Originally Posted by
newsun
I think you are missing the point UMD is making. If a road bike as a higher coefficient to speed vs the mountain bike yielding a higher speed with the same input, then it is inherently faster. So if two riders race and one is on mtn bike and one is on a road bike and they both put the same wattage or power to the pedal with the same gear ratio, then the road bike will win due to it's efficiency.
I honestly don't know if this is the case. And when racing you have different motors and different bikes often, although usually road vs road, mtn vs mtn. I think there is a reason for this.
All other things aside, same gearing, same power: 26" wheels vs 700c or 27" wheels and the larger diameter wheel will top out at a higher speed due to more circumference rolling per hub rotation. It's simple math there.
I don't think I'm missing umd's point. I don't know what "coefficient to speed" means.
Inherently means "existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute: an inherent distrust of strangers." To say a road bike is
inherently faster than a mountain bike is to say that a road bike possesses the
permanent, inseparable attribute of being faster than a mountain bike. Thus, no mountain bike will ever move faster than any road bike. That's obviously isn't true.
The speed you achieve on a bicycle depends in part on your effort level. We all agree on this. But effort level is not an attribute of a bicycle; it's an attribute of the person riding the bicycle. Thus, a road bike is not
inherently faster than a mountain bike. The mere fact that we make reference to effort level to explain how fast each bike can move proves my point.
Honestly, I don't understand how we can argue about this. This isn't about simple math; it's about the definition of inherently.