Originally Posted by
Jeff Neese
I think we all know this is not a formally sanctioned peer review body of experts. I'm using the term peer review in a more generic sense. In the business world we talking about proposals or analysis going through "peer review" which is exactly what we're doing here. Making information or data available to a wider audience (our peers) and inviting critique. But that critique can't be just yelling "Hogwash!" with nothing to back it up. So far I haven't seen anyone's alternative mathematical proofs.
We really can't make this any easier for you ...
Originally Posted by
tomato coupe
This seems like a good place to re-post a link
https://www.globalcyclingnetwork.com...n-cycling-myth
(go to 18:00 if you want to skip to the summary)
and insert this quote from another thread:
Originally Posted by RChung
Back in 2011 I worked a little bit on modeling the team pursuit in prep for the 2012 Olympics. (For oddball reasons we worked with the American and Canadian women's pursuit teams). One of the tricky things is that in team pursuit there are pretty wild swings in power (and thus acceleration) as you rotate both through the team and also around the velodrome. Wheel speed actually rises and falls more than center of mass speed since in the turns the bikes lean over so the wheels take a longer path than the rider, and the center of mass drops and then rises as you come out of the turn and onto the straights.
So we knew the geometry of the track and how much each rider would lean at what speed in each turn--and, we knew the wheel weight, and had figured out "where" in the wheel the "mass centroid" was so we could calculate the moment of inertia. We did this because this was one of the first times we were trying to get good high quality high precision estimates of CdA and Crr from field-based tests using power meters. Our model was very good, so once we had proper estimates of CdA and Crr, and using the carefully calibrated power meters, we could absolutely *nail* the speed for power for a rider both on the straight and on the turns. I was agog that my calculations worked so well--I hadn't actually expected that.
Here's the thing: although we had the moment of inertia for the wheels, it quickly became evident that the MOI was a small enough contribution that we could simplify the model and ignore it. Even though the speeds and accelerations were high, our predictions of speed for power didn't significantly depend on it at all.