Coasting down hill
#76
-------
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Tejas
Posts: 12,797
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9656 Post(s)
Liked 6,366 Times
in
3,506 Posts
Likes For Mojo31:
#77
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 4,083
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2333 Post(s)
Liked 2,097 Times
in
1,314 Posts
P ∝ v3
It is cubic. It is not squared, exponential or quadratic.
Double the speed from 20 mph to 40 mph requires 8 times the power to overcome the resistance of air.
It is cubic. It is not squared, exponential or quadratic.
Double the speed from 20 mph to 40 mph requires 8 times the power to overcome the resistance of air.
#78
-------
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Tejas
Posts: 12,797
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9656 Post(s)
Liked 6,366 Times
in
3,506 Posts
#79
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,996
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3978 Post(s)
Liked 7,422 Times
in
2,986 Posts
Likes For tomato coupe:
#80
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 4,083
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2333 Post(s)
Liked 2,097 Times
in
1,314 Posts
I was stating the power and speed relationship to overcome the resistance of air. It is cubic.
Drag is the force to overcome air resistance and it is quadratic. Power required is force times velocity and is therefore cubic.
We only care about speed and power. The only relationship that matters is double your speed requires 2 x 2 x 2 in power or a factor of 8.
WRT to the topic at hand, there is a speed where it makes much more sense to tuck and reduce CdA than to keep pedaling. It varies. I stop for sure at 38 mph.
#81
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,996
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3978 Post(s)
Liked 7,422 Times
in
2,986 Posts
I am not sure what you are saying. Do you?
I was stating the power and speed relationship to overcome the resistance of air. It is cubic.
Drag is the force to overcome air resistance and it is quadratic. Power required is force times velocity and is therefore cubic.
We only care about speed and power. The only relationship that matters is double your speed requires 2 x 2 x 2 in power or a factor of 8.
WRT to the topic at hand, there is a speed where it makes much more sense to tuck and reduce CdA than to keep pedaling. It varies. I stop for sure at 38 mph.
I was stating the power and speed relationship to overcome the resistance of air. It is cubic.
Drag is the force to overcome air resistance and it is quadratic. Power required is force times velocity and is therefore cubic.
We only care about speed and power. The only relationship that matters is double your speed requires 2 x 2 x 2 in power or a factor of 8.
WRT to the topic at hand, there is a speed where it makes much more sense to tuck and reduce CdA than to keep pedaling. It varies. I stop for sure at 38 mph.
Last edited by tomato coupe; 05-27-22 at 06:57 PM.
#82
Cheerfully low end
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 1,979
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 646 Post(s)
Liked 1,045 Times
in
668 Posts
Otto
#83
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,996
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3978 Post(s)
Liked 7,422 Times
in
2,986 Posts
Okay, so the 100 kg cyclist needs to get up in the 160-175 RPM range to burn hundreds of watts. I don't think the OP is soft pedaling at that cadence.
#86
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,996
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3978 Post(s)
Liked 7,422 Times
in
2,986 Posts
#87
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Bastrop Texas
Posts: 4,515
Bikes: Univega, Peu P6, Peu PR-10, Ted Williams, Peu UO-8, Peu UO-18 Mixte, Peu Dolomites
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 983 Post(s)
Liked 1,650 Times
in
1,060 Posts
I don't pedal when going down hill and all my rides are up and down. So really my 10 mile rides are only 5 and my 15 only 7... Go Figure...
__________________
No matter where you're at... There you are... Δf:=f(1/2)-f(-1/2)
No matter where you're at... There you are... Δf:=f(1/2)-f(-1/2)
#89
Quidam Bike Super Hero
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Stone Mountain, GA (Metro Atlanta, East)
Posts: 1,135
Bikes: 1995 Trek 800 Sport, aka, "CamelTrek"
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 331 Post(s)
Liked 415 Times
in
282 Posts
Totally anecdotal, and I am an old orangutan on an old mtb, but I experimented with wind resistance, highest cadence, and max speed on my steepest hill. Whether I pedal to 25mph and "tuck", or pedal like mad all the way down, I still top out at 35-36 mph. Hundreds of trials. Again, totally unscientific, and no superman! 40x11 chain ring/sprocket.
#90
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,586
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4482 Post(s)
Liked 4,953 Times
in
3,062 Posts
The original statement was "Air resistance [drag] increases exponentially with speed." That is incorrect -- drag is a quadratic function of speed. You introduced P, and made a statement that "It is cubic. It is not squared, exponential or quadratic." I was simply clarifying that aerodynamic drag is a quadratic function of speed, and the power required to overcome drag is a cubic function of speed, as some people may not have realized that you had changed the topic from drag to power. I stated exactly what you repeated in your 3rd paragraph.
I think it is less confusing to simply state that drag is proportional to v squared and Power is proportional to v cubed.
To me (maybe being UK educated in maths?) a quadratic function implies a quadratic equation of the form ax^2 + bx + c = 0 which the drag equation isn't.
#91
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,996
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3978 Post(s)
Liked 7,422 Times
in
2,986 Posts
To me (maybe being UK educated in maths?) a quadratic function implies a quadratic equation of the form ax^2 + bx + c = 0 which the drag equation isn't.
#92
I'm good to go!
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 15,088
Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020
Mentioned: 51 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6253 Post(s)
Liked 4,853 Times
in
3,345 Posts
#93
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: 757
Posts: 11,265
Bikes: Madone, Emonda, 5500, Ritchey Breakaway
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10246 Post(s)
Liked 5,205 Times
in
2,232 Posts
I only sleep in the crew room when I am trying to get home. If I have to work I get a hotel. I have no interest in making the news.
#94
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 18,138
Bikes: 2 many
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1266 Post(s)
Liked 323 Times
in
169 Posts
On anything more than a moderately steep descent, your pedaling effort will be wasted. This is because aerodynamic drag (and therefore power required to increase speed) goes up by the square of your speed increase.
Going up a hill, obviously you must pedal to keep moving. It's okay, because at speeds below 10 or 15 mph, air drag is by far the smallest component of the total formula you have to overcome to maintain or increase speed. In other words, your effort is not wasted, because increasing power by 20% will bring an increase in speed of nearly 20%
On flat ground, pedaling is again required, obviously. At speeds of 15 to 20 or 22 mph, air drag starts to take over as the major component. Within this range, any increase in speed will require a progressively greater effort--actually, this is always the case, but in this range it becomes a significant factor.
When you're coasting downhill at 25, 30, 35 mph or higher, you might as well rest and enjoy the free propulsion from gravity (technically, withdrawing potential energy you put in the bank while climbing earlier on your route, or if your descent is at the beginning of the route, going in debt by using energy you haven't banked yet). To increase your speed, you'll have to exert a disproportionately greater effort. Spending any energy here does little to increase speed, therefore it's better saved for a time when it will make a bigger difference.
Going up a hill, obviously you must pedal to keep moving. It's okay, because at speeds below 10 or 15 mph, air drag is by far the smallest component of the total formula you have to overcome to maintain or increase speed. In other words, your effort is not wasted, because increasing power by 20% will bring an increase in speed of nearly 20%
On flat ground, pedaling is again required, obviously. At speeds of 15 to 20 or 22 mph, air drag starts to take over as the major component. Within this range, any increase in speed will require a progressively greater effort--actually, this is always the case, but in this range it becomes a significant factor.
When you're coasting downhill at 25, 30, 35 mph or higher, you might as well rest and enjoy the free propulsion from gravity (technically, withdrawing potential energy you put in the bank while climbing earlier on your route, or if your descent is at the beginning of the route, going in debt by using energy you haven't banked yet). To increase your speed, you'll have to exert a disproportionately greater effort. Spending any energy here does little to increase speed, therefore it's better saved for a time when it will make a bigger difference.
#95
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,586
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4482 Post(s)
Liked 4,953 Times
in
3,062 Posts
Yeah I realise that now. It's just that over here we always use the term "squared" when talking about the relationship of one variable to another i.e. in this case Drag being proportional to v squared. But anyway, we are talking about exactly the same thing. No disagreement there, just different terminology.
#97
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 3,860
Bikes: Trek Domane SL6 Gen 3, Soma Fog Cutter, Focus Mares AL, Detroit Bikes Sparrow FG, Volae Team, Nimbus MUni
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 905 Post(s)
Liked 2,074 Times
in
1,088 Posts
I'm a Randonneur; I ride long distances and do so entirely by feel rather than with power or heart data. My sense is I benefit from going a little deep on climbs, but not too far. There's a strong tendency to go too hard, and pay the price later on the ride.
Early it's tempting to jump on a faster group, benefit from the draft, and bury myself to stay with them on the climbs. Following that strategy will leave me dropped, faced with hours of being passed one by one by riders who started more wisely. I avoid that trap as best i can. Too much effort on climbs hurts in the long run, not even offset by having drafting partners.
On the downhill side, clearly the speed benefit from pedaling downhill diminishes with grade; however, there are other reasons to pedal and other reasons to coast.
Spinning up after a long coast can be painful. Muscles and knees get stiff; maybe even inflammation starts ramping up. I'm not talking about little rollers, I'm talking long climbs and descents. Soft pedaling keeps things limber. OTOH, coasting provides the opportunity to unload weight off your saddle, put your body in another position for a while. At some point, comfortable is faster than the alternative. Nobody ever DNF'd from being comfortable.
Early it's tempting to jump on a faster group, benefit from the draft, and bury myself to stay with them on the climbs. Following that strategy will leave me dropped, faced with hours of being passed one by one by riders who started more wisely. I avoid that trap as best i can. Too much effort on climbs hurts in the long run, not even offset by having drafting partners.
On the downhill side, clearly the speed benefit from pedaling downhill diminishes with grade; however, there are other reasons to pedal and other reasons to coast.
Spinning up after a long coast can be painful. Muscles and knees get stiff; maybe even inflammation starts ramping up. I'm not talking about little rollers, I'm talking long climbs and descents. Soft pedaling keeps things limber. OTOH, coasting provides the opportunity to unload weight off your saddle, put your body in another position for a while. At some point, comfortable is faster than the alternative. Nobody ever DNF'd from being comfortable.
Last edited by downtube42; 05-28-22 at 11:49 PM.
#98
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,313
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4282 Post(s)
Liked 1,375 Times
in
956 Posts
Yeah I realise that now. It's just that over here we always use the term "squared" when talking about the relationship of one variable to another i.e. in this case Drag being proportional to v squared. But anyway, we are talking about exactly the same thing. No disagreement there, just different terminology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadratic_equation
* it just doesn’t matter for this discussion.
#99
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,996
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3978 Post(s)
Liked 7,422 Times
in
2,986 Posts
You aren’t wrong. * The other coefficients are just zero for the case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadratic_equation
* it just doesn’t matter for this discussion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadratic_equation
* it just doesn’t matter for this discussion.
#100
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 2,009
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2730 Post(s)
Liked 488 Times
in
353 Posts
I'm not sure how much more speed you can gain by pushing harder on the descents. Mostly, I spin up to 25 or so and then coast, on the straight ones. The technical ones, I'm braking WAY more than I'm pedaling. I think you'd lose more by going less hard up the hills than you'd gain pushing more on the descents. And, geez - you say you weigh 260. How much more speed do you need than what that gives you? You could probably get more speed by rebuilding your hubs with new grease and bearings.