Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are not allowed, but still commonly owned and used. The law needs to catch up. There are clearly good reasons for people to want extremely powerful e-bikes and they should be allowed to. They can't be treated like bicycles because they're too fast but aren't nearly as dangerous as motorcycles. We need a new category for light motorcycles. The real problem, IMO, is that the law is generally not deferential enough…
> The real problem, IMO, is that the law is generally not deferential enough to cyclists and already forces them off sidewalks, onto the street, and to follow traffic laws designed for cars. If we’re talking about high powered e-bikes, I don’t want them on the sidewalk either. Once they exceed the current regulations they’re in the moped/motorcycle category. > There's not much else to take away, and the rules right n…
Tiny electric motor can produce more than 1,000 horsepower
581–590 of 616 posts
Re: Tiny electric motor can produce more than 1,000 horsepower
#582Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are not allowed, but still commonly owned and used. The law needs to catch up. There are clearly good reasons for people to want extremely powerful e-bikes and they should be allowed to. They can't be treated like bicycles because they're too fast but aren't nearly as dangerous as motorcycles. We need a new category for light motorcycles. The real problem, IMO, is that the law is generally not deferential enough…
> The law needs to catch up. There are clearly good reasons for people to want extremely powerful e-bikes and they should be allowed to. I'm not so sure about that. I don't want a 6000kw Sur Ron riding in the bike lane with me. The whole point of the bike lane was to make a safe space for riding a bicycle. I want the bike lanes to be safe enough for children to ride their bikes in, and having something that powerful…
Re: Tiny electric motor can produce more than 1,000 horsepower
#583Earlier quoted context omitted.
It gives a sense of the functional size required. Could the motor in question be shrunk down to 1kg, producing 59kW? Probably. Could it be shrunk down to 1g? No.
But it doesn't. You can talk about micro-motors, implemented on a PCB, like [1] and get a number in the same ballpark. That's the whole point – it's a ratio, it tells you nothing about the absolute size of the motor. [1] https://tymagnets.com/pcb-motors-and-wedge-magnets/
No, it tells you nothing about the absolute size of the motor, but for the rest of us, the context clues are there to gain additional information. Someone else constructing something that obfuscates this with a micro-motor doesn't make this useless.
Significant figures exist for a reason. You are ignoring that here and creating precision that does not exist. The kilo-prefix absolutely communicates scale information to most readers.
Similarly it is useful to talk about household electricity consumption in terms of kWh/day, despite that also being a ratio that can reduce down.
The goal here is communication, not theoretical mathematical optimality that is actually worse in every real way.
Re: Tiny electric motor can produce more than 1,000 horsepower
#584Why do we even need to drive cars, why dont we all just have trailers and then an automated robot could pull it around. Decouple the drive train from the cabin.
With all the extra coupling hardware and surface area required, the reason is performance and weight. Modern cars are all about material minimization. It's easier to add a bump to the cabin and put a motor in that volume than it is to make another mini car. I think it would only make financial sense if it were like swappable batteries: you rent it all.
Re: Tiny electric motor can produce more than 1,000 horsepower
#585Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are not allowed, but still commonly owned and used. The law needs to catch up. There are clearly good reasons for people to want extremely powerful e-bikes and they should be allowed to. They can't be treated like bicycles because they're too fast but aren't nearly as dangerous as motorcycles. We need a new category for light motorcycles. The real problem, IMO, is that the law is generally not deferential enough…
>They can't be treated like bicycles because they're too fast but aren't nearly as dangerous as motorcycles. As a former rider, why? Cars were the most dangerous part, in my experience. Something that stuck with me from my motorcycle safety course, the speed at which hitting a wall is 50% fatal is 30 mph. Doesn't take highway speeds.
The goal is to protect the regular cyclists and pedestrians who they currently share paths with while trying to not make them TOO unsafe.
Re: Tiny electric motor can produce more than 1,000 horsepower
#586Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are not allowed, but still commonly owned and used. The law needs to catch up. There are clearly good reasons for people to want extremely powerful e-bikes and they should be allowed to. They can't be treated like bicycles because they're too fast but aren't nearly as dangerous as motorcycles. We need a new category for light motorcycles. The real problem, IMO, is that the law is generally not deferential enough…
> aren't nearly as dangerous as motorcycles. Opinions differ. I have seen far more accidents with powerful e-bikes than I have seen with motorcycles, and yet there are many more motorcycles.
Re: Tiny electric motor can produce more than 1,000 horsepower
#587Earlier quoted context omitted.
>They can't be treated like bicycles because they're too fast but aren't nearly as dangerous as motorcycles. As a former rider, why? Cars were the most dangerous part, in my experience. Something that stuck with me from my motorcycle safety course, the speed at which hitting a wall is 50% fatal is 30 mph. Doesn't take highway speeds.
The goal is not to protect the people on motorcycles, who (if we're being brutally honest) forfeited most expectations of safety as soon as they got on their bikes. The goal is to protect the regular cyclists and pedestrians who they currently share paths with while trying to not make them TOO unsafe.
Re: Tiny electric motor can produce more than 1,000 horsepower
#588Earlier quoted context omitted.
On a decent hill you can get a regular bike going >60mph. A dirt bike will let you ride off road at nice speeds over random terrain (no licensing required when not on public roads). In the realm of bikes, these are not an outlier. Limiters are easily overcome and speed limits are barely enforced on cars, let alone bikes. When you get a bike like this you deal with the danger and wear protective gear just like you wou…
> On a decent hill you can get a regular bike going >60mph. This is not the same as being able to go > 60 mph anywhere, at any time, simply by pressing a button. > When you get a bike like this you deal with the danger and wear protective gear just like you would with any other bike (motorized or not). This only deals with the danger to the rider - it doesn't address the danger to pedestrians.
Bicycles have long needed a dedicated infrastructure as they are neither cars nor pedestrians.
Re: Tiny electric motor can produce more than 1,000 horsepower
#589Axial flux motors are such an obvious and simple to build design that I don't understand why they aren't used more commercially. I've mainly seen do-it-yourself projects to build them for home windmills etc. - divergence - This is perhaps my greatest frustration with wealth inequality. Billionaires like Elon Musk (not to single him out of the thousand others) sometimes fund innovative projects initially, but seem to…
It might not make sense to younger people, but for me growing up in the 1980s, there were many decades of tech stagnation where basically all alternatives to internal combustion engines were suppressed. And the people who made vast fortunes didn't care about disrupting the status quo, so we were forced to live with substandard tech and pay a premium for the privilege. It wasn't until Elon Musk disrupted the car industry with Tesla starting from 2004 that anything changed, which we take for granted now. I really idolized him before he lost his wunderkind status by falling for political propaganda like a mark. Maybe that's my own projection, I don't know anything anymore.
Whereas today, tech is evolving so rapidly that we don't have time to invent much before the singularity hits in the 2040s. We're facing a different existential crisis now, one of finding meaning when so much happens through manifestation outside of our own actions, instead of facing the void that we can't contribute due to the realities of the time it takes to afford the cost of living (a theme from Fight Club). So my points are maybe anachronisms now, frustrations from an era that no longer exists.
Why I got triggered by this motor: 1000 hp at 28 pounds is enough to lift a large car or truck. The rule for helicopters is about 5 pounds per hp (more with a longer prop that has a higher aspect ratio - edit: the Mars Ingenuity drone gets 3.6 lbs per hp in at atmosphere 1% as dense as ours). So 4 of these motors would make a quadcopter the likes of which we've never seen before. It's almost Star Wars tech IMHO. We're talking extremely high ceilings like 50,000 feet or more. Drones that fly at 400, 500 mph or more, even close to the speed of sound.
And we could have had this tech a long time ago, because it's not especially complex. It's just that nobody devoted the small investment for the research. Same for lithium iron batteries, especially LiFePO4, which could have arrived in the 1980s or 1990s because they're so easy to make. Possibly even the 1960s: the SR-71 flew in ..1964! But we had other priorities.
Anyway, it's a great accomplishment and I'm happy for them. I just mourn what might have been had the geopolitical situation been different.
Re: Tiny electric motor can produce more than 1,000 horsepower
#590Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Balancing the check book" refers to the process of running your own log of check transactions using something like https://cdn.wallethub.com/wallethub/images/posts/14483/check... and ensuring that it matches the occasional official balance statement from your bank occasionally. Don't want to make assumptions about what you know so forgive any overexplanation... It is about ensuring that you manage your account balan…
Cool, thanks for the overexplanation. I thought checks were things of the 80s or something, in other parts of the world you mostly either have the money or not, so the act of balancing checks wouldn't exist. Interesting. Is it still that common to use checks as opposed to just a debit card?
She's just very conservative with money and relied on inertia to maintain a balanced budget and was averse to change that may cause her to mismanage money, as we were very poor.
Check writing lasted far too long here in the US, for whatever reason, but was somewhat killed in the early 2000s when dramatic increases in gas prices led to gas stations no longer accepting checks as they got so many bounced ones.
The benefits of writing a check: 100% offline. If someone is willing to accept a check from you, there's zero interaction with a third party at transaction time.
Checks take longer to process, so you can take advantage of that by spending money today that you will not have until tomorrow, with zero interest. This also allowed a kind of fraud called "Kiting" where you keep cycling bad checks to artificially increase some balances temporarily, but that was less possible by the 80s I think, as even then forms of electronic settlement existed.
They feel meaningful. It's effort to put together and requires effort to manage your account so you treat it as a bigger event, reducing impulse to spend. Credit card companies sold merchants on the ability to induce more spending, and Debit cards have the exact same feature.
You can give someone a blank check to spend for something without having to do any work with third parties "authorizing" their spend. Good for parents or small businesses, and quite dangerous.
Checks are sociologically neat. Literally just a piece of paper, but they keep up the bargain often enough that we were able to use writing on paper as an entire financial system. They also required an amount of trust and familiarity between transacting parties that isn't really normal anymore. The guy in charge of the local grocery store is some overpaid desk jockey with an MBA tweaking excel spreadsheets of spend and revenue until the graph goes up and to the right enough. 40 years ago that guy was my dad and he knew everyone in the town by name.
I have written a check three times in my life. Setting up a way to accept a debit card is way more difficult than just cashing a piece of paper once a month, so landlords are a big consumer of real checks nowadays.