[Carbon Fiber] Would this bike scare you?
#101
Sock Puppet
Join Date: Oct 2022
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,701
Bikes: 2014 Cannondale Synapse Carbon, 2017 Jamis Renegade Exploit and too many others to mention.
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1031 Post(s)
Liked 863 Times
in
573 Posts
If you had been dieting alone without increased training, you probably would have also lost some muscle mass and therefore your weight savings would have been offset by being weaker overall.
#102
Friendship is Magic
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,984
Bikes: old ones
Mentioned: 304 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26411 Post(s)
Liked 10,378 Times
in
7,206 Posts
Different feel: I had an incredibly light set of aluminum Hi-E wheels (with rims that consisted of sheets of aluminum folded over and riveted) fitted with very light tubular/sewup tires. They accelerated fast, all right, but they always felt as if they were too light to maintain momentum from one pedal stroke to the next. Might have been in my head, but I'd swear that I could feel my cadence was more uneven with those wheels.
Ondrej Sosenka set the human-powered (i.e., Merckx-style) hour record in 2005 using an unusually heavy bike and heavy wheels. Quoting from The UCI Hour Record: Ondrej Sosenka:
"In his attempt, Sosenka was using a 54 x 13 gearing, a 3.2 kg wheel and 190 mm cranks, with his bike weighing a total of 9.8 kg. The reason for the heavy wheel was that although it was harder to get up to speed, it was easy to maintain it."
Ondrej Sosenka set the human-powered (i.e., Merckx-style) hour record in 2005 using an unusually heavy bike and heavy wheels. Quoting from The UCI Hour Record: Ondrej Sosenka:
"In his attempt, Sosenka was using a 54 x 13 gearing, a 3.2 kg wheel and 190 mm cranks, with his bike weighing a total of 9.8 kg. The reason for the heavy wheel was that although it was harder to get up to speed, it was easy to maintain it."
Thus, with the advent of new materials technologies, aerodynamic design has become more and more of a factor in bicycle wheels made to go fast, with wider profile rims and fewer spokes, even though the additional mass of the wider (AKA "deeper") profile adds mass at a portion of the wheel where it is least desirable, in terms of rotating mass equations.
But that does not change the nature of the average bike ride, which consists of many accelerations and decelerations, into something like a train with 7 linked engines and 500 loaded cars, travelling along a track at speed. The fallacy lies in the modeling of the problem. Were it a simple problem, perhaps there would not be so much misunderstanding of it. Weight is one factor. Certainly as speed on a bicycle increases, aerodynamics is another important consideration. The sportscar people pay more attention to reducing rotating weight of the wheels (often called "unsprung weight" in the literature), because they have been more limited in wheel and tire materials development due to the larger forces placed upon their wheels and tires. And their designs have also paid more attention to aerodynamics over the years. Usually this is accomplished using shrouding and body modifications. I'm sure the ideal triathlon bike would probably be one with a fairing. But I'm also pretty sure that's against the rules. So they are left with aero bars and body positioning, and searching for a light bicycle with a fast set of wheels, as their alternative for faster.
As a practical consideration, my Nissan electric car would not have alloy wheels and a strangely futuristic body design, only as a sales gimmick. They are present because they save some energy, and therefore serve to extend its range at speed. Likewise the use of composites in constructing the body although much of the chassis is still made from steel. Bicycle frames and components have been so reduced in weight, that it is easy to miss the reasons for it, and the shear magnitude of it, if your sole frame of reference is the past 20 years. They predated most cars in this regard, because they are human powered, and it's hard to add horsepower.
Chapter 4 of Bicycling Science is entirely devoted to the various factors that apply to Power and Speed on a bicycle. I think you can probably find it as a pdf download using a search engine, but I don't have a link for you. And there are subsequent chapters, one on aerodynamics and one entirely devoted to wheels and tires with regard to frictional losses and resistance to rolling. Again, in our lifetimes, rolling resistance has been much reduced in available tire choices. And modern bearing technology makes the values for these losses so small as to be inconsequential. Everyone in a race is using similar bearing technology.
__________________
#103
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,659
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1248 Post(s)
Liked 1,323 Times
in
674 Posts
...it probably was. If you introduce more mass into the wheel, it has a tendency to stabilize the system, once it has been brought to speed. This is the essential fallacy that's been argued in this unnecessarily rancorous exchange. The basis for it is that modern wheel rim choices for bicycles are all relatively light. The essential advances in materials technology that allow us these choices was accomplished some time back, and the result is that the momentum equations for rotating mass versus simple linear acceleration have very small differences in the values input to get the results.
Thus, with the advent of new materials technologies, aerodynamic design has become more and more of a factor in bicycle wheels made to go fast, with wider profile rims and fewer spokes, even though the additional mass of the wider (AKA "deeper") profile adds mass at a portion of the wheel where it is least desirable, in terms of rotating mass equations.
But that does not change the nature of the average bike ride, which consists of many accelerations and decelerations, into something like a train with 7 linked engines and 500 loaded cars, travelling along a track at speed. The fallacy lies in the modeling of the problem. Were it a simple problem, perhaps there would not be so much misunderstanding of it. Weight is one factor. Certainly as speed on a bicycle increases, aerodynamics is another important consideration. The sportscar people pay more attention to reducing rotating weight of the wheels (often called "unsprung weight" in the literature), because they have been more limited in wheel and tire materials development due to the larger forces placed upon their wheels and tires. And their designs have also paid more attention to aerodynamics over the years. Usually this is accomplished using shrouding and body modifications. I'm sure the ideal triathlon bike would probably be one with a fairing. But I'm also pretty sure that's against the rules. So they are left with aero bars and body positioning, and searching for a light bicycle with a fast set of wheels, as their alternative for faster.
As a practical consideration, my Nissan electric car would not have alloy wheels and a strangely futuristic body design, only as a sales gimmick. They are present because they save some energy, and therefore serve to extend its range at speed. Likewise the use of composites in constructing the body although much of the chassis is still made from steel. Bicycle frames and components have been so reduced in weight, that it is easy to miss the reasons for it, and the shear magnitude of it, if your sole frame of reference is the past 20 years. They predated most cars in this regard, because they are human powered, and it's hard to add horsepower.
Chapter 4 of Bicycling Science is entirely devoted to the various factors that apply to Power and Speed on a bicycle. I think you can probably find it as a pdf download using a search engine, but I don't have a link for you. And there are subsequent chapters, one on aerodynamics and one entirely devoted to wheels and tires with regard to frictional losses and resistance to rolling. Again, in our lifetimes, rolling resistance has been much reduced in available tire choices. And modern bearing technology makes the values for these losses so small as to be inconsequential. Everyone in a race is using similar bearing technology.
Thus, with the advent of new materials technologies, aerodynamic design has become more and more of a factor in bicycle wheels made to go fast, with wider profile rims and fewer spokes, even though the additional mass of the wider (AKA "deeper") profile adds mass at a portion of the wheel where it is least desirable, in terms of rotating mass equations.
But that does not change the nature of the average bike ride, which consists of many accelerations and decelerations, into something like a train with 7 linked engines and 500 loaded cars, travelling along a track at speed. The fallacy lies in the modeling of the problem. Were it a simple problem, perhaps there would not be so much misunderstanding of it. Weight is one factor. Certainly as speed on a bicycle increases, aerodynamics is another important consideration. The sportscar people pay more attention to reducing rotating weight of the wheels (often called "unsprung weight" in the literature), because they have been more limited in wheel and tire materials development due to the larger forces placed upon their wheels and tires. And their designs have also paid more attention to aerodynamics over the years. Usually this is accomplished using shrouding and body modifications. I'm sure the ideal triathlon bike would probably be one with a fairing. But I'm also pretty sure that's against the rules. So they are left with aero bars and body positioning, and searching for a light bicycle with a fast set of wheels, as their alternative for faster.
As a practical consideration, my Nissan electric car would not have alloy wheels and a strangely futuristic body design, only as a sales gimmick. They are present because they save some energy, and therefore serve to extend its range at speed. Likewise the use of composites in constructing the body although much of the chassis is still made from steel. Bicycle frames and components have been so reduced in weight, that it is easy to miss the reasons for it, and the shear magnitude of it, if your sole frame of reference is the past 20 years. They predated most cars in this regard, because they are human powered, and it's hard to add horsepower.
Chapter 4 of Bicycling Science is entirely devoted to the various factors that apply to Power and Speed on a bicycle. I think you can probably find it as a pdf download using a search engine, but I don't have a link for you. And there are subsequent chapters, one on aerodynamics and one entirely devoted to wheels and tires with regard to frictional losses and resistance to rolling. Again, in our lifetimes, rolling resistance has been much reduced in available tire choices. And modern bearing technology makes the values for these losses so small as to be inconsequential. Everyone in a race is using similar bearing technology.
#104
Friendship is Magic
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,984
Bikes: old ones
Mentioned: 304 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26411 Post(s)
Liked 10,378 Times
in
7,206 Posts
The usual mud-slinging fest aside, it would be interesting to see an actual study or accurate mathematical model on the effects of a 500-gram lighter wheelset acceleration from 0 to 30kph. Then run the same test with 500 gram weight placed on the bike. My guess the difference is negligible. This myth that weight at the wheels is somehow much more relevant seems like bs. That said the gyroscopic forces would be stronger giving the bike a different feel thus the perception it is slower.
Rotational Mass
The whole debate regarding unsprung vs. sprung mass often casts a massive shadow on another vital aspect of unsprung mass reduction — rotational mass or rotational inertia. By reducing the unsprung mass of a vehicle, you also reduce the amount of weight that your engine needs to be defeated by your engine to accelerate the car.As a result, lower unsprung mass means higher rates of acceleration and shorter braking distances.
__________________
#105
Friendship is Magic
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,984
Bikes: old ones
Mentioned: 304 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26411 Post(s)
Liked 10,378 Times
in
7,206 Posts
...I'm not doing the math homework for you. The equations for rotational mass and linear acceleration are readily available, if you are interested. My estimate is that 500 grams is not very much weight (about a pound, to those of us who still believe in American values. ) But you can certainly set up the experiment easily enough on a bicycle of your own, and report back on your results. I honestly do not know too many people who ride regularly who would willingly add a pound to their wheels/tires. I know plenty of people who think nothing of carrying a pound of extra crap in a front bar bag....me, for example
__________________
Likes For 3alarmer:
#106
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 7,877
Mentioned: 38 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6963 Post(s)
Liked 10,961 Times
in
4,687 Posts
"The whole debate regarding unsprung vs. sprung mass often casts a massive shadow on another vital aspect of unsprung mass reduction — rotational mass or rotational inertia. By reducing the unsprung mass of a vehicle, you also reduce the amount of weight that your engine needs to be defeated by your engine to accelerate the car.
As a result, lower unsprung mass means higher rates of acceleration and shorter braking distances."
3alarmer , I'm not really sure that this quote (the part in bold) makes sense...? Did something get lost in translation?
As a result, lower unsprung mass means higher rates of acceleration and shorter braking distances."
3alarmer , I'm not really sure that this quote (the part in bold) makes sense...? Did something get lost in translation?
#107
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,948
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3949 Post(s)
Liked 7,295 Times
in
2,946 Posts
The usual mud-slinging fest aside, it would be interesting to see an actual study or accurate mathematical model on the effects of a 500-gram lighter wheelset acceleration from 0 to 30kph. Then run the same test with 500 gram weight placed on the bike. My guess the difference is negligible. This myth that weight at the wheels is somehow much more relevant seems like bs. That said the gyroscopic forces would be stronger giving the bike a different feel thus the perception it is slower.
Likes For tomato coupe:
#108
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 786
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 338 Post(s)
Liked 408 Times
in
252 Posts
I wouldn't add 500g of stuff on the bike for a climb, at least not if it's a race.
I'd add 500g to the wheelset if it makes sense, the deep front and the rear disc on my TT bike are heavy but that does not really matter.
Of course, our perception of heavy is relative, 1950g is like a boat anchor in the cycling world. If you hand it over to a non cyclist they'll remark how light it is.
I'd add 500g to the wheelset if it makes sense, the deep front and the rear disc on my TT bike are heavy but that does not really matter.
Of course, our perception of heavy is relative, 1950g is like a boat anchor in the cycling world. If you hand it over to a non cyclist they'll remark how light it is.
Last edited by Branko D; 11-30-22 at 02:39 PM.
Likes For Branko D:
#109
Sock Puppet
Join Date: Oct 2022
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,701
Bikes: 2014 Cannondale Synapse Carbon, 2017 Jamis Renegade Exploit and too many others to mention.
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1031 Post(s)
Liked 863 Times
in
573 Posts
........ No more than freight trains, in fact. I can only respond that the physics of all these various things that move forward on wheels are more or less the same. The practical limits set for them differ because of the real world circumstances of their use. So it will be a while before we see CF wheels and lightweight tires on cars. And rules, of course, if they are used in sporting events, like train racing.
Likes For Lombard:
#110
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,373
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2482 Post(s)
Liked 2,952 Times
in
1,677 Posts
. . . Chapter 4 of Bicycling Science is entirely devoted to the various factors that apply to Power and Speed on a bicycle. I think you can probably find it as a pdf download using a search engine, but I don't have a link for you. And there are subsequent chapters, one on aerodynamics and one entirely devoted to wheels and tires with regard to frictional losses and resistance to rolling. Again, in our lifetimes, rolling resistance has been much reduced in available tire choices. And modern bearing technology makes the values for these losses so small as to be inconsequential. Everyone in a race is using similar bearing technology.
#111
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,659
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1248 Post(s)
Liked 1,323 Times
in
674 Posts
If you do a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation, the difference in acceleration is something like 0.3%. To put it another way, if you're racing a crit and accelerating out of every turn at 600 W, your twin brother with 500 g heavier wheels but a 500 g lighter frame will have to produce 602 W to keep up with you. (Assuming aerodynamic drag, rolling resistance, etc. are the same.)
Likes For Atlas Shrugged:
#112
Friendship is Magic
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,984
Bikes: old ones
Mentioned: 304 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26411 Post(s)
Liked 10,378 Times
in
7,206 Posts
...in case you haven't yet realized it, my responses to you in this thread have been thinly veiled sarcasm, ever since you responded to this:
It's entertaining to witness the continuation of it at this point. The train gif was just a high, hanging pitch, right over the plate.
__________________
#113
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 7,877
Mentioned: 38 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6963 Post(s)
Liked 10,961 Times
in
4,687 Posts
Awesome. In the world of marginal gains, lightweight wheels are in aerodynamic sock territory. I find it interesting that even within a community (Bike Forums) of engaged hobbyists, the same worn-out myths never die even though the evidence is clearly contrary. Narrow, high-pressure tires being faster in real-world riding and the so-called magical dampening properties of titanium are my other bs triggers.
#114
Friendship is Magic
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,984
Bikes: old ones
Mentioned: 304 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26411 Post(s)
Liked 10,378 Times
in
7,206 Posts
"The whole debate regarding unsprung vs. sprung mass often casts a massive shadow on another vital aspect of unsprung mass reduction — rotational mass or rotational inertia. By reducing the unsprung mass of a vehicle, you also reduce the amount of weight that your engine needs to be defeated by your engine to accelerate the car.
As a result, lower unsprung mass means higher rates of acceleration and shorter braking distances."
3alarmer , I'm not really sure that this quote (the part in bold) makes sense...? Did something get lost in translation?
As a result, lower unsprung mass means higher rates of acceleration and shorter braking distances."
3alarmer , I'm not really sure that this quote (the part in bold) makes sense...? Did something get lost in translation?
If you do a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation, the difference in acceleration is something like 0.3%. To put it another way, if you're racing a crit and accelerating out of every turn at 600 W, your twin brother with 500 g heavier wheels but a 500 g lighter frame will have to produce 602 W to keep up with you. (Assuming aerodynamic drag, rolling resistance, etc. are the same.)
__________________
#115
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: In the south but from North
Posts: 700
Bikes: Turner 5-Spot Burner converted; IBIS Ripley, Specialized Crave, Tommasini Sintesi, Cinelli Superstar, Tommasini X-Fire Gravel
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 406 Post(s)
Liked 389 Times
in
219 Posts
If you do a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation, the difference in acceleration is something like 0.3%. To put it another way, if you're racing a crit and accelerating out of every turn at 600 W, your twin brother with 500 g heavier wheels but a 500 g lighter frame will have to produce 602 W to keep up with you. (Assuming aerodynamic drag, rolling resistance, etc. are the same.)
Last edited by vespasianus; 12-01-22 at 04:05 AM.
#116
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 7,877
Mentioned: 38 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6963 Post(s)
Liked 10,961 Times
in
4,687 Posts
...it's one of those unfortunate sentences with double or triple negatives, that sometimes show up in the car literature. Translated, it says the engine acceleration works better with lighter wheels and tires. The engine works harder to defeat extra unsprung weight, so less is available to produce overall acceleration.
#117
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,948
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3949 Post(s)
Liked 7,295 Times
in
2,946 Posts
Likes For tomato coupe:
#118
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 7,877
Mentioned: 38 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6963 Post(s)
Liked 10,961 Times
in
4,687 Posts
It doesn't change anything. Every time the rider accelerates, the extra 500 g wheel weight vs. 500 g frame weight costs him 0.3% in acceleration. (Assuming, again, that aerodynamic drag, rolling resistance, etc. are the same.) Of course, a rider doesn't accelerate every foot of the 112 mile course, so the overall effect is actually much smaller than 0.3%.
#119
Sock Puppet
Join Date: Oct 2022
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,701
Bikes: 2014 Cannondale Synapse Carbon, 2017 Jamis Renegade Exploit and too many others to mention.
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1031 Post(s)
Liked 863 Times
in
573 Posts
...in case you haven't yet realized it, my responses to you in this thread have been thinly veiled sarcasm, ever since you responded to this:
...with this non sequitur:
Somehow, you are spring loaded on this issue. You see it everywhere, lurking in dark corners, like some conspiracy theorist.
It's entertaining to witness the continuation of it at this point. The train gif was just a high, hanging pitch, right over the plate.
...with this non sequitur:
Somehow, you are spring loaded on this issue. You see it everywhere, lurking in dark corners, like some conspiracy theorist.
It's entertaining to witness the continuation of it at this point. The train gif was just a high, hanging pitch, right over the plate.
#120
Friendship is Magic
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,984
Bikes: old ones
Mentioned: 304 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26411 Post(s)
Liked 10,378 Times
in
7,206 Posts
...you also reduce the amount of weight that your engine needs, to be defeated by your engine to accelerate the car.
__________________
Likes For 3alarmer:
#121
Friendship is Magic
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,984
Bikes: old ones
Mentioned: 304 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26411 Post(s)
Liked 10,378 Times
in
7,206 Posts
#122
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,659
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1248 Post(s)
Liked 1,323 Times
in
674 Posts
There is a popular forum called SlowTwitch for triathletes where they spend a lot of time discussing the challenges and out-and-out awesomeness of triathletes and triathlons, I am sure they would benefit from your inciteful insights.
#123
Friendship is Magic
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,984
Bikes: old ones
Mentioned: 304 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26411 Post(s)
Liked 10,378 Times
in
7,206 Posts
This site can calculate power needed for certain speeds based upon bike and body weight. No wheel weight but it gives you an idea of how little difference 2-3 lbs makes. A 190lb rider, on a 20 lbs bike, going up a 5% grade would need 328 watts to go 12 mph. If the bike was 16 lbs, it would be 323 watts. Bike weight, for the non competitive hill climbing racer is waaaaay over-rated.
It's been really interesting to me, personally, to have watched the crowd opinion switch from "lighter is better", to "I don't care how much they weigh, I need those deep aero wheels to reach my full human potential." I have no explanation for it, other than most roadies are slaves to fashion.
__________________
Likes For 3alarmer:
#124
Friendship is Magic
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,984
Bikes: old ones
Mentioned: 304 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26411 Post(s)
Liked 10,378 Times
in
7,206 Posts
...just between us, I am Lance Armstrong's Bike Forums sock puppet account. But it's a secret, so don't tell anyone.
__________________
#125
Friendship is Magic
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,984
Bikes: old ones
Mentioned: 304 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26411 Post(s)
Liked 10,378 Times
in
7,206 Posts
It doesn't change anything. Every time the rider accelerates, the extra 500 g wheel weight vs. 500 g frame weight costs him 0.3% in acceleration. (Assuming, again, that aerodynamic drag, rolling resistance, etc. are the same.) Of course, a rider doesn't accelerate every foot of the 112 mile course, so the overall effect is actually much smaller than 0.3%.
__________________