Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wearable Motorcycle Design

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the form-over-function dept.

A motorcycle design student recently came up with a wearable motorcycle design that, while cool, is unlikely to see public adoption. The bike would be capable of doing 0 to 60 is just 3 seconds with a top speed of 75 miles-per-hour and would theoretically be controlled by 36 pneumatic muscles and 2 linear actuators. I would imagine the results of a crash would be much like being strapped to the hood of your car during a collision — bonus points for form, however.

14 of 234 comments (clear)

  1. Why wearable? by stoolpigeon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What defines wearable? I would have thought wearable means - it goes where I go and can go anywhere I go. This vehicle appears to me not to do that. It looks like the rider goes where the trike goes - and the trike cannot go anywher the rider can go. But maybe I'm missing some key factor or my definition is insufficient.

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    1. Re:Why wearable? by stoofa · · Score: 5, Funny

      'Wearable' (adj.) description of any garment that allows the wearer to wander through a crowded London pub without starting a fight on a Friday night.

      This isn't wearable.

    2. Re:Why wearable? by Drooling+Iguana · · Score: 4, Funny

      But would someone wearing it be an Autobot or a Decepticon?

      --
      ... I'm addicted to placebos
    3. Re:Why wearable? by damn_registrars · · Score: 5, Funny

      'Wearable' (adj.) description of any garment that allows the wearer to wander through a crowded London pub without starting a fight on a Friday night.
      Well now I'm not so sure. I figure if you can wander through a crowd at 75mph, you shouldn't have to worry much about anyone starting a fight with you.

      Though the "garment" part of the definition might not fit this item well...
      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    4. Re:Why wearable? by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Informative

      They'd be a Cyclone pilot.

  2. Wheelbase issues by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As shown, there is no way that it is going to do 0-60 in three seconds. If power is on the front wheels, they can't get enough traction because the rider's weight is over the rear wheel. They will spin. If power is on the read wheel, it will do a wheelie and dump him on his ass.
    I therefore conclude that it has one of two undocumented features: either there is a ultra-high speed gyro concealed behind the wearer ( which I regard as very unlikely ), or the frame bends so as to lean the rider forward thus lengthening the wheelbase and moving the center of gravity forward.

    1. Re:Wheelbase issues by adonoman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would expect that the acceleration could be linked to how much you lean forward (a la segway) - and with in-wheel electric motors, all three could be powered.

  3. Just make sure to have a camera rolling by iminplaya · · Score: 5, Funny

    when this thing hits a pothole.

    --
    What?
  4. Wait... by Oxy+the+moron · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does this mean I can now be one of those robot overlords that everyone is so eager to welcome?

    --

    Proudly supporting the Libertarian Party.

  5. Dangerous, huh? by WK2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would imagine the results of a crash would be much like being strapped to the hood of your car during a collision

    Welcome to the world of motorcycles, where safety is not our primary concern. Motorcycles don't offer any protection in a crash, and never have, with few exceptions. The best you can hope for in a crash is that you get thrown one way, and your bike another so that it doesn't crush you. And wear a helmet. If safety is your primary concern, cars and buses are much safer.

    --
    Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
    1. Re:Dangerous, huh? by phpmysqldev · · Score: 4, Informative

      As a long time rider, and as most riders would tell you, you don't want to be thrown from the motorcycle. This can throw you into traffic or into a tree at high speeds, or a myriad of horrific deaths (i remember reading an article about a guy who was thrown from a bike while racing doing 100+ mph and hit one of those steel cables that hold power line poles up, as you can imagine the outcome was pretty gruesome).

      the ideal way to wreck a bike (oxymoron i know) is to lay it down. This way you have some control over which way the bike slides, you can keep most of your head of the ground, and it does less damage to the bike. That is one flaw I see with this bike's design, there is no effective way to lay it down in the event you need to.

    2. Re:Dangerous, huh? by Yold · · Score: 4, Informative

      To clarify parent, the "safest" way to crash is a low-sider, which is sort-of falling behind the motorcycle when you lay it down. A "high-sider" is the opposite, laying it down and being in-front of the motorcycle can get you crushed pretty bad.

    3. Re:Dangerous, huh? by speleo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You never want a lay a bike down. All bikes stop better sticky side down.

      Once you lay a bike down you have no control and you're just sliding along dragging your axle nuts into the pavement (usually with your leg trapped under the bike, too).

      Ideally, you do everything possible to avoid a collision. But if you can't, the best thing you can do is lay on the brakes with proper (and practiced) technique and decrease your speed as much as possible before hitting the object.

      This is also the recommendation of the Motorcycle Safety Foundation.

  6. can't wait to see by butterflysrage · · Score: 4, Funny

    what will happen the first time a truck going the other way tosses a pebble up to about crotch height.

    --
    the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.