a flywheel has enormous gyroscopic forces that would make it hard to turn.One thing about sophisticated electric drive, is being able to use braking itself, to regenerate power. They've come up with batteries that don't explode.The motor-in-wheel aspect would make it more efficient; however putting batteries up where the tank is, would make the motorcycle frame top heavy. I'd guess what they do, is put all the switching and wiring harness connections up where the tank is. That would also make the connections less prone to corrosion.If you could charge the thing with solar, you'd be set up fairly well. However it's a long long time, before companies are going to be putting solar chargers on the building roof, as a perk for the employees. In other but somewhat related news, i'd like to point out that (yes, i know, i know: says who?) thorium fluoride, molten salts reactors, are already built by the military, and run. They proved to be very effective.Thorium is much safer than uranium and much more abundant. It's radioactivity, is such that when handled, all you need are rubber gloves: they ship the stuff in plastic barrels, in pellets that look like swimming pool chlorination pellets.Here's some links on thorium reactors. I'm an electronic communications and controls technician so i was able to wade through most of the factoid class information you'll find. But a chain reaction really is, a rather simple thing: it's the equivalent to needing a match, to set a newspaper on fire: you initiate the original fire: the secondary fire, provides the heat to set the REST of the substance on fire: and that really is, about as complicated as it gets.The management of molten salts was a worry when they invented and ran the original ones, but it was found that metals management, was not difficult at all, even with their rather roughly constructed, minimalist engineering. Thorium fluoride, molten salts reactors: i know it's a big mouthful; and, i know that all the words are scary. But what it boils down to, is they mix the thorium fluoride, with lithium flouride: it turns out as a neat trick, because the lithium fluoride, SHIELDS the radioactive thorium; therefore - get this - the shielding necessary for one, is almost nil.Additionally, the things make LESS waste; and, they generate MORE power: by some several tens of percent: for the mass of fuel used.Another thing is, Thorium reactors can BURN plutonium: and, burn uranium- into non radioactive components. The primary drive for people appealing to the tree huggers about these, is not just their safety in their own right: but their capacity to actually DO AWAY with ANY WASTE KNOWN TO MAN because they can burn the s**t right up.Thorium fluoride, molten salts, reactors: i'm gonna put links for you guys to read. Some longer and more detailed, some shorter summations of the pluses and minuses.<a class="user" href="http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2005/07/68045">http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2005/07/68045</a><a class="user" href="http://www.cavendishscience.org/bks/nuc/thrupdat.htm">http://www.cavendishscience.org/bks/nuc/thrupdat.htm</a><a class="user" href="http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/aug/25nuke.htm">http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/aug/25nuke.htm</a><a class="user" href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200604/s1616391.htm">http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200604/s1616391.htm</a>This one, is the most complicated link: it's some blog, by a guy who's a pro thorium reactor guy: i can't say his claity is all that hot; some of his summations and analysis is crystal clear, which is why i include this link) and other of it.... mmmmm maybe he's not Charles Dickens..<a class="user" href="http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/">http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/</a><a class="user" href="http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/499">http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/499</a>Here, a little more scientifically notated explaination, but at a popular site. The main safety aspect of a Thorium reactor that is built, using a particle accelerator, is that they cannot: no matter what, melt down: when the power INTO it is cut, it self extinguishes, starting immediately. Just thought i'd point that out. I've always been WAY anti nuclear until i learned about Thorium reactors.There are several types of Thorium reactors: the molten salts type are my favorite, due to several factors.This page is on the accelerator driven model, and is literally a new invention. The ones they've already run, weren't accelerator types. The biggest push for accelerator types is that absolute safety.<a class="user" href="http://everything2.net/index.pl?node_id=1679478">http://everything2.net/index.pl?node_id=1679478</a>This is a blog, i did a 'thorium reactor news' search, then pre-selected about twelve links. The second post on here, is about Thorium reactors, and is an accurate assessment for the less techni-drivel oriented.<a class="user" href="http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/5/3/102117/6965">http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/5/3/102117/6965</a>It may be a hijack of the thread about the bike, but i think you guys need to know, that the reason these weren't built as the first round of Civil nuclear power, was that material for weapons, needed to be generated in the cold war.
So......If i want to take a bike on a road trip I'd have to wait 6-8 hours every 100 miles to keep going... with gasoline i can just refuel in 5 mins.... I don't see the point in a electric powered bike..
@repeatoffender:> NO slef-respecting sportbike pilot would buy a bike that [...] weighs more than the gas-powered version> [...]> Ugly, heavy, expensive,slow. ---------exactly the opposite of what we want.FTFA: "Together, they weigh less than everything that was taken off the bike to make it electric."How you could get from that that the new setup weighs MORE than the gas-powered bike I don't know...As for the top speed, they ditched the gearbox since the electric motor can handle a much higher range of speeds, if they were to put in a custom gearbox, and a slightly larger motor (not engine) they could probably make one that will easily outperform the fuel combustion version, but this is mostly just a proof of concept, and since it's not mass produced it's going to cost more to make.Besides, how often are you going to be riding at 175mph? That would have to be illegal on the vast majority of public roads.
As a tech geek my brain is thinking "wow that's so cool". As an interesting project it's a good start but 100mph out of a bike like that isn't exactly fantastic. I can get 100mph out of a 125cc with the right tuning and it probably uses marginally less energy, due to it weighing a lot...LOT less. Even that considered it's great to see people trying out electric technology in unusual places. Increasing battery efficiency and capacity will eventually make the same capacity batteries smaller and lighter, meaning this kind of thing will get faster.As an ardent and devoted Superbike fanatic, bike racing fan and all round petrol head my heart nearly croaked when I saw what a mess he'd made of the R1s beautiful lines :( The R1 is one of my all time favourite bikes, an no matter how cool this is the bike purist in me is yelling "NOOO!!!!!!" in that whole Darth Vader style :o) It's kinda like making a diesel Ferrari - you know it makes sense economically but you just wouldn't feel right...
olegkJun 3, 2007
Don't forget to fill out the organ donor side on your drivers license
ideefixJun 3, 2007
video from article <a class="user" href="http://videoegg.blogspot.com/2007/06/lightning-lithium-superbike-no.html">http://videoegg.blogspot.com/2007/06/lightning-lithium-superbike-no.html</a>
Closed AccountJun 3, 2007
a flywheel has enormous gyroscopic forces that would make it hard to turn.One thing about sophisticated electric drive, is being able to use braking itself, to regenerate power. They've come up with batteries that don't explode.The motor-in-wheel aspect would make it more efficient; however putting batteries up where the tank is, would make the motorcycle frame top heavy. I'd guess what they do, is put all the switching and wiring harness connections up where the tank is. That would also make the connections less prone to corrosion.If you could charge the thing with solar, you'd be set up fairly well. However it's a long long time, before companies are going to be putting solar chargers on the building roof, as a perk for the employees. In other but somewhat related news, i'd like to point out that (yes, i know, i know: says who?) thorium fluoride, molten salts reactors, are already built by the military, and run. They proved to be very effective.Thorium is much safer than uranium and much more abundant. It's radioactivity, is such that when handled, all you need are rubber gloves: they ship the stuff in plastic barrels, in pellets that look like swimming pool chlorination pellets.Here's some links on thorium reactors. I'm an electronic communications and controls technician so i was able to wade through most of the factoid class information you'll find. But a chain reaction really is, a rather simple thing: it's the equivalent to needing a match, to set a newspaper on fire: you initiate the original fire: the secondary fire, provides the heat to set the REST of the substance on fire: and that really is, about as complicated as it gets.The management of molten salts was a worry when they invented and ran the original ones, but it was found that metals management, was not difficult at all, even with their rather roughly constructed, minimalist engineering. Thorium fluoride, molten salts reactors: i know it's a big mouthful; and, i know that all the words are scary. But what it boils down to, is they mix the thorium fluoride, with lithium flouride: it turns out as a neat trick, because the lithium fluoride, SHIELDS the radioactive thorium; therefore - get this - the shielding necessary for one, is almost nil.Additionally, the things make LESS waste; and, they generate MORE power: by some several tens of percent: for the mass of fuel used.Another thing is, Thorium reactors can BURN plutonium: and, burn uranium- into non radioactive components. The primary drive for people appealing to the tree huggers about these, is not just their safety in their own right: but their capacity to actually DO AWAY with ANY WASTE KNOWN TO MAN because they can burn the s**t right up.Thorium fluoride, molten salts, reactors: i'm gonna put links for you guys to read. Some longer and more detailed, some shorter summations of the pluses and minuses.<a class="user" href="http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2005/07/68045">http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2005/07/68045</a><a class="user" href="http://www.cavendishscience.org/bks/nuc/thrupdat.htm">http://www.cavendishscience.org/bks/nuc/thrupdat.htm</a><a class="user" href="http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/aug/25nuke.htm">http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/aug/25nuke.htm</a><a class="user" href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200604/s1616391.htm">http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200604/s1616391.htm</a>This one, is the most complicated link: it's some blog, by a guy who's a pro thorium reactor guy: i can't say his claity is all that hot; some of his summations and analysis is crystal clear, which is why i include this link) and other of it.... mmmmm maybe he's not Charles Dickens..<a class="user" href="http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/">http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/</a><a class="user" href="http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/499">http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/499</a>Here, a little more scientifically notated explaination, but at a popular site. The main safety aspect of a Thorium reactor that is built, using a particle accelerator, is that they cannot: no matter what, melt down: when the power INTO it is cut, it self extinguishes, starting immediately. Just thought i'd point that out. I've always been WAY anti nuclear until i learned about Thorium reactors.There are several types of Thorium reactors: the molten salts type are my favorite, due to several factors.This page is on the accelerator driven model, and is literally a new invention. The ones they've already run, weren't accelerator types. The biggest push for accelerator types is that absolute safety.<a class="user" href="http://everything2.net/index.pl?node_id=1679478">http://everything2.net/index.pl?node_id=1679478</a>This is a blog, i did a 'thorium reactor news' search, then pre-selected about twelve links. The second post on here, is about Thorium reactors, and is an accurate assessment for the less techni-drivel oriented.<a class="user" href="http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/5/3/102117/6965">http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/5/3/102117/6965</a>It may be a hijack of the thread about the bike, but i think you guys need to know, that the reason these weren't built as the first round of Civil nuclear power, was that material for weapons, needed to be generated in the cold war.
bartz13Jun 3, 2007
So......If i want to take a bike on a road trip I'd have to wait 6-8 hours every 100 miles to keep going... with gasoline i can just refuel in 5 mins.... I don't see the point in a electric powered bike..
Closed AccountJun 3, 2007
Real men petal.
chrisc262Jun 3, 2007
@sporgthey are talking about lithium ion batterieswhich are around 90% efficientso thanks for another useless comment
dacheetahJun 4, 2007
@repeatoffender:> NO slef-respecting sportbike pilot would buy a bike that [...] weighs more than the gas-powered version> [...]> Ugly, heavy, expensive,slow. ---------exactly the opposite of what we want.FTFA: "Together, they weigh less than everything that was taken off the bike to make it electric."How you could get from that that the new setup weighs MORE than the gas-powered bike I don't know...As for the top speed, they ditched the gearbox since the electric motor can handle a much higher range of speeds, if they were to put in a custom gearbox, and a slightly larger motor (not engine) they could probably make one that will easily outperform the fuel combustion version, but this is mostly just a proof of concept, and since it's not mass produced it's going to cost more to make.Besides, how often are you going to be riding at 175mph? That would have to be illegal on the vast majority of public roads.
svpirateJun 4, 2007
As a tech geek my brain is thinking "wow that's so cool". As an interesting project it's a good start but 100mph out of a bike like that isn't exactly fantastic. I can get 100mph out of a 125cc with the right tuning and it probably uses marginally less energy, due to it weighing a lot...LOT less. Even that considered it's great to see people trying out electric technology in unusual places. Increasing battery efficiency and capacity will eventually make the same capacity batteries smaller and lighter, meaning this kind of thing will get faster.As an ardent and devoted Superbike fanatic, bike racing fan and all round petrol head my heart nearly croaked when I saw what a mess he'd made of the R1s beautiful lines :( The R1 is one of my all time favourite bikes, an no matter how cool this is the bike purist in me is yelling "NOOO!!!!!!" in that whole Darth Vader style :o) It's kinda like making a diesel Ferrari - you know it makes sense economically but you just wouldn't feel right...