Anyone see this article at VeloNews (http://www.velonews.com/article/71788)? Anyone tried these, or something similar? Sounds cool.


"the Active Spoke from Tarryan Technologies, which is a spring-loaded weight sliding on a wheel’s spoke. I find the idea to be quite fascinating.

As the wheel’s rotational velocity increases, the weights are thrown to the outside of the wheel, effectively concentrating more mass out at the rim. And as the wheel slows down, the springs retract the weights back toward the center, effectively decreasing the rim mass. Inventor Russell Kalil originally came up with the idea while riding an interval workout on a stationary bicycle with a heavy flywheel. '

just what the industry needs, soemthing else to start to confuse everyone, then progress into a bi$#h fest on wether it's a good idea or not. Just ride your bike

Please note nothing against the poster of this thread, he was just informing us of the article

Yeah I read it. Weights? Maybe the bike would be faster without the extra weight there in the first place. What was that in highschool about stuff can't be created or destroyed; it can only be converted from one form to another? Perpetual motion is still just a dream.

Do they come in Carbon Fiber or titanium? Shimano or Campy?

Yeah I read it. Weights? Maybe the bike would be faster without the extra weight there in the first place. What was that in highschool about stuff can't be created or destroyed; it can only be converted from one form to another? Perpetual motion is still just a dream.

It's not really about perpetual motion, it's about inertia. The fallacy therein, however, is that you have to exert additional energy to get those pesky bullets to the outside of your wheel. At best acceleration will suffer, at worst, you'll be wondering why the heck you'd buy that crap in the first place.

I give the inventor credit -- a slick notion that just may work.

Not for me, though. I doubt many folks outside the elite ranks would feel any benefit, and then there's the geek/bling factor (depending on your point of view). It's pretty high when you put spring-loaded fishing weights on your spokes.

I give the inventor credit -- a slick notion that just may work.

If "work" means that they will sell a few and make some money, you might be right... but it isn't going to make anyone faster.

The only thing it will do is a) slow down your acceleration, and b) slow down your deceleration... a very little bit. "a" is obviously not a benefit, and the only time "b" will be a benefit is when you go from a high speed situation and hit a hill... in other words it is pretty much a zero sum in a time trial. Meanwhile you have these clunky things on your spokes (more aero drag) and extra weight... which will certainly slow you down on the uphills.

At least last years "hot new thing" (ceramic bearings) didn't make you slower...

Sounds kinda like spokey dokeys, the beads that girls put on their bikes and boys took them off. They got popular when they started to come in cereal boxes.

http://www.doyouremember.co.uk/assets/spokey-dokeys.jpg http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/415A01QCTXL._SS500_.jpg

Anyone tried these, or something similar? Sounds cool.

What is it they say about those who fail to understand physics? That they're doomed to repeat PH101. If this guy ever took physics, it all flew right past him. A totally bogus concept, with bogus claims to match. A fool and his money are soon parted. Buy a set for yourself :)

yeah, what Kerry said ... I'm not as retro grouch as he is, but surely any moderately educated person can see this is a bad idea? how did this idiot get all those testimonies?

well now if they had spring loaded unobtaium pellets on carbon fiber ceramic coated spokes, heck i may just have to run out and throw down the cash, untill then all my 28 and 32 spokes wheels will have to do.

What is it they say about those who fail to understand physics? That they're doomed to repeat PH101. If this guy ever took physics, it all flew right past him. A totally bogus concept, with bogus claims to match. A fool and his money are soon parted. Buy a set for yourself :)

Fail physics, ace marketing.

There's a reason the first 2 years in the college of engineering are commonly called pre-business.

When they start marketing them for the cool boingy noises they make, then they'll really have something.

This guy will make some money.

Yes on the physics. You have to store energy in the spring to get anything back. Add friction and heat loss, plus gravitational accelleration of dragging all of this crap up the mountain, you'd be better off dragging an old tire.

Moreonic invention.

^
or brilliant. :D

It's not really about perpetual motion, it's about inertia.
Woops maybe I gave away next year's advertising claim.

yeah, what Kerry said ... I'm not as retro grouch as he is, but surely any moderately educated person can see this is a bad idea? how did this idiot get all those testimonies?

I don't think Kerry is retro grouch... but you have to read this if you haven't seen it already:
http://www2.trainingbible.com/joesblog/2008/02/more-on-active-spokes.html

Dirk Friel got an 8% speed improvement with these! That is equivalent to >20% power increase folks! I predict that many world records will be set on these next year... and then the UCI will ban them. Unfair advantage! And when they find out how much faster red handlebar tape is compared to black...

I'm starting to think the Friels are for hire... in case you have something you'd like to promote...

"Here's what he had to say about the race: 'When I crested a hill and started to accelerate, the weights transferred to the rim aiding the acceleration. I would actually feel the weights hit the rim and in some cases it meant I could shift to a bigger gear. It literally is like a small turbo booster.'"

Uhhh, yeah.

Sorry Dirk, that was just the point when they stopped being any worse than a 'typical' 750 gram rim.

Bogus? Nice heavy wheel = flywheel = ability to maintain speed. Trick is to turn this wheel into a low rim weight, easy to accelerate one. Hmm that's what this just might do . . .

Now if they'd only make a cool noise!

I predict that many world records will be set on these next year... and then the UCI will ban them. Unfair advantage! And when they find out how much faster red handlebar tape is compared to black...


The UCI has gotten smarter and now has to pre-approve new technology. Since this has no structural benefit whatsoever (which seems to be an important UCI criteria), I don't think we'll ever see it in record attempts. Maybe the Triathlon orgs will allow it.

Bogus? Nice heavy wheel = flywheel = ability to maintain speed.

At whatever speed you are going you need to put in the same amount of power to "maintain speed" regardless of flywheel size... it just doesn't enter in the equation. The only time a big flywheel can help you is when you decelerate and don't want to... like when you hit a hill.

Noticed another flaw in the ad. He keeps saying that momentum increases by a factor of 16 when the weights go from a 3in radius to a 12in... but it actually only goes up by a factor of 4... and compared to the whole system it is tiny.

I think the entire concept is to redistribute energy.

Adding this to your wheel is like applying a smoothing filter to your power profile?

lol, oh yes, I need this.

I think the entire concept is to redistribute energy.

Adding this to your wheel is like applying a smoothing filter to your power profile?

I don't think that basic physics is on your side on this. Sometimes, thinking must be combined with physics to get at reality.

I don't think that basic physics is on your side on this. Sometimes, thinking must be combined with physics to get at reality.

how is basic physics not on my side?
Energy is stored in the spring and then released at another time. Springs are often used to store kinetic energy.

Energy store phase happens when you spin the wheel up and the weights pull the spring as they move towards the rim. Spring tension is calibrated so that the speed needed to accomplish this is a high tempo or descent speed.

Energy release phase happens when you transition past the threshold speed and the energy stored in the spring is converted back into angular momentum. The spring tension is calibrated so that this threshold speed happens when you hit a hill (or...when you corner).

Active spokes won't give you extra energy, in fact you'll lose a bit due to the weight and the fact that some energy will be lost with spring compression/relaxation. The inventor is trying to make the point that those disadvantages are outweighed by effectively borrowing a bit of angular energy when you are traveling at high speeds and giving it back when you slow down.


Who knows if this will work, should allow you to corner faster but will take out a little punch from your sprints.

Who knows if this will work,

These guys do.:rolleyes:

http://www.myauto.tv/272/cyclone/competition.php?gclid=CLbR4vLTiZUCFQ8QFQodpk-xpg
http://www.myauto.tv/272/cyclone/competition.jpg

-Eric

to get at reality.


Some people live in a much more interesting place :)

The spring tension is calibrated so that this threshold speed happens when you hit a hill (or...when you corner).

Or when you put on the brakes....

Active spokes won't give you extra energy, in fact you'll lose a bit due to the weight and the fact that some energy will be lost with spring compression/relaxation. The inventor is trying to make the point that those disadvantages are outweighed by effectively borrowing a bit of angular energy when you are traveling at high speeds and giving it back when you slow down.

So every time you speed up the wheels suck some energy away from you and every time you slow down it gives part of it back (only part due to efficiency). It is a net loser in energy, so to make you faster, the energy you gain when slowing down must have a more significant effect on improving your speed than the energy you lose when speeding up. I don't see it. The transition will happen at about the same speed, whether increasing or decreasing, and it is going to hurt you more than it helps. In most TTs it will also suck your energy at the start and after the turnaround, and when you put on the brakes the stored energy is wasted.

These guys do.:rolleyes:

http://www.myauto.tv/272/cyclone/competition.php?gclid=CLbR4vLTiZUCFQ8QFQodpk-xpg
http://www.myauto.tv/272/cyclone/competition.jpg

-Eric
LOL.

The sad fact is. Marketing always wins, and with the increase of gas prises
they probably sell it too. In Norway it would be illegal to claim something works
when it's proved otherwise. I recon that goes for the rest of the world too :)

Or when you put on the brakes....
So every time you speed up the wheels suck some energy away from you and every time you slow down it gives part of it back (only part due to efficiency). It is a net loser in energy, so to make you faster, the energy you gain when slowing down must have a more significant effect on improving your speed than the energy you lose when speeding up. I don't see it. The transition will happen at about the same speed, whether increasing or decreasing, and it is going to hurt you more than it helps. In most TTs it will also suck your energy at the start and after the turnaround, and when you put on the brakes the stored energy is wasted.

Yup I completely agree, not disputing the fact that the net effect is a loss in energy. In fact any sort of added weight (even a gram) will result in a net loss in energy if brakes are ever applied (Conservation of energy).

In my opinion, the point of active spokes is to increase the net energy output of a rider and in exchange the active spokes robs the rider of some of that energy (but not enough to offset the increased efficiency).

If you put a cyclecomputer on a bike with active spokes and looked at the velocity curve, you should see smoother transitions. Smoother velocity transitions mean less stress on the body.
Is a body that is less stressed able to output more energy in the end? Maybe, I don't have a background in sports physiology so I couldn't tell you - but my gut instinct is yes. A body that isn't exposed to impulse like stresses will be able to go for longer and in the end outperform a body that is exposed to sporadic impulses of stress.

Biggest question remaining is if the active spoke system can store enough energy to actually make a difference. Only way to have some evidence is if the people at active spokes posted full velocity logs of a rider performing many (at least 20) experiments with and without the active spokes over the same course.

LOL.

The sad fact is. Marketing always wins, and with the increase of gas prises
they probably sell it too. In Norway it would be illegal to claim something works
when it's proved otherwise. I recon that goes for the rest of the world too :)

Don't tell me Snake-Oil is singularly legal in the US only! You guys are missing out, out there :D

Don't tell me Snake-Oil is singularly legal in the US only! You guys are missing out, out there :D
Hehe...I have a background in the HiFi business selling Shark Oil !
But trust me. U, I or anyone don't wanna go down that road :p

If you put a cyclecomputer on a bike with active spokes and looked at the velocity curve, you should see smoother transitions. Smoother velocity transitions mean less stress on the body.
Great, so a 200lb bike is the way to go then. Much less stress on my body than my current one. Thanks for the tip. :thumbsup:
I knew HED was onto something when they made the Stalingrad wheels

Is a body that is less stressed able to output more energy in the end? Maybe, I don't have a background in sports physiology so I couldn't tell you - but my gut instinct is yes. A body that isn't exposed to impulse like stresses will be able to go for longer and in the end outperform a body that is exposed to sporadic impulses of stress.

Why do you think there would be less stress? Stress is dependant on power output, and we've already established that you will need a slightly higher power output to go the same speed if you are using these things. As you mentioned they will very slightly reduce speed fluctuations in the zone where they work, but this has nothing to do with stress.

Biggest question remaining is if the active spoke system can store enough energy to actually make a difference. Only way to have some evidence is if the people at active spokes posted full velocity logs of a rider performing many (at least 20) experiments with and without the active spokes over the same course.

The question is how much they will hurt your performance. It is easy enough to calculate, but since I already know they are useless, I'm not interested in figuring out just how useless they are.

Why do you think there would be less stress? Stress is dependant on power output, and we've already established that you will need a slightly higher power output to go the same speed if you are using these things. As you mentioned they will very slightly reduce speed fluctuations in the zone where they work, but this has nothing to do with stress.



The question is how much they will hurt your performance. It is easy enough to calculate, but since I already know they are useless, I'm not interested in figuring out just how useless they are.

Nope I would argue that stress is also affected by the rate of change in power. That is, going from 170W to 200W in 10s is less stressful than doing it in 5s.

Great, so a 200lb bike is the way to go then. Much less stress on my body than my current one. Thanks for the tip. :thumbsup:
I knew HED was onto something when they made the Stalingrad wheels

You should try reading my post before replying. No one said a heavier bike means less stress on your body.
1)What was said is:
Storing energy in a spring when speeds are high and then releasing that energy when speeds are low will result in a smoothing of the velocity curve.

Then, as an opinion, it was stated:
2)The smoothing of the velocity curve implies the smoothing of the power curve.

And then taking that one step further it was said:
3)The smoothing of the power curve, if it is significant, reduces impulse power spikes which may reduce the stress on the body. The reduction of stress on the body may increase the efficiency of the rider.

1 can be taken at face value, 2 and 3 would need more research to back it up. There is no mention that more weight = less stress, although I suppose this is true.

Mass and the spring coefficient comes into play when you are trying to calibrate the angular velocity required to cause spring elongation and relaxation.

I'm not defending active spokes, I'm just trying to state that it isn't completely based on bonk. Whether it works or not is dependent on the efficiency gain vs energy lost.

not based on bonk but still totally bogus.

The weight ain't big enough to give any positive advantage
but still too big to be ignored as negative contribution.

Only positive effect would be that it's easier riding whiteout hands on handlebars
..........at least in higher speeds

You should try reading my post before replying. .
I did and took the absurdity to the limit to illustrate the point.

Nope I would argue that stress is also affected by the rate of change in power. That is, going from 170W to 200W in 10s is less stressful than doing it in 5s.


Tell you what. Go ahead and do some tests that prove this is a valid system. We'll all be here waiting with baited breath for the outcome.

No one else here wants to waste their money proving what we already know. I'd love to be wrong though.

-Eric

Then, as an opinion, it was stated:
2)The smoothing of the velocity curve implies the smoothing of the power curve.

Nope... in a TT the rider meters his power output to whatever he perceives to be optimum levels. These goofy weights have no effect on that... they only effect speed... negatively, overall.