Tour de-france type of riders, what's their deal?
#376
Not actually Tmonk
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 14,250
Bikes: road, track, mtb
Mentioned: 142 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2703 Post(s)
Liked 3,273 Times
in
1,715 Posts
These arguments always finally end up with discussion on the semantics of 'training' . A structured training plan that's based on time/effort is all fine and good, if you can manage to identify a route that finishes exactly where you need to finish -- eg. at your car or your home, or you have a support vehicle following that you get in when you're done. Otherwise, you're walking (home or to the car, etc)? Then there are group rides, some might be called training rides. Eg. a local club around here does morning training laps around Central Park -- 4 of them or roughly 24 miles or so. Therefore, it's a fixed distance. Group/club rides are often used in training, but not aware of many of them stopping in the middle of nowhere because someone's stopwatch had counted down to zero.
Like most people I only have so much time to ride and train, so time and training stress (as a function of power) is how I optimize that for my solo training sessions. My comment was entirely in the context of solo riding. For group riding/racing similar arguments apply, but yeah I agree with you, it becomes more muddled and I think that the bike certainly makes a bigger difference. For this reason I race on a Specialized Venge with latex tubes, deep wheels and all the fast bits, but train on a Giant TCR with box rims that is configured to be a lot more comfortable. It is certainly a slower bike and takes more effort to maintain high speed, but I don't really care about speed in my training, I care about getting stronger with my available time and power output.
__________________
"Your beauty is an aeroplane;
so high, my heart cannot bear the strain." -A.C. Jobim, Triste
"Your beauty is an aeroplane;
so high, my heart cannot bear the strain." -A.C. Jobim, Triste
Likes For TMonk:
#377
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2021
Posts: 12
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Yes, it is. It's very easy, using gears correctly and monitoring HR, to duplicate workouts on bikes that weigh differently. The problem with your logic, as others have stated, is that you're forgetting that the main weight factor is the rider, and you're not including gear usage/cadence in your logic. If there is a 20 pound difference in the weight of the rider/bike, that means you may have to use a lower gear with an identical cadence to get the same workout. But, you get the same workout. If there were such a thing as 150 and 300 pound bikes, you would probably have a point
No, they aren't. I've made it very clear that I've been using the term "work" in the physics sense, which is just weight times distance. There are countless examples where more work can be done with less effort. For example, simple machines like levers, pulleys, gears, etc., can result in more work but less effort.
And yes, the percentage matters very much. If the difference in work per mile is trivial (and it is), then all you need to do to equalize the workouts is ride the lighter bike just a little farther.
Your glaring math error suggested you'd have to double the distance to do this.
Tell you what, define "different" and we can talk. Some differences matter, others are insignificant. Burden is on you, tell us exactly how much weight produces a significant difference that anyone should care about.
You've now constructed your argument to be if you don't allow any other changes to the workout to compensate, then you get a different workout per mile on a heavier bike than a lighter bike. Again, you'll call this a concession, but that's a trivial truth because there's literally no reason other than to construct a circular argument to assume that people don't adjust their workout accounting for the difference in weight. You conceded this with that "nip in the bud" bit.
And seriously, you have no answer that if you really think that you'll benefit by riding a bike that's 15 pounds heavier, all you need to do is add a 15 pound weight to the 15 pound bike.
So, here's where we are--you are arguing that if the only variable you can alter is the weight of the bicycle, you will not get the same workout. That's literally true for any other factor as well. It's also entirely pointless because it's never true that all you can alter is a single factor.
You not only don't understand how people use bikes
you also don't understand how to construct an argument that isn't completely circular.
I guess that's some form of cycling but watching you make a fool of yourself is losing its entertainment value.
Is that right?
#378
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,924
Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3352 Post(s)
Liked 1,056 Times
in
635 Posts
After a nice leasurely ride over to the pie and ice cream shop, I take my time setting in the shade eat a nice piece of apple pie heaped with ice cream, on my comfortable trike seat. I was in no hurry to get there, didnt pay one whit of attention to my cadence, or speed. I did tho see probably dozens of things a TdF rider would have missed with his head down staring at his front wheel.
Bottom line both of us are happy.
Bottom line both of us are happy.
Likes For rydabent:
#379
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Northampton, MA
Posts: 1,909
Bikes: 36" Unicycle, winter knock-around hybrid bike
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 930 Post(s)
Liked 393 Times
in
282 Posts
It's force times distance. Force only equals weight if you're carrying your bike up a ladder. Which you generally aren't, which is why those several hundred pound cargo bikes can be moved by a human.
Hills are an intermediate situation.
There are countless examples where more work can be done with less effort. For example, simple machines like levers, pulleys, gears, etc., can result in more work but less effort.
Work is something you just can't cheat at - use more leverage and you can apply less force, but you'll also move the load proportionally less against its force, than you move your end of the lever against yours. You can do your work more quickly or slowly but it's still the same amount of physics work. Choose a lower gear and you can mash the pedals less, but you'll have to make them go around more times - either spinning a higher cadence or taking longer to get there (and trust me, the reps of riding low gear high cadence are not free as a repetetive-motion toll on your body)
Do keep in mind that in cycling above relaxed pace, the dramatic rise of air resistance with speed increase is the main energy suck until you get to a climb - and that doesnt depend on weight or even show up in a simple physical machine type analysis.
But what about that hill?
Well, what about it. The work done in raising 20 lbs of bike 1000 feet is 20,000 foot pounds or 27 kilojoules.
But that's just 6.4 food calories.
Which is to say two m&m candies. Round up to three as an extremely generous reward for rolling resistance.
Last edited by UniChris; 06-27-21 at 11:18 PM.
#380
Klaatu..Verata..Necktie?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 18,162
Bikes: Litespeed Ultimate, Ultegra; Canyon Endurace, 105; Battaglin MAX, Chorus; Bianchi 928 Veloce; Ritchey Road Logic, Dura Ace; Cannondale R500 RX100; Schwinn Circuit, Sante; Lotus Supreme, Dura Ace
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10522 Post(s)
Liked 12,088 Times
in
6,190 Posts
"But I came here for an argument".
__________________
"Don't take life so serious-it ain't nohow permanent."
"Everybody's gotta be somewhere." - Eccles
"Don't take life so serious-it ain't nohow permanent."
"Everybody's gotta be somewhere." - Eccles
#381
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,519
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2562 Post(s)
Liked 3,059 Times
in
1,744 Posts
In the wise words of Archimedes, "Give me a gear low enough and I'll ride a 300-pound bike up a cliff." Leverage trumps weight every time.
In 2005, Czech pro cyclist Ondrej Sosenka bettered the UCI world hour record previously held by Chris Boardman. The bike that Sosenka used to set the new record weighed roughly 50% more than Boardman's had weighed. The reasoning was that the heavier bike (in particular, its much heavier wheels), once up to speed, provided momentum that reduced the fatiguing effect of the constant micro-accelerations required with a lighter bike. Heavier bike, easier workout.
In 2005, Czech pro cyclist Ondrej Sosenka bettered the UCI world hour record previously held by Chris Boardman. The bike that Sosenka used to set the new record weighed roughly 50% more than Boardman's had weighed. The reasoning was that the heavier bike (in particular, its much heavier wheels), once up to speed, provided momentum that reduced the fatiguing effect of the constant micro-accelerations required with a lighter bike. Heavier bike, easier workout.
Likes For Trakhak:
#382
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2021
Posts: 12
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Force times displacement, like I already said in post #360. "Weight times distance" is a more common-speak way of saying it.
No, it isn't. A simple machine that offers a mechanical advantage such as a lever reduces the amount of effort you need to expend to lift, say, a 100-pound rock. It always ends up being more work than directly lifting the rock though because no machine is 100% efficient, and those inherent losses mean you won't get the exact mechanical advantage in reality that you get on paper. For example, if, on paper, the lever allows you to lift a 100-pound rock to a height of 1 foot with 50 pounds of force over a distance of 2 feet, in reality, it will require more than 50 pounds of force. If it's a very efficient lever it may be something like 50.001 pounds of force, or if it's a lever that's on a rusty old fulcrum it may be 55 pounds of force, but either way, it's always going to be more, which means more work than lifting the rock directly.
No, I'm not. See above.
Again, no machine is 100% efficient, which means that using a machine that provides a mechanical advantage always results in more work. From my example above, even if it's only 50.001 pounds that you have to apply instead of 50 pounds that it would be on paper, and you have to apply that force over 2 feet of distance instead of 1 foot for lifting the rock directly, 50.001 × 2 is greater than 100 × 1, i.e., more work.
Dubious.
It's unclear how you are defining effort but you seem to be forgetting the distance component of work
Work is something you just can't cheat at - use more leverage and you can apply less force, but you'll also move the load proportionally less against its force, than you move your end of the lever against yours. You can do your work more quickly or slowly but it's still the same amount of physics work. Choose a lower gear and you can mash the pedals less, but you'll have to make them go around more times - either spinning a higher cadence or taking longer to get there (and trust me, the reps of riding low gear high cadence are not free as a repetetive-motion toll on your body)
#383
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,099 Times
in
5,054 Posts
MaximRecoil .
I'm not bothering to go through that word salad of rationalizations of why you have absolutely no argument, but just to spell out why your whole thing is a complete logic fail.
This all started when you made the statement that you cannot get the same workout on a light bike as you do on a heavier bike. That statement was never qualified in any way. It was postulated as an absolute truth. When it's pointed out that there's several things you can do that actually equalize the workouts you get on unequal weight bikes, you announce that for the sake of the argument we're going to assume you can't do those things. So essentially, you're conceding that in the real world, you can actually get the same workout on the two bikes, but in a hypothetical "all other things being equal" world, you can't. Why in wide world of sports would anyone care about that hypothetical world?
Keep in mind, your original statement was about "workouts", not "work". Discussing the quality of workouts without discussing effort is a pretty weird thing to do, almost as weird as discussing the work involved in propelling a bicycle without including the weight of the rider.
So, basically, you're now arguing that if we assume you can't make any other changes to the bicycle or your effort, you can't get the same workout on two bikes of different weights.
Congrats, Captain Obvious!
I get that you want us all to go through why your little quibbles are wrong, but I know when someone is trying to put up the shiny objects to distract from the main issue, which is your basic point is nothing anyone would or should care about.
By the way, if you don't think your refusal to define "significant difference" isn't a tell, you really have no business trying to argue logic.
I'm not bothering to go through that word salad of rationalizations of why you have absolutely no argument, but just to spell out why your whole thing is a complete logic fail.
This all started when you made the statement that you cannot get the same workout on a light bike as you do on a heavier bike. That statement was never qualified in any way. It was postulated as an absolute truth. When it's pointed out that there's several things you can do that actually equalize the workouts you get on unequal weight bikes, you announce that for the sake of the argument we're going to assume you can't do those things. So essentially, you're conceding that in the real world, you can actually get the same workout on the two bikes, but in a hypothetical "all other things being equal" world, you can't. Why in wide world of sports would anyone care about that hypothetical world?
Keep in mind, your original statement was about "workouts", not "work". Discussing the quality of workouts without discussing effort is a pretty weird thing to do, almost as weird as discussing the work involved in propelling a bicycle without including the weight of the rider.
So, basically, you're now arguing that if we assume you can't make any other changes to the bicycle or your effort, you can't get the same workout on two bikes of different weights.
Congrats, Captain Obvious!
I get that you want us all to go through why your little quibbles are wrong, but I know when someone is trying to put up the shiny objects to distract from the main issue, which is your basic point is nothing anyone would or should care about.
By the way, if you don't think your refusal to define "significant difference" isn't a tell, you really have no business trying to argue logic.
#384
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Northampton, MA
Posts: 1,909
Bikes: 36" Unicycle, winter knock-around hybrid bike
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 930 Post(s)
Liked 393 Times
in
282 Posts
Repeating your mistake right after it was explained won't make it right.
Force, NOT weight. Mixing them up is the start of countless comical errors.
Except that the body is also a machine, and clearly not at it's most efficient when absurdly mashing.
Spinning high cadence at minimum force? Wasteful
Mashing to extreme in too high a gear for the hill? Also wasteful
The peak efficiency of the whole rider-bike system will be somewhere in between.
As for "getting the same workout" all you have to do is ride faster...
Force, NOT weight. Mixing them up is the start of countless comical errors.
It always ends up being more work than directly lifting the rock though because no machine is 100% efficient, and those inherent losses mean you won't get the exact mechanical advantage in reality that you get on paper.
Spinning high cadence at minimum force? Wasteful
Mashing to extreme in too high a gear for the hill? Also wasteful
The peak efficiency of the whole rider-bike system will be somewhere in between.
As for "getting the same workout" all you have to do is ride faster...
Last edited by UniChris; 06-28-21 at 05:26 AM.
#385
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,557
Mentioned: 69 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3256 Post(s)
Liked 2,567 Times
in
1,529 Posts
Have we talked about Tour De France workout music yet?
Likes For seypat:
#386
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,099 Times
in
5,054 Posts
MaximRecoil
Sorry, but the more I think about your rebuttal, the funnier it gets, so I can't resist a couple more points--
I said there is no such thing as a 500 pound bicycle, not "no one can move a cargo bike laden to 500 pounds". I stand by that--go ahead and show us a bicycle that, by itself unladen, weighs 500 pounds. That's a double-dog dare. If the bike starts at 500 pounds unladen, then putting a plausible rider of it on top of it already increases the gross vehicle weight to close to 700 pounds. I'm sure there's probably someone who might do this as a stunt, but so what? This tells us absolutely nothing about the impact of your hypothetical 15 pound bicycle weight difference on the qualities of a workout.
Here's the begging the question fallacy you've committed--
Me and everyone else: "If you do the following, you equalize the workouts"
You: "Assume we can't do those, I win the argument."
Assuming that all things being equal IS question begging if your basic argument is that things can't be made different to compensate for the difference in weight. All I've "conceded" is that if we assume you're right, then you are correct. I don't have any reason to assume this all things being equal has anything to do with reality, so I am not making that assumption, and am very clearly stating you are wrong.
So let's go back to your original argument--
"No, you can't. You can achieve the same amount of work on any weight bike, but that doesn't mean the "workout" is the same. For example, if you bench press 300 pounds 10 times, you're doing the same amount of work as bench pressing 100 pounds 30 times, or 50 pounds 60 times, but they aren't the same workout, because the body responds very differently to them. Likewise, riding a 30-pound bike 1 mile is the same amount of work as riding a 15-pound bike 2 miles, but it isn't the same workout, i.e., it doesn't have the same effect on the body. Working with heavier weights tends to increase muscle mass while working with lighter weights tends to increase muscle endurance. Many people incorporate both types of workouts into their routine."
You've now had to concede that it's resistance, not weight per se, that matters, that gears can alter the relationship of weight to resistance, that hills can do the same, that weight bench logic has nothing to do with bicycle riding logic because a bicycle itself is a set of levers and pulleys that can be adjusted to duplicate the resistance effects of added weight, and that the relevant factor is actually time, not distance. (And that's not even accounting for the drastically increasing wind resistance when you ride at higher speeds). Also, that your calculation of the differences in work between the bikes was all wrong There's literally nothing left of your original argument.
.Have a nice day.
Sorry, but the more I think about your rebuttal, the funnier it gets, so I can't resist a couple more points--
I said there is no such thing as a 500 pound bicycle, not "no one can move a cargo bike laden to 500 pounds". I stand by that--go ahead and show us a bicycle that, by itself unladen, weighs 500 pounds. That's a double-dog dare. If the bike starts at 500 pounds unladen, then putting a plausible rider of it on top of it already increases the gross vehicle weight to close to 700 pounds. I'm sure there's probably someone who might do this as a stunt, but so what? This tells us absolutely nothing about the impact of your hypothetical 15 pound bicycle weight difference on the qualities of a workout.
Here's the begging the question fallacy you've committed--
Me and everyone else: "If you do the following, you equalize the workouts"
You: "Assume we can't do those, I win the argument."
Assuming that all things being equal IS question begging if your basic argument is that things can't be made different to compensate for the difference in weight. All I've "conceded" is that if we assume you're right, then you are correct. I don't have any reason to assume this all things being equal has anything to do with reality, so I am not making that assumption, and am very clearly stating you are wrong.
So let's go back to your original argument--
"No, you can't. You can achieve the same amount of work on any weight bike, but that doesn't mean the "workout" is the same. For example, if you bench press 300 pounds 10 times, you're doing the same amount of work as bench pressing 100 pounds 30 times, or 50 pounds 60 times, but they aren't the same workout, because the body responds very differently to them. Likewise, riding a 30-pound bike 1 mile is the same amount of work as riding a 15-pound bike 2 miles, but it isn't the same workout, i.e., it doesn't have the same effect on the body. Working with heavier weights tends to increase muscle mass while working with lighter weights tends to increase muscle endurance. Many people incorporate both types of workouts into their routine."
You've now had to concede that it's resistance, not weight per se, that matters, that gears can alter the relationship of weight to resistance, that hills can do the same, that weight bench logic has nothing to do with bicycle riding logic because a bicycle itself is a set of levers and pulleys that can be adjusted to duplicate the resistance effects of added weight, and that the relevant factor is actually time, not distance. (And that's not even accounting for the drastically increasing wind resistance when you ride at higher speeds). Also, that your calculation of the differences in work between the bikes was all wrong There's literally nothing left of your original argument.
.Have a nice day.
Last edited by livedarklions; 06-28-21 at 07:30 AM.
Likes For livedarklions:
#387
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2021
Posts: 12
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
MaximRecoil .
This all started when you made the statement that you cannot get the same workout on a light bike as you do on a heavier bike.
This all started when you made the statement that you cannot get the same workout on a light bike as you do on a heavier bike.
Keep in mind, your original statement was about "workouts", not "work".
Discussing the quality of workouts without discussing effort is a pretty weird thing to do, almost as weird as discussing the work involved in propelling a bicycle without including the weight of the rider.
By the way, if you don't think your refusal to define "significant difference" isn't a tell, you really have no business trying to argue logic.
7. D The work the person does to climb the stairs is force (weight) times distance. Power is the work done divided by the time during which the work is done.
Force, NOT weight. Mixing them up is the start of countless comical errors.
Except that the body is also a machine
#388
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Northampton, MA
Posts: 1,909
Bikes: 36" Unicycle, winter knock-around hybrid bike
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 930 Post(s)
Liked 393 Times
in
282 Posts
No, I didn't.
I said your definition of "effort" was dubious.
Though you persist in making a fool of yourself using a wrong defintion of work. And that practically matters, because as repeatedly explained doing work against gravity is NOT where most of your energy goes in cycling.
That leads you to say things like this howler of ignorance:
Overall, your argument is bunk.
What's your proposal for equalizing the workout between the same rider on the same bike on the same route, on two days with different weather? Or between getting enough sleep the night before and not? Or between the light halfway up the big climb being red and with actual cross traffic or not?
When you play a mind game with yourself, that's all you're accomplishing.
I said your definition of "effort" was dubious.
Though you persist in making a fool of yourself using a wrong defintion of work. And that practically matters, because as repeatedly explained doing work against gravity is NOT where most of your energy goes in cycling.
That leads you to say things like this howler of ignorance:
Likewise, riding a 30-pound bike 1 mile is the same amount of work as riding a 15-pound bike 2 miles
Overall, your argument is bunk.
What's your proposal for equalizing the workout between the same rider on the same bike on the same route, on two days with different weather? Or between getting enough sleep the night before and not? Or between the light halfway up the big climb being red and with actual cross traffic or not?
When you play a mind game with yourself, that's all you're accomplishing.
Last edited by UniChris; 06-28-21 at 08:27 AM.
Likes For UniChris:
#389
Obsessed with Eddington
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Brussels (BE) 🇧🇪
Posts: 1,330
Bikes: '16 Spesh Diverge, '14 Spesh Fatboy, '18 Spesh Epic, '18 Spesh SL6, '21 Spesh SL7, '21 Spesh Diverge...and maybe n+1?
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 532 Post(s)
Liked 621 Times
in
368 Posts
Buy a power meter, use that to structure your workouts. 250W is 250W no matter how much the bike+rider system weighs, how hard the wind is blowing, and in what direction, how much sleep you had, if you're hungover, or sick. Watts are watts.
Likes For Badger6:
#390
• —
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Land of Pleasant Living
Posts: 12,302
Bikes: Shmikes
Mentioned: 59 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10212 Post(s)
Liked 5,919 Times
in
3,190 Posts
MaximRecoil
Here's the begging the question fallacy you've committed--
Me and everyone else: "If you do the following, you equalize the workouts"
You: "Assume we can't do those, I win the argument."
.Have a nice day.
Here's the begging the question fallacy you've committed--
Me and everyone else: "If you do the following, you equalize the workouts"
You: "Assume we can't do those, I win the argument."
.Have a nice day.
Likes For MoAlpha:
#391
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,099 Times
in
5,054 Posts
Next stupid question.
Hate to break it to you, but everyone's workout routines involve approximations of one kind or another. You really claiming that if there's a rounding error mistake in the approximation of resistance, it has serious or even noticeable impact on the results of the workout?
You went off into lala land with your first statement of the case, and no amount of tap dancing and misdirection is going to get anyone to believe you know what you're talking about.
And by the way, "quality" in this sense is referring to the nature of, not whether it's good or bad. So, whether it's primarily aerobic vs. resistance/weight training. We'll add dictionaries to the list of items you're obviously unfamiliar with.
Last edited by livedarklions; 06-28-21 at 09:01 AM.
#392
Newbie racer
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,406
Bikes: Propel, red is faster
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1575 Post(s)
Liked 1,569 Times
in
974 Posts
The physiology depends on your input to the bike, not the output from the bike. The output could be using the bike to power a lift for the weights of a trebuchet in a pumpkin chunking contest. Given the trebuchet's weight could be thousands of pounds, I guess by that poster's logic that would give a better workout.
Likes For ksryder:
#394
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2021
Posts: 12
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
MaximRecoil
Sorry, but the more I think about your rebuttal, the funnier it gets, so I can't resist a couple more points--
Sorry, but the more I think about your rebuttal, the funnier it gets, so I can't resist a couple more points--
I said there is no such thing as a 500 pound bicycle, not "no one can move a cargo bike laden to 500 pounds".
I stand by that--go ahead and show us a bicycle that, by itself unladen, weighs 500 pounds. That's a double-dog dare.
I'm sure there's probably someone who might do this as a stunt, but so what?
This tells us absolutely nothing about the impact of your hypothetical 15 pound bicycle weight difference on the qualities of a workout.
Here's the begging the question fallacy you've committed--
Me and everyone else: "If you do the following, you equalize the workouts"
You: "Assume we can't do those, I win the argument."
Me and everyone else: "If you do the following, you equalize the workouts"
You: "Assume we can't do those, I win the argument."
Assuming that all things being equal IS question begging if your basic argument is that things can't be made different to compensate for the difference in weight. All I've "conceded" is that if we assume you're right, then you are correct. I don't have any reason to assume this all things being equal has anything to do with reality, so I am not making that assumption, and am very clearly stating you are wrong.
In any case, the "all else being equal" scenario isn't even necessary; it just helps to illustrate the point. As I said in my previous post, anything you do to try to 'equalize the workouts you get on unequal weight bikes' will be an approximation at best, and the greater the difference the weight is, the further from truly equal the approximation will be. And then there's the matter of inertia.
You've now had to concede that it's resistance, not weight per se, that matters
that gears can alter the relationship of weight to resistance, that hills can do the same, that weight bench logic has nothing to do with bicycle riding logic because a bicycle itself is a set of levers and pulleys that can be adjusted to duplicate the resistance effects of added weight
and that the relevant factor is actually time, not distance. (And that's not even accounting for the drastically increasing wind resistance when you ride at higher speeds).
"Basically, though, your statement that it can't be the same workout is essentially meaningless, because that's always true, even if you're using the exact same bike for two workouts. Something will not be equal, whether it's how much water there is in your body, or wind direction, or ambient temperature affecting your abilities that day, or you got a flat that day, or..."
Yet at the same time you want to argue that you can equalize things between unequal weight bikes. In other words, you're continually contradicting yourself. After your concession above, you logically had nothing left to argue about, yet you continue.
Also, that your calculation of the differences in work between the bikes was all wrong
A 120 tooth chain ring and an 11 tooth cog.
Next stupid question.
Hate to break it to you, but everyone's workout routines involve approximations of one kind or another. You really claiming that if there's a rounding error mistake in the approximation of resistance, it has serious or even noticeable impact on the results of the workout?
You went off into lala land with your first statement of the case, and no amount of tap dancing and misdirection is going to get anyone to believe you know what you're talking about.
And by the way, "quality" in this sense is referring to the nature of, not whether it's good or bad. So, whether it's primarily aerobic vs. resistance/weight training.
We'll add dictionaries to the list of items you're obviously unfamiliar with.
Originally Posted by Badger6
Buy a power meter, use that to structure your workouts. 250W is 250W no matter how much the bike+rider system weighs, how hard the wind is blowing, and in what direction, how much sleep you had, if you're hungover, or sick. Watts are watts.
Originally Posted by burnthesheep
Exactly. The poster above arguing into the ground doesn't get this. This is a fundamental concept of physics class that really befuddles a lot of people. Drawing boundaries around systems to analyze.
Originally Posted by UniChris
No, I didn't. I said your definition of "effort" was dubious.
"Dubious. It's unclear how you are defining effort but you seem to be forgetting the distance component of work, which is the half of it you did get right above."
And then you went on to say:
"Work is something you just can't cheat at - use more leverage and you can apply less force, but you'll also move the load proportionally less against its force, than you move your end of the lever against yours. You can do your work more quickly or slowly but it's still the same amount of physics work.You can do your work more quickly or slowly but it's still the same amount of physics work."
In order for that to be true, machines would have to be 100% efficient, which they obviously aren't. In other words, I was right to begin with and your attempted refutation was wrong.
Though you persist in making a fool of yourself
using a wrong defintion of work.
Work is defined as force (weight) times distance. If force is measured in lbs., and distance in ft. then the units for work are ft.-lbs.
And that practically matters, because as repeatedly explained doing work against gravity is NOT where most of your energy goes in cycling.
That leads you to say things like this howler of ignorance:
What's your proposal for equalizing the workout between the same rider on the same bike on the same route, on two days with different weather? Or between getting enough sleep the night before and not? Or between the light halfway up the big climb being red and with actual cross traffic or not?
Last edited by MaximRecoil; 06-28-21 at 10:35 AM.
#395
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Northampton, MA
Posts: 1,909
Bikes: 36" Unicycle, winter knock-around hybrid bike
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 930 Post(s)
Liked 393 Times
in
282 Posts
It would seem you've learned nothing since posting that howler about the 15 and 30 pound bikes being equal work over a factor of two difference in distance.
Last edited by UniChris; 06-28-21 at 10:34 AM.
Likes For UniChris:
#396
climber has-been
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 7,233
Bikes: Scott Addict R1, Felt Z1
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3535 Post(s)
Liked 3,686 Times
in
1,849 Posts
No. In general, weight and force are not interchangeable. Weight is a certain type of force, and not all forces are weights.
Force: a push or pull on an object that, when unopposed, will change the motion of that object.
Weight: the force exerted on an object by Earth's gravity.
These statements are correct:
The weight of the cyclist at sea level is 600 Newtons (135 lbf).
The cyclist's peak pedal force is 375 Newtons (84 lbf).
Force: a push or pull on an object that, when unopposed, will change the motion of that object.
Weight: the force exerted on an object by Earth's gravity.
These statements are correct:
The weight of the cyclist at sea level is 600 Newtons (135 lbf).
The cyclist's peak pedal force is 375 Newtons (84 lbf).
#397
Obsessed with Eddington
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Brussels (BE) 🇧🇪
Posts: 1,330
Bikes: '16 Spesh Diverge, '14 Spesh Fatboy, '18 Spesh Epic, '18 Spesh SL6, '21 Spesh SL7, '21 Spesh Diverge...and maybe n+1?
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 532 Post(s)
Liked 621 Times
in
368 Posts
Likes For Badger6:
#398
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,036
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3997 Post(s)
Liked 7,485 Times
in
3,012 Posts
Who would have thought that this thread could go downhill from where it started?
Likes For tomato coupe:
#399
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,099 Times
in
5,054 Posts
More irony from the guy who has conceded several times.
So now you think there's a difference between a bike that's 500 pounds by itself and one that's 500 pounds because it's loaded with cargo? That's funny coming from the guy who said, "And seriously, you have no answer that if you really think that you'll benefit by riding a bike that's 15 pounds heavier, all you need to do is add a 15 pound weight to the 15 pound bike." In any case, there's obviously no difference between a bike that weighs 500 pounds by itself and one that weighs 500 pounds d....
Blah, blah blah, blah.
So now you think there's a difference between a bike that's 500 pounds by itself and one that's 500 pounds because it's loaded with cargo? That's funny coming from the guy who said, "And seriously, you have no answer that if you really think that you'll benefit by riding a bike that's 15 pounds heavier, all you need to do is add a 15 pound weight to the 15 pound bike." In any case, there's obviously no difference between a bike that weighs 500 pounds by itself and one that weighs 500 pounds d....
Blah, blah blah, blah.
Too dumb, didn't read.
Likes For livedarklions:
#400
Obsessed with Eddington
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Brussels (BE) 🇧🇪
Posts: 1,330
Bikes: '16 Spesh Diverge, '14 Spesh Fatboy, '18 Spesh Epic, '18 Spesh SL6, '21 Spesh SL7, '21 Spesh Diverge...and maybe n+1?
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 532 Post(s)
Liked 621 Times
in
368 Posts