Most people riding bicycles already deploy their retractable landing gear when preparing to touch down: they’re called legs.

And while maybe there’s an argument to be made that a properly-adjusted bicycle might not allow both feet to touch the ground while still seated, this contraption has some serious limitations. The most egregious is that landing gear – like on aircraft – are only effective when fully extended. But whereas all runways are laterally level, bicycling surfaces offer no such guarantee.

Imagine riding this cargo bicycle on a curve which has a cant (aka superelevation, or banking, or cross slope), then slowing down for a pedestrian or even stopping. A two-wheel bicycle naturally finds the lean angle to balance the centripetal force against the gravitational force, irrespective of the relative angle to the ground surface. But fully-extending landing gear forces the bicycle to be perpendicular to the ground surface, against the mandatory lean angle to balance the forces. And there doesn’t seem to be a provision for partially extending one side of the landing gears to account for the cross slope. If the perpendicular arrangement puts the center of gravity beyond the stubby extended wheels, the bike will fall over.

Tricycles will also force the same perpendicular alignment, but: 1) does so at all times, on straightaways and curves, so this isn’t a surprise to the rider, and 2) tricycle wheels are set wider than these stubby “landing gear” wheels, which is important if the cargo load is substantial (or heavy or too high) and could topple the bicycle when stopping on a curve.

This contraption is akin to bicycle training wheels: too narrow to provide actual safety benefits, while also being outright detrimental towards developing the motor skill necessary to pilot a cargo two-wheeler with its unique qualities.

My prior comment on hydrogen mobility:

Hydrogen for mass- or space-constrained mobility (eg bikes, automobile, aircraft) faces all the known problems with storing it inside inconvenient shapes and contending with the losses from liquification. Real Engineering has a video on this aspect (Nebula and YouTube) when compared to simply using battery-electric storage.

With that out of the way, I’m skeptical as to the benefits touted on the HydroRide website. Specifically, the one about storage:

Hydrogen storage offers extended longevity, surpassing 10 years, ensuring reliability and sustainability over time.

This might be true in static conditions, but hydrogen automobiles have to vent some of the hydrogen while parked, simply to deal with the buildup of hydrogen gas, since even with excellent insulation, the liquid hydrogen will eventually get warm and evaporate into gaseous hydrogen, building up pressure. The fact is that automobiles must withstand broad environmental factors, especially temperature. And we expect bicycles to do the same: how the hydrogen tank would behave in warm climates is unclear.

There’s also not that much hydrogen in the tank. The website appears to indicate 20 grams. At 33.6 kWh/kg, the total energy in the tank would be 672 Wh, putting it at par with electric bikes of similar range and speed. Any hydrogen losses would be balanced against battery capacity loss over time.

Overall, as the article states, the target audience of rental operators might still be inclined to go with battery electric bikes rather than hydrogen. Requiring a supply of pure water in addition to electricity at charging locations – compared to just electricity for battery charging – is an extra logistical consideration. The “charge” time of 5 hours for 20 grams of hydrogen is also a potential issue.

There was a ton of hairbrained theories floating around, but nobody had any definitive explanation.

Well I was new to the company and fresh out of college, so I was tasked with figuring this one out.

This checks out lol

Knowing very little about USB audio processing, but having cut my teeth in college on 8-bit 8051 processors, I knew what kind of functions tended to be slow.

I often wonder if this deep level understanding of embedded software/firmware design is still the norm in university instruction. My suspicion has been that focus moved to making use of ever-increasing SoC performance and capabilities, in the pursuit of making it Just Work™ but also proving Wirth’s Law in the process via badly optimized code.

This was an excellent read, btw.

To say this is a complex story is an understatement, and the article does a fairly reasonable job at unpacking the details. That said, I’m disappointed they did not include a PDF to the filed claim, since even a cursory analysis of the claims relies heavily on the details therein.

For reference, in California and other states, lawsuits against the state itself, or the counties, cities, agencies, special districts, or anything else that came into existence by the law, must have first filed a claim with the entity being sued. The California Tort Claims Act requires this procedure in order to relieve the state’s inherent sovereign immunity and also permit the courts – which are also an arm of the state – to have jurisdiction.

Focusing on the relevant facts to the claim, the claimant (the former Pedal Ahead manager) states:

• Pedal Ahead is a non-profit, distinct from Pedal Ahead Plus, a for-profit company
• Pedal Ahead was contracted by San Diego Assoc of Govts (SANDAG) and CA Air Resources Board (CARB) to operate an ebike program
• The claimant was hired in 2022 to work on this ebike program
• The claimant did not receive paychecks after April 2023

Accordingly, the claimant brings back-pay claims against SANDAG (for $40k) and CARB (for $58k), based on the premise that he was working on behalf of those two state entities. Presumably, the claim argues that he was unlawfully terminated for whistleblowing, but the article doesn’t specifically say this and we don’t have the PDF of the claim itself.

This is… an uphill battle, IMO. Not the whistleblowing part, but the part where he wants money from those two entities. The state action doctrine distinguishes between things done by – or instructed by – state employees and representatives, versus things done by private entities and their employees. In a lot of ways, this mirrors the distinction between hiring W-2 employees versus 1099 contractors.

If he were directly on the CARB or SANDAG payroll, this would be a slam dunk. But he ostensibly only had employment with the non profit. This means the scope any state action claim will depend heavily on the text of the contracts with CARB/SANDAG. Generally, the narrower and more specific the contract, the less it would be the state’s responsibility to pay up. That said, the contract can’t be hiring the nonprofit to do something which CARB or SANDAG normally couldn’t do on its own.

As with most things in civil law, it’s a careful balance to apportion liability onto the entity which is best positioned to avoid the problem. Would making CARB/SANDAG pay $100k – and thus letting Pedal Ahead off the hook for $100k – address the problem of constructively firing someone who noticed malfeasance? That’s left as an exercise to the reader.

What often happens in civil litigation is the “shotgun” approach: aim the lawsuit at as many people and entities as possible, especially ones with deep pocket, hoping some will settle. So it’s possible the claimant will later file suit against all of Pedal Ahead, its owner personally, every individual mentioned personally, plus SANDAG and CARB.

California allows for joint and several liability of money claims, so if a court/jury finds that CARB or SANDAG were even 1% partially responsible, then 100% of the winnings can be extracted from their deep pockets. This is especially relevant if the entity with the most responsibility – possibly Pedal Ahead – is broke or is about to go bankrupt. Joint and several liability prioritizes claimants getting compensated, even though the most responsible party escapes via bankruptcy. Again, civil law is a balance.

What’s truly staggering is the degree of corruption alleged, which is only ancillary to the tort claim, but it suggests that there are villains everywhere. No one comes out looking good here, whether its SANDAG and its other scandal, the owner of the nonprofit and his other ventures, the ebike program itself (why have a hard goal of 100 miles per week?), the former San Diego County Supervisor who helped award the contracts and then resigned after a sexual assault scandal, and the state entities for not properly auditing Pedal Ahead and still paying out the contracts.

All the meanwhile, $30 million of the $31 million dedicated for ebikes remains unused, likely to the disappointment of lots of San Diegans who are eager to take up ebikes or participate in a pilot program. That’s the real travesty amongst all this.

At this point, the bill has already passed the Senate and the Assembly, so it’ll soon head to the governor’s desk, as is the norm around June of even-numbered years.

If you are a California constituent who cares about bicycle and ebike legislation, I would encourage you to sign up for Calbike’s email updates on impending legislation of great significance to bicycling in this state. This bill is fairly minor, but who’s to say something more momentous won’t come next year?

Likewise, if your region has its own bicycle advocacy group (eg San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates, BikeSD), get updates from them too.

Today’s ebikes have only been legalized since 2016, so what is advocated for now will set the tone for decades to come.

I’ve been tracking this bill since it was first proposed, and the author never got back to me on exactly what is within the scope of the bill. The relevant part of the bill reads:

(e) A person shall not sell a product or device that can modify the speed capability of an electric bicycle such that it no longer meets the definition of an electric bicycle under subdivision (a) of Section 312.5.

For example, would a generic serial programmer device fall within the definition of such a “product or device”? How about software that is used with that device to modify the top speed of a specific ebike model? Common sense would say “no” to the first, and “maybe?” to the second.

But we can look to the author’s own comments before the Assembly Transportation Committee:

According to the author, “AB 1774 will ban the sale of electric bicycle (e-bike) speed modification devices (i.e. tuning kits) in California. These devices modify e-bikes far beyond the legal definition of an e-bike in State Vehicle Code.

But the committee staff already see the obvious flaw:

While this bill would prohibit the sale of devices that allow an e-bike to go beyond the speed permitted by law, many e-bikes can be modified to bypass the speed limiter by reprogramming the bicycle. The limiter can be tricked by changing the tire size on the panel on the bicycle. Other e-bikes, like the Super 73, allow you to change the speed of the bicycle using an app that comes with the e-bike.

I would hazard a guess that ebikes manufacturers might start to do the same trick that e-motorbikes do, which is a wire that – if severed by the owner – would disable the speed governor.

As is somewhat typical now in the Legislature, these bills written against ebikes tend to come from SoCal, ostensibly because ebikes are an exceedingly popular alternative to driving on congested roads. What bothers me is that these representatives are not taking in the whole reality, which the committee staff report kindly summarized:

• Ebikes are outselling electric automobiles in the USA, by double digit percentages
• Ebike injuries are up, although the LA Times reported it as the low three digits in a 2023 article
• The best way to increase safety for all cyclists is through sheer numbers: more cyclists

Given that reality, legislative effort apparently isn’t following evidence but rather towards clumsy distractions that emulate a “tough on ebike” stance, as bizarre as that sounds.

Couldn’t it still fall forward/backwards though when stationary? That doesn’t seem like it’s very useful even when compared to a conventional unicycle that can fall over in any direction when stopped.

Looking at this photo as an engineer, I decided to have some fun and see if there’s a way this design could somehow be a unicycle after all, based on no prior knowledge.

Supposing that maybe the two wheels turn independently, this just ends up being topologically identical to the so-called hoverboards. Except that hoverboards are configured with small diameter wheels and set to a wide gauge, allowing them to make zero-radius turns without scrubbing (aka tank steering). But this contraption, with its large contact patch and narrow gauge, would surely scrub quite hard for zero-radius turns.

Ok, so that doesn’t really work. Maybe it’s a solid axle. But… that’s somehow even worse since its performance is nearly identical to a single, wide tire. The Onewheel skateboard is proof positive that a single, wide tire is valid, but the crucial aspect is that the Onewheel still banks like a bicycle or airplane, rolling onto the edges of its tire. So too must this Inmotion unicycle, but then the outside tire is less involved in stabilizing the turn.

The only example I can think of where it’s beneficial to split one large contact point into two smaller ones is at sea, where a catamaran uses two parallel hulls for its hydrodynamic benefits. And for sharp turns, one hull lifts entirely out of the water, which is desirable. Whereas lifting a wheel off of land is not.

I can only see downsides with the dual wheel, solid axle unicycle design, reminiscent of this video by Practical Engineering on rail wheels (Nebula or YouTube). In short, optimizing for stationary stability means giving up dynamic stability while in motion, either inhibiting a turn or turning uncommanded. Trains use solid axles with conic wheels for dynamic stability and rely on truck/bogie geometry for stationary stability.

TL;DR: I can’t come up with a good reason for this design

My prior comment on hydrogen mobility:

Hydrogen for mass- or space-constrained mobility (eg bikes, automobile, aircraft) faces all the known problems with storing it inside inconvenient shapes and contending with the losses from liquification. Real Engineering has a video on this aspect (Nebula and YouTube) when compared to simply using battery-electric storage.

With that out of the way, my takeaway from this article is that manufacturers are working on broadening the appeal of bikes and micromobility with new models, be it harkening to the classic “Dutch bike” or designing for less smooth surfaces. Some are clearly gimmicks and fads, or advance the surveillance state. But by and large, innovation is taking place, proof that this market will not stand still for even a moment.

If you have a particular job focus for after you’ve graduated with your CS degree, would an internship with a related company be an option? Experience with web will be of limited use for an embedded job, and embedded experience is of limited use at a quantitative analysis company.

That’s not to say the experience is entirely pointless, since many skills across the various disciplines of CS are transferable.

I would say the idea is right, but the focus is wrong. In order of what will have the most beneficial improvement, and not just for cycling, people can:

• wear correctly-sized shoes
• adjust the bike to fit them properly
• address all other problems as they arise

This 2018 report concluded that:

A large proportion of the population wear incorrectly sized footwear, which is associated with foot pain and foot disorders.

Good shoes are something that will (literally) support you in all your endeavors, whether it’s biking to your destination or help you get around once you’ve dismounted and parked the bike. The author’s laser focus on cycling shoes that are rigid and don’t store energy is admirable, but the same shoe would be deeply uncomfortable for any amount of walking. A holistic approach to footwear would mean optimizing first-and-foremost for good fit, which is always applicable and is what most people get wrong. And only then consider features or extra pairs of shoes for specific uses, such as cycling.

I would guess that many casual riders are uninterested in hauling bike-specific shoes with them, so the shoes will have to be well-rounded, rather than task-specific. But that brings me to the next thing to optimize.

The venerable Sheldon Brown wrote many articles on how to adjust bike fitment to address pain in various parts of the body. Even if nothing hurts, I would encourage people to have a cursory read, as an ounce of prevention.

To drive my point, the author is correct that a proper cycling shoe improves power delivery and comfort at the feet. But a properly fitted bike improves the entire body’s experience on two-wheels overall, without compromising walking performance. And adjusting a bike is basically free.

As usual, I also need to point out that the editor of that publication has chosen to reframe and dramatize the headline.

What range do you get, and under what sort of driving conditions? I occasionally want to do the quick jaunt to the light rail station that’s 20 km one-way.

An electric Grom would be adorable and highly approachable. I want one.

Oh man, I posted earlier about looking for a mid-drive Class 3 ebike. My wallet is going to hate me for seeing this article lol

I am deeply skeptical at the 450 mile range figure, after searching for more detailed specs. This Cycleworld article says that the manufacturer officially described the battery as “700V, 50 Ah” yielding 35 kWh.

450 miles is 742 km. So the efficiency needed for that range would have to be 48 Wh/km (aka 702 MPGe). But that’s problematic, because that sort of efficiency is in the (higher end; ie less-efficient) territory of ebikes, which are lighter and have lower top speeds. In an odd coincidence, my Bikonit MD750 Class 3 ebike achieves 48 Wh/km when cruising at 45 kph (28 mph) and weighs 44 kg, with dual batteries summing to 1.5 kWh.

So how will this electric motorbike equipped with a substantial-larger and heavier 35 kWh battery pack be able to achieve the same efficiency? Even accounting for the different testing regime – US EPA cycle vs China CLTC – there are significant questions here.

The Cycleworld article expresses similar doubts, suggesting a 333 mile range might be more reasonable. I agree, although even 65 Wh/km may be generous if this motorbike can’t shave weight in other places beyond the battery pack.

Hydrogen for mass- or space-constrained mobility (eg bikes, automobile, aircraft) faces all the known problems with storing it inside inconvenient shapes and contending with the losses from liquification. Real Engineering has a video on this aspect (Nebula and YouTube) when compared to simply using battery-electric storage.

However, I think hydrogen could be very useful for train locomotives – which historically had “tenders” that stored the fuel behind the prime mover – since weight is less of a problem on traction railways. As well as any stationary applications, such as utility-scale hydrogen to time-shift electricity supply, where there may be scales-of-efficiencies to realize. Today’s utility-scale battery farms are not exactly gaining any scales-of-efficiency to speak of, because they’re just adding more battery cells to the grid.

A singular, massive hydrogen storage tank would be a sphere, benefitting from a favorable volume to surface area ratio, among other possibilities. And such a sphere would make better use of land by growing in height, whereas multi-storey battery farms would be fire hazards. But these are just cursory conjectures.

Out of curiosity, how is a diesel ban for city roads enforced? Does that mean automobiles that burn diesel aren’t permitted into the inner city, rather than just banning the sale of diesel within the city?

I’m not sure how an analogous ban would be enforced here in America, for lack of an automated means to identify diesel cars, as well as a lack of bollards or checkpoints into downtown (ie inner city) areas, and a lack of general enforcement enthusiasm for “equipment” violations.

Do the German authorities only enforce it when stopping a car for other, separate violations?

Surprisingly, my acoustic bike already pushes 20 kg (44 lbs) despite being manufactured as an 11 kg (24 lbs) bike. Basically, I travel with way too many things in my saddle bags. But better to have and not need haha

With the 29" tires, I’m able to ride the ebike at a useful rate (15-20 kph, 9-13 mph) if the battery is flat, although it certainly isn’t anything resembling nimbleness because of its mass. This is much slower than the acoustic bike’s “default” pedaling speed of 20-25 kph.

Power is something which I’m more attuned to trading away, as I don’t need to traverse any particularly steep hills. But I think you’re right that there may be substantial compromises to keep weight below the 55 lbs figure, more than I might be able to accept. And all would mean acquiring another ebike.

I guess I need to get swole lol

Both of these absolutely meet the request for Class 3 and mid-drive. Thanks!

There appears to definitely be a tradeoff between cost, weight, and battery capacity. But that’s exactly the tradeoff I wanted to quantify, since both these candidates are in a similar price range ($2750-$3000) and are in the same weight ballpark (21-26 kg).

This suggests that additional range would result in more cost and more weight, and these two candidates are already on the cusp of the bike rack with capacity of American buses. Perhaps then my situation can’t be optimized much further by replacing the bike.

From the specs of your ebike, it appears to be limited to 25 kph (15 mph). That might explain the substantial weight difference, as Class 1 or 2 ebikes will frequently weigh well below 20 kg (44 lbs), often with reduced range of only 40-60 km, which sounds in-line with your bike’s specs.

I once rode a USA Class 1 ebike continuously until the 700 Wh battery was uncomfortably empty, and traveled 37 miles (60 km) at 20 mph (32 kph) average, despite the manufacturer rating of only 33 miles (53 km).

Because of the distances I wish to cover, and for a fair comparison with my existing ebike, I am only considering Class 3, 45 kph-capable ebikes.