Notices
General Cycling Discussion Have a cycling related question or comment that doesn't fit in one of the other specialty forums? Drop on in and post in here! When possible, please select the forum above that most fits your post!

Weight-Weenieism

Old 02-16-24, 01:38 PM
  #351  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,055

Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4010 Post(s)
Liked 7,517 Times in 3,025 Posts
Originally Posted by Maelochs
We Insiders know that UCI stands for Universal Control Institute, and is wholly run by lizard-people.
I hate those lizard people. My sister married one, and he turns every family gathering into some kind of mind control experiment. On the upside, he can get a table at any restaurant in town on short notice.
tomato coupe is offline  
Likes For tomato coupe:
Old 02-16-24, 01:39 PM
  #352  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2023
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 137 Post(s)
Liked 56 Times in 44 Posts
On the topic of rotating mass: where does the energy to overcome gyroscopic inertia encountered when rocking the bike side to side come from? Surely that energy would have not been available to move the bike forward?
One Wheel is offline  
Old 02-16-24, 02:07 PM
  #353  
Method to My Madness
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: Orange County, California
Posts: 3,818

Bikes: Trek FX 2, Cannondale Synapse x2, Cannondale CAAD4, Santa Cruz Stigmata 3

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2049 Post(s)
Liked 1,542 Times in 1,066 Posts
Originally Posted by jonathanf2
I can easily build a 7kg disc bike for less than $1500 USD. I could probably build a 6-6.5kg for under $2k.
Jonathan: I need your help. Where can I buy a $1,500 disc brake frame with endurance geometry (i.e., stack:reach > 1.5) that I can build a 7 kg bike with?
SoSmellyAir is offline  
Old 02-16-24, 02:33 PM
  #354  
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,577

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7681 Post(s)
Liked 3,573 Times in 1,881 Posts
Originally Posted by jonathanf2
I can easily build a 7kg disc bike for less than $1500 USD. I could probably build a 6-6.5kg for under $2k.
Originally Posted by SoSmellyAir
Jonathan: I need your help. Where can I buy a $1,500 disc brake frame with endurance geometry (i.e., stack:reach > 1.5) that I can build a 7 kg bike with?
Real question.

I last built a bike in 2017. The 800-gram frame cost $800. The 105 (5800) group set cost I think $400. Wheels were about $500 (about 1500 grams.) Riding weight, with pedals, pump, tools and tubes, tail lights, no computer, was (I think) 16.25 or so. Really nice, light bike. Oh ... it has rim brakes.

The cost of each component has doubled, last I checked. And the disc version of the frame (which I wanted, but it was not available any more) would have weighed more, as would the brake components.

Please send the build list for your $1500 15-lb disc bike. I have the cash. I don't need the bike, but .... wow, i would like it.
Maelochs is offline  
Likes For Maelochs:
Old 02-16-24, 03:05 PM
  #355  
Senior Member
 
Dave Mayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,511
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1382 Post(s)
Liked 485 Times in 284 Posts
Factor disc aero wunderbike:

Factor's new Ostro VAM blurs boundaries with aero and lightweight design | GCN (globalcyclingnetwork.com)

And here is what Factor sponsored rider thinks about discs on road racing bikes:

Chris Froome unhappy to be on disc brakes | Cyclingnews

Chris Froome once again derides disc brakes on road bikes | Cyclingnews

Quite unusual for a sponsored rider to even peep about gear. You ride on whatever you are given, and personally accept blame for any (any!) problems experienced on the road.

Froome may have kissed and made up, but two years ago he was one of the few riders with the experience and prestige to be able to critique anything about his gear. Now, given his age and recent record, he'll be happy to ride what he's given. So now he'll be happy on discs. Or a skateboard if that is the team issue.
Dave Mayer is offline  
Likes For Dave Mayer:
Old 02-16-24, 03:24 PM
  #356  
Senior Member
 
Dave Mayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,511
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1382 Post(s)
Liked 485 Times in 284 Posts
Originally Posted by One Wheel
On the topic of rotating mass: where does the energy to overcome gyroscopic inertia encountered when rocking the bike side to side come from? Surely that energy would have not been available to move the bike forward?

Thank you !


The static analysis presented elsewhere here assumes the rider and bike combo is like a sold block of wood getting pushed up an incline. In the real world, on the hard climbs, the rider is humping on the pedals with the bike swaying back and forth underneath. A lot of that energy ends up on the pedals, but some ends up absorbed by the riders legs and arms. And then there is the constant surges and accelerations that require immediate responses, and even on the climbs, frequent braking to avoid pile-ups. As if a single rider isn't enough of a complex system, then add 100 other riders to the mix, some of which are trying to help you, but most trying to lose you or make you go slower. This is so complex that basic physics isn't enough.


And what the UCI-sponsored teams use on the mountain stages may not be an indication of best gear solution. For example, everyone wants to be on tubulars for the combo of lower rotating weight and safety. But the team may not have tubular options, and have to accept something sub-optimal for their sponsors, such as tubeless clinchers. The sponsors pay money not just to win races, but to showcase gear that will be bought by dentists with platinum cards. Nowadays, you cannot sell tubulars.


Or you put most of the team on heavier aero bikes/wheels, because they are disposable and will certainly be shed off the peloton on the first giant climb. But the team leaders: they will be on the lightest possible bikes and wheels.
Dave Mayer is offline  
Old 02-16-24, 03:28 PM
  #357  
Habitual User
 
Eric F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 8,156

Bikes: 2023 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2018 Trek Procaliber 9.9 RSL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5056 Post(s)
Liked 8,328 Times in 3,933 Posts
Originally Posted by Dave Mayer
Factor disc aero wunderbike:

Factor's new Ostro VAM blurs boundaries with aero and lightweight design | GCN (globalcyclingnetwork.com)

And here is what Factor sponsored rider thinks about discs on road racing bikes:

Chris Froome unhappy to be on disc brakes | Cyclingnews

Chris Froome once again derides disc brakes on road bikes | Cyclingnews

Quite unusual for a sponsored rider to even peep about gear. You ride on whatever you are given, and personally accept blame for any (any!) problems experienced on the road.

Froome may have kissed and made up, but two years ago he was one of the few riders with the experience and prestige to be able to critique anything about his gear. Now, given his age and recent record, he'll be happy to ride what he's given. So now he'll be happy on discs. Or a skateboard if that is the team issue.
So what? If you don't want to ride a disc brake bike, don't ride one. Lots and LOTS and LOTS of riders with the knowledge and experience to make informed decisions about their own preferences have chosen disc brakes, and recognize the advantages.

Froome changed his opinion in 2023, citing rubbing and alignment issues with his first disc brake experiences, and acknowledged that the issues had been resolved.
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
Eric F is offline  
Old 02-16-24, 03:32 PM
  #358  
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,776
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4571 Post(s)
Liked 5,109 Times in 3,154 Posts
Originally Posted by Dave Mayer
Thank you !


The static analysis presented elsewhere here assumes the rider and bike combo is like a sold block of wood getting pushed up an incline. In the real world, on the hard climbs, the rider is humping on the pedals with the bike swaying back and forth underneath. A lot of that energy ends up on the pedals, but some ends up absorbed by the riders legs and arms. And then there is the constant surges and accelerations that require immediate responses, and even on the climbs, frequent braking to avoid pile-ups. As if a single rider isn't enough of a complex system, then add 100 other riders to the mix, some of which are trying to help you, but most trying to lose you or make you go slower. This is so complex that basic physics isn't enough.


And what the UCI-sponsored teams use on the mountain stages may not be an indication of best gear solution. For example, everyone wants to be on tubulars for the combo of lower rotating weight and safety. But the team may not have tubular options, and have to accept something sub-optimal for their sponsors, such as tubeless clinchers. The sponsors pay money not just to win races, but to showcase gear that will be bought by dentists with platinum cards. Nowadays, you cannot sell tubulars.


Or you put most of the team on heavier aero bikes/wheels, because they are disposable and will certainly be shed off the peloton on the first giant climb. But the team leaders: they will be on the lightest possible bikes and wheels.
This really is tedious. While the whole energy system is quite complicated, the contributions of mass and rotational inertia are quite simple. That's why it's not too hard to accurately estimate real world climbing times etc with a reasonable power model.
PeteHski is offline  
Old 02-16-24, 03:34 PM
  #359  
Habitual User
 
Eric F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 8,156

Bikes: 2023 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2018 Trek Procaliber 9.9 RSL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5056 Post(s)
Liked 8,328 Times in 3,933 Posts
Originally Posted by Dave Mayer
Or you put most of the team on heavier aero bikes/wheels, because they are disposable and will certainly be shed off the peloton on the first giant climb. But the team leaders: they will be on the lightest possible bikes and wheels.
Or maybe they won't.

Originally Posted by elcruxio
The 2023 TdF stage 16 really drove in the importance of aerodynamics vs weight. Vingegaard did the whole TT with his "heavy" Cervelo P5 with a disc rear wheel no less, whereas Pogačar swapped to a much lighter "climbing" bike before the 2,5km 9 % climb at the end of the stage.

In the end Vingegaard smoked Pogačar and kept gaining time throughout the climbing section even though Pogačar was on a much lighter bike. Granted, Vingegaard was ahead before the climb started, but Pogacar just kept on losing a LOT of time on the climb.
From what I could scrounge up there's almost a kilogram of difference in bike weights between the two and with Vingegaards high profile front rim and disc wheel a lot of Vingegaards weight was rotating weight. Considering how light the two riders are a kilogram is significant.
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
Eric F is offline  
Old 02-16-24, 03:39 PM
  #360  
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,776
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4571 Post(s)
Liked 5,109 Times in 3,154 Posts
Originally Posted by Dave Mayer


And what the UCI-sponsored teams use on the mountain stages may not be an indication of best gear solution. For example, everyone wants to be on tubulars for the combo of lower rotating weight and safety. But the team may not have tubular options, and have to accept something sub-optimal for their sponsors, such as tubeless clinchers. The sponsors pay money not just to win races, but to showcase gear that will be bought by dentists with platinum cards. Nowadays, you cannot sell tubulars.

Bingo!
PeteHski is offline  
Old 02-16-24, 03:43 PM
  #361  
Senior Member
 
elcruxio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Turku, Finland, Europe
Posts: 2,509

Bikes: 2011 Specialized crux comp, 2013 Specialized Rockhopper Pro

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 873 Post(s)
Liked 346 Times in 230 Posts
Originally Posted by Dave Mayer
The static analysis presented elsewhere here assumes the rider and bike combo is like a sold block of wood getting pushed up an incline. In the real world, on the hard climbs, the rider is humping on the pedals with the bike swaying back and forth underneath. A lot of that energy ends up on the pedals, but some ends up absorbed by the riders legs and arms. And then there is the constant surges and accelerations that require immediate responses, and even on the climbs, frequent braking to avoid pile-ups. As if a single rider isn't enough of a complex system, then add 100 other riders to the mix, some of which are trying to help you, but most trying to lose you or make you go slower. This is so complex that basic physics isn't enough.
So should we consider all this in terms of quantum physics or perhaps string theory?

And what the UCI-sponsored teams use on the mountain stages may not be an indication of best gear solution. For example, everyone wants to be on tubulars for the combo of lower rotating weight and safety. But the team may not have tubular options, and have to accept something sub-optimal for their sponsors, such as tubeless clinchers. The sponsors pay money not just to win races, but to showcase gear that will be bought by dentists with platinum cards. Nowadays, you cannot sell tubulars.
So it seems you think sponsors want their teams to lose. If I was a sponsor I'd want my team to win and I'd give them the fastest stuff possible.
But it would seem that the sponsors are indeed doing that. If you look at the fastest rubber at bicyclerollingresistance you'll notice that the fastest tubular on there isn't even in the top 10. Tubulars can't beat tubeless any more.


Or you put most of the team on heavier aero bikes/wheels, because they are disposable and will certainly be shed off the peloton on the first giant climb. But the team leaders: they will be on the lightest possible bikes and wheels.
So just out of curiosity, do you watch professional cycling? Because it seems you don't.
elcruxio is online now  
Likes For elcruxio:
Old 02-16-24, 03:53 PM
  #362  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2023
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 137 Post(s)
Liked 56 Times in 44 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski
This really is tedious. While the whole energy system is quite complicated, the contributions of mass and rotational inertia are quite simple. That's why it's not too hard to accurately estimate real world climbing times etc with a reasonable power model.
If you grab the axle of a wheel, and tip it side to side, that takes energy. If you spin that wheel, and tip it side to side while it's spinning, that takes much more energy. If you tip a lighter spinning wheel, that takes less energy than a heavier spinning wheel. Energy that is used for something other than moving the bike and rider forward doesn't help you go faster, cf: tire pressure.
One Wheel is offline  
Old 02-16-24, 04:00 PM
  #363  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,055

Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4010 Post(s)
Liked 7,517 Times in 3,025 Posts
Originally Posted by Dave Mayer
The static analysis presented elsewhere here assumes the rider and bike combo is like a sold block of wood getting pushed up an incline.
Despite your claims, no one is treating this as a static problem. Either you don't read what other poster write, or your comprehension is poor.

Originally Posted by Dave Mayer
This is so complex that basic physics isn't enough.
It is basic physics.
tomato coupe is offline  
Old 02-16-24, 04:01 PM
  #364  
Habitual User
 
Eric F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 8,156

Bikes: 2023 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2018 Trek Procaliber 9.9 RSL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5056 Post(s)
Liked 8,328 Times in 3,933 Posts
Originally Posted by elcruxio
If you look at the fastest rubber at bicyclerollingresistance you'll notice that the fastest tubular on there isn't even in the top 10. Tubulars can't beat tubeless any more.
I hadn't compared TL vs. Tubular in a while. This was surprising...

Vittoria Corsa Speed 23mm tubular @ 132psi = 8.9W (narrow and hard is the fastest!!)
Vittoria Speed G+ 2.0 25mm tubeless @ 80psi = 8.3W

I intentionally compared tires from the same manufacturer. The Veloflex Record TLR 25 is faster than the Vittoria.

That pesky scientific data ruins everything!
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions

Last edited by Eric F; 02-16-24 at 04:05 PM.
Eric F is offline  
Likes For Eric F:
Old 02-16-24, 04:03 PM
  #365  
Habitual User
 
Eric F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 8,156

Bikes: 2023 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2018 Trek Procaliber 9.9 RSL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5056 Post(s)
Liked 8,328 Times in 3,933 Posts
Originally Posted by One Wheel
If you grab the axle of a wheel, and tip it side to side, that takes energy. If you spin that wheel, and tip it side to side while it's spinning, that takes much more energy. If you tip a lighter spinning wheel, that takes less energy than a heavier spinning wheel. Energy that is used for something other than moving the bike and rider forward doesn't help you go faster, cf: tire pressure.
This might explain why I didn't like the feeling of sprinting on lightweight wheels - easier to destabilize the foundation.
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
Eric F is offline  
Likes For Eric F:
Old 02-16-24, 04:04 PM
  #366  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,055

Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4010 Post(s)
Liked 7,517 Times in 3,025 Posts
Originally Posted by Eric F
That pesky scientific data Reality ruins everything!
ftfy
tomato coupe is offline  
Likes For tomato coupe:
Old 02-16-24, 04:22 PM
  #367  
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,776
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4571 Post(s)
Liked 5,109 Times in 3,154 Posts
Originally Posted by One Wheel
If you grab the axle of a wheel, and tip it side to side, that takes energy. If you spin that wheel, and tip it side to side while it's spinning, that takes much more energy. If you tip a lighter spinning wheel, that takes less energy than a heavier spinning wheel. Energy that is used for something other than moving the bike and rider forward doesn't help you go faster, cf: tire pressure.
Well the bike with heavier wheels will just rock a bit less from side to side with the same effort. It might even be seen as a positive trait. A few hundred grams of wheel mass isnít going to make much difference to this anyway, especially not at climbing speeds.
PeteHski is offline  
Old 02-16-24, 04:24 PM
  #368  
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,776
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4571 Post(s)
Liked 5,109 Times in 3,154 Posts
Originally Posted by Eric F
This might explain why I didn't like the feeling of sprinting on lightweight wheels - easier to destabilize the foundation.
Good point.
PeteHski is offline  
Old 02-16-24, 04:31 PM
  #369  
Habitual User
 
Eric F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 8,156

Bikes: 2023 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2018 Trek Procaliber 9.9 RSL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5056 Post(s)
Liked 8,328 Times in 3,933 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski
Good point.
My understanding of physics is pretty elementary, but the discussion about gyro effect and weight makes sense with what I was feeling on different wheels.
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
Eric F is offline  
Old 02-16-24, 04:32 PM
  #370  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2023
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 137 Post(s)
Liked 56 Times in 44 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski
Well the bike with heavier wheels will just rock a bit less from side to side with the same effort. It might even be seen as a positive trait. A few hundred grams of wheel mass isnít going to make much difference to this anyway, especially not at climbing speeds.
Lol. It takes more energy to move rotating mass side-to-side than it takes to move non-rotating mass. That energy comes from somewhere, and it's not going into moving the bike and rider forward.
One Wheel is offline  
Old 02-16-24, 04:37 PM
  #371  
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,577

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7681 Post(s)
Liked 3,573 Times in 1,881 Posts
Originally Posted by One Wheel
If you grab the axle of a wheel, and tip it side to side, that takes energy. If you spin that wheel, and tip it side to side while it's spinning, that takes much more energy. If you tip a lighter spinning wheel, that takes less energy than a heavier spinning wheel. Energy that is used for something other than moving the bike and rider forward doesn't help you go faster, cf: tire pressure.
Provide quantities. Everyone "knew" that rotating mass was more important or impactful than static mass .... until the actual math proved that differences were minuscule.

Everyone "knew" that lighter was better ... until actual experimentation and calculation proved that except for very long steep climbs, aero saved more energy.

If you think that side-to-side leaning is seriously impacting speed, do the testing, analyze the results, show the math, and people can see what's up.

Otherwise we are all just talking, and none of it means anything.

I am very different than many posters here. I can actually admit that there have been times when I said, "Well, it is just that way. It makes sense.. Think about ti and you will see." only to later be shown the actual experimental results, at which time I was (eventually) able to say, "Okay, I was wrong about that."

I feel okay about this because even Albert Einstein, did it ... he rejected quantum mechanics at first ("God does not play dice with the universe") but later he had to admit that even though the premises seemed ridiculous, the math worked out.

So ... my takeaway is that it is alright to learn.

I wish that opinion were more widely shared.
Maelochs is offline  
Likes For Maelochs:
Old 02-16-24, 04:45 PM
  #372  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2023
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 137 Post(s)
Liked 56 Times in 44 Posts
Originally Posted by Maelochs
Provide quantities. Everyone "knew" that rotating mass was more important or impactful than static mass .... until the actual math proved that differences were minuscule.

Everyone "knew" that lighter was better ... until actual experimentation and calculation proved that except for very long steep climbs, aero saved more energy.

If you think that side-to-side leaning is seriously impacting speed, do the testing, analyze the results, show the math, and people can see what's up.

Otherwise we are all just talking, and none of it means anything.

I am very different than many posters here. I can actually admit that there have been times when I said, "Well, it is just that way. It makes sense.. Think about ti and you will see." only to later be shown the actual experimental results, at which time I was (eventually) able to say, "Okay, I was wrong about that."

I feel okay about this because even Albert Einstein, did it ... he rejected quantum mechanics at first ("God does not play dice with the universe") but later he had to admit that even though the premises seemed ridiculous, the math worked out.

So ... my takeaway is that it is alright to learn.

I wish that opinion were more widely shared.
I am not a physicist, I'm offering plausible physics- based frameworks that could validate what are at present subjective observations. In the case of rotating mass, I have not seen calculations that take into account gyroscopic inertia, but it makes sense that it would matter more than non-rotating mass.
One Wheel is offline  
Old 02-16-24, 04:46 PM
  #373  
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,776
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4571 Post(s)
Liked 5,109 Times in 3,154 Posts
Originally Posted by One Wheel
Lol. It takes more energy to move rotating mass side-to-side than it takes to move non-rotating mass. That energy comes from somewhere, and it's not going into moving the bike and rider forward.
But you are not going to actually put more effort into rocking your bike are you? You will put the same force into rocking the bike, but it will just rock slightly less.
PeteHski is offline  
Likes For PeteHski:
Old 02-16-24, 04:48 PM
  #374  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,703
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1267 Post(s)
Liked 1,376 Times in 700 Posts
Originally Posted by Dave Mayer
Thank you !


The static analysis presented elsewhere here assumes the rider and bike combo is like a sold block of wood getting pushed up an incline. In the real world, on the hard climbs, the rider is humping on the pedals with the bike swaying back and forth underneath. A lot of that energy ends up on the pedals, but some ends up absorbed by the riders legs and arms. And then there is the constant surges and accelerations that require immediate responses, and even on the climbs, frequent braking to avoid pile-ups. As if a single rider isn't enough of a complex system, then add 100 other riders to the mix, some of which are trying to help you, but most trying to lose you or make you go slower. This is so complex that basic physics isn't enough.


And what the UCI-sponsored teams use on the mountain stages may not be an indication of best gear solution. For example, everyone wants to be on tubulars for the combo of lower rotating weight and safety. But the team may not have tubular options, and have to accept something sub-optimal for their sponsors, such as tubeless clinchers. The sponsors pay money not just to win races, but to showcase gear that will be bought by dentists with platinum cards. Nowadays, you cannot sell tubulars.


Or you put most of the team on heavier aero bikes/wheels, because they are disposable and will certainly be shed off the peloton on the first giant climb. But the team leaders: they will be on the lightest possible bikes and wheels.
I understand why there might be a significant gap between your perspective and that of a substantial proportion of forum members, the cycling community, and current industry trends. Your typical description of cycling experiences, characterized by intense bordering on violent efforts like "humping up a hill," attacks within the pack, and being shelled out the back as you struggle home solo with tears streaming down your face, appears extreme. It's worth noting that a vast majority of sporting cyclists, including professionals in the Pro Tour, do not typically engage in such intense riding styles, except for rare occasions mid-race. Riding to many is about being smooth and efficient even thoughtful at times.
Atlas Shrugged is offline  
Old 02-16-24, 04:54 PM
  #375  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2023
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 137 Post(s)
Liked 56 Times in 44 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski
But you are not going to actually put more effort into rocking your bike are you? You will put the same force into rocking the bike, but it will just rock slightly less.
How far the bike rocks has more to do with range of motion and skeletal measurement ratios than with how much "work" it takes to rock the bike that far. It's obviously simpler to model a non-rocking bike, but I think that's an oversimplification.
One Wheel is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.