Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Commuting
Reload this Page >

Excited to start bike commuting! but will i hate a steel frame?

Commuting Bicycle commuting is easier than you think, before you know it, you'll be hooked. Learn the tips, hints, equipment, safety requirements for safely riding your bike to work.

Excited to start bike commuting! but will i hate a steel frame?

Old 07-30-12, 08:04 AM
  #26  
Bike Gremlin
Bike Gremlin
 
Bike Gremlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Novi Sad
Posts: 4,071

Bikes: Custom made on Scott Speedster frame, Custom made on a 1996. steel MTB frame (all but frame changed at least once in the past 20 years).

Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 946 Post(s)
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
I commute every day, some 11 kilometres each way. That is between 30 and 45 minute ride, depending on wind, traffic etc.

Originally Posted by skadelphius View Post
Hi all,
My question is: how much does bike weight factor into the day to day commute for y'all?
I have a 20 kilogram commuter bike (29er). It is aluminium frame, very stiff, with some tools, pump, water bottle, rear rack, lights etc. I also have a 10 kilogram road race bike. Race bike is more nippy, more fun, but difference from one to the other is just some 5 kilometres per hour for similar effort put in. That makes some 5 minute difference (eg. 30 instead of 35 minutes).

When I get speed, on long straights, weight is not an issue. Weight is an issue when you accelerate from traffic lights and when going uphill. However, since I weigh some 70 kilograms, I often carry some 20 more kilograms of stuff, the 10 kg difference in bike weight is not that significant.

Originally Posted by skadelphius View Post
Hi all,
The marin is cool but i did a quick test ride on it and it was as heavy as you'd expect for a big steel frame. I was planning on making weight a priority in searching for a mtb frame, but I want to be sure that that's the right thing to focus on as i negotiate the tradeoffs of price/quality etc.

Sorry for the somewhat rambling post, would really appreciate any advice!
The uglier and cheaper the bike - the better. If it works fine, no problem. For me: I need bike to fit me, to be comfortable. I also like having some gears (shifters, derailleurs) even on flats. Why? When riding against strong wind, in snow, when heavily loaded etc. Starting from traffic lights in lower gears is quicker. Feels nicer on knees etc.


Just get some books on basic bike maintenance. You should be able to fix a flat tyre, do some simple adjustments, check brakes etc. It's not necesery, but very helpful.

Many people say steel is more comfy than aluminium. Don't know about that. For me, the biggest diference in comfort are: fit of the bike and tyre width. Aluminium is good since it doesn't rust when I ride in winter salty roads.
Bike Gremlin is offline  
Old 07-30-12, 08:11 AM
  #27  
osephjey
Senior Member
 
osephjey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Indy
Posts: 127

Bikes: Trek Soho S (sold), Bridgestone 300 SS (stolen), 1988 Raleigh Technium The Chill

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Have you checked out the Marin Hamilton 29er (chromo SS)? I was eyeballing that when I bought my Trek Soho S (aluminum) 2 1/2 years ago. (The beginning of my bicyclingness as an adult). I only bought the Soho b/c there were no bike shops around here (Indy) that stocked Marin bikes. The closest one was Cincinnati 120 miles away give or take. I saw the Soho was on sale at a bike shop in Bloomington 60 miles away. It was the previous model year marked down to $400. Anywho, as far as steel vs. aluminum, I traded my Soho (was having sciatic pain) for a mid 80's Bridgestone 300 (chromo SS convert), (since stolen), and the ride feel was dramatically better. I can't say it was specifically the frame material that made the difference as the 300 had 32c kendas vs 28c hardcase on the Soho. The 300 did seem to absorb some of my power and had some frame flex, but I loved it. It was also about 4-5 pounds heavier than the trek, but I didn't notice it much. Anywho now I'm on a Giant Escape with an aluminum frame and 35c (front kenda kwest rear pasela tg) tires, and it feels every bit as comfortable as the 300. It also handles hills better probably due to the stiffer frame. In short, my experience tells me that ride comfort has more to do with tire width than frame material. There also isn't a dramatic difference in speed between the 28c, 32c, and 35c. In fact when riding on real streets, as opposed to MUPs, I found the 28c tires felt slower when the surface was rough when compared to the larger sizes. I know my analysis is far from scientific, but my opinion is that as long as the bike feels like the right fit, the next biggest factor in comfort is tire selection.
osephjey is offline  
Old 07-30-12, 09:18 AM
  #28  
cyccommute 
Mad bike riding scientist
 
cyccommute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 21,258

Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, an orange one and a few titanium ones

Mentioned: 92 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2473 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 104 Times in 71 Posts
Originally Posted by SlimRider View Post
[B]Myosmith says:
The equation is simplified, but not over simplied in our bicycle application. Energy is mathematically equivalent to Work, but not Power. Power is a function of time. Either the Energy expended, or the Work performed, over a period of time, determines Power.

If the masses are different, but the velocities are held constant, the greater momentum would be given to the higher mass. We don't have to square the velocities with respect to Energy, due to the fact that the velocities are equivalent for each mass.

As long as you can provide a force that is equal to the frictional force, constant velocity can be maintained.

E = W ---> Joules

P = E/t ---> Watts

P = W/t ---> Watts
In order to provide the force necessary to maintain velocity, you have to provide acceleration. Thus you are constantly accelerating to overcome frictional forces caused by many factors including road friction, bearing friction and air resistance. The more mass you have the more force you have to apply to keep that constant velocity. The heavier bike does have more momentum but the magnitude of the frictional forces acting on the system are higher for the heavier bike and thus the bike would slow down faster without outside forces acting on it. That's the part that you missed.

Another real world example: An 80,000 lb semi has much more momentum than a 1500 lb hybrid. Get both up to the same speed and then quite applying the force necessary to maintain the momentum. Which is going coast the longest? It ain't gonna be the semi. On the other hand, which is going to need more energy to maintain the velocity? Again, not the semi.
__________________
Stuart Black
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Days of Wineless Roads. Bed and Breakfasting along the KATY
Twisting Down the Alley. Misadventures in tornado alley.
An Good Ol' Fashion Appalachian Butt Whoopin'.

Last edited by cyccommute; 07-30-12 at 09:23 AM.
cyccommute is offline  
Old 07-30-12, 09:31 AM
  #29  
alan s 
Senior Member
 
alan s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 6,617
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1321 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 45 Times in 29 Posts
Originally Posted by cyccommute View Post
On the other hand, which is going to need more energy to maintain the velocity? Again, not the semi.
I'm not a physics guy, but common sense would tell me the semi would require more energy than a hybrid to maintain the same velocity.
alan s is online now  
Old 07-30-12, 09:38 AM
  #30  
Phil_gretz
Journeyman Bike Commuter
 
Phil_gretz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 5,038

Bikes: '71 Jeunet 630, '79 Peugeot PXN10LE, '83 Fuji America, '88 Fuji Saratoga, '13 Motobecane Fantom29 HT, '16 Motobecane Turino Pro Disc, '16 Motobecane Gran Premio Elite, '18 Velobuild VB-R-022

Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 569 Post(s)
Liked 77 Times in 51 Posts
Originally Posted by SlimRider View Post
BHe'd then tell the LBS salesman...
Anybody remember those days?....
I know very few fathers in the 1960s or 1970s who had ever set foot in a bicycle store. Am I wrong here?

My dad certainly didn't. I bought my first French bike in a sporting store with my mom at my side, with my own savings. My dad had bought me my first 10-speed, at a department store. Within two years, I was replacing it...
Phil_gretz is offline  
Old 07-30-12, 09:55 AM
  #31  
Doohickie 
You gonna eat that?
 
Doohickie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Fort Worth, Texas Church of Hopeful Uncertainty
Posts: 14,681

Bikes: 1966 Raleigh DL-1 Tourist, 1973 Schwinn Varsity, 1983 Raleigh Marathon, 1994 Nishiki Sport XRS

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Myosmith View Post
Power (aka Energy)
Power and energy are not the same. Go To Physics I, Do Not Collect $200.
__________________
I stop for people / whose right of way I honor / but not for no one.


Originally Posted by bragi "However, it's never a good idea to overgeneralize."
Doohickie is offline  
Old 07-30-12, 09:57 AM
  #32  
Doohickie 
You gonna eat that?
 
Doohickie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Fort Worth, Texas Church of Hopeful Uncertainty
Posts: 14,681

Bikes: 1966 Raleigh DL-1 Tourist, 1973 Schwinn Varsity, 1983 Raleigh Marathon, 1994 Nishiki Sport XRS

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by cyccommute View Post
Which is going coast the longest? It ain't gonna be the semi.
Yes, the semi.
__________________
I stop for people / whose right of way I honor / but not for no one.


Originally Posted by bragi "However, it's never a good idea to overgeneralize."
Doohickie is offline  
Old 07-30-12, 11:20 AM
  #33  
Roody
Sophomoric Member
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Posts: 24,219
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 704 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by skadelphius View Post
Thanks everyone! Needed the reality check! The last time i was in a cycling community (or even riding frequently) was a couple years ago when i was racing bottom-barrel cross country classes on a top 10 ranked D1 collegiate team. Needless to say my peers there had a different opinion of bike weight. Plus the last place i lived where i biked anywhere for errands etc. was a notoriously hilly city and that experience kinda scarred me from a commuting standpoint. Now I definitely will feel a lot better about going steel if and when i end up doing so! I will repay your advise by posting here more once i'm commuting and have experience to contribute


Get the tool that's best for the job. Somebody here compared donkeys to race horses. You wouldn't use a race horse to plow 40 acres, nor would you enter a donkey in the Kentucky Derby.

Of course some commuters think they're Secretariat, when they're really just a jackass.
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline  
Old 07-30-12, 11:25 AM
  #34  
caloso
Packfodding 3
 
caloso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Posts: 38,035

Bikes: Ridley Excalibur, Gazelle Champion Mondial, On-One Pompino, Specialized Rock Hopper

Mentioned: 57 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1822 Post(s)
Liked 148 Times in 91 Posts
Unless you're having to carry your bike up stairs or climbing extended hills, I wouldn't fret over a few extra pounds on a commuter. If it fits your body, riding style, and budget, then that's a good bike.
caloso is offline  
Old 07-30-12, 12:14 PM
  #35  
ThermionicScott 
hungry
 
ThermionicScott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CID
Posts: 18,424

Bikes: 1991 Bianchi Eros, 1964 Armstrong, 1988 Diamondback Ascent, 1988 Bianchi Premio, 1987 Bianchi Sport SX, 1980s Raleigh mixte (hers)

Mentioned: 68 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2029 Post(s)
Liked 99 Times in 82 Posts
Originally Posted by Roody View Post
Get the tool that's best for the job. Somebody here compared donkeys to race horses. You wouldn't use a race horse to plow 40 acres...
B-b-but they did in "War Horse"!
__________________
Originally Posted by chandltp View Post
There's no such thing as too far.. just lack of time
Originally Posted by noglider
People in this forum are not typical.
RUSA #7498
ThermionicScott is offline  
Old 07-30-12, 01:56 PM
  #36  
rumrunn6
Senior Member
 
rumrunn6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 25 miles northwest of Boston
Posts: 22,886

Bikes: Bottecchia Sprint, GT Timberline 29r

Mentioned: 87 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3037 Post(s)
Liked 121 Times in 98 Posts
commuters are not weight conscious but I have enjoyed working my way onto lighter and more efficient bikes as time progressed.
rumrunn6 is online now  
Old 07-31-12, 04:02 AM
  #37  
SlimRider
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Northern California
Posts: 5,804

Bikes: Raleigh Grand Prix, Giant Innova, Nishiki Sebring, Trek 7.5FX

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Cyccommute says:

In order to provide the force necessary to maintain velocity, you have to provide acceleration. Thus you are constantly accelerating to overcome frictional forces caused by many factors including road friction, bearing friction and air resistance. The more mass you have the more force you have to apply to keep that constant velocity. The heavier bike does have more momentum but the magnitude of the frictional forces acting on the system are higher for the heavier bike and thus the bike would slow down faster without outside forces acting on it.
Once the applied force is removed, a heavier mass has a greater momentum, and a lighter mass has a smaller momentum. If both masses are moving at the same velocity and then suddenly, the applied force necessary to provide a constant velocity is removed, then the only dominant linear force acting would be the opposing force of motion which is friction. This will tend to slow both the heavier mass and the lighter mass down. However, since their frictional forces are weight (mass) dependent, they each will have a different and independent frictional force. The lighter massed object will have a lower frictional force. Therefore, its inertial effects will be less and it will be more inclined to stop at a shorter distance, as inertia is weight (mass) dependent. The heavier massed object will tend to coast longer, since its weight (mass) is greater.

Now the only problem remaining is justifying Newton's second law,
F = ma. It is true, that the entire time that the larger mass and the smaller mass are moving at the same constant velocity, frictional forces are opposing the forces causing their forward motion. Since these frictional forces are constant all the while motion is occurring, an applied force is required to maintain a constant velocity.

While the heavier massed object has a larger mass-dependent frictional force, it also has a larger momentum. It therefore, would be difficult to actually determine the rate at which it's actually slowing down.
It would also be difficult to determine the rate at which the smaller massed object slows down, as well.

There's no doubt that the applied force opposed by the required frictional force of the greater mass, has to be greater, in order to match the larger frictional force of the more massive object, in order for it to move at a constant velocity.

Likewise, the applied force of the lighter mass has to equal the smaller frictional force of the smaller moving mass.

Another real world example: An 80,000 lb semi has much more momentum than a 1500 lb hybrid. Get both up to the same speed and then quite applying the force necessary to maintain the momentum. Which is going coast the longest? It ain't gonna be the semi. On the other hand, which is going to need more energy to maintain the velocity? Again, not the semi.

This example is seriously flawed. We will use extremes in order to emphasize your error. Let's take an eighteen wheeler truck on a flat asphalt road. Let's also take a bicycle on that same flat asphalt road.
They're both moving top speed at 40 mph. Suddenly, they both stop accelerating at the same time. The truck driver takes his foot completely off the accelerator and the cyclist holds his feet out to the sides of the bike. We now are free to observe how far down the road they will both travel.

Do you actually think your bike will coast further down the road than the truck?

Better yet, think of a toy truck moving at 40 mph and then you suddenly place your remote down and just watch it coast. Do you actually think a 5 lb. toy will coast a longer distance than a 40 ton truck?

Last edited by SlimRider; 07-31-12 at 10:33 AM.
SlimRider is offline  
Old 07-31-12, 07:25 AM
  #38  
cyccommute 
Mad bike riding scientist
 
cyccommute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 21,258

Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, an orange one and a few titanium ones

Mentioned: 92 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2473 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 104 Times in 71 Posts
Originally Posted by SlimRider View Post
A heavier mass has a greater momentum. A lighter mass has a smaller momentum. If both masses are moving at the same velocity and then suddenly, the applied force necessary to provide a constant velocity is removed, then the only linear force acting would be the opposing force of motion which is friction. This will tend to slow both the heavy mass and the lighter mass down. However, since their frictional forces are weight dependent, they each will have a different and independent frictional force. The lighter massed object will have a lower frictional force. Therefore, it inertial effects will be less and it will be more inclined to stop at a shorter distance, as inertia is weight (mass) dependent. The heavier massed object will tend to coast longer, since its weight (mass) is greater.

Now the only problem remaining is justifying Newton's second law,
F = ma. It is true, that the entire time that the larger mass and the smaller mass are moving at the same constant velocity, frictional forces are opposing the forces causing their forward motion. Since these frictional forces are constant all the while motion is occurring, an applied force is required to maintain a constant velocity.
There are actual two sources of linear force...air friction and tire friction. You could argue for a third source from the bearings in the wheels but that is only a marginal marginal source. Let's assume that the forces are equal in both the heavier bike and the lighter bike. There might be slightly less tire friction in the lighter bike but the magnitude of the difference is small enough to ignore. Let's also assume that the frictional force of the air is the same for both bikes.

Mass, or inertia, measures the resistance of a body to changes in its motion. Yes, the larger mass has more resistance to changes in its motion than the lighter body. That's Newton's First Law: A body will remain in its state of motion. But there is another part of that law...unless acted upon by an external force. The external forces in this case are the friction of the surface and the friction of the air. But now let's leave momentum behind and concentrate on the forces.

The frictional forces are related to the mass of the body. The frictional forces are going to have a greater effect on the larger mass because the negative acceleration of the friction is the same for both bodies. You even state this when you say that "an applied force is required to maintain a constant velocity". Yes, an force is necessary to maintain a constant velocity but the force required is higher for a heavier object. Because you have to apply force constantly to maintain a constant velocity when stop applying that force, the negative forces of friction have a higher impact on the heavier body and it slows down faster.

The problem with your thinking is that you are thinking of the ideal physic model of a frictionless surface in a vacuum when you discuss only momentum. Yes, the momentum of the heavier mass is greater but so are the external forces acting on that body.


Originally Posted by SlimRider View Post
While the heavier massed object has a larger mass-dependent frictional force, it also has a larger momentum. It therefore, would be difficult to actually determine the rate at which it's actually slowing down.
It would also be difficult to determine the rate at which the smaller massed object slows down, as well.
Not at all. If you know the frictional force of the air and the surface at the starting speed and you have the mass of the objects, you can easily calculate the change in speed with time due to the frictional forces.

Originally Posted by SlimRider View Post
There's no doubt that the applied force opposed by the required frictional force of the greater mass, has to be greater, in order to match the larger frictional force of the more massive object, in order for it to move at a constant velocity.

Likewise, the applied force of the lighter mass has to equal the smaller frictional force of the smaller moving mass.
And therein lies your problem of failing to understand. If you remove the applied force to overcome the frictional forces, the frictional forces have a higher magnitude on the larger mass. Momentum will only remain constant if there is no external force acting on the system. In a real world case of bicycles in air and on a surface with friction, the momentum can't remain constant because there is an external force acting on the system.



Originally Posted by SlimRider View Post
This example is seriously flawed.

Let me reword my example: Get two objects that are the same size so that air drag is the same. Make one weigh 80,000 lb and one weigh 1500 lbs. Now set them in motion to a constant speed and remove the force keeping them at that speed. Because the large mass is being acted upon by more mass, the magnitude of the frictional forces is much higher. Yes, the object has more momentum but the magnitude of the frictional forces is also larger. The heavier object will lose speed much more rapidly than the smaller mass.

If the objects were smaller, say bicycle sized, the same applies. And that is why I said your equation is too simplistic. You simply can't dismiss the frictional forces in a real world example.
__________________
Stuart Black
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Days of Wineless Roads. Bed and Breakfasting along the KATY
Twisting Down the Alley. Misadventures in tornado alley.
An Good Ol' Fashion Appalachian Butt Whoopin'.
cyccommute is offline  
Old 07-31-12, 07:27 AM
  #39  
cyccommute 
Mad bike riding scientist
 
cyccommute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 21,258

Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, an orange one and a few titanium ones

Mentioned: 92 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2473 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 104 Times in 71 Posts
Originally Posted by Doohickie View Post
Yes, the semi.
Go To Physics II, Do Not Collect $200.
__________________
Stuart Black
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Days of Wineless Roads. Bed and Breakfasting along the KATY
Twisting Down the Alley. Misadventures in tornado alley.
An Good Ol' Fashion Appalachian Butt Whoopin'.
cyccommute is offline  
Old 07-31-12, 07:41 AM
  #40  
alan s 
Senior Member
 
alan s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 6,617
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1321 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 45 Times in 29 Posts
If you had two identical coal cars rolling down level parallel tracks at the same initial speed, one full and the other empty (same aerodynamic drag), which would roll farther?
alan s is online now  
Old 07-31-12, 08:04 AM
  #41  
SlimRider
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Northern California
Posts: 5,804

Bikes: Raleigh Grand Prix, Giant Innova, Nishiki Sebring, Trek 7.5FX

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Cyccommute says:

There are actual two sources of linear force...air friction and tire friction. You could argue for a third source from the bearings in the wheels but that is only a marginal marginal source. Let's assume that the forces are equal in both the heavier bike and the lighter bike. There might be slightly less tire friction in the lighter bike but the magnitude of the difference is small enough to ignore. Let's also assume that the frictional force of the air is the same for both bikes.
Impossible! Since the heavier bike has more mass, it must therefore by default, possess a higher frictional force, as you have already stated. Besides, we don't have to consider the frictional forces independently. Let's just combine all frictional forces and combine their theoretical magnitudes. They will all have to be oriented in the same vectoral direction, because they're all opposing the motion of the heavier bicycle.


Mass, or inertia, measures the resistance of a body to changes in its motion. Yes, the larger mass has more resistance to changes in its motion than the lighter body. That's Newton's First Law: A body will remain in its state of motion. But there is another part of that law...unless acted upon by an external force. The external forces in this case are the friction of the surface and the friction of the air. But now let's leave momentum behind and concentrate on the forces.
No. Let's not leave momentum behind...

The frictional forces are related to the mass of the body. The frictional forces are going to have a greater effect on the larger mass because the negative acceleration of the friction is the same for both bodies. You even state this when you say that "an applied force is required to maintain a constant velocity". Yes, an force is necessary to maintain a constant velocity but the force required is higher for a heavier object. Because you have to apply force constantly to maintain a constant velocity when stop applying that force, the negative forces of friction have a higher impact on the heavier body and it slows down faster.
I agree with everything here, with the exception that the negative forces of friction having such a huge effect in slowing down the heavier body, faster...

The problem with your thinking is that you are thinking of the ideal physic model of a frictionless surface in a vacuum when you discuss only momentum. Yes, the momentum of the heavier mass is greater but so are the external forces acting on that body
.

No. My problem is two fold. Reconciling momentum with Newton's second law would be the first problem. The second problem is your clearly erroneous example.

I will soon solve my first problem. You'll have to withdraw your flawed example for me to not to recognize my second problem.



Not at all. If you know the frictional force of the air and the surface at the starting speed and you have the mass of the objects, you can easily calculate the change in speed with time due to the frictional forces.
However, you don't know the combined frictional force magnitude. Neither do you possess any knowledge about the intial speed when the applied force is removed.

And therein lies your problem of failing to understand. If you remove the applied force to overcome the frictional forces, the frictional forces have a higher magnitude on the larger mass. Momentum will only remain constant if there is no external force acting on the system. In a real world case of bicycles in air and on a surface with friction, the momentum can't remain constant because there is an external force acting on the system.
Just like someone can push a block at a constant rate to provide a constant velocity, someone can also pedal a bike or step on an accelerator at a constant rate too. You would constantly apply a force, in order to provide a constant velocity.





Let me reword my example: Get two objects that are the same size so that air drag is the same. Make one weigh 80,000 lb and one weigh 1500 lbs. Now set them in motion to a constant speed and remove the force keeping them at that speed. Because the large mass is being acted upon by more mass, the magnitude of the frictional forces is much higher. Yes, the object has more momentum but the magnitude of the frictional forces is also larger. The heavier object will lose speed much more rapidly than the smaller mass.

If the objects were smaller, say bicycle sized, the same applies. And that is why I said your equation is too simplistic. You simply can't dismiss the frictional forces in a real world example.
Your example remains flawed...

Last edited by SlimRider; 08-02-12 at 02:05 PM.
SlimRider is offline  
Old 07-31-12, 08:12 AM
  #42  
SlimRider
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Northern California
Posts: 5,804

Bikes: Raleigh Grand Prix, Giant Innova, Nishiki Sebring, Trek 7.5FX

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by alan s View Post
I'm not a physics guy, but common sense would tell me the semi would require more energy than a hybrid to maintain the same velocity.
And you're absolutely right!

Originally Posted by alan s View Post
If you had two identical coal cars rolling down level parallel tracks at the same initial speed, one full and the other empty (same aerodynamic drag), which would roll farther?
The full one, of course!
SlimRider is offline  
Old 07-31-12, 08:25 AM
  #43  
PatrickGSR94
Senior Member
 
PatrickGSR94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Memphis TN area
Posts: 7,394

Bikes: 2011 Felt Z85 (road/commuter), 2006 Marin Pine Mountain (utility/commuter E-bike), 1995 KHS Alite 1000 (gravel grinder)

Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 672 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
OP's commuting excitement thread has been derailed by a scientific physics debate
PatrickGSR94 is offline  
Old 07-31-12, 09:52 AM
  #44  
cyccommute 
Mad bike riding scientist
 
cyccommute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 21,258

Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, an orange one and a few titanium ones

Mentioned: 92 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2473 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 104 Times in 71 Posts
Originally Posted by SlimRider View Post
Impossible! Since the heavier bike has more mass, it must therefore by default, possess a higher frictional force, as you have already stated. Besides, we don't have to consider the frictional forces indepemdently. Let's just combine all frictional forces and combine their theoretical magnitudes. They will all have to be oriented in the same vectoral direction, because they're all opposing the motion of the heavier bicycle.
Of course you are right that the frictional force is higher in the case of the heavier bike. I mistakenly referred to the frictional force when I should have said that the coefficient of friction is the same. I made the same mistake with air, using frictional force when I should have been referring to air's fluid properties being the same. My mistake. However...

You've painted yourself into a corner. When you state that the frictional force on the heavier bike is greater, that's exactly what I've been saying all along. Because the frictional forces on the heavier bike are larger, their impact on the momentum of the bike are also larger, hence the bike would slow down faster. If the negative acceleration caused by friction and air in both bikes is is the same but the force is larger in one over the other, the only way that the force can be made greater is by the higher mass.

Originally Posted by SlimRider View Post
No. Let's not leave momentum behind...
We leave the momentum behind to concentrate on the forces acting on the body. We don't need to discuss the momentum...for now.


Originally Posted by SlimRider View Post
I agree with everything here, with the exception that the negative forces of friction having such a huge effect in slowing down the heavier body, faster...
Look at it this way: If you were to only concentrate on momentum, then a body traveling up a hill has the same moment for a given velocity as it does on a flat surface. If you stop applying force to maintain that velocity, what happens to the body? If you have two bodies traveling up the hill at the same velocity but with different momentums and you stopped applying force, which body would slow down faster? And why?

Like I said, you've painted yourself into a corner.

Originally Posted by SlimRider View Post
No. My problem is two fold. Reconciling momentum with Newton's second law would be the first problem. The second problem is your clearly erroneous example.

I will soon solve my first problem. You'll have to withdraw your flawed example for me to not to recognize my second problem.

Why does a lighter bike climb better than a heavy bike? Why does it take more energy and power to lift a heavier body than it does to lift a lighter body? You seem to understand that it takes more force to keep a heavier body moving at the same momentum as a lighter body without understanding why.


Originally Posted by SlimRider View Post
However, you don't know the combined frictional force magnitude. Neither do you possess any knowledge about the intial speed when the applied force is removed.
I'm being lazy and won't do the calculations but they wouldn't be all that hard to do. If you set all the variables...initial speed, coefficient of friction for air and the surface, surface area of the bodies, etc...to the same value the problem becomes much easier. If everything is equal, you don't really need to know the absolute values.

Originally Posted by SlimRider View Post
Just like someone can push a block at a constant rate to provide a constant velocity, someone can also pedal a bike or step on an accelerator at a constant rate too. You would constantly apply a force, in order to provide a constant velocity.
Yes, you would constantly apply a force but, in the presence of restrictive forces, the force needed to maintain a given velocity is higher for a larger mass. Again with the painting and the corner.



Originally Posted by SlimRider View Post
Your example remains flawed...
Okay, lets take the wheels off to simplify it further. Let's make the surface area of both objects the same so that the area being acted on in both objects is the same. Put them on a concrete surface. Give them a shove so that they are traveling the same velocity. The momentum of the 80,000 lb object is higher than the momentum of the 1500 lb object, correct? Correct. However the frictional force is greater than or equal to the coefficient of friction times the normal force (force of gravity). Since the coefficient of friction of each is the same, the only thing acting on the objects is air resistance (but we'll neglect that) and the normal force. Stop shoving. Which body is going to come to rest first?

Originally Posted by SlimRider View Post
And you're absolutely right!
Yep, he is right. But you've missed the point. If it takes more force keep a body in motion in the face of external forces, the quicker those external forces will act on the body when the motive force is removed.

Originally Posted by SlimRider View Post
The full one, of course!
Nope. See above.
__________________
Stuart Black
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Days of Wineless Roads. Bed and Breakfasting along the KATY
Twisting Down the Alley. Misadventures in tornado alley.
An Good Ol' Fashion Appalachian Butt Whoopin'.
cyccommute is offline  
Old 07-31-12, 10:29 AM
  #45  
Ray Lovinggood
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 71

Bikes: Fuji Touring, Fuji ACR 2.0, Roubaix & a Peugeot of mid 1980's vintage, orig 12 vitesse, now a single speed. Converted to fixie/single speed before I got it.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Skadelphius:
A steel frame works quite well for me and I really do like the ride it gives. The bike is a Fuji "Touring", with steel frame, steel fork, and 32mm tires. It came with a rack, which I much prefer rather than a backpack, and braze-on's for a front rack/paniers and fenders. I've added fenders since buying the bike.

One thing I wish it had: Disk brakes. You can get a Surly Long Haul Trucker variant with disk brakes now. I think it's called "Disk Trucker" or something like that.

My only other bike is a Fuji road bike with an aluminum main frame and with a carbon fork and seat stays. It weighs aproximately 20 lbs to the "Touring" which is around 30 or 32 lbs. Heck, it might even be 34. It's not like I put it on the scales every day... Anyway, I really like the ride the combination of steel frame and 32mm tires provide. I've commuted on the road bike a couple of times when the Touring was in the shop or for whatever reason. Yea, the lighter weight bike is really fun to ride, but I missed the ride of the Touring.

Get a nice steel bike and commute!

Ray

Last edited by Ray Lovinggood; 07-31-12 at 10:31 AM. Reason: Not editing before hitting the "send" button.
Ray Lovinggood is offline  
Old 07-31-12, 10:46 AM
  #46  
SlimRider
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Northern California
Posts: 5,804

Bikes: Raleigh Grand Prix, Giant Innova, Nishiki Sebring, Trek 7.5FX

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by cyccommute View Post
Of course you are right that the frictional force is higher in the case of the heavier bike. I mistakenly referred to the frictional force when I should have said that the coefficient of friction is the same. I made the same mistake with air, using frictional force when I should have been referring to air's fluid properties being the same. My mistake. However........I'm being lazy and won't do the calculations but they wouldn't be all that hard to do. If you set all the variables...initial speed, coefficient of friction for air and the surface, surface area of the bodies, etc...to the same value the problem becomes much easier. If everything is equal, you don't really need to know the absolute values.........etc....Okay, lets take the wheels off to simplify it further. Let's make the surface area of both objects the same so that the area being acted on in both objects is the same. Put them on a concrete surface. Give them a shove so that they are traveling the same velocity. The momentum of the 80,000 lb object is higher than the momentum of the 1500 lb object, correct? Correct. However the frictional force is greater than or equal to the coefficient of friction times the normal force (force of gravity). Since the coefficient of friction of each is the same, the only thing acting on the objects is air resistance (but we'll neglect that) and the normal force. Stop shoving. Which body is going to come to rest first?

Cyccommute, if you fail to see my examples concerning the bicycle vs. the 18 wheeler and the example with the toy truck, I can tell that I'm going to need much more time to explain my heavier frame material position.

Your point concerning the heavier frame material requiring a greater applied force than the lighter mass in order to maintain a constant velocity is quite true and I certainly do agree with that, in the instance of hills and inclines. No problem.

However, your inability to understand the fact that objects with greater mass, also have a greater momentum, which doesn't necessarily dictate that they stop sooner than objects with lighter masses, will take time. I will therefore, research better examples, so that we can explore this matter further. I will resume our discussion in a couple of days.

Last edited by SlimRider; 08-04-12 at 07:39 PM.
SlimRider is offline  
Old 07-31-12, 11:12 AM
  #47  
gna
Count Orlok Member
 
gna's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 1,604

Bikes: Raleigh Sports, Raleigh Twenty, Raleigh Wyoming, Schwinn Le Tour Luxe Frankenbike

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Originally Posted by PatrickGSR94 View Post
OP's commuting excitement thread has been derailed by a scientific physics debate
+1

Way to scare off the OP, Poindexters.
gna is offline  
Old 07-31-12, 11:22 AM
  #48  
MK313
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 782
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
This may have been covered, as I didn't read the entire thread (I didn't understand most of the thread ) but if you have any decent sized hills, a heavier bike will be less enjoyable. If your ride is mostly flat, a heavier bike won't be a huge etriment & has some advantages. If you commute falls into the second category, i wouldn't hesitate to pick up a slightly heavier bike.
MK313 is offline  
Old 07-31-12, 11:26 AM
  #49  
alan s 
Senior Member
 
alan s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 6,617
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1321 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 45 Times in 29 Posts
Originally Posted by gna View Post
+1

Way to scare off the OP, Poindexters.
This is currently a hot topic of debate over on Physics Forum. http://www.physicsforums.com/
alan s is online now  
Old 07-31-12, 11:52 AM
  #50  
SlimRider
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Northern California
Posts: 5,804

Bikes: Raleigh Grand Prix, Giant Innova, Nishiki Sebring, Trek 7.5FX

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by cyccommute View Post
Go To Physics II, Do Not Collect $200.

This time, I'm afraid that Doohickie is Right!

You might lose a stripe for this, Cyccommute!

Last edited by SlimRider; 08-04-12 at 07:39 PM.
SlimRider is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.