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


Go Back   > >

General Cycling Discussion Have a cycling related question or comment that doesn't fit in one of the other specialty forums? Drop on in and post in here! When possible, please select the forum above that most fits your post!

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-29-11, 11:33 AM   #1
gpshay
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Bikes:
Posts: 22
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
What does Physics prove ?

I have been wondering as I load up my gear into my panniers if there is any work advantage [amount of watts] it takes to move say 50 lbs of gear [pannier weight included] up a 6% grade at 5 mph vs. say a BOB trailer pulling 50lbs of gear [weight of the trailer included] up the same grade at the same speed. I wonder if the wattage output would be the same ? any ideas ... I'm not interested in the old debate panniers vs. trailers .. I'm strickly interested in actual wattage output .. however it would be interesting to know if you were on the flats and keep the loads the same and kept your speed at 12 mph I wonder if your actual wattage output would be different because of the difference in wind resistance .. I appologize if this test has already been posted and if it has I would sure like to review it ... Glenn
gpshay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-11, 12:15 PM   #2
StephenH
Uber Goober
 
StephenH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas area, Texas
Bikes:
Posts: 11,286
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
I would bet that panniers were lighter and with less wind resistance than a trailer, so they'd take less power. However, people that care about wind resistance aren't using trailers and panniers, so there's not a good way to prove it.
__________________
"be careful this rando stuff is addictive and dan's the 'pusher'."
StephenH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-11, 12:37 PM   #3
Pete In Az
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Arizona
Bikes: Raleigh Venture 3.0
Posts: 438
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
More wheels= more resistance.
Pete In Az is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-11, 12:39 PM   #4
fietsbob 
coprolite
 
fietsbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: NW,Oregon Coast
Bikes: 7
Posts: 20,412
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 650 Post(s)
Do State which law of Physics you have in mind, Inertia? Gravity?, Thermodynamics?
conservation of angular momentum?
fietsbob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-11, 01:37 PM   #5
alan s 
Senior Member
 
alan s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Washington, DC
Bikes:
Posts: 4,708
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by fietsbob View Post
Do State which law of Physics you have in mind, Inertia? Gravity?, Thermodynamics?
conservation of angular momentum?
TOE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything
alan s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-11, 04:31 PM   #6
Looigi
Senior Member
 
Looigi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Bikes:
Posts: 8,951
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
You say total weight is the same so the work against gravity will be the same. What will increase is friction due to the additional wheel bearings and tire and perhaps some increased wind resistance because the low slung BOB is below in the draft of your legs,whereas the paniers would be right behind them.
Looigi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-11, 10:59 PM   #7
coldfeet
Senior Member
 
coldfeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 2,119
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete In Az View Post
More wheels= more resistance.
This.
coldfeet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-11, 11:16 PM   #8
gregf83 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Bikes:
Posts: 7,389
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 114 Post(s)
If the wheel on the BOB trailer was the same as the wheels on the bike then it probably wouldn't make much difference and the rolling resistance is proportional to the load carried by the tire.

But a BOB trailer has a 16" wheel with a fat tire which will have higher rolling resistance that won't be offset by the lowered resistance of the bike tires. I would guess the difference would be less than 10W.
gregf83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-11, 11:17 PM   #9
Jeff Wills
Insane Bicycle Mechanic
 
Jeff Wills's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: other Vancouver
Bikes:
Posts: 7,978
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Well, if you're towing a 15 pound trailer with 35 pounds of gear vs. 50 pounds of gear on the bike, that's 15 pounds of stuff you don't have if you absolutely need it. On the other hand, if all you need is 35 pounds of gear, then that's all you need and you don't need the trailer.

IMO: if you're touring, it doesn't matter one way or the other.
__________________
Jeff Wills

Comcast nuked my web page. It will return soon..
Jeff Wills is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-11, 11:29 PM   #10
Mr. Cranky
No, not really.
 
Mr. Cranky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Kirkland, WA
Bikes: 2010 Cannondale Synapse Carbon 5, ~2006 Specialized Sequoia, 1999 Specialized Rockhopper
Posts: 231
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I would suspect that the trailer would be easier if the total weight was equal.

Yes, more wheels equals more resistance but it doesn't take a whole lot of power to spin a wheel. I think this would be outweighed (no pun intended) by the extra effort involved with the side-to-side motion of the frame and the extra weight in the panniers. The trailer would be mostly isolated from this side-to-side movement.
Mr. Cranky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-11, 03:23 AM   #11
fietsbob 
coprolite
 
fietsbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: NW,Oregon Coast
Bikes: 7
Posts: 20,412
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 650 Post(s)
+ a cheap Hub on BoB trailers upps the profit, so they use a cheap one.
fietsbob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-11, 05:20 AM   #12
AEO
Senior Member
 
AEO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: A Coffin Called Earth. or Toronto, ON
Bikes: Bianchi, Miyata, Dahon, Rossin
Posts: 12,258
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I haven't learnt fluid dynamics, but basically put, it is: air resistance vs. rolling resistance.
Factors that cancel out each other: weight, gradient, friction (of bike), air resistance (of bike and rider)
Although velocity is constant, because you are going up a hill, you are constantly accelerating to beat force of gravity and force of displacing air

Then you're left with:
air resistance (of panniers) vs. air resistance (of trailer) + rolling resistance (of trailer)

Now, since energy is conserved, rolling resistance does not change whether you go up or down the hill and air resistance increases exponentially the faster you go. By using potential energy, that is the energy stored by being at a higher altitude, one can measure how efficient each bike will conserve its energy by going DOWN the hill without pedalling and maintaining the same riding posture as going up. The bike with the longer run out or faster speed at the base will require LESS energy while going up the hill.

Potential energy is measured by Eg=mgh (Energy = mass x gravity x height). At the base of the hill, you have zero potential energy, because h=0. You will however, now have kinetic energy, which is Ek=0.5mv^2 (Energy = 0.5 x mass x velocity^2). Both bikes will have the SAME amount of energy when they are at the same height and weight. The less energy efficient bike will lose its energy to the surrounding system faster and end up slower at the base.
__________________
Food for thought: if you aren't dead by 2050, you and your entire family will be within a few years from starvation. Now that is a cruel gift to leave for your offspring. ;)
http://sanfrancisco.ibtimes.com/arti...ger-photos.htm

Last edited by AEO; 11-30-11 at 05:34 AM.
AEO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-11, 11:50 AM   #13
rwp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Reno, NV
Bikes:
Posts: 400
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEO View Post
I haven't learnt fluid dynamics, but basically put, it is: air resistance vs. rolling resistance.
Factors that cancel out each other: weight, gradient, friction (of bike), air resistance (of bike and rider)
Although velocity is constant, because you are going up a hill, you are constantly accelerating to beat force of gravity and force of displacing air

Then you're left with:
air resistance (of panniers) vs. air resistance (of trailer) + rolling resistance (of trailer)

Now, since energy is conserved, rolling resistance does not change whether you go up or down the hill and air resistance increases exponentially the faster you go. By using potential energy, that is the energy stored by being at a higher altitude, one can measure how efficient each bike will conserve its energy by going DOWN the hill without pedalling and maintaining the same riding posture as going up. The bike with the longer run out or faster speed at the base will require LESS energy while going up the hill.

Potential energy is measured by Eg=mgh (Energy = mass x gravity x height). At the base of the hill, you have zero potential energy, because h=0. You will however, now have kinetic energy, which is Ek=0.5mv^2 (Energy = 0.5 x mass x velocity^2). Both bikes will have the SAME amount of energy when they are at the same height and weight. The less energy efficient bike will lose its energy to the surrounding system faster and end up slower at the base.
It's not quite as simple as this. Air resistance will increase exponentially with speed but rolling resistance will increase linearly. Since speed will probably be much higher going downhill than up, the air resistance will exert a much higher relative force on the bike versus rolling resistance on the downhill run. To do this experiment correctly, you will need to find a very shallow hill which will give you a downhill coasting speed that approximates the uphill speed of the rider.
rwp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-11, 12:10 PM   #14
Booger1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Gaseous Cloud around Uranus
Bikes:
Posts: 3,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Doesn't matter......90% of touring effort,trailer or panniers,is in your head.....
Booger1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-11, 01:08 PM   #15
JohnDThompson 
Old fart
 
JohnDThompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Appleton WI
Bikes: Several, mostly not name brands.
Posts: 16,526
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by fietsbob View Post
+ a cheap Hub on BoB trailers upps the profit, so they use a cheap one.
When I bought a trailer to haul my kids around, the first thing I did was build new wheels for it. Nice aluminum BMX rims and sealed bearing hubs. 25 years later my brother-in-law is still using it to haul his kids around.
JohnDThompson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-11, 08:44 PM   #16
Mark Kelly 
Senior Member
 
Mark Kelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Willy, VIC
Bikes:
Posts: 642
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEO View Post
I haven't learnt fluid dynamics, <snip>

air resistance increases exponentially the faster you go. .
The second statement makes the first obvious.

Air resistance increases as the square of speed. That's a second order linear relationship, not an exponential one.

To the subject at hand: from experience, the trailer will be harder work than the panniers if your bike is built properly.

I used to compete in triathlons and since I wasn't a good swimmer (23:30 for 1500 m) I would spend most of the bike leg overtaking the better swimmers, especially on hills. I rode the the only bike I had at the time which had pannier racks and since I like annoying triathletes, I would occasionally ride races with panniers attached (with empty cardboard boxes in them). I take from thsi that the added air resistance of panniers is quite small.

I rode the same bike with a kiddy trailer for a while (until we found they were illegal where I lived). I never tried competing in the tris with it attached but the drag effect was very obvious.

Last edited by Mark Kelly; 11-30-11 at 08:55 PM.
Mark Kelly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-11, 09:42 PM   #17
Mr. Cranky
No, not really.
 
Mr. Cranky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Kirkland, WA
Bikes: 2010 Cannondale Synapse Carbon 5, ~2006 Specialized Sequoia, 1999 Specialized Rockhopper
Posts: 231
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Kelly View Post
Air resistance increases as the square of speed. That's a second order linear relationship, not an exponential one.
If something is squared, the exponent is 2, so I'd say that's exponential.
Mr. Cranky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-11, 09:53 PM   #18
wphamilton
rugged individualist
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Posts: 10,038
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 272 Post(s)
Same weight, the difference in rolling resistance will be trivial. If any, because the rolling resistance is proportional to weight (and speed) so while more wheels can give more resistance each of those wheels has less resistance in proportion to the lesser weight on each. The mechanical losses in the extra sets of bearings is almost nothing.

At the speeds mentioned, 6-12 mph, air resistance is not significant enough to be concerned about any delta. So the power requirements will be very close either way.

Handling and balance may be affected, which may make the rider less efficient on one setup or the other. My "physics" guess is that this is where the only real difference in wattage is found. Unless you want to consider higher speeds.
wphamilton is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-11, 09:54 PM   #19
fietsbob 
coprolite
 
fietsbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: NW,Oregon Coast
Bikes: 7
Posts: 20,412
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 650 Post(s)
Quote:
When I bought a trailer to haul my kids around, the first thing I did was build new wheels for it.
I got a 28 spoke WTB Grease Guard Front Hub with intention of doing that,
but the cargo practicality of the BoB trailer, got low marks after having it a while,
My typical use, ... so I sold it, instead.
local Hunters Use them for carcass hauling, Elk season, Mountain bike into the woods.

I still Have the Grease Guard sealed bearing Hub brand new
if some one reading this wants to buy it.
fietsbob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-11, 10:00 PM   #20
wphamilton
rugged individualist
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Posts: 10,038
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 272 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Cranky View Post
If something is squared, the exponent is 2, so I'd say that's exponential.
Usually we say f(x)=a^x is exponential. But since cyclists tend to say "exponential with speed" and we all know they really mean v^2, or v^3 talking about power, it doesn't merit arguing about.
wphamilton is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-11, 09:29 AM   #21
myrridin
Banned.
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Bikes:
Posts: 2,325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
All the theoretical debates aside, there is a reason that the scientific method includes experimentation. In this case, get a bike with a power meter. Set-up pannier and trailer experiments. Repeat each a few times (or more). Then see that the actual data says.

As with most real world situations; the theoretical makes assumptions (and simplifications) that may or may not be realistic. The only definitive way to determine the answer to a question like this is to MEASURE the real world results.
myrridin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-11, 09:36 AM   #22
myrridin
Banned.
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Bikes:
Posts: 2,325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Cranky View Post
If something is squared, the exponent is 2, so I'd say that's exponential.
It is semantics, but when the exponent is a constant it is usually referred to as polynomial growth. Exponential growth (where the exponent is a function) will always surpass both linear and polynomial growth over time.

Linear growth:
f(x) = a * x +b

Polynomial growth:
f(x) = a * x^b

Exponential growth:
f(x) = a * b^x
myrridin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-11, 11:26 AM   #23
venturi95
Woof!
 
venturi95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NorCal
Bikes: Breezer Venturi, Lemond Ti, Santa Cruz Blur, Soma Saga, Miyata Colorado
Posts: 282
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
You physics wonks crack me up, but I respect you nontheless. At 5 m.p.h. we can ignore wind resistance. A bike with only 2 wheels will always be more efficient than the same bike with a third wheel in contact with the ground.

Question is answered, clearly and concisely.

You're welcome.
venturi95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-11, 01:54 PM   #24
myrridin
Banned.
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Bikes:
Posts: 2,325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by venturi95 View Post
You physics wonks crack me up, but I respect you nontheless. At 5 m.p.h. we can ignore wind resistance. A bike with only 2 wheels will always be more efficient than the same bike with a third wheel in contact with the ground.

Question is answered, clearly and concisely.

You're welcome.
Sorry, but no. Simply add in head winds, tail winds, incline, pavement types, etc... Such answers are never simple and frequently counter intuitive.
myrridin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-11, 02:44 PM   #25
Garfield Cat
Senior Member
 
Garfield Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Bikes: Cervelo Prodigy
Posts: 6,067
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
I like the power meter approach as long as the rider must try to keep the same pace going up that hill. Then come to a dead stop at the top and just roll down to a finish line for timing.

Adding wind conditions messes up everything. Isn't there a ski slope in the Middle East that's completely encapsulated? Abu Dabi or Dubai, or something like that?

Myrridin is right, the scientific method is empirical, systematic observation.
Garfield Cat is offline   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 03:36 PM.