Originally Posted by
venturi95
I disagree. You are assuming the rider's output is a mathematically perfect model. In reality there is a pulsating nature of power output, twice each crank revolution, from beginning to end of the climb. With a cadence of 80 rpm, 160 times a minute the rider is trying to accelerate upwards. "Micro accelerations" do not simply cancel each other out.
Take two identical riders and bikes. Have the first climb a steep 3 mile hill at 6 mph (30 minutes). Have the second climb the same hill in 30 minutes, but have him coast (no brakes) to a stop every 100 feet. Your argument says they do the same energy expenditure, perhaps mathematically they do, but we all know that's just not how cycling uphill works.
Originally Posted by
venturi95
Oh, FFS, do you not see the guy slowing at the bottom of his pedal stroke? You are the one inventing here, HUMANS DO NOT PEDAL PERFECTLY 360 degrees, more so when stressed a bit climbing.
Most of this thread is about the demand for power imposed by different wheels. That's a physics problem. You've introduced something about the supply of power, which is a physiology problem. The physics problem describes the minimum amount of power one would need to make, and includes both static mass, and rotating wheel mass. However, there are lots of different ways for a rider to produce that power; some of which are "harder" and others "easier": for example, speeding up past your threshold and then coasting to a near stop, then speed up past threshold again. That's a physiological issue, not about the wheels. That is, if you're speeding up past threshold and then coasting, that's not something that is dependent on the wheels. You can be that hard-headed whether you're using light or aero wheels.