Gyrocar(en.wikipedia.org)
en.wikipedia.org
Gyrocar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrocar
14 comments
It looks to me like the answer to "why" is something like: intoxicated by the possibilities of new technology, but not weighed down by too much knowledge or experience, they just tried everything they could think of.
As an example, "monocopters" seem like the same sort of thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monocopter
As an example, "monocopters" seem like the same sort of thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monocopter
Fewer wheels theoretically is better for fuel economy, in that air drag can be reduced more than wheel contact with the road, especially if you are freed to design the body such that there are only 2 points of contact with the road instead of 4. The gyro stabilization should also avoid skidding or aquaplaning sideways.
2 wheels are also theoretically more manuevrable.
In practice this stuff mostly wasn't achieved, and there are also plenty of downsides, but then few people tried.
2 wheels are also theoretically more manuevrable.
In practice this stuff mostly wasn't achieved, and there are also plenty of downsides, but then few people tried.
From reading the wiki page, and a few others, I think that the main benefit that was being marketed was that the monorail design could turn with a smaller radius. This would allow you to put track in places where you couldn’t put a traditional two rail track. The gyroscopic effect made it so that the cars themselves could lean (and I believe do so automatically) more than railcars of the age.
Well, sir, there's nothing on earth Like a genuine, bona fide electrified, six-car monorail.
However I was more specifically referring to the "normal" gyrocar design which doesn't run on rails and is essentially (if I understand it correctly) a large motorcycle with the body of a car and an extra drivetrain powering a spinnig gyroscope on each side to keep the mass from falling over.
However I was more specifically referring to the "normal" gyrocar design which doesn't run on rails and is essentially (if I understand it correctly) a large motorcycle with the body of a car and an extra drivetrain powering a spinnig gyroscope on each side to keep the mass from falling over.
Well, we do have that today; trains can tilt and the cant (tilt) of the tracks can be raised as well. However speeds are now much higher and curve radius is higher as well; China uses 7km curve radii on a 350km/h railway.
At this point the main thing limiting smaller curve radii is passenger comfort, because travelers don’t want to be subject to the vomit-inducing forces of a roller coaster. It’s why I am extremely skeptical whenever new land-based technologies promise higher top speeds and lower costs; most costs with these types of projects are land acquisition, and curves necessitate buying more property due to both the intersection of more property and the need to buy out some oddly shaped slivers that may result from a curved rail line splitting a property in two.
At this point the main thing limiting smaller curve radii is passenger comfort, because travelers don’t want to be subject to the vomit-inducing forces of a roller coaster. It’s why I am extremely skeptical whenever new land-based technologies promise higher top speeds and lower costs; most costs with these types of projects are land acquisition, and curves necessitate buying more property due to both the intersection of more property and the need to buy out some oddly shaped slivers that may result from a curved rail line splitting a property in two.
4th paragraph of the article:
> The principal advantage of the monorail cited by Shilovsky is the suppression of hunting oscillation, a speed limitation encountered by conventional railways at the time. Also, sharper turns are possible compared to the 7 km radius of turn typical of modern high-speed trains such as the TGV, because the vehicle will bank automatically on bends, like an aircraft,[1] so that no lateral centrifugal acceleration is experienced on board.
> The principal advantage of the monorail cited by Shilovsky is the suppression of hunting oscillation, a speed limitation encountered by conventional railways at the time. Also, sharper turns are possible compared to the 7 km radius of turn typical of modern high-speed trains such as the TGV, because the vehicle will bank automatically on bends, like an aircraft,[1] so that no lateral centrifugal acceleration is experienced on board.
Modern trains can tilt if designed for it, and the track is banked as well.
The main issue with curve radii today is that passengers would like a railway where they have a cup of tea or coffee on a table without it spilling. They definitely do not want to be strapped into a vomit-inducing roller coaster.
The main issue with curve radii today is that passengers would like a railway where they have a cup of tea or coffee on a table without it spilling. They definitely do not want to be strapped into a vomit-inducing roller coaster.
A motorbike will generally both accelerate and brake faster than a car in a straight line (mostly because it's light), but actually loses on cornering speeds against a four-wheeled car because the bike doesn't have as much lateral grip.
>A motorbike will generally [...] brake faster than a car in a straight line (mostly because it's light)
That's generally not true. At best you'd roughly match an average car when balancing your weight perfectly; but typically you can only expect worse results when comparing the two.
That's generally not true. At best you'd roughly match an average car when balancing your weight perfectly; but typically you can only expect worse results when comparing the two.
Classical equations of friction gives a constant relationship between weight and maximum acceleration from friction. And that applies fairly well to most pairs of materials.
But it applies less well to rubber. Rubber has significant natural adhesive qualities, so a normal force of zero Newtons gives a non zero acceleration. This adhesion dominates low weight acceleration. This is why performance cars tend to have larger tires. See dragsters for the logical conclusion. Without that adhesive quality, performance cars would prefer smaller tires for reduced air resistance.
The classical coefficient of friction model is one of "spherical frictionless cows in a vacuum" white lies we tell students to prevent them from getting overwhelmed by the hairiest differential equations imaginable.
But it applies less well to rubber. Rubber has significant natural adhesive qualities, so a normal force of zero Newtons gives a non zero acceleration. This adhesion dominates low weight acceleration. This is why performance cars tend to have larger tires. See dragsters for the logical conclusion. Without that adhesive quality, performance cars would prefer smaller tires for reduced air resistance.
The classical coefficient of friction model is one of "spherical frictionless cows in a vacuum" white lies we tell students to prevent them from getting overwhelmed by the hairiest differential equations imaginable.
[deleted]
While it's certainly a neat idea given the technology of the time, we have better modern solutions. BMW has fully self-driving motorcycles they use for testing, and Honda has demoed a motorcycle that self-balances at rest.
Possibly because back then there were a lot more narrow lanes sized for horses and impossible to drive through in a four wheeled car.
I don't know, but these things are stable at rest. They needs support only after the spinning stops.
The parent probably meant “at rest” as in unpowered.
Yeah exactly. The spinning parts at rest as well as the rest of the vehicle. Having to have a wheel descend to stop it from falling over makes you wonder why not just have that wheel there all along? I suppose you could have a kick stand or something but those get a bit sketchy if the thing is heavy (which it would be) and getting it to level initially could be challenging.
> Steering a motorcycle is done by precessing the front wheel.
I've encountered this claim so many times over the years. The precession force I've observed when riding motorcycles, by moving the bars after the front wheel leaves the ground, is simply not that great. It's obviously not the primary force steering a motorcycle.
With the front tire in contact with the road, motorcycles can appear to steer from precession because they initiate turns unintuitively via inverted counter-steering. What's really happening is when you initiate a turn, the point at the road:tire interface immediately veers in the direction you pointed because of the tire's grip with the road. But since this point is well below the center of gravity of the motorcycle, instead of steering the entire bike in that direction, the bike falls down and leans in the opposite direction. Thanks to the angle of the fork there's a complementary geometric relationship between the bike's lean angle and the front wheel's steering angle in the direction of the lean. These are the primary mechanisms steering a motorcycle.
The same mechanism is present in automobiles, which also have a significant distance separating the road:tire interface from the center of gravity. But in those vehicles it's exhibited as body roll, which is then necessarily resisted by the suspension components like springs and anti-sway bars. Nobody claims precession causes automobile body roll, because it's more obvious what's going on there - and the driver doesn't steer backwards briefly at the start of every turn.
Precession is a fun demonstration in science class, and does enable a motorcycle rider to exert some control when on one wheel. But it simply isn't the primary mechanism steering a motorcycle.
I've encountered this claim so many times over the years. The precession force I've observed when riding motorcycles, by moving the bars after the front wheel leaves the ground, is simply not that great. It's obviously not the primary force steering a motorcycle.
With the front tire in contact with the road, motorcycles can appear to steer from precession because they initiate turns unintuitively via inverted counter-steering. What's really happening is when you initiate a turn, the point at the road:tire interface immediately veers in the direction you pointed because of the tire's grip with the road. But since this point is well below the center of gravity of the motorcycle, instead of steering the entire bike in that direction, the bike falls down and leans in the opposite direction. Thanks to the angle of the fork there's a complementary geometric relationship between the bike's lean angle and the front wheel's steering angle in the direction of the lean. These are the primary mechanisms steering a motorcycle.
The same mechanism is present in automobiles, which also have a significant distance separating the road:tire interface from the center of gravity. But in those vehicles it's exhibited as body roll, which is then necessarily resisted by the suspension components like springs and anti-sway bars. Nobody claims precession causes automobile body roll, because it's more obvious what's going on there - and the driver doesn't steer backwards briefly at the start of every turn.
Precession is a fun demonstration in science class, and does enable a motorcycle rider to exert some control when on one wheel. But it simply isn't the primary mechanism steering a motorcycle.
How can Wikipedia have a gyrocar article and not mention the Gyro-X?? https://www.lanemotormuseum.org/collection/cars/item/gyro-x-...
https://www.wired.com/story/gyro-x-lane-motor-museum/
https://www.wired.com/story/gyro-x-lane-motor-museum/
Recently there was a project on Hackaday where someone created an R/C gyrocar: https://hackaday.com/2019/09/06/who-needs-four-wheels-when-y...
The project is quite neat!
The project is quite neat!
Related from 2016: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10852421
2015: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10611187
2015: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10611187
why not use the mass of the battery as the gyro's flywheel (s)? You could also store energy (accelerate this mass on breaking) for even better regen (I presume recharge breaking is less efficient than the 95 efficiency of current traction motors).
Another plus is easier ajustable ground clearance since there's only 2 points of contact; for an off-road-able vehicle that's a big plus; while at highway speeds you want a low center of gravity and less drag.
Will we see a 2 wheeled pickup truck reveal tomorrow? A BUV? (Battery Ultimate Vehicle) That would be "cyber from the future" alright. Dreaming out loud, but a ppl carrier (8-10 seater based on this would be totally out of this world)
Another plus is easier ajustable ground clearance since there's only 2 points of contact; for an off-road-able vehicle that's a big plus; while at highway speeds you want a low center of gravity and less drag.
Will we see a 2 wheeled pickup truck reveal tomorrow? A BUV? (Battery Ultimate Vehicle) That would be "cyber from the future" alright. Dreaming out loud, but a ppl carrier (8-10 seater based on this would be totally out of this world)
> why not use the mass of the battery as the gyro's flywheel (s)?
I'm going to guess that the battery technology of 1912 was lead-acid. 200 lbs of sulfuric acid spinning at 3600 RPM was probably too much of a safety hazard, even for the laissez-faire standards of the day. Also, slip rings, which would be necessary to get the current out of a spinning batter probably weren't all that good.
good points with regards to 1912. But li-ion batteries that are also gyro flywheels, and breaking regen energy storage, isn't that an interesting idea?
one wheel bikes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eVbdbMPdq4
This just seems like a motorcycle with extra steps.
The wikipedia article is a bit short on pictures, so here are more of this very interesting design:
https://www.lanemotormuseum.org/collection/cars/item/gyro-x-...
These are pretty cool. Lit Motors in the Bay Area has a modern take on the same idea: https://youtu.be/JMYdUwUVE6w
Sadly that is from 2013, I wonder what is the reason it didn't get developed further.
Not sure. It was hard to find more info. It appears Danny Kim was in a pretty serious test-track accident:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lianeyvkoff/2016/02/18/what-imm...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lianeyvkoff/2016/02/18/what-imm...
Beside the question of "Why", looking at the Glassdoor reviews doesn't inspire confidence.
Not to be confused with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrobus
Also not to be confused with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyro_(food)
Also to be confused with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyros
All etymologically linked to the Greek γύρος and ultimately PIE "*geu-".
In the case of the Greek wrap, the reference isn't to the "rounded" pita shell, but the "turned" meat, roasted on a spit.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/gyre
https://www.etymonline.com/word/gyro-
In the case of the Greek wrap, the reference isn't to the "rounded" pita shell, but the "turned" meat, roasted on a spit.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/gyre
https://www.etymonline.com/word/gyro-
[deleted]
If you're ever in York in the UK, there's a cool model of Brennan's Gyrostatic monorail car in the National Railway Museum. I had no idea about gyrocars before that and was blown away by the technical prowess of the design from the early 1900s. His wasn't an automobile as such, but rather a rail vehicle that operated on a single rail, just like a monorail.
His actually pre-dates this, with him patenting the design in 1903, developing a working model in 'about 1907' (according to my photos of the display) and a full-sized one in 1909. That suggests, assuming the parent wiki is correct, that the idea of a gyro automobile was described in fantasy after a gyro rail vehicle was fully developed. I find it quite interesting that it took that long for the idea to leap from one mode of transport to the other, and it probably speaks to how unfamiliar the automobile was as a concept even in the first decade of the 1900s.
His wiki [1] provides a bit more info, and links to the article on the gyro monorail car [2] with a wealth of detailed information about the design (much of which maps to the gyrocar).
Fascinating design.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Brennan [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyro_monorail
His actually pre-dates this, with him patenting the design in 1903, developing a working model in 'about 1907' (according to my photos of the display) and a full-sized one in 1909. That suggests, assuming the parent wiki is correct, that the idea of a gyro automobile was described in fantasy after a gyro rail vehicle was fully developed. I find it quite interesting that it took that long for the idea to leap from one mode of transport to the other, and it probably speaks to how unfamiliar the automobile was as a concept even in the first decade of the 1900s.
His wiki [1] provides a bit more info, and links to the article on the gyro monorail car [2] with a wealth of detailed information about the design (much of which maps to the gyrocar).
Fascinating design.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Brennan [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyro_monorail
It was the first thing I thought of when I saw the title, visited the museum earlier this year, the model is a bit hidden in the back of the museum. It is a great museum and they have so many interesting things there.
Do the wheels really add gyroscopic effects? Some years ago the revelation that gyroscopic effects weren't what keep a bicycle up rocked the world, then everyone seemed to forget about that and talks about gyroscopic effects again. Is that the case here?
I don't know if it really "rocked the world". Probably most people never heard it or discounted it as soon as they did because they "knew" it was wrong.
Motorcycle wheels are heavier and spin faster, so I'd expect the gyroscopic forces to be greater at speed, but the fact that you can go walking speed (or slower) on a motorcycle without falling over seems to disprove gyroscopic effects as a primary factor in stability.
Motorcycle wheels are heavier and spin faster, so I'd expect the gyroscopic forces to be greater at speed, but the fact that you can go walking speed (or slower) on a motorcycle without falling over seems to disprove gyroscopic effects as a primary factor in stability.
There are different modes of stability for wheeled vehicles. Gyroscopic effects are far more significant at speed. Though the ability to steer into a fall and move centre of gravity under centre of support is a key dynamic, particularly at low (or no) speed.
There was a Chinese knockoff of Lit Motors.
Been following https://thrustcycle.com/index.html
An Indian startup http://www.ligermobility.com/ is also developing self balancing EV for crowded Indian cities.
So what's the benefit of a Gyrocar to compensate for that? A motorbike has the benefit of really dynamic performance coming from the ability to lean in to corners etc, but it seems to me that this thing would work more like a tricycle (ie no countersteer or lean) because the gyroscopes would keep the body of the car level.