Project 100 (custom enclosed Honda C90 targets 100 mph vmax and 100 km/L FE)

[visionary]

Reply to PaulBlez and for “the record”

So Paul maybe you are the first to truly recognise the importance of the three challenges, and what a significant vehicle this will prove to be when/should it hit the targets.

The Vmax target can be easily defined and measured, and will not excite many people since the world has ceased to be amazed by a “mere” 100mph. The fact that the speed record for a 50cc motorcycle (half my engine size) is over 150mph makes my target seem under whelming. But the cognoscenti will appreciate what a tough target it is for a road going vehicle. One thing I have in my favour is the ability to tune the motor well past the projected 11.5hp needed.

The mpg target is just as difficult, but I also have good reason to be confident. Take a detailed read through Allert Jacobs’ site for his velomobile and you will see the basis of my belief. Allert missed this target by the narrowest margin, on a mechanically standard vehicle, with greater capacity than my intended unit. I’m sure he could have hit the mark with the aid of some simple tuning or a well planned record attempt. Let me explain that second point.

My record attempt will be somewhat akin to a “Bonneville run” ie: very accurately measured, but in optimum conditions. I intend to run the “test” on the public highway, during near perfect weather conditions, with the bike in optimised form. The test will comprise a single non-stop distance of 100km, at an average speed of 100km/h. The motor will already be at working temperature before starting, and no aerodynamic benefit will be taken from other road users – the test will be carried out in the early hours of a Sunday morning next summer, all dual carriageway, no stop/start, constant speed.

You point out a couple of the negative aspects of my design, without quantifying their effect. The machine weight will play a very small part under the test conditions that I have described (above) and the rolling resistance to which you ascribe far greater significance than I do, can be easily overcome. Don’t forget, my C90 in bog-standard form gave 134mpg yet the positive aspects of my design, you seem to have missed. By comparison with Allert’s machine, I should achieve less drag through a fully enclosed body (no holes for head and feet), better shape (lower frontal area and improved fineness ratio), optimised engine tuning (laptop programmable ECU with fuel injection) – and if all of the above does not gain me 1km extra, then I will eat my hat!

So Paul, thanks for pointing out the enormity of the task and even though I remain confident, I will summarise with one of our favourite English sayings – “the proof of the pudding, is in the eating”
Regards
Pete

[VxonFumes]

Wow...I am very impressed with what you've accomplished so far. I don't know what the outcome will be, but I am eager to see finalized results. I think someone's earlier suggestion of using the Honda CBR250R engine would have met all your needs and more (almost the perfect test bed engine) but yes, obviously more expensive! I wonder if honda's new super efficient NC700 engine would be overkill due to size...that is an engine I seriously covet right now, whether in a rig like yours or a stock bike!

Everyone has their own way they would do this, but you are actually doing it and not just talking about like so many of us. Keep soldiering on!

[Electictracer]

If I understand the sum of the forum here correctly, you are building this vehicle to be an everyday driver, as you said in your third post. That goal justifies a little larger tire and brakes. Could you have used some smaller ones? Yes, but from your posts it seems that’s what was available to you. I completely understand that, as I’m working with similar challenges. What I don’t understand is the mention of the “record”. What sort of record is this? Are you building a vehicle to break a record or is this something you intend to use on a regular basis in the real world? You have made many concessions to make it a good looking vehicle (like open wheels), diver comfort, and road usability. If you are going for a record under highly controlled circumstances, why would you have done this? I can speculate that you are trying to prove a concept and/or pitch this as an idea. No matter the case, it seems that if you’re building an everyday vehicle, the means of testing should be in everyday circumstances. If you’re building an experimental vehicle, then you can justify an ideal test conditions scenario. A guy who has been doing this sort of thing for a long time, Craig Vetter, started with experimental type competition and saw that its usefulness as a proof of concept was limited and that’s why he does what he does today. (At least that’s my interpretation from reading his website; I’ve never spoken to the man.)
Anyway, I think your well on your way to making a big leap forward in mpg of a drivable machine and I wish you the best.

[PaulBlez]

Visionary said:
"One thing I have in my favour is the ability to tune the motor well past the projected 11.5hp needed"

Coincidentally, I have just been reading Sticky Round's test of the new Honda SH125i big wheel step-thru (with CVT) in the new November issue of Scootering magazine.
Turns out that it only makes 11.7bhp, but has been especially tuned for economy. It has the automatic stop-start system also fitted to Honda's PCX 125 and Honda claim that it does 134mpg(UK) 29.5 miles per litre when run according to the WMTC test cycle for city riding. Sticky also reported that it managed to do 65mph on the flat and 72mph downhill (somewhere in Rome!)
I think this gives a good 'baseline' kind of comparison with the Project 100 beast.
If those in the UK feel moved to rush out and buy (or at least sneak a peak at) a copy, there's the added bonus of my own test of the new BMW electric C-evo maxiscooter on the two preceding pages p.14-15. (Scootering is available worldwide and the website is simply scootering dot com)

[PaulBlez]

I thought y'all might like to read some of Cedric Lynch's thoughts about Project 100:
"I think this will be successful if Visionary gets the aerodynamics half-reasonable. It takes about 30bhp to run a normal motorcycle at 100mph. The power for rolling resistance will be 1.5 to 2hp so if the air drag is one-third that of a standard motorcycle and he has modified the engine to give 11.5hp (which is undoubtedly not difficult) he is there. The transmission of the C90 is much more efficient than that of the Helix, and since it is manual the ratio is calculable and will not be over-ridden by automatic control. I think that at 100mph the fuel consumption will be about 120mpg.
[As a Brit, Cedric will mean 120mpgUK, so that's a long way short of target!]
PNB

[PaulBlez]

Since this is my sixth post I hope that I will finally be allowed to post the link to the Cedric Lynch page on bikeweb. There are 26 photos of Cedric's electric streamliner here, plus a few photos of the Agni racers which Cedric built for the 2009 and 2010 electric TT races in the Isle of Man.
There are also a couple of close-up shots of Cedric's unusual steering arrangement and his bicycle tyres!
Cedric Lynch's Enclosed Electric FF | FF Web
PNB

[visionary]

Airfield Shakedown

OK so here is the short youtube video of the test

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKx6...feature=vmdshb

I'll post some comments and explanations soon

[ElectricRider66]

Great job on getting very professional looking video footage for the test ride! Looks like you've got a great support team. I'm glad you are making progress and sharing as you go. Your work inspires us all to get out there in our garages and get our projects done.

People have noted the concern about lack of roll bar. I'll just point out the danger of helmut mass with seatbelts. Race car drivers have adopted the HANS device to help offset this issue. Of course, the best thing is to not crash.

I'm concerned about your ground clearance. It was the big thing I missed on the design of my Delta-11. I learned from Royce C. over on Bikeweb too late that I should have designed my bodywork to have ground clearance at 45 degree lean with suspension fully compressed. I did not take suspension compression into account when designing and so I must drive cautiously through corners - so if it's not too late for your design, figure that into your bodywork builds.

Kraig

[JohnAh]

Maybe someone (perheps even myself) have already covered this: My own experiences from under-motorized vehicles is that high weight can actually be beneficial in some situations. Mass in motion can act as a "linear flywheel" and help overcome smaller inclinations that would otherwise require downshift and loss of speed. An under-motorized vehicle is very sensitive to gearing ratios and spacing so the need of downshifting to go uphill may cause an "inverted avalanche effect" if the gear spacing is too high. My three-wheeled 1959 Heinkel Kabine is a good example of that. -Just a very little tail wind can help me keep över 70km/h on 4:th gear in the same uphill slope that otherwise will force med to shift down to 3:rd gear where I get good torque at less than 50 km/h.

When I ripped out two pistons from my 1981 Fiat 127 I got a lot of experiences from heavy vs light load in the same road conditions and can definitely say that heavy weight IN AVERAGE makes a lot less impact on travel time than windy weather.
With a high weight-to-power ratio it will offcourse take a longer time to reach cruising speed, but the weight will then help to keep that speed.

Low weight will definitely be more beneficial to a vehicle mainly operated in city traffic. As I see it there are only two factors that will make high weight a loosing concept: Braking and tyre friction. -A heavy vehicle will add more friction to the tyres, perhaps demanding wider tyres to carry the load, increasing friction even more. I suspect however a wider tyre with high pressure may be better than a thin tyre running almost flat. I also guess a typical MC-tyre with it´s rounded shape is a lot more sensitive to weight and tyre pressure than the flat shape of a car tyre. Perhaps a narrow car tyre may be a good solution even for a two-wheeler if driven mainly on highway? I think some cornering qualities can be sacrificed to fuel efficiency.

[JohnAh]

To put it short: I think the Honda C90 project can do well despite heavy weight but those fat tyres must be inflated to high pressure (increasing wear in the center) and the gearing ratios may be the most critical of all.

12hp´s are always 12hp´s regardless of engine displacement but a smaller engine have a shorter power band, increasing the need for exact gear ratio in every situation. When I halved my Fiat engine from 1050cc to 525 I definitely needed at least one extra gear between 3:rd and 4:th to keep the speed up and I had to work hard with the stick during a lot of the 40.000 km I drove that car. The perfect transmission for a small displacement engine is a CVT but they unfortunately have higher losses. Perhaps a rubber belt CVT (like a snowmobile) can help squeezing out a lot more performance from the 90cc Honda engine but that will come with increased fuel consumption.

The ideal transmission for an under-powered combustion engine would perhaps be a CVT with one (or two closely spaced) additional fixed gears that can be engaged at highway while the CVT is disengaged. The fixed gear(-s) should be calculated for de normal cruising speed.