I recently learned to ride an ultimate wheel (ok, my record is only about
200 feet, but I’m sure I’ll beat that soon). Now, most of the time the
tire rubs against my pants, but sometimes, I’m fortunate enough to balance
without this happening. I’d like to mimize this friction between my legs
and the wheel.
Intuition tells me that an UW with crank arms and the like would be a
little easier to prevent the wheel from hitting my legs than the sort with
plywood instead of spokes. (For reason that the wheel can wobble farther
from side to side before it hits either leg) Is this a reasonable
judgement on my part?
Does anyone know what sort of wheels George Peck and the like (are there
others like George Peck?) use? (Are there cranks, or something else to
bring the pedals closer to the wheel? Are there any comments on ideal
sizes, or crank lengths?)
For the moment, just going forward (and eventually, idling and backwards)
will keep me busy. Are there any good UW tricks to work on? (freestyle or
otherwise)
In message “Ultimate Wheels”, Jeff Lutkus wrote… >I recently learned to ride an ultimate wheel (ok, my record is only >about 200 feet, but I’m sure I’ll beat that soon). Now, most of the time >the tire rubs against my pants, but sometimes, I’m fortunate enough to >balance without this happening. I’d like to mimize this friction between >my legs and the wheel. > >Intuition tells me that an UW with crank arms and the like would be a >little easier to prevent the wheel from hitting my legs than the sort >with plywood instead of spokes. (For reason that the wheel can wobble >farther from side to side before it hits either leg) Is this a >reasonable judgement on my part?
Ultimate wheels like you describe are basically a unicycle wheel. They are
much harder to ride. From my and the experiecne of others, the wobbling
will be greater and you will have less control. It will be a bit like
dragging the seat on a normal uni. To prevent wobbling, the UW should be
as narrow as possible. Once you reach a certain speed and gain experience
rubbing against you leg becomes less necessary.
>Does anyone know what sort of wheels George Peck and the like (are there >others like George Peck?) use? (Are there cranks, or something else to >bring the pedals closer to the wheel? Are there any comments on ideal >sizes, or crank lengths?)
There have been discussions on this. I personally, after experimenting
with various sizes and crank lengths, found 24" with 5.5" cranks the
easiest. But I am sure this varies with the individual.
> >For the moment, just going forward (and eventually, idling and >backwards) will keep me busy. Are there any good UW tricks to work on? >(freestyle or otherwise) > >Jeff Lutkus >
On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 17:00:15 -0600 (CST), “Jeff Lutkus”
<lutkus@unicyclist.com> wrote:
>Intuition tells me that an UW with crank arms and the like would be a >little easier to prevent the wheel from hitting my legs than the sort >with plywood instead of spokes. (For reason that the wheel can wobble >farther from side to side before it hits either leg) Is this a reasonable >judgement on my part?
I agree with Jack Halpern that a UW with cranks is harder to ride,
i.e. has so much more side-to-side wobble that it will actually rub MORE
against your leg, as compared to a UW with pedals directly on
plywood. The reason is that the moment to push the UW out of the
vertical orientation gets larger the more the pedal is off the centre
plane. For the sake of the argument, imagine a UW with an axis that
sticks out half a meter to each side. As soon as you put any more
pressure on one pedal than on the other (which is what you need for
locomotion) you would push that side down all the way. If you imagine
a hypothetical UW where the pedals are within the centre plane
(practically difficult) and further assume that you would exercise no
lateral forces on the pedals, then there would be no side-to-side
wobble at all.
Klaas Bil
“To trigger/fool/saturate/overload Echelon, the following has been picked
automagically from a database:” “ReMOB, toffee, Armani”
Klaas Bil wrote… >On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 17:00:15 -0600 (CST), “Jeff Lutkus” ><lutkus@unicyclist.com> wrote: > >>Intuition tells me that an UW with crank arms and the like would be a >>little easier to prevent the wheel from hitting my legs than the sort >>with plywood instead of spokes. (For reason that the wheel can wobble >>farther from side to side before it hits either leg) Is this a >>reasonable judgement on my part? > >I agree with Jack Halpern that a UW with cranks is harder to ride, >i.e. has so much more side-to-side wobble that it will actually rub MORE > against your leg, as compared to a UW with pedals directly on > plywood. The reason is that the moment to push the UW out of the > vertical orientation gets larger the more the pedal is off the > centre plane. For the sake of the argument, imagine a UW with an > axis that sticks out half a meter to each side. As soon as you put > any more pressure on one pedal than on the other (which is what you > need for locomotion) you would push that side down all the way. If > you imagine a hypothetical UW where the pedals are within the > centre plane (practically difficult) and further assume that you > would exercise no lateral forces on the pedals, then there would be > no side-to-side wobble at all.
I agree 100%. This explanation is superb. The narrower the UW, the less
wobble and the easier it is to ride.
Regards, Jack Halpern President, The CJK Dictionary Institute, Inc. http://www.cjk.org Phone: +81-48-473-3508
> Klaas Bil wrote… > >On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 17:00:15 -0600 (CST), “Jeff Lutkus” > ><lutkus@unicyclist.com> wrote: > > > >>Intuition tells me that an UW with crank arms and the like would be a > >>little easier to prevent the wheel from hitting my legs than the sort > >>with plywood instead of spokes. (For reason that the wheel can wobble > >>farther from side to side before it hits either leg) Is this a > >>reasonable judgement on my part? > > > >I agree with Jack Halpern that a UW with cranks is harder to ride, > >i.e. has so much more side-to-side wobble that it will actually rub > > MORE against your leg, as compared to a UW with pedals directly > > on plywood. The reason is that the moment to push the UW out of > > the vertical orientation gets larger the more the pedal is off > > the centre plane. For the sake of the argument, imagine a UW with > > an axis that sticks out half a meter to each side. As soon as you > > put any more pressure on one pedal than on the other (which is > > what you need for locomotion) you would push that side down all > > the way. If you imagine a hypothetical UW where the pedals are > > within the centre plane (practically difficult) and further > > assume that you would exercise no lateral forces on the pedals, > > then there would be no side-to-side wobble at all. > > I agree 100%. This explanation is superb. The narrower the UW, the less > wobble and the easier it is to ride. > > Regards, Jack Halpern >
i disagree. Yes, the physics is correct but as far as the human input is
concerned, i find it easier - not much, but, easier - to ride the cranked
up UW as opposed to the planar wheel. One advantage is the wider stance.
This does allow more flop, but it also allows the rider to squeege around
to deal with it and the terrain.
End result - wider stance vs more flop -…wider stance. By a
landslide. Once you learn the basics of the UW, you can do far more on the
cranked UW than the planar. You don’t see Kris Holm riding a planar uni.
He uses cranks…obviously he has to since a planar would have to use a
maglev device to attach the frame - expensive at this writing - but even
so, the mountain uni people are pretty unanimous in liking a wide stance.
george peck wrote: > i disagree. Yes, the physics is correct but as far as the human input is > concerned, i find it easier - not much, but, easier - to ride the > cranked up UW as opposed to the planar wheel. One advantage is the wider > stance. This does allow more flop, but it also allows the rider to > squeege around to deal with it and the terrain. > > End result - wider stance vs more flop -…wider stance. By a > landslide. Once you learn the basics of the UW, you can do far more on > the cranked UW than the planar. You don’t see Kris Holm riding a planar > uni. He uses cranks…obviously he has to since a planar would have > to use a maglev device to attach the frame - expensive at this writing - > but even so, the mountain uni people are pretty unanimous in liking a > wide stance. > > george
Hi George;
A number of us started to uni because of the Atlantic Monthly article. So
how does it feel to be a guru?
I have a question about UWs in general.
Beyond the simple challenge of a UW just as Unis in general have the
challenge factor over bicycles, is there actually any ‘practical’ value of
riding a UW? In other words is there an advantage at anytime in NOT
haveing the frame and seat?
And lastly… Those things are just IMPOSSIBLE to ride!!!
Christopher Grove
“Be Bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.” -Basil King (Anyone who
can give me more info on THIS Basil King please email
me.)
gpeck@arctic.net writes: >End result - wider stance vs more flop -…wider stance. By a >landslide. Once you learn the basics of the UW, you can do far more on >the cranked UW than the planar. You don’t see Kris Holm riding a planar >uni. He uses cranks…obviously he has to since a planar would have >to use a maglev device to attach the frame - expensive at this writing - >but even so, the mountain uni people are pretty unanimous in liking a >wide stance. > >george
Hey George, couldn’t we simply have a ‘rotating’ frame that would fit into
a small space bw the cranks and the wheel to allow us to ride planar unis?
The frame would rotate like the thing on the wheels of trains. I hope
that’s a clear enough analogy. Anyhoo, it seems that one could make a
planar uni sans maglev.
David Stone
Co-founder, Unatics of NY
1st Sunday / 3rd Saturday
@ Central Park Bandshell
rhysling wrote: > > Would this suggest that, on a Uni, high-speed wheel wobble might be > reduced by a narrowing the hub/puting the pedals closer to the wheel?
In message “Re: Ultimate Wheels”, Christopher Grove wrote… >george peck wrote: >> i disagree. Yes, the physics is correct but as far as the human input >> is concerned, i find it easier - not much, but, easier - to ride the >> cranked up UW as opposed to the planar wheel. One advantage is the >> wider stance. This does allow more flop, but it also allows the rider >> to squeege around to deal with it and the terrain. >> >> End result - wider stance vs more flop -…wider stance. By a >> landslide. Once you learn the basics of the UW, you can do far more on >> the cranked UW than the planar. You don’t see Kris Holm riding a >> planar uni. He uses cranks…obviously he has to since a planar >> would have to use a maglev device to attach the frame - expensive at >> this writing - but even so, the mountain uni people are pretty >> unanimous in liking a wide stance.
The above is very surprising indeed, as it is in conflict with my
experience and the experience of numerous UW riders. As the say, to
each his own.
>> george > >Hi George; > >A number of us started to uni because of the Atlantic Monthly article. >So how does it feel to be a guru? > >I have a question about UWs in general. > >Beyond the simple challenge of a UW just as Unis in general have the >challenge factor over bicycles, is there actually any ‘practical’ value >of riding a UW? In other words is there an advantage at anytime in NOT >haveing the frame and seat? > >And lastly… Those things are just IMPOSSIBLE to ride!!! > >Christopher Grove >– >“Be Bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.” -Basil King (Anyone >who can give me more info on THIS Basil King please email >me.) > >My small but growing site: http://home.earthlink.net/~crgrove/index.htm > >If you are in the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti, MI area check out my resume and >if you know of a company that fits me please let me know… Thanks! >__________________________________________________________________- >_________ >rec.sport.unicycling mailing list - >www.unicycling.org/mailman/listinfo/rsu >
Regards, Jack Halpern President, The CJK Dictionary Institute, Inc. http://www.cjk.org Phone: +81-48-473-3508
I’m backing off. I was approaching it purely from the physical view, if
only because I can’t ride a UW (neither planar nor cranks). I just tried
to explain Jack’s observation with a physical argument.
Klaas Bil
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 08:53:44 -0900, george peck <gpeck@arctic.net> wrote:
> > >Jack Halpern wrote: > >> Klaas Bil wrote… >> >On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 17:00:15 -0600 (CST), “Jeff Lutkus” >> ><lutkus@unicyclist.com> wrote: >> > >> >>Intuition tells me that an UW with crank arms and the like would be >> >>a little easier to prevent the wheel from hitting my legs than the >> >>sort with plywood instead of spokes. (For reason that the wheel can >> >>wobble farther from side to side before it hits either leg) Is this >> >>a reasonable judgement on my part? >> > >> >I agree with Jack Halpern that a UW with cranks is harder to ride, >> >i.e. has so much more side-to-side wobble that it will actually rub >> > MORE against your leg, as compared to a UW with pedals directly >> > on plywood. The reason is that the moment to push the UW out of >> > the vertical orientation gets larger the more the pedal is off >> > the centre plane. For the sake of the argument, imagine a UW >> > with an axis that sticks out half a meter to each side. As soon >> > as you put any more pressure on one pedal than on the other >> > (which is what you need for locomotion) you would push that side >> > down all the way. If you imagine a hypothetical UW where the >> > pedals are within the centre plane (practically difficult) and >> > further assume that you would exercise no lateral forces on the >> > pedals, then there would be no side-to-side wobble at all. >> >> I agree 100%. This explanation is superb. The narrower the UW, the less >> wobble and the easier it is to ride. >> >> Regards, Jack Halpern >> > >i disagree. Yes, the physics is correct but as far as the human input is >concerned, i find it easier - not much, but, easier - to ride the cranked >up UW as opposed to the planar wheel. One advantage is the wider stance. >This does allow more flop, but it also allows the rider to squeege around >to deal with it and the terrain. > >End result - wider stance vs more flop -…wider stance. By a >landslide. Once you learn the basics of the UW, you can do far more on >the cranked UW than the planar. You don’t see Kris Holm riding a planar >uni. He uses cranks…obviously he has to since a planar would have >to use a maglev device to attach the frame - expensive at this writing - >but even so, the mountain uni people are pretty unanimous in liking a >wide stance. > >george >
–
“To trigger/fool/saturate/overload Echelon, the following has been picked
automagically from a database:” “PATCH, HACKEN, peapod”
Joe Marshall wrote: > Oh, by the way, your clock or time zone (it says -5 from GMT) seems to > be set wrong, all the messages from you are going to the end of the > newsgroup for a day until everyone else catches up with your time.
Hmmm… I always thought that that problem was the cause of the news
server and not his clock.
Dunno really.
Christopher
“Be Bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.” -Basil King (Anyone who
can give me more info on THIS Basil King please email
me.)
Klaas Bil wrote… >I’m backing off. I was approaching it purely from the physical view, if >only because I can’t ride a UW (neither planar nor cranks). I just tried >to explain Jack’s observation with a physical argument.
Your physical argument is in total agreement with the experience of many
ultimatewheelers. I wonder if there are others that disagree with George’s
view, whcih is quite surprising.
Regards, Jack Halpern President, The CJK Dictionary Institute, Inc. http://www.cjk.org Phone: +81-48-473-3508
>Would this suggest that, on a Uni, high-speed wheel wobble might be >reduced by a narrowing the hub/puting the pedals closer to the wheel? > >Christopher LeFay > > > > >– >rhysling Posted via the Unicyclist Community - >http://unicyclist.com/forums
–
“To trigger/fool/saturate/overload Echelon, the following has been picked
automagically from a database:” “PATCH, HACKEN, peapod”
I think I was the one who started the speculation. My UW experience is
very limited, but riding with cranks just seemed like it’d have more
promise to me. (Though, a greater initial learning curve)
I have found that physics work perfectly in an ideal world. I do not
live in such a place, unfortunately, but physics are always a good
starting point.
Jeff Lutkus
> Klaas Bil wrote… > >I’m backing off. I was approaching it purely from the physical view, > >if only because I can’t ride a UW (neither planar nor cranks). I just > >tried to explain Jack’s observation with a physical argument. > > Your physical argument is in total agreement with the experience of many > ultimatewheelers. I wonder if there are others that disagree with > George’s view, whcih is quite surprising. > > > Regards, Jack Halpern President, The CJK Dictionary Institute, Inc. > http://www.cjk.org Phone: +81-48-473-3508 > >
_________________________________________________________________________-
__ > rec.sport.unicycling mailing list - > www.unicycling.org/mailman/listinfo/rsu
“Jack Halpern” <jack@kanji.org> wrote in message news:mailman.1006296144.18863.rsu@unicycling.org… > >> End result - wider stance vs more flop -…wider stance. By a
landslide. > >> Once you learn the basics of the UW, you can do far more on the
cranked UW than > >> the planar. You don’t see Kris Holm riding a planar uni. He uses > >> cranks…obviously he has to since a planar would have to use a
maglev device > >> to attach the frame - expensive at this writing - but even so, the
mountain uni > >> people are pretty unanimous in liking a wide stance. > > The above is very surprising indeed, as it is in conflict with my
experience and the > experience of numerous UW riders. As the say, to each his own. >
I think the difference is that George rides his offroad, where the ability
to twist / lean very quickly to wiggle round things is important, whereas
for just riding in a straight line or doing more controlled turns as most
of us without the uw offroad skills would be trying to do.
It’s the same for normal unis, for riding fast in a straight line, as in
racing, you really want straight cranks to get the extra stability,
whereas for muni those cranks that go out a fair bit are useful for extra
turn leverage.
Oh, by the way, your clock or time zone (it says -5 from GMT) seems to be
set wrong, all the messages from you are going to the end of the newsgroup
for a day until everyone else catches up with your time.
“Jack Halpern” <jack@kanji.org> wrote in message news:mailman.1006296144.18863.rsu@unicycling.org… > >> End result - wider stance vs more flop -…wider stance. By a
landslide. > >> Once you learn the basics of the UW, you can do far more on the
cranked UW than > >> the planar. You don’t see Kris Holm riding a planar uni. He uses > >> cranks…obviously he has to since a planar would have to use a
maglev device > >> to attach the frame - expensive at this writing - but even so, the
mountain uni > >> people are pretty unanimous in liking a wide stance. > > The above is very surprising indeed, as it is in conflict with my
experience and the > experience of numerous UW riders. As the say, to each his own. >
I think the difference is that George rides his offroad, where the ability
to twist / lean very quickly to wiggle round things is important, whereas
for just riding in a straight line or doing more controlled turns as most
of us without the uw offroad skills would be trying to do.
It’s the same for normal unis, for riding fast in a straight line, as in
racing, you really want straight cranks to get the extra stability,
whereas for muni those cranks that go out a fair bit are useful for extra
turn leverage.
Oh, by the way, your clock or time zone (it says -5 from GMT) seems to be
set wrong, all the messages from you are going to the end of the newsgroup
for a day until everyone else catches up with your time.
Like George, I have a much easier time on a “regular wheel” UW as opposed
to a “real” UW. I think this is mainly due to the fact that I learned UW
by just taking the frame off my unicycle.
Since everyone who owns a unicycle potentially owns an UW as well, if they
take the uni frame off, I’m actually surprised that more people don’t
agree with George’s viewpoint.
-Kris.
— Jack Halpern <jack@kanji.org> wrote: > Klaas Bil wrote… > >I’m backing off. I was approaching it purely from the physical view, > >if only because I can’t ride a UW (neither planar nor cranks). I just > >tried to explain Jack’s observation with a physical argument. > > Your physical argument is in total agreement with the experience of many > ultimatewheelers. I wonder if there are others that disagree with > George’s view, whcih is quite surprising. > > > Regards, Jack Halpern President, The CJK Dictionary Institute, Inc. > http://www.cjk.org Phone: +81-48-473-3508 > > ___________________________________________________________________- > ________ > rec.sport.unicycling mailing list - > www.unicycling.org/mailman/listinfo/rsu
> Would this suggest that, on a Uni, high-speed wheel wobble might be > reduced by a narrowing the hub/puting the pedals closer to the wheel?
Yes, but on an ultimate wheel you will wobble no matter what.
Even on a regular unicycle, a narrow axle should help reduce wobble, but
an individual’s level of wobble is more a personal thing than an equipment
thing. I used to have a racer with narrow axle, but I was unable to detect
much difference in wobble between it and an average uni. These tests were
concluded scientifically by riding through puddles and looking at the tire
track left behind…
> Would this suggest that, on a Uni, high-speed wheel wobble might be > reduced by a narrowing the hub/puting the pedals closer to the wheel?
Yes, but on an ultimate wheel you will wobble no matter what.
Even on a regular unicycle, a narrow axle should help reduce wobble, but
an individual’s level of wobble is more a personal thing than an equipment
thing. I used to have a racer with narrow axle, but I was unable to detect
much difference in wobble between it and an average uni. These tests were
concluded scientifically by riding through puddles and looking at the tire
track left behind…
