2WD bicycles - gimmick or the future of cycling? https://ww

>more weigh
>more friction from added chains

Yeah naw. While I'm not a physicist, my initial impression says that when you have more shit on the bike it requires more effort to move it around. I can't see why it would make any kind of difference when the front wheel is pulling also and they are not doing a good job explaining as to why it would be beneficial in the video.

Maybe it has something to do with that most of the weight is on the rear wheel when climbing that it would seem to make a difference, but at the end of the day, it's just the same legs turning the pedals and I can't see how adding more shit would make that job any easier.

>>1074614
They could have some uses..
but that video, wtf man
>2wd, on a fucking road bike, "makes it faster"
>those handlebars and levers, my wrists died just looking at it
>testing 2wd on.. dry asphalt.
all of my whys.
clearly the guys who built the bike have no idea what they are doing and the "reporter" is just doing an advertisement for them

way to fuck up the reputation for 2wd again.

>>1074619
yeah I'm 100% sure it has no benefit until you are in a situation where a normal bike would lose grip.

>>1074614
> traction problems with a bike are literally a non-issue, exotic examples may exist
> adding weight and complexity to address an issue that has never existed
> fuck up your ability to steer in the process

In this day and age I would go for future of cycling

>>1074614
this is a stupid solution, the chain should go up to the side of the head tube, then convert the angle with gears 90 degrees and back under the fork top. that way you would be free to steer altho steering could introduce additional drive to one direction and less to the other.

>>1074626
I honestly think it could be beneficial in cyclocross, gravel, mtb type riding. They were just very good at not showing any of that in the video.

Also as an unpopular opinion, I think a front wheel hub motor (pedal assist) could be pretty nice for riding in the snow and mud.

ahh, typical humans.

Creating a mess to solve a mess.

The same reason we chose thumbs over wings...

>>1074614
This 2wd road bike must weigh atleast 35 lbs and is useless.

The Christini 2wd bikes are kind of cool, and actually have a purpose.

File: mavic.jpg (42KB, 700x479px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 700x479px

>>1074635
>Also as an unpopular opinion, I think a front wheel hub motor (pedal assist) could be pretty nice for riding in the snow and mud.
No. Wheel slip and spin is not something you want more of on the front wheel. If there is not enough traction for rear wheel assist to be effective, the only thing front wheel drive is gonna give you is a nice dentist bill.
NB The front wheel is under significantly less load than the rear wheel, and therefore has significantly less traction. This also means that 2WD a patently moronic idea, as slip is already a thing with rear wheel drive. Imagine if that wet, muddy, uphill, mid-downstroke rear slip wasn't limited to your rear wheel. Instant face plant.

>tl;dr: your idea sucks and so do you

>>1074651
You are thinking about this the wrong way. Instead of putting 100w to the rear wheel and making it just slip, you could use 70w for example and then have another 30w on the front tire, which would otherwise be doing nothing.

Obviously it doesn't work very well on steep uphills and while cornering.

>your argument is invalid and so are you

>>1074655
>Obviously it doesn't work very well on steep uphills and while cornering.
So, it's no help when you are in actual danger of wiping out. That was the point, retard. There is absolutely no reason to do what you're suggesting instead of putting all assist on the rear wheel. Not from a traction standpoint anyway.
Put your bike wheel on a scale one by one. Sit on the bike. Read the scale. Notice how little down pressure you have on your front wheel. Do a very slight mental gymnastic and come to the obvious conclusion that you can't add meaningful amounts of power to the front wheel under adverse traction conditions, and if you have all the traction you need - no need for 2WD. Just put however many hundreds of watts you want on the rear wheel.

Put it on a motorcycle instead

>>1074619
This.
The term 'gilding the lilly' comes to mind.
Don't fix what ain't broke in the first place.

>>1074657
First of all it's quite possible to put more weight on the front wheel, when climbing steep stuff off road you don't just sit on the bike in a neutral position unless you want to fall off the back. Secondly on a regular bike there is absolutely no driving force going through the front wheel, so whilst you can't put as much power through it as you could the rear wheel it can still take some additional power.

>>1074671
>whilst

>>1074671
>First of all it's quite possible to put more weight on the front wheel [...] when climbing
No. What you're doing when you're hanging over the handlebars to not fall over backwards when climbing is keeping the balance. You're not so much adding weight on the front as making up for the less.
Ridiculous demur discarded.
>Secondly on a regular bike there is absolutely no driving force going through the front wheel
Yes. That's a good thing, for all the reasons previously covered. If you have traction to provide assist, you can do it on the rear wheel. If you have little traction, you absolutely do not want any drive on the front wheel. Not even "some additional power", and definitely not in a feedback loop to your pedals. You want the front wheel to track but not drive. If it drives, it can slip. If it slips, it doesn't track and you go down. If the rear wheel slips and there is still power to your front wheel, all your drive immediately on your front wheel. Shear and slip will ensue.
Also, friction on a slipping wheel is lower than on a driving wheel, contrary to popular belief. This is why you get longer braking distances with a locked up wheel than an almost-but-not-quite locker wheel. This means that _should_ your driven wheel slip even a little it will go into hysteresis, and slip suddenly, completely and violently. No problem on the back, but big problem on the front.

So, the original anons retarded idea was that 2WD (even asymmetrical) would somehow be beneficial on snow or in mud. The opposite is true. While there are engineering advantages to front powered assist in conditions with good grip, there are only drawbacks and hazards when grip is poor.

Your idea is stupid and so are you. 2WD is the blimp train of cycling. Just accept it.

>>1074680
>You're not so much adding weight on the front as making up for the less.
And that's because there's no driving force through the front wheel. If there was you could weight the front wheel even more to provide traction.

>If you have traction to provide assist, you can do it on the rear wheel. If you have little traction, you absolutely do not want any drive on the front wheel.
You're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that if you lose traction on the rear you then apply power to the front wheel, I'm saying to apply power to both wheels to the extent allowed by the available traction.

Of course to make it easy for most people to ride you'd need some sort of traction control system but that's not impossible.

>>1074682
>And that's because there's no driving force through the front wheel. If there was you could weight the front wheel even more to provide traction.
No, you retard. It's because of how the weight is distributed on the bike. Want to move the centre of gravity forward? Good. Enjoy flying over the bars when braking, retard.
>You're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that if you lose traction on the rear you then apply power to the front wheel
No, you're still not getting it. If you have a motor driving the front wheel and the rear slips ever so little, what is (instantly) stopping the front wheel from driving? Nothing. In fact, if you have pedal feedback, the sudden step through is going to tell the assist that 'hey, he's pedalling really fast now' and max the power, just as all tractive load is transferred from rear to front. That will land you on your nose, you dunce.
>I'm saying to apply power to both wheels to the extent allowed by the available traction.
Yeah, do you know how that's done in a car? By measuring slip and throwing the result back into an artificial (negative) feedback loop. On a balance instrument where there is _no_ allowable slip on the wheel in question there is no way of measuring the available traction. You've reduced your already infantile ramblings into 'b-buuh muh magick'.

Kindly fuck right off and never raise the question again. Thank you.

>>1074684
>Enjoy flying over the bars when braking, retard.
>Braking when climbing
And you call me a retard.

> what is (instantly) stopping the front wheel from driving?
As I said, some sort of traction control system. It's certainly possible to have something that would reduce or cut power when one of the wheels begins to slip.

> On a balance instrument where there is _no_ allowable slip on the wheel in question there is no way of measuring the available traction.
You make it sound like as soon as the tyre loses traction you end up on your arse.

>>1074689
>>Enjoy flying over the bars when braking, retard.
>>Braking when climbing
>And you call me a retard.
Yes. Because if you're permanently moving the centre of gravity forward by changing the geo of the bike, that would also leave it further forward when not climbing. If you're implying you should just move it further forward by shifting your body when climbing then no, retard, if your chest isn't at the bars already you aren't climbing.
>It's certainly possible to have something that would reduce or cut power when one of the wheels begins to slip.
Traction is per wheel. Knowing when the rear slips is immaterial. They are two metres a part, not experiencing the same grip or load. Traction and slip has to be measured per wheel, and the only way to do that is allow slip. Which you can not.
>You make it sound like as soon as the tyre loses traction you end up on your arse.
Do you understand what a balance instrument is? Do you understand what keeps it, on a bicycle?

Seriously, you've just about proven that the closest you got to education was masturbating to Allyson Hannigan in that college film. You are pants on head retarded, and no amount of effort on anyones part is going fill the vast void that should have been your basic understanding of physics and the world in general. Good day. I say good day to you, sir.

>>1074635

Bigger tyres are better.

>>1074614
I often times wonder while riding my bike "what if this was more gimmicky and less efficient just for the sake of being unique"

technically it gives you better traction? sure? but how often are you spinning your wheels like that? if you are, run bigger tires, or you're just riding like a dunkass. No need to make your bike clunkier, heavier, more complex, and less efficent.

If it was that beneficial of an idea, it'd already be on bikes. It's not a new idea.

File: hqdefault.jpg (27KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 480x360px

it's a pretty useless idea but the canyon orbiter concept bike is implenting it reasonably

>>1074614
This is a good place to ask, i guess. Does anyone think we're ever going to see any real radical changes to the design of bicycles? evry single new "bike of the future" kickstarter type shit i see just looks stupid and is an unnecessary fix to a nonexistent problem

>>1074635
i know for fact this is true
i have a front wheel pedalec and it is awesome in winter, the added traction is real and you go faster hands down
>>1074651
>i've never tried it but here's why it sucks
front wheel slip doesn't mean instant face plant you sunday rider, learn some handling skills
>>1074657
i have both front and rear electric assisted bikes and i can tell you in loose snow and slush that for the same amount of assist you will spin the rear wheel before you spin the front

>>1074684
>In fact, if you have pedal feedback, the sudden step through is going to tell the assist that 'hey, he's pedalling really fast now' and max the power, just as all tractive load is transferred from rear to front. That will land you on your nose, you dunce.
no you faggot, don't buy shitty pedal assist kits from china
a torque sensor will feel your rear wheel losing traction and reduce the output, the controller can also be set to maintain an output that is averaged over the previous seconds

>>1074958
That is what I thought, I'll build one myself in the future.

I just didn't see the point arguing with that angry ad-hominem spewing anon.

>>1074692
>hurr durr you're a retard and idiot and and and stupid!!!!!!
Just relax. We are talking about bicycles, no need to be so hostile.

>>1074955
Not really. Perhaps the materials used for the frame but that's kinda it.

>>1074955
Bikes are inherently simple, there's not going to be some total game changing revolution, realistically. In mountain bikes, potentially, there's more going on there, suspension tech changes a lot.

New materials, graphine bikes will be a thing inevitably, more tech intergration, shit like electronic shifting everywhere, and costs will come down on carbon further. Different companies will always have some weird proprietary tech on their bikes, specialized has zerts and future shock, trek has knock block and iso speed, there's always just gonna be more of it. Some works, some doesn't (slingshot)

>>1075054
>>1075054
Pretty much this, but I think we are going to see a lot more aero features on bikes. It could be pretty easy to cut drag in some areas with basic fairings, but thanks to UCI banning them, they are "uncool".

Maybe the big sponsors or bike manufacturers see a market for this stuff and push the UCI to allow them...

>>1074614
looks like a great way to lose a finger

also a ton of drivetrain loss

>>1074614
does nobody else realize that what he's saying in japanese has nothing to do with the text box in english?

A front-wheel drive makes more sense than a 2 wheel drive IMHOIHMIMHOIHMIOMHO

File: rokon_trail_breaker.jpg (67KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 800x600px

2wd bike could never work