WANT!. Shut up and take all my money !.. but it's only useful when it snows... so it would be a huge success in Canada
Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #2 - whycanticaps (12/09/2012) [-]
but it's only useful when it snows... so it would be a huge success in Canada
User avatar #5 to #2 - noideawhatimdoing (12/09/2012) [-]
^ true. Im sn hour North of Toronto and i want it so bad
#41 to #5 - iFail (12/10/2012) [-]
Psst. If you read this comment on it's own, it sounds like you're one of those pop-up windows you get on porn sites.
#50 to #41 - noideawhatimdoing (12/11/2012) [-]
how do you know it wasnt meant to be read like that?
#52 to #50 - iFail (12/11/2012) [-]
I suppose I don't, but I like to think if you were actually as horny as the first comment suggests, I would've picked up on it and sent you a friend request by now.
User avatar #8 to #2 - blergle (12/10/2012) [-]
Depends how easy it is to change the tires. I'd be interested if they made a real thing, though this looks pretty impractical in a few ways.
#33 to #2 - bigwhitehound (12/10/2012) [-]
not here in Nova Scotia, no snow yet
#31 - sniffythebird ONLINE (12/10/2012) [-]
Norwegian approved
Norwegian approved
#29 - ollietweak (12/10/2012) [-]
User avatar #18 - danielesq (12/10/2012) [-]
wouldent it be a bitch to turn? the front ski would just slide right?
User avatar #45 - tehbomb (12/10/2012) [-]
And then you reach a little ice, the ski slips out like water off a duck's back and you fall on your face.
User avatar #46 to #45 - zilver (12/10/2012) [-]
pessimist as **** :P
User avatar #47 to #46 - tehbomb (12/10/2012) [-]
Story of my life.
User avatar #44 - happygrowman (12/10/2012) [-]
yeah like your fat ass would ride that outside in the cold.
User avatar #42 - indigobob (12/10/2012) [-]
implying you ever get out of the house, OP
User avatar #26 - martintheferret (12/10/2012) [-]
It would probably work better with a regular front wheel on it, due to skis mainly changing direction by leaning.
#36 to #26 - iceidice (12/10/2012) [-]
Ice, you wont be able to steer on ice
User avatar #51 to #36 - martintheferret (12/11/2012) [-]
Well, you wouldn't be able to steer a ski on ice either... Lol
User avatar #1 - kanatana (12/09/2012) [-]
I dunno, the input-output on that thing must be a bitch. You'd have to be damn near Olympian to pedal that thing.
User avatar #3 to #1 - iamslender (12/09/2012) [-]
Along with turning. Once you hit ice, no matter how you try to turn, you'll go straight
#10 to #3 - autoxx (12/10/2012) [-]
A carbide skag would bite hard enough to turn reliably, we use them on snowmobiles but they are spendy.
User avatar #9 to #3 - blergle (12/10/2012) [-]
Maybe if you had shape skis...
User avatar #4 to #3 - kanatana (12/09/2012) [-]
Very true point.
User avatar #6 to #4 - noideawhatimdoing (12/09/2012) [-]
looks light enough to control with your feet in case of ice. i have spiked boots so itd be easy to dig in and stop it. i really want this bike lol
#11 to #1 - EmulateSnes (12/10/2012) [-]
This image has expired
not familiar with gears i see...
User avatar #13 to #11 - kanatana (12/10/2012) [-]
There's only so much that gears and torque can do for you. As difficult as it is to walk on snowshoes over snow compared to clomping about in boots, that's the difference-- perhaps greater, even-- between riding a bike and that thing up there.
#14 to #13 - Elemental (12/10/2012) [-]
A 12 grade physics education says otherwise.
User avatar #15 to #14 - kanatana (12/10/2012) [-]
Comparatively; it's not a PERFECT analogy.
#16 to #15 - Elemental (12/10/2012) [-]
since the gears are the same you generate the same amount of force so F=F in both situations. The only difference being the radius of the tire. I'd imaging the whole system isn't that hard to turn. So torque is not the major issue.

It seems the whole thing comes down to friction. If it has a higher static friction then it will actually mean you have more traction. It really wouldn't be much different than riding a bike.
User avatar #17 to #16 - kanatana (12/10/2012) [-]
You seem to forget that that's assuming that the input/output system is perfect, which it obviously isn't. The amount of energy you would need to generate to move this thing 100 yards on snow would be at least twenty times that of a bike for the same distance. There is no coasting option with this vehicle (as the tread would drag) and the effort to stay balanced would exceed practicality.
#19 to #17 - Elemental (12/10/2012) [-]
You could coast, just not nearly as far unless it was on a downward plane. The Whole tread system would continuously roll. It happens in tanks in neutral gears, and since the main wheel of the tread system isn't a fixed axle, then it would continue to roll unless you were in deep snow. The balance issue comes down to speed (but since you really don't have to be moving fast to maintain balance on a bike either, basically a non-issue) and also how wide the track and skid are. I think you are vastly over estimating the power out/in ratio. On a snowy road realistically it would be under 2x the amount of input energy.
User avatar #20 to #19 - kanatana (12/10/2012) [-]
And I think you're vastly overestimating the amount of time you'd roll with the bike's and rider's momentum as compared to a freaking TANK. Look up the cube root law; the tank would coast further than the snow bike (relatively) because it has quite a bit more momentum. I am far from being an expert, but I would think that as little as three or four degrees of incline would turn the snow bike from a healthy workout to an inconvenient doorjam.
#21 to #20 - Elemental (12/10/2012) [-]
I was using the tank as an example of the tracks not locking rather than a distance principle. An upward plane with the granny gear wouldn't be too bad. The track would be more than sufficient to make sure you maintain friction and the gear ratio remains the same. Since you are moving the same mass(almost) with the same gear ratio, well pretty much all of the variables are the same. Deep snow is a whole other issue though.
User avatar #22 to #21 - kanatana (12/10/2012) [-]
I think that you're missing the whole point here; as a mode of transportation, this is far from efficient. The layperson wouldn't be able to go a quarter mile in the kind of snow that this machine warrants. The caloric output alone is enough to ensure that practical use is all but impossible on any sort of incline; I'd even go so far as to say that it would be more efficient to just put on some good hiking boots and slog it out.

Shifting into granny gear would make the matter even worse, especially when going uphill.
#24 to #22 - Elemental (12/10/2012) [-]
Again, I think you are over estimating this. I shouldn't be much more difficult than riding a regular bike. I have been unable to find a video on this particular bike, but i found one without near as good a gear system and it seemed pretty simple for the user :/
User avatar #25 to #24 - kanatana (12/10/2012) [-]
Link, please. And what are the odds that this person has had a good bit of experience on the machine, it's a fairly level terrain, and that the bike was tuned to his experience? You're missing the key words here: efficiency, input/output, and layperson. Is this the kind of machine that anyone can pick up within an afternoon, and most importantly, can it go the distance through more-than-level terrain?
#7 to #1 - mojotion (12/10/2012) [-]
Or a true man
#38 - pandie (12/10/2012) [-]
I live in Norway.. Please.. Show me where to buy one!!!
User avatar #35 - everheat (12/10/2012) [-]
The front ski should be curved, otherwise turns at fast speed would be really dangerous.
#34 - thumblovafella (12/10/2012) [-]
**thumblovafella rolled a random image posted in comment #65 at Hiding ** what i want
#32 - trevanman ONLINE (12/10/2012) [-]
where are the brakes?
User avatar #27 - mentlgen (12/10/2012) [-]
Why have one? You could just stay inside...
#12 - Rascal (12/10/2012) [-]
I saw this on the tv show Dragons Den a long time ago apparently the company did well and they're really popular.
 Friends (0)