a pound off the wheels = two off the bike?

[Caerus]

What are the scores here? We need a poll.

[RodTi]

This issue was discussed at great length a couple of years ago with the hub geniuses at each others throats for several days and many posts. There were qualified mathematicians, engineers and self taughts who went to great lengths to prove their theories and dis each others qualifications in the process.

 

 

Remember that thread well... Was also before the days of Popcorn on the Hub. Could've done with some!

[covie]

This issue was discussed at great length a couple of years ago with the hub geniuses at each others throats for several days and many posts. There were qualified mathematicians, engineers and self taughts who went to great lengths to prove their theories and dis each others qualifications in the process.

 

 

I thought that was Standard Operating Procedure on the hub? If you have an idea or a query you post it here to see how quickly you can be shot down and flammed, for lack of imagination, being a moron, uncreative .... add more superlatives here

 

__________________

 

__________________

 

__________________

 

__________________

 

__________________

 

__________________

Edited December 2, 2010 by covie

[Christie]

Lighter wheels do help with acceleration and heavier wheels will help with maintaining a certain speed.

That has been proven time and time again with many other vehicles as well as bicycles.

 

There is no argument in my opinion,

only ignorant people.

I don't think anybody intelligent doubts the formula for rotating energy - it sometimes even gets posted by somebody in such discussions. Our tertiary institutions produce a fair number of people per year who knows what the equation looks like-it is fairly simple. However, to apply it correctly in the equation of motion for a vehicle is not so easy, few people know how (I won't call that ignorance.)

For rotational inertia to have any effect on energy required, there has to be acceleration. No matter who the rider is, the fact is that acceleration on a bike is relatively small. During a road race, speed stays fairly constant, and changes in speed are gradual compared to other vehicles. This results in rotational mass having very little impact on the time taken to get from point a to b. Much less than aerodynamics, for example. The original poster's experiment came to the correct conclusion - lighter is faster on a climb, lighter wheels + balast is not, in the real world.

[Johan Bornman]

I don't think anybody intelligent doubts the formula for rotating energy - it sometimes even gets posted by somebody in such discussions. Our tertiary institutions produce a fair number of people per year who knows what the equation looks like-it is fairly simple. However, to apply it correctly in the equation of motion for a vehicle is not so easy, few people know how (I won't call that ignorance.)

For rotational inertia to have any effect on energy required, there has to be acceleration. No matter who the rider is, the fact is that acceleration on a bike is relatively small. During a road race, speed stays fairly constant, and changes in speed are gradual compared to other vehicles. This results in rotational mass having very little impact on the time taken to get from point a to b. Much less than aerodynamics, for example. The original poster's experiment came to the correct conclusion - lighter is faster on a climb, lighter wheels + balast is not, in the real world.

 

Welcome back Christie

 

Well put.

 

I always get myself into an argument when I put it differently: weight on a wheel is just weight. It doesn't matter where it is, on the wheel or on the midrif or on the frame.

 

However, that doesn't tie up with nice little physics lessons on the back of product packaging and the thread goes pear-shaped.