Originally Posted by
safe
In some cases I can see hard braking before going into a turn as a valid argument for using an energy recapture system (like KERS in F1) ... What I seek to show is that in something like a Tour De France style race that the adoption of "regen" has absolutely no benefit and would actually cause the user of the technology to fall behind if they actually used it fully.
So regenerative braking is likely to make race cars go faster, but slows bicycles??? I don't think so. You have put forth a strawman argument by asserting that regeneration used on bicycles must be done inefficiently and is therefore inefficient.
[edited for better accuracy, using
this bicycle calculator]
Now consider this time trial scenario. Descending a 1 mile hill, use regeneration to slow your descent from 30 mph down to 29. This add 4 seconds to your descent. On the following 1 mile ascent, despite inefficiencies you are able to use the stored energy to go 1 mph faster, increasing your speed from 5.6 to 6.6 mph, and thereby saving 97 seconds on the climb. The net result is 93 seconds faster, 12% off the original time.
There are clear advantages to the savvy use of regeneration and you better believe that competitors would jump at the chance to make use of it in a Tour de France style electric bike race.