Holy non-Newtonian Batman... I walk away from this NG for a few days and Wham! I come back to Chaos that seems to be migrating toward a periodic attactor by way of non-linear equations.

Can we just chalk it up to Fuzzy Logic... throw in a constant (like any good academic would) and call it one of 4 truths - a) Practically computable b) computable c) decidable or d) mathematical. You choose.

Now, what was the original question? "Are some of the pros stupid or do we take it too serious?" hmmm... somehow "too serious" seems to be the answer with highest probability. But once again, Natural system of Observation and Cause vs. Mathematical system of Inferences and Theorems rear their ugly head in conflict. Close the shudders and get the children in the house - quick! LOL

Joe Moya

Joe,
I'm really sorry, but since a non-Newtonian fluid is defined as: "A fluid whose viscosity is not constant at all shear rates", thus excluding air, I don't think Batman will be of any help.

Too serious? You don't know me very well, do you?

(I'm actually surprised at the lack of active research in this field, compared to, say, sports nutrition ... would be a nice way to keep some theorists out of trouble).

Dre'

Serious? Naaa... Like it's said... life's too short to take it too serious.

Humor is a plus but only eccentricity seems to add to the multitude of flavors for confortable existence... and, the flavor is defined by genious, fortitude, vigour and courage.

So, it's off to the store to find my favorite flavor of eccentricity.

FWIW Joe Moya

Kraig,
glad to see this article. Any relation with the model that Ed Burke was developing, circa '99, to estimate the power needed to crack Boardman's record? (Caltech doesn't subscribe to these journals, so I'm stuck with a bunch of abstracts)

Dre'

I would love to see that article in full as I doubt that such correlation (within 2.7 watts) is possible in the real world. It is just as good that I don't have it as we don't need another 200 message back and forth between Dr. Coggan and myself on this site.

My concerns are found in my suspicion that simply turning the head 5 degrees up or down or right or left would affect the measured power to the model more than 2.7 watts at any substantial speed. How does one "model" the individual and their bike positioning quirks? Or, predict what the " effecitve frontal area" should be to put into such a mathematical model is for any particular rider. Such a mathematical model has to use the "ideal" cyclist in an "ideal" position. Where did they find even one such ideal cyclist who could hold a predetermined position for an extended period of time for their road riding comparison?

While I believe models are valuable as a research tool I doubt they hold much value to the real world competitive cyclist trying to tweak 20 seconds off a 40 k time trial in unknown, unpredictable, and varying wind conditions.

Frank

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

fuzzy logic...now that's closer to my field...

you forgot

e: recursively enumerable (natural sequel of decidable)

hmmm.... recursively enumerable. If my memory is correct, recursively enumberable would not necessarilly be a truth... since, two elements must be present - decideable or undecideable. If so, enumeration produces a delimma of infinite calculations produced by infinite amount of numbers so that it eventually produces an infinite answer (or sum). Or, they can also become infinately small and prove that 1=0. Something about an unending sum (increasing sums) or convergent sum (decreasing sums) that makes recursively enumerable a non-option for determining truths (only) ... or some sort of non-sense. I believe that is where truths are undecideable (or they can't be determined) unless you reject infinities.

hmmm... my brain is hurting. So, I think it's best to leave this stuff to the experts.

FWIW Joe Moya

K. Willett wrote: "The power model that I have used/developed in the past: ..."

I see you use the same formula for rolling resistance that everyone else does, that is, that the rolling developed force does not depend upon the velocity such that the power required to over come rolling resistance varies directly with velocity, not, as I believe makes the most sense, that the rolling resistance force should vary directly with velocity and the required power required to overcome RR should vary as the velocity squared.

If the lunar rover were to go into a coasting mode (while on the moon, would it slow down at a constant rate or would the rate of slowing depend upon the velocity?

Is there any experimental data to support the RR force is independent of speed model? Isn't rolling resistance caused by the hysterisis effect of the flexing wheel causing heat loss? Doesn't the amount of flex per unit time vary with velocity? Then, why doesn't the resistive force vary directly with velocity?

If I am wrong in my thinking, why?

Frank

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

basically, a program may loop...but you cannot make the distinction between a program that loops and a program that takes a very long time to compute.
in any case, in practice, anything slower than quadratic in time is not very useful...

seem to remember quite a bit (more than some of my students who took the class in the fall!) :-)

Thanks Kraig,

Do you know how to retrieve some of the references such as: TST Report no. DOT-TST-76-1, 1976

Thought it would be retrievable off of DOT web site but can't find it. Did a google search and only came up with this site.

Frank

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks