Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Rotating weight - jackmott, Tom A, explain this to me [JudgeNick] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
i went from a 2400 gram wheelset to a 4800 gram wheelset with double the inertia and it shows about 0.07 second advantage for the lighter wheels to ~20mph with a power curve peaking a 750 watts and average of 400 watts

if you did the same weight increase without any intertia increase (as if it were just frame weight) it saves 0.044 seconds

so .016 seconds difference for a sprint from 0 to ~20, wheel weight vs frame weight in this case.

im not getting the negative speed you are



Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter
Quote Reply
Re: Rotating weight - jackmott, Tom A, explain this to me [JudgeNick] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I am an enigma, I am exempt from the normal math and physics calculations used to come to the conclusion that wheel weight doesn't matter.
I'm far from a mathlete and even farther from an actual cyclist, there was a "very" big difference between a set of neuvation R28 and a set of Mavic Open Pro's when chasing the local Wed night ride up a hill. I usually have a solo group ride after that hill but since dropping 600 grams of wheel I now have a group, group ride after the hill.
I weigh 6 pounds more than I did last year (when I could not climb the hill with them). No it is not muscle, it's nachos, wine and some cake.

These very same wheels are now on my GF's bike and she thinks they are much faster than the wrought iron Bontrager's she was sporting before. (She won't let me have them back). she said riding with the Wednesday ride became so much easier that it's almost cheating.
Quote Reply
Re: Rotating weight - jackmott, Tom A, explain this to me [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Well, right (EDIT: I think your wheelset weights are off. A 1080g wheelset like Madfiber would be less than 1700g even with heavy tires). But I didn't want to run a sprint to 250m at 750 peak watts. I don't generate that power. I wanted to just see what happens to an athlete getting back up to race speed and power (150W over 100m?). Some of the runs I got were in line with the poster above, who suggests a 0.5s difference per startup. But the speed was negative, so I figured it was wrong.

Assuming the 0.5s per startup, a 10-turnaround course will be 5 seconds faster on the light wheels. If we figure you get half that advantage for every hard turn (starting from 10 mph instead of 0), twenty corners on that same course will get you another 5s or so. So light wheels will get you 10 seconds over the 20k course.

That *could* be within the amount of time that very aero wheels will get you over the course, assuming your light wheels are reasonably aero (ENVE or Madfiber). Again, that's a conservative estimate. But looks like light wheels with sub-optimal aerodynamics *could* be a wash on that course (perhaps they even win in the end ... I didn't mention the decent hills on the course). But if they're a wash on winding courses, and faster elsewhere, I'll count myself convinced that the rotating weight isn't significant in general.



TriRig.com
The Triathlon Gear Guide
Last edited by: JudgeNick: Apr 16, 11 12:22
Quote Reply
Re: Rotating weight - jackmott, Tom A, explain this to me [shryman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
shryman wrote:
Not to take anything away from jackmott or Tom A., they both have great insights and I have learned a good amount from both of them. But, anybody notice that when their adive is not specifically requested they are all over the post but when directly asked they are nowhere in sight? Just an observation.

I'm specifically NOT responding just because I know it bothers you...:-P

Seriously...I actually saw the original post not long after it was posted, but didn't have a chance to actually respond until now...but, it looks as if folks have been handling it just fine. I'm sorry I'm not on the interwebs 24/7 :-\

Yes, it's true that wheel mass (and rim mass more so than mass closer to the axle) counts "extra" during an acceleration due to the rotational inertia. The "problem" however in folks claiming that they can "feel" differences in mass (or that it has an appreciable performance effect), even on the order of up to 400g ALL concentrated at the tire diameter (!) is that it results in an exceedingly small power output gain required in comparison to the power required to just accelerate the total mass linearly, even in an all out sprint.

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...cceleration;#3255798

My suspicion is that "feel" differences that most folks claim is the result of mass/inertia differences are actually the result of some other wheel or tire property that's different between the wheels.


http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Rotating weight - jackmott, Tom A, explain this to me [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Wow, I missed that thread back in March. That is good stuff and pretty much in line with what the Josh from Zipp article pointed out that inertia was small percentages of watts and aero was huge. I'd say .3 to 14.something is like a 45 to 1 ratio and that makes perfect sense.
Chad
Quote Reply
Re: Rotating weight - jackmott, Tom A, explain this to me [JudgeNick] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm seriously in awe that you asked two salesman and business owner types to explain rotating mass and inertia to you.....

I guess based on post count and forum presence they are experts though.

As for me, I prefer to ask my mother in law about food things (see is a graduate of the CIA and culinary instructor) and ask my father in law about wine (he actually takes trips with his wine distributor; I get to go to Italy next month too).

Suffice it to say if I were going to ask Tom and Jack for advice it would be about running a triathlon related business or perhaps even bicycle or triathlon racing.

You need a physics major or engineer.

I can perhaps even suggest a simple experiment one could do on their bike trainer to understand this fully..... but what do I know?

--------------------------------------------------------

You will remain the same person, before, during and after the race. So the result, no matter how important, will not define you. The journey is what matters. ~ Chrissie W.
Quote Reply
Re: Rotating weight - jackmott, Tom A, explain this to me [AnthonyS] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
AnthonyS wrote:
I'm seriously in awe that you asked two salesman and business owner types to explain rotating mass and inertia to you.....

I guess based on post count and forum presence they are experts though.

As for me, I prefer to ask my mother in law about food things (see is a graduate of the CIA and culinary instructor) and ask my father in law about wine (he actually takes trips with his wine distributor; I get to go to Italy next month too).

Suffice it to say if I were going to ask Tom and Jack for advice it would be about running a triathlon related business or perhaps even bicycle or triathlon racing.

You need a physics major or engineer.

I can perhaps even suggest a simple experiment one could do on their bike trainer to understand this fully..... but what do I know?

Ummm...I'm suspecting you're thinking of a different Tom and Jack...at least I know in MY case, I don't fit your first description above (salesman/business owner), but your second description instead (engineer...BS and MS in ME) and my hobby is bike racing :-)

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Rotating weight - jackmott, Tom A, explain this to me [Titanflexr] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
One thing to keep in mind "but it takes virtually no extra energy to keep it going at a constant speed" is only true for a Newtonian system. In the real world there are many forces at work slowing a bike down, and its pretty easy to quantify.

Most riders here seem to time trial at about 200 watts ave power output. That is exactly the error between your Newtonian model and real life. How that 220 watts is divided up between drag rolling resistance, drivetrain friction etc doesn't matter, you have to put F into the pedals to oppose the negative resistance A to move your M along.

Remember aceleration isn't just a positive value, in the real world you are opposing deceleration constantly even if you are going at a steady speed.

One other thing for everyone in this thread, stop comparing wheel weight to rider/bike weight as if wheels weigh so little that quantum effects take place. What people are really asking is

How much energy does a 1200 gram wheel set take to move down the road 25 miles (in real life) vs a 2000 gram wheelset. That answer will be almost exactly the same for a 120 pound rider and a 1000 pound rider.

Styrrell
dfor

Styrrell
Quote Reply
Re: Rotating weight - jackmott, Tom A, explain this to me [styrrell] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
styrrell wrote:
One thing to keep in mind "but it takes virtually no extra energy to keep it going at a constant speed" is only true for a Newtonian system. In the real world there are many forces at work slowing a bike down, and its pretty easy to quantify.

Most riders here seem to time trial at about 200 watts ave power output. That is exactly the error between your Newtonian model and real life. How that 220 watts is divided up between drag rolling resistance, drivetrain friction etc doesn't matter, you have to put F into the pedals to oppose the negative resistance A to move your M along.

Remember aceleration isn't just a positive value, in the real world you are opposing deceleration constantly even if you are going at a steady speed.

Right, and the only retarding force that's going to be affected (on level ground) by an increase in wheel mass is the tire rolling resistance, which in the range of masses being discussed (i.e. 200 to 400g per wheelset) and assuming a "moderate to good" Crr of .0045 would only require an additional 0.1- 0.2W at 40 km/hr for constant speed by my quick figgerin'...in other words, a "pretty freakin' small effect", especially in the context of potential drag differences possible by aerodynamic and/or rolling resistance effects due to the wheel choices.


styrrell wrote:
One other thing for everyone in this thread, stop comparing wheel weight to rider/bike weight as if wheels weigh so little that quantum effects take place. What people are really asking is

How much energy does a 1200 gram wheel set take to move down the road 25 miles (in real life) vs a 2000 gram wheelset. That answer will be almost exactly the same for a 120 pound rider and a 1000 pound rider.

Ummm...no, it won't, due to that pesky Crr effect...and once again, the mass of the rider has a much larger influence on that than even an 800g difference in wheel weight (still less than 1W by my figuring.)

BTW, who's been talking about the difference between 1200g wheelsets and 2000g wheelsets? Good luck finding a 1200g wheelset aerodynamically equal to even moderately more heavy wheelsets (i.e. in the 1750g range).

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Rotating weight - jackmott, Tom A, explain this to me [JudgeNick] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JudgeNick wrote:
Well, right (EDIT: I think your wheelset weights are off. A 1080g wheelset like Madfiber would be less than 1700g even with heavy tires). But I didn't want to run a sprint to 250m at 750 peak watts. I don't generate that power. I wanted to just see what happens to an athlete getting back up to race speed and power (150W over 100m?)...

Huh? Are you using only 1 leg?

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Rotating weight - jackmott, Tom A, explain this to me [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Right, and the only retarding force that's going to be affected (on level ground) by an increase in wheel mass is the tire rolling resistance, which in the range of masses being discussed (i.e. 200 to 400g per wheelset) and assuming a "moderate to good" Crr of .0045 would only require an additional 0.1- 0.2W at 40 km/hr for constant speed by my quick figgerin'...in other words, a "pretty freakin' small effect", "

The only retarding force that's going to be affected is correct, but resisting all of the retarding force is effected by mass. Just so I understand are you really saying that if we built two identical bikes, including identical rolling resistance, but one weighed more, and they were both towed up to 25 mph (so we can ignore the initial acceleration) that the heavier one would take absolutely no more energy to keep going 25 mph than the lighter one?

"Ummm...no, it won't, due to that pesky Crr effect"
Crr is why I said almost, and I agree its small, but you are still ignoring that you have 200 watt of drag (I know those are the wrong terms) to overcome and weight effects that, in the real world.

"BTW, who's been talking about the difference between 1200g wheelsets and 2000g wheelsets? Good luck finding a 1200g wheelset aerodynamically equal to even moderately more heavy wheelsets (i.e. in the 1750g range).'

AAArghh, why can't people separate aero from weight, the whole discussion started with how much weight really matters, not whats more important. But if we must, ya know aero bikes really aren't what you should be fooling with, training is REALLY what most important. ;-)

Styrrell




Styrrell
Quote Reply
Re: Rotating weight - jackmott, Tom A, explain this to me [JudgeNick] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JudgeNick wrote:

BUT ... that being said, there's a phenomenon that intuitively leads me to believe that heavier wheels take significantly more work to spin, and I want to hear why that phenomenon does NOT apply to wheels. Namely, it's this -- imagine a 30cm string, at each end of which is a weight. One of these weights will be 100g, the other one 1,000g. Now imagine gripping one end of the string, and spinning the other end in a circle. It is CERTAINLY harder to do when the heavy weight is at the end, and you are gripping the lighter one. I don't think anyone debates that, right?


If I understand what you're asking, in the case of a weight on a string, *you* are providing the "equal but opposite force" to counter the centrifugal force on the weight. In the case of a spinning wheel, the spokes are providing that restorative force. And the spokes are neatly symmetrically arranged to keep forces well distributed.

Quote:

Why doesn't this apply to a bike wheel? Again, I'm perfectly willing to be convinced. I'm NOT a physicist. I just don't understand why this principle doesn't mean that lighter wheels are easier to spin.


Once a high moment-of-inertia wheel is spinning, it wants to keep spinning. As long as you keep your speed constant, you're not losing anything except the added rolling resistance from compressing the tire against the pavement more due to the higher overall weight.

In general, a wheel with a higher moment of inertia will hurt you less for time-trials and more for races where changes in velocity are more important.

Moment-of-inertia adds an extra "phantom mass" term when you're accelerating that modifies the mass during acceleration to give you a higher Effective Rotational Mass. You can read about it here.

AndyF
bike geek
Last edited by: AndyF: Apr 16, 11 19:45
Quote Reply
Re: Rotating weight - jackmott, Tom A, explain this to me [JudgeNick] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I didn't read all the replies in depth, though I'm sure Tom explained it fully. One thing I didn't see him mention in my quick gloss was your specific reference to climbing. Spin-up on flat ground (i.e., at higher speeds) is quite a bit more affected by wheel aerodynamics than by weight. For example, a disc spins up faster than even a much lighter box section rim at "high" speeds. So that will drastically affect your ability (assuming you have any) to perceive the weight difference between wheels. However, on a climb, between significantly different wheelsets - say 1080 clincher pair vs. 202 tubular pair - the weight between those two will likely overwhelm any aerodynamic advantage the heavier wheels have that would cloud your ability to pick up the difference between wheels on flat ground.

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp
Quote Reply
Re: Rotating weight - jackmott, Tom A, explain this to me [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Glad to know you are an engineer and he asked an engineer for help on this then.

That said, this can be realized via a very simple experiment involving an indoor trainer, a stop watch, a few different rear wheels and a little sweat. One doesn't need to brow beat this with theory and conjecture.

And as for a heavier disc being faster than a lighter rimmed wheel per Rappstar, that has to do with moment of inertia and aerodynamics.

If we do our test on an indoor trainer we negate aerodynamic advantages for the most part. We can focus purely on the issue at hand, rotating mass and inertia.

--------------------------------------------------------

You will remain the same person, before, during and after the race. So the result, no matter how important, will not define you. The journey is what matters. ~ Chrissie W.
Quote Reply
Re: Rotating weight - jackmott, Tom A, explain this to me [styrrell] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
styrrell wrote:

The only retarding force that's going to be affected is correct, but resisting all of the retarding force is effected by mass.

I'm not following what you're trying to say above...

styrrell wrote:
Just so I understand are you really saying that if we built two identical bikes, including identical rolling resistance, but one weighed more, and they were both towed up to 25 mph (so we can ignore the initial acceleration) that the heavier one would take absolutely no more energy to keep going 25 mph than the lighter one?

Well...now you're changing the setup ;-) At first it was just a wheel change, and in that case, just the tire rolling resistance would be affected. If the weight is added to the rest of the bike however, then there may be a small change in the bearing friction in the wheel bearings due to a higher loading as well.

But, in general I think I know what you're asking...and yes, if the rolling resistance were kept constant (including the bearing resistance I mention above) then the power required to keep both bikes at a steady speed on level ground would be identical.

Let me turn this around and ask the question: What retarding forces are different with the different masses? (Besides the ones I've mentioned).

Here's another one: After towing up to speed and being let go, which bike would roll further if no additional power were applied?

styrrell wrote:
AAArghh, why can't people separate aero from weight, the whole discussion started with how much weight really matters, not whats more important. But if we must, ya know aero bikes really aren't what you should be fooling with, training is REALLY what most important. ;-)

Because it's really tough to separate the 2...aside from special cases, it's fairly common for any mass differences to be accompanied by aero drag differences. But, guess which wheel property gets most of the "attention" despite being the lower order effect?

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Rotating weight - jackmott, Tom A, explain this to me [AnthonyS] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
AnthonyS wrote:
Glad to know you are an engineer and he asked an engineer for help on this then.

That said, this can be realized via a very simple experiment involving an indoor trainer, a stop watch, a few different rear wheels and a little sweat. One doesn't need to brow beat this with theory and conjecture.

And as for a heavier disc being faster than a lighter rimmed wheel per Rappstar, that has to do with moment of inertia and aerodynamics.

If we do our test on an indoor trainer we negate aerodynamic advantages for the most part. We can focus purely on the issue at hand, rotating mass and inertia.


You're making the same mistake most wheel testers make...and that's assuming that a difference that can be detected when the wheel is taken in isolation can be "felt", or is of significance, when attached to a dramatically more massive system.

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Last edited by: Tom A.: Apr 16, 11 20:39
Quote Reply
Re: Rotating weight - jackmott, Tom A, explain this to me [AnthonyS] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
AnthonyS wrote:
Glad to know you are an engineer and he asked an engineer for help on this then.

That said, this can be realized via a very simple experiment involving an indoor trainer, a stop watch, a few different rear wheels and a little sweat. One doesn't need to brow beat this with theory and conjecture.

And as for a heavier disc being faster than a lighter rimmed wheel per Rappstar, that has to do with moment of inertia and aerodynamics.

If we do our test on an indoor trainer we negate aerodynamic advantages for the most part. We can focus purely on the issue at hand, rotating mass and inertia.

In addition to all the mistakes that Tom pointed out, you're also making the massive mistake of assuming that the aerodynamics of the wheel simply rotating in place are not significant. A wheel attached to the trainer is still rotating through air. And that air is important. Very important.

So, you're simple experiment is really not so simple. Or rather, it's simply, but it's not really accurate. Your statement that "we negate aerodynamic advantages for the most part" is simply false.

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp
Quote Reply
Re: Rotating weight - jackmott, Tom A, explain this to me [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"But, in general I think I know what you're asking...and yes, if the rolling resistance were kept constant (including the bearing resistance I mention above) then the power required to keep both bikes at a steady speed on level ground would be identical."

I disagree, and that was the main point of my original post. Sure, in a Newtonian framework an object in motion will stay in motion, but I'm talking about real life framework.


"Let me turn this around and ask the question: What retarding forces are different with the different masses? (Besides the ones I've mentioned)."

None, but I don't understand why you think that the bike as a whole can separate forces slowing it down. By that I mean the following:

F=ma. Wind resistance tries to slow the bike down and the rider inputs force to the pedal to keep it from doing so. The result is the bike goes at a constant speed. Because the speed is constant its tempting to say that acceleration isn't taking place so mass isn't in play. However, the deceleration of the bike that is being resisted to keep the bike moving at a constant speed is still acceleration as far as F=ma is concerned.

"Here's another one: After towing up to speed and being let go, which bike would roll further if no additional power were applied?"

The heavier one, but you can't have it both ways. If you are saying weight does matter when allowing the bikes to coast (decelerate), you can't also say that weight doesn't matter when opposing the tendancy to decelerate.

"Because it's really tough to separate the 2...aside from special cases, it's fairly common for any mass differences to be accompanied by aero drag differences. But, guess which wheel property gets most of the "attention" despite being the lower order effect? "

I disagree again. I think where these types of discussions (how physics applies to real world systems) gets sidetracked it that people add to much needless complexity to the question. The original question had to do with how rotation weight effect speed. Sure aero matters more, as does training, nutritian , etc but thats all separate.

Styrrell


Styrrell


Styrrell
Quote Reply
Re: Rotating weight - jackmott, Tom A, explain this to me [styrrell] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
styrrell wrote:
The only retarding force [..]


I'd tell you what is the "retarding force" in this thread, but I think we're not supposed to use that word nowadays.

-

The Triathlon Squad

Like us on Facebook!!!
Quote Reply
Re: Rotating weight - jackmott, Tom A, explain this to me [Paulo Sousa] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm willing to take the insult if you're willing to actually use logic to explain your points. If not well I guess I'll just sink to your level of discourse and go with the tried and true I'm rubber and you're glue what ever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.

Styrrell

Styrrell
Quote Reply
Re: Rotating weight - jackmott, Tom A, explain this to me [styrrell] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That's actually funny. I wasn't talking about you :)

-

The Triathlon Squad

Like us on Facebook!!!
Quote Reply
Re: Rotating weight - jackmott, Tom A, explain this to me [styrrell] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
styrrell wrote:
I disagree, and that was the main point of my original post. Sure, in a Newtonian framework an object in motion will stay in motion, but I'm talking about real life framework.

So am I.

styrrell wrote:
"Let me turn this around and ask the question: What retarding forces are different with the different masses? (Besides the ones I've mentioned)."

None, but I don't understand why you think that the bike as a whole can separate forces slowing it down. By that I mean the following:

F=ma. Wind resistance tries to slow the bike down and the rider inputs force to the pedal to keep it from doing so. The result is the bike goes at a constant speed. Because the speed is constant its tempting to say that acceleration isn't taking place so mass isn't in play. However, the deceleration of the bike that is being resisted to keep the bike moving at a constant speed is still acceleration as far as F=ma is concerned.

Aaah...that's where you've run off the tracks. It's not the deceleration of the bike that's being resisted, it's the opposing forces. If there is no actual acceleration or deceleration, then there's no F due to mass. No "a", then no "F = ma".

styrrell wrote:
"Here's another one: After towing up to speed and being let go, which bike would roll further if no additional power were applied?"

The heavier one, but you can't have it both ways. If you are saying weight does matter when allowing the bikes to coast (decelerate), you can't also say that weight doesn't matter when opposing the tendancy to decelerate.

You're getting confused on cause and effect. Deceleration is the result of non-balanced opposing forces, NOT a force in itself. As I said above, if there is no acceleration or deceleration, then there are no additional forces due to F=ma.




http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Rotating weight - jackmott, Tom A, explain this to me [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tom A. wrote:
JudgeNick wrote:
Well, right (EDIT: I think your wheelset weights are off. A 1080g wheelset like Madfiber would be less than 1700g even with heavy tires). But I didn't want to run a sprint to 250m at 750 peak watts. I don't generate that power. I wanted to just see what happens to an athlete getting back up to race speed and power (150W over 100m?)...


Huh? Are you using only 1 leg?


I don't use a powermeter, so honestly I don't know. But I'm guessing that since the sprinter model had the rider going to a peak of 750 Watts, that much power isn't an appropriate estimate for a triathlete going from 0 to 25 after a turnaround. I'm not implying it makes a significant difference to the result. I'm just wondering what happens, and wasn't having success playing with the AC tools myself. Again, I DON'T mean to imply that the light wheels ARE better here, I just want to understand better why they aren't. Jordan is now suggesting that the aerodynamics of a wheel spinning in place (which would apply to a wheel spinning up) are significant. Jordan, you're saying a disc spins up quicker because of that aero difference. Are you saying that aero difference trumps weight for even the lightest rear wheels in production? Or just for some? Those forces aren't modeled on the analytic cycling pages if I'm seeing it correctly. I'd like to see more about that.

But anyway, everything here seems to suggest that light wheels might save you on the order of 5-10 seconds over a twisty sprint course. And significant aero improvements to those wheels at the cost of their light weight is going to at LEAST cover the 5-10 seconds, so it's a wash at best, and a loss otherwise. I'm pretty satisfied for now. Thanks for all the replies, everyone.



TriRig.com
The Triathlon Gear Guide
Last edited by: JudgeNick: Apr 16, 11 22:42
Quote Reply
Re: Rotating weight - jackmott, Tom A, explain this to me [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You're making the same mistake most wheel testers make...and that's assuming that a difference that can be detected when the wheel is taken in isolation can be "felt", or is of significance, when attached to a dramatically more massive system.

Hey... I tried the AnthonyS challenge... why don't you give it a shot? Put your bike in the trainer with the rear wheel "free" and see if you can get the wheel up to 40mph in less than two seconds. I bet you can. The heaviest wheel I have feels like it's barely there.

AnthonyS pretends to be an engineer... but in nearly every post he proves otherwise.

Quote Reply
Re: Rotating weight - jackmott, Tom A, explain this to me [AnthonyS] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
AnthonyS wrote:
I'm seriously in awe that you asked two salesman and business owner types to explain rotating mass and inertia to you.....

I guess based on post count and forum presence they are experts though.

As for me, I prefer to ask my mother in law about food things (see is a graduate of the CIA and culinary instructor) and ask my father in law about wine (he actually takes trips with his wine distributor; I get to go to Italy next month too).

Suffice it to say if I were going to ask Tom and Jack for advice it would be about running a triathlon related business or perhaps even bicycle or triathlon racing.

You need a physics major or engineer.

I can perhaps even suggest a simple experiment one could do on their bike trainer to understand this fully..... but what do I know?

Or just ask Howardjd


-Jason
______________________________________________
Is that all you've got? Are you sure?
Quote Reply

Prev Next