Jump to content

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, bryon01 said:

Quick math says this would have required a 35mph ish average while moving

I think your math was too quick. The formula for average speed is Distance / Time = Average Speed. Where did you come up with 35 mph?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 393
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Rumors are starting to come at a fast rate for this new Gotway wheel. Until today I had not heard the wheel size. 24-inches! Otherwise, I think the consensus is that it'll have lots of batteries

Gotzilla.

Gotway employee rode the Monster Pro 541 miles from Gotway factory to San Ya City. Rider weighed 132 lbs. and carried a 22 lbs. backpack. His average speed was 18 mph and the ride took him 28.5 hrs. H

Posted Images

9 hours ago, Michael Tucker said:

but this one at 100lbs and taller than the Monster

It’s a heavy wheel, but it’s actually close to 86 lbs. and almost 27 inches high. I did a size comparison on height to see how it looked next to my leg. 

C8FA45F8-B597-4DB3-8876-A407F5B65848.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, EUC Addict said:

It’s a heavy wheel, but it’s actually close to 86 lbs. and almost 27 inches high. I did a size comparison on height to see how it looked next to my leg. 

C8FA45F8-B597-4DB3-8876-A407F5B65848.jpeg

That doesn't leave much room! May I ask what your inseam is?

I'm 5ft 4in so this wheel may be off my radar, I'd look like little Brandon riding it :roflmao:

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/20/2020 at 6:43 AM, Flying W said:

May I ask what your inseam is?

Remember that you're feet will be on the pedals which are 6.5 inches off the ground, which means from the pedals to the top of the wheel is 21.5 inches. My inseam is about 32 inches.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/20/2020 at 1:37 PM, RagingGrandpa said:

I'm with @bryon01 ;)

@bryon01 seems to have overlooked a detail I mentioned in my post. I had already given his average speed, which was 18 mph. I think what is happening is you and @bryon01 are assuming the travel time is total time from point A to B, while I'm assuming it's ride time. If we assume it is only ride time, the average works out almost perfectly.

Turns out the Gotway guy wasn't done with his trip because I saw another posting that said he had ridden 648 miles in 36.5 hours. I think that the 36.5 hours is ride time, so his average would be about 18 mph, which makes perfect sense for a long trip like this.

He was riding roughly 100 miles per charge, which at 18 mph is about 5.55 hours or travel time. 36.5 / 5.55 = 6.57. Multiple (18 x 5.55) x 6.57 = 656.34 miles. That is so close to the 648 miles he actually rode, that I am convinced that the time given is ride time. I've included screen shots from his trip.

Trip 1.jpg

Trip 2.jpg

Trip 3.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, EUC Addict said:

@bryon01 seems to have overlooked a detail I mentioned in my post. I had already given his average speed, which was 18 mph. I think what is happening is you and @bryon01 are assuming the travel time is total time from point A to B, while I'm assuming it's ride time. If we assume it is only ride time, the average works out almost perfectly.

I'll just stop you here and say you are likely right, but your arguments make little sense.  You can ride an 18mph average, with stops, or without. Either way the math works out fine assuming his timer on the trip is only moving, or the total trip.  You're trying to prove your point that the math works almost "perfectly" for the moving case, but if you did the math the other way, you'd see it is also actually perfect.  That's the beauty of average, it actually IS perfect in the math you are trying to show.

I would have liked to have thought a tiny rider like that on a 3600Wh wheel could have gone more than 100 miles at 18mph which is why I assumed it was total trip time, but after looking at the M50 battery pack (192 cells in Monster) the actual available energy is only like 2.6 kWh so 18mph makes more sense, and I agree this is likely moving time only because of the fact that 100miles is not possible with 2.6 kWh @ 35mph.

But just to be clear, if you had a bigger battery, you could ride 35mph, stop and charge, then go, measure total trip time, and still get the exact same results you showed and it would all work out, "almost perfectly."

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bryon01 said:

but your arguments make little sense

Well that's probably because I didn't explain what I was doing, which was lazy. I just made a projection based on how he did on one of his legs.

1 hour ago, bryon01 said:

Either way the math works out fine assuming his timer on the trip is only moving, or the total trip.

I can only assume your math was similar to @RagingGrandpa in which case I would agree that it's correct under the assumptions he made. 

1 hour ago, bryon01 said:

I would have liked to have thought a tiny rider like that on a 3600Wh wheel could have gone more than 100 miles at 18mph

I had originally calculated that a 175 lbs. rider would get at least 112 mph, but this guy had a 22 lbs. backpack on and still only got about 100 miles with 10 percent battery left. Even with the bigger battery the Monster Pro isn't doing any better than the Veteran Sherman.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Intellectual masturbation. Love it :D

1 hour ago, EUC Addict said:

I had originally calculated that a 175 lbs. rider would get at least 112 [miles per charge], but this guy had a 22 lbs. backpack on and still only got about 100 miles with 10 percent battery left.

Could you help us understand why you think mass has a major influence on cruise efficiency?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, RagingGrandpa said:

Could you help us understand why you think mass has a major influence on cruise efficiency?

It takes more energy to accelerate more weight. If a rider could maintain their speed the whole trip on level ground, weight wouldn't be a factor. I have a feeling you may already know this though. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, bryon01 said:

I'll just stop you here and say you are likely right, but your arguments make little sense.  You can ride an 18mph average, with stops, or without. Either way the math works out fine assuming his timer on the trip is only moving, or the total trip.  You're trying to prove your point that the math works almost "perfectly" for the moving case, but if you did the math the other way, you'd see it is also actually perfect.  That's the beauty of average, it actually IS perfect in the math you are trying to show.

I would have liked to have thought a tiny rider like that on a 3600Wh wheel could have gone more than 100 miles at 18mph which is why I assumed it was total trip time, but after looking at the M50 battery pack (192 cells in Monster) the actual available energy is only like 2.6 kWh so 18mph makes more sense, and I agree this is likely moving time only because of the fact that 100miles is not possible with 2.6 kWh @ 35mph.

But just to be clear, if you had a bigger battery, you could ride 35mph, stop and charge, then go, measure total trip time, and still get the exact same results you showed and it would all work out, "almost perfectly."

Its entirely possible his average riding speed was 18 mph which means he was actually traveling 25-30 mph at some points. Nobody rides an EUC at a constant speed for 100 miles, not even mentioning any possible elevation changes.

Also, I said this numerous times before, the Mpro won’t have significantly better range than the Sherman due to the higher low voltage cutoff on Gotway. Id say 3-5 miles more @ 35 mph cruising speed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, EUC Addict said:

It takes more energy to accelerate more weight. If a rider could maintain their speed the whole trip on level ground, weight wouldn't be a factor. I have a feeling you may already know this though. ;)

Ignoring friction?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

14 hours ago, EUC Addict said:

It takes more energy to accelerate more weight. If a rider could maintain their speed the whole trip on level ground, weight wouldn't be a factor. I have a feeling you may already know this though. ;)

 

3 hours ago, HippoPig said:

Ignoring friction?

Weight does matter some (roughly linear with weight due to bearing and tire friction) but as you mention is hardly a driving factor.  However, weight is also correlated to frontal area statistically, and as well all know aero drag is the dominant drag factor.  Everyone seems to ignore that weight, and frontal area, are not independent.  But nobody really knows their frontal area, but everyone knows their weight.  The real reason weight is a huge factor, is because weight is positively correlated to frontal area, and frontal area dictates the difference in aero drag of 2 riders at the same speed.  Aka, if you're heavier, you are likely bigger while standing.

So you can use weight as an analog and say that a rider with more weight, has more drag and less range, but know that it isn't the actual weight that is dominating that, it's really the increased frontal area.  If a big person rode seated the entire time, they'd get more range than a lighter standing person at the same speed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2020 at 4:21 PM, bryon01 said:

 

 

Weight does matter some (roughly linear with weight due to bearing and tire friction) but as you mention is hardly a driving factor.  However, weight is also correlated to frontal area statistically, and as well all know aero drag is the dominant drag factor.  Everyone seems to ignore that weight, and frontal area, are not independent.  But nobody really knows their frontal area, but everyone knows their weight.  The real reason weight is a huge factor, is because weight is positively correlated to frontal area, and frontal area dictates the difference in aero drag of 2 riders at the same speed.  Aka, if you're heavier, you are likely bigger while standing.

So you can use weight as an analog and say that a rider with more weight, has more drag and less range, but know that it isn't the actual weight that is dominating that, it's really the increased frontal area.  If a big person rode seated the entire time, they'd get more range than a lighter standing person at the same speed.

So yes, cool.

 

But I get your point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2020 at 11:21 AM, bryon01 said:

Weight does matter some (roughly linear with weight due to bearing and tire friction) but as you mention is hardly a driving factor.

Weight increases rolling resistance (deformation of the tire) at a given pressure. But heavier riders run at higher pressures. So rolling resistance may or may not be a factor? Not sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, erk1024 said:

Weight increases rolling resistance (deformation of the tire) at a given pressure. But heavier riders run at higher pressures. So rolling resistance may or may not be a factor? Not sure.

Bearing friction goes up linearly with load.  You are correct that depending on the inflation/underinflation a heavier rider may have less or more resistance due to tire deformation.  Most tires have a max rating and a given load for that rating, capping the ability for a heavy person to just keep pumping.  I'd give the win to the lighter person here, but tire rolling resistance is a huge variable.  This is why the EV hypermilers always overflate the hell out of their tires.  But properly inflated tire on a heavy person will certainly have less drag than a flat tire and a light person.

Pales in comparison to wind resistance though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Difficult to do much for wind resistance, maybe it’s time to get our spandex suits ;) more seriously, seated should help, but also a helmet in the style skate DH (TSG pass) rather than MTB who have a lot of wind catch..

Edited by null
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...