Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Er... No.

That is wrong on so many levels.

That's just a basic formula that's why I posted the link where there is mush more science involved
Posted

That's just a basic formula that's why I posted the link where there is mush more science involved

Its a basic formula based on nothing in reality. I'd like to see you do 2440 Watts. and I'd like to see the hill you are climbing if that only gets you up to 20km/h. Power and velocity are not directly proportional so the equation doesn't work out even as a guess.

 

It is a complicated question, but the main variable is the hill gradient (as per your link). 90 inch hit the nail on the head, fitness is also a huge factor that's difficult to quantify after cycling enough to drop 32kg.

Posted

Its a basic formula based on nothing in reality. I'd like to see you do 2440 Watts. and I'd like to see the hill you are climbing if that only gets you up to 20km/h. Power and velocity are not directly proportional so the equation doesn't work out even as a guess.

 

It is a complicated question, but the main variable is the hill gradient (as per your link). 90 inch hit the nail on the head, fitness is also a huge factor that's difficult to quantify after cycling enough to drop 32kg.

The equation p = mv, is used in physics. It is used to evaluate objects in motion. The 'p' in the equation is equal to momentum and the 'm' represents mass. The 'v' in the equation represents velocity.
Posted

The equation p = mv, is used in physics. It is used to evaluate objects in motion. The 'p' in the equation is equal to momentum and the 'm' represents mass. The 'v' in the equation represents velocity.

 

Oh ok, I understand, I thought you meant power. Still, use of momentum is not relevant.

Posted

The equation p = mv, is used in physics. It is used to evaluate objects in motion. The 'p' in the equation is equal to momentum and the 'm' represents mass. The 'v' in the equation represents velocity.

In that instance it does make sense, but the uppercase in the original post (P=MV) makes it weird. Power = Molar mass x Volume?

Posted

In that instance it does make sense, but the uppercase in the original post (P=MV) makes it weird. Power = Molar mass x Volume?

 

either way, the debate is power, not momentum. The equation used is wrong.

Posted

P = krMs + kaAsv2d+ giMs

 

where

  • P = power required (in watts)
  • kr= rolling resistance coefficient
  • M = mass of bike + rider
  • s = speed of the bike on the road
  • ka= wind resistance coefficient
  • A = the frontal area of the bike and rider
  • v = speed of the bike through the air (i.e. bike speed + headwind or – tailwind)
  • d = air density
  • g = gravitational constant
  • i = gradient (an approximation²)

Posted

P = krMs + kaAsv2d+ giMs

 

where

  • P = power required (in watts)
  • kr= rolling resistance coefficient
  • M = mass of bike + rider
  • s = speed of the bike on the road
  • ka= wind resistance coefficient
  • A = the frontal area of the bike and rider
  • v = speed of the bike through the air (i.e. bike speed + headwind or – tailwind)
  • d = air density
  • g = gravitational constant
  • i = gradient (an approximation²)

 

Complicate it much? How the hell is the OP gonna determine that. Simplify it like this,

For every 1kg the OP loses he needs 0.025watts less to maintain the same speed. See easy....????

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Settings My Forum Content My Followed Content Forum Settings Ad Messages My Ads My Favourites My Saved Alerts My Pay Deals Help Logout