For those who have some degree of skill and time to spare the DIY route can significantly lower the costs of acquiring a velomobile. The down side to this approach tends to be visible in a less than professional appearance of the finished product. The following builder’s video of an electric assist velomobile from Norway demonstrates this need not be so. Built in a style that echos the Trisled Avatar it displays a high quality of workmanship.
YouTube user bjofuruh describes his machine as follows:
This is my home made velomobile. It is constructed around a carbon fibre monocoque shell, moulded over a male plug. Front suspension is the same as Qest Velomobiel, rear suspension is a self made fork with a Risse Astro damper. Motor is a Golden Motor Smart Pie, controlled by a Cycle Analyst computer that also serve as a cycle computer, displaying a large amount of data. The velomobile is very stable and mnouverable, front wheels are 20″, rear wheel is 26″. Front brake is Sturmey Archer 90mm drum brake, and rear brake is standard disk brake. I have incorporated a kind of “force doubler” to the front brake lever to get adequat braking power. Battery is a 48V – 15Ah LiFePO4 battery, enabling a range of about 200 km in a relatively flat terrain.
I have tried to obtain low drag in combination with good stability and a low turning radius. The emphasize is on practicality combined with high performance.
The following video, showing the same machine in it’s original paintwork, also gives a good demonstration of the electric assist on the local Norwegian hills.
A humourous take on how your velomobile might appear to “others.” Originally from the French velomobile blog envelomobile.wordpress.com.
How we see ourselves and how others see us, can sometimes by surprisingly out of alignment. It is always helpful to try and have a look through other people’s (or even animal’s) eyes, even if it only makes you smile.
It has been some time since I posted anything, not because there has been nothing to write about, rather I have been too busy with other things working on the website back-end. The observant may have noted a few small changes which reflect this, and there is more to come, but more of that later. There are also a couple of posts I am working on that should be up shortly.
Mean while I thought I would link to this report via BikeBiz on the recent debate on “cycle safety” in the British parliament. It is depressing! It is particularly depressing that so much parliamentary time was wasted going round in circles, seemingly blind to the point, that it is high-speed heavy vehicles that are the danger, not cycling itself, and polystyrene helmets offer NO PROTECTION against such a danger. That blindness, a blindness which kills in an altogether more subtile way, is what makes cyclists/blogosphere/twitersphere so mad.
The unscientific, irrational, and too often bullying, level of debate is seriously distracting from real solutions to improve on road safety. Technology has become the god of our age. While I am most certainly not anti-technology, I find it very troubling that there is such blind faith in technology, and that the general public are too willing receive the claims that liars marketers make concerning their wares, especially when the wares “might” save the life, say of a child. This faith is dangerously miss-placed. Safety costs! and unfortunately helmets are viewed by too many as a simple and cheap solution. The parody video below and the cartoon at the start highlight, that there are many areas where real safety improvements could be made and, if the arguments of cycle helmet proponents were followed, would require mandatory wearing of PPE.
In an age driven by imagery, icons and what can be seen externally, the idea of a helmet as a guaranteed provider of protection, if not invincibility, is ingrained in the general public. Images of soldiers in bullet proof helmets, construction workers in hard hats, motorcyclists in crash helmets, all of which have saved lives, seem to prove that cycle helmets and compulsion to wear them MUST be a good thing. The following might just change your mind:
A couple of key points from this video:
Average speed of collision 40 km/h ( mph)
Maximum speed at which a cycle helmet offers any protection 20 km/h ( mph).
While proponents point to motorcycle helmets and seatbelts, there is a failure to understand the dynamic differences between, the way such safety devices work, and how a cycle helmet is supposed to work. Last night I did a simple experiment and broke a cycle helmet with my bare hands something I could not do to a human skull or a motorcycle helmet. I have made reference before to a cycle accident I was involved in, in 1988, in which a cycle helmet (which I was not wearing) did not save my life! – When I get time and energy I plan on writing up a more detailed account including some technical analysis – In that event my skull exceeded the performance requirements of a cycle helmet!
The “protection” provided by a cycle helmet – vertical impact between 12 & 15 mph – is artificial and highly contrived, you may note from the video above what part of the dummy’s head usually strikes the car, and I am sure many others could confirm the same from their own experience. As my experiment demonstrated a cycle helmet offers next to no protection in the case of side impact. My accident mentioned above was an exception as I hit a vehicle with what was essentially a vertical impact (my face was looking down) at about 20 mph. I have come off my bike a handful of times since, and on no occasion has my head recieved any injury. It should also be noted that the theoretical efficacy of helmets is very much dependent on the proper fitting and attachment of the helmet to the head of the rider. I think it would be safe to say that in most cases, outside of professional cycle sport, helmets are worn incorrectly.
The argument “if it saves a life” is disingenuous. The assumption is that they will do no harm even if they do no good. Evidence is mounting that statistically this is not the case. Thankfully the parliamentary debate attempted to recognize this, as cycling’s health and life benefits far exceed any risks; but also analytically, this assumption is not true. Helmets, like drugs and medicines, have side-effects:
They make your head bigger – thus increasing the chances of striking or being struck by another object
They alter the shape of your head – thus altering the natural way your body interacts with its environment – this can affect perception, balance and response in an accident
They, in most cases, cover your head in an array of convenient grab handles – thus increasing the chances of snagging, leading to the very kind of rotational head and brain injury which results in death or serious life impairment
They attach a hangman’s noose to your head – a fact tragically illustrated by the 14 documented case where little children died by strangulation while playing wearing a cycle helmet
If it saves 1 life but kills 20 it is not worth it! I recommend reviewing the scientific data available via cyclehelmets.org.
Legal compulsion sends a most unwanted message: generating a false sense of security, to both riders and drivers, leading directly to increased complacency and then injury and death when the “force-field” fails to protect in anaccident vehicle incident. It also criminalises, and therefore harms, those who recognize the physical dangers of helmet wearing as well as the limited protection they offer. The comments of Graeme King after the BikeBiz article are very pertinent.
The criticism of the rigid tricycle format, which most velomobiles are based on, comes from the limited stability when cornering sharply at speed. The trike usually has the advantage of a mechanically elegant and simple steering or drive, comparable to a bicycle, with additional stability provided by the third wheel. On snow, ice and loose ground the trike is very stable when compared to a bike, as it will slide rather than fall. On hard ground however the bike has the advantage, being able to lean into curves. As a result the industry is beginning serious exploration of alternative designs with the potential to overcome this limitation.
Some designs and ideas were presented at the recent Velomobile Seminar. One solution is to take the mechanically simple trike layout and “improve” it by adding some kind of tilting function to counter the overturning force. For example the new VeloTilt design. There are arguments for and against, and challenges to over come but development work is moving ahead. Another alternative is to add an extra wheel to gain the stability of a quadricycle as illustrated by the Quatro.
Four wheel velomobiles are not new. Indeed many of the early “pedal cars” were four-wheelers. Mochet’s Velocar was originally designed on the behest of his wife so that his son would have a stable machine, and therefore safe in her view, on which to go out riding with his friends. The recumbent advantage was only discovered by accident as it were, once the Velocar was being used alongside other cycles.
An increasing number of modern quadricycles are starting to make an appearance some with velomobile features. One-such is the Zampano by Designwerks from Germany. At least one prototype has been produced and is illustrated here. Designwerks website is professionally produced in German, but there is little information on the present status of the project, or what if any plans there are for manufacture and sale.
Based on Google Translate the Zampano website states:
This innovative vehicle combines the benefits of the bicycle, car and public transport in one product without being unnecessarily burdened by their disadvantages. It consists of aluminum and high-tech materials such as carbon fiber, Makrolon and Goretex, is powered completely emission-free, has no parking spaces, is all-weather-resistant and also encloses its users. … Depending on the version an option for an electric motor will be available this fall. The time is ripe for a solution like this.
The German text also makes reference to a Manfred Klauda and Tretauto GmbH Munchen. If anyone can add more information please do so in the comments below.
Had a safe and pleasant flight to Amsterdam and enjoyed riding on the train to Putten. After a rest tomorrow I am looking forward to a busy week ahead.
Visited the York Festival of Cycling put on by York City Council. For a free event it was fantastic! Equipment and support were provided by Get Cycling, also based in York, so there was plenty of pedal powered equipment to play with, a mini-mini SPEZI you might say, but no velomobiles. None-the-less there were plenty of smiling faces. I hope to update this post with a couple of photos next week.
Well I have been occupied doing other things for the past few weeks. Some related to velomobiles and some not related, and consequently, I have some catching up to do. An update to the blog is long overdue! Mid-summer is a quiet period news-wise but, none the less, there are some items that have been reported elsewhere, which I expect to comment on shortly.
More generally the current Olympic fever and the achievements of team GB in the cycling events is serving to heighten the British public interest in cycling generally, both for practical transport as well as for sport. Anything which helps improve the status of transport cycling can only be a good thing. Looking beyond the olympics the question of what to spend the Olympic Legacy on has been raised. Bike Biz reported that the BBC radio 4 program You and Yours was asking this question of it’s listeners. Bike Biz were strongly advocating it be spent on quality cycle infrastructure a-la the Dutch model. This has been essentially seconded by SUSTRANS who are calling for investment to encourage cycling to school. A view with which we heartily concur.
There would also seem to be some increase not only in the profile but also in political support for the installation of better cycle infrastructure. The Times’ #cyclesafe campaign together with a high profile fatality connected with the London Olympic venue has served to raise public awareness, and political support, for serious improvement. Regrettably in the reporting of the fatality there were distracting comments about “wearing helmets,” raised by UK champion Bradley Wiggins and seconded by several shrill voices. The debate on helmet wearing and compulsion is largely removed from the world of rational scientific enquiry; and completely misses the point of how a 70 kg human and their 20 kg bike is able to stand up to a vehicle with a mass from 800 kg to upward of 3000 Kg. It should be obvious that these fatal “accidents” usually involve forces, and levels of energy, far exceeding that which a cycle helmet is capable of absorbing. Indeed, it was the writer’s own experience that, a healthy human skull is perfectly capable of exceeding the rather limited performance required of cycle helmets*. (If it helps, consider how easy it is to break a cycle helmet with your arms versus breaking a human skull!) I might write a post describing my own experience in detail, together with my observations, on the limited value and potential risks, of helmet wearing in everyday cycling, at some other time. I also intend to write a post about the protective benefit provided by a velomobile body when involved in a collision.
Continuing the theme of infrastructure, I had the opportunity to attend my local government Cycle-Forum, which I found very interesting. The Forum meets quarterly and serves to try and coordinate efforts to promote cycling and invest in better cycle provision locally. A promising activity which needs support, and can only get better, with consequent beneficial results for all pedal powered transport.
However I will return to velomobiles with my next post.
* Vertical impact at 11-15 mph assumed to be equivalent to falling over from a stationary bike and landing on your head. See the section on Standards on cyclehelmets.org
Safely arrived back in Holland. SPEZI was very educational with a lot to see including a good selection of velomobiles. Tomorrow is a rest. Monday I begin to digest what has been learnt.
