Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 112
  1. #51
    Senior Member jsutkeepspining's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    ohioland/right near hicville farmtown
    Posts
    4,719
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by gsteinb View Post
    :/ I offer a place to stay at my house to just about anyone. You..you though. You're dead to me.
    Don't worry i'll come over afterwards and kom the climb.
    cat 1-o-meter: wtf am i doing??????
    Quote Originally Posted by Racer Ex View Post
    You're not dumb. You're just less smart.

  2. #52
    powered by Racer Ex gsteinb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    teh Jersey
    Posts
    16,389
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    it's a bit far. you'd get sleepy and need your blankey

  3. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    My Bikes
    Roubaix SL4 Expert
    Posts
    2,303
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's feels so liberating not to be a weight weenie. Speaking of which a guy on Weight Weenies did a climb with and without a 25lbs backpack at the same power output. The added weight only cost him seconds over ~20 minutes (if I'm remembering the numbers correctly.)

  4. #54
    Senior Member jsutkeepspining's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    ohioland/right near hicville farmtown
    Posts
    4,719
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by gsteinb View Post
    it's a bit far. you'd get sleepy and need your blankey
    I don't have a blankey i have a teddy. Gosh stupid old person not understanding my complicated teenaged needs.
    cat 1-o-meter: wtf am i doing??????
    Quote Originally Posted by Racer Ex View Post
    You're not dumb. You're just less smart.

  5. #55
    **** that mattm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    CALI
    Posts
    11,276
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dunbar View Post
    It's feels so liberating not to be a weight weenie. Speaking of which a guy on Weight Weenies did a climb with and without a 25lbs backpack at the same power output. The added weight only cost him seconds over ~20 minutes (if I'm remembering the numbers correctly.)
    Ha, talk about an existential crisis for that place.
    cat 1.

    blog

  6. #56
    Senior Member hack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Folsom, CA
    Posts
    1,176
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    When it comes down to the cost vs weight I try to convince myself that it'd be easier to just lose the weight off the body instead of from the wallet/bike. That's when I pass on the expensive part and forget to lose the weight off the body.
    Cat 2 upgrade status: never

  7. #57
    powered by Racer Ex gsteinb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    teh Jersey
    Posts
    16,389
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dunbar View Post
    It's feels so liberating not to be a weight weenie. Speaking of which a guy on Weight Weenies did a climb with and without a 25lbs backpack at the same power output. The added weight only cost him seconds over ~20 minutes (if I'm remembering the numbers correctly.)
    I'm pretty sure that's bs.

  8. #58
    going roundy round wanders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    High Point, NC
    Posts
    6,050
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by gsteinb View Post
    I'm pretty sure that's bs.
    I can guarantee it's bs.

    btw, you guys and your 1/4lb concerns sickatates me.
    Quote Originally Posted by CastIron View Post
    Damn.

  9. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    My Bikes
    Roubaix SL4 Expert
    Posts
    2,303
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Here's the post, relevant text quoted below. I wasn't exactly remembering the numbers right. Works out to 60 seconds over 20 minutes or around 1 watt of extra power to compensate for every additional pound. Remember that the next time you're tempted to spend a lot of money to shave grams off your bike. Just work on raising your FTP a watt or two or losing weight instead.

    It was avg watts for that 5 min segment. So I did like 200 avg watts up the segment. For 5 min. Then 227 watts avg with the (25lb.) backpack on. And the same exact time and speed. I think I went a third time with the backpack at 200 watts and was like 20 seconds or so slower. But that's 25 lbs that's a lot 1-3 lbs is nothing sure...
    Last edited by Dunbar; 06-19-14 at 04:51 PM.

  10. #60
    powered by Racer Ex gsteinb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    teh Jersey
    Posts
    16,389
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    I think amateur physicists should keep their day jobs.

  11. #61
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    My Bikes
    Roubaix SL4 Expert
    Posts
    2,303
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by gsteinb View Post
    I think amateur physicists should keep their day jobs.
    What's funny is that it's almost exactly the same as waterrockets calculated wattage savings.

  12. #62
    powered by Racer Ex gsteinb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    teh Jersey
    Posts
    16,389
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Is it? I'm a step or three below amateur physicist.

  13. #63
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Ygduf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Redwood City, CA
    My Bikes
    road bikes
    Posts
    5,878
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by gsteinb View Post
    I'm pretty sure that's bs.
    I am 100% certain of it. Unless he's talking about a motorbike.

    twitter.com/ygduf
    strava.com/athletes/ygduf

  14. #64
    powered by Racer Ex gsteinb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    teh Jersey
    Posts
    16,389
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    **** it. I'm eating ice cream.

  15. #65
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Ygduf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Redwood City, CA
    My Bikes
    road bikes
    Posts
    5,878
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by gsteinb View Post
    **** it. I'm eating ice cream.
    velocity is the integral of acceleration is force/mass. You mass is the base of the entire equation!

    Ice Cream = losing.

    twitter.com/ygduf
    strava.com/athletes/ygduf

  16. #66
    **** that mattm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    CALI
    Posts
    11,276
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by gsteinb View Post
    **** it. I'm eating ice cream.
    now we're talkin!
    cat 1.

    blog

  17. #67
    Senior Member shovelhd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Western MA
    My Bikes
    Yes
    Posts
    11,867
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by gsteinb View Post
    **** it. I'm eating ice cream.
    What flavor, Flavor Flav?

  18. #68
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,845
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dunbar View Post
    Remember that the next time you're tempted to spend a lot of money to shave grams off your bike. Just work on raising your FTP a watt or two or losing weight instead.
    fortunately, none of these are mutually exclusive.

    if someone's well-trained and 8 or 9% body fat, it's not like it's easy to make changes.

    even if someone has weight to lose, dropping weight on the bike still makes a difference. whether that difference is of any significance is another matter. (most of the time i think people fixate on weights of bike parts, but i think part of that is that it is easy to understand/quantify differences in grams. aero differences are harder for most to understand.)

  19. #69
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,845
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by waterrockets View Post
    Well, the base layer is going to impede evaporation and runoff. If it was going straight to the jersey either it would be evaporating sooner, or the jersey would saturate faster than base layer + jersey, and sweat would start dripping sooner. So, while you did have it in you, once it's not, the base layer keeps it with you longer.
    i guess not all kits are equal in terms of wicking, but some of those base layers with the "hollow spaces" claim to improve airflow, which would improve cooling or increase wicking.

    i agree with you re: a traditional base layer.

    i have no idea to what degree those new-fangled base layers work in various conditions, but in my limited experience when i've tried one neither my kit nor the base layer wears more than when i started (and those base layers weigh just a handful of grams). perhaps any impeded wicking, as you describe, is countered by improved airflow. dunno.

  20. #70
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,845
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by topflightpro View Post
    Base layers? I barely have a jersey on when it's hot out. The only reason I don't unzip it completely is that it starts moving around too much when unzipped - I usually have a third bottle back there.
    sanremo FTW! ;-) (sorry ... from another thread.)

    i'm not the type to ride with my jersey completely unzipped, but for those who do the jersey attached to the shorts means that stuff in one's pockets remains stable even with the jersey unzipped.

  21. #71
    Senior Member furiousferret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Redlands, CA
    Posts
    2,644
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have to lose some weight but I'm going to splurge and have another sip of water.

  22. #72
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    southeastern PA - a mile west of Philadelphia
    Posts
    264
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by waterrockets View Post
    What's the total elevation gain on the hill in question?

    You're looking at 0.1134kg.
    Force required to lift it F=ma, so F = 0.1134kg * 9.8m/s^2 = 1.111N
    Work = F * d = 1.111N * elevation gain in meters. For a 3000ft climb, it's 914m, so 1.111N * 914m = 1016Nm = 1016J of work
    If you spend an hour climbing this hill, you've 1016J / 60*60s = 0.28J/s = 0.28W​ to get this 1/4 lb. up the hill at that pace.

    So just substitute your elevation in meters and the Strava KOM time for duration and recalculate.
    The following is intended respectfully.

    It’s unnecessary to compute the additional element of “force”, as there’s a more direct method being that you already know the three key factors, those being, the object’s mass, the gain in vertical elevation (height), and gravity’s accelerative influence, 9.8 m/s/s.

    In such cases, we more simply apply the straightforward longstanding equation associated with “gravitational potential energy” as provided below:

    E = mgh

    Whereby,

    E = gravitational potential energy “in Joules”
    m = mass of object “in kg”
    g = acceleration via gravity, a constant 9.8 m/s/s
    h = height to which object must be raised “in meters”

    .25 pounds * .45359237 = .113398093 kg mass
    3,000 feet * .3048 = 914.4 meters height

    Once the conversion to SI (Standard International) units has been made, we apply these factors to the gravitational potential energy equation, E = mgh, to yield the product, Joules of energy:

    .113398093 kg * 9.8 m/s/s * 914.4 meters = 1016.173915 Joules of energy

    If we wish to derive the average power required per second during the ascent, we merely divide the Joules of energy by the total seconds required to achieve the desired gain in vertical elevation (height). For instance, if it requires 1 hour, we divide by 3,600 seconds:

    1016.173915 Joules / 3,600 seconds = 0.282270532 Joules of energy (per second)

    Thus, the element of “force” need not be computed. Naturally, it’s anyone’s prerogative to compute the desired outcome it in any manner that yields the correct answer however, this is the most direct method in physics concerning this matter.

  23. #73
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Ygduf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Redwood City, CA
    My Bikes
    road bikes
    Posts
    5,878
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    someone do the math and tell me how far off this is from my method of taking say 20min on a climb at 196lbs (combined bike/body) weight to be 6.122 seconds/lb, then rounding down and saying if I'm 2 lbs lighter I'll be 12sec faster.

    twitter.com/ygduf
    strava.com/athletes/ygduf

  24. #74
    Senior Member rankin116's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Troylet
    Posts
    3,737
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Gnosis View Post
    The following is intended respectfully.

    It’s unnecessary to compute the additional element of “force”, as there’s a more direct method being that you already know the three key factors, those being, the object’s mass, the gain in vertical elevation (height), and gravity’s accelerative influence, 9.8 m/s/s.

    In such cases, we more simply apply the straightforward longstanding equation associated with “gravitational potential energy” as provided below:

    E = mgh

    Whereby,

    E = gravitational potential energy “in Joules”
    m = mass of object “in kg”
    g = acceleration via gravity, a constant 9.8 m/s/s
    h = height to which object must be raised “in meters”

    .25 pounds * .45359237 = .113398093 kg mass
    3,000 feet * .3048 = 914.4 meters height

    Once the conversion to SI (Standard International) units has been made, we apply these factors to the gravitational potential energy equation, E = mgh, to yield the product, Joules of energy:

    .113398093 kg * 9.8 m/s/s * 914.4 meters = 1016.173915 Joules of energy

    If we wish to derive the average power required per second during the ascent, we merely divide the Joules of energy by the total seconds required to achieve the desired gain in vertical elevation (height). For instance, if it requires 1 hour, we divide by 3,600 seconds:

    1016.173915 Joules / 3,600 seconds = 0.282270532 Joules of energy (per second)

    Thus, the element of “force” need not be computed. Naturally, it’s anyone’s prerogative to compute the desired outcome it in any manner that yields the correct answer however, this is the most direct method in physics concerning this matter.
    Respectfully, with a giant side of condescension.

  25. #75
    Ninny globecanvas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Gunks
    Posts
    1,406
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Gnosis View Post
    Joules of energy (per second)
    Popularly known as "watts."

    Quote Originally Posted by Ygduf View Post
    someone do the math and tell me how far off this is from my method of taking say 20min on a climb at 196lbs (combined bike/body) weight to be 6.122 seconds/lb, then rounding down and saying if I'm 2 lbs lighter I'll be 12sec faster.
    Ignoring everything but gravity and keeping power constant, time is linear with mass. So your method is fine. Cutting weight in half cuts climbing time in half. Cutting weight to zero places you at both the top and bottom of the hill at the same time.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •