[Velomobile] Affordable velomobiles

[Terry Rouse]

I agree with most of what John says. I have gotten a lot of favorable responses 
from motorists as I cruise about in my homemade velomobile. And a lot of 
questions from interested persons. The biggest hurdle for many folks and the 
reason I made my own is cost. When I tell people what a commercial velomobile 
would cost the typical response is, "I could buy a car for that". The cost has 
to come down for these to become practical transportation. For several years I 
rode a Catrike Speed to which I added a body. My main objections to it were the 
harsh ride and lack of good road hazard vision due to the body and reclined 
position. There has been a resurgence of single speed bikes around here and I 
suspect that is mostly due to the simplicity of the design. It is very hilly 
here and I can't imagine why anyone would want to pedal up some of our hills, 
but they are doing it. So in short I think the KISS principle applies here. Keep 
it simple stupid. My current homemade velomobile has a small amount of 
suspension to dampen the jarring effects of bad roads and I plan to add Schwalbe 
Big Apples when my current tires wear out to see how that affects the ride and 
handling. I think the big challenge will be coming up with a design that can be 
economically produced on a big scale. Sort of a Model T version of the 
velomobile. Making them one at a time is never going to be cost effective.  I 
see some major design challenges making them light enough to be practical, while 
relatively easy to manufacture. To me the Rotovelo is step in the right 
direction.




________________________________
From: JOHN TETZ <jgtetz at msn.com>
To: velomobile at hupi.org
Sent: Wed, January 4, 2012 8:09:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Velomobile] Intellectual Property

David Eggleston 

Thank you for giving your experienced and wide ranging overview on various VM 
issues. Very valuable information. 

I agree we have a lot yet to learn but we have accomplished a lot in these last 
10 years of VM development. 


>An all-around velo has a better chance of commercial success than one that is 
>only good for a few things.
......Too much of a range is asking a lot of a design, given the power source is 
so weak. Seems to me that honing a design for a specific area of need is more 
apt to be accomplished. Cars range from small to large with few to many features 
to accomplish various needs. 


What I have set my sights on is a practical suburban human powered alternate 
transportation vehicle to be  used by average folks to do their shopping and 
running errands in the 2 to 5 mile radius. Average speed 14 mph. These design 
limits give the opportunity to come up with a viable vehicle. 


> You can fairly easily put an aero body on an existing unsuspended trike, but 
>you are likely to end up with many difficulties, including body attachments to 
>the trike, noise of thin shells vibrating, and many others. 
>
........How true this is. But I look at the fact that the bare trike business is 
booming. Although adding a shell of some kind may not be ideal it does change a 
trike into a vehicle, a vehicle that is first of all not seasonably limited, has 
weather protection, some crash protection, more visible to cars  etc. This will 
change the consciousness of the trike rider into using the vehicle more as local 
alternate transportation rather than just recreation. 


Second, by being seen by the public these vehicles will affect their awareness. 
I see and hear a change in the publics response to my VM over a 7 year period. 
They more often comment now - it doesn't use gas, its good for the environment, 
and its good for the health of the rider, etc.  

I am hearing more and more happy - I like what you are doing horn honks  -  from 
drivers. 

The publics environmental awareness is changing. We need a viable practical 
vehicle. 

It doesn't need all the wish list of advanced features. 

I designed my present VM 8 years ago coming from a long background with 
streamliners and the thrill of speed.
What's important to me now is weather protection (head in), light weight, quiet, 
ease of access to decent cargo space, some amount of suspension, small physical 
size for parking reasons. Aerodynamics is there but further down the list. 

This is accomplishable given what we know.  
In another 10 years more viable vehicles will be developed.  

>  I guess we will have to rely on our own ideas and resources for low-budget 
>design and development paths. 
>
.....Yes, but some method of sharing ideas is very important. Look at the 
advancements made after the birth of the IHPVA in 1975   - which eventually lead 
to present day Velomobiles. 


In some ways its less a technology issue than a change in consciousness as to 
why and how we use these vehicles. Requiring the wish list of advanced features 
hints of 19th and 20th century thinking where the Earths energy and resources 
were thought to be limitless. Efficiency - doing more with less - is the 21st 
century password. HPVs are up with the efficiency of railroad trains and super 
tankers.  


Notice for one how I have skirted the issue of funding. 

John Tetz 
--
This message comes to you via the Velomobile at hupi.org mailing list.
Visit http://hupi.org/mailman/listinfo/velomobile to manage your subscription.