Johan Bornman Posted July 26, 2010 Share http://www.activespoke.com/Concept2.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gummibear Posted July 26, 2010 Share Can you imagine the noise that will make. http://www.activespoke.com/files/Contact1.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gummibear Posted July 26, 2010 Share http://www.activespoke.com/files/Contact2.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johan Bornman Posted July 26, 2010 Share Aaag, you won't even hear a click if you fit it to a Chris King hub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted July 26, 2010 Share Is this a viable concept? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splat Posted July 26, 2010 Share Adding weight to a wheel?What a gadget! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gummibear Posted July 26, 2010 Share Is this a viable concept? Maybe on a flat road or track but not on a normal race.On a hill that's added weight to the wheel and the system isn't very aero either.Then you have all the noise that will drive you nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johan Bornman Posted July 26, 2010 Share Is this a viable concept? Think about it for a minute and let us know what your common sense tells you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woofie Posted August 3, 2010 Share haha. This is so funny.JB, Remember I brought up a topic like this a few months ago?Along with me thinking that ultra heavy wheels may be quicker along a TT course or something. We had quite a in length debate when we finally came to the conclusion that lighter is always better, but you can in certain cases sacrifice a little bit of weight to be more aero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sterad Posted August 4, 2010 Share Won't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capricorn Posted August 4, 2010 Share Won't work.neither will that sorta reply... state your case better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tankman Posted August 4, 2010 Share Won't work. Agreed, wont work! If Johan posted this on the 1st of April it might have worked! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tankman Posted August 4, 2010 Share This is what the website claims "Riders experience the easy responsiveness of a lighter wheel during climbing" - How can that be, you have just added weight to your wheel? The weight is only centered around the hub at slower speeds, it didn't magically disappear and yet feel the surge of added momentum when coming out of a downhill" - thats about the only thing of this theory that makes sense Just put on a couple of kg's if you want to go faster downhill. The next problem is that the distribution of the weights is based on the rotational speed of the rim, it does not take into account the actual incline of the hill. To many variables here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tankman Posted August 4, 2010 Share what about the weight - those are 42g per weight and they recommend 6 per rim (and here is the catch) PER SIDE!that is 42g x 6 = 252g x 2 = 504g per wheel extraThat is 1.08kg extra and that is why you need to read the fineprint! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dts29 Posted August 5, 2010 Share From WikipediaDue to the fact that wheels rotate as well as translate (move in a straight line) when a bicycle moves, more force is required to accelerate a unit of mass on the wheel than on the frame. To accelerate a wheel, total wheel mass matters less than the moment of inertia, which describes the inertial effect of the mass resisting acceleration (inertia) based on its location with respect to the axis of rotation (the center of the wheel hub/axle). In wheel design, reducing the rotational inertia has the benefit of more responsive, faster-accelerating wheels. To accomplish this, wheel designs are employing lighter rim materials, moving the spoke nipples to the hub or using lighter nipples such as aluminum. Note however that rotational inertia is only a factor during acceleration (and deceleration/braking). At constant speed, aerodynamics are a significant factor. For climbing, total mass remains important. See Bicycle performance for more detail. So it seems their invention does have some merit, at least it keeps weight closer to the hub. Look here for detailed analysis on bike performance with some maths thrown in. Ill just quote this bit. In other words, a mass on the tire has twice the kinetic energy of a non-rotating mass on the bike. There is a kernel of truth in the old saying that "A pound off the wheels = 2 pounds off the frame." Whether the kinetic energy gain on a decent will cancel out the extra weight on uphills is hard to determine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sterad Posted August 11, 2010 Share My thinking is, all this does is "absorb" energy/speed on the flats/downhills and "releases" it on the uphills, so you are really getting no gain. As with all systems there will be losses between the "absorbed" energy and the "released" energy(as in less aerodynamics in the wheels with these objects spinning around), so at the end of the day you will actually loose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now