0
TECHNICAL PAPERS

Bicycle Drive System Dynamics: Theory and Experimental Validation

[+] Author and Article Information
Benjamin J. Fregly

Department of Aerospace Engineering, Mechanics & Engineering Science, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611

Felix E. Zajac

Rehabilitation R&D Center, Veterans’ Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA 94304Departments of Mechanical Engineering (Biomechanical Engineering Division) & Functional Restoration, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305

Christine A. Dairaghi

Rehabilitation R&D Center, Veterans’ Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA 94304

J Biomech Eng 122(4), 446-452 (Mar 22, 2000) (7 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1286678 History: Received August 09, 1998; Revised March 22, 2000
Copyright © 2000 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Schematics of one degree-of-freedom bicycle drive systems: (a) Monark stationary bicycle ergometer. (b) Twelve-speed road bicycle
Grahic Jump Location
Pedaling apparatus configurations to achieve two effective drive system inertias: (a) high-inertia configuration to emulate a 12-speed road bicycle in a 52/17 gear ratio with a 50th percentile U.S. male rider. The translational inertia of the rider is accounted for in the rotational inertia of the experimental drive system. (b) Low inertia configuration to emulate a standard Monark 868 ergometer.
Grahic Jump Location
Comparison of experimental and simulated trajectories for emulated road riding: (a) low cadence/work rate combination of 60 rpm/120 W. (b) High cadence/work rate combination of 75 rpm/225 W. Crank torque input is on the top, and variation in crank angle (i.e., “residual”) output is on the bottom. Only the compliant model tracked the experimental crank torque and crank angle residual trajectories simultaneously.
Grahic Jump Location
Comparison of experimental and simulated trajectories for standard ergometer pedaling: (a) low cadence/work rate combination of 60 rpm/120 W. (b) High cadence/work rate combination of 75 rpm/225 W. Crank torque input is on the top, and variation in crank angle (i.e., “residual”) output is on the bottom. Both models tracked the experimental crank torque and crank angle residual trajectories reasonably well.
Grahic Jump Location
Comparison of experimental and simulated bode frequency response: (a) emulated road riding. (b) Standard ergometer pedaling. Gain is on the top, and phase is on the bottom. The compliant model tracked the experimental frequency response extremely well, while the noncompliant model tracked it only below the frequency ωz defined by the compliant model’s transfer function zero.

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In