Originally Posted by
tomato coupe
The total extra energy expenditure, if the rider was accelerating every second of 112 mile ride, would be (about) 0.3%. But he wouldn't be accelerating the whole time, so the actual overall extra energy expenditure is much lower.
...your back of the napkin number is suspect.
There are more variables in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your equation. Your argument, from the moment you chimed in on this, has been that somehow, it's experimentally valid to approach this from the POV of one isolated variable, which can be quickly calculated using the standard formula. Mine has been, and continues to be, that I am not the one who dragged rotational mass of the wheels into this discussion. But once
Lombard decided it must be relevant, and that I was misleading people, I presented a reasonable explanation of why it's still a valid component of the energy expended when riding your bicycle, even though as speeds increase, aerodynamics of rider and bicycle become much more of factor...I think I said by a factor of about ten. I then linked a blog post about this stuff, so you could see what I was talking about, which you repeatedly have insisted I do not understand. I gave it so you, and others, could see the small differences in the various wheels he was using as a statistical base.
I think that is when you responded:
Originally Posted by
tomato coupe
You may have read the blog, but I don't think you understand it.
Then, in for a penny, in for a pound, you decided to make this pronouncement.
Originally Posted by
tomato coupe
It doesn't matter what the wheels are made of. It takes very little extra power to keep a heavier set of wheels rotating at a given speed than a lighter set of wheels. That's physics.
And took great offense at my suggestion that, were I to believe this, the next big thing would be steel deep aero rims for bikes. I mean, why not ? Steel is cheap to manufacture, and apparently once you get them up to speed, everything will be glorious. If weight isn't really something to worry about, you can internally gusset them, and probably use fewer spokes. What's not to like ? But you are stuck in this world where everything you see to compare is pretty light, while wind resistance is the last big hurdle to going faster on a bike. I have genuinely tried to politely give you some idea of why your gross simplification of this problem is, at its best, inaccurate. Now, I no longer care. It's not my job. You want to be "right" ? Be my guest.
Originally Posted by
tomato coupe
Why don't you do your own calculation and tell us what you get?
...I don't need to do the calculations to know that:
1. you will disagree with it.
2. any energy savings in a long event like the ones triathletes endure is probably worth it to them to improve their results.
3.
the human engine only operates at a peak efficiency of about 25%.
4. I am tired of this discussion.
5. and finally, I detest it when people use the royal we in these threads.