Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

"The 33"-Road Bike Racing We set this forum up for our members to discuss their experiences in either pro or amateur racing, whether they are the big races, or even the small backyard races. Don't forget to update all the members with your own race results.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-19-14, 02:29 PM   #51
jsutkeepspining
Senior Member
 
jsutkeepspining's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: ohioland/right near hicville farmtown
Bikes:
Posts: 4,813
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
jsutkeepspining is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-14, 02:30 PM   #52
gsteinb
out walking the earth
Thread Starter
 
gsteinb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: teh Jersey
Bikes:
Posts: 19,851
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
it's a bit far. you'd get sleepy and need your blankey
gsteinb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-14, 02:47 PM   #53
Dunbar
Senior Member
 
Dunbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: SoCal
Bikes: Roubaix SL4 Expert , Cervelo S2
Posts: 2,930
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(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.)
Dunbar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-14, 03:01 PM   #54
jsutkeepspining
Senior Member
 
jsutkeepspining's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: ohioland/right near hicville farmtown
Bikes:
Posts: 4,813
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
jsutkeepspining is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-14, 03:04 PM   #55
mattm
**** that
 
mattm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: CALI
Bikes:
Posts: 13,735
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(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
mattm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-14, 03:13 PM   #56
hack
Senior Member
 
hack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Folsom, CA
Bikes:
Posts: 3,131
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(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.
hack is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-14, 03:19 PM   #57
gsteinb
out walking the earth
Thread Starter
 
gsteinb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: teh Jersey
Bikes:
Posts: 19,851
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(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.
gsteinb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-14, 04:33 PM   #58
wanders
going roundy round
 
wanders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: High Point, NC
Bikes:
Posts: 6,081
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
wanders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-14, 04:47 PM   #59
Dunbar
Senior Member
 
Dunbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: SoCal
Bikes: Roubaix SL4 Expert , Cervelo S2
Posts: 2,930
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(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.
Dunbar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-14, 04:53 PM   #60
gsteinb
out walking the earth
Thread Starter
 
gsteinb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: teh Jersey
Bikes:
Posts: 19,851
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
I think amateur physicists should keep their day jobs.
gsteinb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-14, 05:04 PM   #61
Dunbar
Senior Member
 
Dunbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: SoCal
Bikes: Roubaix SL4 Expert , Cervelo S2
Posts: 2,930
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(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.
Dunbar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-14, 05:41 PM   #62
gsteinb
out walking the earth
Thread Starter
 
gsteinb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: teh Jersey
Bikes:
Posts: 19,851
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Is it? I'm a step or three below amateur physicist.
gsteinb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-14, 06:00 PM   #63
Ygduf 
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Ygduf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Bikes: aggressive agreement is what I ride.
Posts: 9,388
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(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.
__________________

strava.com/athletes/ygduf
Ygduf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-14, 06:02 PM   #64
gsteinb
out walking the earth
Thread Starter
 
gsteinb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: teh Jersey
Bikes:
Posts: 19,851
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
**** it. I'm eating ice cream.
gsteinb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-14, 06:35 PM   #65
Ygduf 
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Ygduf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Bikes: aggressive agreement is what I ride.
Posts: 9,388
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(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.
__________________

strava.com/athletes/ygduf
Ygduf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-14, 06:45 PM   #66
mattm
**** that
 
mattm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: CALI
Bikes:
Posts: 13,735
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsteinb View Post
**** it. I'm eating ice cream.
now we're talkin!
__________________
cat 1.

blog
mattm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-14, 06:48 PM   #67
shovelhd 
Senior Member
 
shovelhd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Western MA
Bikes: Yes
Posts: 15,479
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsteinb View Post
**** it. I'm eating ice cream.
What flavor, Flavor Flav?
shovelhd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-14, 08:42 PM   #68
tetonrider
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 3,524
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(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.)
tetonrider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-14, 09:32 PM   #69
tetonrider
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 3,524
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(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.
tetonrider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-14, 09:39 PM   #70
tetonrider
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 3,524
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(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.
tetonrider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-14, 09:51 PM   #71
furiousferret
Senior Member
 
furiousferret's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Redlands, CA
Bikes:
Posts: 4,487
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
I have to lose some weight but I'm going to splurge and have another sip of water.
furiousferret is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-14, 11:05 AM   #72
Gnosis
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: southeastern PA - a mile west of Philadelphia
Bikes:
Posts: 430
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
Gnosis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-14, 12:36 PM   #73
Ygduf 
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Ygduf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Bikes: aggressive agreement is what I ride.
Posts: 9,388
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(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.
__________________

strava.com/athletes/ygduf
Ygduf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-14, 12:39 PM   #74
rankin116
Senior Member
 
rankin116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: ChapelBorro NC
Bikes:
Posts: 3,986
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(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.
rankin116 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-14, 02:04 PM   #75
globecanvas
Ninny
 
globecanvas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: The Gunks
Bikes:
Posts: 4,434
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(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.
globecanvas is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:20 PM.