cyfly by Möve Bikes animation
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 сер 2017
- www.moeve-bikes.de
For around 150 years, the foot pedal mechanism in bicycles mostly remained unaltered. Now, we entered a new chapter - with cyfly, the Easy Cycling Technology by Möve. With cyfly, the foot pedal is no longer connected to the axle, but is supporting itself from behind. This increases leverage in the pressure and lifting phase and thereby decreases the tread. With this combination of higher leverage and shorter tread, cyfly uses moderate power in comparison to conventional models. This enables easier acceleration, faster arrival on tours and surprisingly speedy day-to-day riding - all of this with pure muscle strength, nothing else. In cyfly, around 100 individual parts are working together. The most vital components regards increased power transmission through cyfly, cyfly-precision-milled and calibrated gear wheels and splines made from high-performance steel. These precision parts are manufactured in accordance with the automobile standard. Additionally, cyfly has a number of new features: a selection of internally manufactured screws with high-quality Torx mechanisms and a low-friction rotary shaft seal developed by MÖVE. This enables particularly quiet rolling of the gear wheels in a sealed oil bath. Moreover, cyfly is reliable and sustainable. The built-in industrial deep groove ball bearings by Schaeffler are sealed, and crafted to last a lifetime. Additionally, we make sure that all screw connections used for manufacture in Germany are tested for torque, and all enclosures are tested for tightness. - Спорт
Could this be implemented on a MTB? Currently, I have a MTB with Rohloff and belt drive. Cyfly would be a nice addition to this I think. Biggest problem would be the mechanics and bearings I guess, because of dirt and mudd? Are there any plans to test this on a MTB?
Ist ja interessant zu sehen. Scheint irgendwie ähnlich zu sein, wie ein Wankel Motor....
Aber man sieht nicht was es eigentlich soll? Worin liegt der Vorteil? Was passiert da überhaupt?
Why don't they have this in the Tour de France?
They don't allow it?
Because it doesn't work.
Actually the TDF is won by it multiple times. Google Q Rings Rotor. And Froome happens to like them.
Humanalien Möve Cyfly is not the same as Rotor Q Rings.
And Froome uses OSymetric rings by the way, not Rotor.
I learn things every day ^^
I have a challenge for you... First my analysis: Clearly there is a loss of power in the extra gears, so the claimed "easy to ride 25km/h" as was done in the Dutch video is not really possible for long rides for untrained cyclists, unless their endurance ability is such that doing that they can (already) do that on a regular bike, but, there is a small offset for a possible increase in biomechanical efficiency.
Biomechanically a non-circular motion could be better, but I don't believe it's at all possible with a small change to crank length, to provide the power difference for 18 km/h to 25 km/h.
What I do believe is possible, is a change to the feel of cycling: This provides an effective longer crank at the push down stroke and shorter when it returns. This means the feel of force is lower (but to provide the same power the foot must then move in the required direction with higher speed, so this would normally, with fixed length crank, is similar to pedaling with a higher cadence, except, it's not a really that because the effective distance of the motion that the foot travels is apparently shorter than with a regular crank), this means that it may be that people can do more effort (supply more power) while not feeling it as more effort. Note that cadence is important in what makes it feel comfortable to pedal, so you can't just shift to a lower gear and go up to say 120 rpm. What you feel in effort is first of all force. This is I think why rolling resistance is the essential part of why a bike feels heavy going, this force is constant at all speeds, and thus the force curve of a bike with tyres with high rolling resistance is very different from a curve with tyres with low rolling resistance.
You feel power only after a while, from getting tired, heavy breathing, sweating.
I thus think that this system may work in the sense of making people cycle faster at short distances (letting them provide power that they already can provide, but don't because they don't like to feel a high force when pedalling), but it will likely not help in making them faster at long distances, say 10km, as even say 20% increase in (biomechanical) efficiency is not anywhere near enough to go from 18 km/h (top end of what relaxed cyslists in NL ride) to 25 km/h.
My challenge: Let me test such a bike for a month, a family member also, so at least loan it to me for 2 months (may need more time, depending on some travelling that I will do this summer). I will see if there is a change in speed riding longer distances (say 10 km), and in short distances, and how it feels. But note, as with all my tests I will tell all the good and bad points and if I think it doesn't work, then I will say so! See my recent video on repair of a bike for links to my reviews and you'll realise I notice and publish all good and bad points of everything I've tested, so if you're not confident, you should not take me up on my challenge...
Waarom in het Engels reageren?
@@lowiebovens. becouse we read it :) - do you accept challange?
first
Words are not enough to describe the stupidity of what is claimed regarding the efficiency of this system. It's nothing more or less then a variabel torque multiplier, actually the same principle as John and Mary's conventional derailleur system. I hate it when marketeers think that we are the average-sheep-that-can-be-fooled. From here I can say that actually the cyfly is less efficient then a derailleur system, just because there are more moving parts in it which create more mechanical losses.
Please tell me what the gain in efficienty is compared to a derailleur system. Lets say I produce 250W at my back wheel with a conventional system and a given heart rate. How much watts at my back wheel do you claim for the cyfly system at the same heart rate as mentioned above?
250W at the back wheel with a known heartrate at a conventional system compared to the same heartrate with cyfly, then what is the power output with the cyfly?
no it doesn't depend on how much power you put; Bolderiks states that the inputpower is constant - and asks what the outputpower is - good question! The claim from MoveBikes seems that the answer is around 310W ...
Move Bikes can claim the sky regarding the efficiency of the cyfly, yet the moment I ask them for the real facts, well, they have to show me te real facts. But up till now it's quiet here ;)
I asked for data on rider efficiency (oxygen consumption at a given power output) a couple of months ago, too.... nothing. This crank is a pathetic joke and Möve knows it.