Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
1.0 X3
had a total mass of 1.2 kg and an esti- 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Auxiliary rotor radius (m)
mated 94% efficiency. The geometries
of the pull-down and take-up spools
were selected such that a constant pedal
rotational speed would result in mini- Figure 3 Schematic of optimized design evolutionfor 68-kg pilot
mum off-design performance degrada-
73.2 kg with a net power delivered to the optimization process is depicted in figure
tion of the propeller efficiency caused
propellers of 640 watts. 2.
by variations in rotor speed and effec-
Since both the objective and the con-
tive spool diameter.
To optimize pilot performance while
Optimizer program straints are nonlinear functions of the de-
The optimal design was determined sign, the method of sequential quadratic
keeping the rotor plane as low as possi-
through the use of a program that mini- programming (Vanderplaats, ref. 16) was
ble, a recumbent position with a mean
mizes an objective function, G, subject to selected because it is well suited for this
hip angle of 75 degrees (refs. 14,15)
a constraint vector, F, through modifica- class of problems. The optimization can
was adopted for the chassis depicted in
tion of the vector of design variables, b. be generally expressed as a nonlinear
figure la. The chassis was designed for
This program uses derivative information constrained minimization problem,
minimum overall mass while supporting
the pilot's gravitational and dynamic relating the design variables to the con-
minimize G(b)
forces based on a multi-member finite- straints and objective function to modify
element model. This results in a total the design variables strategically until an
optimal solution is obtained and all con- subject to L < )
chassis, pilot and transmission mass
straints are satisfied. The design
(everything except the rotor itself) of
tem to get more "performance" SUSTAINED LEVEL OF POWER (HOSEPow :R~) To be able to do
- a more powerful boost motor Long-term human-power capability 20mph/32km/h within the
-
to climb hills - or to go faster. range of 0.1 hp dramatically
humans". The rider would arrive close to
The design of the system should rein- shows the value of good aerodynamics
exhaustion (the recovery rates from ex-
force a more miserly consumption of en- and little need for assist on flat ground.
haustion can be 20 hours or more).
ergy. 21 st-century thinking requires a But more, it is within the range of rea-
There is also the return trip to account
more sensitive approach. sonable human-power demands. Trying
for. So if we divide the 270 watts/.36 hp
The second issue is, if we are design- to obtain higher speeds not only demand
by two and further reduce the power de-
ing a system to get people out of their considerably more power (and a much
mand so that the rider won't get home
cars, I then have to question the human heavier assist system) but also better
exhausted, we find we are heading to-
power capability used (270 watts/.36 HP safety systems, lights, tires, suspension,
wards the 0.1-hp 75-W capability.
for 20 minutes). I too originally used the road conditions etc. Given present condi
The steepness of the power-capability
"healthy-human" power curves only to tions and technology, 20mph/32km/h is
curves shows that a small increase in
find out later that this represents mostly a good starting point.
power demand can quickly bring the Most terrain is seldom dead flat so I
college and military people (males) and rider towards exhaustion. Laboratory
cyclists who are in training - a younger, could envision a F-40-type vehicle with
curves show continuous power demand
stronger, and a more in-shape group that tiny power source geared to assist the
and do not address on-road intermittent
does not need nor want assistance. The rider only up slight grades. Because of
demands, but they do indicate the limita-
healthy-human curve also represents a the repeated instant on/off requirements,
-
tion of human power.
14 Tricycle KWADRAD II, TV, 2 fr. wheels, I r. wheel, BBS 0 0.43 28 -23
15 LEITRA tricycle 0.24 60 31
16 Racing bike, RV, RS; hands on brake levers, Tour 3/90 0.49 19 -39
17 Racing bike, RV, RS, downhill racing position, Tour 3/90 0.40 33 -15
18 Racing bike, RV, RS, triathlon handle bars, Tour 3/90 0.37 38 -6
20 Racing bike, RV, clothing?, downhill racing pos'n, Miller '82 0.39 34 -13
Explanations
All measurements were made in street clothing (jeans,sweater, no jacket), except those with
the comment "RS" (racing suit). The test rider was 1.80m, 5'11". Other notationshave these meanings.
TV Touring version (mudguards, carrier, light)
RV Racing version (bike "naked')
BBS Bottom bracketheight above seat in mm, neg. figures = BB underseat
LHB Low handlebars under the seat ("USS')
HHB High handlebars("ASS')
RS Racing suit Martin Staubach 1993