered machinery and the bicycle distances and to be acceptable (see Figure from 5. It is also the arms the pedal that at high power in the upright and back are required the seat back in the recumbent bicycle acting directly on the hips reduces the otherwise useless stress on the upper torso. the forced As would motions gave substantially larger power than did the free motions.7 and 4. and sliding seat if used. “free” and in which Harrimotions. and 1972 are given in Figures 4. 1935. the usual rowing action. 4. Examples of 1897. Rowing action: A thorough and valuable investi- gation of human power output delivered by several types of rowing motion as well as by various crank actions was carried out by Harrison et al. Therefore. the forced rowing the seat fixed also gave more power . be expected. What was more interesting was that for all five subjects motion with tested. In the ends of the stroke were defined by mechanisms in one direction tion. to counteract position. besides trying various subjects on an ergometer which could be arranged to give rowing motions in which the feet were held stationary and the body both and seat moved. large masses of has to be the body are given kinetic energy which dissipated (and in boat propulsion the kinetic energy of the oars. conserves which turned the kinetic energy into energy in the reverse direcsystem rowing in the same way as a pedal-crank energy.6. when use of the leg muscles.3). the seat was stationary son investigated and the feet moved.8.
I Henry’s S recumbent bicycle. .7 Dan Henry . . _ ‘. Courtesy I’ .. ‘. _.6 The Ravat bicycle..I : . horizontal 1935. ..\ . . Figure Captain 4.74 74 Human power Figure 4. . of Dan Henry.: f ..
Figure 4. respectively. Curve 1. reseat fixed. 4 and 5. free and forced rowing movements.75 Man-powered machinery and the bicycle Figure 4.8 Will kie recumbent Courtesy bicycle. 0.9 Human power by various motions. of Fred Willkie.0 .0 5.3 0. 1.5 Time. free and forced spectively. cycling. 13.0 min 2. From reference rowing.2 0. feet fixed. 2 and 3.
10). achieved boats.76 Human power than did the normal pedal-cranking motion. water by six girls is alleged to have reached 15 [6. Hard and slow pushing is probably more efficient with levers than with rotary crank systems. Levers were. confirmation that screwthan of was was water cycles with cycle boats are more efficient than oar-propelled gives more power water is given by the performance heyday (1890s) the Thames greater boats.9 gives the results for subject J. H. agree that some leverand-clutch movements did give good hill-climbing attributes to bicycles. however. (presumably Harrison himself) showing a strikingly high peakpower level of 2 hp [ 1492 watts] for short-duration rowing.70 m/set] on the Seine. Some circumstantial driven “free” pedaled rowed period. used on early bicycles in the mid-nineteenth century before and on stationary (Figure 4. formance rowed by good oarsmen. pedaling at near-optimum be used even during slow-speed assystem cents of steep hills. of course. and that pedaling rowing. machinery many centuries In 1889 R. The pedal-and-crank . when these appeared on cranked rates could motions. Several conversions of bicycles to lever propulsion were carried out in the early 1900s. Lever mechanisms: Re-introduction pushed lever system is frequently of the footproposed by those wishing to improve bicycle propulsion. Figure 4. P. Scott came to the conclusion that for use on good roads at speed the normal pedal-and-crank system was excellent and mechanically less fragile than complicated lever systems.14 He did. In 1889 there were few variable-gearing mechanisms. At about were proved normal ridden mile/h boats. This is a perabove that of racing eight-oar boats. When pedal-driven by a triple-sculls by a “triplet” to be quite boat during cycles were in their a 33-hour a speed some 18 percent the same time In particular screw-propulsion other water speedy compared a sextuplet cycle.
it appears that the lever system’s alleged advantages for low-speed heavy pushing crank system. No ergometer experiments appear to have been carried out on a lever-driven machine unless they be by Harrison et al. leverof 1839 is also tolerably mechanically efficient compared with a multijointed lever system and certainly far better than any foot-pushed hydraulic-pump with hydraulic-motor system as has been recently proposed by some advocates of “i’mproved” propulsion methods.Man-powered machinery and the bicycle Figure 4. driven bicycle steered. finding refutes the often proposed “theory” it is only by pushing the whole stroke that efficient usage of muscles is achieved vertically . Experifor pedaling with stepThis that and ments show that the muscle efficiency is in no way inferior to that associated ping and steep-grade walking (Figure 4.10 The Macmillan self-balancing.‘7S’8 Both these leg actions are somewhat thrust action of lever-propulsion similar to the systems.. variable gears are available.’ 5 particularly when In modern conditions. efficiency used to advantage. can be bypassed of known and the normal for high speeds.16 but the results on the muscle efficiencies associated with stepping and walking up steep gradients are available.11).
Figure 4.11 Efficiency of various actions. Net efficiency based on gross output resting metabolic
D: Net efficiency, leg is less 40% (or 1 in 2.5) E: Net efficiency, 30% (or 1 in 3.3) F: Net efficiency,
walking, grade. walking, grade. walking,
Data for curve C from averages of reference and “Report Production Institute,” 17 of the Bicycle and Technical 1968, reference Japan. 18.
output. 5% (or 1 in 20) grade. G: Net efficiency, walking,
A: Gross efficiency, pedaling. 6: Gross efficiency, stepping. C: Net efficiency, pedaling.
Data for curves D, E, and F from
20% (or 1 in 5) grade.
Data for curves A and B from reference 17.
$ ki Q 30;
E ki a. 2 .: 15 i .$7 z?
cc QI z z
0.1 Power, hp
that rile backwards-and-forwards of pedaling over top and bottom “wastes” energy. Oval chainwheels. The zero torque
foot movements dead centers
center” is a factor in the design of engines as well as bicycles. Under conditions of fixed gearing and of heavy going, as were no doubt common even on the level in the days of poor roads, the problems “getting of keeping the machine moving a point made of mechover the top dead centers”
One of the least complicated
anisms invented for speeding up tire foot at certain points on the pedaling circle is the oval chainwheel. This dates back to the 1890s.
machinery and the bicycle
The oval chainwheel investigated by Harrison power first made steady-state with elliptical
was another et al.” with
All five subjects round and then
runs for as long as possiFour of the subjects The
ble on the ergometer
showed no significant change of power output when they switched to the elliptic chainwheel. fifth subject (J. H., again presumably a somewhat the senior author) produced higher power wheel (Figure to round
for short durations, wheel rather All subjects
when using the oval chainchain-
than the round were accustomed
wheels; although each mechanism longer period have shown
there was a training period for investigated, it is possible that a with the oval wheel with this Commight performances
of training improved
device in all cases. In the 1930s the Thetic
pany carried out some ergometer tests on their particular brand of oval chainwheel and claimed an appreciable benefit would be justified. fot it, so that further testing
Modern riding conditions and the use of variable gears result in riders now being less concerned with top-dead-center problems. Even “ankling,“” a technique much advocated in the early days of cycling, appears to be practiced less even by highclass racing men. Ankling is not an easy art for all riders to acquire, and the simple mechanism of the oval chainwheel is no mechanical embarrassment to the standard General conclusions machine.
It appears that for all-round efficiency under the most commonly encountered circumstances the normal pedal-and-crank system with the rider in the vertical position is a well-proved method of human power generation. For particular circumstances when bursts of high speed are needed favorable conditions of traffic or for record under
is the practice
in such a
way as to maintain some thrust on the pedals during passage through the top and bottom dead centers of the pedal revolution.
better with various alternatives such as additional hand cranking or by adopting a recumbent position with the normal rowing D’Acres pedal-and-crank motion. writings of 165g2’ that system, or by a “forced” Historical note It appears from the squirrel-cage the most efficient of that period. could not “perform
type of treadmill Foot-moved
was considered engine apparently service”
type of manpowered “treddles” any great or worthy
and hand-operated winches or cranks needed the assistance of “voluble voluntary wheels.” This latter term presumably described what is now called a flywheel, a name reserved in the 17th century instance, dral). for a type of fan brake (as is fitted e clock still on show in Salisbury to, for Cathe-
Figure 4.12 Power output
oval w ,4-
(elliptical) chainwheel. Data from reference 13.
Man-powered machinery and the bicycle
The favored power wasting inherent treadmills friction in their
were both large and effects horse conof in
excessive frictional were likewise the point inventors
design. (Far more modern from
of the 19th century
sidered very inefficient man-propelled a quandary
of view of
losses.) As a consequence, when they attempted
carriages must have been placed to relate past
experience with man-powered designs. In early “manumctors” that the riders would
machinery to their it was expected
have to push hard but slowly,
an action common. from the days of all manpowered machinery (see Figure 4.13, for example). The appearance of the relatively easy running two-wheeled or even three-wheeled “boneshaker” vehicles brought about the need for a less forceful but faster and more variable type of man-to-machine connection. The crank action via the feet was for this purpose fact that it would earlier times. most appropriate in spite of the in not have been accepted
A useful feature of foot usage with pedals and cranks is that among the numerous muscle actions involved is that of the ankle movement which can assist the pedaling “ankling” method through with, a “kicking centers. Walking however, action either through the classic or, when toe-clips are fitted, forward” also involves more magnitude action at top dead many leg motions of swing of the pendulum
heavy upper limb but with
action to aid energy conservation. A lack of rhythm is noticed when an experienced bicyclist tries a lever-driven machine, suggesting some equivalent conserving, action of pendulum, or energyin the pedaling of rotating
cranks. Some lever systems are also rather disconcerting in that there are no fixed limits to the length of stroke on the foot. The motion is equivalent to Harrison’s “free” rowing action and the body must thereby both provide and dissipate kinetic energy in every stroke. The early lever systems seem particularly appropriate to slow-speed, full-weight pedaling.
Medieval pump operated by a treadwheel. Reproduced with permission from A
theatre of machines by A.
G. Keller Chapman (London: and Hall, 1964).
Harry Jelfs.83 Man-powered machinery and the bicycle - Figure 4.14 Harry Grant using curved cranks while making a paced record. Courtesy of .
However. of a in thrust is necessary or even possible transport” Engineering system for in for other than brief on a “man-powered-land in the British from journal shows that competitors were very interested the usual rotary application of man-power. no competitor satisfied the judges that he had basic experimental data upon which enthusiasm for particular to justify foot his apparent _. Even in the 193Os.14. . designers seem to have been equal!y divided as to whether it should be straight or curved. Makers of these wheels found that if spokes were curved they were more flexible and less likely to break through differing rates of contraction during the cooling of the casting. not be Curved cranks. is shown using curved speculate that baffled a cyclecranks in Figure 4. and two firstrate track bicyclists were devotees. One could perhaps the use of curved cranks track opponent as to whether the user was able to jump with his pedal at dead centers or not. An earlier record breaker.84 Human power For modern man’s weight A report competition 1968” in departing bicycle riding periods but a fraction of exertion. Frcm the time of the introduction of the crank in about the 8th century. There is not “leverage” advantage in the shape of the curved crank. An additional phenomenon perhaps confused matters during the more recent centuries in that cast-iron wheels became common. This historical note would complete without a mention of a curious obsession of both early and late designers of machinerythe curved crank. Harry Grant. curved steel cranks had a following. Keller22 offers the explanation that users of the curved crank hoped for an extra motion to be derived from the curve. motions.
N. pp. Scott. revised The Badminston Longmans. 1966. 14. “The additive performed value of energy simple expentasks. 18. 977-981. 12. no. Part II: expenditure on walking related to weight. Cam- 3. 17-29. Y. by W. 3. studies of recorded energy expenditure of man. height. E. energy and locomotion Company. 11. third 1891. See reference 7 above. Wyndham et al. H. “Maximal oxygen uptake and heart rate in various Journal of Applied 12. no. 9. 0. pp. delphia: Cycling art. 8. bridge. “Inter-and ferences in energy expenditure and mechanical efficiency. 31. . vol. Andrews. See reference 6. Press.” Factors. “Physioiogicai methods of increasing human physical work capacity. (London: Henry Faber and Faber.. (London: Oxford University Respiration human power 13. Library of Sports and Pastimes. The civil engineer’s reference book. 11 April 1969.. Hillier. 16. R. J. Viscount edition. 4 above. B. P. “Maximizing put by suitable selection of motion cycle and load. Y. R. 1937). P.85 Man-powered machinery and the bicycle References Chapter 4 1. Harrison et al.” Ergonomics. 18891. A. vol. Saltin. F. out- Human land transport”. Lippincott 3 above. 4. See reference vol.cs. 409-424. J. See reference 15. vol.” Ergonom. 16. 5. S. C. vol. age. intra-individual dif17. Trautwine. types of muscular activity. 207. David Gordon 4 above. and B. 6. 8. vol. pp739-762. Wilson. Heffer and Sons. vol. sex. R. “Statistical pp. 2.” Physiology.: Trautwine and Company.” 10. (London: A history of mechanical engineering 1963). 19. 5372. speed and gradient. Haldane. no. 1961. 13 above. London: Bury and G. D’Acres. B. Lacy Cycling. See reference 7. July 1961. 1966. 21st edition (Ithaca. 3. Burstall. (Phila- J. 1. 507-509. pp. The art of water-drawing Reprinted 1930. 1970. Engineering (London). no. C. See reference 13 above. J. Ian McDonald. diture of simultaneously muscular Ergonomics. 1659). Astrand. “Man-powered no. England.” Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews. ML’ller. pp. 4# 1965. 2841. pp. A. 9. Green and Company. Brome. 31 K-333. 1922).
Additional recommended reading Engineering i-kitage. 127-129. See reference 21.86 Human power 20. . Keller. A theafre of machines (London: Chapman and Hail. 151 (Institution 1963). bicycle. See reference 2 above. A. “The N orwich. 22. double-geared 30 June 1898. G. of mechanical Page Brothers.” Thames Iron Works Gazette. 1964). vol. A. pp. 15 above. engineers: Bricknell. L.
Part I I Some bicycle physics .
” For an unstreamlined body such as a bicycle and rider. It is caused by two main types of forces: one normal to the surface of the resisted body-felt as the pressure of the wind-and the other tangential to the surface.’ Although good data in wind-tunnel experiments can be obtained for vehicles. Experimental investigations shapes or to test models in a The measurement of the wind resistance of motor vehicles is described by R. The exact geometry of shapes that maximize the possibility of the flow remaining attached (rather than eddying) and minimize the skin friction can be approximated by rather complex mathematics. and particularly as an everyday experience. As can be seen in Figure 5. to bicyclists.la shows this eddying effect at the rear of a cylinder particularly well. Streamlined shapes incorporate gradual tapering from a rounded leading edge. One aim of aerodynamic object is to measure its drag coefficient fined as: . dethe flow under and around an automobile.Wind resistance The phenomenon of “wind resistance” is well known to everyone. It is usual in aeronautics either to refer to one of a family of published “low-drag” wind tunnel. better data can he given with mounted bicyclists because the interaction of the airflow around the bicyclist with the moving ground can be modeled more accurately experiments than can on an CD. Figure 5. Vehicles intended for high speeds in air are almost always constructed to minimize eddying. Fosberry. C. which is the true “skin friction. the pressure effect is much the larger. and the unrecovered pressure energy appears in the form of eddying air motion at the rear of the body.1 b the stream lined shape produces less eddying than the cylirlder. A.
[22. say.. Thus the drag force is: drag force = (drag coefficient X air density X (relative velocity)* X frontal area)/2 g.1 Effects of bluff and streamlined shapes. 50 mile/h the dynamic pressure is given by: X (relative velocity)* 2% where gC is the constant in Newton’s I aw F = ma/g= (see footnote on pages 23-24) and the relative velocity is the velocity of the air moving past the object. (b) Noneddying flow around streamlined shape. (cl Pressure recovery that is possible in the absence of eddies. At low speeds (below.35 m/secl) dynamic air dtnsity pressure = - . drag coefficient drag force z dynamic pressure of air X frontal area (nondimensional). (a) Eddying flow around circular cylinder.90 Some bit ycle physics Figure 5.
Ordinary have k values of 0. has often been used. about 0. If the drag is measured in pounds force and the velocity in feet per second the power is given to horsepower in ft Ibf/sec.Yl wmcf resrstance The propulsion drag is: power P necessary to overcome P = drag force X relative vehicle velocity. to overcome drag is approximately to the cube of the velocity. The vehicle velocity tive velocity I/ is the same as the relaused to calculate the drag force only is different from the approxthe power proportional in still air. (2) = - drag (Ibf) X velocity 375 (mile * lbf/h)hp in S.0015. The value of the constant k varies greatly (3) according to the roughness of the sides of the body and relative length. defined by: kr drag (lbf) velocity* (mile/h)* Xfrontal area (sq ft) ’ as: The drag force can be calculated drag (lbf) = k [(lbf/sq ft)/(h*/mile*) X velocity2 (mile/h)2 Xfrontal area (sq ft). Since the drag force is proportional imately to the square of the velocity. an approximate form of drag coefficient. k. When there is a head wind or a tail wind the relative velocity vehicle velocity. sedan automobiles have k values has a k value of racing-car values are Railway locomotives A riding bicyclist .0023. the relationship P (watts) = drag (newton) X velocity Because air density varies comparatively little at low altitudes. about 0. This may be converted by dividing by 550 (1 hp = 550 ft Ibf/sec).002. or mile/h (1 hp = 375 mile Ibf/h) may be used: drag P (hp) z (lbf) X velocity (ft/sec) 550 (ft Ibf/sec)/hp (mile/h) ’ is (m/set) . of about 0.0005. units. I.
Therr . As would be expected. Windtunnel experiments on the upright human form.” The range is from 0.1 or less.33 sq m) with the bicycle proportion increased the drag area by 30 percent.2 for to 1.9 where the average frontal forming an appreciable area. Drag coefficient values Nonweiler’ found that mounted bicyclists show and the k value are not constants for any one vehicle or shape but vary in racing cloth’ng had drag coefficients 0. It is assumed are running at sea level that the vehicles concerned when “standard” air densit).9 is a reasonable value for the circumstances. For instance.2 gives some estimates for “mopeds” based on published performance data.ome Dtcycle physics Both analysis and precise measurement that the drag coefficient slightly with velocity. Table 5. There is considerable evidence that 0.8 for a motorcycle and rider.1 gives detailed information about these CD values and Table 5. Hill by Dean. credited to A.9. sembly of short cylinders. these are close to the emerges a nuvalues for bicyclec and riders. for other wheeled vehicles motor Drag coefficients sedan automobiles are given by Kempe. can be assumed.O.6 sq ft (0. information referred to by Sharp3 on the wind resistance experienced by bicyclists can be interpreted as being based upon a drag coefficient value of about 0.0 fcr squdre-ended trucks and to 1. would have a drag coefficient It appears unreal to quote any value for these drag coefficients to greater accuracy than the first significant figure.3. V. give a value of about 0. senting the form of a bicyclist and machine.4 An account of aerodynamic work on the wind resistance of cylinders5 is given by Rouse and can be interpreted as suggesting that an assuch as that repreof about 1 . Loose clothing CD of about itself area was taken to be of the frontal independent about 3. because of the magnitude of the experimental errors involved.9. Racing cars have very low drag coefficients of 0. From the above deliberations merical relationship practical use with everyday between variables suitable for units.
0024 0. Weight. Drag coefficient nondimensional Sports car Sedan car Bus Truck Square plate Sphere Cyi inder Streami ined body Motor cyci ist Racing cyci ist CD.-ibf ’ ft* 0.0020 0.35 1.1 Values of CD and k for formulas 1 and 3.93 Wind resistance Table 5.0.47 0. 375 (mile . Make hp Powel I Mobylette Magneet 1.5 0. ibm Weight.2.86 1 .002 3 . speed.0.O 1..0013 .05 1.002 Note: Since force times velocity gives power.eqch )* 2 X 32.0033 h* mile* .Engine power.2 ibm * ft/ibf = C.00026 0.00077 ..0.0020 . k -.0.2 .0765 ibm/ft3 =set* ’ (.1 1. b 0.7 .9 Note: For average air conditions k=CDX 0.0765 lbmlcu ft and 88/60 is the conversion factor of mile/h to ft/sec.00051 0. Air resistance .1 .002555 (fg.3 0. ibm Max.3 0.8 0.0026 0.$) The density of the air is assumed to be 0.ibf/h)/hp . the power to overcome air resistance of an object with a frontal area of 5 sq ft is (see formula 3) air resistance (hp) = k [(lbf/ft*)/(h*/miie*)1 X veiocitys (miie/h13 X 5 sq ft .6 .0027 0. rider. machine.4 .1.64 0. ibf mfta h* mile* 0.0018 0.6 of Mopeds. :/.00307 0.0. Table 5.8 0.8 .00102 0.00153 0.00120 0.0.0.2 0. x 0.oo k.0046 0. mile/h 26 75 115 200 200 30 33 Estimated data air resistance.0.
94 Some bicycle physics from the definition of the drag coefficient the fol- lowing relation can be derived: drag force (Ibf) = 25. whereas streamlining the body could pay off at much lower velocities. for instance. units the above is drag force( newtons) = 0.25. %.bicycle resistance cou Id amount to about l/3.7 m/set] over the usual maximum of 30 mile/h L13.6 m/set] to make streamlining of the frame tubes worthwhile. I. than for the rider’s body.4 m/set] for particular events (Figure 5.’ The critical velocity depends dn size and shape and is higher for frame tubing. as 10 percent from the .6 X drag coefficient X frontal (mile/h/lOO). It might be necessary to travel at an average of over 35 mile/h [15.6 X 2) or l/7.2.9 this takes the form: drag force (Ibf) = 0.043 X frontal area (sq m) X speed* (km/h)*Streamlining: Complete streamlined casings have been used by racing bicyclists to raise their top speeds by about 6 mile/h 12. then the effect on total wind resistance (machine plus rider) would be l/(3.0023 X speed* Xfrontal area (sq ft) (CD) area (sq ft) X speed* (mile/h)*. From this information it can be concluded that the drag coefficient of these casings is about 0. Data given by Rouse show that above a certain “critical” velocity the air resistance of streamlined struts :r considerably less than that of .j plain cylinders of the same frontal area.’ If streamlining the tubes reduced the wind resistance by. Expressed in S.6 of the total wind resistance. Nonweiler suggests that the. which is credible because of the casings’ resemblance to an enclosed automobile. A conservative view would be to take the reduction original wind resistance. Streamlining the tubing could reduce the wind resistance of the bicycle itself by a half at high speeds.2).* If bicyclists have a CD value of 0. say.
the decrease in frontal area would be about 0.03 or a 3 is a personal opinion. [0. which is about 4. Tricycles It has often been proposed that a tricycle with smaller-than-usual rear wheels could be faster than a conventional machine. ensuring a cooling effect.406 m] wheels can be used on a tricycle.3 percent (1.1 sq ft [0. Whether rider thinks this worthwhile Records have.Wind resistance At racing speeds the power to propel rider and machine is almost all spent in overcoming tance. (Note that the design allows free circulation of air from beneath the rider. See Chapter 3. therefore.013). (1 + l/10). If it is assumed that 16-in. air resisto the speed the wind resistance is reduced the cube root of or not the the speed will have increased.041’3 is about 1. It could well be that some of this increase in speed due to lowered wind resistance would be lost because of the greater rolling resistance of smaller Figure 5. If.96 of the original. This is small compared with the average total area of man and machine. for the This ratio of speeds is 1.14 sq ft [0. same power.2 Bicycle with streamlined enclosure. by l/10.013 sq ml . by approximately percent increase in speed.) .381 sq ml. The area is actually reduced to about 0. The extra 4 percent power should therefore result in an increase of speed of 1. however. and this power is proportional cubed. been broken with a speed increment smaller than 3 percent.
assuming that rolling and transmission losses do not greatly increase. As a consequence.3). the possible speed increase is very small and there appear to be no really sound optimistic a small-wheeled tricycle large-wheeled-type Vel o~dars Another grounds for expecting to be faster than standard tricycles. Hoernerg on the wind resistance of a man in various positions suggests that a velocar with a seated rider should experience about 20 percent less wind resistance than a normal machine and rider. Moreover the frontal area of rider and machine can be somewhat less than that of an “upright” the machine and rider are sometimes enclosed in a more-or-less streamlined body.3 Racing “Velocar”recumbent bicycle. the speed should be several percent greater. In the 193Os. that for more prolonged periods of effort the horizontal position of the rider tired him more quickly and speeds achieved were no longer any better than those on conventional cycles. the use of which can give is the velo- greater speed than the normal bicycle. although the stiffer wheels might counteract this in other ways. This prediction has been borne out in practice. The riding position on a racing velocar bi- Figure 5. car (Figure 5. . Information given in a textbook Nuid-dynamic drag by S. with the legs nearly horizontal. for a given power output by the rider.96 Some bicycle physics wheels. F. however. most short-distance track records were broken by riders on velocars. The rider is seated feet forward As a consequence. type of machine. It appeared. In any case. bicycle.
an action which wastes energy. bicycles are shown in Figure 5.4 Some past attempts at streamlining bicycles. Other approaches to streamlining Figure 5.4.97 Wind resistance forces the rider to press with his shoulders upon a rest. Courtesy of Cycling. .
for instance. however.3 newtons]. The evidence for the 0.33 square meter. Some most valuable work. If a tourist-type bicyclist is under discussion (see Table 2. proach of the skiing subject to that of a typical track bicyclist seems to be that of Figure 5.0. the wind resistance of skiers is relevant. that the position of the arms is of importance.5.0023 and machine.2) it has been assumed that the frontal area is about 0.5 Ibf [91. the bicycle and accessories. and in particular In this connection of riding position. No experimental work appears to have been reported concerning the magnitude of the lateral forces as far as actual bicyclists are concerned. Aerodynamic forces on All bicyclists when riding on roads frequented fast and large motor vehicles have experienced side-wind forces from a passing vehicle.98 Some bit ycle physics Effect of riding position on wind resistance In this book whenever a typical example of a crouched racing bicyclist has been under discussion it has been assumed on the basis of evidence presented by Nonweiler” that the frontal area presented to the wind measures about 0. Some interesting findings are given by Raines.1 X 50* Ibf newtons] . One could reasonably assume that the frontal area of the skier because of his accessories was near that of a crouched mounted bicyclist drag force can be calculated drag force .’ ’ This experimental work has shown.5 square meter (these figures were used to calculate the curves A and B of Figure 2.6). as before: The X 3. = 17. and the The frontal area is obviously a function of the size of the rider.5 square meter lies in data presented by Sharp” senior author’s (FRW) own experiments. has been by riding bicyclist caused by passing vehicles . In thei”elbows-out” position appreciable The nearest apextra resistance is experienced. The resistance experienced at 50 mile/h [80 km/h] was a force of 20.2 The fairly close agreement of the estimate and the reported results is satisfying evidence that the data quoted in the previous discussion are realistic.8 Ibf [79. and bulkiness of his clothing.
. Standing erect (run 9) Jacobs’ drag was 22 kg. From re’ference 12. In a high but compact crouch (run 15) the drag was reduced by more than half to 9.3 kg.99 Wind resistance Figure 5. Four positions demonstrated by skier Dave Jacobs were photographed in the NAL tunnel at the same moment that the drag was recorded. The air speed was a steady 80 km/h.5 Aerodynamic drag of the human body.
may experience we lateral can estimate that bicyclists forces of several pounds when overtaken closely by large vehicles moving at 70 mile/h. Interpreting the con- parked and Considerable States about the safety vehicles situated at the side of exBeauvais’ data for bicyclists.‘3 cern exists in the United of jacked-up pressways.100 Some bit ycle physics reported upon by Beauvais concerning wind effects upon one-tenth-scale jacked-up model automobiles. The laws prohibiting able. bicycling along expressways are reason- .
19621. A. “Research on the aerodynamics of road vehicles. 11. 31-47. 12. 251. “Transient aerodynamical effects on a parked vehicle caused by a passing bus. Morgan Additional recommended reading Shapiro. Beauvais. “An analysis of the energy expenditure in level and gradient walking. 1969. I I. 26-30.” Ergonomics. “Air resistance of racing cyclists. H. 20 August. 1959. no. drag. vol. C. 3.” New Scientist. See reference 5 above.” in Proceedings of the first symposium on road vehicles held in the City University of London. January 1965. ” Aerodynamics of skiing. A. F. 4. vol. A. 247. 10. 6. 8. See reference 3 above. Doubleday.. Kempe’s engineers year book. Shape and flow (New York: 1961). Raine. 7. p. S. Nonweiler.” The College of Aeronautics. R. pp. pp. Bicycles and tricycles (London: Green and Company. p. 223-227. T. vol. Rouse. November 6 and 7. Dean. pp. N. 6. 3. Longmans. See reference 2 above. A. 2.701 Wind resistance - References Chapter 5 1. no. Cranfield.” Science Journal. (Midland Park. 315. Elementary mechanics of fluids (London: Chapman and Hall. . G. 1. Hoerner. E. F. 8. N. See reference 2 above. Sharp. J. Fosberry. England. vol. 19461. report no. pp. 18961. H. ( London: Brothers.1956. 6. 9. Fluiddynamic 1959). March 1970. 106. 5. 13. A.
The wheel and its rolling resistance In the earliest times. and walking resistance to the motion vary several hundredfold variation with The can over hard.f wheel and which also introduced a degree of comfortable riding on common roads.1). It has been established beyond doubt that the minimum power to drive any practical man-made vehicle at a given constant speed is achieved by the use of steel . Thereafter. in 1845. there was a real incentive to develop paved roads when wheels were adopted for horse-drawn vehicles (Figure 6. followed by iron wheels and cast-iron rails (1767).. Hence. The ancient Roman empire was the first civilization to make use of tliis idea. of a wheel. followed by Dunlop in 1888. Thomson. constant competition between the easy but “fixed” running of vehicles on steel tracks and the greater directional adaptability of road vehicles fitted with pneumatic tires has continued. man and animals moved only by means of leg motions applied via feet or hooves. from that on pavement to motion on soft soil. It is recorded that the time taken to travel over Europe to Rome was less at that time than it was a Thousand years later in the Middle Ag’es. compared can be said to be a means of locomotion. however. and inventions to improve man’s everyday life rapidly appeared. irtroduced pneumatic tires which decreased the rolling resistance of carriage wheels to nearer that experienced by t!‘le railw. After the Middle Ages men overcame the stultifying effects of spiritual opposition to technological change. ground. Among thtse were iron-covered wooden railway lines. rise to the Railway Age of Victorian This gave times and was paralleled by a reappearance of a fair number of paved roads. when the Roman road system had vanished through lack of maintenance. Traveling by foot requires a several-fold in power for movement reasonably adaptable very soft.
C. of approximately only half that of a wheel of half this diameter. unfortunately. less information is available for the resistance offered by soft surfaces to the rolling of a wheel compared with that produced by hard roads. As is discussed later. Note rawhide wrapping to make tire resilient. often get referred to in the sense of “ease of rolling of wheels” and can be twisted that “little into the statement wheels roll more easily than large wheels. Although of the suris available conupon soft in general and the latter for wheel motion ground is of great interest to agricultural engineers and military-vehicle desigr. for bicycle wheels. and the average automobile wheel on the best surfaces generally available has ten or more times the resistance to motion of a railway-train wheel on its track. Reproduced with permission from the Science Museum. bicycle wheels are now of such a pattern that design changes can produce only small effects on acceleration properties.103 The wheel and its rolling resistance wheels rolling on steel tracks.1 Replica of Egyptian chariot wheel of 1400 B. The power consumed in rolling the most flexible pneumatic-tired wheel is several times greater. this type of work is of less general interest: As a consequence. This .. matter how large the whee! is).” (In steady motion on level ground.” This latter is only partially true. even if “rollir&’ is taken to mean “accelerating and decelerating. rail.rs. Definition “rolling of the term resistance” The power needed to propel wheeled vehicles depends not only upon the ease of rolling of the wheels themselves for a given set of conditions but also upon the physical properties face. The term “rolling resistance” as used in this book means the resistance to the steady motion of the wheel caused by power absorption in the contacting surfaces of wheel rim and road. but a wheel of a given diameter has a rolling resistance. or soil upon which the wheel rolls. in the sense of surface-power absorption. London. The power needed to accelerate or slow up a wheel because of its inertia is not included in the rolling resistance. The energy lost in acceleration is. of small consequence compared with the power absorbed by tire and road: it does. A great deal of information cerning the former harder surfaces. it does not Figure 6.
2 Ibf per long ton of vehicle weight [0. the rolling resistance (in. the motion by the weight (in tons) force.104 Some bit ycle physics type of rolling-resistance engineering literature. muitipiied by the distance b/8. This deformation causes the poI. The case of the rolling of a railway train wheel has been thoroughly investigated. Koffman shows why the displacement of the instantaneous center of rotation can be calculated as the length b divided by 8.. .0048-0.t of instantaneous rolling of the wheel to be always ahead of the point geometrically directly under the center of rotation of the wheel about its bearing attached to the vehicle.01 to 0. known as a “couple.” is set up. If the wheel radius is 20 in. [0. for example. The numerical value of the torque is the downward force between wheel and surface. The wheel rolling resistance is caused by the deformation of wheel and track producing a “dent” of a temporary nature.508 mm] . It is thus possible to calculate the rolling resistance according to the method given by Koffman. the calculated rolling resistance is 1. as shown in Figure 6. the wheels.508 ml. influences. as accepted in implies that the weight of via the tires. which in steady state is the weight of the wheel plus its share of the weight of the vehicle. LO.1 to 2.2.02 in.0096 newtons/kq] on the wheel. of both greatly exceeding that of the bicycle. l bf per ton) multiplied gives the obstructing The rolling resistance of railway-train wheels definition.’ Experiments have been carried out with railway-train wheels of typical diameters resting on rails and it has been found that the distance b/8 can be taken as 0.’ It is more amenable to accurate measurement wheel-rolling than are other actions. The hardnesses of the railway wheel and track can be specified closely and are less variable than other types of contacting surfaces. in addition to bearing resistance. such as that of pneumatic- tired wheels on roads. rider and machine. The result is that a pair of forces which exert a retarding torque.254-0.
a 20 in.002 ft resistance to rolling (lbf) = --20 in./ft = 2.” He found that if the diameter of th? wheel was increased 35 percent.688 [ 11.3 This source is relatively unique in that it gives a quantitative relationship for rolling friction of cylinders on plane surfaces: weight (Ibf) X coefficient rolling friction. The general effect of wheel form upon rolling resistance was investigated over a century ago by Grendvoinet.240 Ibf) and f as 0.002./12 in. resistance Downward force on wheel L> F -j--Propulsive force l&J r Instantaneous center of rotation I b/8 2 r A check on the calculation given above can be carried out using information given in the Engineering Encyclopedia (p.240 Ibf X 0. the rolling . f (ft) radius of cylinder determined (ft) of resistance to rolling (lbf) = The experimentally a range of 0.2 Roiling-wheel diagram.96 The rolling resistance of wheels on soft ground Ibf newtons] .002 values for f contact with in the quoted include that for iron-to-iron to 0.105 The wheel and its rolling resistance Figure 6. LO. F 532).005. Substituting equation above the values of the weight as one long ton (2.508 ml wheel: we find for 2.
presses on a road surface. cerned subscribe to the theory that these largeon soil.106 Some bicycle physics resistance on soft ground decreased 20 percent. agricultural modern pneumatic-tired wooden. A similar increase in width decreased the rolling resistance by only 10 percent. the shape of the area of deformation of the surfaces is much influenced by. among other things. Barger and his co-workers have verified the general effects of wheel cross-sectional shape and diameter as postulated by the very early workers and have also carried out investigations on pneumatic tires. describe some of this work’ and examination of the original papers published describing the experiments in detail is very interesting. the more easily it runs when supporting a given weight. Barger et al. For hard ground. The larger the wheel. no matter whether the surface is soft or hard. When a loaded tire. runners over rough country ground.5 investigated the once-common rimmed. tired wheel vehicles can “float” be thought feasible. The characteristics military Not all con- and agricultural vehicles are still being investigated. as might In passing it is worth noting that a wheel driven on soft ground may require more ef-lort than walking or running. which. has a negsteelof Other studies wheel. is a most important factor. different character. the ease of running can be related to the diameter by a simple inverse-proportion formula. for soft ground the wheel-diameter effect is even greater. pneumatic or steel. whether for a steel-rimmed wheel or for a pneumatic-tired wheel. the diameter of the wheel. whether associated with man or quadruped. For a very large wheel. A great deal of experimental work has been carried out in more recent times on the power needed to move agricultural vehicles. The main findings have been that wheel diameter. it has been found that the tread width ligible effect on rolling resistance. If account are mechanisn-3s of a bicyclists and show that the speeds Races between of the two are much closer than for races on hard .
The wheel and its rolling resistance is taken of the relative dimensions the railway-train of the contact for areas and reasoning along the lines employed wheel (see Figure 6. also influence this twisting effect. The record times for the mile Ll609. because any side force applied to the wheel axle is resisted by the road at a point on the tire which is not directly beneath the axis’2*13 but slightly behind. It is known that both being close to 2% minutes. For instance. Early bicycles used solid rubber tires.2) is used. This results in a measurable “twisting effect” not experienced by hard wheels on hard surfaces. obviously.2) is obviously much greater for pneumatic tires. to the wheel it can be deduced that the forces opposing rolling are in fact inversely proportional diameter. as compared with the constancy of steel’s elasticity. Hence. as found in practice. and therefore the theory predicts a much greater rolling resistance. The pneumatic-tired wheel rolling on the road compared with exhibits exaggerated characteristics the steel wheel on rails. An interesting peculiarity of pneumatictire rolling worth noting is that tires affect steering properties. the flattening of the tire over an “equivalent” distance b (see Figure 6. as they do rolling resistance. which is so dependent upon inflation pressure and the design of the carcass. for further frequently The rolling resistance of wheels fitted with pneumatic tires Readers interested in rolling-friction theory are advised to consult references 7 to 11 details about a subject which is not referred to in textbooks on basic physics.3 m] on the track for both the solid-rubber-tired “old ordinary” and the solid-rubber-tired “safety” are almost the same. What is very difficult to predict is the effect of flexing of the tire walls. the high bicycle offers greater wind resistance and needs more skill to ride than the smaller-wheeled bicycle. Tire-inflation pressure and carcass flexibility. This is called “self-aligning torque” and is a measure of the tendency of the steered wheel to follow the direction of motion. the findings above support the explanation that the bigger wheel runs moreeasily .
probable that the rolling resistance of a bicycle tire on a wheel 26 in. L31. and cross section are similar. nowadays generally using towed wheels. giving a total possible effect of some eightfold on the rolling resistance. on smooth roads. The data given by these experiments discussed further below. [660.0963 newton/kg] to about 12 Ibf/ton [0. the range of each of the three predominant variables is only about twofold. [ 1. The predominant ables have been found to be tire-inflation wheel diameter and road surface. Actual road for bicycles are involved is it speed has an effect. Although lower rolling resistance compensates for the higher wind it might at first sight appear that pneumaticto be devised.75 mm to 50.108 Some bicycle physics than the smaller wheel14 -the resistance. wheel size. (127 mm) cross section are given by Bekker17 information concerning and Kempe.‘” All information influencing shows that the most important ease of rolling is that of tfe factor inflation It seems pressure of the tire.172 X 1 O5 newton/ .15 For modern bicycles running on hard roads. Formulas for calculating the rolling resistance of automobile tires of about 5 in. but not until speeds well above those common appreciable. varipressure.4 mm] diameter. there are too many factors influencing tire rolling for any simple correlation in practice this is not so.” Some bicycle tires of 1% to 2 in.8 mm] cross section has also been reported by Patterson’” and Sharp. ment of the rolling resistance of pneumatic tires ments. presuming that road surface.0525 newton/kg] if the inflation pressure is varied from 17 Ibf/sq in.‘” have therefore to be carried out in order to measure the force in Ibf/long ton [or newtons/kg] of are vehicle necessary to move it under various circumstances. ranges from 22 Ibf/long ton supported LO. not Experiall of which can be predicted theoretically. Quantitative measureAs stated above. the rolling resistance of pneumatic tires is a combination of several resistances.
Table 6. 19251. Vol. For a given roughness of the surface and a given load. 251.37 5 4.The wheel and its rolling resistance m*] -at which pressure the rim is liable to “bump” the 75 I bf/sq in.2 . Ibf/ton Road surface Racing track roada Road. mile/h aCycle tires. p. smooth macad am b Flag pavementc Flintc 50 . including the air resistance.22 No tire pressures are specified.17 X 1 O5 by tire makers. a fact also established over centuries by experience in the field of horse-drawn Examination of quantitative information on tire rolling resistance vehicles. may cause an increase of 50 to 100 percent. The mechanism of the car. 256.10 Solid tire Pneumatic 8. given by Bekker24 later in this chapter.96 11. in addition to rolling resistance. p. Judge. M. Bourlet. CHeavy cycle tires.4 tire Speed. p. Less on the road and give warning of gross misuse to the careless rider-to newton/m*] recommended smooth or hard surfaces. Three values for the coefficient of friction of tires on road and track are quoted from a publication by C. II I (London: Chapman and Hall Ltd.. . such as rough macadam or gravel. the easier it rolls.25 are quoted for tires. W. The earliest accessible information on the bicycle tire seems to be that given by Sharp*’ (see Table 6.1. in his results. 150. H. It is probable that the high figures quoted for these entries are due to the investigator. Rolling resistance.‘3 convenient calculating form in Table 6.60 60 60 30-35 33 31 . The rolling resistance of early tires.2. the larger the wheel. data from reference 20. Two formulas the rolling resistance of automobile and Kempe. [ 5. data from reference 20. data from A. although it was well known by then that this factor has a major influence on the ease of rolling of tires. Patterson carried out more recent which are summarized in (1955) experiments.1). bCar tires. Ravenshaw.22.
5 28. Ibf 120 120 120 150 180 120 120 determined tire rolling resistances. [660 to 683 mm].428-429. been calculated for 30 mile/h [ 13.792 5. -_ hp 0.3. Rolling resistance. (If the curves had.7 Source: Reference 19.5 23 9. 2 2 2 2 2 1% 1% Load.a 10 18 30 18 18 18 45 Rolling resistance R.05 0. Because no tire pressures are quoted for the information credited to Bourlet.36 to cycling. [3. mile/h 20 20 20 20 20 15 15 Tire inflation.3) and other predictions from the formula.07 0.02 Speed. in.Some bit ycle physics Available data on the effect of the tire pressure and wheel diameter on roiling resistance are combined in Figure 6.ally -___ Tire. .) These formulas and others are discussed at length by Ogorkiewicz.26 X lo5 to quoted it has been necessary to assume that appropriate limits are 55 to 80 Ibf/sq in.1 0.05 0.12 0. Ibf/in.2. It is most probable that the wheel diameter used was similar to that of modern bicycles. however. I bf/ton -36 25 18 28. Experimer:. Table 6.516 X IO5 newton/m21 . pp. of up to about 12 m/set] .2 7 who also stresses the applicability of curve-A data (in Figure 6. 26 to 27 in.41 m/set] CR values would have been increased by only a few percent. even in presentday car design. although the basic experimental work was carried out in Germany almost forty years ago when tires were of different construction from those of the present. The two formulas later predict similar values for CR and but little effect from vehicle speed in the low range of speeds.1 0. applicable mile/h [5.
n?ssure.) bicycle. hard medium rough. X 1 3/8 in.3 Effect of tire-inflation Curve A B C(limits) D E F 0 (points) Data Data Data Data for for for for pressure on rolling resistance. .C~ I” 120 Figure 6. hard road and track smooth. C-Upper llmlt I 0. curves D.Ill The wheel and its rolling resistance 55 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 50 .0 005 rn I C V 7 Lower llmll 0 0 10 20 I I I I I I I I I I I 30 50 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 TIW Inflation . bicycle. X 1 l/4 in. Wheel auto auto bicycle.02 cla 15 \ - n. 26 in.2). 27 in. hard smooth. (assumed) X 1 l/4 in. 27 in. 16 in. (ave. F 3 0 -.015 & G I= 0 0.l~?. bicycle. Surface smooth. X 1 l/2 in. bicycle. hard medium rough. 28 in. E 25 20 i\ \ . II. hard steel rollers curve A from reference 18 (bias-ply tires). curve B from reference 4 (bias-ply tires). points l from reference 19 (see Table 6. . 35 - 6 F 6 ij ai F m 5 & F = 2 -: 30 . X 1 l/4 in. E. and F from experimental data by Whitt (for low speeds).
75 tion and of light construction.41 X IO5 newton/m21 ).35 m/set] .112 Some bicycle physics The senior author (FRW).3. has carried out experimental or 34. No doubt this fact be- . Information.65 showed that for concrete or by curve A of Figure than rolled-gravel surfaces the rolling resistances were very close to those predicted 6.3o working with pneumatic-tired tractors. Figures 6.3 has been included to show how great is the rolling resistance of steel-tired on roads compared with that of pneumatic inflated to high pressure.41- Table 6.28 1 l/4 or 1 3/8 in. Experiments with small-wheeled bicycles showed that. kg). The small-wheel “low-pressure”’ big-crosssection tire is the slowest both because of the small diameter of the wheel and the designed low inflation pressure of the tire (35 Ibf/sq in. sults quoted by Pirtterson2’ also show that bicycle tires roll more easily than car tires. suggests that the performance predicted by curve D can be attained on first-class hard roads by 1 l/4 in. [2. [31. [31. in general. as predicted by Barger et al.5 from a report of the Motor Industry Research Association3 ’ are included to show how little speed affects the rolling resistance of car tires. with the help of biroads frequented work All tires were of mm] cross secThe total weight of several other bicyclists riding several different cycles and tricycles on typical on rolling resistances of tires.75 mm] cross-section light bicycle tires. wheels tires mile/h [ 13. the rolling resistance is increased in near proportion as the wheel diameter is decreased for a given constant inflation pressure. For comparative purposes. This means that light bicycle tires on rough surfaces have lower resistance coefficients the larger-cross-section automobile tires-in The re- other words. The experiments by bicyclists.4 from Ogorkiewicz3 ’ and 6. although tire-pressure effects are appreciable in the speed range 30-50 22. bicycle tires do not require as good a road surface for a given performance.92 rider and machine was always near 180 Ibm (81.
This prediction is subst. even as given by curve D of Figure 6.02 = 2 % *i O. lSf/sq in.827 X lo5 newton/m*] pressure.032 .113 The wheel and its rolling resistance came immediately “boneshakers. about 30 Ibf/ ton lo. The effect of the use of good solidrubber tires is also revealed in Table 6.1).” apparent to riders of the early in their latter days with rubber These machines. early as 1870. in a manner adopted by makers of horsesquare-section rubber tiring was also used as well as solid tiring.antiated by the times achieved in records for the ‘two types of machines. for a given power. The use of information on tire rolling resistance Information tiring attached to their wheels. were often manufactured for many years afterwards drawn carriages. of usage. fO. From reference 15. This should be of generai interest to ’ Figure 6.Olu . 0.4 Effect of inflation pressure on automobile-tire rolling resistance.F 0. . Hollow. that is. of the tricycle’s extra wheel and axle compared with a bicycle.5 in which the rolling resistance is about the same as that of a pneumatic tire at about 12 Ibf/sq in.5. the table shows a predicted 5 to 10 percent slowing effect.3 and that on wind resistance given in Chapter 5 has been used to compile Tables 6.4 and 6. g 0.131 newton/kg] of vehicle weight (see Table 6.z 8 0 0 0 1 I I I 60 mile/h L 30 mile/h I I 10 20 Tire-inflation I I 30 40 pressure.04cp . These tabulations show how tire pressures affect the rate of movement of a bicyclist under various conditions.s! !! . In particular.
. Road surface.. 16.I TARMhC SUWACE I 04lo __. Tire size. 00) 2 I:I _-_ 0 0 O-0 I IO _-- - 40 -~-- -SO" .I. and the standard deviation is indicated.Some bicycle physics Figure 6.---- 31s k a !i ii k $n II $ 26-. Each point is the mean of 6 measurements. -- 5 G! .. From MIRA report (reference 16). 720 Ibf.. (b) Variation of rolling resistance with road surface. 5. .50 x 16.3.~ -Ir . 0: x 3 $1. ym- ii 1 0 010 4 c ii I i! +I Y 8 iv -- .5 Effect of speed on automobile-tire rolling resistance. rolling resistance coefficient rolling resistance load (a) Variation of rolling resistance with tire pressure and speed.. Tarmac. load.-.- 12-m %zszZF I2.- i -000s ). --. 30 Ibf/sq in.0.-- I4- .1 u. -0 -- 010 c! In EJ 4-- .. Pressalre.
8 Rolling resistance.4. 75 17 75 75 17 75 75 17 75 35 (Load 170 Ibf.6 9.5 23 19 11.053 27 27 16 27 27 16 27 27 16 16 2.767 0.3 12. Rolling resistance of four-wheeled wagon (steel tires) and 1% ton stagecoach.0337 Rolling resistance.0138 0.5 23 19 11. resistance).. hp 0.058 0.0140 0. p.014 0. hp 0.3 8.103 0.0233 0. curve D.3). Percentage speed reduction for given power due to small wheel Speed.3.50 62 30140 7675 50 91 Speed slow slow slow slow 4.044 0. t? values of a similar range.4 5 5 3. Tire press.074 0.029 0.10 mile/h slow Vehicle wagon wagon wagon wagon stage coach wagon 200 .5 23 19 17 Total power 10s~ Wheel (includes air diam. Figure 6.0116 0. Note: Reference 3 cites work with 24 to 66in.070 0.). 683.0265 0. in. Total rolling resistance calculated. Road surface Cubical block Pavement Macadam Planks Gravel “A fine road” Common earth road Rolling resistance R. I bflton 11.074 0.69 0. Ibf/sq in.8 28 . lbflton 32 .5 12.5 11.115 The wheel and its rolling resistance Table 6.300 Source: Reference 7. mile/h 30 30 29. (1% in. diameter steel-rimmed wheels and gives Table 6.113 0.140 0.69 0.
which is proportional to the speed cubed. “standard” 27 Load.5 23 17.407 0.0952 0.078 11. I.157 0.A. the power lost in rolling is directly proportional to the speed.466 0. . forcibly.5 23. (includes air Ibf in.082 0. Effect of tire pressure on propulsive power needed. hp resistance). units. it can be estimated from tire formulas that he should attain speeds of over 100 mile/h [44.506 0.8 17. Unlike the power needed to overcome wind resistance. Percent increase to total power Tire (75 Ibf/sq in. resistance.5. X weight (mile Ibf/h)/hp power (watts) = rolling resistance (newton/kg) X weight (kg) X speed (m/set). (1 l/ in. resistance. 0.059 0. Rolling Total power lost pressure Rolling press.164 0.154 0.103 0.122 Vehicle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Tricycle Tricycle Tricycle Tricycle Cycle Cycle 14 39 208 43 25b 65b aNote tricycle is 6 percent slower than bicycle.0295 0.059 0.5 13. If a bicyclist had only rolling friction to overcome. wheel) mile/h Ibf/sq in.5 23 11. in S.118 0.476 0. World records for bicyclists riding behind fast cars indicate that as much Table 6. diameter.4 25 12.2 34.407 0. at least at low speeds.4 13. hp lbflton 170 170 170 170 180 180 180 180 170 170 25 25 12.).A.11 0. rubber tires.5 23. N. 5/8 in. uSolid tires. Speed.2 34.5 75 17 75 17 75 17 75 17 N.116 Some bicycle physics riders of old bicycles and tricycles aware. The power needed to overcome tance is given by who are made of the slowing effect of solidrolling resis- power (hp) = rolling resistance (lbf/ton) (tons) X speed ( mile/h)/375 or.489 0.8 30 30 0.7 m/set] on good surfaces.074 0.5 12.
but may actually is not merely brought help to propel a rider pedaling behind a moving shield. diameter [355 to 508 mm].94 m/set] only slightly. Advantages and disadvantages of small-wheeled bicycles In recent times there have appeared on the market new bicycles incorporating wheels of 14 to 20 in. in addition. mile/h [5. at maximum bicycle speeds.117 The wheel and its rolling resistance as 120 mile/h L53. if the bicycle had no friction or mass and only its air drag resisted motion. [660 or 686 mm] .* On referring.5 m/secI such a machine would require about half the power needed from the rider under normal conditions. thus verifying the estimation.5.)ted as essential if the bicycle is to be easily stowed in the trunk of a car and if one machine is to be safely ridden by people of different heights. and practical. L. And some designers have incorporated into small-wheeled requirements bicycles.2 and conclusions can be drawn. are considered springing for It appears that these to be important those of the general public who may be deterred for various reasons. luggage can be carried more easily over a smaller wheel simply because there is more space available. the speed to 13 on a weightless.) It is probable that a runner. This design feature appears to be acce. (It is arguable that air friction to zero. If the same power were to be exerted machine.8 m/set] . For instance. both sociological from using a conventional machine.6 m/secl can be attained for short distances. 2. In addition. the situation is rather different: at about 10 mile/h [4. some other interesting with the other resisto Figures 1. because air-friction effects for a runner are relatively low compared tances at this speed. would improve his performance of a maximum of about 20 mile/h [8. compared with the common diameter of 26 or 27 in. shielded from the wind in a like manner. frictionless would be increased by about 30 percent. A question often raised about small-wheeled machines is the effect of the smaller wheels on the . the top speed would increase by only a few percent. At low speeds.
The percentage drop in speed for a “slower” machine.. 27 in.10 = 2 6 5 Speed. and the 150 Ibm rider is crouching and has a frontal surface area of 3.5 mile/h I I I 120 100 80 pressure.diameter wheels compared with use of 27-in. wheels are assumed to be running on a smooth road surface with a rolling resistance of 11. 27 in.-d iameter wheels at same power level.b 25% x .5 Ibf/long ton weight. The drag coefficient is 0. Note: the 27-in.. that is./ 75- 5 : 0. Speed 25 mile/h I 60 40 Tire-inflation I 16 in.5 sq ft.65 sq ft. Wheel diameter 16 in.118 Some bit ycie physics Figure 6. Point. 12. m~le~ti . is not very different. the manufacturer’s recommended pressure.6 Effect of tire pressure and wheel diameter on propulsive power required for bicycles. 30+E .7 Slowing effect of 16-in. Note the dimin- ished rate of decrease of power required at pressures above 75 Ibf/sq in. Ibf/sq in. w . I 140 - Figure 6. is a single estimation for such conditions. In both cases the tire pressure is 75 Ibf/sq in. with a rol I ing resistance of 18 Ibf/long ton and with a frontal area of 5.9. 20a $ 15- % 2 .
because wind effects are predominant. We have estimated diameter and compared different the rolling and air resistances the power requirements at for a popular size of wheel of 16 in. needed by a conventional exceeds that bicycle machine depends. (If rougher roads had been assumed for the calculation.14 X IO5 newton/m*] for 26-27 in. diameter [ 660686 mm] 1 V8 in.7. 1406. as was disthe low intended by the designer or is due to the rider lacking the strength to reach a desirable inflation pressure (about 55-60 Ibf/sq in. the effect of the smaller wheels is relatively small. This accounts for the experience in practice that racing times for the 27 in. damped suspension.41 m/set] and higher. The extent to which this power.79 X 105-4. [686 mm] wheeled machines are closely approached by the smaller-wheeled machines.92 mm] tires.18 to 13. It is obvious that the smaller wheels are “slower” over the whole range of speeds.5 and Figure 6. pressure is one deliberately of arm (or memory) whether add resistance for all sizes of wheel. and the results are shown in Tables 6.6. L3. for a given rate of progress under specified conditions. according to the calculations. The effect of inflation pressure on rolling power for two wheel sizes is shown in Figure 6. and to an appreciable extent at the lower speeds. These calculations have been drawn up to show the calculated quantitative effect of the use of different tire pressures and wheel diameters on the power needed for riding on very good roads. when they can be superior. of course.4 and 6. cussed earlier in this chapter. 1686 mm] diameter wheels. as well as on wheel size.4 mm] speeds with those for 27 in. Of great imporpressure at which the “Soft” tires machine can be ridden with comfort. 134.119 The wheel and its roiling resistance propulsive power needed from the rider.‘L:z assumed to be incorporated in a sprung.) At speeds of 25 to 30 mile/h [ 11 . . on other details of the particular tance is the tire inflation design. the “slowness” would iave been more apparent-ulrless the wheels :.
) m mlsq in.35 He and Bekker36 give an alternative formula for calculating CR.00012 p (Ibf/sq 0. per unit mass.0051 + + 0. The coefficient ton of vehicle.105 --Ibf h2/sq in. ~. Ibf/sq in. than that offered by the rest of the vehicle. CR = 0. the coefficient CR = 0.005 + j of friction. where m is the weight of machine plus rider and CR. + 0. I bf. mile* speed (mile/h) -100 wherep is inflation >II * pressure.Some bicycle ph. greater effort is required to accelerate “a pound of weight (mass) in the wheel of a bicycle .mi!c.) r <kc The effect of . The wheels of a vehicle move both forward with the machine and rider and at the same time rotate around the hubs.0000154 in. of course. 2..36 m/set] slowing of the is acceptable of the by and touring speeds of IO depends. k4.‘hj 100 in.240 gives the rolling resistance R in Ibf per long Smooth treads on automobile tires reduce rolling resistance by as much as 20 percent according to information given by Ogorkiewicz.0809 lbf/sq in.r’cs Whether or not the appreciable smaller wheels at utility to 12 mile/h rider.of friction CR multiplied by diameter wheels.vheel mass on riding sffort for acceleration required 1 1 1 2 ’ where MI is weight on wheel. upon the temperament The rolling resistance R may be calculated the methods of references 33 and 34: R=CRm.35 Ibf h* sq in. for 27-in. + 0. mile* p (Ibf/sq \/ ‘. Hence. The resistance of the wheels to a change in speed is therefore greater. is given by + 0.47 to 5.
The wheels of a bicycle are now of a form such that the major portion centrated of the mass is conin the rim. of the wheel and their center it is The dimensions of the latter are small compared with the diameter of mass is close to the outside of the wheel. it is estimated that the wheel mass can be reduced to 3% percent of the total. as well as on cost and fashion.7 percent. More accurate estimations based upon calcula- tions or measurements of the actual moments of inertia of 16-in. Although more quickly power is the lighter wheels accelerate slightly for a given power. Even if this can be multiplied by two because the mass revolves. tire. wheels compared with 27-in. the wheels With modern bicycle construction form only about 5 percent of the total mass of machine and rider. This fact has been both in and quoted endlessly in cycling literature. the wheel has tb be c~iven both the translational kinetic energy of the whole machine.121 The wheel and its rolling resistance than a pound in the frame. because of the larger losses at the point of contact (see Figure 6. The reducrion effect is therefore a 5 minus 3% or 1% percent. the resultant 3 percent effect on acceleration is very small and would not be easy to detect. Also. wheels show that the difference in acceleration rather less than 1. which is traveling at road speed. . The decision on whether or not to use small wheels obviously for the bicymust depend on the duty anticipated cle.” out of context. and tube combination. On this account. they also have a larger rolling resistance on smooth roads. and its own rotational kinetic energy relative to the bicycle. At the best. and have a lower air drag. whether by reducing the wheels by size or by material content. possible to say with some truth that “the effect of a given mass in the wheels is almost twice that of the same mass in the frame” tion power requirements as far as accelerabecause are concerned. the effect of any practical variation in reducing this 5 percent is small.2).
. The energy loss depends on the “scale” of the roughness. overall energy losses are small (and principally due to the increased air-resistance losses at the high downhill speeds). rlar to surface at contact w 1 be lost Rough roads and springing Rough roads affect bicyclists in several ways. Each little roughness could give the machine an upward component of velocity sufficient motion just as for the wheel(s) to leave the surface (see Figure 6. The kinetic energy of this upward has to be taken from the forward motion.8 Dynamics of wheel losses on raug!~ surfaces. If the scale is very large so that the bicyclist has to ride up long hills and then to descend the other side. The vibration may be uncomfortable and may require the bicycle to be heavier than if it were designed for smooth roads. the speed. with a supposedly rigid machine traveling over the surface. Path of wheel at varloilb relative speeds kir(etic energy perpendi. Now imagine a very small scale of roughness. And there will be an energy loss.8).122 Some bicycle physics Figure 6. and on the design of the bicycle. There are in this case virtually no momentum losses.
(25 to 152 in- mm). (0. The forced frequency from the road surface is . typical of pot holes and ruts. All the kinetic energy per-pendicular at the point ?f contact can be considered to be lost. bicycle tires are too small to insulate the machine and rider from the vertical velocities duced. the “natural” frequency of the unsprung mass should be high compared with the forced vibrational frequency imposed by the surface.52 m) and a height amplitude of 1 to 6 in. But when the wheel and machine descend. and the situation the analogy to the rigid-machine more nearly approaches case discussed above. some form of sprung wheel or sprung frame can greatly reduce the kinetic-energy or momentum losses by reducing the unsprung mass and ensuring that the wheel more nearly maintains contact with the surface. At a larger scale of roughness. Pneumatic tires greatly lower the losses for and the small-scale roughness because only the kinetic energy of part of the tread is affected.123 The wheel and its rolling resistance if the rider were going up a hill. The natural frequency fN of a mass m ccnnected to a spring having a spring constant h (h gives the units of force applied per unit deflection) is 1 A& JN -. The principal losses are due to the flexing of the tires and tubes (“hysteresis” losses). the wheel contacts the surface at an angle.152 to 1. Herein lies part of the reason for rough-road losses. perhaps with a typical wavelength of 6 to 60 in. if energy losses are to be small. For this scale of roughness. under the influence of gravity as before. Another way of expressing this conclusion is that. spring force of the internal pressure ensures that in general the tire does not come out of contact with the surface. the magnitude of which depends to the surface upon the speed and the scale of the roughness.J m =zn vibrations per unit time.
for example. In such under consideration place upon relatively circumstances it seems reasonable to assume that energy losses due to vibration are small. Road and track bicycles Throughout this book the motion of the bicycle has been assumed to be taking smooth surfaces. Roads are certainly becoming smoother. Present-day utility machines are little different in specifications from road racers of the 192Os. An early wri’cer (see Scott37) was of the opinion that if the front wheel of a rear-driving safety . the pre-1890s bicycle designer was forced to take serious account of the road surface in the road/machine combination. (76 mm). of S and v (The designer h because has little choice for the spring constant he must assume a mass of rider and machine of up to perhaps 275 Ibm [ 124. Therefore should be kept high by reducing the unsprung mass m for the worst combination thought likely to be encountered.7 kg] !having a weight at sea level of 1223 newton) with a maximum deflection. Opinions of early bicyclists In contrast to the foregoing.124 Some bicycle physics where I/ is the velocity wavelength of the bicycle and S is the the ratio of the roughness. small-cross-section lightweight tires. another sure indication that much bicycle riding can be done upon good roads. of perhaps 3 in. As a consequence the task for bicycle designers has been made easier :han it was in the earlier days when even in the industrialized United societies most of the roads were too rutted for easy riding. as with. if a light rider is to be able to reach the ground with his foot.he Kingdom. In t. where much sporting activity in the cycling world is carried out in the form of time trials. the modern road-racing bicycle is approaching the track bicycle in detail design.
however. even at C. a large antivibrator inventors persevered and there was some sale for machines fitted with (as distinct from sprung forks or saddles) in the form of a sprung frame. as it might. This undoubtedly valid difficu!ty in the way is worthy of careful consideration before accepting an anti-vibrator: in fact the very desired end can be easily missed in an imperfect device. Satisfactory designs for the application of antivibration mechanisms to bicycie frames were found mcst difficult to make. Bourlet. prevailing inventors busied themselves with socalled antivibratory devices of all imaginable types. The general outcome was. and Scott comments. while holding momentum in one direction lose it in another. The type of frame most praised was the “Whippet” (Figure . Three examples are shown in the figures. especially in the steering. This is an extreme case but is indicative of the large energy losses likely when riding on very rough roads. the vibration proportional to Sharp. far from being optimum. It was also known that solid rubber tires were less easy running as the speed increased even upon relatively smooth roads. Several designers seemed to have a clear grasp of the essential problems to be solved: the rider must not have to cope with differing distances between saddle and pedals and forward momentum must be preserved. thought that one-sixth rider’s effort was lost to vibratory riding a solid-rubber-tired Early antivibration devices bicycle. an elasticity in other directions has followed. making the machine feel unsteady and capricious.“3Y In spite of difficulties.125 The wheel and its rolling resistance (fitted with solid rubber tires) was forced to surmount a 4-inch-high obstacle. a loss of one-half 4 of the forward inomentum was experienced. According French engineer. “the difficulty experienced by inventors on the line of anti-vibrators appears to be.38 loss the is almost directly to speed. of the effects when low speeds. As can be expected with the above state of affairs. that while acquiring the desired elasticity in the proper direction.
296. This invention placed the antivibratory device just where inventors had always wanted it. At First the pneumatic tire was almost impractical because of its proneness to cutting by road litter. and what miyht have been an acceptable machine when new VKX not so when the joints became loose.9 The Whippet spring-frame bicycle. The final deliverance out of the sufferings. An interesting warning is given in an early text on bicycles. The steering of the “Whippet” pattern is seriously affected by wear. Practical riding experience is both enlightening and awe-inspiring when gained upon a sprung frame which is loose in its essential joints. Rapid development proceeded. of those concerned was throuqh the invention of the pneumatic tire in 1888.126 Some bicycle physics Figure 6. and by 1892 most new bicycles were sold with pneumatic tires. thus doing away with a chain oT actuating connections to the root of energy absorption. as can be surmised by even a casual inspection of the design. From reference 20. both mental and physical.4” This says that the pneumatics of the contemporary design were prone to roll on cornering and thus could cause fear to . p. 6. to varying degrees. although the cost was very high compared with solid rubber or hollow rubber tires (called cushion tiring). All machines suffered from the effects of wear of the joints. at the road surface.9).
I 127 The wheel and its rolling resistance - I Figure 6. 297.07 Y 1 O5 newton/m*j . These sentimems were not shared by other innovators. No doubt for very . and we see that even the large Humber concern thought that there was a demand for a sprung frame.38 X lo5 to 2. some of which may have been inspired by the design of light motorcycles which appeared in the 20th century. though pneumatic tires were fitted to the bicycle (Figure 6. It was probable that it was thought advisable to avoid strains due to high inflation pressures. Maybe this fact and the of the tire de!ayed its universal acceptance among nonracing ridE:rs by a year or two. which could have split the covers./ pneumatic tires appeared to be run at an inflation gressure of 2040 Ibf/sq in.3 0). p.. It must be emphasized that for road use the eat-l. Over the following decades this example was followed by others incorporating pneumatic and other unusual springing. which is far too low for cornering with ease of mind. however.10 The Humber spring-frame bicycle. The designer of the “Whippet” in large-scale adaptation the frame is thought to have been convinced that there was no future of springs to bicycles after of the pneumatic the date of the introduction tire. [ 1. From reference 20. although on the other hand it could be assumed that puncturing was made more easy through use of such low pressure:. the less intrepid fmgility riders.
Some bicycle physics
rough roads such sprung machines could have been useful, but the average road conditions for bicycle riding were getting better and thus decreasing the need for major springing devices in bicycles. In the less-developed parts of the world, bicycles are ridden in quantity, whe: e the roads are still
rough. The most common bicycle is one fitted with large-diameter tires of about 28 in. by about 1% in. [about 700 mm by 39 mm] cross section. This ensures a tolerable riding comfort the resort to a sprung frame. The Moulton design without
The appearance of a successful modern design of sprung bicycle would seem to contradict the above arguments. However, the logical reasoning of the designer, Alex Moulton, was as follows. For bicycles to be truly useful to the ‘“utility” bicyclists there has to be better provision for the carrying of luggage than can be fitted to standard machines. If wheels were much smaller, room for luggage carriers over the wheels would be created. Small wheels would lead to unacceptable vibration and energy losses, especially with “dead” loads (the luggage) over them, so that sprung wheels are required. Small wheels also make the bicycle a little shorter, so that it can fit into the trunk of a European standard automobile. The rear-wheel spring uses rubber in compression and shear, and the front wheel has a co11 spring with rubber for damping (Figure 6.11 j. The resulting bicycle is very effective over both smooth roads and over those too rough for regular bicycles to tackle at any but very low speeds.
Dan Henry’s sprung lightweight
A very successful though noncommercial design of sprung bicycle is shown in Figure 6.12. This has been developed by Captain Dan Henry of Flushing, N. Y., as a modification of a lightweight sports machine. Each wheel is mounted in a swinging fork on stiff bearings, thus maintaining lateral rigidity while giving long up-and-down travei. The springs are quickly adjustable for rider weight. The
The wheel and its rolling resistance
Figure 6.11 Moulton bicycle, with front-wheel springing. Courtesy of Raleigh I r?dustries, Inc.
Some blcycie physics ----.-..._____--.__.__
Figure 6.12 Captatn Dan Henry’s spl Ing-frame l)icycie. !a) Detail of the front suspcnslon. (b) Normal po:;ltlon. Courtesy of Dan Henry.
The wheel and its rolling resistance
wheelbase is lengthened
from that of the standard is unaltered through
machine because of the rearward placing of the rear wheel, but the steering geometry (with the front wheel in its mean position) compensate for the forward
the setting back of the original front forks to se: of the swinging forks. Dan Henry has ridden over 100,000 miles on this machine, which weighs 28 Ibm [ ‘12.7 kg] . He notes two features of his experience finds that he is faster in hill climbing which are conthan on an untrary to those quoted for other sprung bicycles. He sprung machine. And his tires iast longer; he is able to use lightweight sew-up tires on roads where clincher (wired-on) tires would be necessary with unsprung bicycles.
Some bicycle physics
References Chapter 6
1, J. L. Koffman, “Tractive resistance of rolling stock,” Railway Gazette (London) 6 November 1964, pp. 889-902. 2. Ibid. 3. Engineering Encyclopedia 1954). (New York: Industrial Press,
4. See M. G. Bekker, Theory of land locomotion (Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press, 19621, pp. 209, 214. 5. E. Barger et al., Tractors and their power units (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1952). 6. Ibid. 7. J. C. Trautwine, The civil engineers reference book, 21st edition (Ithaca, N. Y.: Trautwine and Company, 1937). 8. See reference 3 above. 9. J. Hannah and M. J. Hillier, Applied mechanics (London; Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons, 19621, p. 36. 10. Osborne Reynolds, “Rolling Friction,” Philosophical transactions, vol. 166,1876, pp. 155-l 56. 11. I. Evans, “The rolling resistance of a wheel with a solid rubber tire,” British Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 5, 1954, pp. 187-188. 12. V. Steeds, Mechanics of road vehicles (London: and Sons, 1960). 13. P. Irving, Motorcycle 1964), p. 10. engineering (London: llliffe
14. See reference 5 above. 15. R. M. Ogorkiewicz, “Rolling resistance,” Automobile Engineer, vol. 49, May 1959, pp. 177-179. 16. G. M. Carr and M. J. Ross, “The MIRA single-wheel rolling-resistance trailers,” Motor industries Research Association, Nuneaton, Warwickshire, England, 1966. 17. See reference 4 above, p. 209. 18. Kempe’s engineers year book, vol. I I (London: Brothers, 19621, p. 315. Morgan
19. P. D. Patterson, “Pressure problems with cycle tires,” Cycling, 28 April 1955, pp. 428429. 20. A. Sharp, Bicycles and tricycles (London: Green and Company, 18961, p. 251. 21. Ibid. Longmans,
Fluid-dynamic 1959).” Friday-evening discourse. 18891. See reference 16 above. C. Bourlet. R. no. See reference 37 above. 315. f. 39. Gesamtfahrwiderstandsgleichung widerstande von personenkraflfahrzeugen. See reference 18 above. drag (Midland Park. pp. 37. Alex. R. La bicyclette. 30. 1891.133 The wheel and its rolling resistance 22. Hoerner. and Company. F. F. See reference 5 above. 38. W. energy and /occ. 24. Royai Institution. Scott. Quoted in reference 20 above. p.. 252. S. 32. p. See reference 18 above. See reference 4 above. 40. Whitt. 34. p. See reference 19 above. See reference 20 above. p.‘r die fahr1938. third revised edition. 23. Viscount Bury and G. “Power for electric cars”. Cycling art. 5296. “The Moulton bicycle. Cycling. London. 24. 6. 208. 27. et sa for me 28. sa construction (Paris: Gauthier-Villars. 85-97. Lacy Hillier. Green. N. vol. Additional recommended reading Kamm. 23 February 1973. . 29. DKF ZB Moulton. 26. p. See reference 15 above. London: Longmans. 204. 2 October 1967. 33. J. See reference 19 abcve. See reference 15 above. 25. P. 31. 1889). 36. in The Badminton Library of Sports and Pastimes. See reference 4 above. 613. See reference 15 above. 35. Engineering (London). Lippincott Company. 313.motion !PhiIadelphia: J.
The loss of power in an automobile mission can be as high as 15 percent acc&Jrding to reference 1. therefore. The disadvantages. In the early days of bicycle construction. The efficiency of a good clean chain can be as F-igh as 98.074 hp [55 watts] is needed to overcome both wind and road resistance.5) when a power of 0. Dnly 0.2 or Figure 2. This loss occurs principally in the gear wduction and the idling pinions in +I!e tranr. are serious when speeds are higher .5 percent according to references 2 and 3. No estimates for these pedal-power have been included ttarisin Figure 1.5.0295 hp. read. which was to be expected there of machines with front-wheel because of the transand 100 percent efficient mission of power from the pedals. was a preponderance simple. lightweight. at a speed of 12.5 percent is very small in comparison to the power consumption of the wind and road resistances opposing bicycle motion.2 and 2. drive.001 hp [0. however.5 mile/h [5.0295 hp [22 watts] ) cannot be estimated to this degree of accuracy (0. both sets of gears being oil-immersed and operating at relatively high speed. Another. or 3 percent).7 Chain-transmission power losses Resistances to motion due to mechanical friction The retarding effects of wind.mission and differelltial.75 watt] is absorbed by the transmission.5. absorption resistance to the progress and the bearof a bicycle rider is that due to friction-power by the chain transmission requirements ings of the modern machine.001 hp in 0. It appears reasonable.59 m/set] (see Table 6. let alone the power absorbed by the wind. For example. The tire rolling resistance (0. to refrain from including machinery losses in graphs of power usage for bicycle riding as exemplified by Figures 1. but far less important. and gradient have been discussed in previous chapters. The loss of only 1.
with improved there was only about 1 percent . The addition of gear trains or the use of levers complicated the inherently simple type of drive and made it less attractive on this account. which has been shown by Harriscn et al. It was said that the road grit dropped more easily through the big spaces between the links. Chaindriven bicycles were first used on very rough roads. However. along with the Victorian passion for manufacture in cast iron. characteristics: even for racing maSmaller-pitch running chains then came into use. The small number of teeth led to rough running because of the variation the chain (as much as 6 percent) a constant-speed cog. in the speed of in passing over chain and cog In later times gearcases (oil-bath chines.4 to result in a power production lower than that achieved with rotary pedals. along with the limited steering arc of the wheel and the need for applying a torque to the handlebar to resist the pedaling torque. few miles per hour of the earliest days of cycling. high “old ordinary.135 Resistances to motion due to mechanical - friction - than th. appeared to influence chain and chainwheel design. The wheel must be made as large as possible. Harrison found that a fully controlled linear motion could deliver more power than any other type he investigated (as discussed in Chapter 2). but for speeds now commonly possible with bicycles.” This. reaching the 60-in. made the machine difficult for the less acrobatic to master. Lever drive may have some advantages at relatively low speeds.” (1. until the roads improved. This environment.52 m) size of the to give high “gears. Some details of the evolution of modern chain design are given in references 5 and 6-10. “Open link” chains with thick and wide teeth on the cogs (partly because of the low strength of cast iron) were common practice. the rotary motion of pedals on cranks seems physiologically sounder than a straight up-anddown motion. enclosures) became common. The reason might be the lack of control at the ends of the stroke of many lever mechanisms.
and technical committees the general policy.667 newton] resistance or 1.8-l bf-per-ton [ 7. inoperable shapes for teeth. are frequently open to criticism for the “artistic license” used in the production of ugly. quotes Professor Rankine as stating that the friction forces amount to one thousandth of the weight of the rider.1 percent of the vehicle weight. The precise shape of teeth has been subject to much experiment. with circular arcs to the root of the teeth and also to the tips. 251). hence it appears reasonable to disregard the bearing resistance.8 Ibf per long ton [7. It is recorded that the celebrated French poster artist Toulouse illustration Lautrec once lost a commission because his for drawing a bicycle advertisement have not yet agreed on of a chain set and chain was outra- geously inLorrect in the eyes of the manufacturer sponsoring the advertisement. The tire rolling resistance (let alone wind resistance) is not known to be better than about 0. however. and Kay. Power absorbed by bearing friction For a long time.136 - Some bicycle physics - variation in speed with constant-speed and a modern opinion drive.6 kg] bicycle. It is.‘3 Illustrations of gearwheel and chainwheel teeth shown on advertising posters. The mechanically fastidious reader wili be pleased to know that all artists do not escape eftective criticism. credited to Renold. interesting to compare this 1.” This design uses an angle of 60 degrees between the fiat faces of two teeth. neck” on the optiis given by Charmum design.15 Ibf [0. even for engineering exhibitions. however. The exact nature of these curves is. such as that for railway rolling stock as . Sharp’4 (p. since at least 1896.9 X 10m3 newton/kg] estimate with later relevant information. For a 150 Ibf [68 kg] rider this means 0. even now the subject of much discussion from the point of view of world standardization.9 X low3 newton/kg] for a rider on a 30 Ibf [ 13. the retarding effect of the friction of the standard ball bearings of a bicycle has been considered very small.
2% pernent. The frictional opposing force of 0. Information given in Table 7.75 and 7 Ibf [ 16. pedals.0015 Xfl/(3/16) = 0. thereby d-2 or 1.011 X 100 or about 3 percent. and 0. diameter [25. According to references 1 and 2.1. chain power losses probably average 2% percent. [6. respectively.1 shows that the coefficient of rolling friction attributable to l-in.4 mm] balls in a bearing is about 0.12 hp [ 89 watts] and 0.75 X 100 or about 4 percent at 12 mile/h. The friction force for wheel bearings is very small because of the Ieve’-age effect of the relatively large wheel.68 and 31. The power loss in the complete mission of an ergometer machine was given by Wiihelm von Dijbeln17 as being as low as 5 percent.175 mm] balls) should have a coefficient of 0.0015.94 m/set] for a touringtype machine with an upright-seated rider) the total opposing forces can be calculated as 3. It appears from the above evidence that the from the as rather less than 3 Experimental data are given in Figure increasing the effective load on the races by .” In addition. we can assume that the typical average angular contact of the bearing is 45 degrees.137 Resistances to motion due to mechanicJ friction given in references 15 and 16. and the average of these two cas*s is 3 percent.011.4 1. At power inputs to a bicycle of 0. The bearing losses can thus be taken as 5 . Hence the average bicycle ball bearing (l/4 to l/8 in.15 Ibf [0. and rear-wheel bearings considered as part of the transmission can be estimated above coefficient of friction times 0.67 newton] give’-’ by Rankine is thus expressible as 0.36 and 8. and Levinson shows that the rolling friction varies inversely as the ball diameter. 7. The power losses in the bracket. Of this the bearing friction under 2 Ibf per ton [8.37 irp [276 watts] (representing speeds on the level of 12 and 20 mile/h [5.35 to 3.14 newton] .15/7 X 100 or about 2 percent at 20 mile/h.8 X low3 alone is probably newton/kg] of vetrans- hicle weight. . The wheel plus bearing rolling resistance is given there as a few Ibf per ton.15/3.
442.14h 0. Bearing friction.E.0015= 0. Likewise poor manufacture can give such variations. Alperton. supplement II. Efficiency data of Professor Carpenter. ‘A. Type of bearir.. p. p. energy and locomotion (Philadelphia: J. 80. Sharp.0.0.002 . 49.Some bicycle physics ___- Table 7.001 . 18891.01 5e 0. eReference 3. Ltd. Cyclingart. England. Middlesex.0005 . ‘Author’s (FRW) own experimental work with l/4 to l/8 in. Otherwise the friction can be several-fold greater. dReference 3. data from R.01 i 0. balls in angular contacts of 30’ and 60”. I.T. (Glacier type) Ball bearing (bicycle type) 0.1 .diameter running circle. hManufacturer’s leaflet: The Glacier Metal Company.1 f 0. p.001 b 0. . balls. balls.2s 0.005= Roller bearing (small needle) Plain metal (gun metalgood lubrication) Machine tool plain metal slow running fast running Nylon 66 Dry-on nylon on metal Lubr lcated P. p. p.079 0.01 averagej (radial or thrust loads) Sow rces: al-in. February 1966. vol. 175. 3/4 in. 48. B. gf3rifish Plastics. data from reference 18. England: Emmott & Co. p. 493.001 75a 0. C7C Gazette. October 1898. fMechanical world year book (Manchester.g Ball hedring (annular) Coefficient of frimtion 0. p. 1938).14g 0. Nf:)te: The bicycle-type bearings are assumed to be in very good condition and carefully adjusted. Scott. Wembley. Lippincott Company.0. P.001 5d 0. 1242.049 0.02f 0. ‘Reference 1.F.0.1.. bl-in.
0.-0 = mm 1:4Bottom bracket Head race (not angular contact) l 3/165/32- Coefficient of rolling friction (based on inner-race diameter) .E . . Line B: Rolling friction coefficient. Both lines are for a ‘I -in.1 Test results for bicycle ball bearings.001.- Figure 7.0015..diameter ball with an angular thrust of 45’. Line A: Roiling friction coefficient.139 Resistances to motion due to mechanical fricticlln . 0.
can increase many fold. is similar. Figure 7.2 O Plain bearings are sensitive to load and rotational rate because of the changing characteristics of the lubricant film separating the shaft and bearing. .4 shows that under optimum conditions very good performances can be obtained from plain bearings. It is now accepted that the use of roller bearings in trains reduces the starting power needed by several fold.lg as shown in Figure 7.2). Only a few years elapsed before the plain bearings of the “boneshaker” contemporary period were abandoned in favor of the more complicated ball bearings of the then is only a few percent of the total design. the friction of bearing If a plain bearing is not kept well lubricated. Because of and also because of a probably the practical problems involved in carrying out such an operation.Some bit ycle physics power losses in bicycle bearings of machines in good condition power used. which is inexpensive and can tolerate alignment-a accurately some degree of misfor inbicycle flexible very desirable characteristic made and somewhat construction-appeared as early as in the 1880s (Figure 7. whereas plain bearings generally require a high starting torque. although the running power needed. compared with well-lubricated plain bearings. Ball bearings require a low starting torque. but they were very soon adopted by hicycle makers. The common cup-and-cone bearing. Advantages of ball over plain bearings The first ball bearings were far from being the highly reliable product we expect today.3. Patents for ball bearings intended for bicycle use were more numerous than for other purposes in the early period of bearing history. This phenomenon is well appreciated in railway practice. but the range of coefficient of friction is large for variable conditions load and speed.
L (a) !b) Figure 7.141 Resistances to motion due to mechanical friction Figure 7. (a) Annular or radial.3 Bearing torque for shaft turning from rest.2 Types of ball bearings. Data from reference 19. Whlfe-metal (plain) beanng Ball bearing I ow 0 1 4 2 !?evn!~~!inns P f shsf! frrjnl rest . (cl Cup and cone: From the diagram it can be seen how the bearing is selfaligning and can accommodate a bent spindle. (b) 1893 “Magneto”: The Raleigh had a threaded inner race.
. 1 Figure 7. a very hard nonmetallic substance. Table 7. incorporating It is stated in reference 22 that special P.F. This minimum value. From G.E. It has been found that such bearings function in wet conditions.16 for suitable loading and design.1 gives information ficient of friction about other coefbearing materials. however.04. showing that the minimum appears to be associated with Nylon 66.Some bicycle physics appreciably greater expense and maintenance. it appears desirable to continue made from nonmetallic the use of ball bear- ings in bicycles. This very efficient bearing was probably some four times as easy running as an average plain bearing. Ibf/sq in.008 .F. ringoiling.E. 0. It appears that the coefficients of friction are 0.10 to 0. without oil lubrication. which is several times that associated with ball bearings.T. The now well-known Nylon is one of these materials and or P.didmeter pillow block with gunmetal steps.E.4 Friction coefficient of a plain bearing. chemical synthetic another is polytetrafluoroethylene a highly corrosion-resistant polymer. Some think that plain bearings materials could now be used. desirable features for bicycle bearings. Steel shaft in rigid.30. The mechanical transmission of power (London: Crosby Lockwood. ft.) have been tested. Q-in. p.010 g 0. is still high. 0.F.- I I I Pressure. metal mixtures in order to overcome certain prartical difficulties of ease of seizure (as is experienced with pure P.T.T. 1932). Charnock. bearings./min . F. 25t 200 Rubbing 300 400 speed. “Gargoyle Vaculine C” lubricant.
the machines intended to be ridden by children or certain invalids whose speed of progress it might be desirable to restrict for safety purposes. as mentioned suggest that if such bearings were used in bicycles. The Sturmey Archer type of hub gear is an exception to the suggestions that cup-and-cone bearings and plain bearings have short lives in bicycle use. 10 mile/h [4. turbine ball bearings from hours.143 Resistances to motion due to mechanical friction The published facts concerning mance of nonmetallic an appreciable the perforabove.) It appears. but the life can be adequate. ballthe balls are enclosed in cages that eliminate . bearings. On the other hand. inac- and little protected grit. for instance. such conditions could not be approached in a bicycle bearing. Cup-and-cone on bicycles are made of inexpensive curately constructed. longer life. ball bearings always have a limited life. Short I ife and high friction must be expected. therefore. increase in resistance to movement It is probable that the would have to be tolerated.47 m/set] power needed to propel a bicycle and rider at would be about 1 l/3 (on the level times that needed for riding a bicycle and in still air) fitted with ball bearings. that nonmetallic bearings would be suitable only for. The time between overhauls of many aircraft engines is well over 20. Effective labyrinth dirt seals are used. However. and less maintenaXe. and the bearings steels. (This estimation assumes that the bearing friction effect is increased tenfold over that associated with ball bearings.000 are not usually changed. Life of bearings While the life of a plain bearing in a turbine.079 newton/kg] . which gives an effective resistance of 18 I bf/ton [0.000 hours. and can be expected to need replacement after 1. is virtually infinite because high-pressure lubrication and high-velocity relative motion combine to prevent metal-to-metal contact. say. some specialty manufacturers are supplying wheel hubs incorporating standard automobile-type ball-bearing assemblies to achieve lower friction.
Some bit ycle physics
to-ball rubbing; and bearings are accurately Early Sturmey Archer gears (in 1909)
so that long lifetimes are usually experienced. incorporated ball bearings in the mounting friction. of the pinion gears, 60 percent of the
which was claimed to eliminate mountings are extremely (hardened-steel comment
But the bearing loads on these pinion low, and plain bearings without pins) were substituted
later in 1909 and appear to give an acof substituting these
ceptable life. The actual, rather than the claimed, effect on the gear efficiency plain bearings for ball bearings is not known. Variable gears The power loss in an enclosed, lubricated, hub gear arises from the rolling and rubbing of the teeth of mating gearwheels, the friction in their supporting plain bearings, and the squeezing of the several oil films (Figure 7.5). General engineering experience suggests that about 2 percent power loss occurs for each set of mating wheels and 2 percent for a plain bearing. Hence it is probable that a hub gear working with a set of planetary gearwheels on plain bearings could lose, say, 4 to 6 percent of the input power in friction at high power levels and a higher percentage a+ lower power levels. On the other hand, such a hub when working in direct drive would lose a negligible amount of power.23 (See Figure 7.6.) gear is caused by The power loss in a derailleur
friction on the hub cogs arising from the sideways rubbing of a chain in a misaligned position; by the added flexing required of the chain in passing around the jockey and tensioner the friction pulleys; and by in the jockey and tensioner pulley
bearings, which rotate at relatively high speed. The design conditions and the grit introduced because of the exposed running conditions are so variable that a dogmatic conditions percent. It is worth noting in connection with the above that the small infinitely variable gears availof such gears estimate of power
loss is impossible, but for clean, well-lubricated the losses are likely to be about 5
Resistances to motion due to mechanical
Figure 7.5 Exploded view of SturmeyArcher five-speed hub gear. Courtesy of Raleigh Industries Inc.
Some bicycle physics -
Figure 7.6 Efficiency of hub gears. Curves are from data in reference 23. Points are experimentally determined by Whitt.
5 c aJ .0 .?= Q, El .z ‘i 9( 6 c
1.3% rise 10% gearing dew-
* 25% drop
5.0 Torque, Ibf ft
able for general engineering purposes needing a power output of about 1 hp [746 watts], and therefore appropriate for bicycle usage, can be very inefficient. A power loss of 24 percent is
Resistances to motion due to mechanical friction
quoted in one advertisement of a bicycle hub gear.
for such gears, al-
though the cost of the gear is many times that The renewed interest in bicycling about a reawakening at eliminating of inventors, perhaps, in the variable-gear has brought
particularly, and at least one
field. Three designs aim
of the tensioner cogs needed on derailleur gears by changing the effective size of either the chainwheel or the wheel cog. gear (Figure 7.7) has several sets in the free-wheel assembly. as a cog even though there is The Tokheim Each set functions
of teeth incorporated
not a full set of teeth. Each set can be moved into the plane of the chain. The effective diameters which can be used for the sets of teeth must be such as to leave a clearance between them, so that the choice of lear ratios is limited. Hagen International Inc. produced a chainwheel with an infinitely variable diameter, within certain limits. With a finite pitch between teeth, chainwheels with an integral number of teeth can of one tooth at a time. by having the chainwheel in six radial vary in size by a minimum Hagen solved this problem
teeth provided with six cogs or sprockets, which can be adjusted inward or outward slots (Figure 7.8). The sprockets are mounted on one-way clutches, or free wheels, to permit engagement of the chain in any radial position, while giving a positive-drive capability. The senior author (FRW) has made a virtue of the varying velocity ratio which these gears give by constructing a chainwheel which is split across a diameter. The two halves are capable of being moved apart by steps to give an effectively oval chainwheel, the ovality increasing as the gear ratio increases (Figure 7.9). The transmission efficiency of these three gears would be expected to be higher-say 97 percent-than either the hub gear or the true derailleur gear. A chain that connects chainwheel and rear sprocket without tensione; s can have a transmission efficiency of 98.5 percent, as stated earlier.
Some bit ycle physics
Figure 7.7 Cutaway of Tokheim transmission showing interaction of Speedisc and chain. Courtesy of Tokheim Corporation.
149 Resistances to motion due to mechanical friction Figure 7.8 Hagen all-speed variablediameter chainwheel. . Courtesy of Hagen International Inc.
9 expandlnq gosi rival chciinwtieel .150 figure Whltt Some bicycle physics 7.
Association publication. B. Levinson. 1954. ibid. editor. 15. 315-329. 180. See reference 3 above. 8. pp.. 396433. 1889). vol. pp. See references 8 and 9 above. “Tractive resistance of rolling stock. See reference 19 above. 222-229. A dictionary of applied physics (London: Macmillan and Company. et sa forme. vol. I! (London: Brothers. 78-79. p. Fundamentals of engineering mechanics. Sir Richard Glazebrook. 6. 316. 10. 85-97. 18. Bicycles and tricycles (London: Green and Company.1970. vol.” Journal of Applied Physiology. C. 899-902. L. 22. J. See reference 7 above. p. Harrison et al. Wilhelm von Dobeln.” Engineering ( London). (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House. pp. L. 23. 14. 128. 12.Resistances to motion due to mechanical friction References Chapter 7 Ii Kempe’s engineers year book. La bicyclette. 5. 17. Kay. See also reference 1 above. 3. J. p. 0. 16.S228: 1954.1964. F. Todd. Sharp. 278.. 375. A.” Human Factors. 20. 18961. Charnock. See reference 6 above. British Standards Institution Publication. 1922). The mechanical transmission of power (London: Crosby Lockwood. 19. See references 1 and 3 above. edited by J. 1953). A. pp. p. 1968). 13. pp. American Standards Institution specification 1329. vol. 21.” Railway Gazette (London). P. Lund. Thorn. Mc Jan 3. See reference 1 above. . “Maximizing human power output by suitable selection of motion cycle and load. Bourlet. Klein. 2 July 1956. 19521. no. 19621. The theory of machines (London : Edward Arnold. 7. G. 4. pp. F. G. 11. sa construction (Paris: Gauthier-Villars. 9. Y. “Efficiency of three-speed bicycle gears. 2. Longmans. R. “A simple bicycle ergometer. Koffman. 12. and J. 7. See reference 1 above.
a historical review”. “Cycles . Friction and lubrication (London: Methuen and Company. 58. The life and times of Charley Barden (Leicester: \E!unlap Publications. F. C. Caunter. . Swann. i965).972 (for a good review % of various types of gearing). F. reprint series. p.152 Some bicycle physics Additional recommended reading Bowden. 1956). and Tabor. 0. Science Museum. 0. 1. London. P.
(“Normal” excludes track bicycles which have no brakes as such: the rider can retard the machine by resisting the motion of the pedals.9 m/set] .4 (down to 0. All these are for stationary conditions and decrease with movement. For dry surfaces.5.145 at a relative velocity of 40 mile/h [ 17. and the fraction the coefficient of friction. Coefficients of metal-to-metal dry friction are about 0.2 to 0.7. leather-to-metal 0. Bicycle brakes Two places where solid-surface friction be considered in normal bicycle braking: occurs must the brake surfaces and the road-to-wheel contact. The plunger brake is used on some present-day . there is a limiting value R of the frictional motion. substances are pressed together with a force F. the coefficient little by the area or the magnitude of friction When surfaces start to move relative to one falls in value and is dependent upon the speed of movement of one surface past the other. Polishing of the surfaces lowers the coefficient of friction (one cause of brake “fade”). the coefficient of friction can be 0. Brake-lining materials against cast iron or steel have a coefficient of friction of about 0. tion of F. Therefore. as does wetting. For steei wheels on steel rails.25 when stationary and 0.Braking of Bicycles The friction of &y so!id Experiments habkfi *hiXwn that when two surfaces ’ 3 resistance to fracis called R = pF. Five types of brakes have been fitted to regular bicycles for ordinary road use. This limiting value of R is a definite or ratio R/F 1-1.08 when lubricated).3 to 0. and this value decreases less with movement than for other materials. of F. p is affected of the surfaces in contact another. the rear cog being fixed to the wheel hub without a so-called “freewheel” being used).
Some bicycle physics children’s bicycles and tricycles farthing. These brakes operate in oil and are entirely unaffected by weather conditions. The back-pedaling rotation but they have now gone hub brake brings or “coaster” multiple disks or cones together when the crank is reversed (Figure 8. The effective braking diameter is at less than half the wheel diameter. and on pneumatic-tired and was used on or pennyup to rubber“safeties” early bicycles such as the old ordinary about 1900 (Figure 8. the performance is affected by the amount of grit taken up by the tire which fortunately increases braking effectiveness and wears the metal shoe rather than the tire. The rim brake is the most popular type: a pad of rubber-composition material is forced against the inner surfaces or the side surfaces of the wheel rims. and therefore variable in performance in wet weather. Because the braking torque does not have to be transmitted through the hub and spokes. These were and are used on solid and pneumatic tires. and .1). The internal-expanding hub brake is similar to the hub brakes of motorcycles and cars.2). They are very effective on the rear wheel only: they cannot be fitted to the front wheel because the actuating force required is too great to be applied by hand. out of favor. requiring a high braking force but keeping the surfaces away from the wheel spray in wet weather. but is less resistant to water. Hub brakes used to be popular for the medium-weight “roadster” type of machine in the thirties. At present it is used for the rear wheel only and is cable operated from normal hand levers (Figure 8. The disk brake has recently been introduced for bicycles in the United States and Japan. Pulling a lever on the handlebars presses a metal shoe (sometimes facedjon to the outer surface of the tire. front and rear. These brakes are reputed to be effective in wet and dry weather. Such brakes are very poor in wet weather because the tire is being continuously wetted.3). as for the preceding three types.
Y. back-pedaling . Exploded Courlesy Corporatiori. and of 5endlx Components Elmira.2 vlebv of Bendix hub brake.1 )‘. 8. Engine Group..C ~j>* <‘. Power N.s.L . perrnls Castle slon with S Braking of bicycles safety Nottingham Figure 8.1 brake on Thoma bicycle.3&~” 155 Figure Plunger Humber’s Reproduced frorn museum.
these brakes are the lightest types in themselves and result in the lightest bicycle design. Courtesy of Shimano American Corporation.467 km] before the brake shoes require replacement. therefore. The composition blocks wear rapidly and the brakes therefore need continual adjustment. Rim brakes are.218 km]. Let us examine the duty required of braking surfaces for bicycle rim brakes in relation to those for cars. very sensitive to water-the coefficient of friction with regular combinations has been of brake blocks and wheel materials found to fall when wet to a tenth of the dry value’and to rim damage.) All present types of brakes have.156 Some bicycle physics Figure 8. serious disadvantages.3 Rear-wheel disk brake. however. and block replacement in the order of 2000 miles [3. (Automobile brakes with heavier duty last around 50. Duty of brake surfaces The brakes for modern motor vehicles can be designed by allowing a certain horsepower-6 to 1 O- .000 miles [80. because the braking force is applied at a large radius.
Ibf/sec)/hp = 2.94 m/set] Time t for retardation "2 = "1 + a t. [2. Power absorbed per unit of brake-block area = --2.2 I bm ft/lbf = 2. is given by where v2 = 0 and vt is the initial velocity. For determining brake duty-largely a function of surface heating-the mean power dissipation.822 set X 550 (ft.5 X 32. "1 =-at t=--="1 Therefore andso (88/3) ft/sec = 1.672 ft Ibf = 1.67 hP 4 sq in.822 t = .0.627 sec2 joule].5s (half gravitational acceleration) from 20 mile/h is required.822 sec.2 ft/sec2 The stopping distance is "1 + "2 S= 2 88 1.672 ft Ibf [3. a . [88/3 ft/sec or 8.14 ml.67 hp [ 1991 watts] . is required: Mean power dissipation 2. 2 The power dissipation falls from a peak at initial application of the brakes to zero when the bicycle comes to rest. For a typical bicycle of 30 Ibm [ 13.6 kg] and rider of 170 Ibm j77.3 2 = 26. The initial kinetic energy is KE=mv2=2% 200 Ibm 2 ic 32. let us determine the power loading at the brake blocks (assumed to have a total area of 4 sq in.0. .157 Braking of bicycles to be absorbed per square inch [6.1 kg].56 X IO6 watts/sq ml of braking surface for drum brakes2 The power to be absorbed depends upon the speed and mass of the vehicle and also on the time in which it is desired to stop. KEIt.581 mm21 ) if a retardation of .7 ft [8.94-l 1.
Bicycle brakes are often deficient in this respect. If the wheelbase is 42 in. whether or let us esti- during braking mate the changes in wheel reactions for the typical bicycle and rider above. where most of the braking capacity is available. Bicycle brakes have not yet been fitted with even a simple type of “servo” system. used for many years on motor vehicles to divert some of the retardation Friction and road between tire force into braking force.158 Some bit ycle physics = 0. . *The 1974 Paris bicycle show included a servo-action brake. the stopping capacity of the brakes depends directly upon the “grip” (or coefficient of friction) of the tires on the road. of course. center and m] above the ground (Figure 8.* If we assume that an an appropriate force can be applied to the brakes and the blocks have been proportioned so that the blocks or linings do not “fade” on account of heating. There- fore the surface area is more than adequate. To determine not the braking reaction is important.8 to 0.667 hp/sq in. particularly during strong braking. For pneumatic-tired vehicles. II. It is necessary in addition in determining the distance in which the vehicle can be to be able to apply an adequate force to the brake system.1 times the force between tire and road. Longitudinal stability The weight 0’: the bicycle and rider does not divide itself equally between the two wheels. This is less than one-tenth ing allowed in automobile-brake of the average loadpractice. braking at half the acceleration of gravity. and especially for the front wheel.067 m] and the center of gravity of the rider and machine [ 0. The adequacy of the braking surface fitted to a vehicle is. [Q 371 X IO6 watt/m21 .432 m] in front of the rear-wheel 45 in.4). [ 1. according to whether is dry concrete or wet ice.143 is 17 in. only one factor stopped. especially in wet weather vbhen the coefficient of friction is greatly reduced. this grip the surface varies from 0.
newton] . ~ the front-wheel reaction Rf when stationary or when riding at constant speed is given by Rf X 42 in.1 Ibf [837 by subtraction: Rr = 11. .. a total braking force of 100 Ibf [444 a 8 newton] (0. The front-wheel reaction Rf around point 2 in the figure is now Rf A42 in. = 200 Ibf X 17 in. So the rear wheel is in only light contact with the ground. The . Therefore Rf = 81 Ibf [360 newton] . R. where the reaction has been calculated around point 1 in the figure. Only a slight pressure on the rear brake will cause the rear wheel to lock and skid.81 = 119 Ibf [ 529 newton].5g braking. Center o$ gravity ..159 Braking of bicycles Figure 8.4 Assumed configuration for braking calculations. During the 0.1 Ibf = 188. = 200 Ibf X 17 + 100 Ibf X45 in.5 X total weight) acts along the road surface.9 Ibf [ 53 newton] . = 200 . Rf = 81 Ibf + 107.
Therefore of 0. and having the center of gravity sufficiently !ow or rearward in relation to the wheelbase for there to be no danger of the rear wheels lifting:3 [initial distance (ft) = speed (mile/h)] + coefficient 2 of . For this reason-and many others-bicyclists “tail gate” motor vehicles.5s (16.8 then they are theoretically capable of a deceleration of 0. In practice. which is 60 percent greater than that of a bicyclist with the best possible brakes.5g even were at of friction brakes which operinsufficient to ate on the rear wheel only. Minimum braking disshould never tances for stable vehicles If it is assumed that the slowing effect of air resis tance is negligible.160 Some bicycle physics front brake has to provide over 90 percent of the total retarding force at a deceleration if the tire-to-road coefficient the high level of 0. greater distances are needed for braking than those based on the formula a!onq with an assumption of good grip of tire on its track. If the tire-to-road coefficient of friction is 0. if their brake brakes are adequate they can theoretically to the maximum limit of tire-to-road adhesion. Another conclusion from this calculation is that a deceleration of 0. 30 coeificient ( of adhesion rolling resistance > Table 8.9 ft/sec2 L5.56gt17.45 m/sec21 1. however reliable and effective in themselves.* Tandem riders and car drivers do not have this limitation.1 ft/sec2 [4. a relatively simple formula can be used to estimate the minimum stopping distance of a vehicle fitted with adequate braking capacity.91 m/sec2] ) is almost the maximum which can be risked by a crouched rider on level ground before he goes over the handlebars.2 gives calculations for various speeds of a pneumatic-tired vehicle and a railway train. .8. are wholly take care of emergencies.89.1 gives typical values for the coefficients and Table 8. The *The deceleration at which this occurs-when the rearwheel reaction is zero-is about 0.
1. Practical values for railway trains are included for comparative purposes. ft Speed.2.8 .0.4 0. M. of adhesion and rolling resistance Surface Concrete or asphalt (dry) Concrete or asphalt (wet) Gravel. Ross.2 of Coefficient rolling 0.0.161 Braking of bicycles Table 8. 321.0.5 4 5.7 10 16 36 64 100 145 Safety code cycle 3 8 16 24 Safety code car Rairw? v’ train.7 0. The other distances for pneumatic tires are quoted from Road Safety Codes.014 of Sources: Reference 2. p.3 0. pneumatic tires.0. All values are for stopping on dry concrete. loose Ice Coefficient adhesion 0. practical. England. 1966. Nuneaton. cars.014 0.7 0. mile/h 8 10 12 16 20 30 40 50 60 Formula 2.14 .1 . J. Stopping distance.85. ft 40 60 80 120 160 260 510 850 1300 20 45 80 125 185 /Vote: The adhesion coefficient used for calculated stopping distances is 0.6 . Stopping distances for bicycles.3 . G. Carr and M.02 0. rolled Sand.014 0. “The IVIRA single-wheel rolling resistance trailers.0. Warwickshire.” Motor Industries Research Association.4 . Table 8. Coefficients (motor car). . and trains.9 0.0.
I 162 Some bicycle physics railway figures indicate that if an adhesion coefficient of 0.7 and it may be assumed that the same “service factor” Braking on the rear wheel only applies to bicycles. starting from 20 mile/h [8.4. gives braking found in Let us see what braking distance we may expect if the same rider and bicycle studied earlier. t. These are also about twice those c. The roadsafety-code performance figures have been well checked by the Road Research Laboratory. where it was found that a little better than 26 ft [8. .8. Let us take the moments of forces (torques) about point 3 in Figure 8.4 Table 8. Then the maximum retarding force is 0. We assume that the rear brake is strong enough to lock the wheel if desired. the 1963 report of which gives details of measurements carried out on “pedal cycles” of various types as well as many-types of motor vehicles. where R.1 is assumed. If the rider sat well back over the rear wheel he would be able to shorten the distance a little further. the formula distances of about half those normally practice. evidence obtained from spot checking indicates that the average motor vehicle on the road needs about twice the quoted code distances for braking under specified conditions. brake with the rear brake only to the limit of tire adhesion.8 X R..6 The braking distances listed for bicycles confirm the calculations made above.14 m] was possible for stopping from 20 mile/h [8.llculated from the formula (with an assumed adhesion coefficient of an achievable magnitude under very good circumstances).2 includes distances quoted in British road-safety codes’ for best performance of pneumatic-tired vehicles.94 m/set] . However.94 m/set] without overturning.. is the perpendicular reaction force at the rear wheel This rear-wheel reaction force R.‘“r. and that the coefficient of friction p between the tire and the road surface is 0. UK. is somewhat less than the value during steady level riding or when stationary because the deceleration results in more reaction being taken by the front wheel..
8.3 newtons].=-- mg SC X 25 in.256.0.163 Braking of bicycles Under the assumed static conditions chine is in equilibrium: the ma- R. for g. F=“a.0.000 78 Ibf = 64. m = 200 Ibm L90.2 Ibm ft!lbf 32. and ~1 = 0.0.+~RrX45in. that this value is a little over .72 kg]. 32. using the front brake to the maximum.1 Ibf [285.0. gc a a -= g J-gc -Pm& I m .1 Ibf 200 lbm = .) 200 X 25 Ibf = (42 + 36) = 5. + 0. a = .X42in.2 Ibm ftjlbf set* X 25 in.2 ft per set*.5 g). the rider would go over the handlebars.. 32.2 ft/sec* set* m So the retardation is just about half the value at which.256 g. where we have assumed the sea-level value. (42 in.2 ft/sec* Rr = 32.Wrgc mg z.8 X64. 200 Ibm X 32.8 X 45 in. Then the deceleration as a ratio of gravitational acceleration is given from Newton’s law. (We know .
3). Wet-weather braking Wet conditions affect both road adhesion and.56 2= 52. . the wet wheel would turn an average of 30 times with full brake pressure applied before the coefficient of friction began to rise.2 ft (15. For brake blocks of normal size and composition running on a regular 26-in. as might occur during actual riding in very wet conditions.’ The most significant findings from these two sets of experiments were as follows.” Moreover.’ Cars are generally like the exto with weather-proof drum brakes and are not affected by wet weather to anything tent that are bicycles.256 X 32.91 m). [equivalent to 650 mm] diameter plated steel wheel. Experiments using laboratory simulate wet-weather equipment braking of a bicycle wheel have also been carried out.0.(88/3) ft/sec = 3. Braking distances for bicycles are approximately quadrupled fitted in wet weather. .5). This recovery was possibie only if no water was being added to the brake blocks or rims after brake application. and a further 20 turns were necessary before the full dry coefficient of friction was attained (Table 8. a longer stopping distance is likely because a deceleration level sufficiently beiow the limit where skidding starts would be chosen.2 ft/sec* The stopping distance is given by Vl + "2 S= 2 f=3 8Y 3. the brake grip on the rim. with bicycle rim brakes. tests at Massachusetts Institute of Technology showed that the wet coefficient of friction was less than a tenth of the dry value (Figure 8. Therefore the stopping distance is about twice braking.56 sec.164 Some bicycle physics The time taken for this deceleration as before by vl =-at. In that for reasonably safe front-wheel practice.. _ t is given .
nickelchromium plated. Rim material: steel. 0.Braking of bicycles Figure 8. 0. c. 3 .2 0. Data from reference 1.6 of sliding friction.8 dry .1 0. .: 2 0.5 Wet versus dry brakingfriction coefficients.I 2 iz % w s .f& t. El ‘i= u ‘r: YF 0.0. black rubber 0.4 Nominal coefficient 0. 0 z .
speed. Test-rig data on wet operation of rim brakes.24 0.27 0.3. page 32.95 0. mile/h 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 TO 10 10 10 10 10 10 Friction Run material C-l C-2 C-3 C-4 C-5 C-6 C-7 E-l E-2 E-3 E-4 F-l F-2 F-3 F-4 F-5 F-6 R-451 R-451 B.34 30 20 50 Point 1 (wet start) 2(prerecovery 1 3(recovering) 4lrecovering) 5(recovering) 6Irecovering) 7(recovered) Turns of wheel before onset of recovery Turns of wheel during recovery Total turns to recovery Source: Reference 1. wet-dry.19 Oil!3 0.20 0.12 0.55 0.33 0.Some Lkycle physics Table 8.34 0.05 0. Equ iv. MIT Tests on brake block materials. P 0. Braking force Ibf 22 22 26 31 35 39 44 Coefficient of friction.27 0.4.45 0.44 0.09 0.17 0. rubber R-4528-4 Maple Lockheed R-451 Cork Aa Cork A Cork A Cork A Cork Bu Cork B Cork A Cork B R-451 R-451 Nature of run Average pdry 0.05 0.50 0.17 0. 19 January 1971.0.56 during rec’y Erratic recovery wetC wetC dry wet-dry 0.24 0.16 0.67 - Average pwet pwet p&y - Turns to recovery Remarks /A= 0.30 0.39 at 12O’F dry wet-dry wet-dry wet-dry wet-dry wet-dry wet-dry dry wet dry wet dry Wet - 0.50 0.18 0.25 0.43 0.28 0. aorientation A: Layers parallel to friction face bOrientation B: Layers perpendicular to friction face CAf ter a 48-h soak .10 0. nature of run.20 0.46 50 55 54 42 25 53 pmax . 34.17 0.17 0. Run C-2.63 0.42 0. Table 8.79 0. p.17 70 Source: Reference 1.37 0.26 0.34 0.
can be seen that regular bicycle brake blocks (“Brubber”) have the highest dry coefficient of friction and the by lowest wet coefficient tested. days are also desirable. L5. in turn. along with more rigidity It has been found that even when surfaces roll upon one another.5 and Table 8. however “hard.” do create cavities at the points of contact. This phenomenon is rooted in the fact that the surfaces. Virtually no present brakes allow adjustment without resort to wrenches through the whole range of brake-block wear. Attempts “dimpled” wet-weather of all materials to improve the wet friction cutting various grooves in the blocks or by using steel rims were unsuccessful. However.12 With soft surfaces. are pronounced the comfortable Although but are well worth riding produced.4. materials were investimany of the materials it and the results are shown on Figure 8. found that by the these in to the performance can be improved The Road Research Laboratory use of brake blocks longer than the usual 2 in. of course. The longer rear-cable mechanism can. a certain amount of “slipping” takes place which. pointed out that the rear brake requires less actuating force than does the front if locking (skidding) is to be avoided.1 cm1 .” Softer blocks than are common the brake mechanism and in the attachment frame of the brake itself.167 Braking of bicycles A number of different gated at MIT. Although are brake materials designated only by numbers. decrease the force applied it has been by a rider at the blocks by 20 percent compared with that at the front brake. and this leads to a!te:nate compression and expansion of the materials at these points and. the effects with where vehicle tires are concerned efficiently are essential for the good grip of motorcar . because of extra cable friction. functioning tread patterns tires expenditure putting up because of of energy. as a consequence. a lack which leads to extremely dangerous conditions in bicycles ridden by the less mechanically Adhesion of tires able persons. leads to frictional losses.
Data given in some tests suggest that no apin the grip of a tire on the road could be expected from any At low speeds of under 20 under wet conditions mile/h i8. Figure 8. The passage of time has proved his surmise correct in that research workers have shown that for a given oxygen eonsumption a pedaler can resist power supplied by an animate or inanimate prime mover to a greater efficiency than he performs with ordinary pedaling. Sharp14 concluded that muscle physiology played an equal part with mechanical motion.168 Some bit ycle physics on the road under high-speed wet conditions. appears that at the low speeds used by bicycle riders bicycle-tire preciable variation design alteration. and riders slow down by trying to “back pedal” on the “fixed-wheel” (the rear wheel is not fitted with any device that allows free wheeling).‘5*‘” A now classic experiment vividly demonstrated cost for forward of a normal ergometer in energy pedaler being resisted by a pedaler in reverse this difference pushing as distinct from resisting. and men running down stairs and steep slopes experience a similar muscular action. in the course of his writings on the subject. He devised the interesting chart.” work. The idea that the rider should perform work to destroy energy has intrigued many people since the early days of bicycling.13 requirements it are not so strin- gent.6. Much discussion was devoted in the past to arguments about muscular actions concerned with forward and backward pedaling by comparison. Indeed this prediction is verified by the but slightly corrugated manufacture. reasons for this matter theory are still being under . track bicycles have no separate brakes. Horse-drawn vehicles have braked in this way for thousands of years.94 m/secj nearly smooth patterns of tread should suffice.the heading of tire surfaces of racing tires used over many years of cycle-tire The basic physiological involving muscle-action debated in the literature “negative work.” sometimes called “eccentric . Braking by means of back-pedaling As stated earlier.
mile/h weight of machinn and rider (180 lb1 resistance.6 Power expended in back pedaling. Intercepts of power curves with the horizontal axis show terminal downhill speeds for each gradient. From reference 14. I bf power expended. rise per unit distance along slope . g is the gradient expressed as percentage/l 00 (for example.5). has tc be exerted in back peualing goes through a maximum.12 is 1 in 8. The solid lines are power curves./1 I I 169 Braking of bicycles Figure 8. Between these velocities and zero velocity the “negative” power that. ft I bf/sec gradient. -- downhill r ! / P=gR speed. The dashed lines are resistance curves and represent rolling plus aerodynamic drag. 0.
A dicfionary of applied Macmillan and Company. Sharp. pp. Sir Richard Glazebrook. The theory of machines Arnold. Cambridge. B. 320 and 353. and J. 7. Kempe’s engineer’s year book. 1899. Morgan 6. 10. Massachusetts. 1922). 1952. 13.” CTC 15. M. Exercise physiology. I I (London: Brothers. F. Ibid. (New York: Academic Additional recommended reading (London: Edward . Falls. pp. Hanson. Brenda Bigland. See reference 6 above. 14.” MS thesis. Ritchie. 8. “Back-pedalling Gazette. 1952). mechanical-engineering department. Ibid. vol.” February 1957. Ibid. Kay. pp. 11. vol. “Research on road safety. 1953. See references 1 and 6 above. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. London. 3. A. 292-294. pp. “Safe cycling. Her Majesty’s Stationery 9. See reference 6 above. 12.” Office. See reference 1 above. R. 380-390. and muscular action. June 1971. 16. C. 1968). 2. London. Brian D. 117. “Wet-weather-effective bicycle rim brake: an exercise in productdevelopment. Ibid. Press. B. Abbott.Some bit ycle physics References Chapter 8 1. 5. Her Majesty’s Stationary Office.” Journal of physiology. 4. physics (London: editor. 500-50 1. 19621. “The physiological cost of negative work. H.
Regency Dandies. These were inherently normally needed no balancing on the part of the occupant. because they failed to expiain commonly experienced aspects of bicycling. J. McGaw. called then a hobby horse according to the title of the poem attached (Figure 9.Bicycle balancing and steering The earliest man-propelled as three or four-wheelers road vehicles appeared closely resembling the stable in that they lighter horse-drawn carriages of the period of 1700 onwards. They were. This 18th-century vehicle did not survive into the 19th century. Denis Johnson. and others and called by various names. like their animal-drawn counterparts. the first single-tracked two-wheeled man-propelled vehicles were without a means of steering. lasted only during a time during the early years of the 19th century. An illustration from an early book on cycling by H. it was ousted by steerable two-wheelers devised by various inventors such as Baron von Drais de Sauerbrun. The two wheels were fixed rigidly in one plane. Analyses of bicycle stability In the early days of the bicycle. particularly among bicyclists. In contrast. H. These are all now covered by the earlier name of “hobby horse. T.” These ma- chines. mathematicians of its unique type which they were much favored as novelties by the Two early analysts were F.4 None of their theories were widely accepted. Whip- pie’ and G. fitted with a steerable front wheel or pair of wheels. were intrigued with the theory of motion. as is described in any of the books on the bicycle such as that by Griffin. Does a bicyclist balance by steering into the fall? Is caster action necessary for balance? Are gyroscopic effects in the front wheel important? . Griffin’ shows an outline of such a vehicle.1). W.3 and they were followed later by such renowned figures as Timoshenko and Young.
E’en great men sometimes have me handy ! M’ho. _ I 172 Some bicycle physics Figure 9.d’. when on me they get astride. Reproduced YE HOBBY-HORSE. (Yet. I am a toy. Contrived to please some active boy . ‘( Though some perhaps will me dcspisc. But I amuse each Jack O’Dandy. think themselves wise. I 787. Think that on Pegasus they ride.1 Hobby horse. nevertheless.) Sometimes. ‘tis true. . Others my charms will highly prize.” Coutzty Migaz23ze.
. 2. Jones disproved some hypotheses about balancing and steering.3. He drastically changed other aspects of the steering geometry. or when a curved path is being followed. Experiments have. with two wheels that faithfully direct motion along the plane of the wheels. Tire slip: when there is a side force on the wheels. or when the bicycle is being ridden along a sloping surface. while today steering angles are about seventy degrees with the wheel-road contact point trailing behind the extrapolation the steering line (Figure 9. on the angle between the plane of the wheei and the ground. and other factors. Steering angle and trail: early bicycles had a steering angle of ninety degrees and no trail. A research scientist. on the tire pressure. as shown in Figure 9. A simple approach to mathematical modeling would simulate the rider and machine as a single rigid mass. but this moment is affected by bicycle angle. such as when there is a side wind. The angle of slip depends on the ratio between the side force and the normal force. This complicated of geometrical arrangement produces a self-restoring moment when the wheel is turned. But he could still balance and steer quite easily. Typical graphical relations for the slip angle are shown in Figure 9.4). Only when he locked the front-wheel steering and attempted to steer with the rear wheel did he produce a machine that defeated his efforts to remain balanced. He concluded that the subject was far more complex than mathematicians had first assumed.2. set out to build an “unridable He reversed the front fork to nullify He fitted a counter-rotating fork to nullify gyroscopic caster action. bicycle. picture in at least the following 1. path curvature. David E.Bit ycle balancing and steering The theories did not answer these questions. and on the tire construction. Jones. the tires “slip” in the direction of the side force. but he was not able to substitute a simple theory of his own.“5 H. wheel on the front effects. An actual machine-rider combination differs from this simple respects.
Reproduced from reference 7.2 Typical bicycle-tire slip angles for various inclinations.1 T’ 174 Some bit ycle physics Figure 9.l ? Y 2 8 E x E 0 w i 9 8 0.6 0.2 0 .4 0. 0.
ic) Boneshaker. (a) French &&if&e. Reproduced from reference 1. Bit ycles and tricycles (London: Longmans.3 Straight forks used in early bicycles. Reproduced from A.L‘----: (b) . Sharp. 1816. 148. Green & Company. (a) - ~--. 1896).Bicycle balancing and steering Figure 9. 2 -i- _ - --- --_-. 1820.. (b) English Dandy Horse. 1869. p. Reproduced from reference 1.
4 Geometry of the offset front fork. Figure 9.- EXPERIMENTAL EXPERIMENTAL RUN #l RUN #2 SIMULATED BICYCLE I 0.5 I 1. ab = y = fork offset be = z = trail y=z This geometry gives no rise or fall of the frame when the fork is 90”..’ .0 TIME (SEC\ I 1:5 1 2. Reproduced from reference 10. STEER AND ROLL ANGLES -7 A .0 ..176 Some bit ycle physics Figure 9./I---% ‘.5 Comparison of simulated and experimental bicycle responses after a steering torque disturbance. ab is tangent to wheel. Reproduced from reference 7.
and the hands gripConversely.‘j 4. or weight. are “sluggish. connection with a bicycle through handlebar while long-wheelbase bicycles. while others may hold their bodies at an angle to the plane of the bicycle. Bicycle mass: the mass. and the steering response is changed. Wheel moment of inertia: the higher the moment of inertia of the wheel. of a bicycle. such as tandems. 6. Rider . sponge-filled grips. for instance. 8. as was shown by Jones. Angle of rider: many riders try to hold themselves in the same plane as the bicycle under all conditions. Bicycle inclination angle: the angle the bicycle makes with the road significantly affects the steering forces and tire-slip angle (Figure 9. a ping the metal of the handlebars. In doing so they produce a bicycle inclination angle different from that which would be given if the rider center of mass remained in the plane of the bicycle. the crotch firmly on an unsprung saddle. a different response. and rubber- . and a different initiating the response. or more particularly the relation of the rider mass to the mass of the machine. 9. the higher is the gyroscopic torque produced when the plane of the wheel is turned. have influence on steering behavior.” for obvious rider may have a much looser or more flexible a deeply sprung saddle. 7. 5. by moving the handlebars. Rider steering response: the bicycle rider responds to perceived changes in balance. affects the steering behavior. Human beings are extremely Each rider has delay before complicating adaptable in the analysis of steering behavior of bicycles plus their responses. particularly when riding around a curve. and the relative position of the center of mass of the rider. thus further riders.bicycle connection: the bicycle may be ridden with the feet in toe clips.2).I// errcycre oarancmg ana steering 3. and the point at which this center of mass is located. Rider mass: the mass of the rider. Wheel base: short-wheel base bicycles are said to be “responsive” reasons. 10.
or his feet off the pedals. An example of the simulation and of angles measured from an instrumented rider and bicycleais shown in Figure 9.178 Some bit ycle physics tread pedals. ably ineffective Mathematical in the steering bearing these are probably analysis is understandsimulaby Roland7 the re- factors. Or he may ride with his hands off the handlebars. The short-wheel base configuration was better behaved at low speed and showed a damped oscillatory response with only one-half the amplitude of steer correction which was found to be needed in the long-wheelbase configuration. The results of Roland’s study at Calspan were that bicycle speed has a more pronounced of the system.) was found to be the single parameter Wheelbase having the greatest effect on stability.45 m/set] . Normally. All configurations while all showed an oscillatory at 6 mile/h [2.47 m/set] the difference between the two configurations be- . (Obviously [6. This ‘Pistby no means exhaust the components that contribute to bicycle-riding characteristicsfor instance. the springiness of the bicycle frame. Many of these factors in such a system.71 m/set] bicycles can form of instability be ridden at much lower speeds than 1 mile/h E0. In all these circumstances ponse of the machine varies. and the slack and friction are of some importance-but the most important are nonlinear. At IO miles/h [4.) The computer was programmed to provide not only graphical responses but also to illustrate the rider and bicycle in an elementary form as shown in Figure 9. side forces provided by rocket motors are hazards not often encountered on American roads. (Side-force loading was supplied by firing a small rocket motor attached to the bicycle frame.68 examined effect were . and the 6 mile/h limit reflected the choice of the rider-response characteristics. on stability than do any of the other components stable and weli behaved at 15 mile/h m/set] . has been the most comprehensive so far attempted and has shown considerable success. Computer A simulation tion is more appropriate.6.5. or his crotch off the saddle.
6 Computer graphics rendition of a bicycle and rider. .179 Bit ycle balancing and steering Figure 9. Reproduced from reference 7.
This computer with the exception have a comparatively Most experienced that the computer expectable simulation confirmed Jones’ findings that quite large changes in configuration. Fortunately bicycle frames have become relatively stabilized in design. as far as easing steering problems. This is not to imply very fact that the results seem so reasonable and gives confidence be applied to new and unsolved problems. once available. structors will still have to rely on the long experience now available for setting steering characteristics. This phenomenon is rare on large-wheel machines. for reasons other than steering characteristics. Jones small wheel. may have resided in the fact that the bigger wheel was less disturbed by uneven roads than was a roads are better. All that can now be done with frame design is to alter the head angle and fork offset. trail. and at 15 miles/h insignificant. Should small wheels be therefore tics. The virtues of the large front wheel. that the technique For is blowout The can other findings from the study. [6. creased stability. instance./l m/set] it was Reducing the steering trail also inbut reducing the total bicycle weight and increasing the height of the center of mass decreased low-speed stability. The variation.. obviously more effective and less expensive to find the answer to this question by operating a computer model than by experihuman lives. of using large front wheels in safety bicycles is not now acceptable to purchasers. of changes in the wheelbase. when a sudden front-tire experienced on a small-wheeled bicycle. Nowadays . banned? Or are there combicharacteriswhich would produce a failnations of steering angle. the machine frequently becomes unsteerable and the rider can be placed in great danger. small effect on ridabilitys8 riders would agree with the study was not worthwhile. menting with hardware and/or Frame and fork design If present-day mathematics gives little direct guidcon- ance as far as bicycle design is concerned. flat-tire safe system? It i.180 Some bicycle physics came smaller. and so forth.
181 Bit ycle balancing and steering showed that gyroscopic effects are not as important as Victorian advocates of the large front bicycles were the vogue the of the head (Figure 9. of fork offset and have led frame construc- head angle typified by those given in Table 9. The fork offsets and inclinations of the latter-type then became subjects for much debate and experiment in order to get a tolerably Many years of experience tors to adopt the combinations ridable bicycle. Bourlet gives a rather complicated formula” which assumes a limit of the of 2 to 3 cm to the sideways movement head of the bicycle. and the discussion is continued in reference 13 in which the original Bourlet relation is requoted. Bernadet” discusses the application of this formula.’ could be much effects of inclining the man-machine the basic steering phenomenon more complex than just ensuring that there be no rise or fall of the frame. In view of the observations put forward by Jones about the combination. One reason for the acceptability of these combinations could be that the turning of the front fork and wheel.1. gives neither rise nor fall to the frame. Figure 9. . of course. When front-driver little or no inclination movement designer generally put in a straight front fork and The feet. with the machine vertical. could supplement of the handlebar.4 (from Davison”) is given to show how the geometry of the fork and frame head angle can be related. the steering This action was lost machines wheel would have had bicyclists think.3). when rear drivers became the fashion.
[2 cm] considered reasonable 72 2.1. Fork offset Y (Figure 9.5 cm1 (27. 60) 70 2.5 in.59 Steer i ng angle a. p. C. .77 Note: In practice great accuracy in estimating the fork offset for a given steering angle is not justified because the sinking of the pneumatic-tired wheel alters the radius R of the wheel involved in the formulas above. Relationship between steering angle and fork offset. 2.7 in.-wheel) 75 1.36 where R is radius of wheel where e is the sideways movement of the framecaused by fork turning. degrees 68 Formula (reference 9) . This is recommendad to be very small with 0.8 in. [4. [2 cm1 the steering angle to satisfy the above equation is 75’ and the fork offset is about 1. Formula (reference 10. On this account it appears that recommendations based on the formula of A.8 in.3) in.Table 9.12 No rise or fall of frame occurs when fork is turned (27-in. Bourlet (reference 10) are very similar. Davison (reference 9) and that for 75O angle frame using the formula of C. wheel) With an e value of 0.
Advanced dynamics. 3. 13.” Forschung Ing Wes. 7.” The Automobile Engineer. 239.. 312-348. See reference 5 above.2 December 4. “Bicycle stability. 60. 1890). 1899.D. p. Whipple. 5. Young. H. Cyclotechnie. . H. Cyclesand Bell and Son. La bicyclette. thesis. l6. W. 10. J. ASME paper.” Ph. April 1970.. Inc. H. vol. p. Bourlet.” Calspan Corporation. E. “Upright frames and steering. Collins. E. fall 1973. Bernadet. pp. cycling (London: George 2. “A mathematical analysis of the stability of two-wheeled vehicles.. p. Davison.” Cycling. F. Delong. 30. Timoshenko and D. V. Fred. McGaw. Buffalo. Le Cycliste. pp. N. February 1899. “Computer simulation of bicycle dynamics. et sa forme. Jr.” PhysicToday. 9. 2. pp. 50-62 (translation by Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory. p. 18991. Y. Bicycling. Robert Neil. 8.20. 1963. Jones. G. 3 July 1935. R. 12. Le Cycliste. vol. Engineer (London). 1957). May 1972.183 Bicycle balancing and steering References Chapter 9 1. vol. 3440. 280-283. sa construction (Paris: Gauthier-Villars. E. (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. “The stability of the motion of a bicycle. vol. “The stability of the bicycle. 1915. C. S. 1898. pp. 1955. 228. H. T.” Quarterly Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics. C.. Additional recommended reading Bower. “L’etude de la direction. 13. George S. 21. Ibid. 19481. 11. 73.” pp. Dohring. 6. Griffin. Gazette. C.” September-October 1962. T. 30. “L’e’tude de la direction. A. University of Wisconsin. no. “Steering and stability of single-track vehicles. C.. D. 12. and 45. “Stability of Single-Track Vehicles. pp. Douglas Roland.” November-January 1973. See reference 5 above.
Rice. R. Los Angeles. A.” Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science. R. “The stability and control of motorcycles. Singh. 1965. A. G.. 10. Automobile Division. Crowthorne. “Fundamental characteristics of singletrack vehicles in steady turning. “Motorcycle handling dynamics and rider control and the effect of design configuration on response and performance. J. p. A. vol. 1951-1952. Translation No. 1970. “Investigations of the characteristics of a human operator stabilizing a bicycle model. 284-293. R. ’ ‘. XV I I. 1970. N. M. Road Research Laboratory. A.” Proceedings of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers. August 1971.” Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. R.” Intern. 13. ‘. 282-286 (M. “Advanced concepts of the stability of two-wheeled vehicles. R.D.” 6th annual conference on manual control. “Steering and stability of singletrack vehicles. no. R. thesis. 1972. Kondo. London. (prepared for the National Commission on Product Safety). p. Prague. Digvijai. M. “The dynamical stability of bicycles. Symposium on Ergonomics in Machine Design. 1922. vol. application of mathematical analysis to actual vehicles. Sharp. vol. Hiroyasu. V. Pearsall. 1964. E. no. Ohio. 58. Weir. England. 9. 27. G. H. R. S.” Ph. no.” Bulletin of Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers. Wright-Patterson AFB. University of Wisconsin. and Roland. and Stassen. 1962. and Stassen.” University of California.Y. 34. RN/ 1605/JRM. Founda Manning. Wilson-Jones. Fu. “An evaluation of the performance and handling qualities of bicycles. D. 395. Calspan Corporation. D. 62167). 4. I. “Dynamics of single-track vehicles. Berkshlreg. 1967. “The stability of the bicycle. H. . pp. S. vol. Van Lunteren. pp. H.I’.” tion of Bicycle Technology Research. “Steering wobble in single-track vehicles. Buffalo. Van Lunteran.” VJ-2888K.” Automobil technische Zeitschrift.” Proceedings of the lnstitu te of Au tomobile Engineering.’ ir: : 184 Some bicycle physics Dohring. “On the variance of the bicycle rider’s behavior. July 1951.
reinforced with origin of which dates from the earliest of this type of construcvehicle soon instead of construction tion when applied to a man-propelled and tubular-steel with bearings which rolled internally. A high value of Young’s modulus the “rigidity. On this account. and because of the great publicity given to the successful use of more modern manmade materials in certain engineering applications. if expense were ignored. In simple language the Young’s niodulus figures give a measure of the elasticity. and. t5 be contemplated for bicycles. although smoother roads. critics of bicycle construction frequently say that bicycle makers are slow in taking up new ideas and that. Calculations show that in spite of the great . Table 10. Except for Young’s modulus the terms should be self evident. The shortcomings became apparent. and improved design have resulted in a reduction in bicycle weights to about one-third of that common for early machines. Properties of materials of construction Engineering science has advanced sufficiently for reliance to be placed upon the results of certain standardized tests when used to calculate is appropriate whether or not a certain material for a given machines could be structure. better steels.” signifies a stiff material. appeared in the 1870s.1 lists the most important characteristics of some materials of construction !ik+. In general there has been no basic change in this attitude toward the basic principle of bicycle construction. hence. rubbing. aluminum alloys.10 Materials of construction for bicycles The makers of early bicycles used “traditional” materials of construction-woods metals-the vehicles. better (generally meaning lighter and “faster”) made. Almost a century has passed since the design philosophy mentioned above was first estab!ished.
35 25 3.30 37-49 50 5-7 4-5 4-5 Elongation failure.* X lo6 10 10 15 20 18 28 6. percent ai Specific gravity 2.75 4.0 8.9 7. England: Emmott & Company.9. beech.2.6 2.2.5 .1.8 .-. Sources: Kempe’s engineers hand book (London: Morgan Brothers. 1967).5 .5 . Material Aluminum Duralumin Copper Nickel Cast iron Wrought iron Magnesium alloys Titanium Mild steel High-tensile steels Stainless steels Ash.9 1.5 7.186 Some bicycle physics ---.4 38-45 8 25 11-20 40 28 . Table 10.8 8.3 3.6 .5 80- 100 0.88 1.8 . 1962).158. Mechanical world year book. pine..8 7. Properties of materials of construction (typical approximate Young’s modulus Ibf/in.19 1.5 0.75 0.44 values).5 1.* 5-9 26 13. p.30 lo40 20 . 1967 (Manchester. oak Polymethylmethacrylate Nylon Glass-fiberreinforced epoxy Glass fiber Tensile strength tonf/in.0.3 1Q 3.14 20.12 16-30 14-22 20 12..8 7.5 15.8 30 30 27 1.7.2 7.0 . .7.3 1.
At present. A fair example The steel structures are also less bulky when structures of given rigidity are compared. chains. steel is the least expensive material for making a bicycle. In all the discussion above it has been assumed . It is inter- esting to note that celluloid times. In the majority of circumstances the costs of the raw materials for manufacture affect the choice. plastic components show serious drawbacks compared with corresponding metal parts. have lately made great advances toward producing competitors to metal parts where silence of running and light weight are important factors. The surface treatservice are ments necessary to ensure satisfactory minor operations compared with the plating or enameling processes inseparable from the use of the steels. nonmetallic parts may have considerable advantages over metal parts. and aluminum also appeared and disappeared. and gearwheels in nonmetallic materials production When is added. A feature of the newer metals and plastics when compared with steel is their greater resistance to atmospheric corrosion. in chemical plants. of this is the case of crank-sets in the various aluminum alloys which are always large compared with high-class steel sets. Plastic bearings must be made with larger clearances than . plastic may win a place because of Fabricators of machine parts in plastics. When applied to most conditions of bicycle ujage. in particular. the high Young’s modulus of the steels p:rts them in the forefront for produci!lg a structure which must have the minimum -a most desirable feature flexibiiity par unit weight in bicycle construction. that cost was not a factor.181 Materials of construction for bicycles tensile strength per unit weight of the competitors. for instance. the cost of manufacture high-strength the automated Bearings. it is possible that this material allows. If corrziion resistance matters greatly as. On this account the use of the newer materials for the less stressed parts of bicycles has been fairly satisfactory to be experimented use in Victorian and will no doubt continue mudguards were in structures with in various ways.
and the complete drive for a bicycle would weigh more than a modern steel chain drive.04 shows a comparecl greater resistance to movement with a reasonably good ball bearing’s performance of 0.-wide teeth at least) ano hence cumbersome. Great enthusiasm was expressed in an article by a well-known cycle designer. a very hard plastic.01. Several firms now make plastic chains and toothed reinforced rubber belts. and some complete parts. Apparently manufacturers have now realized that with machines for adult use there is no doubt that the buyers will not accept plain bearings in plastic or. However.” No doubt users of plain bearings fitted to machines in the . plain metal bearings. T.” Nylon 66. F. I. is the most slippery material from which to make a bearing. E. polytetrafluoroethylene (P. published in 1955. as has been tried recently for pedals. it has been found that the compressibility of the plastic has caused a great deal of trouble. Although gear wheeis in nylon are successfully used for small hand-drills. Plastics of various types have since been used for bearings fitted to children’s machines. Cohen. There appears to be a realization that bail bearings are essential for an adult machine to ensure easy running and a reasonably long life without constant adjustment to avoid unsafe “slop. the fit is “sloppier. but its minimum fourfold coefficient of friction of 0. Such characteristics very unpopular may be of but little importance for general engineering usage but they are in the specialized cycle world. because of compared with the low strength of the material steel. It is probable that children are insufficiently discriminating about easy running in their bicycles and tricycles-and are parents not unhappy about the slolfling up of their children. it appears. have been marketed. that a nylon hub gear would be a very bulky object compared with the standard steel hub gear. such as small pedal frames. The chainwheels would likewise be very wide (%Iin.Some bit ycle physics plain metal bearings.’ for the use of a hard plastic. All need to be very large.) for bearings. that is.
in the form of an early Columbia bicycle.Materials of construction for bicycles 1870s to 1890s were glad to see their abandonment. to varying to molded-plastic Figures degrees 10. examples of wooden-framed bicycles dating by proud owners in rallies in addition type machines. introduced frames of wood with have been made at regular days of bicycle was by a large about of bamboo 10. In the 1870s metal construction but there was a regular in various forms.* A cane-framed bicycle appeared in Trieste in 1945. and wooden mudguards and sea: pillars were also not unkown) the wooden frame did not appear again until the 194Os. wood became more scarce than steel. an example of which South is still on show in the Science Museum. and 10. until Some bicycles were shown at the Stanley shows of this period with completely wooden wheels fitted with pneumatic tires. and present-day owning Frames in nonmetallic materials such machines veteran-cycle will endorse enthusiasts the opinion.3 Plastic moldings: Since the recent advent of relatively large moldings in plastics (sometimes fiberreinforced) market there have been several attempts bicycle frames.3. The Macmillan of “boneshaker” in 1839 and was followed drivers from resurrection including (Figure 1860.2. London Various Kensington.4 show that . An American example is on show in the Washington Museum. Woods: Bicycle intervals about number adopted. Wilde thought it to be a sound proposition and stated that the machine was rigid enough for satisfactorily riding up hills.1). the end of the century the use of wood tubes. to the more common to the 1890s are still ridden veteran-cycle “boneshaker” Although wood was used regularly up to the 1930s for the making of rims (both tubular and wired-on types. when it was thought that there was a case for saving metal for the war effort. 10. However. was mainly and have been ridden satisfaction “hobby-horse” rear-driver front since the earliest 1800.
1963.2 United States figerglassframe bicycle. From reference 8. Figure 10. p. 287.Some bicycle physics Figure 10. .1 Barn boo-f ramed bicycle.
3 British plastic-frame bicycle. .Materials of construction for bicycles Figure 10. Dutch plastic-frame bicycle. Courtesy Plastics and Rubber Research Institute.
The most unattractive feature of these tubes is that the joints have to be in the form of clamps.192 Some bicycle ph ys. a “Grafil” composite tube weighs less than a light-alloy actube of similar strength. exhibit one of the desirable properties of metals in that they do not stretch appreciably before breaking. a material ly advantages made from for general everyday which and is inexpensive.degree the lack of popularity frames has arisen from new polymers developed.cs thzse frames are rather framed bicycles bulky-a feature and other not found wooden- to such a degree in the bamboo marketed . lighter their and polymer-fiber stiffer. cording to one major manufacturer. Such materials are plastics reinforced with carbon fibers. However. also. giving a composite of varying properties. are certainresisAs are plastic frames will and. the fibers have to be embedded in plastics which are very weak by comparison. Only recently have nonmetallic materapproach ials been made which in tube form could metals if weight and bulk were taken into account. are not. mostly less attractive by far than those of the fiber. Although the properties of carbon fiders are well known. the properties of usable forms. To some of these’ molded bulky appearance.. the composite fiber structures have different properties “across the grain” than “with the grain. in particular. use in a frame is completely tant to corrosion Plastic tubular structures: The bulky shape of the plastic frame can be avoided if the frame is constructed in conventional lines using tubes fitted into joints. combinations become There less bulky. These fibers are now made and sold at reasonable prices and have tensile strengths better than strong steels and high Young’s modulus values. however. cause failure bicycle frame Adhesive joints are considered is liable to of a in the An example too weak and any drilling without fitted and riveting warning. over the years. The fibers do not. with the main tubing arced plastic form of carbon-fiber-reinf shown in Figure 10.” Also. tubes is . such as tubes.5.
metals for frames were introduced . innovators persist in advocating the use of other metals fat frame construction.5 Carlton frame with carbon-fiber-reinforced plastic tubes and aluminum lugs. both because and beof the inherently higher cost of the metal cause of higher manufacturing costs. Aluminum: The first innovations in nonferrous in the 1890s. In general the costs are several-fold higher than for steel frames of similar performance. Ltd. It appears that weight saving is the main object with a bonus in that the acceptable competitors of steel are corrosion resistant. Courtesy Raleigh Industries. Frames in metals other than steel In spite of the fact that very light steel frames about five pounds weight and used satisfactorily over a long period of and less have been made of cycling history in various arduous circumstances.Materials of construction for bicycles Figure 10.
2) published steel frame.5 Engineering with of the period a current comparison This shows that the balance for strength favor of the steel frame.’ : I.Horizontal Blow on Front Fork 3.172 Ibm 3. machine but a table of tests (Table 10. 1 .463 Ibm 1. ^^ .219 Ibm 5.2.I.268 Ibm 1. .4 There are no easily available in the journal strength records about the Lu-mi-num gives was in frames. .750 Ibm Failed at 845 Ibm 300 Ibm 1. The Beeston Wainwright Humber frame as very satisfactory with bicycle by was reported a statement that the whole machine-with gear-case.” ‘j” .275 Ibm 4.273 Ibm Source: Reference 5. _- . .344 Ibm Static Load along line of Chainwheel Steel Luminum Yielded at Load on One Pedal Steel Luminum 2.. Since the introduction many other from Continental factories.250 Ibm 4. of aluminum types have appeared on the market Because aluminum brazing was formerly not practicable. Tests on the “Lu-mi-num” Carried Static Load on Crank Bracket Steel 2.’ 194 Some bicycle physics Aluminum was used both in the tubular form by Humber (with lugs which gripped the tube-ends) and by the manufacture of the Lu-mi-num made in France of cast alloy. various designs of lugs have been used to grip the tubes via corrugations clamping or internal plugs. lamp.600 Ibm 1.544 Ibm Steel Luminum 1.623 Ibm 4. and tools-weighed only 27 lbm.438 Ibm 4.775 Ibm Static L oad on Saddle Steel Luminum alloy frame.575 Ibm Impact Test . ..925 Ibm Luminum 2. Crippled at 4. The most recent type of lug can be seen on the make Table 10.
. but it is both and rigid and can be welded satisfactorily. alloy report them sudden using also stems. which of the 1930s which various used oc- In addition welded-joint of heat- frames have been marketed heating metals. in the case of the commercial production of a once very costly metal it is being thought seriously of as a usable metal for bicycle Titanium available equipment frames. of stainless and highsteels. Satisfactory . strength Titanium: bicycle recent with chromium. in various alloy compositions aircraft methods is now for corrosion-resistant and for high-speed welding heavy engineering and comusing inert- pressors. (It will be noted that the Young’s modulus values for aluminum alloys are one-third of that of steel. do not in general have a “yie!d point” (a relatively failure. so thicker-than-expected to give rigidity.) Nickel: Nickel tubing tubing had to be used followed the use of alumi- num in the 189Os. failures large degree of stretch) frequently handlebar before final and bicyclists of handlebars. however. metal compared was and is an expensive steel.. like most other nonferrous materials. existed for but a short while during the bicycle-boom Nickel with period when cost was of strong less importance. that the manufacture of the special lugs as fitted to the Humber and Coventry Eagle (of 1930s date) were very expensive and the whole frame in general weighed but little less than a steel frame. The history of the use of aluminum itself Within a decade of the for frames is repeating use of titanium. The firm manufacturing the frames. no doubt in an attempt to produce a “rustless” frame. It is seldom used in its pure form but is a major component. in spite of the bad has on the properties Aluminum alloys. and seat from It is probable posts which aluminum tend to discourage more generally. 195 Materials of construction for bicycles named Caminargent tagonal effect treated tubing.
but the Young’s modulus values for titanium are one-half of that of the steels. corrosion proof. for bicycle usage.85 and is not in the same advanced state of development. Titanium has a specific gravity about half that of steel and is. strength to avoid weld deterioration and suitable tubing of about have been the tensile of steel can be so joined. Ltd them for about g130 or the equivalent. To date there is no published information about riders’ opinions of the riding characteristics of titanium frames.Some bit ycle physics gas shielding developed. it should be less rigid. An alloy termed Elecktron was used fairly satisfactorily for making bicycle rims in the 193Os. Reports possible saving of weight to date emphasize the as compared with similar aluminum-alloy structures but stress also the low ductility. The mass of the frame and fork was advertised as 3% lb [I.000 is currently titanium frames with Gear Case Co. which to some extent compensates for the relatively low tensile strength and very low Young’s modulus values which are one-fifth of that of steels. . The Speedwell of Birmingham 10. Hence. but there have been no further applications in cycle manufacture.25 kg] Cycle Show for sale-the (1973) tubing and to put in 1956. unless the structure is designed differently or incorporates extra thicknesses where required. high cost. As a consequence it was possible for the firm of Phillips to produce a fairly conventionally shaped bicycle frame weighing were offered 2% lb [ 1. The ultimate tensile strength of the tubing the standard used is probably similar to that of steels used for frames. The former are well developed and have an attractively low specific gravity of about 1. and poor machining qualities.7.7 kg] which is heavier than the Phillips’ frame. price wouldproducing and selling it on show at the London No models have been high. Beryllium is a lightweight metal of specific gravity 1. Magnesium and beryllium metals likely alloys: The only other to be considered for bicycle-frame construction are magnesium and beryllium alloys.
These designs were pioneered by the cycle industry and not copied from some other branch of current engineering practice. There was a rapid rejection of the practice common to other structural-engineering practice . We can expect in using other and again corrosion-resistant be advantages for metals precision methods unit-construction avoid machining. science and practical the closed-section conframe Current member mostly of round or near-round section assembled with rigid joints generally incorporating lugs. and in addition an accelerated progress in the ball-bearing-manufacturing industry. helped to launch siderations the aviation engineering established age. The tension-wire-spoked suspension wheel and hollow-metai-membered brazed-joint frame had by then ousted all others. This could avoid the use of bulky and weak joints and take full advantage of the fiber strength. on the to of there seems an urge to try out new and expensive The aims appear to be directed producing product a lighter and on the other one hand toward corrosion-resistant making a unit frame material. such as lost-wax This process is ideal for mass-production improvements in frame design and manufacture to give greater torsional stiffness. in steel and aluminum well-known parts. This pioneering led to the establishment of specialized industries.197 Materials of cons true tion for bicycles Conclusions and speculations Although much experience of bicycle alloy has been obtained along with with the manufacture tion of low-stress in relatively substances. and more instead of an assembly There might parts in an inexpensive nonmetallic which casting. such as mudguards nonmetallic materials. purposes.6e 7 Such improvements would enable an acceptable one-piece carbon-fiber-reinforced-plastic standardtype frame. present and future: Optimized designs for a lightweight bicycle wheel and frame were evolved by the 1870s. frames and accessoritis the produc(fenders). in a significant way. such as steel-tube manufacture. Design considerations. and so.
From the facts given above it appears likely that we already have a very nearly optimum shape for bicycles which material. It is interesting to compare the above weights with the weight of 8% pounds [3.5 kg] (Figures 10. therefore. when only acceptable. that the diamond shape of frame for most purposes based on sound distribution constructional metal is given by the fact that weight track racing bicycles can be built that weigh but 6% to about 10 pounds [3-4. 10. Before this standardization mostly constructed the 1890s there had been a multitude patterns. minimum apparent) weight they low wind goal of future and/or assures good distribution of weight. than steel must look for different and aluminum the designer latitude allowed Even if cost is disregarded in a quandary when attemptthe refuge structures of conbecause he has but little ing to use new materials.7. such as is of light- appear nowadays the modern Evidence chines or special machines small wheelers. rigidity If. The optimum members bolted at the frame shape also came early industry in the form in now called the diamond came about of frame more robust in the 1890s were ma- in the progress of the bicycle of the Humber frame. These skates represent a high degree of “weight paring” for a wheeled man-propelled machine. pattern. of much and heavier tubing than that desired lightweight reasonably machines in childrens’ Some of these early designs of frame incorporated for adult use.85 kg1 of a pair of pneumatic-tired roller skates shown in Figure 10.6. the in decrease designers is any further greater alloys. and (less obviously resistance. and Table 10. and yet complete bicycles have been made lighter. to most designers of engineering a change in materials when contemplating .198 Some bicycle physics of using channel-section joints. to alter the present designs.8. showing that there is a good approach to a minimum of metal and hence an optimum placing of the members. is placed materials or general durability. The steel-tubed frames of these machines must be very lightweight indeed.3).
standard. Industries Courtesy Raleigh of America. fourteen This featherweight eight pounds. (New Company. of that year. Reproduced with permission from story York: Riding high: & The of the Llicycle E.6 Lightweight 1895. ounces. ready to ride. ever built of 1895.7 The Raleigh Track Cycle. Figure 10. Professional 1974. Inc. weighed Perhaps the lightest was this Tribune at Madison New York. Dutton 1956). . P.Materials of constl uction for bit ycles Figure 10. National bicycle adult-size exhibited Bicycle Square of bicycle at the Exhibition Garden.
125. Pneumatic tires Modern track bicycle track bicycle Referee Steel James Tribune Steel Steel 1948' 1949d Sources: 6. bRiding high: The story of the bicycle p. 19561. Dutton & Company. p.8 roller Pneumatic-tired Table Date 10. Lightweight Weight. 10. 3 November 1949. Diamond-frame safety. 514.Some bicycle physics Figure skate. ‘Cycling. p. . dCycling. Makle Material of construction 1 8P.10. P. solid rubber tires High ordinary Diamond-frame safety. 7 January 1948.8a Cross-frame solid rubber safety. Ibf 155 steel-frame Type bicvcles. Legnano Rochet Steel & Alloy Steel & Alloy Modern ab’icycling News. 8 February 1888. (New York: E.3. tires Demon Steel 1 88sa 1 888a 1895b 19 11 8.
It appears that the use of standard steel tubing modern lightweight strong of near 22 gauge provides a safety factor above the yielding point of about three for distortion of the bracket through full-w>ight pedaling. new materials Young’s however. alone sections of members.201 Materials of cons true tion for bicycles struction original. jointing values with plastic carbon-fiber-reinforced The excessively sound plastic From the point poses most difficult deep members necessary for a in Figure resistance frame are illustrated of view of wind these cannot be said to be optimum. modulus To some degree all proposed the exception tubing. rial could with less desirable properties than the A low Young’s be compensated for bicycle modulus value for a mate- for by the use of deeper construction have low of This latter.2 for actual frames. being some ten t. problems.mes the threefold previously mentioned. Many examples are given by Sharp’ concerning the calculation of stresses in cycle frames for the cases of the more simple static loadings. Otherwise the member in the new material could be heavier than the steel counterpart. The safety margin for simple vertical loading on the saddle pillar is very large. 10.) tests on .4. (See Tab!e 10. Frames in titanium can be of a shape very similar to the standard steel pattern because the tubing thickness could be increased without disturbing the outward shape of the frame. Here again a precise balance must be reached between metal thickness andmaybe tube-outside-diameter increase to make a member as rigid as a steel member.
F. Davison. E.” Cycling. Bicycles and tricycles (London: Green & Company.” U. National Museum. Bulletin 204. Wilde. H. Longmans.” CTC Gazette. Hempstone Oliver Smith. p. 301. R. Cohen. W. Couzens. . 1968). p. J. 3. to metal.” Cycle Touring. S. 1896). July 1896. Whitt.” CycleTouring. “Technology transfer at B. vol. Design engineering plastics handbook Kent: Summit House Glebe Way). Middlesex. August-September 1967. and Yarsley. Gordon. Middlesex.Some bicycle physics References Chapter 10 1. “Polytetrafluoroethylene.S. F. 736. p. Government Printing Office. 157. G. Sharp. Whitt. 8.” March 1955. 7. Cycling. Washington. p. 212. 1953.” Engineering (London). p. “An early aluminum 11 February 1942. frame. 420. Additional recommended reading Bartleet. April 1972. 6. V. p. 1968).” Engineering (London). G. D. p.: U. E. R. (West Wickham.” Cycling. Wainwright. The new science of strong materials (Harmonsworth. C. vol. 113. “Aluminum cycles. S.C. 155-I 56. 31 I. 4. 210. 24 2. England: Penguin Books. 5. p. “A cane bicycle from Trieste. 22 December 1945. “Bicycles of the future. “Catalog of the cycle collection of the division of engineering. A.” Cycling. A.S.22 January 1971. J. pp. I. “The Lu-mi-num 19 February 1941. “Alternatives June-July 1971. 374. A. “Introducing science to a craft. England: Penguin Books. 138. bicycle. Plastics in the modern world (Harmonsworth. E.
Part I II Other human-powered machines .
is under less-than-optimum conditions. In addition to attempting to solve the problems associated with the use of vehicles on poor roads. [39 mm] crosssection is commonly used. [about 700 mm] wheel with a tire of about 1% in. inventors have tried to devise man-powered vehicles for other environments. and British roads. Machines for riding on water. spread development of bicycles walking though it is probable that wide- of better roads made the use The propulsive below that for rates and the Alrequires a twofold much more practical. on railways. mistakenly. Throughout the world. and as a consequence bicycle usage. Big wheels with a partial solution large to an as tires have also provided yet unsolved optimum design for agricultural and military vehicles. or in the air have been the targets of inventors ever since the practical nineteenth century bicycle appeared in the late its speed and demonstrated on good roads. the 28 in. at comparable power needed was then brought or running walking encumbrance of a machine became justifiable. which have to travel on poor surfaces. Most of the roads covering the world are made of bonded earth with relatively poor surfaces. by inventors to imply chat similar . some fiftyfold increase in resistance is experienced by a wheeled machine. particularly where roads are poor. on soft ground increase in effort compared with that needed on concrete. So on soils.11 “Off the road” vehicles Unusual pedaled machines As has been stated before. in general. The bicycles used on these roads are somewhat different from what is now the familiar pattern on good U.lm4 It is probable that the bicycle’s high efficiency under good conditions was taken.S. the advantages of a wheeled machine to a walker are diminished.
Modern form versions are seen at seaside resorts.206 0 ther human-powered machines performances very different Water cycles Through could be expected from its use in conditions. serious tandem it was popular early triplet According long abandoned construction. Courtesy of Currys. however.’ screw propellers. and oars can all be designed and used to give an applied power efficiency up to about 70 percent. with water water. Inventors have persevered over the years. man has been able to use to his great advantage wheeled with the minimum however. imparted to oars Howe ‘er. paddle wheels. of hard. can travel at only a quarter the speeds (at similar effort) of their land counterparts.5 is often that of side-by-side an arrangement bicycle-type ing machines.l . and many watercycles have appeared. to duplicate this achievement “smoother offered such as water surfaces and produce tance to movement and viscous medium pared with both submerged by a relatively is great comsuch as swim- that offered by air. smooth-surfaced in order to progress It is not possible. the kinetic energy Figure 11. As a consequence. Ltd. two-seater The pedalfor although of an 11 .” The resisdense the building roads. runners and bicyclists. machines of effort. in the 1870s. An illustration cycle is given in Figure to the Dictionary water of Applied Physics. . and floating mers and row boats. objects.1 Triplet water cycle.
207 Unusual pedaled machines in the forward rowing. boat rowed by good university cycle was the faster covered the same course in 22 hours by about 18 percent. Some evidence clusion is provided of the validity of the above conby an account7 of the perfor- mances of water cycles in their heyday of the 1890s. 10 to 20 percent streamlined hull have to be made for imperfectly The wetted surface for boats and water cycles designed to carry the same weight can be similar.000024 X [speed (knots) or Power (watts) I 2*86.287 X wetted X [speed (m/set)] surface *. for all three devices must be considered to be a rough approximation. of the thrust an angle to the direction have been able to exceed by a considerable of 70 percent above figure Screw propellers Therefore paddle wheels margin. features ciency and return strokes of motion. because an optimized screw propeller can perform at a much higher figure. Cooper and two others covered [162.*‘. A triple-sculls and 28 seconds. A triplet water cycle ridden by the exracing bicyclist 101 miles to Putney oarsmen vehicle F. (sq m) Some additions design and for wind of typically resistance. = 1. that for a given power boats and water should will travel by oars be or pedalers. The water . by screw propellers higher speed than those driven even though the differences small. is lost during is at both of which in effithe and a large proportion constitute inefficiencies. The power absorbed by water friction on the hull of a streamline-shaped boat can be represented approximately by the equation X wetted surface (sq ft) Power (hp) = 0. Hence it can be concluded input by the oarsmen cycles propelled at a slightly or paddles.5 km] on the Thames from Oxford in 19 hours 27 minutes and 50 secontrs.
208 Other human-powered machines Other facts about water The English cycles in this period Channel water ridden was crossed. Moulton of Michigan. “amphibious” machines These had floats the machine struct Ice and snow machines have been constructed which and ridden.47 by L. that when were so arranged was ridden on land they did not ob- its movement. In order to permit riding in water. .2.” A drawback to railway cycles is the general unavailability of unused lines. The dream of man-powered flight has inspired inventors in the past. the Victorians took quite seriously the idea of laying special cycle tracks alongside Air cycles the regular rail tracks in some areas.71 m/set] water cycle with reaching . attempts have been maSome types the front only In addition made to develop chines for running and popularize with bicycle-type on ice or on snow. cycle in 7% by girls on are interesting.’ a ski replacing consist of a bicycle the frame. Railway cycles The resistance running running to motion offered by a steel wheel wheels on a steel rail is very low indeed and less under optimum conditions of road use. by a tandem hours. Others dispense with the case of water wheels and retain cycles. U. to be capable of speeds of 10 mile/h All these performances compare favorably with oar-propelled boats rowed by the best oarsmen. A sextuplet the Seine is credited mile/h factured [6. In fact. high speeds are credited to this type of machine. there two skis attached.’ to water cycles. with side. It will probably continue to fire the imagination of men for some time yet. than that of the best of pneumatic-tired As a consequence. cycles developed for running on rails have been proved practical in the sense that they were not difficuh to propel. one on either is no published evidence concerning the speediness of these machines compared with skating or skiing. [4. Unlike wheel. An illustration of one type is given in Figure 11. “Hydrocycles” a speed of 15 were manuand said m/set] . Dover to Calais.
so far has appeared. Ltd. both serious and maniacal. mainly. irresistible. The terms of the Kremer prize preclude the use of bouyancy such as that given by a balloon or airship.Unusual pedaled machines Figure 11. As a consequence and individuals are. The whole process has been greatly accelerated by the promise of a prize ($120. the challenge has proved The design of high-powered airplanes progressed so rapidly after 1904 that the science of low-powered expected. the man-powered machine must use power in keeping itself and occupant(s) aloft. Courtesy of Currys. like other modern flying machines. engaged in unraveling the scientific problems associated with flight at low speeds and close to the ground. This is the great difference between progress on a supporting solid surface and flight through the air where an upthrust. with a competition still on for . attempts have been made to fly.C.2 Early railway cycle. flight was not. Since at least 1400 B. even now.000) for the first flyer(s) to complete a figure of eight over a distance of one mile. So. as well as the force to move forwards. as might be reasonably teams fully explored. must be developed The information by the propulsion published unit. as short articles in the daily press. by all types of constructors. unaided.‘lm2 5 As might be expected.
a large prize, constructional
secret. In general, the latest types of man-powered airplane differ from those tried out in the early of that period, 1900s and referred 6. H. Stancer.26 to by an observer
(Figure 11.3). He wrote as an observer of the trials in France of 199 entries that only some short designs include A present-day “jumps” a machine two-man were attained. with Modern wing machines. an inflatable
and at least a couple
of two-man-power machine
by students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is shown in Figure 11.4. Also the size of the machines is much greater than in the pre-World War ,I types, indicating a much lower lift pressure from the wing surfaces. Even today there is a difference of opinion about pusher and tractor types of propellers. Some helicopter types are still being constructed although, as yet, none have flown. A flapping-wing machine also exists. A machine developed in Germany in the 1930s “jumped” take-off,” 790 yards [720 ml , from an assisted thus achieving much more than did 1900s performing 7 at the Part in England are The latest efforts
those of the early de Princes trial. also better
A machine being built at Southhampton University made its first successful “jump” of 50 feet during its early stages of development.28 Puffin Aircraft Mark I, from Club and flown A week by John later, in 1961, Man-Powered Wimpenny, the Hatfield
flew 50 yards at a height of 5 feet.
An improved model in 1962 flew the greatest distance to date, about half a mile, in 2 minutes. Neither machine could attempt by the Kremer Prize conditions. the turn required These machines
have large wing spans of about 90 feet, which is similar to that of medium-sized airliners. The propellers of the successful machines are likewise large. Among the other promising designs from the 20 or so types being developed is that of a group at the University of Belfast, headed by Professor
:,,. C” __
1Jnusual pedaled machines
Early air cycle. Courtesy of Currys, Ltd.
The MIT man-powered aircraft. MIT photo by Calvin Campbell.
Other human flowered
T. Nonweiler.*’ two-seater. is required specified considered one with about portion achieved.
This is, like several other
So much concentration on controlling to execute the turns and other maneuvers by the Kremer better piloting prize conditions that it is by this group experience. that a “partial” preferably the (75 Ibm to protwo is with In addition, light
passenger be carried
for this purpose, although
weights of the machines,
160 Ibm [34 to 73 kg1 ), are a sizable of that of a man and therefore pro rata power per unit weight is not likely
men, a greater
It appears that sky cycling
to be a
cheap sport .3 ’ The cost of developing a machine, with some expectations of it being able to fly, is likely to be about $250 per pound weight of machine. This cost is more than that of standard airliners. Cost figures given for some single individual efforts, as distinct from products of teams, are, however, much lower. It is likely that any satisfactory machine will be comparatively large, so its storage and use will be limited to that provided by an airfield. As a consequence, extra costs for use will be invol\red, in addition to that of the machine itself. Although the development ably one of the least utilitarian in the history activity bicycle’s A pedal-driven lawn mower forms of bicycle one of the most interesting. long history. of air cycles is probtypes of endeavors it is technically of chapter in the The latest upsurge
an as yet unclosed
The rationale behind the design of the grass mower shown in Figure 11.5 was that the leg muscles would be used more efficiently in pedaling than in pushing a regular lawn mower, and the back and arm muscles ,would be relieved; that continuous mowing would be more efficient than the frequently used to-and-fro motion of push mowing; that a multiratio gear would enable individuals to choose whatever power-output rate suited them and would enable moderate slopes to be more easily handled; that shortages of gasoline and antinoise
Unusual pedaled machines
Diagram of the Shakespear pedaled mower. From reference 3 1.
restrictions and that
the use of power mower might
mowers; be fun as 11.6 was for
a pedaled model
well as good exercise. The original shown Institute in Figure designed and constructed of the Massachusetts Sturmey Archer his mechanical-engineering were incorporated type cutter differential left-hand is driven handlebar by Michael Shakespear
thesis.3 ’ A three-speed The reelto the the
hub gear, a brake, and differential into the transmission. directly from the input
drive to the rear wheels. Pulling lever releases a catch assembly
ables the cutter the handlebars
to be raised by pulling and so per-
back to a rear position
mits easy maneuvering. The prototype, constructed largely of scrap materials and components, was very heavy but still gave easy cutting. model Energy-storage bicycles might show real advantages. A lightweight
The concept of storing braking or downhill energy, or even energy pedaled into the machine while the rider waits at a traffic light, and then drawing cn the stored energy for burst of power up hills or for acceleration, is one which has intrigued inventors for many years. In every bicyclist there is a desire, however suppressed, to leave the sports cars standing in a cloud of rubber smoke. Sad to state, the chances are small. Table 11 .l shows some maximum anergystorage capabilities of various systems. 3 * Flywheels are so much better than rubber bands or springs that they would be the preferred contenders, and they have many enthusiasts.33 (City buses driven by flywheels Switzerland; electric were manufactured the flywheels at stops). by Sulzer with in the enerqywere speeded up by Compared
storage capability of gasoline, however, a flywheel is almost 100 times heavier. And it needs an infinitely variable transmission efficiently if its kinetic to the driving degrade mean high weights energy wheel. the stored and is to be transferred The “windage” energy.
All these factors
215 Unusual pedaled machines Figure 11. .6 Michael Shakespear on his pedaled lawnmower.
800 775 500 385 746 208 85 64 14 10 1 0.75 0.5 1. I30 505 503 338 Mechanical conversion.6 75. watt h/lb 3040 1. HydrogenC Gasolinec MeThanoI’ Ammonia’ Hyde ogen-oxygen Lithium-chlorine Sodium-oxygend Zinc-oxygend Sodium-sulfur (300°C) Lithium-copper-fluoride Zinc-silver dioxide (silver-zinc-battery) Lead-lead dioxide (lead-acid battery) Cooling lithium hydride Flywheel Compressed gas and container Rubber bands Springs Capacitors 6. . .06 0.0045 0.5 75.45 0.900 5. 300.760 2. Maximum energy-storage capability. p. kW-h/ft3 Elw System Electrostatic Magnetic Gravitational Mechanical Phase change Primary battery Secondary battery Fuel cell Fuel Source: Reference 32.( 216 Other human-powered machines Table 11.1.520 1. A.0007 0.-( I.06 0.15 0.006 h/cu ft.15 0. Energy density in kilowatt Magnesium-oxygend (liquid) (700’ C) 14. .660 980 1. Maximum energy-storage capability of various materials Electrochemicala conversion. 54 aBased on Gibbs free energy bAssumes 20 percent thermal efficiency ‘Reaction with oxygen from atmosphere dlncluding weight of oxygen H igh 0. watt h/lb .007 0. 7.850 2.006 0.0007 0. watt h/lb Heat-engineb conversion.
neither nents. would be The At least a half-horsepower and transmission for a special ten pounds. The hydraulic have to work in a large system would at extremely weight.1 kg] . The electrical system of motor/generator and electricity accumulator would cost $74 and have an overall cation.9 kg] flywheels revolving at 4.34 They adopted a practical outlook and devised a soecification which included a price of $50. motor battery would welcome for bicycle compofor the are better as far as weight storage alone is concerned. be another (Extremely aerospace-type bicycle would to keep weights levels.217 Unusual pedaled machines high losses. a flywheel. This is much nearer to the specif iHoiJvever. Hanover.800 rpm. might and the rider could well feel that he and have a regular- as well go a step further or even a battery-powered-motorcycle. efficiency of 34 percent and weigh 40 and high very unattracIbm [ 18. components down about to these double be ten pounds. electrical storage. system and transmission capability weight might and a minimum and housing expensive be required would But then a motor are required. weight tive. and hydraulic storage. resulting . Four systems were studied: a spring. These conclusions have been given some weight by a study performed by students at Dartmouth College. characteristics right outside the specifications. New Hampshire. the low efficiency and cost make the concept cost $1500 and would high pressures. a weight of 30 Ibm L13. The mechanical flywheel system they calculated would be suitable if it incorporated two 35 Ibm [ 15. Batteries energy and control desirable.4 ml. It was decided that there was no spring system which could be described as practical.) A lightweight its weight.6 kg] and a power output sufficient to propel the rider and machine up a hill of length 2120 ft [645 ml and height 90 ft [27.
.8. Figure 11. see references 35 and 36 and 11.7 Racing bicycle with flywheel.7 and 11. Figure 11.8 Thompson flywheel mechanism.218 Other human-powered machines For further of earlier Figures discussions of energy storage and attempts.
and 48. P. 16. See also references 1. 22 20.” Cycling. C. Strange but true. See reference 1 above. 18 June 1961. Kienan. 6. 1909-1912.” Observer (London). 1962. “Pedalling across the sky for 2 5. 12. “The puff-puff November 1961. Joan Green. 7. 11. editor. Dutton & Company. nos.. p. of the bicycle 1956).. 19. 1940.000. 12. 5 May this year. puffin. “Daring young men and their flying machines. Helmut Haessler. 2. “The sky bike. 1922). 28 June 1964. 23 May 22.” Canadian Aeronautical Journal. “The pedal plane. “Man powered plans are ready. “Man-powered flight in 1935-37 and today. and 4 above. 9. 30 April 1959.” Daily Mail (London).” Observer (London). Saturday book (Boston: Little-Brown. 7. See also references 2.” Daily Hera/d (London). flight. Various articles in Cycling.” Cycling. 7 November 1961. 1965). 3 June 1959. See reference 3 above. 4. 8. John Davy. 17. 19 July 1965.” Reveille. 26. J. “Taking to the air on a tandem.” Daily Mail (London). John Hadfield. 3. 1 November 1959. I. 13. 21. 382.” Observer (London). “Pioneering the air bicycle. “Flying bikes on the way. See references 2 and 3 above. Riding high: Thestory (New York: E. p. Sir Richard Glazebrook. 23.Unusual pedaled machines References Chapter 11 1. 1897).” Cycling. Curry’s Ltd. M. 14. A dictionary of appliedphysics (London: Macmillan & Company. “Bicycle-powered p. vol.” Sunday Times (London). 25 April 1965. 18. 21. John Davy. Macpherson. 3. 5. 10. and 3 above. The Rambler (London: Temple House E. p. . 14. A.” Daily Sketch (London). 12. 2. Palmer. 4 November 1959. A. “Flycycling 1962. “Meet the sky bike. 24. March 1961 15.
Kincaid et al. Stancer. 33. Sherwin. 67-68. Michael Shakespear.” 25 November 1959. Additional recommended reading History of aviation. it possible?” Dartmouth Cycling. 20 March 1972. 62. vol. Shepherd. p. 13. “Revival of the cycloplane. H. 28. “The automobile and air pollution: a program for progress. mechanical engineering department. Post and S. 26. M.” Journal of the Royal Aeronaurical Society. 32.S. U.” (London). Post. F.” report PB 176 885. Man-powered flight (Hemel Hempstead: Model and Allied Publications Ltd. “What happened to man-powered flight. “The back-parlour bird man works by gaslight. 35.” New Scientist. E. New English Library Daily Telegraph Rouse. Washington. 34. part 6 (London: Ltd.” Scientific American. See reference 22 above. 9. 723-734. December 1973. “A pedal-powered riding lawn mower. See reference 3 above. 286. 1951. Department of Ccmmerce. pp. “Flywheels. R. R..S..“Sunday Times (London). Whitt. p. Massachusetts. New Hampshire. p. F. “Man-powered planes get a new lift. “Report on the energy-storage bicycle. 27. pp. F.17-23. 29. 27 November 1969. “Freewheeling uphill-is Cycling. Cambridge. part I I. vol. DC. pp.. 19461. T. Mayntham. June 1973. 229. Nonweiler. Worth. G. Paul. See references 16 and 22 above. 36. H. 1962. 24 July 1966. Keith. 1971). Colston. John F. R. December 1967. 1969). 1972. thesis. Hanover. ” B.. F.” Popular Science.. “Man-powered aircraft: a design study. See reference 24 above. . 30 January 1965. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.” College. 30.220 Other human-powered machines 25.. Elementary mechanics of fluids (London: Chapman & Hall. “Pedal-power flight beaten by wind. 31.
mechanical after million. portation powered turous million that the appearance siphoned engineers Almost on the trans- scene of the internal-combustion-engineautomobile off all the advenand backyard mechanbicycles. whose purchase price was often The present picture in the United States comparable. Where the automobile the pocket of Europe. There are also about ninety-million bicycles (1973) in the United States. is a nation on wheels: by this trite one-hundred phrase America one means that there are nearly million motor vehicles on the roads. The Viet supreme-over is out of the reach of the bicycle still reigns by trains and Asia and some was. Indeed. carbon-copy have been made since that time. frame angles. The bicyvehireason for this is not entirely that the safety cle represented the ultimate in man-powered cles. tire diameter.” talent. often taking precedence over a wife. of bicycles. there have been very few changes to the design of the standard bicycle since 1890. ics into that field. It is. with changes no greater than minor variations in wheel diameter.12 Man-powered vehicles in the future Bicycling an almost as a means of transport incredible rose rapidly in the Many to level of popularity 189Os. either created cycle “craze. a highly prized possession. rather. and gear ratios. While one reason for this high . of most people. as has been stated earlier. and probably much of Africa In Nigeria a bicycle Cong were supplied still is. roads were or paved as a direct result of the biThere was an outpouring of creative vehicles and the design of man-powered went through almost every possible variation before the combination of the pneumatic tire and the “safety-bicycle” configuration showed such clear superiority over other contenders that it has reigned unchallenged since.
5. A bicycle rider. All these attributes have been with of this wonderful the turn vehicle of the us since before century. is unprotected from rain. road dirt. conveniently or safely. 1. or from injury in minor accidents. of bicycles is very poor. in good weather and on smooth roads. briefcases. and possible cars. shopping bags. for space on the roads with future vehicles The bicycle is. The riding position drag in a headwind and the pedal-crank is very . 4. hail. unless he wears cumbersome clothing. It is difficult to carry packages. of Parks closed on of if it it had to in Homestead. 2. a truly amazingly convenient means of transport. of course. places inaccessible can pay for itself of getting exercise in saved fares in much it is an almost healthy. The aerodynamic high. The braking ability especially in wet weather. “bikeways” bikeway Many cities and states have the example Florida. and keeping a year. 3. better It gives door-to-door instantly available service at an average speed in urban areas usually than that of any competitor. etc. So have nearly all of its shortcomings. at least for weight) in distances up to five miles. it is still true that bicycling in this country. It is extraordinarily up to ten times the unladen so that it can travel to motor vehicles. snow.74: ^_/ 2** 0 ther human -powered machines figure is the affluence which enables a person to to use it is the and recreof buy a bicycle fastest-growing ation designated the initial Mayor Central Sundays. and be stored A bicycle less than way perfect light (payload and narrow. When Lindsay’s Commissioner Park in New York to all but bicycles the response was so large that than is generally danger be concluded the population enjoy daily that a much larger proportion the gentle exercise of bicycling assumed would and unpleasant- were not for the constant ness of competing high-powered The bicycle. And. some of which are listed here. even if he does not intend sport for competition following every day.
The situation may be changing. Their continued existence is the consequence of a vicious circle having developed.’ is very poor 6. The unhappy state of our cities. The search for an improved vehicle may well start from an appreciation of the good and the bad qualities eralizations of the present mentioned although purposely bicycle as listed above. regard to brake and gear cab!es to the low-labor-cost 754 per per pound per spokes) and in regard to maintenance of an earlier bicycles models age. the at-last-recognized harmful effects of automobile congestion in urban areas. made more negative some competitors .00 much they contain less sophistiwould pro- than do automobiles. of these drawbacks to NASA or General Motors. are. and nineteenth-cen- tury bicycles made poor competition developed modern automobiles. “nonessential” conditions for bicycling that manufacturers cut out all with highly expenditures. genthan The shortcomings is always warranted. the growing shortages of energy and raw materials.’ ’ 3 The aim of the competition was to encourage improvements in any aspect of man-powered land transportation.00 its present design is attuned 7.223 Man-powered vehicles in the future power input are not ergonomically of bicycles with optimum. pound). the concern over the damage to our environmentall of these are helping to recruit not only new bicyclists but also scientists and engineers anxious to solve problems. This vicious circle is similar to that which has caused the running down of public transportation: too many cars led to such unpleasant demand slackened. cars retail at about cost about $2. Man-powered land transport competition Some of the new developments being continually reported in the man-powered-transportation field may have been partly inspired by an international competition organized in 1967-1968. Whereas family regular (and lightweight although cated engineering The correction vide little problem may easily cost $20. of course. The reliability (especially and wheel conditions pound.
recognized of side force the penalties in some cases Some in increased and of usually The struca “crusvehicles. but many would be well prepared to accept a weight penalty of 15 Ibm . all added to a chassis or spine rather than being designed No one experimented tacean” rather than a “vertebrate” construction. Whether the advantages given by a body can justify its drawbacks will be known only through public acceptance. in a cross wind. were much harsher than this in their us look at some of the possibilities criticisms. more difficult access to enclosed bodies were virtually tural strength. combined with a reduction entrants weight.. Most riders would not like to sacrifice the bicycle’s narrow width and its ease of maneuvering and parkin. to supply with in air drag in a head wind. There were many proposals incorporating bodies to give weather and minor-accident protection and luggage space.224 Other human-powered machines Figure 12. of overcoming made by Let these objections and at the suggestions some of the competitors.1 Enclosed bicycle with outriggers. in this the competitors were probably wisely conservative.
There was much preoccupation with constant-velocity foot motion in a straight line or through an arc. in a commuting vehicle if the body in summer.1). to go shopping under her own power.8 kg] in winter. There was little evidence of much emphasis being given by competitors to the severe problem of braking in general. Many competitors combine addition only a body with configuration. and wheel The body shape. warm that met most of concerned seem to would and as cool as possible though were several “bodied” these criteria. a housewife. would be severe. rider attitude 12.225 Man-powered vehicles in the future [6. About an equal number of competitors ascribed the poor performance of the rim brake in wet weather to high brake pressure . The additional vehicle would weight. have a great at least. The weight penalty. desirable. matters less when one is carrying A configuration which might cargo. with the weight few were greatly which reduction felt that a tricycle there it was logical or four-wheeled is an immediate for stability Obviously of weight and of width if biper- because the wheels and suspension If we set out to attract must now handle high side loads that are absent from cycles. and in this area competitors spent much creative effort. haps with a baby. have advantages is that of a two-wheeled single-track vehic!e with a “feet-up” body and outriggers which could be dropped when one stopped (Figure for a three-wheeler the arrangement cycle and sidecar gives two tracks and might have other advantages. And of a motorinstead of three. arrangement are intimately connected with the power transmission. we might find that a three-wheeler or fourwheeler (which has one more wheel but one less track than the usual tricycle) appeal. would There keep the rider (and briefcase) entries clean and dry. Some entries proposed hydrostatic transmission which would at least give efficient braking on the driven wheel and possibly an infinitely variable gear ratio. however.
A half-reclining position of the rider is adopted in the Bicar. Towing tests indicated average touring speed may be increased by 6 mile/h. From reference 3.2 Lydiard “Bicar’‘-Mark I I I. A double tubular frame F roller support for push rod Ii rocking pedal J universaljoint K pedal stop (for resting and ease of locating pedal when mounting) ull rod bounce limiter .226 Other human-powered machines Figure 12. Swinging cranks actuate through pull rods and the rider puts his legs through flaps in the body to rest on the ground.
plywood. any form of servo assistance from to reduce the cable tension but nothing better pointed a substantially they would several designs on paper of drum to suggest that they than present required. Lydiard who. Glass fibers in tension held in resin might be a good substitute for spokes and might give a lighter and more robust wheel.Man-powered vehicles in the future as to low. Rim brakes virtually without a brake to give im- adding greatly necessitate but there were several proposals for unspoked wheels which were occasionally to be of plastic. stability. would brakes and much to indicate because higher cost. Many competitors did not appreciate what a great advance the “tension” spoked wheel was when it was introduced and that wheels would almost inevitably require a greater weight if components in bending and compression were substituted.6 mm1 diameter (Figure 12. A problem two-wheel identified by Mr. Lydiard bicycles with the reclining-rider is that either . aerodynamics. the other two had two wheels of 16-in. A metal hub and rim for tire retention ably still be needed. suited to mass production. but no one carried needed to determine out the simple tests No one suggested the wheel motion There were be any the point. The judges were disaphave given the first operation prize to anyone and higher cable to the weight metal wheels. [40. transmission. at the lack of brake developments who had made or modified proved wet-weather reliability or cost. a name which correctly implies that the rider is housed in a body and pedals in a half-reclining position. and so forth. and for braking would prob- The first prize went to W. Lydiat-d calls his Mark 3 machine (which he does not claim to be near a final solution) the Bicar. His first model was a three wheeler.2). besides carrying out careful design and analytical work in the areas of stiffness. or dished aluminum. G. or disk brakes. made three experimental machines of different configurations.
somewhat in this posi-[ion “feet-up” pull rods swing- ing through conventional in a more-or-less these pull to put pull rods sprung wheels Mr.68 m/set] . and overall length become excessive. and it was estimated that a touring bicyclist might increase his average speed (without stops) by up to 6 miles/h Rowable bicycle Kazimierz constructed bar (Figure [2. after consideration. Borkowski “sport and recreation” vehicle. and legs must pedal over the front chainwheel adopted cranks with that gave a marked that a conventional and he eventually arcs operating position. and that it gives healthy exercise to more muscles in the body than .228 Other human-powered mschines wheelbase or the front He found cranks attitude. ‘/4 in.4). The seat is attached which. entrant who propelled Borkowski action was another a prototype. The Bicar’s body flaps in the body. wind or rain on his face in moderation. . . or object to the sun. and he employed a fairly conventional tubular “spine” frame. possibly.” Towing tests were made to determine drag. He rejected. wheel. claims no more than that this is a Mr. over-running with he is proposing together a variable-ratio is of 1 mm ABS plastic. the idea of using the shell as the principal load-carrying member. His is a machine by a sliding-seat along the very long cross to a carriage stroke. engages the rear wheel. 12. Lydiard intends to try ‘/2 mm ABS to reduce body weight and also. He decided to avoid the problems of windscreen fogging by leaving the rider’s head in the open: “. during the power (backward) the long loop of chain coming from The handlebars do not move longitudinally.3 kg] .no bicyclist would want to be hermetically sealed in. ( 63 mm) paper honeycomb covered with Melanex which would give an estimated weight of 5 Ibm [2. so that the rider must alter his position considerably during the stroke.3). He found through rods interfered his ability his legs on the ground and for a later machine operating (Figure possibly 12. gear in the rear wheel.
From reference 3..4 Borkowski’s rowing-action bicycle.. From reference 3. This machine is driven through a sliding seat which runs on a long crossbar. power tieing transmitted on the backward stroke..3 Lydiard “Bicar’‘-Mark IV. Lydiard’s proposed further development of his Bicar would have sprung wheels with pull rods operating possibly a variable-ratio friction gear in the rear wheel. l ..d .I 229 Man-powered vehicles in the future Figure 12. Figure 12..
6 and 12. being used for city-wide mass transportation. vehicle included power transcongear. presently about 1/30. And world. man’s energy tion.. whether of these designs or of others yet untried. land-use problems. and some prototype developments. or whether will continue to rush to utilize of stored energy in ever-more-extravagant trips. is a bicycle wheel in which swinging the rider cranks and an infinitely variable high up over the rear wheel and pushes levers (Figure 12. What can be is that the pattern of doubling energy continue the of prein several dissipaevery decade or so cannot of energy is only consumption limited materials for much longer for many availability from levels. Pollution to make all the energy-using this increasing supposes.5).0 ther human -powered machines is the case for normal obviously and center Semienclosed bent bicycle recumStanislaw concerned of gravity Garbien’s cycling.wide. for instance. which gadgets which reasons. To enable the when starting body.00Oth of the incident .” cannot be predicted. of which and the availability consumption one. Vehicles powered by human muscle power alone are not going to be welcomed by all. of transportation systems based on bicycles or pedal-powered cars which can be attached to a powered guideway or cycleway (incorporating. a moving-cable towing system) for steep hills or long stretches4 -’ (see Figures 12. are almost immediate problems countries. sits mission to the rear wheel through stant-velocity His machine fairly over the front and stopping. with The judges were the change in attitude of the rider. There have been some concepts. rider to put his feet on the ground the machine has an open-sided The hopeful future It does not take a great stretch of the imagination to visualize improved bicycles. Whether developments the world discovery “power forecast for the aged and the less-energetic any of these seemingly will actually optimistic every new take place.7) which may be more acceptable among us. Yet such a view may be too fanciful.
5 The Garbien semienclosed bicycle. From reference 6. Figure 12.6 Transportation system for cyclecars. c . From reference 3.i 231 Man-powred vehicles in the future Figure 12. Springing of both wheels is provided in this design. Power to the rear wheel is through swinging constant-velocity cranks and an infinitely variable gear.
powered-guid ewa Courtesy of Siy ral . would reach the same level as the sun’s warmth on earth in about 115 years if we continued the present rate of increase.e -b University Re#sear *ch Corporation. for many and probplants and be impossible a way of find an improvement and thither. The gentle way of the bicycle tances and of the cycleway journeys compatible life which today’s bicycling are transportation both with many would rushing nature hither for short dislonger which are over We for for somewhat alternatives and with of earth’s ecology. Figure 12. enthusiasm renewed frenetic believe that the present is an encouraging sign of a saner future.Other human-powered machines solar energy.7 The Syracuse Cru w :onc:ept. ISVI Y( CUS . Obviously long before this condition could occur the climate would be so modified as to make irreversible changes in the whole ably life would creatures.
May 1971. Harrison et al. Cambridge. 3. Cambridge. Massachusetts. “Man-powered land transport.573. vol. 6. American Society of Civil Engineers. “Personal-transit dualmode cable cars. 2. 97-98. no. 204. David Gordon Wilson. 5. May 1972. 3. David Gordon Wilson.” Engineering (London). 567.” Transportation Engineering Journal. “Maximizing human power output by suitable selection of motion cycle and load. 7. April 1971. Y. 3 15-329. vol. 225-242. 12. Massachusetts.” Mechanical engineering department. David Gordon Wilson. Engineering Projects Laboratory. Massachusetts. editor. TE 2. 2071. pp. June 1972. 1970.” Urban Systems Laboratory. “A plan to encourage improvements in man-powered transport. Cambridge. “Archimedean-screw accelerators for automatic transportation. 5283. Andrew M. pp. no.. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. David Gordon Wilson. “Pallet systems for integrating urban transportation. “A research study of innovative transportation for new communities in Puerto Rico. 4. no. David Gordon Wilson. pp. Massachusetts Institute of Techology. vol. no. 98. J.” report DSR 72813-1. pp. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 21 July 1967. . Valaas.” Human Factors.233 Man-powered vehicles in the future References Chapter 12 1. editor. vol.” Engineering (London). 5372. 11 April 1969.
Then rolling resistance = 11.87 + 0. and the force down the slope (mg/g.336 sq m] is assumed.) sin a = 170/20 Ibf [37. and an average frontal area of 3. 2240 Ibf/long = 0. V= J 8.0084 = 30.6. can be calculated: 170 20 = ~1.87 Ibf [ 3.’ Appendix: Some bicycle calculations The following the text.5 lbf/long ton X 170 Ibf ton .l).)::’ >$ .. area (sq ft) Now the force down the slope can be set equal to the sum of the resistances.5 Ihf per long ton [O-O504 newtons/kg] .87 0. . examples supplement those given valid pre- in They are intended to show how very simple mathematical models can yield What speed is reached by a bicyclist weigh 170 Ibf [ 77 kg1 and that they free-wheeling are on a long down a slope? Assume that the rider and machine 5 percent (1 in 20) slope (see Figure A. When the maximum speed is reached.0023 and the velocity v X 3. .1 mile/h [ 13.65 sq ft [0.8 forces of newton] exactly balances the retarding the rolling and wind resistances. the acceleration is by definition zero.86 newtons] The wind resistance wind resistance is given by = 0.5 m/set] .5 .0.. dictions.0023 X frontal X [v(milelh)12. The relations for rolling resistance and wind Mistance are taken from Chapters 5. Assume that the roiling resistance is 11.65 X v2.
? Reaction mg gC Weight . they are so to a lesser degree than might be expected. L‘<. show that although they are faster.. when compared with singles. i pq> a&-’ I *&. 400 meters). The wind resistance of a tandem has been found to be about 30 percent greater than that of a single bicycle.’ ‘< “235 Some bicycle calculations :’ On a 10 percent 43. The rolling resistance and force of gravity down the slope have been taken those for a single bicycle. These terand thereHowever. reached in about why tandem cyclists riders. as twice A new calculation can now be carried out to find the speed of a tandem bicycle down a fivepercent slope under similar conditions as those assumed for the single bicycle.y@i@“. Figure A..1 mile/h fore require 95 percent an infinite minal speeds are reached asymptotically distance of these terminal a quarter velocities mile (about to achieve.8 mile/h grade (1 in 10) the speed is and on a 2. be would 119. 1 Bicycle on a downhill slope. the reason hills than bitandem It is also of interest bicycles to investigate run faster down to keep up with singles.5 percent [9..0 m/set] grade . a fact well appreciated who have tried by experienced Record times for tandems.6 m/set] (1 in 40) it is 20.
0023 resistance X 3. 7 = 37. however.7 m/secl .56 Hence power output is newtons] 88 ft!sec ’ mile’h X %)%i%/h 8 Ibf J ’ 550 (ft Ibfi*ec)/hp = O. The mass of the man plus machine is 180 Ibm [81.'w&y. [v (mile/h)] 2 Ibf V =dzbt . de France and other Power required for hill climbing This calculation the opposition races in mountainous is included to show haw great is to movement of bicyclists caused by gradients.‘r 92 hp [ 144 watts] .3 [v (mile/h)] ’ Ibf 0. 1. The coefficients of wind and rol!ing resistance ma- quoted are associated with only the “fastest” chines on very good surfaces. &'.02 m/set] up a hill of gradient 1 in 30 (3. ./j. and the pedaling thrust of a brcyclist proceeding at 9 mile/‘h [4.. >*' t.5 kg] and it is assumed that the resistance to motion caused by wheel rolling and air friction is 2 Ibf [8. (. c1236 Appendix I’ Rolling resistance + wind + 0. . . Find the horsepower.66 newtons] The total force to be overcome is 2 lbf + 6 Ibf = 8 ibf [3. The calculations.65 X 1.9 newtons]..i! -3. The component 180g ml.. the pedaling rate...4 mile/h i16.74 Ibf f 0. of weight down the slope is = 6 Ibf [2.:. [ 165 mm] .. give credence [22..33 percent). .87 Ibf X 2 170 = 20 X 2 Ibf.+i.2 m] (the movement for one crank revolution is 65n/12 or 17 feet) and the crank length is 6X in.0109 = 17 Ibf.4 to reports of speeds of over 50 mile/h m/set] by riders in the Tour courses. The machine is geared to 65 in. [5.
P.4 ft Il. at the given pedaling rate. on a mtiving Experimental via a lever systetn. Scott in 1889* on measuring the actual pedal thrusts exerted by riders under various conditions.036 ml P is Hence the mean pedal thrust 136 ft Ibf 3. The pedal thrust was shown to vary greatly.Xn 12 in.2 ft/sec 17 ft rate is = 46. [4./ft = 3. The power output.ewtons 1 and This assumes no pedal pull on the upstroke 100 percent transmission efficiencies. of the pedaler’s paper band. has been shown to be perfectly feasible for many young men when pedaling on ergometers for periods of one-quarter of an hour.3 compressible Scott which pedal similar device so that power inIn addition a type of to that used by R. P. results using the ergometer .2 ml up a gradient of 1 in 20 (5 percent) at 9 miles per hour [4 misec] ” which set of circumstances is similar to those assumed for the above calculation. hence work moves each 2X61/2 in. ranging from near zero to 150 Ibf [665 newton] . of this pedal of a pen thrust showed was used.4 ft = 40 Ibf [ 178 n.6 rpm moves 17 ft done is X 60 sec/min In one crank revolution against a force 17ftX8Ibf=136ftIbf In one crank revolution foot through the bicycle 1184joulesl the bicyclists of 8 Ibf. The compression traced the variation caused the movement.Some bicycle calculations The pedaling 13. driven by the crank-set. In order to investigate the above phenomenon the senior author constructed an ergometer fitted with a calibrated braking put could be measured. during the pedal revolutions. Sharp’ gives details of work by R. A particular example concerns the movement of a “rear driver geared to 54 in.
+/m radius X coefficient of friction Xg X 32. “Getting in the miles” is common advice given to the racing man. . Riding around curves The follow ling calculations roads and racing tracks. assumed the ratio would However higher power outputs when the author ratio to develop his pedaling to by increasing rate. the above-mentioned rose gradually about 2. and thus adding evidence of the need for ped.6 watts] thrust or less the au- move his ankles to the pedal was thrust were rethrust tried that the average applied If a straight 1._ : ‘0.5 at a power output of 0. The basis of this advice may lie in prolonged practice being necessary for efficient pedaling at the high rates and foot thrusts involved (see Figure 2.1 hp L74.2 ftisec2 . (FRW) could at about so skillfully 60 rev/min and pro- about 0.4 times the average tangential up-anddown be 1..’ \_ 238 Appendix that when pedaling ducing thor about quired. I* : s:.48 ~1between force acceleration tires and road is assumed to be 0.6..35 hp [262 watts] It appears that prolonged practice in pedaling at high power outputs may fit a racing man to economize in effort. Determine commence the speed at which a bicycl? would on to slide tangentially when of friction the turning the inward traveling are included in order on to show the reasons for the use of banking a flat surface and rounding m] radius r if the coefficient At the point of skidding. a bend of 100 ft L30. Hence V= d-t-h-g= =.?ling practice.:ets.2).66. necessary to give the bicycle necessary for it to negotiate to the maximum mv2 -= Qc c- the bend is just equal grip of the tires on the road. It is known that competent racing bicyclists can show better oxygen-usage efficiencies when pedaling ergometers than do other athletes unaccustomed to pedaling crank-..
4 m/secl radius. so that there the track be banked to skid at 30 mile/h? should be equal m] A.4 m/set] round track is running on get at a speed higher than 30 mile/h skidding? can be shown to apply: .coefficient Figure A. at what speed can the vehicle relation the bend without The following Maximum speed v =\ = J (coefficient g X radius X of friction + tangent of angle) of friction of angle) X tangent (1 .2 ft/sec2 X 100 ft gc rg 01 g 31 degrees.48 diagram.Some bicycle calculations = 44 ft/sec = 30 mile/h How should is no tendency [ 13. at 44 ft/sec (Figure The angle of bank of the track to the angle of bank of the bicycle [ 13. From the equilibrium mv2 on a bend of 100 ft [30.2).6.2 Bicycle on banked track in equilibrium.4 m/set] . er of gravity of rider and bicycle ‘h a /c a . = tan (Y =WC = 0. / - mg =- v2 (44 ft/sec)2 32. lf it is assumed that the bicycle this banked [ 13.
0. LO.6. with the coefficient of friction p at 0. given above safe banking or roads. Tube materials and dimensions Effect of tube-wall included thickness: con- These examples are in order to bring out the considerable effect that changes in wall thickness.4 mm] in. they will skid rather than overturn. into con- The relatively simple calculations show that it is possible to estimate In practice other matters angles for all speeds and radii of tracks must be taken sideration in connection with track architecture. 240 Appendix Substituting numerical values. we have V %*.22 18 gauge (0. [25.-. With two-track vehicles no leaning is possible if the center of gravity is low enough-that is.2 ft/sec* X 100 ft lo6 + O”’ (I . great contortions on the part of the rider are necessary to avoid overturning.61 mm] ) what of the end of by the grips? be the increase in deflection when pulled .. Tricycles are also most difficult to ride round banked tracks at low speeds because of the strain of needing stantly to steer up the banking.6) = 78 ftlsec = 53 mile/h [23. When a bicycle rider travels round a bend he leans over at the equilibrium angle calculated above.048 If the gauge of l-in-diameter mm1 ) to 23 gauge (0.6X0.7 m/set] . Most bicycle tracks are small enough to result in large relative outer-edge differences between the inner and the banking at In the radii. diameter and material of construction have on the rigic?:ty of tubing tubing would when deflected is reduced from by loading. As a consequence the outer edge can be less than at the inner.024 a straight handlebar in. however.. case of tracks for racing cars the size is generally much greater than that common for bicycles and the banking generally is made steeper at the outside edges than at the inner for reasons of safety. In the case of man-propelled tricycles at speed round bends. [ 1.
D4.4. /: .0. and E the The moments given by / = n (D4 .O.4 Moment of inertia of a hollow tube.4. of inertia of the two tubes are A.82 or 0.* t /’/ .(I. The moments : 1 4 .!!the length.34 in.4): . where F is the force.// /4. The deflection of inertia to the moment beam (tube) section: 6 = F.d4 /64 (Figure : 14 - (1-O.O96)4 = I.O48)4 are in the ratio of about the deflection of the of inertia 2 to 1 and as a consequence Figure A..t?3El. --Dp> .d4 18-gauge tube.Q / >‘/ .‘/ . ‘xx=lyy= 7W4-d4) G4 . D4 .66 or 0.p .3 Loading of a cantiiever bezm. Young’s modulus. .3.This problem cantilever is proportional may be modeled as an end-loaded (6) (/) of the as shown in Figure A.d4 = l-O. 23-gauge tube. ?y& ss 4 k.18 in. X X Figure A.
d4) = l4 .7 mm] and to keep the tube weight per unit length constant.0266 = 0. tube.5-0. respectively? The deflection is inversely proportional to the change in the moment of inertia (/) of the tubes.54 . of course.0266 = 0. on the amount of deflection providing only that it is within the so-called “elastic” range.Appendix 18gauge tube is about half that of the 23-gauge for the same loading.096)4 . what effect of conmodulus a Young’s this have on the it is seen that the is inThe of a given size of tube? for a given set of circumstances From the above formula versely proportional to the value of the Young’s is doubled. of inertia / are in the ratio of the deflection of that of the about 4 to 1.036 in. diameter is reduced from 1 in.54= 0. !&in. what effect will this have on the deflection if we assume 23 and 18 gauges.82 = 0.0.d4): 23-gauge 1 -in.4 .4 tube: 18-gauge %-in.d4) = 0. to (D4 .-dia (D4 . Hence the deflection ultimate strength of the material has no effect.5 . that is.4 mm] to % in.O48)4 = l-O.0. [25.0.-dia tube: Effect of tube diameter: If the tubing (D4 . [ 12.0625 (0.036 in.0625 .096)4 = 0.4 The moments of the l-in. Effect of tube material: If the material struction deflection deflection modulus is changed to one with will value of half. the wall thickness is doubled.(0.(1-O.18 in. and as a consequence tube is only a quarter (&d4) = 0. (E).
3. pp.” pp. 2.’ . 48-59. Sharp. energy and locomotion Lippincott Company. R. Bicycling.. Cycling art. Longmans. 1’ r. P. .. 16-17. “Ankling. Scott. February (J. 1971. _ 243 - Some bit ycle calculations References Appendix 1. 260-270. Bicycles and tricycles (London: Green & Company. 18891. pp. R. B. 18961.a. Whitt. . F. A.
58 wind resistance. 38 Eli iptical chainwheel. 175 DeLong. 154 Braking by back pedaling. 38 Breathing rates. 76. 25. 193-194 Anaerobic breathing. 49 Bearing friction.F. 67-69 Boneshaker.46 Caloric expenditure. Frederick A. 26.. 167 Aerobic breathing. 230 Body temperature. effect of age. 196 Bicar. 66 Brakes.6. Bearings. 168-169 Braking distances. 154-l 56 hub. See Springing Automobile propulsion. 102 Efficiency. 237 Evaporative heat transfer. 190 Banking of tracks. 140. 61.E. 90-98 Dunlop.. XIII Diamond frame. . 27. 136-144. 69. 3 1.62-63. 12. 57 . road and wheel. 138 cup and cone.61. 154-l 55 disk. 28 Carborr-fiber frame. 153-167 coaster. 192-l 93. 154 plunger. 92 Coach rolling retistance. 16-24. 153. 160 Braking surfaces. 201 Caterpillar. 136-144 Bamboo frame. 92 Dandy horse.T. 62. 144 pedaling. 186. 106 Air cycles. effect of. 173 Convective heat transfer. bearing. invention of. 144 magneto. 154-l 55 Coefficient of friction. 77. 3. 14. 113. 30 Agricultural wheel. 48. 26. 14. 57. 153-155 rim. 22. 223 Energy storage. 8 Back pedaling. 195. riding around. 189 Bourlet equation.34.208-212 Air drag.66 Ankling action.Index Adhesion. 187.88-100 107 Aluminum frames. 134-136 Clothing. 238-240 Cylinders heat transfer. 181 Bow action lathe. 243 Batteries. 83 Crank length. 78. 138 Beryllium. 214-218 Ergqmetry. 60 Fan brake. 144 hub gear. 69. 158 Balancing. 170 Ball bearings. 134-136 Chains. 70. 126. 24-31. 7 1. 153-158 Breathing.5763 Costs. 136 Columbia. 175 Chain losses. 79 Energy shortages. 109.6. 140 Nylon. 59 Cooling effect of wind. . 125. 69 use of. 138 roller. 115 Coaster brakes.. 33-35 Curved cranks. 69. 205. 197-l 98 Drag coefficient. 30 Animal power. 158. 30. 189 Computer simulation. 4. 71 Antivibration devices. 83-84 Curves. 13. 160-167 Braking stability. 223 Crank. 24. 187-189 ball. 138 P.36.47. 5 Celerifere. 6263 Fan cooling. 18. 134 deraitleur gear.
69. 186.35 Pedal thrust. 12 Hub brakes.228 . 73 “Ordinary” bicycl. 34 Pendulum action in pedaling. 33. 208 Inclined foot-mill.s. 195 titanium.154 Oval chainwheels. 147 Gradient resistance.214. 4.194. 216218 Fork. 189 Magnesium alloys.125 Heat collapse. 69. 127. 57-58 Henry. 171-l 72 Horizontal pedaling. 61-62 Heat dissipation. 32. 43 Hagen International gear. 180 Friction between surfaces. 128-l 29 Mower. 43.. front.Y. 68 Inflation pressure. 147 Whitt. 135-136 Tokheim. 140 Plastic bearings. 147 hub. 2. Dan. See Breathing rate Pedaling rate..198 Hysteresis. 187-189 Plastic molding. 142-143 Oars. 73. 186-192 Nonweiler.135. 138. 144 teeth. 79 Oxygen consumption. 94. 136 Lawnmower. 35. effect of. 80. 127 Internal-combustion engines. tire. 240.37. 76. 190 Lu-min-urn. 42.. David E. 168-169 Nonmetallic materials. 181. 212-214 Muscle efficiency. 6. 140 Man-powered aircraft. 80. 194 metallic. 187. definition. 19.:.23. 77. 155. 13 Moment of inertia.135 Gears derailleur. 212-214 Lever systen. 81. 66. Alex. 153. J. 144 infinitely variable. 36. 79. 195 Frame design. 31. 226-228 Macmillan. 32. 66. 77. 18-22. 33. 157 Kremer prize. 76. See Reel ining pedaling Horsepower. 189 Garbien bicycle. 42. 230-231 Gear ratio. 144 Hagen. 189192. 123 Ice cycles. 30. 241 Mopeds. T. 26-28 Jones. 212 Nylon bearings. 81 Plain bearings. 31. 158 Lydiarci Bicar.93 Moulton. Toulouse. 143-146 “Humber” bicycles. 128-130 Hill climbing. 32. 130.246 Index Fiberglass frame. 234-238 Hobby horse. 209 Lau tree. 74. 77-78 Negative work. 147. 71. 154 Hub gears. 176 Frame bamboo. 108-l 15. See Air Cycles Materials. 142-143. 31.135 Longitudinal stability.149 Hand cranking.156-168 Front-wheel drive. 24. 107. 185-701. 190 Flywheels. 242 Maximum power output. 191. 189. 185-187 nonmetal1 ic. 71 Harrison. 69. 196 Magneto bearing. 173 Kinetic energy.
See Air drag Wood frames. 125. 102. 145. 199 Rear-wheel braking. 39. R. 117-121 “Whippet”. 139 Tricycles.48 Thomson pneumatic tire. 174 Titanium frames. 82 Tribune bicycle.25. See Ergometry Power requirements. 4. 38. 124 Tires Egyptian.116 . 100 pneuinatic. Rowing. 136.123.126 Power generation by animals. 48. 12. 10. 4. 14 Rabbits. 200 Roliing friction. 126 Springing.45.237 Side-wind forces. 102. 98 Rim brakes. 240 Tube-wall thickness. 71. 138. 205-208 Wet-weather braking. 98-99 Skin friction. 113 steel. 208. 77 Water cycles... 112. 73. 102-l 33 242 Variable gears.95 P. 171-182 Streamlining. 195 Tokheim gears. 3640 Skiers. 228-230 Rubber springing. 76. 128 Whippet. 6.27. 127 Moulton. 125-127 Whitt oval-chainwheel gear. 115 Tire-road friction. See Reclining pedaling Reliability. 134 Treadles. A.69. 104 Railway cycles. 30. 189 World-speed records. 122. 107. 224 Skating. 143-150 Velocar. 205.80. 94. 98. 104-107. 113 solid rubber. 12 by man. 232 Tandem. 9-l 2 rolling resistance. 164-167 Wheel size. 186. 77 Steering. electric. 5.247 Index Plunger brakes.150 Windmill. 20 Safety bicycle. 154 Roller skating. 66.F. 71-75. 100. 76. 125-l 30 Squirrel-cage treadmill. 36. leaping.P. 12. 89. 103. 106. 124-l 25. 69. 25. 201.11. 188 Queen Mary.117 Saddle height.49 Tension-spoked wheel. 138. 197 Thermodynamic engines. 107. effect of. 209 Raleigh. 168-169. 69. 23. 57. 240- 227 Recumbent bicycles.98. 5 Riding position. 92.80 “Star” bicycle. 107115. 223 Resistance to motion. 154156.97 Sturmey Archer gears. 108-l 09. 107 Scott.E.237 Sharp. 5 Snow cycles.95. 128 Running versus bicycling. 66 Wind resistance. 3 Railroad train. See Hub gears Syracuse Crusway. 142. 38. 208 44.13 Power measurements.45-47. 76. 19. 4-6. i02 Time trials. 147. See Air drag Snakes.162-164 Reclining pedaling. 26. 153-155 Pneumatic tires. 198. bearings. 147-l 48 Transmission losses. Spring frames Humber.T.96 Walking.