Originally Posted by
MaximRecoil
No, they aren't. I've made it very clear that I've been using the term "work" in the physics sense, which is just weight times distance.
Except that it's not.
It's force times distance. Force only equals weight if you're carrying your bike up a ladder. Which you generally aren't, which is why those several hundred pound cargo bikes can be moved by a human.
Hills are an intermediate situation.
There are countless examples where more work can be done with less effort. For example, simple machines like levers, pulleys, gears, etc., can result in more work but less effort.
Dubious. It's unclear how you are defining effort but you seem to be forgetting the distance component of work, which is the half of it you did get right above.
Work is something you just can't cheat at - use more leverage and you can apply less force, but you'll also move the load proportionally less against its force, than you move your end of the lever against yours. You can do your work more quickly or slowly but it's still the same amount of physics work. Choose a lower gear and you can mash the pedals less, but you'll have to make them go around more times - either spinning a higher cadence or taking longer to get there (and trust me, the reps of riding low gear high cadence are not free as a repetetive-motion toll on your body)
Do keep in mind that in cycling above relaxed pace, the dramatic rise of air resistance with speed increase is the main energy suck until you get to a climb - and that doesnt depend on weight or even show up in a simple physical machine type analysis.
But what about that hill?
Well, what about it. The work done in raising 20 lbs of bike 1000 feet is 20,000 foot pounds or 27 kilojoules.
But that's just 6.4 food calories.
Which is to say two m&m candies. Round up to three as an extremely generous reward for rolling resistance.