Electric Motorcycle Inventor Crashes at Wired Conference

not5150 writes "The inventor of the electric 'KillaCycle" motorcycle was taken to the hospital for x-rays after demonstrating the vehicle to reporters. Bill Dube, a government scientist during the day and bike builder at night, attempted a burnout in front of the Los Angeles Convention Center during the Wired NextFest fair. Fueled by the "most powerful" lithium-ion batteries in the world, the bike accelerated uncontrollably into another car. There's a video interview (thankfully before the crash) and footage of Dube crashing."

Comments

Electric Motorcycle + Wired

[deniable]

My first thought was that he ran over the extension lead.

Re:Electric Motorcycle + Wired

[iamhassi]

Remember kids: wear your helmet!

0-60 in less than a second

[BadAnalogyGuy]

And a top speed of 158mph?

At that rate of acceleration, you'd be at the top speed in less than 3 seconds. Then what? Then the engine gives out? Governor kicks in? The tires blow up?

As for the driver in question. Stupid is as stupid does.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[Colin Smith]

It's a drag bike. After you do the quarter mile you slow down & stop.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[Frogbert]

Well its not like you can only apply the power gradually like a petrol engine. My understanding is that when you turn an electric engine on, that's it, full power full torque.

That thing is fast.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[RuBLed]

0-60 in less than a second

and vice versa

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[Anonymous Coward]

Well its not like you can only apply the power gradually like a petrol engine.

Of course you can. Do you have an electric fan? Does it always run at full speed? Or is there a little switch that lets you adjust the fan speed?

My understanding is that when you turn an electric engine on, that's it, full power full torque.

No. Electric motors can do that (which is nice in many applications), but they don't have to do that. It depends on how much voltage/current goes to the electric motor, and it's pretty easy to control voltage & current.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[somersault]

Remember aerodynamics too, 60-120 won't be as fast as 0-60 even with the same torque being applied. It does sounds awesome though, even if the inventor can't ride it

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[Anonymous Coward]

You're erroneously assuming a constant acceleration: real-world dragstrip acceleration-time plots are anything but linear.

As to the time, 0-60 in 1 second is standard for drag cars or bikes running in the 7s on the quarter mile.

1/4 mile times like that are pretty good for an electric vehicle though.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[dwater]

what? less than a second in 0-60??? what does that mean?

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[mpe]

Well its not like you can only apply the power gradually like a petrol engine. My understanding is that when you turn an electric engine on, that's it, full power full torque.

You can vary the amount of power sent to the motor, it is also possible to have motors with switchable windings to give different torque and speed settings. In the case of a vehicle such as a car or motorbike an electric motor can be connected via the same sort of gearbox you'd use with an internal combustion engine. Indeed the only real difference between a regular motorcycle and an all electric one is that the latter wouldn't need a starter.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[SharpFang]

Yes and no.

You can't easily apply gradually more power with high-power engines running on AC.

There are numerous tricks like switching configuration of the coils, using high-power thyrystors etc. You can't just put some resistance because it would be enormously wasteful. Some railway engines use "convert 1-phase AC from the wire to DC, then convert back to three-phase AC of desired frequency" making them actually more efficient than running on 1-phase AC straight from the wire.

But not in this case. The batteries produce DC. They can be switched one at a time to limit voltage(->torque) if it's a DC motor, or the conversion to AC can be freely configured providing frequency (->RPM) just as desired if the motor is AC.

(also note using all kinds of resistors, pots and other "power drains" for limiting current/voltage when such powers are in use, are useless - they would have to dissipate (and waste) enormous amounts of power. Devices that limit the "average" voltage by dutycycle method ( x% of a milisecond on, 100-x% of a milisecond time off => x% power) are much better but not every kind of end-target device can accept this kind of power, plus it generates lots of electromagnetic noise from all the instant on-off action )

Simply put, getting limiting voltage by a half in a 5V 10mA DC configuration is trivial - wasting 0.25W of power is not a problem. In 500V 10A DC configuration is very tricky. Dissipating 2500W is not really an option.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[Bromskloss]

full power full torque

Apart from what have been said already, I'd like to add that power is not the same thing as torque.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[pe1chl]

plus it generates lots of electromagnetic noise from all the instant on-off action

Listen to what he explains in the beginnig of the video, about using a Palm Pilot because it is immune to the electromagnetic interference....

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[Barny]

Would be better over the 1/8th, since it would still be accelerating at the finish then.

If you race over the quarter, you would top out about 2/3 down it.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[Gordonjcp]

Or as the Ogri t-shirt has it "Malcolm - 0-Casualty in 2.6 seconds"

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[Jeek Elemental]

if its a 3 phase short circuit engine, which is likely, the torque goes down quick as rpm goes up. When rpm=0 its basically a short circuit condition, it will pull whatever power it can get (and handle for a short period of time).

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[codepunk]

Actually most applications use PWM (Pulse width modulation) for dc motor control. Banks of high amperage switching transistors feed the dc motor with a high frequency on off pulse. By varying the
pulse width you increase or decrease the speed of the motor.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[s-meister]

Dear Richard Hammond,

If those wacky producers and Clarkson ask you to test ride a motorbike, JUST SAY NO.

Regards,

A Friend

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what he said. The bit about serious amounts of back-emf still apply, too.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[0xygen]

I think pulse width modulation is more common now for high power applications.

It is widely used in the electric motors driving train-style transit systems, eg the newer London Underground lines.

Yes, as you say, the old carriages still switch windings though - you get 2 big bumps as they accelerate!

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[hcdejong]

How about controlling the frequency instead of the power? My electronics knowledge is a bit rusty, but AIU motor speed is pretty much locked to input frequency. Design the controller so that small throttle opening == slow change in frequency, and Bob's your uncle.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[jsiren]

This will depend on your definition of "easy"... if it means "in less than five passive components", then you may be right.

Anyway, you mentioned the railway engine's AC-DC-AC drive. Now, to run on DC, just skip the first rectifier: you can run the inverters directly on DC. In fact, many railroads do just that. There are lower-powered inverters and motors available for lighter-duty applications. Did you know your average "brushless DC" CPU fan is in effect an induction motor with an integrated drive?

So, if you have a 500 V battery pack capable of 10 A, just slap a 5 kW drive with a suitable control input and a 5 kW induction motor on it and you're basically done. (Select ratings to suit application and products.) Ask your supplier for more information.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[sjames]

Given a DC input for an electronically controlled motor, you can fully control the torque and run speed of the motor. The electronic controls switch the coils and apply high frequency pulsed DC. The duty cycle of the pulses controls the power without wasting it on resistors.

Since electric motors can operate at very high RPMs and can generate torque from a standstill without any "heroic" engineering, the most efficient approach is direct drive. Why add weight, friction, and complexity with gears? Just have one motor for each wheel (perhaps built into the hub). You can implement full traction control and ABS in the motor control software. Add one more sensor for steering angle and you can have the best handling car ever.

To me, the most disappointing thing about hybrid cars is that they didn't get rid of the mechanical drive train.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[Trukster]

The article says "top speed" but in the interview he actually says speed at the end of the quarter mile. So, given more room to accelerate he can probably go faster.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[Hognoxious]

I dunno. Probably something about parsecs.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[Dare nMc]

Why add weight, friction, and complexity with gears?

most are direct drive, true. But every vehicle application (and 90% of other applications) need a massive gearing reduction after the motor, that I have heard of anyway.

problem is that torque of electric is limited by the current, and speed is limited by voltage. So you need motor windings that can handle high currents to get high torque. You need motor windings with insulation that won't break down at high voltages to get high speed. You need lots of windings to get any efficiency.
barring super conductor usage those are solved with size, IE more copper cross section for current, and thicker insulation for voltage. So basically most AC motors are wound without ability for sustained high torque, since high Horse Power is cheaper at high speeds, and gearing reduction is a old practice.

can generate torque from a standstill without any "heroic" engineering

no heroics for a factory motor drive, but you ever seen the size of the motor controller for a typical 100hp+ AC drive? For non permanent magnet motors I guess, if this guy wasn't restricted by money he probably had all rare earth magnets in the motor, save him some complexity, still not just connect power and go.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[MichailS]

Err... no. Because there is this thing called aerodynamic drag, see.

The faster you go the more power you need to move all that air aside, and the less power remains to accelerate the vehicle. After a while you reach an equilibrium between drag and engine power where it won't accelerate anymore (if your gearing is sane).

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[Dzimas]

Well its not like you can only apply the power gradually like a petrol engine. My understanding is that when you turn an electric engine on, that's it, full power full torque.

I also owned one of those cheap slot car sets that would only do full power or off. Luckily, things are slightly different in the real world. Just imagine what would happen if you applied full throttle to the electric engine of your Prius in a parking lot every time you wanted to back out of your spot.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[cayenne8]

You know...I've thought it would be pretty cool to own an electric car like the Tesla. But, I've also lamented that the lack of 'sound' would be a drawback. I mean, a high powered car, is fun not only due to the torque and acceleration, but, that noise coming off a finely tuned exhaust is part of the thrill.

Taking that in mind when I read this...I thought "Ok, I could maybe get by with a fairly silent car, but, NO WAY would this make a motorcycle fun"!!

I mean, that IS a huge part of the fun of a big cruiser bike. I'm not talking about straight pipes here...I know those annoy some people. I like loud things, but, I do try to respect my neighbors. But, really, first thing I think of when I get a new bike...is what aftermarket pipes I'm gonna get...to give me that rumble as I drive it.

I think an electric bike would be kinda boring in that respect. Sure, I guess you could sync some mp3's of good engine/exhaust notes with the motor...but, still.....something would be missing.

Hell..many people buy the Harley JUST for the "potato...potato...potato.." engine note and rumble. Didn't they even try to patent that?

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[Dare nMc]

Ke= M* (V^2)
so it takes 4* as much energy to go from 0-120, as to go from 0-60. Assuming constant power wouldn't 1 sec 0 to 60, would be 4 sec 0 to 120.

Traction limit would go up (same torque*2 speed, ie twice the power allowed through the tire, but 4* needed to maintain accell rate), which was probably his limit to 60.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[Sazarac]

Dube, you're getting some electric road rash!

/me ducks.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[djasbestos]

Well, most big bikes are liquid cooled...I'm not a physicist, but would such a configuration (2500W dumped into a heat sink) for the electric bike generate more heat than your average 1000-1500cc, 2- or 4-cylinder combustion engine? If not, then a potentiometer, while wasteful, would be signficantly simpler to implement, and there is a lot to be said for simplicity. Then again, it's simple enough to mass produce were such a thing to be made commercially, but I'm thinking more of the hobbyist with simplicity. However...that's a lot of juice, so I am guessing it would exceed temperatures generated by a conventional motorcycle engine, and thusly my post would be for naught.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[el_gordo101]

Not only that, but the noise of the bike is a major safety feature. It's much harder to see a bike in your rear-view or if it is moving into traffic, but being able to hear them from a block a way gives you some reaction time. I can just imagine the reaction that a driver would have when a totally silent bike goes whispering past them at 85 MPH. "Holy shit, where did he come from?"

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[sjames]

Actually, there is lot of R&D effort underway to produce a direct drive in-hub motor now. One example is here.

Of course, an electric car won't need a 100+hp motor, It will need 4 25+hp motors. There have been a lot of improvements in power electronics lately that go a long way to reducing the size and weight of a controller.

Early production models do/probably will use a single reduction gear but the goal is to do away with that. Even so, a single reduction gear per motor beats a gearbox, differential, and CV joints any day.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[polar red]

1/4 mile times like that are pretty good for an electric vehicle though. I don't think performance is the problem with electric vehicles (show me a train that can hit 575kph(360mph) that is petrol-powered ...)
It's storage that's the problem, and on such short distances ...

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[Bastardchyld]

If you watch the video, he had said that at the end of the quarter mile they are cooking along at 158mph. I am sure that if you took it for a run longer than a quarter mile you would keep accelerating at that breakneck rate for much longer.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[jridley]

Yes, clearly the Toyota Prius, as well as all the full electrics and other hybrids out there, and radio controlled cars have only one setting; you push the pedal down and they immediately start going full speed.

I suggest you look up "motor controllers".

In fact, electric motors are highly controllable; much more so than gasoline engines. This was clearly a simple accident that could have happened with any vehicle.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[orclevegam]

After a while you reach an equilibrium between drag and engine power where it won't accelerate anymore (if your gearing is sane). Unless you're driving a jet powered vehicle. Near as I know they've never determined an absolute top speed on that jet motorcycle Jay Leno owns. I imagine it would probably be something around the sound barrier at which point the bow shock would probably cause the person driving to lose balance and wipe out. Of course that's also assuming no other physical failure before that point, such as the tires disintegrating. If I remember correctly the biggest problem they've seen with more traditional vehicles trying to go super-sonic while on the ground was that the pressure wave at the front tended to get under the vehicle and flip it over.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[budgenator]

One of the big advantage is the electric motor has maximum torque at stall, when you need it and the torque tapers off gradually until the motor is at top speed. The petrol engine by contrast has little torque at idle, the engine needs excess fuel (runs rich) at idle and requires to operator to slip the clutch and advance the throttle to move the vehicle from a standstill. Most electrics use a controller that cycle the power on and off rapidly which allows the vehicle to start smoothly

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[BigDogCH]

Great, I already had a phobia of being hit by an electric car (that I didn't hear). Now I will also fear motorcycles.

Seriously though, I think many of us are accustomed to "listen first" for cars when walking, and "look second". Sadly, it looks like I may be naturally selected out of the breeding pool....by a silent killer.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[budgenator]

use pulse code modulation, there's ICs all over the place to build the controllers out of, not to mention prefab controller boards for every thing from an electric model airplane to a 10 thousand horsepower diesel-electric locomotive. They very efficient, they just switch from off to on to off as needed and generate very little waste heat.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[navyjeff]

I have to disagree for the most part. I can't count the number of times motorcycles have been able to come up behind my car on the highway without me hearing them. These were not quiet bikes either: they were modded Harleys with big engines and straight pipes.

With the direction of the exhaust pipes on bikes going straight behind them, nearly all their noise is projected back and to the sides, especially at highway speeds. Plus, when they're cruising or decelerating they put out much less noise than at wide-open throttle.

Ergo, I still get the "Holy shit, where did he come from?" effect when they go by me, unless I first saw them in my mirrors. So I think the "safety" reasoning for the noise is erroneous.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[budgenator]

While in God's Green Earth would anyone put a 100HP electric motor in a car, a car might push 15-20 HP worth of air at 70 MPH so a 100 HP electric might push a car 150 - 200 MPH. You need that big of an gasoline engine to make a compact car go, but that's because of the engine's problems; you need much less electric HP than you do gas HP. A hundred Horse electric would probably be comfortable in a semi tractor-trailer

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[Firethorn]

I'd tend to say that you have more to worry about than electric cars. Most modern cars are far quieter today than they used to be. Engine noice is no longer significant.

An electric car at high speed is still going to emit a fair amount of noise. Modern gasoline and even diesel engines are very quiet even at low speeds.

For the motorcyclist's 'being noisy is safer', well, you still have to worry about deaf people, even half-deaf elderly who are running around in a relativly soundproofed car. With the radio turned up.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[Firethorn]

One engineering issue with this would be that the 100 hp motor* will tend to be cheaper, lighter, and more efficient than two or four individual motors. Remember, most cars on the road are only two wheel drive. With the slip differential, it's effectively 1 wheel drive(the tire with the worst traction gets the most HP).

So you have to look at the possibility that having a simple drive train can be more efficient than individual wheel drive.

Though given the efficiency scales, a two motor system could theoretically be more efficient at low power by not powering one of the motors. Though I imagine that you could do sort of the same thing with a larger motor by only powering part of it.

*This would produce a very fast accelerating electric vehicle. I've read that an electric motor with 1/3 the HP can give you equivalent performance to a gasoline engine. IE 30 HP electric = 90 HP gasoline.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[protolith]

This Bike would probably still be accelerating at the end of a quarter mile.
Acceleration of a vehicle is nonlinear partially due to aerodynamic drag. Aerodynamic drag increases as a power function and thus acceleration vs time will form a curve, even if the motor output is linear or constant.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[Dare nMc]

I've read that an electric motor with 1/3 the HP can give you equivalent performance to a gasoline engine. IE 30 HP electric = 90 HP gasoline.

Not likely.
perhaps with some other qualification needed:
      a) if they say power, what they mean is with heavy braking in the gas, regen the electric so reuse the power 3x.
      b) weight, a short distance electric setup could be 1/3 the weight, but probably 1/10th the range.
      c) 1/3 is actually 66%, your able to run a diesiel hybrid engine at optimum efficiency, which may be 1/3 better than the non optimum efficiency you have to run a standard gearbox at while lugging up to the optimum engine speed.
      d) rear wheel power != flywheel power (but not 1/3 thats for sure.)

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[TClevenger]

You need 15-20HP to maintain freeway speeds (actually, closer to 12-15 hp in an aerodynamic car.) The 100HP is for acceleration and uphill climbs. Anybody who has driven a 36HP Beetle knows what a low-horsepower driving experience is like.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[GeeksHaveFeelings]

Actually, switching just the cells of the battery would be extremely coarse in terms of control, hard to design electronics for, and horribly abusing the battery. Battery packs like the one used here can easily go out of balance as it is, and in the case of lithiums, it's actually extremely dangerous.
When a pack goes out of balance, because the cells discharged at different rates, they have different voltages. So, when they are charged in series without a balancer, the pack would be charged to the correct voltage, but some would be undercharged and some overcharged. Over-charged lithium cell == fire, smoke, and explosions.
The KillaCycle actually uses A123Systems M1 cells, which can be overcharged and over-discharged, and tend not to explode or go out of balance (at least when they are all used together) like LiPos do. However, your scheme would pretty much destroy any lithium pack and compromise the cells because of unbalanced discharge.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[budgenator]

The torque charecteristics of an electric motor makes it easily preform like a much bigger gasoline IC engine; I did under-estimate the amount of HP necessary but you over-estimated some. 248 HP electrics behave like muscle cars, and I once owned a VW mini-motor home with a 1600 cc engine.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[Tet]

0-60 in 1 second is standard for drag cars or bikes running in the 7s on the quarter mile.

Not really. I run 8.2s quarters, and my 0-60 times are around 1.95 seconds. A car running high 6s passes will have a sub-1 second 0-60mph time, but most 7 second cars won't. Of course, an electric powered vehicle will have a different acceleration profile to one powered by an internal combustion engine, which may account for the claimed times in this case.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[scottrocket]

True-but as a pedestrian, the "Holy Shit" effect occurs to me only when an electric (low speed) car or bicycle goes by; 'course,I can always hear the skateboarders!

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[TClevenger]

True, but in absolute terms, a car requires a certain amount of power to get down the road, and that's a factor of aerodynamics, rolling resistance, and, to a much lesser degree, engine/motor efficiency. I'm referring to the actual output power of the engine/motor when I say 12-15hp. In that case, at 15hp (11kW), the ICE is probably consuming 33kW worth of gasoline (33% efficient), whereas the electric motor is consuming 12kW of electricity (85% efficient including battery losses), but the amount of actual output power needed to push the car is the same either way.

(Interesting factoid, since you drive a VW air-cooled: one of the most efficient EV conversion platforms is the Karmann Ghia. It has a very light aerodynamic body, and the drum brakes have less drag than discs. See here for one that gets 60 miles on a charge without turning the car into a "lead sled", and has very good acceleration using cheap lead-acid batteries.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[Acer500]

LOL... for those of you that don't get it, you're missing on an awesome series, Top Gear:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Gear

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[redcane]

The 1/3rd rule of thumb is basically about driveability, which has a lot to do with low rpm torque, which is provided much better by an electric motor. It's also because electric motors can be temporarily "overdriven" past their rated continuous capacity (such power levels will overheat the motor with continuous use). This basically means you can get away with an electric motor rated at 1/3 the performance in Kw/HP, and achieve similar driving performance.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[Firethorn]

Basically, what redcane said.

You achieve similar road driving performance with a electric motor rated with 1/3 the HP of a gasoline engine.

Electric motors are rated under load at maximum sustained power. Gasoline ones are measured unloaded peak power. Thus, a '25 hp' electric motor can operate as a 100hp one for a short period of time. This time is limited by heat generation. A good controller will have a heat probe much like the sensors for CPUs today, and limit power before the heat is enough to cause damage. This can be extended out with active cooling, if necessary. The Tesla electric car motor has a fan, for example.

The vast majority of vehicles don't operate at anything near their peak level except for brief periods of time. For example, I still have ~ two thirds of my throttle to go in my four banger at 75 mph. So at max speed I'm operating at ~33%. Multiply by three, I'd be operating an electric motor ~100%, it's most efficient loading. I wouldn't be able to do 80 mph for long periods, but I'd still be able to pass other traffic.

If I live in hill or hot country, I might want to use a 1/2 figure instead. As is, I've been forced to downshift on some steep hills to maintain speed. In an electric vehicle - as long as the hill's short, I'll be fine. If it's a long climb, I might have to slow down.

But anyways, if you want references:
http://www.electroauto.com/catalog/dcmotors.shtml -
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/motor.html

Sorry, can't find the 1/3 reference at the moment.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[infidel13]

In the video it said 158 mph at the end of a quarter mile. I am almost positive that the summary underneath the video was a misinterpretation - its author probably confused the quarter mile time with the top speed. I mean seriously, 0-60 in .97 sec?! 400 horsepower in something that only weights 650 lbs (plus driver)?! That's the proportional equivalent of 1600 horsepower in something that weighs as much as a car. Unless there's some sort of governor (unlikely) or rpm limitation (very unlikely, since it's electric), it could probably just keep accelerating until the tires give out or it hits equilibrium with air resistance. I bet the real top speed (if it's ever been tested) is closer to 350 mph. This one, with a 550 horsepower Viper engine, has a top speed of close to 400 mph and 2.5 seconds for 0-60, so by my estimates the top speed of the electric bike should be close to that (the better 0-60 time is due to the massive torque provided by electric motors in comparison to internal combustion engines). I doubt anyone will ever take the KillaCycle to its top speed.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[redcane]

As I understand it, electric drag racing is less than 5 years old. How many petrol powered drag vehicles broke 7s within ~5 years of drag racing coming into being? If you put the same amount of development time into electric dragsters as has been put into petrol dragsters, I have no doubt you'd break 7 seconds. If you ran it on electrified rails, or with a quarter mile extension cord, it'd already be breaking that by far.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[Dare nMc]

Sorry, can't find the 1/3 reference at the moment.

because their isn't going to be one.
obviously gas, makes more torque, electric makes more controllable torque. (for similar HP rating, with correct gear reduction for each)

only way you would want 1/3 the HP for a electric, is if your putting 4 motors on, instead of a single gas motor.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[Dare nMc]

I guess the reference you were pointing to is:

The peak hp of an electric motor is usually 8 to 10 times its continuous rating.

So I can buy that, if their not rated equivalently and you want a single accell (which is likely for a car) And your not so worried about efficiency (run electric out of it's rated torque you lose efficiency big time)

then their is something, you can under rate the electric motor, as long as you rate your supply (battery?) equivalent to the gas motor.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[Tet]

Well Andy Frost from the UK runs sub 1 second 0-60s in the mid 7's.

Actually, no he doesn't. On a well prepped track, he runs around 2.5s from memory. The other big hitters in the SE class -- Splinter, Steve Pateman, John Sleath, Colin Lazenby, etc -- are all in the same ballpark. They generally have quite poor 0-60mph times compared to other cars running similar ETs due to the tyres. They make up a lot in the second half of the track, while cars on slicks tend to pick up more in the first half, and hence have better 0-60mph times. At the Trax event at Silverstone a couple of weeks ago (which admittedly isn't up to the standards of Santa Pod), Andy managed a best 0-60mph time of 3.2s. Yes, his web site does mention a 1s 0-60mph time. But it doesn't reflect reality. I'll remind him to fix it...

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[Firethorn]

obviously gas, makes more torque, electric makes more controllable torque. (for similar HP rating, with correct gear reduction for each)

Show me a reference that says that a gasoline engine of a given HP rating produces greater torque than an electric motor of the same HP rating. Especially across the range that an electric motor is capable of exerting that torque.

Electric motors generally crap all over gasoline engines when it comes to torque, especially at low RPM levels. If it wasn't for how lousy storage methods are for electricity, we'd have been using electric cars for years.

So I can buy that, if their not rated equivalently and you want a single accell (which is likely for a car) And your not so worried about efficiency (run electric out of it's rated torque you lose efficiency big time)

then their is something, you can under rate the electric motor, as long as you rate your supply (battery?) equivalent to the gas motor.

Indeed, we're looking for acceptable acceleration profiles. zero to sixty is one good measurement, but I'd look at 0-35 and 0-75 as well. We're not looking at drag strip performance, we're looking at 'The red light just turned green'.

Now, does it make some sense that an electric motor, capable of producing 3 times it's rated HP for something like two minutes would produce better acceleration curves than a gasoline engine with three times it's HP? At least in the 0-85mph range than street cars operate in?

If your driving habits are worse than average(towing, lots of steep hills), you could go for two to one. If you regularly go 100% throttle using a gasoline engine on hills in your area, you might go one for one, but then there's questions of whether you sized your gasoline engine right.

Batteries are normally rated by total energy storage - their ability to supply power is easily sufficient once you've budgeted enough to get yourself a decent range.

As for efficiency, electric motors have an efficiency curve much like computer power supplies. They're generally very efficient around 100%, less so at 50%, not very efficient at 10%. Efficiency would be indeed be absolutely lousy at 10x the rated power.

Thus why the 'rule of thumb' is limited to 3x - for one thing you can't go 10x for long, seconds at most. It does trade off some efficiency during acceleration for efficiency during cruising. The idea is that the extra 3% efficiency you gain during the 10 minutes cruising at a constant speed is worth the 50% loss of efficiency during 10 of the seconds spend getting to that speed.

With a controller set to 'efficiency', it wouldn't go over the motor's ratings under normal circumstances. Sure, it'll overdrive the motor if you stomp the acceleration pedal from something like 30mph until you hit 75-80 mph, but if you've sized it so that 100% is 'constant 75 mph on level terrain', you'll be just fine.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[Dare nMc]

Show me a reference that says that a gasoline engine of a given HP rating produces greater torque than an electric motor of the same HP rating.

well, first search of suppliers I know:
31 Hp max, 48 lb ft torque.
and then
http://www.metricmind.com/index1.htm"
SIEMENS ACW-80-4 50 HP max, 44 ft-lb max.

Especially across the range that an electric motor is capable of exerting that torque.

now that, I can't do. HP, is torque * speed. so if they turn at the same rpm, at the same HP, the make the same torque. but add a CVT gearbox, no problem.

I work for a company that makes the largest hybrid vehicles around, so I am a big fan of controllable torque of electric, and simplicity of a fixed gear reduction.

But false claims of 1/3 HP needed, or infinite starting torque of electric do no one any good.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[Bloke down the pub]

Desperately trying to remember the SUVAT equations ... v = u + at. u is zero (standing start) so v = at. v = 60 miles per hour ~= 100 km/h = 100,000 m/h = [takes off shoes] 28 m/s.

Thus the acceleration is v/t - 28 m/s^2 - around 3g. Not enough to rip your arms oout of the sockets but that would probably exceed most people's grip on the handlebars.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[sjames]

More efficient is a possability, but I suspect that once you throw in the differential and CV joints you'll lose the weight and cost advantages. I'm not sure the efficiency will be enough to be worth losing all of the other advantages in handling, simplicity, and reliability. In normal driving conditions with an all wheel drive, it will probably be necessary to have a warning light to let the driver know if one motor fails.

The acceleration is could be a big deal. That's based on the flat power curve of an electric motor and it's ability to operate from a standstill. While a gasoline engine is still slipping the clutch (or torque converter) to avoid stalling, the electric is allpying 100% torque. The acceleration will probably be a selling feature in the U.S. There's a lot of mis-perception that electric cars will feel like driving a golf cart. I can well imagine dealers having a demo car with the traction control shut off so they can demonstrate that the car can burn rubber. Because a lot of people don't realise that burning rubber means lost acceleration, there will probably be an aftermarket (legit or gray) for the firmware that lets you do that.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[Firethorn]

On the other hand, go two motors down to the SIEMENS 1LH5118, and you have a 19.7HP continous rated motor that has 90.8 max ft-pounds of torque. Good job finding a site with more detailed specifications on electric motors, most sites only have the continous ratings. I especially like the power curves.

One thing this thread has done is get me to research electric motors a bit more, the number of types they have is staggering. Of course, when you think about it, the average car has at least two electric motors, likely more, and only one IC engine.

Then you figure all the electric tools, compressors, AC/Heating systems, washing machines, computer fans, etc... I wouldn't consider it outragous to find out that there's at least an order of magnitude more electric motors than IC ones. Of course, most of them are very small in comparison to a car engine.

There's dozens of different types, depending on whether it's going to be fed AC or DC, is intended for a constant torque or constant speed despite load, or variable. Whether it's going to be starting/stopping a lot, or hardly ever. Whether it can have a gradual start, or a sprint start.

Looking at the power curves, the electric motor has nearly 100% of it's torque available at a mere 400 rpm, while they don't even list torque for the gasoline engine until 1800 RPM. It ends at 3600 RPM. Meanwhile you find motors rated between 3500 and 10000 RPM. Combined with the low speed torque, an appropriate reduction gear might be able to eliminate the need for shifting. Going by the graphs(150-125), for efficiency sake you'd simply want 25mph correspond to ~2800 rpm. Then 75 mph would be ~8400 RPM, which is within standards. Well, for the MES 200-250, I'd peg 25mph at 2000 rpm, giving 75mph at 6000 rpm. You'd have plenty of overhead still with those motors. Efficiency above 90% for much of it.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[Firethorn]

More efficient is a possability, but I suspect that once you throw in the differential and CV joints you'll lose the weight and cost advantages.

True, but you're not going to loose that much power in a differential, and you might want to have CV joints anyways to keep the weight of the motors as sprung rather than unsprung weight.

A quick search says that a differential will be 94-97% efficient. From looking at different efficiency graphs, such as on this site, you can have percentage differences of greater than 5% between different electric motors, within their optimal power zones.

Personally, it sounds like something for a design team to look at. Don't forget that you'll most likely be looking at hub motors if you're going for direct wheel drive, they're less efficient than a similar power traditional motor with a shaft.

You might be able to figure all this out with a proper design team and simulations, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if they ended up building prototypes to test it out.

The acceleration is could be a big deal. That's based on the flat power curve of an electric motor and it's ability to operate from a standstill. While a gasoline engine is still slipping the clutch (or torque converter) to avoid stalling, the electric is applying 100% torque. The acceleration will probably be a selling feature in the U.S. There's a lot of misperception that electric cars will feel like driving a golf cart.

Agreed. Especially given that electric motors tend to be more efficient the larger they are, under powering the motor doesn't make much sense.

I can well imagine dealers having a demo car with the traction control shut off so they can demonstrate that the car can burn rubber. Because a lot of people don't realise that burning rubber means lost acceleration, there will probably be an aftermarket (legit or gray) for the firmware that lets you do that.

I don't doubt that, though I think that most people willing to change out their car's chips to 'increase performance' will quickly figure out that burning rubber is counterproductive for both fuel economy and acceleration rates. I wouldn't underestimate the knowledge of the average nascar loving hot-rodder. Not that they wouldn't think that spinning tires is cool, but that they'd know that it's not the best way towards acceleration and plan accordingly. Maybe with a switch turning traction control on or off.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[sjames]

You might be able to figure all this out with a proper design team and simulations, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if they ended up building prototypes to test it out.

I suspect you're right.

I wouldn't underestimate the knowledge of the average nascar loving hot-rodder.

They probably already know and will do the mod with a switch anyway for the cool showing off factor (it's their tires, why not if they really want to?). The go-faster stripe crowd will be the ones who never enable traction control.

Re:0-60 in less than a second

[Geminii]

Then the engine gives out? Governor kicks in? The tires blow up? When this baby hits 158mph, you're gonna see some serious shit.

some pictures

[juventasone]

While the slashdot effect kills the video, there's some pictures and comments at gizmodo

Re:some pictures

[nrgy]

I love the guy standing over him with the camera in that link of yours.

I wonder is he thinking to himself... "What a dumbass this will get me more money then my Paris Hilton upskirt shot from last week"

Re:some pictures

[BronsCon]

That was Britney, not Paris.

Re:some pictures

[Oktober Sunset]

same slut, different name.

Re:some pictures

[KDR_11k]

Perhaps he's working for forensics...

Re:some pictures

[BronsCon]

Insightful? My comment was informative, at the least. Wake up, mods.

Re:some pictures

[TubeSteak]

The video isn't dead:
http://www4.tomshardware.com/site/downloads/wirednextfest_crash.swf
http://tau32.pair.com/german/video/wirednextfest_crash.swf
http://tau25.pair.com/sysdoc/video/wirednextfest_crash.swf

More seriously, though

[BadAnalogyGuy]

As a professional stuntman, I can't stress enough how dangerous it is to perform these kinds of antics without appropriate training, preparation, and room.

The fact that he hit a parked minivan tells me quite a bit about the kinds of stupid risks he was taking. He's lucky that he's the only one that got hurt.

Re:More seriously, though

[Anonymous Coward]

Performing burnouts on a motorcycle is not difficult. There's a little something called a clutch that makes it pretty safe. In the video you can hear him (or someone) say 'it actually stuck on', which I assume means he couldn't cut the power to the wheel.

In fact, the only stupid risk he took was not wearing a helmet. What sort of a dick rides a bike without a helmet? (Hint: 'a freedom loving dick' is not an acceptable answer.)

Re:More seriously, though

[somersault]

Yep, when cars warm up their tyres before races don't they normally do it on a little wet patch where they have less grip? The tires on that bike are massive, so and the ground was dry.. he was being ever so slightly stupid......... so lucky to be alive!

Re:More seriously, though

[FireFury03]

There's a little something called a clutch that makes it pretty safe.

I suspect, being electric, this wouldn't have a clutch.

In fact, the only stupid risk he took was not wearing a helmet. What sort of a dick rides a bike without a helmet?

To be fair, he was attempting a burnout - going over the handlebars at high speed isn't usually a big hazard when you're stationary with the back wheel spinning.

Re:More seriously, though

[heinousjay]

A dick who makes his own decisions and deals with the consequences.

I'm aware that's a synonym for freedom loving.

Re:More seriously, though

[mpe]

As a professional stuntman, I can't stress enough how dangerous it is to perform these kinds of antics without appropriate training, preparation, and room.

Not only do the professionals put a lot of effort ensuring that things are a safe as possible for anyone involved they also have emergency equiptment and crew there for the unlikely event of something going wrong.

Re:More seriously, though

[WindowsIsForArseWipe]

A cluch is unnecessary in most electric vechicles and in most cases it is a waste in that it is extra weight asnd also that it would prevent regenerative breaking. You could put a clutch on an electric vechicle but you get penalised for it.

Re:More seriously, though

[SmokeyTheBalrog]

There was wet patch, but he rolled off it when he made his first mistake.

Re:More seriously, though

[pyat]

You can have slip within the electric motor, so it can behave like an electromagnetic clutch. This can be pretty handy:

On diesel railway locomotives, they have a diesel engine that generates electricity, which is then used to power electric motors on the wheels. One reason for this arrangement is that using electric motors like this means you don't need a clutch and it's more compact than a fully mechanical transmission for such huge power would be.

Re:More seriously, though

[Anonymous Coward]

A dick who makes his own decisions and deals with the consequences.

And who drives up insurance costs for the rest of the riders who do wear helmets.

Re:More seriously, though

[Jaknet]

Just watched the video and he says that he is the builder/designer, but he is not the rider of it. I think he said this was going to be his first time.

All I can think is the guy who normally rides it must be well pissed watching the "boss" write it off. I know I would be.

Re:More seriously, though

[PadRacerExtreme]

As a professional stuntman, I can't stress enough how dangerous it is to perform these kinds of antics without appropriate training, preparation, and room. He even says in the video that he normally isn't the driver. And then he tries this.....

Re:More seriously, though

[Lloyd_Bryant]

In fact, the only stupid risk he took was not wearing a helmet. What sort of a dick rides a bike without a helmet? (Hint: 'a freedom loving dick' is not an acceptable answer.) I take offense at your usage of the word "dick". To me, a "dick" is a person who, through malice, indifference, or stupidity, adversely affects someone else.

So someone who permits a 10 year old to ride with him without a helmet is being a "dick". Someone who decides for himself not to wear one is at worst a "fool".

Re:More seriously, though

[mabinogi]

I must say, I've never seen a slang nazi before.

Re:More seriously, though

[something_wicked_thi]

And what about the people walking across the parking lot? Or the owner of that minivan?

Re:More seriously, though

[AndersOSU]

What kind of geek builds and designs the world's fastest electric motorcycle, and doesn't even try to ride it?

Re:More seriously, though

[tgd]

As a professional stuntman, Wow, that preface to a statement must be great for picking up women.

And yes, I'm serious, not mocking.

Re:More seriously, though

[TapeCutter]

"I take offense at your usage of the word "dick". To me, a "dick" is a person who, through malice, indifference, or stupidity, adversely affects someone else."

Go away, your nerdy definitions are cluttering up my pornographic search results.

Re:More seriously, though

[91degrees]

They're not going to be harmed by his not wearing a helmet. So by the above definition we can argue he's a dick because of his lack of consideration for general safety but not for his failure to wear a helmet.

Re:More seriously, though

[bradinthehouse]

How about that! The first slashdot poster to have a chance at a woman...

Re:More seriously, though

[something_wicked_thi]

Can we all just agree that he's a dick, and then everyone else can argue about why he's qualified later?

Re:More seriously, though

[Anonymous Coward]

...and makes his family and anyone who cares about him deal with the consequences, too. Oh, and who makes me deal with the consequences because I have to indirectly pay for his freedom-loving medical costs. Oh yeah, and he makes whomever else was involved in the accident deal with the freedom-loving psychological consequences of participating in another human-being's death or vegetization. I think that's a level of dick-ness that is appropriate to outlaw.

Re:More seriously, though

[LSD-OBS]

Internal combustion engines need a clutch for two major reasons.

1. If you had direct gearing from the shaft to the wheel, the engine would need to be able to accelerate from 0 RPM. Combustion engines cannot turn at less than certain speeds while still maintaining ignition. In English this means you need a clutch to pull of from standing.

2. Combustion engines have relatively low ceilings on maximum RPM. So you need to change gears to go faster. This is why manual drive cars have that third pedal - you have to disengage the drive in order to slot in the new gear.

Electric motors are pretty much free of the above two limitations, so they require therefore only a throttle control.

Re:More seriously, though

[bhsurfer]

I love the "you drive up my insurance costs by doing X" arguments that people make. The simple reality is that insurance costs a lot because the BMWs, mansions, property, etc that people who own insurance companies like to own cost a lot. As the price of the luxury goods that the people who run these FOR PROFIT companies (which have managed to dupe the government into making the purchase of their "services" mandatory for ordinary citizens) rises the rates will rise accordingly.

People can delude themselves that other customers doing crazy, dangerous stuff like riding motorcycles is the cause of high rates if they like but that doesn't make it so. I am detecting hints of "people shouldn't be allowed to do X because it's dangerous", which basically means "people shouldn't be allowed to do X because I'm not interested in it or I'm scared of it", in this thread as well. I find this type of mentality extremely annoying. Scared to swim with sharks, climb mountains, ride skateboards, ski, play rugby, ride motorcycles, fly airplanes, etc? Fine - stay at home on the couch and suck your thumb - but don't tell me that I'm not allowed to do these things, and definitely don't tell me that your allowing some insurance company to rip you off is my fault.

Re:More seriously, though

[rah1420]

What sort of a dick rides a bike without a helmet?

They call that sort of dick "organ donor."

Re:More seriously, though

[bdonalds]

And if I were you, I would use that preface to begin every statement. "As a professional stuntman, I would like a #2 with a medium diet."

Re:More seriously, though

[neiko]

I'm not in the insurance game, but I've heard myths that insurance rates are higher because of people who wear helmets. A $5,000 funeral is a hell of a lot cheaper than a $50,000 hospital bill from the same accident. Don't know how true that is...

Re:More seriously, though

[poot_rootbeer]

A dick who makes his own decisions and deals with the consequences.

EVERYONE deals with the consequences of their decisions. Those who make decisions that are more likely to lead to strongly negative consequences are called "morons".

Re:More seriously, though

[KDR_11k]

The rates are also tied to the payouts. Just like a casino, an insurance want s payouts to be less than the income but unlike a casino they have no control over the odds. While they could raise the rates like mad they'd have trouble with competition that decides not to do so (same as it works with any product that has competition). However, more payouts means the break even rates are higher and competition or not, noone will go below payout rates (ignoring short-term sacrifices to kill a competitor).

More damage in an accident means more payout, more payout means higher minimum rates. Whether the insurance decides to raise the actual rates as much is their thing but if they don't they end up making less profit (shareholders don't like that idea).

There's a reason insurances refuse to pay if their client was taking unnecessary risks, it gives people a reason not to take those risks and potentially decreases the number of risky situations every client is exposed to, reducing the odds for a payout.

Keep in mind that if you get involved in an accident that's not your fault the other insurance won't get the option to say "the victim didn't wear a helmet, we're not paying for him" (unless they want to leave their client to pay the victim's bill and that's an even worse deal).

Of course such a rule would cause an even more complicated process for dealing with accidents since it would have to be proven/disproven that all safety measures were taken.

Re:More seriously, though

[Smidge204]

So you're saying that, if only those insurance company CEOs would live a humble life, your insurance would be cheaper? I'm skeptical the impact would be that great.

Insurance is all about risk assessment. As an insurance provider, I need to figure out three things:

1) How likely you are to have an accident
2) How much that accident is likely to cost me (as an insurer)
3) How much I should charge, based on 1 and 2, so that I can pay all claims laid against my company and still cover the cost of operations plus profit.

Yes, insurance companies use every excuse they can to avoid paying, but there is enough competition (at least in my area) to keep prices from skyrocketing out of control. That means it is in the company's best interest to keep the prices competitive... which means statistics (1) and (2) become very important.

If everyone drove safely and accidents were more rare, then as a company I wouldn't have to pay out as often, and I can charge less knowing that the greater length of time between payouts compensates for the smaller payments. The more competitive my prices, the more customers I can get and the better my profit margin.

People who drive like assholes have much more influence on insurance costs than the CEO's choice of lifestyle. Do us all a favor and don't drive like an asshole.
=Smidge=

Re:More seriously, though

[Radon360]

it's more compact than a fully mechanical transmission for such huge power would be.

And also one heck of an easier way to transmit power to the wheels through swiveling trucks without having to deal with some ginormous reactive torques.

Re:More seriously, though

[cayenne8]

"And who drives up insurance costs for the rest of the riders who do wear helmets"

Complete myth. I can attest to this. We used to be free in Louisiana to choose to wear a helmet or not. New Gov. Blanco (aka Blank-Stare after katrina) repealed the law.

We now have to wear helmets. However, the insurance rates for motorcycle riders (or even auto) did not go down one cent.

Re:More seriously, though

[E 99]

The simple reality is that insurance costs a lot because the BMWs, mansions, property, etc that people who own insurance companies like to own cost a lot. As the price of the luxury goods that the people who run these FOR PROFIT companies.

Wow. You must have studied economics at the North Korean Polytechnical Institute. Insurance prices are actually determined by supply and demand. The fact that the owners would like to maximize their income, doesn't not make them different from anyone else, or from any other industry or private enterprise.

Re:More seriously, though

[mdielmann]

A dick who makes his own decisions and deals with the consequences. Also, a dick who has very poor risk-reward assessment skills. If you don't believe me, ask him. If he can't answer, well, that's pretty much the answer right there, isn't it?

In short, a freedom-loving moron is who.

Re:More seriously, though

[Radon360]

Two very good points, but I'm going to make one nitpick about the second one: reciprocating piston cumbustion engines have relatively low ceilings on maximum RPM.

Don't forget that there's other designs, such as the Wankel engine or the jet turbine engine that can run at comparable rotational speeds to most motors. But worth noting about both of these examples, they still suffer from the problem from your first point (they don't like to stay running below a certain RPM).

Re:More seriously, though

[tehcyder]

To be fair, he was attempting a burnout - going over the handlebars at high speed isn't usually a big hazard when you're stationary with the back wheel spinning.

It may not usually be, but it always is potentially extremely dangerous, especially when you're playing with such a powerful machine. (0-60 in less than a second...). Burnouts aren't as easy as they look, you know.

I mean, you could say that it isn't usual for an experienced biker to fall off and need a helmet in the first place (in the sense that you could easily ride for years and never have a serious accident) but that is not really a reason to ride around in shorts and flip-flops.

Re:More seriously, though

[LSD-OBS]

Thanks, I forgot to specify the type of combustion engine. However Wankel/rotary style engines still only operate up to 2 or 3 times the RPM of a reciprocating piston engine, whereas an electric motor in the same context spins an order of magnitude faster quite easily.

Point being, you *still* need gears using a rotary engine in a car, so both points still stand 100%.

Re:More seriously, though

[tehcyder]

As a professional stuntman,

Wow, that preface to a statement must be great for picking up women.

Yeah well, I earn my living orally removing the hair from pampered felines so they don't get furballs.

So we all know what my pickup line is.

Re:More seriously, though

[lavaboy]

first rule of riding bikes: Dress for the crash, not the trip.

Re:More seriously, though

[bhsurfer]

Yeah, I know - hard to beat empirical evidence like I threw out there... Yeah, I actually do understand how businesses function, and I understand supply and demand too. The point I was trying to make is simply this : as an industry insurance has done well for itself toward the goal of maximizing profits by lobbying for their services to be mandatory via legislation. I don't disagree that insurance is a useful thing and I also don't disagree that companies deserve to make a profit. Where I get miffed is when I am legally required to contribute to their profitability by purchasing their services whether I like it or not and whether I need the service they provide or not. I gotta hand it to them though - lobbying to push legislation making your product legally required is a great way to guarantee demand.

You can extol the virtues of insurance companies all you like, that's fine, but I think that the industry as a whole gouges the American public and has governmental backing in doing so. In many ways (likely including seats on their boards) they resemble the oil industry crying "expenses costs risks" while they rake in record profits at the publics expense, again with government complicity. If you think that this industry has your best interests in mind and that you're being treated fairly by them then that's great for you and I'm glad that you feel satisfied with deal you've struck with them.

Re:More seriously, though

[Belial6]

It's funny, that was the exact same thing I was thinking when I read the comment.

Re:More seriously, though

[krbvroc1]

You are missing the fundamental 'Law of Insurance and Gas prices'. Rising costs are quick to be passed on the consumer, but when costs go down, the savings are pocketed by the company as long as possible.

Re:More seriously, though

[Provocateur]

I think it was more like minivan on your face...

Re:More seriously, though

[Foolicious]

What about a $50,000 hospital bill, which isn't paid because the person dies 2 days later from head trauma, plus a $5,000 funeral bill, plus any potential life insurance payout, plus an employer replacing an employee, plus any other costs related to the accident in the first place? And on and on. More often than not, people dying in vehicle accidents is a bad thing all around.

Re:More seriously, though

[broggyr]

I think the video trumps your statement about the burnout. Even though you're not planning to crash doesn't mean you shouldn't prepare for one.

Re:More seriously, though

[HardCase]

You're searching for dicks?

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

Re:More seriously, though

[operagost]

What sort of a dick rides a bike without a helmet?

Pittsburgh Steelers quarterbacks.

Re:More seriously, though

[lysse]

What on earth makes you think insurance premiums can go down as well as up...?

Re:More seriously, though

[neiko]

I was merely talking about the auto-insurance. Life insurance and employer costs are surely affected but these don't affect our auto-insurance as motorists. Someone who wears a helmet can die two days later as well at the hospital from trauma. I don't have the statistics to tell you if it's cheaper for the auto-insurance companies or not, but I'm sure they do and I know for a fact they don't push one bit here in Colorado for a helmet law where there is none currently. And yes, people dying is a bad thing all around for more than just financial reasons :P

Re:More seriously, though

[Merk]

What's amazing to me is that he was trying to do a burnout on a drag bike with a super wide slick back tire. Wow.

Re:More seriously, though

[LSD-OBS]

Oh, probably the most important reason for having gears will be evident if you look at the power/torque curves of a dynamometer run for your average combustion engine.

Re:More seriously, though

[budgenator]

Recently there has been a rash of accidents caused by professional drivers doing demonstration burnouts some resulting in spectator fatalities.

Re:More seriously, though

[budgenator]

The jerk is necessary, a freight train takes to much power to move from a standstill for any locomotive. The couplings between the cars are designed with some slack so the locomotive only has to start one car at a time; if there was no slack to separate the cars, they would never be able to start a typical train.

Re:More seriously, though

[Foolicious]

Yeah. I don't know what to think about helmet laws because I don't feel I can trust any studies either way. Ardent opponents have their studies that show how evil helmets are. Ardent supporters have studies that show the contrary. I just wonder where all the helmet law people are in the discussion about mandatory safety belt use. It seems like the exact same issue -- or at least very closely related. Food for thought, whatever the case may be.

Re:More seriously, though

[budgenator]

unless your a brain-damaged vegetable that lingers for couple years and rack up a couple million in bills.

Re:More seriously, though

[snowgirl]

Yeah well, I earn my living orally removing the hair from pampered felines so they don't get furballs.
So we all know what my pickup line is.

Hm... you know, I have just such a feline that could use some of your help this weekend...

Re:More seriously, though

[biz0r]

Damn, beat me to it.

But I will elaborate on your point a bit...

The reason internal combustion engines need multiple gears (unlike electric powered motors), is because of the changing torque curve. Internal combustion engines tend to generate a certain peak torque at a certain RPM...the trick is, to get and keep your vehicle INSIDE that peak - or somewhere around it (ok well, technically, you want it around the HP peak, but HP is just a value calculated with torque and RPM). Since electric vehicles produce a generally FLAT torque curve (ie: produces the same force @ 1 rpm as it does 10000 rpm), they do not need this gear changing, they are just geared to go a certain speed or whatnot (different, depending on the needs of the vehicle).

I know this in part because I once wrote a c program eons ago, that I used to calculate the best shift points on my cars (i used to race a lot) using the dynamometer data. Yes, I wanted every advantage I could have at that point...and I actually did improve my 1/4 and 1/8 mile times after implementing these new shift points.

Re:More seriously, though

[HardCase]

Since I'm married to one of them, it's pretty damn hard for me to ignore the other 50%. And, since this is /., I feel pretty safe playing the odds that the vast majority of people to whom I reply are male - just as you seem to have done (since you assumed that I'm one of the 50% that, generally speaking, doesn't search for dicks.)

Work on that sense of humor.

Re:More seriously, though

[TClevenger]

Quoth the owner:

>--- Bill Dube wrote: > > > Other that from embarrassment, there were no other

> > injuries aside

> > from cuts and scrapes. :-)

> >

> > There was no intention for the bike to actually

> > move. Looking at the

> > video it appeared that the spin pushed the front

> > tire enough to let

> > the rear tire hit dry pavement. It took a moment to

> > release the front

> > brake, untwist the throttle fully, and then get back

> > on the front

> > brake. I _almost_ got it stopped. I managed to get

> > it down to about 20 mph.

> >

> > Please note, area in front of the bike and

> > all possible

> > trajectories was cleared of people. Building on

> > right side. Cement

> > barriers (disguised as flower planters) on the other

> > side.

> >

> > Munched the fairing. Munched the front tire

> > and forks. Put a

> > big dent in the front of the pack. Not too hard to

> > fix.

> >

> > I have to admit in hindsight, this was not

> > a smart move.

Re:More seriously, though

[TClevenger]

Uh, he does. All the time.

Re:More seriously, though

[wallywam1]

Another great advantage is the tremendous amount of torque. My best friend's dad drove a haul truck in a strip mine and told me that the trucks used diesel engines with electric final drives for this reason. If a truck with tons of coal stalls out while climbing out of a pit, it's death time.

Re:More seriously, though

[gregorio]

You can have slip within the electric motor, so it can behave like an electromagnetic clutch.

No it won't. A clutch is useful for burnouts because it allows you to free the transmission from motor inertia and power in no time. While you can easily ajust motor power with a electrical motor, you can't get rid of the inertia.

If you're doing a burnout and the bike runs out of control, it's easy as pressing a lever to stop the bike. With an electric motor, you'll have to fight the rotor inertia.

Re:More seriously, though

[snowgirl]

Work on that sense of humor.

My sense of humor is in proper working order... I suggest you examine your sarcasm unit... apparently it's failing for sufficiently small values of S.

Re:More seriously, though

[ivan256]

Find a policy that doesn't pay out on personal injury if you aren't wearing a helmet, and quit bitching about other people's behavior that has no effect on you whatsoever.

Freedom means being free to be a complete idiot, as long as it doesn't impede somebody else's freedom while you're doing it.

Re:More seriously, though

[spyowl]

I take offense at your usage of the word "dick". To me, a "dick" is a person who, through malice, indifference, or stupidity, adversely affects someone else.

So someone who permits a 10 year old to ride with him without a helmet is being a "dick". Someone who decides for himself not to wear one is at worst a "fool".

Well... I guess he's lucky a 10 year old wasn't coming out of the minivan that he ran into at that exact time because that would have officially made him a dick... Whew - that was close but we can all breathe easier now.

Re:More seriously, though

[something_wicked_thi]

I think part of your reply is meant to say that he had the way cleared in front of him. I knew that because, like you, I read the article and his comments. As another poster correctly points out (somewhere further down this page), if the bike wasn't supposed to move, and hence no helmet or other precautions were necessary, why did they clear the way? Furthermore, if the way was clear, why was there a minivan, presumably with an owner who, at some point, would want to leave, be directly in front of him?

It seems quite clear that the precautions taken to protect bystanders were as flimsy as the ones he took himself.

Re:More seriously, though

[iNetRunner]

You haven't visited China, I take? Because you are saying that a big part of the people there are dicks.. =) The driving culture there is quite terrible from an European perspective. ;) A three person family can be riding on a single moped. All without helmets of course. (When the moped goes for around 300 EUR, the helmets for all must be roughly the same.. Meaning too much. Just guessing here though.) .. Also the driving rules there appear to be that you should _mostly_ stay on the right lane, and just keep watching out for the reckless drivers in front of you (that is, for all people in front of you) that can go anywhere they please.

Re:More seriously, though

[redcane]

Very interesting, the motor inertia hadn't occured to me. But obviously this is why one revs a petrol engine up and dumps the clutch to start a burnout.... I would assume (just guessing) the electric motor probably has a smaller rotating mass than a petrol engine, so the motor inertia would be less of a problem...

Re:More seriously, though

[redcane]

Width of the tyre does not affect grip, only the cooling characteristics of the tyre. I know that is counterintuitive but it appears to be the case Fr = *N has no component for the size of the area in contact, only the force which is exerted upon it, and the coefficient of friction for that surface.

KillaCycle?

[kooky45]

Does what it says on the tin.

Re:KillaCycle?

[general_re]

Minivan FTW.

Finally

[sc0ob5]

A product that can actually live up to it's name.

Re:Finally

[Yvanhoe]

Yeah, it may be funny, but the very fact that this event occurred gives him media coverage. Probably unintended side effect, but well deserved! I, for one, had never heard of the Killacycle. This is seriously cool stuff !

Re:Finally

[Strawser]

Yeah, it may be funny, but the very fact that this event occurred gives him media coverage. Probably unintended side effect, but well deserved! I, for one, had never heard of the Killacycle. This is seriously cool stuff !

Plus, when looking for a crotchrocket bike, you want to be sure it's fast enough to kill you with little difficulty. Otherwise, it's no fun. I think he just uped his stock a few points. "Wow. That thing's bad-ass. You could die on that! . . . Where do I get one?"

Re:Finally

[TClevenger]

How about an 11 second Datsun, then?

Idiot

[infonick]

As a scientist, he should have known better than to not wear a helmet....

Re:Idiot

[Attaturk]

As a scientist, he should have known better than to not wear a helmet....

As a fucking primate he should have known better than to not wear a helmet...
That being said, good luck to the guy. Balls, money and heart where his mouth is and all that.

Re:Idiot

[mpe]

As a scientist, he should have known better than to not wear a helmet....

Calling the thing "KillaCycle" probably wasn't the smartest of ideas either. It sounds more like the title of a low budget horror movie...

Re:Idiot

[clickety6]

Balls... and heart where his mouth is and all that.

Thankfully it wasn't that bad a crash ! :-)

Re:Idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that, the guy wasnt even wearing *any* type of protective motorcycle gear. Frankly, ending up in hospital seems like the most likely outcome of that little stunt. Hopefully he will recover completely, but he really has himself to blame most of all.

Re:Idiot

[Atario]

But, being a scientist, I bet he learns from the experience. Like: when trying to burn out, keep that front brake pulled, dammit.

Re:Idiot

[beaviz]

As a scientist, he should have known better than to not wear a helmet....

Scientists are the worst. They are always focused on the "important" work or experiment, a helmet was not in any way important to this experiment. Therefore, he left it out of the equation.

Re:Idiot

[Anissian]

I would even add that the fact that this guy is a scientist is just making him look more "unprofessional" to my eyes. Regardless of his profession, the moment someone rides a bike -- specially "experimental" bikes -- the helmet is a MUST, like a safety belt while driving a car. It has been proved beyond doubt that the use of helmets and safety belts *saves lifes*. Governments are spending thousands of euros in campaigns and ads. Yet, people are still driving without. On top of that, if you appear on a TV show, give example. Lots of teenagers may be looking, and it does no make you look cooler (pet peeve o'mine)

Re:Idiot

[fbjon]

It's possible that the brake failed.

Re:Idiot

[smackt4rd]

I think I saw that, or was it killdozer. lol.

Is it just me?

[spazmonkey]

Is it just me, or did everyone get the motorcycle clip from "PeeWee's Great Adventure" stuck in their heads upon reading that description?

Re: Is it just me?

[xarak]

Just you.

Thankfully.

Re: Is it just me?

[Thing 1]

Thanks for the Large Marge flashback.

Just needed stiches

[Anonymous Coward]

from the comments on the linked page:

I wasn't wearing a helment, because we did not intend the bike to even move!

We were spinning the tire in soapy water. The tire unexpectantly gripped, (water ran out?) and launched the bike. I couldn't get it shut down as quickly as I would have liked. I had to release the front brake to fully untwist the throttle. I then managed to slow it down to about 20 mph.

The positive message here is that when we crunched the battery pack, NOTHING happened. No smoke. No flames. Not even sparks. Not only are these cells more powerful, they are are the safest possible for automobiles.

Also, there was NO ONE in front of the bike or in the possible trajectory of the bike.

Bill Dube

Re:Just needed stiches

[jd]

No sparks? No flames? Dudew, you should have added some pyros to the bike, even if you never intended it to move, to give people something to photograph. Same reason early computers were dressed in lights. Sheesh, talk about a missed opporutinity.

Re:Just needed stiches

[fprintf]

That thing is wickedly fast! Holy smokes, you were going very very quickly in just a few frames of that video. I am thankful you did not get seriously hurt.

Hope you get better soon, and never mind the few extra bucks to fix the bike/smashed car on top of the $40k already spent!

Re:Just needed stiches

[Woy]

You can't both claim there was no one in the possible trajectory as a safety measure and wear no helmet. You either considered the bike could move or not.
Cool bike, man!

Re:Just needed stiches

[Moralpanic]

[quote]I wasn't wearing a helment, because we did not intend the bike to even move![/quote] Is this sarcasm? The definition of an 'accident' is unintentional: 1. an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss; casualty; mishap: automobile accidents. 3. any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or cause. If things worked out as intended, we wouldn't have accidents.

Re:Just needed stiches

[cyberon22]

Don't let the critics hold you back, Dube. A lot of us are cheering you on -- I love seeing people working on interesting projects like this. We need more sorts of urban transportation vehicles like this. And if it can make you rich all the better.

That being said, you probably should change the name of the bike.

Re:Just needed stiches

[Supergood-ape]

"I wasn't wearing a helment, because..."

There's nothing you can say here that will justify not wearing a helmet.

I recently put a new seat on my Ducati. I wanted to test it, but I was only taking to the end of my street and back. As I left the driveway, I hit an acorn (yes a fucking acorn) that had been smashed, lost the front, and went down. Low speed, no problems, but I banged my head pretty hard, hard enough to send me to the hospital.

That is, if I had been dumb enough to listen to the inner voice that said "I don't need to wear a helmet because...". Luckily, I'm not that dumb and I did wear my helmet, so I got up and walked away.

Re:Just needed stiches

[MichailS]

Anyone who has been burning rubber with a motorbike should be thoroughly aware that it can get grip and take off like a trebuchet payload, possibly launching the driver into orbit in the process.

You wear a helmet, and you wear a leather suit, or there WILL be embarrassments such as these.

Further, if you have a bazillion horsepower, why would you need soap water? Amateurs.

Re:Just needed stiches

[Supergood-ape]

"I hope you wear a helmet every time you walk near a hard surface, too, since your head is about the same distance from the ground and you're just as likely to trip over an acorn with your feet as with a bike tire..."

I'm not really sure why you'd post such a stupid reply.

Re:Just needed stiches

[ahoehn]

The fact that you can run thie Lithium battery pack into the side of a car and have nothing happen to it is quite impressive.

The Slashdot crowd is already familiar with exploding laptop batteries, and electric RC news groups are filled with horror stories of houses and cars burning down from LiPo batteries that "randomly" burst into flame. Just this weekend my brother-in-law and I flew our electric RC planes with LiPo packs in them. On the way back into the house, he dropped a battery pack on the sidewalk from about 3 feet in the air. It instantly started spewing smoke and flames, and kept going for about a minute. We were lucky that it was sitting on concrete.

The moral of the story is, I wouldn't trust anything as volitile as the LiPo's that I use for RC sitting between my legs or in the trunk of my car. While the injury is unfortunate, the publicity of a safe LiPo might do good things for the KillaCycle.

Re:Just needed stiches

[tehcyder]

Glad to hear you're OK. But I do think you need to redesign the controls if you have to release the front brake to close the throttle...

Re:Just needed stiches

[hondo77]

I wasn't wearing a helment, because we did not intend the bike to even move!

Brilliant. This is exactly the same as "I didn't know the gun was loaded."

Re:Just needed stiches

[bhsurfer]

I wonder if the batteries are more volatile than the 5 gallons of gasoline that go in the tank of my bike. That's always one of the "keep in back of mind" things about regular motorcycles - if the tank ruptures or leaks while sliding (creating sparks) things just got a lot more complicated.

I've never really looked up any stats on how often that happens though, so I don't know how big of a concern it really is, although I'm sure somebody out there in motorcycles-are-responsible-for-high-insurance-land will mentally add it to the list of reasons why people shouldn't [be allowed to] ride motorcycles.

If the batteries work well and are stable I'd say that you're right and it is good PR for this pretty cool invention that I'd love to spend about 500 miles with some weekend...

Re:Just needed stiches

[TClevenger]

That's specifically why he mentioned those batteries. These are LiFePo4 batteries, which are a different formula from Li-Ion batteries currently in use. Other EV enthusiasts have experimented on the bench with other Li-Ion types and have had various fun experiences when batteries were crushed or overcharged.

What's interesting about LiFePo4 is that they seem a lot more resilient and have a much longer cycle life. In fact, preliminary testing has shown that if they live up to their specs, despite the much higher initial cost, they may replace Lead Acid batteries as the cheapest batteries available yet, in cost-per-mile-over-lifetime terms.

In other news

[iamacat]

The motorcyclist was using Sony cells and also suffered a bad burn to the groin.

Free press?

[Alystair]

This is actually very good free press for them, hope he recovers quick. Media loves accidents.

GLAYVIN!

[Mad Martigan]

That's why Professor Frink's motorcycle flies through the air -- no cars to hit.

-----

Frink tests his new flying motorcycle.

Frink: Hello, son. You want to try the flying motorcycle I just invented?
Bart: No time.
Frink: Okay.

Later, Bart loses his skateboard in the wet cement.

Bart: I could sure use that flying motorcycle now.

Frink flies by.

Frink: You had your chance. Whoa-hai.

-----

Quote of the Video

[adamkennedy]

"I'm normally the crew chief and the owner, I don't ride it."

I was already going "oh dear..."

Re:Quote of the Video

[Prune]

I don't get it.

Killa-Minivan

[Nymz]

It doesn't matter if it'a KillaCycle, motorcycle, bicycle, or even a small car, because none of them are safe as long as they share the road with vehicles that are relatively so much more massive. If we want to realistically promote more efficient modes of transportation, then we should work to make the current hostile enviroments into safer ones.

Before you flame, I'm aware he wasn't wearing a helmet, was showing off with a burn out, was riding an prototype vehicle, and that the minivan was a parked. But instead of addressing the rare occurance this incident was, I wanted to address a common occurance, and provide a solution that we could actually take steps toward achieving.

Re:Killa-Minivan

[Omnifarious]

I agree pretty strongly with you on this. From what I've read massive vehicles aren't any safer for the people riding in them, and a lot more dangerous for everybody else. Not only that, but a lot of people who drive them drive them because they think they're safer, then drive like idiots because they think they can't get hurt. Also, many people who get them are just generally really insecure about their ability to drive which will make them bad drivers even if they don't feel invulnerable.

Re:Killa-Minivan

[jamesh]

It doesn't matter if it'a KillaCycle, motorcycle, bicycle, or even a small car, because none of them are safe as long as they share the road with other drivers who talk on cell phones while driving. If we want to realistically promote more efficient modes of transportation, then we should work to make the current hostile enviroments into safer ones.

Before you flame, I'm aware he wasn't talking on a cell phone. But instead of addressing the rare occurance this incident was, I wanted to address a common occurance, and provide a solution that we could actually take steps toward achieving.

Look at me! I can make off topic posts to push an agenda too :p

Re:Killa-Minivan

[MightyYar]

From what I've read massive vehicles aren't any safer for the people riding in them, and a lot more dangerous for everybody else. I haven't seen anything recently, but last I checked heavier cars WERE safer. Also, the most dangerous cars on the road (again, old-ish statistics) have always been sports cars.

From that first link, the worst car to crash into seems to be a pickup truck.

Re:Killa-Minivan

[TheJodster]

I don't know if you can make the roads safe for motorcycles of any kind, unfortunately. I was a long time rider and cycle enthusiast. I had lots of good safety gear, lights all over my bike, etc. I had taken safety courses with hands on crash avoidance scenarios. Last year an idiot woman in an SUV launched herself from a side road like she was on a suicide mission to get across the four lane divided highway where I was riding. She crushed my leg which they nearly had to amputate; broke my ribs which consequently punctured my lungs; ripped a hole in my small intestine; tore my abdominal wall to the point where I now have a piece of kevlar mesh holding my organs in on the right side. It's been a year and a half and I almost walk normally now. I was wearing a full face helmet that hit the ground repeatedly as I flew through the median.

I got a twelve day stay in an ICU, four major surguries, four months in the hospital, a year of rehab, more than a half million US dollars in medical bills, and pain that I would never wish on anyone. She got a ticket for failure to yield right of way and a new SUV.

If you want to ride a bike on the highways in the U.S. beware that the consequences of the bad judgement of the drooling idiots you share the road with is extremely high. The helmet will ensure that you remain concious throughout the ordeal... if you are lucky... and if you aren't, at least your wife, kids, parents, or whatever will be able to have an open casket funeral.

Re:Killa-Minivan

[otter42]

That's silly. Of course they're safe. They might not be as safe (to their occupants) as a Hummer, but that doesn't make them unsafe. In fact, if you want to look at it from the other direction, all these light vehicles are far safer for everyone in the world (6.5 billion people) except for their occupants (2 people).

Re:Killa-Minivan

[apt142]

There seems to be a lot of nice statistics here: http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx, in case you are curious about the latest trends.

Re:Killa-Minivan

[fishybell]

It's called insurance. As she was at fault, it is her insurance's liability, and they likely paid.

Plus, insurance companies have more money to get from a lawsuit ;)

Re:Killa-Minivan

[polar red]

time for computer-steered cars ? If they can get #accidents/million_passenger_Km down ...

Re:Killa-Minivan

[dtjohnson]

It doesn't matter if it'a KillaCycle, motorcycle, bicycle, or even a small car, because none of them are safe as long as they share the road with vehicles that are relatively so much more massive.

Yours is the kind of narrow-minded thinking that says 'I'll buy a 6,000 lb SUV so the guy in the 4,000 lb car can't hurt me when we collide.' This is the kind of thinking that says 'Small cars are too dangerous to drive.' People in 80,000 lb trucks get killed when the truck jack knifes and hits an obstruction. People in big cars get killed when the thing rolls over, hits another vehicle, or drives off the road over a cliff. People in small cars get killed the same way. People on motorcycles get killed when they go too fast, fail to watch for other vehicles, pull wheelies on the freeway, drive after drinking, or hit a car that pulls in front of them. People in crosswalks get killed when the SUV driven by the careless driver on his cellphone mows them down like bambi on opening day. Is there a common thread? Yes, mistakes, and those are what we all make, and they sometimes kill us. Vehicles and pedestrians of ALL sizes have to share the road and they always will. Driving a 6,000 lb SUV or a 600 lb motorcycle will not protect you from being killed by your own mistakes.

The 'killacycle' operator was obviously to me, not very familiar with the operation of the killacycle, or motorcycles in general, and was just trying to showboat for the press. Maybe he didn't want to pay the 'real' driver to be there for the demo or maybe he wanted his 10 seconds of fame in front of the cameras. Any experienced biker doing a demonstration like he was doing would have looked ahead to see where he would be going if the front brake didn't hold. They guy in the video never looks ahead to the minivan he was going to collide with seconds later. Any drag biker would have had a helmet, too, although the guy didn't apparently sustain a head injury in this case. Mistakes, not the size of the vehicle, hurt this guy. He was lucky that he wasn't hurt worse than he was.

Re:Killa-Minivan

[greed]

Thank you for not advocating a vehicular arms race. (The I need a big car to be safe mentality, which means once everyone has a bigger car, you (generic) need an even bigger on. Canyonaro!)

People never seem to think about two things there:

1. Total energy in the system. Ek=1/2mv^2, so speed kills in the square, but mass is in there, though it is linear. You've got to dissipate all of that energy in a crash.

2. "Keep my family safe" basically means "kill the guy in the smaller car."

   Or do people really think that they're just as save in an Expedition vs. Expedition crash as they would be in an Expedition vs. Focus crash?

I advocate driver training, and advocate that people who don't want to drive don't drive.

I bring up that last one because people who don't want to be doing something often do it badly. And it seems to be a city-thing, in rural areas, at least from the people who live in properly rural areas (that means farms, not subdivisions) don't seem to get that same grim-faced frustrated get-out-of-my-way approach to the road.

Re:Killa-Minivan

[TheJodster]

Lawsuits are only effective when the knuckle head behind the steering wheel has money. This woman had a minimum wage job and lived in a rented trailer house. She had the minimum insurance required in Texas which is $20,000 of bodily injury. Technically, most health insurance policies stipulate that they get reimbursed before you do. If she breaks your arm and you get an ambulance ride to an ER for a cast, I'll guarantee you that you will likely exceed that money. Hell, I probably exceeded her $20K in the first hour.

I could sue her. I would win the case within an hour. My wife took photos of all the metal hardware they bolted onto my leg from the outside, the chest tubes, all of the machines breathing for me and all that other crap. The problem is that it would cost me at least $3000 or $4000 and all I would have at the end of the day is a judgement that she will never pay. I got a lawyer and am trying to get what little there is from the auto insurance policy. My lawyer just did a case for some kid who was out drinking and got hit on his bike later that night. The kid got several hundred thousand dollars. It all depends on who hits you. Murphy's law says that it will usually be some slobbering idiot with a busted up car and little or no insurance as was my case.

I really didn't have time to dwell on that, though. I was focused on getting out of a wheel chair and onto a walker. Then getting off the walker onto two canes. I finally got down to one cane and thankfully don't have to use it anymore either.

Whoever said that I was lucky above was absolutely right. I had all of these bad ass doctors coming in from the level 1 trauma center to check out all of the handy work. One of the motorcycle victim reconstruction surgeons told me that he had never seen a human being hit that hard and live to tell about it. When a motocyclist gets hit like that, the only way to see the bodily injury is to take a trip to the morgue. They couldn't figure out how my brain didn't get scrambled. I told them I was crazy to start with so there is no empirical way to discern further damage.

I'm not riding any more. She screwed up my knee bad enough that I probably can't. Besides, who the hell wants to lay in a hospital bed for months on end taking morphine and vicodin to get through the day? If I never see an IV needle, or a 20 inch incision with staples all over it ever again, I'll be a happy guy! I'll seek my thrills elsewhere.

Re:Killa-Minivan

[dcam]

I have this theory. The skill of the driver behind the wheel of a car is inversely proportional to the cost of the car. Divide by 3 if they are driving a SUV.

Re:Killa-Minivan

[pipingguy]

While I think that most people driving massive vehicles for personal transportation do so for reasons other than practicality, if you drive/ride a smaller machine it's YOUR job to be safe, not everyone else's. You have to be nimble, fully aware of your surroundings (look well ahead, behind and to the sides) and anticipate others' actions. This is valid advice whether neighbouring traffic weighs 4000 lbs or 150 lbs.

Re:Killa-Minivan

[evil_aar0n]

As a fellow rider, I feel for you, bud. Sorry to hear about this - especially the part where the woman got only a ticket and a new SUV. Surely you took her ass to court, right?

Other Videos

[gbickford]

Here is a mirror of video of the crash: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2984983237984172859.

There are a lot of videos of the thing in action at http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=KillaCycle. The thing is clearly not a scooter

It's really a bummer that he decided not to wear a helmet.

Re:Other Videos

[neochubbz]

FYI, the crash starts at about 3:00 into the video.

well...

[dwater]

*I*, for one, want one!

Re:well...

[ady1]

In Soviet Russia, motorcycle crashes you.

Oh wait!

Re:well...

[big ben bullet]

man... do i want one...

Too bad the batteries are sooo big, it's a hell of a drag bike but i don't think it's a very agile circuit runner.

Still, this gets my hopes back up. Up until now I could've never imagined a blazing fast motorcycle that runs on electricity. By the time I hit my mid-life crisis I hope they've marketed some of these ;-)

Re:well...

[dwater]

>By the time I hit my mid-life crisis I hope they've marketed some of these ;-)

yeah, and banned those stupid cars too! (or was it a van?)

Electric has grown up.

[Futselaar]

For a while, we have had electric cars and motorcycles that could go fast and reasonably far. Being able to crash them stupidly was probably the final thing needed to make them a success. And now that electric bikes have grown up to this level, linux on the desktop cannot be far off, can it?

Re:Electric has grown up.

[arivanov]

Both had happened before.

The first cars to break through the 100km/h barrier as well as the first cars to break through the 100mph barrier were electric. They also crashed nicely on quite a few occasions. If it was not for the first world war which rapidly accelerated petrol engine development and allowed it to overtake the electric and steam competition we would have been all riding in electric vehicles today.

Re:Electric has grown up.

[jagdish]

Being able to crash them stupidly was probably the final thing needed to make them a success ... linux on the desktop cannot be far off, can it?

Yes, but only if it crashes like Windows. The moral of the story is: "In order to succeed, you must crash."

Re:In the video he says

[Farmer Tim]

A minivan is a dubious runaway collector.

Hey, whatever works...

hmm.

[apodyopsis]

sure as hell emphasizes the difference between an inventor, scientist and engineer...

..and a professional stunt man who will ensure adequate clearance zones, safety margins, appropriate safety gear and at least apply a basic safety audit before carrying out a start stop on such a potentially powerful bike.

I'm still waiting for my live action Akira bike
http://www.burningart.com/meico/moto/akira/
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fplusd.itmedia.co.jp%2Flifestyle%2Farticles%2F0404%2F02%2Fnews040.html&langpair=ja%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF8
http://negatendo.net/kmc/en_neo_fukuoka.htm
..that would be my number one fantasy vehicle from a movie. (or maybe a land speeder :-).

And the eye candy who was hired to sit on the bike was quite nice. Sorry that's amazingly un-PC of me and I apologize. :-(

Re:hmm.

[tiananmen tank man]

No it does not emphasize the difference between an inventor, scientist and engineer. He did not demonstrate any critical thinking during the video clip. He says the bike can do 0-60mph in 0.9 seconds. With that much power, he was just not thinking about what he was doing. He was more interested in showing off and listing sponsors

May I be the first to.....

[Anonymous Coward]

offer words of encouragement to our latest Darwin hopeful. There's always next year. If electric motors can't get the job done think...rocket engine.

Best wishes, but come on buddy, common sense

[fantomas]

Best wishes, I hope you get better soon.

But come on buddy, a little common sense, and remember you're a role model. *You* might have known what you're doing but lots of idiot teenagers would have been watching the footage of you doing this gig and other ones similar to it. They might take home the message that it's ok not to wear helmet and body armour. The fact that something did go wrong showed that you weren't completely in control.

Please, even if you're happy taking those risks, wear a helmet and body protection. You wouldn't use DIY power tools at home without safety gear so why take risks with your superbike? You seem like a nice guy, stick around for a bit longer so you can pick up your Darwin award and don't encourage idiot teenagers (or adults) to think its ok to do burns on stationary bikes without protection. You've just proved that it's not safe...

Re:Best wishes, but come on buddy, common sense

[Dr. Cody]

But come on buddy, a little common sense, and remember you're a role model. *You* might have known what you're doing but lots of idiot teenagers would have been watching the footage of you doing this gig and other ones similar to it. They might take home the message that it's ok not to wear helmet and body armour. The fact that something did go wrong showed that you weren't completely in control.

Won't somebody PLEASE think of the CHILDREN!!!???

Re:Best wishes, but come on buddy, common sense

[frog51]

erm....of course I use power tools at home without safety gear! Wouldn't be half as much fun otherwise. Jeez.

Re:Best wishes, but come on buddy, common sense

[hey!]

Well that's the problem. Safety measures aren't fun unless they are insanely complicated and cursedly inconvenient. Simple and relatively convenient measures, like putting on your safety glasses before sticking your nose next to the cutting tool in your milling machine to see how the piece is coming along, are ineffective because they don't have their own built in motivation.

My wife has a story from her college days about some guys who decided to try making nitroglycerin. This is a process that obviously requires some insanely careful safety measures. They decided to guild the lily by performing the whole operation remotely in a makeshift bunker constructed from mattresses. They used a bathroom sink for their ice bath, and rigged a pulley arrangement for the most dangerous step: adding the glycerin. This was a bad idea, since the glycerin should be added manually, drop by drop, with an eyedropper. In any event, it didn't matter because their pulley arrangement was attached to the ceiling with duct tape. The ensuring explosion destroyed the sink and broke several windows.

The students blamed the damage on a certain fraternity known for destructive pranks. Since the fraternity had so many misdeeds to its credit, this was not only plausible to the authorities, it was convincing. On the other hand, the authorities had no proof with which to lay responsibility for the damage upon them. The result was an impasse, which is probably the ideal outcome for this situation.

Re:Best wishes, but come on buddy, common sense

[schon]

The students blamed the damage on a certain fraternity known for destructive pranks. Since the fraternity had so many misdeeds to its credit, this was not only plausible to the authorities, it was convincing. On the other hand, the authorities had no proof with which to lay responsibility for the damage upon them. The result was an impasse Oh, that's just what they told you.

In reality, the frat got put on double-secret probation.

Re:Best wishes, but come on buddy, common sense

[Logic and Reason]

The Anonymous Coward you responded to is NOT Bill Dube; he just quoted the man's comments. I'm pretty sure Bill Dube is not going to see your comments here.

And your comment about being a "role model" is inane. Are you saying no one should take any risks because stupid people might copy them? Berate the man for endangering his own safety if you wish, but get off your high horse.

Re:Best wishes, but come on buddy, common sense

[fantomas]

I read slashdot but I also got a bike pal. Not mutually exlusive. I'm speaking from experience that armour and a lid are good to wear - oily patch on wet cobbles round Edinburgh - not going that fast but still buggered the bike plenty enough and got to crash to the ground and do a nice slide, absorbed by leathers and lid. Glad I was wearing them.

Re:Best wishes, but come on buddy, common sense

[Thing 1]

The ensu r ing explosion

Love the (un?)intentional typo!

Yeah right

[NeoManyon]

I see so many comments about this guy being stupid.... and no one on slashdot has EVER done anything stupid, yeah right.

I'm just impressed with his machine.

Re:Yeah right

[cymen]

If you're doing a "Hey, watch this" with a motorcycle you put on a fucking helmet. It's not rocket science.

Too powerful?

[jhol13]

Maybe next time he'll try a little less powerful batteries ...

Scientist are just you and me.

[Shivetya]

Too many of them think "it won't happen to me" and the end result is a visit to the hospital or worse. The number of motorcycle accidents that are single vehicle accidents is astounding.

I know high level professionals who as soon as crossing the state border take their helmets off. Some ride around locally with party helmets (the fake looking ones or just skull caps). After all "THEY" are entitled to do as they see and "THEY" are not going to get hurt and "THEY" are too skillful to need it and "THEY" are too inconvienced.

"THEY" can end up in the paper the next day too. Like the article recently about the girl killed riding a motorcycle for fun in a parking lot, she fell over and hit her head on a car. Or the owner of a Florida BMW motorcycle shop who was riding a bike in his own parking lot and crashed.

If an activity has risks you can reduce or eliminate its best to do so because you cannot control all the variables. Yet ego prevails over intelligence way too often.

Re:Scientist are just you and me.

[daem0n1x]

I know a highly skilled motorcyclist who forgot to take his padlock from the rear wheel and fell to the left side when trying to leave the parking spot. Please note that he fell at 0 Km/h velocity.

He had all the protections in place, helmet, leather jacket and leather gloves, but his left elbow hit his left abdomen causing the spleen to rupture. He didn't notice anything, but half an hour later he started feeling incapacitating pain and passed out. He spent two weeks in the hospital and lots of time at home, recovering. The doctors said he nearly died.

This quite stupid incident makes you have respect for bykes. I always wear my safety gear and avoid having the stupid behavior I observe in many motorcyclists around here.

Re:Scientist are just you and me.

[bkr1_2k]

Your anecdote gives me zero respect for bikes, because it didn't have anything do to with the capabilities of the bike, and everything to do with stupid mistakes. I can fall over from a chair and cause the same injury to myself.

Risk is part of the reward. From what you said, the guy had appropriate safety gear on and still nearly died from falling over while standing still. That shows you should have respect for the frailty of life in general, but not bikes.

Re:Scientist are just you and me.

[daem0n1x]

Forgetting to take the padlock out is the most common mistake. Usually with no consequences except for public humiliation.

Of course it could have nothing to do with motorcycles, but this particular case was in fact a stupid motorcycle accident, with serious consequences. It shows that you can kill yourself on a bike, even stopped.

Phenominal

[Onlyodin]

0 to 60 miles an hour in .97 of a second! holy moly! impressive, but the bike looks like a rail engine if you ask me.

New tag

[ddrichardson]

We need a +1 Hoist by your own petard.

Without a helmet!!!

[hummassa]

Nothing else should be said. I loved this thing, but I wouldn't get _near_ a bike that makes 0-60 in less then a second without a reinforced helmet and heavily padded/armored clothes.

Then what do you think the topic is?

[Nymz]

Look at me! I can make off topic posts to push an agenda too :p

Why do you think innovations are being sought with these new top-of-the-line batteries? Why do you think people are trying to promote their usage and safe design in a motorcycle? There is a lot of interest in alternate fuels, and more efficient means of transportation. Please don't think the topic is to make fun of the designer crashing :p

Last words as he went for the burnout

[srussia]

"Hey guys, watch this!"

Wow, a "Drag" bike crashes on "TGVideo"...

[StressGuy]

I can't believe that got by my works proxy-server.

Killacycle

[PadRacerExtreme]

Worse....
Name.....
Ever!

Re:KillaCycle

[hey!]

Because now that the beast has been shown to be dangerously powerful, people are going to want one.

Seriously, when the tires grabbed that sucker looked like it was shot out of a slingshot.

KillaCycle

[drgonzo59]

...kills (well almost). And this is in the news because...?

Dignity...

[flyneye]

Neither the dignity,grace nor charisma of a nice U.S. made V-twin was displayed.
Kinda fitting.

Re:Dignity...

[MalleusEBHC]

Neither the dignity,grace nor charisma of a nice U.S. made V-twin was displayed.
Kinda fitting.

Nor did it display an oil leak.

Just remember folks, 95% of all Harleys are still on the road. The other 5% actually made it home! :P

Re:Dignity...

[flyneye]

Well,better oil than battery stuffin'.
I did also note that his toy prolly ain't goin' nowhere.

Probably On Purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

By making the vehicle seem dangerous, it instantly becomes desirable to a great many idiots who will quickly become enthusiasts.

"I can't wait to get my hands on that bad boy!"

Had he smoked a "dube"...

[Pravus]

...he might instead have accelerated at glacial speeds thereby avoiding the mishap altogether.

No helmet?

[beavis88]

Seriously, this guy is smart enough to design and build this bike in his spare time, but not to buy a fucking helmet??

Re:No helmet?

[MacDork]

I know everyone is bitching about the helmet, but four inches of plastic isn't going to save anyone if they hit a wall at 60+ MPH. He peeled out on a sidewalk! He's lucky there was a minivan there to stop him before he hit a person or a building. That was an extremely stupid move on his part.

Electric drill

[PadRacerExtreme]

Anyone else think it just doesn't sound right? A bike should sound like a bike, not an electric drill. Especially a drag bike...

Re:Electric drill

[Charcharodon]

Well people complained about cars not sounding right either when they first appeared on the road. It's coming full circle I guess. Besides with it being electric just hook up some speakers and get yourself a vehicle "Ringtone" so it can sound like whater you want.

Nothing says "green" like a "burnout"

[NotQuiteReal]

Who's gonna clean that ugly burn mark off the sidewalk?

Re:Nothing says "green" like a "burnout"

[Budgreen]

Or the one in his shorts for that matter!

Re:Dumbass

[HikingStick]

And you probably would have ridiculed Benjamin Franklin had he received an enormous electric shock while experimenting with electricity.

Most real innovations in the course of this (U.S.A.) country's history have been made by amateurs and hobbyists. Such "citizen scientists" have had a tremendous impact on most areas of science and industry and have only been supplanted (in their rate of discovery) in the past few decades by corporations and research labs associated with educational institutions. Instead of deriding the man for his lack of skill as a motorcyclist, why not laud his achievement in mechanical and electrical engineering?

Had the Wright brothers and other pioneers of early flight listened to the detractors who called them foolish or unwise, modern flight may yet be a pipe dream. Had Dean Kamen left innovation to the "experts" when his uncle struggled to manage his insulin intake, he would not have invented the automatic insulin infusion pump while he (Kamen) was yet a teen.

Since you're ridiculing this inventor, what are you doing to advance the science he promotes? What are you doing to extend battery life, create a more powerful electric motor, or develop more energy-efficient vehicles? There's an old saying that fits here [imo--and it goes for all the naysayers out there on all the threads]:

PUT UP, OR SHUT UP!

Equivalent of a broken clutch

[becker]

It didn't happen in this case, but there is a failure mode that is worse than a stuck clutch.

Most power transistors fail in switched-on full conductive mode. This happens when the substrate overheats enough to cause dopant diffusion. The overheating can happen from overcurrent, a manufacturing flaw, or from the transistor being not-quite-on.

Anyone that has had a wall mounted light dimmer fail has likely experienced this. The dimmer usually fails when a bulb filament burns out by shorting, emitting a bright flash in the last few milliseconds of its life. When you install a new bulb it lights, but the dimmer no longer dims. The thyristor has shorted out.

On a traditional motorcycle or car you have three ways to reduce power: cut the throttle or activate the clutch. On a direct-drive electric vehicle you have only the electrical switching. The obvious design of motor speed and power control will apply full power when the switching fails-- the opposite of a fail-safe design. You probably wanted your dining room lit even when the dimmer fails, but you didn't want your electric vehicle running at full speed into a parked minivan.

There are configurations that avoid this problem. The easiest is using motorsm e.g. stepper motors, that require power to be switched on and off to turn . Constant power to one coil will slow or lock up the motor. Another approach is putting switching devices on all power leads, and having a control circuit that immediately turns all of them off if a fault is detected.

The key is knowing about the problem so that you know to think through the failure modes. Something tells me that this guy isn't someone that spends much time thinking through what happens if something (entirely foreseeable!) happens...

Re:Dumbass

[MalleusEBHC]

Don't try to play this off as an inventor nobly accepting risk and forging onwards in the name of progress. This is about someone trying to show off and nearly killing himself because he was too stupid to factor in all sorts of safety concerns. Yes, this man has proven himself to be an excellent engineer, but that does not absolve him from acting like a total moron while riding his invention. Riding any bike without a helmet is plain stupid. Attempting to do a burnout on a powerful drag bike without a full-face helmet, leathers, and room for runoff is completely retarded. (Squid!) Besides, what the hell does doing a burnout prove? I could do a burnout on bikes that can barely do the 1/4 mile in twice the time of that electric bike. The power required is actually pretty minimal.

When talking about his riding, this guy is no better than some asshole doing a stand-up wheelie in the middle of traffic on the freeway. Praise him for his engineering skills, but at the same time condemn him for his utter lack of riding skills and common sense.

Only stupid women though

[Flying pig]

Ones who go for men who probably have very short career prospects and the likelihood of spending their weekends in traction? I would imagine groin strain and hernia are pretty much occupational diseases. "My boyfriend can jump over 10 trucks on a motorcycle. Unfortunately, last week he was supposed to be doing 11."

Re:Dumbass

[initdeep]

exactly. As a motorcyclist for nearly 20 years, and someone who has to put up with all of the misinformation and idiocy of the uninformed "cager" crowd, this is not somthing that most in this community will appreciate at all. I'm pretty sure that were it someone doing something similar to prove the power of the latest "ninja" bike, and they had the same result, the tone taken by the media would be quite different. The ability to build and engineer this prototype vehicle is very impressive. The inability to act in a professional manner while displaying said vehicle to a crowd and ensure that any possible accidents could not result in damage to anything other than said vehicle is moronic at best, and criminal at worst.

Brilliant

[^_^x]

What is it with electric drag racers? They're all about convincing people that their machines are more powerful than the gas counterparts, but so often they ignore basic safety procedures. That is defnitely a drag bike - it looks longer than an extended Hayabusa or the MTT Y2K Superbike. Actually it has to be the longest racing-faired bike I've seen including dragsters. Too bad burnouts waste and suck - I'd be more impressed if he had a traction control system that delivered optimal power without spinning the wheel or lifting the front.

But anyway, I have a bike with 51hp... 51! That was hot in the 1980s, but modern bikes can do 120-200 stock. My bike has more than enough acceleration and speed to kill someone in seconds. What makes this guy think he can burnout a high power electric monster with absolutely no gear on? One slip and... well - that. Live and learn, I hope.

Orville even killed someone.

[lthornto]

He's not the first inventor to have an accident trying to get his invention noticed.

"By 1908, the Wright brothers were traveling across the United States and Europe in order to demonstrate their flying machine. Everything went well until that fateful day in September that began with a cheering crowd of 2,000 and ended with pilot Orville Wright severely injured and passenger Lieutenant Thomas Selfridge dead."

Did people call the Wright Brothers "Dicks"?

That Sound

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

>Hell..many people buy the Harley JUST for the "potato...potato...potato.." engine note and rumble. Didn't they even try to patent that?

Not patent, but trademark. I understand that Harley withdrew their application to trademark their distinctive sound. BTW, that sound comes from the unique firing pattern H-D uses on their 4-cycle V-twin engines. From an engineering point of view, it's not the best choice, since it results in more vibration and unevenness in power output.

I see one of these electric bikes occasionally during my morning commute. I'd probably notice the lack of sound more, if I didn't have my stereo cranked up so I can hear it over the wind noise and exhaust note in my convertible. I can barely hear the Harleys.

Re:Dumbass

[dtjohnson]

Mod up! Great comments. This guy doing burnouts in the parking lot is no different than Evel Knievel breaking bones jumping a bike over cars. At least Evel knew something about motorcycles, although I don't think he was ever an actual rider.

both bimbo beavers have been photographed

[SethJohnson]

Paris pulled this stunt first, then a few weeks later, Britney did it while getting out of Paris' car. Do a google image search for 'paris hilton pussy' and you'll find the photos. Or check out this odd website.

Seth

Key Phrase...

[weinrich]

Key Phrase from the video: "...I'm usually the crew chief, not the driver..."

Interesting Response - Tips For Next Time

[Easy2RememberNick]

I wasn't going to watch it but when I did I was amazed at how everyone just treated him as their next news object. I didn't see all the video but you'd think someone would have been kneeling down next to him reassuring him instead of standing over him taking pictures or standing with their hands in their pockets as he was splayed out on the hot parking lot.

  This article is a good reference: http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/008884.html

Re:Interesting Response - Tips For Next Time

[TClevenger]

That's because he was telling people, "don't worry, I'm okay; I just want to be checked out before I get up."

High quality video

[x9net]

Here is a high quality version of this, you can see some more detail like when he hits the van it actually hits with so much force the van gets pushed. He is very lucky he did not hit the center of the van! http://webdogpro.com/2007/09/13/killacycle-creator-injured-by-his-creation/

Very lucky indeed

[BrianRagle]

Based only on what my wife and I, both riders, saw in the video, it appears he was either thrown off or bailed off prior to the actual crash. He appeared to laying several feet behind the point of impact. Indeed, I would surmise that had he stayed on the bike until the crash, his injuries would have been very severe, with him either being tossed over the bars and flying through the air or, worse still, being slammed against the side of the minivan.

The fastest I have ever ridden was around 120mph on I-69, between Indianapolis and Anderson, Indiana. Even though I wasn't accelerating any longer and held that speed for about 10 minutes, the sheer force of wind was enough to make it difficult to hold the handgrips. This was on a Suzuki GSX-R 750cc. Even laying down on the tank didn't help, making it worse, in fact, because doing so makes the bike harder to handle, imo. Thus, I can't imagine him staying on this thing until the gruesome end. He's very lucky and I wish him the best, but highly recommend he leaves future demonstrations of the bike to his professional riders and testers. Better still, just leave the bike parked and let the eye candy he brought along be the photo-op.

Bill Dube

[jetpack]

I suspect his last name is actually pronounced "Doob," for obvious reasons.

Re:Bill Dube

[JeSuisAbraham]

It's "DU-BAY", sorry.

Re:Bill Dube

[jetpack]

Sorry, forgot to include the smiley-face emoticon for you.

this is bulls*it

[djfake]

this article is bullshit. the whole thing was staged. Now we all know what a killacycle is. Go buy the and ENV http://machinedesign.com/ContentItem/58517/Motorbikerunsonhydrogen.aspx

A REAL electric motorcycle

[Thom50]

Stunts like this point out our foolish obsession with speed. I ride a Vectrix. (new to the US, in Europe for the last year and a half). Fully electric, 70 mile range, recharges in 2 1/2 hours. I don't burn out, do wheelies (or weeve through traffic) but I do have reliable electric transportation that is quiet, economical and fun to ride. What makes the news is speed, acceleration and noise. Why make (or buy) a bike that goes 148 mph, Ludicrous. Unsafe. Give me trunk space, passenger capability and nothing with the moniker "killa"