Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > General Cycling Discussion
Reload this Page >

Tour de-france type of riders, what's their deal?

Notices
General Cycling Discussion Have a cycling related question or comment that doesn't fit in one of the other specialty forums? Drop on in and post in here! When possible, please select the forum above that most fits your post!

Tour de-france type of riders, what's their deal?

Old 06-27-21, 09:48 AM
  #376  
TMonk
Not actually Tmonk
 
TMonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 11,993

Bikes: road, track, mtb

Mentioned: 136 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1252 Post(s)
Liked 1,041 Times in 553 Posts
Originally Posted by Sy Reene View Post
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.
I think it's easier than you're indicating. For example, I'm going to head out for 3.5 hours later with just a couple VO2 max level efforts on certain longer climbs. The climbs are long enough such that I'll back off the gas before the top. Depending on the route I chose, and the bike, I may have to do an extra lap around the neighborhood, or an extra 5-10 minutes of noodling to get home. That extra noodling is a drop in the bucked compared to the "on" portions of the ride, which is where most of my training adaptations will come from.

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
TMonk is offline  
Likes For TMonk:
Old 06-27-21, 09:38 PM
  #377  
MaximRecoil
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
Originally Posted by Mark Stone View Post
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
There is such a thing. As I've already mentioned, cargo bikes (the type which are extended in front to create a large cargo area and are steered with rod linkage) routinely get loaded with hundreds of pounds of weight. And since you've conceded that, you've also conceded the entire point, because differences don't just magically show up out of the blue at some arbitrary weight like 150 or 300 pounds; they are always there with any difference in weight; it's just that they are far more noticeable at the extremes, which is why extreme examples are useful for illustrating a point.

Originally Posted by livedarklions View Post
"Effort" and "work" are, in this case, synonyms.
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.
No, it isn't relevant to the point, which is, as I already said, that it's more work, not necessarily more effort. It doesn't matter how much more, because the point is simply "more".

Your glaring math error suggested you'd have to double the distance to do this.
There was no math error at all, let alone "glaring". As I said, the context was the bike itself; how much it weighs and how far it moved. This is like if someone is walking along carrying a 10-pound object, and then he picks up another 10-pound object and he notes that he's now carrying twice as much weight, and you come along and point out that the bulk of the weight that he's carrying is his own 180-pound body weight, so he's not really carrying twice as much weight, he's only carrying ~5% more weight than he was before. He would probably say something like, "Thank you, Captain Obvious," because the fact that you're always carrying your own body weight when you're moving somewhere under your own power goes without saying.

​​​​​
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.
Degree of significance isn't relevant to the point, and I'm using the term "different" according to it's generally accepted definition, which you can find in a dictionary.

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.
Eliminating variables in order to isolate the difference from one change isn't even remotely related to a "circular argument"; in fact, it's the only way you can isolate the difference from one change. The world will no doubt be shocked to find out that "all else being equal" statements, which are common throughout academia, have now been declared to be "circular arguments" and/or "begging the question".

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.
What do you mean "I have no answer"? I already answered that. I said it's true, and then asked you what it has to do with anything. Ironically, you have no answer. You pointing that out doesn't make sense because I've never said, nor suggested, nor even hinted that you can't make a bike heavier if you want to. In fact, I pointed out that you can do that when you denied the existence of 500-pound bikes. On top of that, I haven't said anything at all about the benefits of a heavier bike; I've only said that they result in a different workout effect, even if you do the same amount of work with them. "Different" could be beneficial, detrimental, or neutral. It doesn't matter to me because it's not part of my point.

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.
Your concession is noted once again.

You not only don't understand how people use bikes
Your non sequitur is dismissed.

you also don't understand how to construct an argument that isn't completely circular.
Your tacit request to redefine the term "circular argument" is denied.

I guess that's some form of cycling but watching you make a fool of yourself is losing its entertainment value.
Comical Irony Alert: Part IV

Originally Posted by Fahrenheit531 View Post
There are no gears in bench press.
Is that right?
MaximRecoil is offline  
Old 06-27-21, 09:57 PM
  #378  
rydabent
Senior Member
 
rydabent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,091

Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II

Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2448 Post(s)
Liked 732 Times in 433 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.
rydabent is offline  
Likes For rydabent:
Old 06-27-21, 10:43 PM
  #379  
UniChris
Senior Member
 
UniChris's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Northampton, MA
Posts: 1,464

Bikes: 36" Unicycle

Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 687 Post(s)
Liked 260 Times in 190 Posts
Originally Posted by MaximRecoil View Post
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.
Except that it's not.

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.
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.

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.
UniChris is offline  
Old 06-27-21, 10:54 PM
  #380  
genejockey 
Klaatu..Verata..Necktie?
 
genejockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 6,750

Bikes: 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: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3419 Post(s)
Liked 3,632 Times in 1,833 Posts
"But I came here for an argument".
__________________
"Don't take life so serious-it ain't nohow permanent."
genejockey is offline  
Old 06-28-21, 01:29 AM
  #381  
Trakhak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 2,817
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 960 Post(s)
Liked 758 Times in 443 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.
Trakhak is offline  
Likes For Trakhak:
Old 06-28-21, 02:48 AM
  #382  
MaximRecoil
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
Originally Posted by UniChris View Post
Except that it's not.

It's force times distance.
Force times displacement, like I already said in post #360. "Weight times distance" is a more common-speak way of saying it.

Dubious.
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.

It's unclear how you are defining effort but you seem to be forgetting the distance component of work
No, I'm not. See above.

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)
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.
MaximRecoil is offline  
Old 06-28-21, 05:21 AM
  #383  
livedarklions
Racerboyz' b'crat
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 9,790

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc

Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5066 Post(s)
Liked 4,355 Times in 2,451 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.
livedarklions is offline  
Old 06-28-21, 05:23 AM
  #384  
UniChris
Senior Member
 
UniChris's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Northampton, MA
Posts: 1,464

Bikes: 36" Unicycle

Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 687 Post(s)
Liked 260 Times in 190 Posts
Originally Posted by MaximRecoil View Post
"Weight times distance" is a more common-speak way of saying it.
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.

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.
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...

Last edited by UniChris; 06-28-21 at 05:26 AM.
UniChris is offline  
Old 06-28-21, 05:34 AM
  #385  
seypat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,080
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1929 Post(s)
Liked 902 Times in 609 Posts
Have we talked about Tour De France workout music yet?

seypat is online now  
Likes For seypat:
Old 06-28-21, 07:26 AM
  #386  
livedarklions
Racerboyz' b'crat
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 9,790

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc

Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5066 Post(s)
Liked 4,355 Times in 2,451 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.

Last edited by livedarklions; 06-28-21 at 07:30 AM.
livedarklions is offline  
Likes For livedarklions:
Old 06-28-21, 07:37 AM
  #387  
MaximRecoil
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
Originally Posted by livedarklions View Post
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.
You can't. 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. For example, what's your proposal for trying to equalize the workouts between a 15-pound bike and a 100-pound bike loaded with 200 pounds of cargo?

Keep in mind, your original statement was about "workouts", not "work".
No, my original statement was about both. I said, "You can achieve the same amount of work on any weight bike, but that doesn't mean the 'workout' is the same."

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.
I haven't discussed the quality of the workout, I've discussed the effect of the workout.

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.
Again, it isn't relevant to the point, given that the point isn't about significance; the point is simply that there's a difference.

Originally Posted by UniChris View Post
Repeating your mistake right after it was explained won't make it right.
It wasn't a mistake, and as I already pointed out, I said, "'Work' is just force multiplied by displacement," in post #360, which was before your attemped "explanation". It is also commonly stated as "weight", which I also already pointed out. For example:

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.
As for your attempted "explanation", it isn't even correct. You said, "Force only equals weight if you're carrying your bike up a ladder." In reality, force always equals weight with regard to work in a gravity environment, though in some cases you would need to add, e.g., a gear-reduction or overdrive ratio into the calculation.

Force, NOT weight. Mixing them up is the start of countless comical errors.
Since it's not an error at all, your non sequitur is dismissed.

Except that the body is also a machine
That's not an exception. As I said, using a machine to gain a mechanical advantage results in less effort but more work. You claimed that was "dubious". It isn't dubious, it's a fact.
MaximRecoil is offline  
Old 06-28-21, 08:17 AM
  #388  
UniChris
Senior Member
 
UniChris's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Northampton, MA
Posts: 1,464

Bikes: 36" Unicycle

Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 687 Post(s)
Liked 260 Times in 190 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:
​​​​​​
​​​​​​
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.
UniChris is offline  
Likes For UniChris:
Old 06-28-21, 08:25 AM
  #389  
Badger6
Obsessed with Eddington
 
Badger6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Brussels (BE) 🇧🇪
Posts: 950

Bikes: '16 Spesh Diverge, '14 Spesh Fatboy, '18 Spesh Epic, '18 Spesh SL6, '21 Spesh SL7, '21 Spesh Diverge...and maybe n+1?

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 347 Post(s)
Liked 351 Times in 234 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.
Badger6 is offline  
Likes For Badger6:
Old 06-28-21, 08:45 AM
  #390  
MoAlpha
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Land of Pleasant Living
Posts: 8,687

Bikes: Shmikes

Mentioned: 53 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6926 Post(s)
Liked 3,407 Times in 1,853 Posts
Originally Posted by livedarklions View Post
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.
You have certainly made mine by using "begging the question" correctly, counsel, not that I wouldn't expect it of you.
MoAlpha is offline  
Likes For MoAlpha:
Old 06-28-21, 08:47 AM
  #391  
livedarklions
Racerboyz' b'crat
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 9,790

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc

Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5066 Post(s)
Liked 4,355 Times in 2,451 Posts
Originally Posted by MaximRecoil View Post
For example, what's your proposal for trying to equalize the workouts between a 15-pound bike and a 100-pound bike loaded with 200 pounds of cargo?
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.

Last edited by livedarklions; 06-28-21 at 09:01 AM.
livedarklions is offline  
Old 06-28-21, 08:50 AM
  #392  
burnthesheep
Newbie racer
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 2,723

Bikes: Propel, red is faster

Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1224 Post(s)
Liked 1,111 Times in 701 Posts
Originally Posted by Badger6 View Post
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.
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.

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.
burnthesheep is offline  
Old 06-28-21, 09:01 AM
  #393  
ksryder
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 2,545

Bikes: yes

Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1276 Post(s)
Liked 628 Times in 324 Posts
ksryder is offline  
Likes For ksryder:
Old 06-28-21, 10:13 AM
  #394  
MaximRecoil
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
Originally Posted by livedarklions View Post
MaximRecoil

Sorry, but the more I think about your rebuttal, the funnier it gets, so I can't resist a couple more points--
More irony from the guy who has conceded several times.

I said there is no such thing as a 500 pound bicycle, not "no one can move a cargo bike laden to 500 pounds".
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 due to being loaded with cargo, with regard to the force required to move it. Also, you said, "obviously, no human being can accelerate a 500 pound bicycle," which is obviously false.

I stand by that--go ahead and show us a bicycle that, by itself unladen, weighs 500 pounds. That's a double-dog dare.
What are you talking about? I never said that such a thing exists. I have no idea whether such a thing exists or not, and neither do you. You claimed that they don't exist and I pointed out that you can add weight to a bike to make it 500 pounds.

I'm sure there's probably someone who might do this as a stunt, but so what?
You are? Previously you were sure that no human being could accelerate a 500-pound bike, which is funny, because an average guy could do it with low enough gearing.

This tells us absolutely nothing about the impact of your hypothetical 15 pound bicycle weight difference on the qualities of a workout.
Yes, it does, since differences don't just magically appear at a certain weight discrepancy.

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."
Even if there were an accurate summary of what I've said (it's not), that still wouldn't fit the definition of "begging the question".

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.
Again, you don't understand the concept of "begging the question". First, all things being equal isn't an assumption, it's part of a hypothetical scenario. Even if it were an assumption (which could only happen if it were regarding a specific real event for which, without evidence, I assumed that everything except one thing was equal), it would only be begging the question if I said that the reason that all else is equal is because everything is equal except for one thing.

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
I haven't conceded any such thing, since that was never a point of contention in the first place.

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
Only to a certain point, since bikes don't have infinite gears, and there's a limit to how steep of a hill that can be climbed on a bike, and even up to a certain point, it will still be an approximation at best.

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).
Neither time nor distance has anything to do with my point. The only time I mentioned distance was in an example of work. You are thoroughly confused. You've already conceded that any change to any variable results in a different workout...

"
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
You should petition the, e.g., International Olympics Committee to start adding body weight to the results of squatting. After all, they aren't just squatting that heavy object on their shoulders, they're also squatting their body weight, right? That could change some of the competition results. Of course, for most people, body weight goes without saying, and it's not factored in when discussing how much weight someone has lifted or moved.


A 120 tooth chain ring and an 11 tooth cog.
No, that doesn't work, even if it were based on real calculations instead of something you pulled out of thin air, because a 15-pound bike doesn't have anywhere near the amount of inertia as a 300-pound bike. Also, just keeping it balanced, both while riding and especially when stopping for e.g., traffic, will work muscles that won't get worked the same with a 15-pound bike.

Next stupid question.
Maybe you should provide a valid answer to the first question before moving on to the next 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?
I haven't made any claims at all about seriousness or noticeability.

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.
Your non sequitur is dismissed.

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.
Not only was there nothing in the context to indicate that you had an unusual (for that particular sentence) sense of the word "quality" in mind, but "quality" is commonly used as an adjective for workout to mean that it's a good workout. Do a Google search for "quality workout" and tell me how many of the results are using "the nature of" sense of the word.

We'll add dictionaries to the list of items you're obviously unfamiliar with.
More irony from the guy who thinks "effort" and the physics sense of "work" are synonymous.

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.
It doesn't work that way. Anything you do can be measured in watts. It tells you nothing about which muscles are being worked, and how they are being worked.

Originally Posted by UniChris
No, I didn't. I said your definition of "effort" was dubious.
You said:

"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
Comical irony coming from the guy who thinks machines are 100% efficient.

using a wrong defintion of work.
Already refuted, but here's another citation for you:

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.
Why do you think that when you calculate work, you use a unit of weight to represent the amount of force?

And that practically matters, because as repeatedly explained doing work against gravity is NOT where most of your energy goes in cycling.
Utterly irrelevant, i.e., it doesn't change the fact that either weight or force is correct.

That leads you to say things like this howler of ignorance:
See above (in multiple places). Also: Comical Irony Alert: Part II.

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?
Why would I have a proposal for that? I'm not the one who said that things can be equalized.

Last edited by MaximRecoil; 06-28-21 at 10:35 AM.
MaximRecoil is offline  
Old 06-28-21, 10:24 AM
  #395  
UniChris
Senior Member
 
UniChris's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Northampton, MA
Posts: 1,464

Bikes: 36" Unicycle

Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 687 Post(s)
Liked 260 Times in 190 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.
UniChris is offline  
Likes For UniChris:
Old 06-28-21, 10:50 AM
  #396  
terrymorse 
climber has-been
 
terrymorse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 4,273

Bikes: Scott Addict R1

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 937 Post(s)
Liked 767 Times in 423 Posts
Originally Posted by MaximRecoil View Post
it doesn't change the fact that either weight or force is correct.
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).
__________________
Ride, Rest, Repeat
terrymorse is offline  
Old 06-28-21, 11:07 AM
  #397  
Badger6
Obsessed with Eddington
 
Badger6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Brussels (BE) 🇧🇪
Posts: 950

Bikes: '16 Spesh Diverge, '14 Spesh Fatboy, '18 Spesh Epic, '18 Spesh SL6, '21 Spesh SL7, '21 Spesh Diverge...and maybe n+1?

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 347 Post(s)
Liked 351 Times in 234 Posts
Originally Posted by MaximRecoil View Post
It doesn't work that way. Anything you do can be measured in watts. It tells you nothing about which muscles are being worked, and how they are being worked.
Dude, that is exactly how it works.
Badger6 is offline  
Likes For Badger6:
Old 06-28-21, 11:11 AM
  #398  
tomato coupe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,347

Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1437 Post(s)
Liked 2,139 Times in 886 Posts
Who would have thought that this thread could go downhill from where it started?
tomato coupe is offline  
Likes For tomato coupe:
Old 06-28-21, 11:13 AM
  #399  
livedarklions
Racerboyz' b'crat
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 9,790

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc

Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5066 Post(s)
Liked 4,355 Times in 2,451 Posts
Originally Posted by MaximRecoil View Post
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.

Too dumb, didn't read.
livedarklions is offline  
Likes For livedarklions:
Old 06-28-21, 11:16 AM
  #400  
Badger6
Obsessed with Eddington
 
Badger6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Brussels (BE) 🇧🇪
Posts: 950

Bikes: '16 Spesh Diverge, '14 Spesh Fatboy, '18 Spesh Epic, '18 Spesh SL6, '21 Spesh SL7, '21 Spesh Diverge...and maybe n+1?

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 347 Post(s)
Liked 351 Times in 234 Posts
Badger6 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.