![]() |
View
New Forum Topics Today's Forum Topics Set as homepage |
|
|||||||
Welcome to CyclingForums.com You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread. By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
#226 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,846
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#227 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 667
|
Hi.
Yep, you're right - I do train alone(mainly) so its just me plodding into the wind.... I knew that'd be the biggest variable + riding with others inspires one to go faster (even if they're behind). My fitness would be the same - even in our race season my training pace doesn't get any faster but I get faster racing. Strange huh?! Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#228 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,179
|
Quote:
Of course there is - on a steep ascent, the difference in speeds is directly proportional to the weight difference of the total system. If I trimmed my 8.7kg bike to the UCI limit (and I have no intention of doing that!) I'd be about 2% faster on a steep climb. On a 20min climb, this would be 24 seconds - a pretty fair margin. Even if you just want to hand your mates a caning, this'll help. On the flat, there is no difference in steady speed. On a descent, a light bike is a slight disadvantage.
__________________
"All that we see and seem is but a dream, within a dream..." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#229 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 92
|
Quote:
Sorry, just curious, why is the light bike a disadvantage on the decent?
__________________
Ride like you mean it
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#230 |
|
Registered User
|
F=ma.
__________________
Morphed Bianchi Camaleonte IV 2006, Ridley Damocles 2006, Garmin, Mac
|
|
|
|
|
|
#231 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,846
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#232 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,179
|
Quote:
On a descent, the major retarding force is air drag, which is independent of weight. The major propelling force is gravity, which is proportional to the total system mass. The more the system mass, the higher the propelling force, and drag doesn't change.
__________________
"All that we see and seem is but a dream, within a dream..." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#233 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,846
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#234 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,179
|
Quote:
Wrong. They will hit the ground at the same time if there is no air drag, or if the air drag is the same proportion of their masses. If they have the same absolute drag, then the heavier mass will hit the ground first.
__________________
"All that we see and seem is but a dream, within a dream..." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#235 |
|
Registered User
|
Actually, mass independence is only true in a vacuum ie. In a system without resistance. For a bike with a cyclist on top, aero drag and system friction will all retard the rolling bike.
__________________
Morphed Bianchi Camaleonte IV 2006, Ridley Damocles 2006, Garmin, Mac
|
|
|
|
|
|
#236 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,846
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#237 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,179
|
Quote:
Anecdotally, at 90kg I can roll past most people if none of us are pedalling, often at 1-2km/h more than they are doing. Clearly there are some potential confounders with that example, but the differences are not completely trivial.
__________________
"All that we see and seem is but a dream, within a dream..." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#238 | |
|
Registered User
|
Quote:
Not quite. But the common reference of a heavier rider is that their aero drag is not proportional to the increased weight when compared with a lightweight rider. So heavy riders will progressively gain more advantage with increasing weight. But if you are talking about two bikes (same design without the rider but differing weight), then there's no resistive difference b/n the two, but there will be a difference in the propulsive force on a downhill.
__________________
Morphed Bianchi Camaleonte IV 2006, Ridley Damocles 2006, Garmin, Mac
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#239 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,846
|
Quote:
mg sin(theta) - kv^2 = ma, where theta is the slope angle, and k is a coefficient related to drag, v is the velocity. So, while drag per unit mass is less, the propulsive force per unit mass is the same. So, don't see how increased propulsive force will lead to the difference here. ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#240 |
|
Registered User
|
I am no physicist and there are lots of far better qualified people here to answer this.
My understanding is that given the same bike apart from weight (same resistive forces), the propulsive force on the heavier bike would be greater due to its mass (g is a constant and same for both bikes). So as a result, the net force (propulsive) on the heavier bike is greater than the lighter bike). Am I wrong to explain it this way? ![]()
__________________
Morphed Bianchi Camaleonte IV 2006, Ridley Damocles 2006, Garmin, Mac
|
|
|
|