In-wheel Suspension: A New Look

  • Thread starter Thread starter jack action
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Suspension
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of in-wheel suspension systems, particularly in the context of electric motorbikes. Participants explore the design's aesthetics, potential benefits, and drawbacks, including weight considerations and the implications for ride quality and handling.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note the appealing design of in-wheel suspension but express skepticism about its practicality, suggesting it may not have been widely implemented before.
  • Concerns are raised about the penalty in unsprung weight and the increased wheel weight and moment of inertia (MOI), which could affect acceleration and handling.
  • One participant argues that the unsprung weight may actually be minimal, focusing instead on the implications of MOI and the suspension's ability to handle vertical motion without affecting lateral forces.
  • Another participant highlights the constant cycling of suspension components due to vehicle weight, raising concerns about wear and tear, especially on flat surfaces.
  • There is a discussion about the potential niche market for users who prioritize shock absorption over efficiency, such as wheelchair users and those navigating uneven surfaces.
  • Some participants speculate on the effects of suspension compression on caster angle and handling dynamics, suggesting that the design may introduce complexities in lateral force management.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of agreement and disagreement regarding the design's feasibility and implications. While some acknowledge the aesthetic appeal and potential benefits, others raise significant concerns about weight and handling, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various assumptions about weight distribution, suspension dynamics, and user needs, which may not be fully explored or agreed upon. The discussion includes speculative elements regarding the design's performance in different scenarios.

jack action
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
3,558
Reaction score
9,920
This suspension within a wheel looks really nice (source):
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
There was a thread recently where another poster was trying to figure something like this out. I'll see if I can find it.

Obvious issue with this design is the penalty in unsprung weight, it would seem...?
 
Oops, that thread was about putting the whole motor inside the wheels...
some bloke said:
Summary: a central motor, inside the wheel, fixed to the frame. the wheel goes around the outside, but can also move up and down for suspension purposes. how best to transfer the drive?

I'm brainstorming how to make an electric motorbike, making as much use of the available space as possible to allow for as many batteries to be fitted as possible.

Batteries aren't relevant right now; my focus is on the final drive at the back of the bike.

To maximise space, I want to fit the motor inside the rear wheel - this seemed the sensible place for it, it's already round and it's where the drive needs to go. it also means one less chain / transmission to worry about, and can help make the overall look of the bike a lot cleaner.
 
berkeman said:
Obvious issue with this design is the penalty in unsprung weight, it would seem...?
And maybe the main issue would be the increased wheel weight and MOI, as opposed to unsprung weight. Accelerating that puppy is going to take some extra work!
 
I agree that it looks nice. But it is hard to believe that it hasn't been tried before. Maybe you could find earlier attempts or even patent applications.
 
berkeman said:
And maybe the main issue would be the increased wheel weight and MOI, as opposed to unsprung weight. Accelerating that puppy is going to take some extra work!
That may not be a big deal for all users. Lots of us like to ride slowly. In developed areas, the bumps at curb cuts and sidewalk seams are an annoyance.
 
berkeman said:
Obvious issue with this design is the penalty in unsprung weight, it would seem...?
berkeman said:
And maybe the main issue would be the increased wheel weight and MOI, as opposed to unsprung weight. Accelerating that puppy is going to take some extra work!
As for the unsprung weight it's quite the opposite, it's at its minimal value (the rim and tire).

But I didn't think about the MOI and that is certainly a negative factor.

What I find also interesting is that the suspension geometry affects only the vertical motion, which is what it is supposed to do (no toe, camber, caster change or tire scrub as it moves up & down). But it might also become problematic to handle lateral forces in extreme cases.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman
Also, the suspension components are cycling constantly due to vehicle weight, even when rolling on a flat surface. Sounds like a lot of extra wear and tear.
 
sandy stone said:
Also, the suspension components are cycling constantly due to vehicle weight, even when rolling on a flat surface. Sounds like a lot of extra wear and tear.
Now that's an interesting point. If they cycle and dissipate heat constantly, then it becomes more like an exercise bike.

Nevertheless, I still think that a class of users including wheelchair users and old folks who ride slow but who worry about curb cuts and broken sidewalks, that might value shock absorption more than bicycle efficiency or acceleration. For example, the wheel moving to absorb a 4cm bump with little or no vertical motion in the bike's frame.

It is a niche market, so the value of the idea should be judged in that context.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jack action
  • #10
Typical, it looks like there's a solution to my problem and I can't view it because it links through faceache! I'll have to have a look when I get home from work...
 
  • #11
jack action said:
As for the unsprung weight it's quite the opposite, it's at its minimal value (the rim and tire).

But I didn't think about the MOI and that is certainly a negative factor.

What I find also interesting is that the suspension geometry affects only the vertical motion, which is what it is supposed to do (no toe, camber, caster change or tire scrub as it moves up & down). But it might also become problematic to handle lateral forces in extreme cases.

I think that it does change caster. When the suspension compresses, the effective radius of the wheel is reduced (assuming compression due to a bump at 6:00). The center of rotation (hub) and the center of curvature (wheel) aren't the same (until the suspension recovers).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jack action

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
9K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K