Nu- Bike: is this a genuine improvement to bike technology?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Twilkes

Guru
The initial round of funding didn't go so well, huh...

1615047612398.png


And gratuitous use of sports-bra hotties on their website too. I'm out.
 
OP
OP
Archie_tect

Archie_tect

De Skieven Architek... aka Penfold + Horace
Location
Northumberland
Apologies for their insensitive and inefficient marketing Twilkes, wasn't concentrating on their advert- just the effectiveness and principle of the design...
 

Ming the Merciless

There is no mercy
Location
Inside my skull
Seems to be smoke and mirrors implying you’ll get free energy over standard crank design. Fair enough it looks direct drive on rear hub, but chains are around 92-98% efficient anyway. I presume nu bike must have internal gear in rear hub. They will have similar efficiency to a chain. How hard you need to push on standard cranks is solved through gears.
 
What matters in cycling performance is power - mainly to fight wind resistance, or gravity when climbing hills.

Power = work / time
Work = force x distance
Leverage reduces the force required to do a given amount of work, by increasing the distance through which that force must be applied
So it has no effect on work

So, no amount of leverage will increase power - the 'advantage' claimed is based on a misunderstanding of physics.

https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/0...f-energy-does-not-allow-energy-to-be-created/
 
Last edited:
As Sheldon Brown noted, crank length should be part of the transmission ratio calculation. It isnt normally because everyone uses medium sized cranks differering by only 5mm. You have to search far to find a factory bike with anything but 170/175mm.
 
OP
OP
Archie_tect

Archie_tect

De Skieven Architek... aka Penfold + Horace
Location
Northumberland
It would be good to be able to test one climbing... the rear hub has gearing.

Also depends on whether the upstroke can deliver power when clipped in and would avoid the perceived delay waiting for the pedal to return.
 

kynikos

Veteran
Location
Elmet
If it really was better then they'd demonstrate it using a time trial, for instance, not a spurious demonstration of the effect of a lever.

They were sussed; little more than 1% of their funding goal achieved.
 

SkipdiverJohn

Deplorable Brexiteer
Location
London
It's clever, but it doesn't solve any problems. As already mentioned, power is power. If you increase torque by making the lever longer your leg has to travel further in the same time. You have a choice; push hard and move your legs slower, or push easy and have your legs moving in a blur. Subject to any human physiological transmission efficiency variations the end result is the same.
Really they are adapting the foot treadle, used on things like lathes, weaving looms, and sewing machines for centuries, to bicycle use. It might be novel in cycling, but it isn't a new discovery.
 

Tenkaykev

Guru
Location
Poole
What matters in cycling performance is power - mainly to fight wind resistance, or gravity when climbing hills.

Power = work / time
Work = force x distance
Leverage reduces the force required to do a given amount of work, by increasing the distance through which that force must be applied
So it has no effect on work

So, no amount of leverage will increase power - the 'advantage' claimed is based on a misunderstanding of physics.

https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/0...f-energy-does-not-allow-energy-to-be-created/
Thanks for the link. Excellent succinct explanation 👍
 

Drago

Legendary Member
Clearly the laws have physics have been repealed in their town if they think 250 percent improvement in 'power' is achievable.

And their display mountted linkage system is also flawed, as tneir long crank is not working through a cassette with the same radius or same range of travel.

Linkage crank systems have been tried many times in the past, and like indicators they will never catch on. Because theyre sheet.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom