Nothing like being informed before expressing an opinion…
I just learned of this. I rode my Coker on the first day of the Indiana “Hilly Hundred” bicycle ride and had to walk a lot of hills. I stumbled upon this as a way to be able to go up hills and I think it has a chance of working. I don’t really understand how it works, at least not well enough to build one or tell someone else how to build one.
It does look like this idea never caught on. I don’t know if that says anything about it’s validity or not. They did do some experiments and collect data, which is a good thing. I didn’t read all the reports, but it looks promising.
I understand that things like this may not be attractive to everyone, because they detract from the simplicity of a basic unicycle.
Does anyone really understand how this thing works?
P.S. I saw the link to the bent crank idea. That idea seems like it would do absolutely nothing. As far as I understand the pedaling would be exactly the same as a non-bent crank as the position of the pedal to the crank is constant. Is there something here I’m missing?
ha this is funny because my hub is currently slightly bent so my cranks are ofset too. its not hard to ride either cause iv sorta gotten used to it but i hope it wont feel to weird when i get a new hub.
For all those who like this idea: please PM me. I have a job lot of snake oil I can offer at a good price. I also have anti-gullibility pills at $5 for 10, or $12 for 20.
The angle of the cranks relative to each other changes during the pedaling movement. As each crank goes over top dead centre, it somehow advances quickly to past top dead centre.
It has to get there somehow, and the energy to get it there has to come from somewhere. If it has more components, it must add weight, or complexity, or both. If it has moving parts, it adds friction losses to an otherwise simple system.
A proper cyclist rides in the correct gear to spin the pedals at a cadence so high that top dead centre is barely an issue.
I can remember S shaped cranks, oval chain rings, asymmetric chain rings…
There’s no substitue for riding properly.
Um… I don’t have a dead spot when riding…
I can ride my bike with one foot… and nearly ride my Unicycle with one foot…
What dead spot are they talking about?
you’re using momentum to scoot through the deadspot, the reason that you can nearly ride your uni one footed when you ride it two footed very competently is because of the deadspot, were there no deadspot it would be just as easy either way.
This is where you’re wrong.
When you’re on a fixed gear, there is no dead spot.
As well as on my bike, I don’t “scoot” through it, I angle my foot differently. I can do one foot on my bike at any speed I want, it’s all in the technique.
“The reason I can nearly ride one footed on the Unicycle” is because I don’t practice it often.
Adapting your technique to overcome a technical deficiency does not mean the technical deficiency does not exist.
What we are dealing with is a set of ill-defined terms:
“Dead spot” may be a little too decisive when it comes to what is or is not possible in a unicyclist’s pedal rotation. The “dead spot” is a pedal position which is much less ideal than the tried-and-true horizontal “power position” if you want to move your legs/cranks/pedals with as little effort as possible.