marko35s Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 haha... Yeah, I know you were. And then in came that bird of dismay... It was morphing into an interesting discussion up till that point.He likes to do that, and then accuse others of being aggressive.
marko35s Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 Throw some of that R&D money into building a rear hub which could actually charge the battery. Same goes for the Di2 systems. All this tech comes down to the same integral flaw.At some point you need to remember to plug in the damn thing.I mean come on. Its been like 100 years since this rubbish was inventedhttp://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/6d/6e/1332634303_IMG_1624.jpg?itok=a5Fw-GRbI had one of those running my lights once, I felt so cutting edge.
Raydek Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 Throw some of that R&D money into building a rear hub which could actually charge the battery. Same goes for the Di2 systems. All this tech comes down to the same integral flaw.At some point you need to remember to plug in the damn thing.I mean come on. Its been like 100 years since this rubbish was inventedhttp://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/6d/6e/1332634303_IMG_1624.jpg?itok=a5Fw-GRb Surely someone could figure how to integrate this with a hub/cassette..
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 Throw some of that R&D money into building a rear hub which could actually charge the battery. Same goes for the Di2 systems. All this tech comes down to the same integral flaw.At some point you need to remember to plug in the damn thing.I mean come on. Its been like 100 years since this rubbish was inventedhttp://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/6d/6e/1332634303_IMG_1624.jpg?itok=a5Fw-GRb100% agreed. No need for batteries or anything - just a hub-based gennie with a capacitor attached. Heck, maybe even a small battery given how lightweight they're becoming. Just holding a small charge so that you can shift when you're not moving. Maybe incapsulating the system into the fork itself - using the movement to charge something. I'm not au fait with the intricacies of modern battery / charger tech, but if there's movement, you can use it to harness power.
Raydek Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 100% agreed. No need for batteries or anything - just a hub-based gennie with a capacitor attached. Heck, maybe even a small battery given how lightweight they're becoming. Just holding a small charge so that you can shift when you're not moving. Maybe incapsulating the system into the fork itself - using the movement to charge something. I'm not au fait with the intricacies of modern battery / charger tech, but if there's movement, you can use it to harness power. Just tape some of these to the lowers, sorted!!!! http://www.ecofriend.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/shake-torch_5810.jpg
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 Just tape some of these to the lowers, sorted!!!! http://www.ecofriend.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/shake-torch_5810.jpgIt looks like something a japanese game show would use as a prop for one of their competitions...
Eddy Gordo Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 Been wondering when someone would bring this up. I cant understand why batteries have to be used when we had and if I look hard enough I can still find those dynamo lights. They are ingenious and there is so many ways to make them more modern
Amberdrake Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 Hub would most like be the easiest way of doing it. However my question is why only the rear hub? plop it in both and charge that little battery for all its worth then add some solar to the helmet and you could even use rear hub as motor to assist uphill...... possibilities are endless but our limitations are usually in storage of power/cost. I think Integrating it in hub should be easy but for the added weight will likely be less popular.
popcorn_skollie Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 Just tape some of these to the lowers, sorted!!!! http://www.ecofriend.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/shake-torch_5810.jpgHaha, my daughter has these and they are ANNOYING.Load shedding is like a a rave for a 3 year old. Back to the topic. I personally get excited for any new tech. I understand Iwan's reservations but we have cars that can park themselves now.I say give it time. Which is really all it boils down to. Time and R&D. A few weeks ago I was listening to the money show on Cape Talk and a business analyst who knows nothing about tech said something very interesting. I probably off on the figures so please don't quote me but the point will be made clear regardless.If you look at the rate at which efficiency in solar technology has improved over the years and assume then that the rate of this efficiency will continue on its current trajectory. Then it stands to reason that it makes far more sense to invest money into solar R&D than it is to throw money at building a newer nuclear infastructure. Because in a decade or 2 solar power would be assumed efficient enough to equal and possibly rival nuclear power.This is coming from the perspective of a man who sees nuclear power as nothing more of an ongoing cost as opposed to free sunlight. No talk of any of the surrounding issues. Just that which makes financial sense. Ofcourse it will never happen and we all know why but lets not get into that. Our main obstacle is our current thought process and our faith in the exsisting technology we know and understand. I had this discussion with a few friends and the topic of home solar panels and Tesla's battery regarding domestic use came up. Again, I'm probably off on the figures but some companies claim that you could expect to 'earn back' your initial (and sizable I might add) investment in energy costs after 5 to 10 years after which point your energy would become free. In a matter of speaking. My friend reckoned according to his math it was more like 20 years. Therefore not worth the investment. My response was simple. Even if that were true. By that logic everyone should rent for the rest of their lives instead of investing in property. See my point? We dismiss that which may be possible in the future by the standards of that which seems improbable now.
Hairy Posted July 31, 2015 Author Posted July 31, 2015 Hub would most like be the easiest way of doing it. However my question is why only the rear hub? plop it in both and charge that little battery for all its worth then add some solar to the helmet and you could even use rear hub as motor to assist uphill...... possibilities are endless but our limitations are usually in storage of power/cost. I think Integrating it in hub should be easy but for the added weight will likely be less popular.
raptor-22 Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 break even on a battery back up system like Tesla would not make sense if greater than 5 years because Lithium batteries only have an average useful life of 5 years from date of manufacture. they die of old age or number of charge discharge cycles and when they have lost 20% of the rated capacity that's it. Break even has to be less than the life of the battery.Depending on depth of the discharge the life can be extended up to 5000cycles approximately but this is if the battery is only discharged by roughly 10%.In order to achieve such a low discharge per cycle you'd need massive storage capacity and that's even more expensive. with a ROI of 10 years it just doesn't make sense since you'll always be paying for your energy. Sizing the system is still driven by it making financial sense to the end user.
Iwan Kemp Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 Hmm, Not sure if i am going to stoop to calling you a luddite but if you look at the review and read how quick this thing is responding then you will see it is in milliseconds which is way ahead of your capacity to sense it. And that is in the current version. Production will likely be more refined and quicker. Your experience will be that the fork opened. 1. Thanks, cause that would probably derail the thread! 2. It's important to note that although this system can make changes quicker than our "capacity to sense", the imputus of a "spike" will still be on it's way to your brain. Only thing is this sense will get to your brain with adaptive changes made back to your limps only AFTER the setting has been changed. Meaning you will be responding to something that is no longer valid. This will most likely trigger another adaptive change. Although we're talking the snalest of split seconds, it's still happening. At 15km/h that's maybe not so bad. That'll change at 45km/h. A reactive system will always be just that - REactive. Cannondale sneak peaked their Simon Electronic system in 2010 already. A system which to this day have not made it to production due to the complexity of it. RockShox have (in colab with Lapierre) a version out called E:i - it's not getting GREAT reviews after YEARS of R&D and YEARS of being ridden out on trails by Joe Soap. Brain makes more sense on a XC bike with the highs and lows close to each other. Narrower range to account for and adapt to. If it's THAT great it would have made it to their EVO line. Not about to burn electronic suspension at the stake, but it will be a long while before it'll make sense. Not saying it'll be a while before we will see it on bikes (E:i has been available for a couple of years after all.*************************************Think about coming down just about any single track with some pedaly bits. The "system" will pick up your pedaling forces and at some platform. Great - who wouldn't want that. But in the middle of the glorious jump that you elect to take. Hitting the jump with a semi locked out shock and / or fork will not be fun. For anyone. Rather sort suspension as it is, THEN work on adding other clever bits. I'd much rather spend money on a Cane Creek DBInline and then spend the time to dial it to my liking. For now this tech is more F1 than WRC. Iq I agree with you. This is really good tech on paper and the first review seems to vindicate the design philosophy. Where I can see the step change with this tech is the integration of garmin rearward looking radar for early warning being adapted for a forward looking terrain following function. Need to check the frequency the garmin unit uses and if it has sufficient resolution to be useful in such an application but having a terrain following radar feeding information to suspension then we'd have a truelly active system. But this live system from fox has such a fast reaction time I would hazard a guess that terrain following radar won't add much benefit but will add significant cost That could work, but like ( I think it was you who noted later on) it would need to be very high tech and close to what is used to map the ocean floor and the load would be too high.
Iwan Kemp Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 I'd like to add that even though this is how I feel NOW that doesn't mean I don't have appreciation for the fact that it's being developed, tested and explored. Also does not mean that one day it could or would make sense to me. The fact that I have a differing opinion does not mean I want to burn it at the stake. I can disagree and have a healthy debate about something I don't agree with or don't like. (I'm not the church! )
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 I'd like to add that even though this is how I feel NOW that doesn't mean I don't have appreciation for the fact that it's being developed, tested and explored. Also does not mean that one day it could or would make sense to me. The fact that I have a differing opinion does not mean I want to burn it at the stake. I can disagree and have a healthy debate about something I don't agree with or don't like. (I'm not the church! )Exactly
(Deon) Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 I'd like to add that even though this is how I feel NOW that doesn't mean I don't have appreciation for the fact that it's being developed, tested and explored. Also does not mean that one day it could or would make sense to me. The fact that I have a differing opinion does not mean I want to burn it at the stake. I can disagree and have a healthy debate about something I don't agree with or don't like. (I'm not the church! )Probably also worth adding that you don't need saving. Your points speak for themselves.
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 Probably also worth adding that you don't need saving. Your points speak for themselves.He lives!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.