Originally Posted by
PeteHski
Wattage IS the input. The output is how fast you go, which depends on the resistance. So my input power can be say 200W on whatever bike you give me as long as it has a sensible set of gears for its purpose.
At some point maybe you will eventually understand this or maybe not.
Your analogy with gas guzzler vs fuel efficient car is hopeless on all sorts of levels. Fuel efficiency has literally nothing to do with this argument about light vs heavy bikes.
Perhaps you shouldn't resort to hyperbole when describing another person's opinion. Hopeless? Not if the goal in exercise is to burn calories, which for many it is.
The points between input and output are pedantic. You know what I mean. People often speak of putting out x watts as a measure of their performance ie. I try to maintain x watts. Without a watt meter some use HR, without a HR monitor they use speed. Without a speedo they use perceived effort.
But you still haven't said how you maintain the same level of input on machines of varying resistance if you don't alter a variable.
A disconnect in these discussions has been that between cycling for exercise or cycling for cycling sake, with many defending their stance based on the latter. Much of the benefits of a higher tier bike relates to improving a person's cycling ability, rather than exercise. It's why people who are into cycling generally buy more expensive bikes than those who are only seeking exercise. They (the exercise only) instinctively understand that buying a bike that maximizes performance for racing isn't needed for achieving the goal of exercise. They is no practical benefit.