FreeEntTec | 17 Jul 00:36
Favicon

Open Sourcery ii Drive Unit Foot Ergo Specifications for Catamaran, Proa, etc.

Giu - 2

Parameters may include ergonometrics for the feet. 

In your site, the model sitting on the Talssociclo is qualified as very OK 
(grin), but there have to be some parameters you have to address. 

Heel clearance: if it's too low, cyclists who want to stay dry won't in 
wether that you could still navigate in. In other words, it is wavy out, but not 
enough to be scared about, or force you to come ashore. The height of the heels 
above the water should address this. It is amazing how many boats I've seen 
and ridden have not addressed this tradeoff. OTOH, if the pedal bracket is too 
high the butt placement will get driven up too far and the CG will be too high 
and so on.

The relationship should be Water to heel at the lowest part of the pedal 
stroke, centering that to the pedal bracket, 

pedal bracket to the seat bottom!  Which indirectly influences the width of 
the hulls!

Mount Standardization. There should be a vertical-plane spec. that includes a 
tolerance to being vertical and perpendicular to the seat. In other words, 
dimensionally how close, how far off can it be from being vertical, and how 
close does the seat have to be to being horizontal. In the old days, I had 
terrible pain from not being lined up with the pedals closely enough. Now I use 
machine tolerances. Further, there should be some kind if indexing method to keep 
the drive in spec. I use vertical plane with a curvy edge that absorbs the 
extra real estate that the drive needs for strength . There is a vertical channel 
in my mount but is for bolt clearances particular to my drive.
(Continue reading)

Giuseppe Carignani | 18 Jul 17:52

Re: Open Sourcery ii Drive Unit Foot Ergo Specifications for Catamaran, Proa, etc.

Hi Bob, Jake and everybody

I believe that these comments of yours
can complete the debate we have been entertaining since may about the
general feasibility of The Open Waterbike Project.
There are mixed opinions about the project; anyway, the bottom line is
that the only way to decide if it's feasible is to try, and I hope to
do so with your help.

I'll try to translate the suggestions you all gave into action: about
the latest comments from Bob and Jake:

Bob said: 'Perhaps you could foster more co-operation between
manufacturers...': yes, this is also my idea, but I wouldn't try right
now, the project is too weak. As soon as we have the first elements of
our architecture...
Jake said: 'it would be good to establish a group of PARAMETERS...':
again, yes, but I'd like to ask our 'users' what their needs are and
how do they rate them. As you know, a first rough sketch of the
requirements is already in place
http://www.openwaterbike.com/architecture/the-open-waterbike-requirements
and as you may imagine I have hundreds people intersted in the Open
Waterbike, who emailde me. Perspective users, sometimes with clear
strong opinions ideas what a waterbike should be.  I'll ask them. This
is one of the advantages of being a community, not a firm...
Jake said: 'Parameters may include ergonometrics...' and a following
comprehensive discussion with recommenadtions for the standards of the
drive unit. Here I think Jake gets to the point, starting in fact the
next step of the project: the definitio of the architecture.
What I'll do in the following days is to transform this in a draft for
(Continue reading)


Gmane