It would'nt matter anyway because people would just have accused me of rigging the data.

Well the name of the paper is "Riding heavy and why". Also I did IN FIELD research before I made any conclusions on how riding heavy affects performance. I was given a tip about riding heavy and was skeptical. Reading about Moser and the Russian guy helped spark my interest, actually doing it was what sold me.

What's the mass difference between the wheels?

I to love my rode bike.

I remember a lot of techy discussions on Slowtwitch, but I don't ever recall someone being accused of rigging any data. Besides, if you rigged your data, someone here would be bound to out you. :-)

---

AndyF
bike geek

I'm pretty sure there was a guy who did something like take a 5 min effort and copy paste it to make it look like he held the power for 20 min. OR something like that. Anyway at least one guy has been caught screwing with data.

I don't even know where to start based on the above. I understand your theorem, however you have provided zero evidence for why we should believe you. No data, simply lots of hand waving and then disbelief when nobody takes you seriously.

As to the above, perhaps a refresher on orders of magnitude should be in your future along with the difference between anecdote and data.


How about a basic model or theory hat even begins to explain why this would be true? Or your data?

Shane

Again do you think Shane Hamman heavy weight olympic weight lifter would be able to perform at his optimal level on the same wheels that you ride?

If the wheel would support him and he spent a little riding, I see no reason why not.

So, without hand waving or making excuses, show me why not.

Shane

What's the equation to determine optimal wheel weight?

The reason I think moment of inertia is important is because angular momentum is determined by this. Angular momentum is important in cycling because it acts to keep you stable and straight. All though a recent paper in Science magazine showed that the gyroscopic forces of the wheels are not responsible for the self-righting phenomenon gyroscopic forces none the less still help stabilize the bike. There is only two contact points and torques produced perpendicular to the direction of motion can result in slipping or rocking from side to side. To me any rocking or slipping is less than ideal, so for me the easiest way to find the ideal moment of inertia is to find the point that rocking and slipping are virtually gone. Correspondingly the rigidity of angular momentum allows you to anchor on it and give you something to push against to help push into the pedals. Rocking and slipping are most clearly visible in sprints when riders work the bike back and forth to get extra torque on the pedals.
Also because the pedals are offset from the centerline of the bike when you mash you are producing torques about the contact points perpendicular to the direction of motion. I think this is one reason Obree's bike performed so well, the pedals were like one inch out from centerline or so, very little torque about the perpendicular and good aerodynamics. My guess is Shane Hamman could produce enough torque just from this short lever arm to break traction and would need more angular momentum than the average to keep him stable, upright, and straight when putting the hammer down. I'm really curious into how wheel weight would affect sprinting, with a heavier wheel a sprinter could almost eliminate those side to side motions(energy clearly not spent on getting down range) and maybe help redirect that energy into the bike. Also at high speeds it seems acceleration is more determined by overcoming the increase in wind resistance than the mass of the bike. Although being able to move sideways fast is important for a sprinter.
So to sum it up for why each Rider would have an Ideal Moment of Inertia, angular momentum resists changes perpendicular to its direction of rotation, this helps stabilize the bike, the stronger or bigger you are the more stabilization you need, the smaller or weaker you are the less you need.
Would you put the wheels to a Sedan on a Mac Truck? no, nor would the reverse make sense.

Irony, sarcasm, purposely misspelling two as too and then further by adding many ooooos.

If you built a bike for a cricket.....

I like that. If you made a speed suit for a fish would it have a lower drag coefficient? :)

So you compare yourself to Galileo? That's nice touch. I can assure you that your instructor gets really happy when his student does that. Also, just read one of your previous posts, check your spelling before you submit your thesis (and yes, science professors do care, a lot!).

You could measure the extraneous forces a given athlete produces perpendicular to the bike, then you could calculate how much angular momentum it would take to prevent these forces from rocking the bike back in forth. For a windy day you could determine the torques(about the contact points) from the peak wind speeds you expect to experience and then determine how much angular momentum it would take to keep you from being pushed over(not like completely over, although if the wind speed was great enough to push you completely over you most certainly would want heavier wheels). As far as the energy dynamics that's harder to say and probably would require analyzing the athletes pedaling technique. An athlete with less dramatic power oscillations during the stroke would need a smaller Moment of Inertia than an athlete with more extreme power oscillations. Correspondingly I would think the more power an athlete can generate the more they would benefit from a heavier wheel. A bigger athlete would need more stabilization because any moving about he does on the bike will produce more dramatic torques about the contact points. For course type that's even more difficult. A flat course would simply require enough angular momentum to allow the rider to ride down the white line nearly effortlessly. A roller coaster type course with a constant series of short hills I think would benefit from even heavier wheels than a flat course, because it would regulate the constant changes in velocity, and reduce how much time you spent at higher speeds on the downhills, in effect helping to reduce the effect that makes hilly terrain slower than flat terrain. Terrain with shallow grade would also benefit from heavier wheels. Steep grade and long hills not so much, although I would still want something on the heavy side of normal(just not a seven pound disk).

Also you can look at it by wheel, for the front you want enough AM to reduce your slip angles to the bare minimum, for the rear you want enough to reduce the rotations about your rear wheel contact patch to a bare minimum.

More conjecture and hand waving. Let's try again; show me a model or real world testing that shows me that your theorem holds water.

Shane

You've totally lost me. I can't distinguish if this thread is fact or pure sarcasm.

Either way it makes me laugh :-)

I have a model, its called the "Churner" and it weighs 7 pounds, its had plenty of real world testing.

Great - share some data.

Shane

9.16 miles one trial hed3 trispoke rear x stinger front 22:13 one trial "the churner" rear X stinger front 21:33. Although no powertap, I did my best to keep the efforts as close as possible, I was doing 5X9miles that day on 300watts each with a different set up, the first three I had a power tap and hit between 300-303 watts for each, so I had a good feel for the effort. One problem was the perceived effort was going up from rep to rep. A big part of this testing for me was not necessarily nit picking about speed but the ride ability of each set up.

28.05mph at the lowes motor speedway, which was the 20-24 age group record for awhile(first race of this year) and close to college B, this was faster per lap and at less effort than the month before(the only two times I've road the speedway), the first time I had a spoked rear and a bottle cage on the back. I also road an extra lap the first time.

25.25mph at white lake international riding at my goal Half Iron effort for Augusta.

The big factor to me about riding the heavy disk is stability and ease of riding. Its just plain easier to ride it efficiently(for me).

You must have misunderstood; I was looking for data that supported your theorem.

Shane

Are you not listening. My theorom says for each rider course and conditions there is an Ideal moment of inertia that will allow for optimal performance. My own personal experience is that I perform better with a different moment of inertia than what is commonly used and that it varies for the type of course or conditions I am riding in. What data do you want? I'm only one rider and there is the paradox. No matter how much testing I do it doesn't matter because I'm only one rider, a proper study would involve many riders, many course types, and many condition variables. As far as mathematics goes I've given that to you, but you engineer types look at mathematics as numbers. Real mathematics is about variables and how they relate to each other, and I've described loads of them if you'll just pay attention a little bit. Getting the proper numbers to make the final step of mathematics to work out is very difficult. Think about the hydrogen atom for instance, it took a legion of brillant people years to model it. You expect me one guy to adequately model the infinite combination of riders, course types, and condition variables. Tell me what do you want? Give me a rider type, course type, and condition type all the numbers included and then maybe I'll do some math for you. I want a power profile down to the millisecond for the rider, measurements of the torques he produces about the perpendicular to travel, I want an exact wind conditions profile, exact course profile, I want to know how many times the given rider scratches his nose during his ride.

My data is my results and my own personal experience. Its not just about speed its about RIDE-ABILITY, don't you get that. Better RIDE-ABILITY=better performance.

The therom also states that there is an ideal moment of inertia differential, meaning the difference in moment of inertia between the front and rear, this effects the how the bike rides and varying this can change how your bike handles. I still have a lot of testing to do in this regard(in really interested in the high front low rear combination), but I guess it's never going to matter because I'm only one guy and no one else will even give it a try. I know of no one else personally that has tried the wide variety of moment of inertias and moment of inertia differentials in riding. I also go to my physics professor and talk over the mathematics about this stuff to get his input. So as far as I'm concerned I'm the technical expert in this domain, so why don't you go prove me wrong by giving it a try. Guess what if you ride heavy and it doesn't work for you and you do better with a light wheel, that supports my theorem, your a different rider than me:) My theorem has nothing to do with light vrs heavy.

So tell me what more do you want?

I understand what you are suggesting; I haven't seen anything that would support that.


The data that would support this; you've provided a couple of anecdotes with no attempt to control any variables and RPE as your powermeter in order to "prove" your theorem is correct.


I would be happy if you could even provide data that supports it is true for you; since you haven't, we're back to conjecture and handwaving.


No you haven't; you've suggested a few things but haven't supported any of it with mathematics.


This may be the funniest thing I've ever read; thanks for the laugh.


I've got a pretty good handle on "real" mathematics; thanks. I have (to my detriment I believe) have been paying attention and have read every post of yours; I see nothing, whether experimental or theoretical, to support what you are suggesting. You have a weak anecdote that you think gives you insight into what is happening but it appears that you are missing the forest for the trees.


The good news is that cycling (and most things that we deal with in daily life) are significantly easier to model than something that requires quantum mechanics in order to model.


Your model, you do the work. However, as I said, I would be happy if you could show that it works for a given rider on any course as a starting point.


How do you measure rideability? For years the rideability of tubulars pumped to 180-200psi on the road was seen as superior and faster than if they were pumped up to 110-120psi; turns out, they are slower on the road at higher pressures.



This is the most insightful thing you said yet.


So is there anything that won't support your theorem which, as I recall, is simply that the moment of inertia for a given rider needs to be somewhere between 0 and infinity?

Shane

No attempt to control variables what the hell are you talking about?

If there was one wheel fit all that's something that would refute my theorem. I did'nt need math to come up with it, just intuition. I look up to the greats in physics who start there work with thought experiments, not numbers and math.

Again what F'n data do you want specify please.

Also its a big universe out there thats why its 0< I < infinity. No possible way to narrow it down any more than that with out a rider, course, and conditions type.

You know very well what I mean about ride ability, do you think a little girls bike is very ride able for you no. Bikes are tailored to the athelete so should the wheels. The max weight for a zipp disk is 275 pounds, looks like they left out a lot of really strong guys out there. Guys that could take their disk and break it with their bare hands, is that data enough for you?