The 'Super Wheel' Claims to Offer Power Assistance Without a Motor... And We're Very Skeptical

Nov 27, 2020
by James Smurthwaite  

An Irish inventor claims to have invented a bike wheel that offers pedalling assistance without the need for a motor and battery. If his claims were true then the invention would have massive potential, revolutionizing cycling as we know it. We're yet to be convinced that it actually works though.

The wheel has been developed by Hong Kong-born Simon Chan and he says it is a "basically... a simple idea." The Super Wheel has been in development since 2014 and Chan claims it uses springs and a "patented ‘Weight (mass) to energy conversion technology' (WECT)" to power the forward motion. Chan believes his wheel offers "over 30% improved assistance" but is hoping to increase that to 50% as his design gets more refined. Currently, no data has been published that demonstrates the efficacy of his invention and we are certainly very skeptical of his claims.


In his own words, the wheel works because "the action/reaction force caused by weight compresses the springs in the upper section of the wheel and decompresses in the lower section. Using the centre as the pivot, this converts energy and reduces the frictional force in the opposite direction and facilitates the rotation."

He later tried to explain it again to irishtechnew.ie and said, "SuperWheel is using the ‘Conversion of energy’ method to convert the reactive force of weight to turning power... The reactive force/energy is the extension/ link to weight, which is always there, but has never been used before. SuperWheel’s Weight-to-energy conversion technology diverting this force/energy to facilitate rotation, therefore, improve cycling efficiency."

A video showing the wheel in action is below:


If that word salad doesn't convince you or you're as skeptical of the claims of 'free energy' as we are then there's a patent application for the system, here. It's worth bearing in mind, patents are granted for originality, not functionality. It's also worth noting that the Royal Academy of Sciences in Paris stopped accepting proposals concerning perpetual motion in 1775.

It shouldn't be all that hard to prove if it works, and we'd be happy to try it the next time we do a Field Test efficiency test if Simon is keen.

Two versions of the wheel are available for pre-order now. One for riders under 75kg and one for riders over 75kg. The wheel costs €395 although we'd strongly recommend against placing an order until the technology is proven. More info, here.


386 Comments

  • 340 16
 It's also worth noting that the Royal Academy of Sciences in Paris stopped accepting proposals concerning perpetual motion in 1775. ....and I would suggest it's just about time for PinkBike to stop accepting them as well.
  • 321 10
 It's been a long week, let us have our fun.
  • 148 3
 @brianpark: it's not funny at all, if it converts your mass into energy it may kill you after a few kilometers Wink
  • 100 0
 @lkubica: Did you just call Brian fat?
  • 37 109
flag pink505 (Nov 27, 2020 at 14:07) (Below Threshold)
 @brianpark: I will ask you to take this down as per the soon to be realeased policy, I consider it offensive that you are making "fun" of this "product". If I can't make fat jokes on the other to be un-named PB post then PB can't make fun of waki idiots who aren't required to follow the laws of thermodynamics. It is called brain shaming and has no place on PB.

On a more serious note the thing is less expensive then many high end 12 speed cassettes, obviously they need to hire a new marketing manager to jack the prices up to match the benefits. Don't sell yourself short Super Wheel, you need Super pricing!

Next thing you know PB will be posting DT conceeding the election.
  • 7 0
 @R-M-R: No, I meant that one may disappear when using it for too long Wink
  • 19 0
 @lkubica: So you're saying it's a 100% effective weight-loss device?
  • 30 1
 @R-M-R: Yes but unfortunately it converts random molecules into energy, so along with fat you may loose some weight off your brain too. So in fact it is a celebrity conversion tool - it will make you slim and dumb. The only problem are boobs which will also loos some volume Wink
  • 28 0
 @lkubica: So you're saying it also makes the rider more aerodynamic? This thing may actually have potential*!


* ... but not kinetic lol
  • 15 0
 @pink505 DT lost? I thought they were sure to beat ENVE and Stans
  • 20 4
 @bigheaddan: Yup DT apparently lost to BidENVE in the latest fieldtest. STANderS didn't participate this year.
  • 11 3
 Did you say Waki
  • 31 12
 @FranzMuhr: i miss Waki and his idiotic rants.
  • 4 0
 @lkubica: Now, that is a grim donut for a Grim Donut. Just don't look up what a "grim donut" is on urban dictionary. You don't want to know, unless you're from Saskatchewan.
  • 21 1
 Come on, man, stop being a sheeple and slave to the church of the Scientific Method! In these freeing times of anti science, flat earth, q anon, and 5g COVID, we can now embrace forward thinking luminaries like this man and his invention! (Do I need to add /s)?
  • 17 0
 I'm still waiting for a centrifugal clutch plate style wheel design whereby the wheel diameter increases the faster you go... small diameter for snappy acceleration and handling, large for high speed stability and rollover... I reckon this company could make it if anyone can :-@
  • 17 6
 Sounds like PInkbikes a little pissy about this guy not buying an advertising package. Just sayin..
  • 4 4
 @scary1: just sayin nothin...
  • 1 0
 @R-M-R: considering I read in the video that it weight about 10kg it should be!
  • 2 0
 Does that mean we won't be seeing Floating bikes with bottomless suspension next week on Pinkbike?
  • 1 1
 @lkubica: it´s a black hole then... you got it my friend!!!
  • 6 1
 Springs and shit, sold $$$$$
  • 1 0
 @lkubica: I'm trying to convert my mass into energy at the bar this weekend that's for damn sure.
  • 11 12
 Not really a perpetual motion device though is it? It just claims to improve efficiency by 30%. It’s not like once you get rolling you’ll never stop. No one suggests regenerative braking is a perpetual motion device. He has a noble idea to take some of the kinetic energy of a rotating mass and briefly store it in a spring. I would think that even if there are some small gains to be made by this marvellous contraption they’d probably be cancelled out by the weight. But the comment section has won by suggesting it goes on the grim donut!
  • 8 1
 @JDugan: what happened to Waki?
  • 21 1
 @gmiller720: That's not true. They're selling it as "the alternative to an e-bike". What they are claiming (as far as you can get a coherent message from their pseudoscience hodgepodge) in their marketing is that it will give you 30% more power than you would output on your own simply using your weight constantly loading and unloading the springs as the wheel spins. This is clearly absolute nonsense and, since your weight stays at the same height during this process and you are not actually losing any potential energy, the extra kinetic energy they are claiming is therefore being created from nothing. This absolutely does put it in perpetual motion machine territory. it's the same thing.

And even if you do give them the benefit of the doubt and ignore enough of their dishonest claims to assume they are saying what you say they are, it still would not help in any way whatsoever since it would just be another layer of efficiency loss in addition to the added weight and complexity.
  • 2 0
 i just looked to see if it was april and i had missed something?
  • 12 14
 @brentkratz: he got banned for being a c*nt. Insert thumbs up emoji.
  • 2 2
 @wingguy: I believe you lol I didn’t read any of their actual material. I simply made a bunch of assumptions about it from the pinkbike article. I also assumed when they were talking about weight they really meant the rotating mass of the wheels not the weight of the rider. In the future I’ll watch the video before diving into the comments section.
But yeah, seems like it definitely won’t work.
  • 7 0
 @lkubica: Mass to Power! They managed to put a nuclear reactor in a bike wheel and no one is impessed.
  • 3 16
flag ironxcross (Nov 28, 2020 at 15:58) (Below Threshold)
 @wingguy: so your pseudoscience is somehow superior to theirs?

At least this guy is out there making something interesting and trying to figure it out. It'll be pretty damn easy to test and see if it works so it's not like the guy will become a billionaire selling us all lies. It'll work or it won't. Sad how offended people are by just about anything.
  • 9 0
 @ironxcross: to be fair @wingguy has actual science which is worth more than springy wheel nutnuts pseudo science. That’s how the world works and we have mobile phones and airplanes and bikes to enjoy.
  • 16 0
 @ironxcross: No, real science is superior to their pseudoscience. The thing he is making is not an interesting concept and there is no way to figure it out because what he is trying to accomplish is fundamentally impossible. And I agree, it is pretty damn easy to test. And since they claim to have tested it they know it doesn't work. And since they know it doesn't work and are selling it anyway, they are selling lies. Just because his scam won't make him rich doesn't mean it isn't still a scam. Given that they're marketing it primarily to owners of low end bikes who don't want to shell out for e-bikes it's not unreasonable to assume that the price of his useless and counterproductive product is a significant amount of money to many of his prospective buyers.

Frankly, I think everyone should be offended by scammers. Though I have no idea how you managed to be offended by my last post.
  • 2 12
flag Rubberelli (Nov 28, 2020 at 22:11) (Below Threshold)
 @wingguy: isn't this just pumping the trail happening in a wheel. ?Pumping a trail can many time add more energy than pedaling.
  • 25 0
 @Rubberelli: No, it is not.

The premise of this nonsense invention is that the hub sags a few millimeters and remains at that height. When it sags, it causes some springs to go into tension and some into compression. The springs in compression "push" the top spokes forward and the springs in tension "pull" the bottom spokes backward, establishing a torque that helps turn the wheel. Perpetual torque, leading to a perpetual forward push, which is perpetual free energy.

The inventor seems to have neglected that an equal and opposite reaction torque occurs - the laws of physics require this - and the two cancel each other out. It's like compressing the springs of your suspension: the bike sags and it just stays there; nothing further happens. Doesn't matter that this invention's springs are attached to the spokes because there's an equal and opposite torque working against it.

That said, it would be not only possible to design a system that is powered by a constant pumping motion, it's been done in multiple ways. It hasn't caught on because it's less efficient than regular pedaling. Here's what I previously wrote when the same question was asked:

Our bodies aren't the most efficient at changing direction in a straight line, so it would be better if we could make the movement circular. And our legs are more powerful than our arms, so we should probably use our legs for this circular motion. It would be better if our muscles didn't also have to support our weight while doing so, i.e. they were only doing the work of the propulsion, so we should probably sit on some sort of seat - a "saddle-like" device - while we do this circular propulsion with our legs.

The efficiency and speed potential is going to be incredible when someone invents such a machine.
  • 9 0
 @Rubberelli: As said above, no it isn't. Pumping the trail involves active input and work from the rider. Ultimately you are pushing the bike forward with physical effort same as if you were pedalling. What this invention claims is that someone sitting static on the bike while it rolls forwards will generate motive force from the wheel. This is both wrong and impossible.
  • 5 0
 @R-M-R: I'm creating a picture in my mind of a rideable eggbeater...
  • 1 0
 @Peskycoots: But is he really gone?
  • 2 0
 @R-M-R: Flawless beat down.
  • 1 0
 @JDugan: what happened to him, he's still here isn't he?!
  • 2 0
 @Peskycoots: dang just saw your right he's gone Eek
  • 2 4
 @landscapeben: thank f*ck, In my humble opinion of course. other than him I find cycling to be friendly and open minded.
  • 3 0
 @JohanG: Thousands - maybe millions - of physicists and engineers have worked for thousands of years to get us here. I'm just paraphrasing their work.
  • 1 0
 @wingguy: You say, "since your weight stays at the same height during this process". This is not necessarily true. I plan to install this wheel on a 1999 Kona Stinky with a coil spring shock minus damper. I also plan to only ride while standing.
  • 1 0
 @uzi-v: This will not help since in order to rise the center of gravity you have to put the same amount of energy you gained by sagging the bike Wink Universe is a bitch.
  • 3 0
 @lkubica: More springs → more energy storage → more efficiency. Try to keep up. lol
  • 1 1
 Also worth noting that this project was funded by EIT, which is funded partly by European Union funds and public money!
  • 1 0
 @claustn: really? where did you read that?
  • 1 0
 @Peskycoots: The company mentioned they've received support from the Enterprise Ireland Innovation Voucher program.
  • 1 0
 @R-M-R: support or funding?
  • 2 0
 @Peskycoots: Voucher programs work by providing either money or compensation for services, which is just money with a restricted range of spending options. I don't have access to their finances, obviously, but yeah, voucher programs are money in one form or another.
  • 1 0
 @R-M-R: I can’t see how this would ever qualify for funding, it’s honestly a f*cking disgrace to try and sell this collection of spare parts as a perpetual motion engine let alone blag help getting it made. Hope they get in trouble.
  • 1 0
 @Peskycoots: The fault would not be with this company, it would be with those who gave certain approvals. I've been involved with a cycling start-up that received support through a voucher program, which I assume to be similar to the one in question here.

The vouchers are granted by a government agency. The people responsible are not necessarily scientists, nor would it be efficient for them to thoroughly understand the science behind every application. Instead, they mostly look at whether a patent has been granted and the potential for profit from the invention. After all, the whole idea is for the invention to generate government revenue via increased tax revenue and/or decreased employment insurance payments. So, the first fault would be with a patent agent that may grant a patent to a "free energy" device. We might also put some blame on an agency that grants vouchers when only a provisional patent or patent application is in place.

Next, the voucher typically must be used at a university or other agency that is receiving government funding. "Keeping it all in the family", so to speak. Some of the responsibility may lie with these agencies to understand the projects with which they choose to work. Any university or technical institution should be able to spot the flaws.

In short, you can't blame a company for trying, but you can blame everyone who isn't looking closely at the applications that come across their desks.
  • 1 0
 @Peskycoots: I know because I've also did a master degree programme with EIT
  • 182 2
 Everybody is switching to coil these days
  • 3 0
 Can I get it in 26” 12x135?
  • 2 0
 @VtVolk: Megaboost only 159x12.5
  • 155 0
 I know a Nigerian Prince who is very interested.
  • 74 1
 Dear Sir:

I have been requested by the Nigerian National Petroleum Company to contact you for assistance in resolving a matter. The Nigerian National Petroleum Company has recently concluded a large number of contracts for oil exploration in the sub-Sahara region. The contracts have immediately produced moneys equaling US$40,000,000. The Nigerian National Petroleum Company is desirous of oil exploration in other parts of the world, however, because of certain regulations of the Nigerian Government, it is unable to move these funds to another region.

You assistance is requested as a non-Nigerian citizen to assist the Nigerian National Petroleum Company, and also the Central Bank of Nigeria, in moving these funds out of Nigeria. If the funds can be transferred to your name, in your United States account, then you can forward the funds as directed by the Nigerian National Petroleum Company. In exchange for your accommodating services, the Nigerian National Petroleum Company would agree to allow you to retain 10%, or US$4 million of this amount.

However, to be a legitimate transferee of these moneys according to Nigerian law, you must presently be a depositor of at least US$100,000 in a Nigerian bank which is regulated by the Central Bank of Nigeria.

If it will be possible for you to assist us, we would be most grateful. We suggest that you meet with us in person in Lagos, and that during your visit I introduce you to the representatives of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company, as well as with certain officials of the Central Bank of Nigeria.

Please call me at your earliest convenience at 18-467-4975. Time is of the essence in this matter; very quickly the Nigerian Government will realize that the Central Bank is maintaining this amount on deposit, and attempt to levy certain depository taxes on it.

Yours truly,

Prince Alyusi Islassis
  • 23 0
 @DonkeyTeeth: Your royal highness, I just rang through and spoke to a person named Abdul who was very keen to get my details. After I gave them to him the phone connection was lost and I the phone number now rings out. I hope to hear from you again very soon. I also need you to know that as requested I now have transferred all my saving into the account I gave you to make this transaction look more authentic. Thanks, Matt
  • 9 0
 Dear Dolores . . .
  • 7 0
 @DonkeyTeeth: daaamn, the prince of Nigeria wrote to you? all I got a was a guy how wanted to buy my DSLR and send it to his cousin in Nigeria :/
  • 5 0
 I wonder if he bought YT industries recently
(Oooof)
  • 5 0
 @DonkeyTeeth: "moneys" is the give away. keep it singular, they had me.
  • 92 1
 Big E-Bike got allot of bots in this thread tryna shut this thing down.
  • 16 0
 Big E-Bike has a lot to answer for!

My revolutionary idea (involving trained squirrels and dozens of tiny tow threads) never got off the ground because of their lobbying.
  • 1 0
 OPEN YOUR EYES THEIR LYING §§§
  • 73 0
 Physics wants this guy to answer some questions...
  • 7 106
flag z-man (Nov 27, 2020 at 13:37) (Below Threshold)
 It stores energy mechanically rather than chemically like a battery. It's physically possible, undoubtedly.
  • 82 1
 @z-man: to store any energy you need to provide it first.
  • 47 1
 @z-man: No, it is not.

@lkubica: Thank you.

The process of transferring, moving, storing, transforming, converting - however you want to phrase it - energy cannot be 100% efficient. Sometimes an imperfect conversion and storage of energy is still worthwhile, like regenerative braking in a car, but it's never perfect.

A general rule is that it's worthwhile only when you can capture energy that would otherwise be wasted, such as waste heat from the brakes or engine. It is not useful to perform such conversions on energy that's already being used in the most efficient method available. This is why we wouldn't, for example, run a generator on our bikes while we pedal to charge a battery that powers a motor to supplement the pedaling; it's better to just put all that power directly into the drivetrain.
  • 10 65
flag z-man (Nov 27, 2020 at 13:53) (Below Threshold)
 @lkubica:

So? You provide energy when you pedal, it stores some of that mechanically for when you need it.

No one is claiming to have made a perpetual motion machine.
  • 24 2
 @z-man: It doesn't have to be "perpetual motion" to be physically impossible. It's still in the class of "free / infinite energy devices", of which perpetual motion machines are a subset.
  • 15 1
 @z-man: you need it when you pedal, hence pedalling... If any is stored, then that energy is not being used when you pedal
  • 7 32
flag z-man (Nov 27, 2020 at 14:01) (Below Threshold)
 @R-M-R:

How is it free energy?

It stores energy from you pedalling and gives you a boost when you're not. The energy comes from you pedalling, loading up the springs. The weight just helps transfer it to the coils in the wheel. The second you stop applying force to them they give that stored energy back as a quick boost.

No one is claiming free energy.
  • 33 5
 @z-man: Actually they are. Please don't place the burden of an education in physics on everyone else.

Start here and let us know once you have more focused questions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion
  • 10 1
 @z-man:

If it could store the energy for that duration, yes. But, it doesn’t. I posted a comment about how it works. In this case the stored energy in the compressed/uncompressed springs is equal to the energy needed to offset the inner hub when the bike is weighted. The energy isn’t released until you unweight the bike. Pedaling won’t release the energy. It’ll transfer the energy between the springs with additional mechanical losses. The only way to release the energy is to unweight the hub. Even then, the amount energy stored in the springs is minimal.
  • 19 3
 @z-man: Would you be interested in purchasing a bridge in New York?
  • 5 29
flag z-man (Nov 27, 2020 at 14:09) (Below Threshold)
 @R-M-R:

Where have they claimed free energy? I have t seen that written anywhere at all.

Yes it might be a bit gimmicky, but it does provide some assistance when you stop pedalling for a brief moment.
  • 15 0
 @z-man: A battery uses an outside source of energy and adds it to the bike/rider system. This design claims to recover wasted energy from a rotating wheel, and use that to add efficiency within the system. Way different situations.

And it's still got all the losses associated with a rotating wheel, except now it has a bunch of extra friction added to the system with all the additional parts. This will be an energy consumer, not an energy saver.
  • 10 1
 @z-man:

In summary, it doesn’t store energy from you pedaling. It stores the initial energy of you sitting on the bike.

Maybe if you pump repetitively, you might move.
  • 5 21
flag z-man (Nov 27, 2020 at 14:16) (Below Threshold)
 @kuhsaft:

It would almost be like loading up the suspension on a bike with a rewards axle path. Yes, it will steal some energy right when you start pedalling and rise in its travel, but when you stop pedalling the spring will release and give you a quick boost.

Weight at pedal forces are closely related in bikes.
  • 4 21
flag z-man (Nov 27, 2020 at 14:33) (Below Threshold)
 @kuhsaft:


All they claim is a 30% increase.in efficiency. Bikes are like 96% efficient. A 30 reduction in power loss only equates to a system that is 98% efficient.

Now these numbers are had to quantify as it depends where you take the initial energy meausurments. If you're a noob that bounces up and down a bunch when you pedal, it will use that energy for forward motion. If your a pro that spins perfectly and your weight never changes on the saddle, then you won't see much gain at all.
  • 12 0
 @z-man:

Think about that though. Wouldn’t that be terrible? Having to compress a shock just to have it decompress to propel you forward? Seems incredibly inefficient. In reality, when the spring decompressed it’ll release less energy then you put in.
  • 3 25
flag z-man (Nov 27, 2020 at 14:41) (Below Threshold)
 @kuhsaft:

Think about how shitty most people are at pedalling a bike. The bounce up and down on the pedals in the highest hear they can. Is that efficient? No. Does this device improve their efficiency? Maybe.
  • 42 6
 @z-man: Please stop. You're further lowering Pinkbike's collective IQ even further. It doesn't work because it can't work - end of story.
  • 3 35
flag z-man (Nov 27, 2020 at 14:45) (Below Threshold)
 @ratedgg13:

It does work. It all depends how bad you are at pedalling a bike.
  • 7 30
flag z-man (Nov 27, 2020 at 14:56) (Below Threshold)
 @ratedgg13:

How? By proving that all of you have over simplified pedalling dynamics?

Most novice riders bounce up and down when they pedal as they just push the pedals down. This device takes that oscillating force wasted by bad pedalling and transfers it into forward movement.

I'm sorry none of you can understand this, but this is what is happening.
  • 2 0
 @ratedgg13: hug it out?
  • 6 2
 @mammal: I don't think they are claiming "This design claims to recover wasted energy from a rotating wheel, and use that to add efficiency within the system". They are storing the energy from the initial part of a pedal stroke or some of the energy imparted by bumps for forward propulsion.
  • 4 0
 @z-man: It also fights you while braking through a bumpy section too though.
  • 2 1
 @z-man: The energy also comes from the bumps induced on the back wheel. This is energy that would have otherwise been transferred through your bottom or hands.
  • 1 6
flag SuperHighBeam (Nov 27, 2020 at 15:06) (Below Threshold)
 @lkubica: Correction the energy must come from somewhere, it could come from you. It could also come from bumps in the surface you're riding over.
  • 6 0
 @SuperHighBeam:

Yes, the system converts the vertical displacement of the internal hub into torque. So, unloading the bike will rotate the wheel forward. But, the opposite is also true. Loading the bike will want to rotate the wheel backwards. The only reason it doesn’t in the video is because the person is holding the bike.
  • 1 2
 @lkubica: Gravity and your mass provide the potential energy.
  • 2 0
 @R-M-R: regenerative energy from a brushless motor for example is stored as it has to go somewhere, it is either dissipated in a regen resistor and dissipated as heat or it is dumped back into the battery.

You could convert lots of energy from a bike, the technology for energy harvesting is still too expensive for most commercial purposes.

Efficiency of the wanted conversion always comes into play as there are the unwanted conversions, sound, heat etc.
Ebikes are interesting as only a couple of companies really play in the arena and have it quite locked down. It's not worth the high end motor companies playing as they are so much more expensive. I have never taken an ebike drive apart (I guess its potted too) it would be interesting what technology they use for bike motors though. SVM?
  • 1 0
 @kuhsaft: So it would provide braking when compressed and propulsion when relieved? Not sure I agree with you on that.
  • 1 0
 @Baller7756: Yes, but only when it's forced to move towards the ground as occurs over a bump. Bump up you down, it's the same thing.
  • 1 0
 @SuperHighBeam:

Yes. From the patent, that’s how it works. If you look at the video squashing the bike doesn’t move the pedals.
So, the coupling is purely between the spatial displacement of the internal hub and outer wheel through the springs. That’s also what the patent shows.
  • 1 0
 @SuperHighBeam:

But, it doesn’t even matter anyways since the springs are so tiny and the internal hub pretty much always “bottomed out” (which is done by rubber stoppers in the patent).
  • 4 1
 @betsie: Regen is a whole different matter. Yes, there could be ways to usefully implement it on bikes, but not while pedaling* and not like this.


* For anyone who wants to get pedantic: Yes, energy generation and storage through suspension damping is possible while pedaling. It would be a small amount of energy on a mountain bike and effectively zero on pavement. This invention is claiming benefits on smooth terrain, so let's set aside the discussion of generation through suspension.
  • 2 15
flag z-man (Nov 27, 2020 at 17:02) (Below Threshold)
 @R-M-R:

You expect all cyclists to be perfect and never waste forces with oscillating up and down. This is hardly ever the case.

This is essentially just a scavenging device for people who don't pedal perfectly.
  • 1 0
 @z-man:

As I commented previously, squashing the bike creates a braking torque on the wheel. So, it’ll negate the forward torque on the wheel when the internal hub returns to it’s original position.
  • 9 0
 @z-man: I see what you're thinking, but no, it's not. Equal and opposite forces. This is not what the company is claiming. They're claiming the constant sagging produces constant propulsion. I now see your support for this invention is due to a misunderstanding of the invention.

Your interpretation, which is not what is being claimed, could work, but the amount of propulsion would be minuscule. It wouldn't be zero, though, and it wouldn't violate the laws of physics. It would require a clutch with instant engagement to avoid the reaction torque hitting the drivetrain, but that could be done. Calculate the vertical displacement of the rider and bike and you'll see the maximum amount of energy available via your interpretation is very small compared to the amount of energy provided via pedaling.

We could say "still better than nothing", but when the benefit is an order of magnitude less than you could get by spending an extra ten bucks on tires, it's not really better than nothing.
  • 1 0
 @R-M-R:

Right, but there isn’t even a reaction torque on the drivetrain which makes it even more flawed. A clutch won’t work, there’s only a linear force on the hub trying to recenter it.
  • 8 1
 @kuhsaft: I was trying to envision a way in which a vertical force could be converted to useful rotation. Just a thought experiment; doesn't matter. The bottom line is this inventor is claiming it will perpetually add a positive torque to the wheel due to a displacement of the hub that compresses the springs at the top and extends the springs at the bottom, which amounts to an indefinite supply of free energy.

I feel bad for this person. He is undoubtedly excited, feels he's found something amazing, and has invested a tremendous amount of time and effort. He's even applied for a patent. He's going to have his heart broken - maybe his finances, too - and it's all because he doesn't understand reaction forces. Obviously, he should know better. Obviously, he should consult - and listen to - reputable engineers (or the Pinkbike comments section). Obviously, alarms should have gone off when he realized he may have discovered free energy and/or improved on one of the simplest and most-studied machines. Even so, he's going to get hurt for a well-intentioned effort.
  • 2 0
 @R-M-R:

The patent doesn’t claim that though. It’s truthful in it’s claims and workings. The inventors claim outside of the patent isn’t even claiming that. It’s just a word salad version of the patent claims. The inventor obviously knows that it’s snake oil.
  • 2 0
 @z-man: buys some and let us know mate Wink
  • 9 1
 @kuhsaft: I'm less concerned about the patent than the verbiage used when trying to take people's money.

"Turn your bike to a super performance power assisted bike in minutes with unlimited range."
"Gives you more than a 30% power boost."
"The SuperWheel uses our patent pending [weight (mass) to energy conversion technology] (WTECT) system and can turn your bike to a high performance power assisted bike within minutes. Infinite power assistance, has no battery and no range limit, opening up infinite cycling possibilities."
"Using the centre as the pivot, this converts energy and reduces the frictional force in the opposite direction and facilitates the rotation."

That - and more - is being said to potential customers. At best, it's poor design and insufficient testing by inept designers; at worst ... I'm not a lawyer, but I'd be interested to know whether this qualifies as fraud.
  • 7 0
 @R-M-R:

Oh yeah, that shit is definitely bullshit compared to the patent. Which is why it’s definitely, purposefully, snake oil.
  • 8 0
 Reminds me of a favourite Simpsons bit
"Homer: Look at this perpetual motion Lisa built, it just keeps going faster and faster. LISA, get in here.
Lisa: yes?
Homer: Lisa, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"
  • 3 0
 @friendlyfoe: If you scroll down four posts (currently), you may find a like-minded commenter posted that very link. Wink
  • 5 0
 @z-man: IDK about the wheel, but this cranks on the other hand... sure bet, check them out
www.kickstarter.com/projects/1202837765/z-torque-bicycle-cranks-ride-faster-longer-easier
  • 4 0
 @iiman:

Ummm... That’s bullshit too... Having a fixed kink in the cranks is no different than having a straight line between the pivots (The BB and pedals).
  • 5 0
 @kuhsaft: I think iiman was being facetious Wink
  • 2 0
 @R-M-R:

Yeah. Thought so. Need a /s nowadays.
  • 3 0
 Count Rumford says "no'.
  • 3 0
 If I believe in the flat earth theory, will this wheel work as described? I can explain the physics through research on youtube.
  • 1 0
 @iiman: holy crap, sign me up!!!
  • 2 0
 @BobbyHillbomb: Would be a lot of choices, as there's 21 bridges in Manhattan alone (I just watched the movie). Hey, can you send the bridge to Vancouver Island after the pandemic?
  • 2 0
 @BobbyHillbomb: And I could sell Napoleon's skull as a child for just $15000, with full guaranty of authenticity!
  • 1 0
 @betsie: Not sure why you are saying that Bosch isn't a high end automotive company. They have the more patents than anyone else in automotive industy, their parts can be found in most of WEC and F1 cars etc. The biggest problem why such recovery systems haven't been implemented is weight. E-bikes are already heavy enough.
  • 1 0
 @R-M-R: What if you had a rack and pinion setup? The frame would be attached to the rack, and the pinion to the wheel. By pushing the frame down, you would supposedly spin the wheel forwards, right?

Include a one way bearing or something on the pinion so it only works in the forwards direction.
  • 11 0
 @MaplePanda: Yes, it's possible to create a bike that's powered by pumping it up and down. Our bodies aren't the most efficient at changing direction in a straight line, though, so it would be better if we could make the movement circular. And our legs are more powerful than our arms, so we should probably use our legs for this circular motion. It would be better if our muscles didn't also have to support our weight while doing so, i.e. they were only doing the work of the propulsion, so we should probably sit on some sort of seat - a "saddle-like" device - while we do this circular propulsion with our legs.

The efficiency and speed potential is going to be incredible when someone invents such a machine.
  • 1 5
flag owlie (Nov 28, 2020 at 12:45) (Below Threshold)
 @R-M-R: In his defense he says his design is about 30% currently
  • 6 0
 @owlie: Which is 30% more than what's true, and he claims it may achieve over 50% with future refinements. Doesn't matter if he said 3%, it's still a lie.

Let's not be kind because the number isn't outlandishly high: the company is trying to take people's money by making claims that defy the laws of physics.

"Turn your bike to a super performance power assisted bike in minutes with unlimited range."
"The SuperWheel uses our patent pending [weight (mass) to energy conversion technology] (WTECT) system and can turn your bike to a high performance power assisted bike within minutes. Infinite power assistance, has no battery and no range limit, opening up infinite cycling possibilities."

These claims, and many other, are lies. Companies have obligations to test their products and to substantiate their claims. By not doing so, this is at least irresponsible, probably dishonest, and possibly fraud.
  • 2 8
flag Baller7756 (Nov 28, 2020 at 15:52) (Below Threshold)
 @R-M-R: Easy... you are speaking so definitively. Can’t you concede, that this MAY have some merit... and warrants further investigation? Not only to DEBUNK, but to expand on and drive other possible uses?

The springs are loaded with energy from your body weight (gravity is constant)... this “weight” is working against you anytime you are moving your body on a bike or otherwise. Using your pedal energy to initiate a roll, springs release stored energy (that gravity and your mass put into it), and springs continue to store energy with each compression (as the bike continues to roll). Store, release, repeat.

Essentially, the springs that are releasing stored gravity/mass energy are the assistance.

You can see from the demo that the bike accelerates from a stop with very little pedal effort.
  • 7 0
 @Baller7756: In order for the springs to 'release', they must be compressed first - you miss this step in your three word equation. It is more like 'compress, release, repeat'. Gravity and the weight of the load compresses the spring, true, but when the spring is released it is working AGAINST gravity and the load with the same amount of force that it took to compress it in the first place. This is why your suspension returns to equilibrium after a compression (let's ignore heat for now).

The 'inventor' is Irish. He knows 'craic'. He's having a laugh. You are being trolled.

Don't ever forget what Abraham Lincoln said: "Don't believe everything you read on the internet".
  • 9 0
 @Baller7756: Yes, I am speaking definitively and I don't do so flippantly.

As I've mentioned multiple times in this comments section:

1. The only net source of energy is the minuscule drop in potential energy of the hub when the bike is sat upon. This would provide so little energy as to be unnoticeable. While riding, there is no net source of energy. The energy would have to come from somewhere, but there's no source. As I've mentioned elsewhere, gravitational force - like any force - only supplies energy when movement occurs in the direction of the force, such as rolling downhill or sitting on a bike with this wheel and the hub sags a little. After that minuscule change, the energy input and output is net zero until getting off the bike, as which time it returns to the original state, which, if you're following, means the tiny bit of energy supplied by initially sitting on the wheel must now be supplied by your legs as you stand up a tiny bit farther - and you have to compensate for the tiny frictional losses.

2. Every product video shows happy people living their best lives due to the product. Do not be fooled so easily.

@Baller7756, please think about the implications of this. If every moving object could get 30% to 50% more energy by compressing some springs, every moving object would do so. A percent or two of improved energy efficiency is a big deal and here's someone claiming up to 50%. Breakthroughs happen, of course, so this doesn't prove anything, but I would hope it puts your bullshit sensors on high alert.

I encourage you to debunk this utter nonsense for yourself in two ways:

1. Free-body diagram. Draw it out and you'll see an unbalanced force would be required, yet there is none.

2. Thermodynamic system diagram. Enclose either the entire bike or the bike and rider and you'll see the claims of this product would require an additional energy input that does not exist.

This is pseudoscience that was debunked centuries ago. Because people with a poor understanding of physics may lose hundreds of dollars apiece by purchasing it, it deserves to be discarded with the harshness with which I'm treating it.
  • 1 12
flag Baller7756 (Nov 28, 2020 at 17:08) (Below Threshold)
 @R-M-R: Alright... then next time you approach the lip of a jump... don’t bother compressing your suspension before jumping. I’m sure you will clear the gap without that minuscule energy source.
  • 5 0
 @Baller7756: This dumb idea and your belief that their is something too it is that the energy being "stored" is somehow transferred out of the system (say heat or sound energy) and not propelling the bike forward. Explain to us where this energy is being transferred to in the absence of the "super wheel" . Pro tip you can't. The opposite is true. the "super wheel" provides increased opportunities to convert kinetic energy into other energy - namely HEAT.

And your analogy about jumping is stupid - how do BMX bikes clear jumps? how do skateboards do it. they don't have suspension?
  • 1 7
flag Baller7756 (Nov 28, 2020 at 17:38) (Below Threshold)
 @JoshieK: The suspension compression before a jump is for a boost...consider it an “assist”... maybe a “30% assist”... who knows exactly. I know there is an appreciable difference in loading the suspension and not loading prior to any takeoff. FYI... also works when you wanna “pump” through some rollers. Compressing down... propels you forward... who’d a thunk?

Oh yeah... BMX and skateboards have human suspension... they still compress before a takeoff.
  • 7 1
 @Baller7756: How does it assist? Suspension in mtb have dampers. Dampers convert kinetic energy into heat in both compression and rebound. This suspension compression decreases your ability to jump. Any jumping or pumping you do on a mtb you can do far more efficiently on a bmx. Bikes jump not by storing energy. Maybe if you listened in physics you would have learned a very famous phrase - "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"... Before we just assumed you where stupid - now we know you are stupid.
  • 4 0
 @Baller7756: There's a fundamental issue you're missing.

When suspension stores and releases energy, it releases less than it stored. The stored energy came from a brief, intense compression and was released as a brief, somewhat less intense extension.

In the case of continuous forward motion:

1. Where do you propose the continuous input is coming from, such that a continuous amount of energy is being released?

2. How would you propose such a release of energy would be greater than the energy input by the rider, i.e. the rider has more energy available than without this wheel?
  • 1 6
flag owlie (Nov 28, 2020 at 19:50) (Below Threshold)
 @R-M-R: I havent seen anything for sale there. Its just a prototype at this point.Im skeptical but open minded about where hes trying to go. Although for a cycling application it seems like it would be like a clutch around every revolution with an awkward power transfer
  • 1 6
flag owlie (Nov 28, 2020 at 19:51) (Below Threshold)
 @R-M-R: Id guess the only physicist here is Simon Chan. Prove me wrong?
  • 6 0
 @owlie:
• The company claims the first run has been sold out.
• I can find no evidence of a university degree for Mr. Chan, let alone one in physics, let alone being a professional physicist. Several of us in this thread are engineers, however.
• The burden of proof is on the inventor, not the skeptics, and the evidence presented is nonsense pseudo-jargon with claims that defy the laws of physics. Why are you so keen to support this?
  • 3 0
 @owlie: lol, I have some sky hooks and checkered paint I'd like to sell you.
  • 4 0
 @Baller7756: a rider need not do 'anything' and still make a jump perfectly. So can a soccer ball (I've actually done this). It's just projectile motion - the combination of the lip angle and the rider's speed will determine the landing point of the rider. Yes, boosting, squashing, scrubbing a jump will change the landing place, but without any of these if the speed is perfect for that particular set of lip and landing then the rider is, in the words of Martin from the Simpsons when Bart won using Martin's aero soapbox racer, "essentially ballast'.

Physics. I studied it. And basically I do maths for a living.
  • 1 8
flag Baller7756 (Nov 28, 2020 at 21:04) (Below Threshold)
 @iamamodel: Fellas... if everyone just accepted limitations there would be no invention. Yes... welcome all of you to your recently acquired Physics and Engineering knowledge. Now that you have read it all, there is no need to attempt anything new.

I too am a Mechanical Engineer... of course I’m aware of these “laws” and concepts... I was just taken back by all the negativity and poopooing on this guys attempt at something different. Yes, it may fail the fight against the laws of physics, but many inventions lead to tangential discoveries and applications.
  • 9 1
 @Baller7756:
welcome all of you to your recently acquired Physics and Engineering knowledge.

I got my engineering degree the best part of a couple of decades ago. Your seemingly rude statement took me aback until I realized you must've acquired your knowledge prior to the work of Clausius and Rankine from 1850 to 1856 - perhaps before Euler's 1750 Law of Motion or even Newton's 1687 Principia Mathematica. In which case, your written English is impeccable - wouldn't even know Latin was your first written language! - and I'm nothing less than amazed at your adoption of modern technology, such as the bicycle (that's "velocipede" to you Wink ). lol

Well-earned mockery aside, I appreciate your willingness to keep an open mind and yes, discoveries usually arise from a few initially failed efforts. The difference is that discoveries arise from avenues of exploration that are based on sound physics, with application, implementation, and construction being the barriers. Ideas that have, as their sole purpose, the violation of the laws of physics are intrinsically dead ends. This is such a thing and it does not deserve the benefit of the nonexistent doubt.
  • 7 2
 @Baller7756: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA if you are an engineer I am JESUS CHRIST LORD ALMIGHT!!!!! what a flog.
  • 5 0
 @Baller7756:

When you’re “boosting” a jump, you’re actually preloading the shock so that, when you hit the takeoff, your kinetic energy isn’t wasted into compressing the shock. The shock isn’t actually boosting you farther.

If you are a mechanical engineer, please just look and the patent and you’ll see it ain’t doing shit. It’s just coupling the spatial displacement of the hub to the rotation of the outer wheel through springs and linkages.
  • 3 5
 @R-M-R: Heres an Idea, its less than half the price of a I9 carbon wheel. Buy it and throw it under a Mike and lets see what it does instead of you and the other 500 monday morning keyboard warriors speculating.
  • 6 1
 @owlie: Calling us 'keyboard warriors' doesn't make us any less right. The science has been in for about a hundred years - there's no speculation. No-one has been able to prove perpetual motion or show that any closed system produces more energy that what goes into it.
  • 2 9
flag owlie (Nov 29, 2020 at 12:04) (Below Threshold)
 @iamamodel: Never once did simon claim perpetual, or that it produces more than whats put in.
  • 8 1
 @owlie: @owlie: He did. Many times and often. That he says he's not claiming perpetual motion doesn't change the fact that what he is claiming is perpetual motion. He claims that the energy source for the superwheel is purely and only the rider's weight. But since he claims that the superwheel works when the rider is sitting static on the bike and rolling along on the flat, the amount of potential energy in the rider's weight never changes. This is impossible. You can't simply turn potential energy into kinetic energy and still have the same amount of potential energy. That would mean the kinetic energy has actually been generated from nothing, and that is a perpetual motion machine.

As to your other points, not only is there no evidence that Simon Chan is a physicist, he also never claims to be a physicist. He does claim that the wheel is for sale though (there's a pre-order section on his website), not only that he claims to have completely sold out of his current production run.

Since it's obvious that you are the guy who's speculating I would say why don't you buy his wheel to test it, except I don't want to see anyone become a mark for this guy. Not even the terminally gullible.
  • 9 1
 @owlie: I know @R-M-R in real life, and while he won't humble brag on his own behalf, I will: not only is he not an armchair engineer, he is an engineer that works in the bike industry and he has designed bikes that have been ridden and reviewed on this very website. TLDR: he knows more than you.
  • 2 7
flag owlie (Nov 29, 2020 at 17:19) (Below Threshold)
 @ratedgg13: My wifes an engineer, and I have a tech company founded 17 years ago. Armchair quarterbacking is great on the internet. Guy has never claimed a perpetual free energy machine. Put this under Levy or Kazimer and lets see whats up. What kind of reviews do you do from a press release? shoddy commenting
  • 9 2
 @owlie: Then get your "engineer" wife to explain the principals of conservation of energy to you.
  • 4 9
flag owlie (Nov 29, 2020 at 17:38) (Below Threshold)
 @JoshieK: How about one of you keyboard badasses get one of these in your hands and give a real answer? All the lynch mob torches out, and no one has ever seen one. This guy has literally never said any of the things people are posting here. 100 % energy conversion , perpetual motion blah blah. one pedal stroke and youy can ride until you die. f*ckin tards
  • 5 2
 @owlie: The real answer is in the science bruh. His claim to increase efficiency by 30%. where is the missing 30% in a conventional wheel? where does this energy go? Ask your wife how THE CONSERVATION OF ENERGY WORKS. If she cannot tell you that this is a retarded idea then she might want to consider another career.
  • 3 8
flag owlie (Nov 29, 2020 at 17:46) (Below Threshold)
 @wingguy: If his wheel indeed produces 1% more energy that a regular wheel, then he has succeeded. But you cant dispute it.. No one here can. I kinda remember 20 years ago when folks like yourself said wheels cant be made of of carbon..
  • 1 7
flag owlie (Nov 29, 2020 at 17:47) (Below Threshold)
 @JoshieK: Why dont you explain it? you seem to know.
  • 3 2
 @owlie: You've just proclaim a free energy device "If his wheel indeed produces 1% more energy that a regular wheel". How flat is the earth?
  • 3 8
flag owlie (Nov 29, 2020 at 17:50) (Below Threshold)
 Backup your loud mouth with some data. Ill give you 10 minutes to copy and paste from google since you obviously cant for yourself. This guy may be full of shit, but ya'll lynchmen with your torches look silly until you actually have data or something in your hands.
  • 5 1
 @owlie: Energy cannot be created or destroyed only transferred to other energy types. In this case were is the energy being transferred to out of the system for a conventional wheel. For the "super wheel" where is it receiving its new energy from outside of the system?
  • 4 1
 The theory exists. you have an entire comment section explaining the failing of this "design" but you are sticking your fingers in your ears scream "lalalala i can't hear you!"

Why dont you ask your imaginary wife?
  • 2 9
flag owlie (Nov 29, 2020 at 18:06) (Below Threshold)
 @JoshieK: Entire comment section of pinkbike users.. I checked with my expert wife, and she had the same answer I did. Lets see some data. I would tell any of my clients the same thing. LETS SEE THE DATA.
But yet the high school scholars on PB have spoken. experts at building dirt jumps.
  • 2 8
flag owlie (Nov 29, 2020 at 18:10) (Below Threshold)
 @JoshieK: the initial and constant energy source is obviously your pedal stroke. dont be a silly goon. you cant just look at this thing and it starts making power. Its much a like a moped. He is suggesting his device recoups some of the wasted energy of pedalling thats normally spent. I dont know know enough about that to stand on a soapbox and proclaim anything, and I think it make you look ignorant that you are with only reading this stupid article.
  • 5 1
 @owlie: Thats right folks, the only people on pink bike are those that are limited to building dirt jumps. except of course for this twit and his imaginary wife who is supposedly and "engineer" but doesn't know basic physics. The only person who looks silly is you.
  • 4 1
 @owlie: Where is this wasted pedalling energy being wasted to? THATS BEEN THE ENTIRE ARGUMENT SINCE THE BEGINNING. where is that energy transfer taking place that it is lost to the environment such as heat, sound, light, chemical, electrical or maybe a catapult or a spinning propeller on the cyclists hat?
  • 8 1
 @owlie: He is suggesting his device recoups some of the wasted energy of pedalling thats normally spent.

No, he is not, and that's the problem. If the claim was what you think it is, then yes, that's actually possible and we wouldn't all have our pitchforks out. It would still be impossible to increase power output by 30% - 50%, as claimed, because an efficient bicycle on pavement does not waste that much energy, but slightly increasing efficiency by storing and releasing pedaling energy would not be impossible because that would not defy the laws of physics.

Please watch the videos, read the website, read the indiegogo page, and study the patent. The claim is that the act of applying weight to the wheel displaces it a few millimeters downward and the resulting spring forces provide a perpetual motive force.

The problem is that you - and several of the people defending the wheel - have misinterpreted the design and the claims. This is not a device for alternately storing and releasing energy, this is claimed to be a source of free and perpetual energy. It's likely you didn't even consider this could be the claim because of the absurdity, but that's really what's being claimed, which is why we're all so annoyed it's being regarded with credulity.


you cant just look at this thing and it starts making power.

I agree. Unfortunately, the inventor does not. That's the whole problem here.
  • 1 0
 [Post from DonkeyTeeth was edited after my reply. Question pertained to efficiency of a spoked wheel vs. a disc wheel due to wheel flex.]

@DonkeyTeeth: No, wire-spoked wheels are effectively rigid and could be more rigid than a disc.

Any wheel at a practical mass will have some flex, but the energy that goes into wheel flex are tiny, compared to the energy required to lift your mass, overcome air drag, overcome tire friction, etc. It's just not worth considering when there are ways for most riders to save orders of magnitude more energy.

To put it in perspective, shoes with buckles are known to be less efficient than shoes with laces, mostly due to the air drag of a chunky buckle hanging off the side of your foot. Few people care about this, yet I would guess the added drag from a buckle at 30 km/h (a typical average speed for a recreational road rider) could be tens or hundreds of times as great as the differences in losses within the wheel from a wheel with low losses to one with high losses.
  • 1 0
 @R-M-R: There is an old quote about wrestling a pig you might want to look up.

You don't need to be an engineer to realize that for it to release energy it would need to store energy. So at the very least it would need to make pedaling harder some of the time. That is exactly what it is doing by moving up and down is stealing some of your pedaling energy to turn it into stored energy, and then releasing less energy back due to energy loss in the process. So just using basic logic there is a net loss.

Jumping off a lip is such a completely different situation. You are taking unused energy (your mass), storing energy in the fork by compressing it, and releasing it as you come off the jump. This is completely different to a situation where you are applying energy in a constant fashion, such as sustained pedaling.

In other news, water is wet, sky is blue, and beware the comments section.
  • 2 1
 @friendlyfoe: What you've described is not what the invention does. The point of it is not to continually "bounce" up and down. Even if this were the case, which it's not, the invention does not work because there is no net torque.

Study the patent. The inner hub sits at the bottom of its range of motion within the outer hub. This moves the actuator arms such that the arms at the top compress the springs at the top, "pushing" the spokes forward, and the actuator arms at the bottom extend the springs at the bottom, "pulling" the spokes backward. Sounds like it's applying a torque to the wheel, propelling the rider forward ... except the reaction torque negates there. There is zero net torque applied to the wheel.

After initially sitting on the bike and setting the inner hub into its operating location, the invention does nothing but move the actuator arms back and forth and slide the two hubs relative to one another, all with associated friction. The torque is constant and zero.

Another reason why the inner hub does not bounce up and down: the rim brakes wouldn't stay on the brake track. No, it just sits there at the bottom of the the outer hub, moving the actuator arms like horses going up and down on a merry-go-round.
  • 1 1
 @R-M-R: Not bothering with the patent although that's absolutely what would matter in terms of a marketable product.

52 seconds in the video you can see a portion of lets call it the hub physically moves downward actuating the spring. I guess I assumed that it was bouncing and I'd have to look at the patent to see what the moving part is attached to but the rest of my logic still applies. If the force from pedaling is causing something to move that acts as a lever on the spring it's just stealing some of your pedaling energy to release it back to you later. This means it is making it harder to pedal in every situation where it is storing energy.

I'm saying the same thing as your bit about moving actuator arms back and forth.
  • 3 0
 @friendlyfoe: It is not the force from pedaling causing it to move. It's the weight of the rider that bottoms it out and it stays there, which causes the positions of the actuators to move.

Your logic is correct, that's just not what's happening.
  • 1 0
 @friendlyfoe: It could have something to do with pedaling IF instead of springs attached to spokes there would be a spiral spring inside a hub that you would slowly load by pedaling and after pedaling it would unload and give you a boost. But you would be using a small portion of your energy for loading it and it would then release a smaller amount than what was taken. So you create a less efficient system. This concept as it is is just a suspended hub that can move or spin eccentricly. Thus it's completely useless with rimbrakes and you can even see that in the video.
  • 6 0
 @R-M-R: What the inventor actually seems to have created is a perpetual popcorn machine.
  • 1 0
 @vid1998:
Bikes dont have high end BLDC motors, they are far too expensive for bikes.
Would you compare them to Moog, Sensata?
I would love to do a tear down of a bike motor and drive. See what they use., but even a drill is potted.

Why would motor regen weigh lots?
There is not that much electronics.
  • 3 1
 @owlie: Don't be daft. His wheel doesn't "produce" 1% more energy than a regular wheel. The statement doesn't even make sense (and I can dispute that because for every bit of forward motion you think will come from unloading the springs there will be kickback from loading them) And he wouldn't have succeeded, because he is claiming that it uses the rider's static weight to generate a never ending flow of motive force as long as the wheel is rolling. I can dispute that, because it's physically impossible, because it's perpetual motion.

And by the way, I have read the guy's website. I've watched his videos. I've seen the multiple ways he's describing and marketing his scam product. YOU are wrong about what he is claiming. YOU are wrong about how he says this wheel 'works'. Why not educate yourself before spouting off?
  • 5 1
 @owlie: "He is suggesting his device recoups some of the wasted energy of pedalling thats normally spent."

He isn't. He has never claimed that this is what it does, and what he actually claims it does has nothing to do with that. Since you have clearly not bothered to read anything about the device or the inventor's claims you are truly approaching this conversation from a position of ignorance.
  • 41 0
 Bicycles are one of the most universal and accessible machines in the world. This is wonderful, but it also entices kooks like moths to a lamp. Wacky home inventors can't build a nonsense fighter jet - and if they somehow did, they may not have the opportunity to ever do anything again - but they can build nonsense bikes and "peddle" them without serious consequences.

Don't get me wrong: I love the enthusiasm of home inventors and many great things have come from such efforts. I'm all for home-made bikes with outrageous geometry and suspension, but we have to draw the line at "free energy" machines. Displaying such nonsense makes us all look foolish.
  • 4 0
 Extremely well put, as always R-M-R.
  • 3 0
 Ha, "peddle" them.
  • 8 0
 > Wacky home inventors can't build a nonsense fighter jet

Lockheed Martin managed to sell the F35... Home inventors just need a bigger marketing budget.
  • 35 0
 I have a bracelet to sell you.
  • 8 0
 Well I just the mid priced one...I don't want to feel too good.
  • 3 0
 @greener1: I believed for one day. What a day it was in the French south when the revelation dawned as my wrist glistened. And then it turned out to be bullshit.
  • 5 0
 My stickers for your rims are cheaper
  • 25 0
 In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8Yt4p_gJmY
  • 5 31
flag SuperHighBeam (Nov 27, 2020 at 14:57) (Below Threshold)
 This has nothing to do with thermodynamics. This is all about kinematics and dynamics.
  • 19 0
 @SuperHighBeam: The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another.
  • 2 26
flag SuperHighBeam (Nov 27, 2020 at 16:16) (Below Threshold)
 @alexszabo: Ok. I'll give you that, but that is the extent of the relevance of thermodynamics here. Still there is no creation of energy here, it is simply converting vertical kinetic energy into useful rotational energy. No laws are defied in this process.
  • 22 0
 @SuperHighBeam: You've missed a point: No conversion is perfectly efficient. That's where the thermodynamics comes in.

There are two problems here:

1. The inventor claims the energy comes from your mass constantly "sagging" the hub downward, which compresses the springs. Yes, your mass does drop the hub and yes, the springs do compress, but this isn't some unlimited flow of energy. The net displacement happens only once; the continuous compression and decompression of the springs negate one another. If this device works at all (I'll address that in point 2), the maximum it can store and release is the potential energy from the net drop, which looks to be in the range of a centimetre, minus the losses from friction.

2. The compressed springs (top) "push" forward on the spokes and the stretched springs (bottom) pull backward on the spokes. Push the top, pull the bottom - it's applying a torque to the wheel! ... except all forces must be balanced when there's no net acceleration (which there can't be, or it would definitely be a claim of free energy), so the reaction torque cancels out this "propulsion" torque.

Listen closely to the video. They are claiming it makes you ride faster, like an e-bike, but never needs to be charged. Where is this energy coming from? They claim it's from gravity, but the only way gravity can "provide" energy is when something changes height. Since this is not happening, this invention cannot provide continuous propulsion. If the claim were that it provides a propulsion equal to the hub's sag only while the dropping is occurring, i.e. during the sitting down process, the propulsion would be comparable to someone throwing a tennis ball at your back one time.
  • 1 8
flag 80085 (Nov 27, 2020 at 20:09) (Below Threshold)
 @R-M-R: Gravity is providing a constant acceleration on the mass (bike and rider)...so if you just ignore all the negative forces resisting that gravity force (you mentioned some) it's a winner. However, just hopping on the bike should make it move on a flat surface and it does not appear to even do that.
  • 7 0
 @80085: That is not how it works. Work (i.e. energy) is force × distance (perpendicular to the force). The distance the hub drops is a few millimeters. The energy available is from that tiny drop.

Yes, gravity is always applying a force, but that doesn't mean it's providing unlimited energy. Riding along a flat road is, with respect to gravitational energy, equivalent to pulling on a rope that doesn't move: no work has been done (i.e. no energy).
  • 4 0
 @R-M-R: Where @80085 wrote, "if you just ignore all the negative forces resisting that gravity force (you mentioned some) it's a winner", I took that to mean that this wheel will move downward nice and quick in freefall. Which is surely true. In other words, this boat anchor of a wheel will surely help you ride quickly... as long as you're only riding downhill.
  • 2 0
 @barp: I may have misinterpreted 80085. In any case, it seems we agree this is far from "an Innovative technology that not just re-invented the wheel, it re-invented the bike."
  • 2 0
 @SuperHighBeam: Kinematics is the study of motion without regard for force. Everytime I see someone mention "kinematics" i cringe.
  • 1 0
 @R-M-R: Agreed. And I can't wait to see it get eviscerated in a proper test and review.
  • 1 1
 @R-M-R: Yes the nature of their claim is inaccurate, but it would provide a small degree of propulsion over undulating terrain which they have somehow failed to stress and advertise. I agree under flat right conditions it serves no benefit.
  • 2 0
 @barp: Yeah it'll probably get totally destroyed during a huck to flat. Sign up Jason Lucas for that jump, he'll be so excited.
  • 2 0
 @SuperHighBeam: No, it would not. Here's why:

1. The design intent is for the inner hub to remain "bottomed out" against the outer hub. It is not intended to bounce around. Thus, there is no motion from which to recover energy.

2. Even if it were intended to bounce around to recover energy, the reaction torque would just hit the drivetrain, putting additional load into your legs. That is of no benefit. It would only work if there were a one-way clutch that instantly engaged, which does not exist in this design.

SuperHighBeam, I cannot stress this enough: everyone who is defending this design is giving it the benefit of the doubt and ascribing functions to it that do not exist. I'll explain it once again:

The inner hub sinks down against the outer hub. In doing so, it actuates the levers. These compress and extend the springs. The designer has been so foolish as to think that compressing springs at the top ("pushing" against the spokes) and elongating them at the bottom ("pulling" against the spokes) causes a perpetual torque from the perpetual force of gravity. He is claiming force can be converted directly into power. It's in the name: "weight to energy conversion technology (WECT)". It really is as simple as it sounds and the very name of the thing spells out the attempted violation of the laws of physics. To be clear, I'm not basing my dismissal of the design on the name: I've watched at the videos, studied the patent, read the entire website, read the Indigogo campaign, and read the interviews he's given.

I'll say it again: the only way this device could work would be for it to recapture energy from bouncing, which would require a one-way clutch. Even with this added mechanism, the energy recaptured will be directly related to the displacement and it's going to be impractical for the displacement to be more than a few millimeters, which limits the recaptured energy - of which there is currently none - to a minuscule amount.
  • 1 1
 @R-M-R:

1. I don't really care what the design intent was. That is irrelevant to how it would actually function in real world use. When the bike "bounces" across the ground the bumps will be partially absorbed by the will and provide a small amount of propulsion

2. That is not possible in the presence of a free hub. The wheel would have to be spun backwards for there to be feedback through the pedals. A one-way clutch would not be necessary (that is essentially what a free hub is anyways). I will give you the benefit of the doubt though that propulsion will only be provided when the bike is partially or fully unweighted which probably isn't very helpful since traction would be reduced.

Again I do not care what he is claiming, I'm looking at what it actually does, which is converts bumps energy into a rotational torque when the bike is unweighted (i.e. inner hub moves away from the outer hub back towards the center).

It definitely would not work very well, and probably would not be very helpful at all, but it would be interesting to see what it does on singletrack. I am by no means advocating for full scale production of this system (I think it's stupid, overly complex, heavy, likely way too expensive, too weak, and incapable of delivering what it is advertised to do, but I'm sure it does something slightly novel even if worthless and gimmicky). It would make for a fun shortlived experiment and laugh.
  • 4 0
 @SuperHighBeam:

The current configuration does matter and it does matter what the inventor is claiming because the company claims the first run has already been sold out. They’re taking people’s money. There is already a claimed amount of power output. If these claims are false, it casts tremendous doubt on every aspect of this product.

Doubt is not proof, of course, so let’s dig deeper. You claim to be a mechanical engineer, so I'll hold you to the standards of my peers.

First, you should understand the concept of reaction torque. For this device to apply a force at the ground, there must be a torque applied at the outer hub. This would apply a reaction torque to the inner hub, which is connected to the drivetrain. Thus, any force this system could apply to the ground is fully transmitted through the pedals. The rider is fully "on the hook" for force and power delivery. This design cannot help the rider, even if it were reconfigured to continually bounce. It is simply impossible.

Second, you should realize that the wheel does not need to actually move backwards for there to be feedback at the pedals. Simply altering the rate of rotation by applying a force to the drivetrain will feel "jerky" to the rider, even if the feet do not fully reverse direction.

This is why the only solution, with a single drive sprocket, is to have some sort of secondary clutch that would isolate the drivetrain from the torque applied to the wheel from the hub's vertical movement. I don't know how this would be configured, but at least it doesn't defy the laws of physics to create such a thing. The normal freewheel mechanism is not sufficient, as it does not isolate the rider from the torque that could come from vertical hub movement. As discussed, this isolation is necessary for this system - even if reconfigured - to provide a non-zero level of energy recovery. If a secondary clutch is not used, then two drive sprockets are needed, similar to how an e-bike transfers power into the drivetrain.

Now, since you claim to be an engineer, let's do some engineering. I'll choose some realistic numbers, but feel free to calculate it for yourself with arbitrary variables.

• Maximum vertical displacement of the hub: 10 mm (0.01 m)
• Average vertical displacement of the hub: 0.005 m
• Rider’s average power output: 100 watts (this is casual riding, even for a casual rider)
• Weight on the rear wheel: 65 kg
• Efficiency: Let’s give it 100% efficiency. Screw thermodynamics.

Let’s calculate the frequency at which the rider would have to experience impacts causing average displacement for the system to produce the claimed 30% boost in power (30 watts).

The potential energy available in each impact is mgΔh:

(65 kg)(9.81 m/s²)(0.005 m) = 3.12 J

Since a watt is 1 J/s, this poor rider would need to hit objects that use half the hub’s “travel” 9.5 times per second. This would be like riding the rumble strips beside a highway.

We could use stiffer springs, but this would mean the rider has to hit even more forceful impacts to get the same amount of displacement.

If we assume a higher, more realistic, pedaling output for the rider, a more realistic (lower) displacement for the hub, and an efficiency permitted by the laws of physics, each of these improved assumptions requires a greater frequency and/or intensity of impacts. Furthermore, the inventor claims the efficiency should improve to a 50% boost with future iterations. The rider would have to be strapped to a jackhammer to hit these numbers – and that’s with the addition of a secondary clutch in the system.

Once again: The current claims, with the current design, defy the laws of physics. A dramatically different design could recover energy, but it would be only a tiny fraction of a rider’s typical pedaling output, even under harsh conditions.
  • 1 2
 @R-M-R: "The current configuration does matter and it does matter what the inventor is claiming because the company claims the first run has already been sold out. They’re taking people’s money. There is already a claimed amount of power output. If these claims are false, it casts tremendous doubt on every aspect of this product" This would constitute false advertising then and the buyers will get a lesser product than they paid for.

"First, you should understand the concept of reaction torque. For this device to apply a force at the ground, there must be a torque applied at the outer hub. This would apply a reaction torque to the inner hub, which is connected to the drivetrain. Thus, any force this system could apply to the ground is fully transmitted through the pedals. The rider is fully "on the hook" for force and power delivery. This design cannot help the rider, even if it were reconfigured to continually bounce. It is simply impossible." Yes there are balance torsional forces, one from friction at the ground the other from the torque induced on the wheel (no force at the hub). Take away the friction force and the wheel accelerates just as the video shows. The laws of physics are upheld. With the wheel already spinning in contact with the ground, bumps forces are transmitted into forces that match or reduce the friction forces (constant speed or reduced deceleration).

"Second, you should realize that the wheel does not need to actually move backwards for there to be feedback at the pedals. Simply altering the rate of rotation by applying a force to the drivetrain will feel "jerky" to the rider, even if the feet do not fully reverse direction." Yes but this is generally very subtle, and is due strictly to friction in the drivetrain components.

"This is why the only solution, with a single drive sprocket, is to have some sort of secondary clutch that would isolate the drivetrain from the torque applied to the wheel from the hub's vertical movement. I don't know how this would be configured, but at least it doesn't defy the laws of physics to create such a thing. The normal freewheel mechanism is not sufficient, as it does not isolate the rider from the torque that could come from vertical hub movement. As discussed, this isolation is necessary for this system - even if reconfigured - to provide a non-zero level of energy recovery. If a secondary clutch is not used, then two drive sprockets are needed, similar to how an e-bike transfers power into the drivetrain." The normal free-wheel is sufficient. This wheel would still have a freehub attached to it to prevent the drivetrain from spinning forward while rolling forward. A small degree of kick may be present, it would likely be very insignificant.

The 30% boost in power is totally bogus, but there would be some amount of power boost over bumpy terrain. How much exactly, not sure. It certainly would not be a lot though. My guess is 5-10% and it would be counterproductive under braking circumstances.
  • 3 0
 @SuperHighBeam: Thats right just ignore the second half of his post then claim an arbitrary 5-10% - fantastic logic.
  • 1 2
 @JoshieK: I didn't ignore it, I just didn't feel the need to respond to it. He was making an effort to disprove the claim of 30% efficiency gains. It didn't need to see calculations to know that claim was bogus. I applaud him for his efforts though. It wasn't worth my time to estimate the actual efficiency improvement this wheel design would offer hence I provided my conservative estimate knowing there would be some benefit but a rather small one. I could have just as easily said 1-5%, but 5-10% seems plausible. If they actually made this in full production I'd never buy it simply because it looks stupid. But it is an interesting science experiment. Easy with the criticism.
  • 18 0
 Essentially this thing is a hub suspended by springs and levers. In the video, when the person is weighting the bike it asymmetrical compresses and stretches the springs. When the hub is unweighted the springs oscillate causing the outer wheel to spin. So, no this isn’t more efficient. In actuality when pedaling more energy is wasted from heat loss of the springs. The wheel looks heavy as hell as well.
  • 17 0
 Wow, impressively stupid.
  • 7 0
 As P.T. Barnum once said "there is a sucker born every minute". In the realm of energy you don't get anything for free. If this wackadoddle wheel is storing a little bit of energy in the springs and supposedly converting it to another kind of energy (real energy to fairy magic maybe?) and releasing it somehow to increase efficiency, there would be a loss of energy, mostly as heat, this will happen twice, once during the compression of the spring and once during the release of the spring, as well as probably some loss as the movable part of the outer hub pushes against the static part of the hub body. I suspect what this mental midget is selling is a big f*^%ing heavy wheel that takes a shit ton of energy to get it up to speed and then the momentum of the wheel feels like your getting free energy, totally discounting the extra energy needed to get the thing spinning in the first place.

We do need to test this thing out. Just so we can expose the nonsense that this represents.
  • 9 0
 Was expecting a pretty sweet gap/transfer at 1:20 in the vid. Super disappointed.
  • 1 0
 Came back to say this... heart broken when they stayed on the high line ... :/
  • 6 0
 Please Pinkbike, even if this stupidity is mildly funny, don't provide a platform for scams like that. There is too much of these in the tech world already. What would be really cool tho, is if you actually got a real engineer on these kind of articles to absolutely debunk and destroy those scam products. You would do a lot of people a big favour!
  • 6 0
 I am so glad this story has made it to Pinkbike - now I can use the popularity to springboard the launch of my kinetic energy storage system:

It only adds 5kg to the weight of the bike and converts your pedal power into rotational kinetic energy and then uses this to keep the bike moving when you stop pedalling. It can store as much as 77J of energy at 20kph and this will keep you going when your legs can’t.

It might look a bit like an unbelievably heavy back wheel, but it is much more than that - it’s a stylish, eco-aware lifestyle choice and will make you friends.


I am planning work to on a new model over Christmas that stores the energy as translational kinetic energy with the same benefit of keeping you rolling for longer when you stop pedalling.

It might like a beer belly, but it’s so much more than that, it’s a stylish, hip lifestyle choice...
  • 5 0
 I, for once, am delighted to see how most responses here ridicule this snake oil for what it is. Most online discussions nowadays are filled with a much higher percentage of dimwits who ignore basic logic/science and just say "well, but there's no real single truth" or some other P.C excuse for their ignorance.
  • 4 0
 Looks like it's winding up a spring in the hub, almost like a really big watch. IDK about the whole converting mass to energy thing, E = MC^2, unless this is Mr Fusion from Back to the Future I don't think that's what's actually happening here.
  • 1 8
flag SuperHighBeam (Nov 27, 2020 at 15:00) (Below Threshold)
 E-MC2 is only relevant to nuclear physics. What is presented is plausible. It's just converting a vertical force (bump) or horizontal force (pedal stroke) into stored rotational energy.
  • 4 0
 @SuperHighBeam: maybe its more efficient but under every law of physics it cannot add energy to the system.
  • 1 0
 @JakinM: It's not created ("adding") energy to the system, it is merely converting forces already imposed upon the bicycle into useful propulsion that would otherwise be jolts, shocks, or vibrations experienced by the rider. It is, in a sense, a clever style of suspension that converts bumps into propulsion. Conventional suspension absorbs the energy of bumps and converts it into heat.
  • 7 0
 €395? Anyone up for a crowd fund at €1 each so PB can acquire one and properly rip it to shreds?
  • 4 0
 I wouldn’t even bother giving them money. Someone should 3D print the patent parts and demonstrate how flawed their PR claims are.
  • 6 0
 OMG! Only a complete misinterpretation of data could result in this hilarious waste of resources and time. Feeling sorry for all the gullible folks involved.
  • 4 0
 This invention would’ve worked fine prior to the publication of Newton’s Principia. Before that people could fly around on brooms, roads got turned into people and vice versa. Once Newton wrote the laws of physics they stopped being mere suggestions. They then became law. So does the super wheel work??? Newton says NO!
  • 7 0
 Is this what Marshy was doing chucking Greg’s bike on the ground
  • 1 0
 it was a similar exercise in futility and with as much science behind it.
  • 6 0
 so in other words, you need to keep bouncing on the saddle to keep moving? gotta love innovation
  • 9 0
 Mac from its always sunny was well ahead of the game on this one
  • 4 0
 "Never stop pumping!"
-Asspounder 4000
  • 3 0
 In theory you could build a central supermassive disc hub rolling on maglev bearings to store rotational momentum mechanically when rolling down hill, and then have an outer rim with an inverted sprag clutch mechanism to tap into that energy when applying force. It would be a beast to turn though, as the supermassive disc would have a high rotational moment
  • 3 0
 "It's worth bearing in mind, patents are granted for originality, not functionality." This is wrong. Patents are granted for the three conditions of originality, inventiveness, and functionality. In other words, a patented invention must be new, non-obvious, and it must work. However, if I'm not mistaken, patent examiners often gloss over the condition of functionality.
  • 6 0
 Considering there are a couple patents for time travel machines, you would be correct
  • 3 0
 The way this works is that there is likely a mass on the wheel hinged at the hub which compresses the springs (converting potential energy to stored kinetic energy). Thus when you stop peddling the springs push the mass back providing torsional inertia (changing the stored kinetic energy back to potential energy). The issue is that for this to work you need to apply the initial (potential energy) torsional inertia to get the wheel to spin. Thus two huge negatives: (1) To get energy out, you need to put energy in, (2) for the return energy to be substantial you need a lot of mass to bounce back thus HEAVY wheels.

If you think it will work I have a bridge I can sell you!
  • 4 0
 The patent shows that there is no energy stored from the torque of pedaling. It’s purely from the vertical displacement of the internal hub.
  • 3 0
 I was going to say, even if this worked exactly as advertised, the extra weight for the system seems to negate any benefits.
  • 8 1
 oh look, another inventor who has never drawn a force diagram in his life.
  • 3 0
 Wow, that “brief history” video is embarrassing.
Using zero scientific methods or proof of any actual gain, and showing a wheel spinning under its own weight when uncompressed (its spinning when uncompressed because the heavier part of the wheel was at the top before it was unweighted!!) that’s just the physics of gravity.
Plus, notice the wheel doesn’t actually have any springs in it for the “demonstration” literally proving that the springs in the design do a grand total of f*ck all!!
Holy shit if this guy actually sells any of this horse shit, the human race is doomed!
What a cretin!
  • 5 2
 This is the best.......wheel.......ever. I mean it’s the greatest wheel. All those other round things are fake wheels. E-bikes....FAKE NEWS!! My wheels are the GREATEST WHEELS!!
  • 5 0
 Stunning looks, mechanically sound principles, and it has "super" in the name. Take my money
  • 6 0
 Put it on the Grim Donut and we'll talk.
  • 5 0
 ever ridden an ebike with a hub motor but the battery's dead? yeah that makes you 30% more faster now apparently
  • 2 0
 This actually makes more sense in mountain biking where there is more energy lost in suspension either the mechanical kind on your bike or your physical kind (legs/arms). Similar to regen braking you could generate energy from the compression and decompression of your forks. Efficient? Heck no. Physically possible? Yes.
  • 6 0
 “As an engineer...” ‘nuff said.
  • 4 0
 I'll claim that this is less efficient than a traditional wheel, since there's no frictional or kinetic losses in a traditional spoked design.
  • 4 0
 Some one should invent a full sise hotwheels rev up flywheel rear wheel. Rev it up in your kitchen to 20,000rpm let rip and get to the shop in record time..
  • 2 0
 Potential energy (force) needed for "drive" is just gravity (acceleration) and the weight (mass) of the bike/rider. Obviously this thing can't even overcome the frictional force of the rubber and pavement... so if it works at all, it's not efficient enough to justify pedaling with those heavy ass wheels. The obvious answer to this is to make the wheels MUCH heavier so you don't have to pedal at all! Seriously though, if you watch how it works while pedaling, it'd be the same as having a belt drive using a rubber band.
  • 3 1
 sounds a bit Irish to me..

not sure if anyone not from the uk would get that or if its still an acceptable term?..

if you find this in the below threshold bit i guess not! but i like it down there in the dirty bit its where my opinions belong.
  • 1 0
 I got it! No-one ever seems to use that term any more. Too many PC folk haha
  • 2 0
 This is a perpetual motion machine! Definitely an interesting idea, but it can't work because it breaks the second law of thermodynamics. This mechanism just uses springs instead of weights.

www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/museum/overbal.htm
  • 6 1
 I didn't realise it was April 1st already.
  • 6 0
 Newtons 3rd law...
  • 3 0
 Kinda reminds me of the sneakers with springs to help you jump and run higher and faster, but inevitably blew out on the first day of basketball at the neighborhood court.
  • 5 2
 The "inventor" is a crook, and the "author" of this article is an imbecile. But to be fair, Pinkbike is half clickbait, so the reader should not have high expectations.
  • 5 1
 We actually had this guy visit the design/engineering company I work for - we laughed and sent him on his way.
  • 4 0
 Please elaborate!
  • 2 1
 Basically just a much more complicated and cumbersome version of Britek's Energy Return Wheel (www.energyreturnwheel.com/Home.aspx). No perpetual motion here- just energy recovery. I do have doubts about how much it returns vs how much it weighs, though.
  • 1 0
 Thiught flywheel when I looked, but its not,,,

sooo... Would a flywheel concept even be viable? I mean if you could concentrate weight near the hub and after accelerating it out towards the rim it would hold speed better, right? Would it be worth doing though?
  • 1 0
 Unfortunately everything is give and take. A heavy wheel (as a flywheel) certainly will help you maintain speed, however accelerating it there will take more time and slowing it down will also. If we are talking something more like KERS (Kinetic Energy Recovery) in F1 (a few teams in the early days investigated a flywheel system) then we have to consider how that flywheel is given its energy in the first place (ideally it would be braking as it is the part of the whole bike where we loose the most energy to heat) and how we then effectively transmit that power to the back wheel. And when do we restore this energy? wait too long and the flywheel will stop spinning... Given that we have electric KERS devices now its not worth doing - just get an e-bike. The key word here is recovery this device does not recover (that would other wise be transferred to other forms of energy) energy.
  • 1 0
 @JoshieK: I always thought the front freewheel system approach could work really well as a flywheel when I raced bmx. In mtb it would have the advantage of removing sprung weight off the rear hub and letting you shift coasting setting up for a corner. I know a german company (i think) tried to re-market it. Never caught on though. To me thats still something that be an improvement. That or a flywheel built into that new Shimano gearbox patent we saw a while back that looked like a redesigned honda dh bike gearbox
  • 3 0
 Nobody has mentioned this yet, but;
What happens if you bend or dent the rim?
Not really possible to simply “re-rim” one is it hahahaha
  • 1 0
 OK. I get the principle that the inventor is proposing to apply here. He's claiming the wheel converts vertical deflection into rotational motion. That's not too dissimilar from the principal that Slingshot frames operated on. Slingshot's flexboard & spring arrangement converted vertical deflection into forward motion.

I had a Slingshot and it really worked. When I rode a familiar section of flat, winding trail that I rode all the time (the "River" trail section of the Don Valley network) the Slingshot was noticeably faster than other bikes I'd ridden there, including my old Merlin. The thing with the Slingshot was, it only really worked with a rigid fork. As soon as you added suspension to the front you were cancelling out the "Sling Power" effect.

I would be curious to test ride a Super-Wheel to see if it actually works. I don't think I would go and order one blind, based on only company endorsements. But even if it only added say 15% more efficiency (like the advantage of toe-clips over flat pedals) that would still be something. All told, I'm skeptical, but a tiny bit hopeful. Based on what I remember from the Slingshot, I wouldn't dismiss this guy's claims out-of-hand. I would need to test ride it.
  • 2 0
 If this worked, it would have been invented to amplify steam power back in the industrial revolution. All sorts of cool stuff from back then.
  • 1 4
 Not necessarily. It may have been viewed as just absurdly expensive to build and was therefore scrapped or not even entertained.
  • 1 0
 @SuperHighBeam: just shovel more coal for more power.
  • 1 0
 @TobiasHandcock: Yeah but who wants to do that? Fun for like 2 minutes for the novelty, then just a chore.
  • 1 0
 Like Babbage's "Difference Engine"?
  • 4 0
 PRE ORDERS SOLD OUT - oh well that's a shame
  • 1 0
 Darn I wanted one for my downduro bike.
  • 4 0
 Yeah nah, someone forgot about Newton's Third.
  • 3 3
 Ok so I wouldn't think of this device as something that necessarily assists you while biking in the flats, but rather as something that converts compressive forces (that would ordinarily be lost as heat in a rear shock) into forward propulsion. The video pretty clearly shows that a force induced from the ground causes the hub to move upwards resulting in compression of the springs and the extension of the springs results in a rotation force providing propulsion. My question then becomes what if you're on the brakes going down a rough section? Wouldn't this wheel be fighting you along the way? Bottom line, this technology would seem to only have benefit in mountain biking where bumps are plentiful, but the propulsive assist may be counter productive when trying to slow the bike (more dangerous than pedal kickback). I see no benefit in this while pedaling in the absence of bumps (your initial pedal stroke will just amount to "play" in the system that will provide a tiny boost when you stop pedaling; seems more dangerous than helpful).
  • 1 1
 Nice, a device that decreases your efficiency by taking energy away on the power portion of the pedal stroke and releases it again on the relaxing phase. Surely this comes under the same useless category as those machines that are designed to do nothing useful just for entertainment like this one youtu.be/Nqk_nWAjBus
  • 2 0
 Don't question it, nigerian prince promised me a 110% cut on the profits
  • 2 0
 @Civicowner: Never question science and someone having too much time at home to dream up this shi#! Keep in mind, after the 1st batch has been sold out, a new lighter carbon fiber version will be released and the power assistance will be even more unbelievable..
  • 4 0
 When "and we're very skeptical" is still not a strong enough statement
  • 4 0
 Imagine if you added power crystals to it!
  • 4 0
 On behalf of Irish people Im sorry guys!
  • 1 0
 I hope he knows what momentum is, same concept as 29ers
  • 2 0
 I guess now that we're all used to setting up our suspension sag, it's not a big leap to have to adjust our rim brakes at wheel-sag too.
  • 1 1
 @Varaxis you wrote "quotes @JoshieK: maybe you haven't considered that the conservation of energy applies to anti-squat too? Anti-squat is a vector force. It's converted from chain tension, which comes from your pedaling. With every pedal stroke, a percentage of that pedal stroke is going towards anti-squat. It's like tug-of-war with the swingarm, between anti-squat force and the squat force from the rearward weight shift (+other forces like downward force put into the pedals, pumping, bumps, etc.). The force that results in squat is created whether the bike had anti-squat or not. The rider is supplying pedaling force as the source that's converted to a force that opposes the squat (anti-squat). No chain tension, no anti-squat. No chain, none of the kickback associated with anti-squat either. My "word salad" tries to explain the difference between HT efficiency and FS efficiency. I believe you're an idiot if you think a FS mtb would pedal as efficiently as an HT mtb, even on flat smooth ground if anti-squat was perfected for this without mech lockout. What makes you convinced that anti-squat is not converting force without a mechanical lockout? What would you predict would be the power output difference on smart trainer, between an HT, FS with modern anti-squat value, and a FS with near-zero anti-squat (Pole Rinne Yla, Lone Parabellum, or a DJ FS like the Spec P.Slope)? The super wheel is converting the downward force (that sags the wheel) into a torque force (that turns the wheel). It said clearly that 10 kg resulted in a moment of 7-8 Nm. On a conventional wheel, what does the force that sags the wheel get converted into? It's a question: if this force is wasted, then how much can be recovered, and is it worth it considering the many trade-offs like complexity, weight, expensive, ride handling, etc.? It's not free. It's a matter of trade-offs, where personal preference can come into play."

The one question you still refuse to answer is where this "wasted" energy goes. You conflate force with energy. Im in the motorsport industry. over 10 years ago we put an V8 Supercar (australia's premier race series) on a chassis dyno investigating force differential on unequal length trailing arms on a 4 bar trailing arm suspension. As part of that test we changed anti squat throughout all the range. Guess what ANTI SQUAT DOES NOT "WASTE" POWER.
  • 1 0
 And of course you've blocked me because you are a coward.
  • 1 1
 @JoshieK: depends on where the anti-squat force comes from. Chain force is where a bike gets its anti-squat from. Chain force going into anti-squat subtracts from the force you put in at the crank, leaving less to go to the rear hub. A car has its own source, needing a linkage to be tuned with their drivetrain (driveshaft and differential?). I've seen some sources say it's geometry-based, perhaps like anti-rise. Some shaft-driven motorcycles exhibited "shaft-jack", which extended the suspension quite strongly, which some brands learned to tune out. BMW motorcycles with shaft-drive created their own unique solution for anti-squat tuning with their paralever (www.bmwmotorcycles.com/en/discover/engineering/technology-detail/motor-drivetrain/paralever-cardan.html).

Would you like to test if your bike has anti-squat if you add a front wheel with a motor and removed the chain? Do you believe it will not squat from acceleration? Try to emulate squat and bob from spinning the cranks without a chain and see how much the bike resists it. The chainforce is supplying the anti-squat force, and that's less chainforce going to the rear wheel for propulsion. It's like a tax that you don't notice because the designers aren't transparent about it, but the tax goes towards stability and a calmer experience.

There's actually a bike that jacks up to top out (Tantrum Shinning). That one is said to be actually efficient. There's an actual mechanical stop, unlike anti-squat that is basically is just putting out force to create a stalemate floating in the middle of some tug-of-war, to reduce bob. Not sure if it works based on excessive anti-squat, but it uses chainforce.

i.imgur.com/RpwLY01.png

i.imgur.com/FdQwWIW.png

Maybe these illustrations might help. Anti-squat levels adjust based on the bike's CoG height, what the chain line angle is (what gear you're in), and at what angle the swingarm is at. That's why the graphs show a change in anti-squat based on what point in travel the bike is in. The CoG for these graphs is probably estimated based on an educated guess and tuned based on trial and error.

Here's an analogy on vector forces, regarding how having a force not totally in-line and directly aligned with a telescopic susp fork leads to a portion being felt as harshness at the bar (upward vector force) and hang-up that slows the bike down (rearward vector force).

Vorsprung Susp on Harshness and Vibration: youtu.be/k-ydae6yOdA?t=271

Is the Super Wheel geo-based? Imagine using linkage geo with rods (instead of wire spokes) to move the instant center of the wheel to perhaps be in front of the actual hub. With the contact patch trailing the instant center... hmm, still would question if there's any energy wastage in current wheels to recover, as it basically is storing potential energy and adding a delay in returning it as kinetic energy as a torque (with conventional wire spokes storing it as increased tension and releasing it uselessly), adding a bunch of complexity and mass.
  • 1 1
 @Varaxis: No one asked you for a lecture on what anti squat is or isn't. I am asking you WHERE DOES THE WASTED ENERGY GO? why don't you answer that?
  • 1 0
 Anti-squat is a force that lifts the sprung mass, extending the suspension.

If you want that to happen and don't mind being the one providing the force with your pedaling, I guess you might describe it as a worthy investment instead of calling it a waste.

Point me to a mtn bike linkage design that provides anti-squat without chainforce.

Geo like steeper STA has helped to mitigate the problem that squat creates, making me question if squat is even a big enough deal. Oh and if you asked why Pole went from no anti-squat to utilizing it, they say so themselves on their site. polebicycles.com/what-is-anti-squat-and-pedal-kickback
  • 1 0
 @varaxis you said " Anti-squat is a force that lifts the sprung mass, extending the suspension."

Incorrect it is a REACTION force resulting from torque applied to the rear wheel.
It matters not if its supplied by a chain, a propshaft, an electric motor in the hub, applying the brakes (anti rise) or pixies standing on the chain stay pulling down on the spokes.
The only thing a chain (or belt) changes is how anti squat is calculated.

"Oh and if you asked why Pole went from no anti-squat to utilizing it, they say so themselves on their site. polebicycles.com/what-is-anti-squat-and-pedal-kickback"

are you ok? i never asked this question. Their force diagram they have isn't even how anti squat is calculated. And their dumb assumption about "lifting the rider" only holds true if the system continuously lifts the rider and the rider never comes down. How high does your bike lift you on a 1 hour ascent? 10000ft? 30000ft? do you need supplementary oxygen up there? ITS CALLED THE CONSERVATION OF ENERGY? WHERE IS THIS ENERGY BEING TRASFERED TO OUTSIDE OF THE SYSTEM THAT IT CANNOT BE RECOVERED?

This is a very easy question. WHERE DOES THIS ENERGY YOU CLAIM IS "WASTED" GO? where does it get transferred to? Or doesn't thermodynamics apply to you?
  • 1 1
 @Varaxis: If you could answer one simple question the argument is over
  • 2 0
 @JoshieK: Into the ground, heat in your legs felt as resistance in the pedals, flex/strain in wheel, tire, frame

Where does energy go when you jump? Where does energy go in a tug-of-war stalemate?

You said: "Incorrect it is a REACTION force resulting from torque applied to the rear wheel."

Doesn't work like that for a driveshaft vehicle. It's all in the geometry of the rods to be aligned with the vehicle's CoG and the force from rearward weight shift on acceleration. It's similar to the principles of anti-dive.

That's not accurate for a typical FS bike either. A torque on the wheel can come from something other than the chain, such as a friction drive ebike conversion motor. Will this provide anti-squat force similar to something that drives the chain, if it's driving the wheel with similar torque?
  • 1 1
 @JoshieK: Correction:

It's all in the geometry of the rods to be aligned in relation to the vehicle's CoG height and the tires' contact patches, to divert the force from rearward weight shift on acceleration to the rods (dissipated in the chassis), so it doesn't go into the suspension.

There's a modern bike that has semi-low anti-squat that I forgot to mention: the '21 Specialized Status. I'm totally willing to try low anti-squat (and low kickback) again, but this time with new geo (steeper STA). I figure that a soft-pedaling feel, as opposed to a firm-pedaling feel, will be enjoyable without some dogmatic belief that it's inefficient (due to bob-phobia or whatever). Not the Spec specifically, but just being open-minded for my next bike.
  • 1 1
 @Varaxis: "Into the ground" This would be true if you can explain how this force would be greater than without anti squat. The only thing Anti squat can change here is rearward migration of CoG which increases the vertical force on the rear tyre but at the same time reduces the front force on the tyre so there is no net change in vertical force being applied to the ground. With there being no net change in vertical force there is no net change in tractive force either.

"heat in your legs felt as resistance in the pedal"
So anti squat is creating some sort of friction force resisting the movement forward - where is this friction happening?

"flex/strain in wheel, tire, frame"


Do you plastically deform the frame every time you pedal? you are contradicting yourself now. remember when you brought up that energy isn't lost in a HT bike because of frame flex????

"Where does energy go when you jump?"

When you jump you gain gravational potential energy which is released when you fall back down. the only energy that is lost in that system is that which is transferred into heat by your muscles as they turn chemical energy into kinetic energy. (and a small percentage to frictional losses due to aerodynamic drag).

" Where does energy go in a tug-of-war stalemate?"

If we assume a complete stale mate - no feet sliding over the ground and no one losing grip on the rope
- Heat via your muscles turning chemical energy into kinetic energy. The only other way to transfer energy out is by plastic deformation (broken rope or god forbid broken bones), heat transfer due to friction on the ground or by hands sliding over rope.

"Doesn't work like that for a driveshaft vehicle. It's all in the geometry of the rods to be aligned with the vehicle's CoG and the force from rearward weight shift on acceleration. It's similar to the principles of anti-dive."

I do this everyday for a living - thats exactly how it works That force that creates the acceleration is the same torque that creates the reaction force to make anti squat (though we use varying degrees, depending on entire chassis setup, sometimes (but rarely) pro squat). the only thing that changes on a mtb is that a chain creates an extra plot point when calculating the instant centre much. Just like different suspension designs also have different methods of calculating the instant centre. Unless we are talking about telescopic suspension (a typical moutain bike fork) there is no instant centre and therefore no ability to create a reaction force resisting suspension movement. You take away that torque, you can change the suspension geometry all you want and there is no anti anything until a torque is applied.

You've clearly demonstrated that you don't understand the laws of thermodynamics and that you can't construct a force diagram. You constantly conflate energy with force to make points - they two are not interchangeable.
  • 1 1
 @Varaxis:" It's all in the geometry of the rods to be aligned in relation to the vehicle's CoG height and the tires' contact patches, to divert the force from rearward weight shift on acceleration to the rods (dissipated in the chassis), so it doesn't go into the suspension."

you are still wrong. see above.

"There's a modern bike that has semi-low anti-squat that I forgot to mention: the '21 Specialized Status. I'm totally willing to try low anti-squat (and low kickback) again, but this time with new geo (steeper STA). I figure that a soft-pedaling feel, as opposed to a firm-pedaling feel, will be enjoyable without some dogmatic belief that it's inefficient (due to bob-phobia or whatever). Not the Spec specifically, but just being open-minded for my next bike. "

You try what you want. my own bike has a pedal bob too, and for comforts sake I am prepared to take the transfer of kinetic to heat via the damper. but i don't race. and anymore than I have and I would get a different bike.
  • 1 0
 @Varaxis: "Point me to a mtn bike linkage design that provides anti-squat without chainforce."

Uh, like every high pivot bike with an idler on the main pivot...
  • 1 1
 @Civicowner: bingo. Gotta give it to ya. Much more of the anti-squat is derived from the linkage geo, rather than through chainforce (minimized). Did one of my recent replies give a hint? Low kickback? Car/anti-dive explanation?

Had you blocked but maybe you're not irredeemable like others, and it was the alcohol talking...
  • 1 1
 @JoshieK: Thanks. Your answer got me to understand your confusion. You got most of the answer I was expecting from the tug-of-war stalemate, which made me hopeful.

You seem to deny the ground as someplace energy can go. You see the friction between feet and ground, but not the friction between particles of sand or dirt. You probably heard of hysteresis, internal friction on a microscopic level. A lot of missing elements into your understanding of the conservation that makes you believe that energy ends up going somewhere in large amounts, like focusing on leg muscles for a jump. Tension, compression, vibration, sound... energy is being converted into all sorts of things besides heat. You're not accounting for how much is grounded into the ground or into a human. People complaining of being all achy from a bumpy ride can be due to it absorbing a lot of energy, like heavy vehicle operators who do nothing but sit.

For a jump, energy can go into intense vibration in your skeleton if you land without absorbing it with your muscles. The vibrations run up your bones and eventually get dissipated in most cases, whether you land stiff and straight-legged or with your legs absorbing it over time and over a distance.

People use energy in a layman's sense to describe their power (watts). You take away the time component of it in your simplification. And I'm trying to say that without the distance component, energy is a force. Isn't the confusion with your belief that no bob (no movement distance) leads to no energy to be wasted, leading to your conclusion that anti-squat balancing the squat force leads to no energy, therefore energy goes to propelling the rear wheel like an HT?

Can you explain something like Taipei 101's tuned mass damper, and where energy goes during heavy swaying? The more detailed the answer, the more I'll give you credit for your understanding. Generalizations, simplification, heuristics are what I criticized in the first place, as Dunning-Kruger effect.
  • 1 0
 @Varaxis:
"Thanks. Your answer got me to understand your confusion. You got most of the answer I was expecting from the tug-of-war stalemate, which made me hopeful."

Im not writing a thesis to satisfy your stupidity.

"You seem to deny the ground as someplace energy can go. You see the friction between feet and ground, but not the friction between particles of sand or dirt. You probably heard of hysteresis, internal friction on a microscopic level. A lot of missing elements into your understanding of the conservation that makes you believe that energy ends up going somewhere in large amounts, like focusing on leg muscles for a jump. Tension, compression, vibration, sound... energy is being converted into all sorts of things besides heat. You're not accounting for how much is grounded into the ground or into a human. People complaining of being all achy from a bumpy ride can be due to it absorbing a lot of energy, like heavy vehicle operators who do nothing but sit."

Lol are literally kicking over the pieces on a chess board and then claiming victory.
You still haven't explained this mysterious transfer of energy that equates to loss of efficiency due to anti squat.
You couldn't explain it in the system of the bicycle so now you are trying to say that some how the extra energy is mysteriously lost in the human. Because that is not what you have been claiming. Your claim has been that opposing forces was somehow transferring energy out of the system. And now you want to bring up completely different topics and want analysis on a micro scale, when your initial claim was broad and general and you couldn't and still can't answer a simple question.

"no bob (no movement distance) leads to no energy to be wasted" my argument with no bob is that any time the damper moves in a suspension system kinetic energy is turned into heat. But you still seem to think that won't contribute to a loss of forward motion.

"People use energy in a layman's sense to describe their power (watts). You take away the time component of it in your simplification. And I'm trying to say that without the distance component, energy is a force. Isn't the confusion with your belief that no bob (no movement distance) leads to no energy to be wasted, leading to your conclusion that anti-squat balancing the squat force leads to no energy, therefore energy goes to propelling the rear wheel like an HT?"

Here you are still with you fingers in your ears about the thing in suspension that turns kinetic energy into heat energy which is why the use anti squat in bicycles to improve efficiency.

"Can you explain something like Taipei 101's tuned mass damper, and where energy goes during heavy swaying? The more detailed the answer, the more I'll give you credit for your understanding. Generalizations, simplification, heuristics are what I criticized in the first place, as Dunning-Kruger effect."

You are deflecting from answering a question that was put forward to you days ago. Why is that? Ill give you the answer - you are a coward who can't admit you where wrong. As for the Taipei 101, i know nothing about that building and I don't really care to spend time investigating it because you are trying so desperately to deflect, however I have experience with mass dampers used in suspension and there is ALWAYS a friction damper involved. And you know what they do - TURN KINETIC ENERGY INTO HEAT. MASS dampers don't absorb energy, they reduce the AMPLITUDE of movement. When you reduce the amplitude the frequency increases. The energy is reduced by a regular damper which as I keep saying TURN KINETIC ENERGY INTO HEAT.

"Generalizations, simplification, heuristics are what I criticized in the first place, as Dunning-Kruger effect."

I think you need to look in the mirror there cowboy.
  • 1 1
 @Varaxis: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. you are a flog. Yet you still think you have all the answers. you are providing good entertainment though. Have you bought a super wheel yet?

And before you derail this any further Your original argument about AS was that opposing forces wasted energy. now you are trying to make arguments like hysteresis and microscopic friction.
  • 1 1
 @Varaxis: no, just spent plenty of time mucking around in Linkagex3

You been drinking mate?
  • 1 1
 @JoshieK: the way narrow your vision to defend your belief... there's a word for this. There's also a word for switching to attacking the opponent instead of coming up with evidence to support your argument.

You are trying to prove that since balanced opposing forces have no movement, there's no energy and therefore none to lose. You're trying to equate it to other no-energy-scenarios as if there were no difference.

There's a quote from someone who lived on the ISS, Hadfield, that it's the laziest experience ever. They need to exercise in order to not atrophy for when they return to Earth.

You're trying to eliminate too many variables to understand some concept of anti-squat. You narrow your understanding of anti-squat to see it as all the same, not considering what is producing the force, and where it goes.

You seem to imply that if you didn't witness a rearward weight shift, by observing the squat it should've cause, then it didn't happen and/or you've eliminated it if it was due to a countermeasure. It's like your goal was to eliminate squat/bob, as if that was all the waste that exists.

I'm suggesting it'd help if you expanded your understanding of other things. Something like vector forces would help. It'd also help if you wouldn't limit your perspective of reality to only include what you and perhaps a select echo-chamber believe, and instead tried to accept a non-personal reality that is shaped by the collective effort to progress understanding deeper: theoatmeal.com/comics/believe

To me, it seems your argument hinges around:
- the rear damper is the only difference between FS and HT causing inefficiency...
- pedal-induced suspension movement is a complete loss of energy...
- anti-squat takes no energy if there is no susp movement (perfectly balances the squat force), as if the conversion in the damper is the only way energy can be wasted

You only threw out any counter-arguments. I'm not even sure what's going on anymore. You're trying to stand up for everyone who thinks like you? What else do you have besides the car dyno analogy and beer bottle on table analogy?
  • 1 0
 @Varaxis:

"the way narrow your vision to defend your belief... there's a word for this. There's also a word for switching to attacking the opponent instead of coming up with evidence to support your argument."

Remember when you started deleting comments and blocking everyone?

"You are trying to prove that since balanced opposing forces have no movement, there's no energy and therefore none to lose. You're trying to equate it to other no-energy-scenarios as if there were no difference."

Where did I say there is no energy. strawman argument. There is a famous guy, I believe he said something along the lines of "a body will remain at rest or constant motion unless acted on by an unequal force" Maybe you have heard of him?

"There's a quote from someone who lived on the ISS, Hadfield, that it's the laziest experience ever. They need to exercise in order to not atrophy for when they return to Earth."

Cool story bro.

"You're trying to eliminate too many variables to understand some concept of anti-squat. You narrow your understanding of anti-squat to see it as all the same, not considering what is producing the force, and where it goes."

Where have I eliminated anything. It is you who can't explain where the energy is transferred outside the system. It is you who keeps deflecting to other topics.

"You seem to imply that if you didn't witness a rearward weight shift, by observing the squat it should've cause, then it didn't happen and/or you've eliminated it if it was due to a countermeasure. It's like your goal was to eliminate squat/bob, as if that was all the waste that exists. "

Even if it is a rigid bike there is still weight transfer caused by acceleration. so no it doesn't seem at all. The elimination of bob is to counter the loss OF KINETIC ENERGY INTO HEAT ENERGY VIA THE DAMPER - you are refusing to recognise that. You have made a claim that the opposing forces of antisqaut to suspension squat is lost energy, you have yet to explain where that energy transfers to or buy what mechanism.

"Are you suggesting that when bob is eliminated, then weight is going into propulsion and your pedal stroke? Is this why you get the idea that a bob-less FS bike is as efficient as an HT?"

The elimination of bob is to counter the loss OF KINETIC ENERGY INTO HEAT ENERGY VIA THE DAMPER - you are refusing to recognise that.

"I'm suggesting it'd help if you expanded your understanding of other things. Something like vector forces would help. It'd also help if you wouldn't limit your perspective of reality to only include what you and perhaps a select echo-chamber believe: theoatmeal.com/comics/believe"

lol you can't even make a consistent argument, your story changes every time you touch the keyboard.
You refuse to acknowledge Thermodynamics and demand evidence while supplying none of your own.
And now you are trying to get all philosophical. You rely on passive aggressive rhetoric just like the coward you are.
  • 1 0
 @Varaxis: "To me, it seems your argument hinges around:
- the rear damper is the only difference between FS and HT causing inefficiency... "

You still haven't explained what this other inefficiency is

"- pedal-induced suspension movement is a complete loss of energy..."

Nobody said that except you. The energy loss is OF KINETIC ENERGY INTO HEAT ENERGY VIA THE DAMPER. Ive been very clear about that.

"- anti-squat takes no energy if there is no susp movement (perfectly balances the squat force), as if the conversion in the damper is the only way energy can be wasted"

Where else is this energy "wasted" - why can't you explain this.

"You only threw out any counter-arguments. I'm not even sure what's going on anymore. You're trying to stand up for everyone who thinks like you? What else do you have besides the car dyno analogy and beer bottle on table analogy?"

What counter arguments. you need to defend your arguments and you can't. apparently a beer bottle siting on a table is wasting energy just by sitting there?
You use the term "it seems" a lot and like the coward you are you use it to put words or ideas into my mouth so you can refute them. nice try
  • 3 0
 Yoooo they used the Matt Jones song!
  • 1 0
 Previous song, that is. His latest video has a different song and people in the comments are not happy.
  • 3 0
 I'm only buying it if the spokes are bouble butted.
  • 2 0
 The funniest part about this is that everybody is actually debating it here.
  • 2 0
 @warmerdamj everyone knows the word torque and no one knows what it means! This thread has been the highlight of my weekend ????????????
  • 3 0
 In China we call this kind of stuff intellectual tax.
  • 3 1
 This is a piss take right?
  • 2 0
 Its okay fam they come in 29er, gobble them up
  • 4 1
 we need more Z cranks
  • 2 0
 I was hoping for KERS on a bike, I am disappointed.
  • 1 0
 I remember thinking that putting a small hydroelectric unit in my downspouts was a brilliant idea.
  • 3 1
 "Cycling with outdated technology is hard work".

Lol
  • 1 1
 If you load the system while pedaling and it releases energy during that small lull in between each pedal stroke it could work!
  • 2 0
 You would think so, but a system like that would be stealing some of that energy from you pedaling only to release it later with mechanical losses. Essentially, it’ll just make your drivetrain more inefficient.

The only thing that’ll make sense is a regenerative braking system.
  • 1 1
 effectively this happens anyway. nothing is infinitely rigid. as you push on your pedal your bottom bracket deflects as a result, as you near the bottom of the stoke and the force of pedalling weakens the bb returns "restoring" the energy to the system. Each chain link stretches (though only by tiny amounts) storing energy only to restore that energy as that link makes its way to the no drive side of the chainring.
  • 1 0
 If you’re loading the system while pedaling that energy is not going to propulsion...
  • 1 0
 @DrPete: its not hard to understand but so many can't grasp it
  • 1 0
 "If his claims were true then the invention would have massive potential, revolutionizing EVERYTHING as we know it."
  • 2 0
 I am unsure why they didn't mention the flux capacitor ...
  • 3 1
 2 stories in one day relating to being stoned out of your mind.
  • 3 1
 We need a bike powered by natural gas
  • 1 0
 I've already got the diet prepared for that.
  • 1 1
 So, just as Specialized starts to abandon the Horst Link, the new contenders for Most Successful Bicycle Snake Oil emerge from their holes in the ground...
  • 1 3
 May be would work better on an E- bike where weight is not such a concern?
But any advantage this may have, would not be in racing due to increased weight !
Should sell to a big bike brand, that can re-brand as weight gain/loss/ devise?
Like using an E-bike with motor turned off or running an elastic band round your brake leaver on descents to eliminate arm pump!
  • 1 0
 No such thing as a free lunch. I'm sure a 10kg wheel with that much hop is a fail any day of the week. Entertaining though.
  • 1 0
 It's all also vegan approved and you need to own a Prius and curly moustache to buy one.
  • 2 0
 sounds a little like quantum paleontology.
  • 3 1
 Looks sciencey and legit, do they do oilslick?
  • 1 0
 I think we’re all missing how wicked lopey that back wheel is in the video. Looks squirmy as shit
  • 1 0
 Not even close to the invention of the flux capacitor, but give him time...
  • 1 0
 This will never work, it needs more magnets. Everyone knows magnets are magic
  • 1 0
 With magnets, you could make a brushless electric motor out of a wheel. That's what I was expecting when I clicked....
  • 1 0
 That was “toads” that got turned into people not roads. Damn autocorrect.
  • 2 0
 Nope. 4 months 2 days too early.
  • 2 0
 Where is Billy Mays when you need'em!?!
  • 2 1
 As many other have stated, this is bullshit. There's no such thing as something for nothing in physics.
  • 1 0
 In classical physics maybe, quantum physics is another story.
  • 2 1
 Free energy magnet wheel in there maybe?
  • 1 0
 What will the ebike haters say now....
  • 4 5
 What is wrong with just pedaling yourself or have we all gotten so lazy and forgotten the sense of accomplishment/achievement of actually doing it yourself.
  • 3 2
 Nothing is wrong with just pedaling yourself but there's also nothing wrong with trying to make bikes faster and/or different (not sure where this thing fits in though). Technology and bikes don't have to be mutually exclusive. There's enough for everyone to ride what they want, to each their own.
  • 1 0
 This should have been posted April 1, 2021
  • 1 0
 Maybe Nikola can use it on e-Truck...
  • 1 0
 @brianpark review this thing!!!!!!!!
  • 1 0
 Wait...but people still want the gear box! Big Grin
  • 2 1
 These guy wants to use the effect that we know as pedal kickback.
  • 1 0
 Now that is cool. What technology can do these days?
  • 1 0
 I’m confused. Is the product best suited for Trail or Enduro riding?
  • 1 0
 These wheels would be rad for pump tracks!
  • 2 1
 It's all bullshit; really.
  • 2 0
 force is not energy
  • 1 0
 WOW; a pinkbike article with the word "efficacy".
  • 1 0
 The first 3 words were the giveaway... Just kidding
  • 1 0
 How is it with stains? (Outlaw Josie Wales)
  • 1 0
 how mich does it weigh? probabaly alot
  • 1 0
 It looks really shit and superlightSmile Smile Smile
  • 1 0
 Great Scott! Marty you've gotta come back with me!
  • 1 0
 At least it’s not a ‘new’ stem.
  • 1 0
 I've got a bridge that powers itself to sell you.
  • 1 0
 Imagine having to true this wheel when it gets bent
  • 1 0
 its a wee bit gGengis Kahn
  • 1 0
 Looks like something from crankbrothers.
  • 1 0
 Gravity is the only 'free' energy
  • 1 0
 Damn son. The future is looking bright.
  • 1 0
 Its going to need 6 pot brake calipers to slow it down ;°)
  • 2 1
 April first already?
  • 2 1
 Sigh...
  • 2 1
 How about no.
  • 1 1
 I believe him, yo. I don't know why, but I do.
  • 1 1
 Might as well use a rim powered dynamo.
  • 1 1
 So thats what they have been testing in Area 51!!
  • 1 0
 Boost or superboost?
  • 1 0
 Talk about 'sprung' mass
  • 1 0
 123 days too early PB
  • 1 0
 Too good to be true
  • 4 5
 Maybe if they keep pushing it will become a trend. Like 29ers and e-bikes.
  • 1 1
 Derived from burritos
  • 1 3
 As long as you got Chinese plastic under your legs you aren't skeptical right whiners
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2021. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.037527
Mobile Version of Website