View Single Post
Old 07-12-18, 10:44 AM
  #28  
79pmooney
A Roadie Forever
 
79pmooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 6,686

Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder

Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1537 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 11 Times in 10 Posts
Originally Posted by Kontact View Post
Actually, physics says it takes more energy to accelerate more weight, all else being equal.

Fuel mileage estimates include things like starting and stopping, and an average acceleration up to speed. But a cyclist in a flat area could only need to get up to speed once at the beginning of the ride, and physics will reward them for the momentum of their heavy bike by decreasing the minor decelerations from corning, wind, etc. Heavy bikes on flats are more efficient.

So you want to make blanket statements, but it doesn't sound like you've actually thought through the actual conditions mileage tests are performed under. I would expect your next myth buster is to tell cyclists it doesn't take more energy to ride faster since car MPGs are always lower for faster highway conditions. That wind resistance thing must be a myth!
Not always. The Prius C has a drivetrain tailored to city driving and fares worse at highway speeds, especially as the speeds get above ~60 mph. Then it becomes simply more work and the engine has to run full time. You get to see that wind resistance is quite real - in real time with the running MPG on the dash and in the wallet at the gas pump.

Ben
79pmooney is offline