Capricorn Posted July 31, 2018 Posted July 31, 2018 As I understand it (?), a power law is of the form y = x^n, where n=3 in this case. An exponential function is of the form y = c^x. It gets very confusing when we start inter-changing exponential, exponent, exp(x) etc. nailed. it.If the variable is the exponent (with a constant base), then the equation is exponential (line 2 above). Mathematically, the differences are as clear as they fundamental. In context|mathematics|lang=en terms the difference between exponent and exponential is that exponent is (mathematics) the power to which a number, symbol or expression is to be raised for example, the 3 in x 3 while exponential is (mathematics) any function that has an exponent as an independent variable. As nouns the difference between exponent and exponentialis that exponent is one who expounds, represents or advocates while exponential is (mathematics) any function that has an exponent as an independent variable.
malwyn Posted July 31, 2018 Posted July 31, 2018 An interesting TED talk on athletic performance. A short bit is on cycling and bike technology. https://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_are_athletes_really_getting_faster_better_stronger
Headshot Posted July 31, 2018 Posted July 31, 2018 From an MTB perspective, it seems the obsession with weight, that is the overall bike weight has diminished, especially in the gravity side of the sport. I think this has to do with wagon wheels pushing up the weight and their general acceptance in the DH and enduro world. That and eBikes (cough). In fact some DH riders have actually added weight to their bikes in strategic places to make them more stable on rough courses. EBike riders rave about the "planted" feel of their pig heavy motorbikes on the downs. As the owner of a rather heavy enduro bike, I have been surprised at how well it gets up hills. I think this is largely due to the rear suspension and shock design as well as geometry changes, which are probably just as important as the weight .
DirtyDan Posted July 31, 2018 Posted July 31, 2018 1919 Tdf ave speed 24.056 km/h2017 Tdf ave speed 40.210 km/hWe have buttery smooth, tarred roads these days...
Jewbacca Posted July 31, 2018 Posted July 31, 2018 We have buttery smooth, tarred roads these days...Like Chapman's Peak?
ChrisF Posted July 31, 2018 Posted July 31, 2018 Uhmmmmm .... some interesting maths .... FOR SINGLE RIDERS .... The game changes drastically when you introduce a peleton and constantly changing the lead rider ..... ONE out of nearly 200 takes the punch for a short while, gets back in line and recoups for the next stint .... once IN the peleton the drag is almost negligible ....
Nick Posted July 31, 2018 Posted July 31, 2018 Uhmmmmm .... some interesting maths .... FOR SINGLE RIDERS .... The game changes drastically when you introduce a peleton and constantly changing the lead rider ..... ONE out of nearly 200 takes the punch for a short while, gets back in line and recoups for the next stint .... once IN the peleton the drag is almost negligible .... Not sure if you've seen it already but there is a very recent thorough and interesting study on peloton aerodynamics here. It agrees
Bateleur1 Posted July 31, 2018 Posted July 31, 2018 1919 Tdf ave speed 24.056 km/h2017 Tdf ave speed 40.210 km/h You are not compairing apples to apples here. If I remember there were hardly such a thing as team tactics in the beginning. It was you and your bike and your own tools and spares to get to the finishlines. Later teams, teams tactics and tech got involved. What would the difference in avg be of the 1987 TDF to 2017 avg?
Shebeen Posted July 31, 2018 Posted July 31, 2018 adonbilivit! you okes using the tour de france as the pinnacle of cycling to measure improvement. Argus tjaainas, Argus
Bateleur1 Posted July 31, 2018 Posted July 31, 2018 adonbilivit! you okes using the tour de france as the pinnacle of cycling to measure improvement. Argus tjaainas, Argus argus inning speed.png Must be the introduction of disk brakes that sees the avg drop towards 2014
mazambaan Posted July 31, 2018 Posted July 31, 2018 How much power is "lost" in the drive train? I see some, Danish I think (Eldron?) ceramic bearing guys have come up with shaft solution to improve efficiency - 40% odd I recall. Nor commercially viable yet though.
Eldron Posted July 31, 2018 Posted July 31, 2018 How much power is "lost" in the drive train? I see some, Danish I think (Eldron?) ceramic bearing guys have come up with shaft solution to improve efficiency - 40% odd I recall. Nor commercially viable yet though.If memory serves the Ceramic Speed direct drive takes mechanical efficiency from 98% to 99%. I always thought mechanical and frictional resistance was 1% and wind resistance 99%...turns out I was wrong. 3-6% for mechanical and I can't find frictional numbers...yet... Damn. There is a myriad of conflicting data out there. I don't have the energy :-(
Thermophage Posted July 31, 2018 Posted July 31, 2018 OMG someone used data as plural correctly. Finally!Oh jummy a maths debate.Normalised data may be presented as non linear. I'd agree that the data should be at least 3Rd order
Swim.Bike.Run Posted July 31, 2018 Posted July 31, 2018 From now on and in future I'm going to go with this "wind resistance is non linear" :-) And you would be correct.
Thermophage Posted July 31, 2018 Posted July 31, 2018 And you would be correct.And exactly why you need a car with 740kW to drive over 400km/hr, while one with 140kW can reach 200km/hr. Definitely not linear
Fat Boab Posted July 31, 2018 Posted July 31, 2018 If memory serves the Ceramic Speed direct drive takes mechanical efficiency from 98% to 99%. I always thought mechanical and frictional resistance was 1% and wind resistance 99%...turns out I was wrong. 3-6% for mechanical and I can't find frictional numbers...yet... Damn. There is a myriad of conflicting data out there. I don't have the energy :-( Nor the power!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.