20 years ago, my high school did not care if you rode an MB to school or not. I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if they do nowadays. Of course nowadays an MB would be stolen from a school bicycle corral in half a New York second.
Bumble Bee Bike Motors coming soon
- Thread starter proline20
- Start date
proline20
New Member
Bumble Bee is back! Sorry I've been slack - haven't logged in here for some time.
26cc homelite 2 stroke engine - I mix 3 oz. oil per gallon of 89 octane. Very dependable - I never never carry tools. 25mph all day long! 8oz. fuel tank goes 10 miles = 160mpg. No clutch. Friction wheel 1 1/8" and perfect, beleive me I've tried bigger ones to go fast and not enough power at low speed. Wheels wear down in about 1500 miles, replacements are $9. Bumble Bee has over 150 kits on the street now...
No 4 strokes. Kit disconnects from bike with one pin and can fit in a bowling bag with the neutral bar sticking out.
My friend weighs 410 pounds and rode the Cougar last night. He kept up with us, just a little slower going over the little hills in Deland. I been slot car drag racing and met Big Daddy (410 fat).
Anyone up for a ride night in Central Florida? I can round up about 6 bumble bees to ride with us...
26cc homelite 2 stroke engine - I mix 3 oz. oil per gallon of 89 octane. Very dependable - I never never carry tools. 25mph all day long! 8oz. fuel tank goes 10 miles = 160mpg. No clutch. Friction wheel 1 1/8" and perfect, beleive me I've tried bigger ones to go fast and not enough power at low speed. Wheels wear down in about 1500 miles, replacements are $9. Bumble Bee has over 150 kits on the street now...
No 4 strokes. Kit disconnects from bike with one pin and can fit in a bowling bag with the neutral bar sticking out.
My friend weighs 410 pounds and rode the Cougar last night. He kept up with us, just a little slower going over the little hills in Deland. I been slot car drag racing and met Big Daddy (410 fat).
Anyone up for a ride night in Central Florida? I can round up about 6 bumble bees to ride with us...
CroMagnum
Member
Personally I think the Bumble Bee looks really interesting and well thought out.
However, I tend to get the willies when I read instructions like "make sure the mounting bolt is tight about 50 lbs torque per sq inch." Torque doesn't come in pounds per square inch and it makes me wonder if the author has a firm grasp on the mechanical principles required to design and build a bike motor mount that won't come apart at speed.
However, I tend to get the willies when I read instructions like "make sure the mounting bolt is tight about 50 lbs torque per sq inch." Torque doesn't come in pounds per square inch and it makes me wonder if the author has a firm grasp on the mechanical principles required to design and build a bike motor mount that won't come apart at speed.
proline20
New Member
I've been in a few other non bike related forums, not gonna get in a flame throwing match. Respectfully, I KNOW these things won't come apart. OK, the proper english is not used in their paperwork, I bet folks understand anyway. I've logged countless hours. Consumers will not be let down, as long as they use oil in the gas...this is the only way you don't get your money's worth.
Another note - anyone know about the success of bike bug sold at sears competeting with whizzer back in the day? Bumble Bee is partnering to re-vive the bug bike. Here's the video of the news story: http://www.khou.com/home/New-Bike-Bug-motor-helps-beat-the-pain-at-the-pump-122838389.html
CroMagnum
Member
You misunderstood - I'm not trying to disparage the Bumble Bee. In fact, I think they're very interesting and will probably buy one to try it out. I like the shift lever that elevates the motor off the tire in a similar fashion to the original Bike Bug. (I own two of those - one in use, and one still NIB.)
But this isn't an English mistake like "their" or "there." It's an error in physics between "inches times pounds" and "inches divided by pounds, divided by pounds again." Big difference.
I guess what I was trying to do is make sure the builders knew the difference, and say that if they corrected the web site I'd feel better about ordering one.
suitcasejefferson
Member
I "think" they meant to say in./lbs. or ft./lbs., but I can't figure out which. 50 in./lbs. is only a hair over 4 ft./lbs., which certainly doesn't seem like enough for that bracket, but on the other hand, 50 ft./lbs. seems like way too much. No matter how strong the bracket is, it seems like that much force would crush some bike frames. I think I would be inclined to use my own judgement. If a roller lasts 1500 miles, I wonder if it wears out tires like steel rollers do? It seems to be made of rubber. On the front mount kit, I don't like the way that square bracket attaches to the round forks with U bolts, just doesn't look like a good fit. Kind of sloppy. And not all bikes have that hole in the forks. I kind of like the rear drive, except for that huge long release handle. And an 8 oz. fuel tank just isn't going to cut it. I would need to carry at least an extra gallon of premix (which I have done, in one of those one gallon flat jugs that oil comes in, in a backpack)
But I get the idea that these kits are designed strictly for local around town use. Even if you carried the gas with you, it would be interesting to see how one would hold up on a 200 mile trip.
But I get the idea that these kits are designed strictly for local around town use. Even if you carried the gas with you, it would be interesting to see how one would hold up on a 200 mile trip.
CroMagnum
Member
You're making the same mistake with ft./lbs. That slash "/" means "divided by." It's not "feet divided by pounds", it's "feet TIMES pounds."
Does it make a difference? Well, 20/10=2. 20x10=200. 2 or 200, yeah, that's a big difference in my book.
Speed is miles/hour or miles per hour - miles divided by hours. You went 60 miles in 3 hours, you went 20 miles per hour. 60/3=20.
Torque is lever length TIMES force. You have a 2 ft. lever and you pushed on it with 6 lbs., that equals 12 ft.-lbs. Because 2x6=12. Pronounced "foot-pounds." Also sometimes written as pound-feet.
Sorry, but it really bothers me that someone who is designing and building something mechanical that can hurt me if it fails can't tell the difference between "times X" and "divided by X." Because the difference between 2 or 200 makes a difference.
Last edited:
suitcasejefferson
Member
If you want to get really technical, then you are right, ft.-lbs. is the correct way to write it, but I have always used the /, and so do most others. Though not completely correct, ft./lbs. is generally accepted as foot-pounds. I have seen it written that way in many repair manuals. However, the way they put it "50 lbs torque per sq inch." doesn't make sense at all. And whether you try to make that mean ft.-lbs or in.-lbs, it seems to be wrong either way.
But I have never used a torque wrench on such things, and never had a problem. I would just tighten it till it felt right to me.
Similar threads
