You know you're bored when you are reading U.S. Patents online, but I wanted to read Frank's and get more info on the history of PCs. Ya know, I'm not anti-PC, I just like riding non-PC equipped bikes. Anyway, very interesting stuff:
http://patft.uspto.gov/...&RS=PN/5,860,329
One thing I wonder about is the following claim ,which if I am reading it right, states that if a rider unweights the opposing pedal he will increase the power to the wheel by 50%. Is this right? :
"Experiments measuring the amounts of these forces show them to be substantial. Using representative data (found in FIG. 1) the losses due to the failure to completely unweight the pedal on the recovery phase of the stroke can be calculated. Using this data, if one could simply eliminate these "negative" forces on the pedal during the upstroke (see FIG. 2) the power throughput to the wheel would be increased 50%. Therefore, while the traditional power transfer system is simple and, generally, considered to be reasonably efficient, substantial internal losses are present. "
http://patft.uspto.gov/...&RS=PN/5,860,329
One thing I wonder about is the following claim ,which if I am reading it right, states that if a rider unweights the opposing pedal he will increase the power to the wheel by 50%. Is this right? :
"Experiments measuring the amounts of these forces show them to be substantial. Using representative data (found in FIG. 1) the losses due to the failure to completely unweight the pedal on the recovery phase of the stroke can be calculated. Using this data, if one could simply eliminate these "negative" forces on the pedal during the upstroke (see FIG. 2) the power throughput to the wheel would be increased 50%. Therefore, while the traditional power transfer system is simple and, generally, considered to be reasonably efficient, substantial internal losses are present. "