| |
Main
Date: 12 Jan 2007 20:38:23
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
Despite my extensive lecture, I see most of you drama queens and pre-op
transsexuals still think you go faster in velodrome turns than on the
straightaway. According to you circus freakshow workers, the act of
shortening the distance of travel of the center of mass (compared to the
distance of travel of the bicycle wheels) means that you must therefore
go faster in turns. You people say this despite not even quantifying
it AFTER deducting all the negative effects that take place in a turn
(which none of you seem to acknowledge, nor do you refute).
I have come to the conclusion this issue can be definitely resolved with
a very simple experiment by someone in here. It need not even be done
on a velodrome. So I want someone to do this and then report back in
here as to what the results are so Carl and Billy and the rest of you
assclowns can deal with it.
The experiment:
1. Must use a bike with a power meter.
2. Ride the bike at a constant WATTAGE around a parking lot in a loop
that roughly simulates a velodrome lap.
3. In the turns, note what happens to your speed vs. the straightaways.
According to Carl, Bill C, and the vast majority of you Einstein
rapists...you all think that your speed will increase in the turns. I
am 100% positive it will decrease.
I have come to the conclusion there is no reason this test must be done
in a velodrome, since you are still leaning on a parking lot turn and
the identical physics equation that Carl et al claims makes you go
faster in a turn will also be present on a parking lot turn as the bank
angle of a velodrome is not relevant according to Dan Connelly's
calculations.
Carl or Dan did not specify anything that would make a velodrome turn
different than a parking lot turn with respect to this shortening the
radius phenomenon.
So go out and do it and then report back here what happens to your
speed, you delusional counterfeit people.
Good luck and pay the fuck attention to your speedometer in the turns.
Thanks,
Magilla
|
|
| |
Date: 17 Jan 2007 01:33:44
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
Howard Kveck wrote:
> MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
> > The major loss of energy (speed) in a turn comes from the increased
> > centrifugal force in a turn. It requires a tremendous input of energy
> > to change the vector velocity of mass 180-degrees [momentum (M) = mv].
No it doesn't. That's the point of a turn. The acceleration is
perpendicular to the velocity vector so it changes its direction,
not magnitude. Momentum is conserved here. The cyclist
pushes slightly back on the rest of the planet.
When you play pool and knock one ball into another, very little
energy is dissipated in the collision even though the balls'
momentum vectors are changed.
When you tie something to a rope and swing it around your
head, it takes very little energy to keep it going in a circle
once you've got it up to speed.
> > G-forces kill speed. That's why all speed records in cars, planes,
> > motorcycles, boats, running events, etc. are set in straightaways at 1g,
> > and never during turns where G-forces increase.
>
> Actually speed records for most of those things are set on an entire lap of a
> track. Right? Now you're saying that the reason cars slow down in turns is because
> of increased G loads? That's not what you said earlier.
Cars slow down in turns so as not to slide out. This is why turns
are banked. Most fast cars are designed to increase G-force
to increase traction. But we all knew that already.
> > A turn radius of 180-degrees on a velodrome results in rather large
> > G-forces. A 75kg rider in a velodrome turn, depending upon their speed,
> > probably weighs 150 kg or 200 kg throughout most of the turn.
>
> I think you're guesstimating how much the G-force loads are on a bike in a banked
> turn and your guess is off by a huge factor.
The monkey is exaggerating a little here, estimating 2-2.7 g's.
The acceleration felt by the rider in a turn is an accel. of g
downward due to gravity, and a_r (radial) inward, which is
the centripetal acceleration exerted by the track on the rider
and keeps her going in a circle. These are perpendicular,
so the total acceleration felt by the rider is a = sqrt(g^2 + a_r^2).
The centripetal accel. a_r = v^2/r where r is the radius of the
turn. A track might have radius 17-30 m. g is 9.8 m/s^2.
Bob Schwartz went v=12.5 m/s. Plug these numbers
in and I get that total accel could range from 13.4 -11.1 m/s^2,
or about 1.1 - 1.35 g's. A fast rider going 15 m/s on a 17 m
radius turn would pull about 1.6 g's. It's not very relevant
anyway since rolling resistance is by far not the dominant
factor at these speeds.
Ben
O.G. Original Gravity
|
| | |
Date: 17 Jan 2007 20:55:23
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
In article <1169026424.242189.168480@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com >,
"bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote:
> Howard Kveck wrote:
> > MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > The major loss of energy (speed) in a turn comes from the increased
> > > centrifugal force in a turn. It requires a tremendous input of energy
> > > to change the vector velocity of mass 180-degrees [momentum (M) = mv].
>
> No it doesn't. That's the point of a turn. The acceleration is
> perpendicular to the velocity vector so it changes its direction,
> not magnitude. Momentum is conserved here. The cyclist
> pushes slightly back on the rest of the planet.
>
> When you play pool and knock one ball into another, very little
> energy is dissipated in the collision even though the balls'
> momentum vectors are changed.
>
> When you tie something to a rope and swing it around your
> head, it takes very little energy to keep it going in a circle
> once you've got it up to speed.
Which sounds like a good reason why the COM of the cyclist on a velodrome will
stay at a fairly consistent speed (and the part that is traveling further will
necessarily *have to* speed up to keep up).
> > > G-forces kill speed. That's why all speed records in cars, planes,
> > > motorcycles, boats, running events, etc. are set in straightaways at 1g,
> > > and never during turns where G-forces increase.
> >
> > Actually speed records for most of those things are set on an entire lap
> > of a track. Right? Now you're saying that the reason cars slow down in turns
> > is because of increased G loads? That's not what you said earlier.
>
> Cars slow down in turns so as not to slide out. This is why turns
> are banked. Most fast cars are designed to increase G-force
> to increase traction. But we all knew that already.
Most serious fast cars are designed to have additional downforce to increase
traction - look at the multi-stage wings on F1 cars. I made some parts for one of
the guys who was involved in the late '80s Nissan GTP team and he said those cars
could easily generate three to four times their own weight due to downforce.
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/nissanp35story.html
> > > A turn radius of 180-degrees on a velodrome results in rather large
> > > G-forces. A 75kg rider in a velodrome turn, depending upon their speed,
> > > probably weighs 150 kg or 200 kg throughout most of the turn.
> >
> > I think you're guesstimating how much the G-force loads are on a bike in
> > a banked turn and your guess is off by a huge factor.
>
> The monkey is exaggerating a little here, estimating 2-2.7 g's.
> The acceleration felt by the rider in a turn is an accel. of g
> downward due to gravity, and a_r (radial) inward, which is
> the centripetal acceleration exerted by the track on the rider
> and keeps her going in a circle. These are perpendicular,
> so the total acceleration felt by the rider is a = sqrt(g^2 + a_r^2).
> The centripetal accel. a_r = v^2/r where r is the radius of the
> turn. A track might have radius 17-30 m. g is 9.8 m/s^2.
> Bob Schwartz went v=12.5 m/s. Plug these numbers
> in and I get that total accel could range from 13.4 -11.1 m/s^2,
> or about 1.1 - 1.35 g's. A fast rider going 15 m/s on a 17 m
> radius turn would pull about 1.6 g's. It's not very relevant
> anyway since rolling resistance is by far not the dominant
> factor at these speeds.
Even if the rider did pull as much as 1.6 G's, how would it slow him down?
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| |
Date: 15 Jan 2007 22:00:54
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
MagillaGorilla wrote:
> Howard Kveck wrote:
>
> > In article <pJydnejI-I1i9zTYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> > MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Howard Kveck wrote:
> >>
>
> >
> >>>The issue of tire scrub arises from the tilt relative to the road
> >>>surface. On a flat turn, there is *far* more scrub than what you'd see
> >>>on a velodrome turn.
> >>
> >>Where are you getting this information from - do you know this for a
> >>fact or are you just guessing?
> >
> >
> > Known for a fact. When a wheel and tire is rotating perpendicular to the road
> > surface, you have one component of travel at the contact point. As the wheel moves
> > off perpendicular, you add another component: as the wheel rotates, the area in
> > front of and behind the contact point is moving in a shearing pattern (tire
> > deformation at an angle adds to this effect). This adds friction and increases
> > rolling resistance. A wheel rolling perpendicular to the road surface will always
> > have less rolling resistance than one that is tilted off perpendicular because of
> > that.
> >
>
>
> I agree. And all this causes deceleration in a turn.
Dumbass -
Yep.
And that's what causes an acceleration when exiting that Carl
mentioned, the sudden absence of the resistance.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
|
| |
Date: 15 Jan 2007 19:34:53
From: bdbafh
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
MagillaGorilla wrote:
> Howard Kveck wrote:
>
> > In article <pJydnejI-I1i9zTYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> > MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Howard Kveck wrote:
>
> >
> > Wheel track isn't identical. The more the bike leans over relative to the road
> > surface, the more you increase the slip angle of the rear wheel. As a bike leans,
> > the rear wheel contact patch angle increases relative to the arc the bike is
> > traveling. The front wheel will exhibit the same behavior but to a much smaller
> > degree because it can be (and is) turned to an angle closer to that of the turn arc.
> > Since the bike is near perpendicular to the road surface on a banked velodrome turn,
> > slip angle is very minute (and you will have less tire scrub and rolling
> > resistance). The bike in a banked velodrome turn behaves more like a bike on a
> > straightaway in terms of slip angle and tire scrub than one leaned over on a flat
> > turn.
> >
>
> You're forgetting something. A 75kg rider in a velodrome turn enduring
> 2g's of centrifugal force weighs 150kg.
>
> You really think doubling a rider's weight in a turn doesn't cause a
> deceleration in turns?
>
> I do.
>
>
> Magilla
That force that you describe is a vector.
What is the magnitude of that normal to the surface of the contact
point?
To me, "weigh" is understood to be in the direction between the center
of the earth out through the crust, not toward the radius of the curve
(in question).
(e.g. standing on a scale on a flat, level surface (plane)
perpendicular to a line extended from the COM of the Earth)
Perhaps a free body diagram is in order ...
-bdbafh
(insert joke about the Right Hand Rule here)
|
| |
Date: 14 Jan 2007 01:15:32
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
In article <BQCdnedT7NKSpTXYUSdV9g@ptd.net >,
MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote:
> Despite my extensive lecture, I see most of you drama queens and pre-op
> transsexuals still think you go faster in velodrome turns than on the
> straightaway. According to you circus freakshow workers, the act of
> shortening the distance of travel of the center of mass (compared to the
> distance of travel of the bicycle wheels) means that you must therefore
> go faster in turns. You people say this despite not even quantifying
> it AFTER deducting all the negative effects that take place in a turn
> (which none of you seem to acknowledge, nor do you refute).
>
> I have come to the conclusion this issue can be definitely resolved with
> a very simple experiment by someone in here. It need not even be done
> on a velodrome. So I want someone to do this and then report back in
> here as to what the results are so Carl and Billy and the rest of you
> assclowns can deal with it.
>
> The experiment:
>
> 1. Must use a bike with a power meter.
> 2. Ride the bike at a constant WATTAGE around a parking lot in a loop
> that roughly simulates a velodrome lap.
> 3. In the turns, note what happens to your speed vs. the straightaways.
>
>
> According to Carl, Bill C, and the vast majority of you Einstein
> rapists...you all think that your speed will increase in the turns. I
> am 100% positive it will decrease.
>
> I have come to the conclusion there is no reason this test must be done
> in a velodrome, since you are still leaning on a parking lot turn and
> the identical physics equation that Carl et al claims makes you go
> faster in a turn will also be present on a parking lot turn as the bank
> angle of a velodrome is not relevant according to Dan Connelly's
> calculations.
>
> Carl or Dan did not specify anything that would make a velodrome turn
> different than a parking lot turn with respect to this shortening the
> radius phenomenon.
>
> So go out and do it and then report back here what happens to your
> speed, you delusional counterfeit people.
>
> Good luck and pay the fuck attention to your speedometer in the turns.
The experiment is done every day on the tracks. A rider
on the wheel of another fades back several centimeters
as the front rider enters the turn. The distance is
recouped when the first rider exits the turn.
--
Michael Press
|
| | |
Date: 14 Jan 2007 00:24:11
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
Michael Press wrote:
> In article <BQCdnedT7NKSpTXYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Despite my extensive lecture, I see most of you drama queens and pre-op
>>transsexuals still think you go faster in velodrome turns than on the
>>straightaway. According to you circus freakshow workers, the act of
>>shortening the distance of travel of the center of mass (compared to the
>>distance of travel of the bicycle wheels) means that you must therefore
>>go faster in turns. You people say this despite not even quantifying
>>it AFTER deducting all the negative effects that take place in a turn
>>(which none of you seem to acknowledge, nor do you refute).
>>
>>I have come to the conclusion this issue can be definitely resolved with
>>a very simple experiment by someone in here. It need not even be done
>>on a velodrome. So I want someone to do this and then report back in
>>here as to what the results are so Carl and Billy and the rest of you
>>assclowns can deal with it.
>>
>>The experiment:
>>
>>1. Must use a bike with a power meter.
>>2. Ride the bike at a constant WATTAGE around a parking lot in a loop
>>that roughly simulates a velodrome lap.
>>3. In the turns, note what happens to your speed vs. the straightaways.
>>
>>
>>According to Carl, Bill C, and the vast majority of you Einstein
>>rapists...you all think that your speed will increase in the turns. I
>>am 100% positive it will decrease.
>>
>>I have come to the conclusion there is no reason this test must be done
>>in a velodrome, since you are still leaning on a parking lot turn and
>>the identical physics equation that Carl et al claims makes you go
>>faster in a turn will also be present on a parking lot turn as the bank
>>angle of a velodrome is not relevant according to Dan Connelly's
>>calculations.
>>
>>Carl or Dan did not specify anything that would make a velodrome turn
>>different than a parking lot turn with respect to this shortening the
>>radius phenomenon.
>>
>>So go out and do it and then report back here what happens to your
>>speed, you delusional counterfeit people.
>>
>>Good luck and pay the fuck attention to your speedometer in the turns.
>
>
> The experiment is done every day on the tracks. A rider
> on the wheel of another fades back several centimeters
> as the front rider enters the turn. The distance is
> recouped when the first rider exits the turn.
>
Wow - what convincing evidence ("fades back several CENTIMETERS"). I'm
assuming you use laser surveying equipment to measure that 2.3 cm loss?
Magilla
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Jan 2007 21:32:33
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
In article <5tKdnUu1ZIzhIzTYUSdV9g@ptd.net >,
MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
>
> > In article <BQCdnedT7NKSpTXYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> > MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
> >>Despite my extensive lecture, I see most of you drama queens and pre-op
> >>transsexuals still think you go faster in velodrome turns than on the
> >>straightaway. According to you circus freakshow workers, the act of
> >>shortening the distance of travel of the center of mass (compared to the
> >>distance of travel of the bicycle wheels) means that you must therefore
> >>go faster in turns. You people say this despite not even quantifying
> >>it AFTER deducting all the negative effects that take place in a turn
> >>(which none of you seem to acknowledge, nor do you refute).
> >>
> >>I have come to the conclusion this issue can be definitely resolved with
> >>a very simple experiment by someone in here. It need not even be done
> >>on a velodrome. So I want someone to do this and then report back in
> >>here as to what the results are so Carl and Billy and the rest of you
> >>assclowns can deal with it.
> >>
> >>The experiment:
> >>
> >>1. Must use a bike with a power meter.
> >>2. Ride the bike at a constant WATTAGE around a parking lot in a loop
> >>that roughly simulates a velodrome lap.
> >>3. In the turns, note what happens to your speed vs. the straightaways.
> >>
> >>
> >>According to Carl, Bill C, and the vast majority of you Einstein
> >>rapists...you all think that your speed will increase in the turns. I
> >>am 100% positive it will decrease.
> >>
> >>I have come to the conclusion there is no reason this test must be done
> >>in a velodrome, since you are still leaning on a parking lot turn and
> >>the identical physics equation that Carl et al claims makes you go
> >>faster in a turn will also be present on a parking lot turn as the bank
> >>angle of a velodrome is not relevant according to Dan Connelly's
> >>calculations.
> >>
> >>Carl or Dan did not specify anything that would make a velodrome turn
> >>different than a parking lot turn with respect to this shortening the
> >>radius phenomenon.
> >>
> >>So go out and do it and then report back here what happens to your
> >>speed, you delusional counterfeit people.
> >>
> >>Good luck and pay the fuck attention to your speedometer in the turns.
> >
> > The experiment is done every day on the tracks. A rider
> > on the wheel of another fades back several centimeters
> > as the front rider enters the turn. The distance is
> > recouped when the first rider exits the turn.
>
> Wow - what convincing evidence ("fades back several CENTIMETERS"). I'm
> assuming you use laser surveying equipment to measure that 2.3 cm loss?
How do you think this distance is measured, since they
do not install laser range finders at the track? Apply
yourself.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Jan 2007 15:19:00
From: Phil Holman
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
"Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote in message
news:rubrum-8CFAA2.13323315012007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <5tKdnUu1ZIzhIzTYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
>> Michael Press wrote:
>>
>> > In article <BQCdnedT7NKSpTXYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
>> > MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
>> >>Despite my extensive lecture, I see most of you drama queens and
>> >>pre-op
>> >>transsexuals still think you go faster in velodrome turns than on
>> >>the
>> >>straightaway. According to you circus freakshow workers, the act
>> >>of
>> >>shortening the distance of travel of the center of mass (compared
>> >>to the
>> >>distance of travel of the bicycle wheels) means that you must
>> >>therefore
>> >>go faster in turns. You people say this despite not even
>> >>quantifying
>> >>it AFTER deducting all the negative effects that take place in a
>> >>turn
>> >>(which none of you seem to acknowledge, nor do you refute).
>> >>
>> >>I have come to the conclusion this issue can be definitely resolved
>> >>with
>> >>a very simple experiment by someone in here. It need not even be
>> >>done
>> >>on a velodrome. So I want someone to do this and then report back
>> >>in
>> >>here as to what the results are so Carl and Billy and the rest of
>> >>you
>> >>assclowns can deal with it.
>> >>
>> >>The experiment:
>> >>
>> >>1. Must use a bike with a power meter.
>> >>2. Ride the bike at a constant WATTAGE around a parking lot in a
>> >>loop
>> >>that roughly simulates a velodrome lap.
>> >>3. In the turns, note what happens to your speed vs. the
>> >>straightaways.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>According to Carl, Bill C, and the vast majority of you Einstein
>> >>rapists...you all think that your speed will increase in the turns.
>> >>I
>> >>am 100% positive it will decrease.
>> >>
>> >>I have come to the conclusion there is no reason this test must be
>> >>done
>> >>in a velodrome, since you are still leaning on a parking lot turn
>> >>and
>> >>the identical physics equation that Carl et al claims makes you go
>> >>faster in a turn will also be present on a parking lot turn as the
>> >>bank
>> >>angle of a velodrome is not relevant according to Dan Connelly's
>> >>calculations.
>> >>
>> >>Carl or Dan did not specify anything that would make a velodrome
>> >>turn
>> >>different than a parking lot turn with respect to this shortening
>> >>the
>> >>radius phenomenon.
>> >>
>> >>So go out and do it and then report back here what happens to your
>> >>speed, you delusional counterfeit people.
>> >>
>> >>Good luck and pay the fuck attention to your speedometer in the
>> >>turns.
>> >
>> > The experiment is done every day on the tracks. A rider
>> > on the wheel of another fades back several centimeters
>> > as the front rider enters the turn. The distance is
>> > recouped when the first rider exits the turn.
>>
>> Wow - what convincing evidence ("fades back several CENTIMETERS").
>> I'm
>> assuming you use laser surveying equipment to measure that 2.3 cm
>> loss?
>
> How do you think this distance is measured, since they
> do not install laser range finders at the track? Apply
> yourself.
>
Good advice.
http://storeandserve.com/download/695244/Power_Output_and_Speed_for_a_Kilo.xls.html
Here is some data of a kilo effort with a flying start. You may have to
click a couple of times here and there to get to the file. Scroll over
to the plot on the left.
Phil H
|
| | | | | |
Date: 16 Jan 2007 02:58:35
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
In article
<Z4mdnafON4R2ljHYnZ2dnUVZ_vWtnZ2d@comcast.com >,
"Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice > wrote:
> "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:rubrum-8CFAA2.13323315012007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> > In article <5tKdnUu1ZIzhIzTYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> > MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
> >> Michael Press wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article <BQCdnedT7NKSpTXYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> >> > MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
> >> >>Despite my extensive lecture, I see most of you drama queens and
> >> >>pre-op
> >> >>transsexuals still think you go faster in velodrome turns than on
> >> >>the
> >> >>straightaway. According to you circus freakshow workers, the act
> >> >>of
> >> >>shortening the distance of travel of the center of mass (compared
> >> >>to the
> >> >>distance of travel of the bicycle wheels) means that you must
> >> >>therefore
> >> >>go faster in turns. You people say this despite not even
> >> >>quantifying
> >> >>it AFTER deducting all the negative effects that take place in a
> >> >>turn
> >> >>(which none of you seem to acknowledge, nor do you refute).
> >> >>
> >> >>I have come to the conclusion this issue can be definitely resolved
> >> >>with
> >> >>a very simple experiment by someone in here. It need not even be
> >> >>done
> >> >>on a velodrome. So I want someone to do this and then report back
> >> >>in
> >> >>here as to what the results are so Carl and Billy and the rest of
> >> >>you
> >> >>assclowns can deal with it.
> >> >>
> >> >>The experiment:
> >> >>
> >> >>1. Must use a bike with a power meter.
> >> >>2. Ride the bike at a constant WATTAGE around a parking lot in a
> >> >>loop
> >> >>that roughly simulates a velodrome lap.
> >> >>3. In the turns, note what happens to your speed vs. the
> >> >>straightaways.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>According to Carl, Bill C, and the vast majority of you Einstein
> >> >>rapists...you all think that your speed will increase in the turns.
> >> >>I
> >> >>am 100% positive it will decrease.
> >> >>
> >> >>I have come to the conclusion there is no reason this test must be
> >> >>done
> >> >>in a velodrome, since you are still leaning on a parking lot turn
> >> >>and
> >> >>the identical physics equation that Carl et al claims makes you go
> >> >>faster in a turn will also be present on a parking lot turn as the
> >> >>bank
> >> >>angle of a velodrome is not relevant according to Dan Connelly's
> >> >>calculations.
> >> >>
> >> >>Carl or Dan did not specify anything that would make a velodrome
> >> >>turn
> >> >>different than a parking lot turn with respect to this shortening
> >> >>the
> >> >>radius phenomenon.
> >> >>
> >> >>So go out and do it and then report back here what happens to your
> >> >>speed, you delusional counterfeit people.
> >> >>
> >> >>Good luck and pay the fuck attention to your speedometer in the
> >> >>turns.
> >> >
> >> > The experiment is done every day on the tracks. A rider
> >> > on the wheel of another fades back several centimeters
> >> > as the front rider enters the turn. The distance is
> >> > recouped when the first rider exits the turn.
> >>
> >> Wow - what convincing evidence ("fades back several CENTIMETERS").
> >> I'm
> >> assuming you use laser surveying equipment to measure that 2.3 cm
> >> loss?
> >
> > How do you think this distance is measured, since they
> > do not install laser range finders at the track? Apply
> > yourself.
> >
>
> Good advice.
>
> http://storeandserve.com/download/695244/Power_Output_and_Speed_for_a_Kilo.xls.html
>
> Here is some data of a kilo effort with a flying start. You may have to
> click a couple of times here and there to get to the file. Scroll over
> to the plot on the left.
I try not to run Microshaft applications. I mean to say
that a rider following a rider into a turn will see the
rider ahead open the gap by a few centimeters, and see
the gap reduced when the rider ahead exits the turn. No
elaborate equipment necessary.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Jan 2007 22:41:23
From: Phil Holman
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote in message
news:5tKdnUu1ZIzhIzTYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> Michael Press wrote:
>
>> In article <BQCdnedT7NKSpTXYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
>> MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Despite my extensive lecture, I see most of you drama queens and
>>>pre-op transsexuals still think you go faster in velodrome turns than
>>>on the straightaway. According to you circus freakshow workers, the
>>>act of shortening the distance of travel of the center of mass
>>>(compared to the distance of travel of the bicycle wheels) means that
>>>you must therefore go faster in turns. You people say this despite
>>>not even quantifying it AFTER deducting all the negative effects that
>>>take place in a turn (which none of you seem to acknowledge, nor do
>>>you refute).
>>>
>>>I have come to the conclusion this issue can be definitely resolved
>>>with a very simple experiment by someone in here. It need not even
>>>be done on a velodrome. So I want someone to do this and then report
>>>back in here as to what the results are so Carl and Billy and the
>>>rest of you assclowns can deal with it.
>>>
>>>The experiment:
>>>
>>>1. Must use a bike with a power meter.
>>>2. Ride the bike at a constant WATTAGE around a parking lot in a loop
>>>that roughly simulates a velodrome lap.
>>>3. In the turns, note what happens to your speed vs. the
>>>straightaways.
>>>
>>>
>>>According to Carl, Bill C, and the vast majority of you Einstein
>>>rapists...you all think that your speed will increase in the turns.
>>>I am 100% positive it will decrease.
>>>
>>>I have come to the conclusion there is no reason this test must be
>>>done in a velodrome, since you are still leaning on a parking lot
>>>turn and the identical physics equation that Carl et al claims makes
>>>you go faster in a turn will also be present on a parking lot turn as
>>>the bank angle of a velodrome is not relevant according to Dan
>>>Connelly's calculations.
>>>
>>>Carl or Dan did not specify anything that would make a velodrome turn
>>>different than a parking lot turn with respect to this shortening the
>>>radius phenomenon.
>>>
>>>So go out and do it and then report back here what happens to your
>>>speed, you delusional counterfeit people.
>>>
>>>Good luck and pay the fuck attention to your speedometer in the
>>>turns.
>>
>>
>> The experiment is done every day on the tracks. A rider on the wheel
>> of another fades back several centimeters as the front rider enters
>> the turn. The distance is recouped when the first rider exits the
>> turn.
>>
>
>
> Wow - what convincing evidence ("fades back several CENTIMETERS").
> I'm assuming you use laser surveying equipment to measure that 2.3 cm
> loss?
>
At around 50km/hr, a 4cm gap appears over one bike length from a 1 km/hr
speed difference.
Phil H
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Jan 2007 03:22:26
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
Phil Holman wrote:
> "MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
> news:5tKdnUu1ZIzhIzTYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>
>>Michael Press wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <BQCdnedT7NKSpTXYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
>>> MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Despite my extensive lecture, I see most of you drama queens and
>>>>pre-op transsexuals still think you go faster in velodrome turns than
>>>>on the straightaway. According to you circus freakshow workers, the
>>>>act of shortening the distance of travel of the center of mass
>>>>(compared to the distance of travel of the bicycle wheels) means that
>>>>you must therefore go faster in turns. You people say this despite
>>>>not even quantifying it AFTER deducting all the negative effects that
>>>>take place in a turn (which none of you seem to acknowledge, nor do
>>>>you refute).
>>>>
>>>>I have come to the conclusion this issue can be definitely resolved
>>>>with a very simple experiment by someone in here. It need not even
>>>>be done on a velodrome. So I want someone to do this and then report
>>>>back in here as to what the results are so Carl and Billy and the
>>>>rest of you assclowns can deal with it.
>>>>
>>>>The experiment:
>>>>
>>>>1. Must use a bike with a power meter.
>>>>2. Ride the bike at a constant WATTAGE around a parking lot in a loop
>>>>that roughly simulates a velodrome lap.
>>>>3. In the turns, note what happens to your speed vs. the
>>>>straightaways.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>According to Carl, Bill C, and the vast majority of you Einstein
>>>>rapists...you all think that your speed will increase in the turns.
>>>>I am 100% positive it will decrease.
>>>>
>>>>I have come to the conclusion there is no reason this test must be
>>>>done in a velodrome, since you are still leaning on a parking lot
>>>>turn and the identical physics equation that Carl et al claims makes
>>>>you go faster in a turn will also be present on a parking lot turn as
>>>>the bank angle of a velodrome is not relevant according to Dan
>>>>Connelly's calculations.
>>>>
>>>>Carl or Dan did not specify anything that would make a velodrome turn
>>>>different than a parking lot turn with respect to this shortening the
>>>>radius phenomenon.
>>>>
>>>>So go out and do it and then report back here what happens to your
>>>>speed, you delusional counterfeit people.
>>>>
>>>>Good luck and pay the fuck attention to your speedometer in the
>>>>turns.
>>>
>>>
>>>The experiment is done every day on the tracks. A rider on the wheel
>>>of another fades back several centimeters as the front rider enters
>>>the turn. The distance is recouped when the first rider exits the
>>>turn.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Wow - what convincing evidence ("fades back several CENTIMETERS").
>>I'm assuming you use laser surveying equipment to measure that 2.3 cm
>>loss?
>>
>
> At around 50km/hr, a 4cm gap appears over one bike length from a 1 km/hr
> speed difference.
>
> Phil H
>
>
And how do we know this speed difference is due to the physics inherent
with a turn and not due to the increase in aerodynamic drag in a
paceline turn (9% according to Dan Connelly's calculations) or the rider
not being able to produce as many watts in a turn due to centrifugal
pooling of blood? We don't.
There's about 10 other reasons but the point is the reason why this is
occurring cannot be attributed to the physics of a turn, since you
failed to explain how you ruled out everything else.
And to claim it is due to the turn itself is bizarre and absolutely not
a scientific conclusion. You have NO idea why this gap is occurring,
only that it is occurring.
Therefore, the gap, if true, can mean any number of things.
Magilla
|
| | | | | |
Date: 15 Jan 2007 21:38:11
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
In article <U_OdnRRLcovfdTTYUSdV9g@ptd.net >,
MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote:
> Phil Holman wrote:
>
> > "MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:5tKdnUu1ZIzhIzTYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> >
> >>Michael Press wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article <BQCdnedT7NKSpTXYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> >>> MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Despite my extensive lecture, I see most of you drama queens and
> >>>>pre-op transsexuals still think you go faster in velodrome turns than
> >>>>on the straightaway. According to you circus freakshow workers, the
> >>>>act of shortening the distance of travel of the center of mass
> >>>>(compared to the distance of travel of the bicycle wheels) means that
> >>>>you must therefore go faster in turns. You people say this despite
> >>>>not even quantifying it AFTER deducting all the negative effects that
> >>>>take place in a turn (which none of you seem to acknowledge, nor do
> >>>>you refute).
> >>>>
> >>>>I have come to the conclusion this issue can be definitely resolved
> >>>>with a very simple experiment by someone in here. It need not even
> >>>>be done on a velodrome. So I want someone to do this and then report
> >>>>back in here as to what the results are so Carl and Billy and the
> >>>>rest of you assclowns can deal with it.
> >>>>
> >>>>The experiment:
> >>>>
> >>>>1. Must use a bike with a power meter.
> >>>>2. Ride the bike at a constant WATTAGE around a parking lot in a loop
> >>>>that roughly simulates a velodrome lap.
> >>>>3. In the turns, note what happens to your speed vs. the
> >>>>straightaways.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>According to Carl, Bill C, and the vast majority of you Einstein
> >>>>rapists...you all think that your speed will increase in the turns.
> >>>>I am 100% positive it will decrease.
> >>>>
> >>>>I have come to the conclusion there is no reason this test must be
> >>>>done in a velodrome, since you are still leaning on a parking lot
> >>>>turn and the identical physics equation that Carl et al claims makes
> >>>>you go faster in a turn will also be present on a parking lot turn as
> >>>>the bank angle of a velodrome is not relevant according to Dan
> >>>>Connelly's calculations.
> >>>>
> >>>>Carl or Dan did not specify anything that would make a velodrome turn
> >>>>different than a parking lot turn with respect to this shortening the
> >>>>radius phenomenon.
> >>>>
> >>>>So go out and do it and then report back here what happens to your
> >>>>speed, you delusional counterfeit people.
> >>>>
> >>>>Good luck and pay the fuck attention to your speedometer in the
> >>>>turns.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>The experiment is done every day on the tracks. A rider on the wheel
> >>>of another fades back several centimeters as the front rider enters
> >>>the turn. The distance is recouped when the first rider exits the
> >>>turn.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>Wow - what convincing evidence ("fades back several CENTIMETERS").
> >>I'm assuming you use laser surveying equipment to measure that 2.3 cm
> >>loss?
> >>
> >
> > At around 50km/hr, a 4cm gap appears over one bike length from a 1 km/hr
> > speed difference.
>
> And how do we know this speed difference is due to the physics inherent
> with a turn and not due to the increase in aerodynamic drag in a
> paceline turn (9% according to Dan Connelly's calculations) or the rider
> not being able to produce as many watts in a turn due to centrifugal
> pooling of blood? We don't.
These effects would _close_ the gap, not open it.
> There's about 10 other reasons but the point is the reason why this is
> occurring cannot be attributed to the physics of a turn, since you
> failed to explain how you ruled out everything else.
>
> And to claim it is due to the turn itself is bizarre and absolutely not
> a scientific conclusion. You have NO idea why this gap is occurring,
> only that it is occurring.
>
> Therefore, the gap, if true, can mean any number of things.
Since you do not understand
work = integral force dot displacement
you are incompetent to assume this knowing stance.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | | |
Date: 15 Jan 2007 21:30:03
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
In article <U_OdnRRLcovfdTTYUSdV9g@ptd.net >,
MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote:
> Phil Holman wrote:
>
> > "MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:5tKdnUu1ZIzhIzTYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> >
> >>Michael Press wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article <BQCdnedT7NKSpTXYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> >>> MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Despite my extensive lecture, I see most of you drama queens and
> >>>>pre-op transsexuals still think you go faster in velodrome turns than
> >>>>on the straightaway. According to you circus freakshow workers, the
> >>>>act of shortening the distance of travel of the center of mass
> >>>>(compared to the distance of travel of the bicycle wheels) means that
> >>>>you must therefore go faster in turns. You people say this despite
> >>>>not even quantifying it AFTER deducting all the negative effects that
> >>>>take place in a turn (which none of you seem to acknowledge, nor do
> >>>>you refute).
> >>>>
> >>>>I have come to the conclusion this issue can be definitely resolved
> >>>>with a very simple experiment by someone in here. It need not even
> >>>>be done on a velodrome. So I want someone to do this and then report
> >>>>back in here as to what the results are so Carl and Billy and the
> >>>>rest of you assclowns can deal with it.
> >>>>
> >>>>The experiment:
> >>>>
> >>>>1. Must use a bike with a power meter.
> >>>>2. Ride the bike at a constant WATTAGE around a parking lot in a loop
> >>>>that roughly simulates a velodrome lap.
> >>>>3. In the turns, note what happens to your speed vs. the
> >>>>straightaways.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>According to Carl, Bill C, and the vast majority of you Einstein
> >>>>rapists...you all think that your speed will increase in the turns.
> >>>>I am 100% positive it will decrease.
> >>>>
> >>>>I have come to the conclusion there is no reason this test must be
> >>>>done in a velodrome, since you are still leaning on a parking lot
> >>>>turn and the identical physics equation that Carl et al claims makes
> >>>>you go faster in a turn will also be present on a parking lot turn as
> >>>>the bank angle of a velodrome is not relevant according to Dan
> >>>>Connelly's calculations.
> >>>>
> >>>>Carl or Dan did not specify anything that would make a velodrome turn
> >>>>different than a parking lot turn with respect to this shortening the
> >>>>radius phenomenon.
> >>>>
> >>>>So go out and do it and then report back here what happens to your
> >>>>speed, you delusional counterfeit people.
> >>>>
> >>>>Good luck and pay the fuck attention to your speedometer in the
> >>>>turns.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>The experiment is done every day on the tracks. A rider on the wheel
> >>>of another fades back several centimeters as the front rider enters
> >>>the turn. The distance is recouped when the first rider exits the
> >>>turn.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>Wow - what convincing evidence ("fades back several CENTIMETERS").
> >>I'm assuming you use laser surveying equipment to measure that 2.3 cm
> >>loss?
> >>
> >
> > At around 50km/hr, a 4cm gap appears over one bike length from a 1 km/hr
> > speed difference.
> >
> > Phil H
> >
> >
>
>
> And how do we know this speed difference is due to the physics inherent
> with a turn and not due to the increase in aerodynamic drag in a
> paceline turn (9% according to Dan Connelly's calculations) or the rider
> not being able to produce as many watts in a turn due to centrifugal
> pooling of blood? We don't.
>
> There's about 10 other reasons but the point is the reason why this is
> occurring cannot be attributed to the physics of a turn, since you
> failed to explain how you ruled out everything else.
>
> And to claim it is due to the turn itself is bizarre and absolutely not
> a scientific conclusion. You have NO idea why this gap is occurring,
> only that it is occurring.
>
> Therefore, the gap, if true, can mean any number of things.
A mouthful of maybes and no cogent argument.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | | |
Date: 14 Jan 2007 03:24:02
From: Phil Holman
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote in message
news:U_OdnRRLcovfdTTYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> Phil Holman wrote:
>
>> "MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:5tKdnUu1ZIzhIzTYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>
>>>Michael Press wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <BQCdnedT7NKSpTXYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
>>>> MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Despite my extensive lecture, I see most of you drama queens and
>>>>>pre-op transsexuals still think you go faster in velodrome turns
>>>>>than on the straightaway. According to you circus freakshow
>>>>>workers, the act of shortening the distance of travel of the center
>>>>>of mass (compared to the distance of travel of the bicycle wheels)
>>>>>means that you must therefore go faster in turns. You people say
>>>>>this despite not even quantifying it AFTER deducting all the
>>>>>negative effects that take place in a turn (which none of you seem
>>>>>to acknowledge, nor do you refute).
>>>>>
>>>>>I have come to the conclusion this issue can be definitely resolved
>>>>>with a very simple experiment by someone in here. It need not even
>>>>>be done on a velodrome. So I want someone to do this and then
>>>>>report back in here as to what the results are so Carl and Billy
>>>>>and the rest of you assclowns can deal with it.
>>>>>
>>>>>The experiment:
>>>>>
>>>>>1. Must use a bike with a power meter.
>>>>>2. Ride the bike at a constant WATTAGE around a parking lot in a
>>>>>loop that roughly simulates a velodrome lap.
>>>>>3. In the turns, note what happens to your speed vs. the
>>>>>straightaways.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>According to Carl, Bill C, and the vast majority of you Einstein
>>>>>rapists...you all think that your speed will increase in the turns.
>>>>>I am 100% positive it will decrease.
>>>>>
>>>>>I have come to the conclusion there is no reason this test must be
>>>>>done in a velodrome, since you are still leaning on a parking lot
>>>>>turn and the identical physics equation that Carl et al claims
>>>>>makes you go faster in a turn will also be present on a parking lot
>>>>>turn as the bank angle of a velodrome is not relevant according to
>>>>>Dan Connelly's calculations.
>>>>>
>>>>>Carl or Dan did not specify anything that would make a velodrome
>>>>>turn different than a parking lot turn with respect to this
>>>>>shortening the radius phenomenon.
>>>>>
>>>>>So go out and do it and then report back here what happens to your
>>>>>speed, you delusional counterfeit people.
>>>>>
>>>>>Good luck and pay the fuck attention to your speedometer in the
>>>>>turns.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The experiment is done every day on the tracks. A rider on the wheel
>>>>of another fades back several centimeters as the front rider enters
>>>>the turn. The distance is recouped when the first rider exits the
>>>>turn.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Wow - what convincing evidence ("fades back several CENTIMETERS").
>>>I'm assuming you use laser surveying equipment to measure that 2.3 cm
>>>loss?
>>>
>>
>> At around 50km/hr, a 4cm gap appears over one bike length from a 1
>> km/hr speed difference.
>>
>> Phil H
>
>
> And how do we know this speed difference is due to the physics
> inherent with a turn and not due to the increase in aerodynamic drag
> in a paceline turn (9% according to Dan Connelly's calculations) or
> the rider not being able to produce as many watts in a turn due to
> centrifugal pooling of blood? We don't.
>
> There's about 10 other reasons but the point is the reason why this is
> occurring cannot be attributed to the physics of a turn, since you
> failed to explain how you ruled out everything else.
>
> And to claim it is due to the turn itself is bizarre and absolutely
> not a scientific conclusion. You have NO idea why this gap is
> occurring, only that it is occurring.
>
> Therefore, the gap, if true, can mean any number of things.
>
>
> Magilla
Lets look at the transfer of PE to KE for a 90kg rider plus bike leaning
over at 45 degrees.
Drop in height from a 1.0m vertical cg will be 1.0 - 1.0/sqrt2 = .293m
mgh = 1/2mV2^2 - 1/2mV1^2
50kph = 13.9 m/s
90*9.81*.293 = 45*V2^2 - 45*13.9^2
258.7 = 45*V2^2 - 8694.45
45*V2^2 = 8953.15
V2^2 = 198.96
V2 = 14.1 m/s
V2 = 50.78 kph
There's a 3 cm gap for one bike length.
At a 45 degree lean and a 20 m track radius, the cg will travel at a
radius of 19.293m. This will result in the wheels tracking at
50*20/19.293 = 51.83 kph. That's another 7 cm of gap for a bike length.
So we get a 10 cm gap for these two effects.
Any differences in rolling resistance or drag will not show up as
significant speed changes over one bike length.
Phil H
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 14 Jan 2007 16:03:49
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
Phil Holman wrote:
> "MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
> news:U_OdnRRLcovfdTTYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>
>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:5tKdnUu1ZIzhIzTYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Michael Press wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <BQCdnedT7NKSpTXYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
>>>>>MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Despite my extensive lecture, I see most of you drama queens and
>>>>>>pre-op transsexuals still think you go faster in velodrome turns
>>>>>>than on the straightaway. According to you circus freakshow
>>>>>>workers, the act of shortening the distance of travel of the center
>>>>>>of mass (compared to the distance of travel of the bicycle wheels)
>>>>>>means that you must therefore go faster in turns. You people say
>>>>>>this despite not even quantifying it AFTER deducting all the
>>>>>>negative effects that take place in a turn (which none of you seem
>>>>>>to acknowledge, nor do you refute).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I have come to the conclusion this issue can be definitely resolved
>>>>>>with a very simple experiment by someone in here. It need not even
>>>>>>be done on a velodrome. So I want someone to do this and then
>>>>>>report back in here as to what the results are so Carl and Billy
>>>>>>and the rest of you assclowns can deal with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The experiment:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>1. Must use a bike with a power meter.
>>>>>>2. Ride the bike at a constant WATTAGE around a parking lot in a
>>>>>>loop that roughly simulates a velodrome lap.
>>>>>>3. In the turns, note what happens to your speed vs. the
>>>>>>straightaways.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>According to Carl, Bill C, and the vast majority of you Einstein
>>>>>>rapists...you all think that your speed will increase in the turns.
>>>>>>I am 100% positive it will decrease.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I have come to the conclusion there is no reason this test must be
>>>>>>done in a velodrome, since you are still leaning on a parking lot
>>>>>>turn and the identical physics equation that Carl et al claims
>>>>>>makes you go faster in a turn will also be present on a parking lot
>>>>>>turn as the bank angle of a velodrome is not relevant according to
>>>>>>Dan Connelly's calculations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Carl or Dan did not specify anything that would make a velodrome
>>>>>>turn different than a parking lot turn with respect to this
>>>>>>shortening the radius phenomenon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So go out and do it and then report back here what happens to your
>>>>>>speed, you delusional counterfeit people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Good luck and pay the fuck attention to your speedometer in the
>>>>>>turns.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The experiment is done every day on the tracks. A rider on the wheel
>>>>>of another fades back several centimeters as the front rider enters
>>>>>the turn. The distance is recouped when the first rider exits the
>>>>>turn.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Wow - what convincing evidence ("fades back several CENTIMETERS").
>>>>I'm assuming you use laser surveying equipment to measure that 2.3 cm
>>>>loss?
>>>>
>>>
>>>At around 50km/hr, a 4cm gap appears over one bike length from a 1
>>>km/hr speed difference.
>>>
>>>Phil H
>>
>>
>>And how do we know this speed difference is due to the physics
>>inherent with a turn and not due to the increase in aerodynamic drag
>>in a paceline turn (9% according to Dan Connelly's calculations) or
>>the rider not being able to produce as many watts in a turn due to
>>centrifugal pooling of blood? We don't.
>>
>>There's about 10 other reasons but the point is the reason why this is
>>occurring cannot be attributed to the physics of a turn, since you
>>failed to explain how you ruled out everything else.
>>
>>And to claim it is due to the turn itself is bizarre and absolutely
>>not a scientific conclusion. You have NO idea why this gap is
>>occurring, only that it is occurring.
>>
>>Therefore, the gap, if true, can mean any number of things.
>>
>>
>>Magilla
>
>
> Lets look at the transfer of PE to KE for a 90kg rider plus bike leaning
> over at 45 degrees.
> Drop in height from a 1.0m vertical cg will be 1.0 - 1.0/sqrt2 = .293m
> mgh = 1/2mV2^2 - 1/2mV1^2
> 50kph = 13.9 m/s
> 90*9.81*.293 = 45*V2^2 - 45*13.9^2
> 258.7 = 45*V2^2 - 8694.45
> 45*V2^2 = 8953.15
> V2^2 = 198.96
> V2 = 14.1 m/s
> V2 = 50.78 kph
>
> There's a 3 cm gap for one bike length.
>
> At a 45 degree lean and a 20 m track radius, the cg will travel at a
> radius of 19.293m. This will result in the wheels tracking at
> 50*20/19.293 = 51.83 kph. That's another 7 cm of gap for a bike length.
>
> So we get a 10 cm gap for these two effects.
>
> Any differences in rolling resistance or drag will not show up as
> significant speed changes over one bike length.
>
> Phil H
pH,
A 9% increase in aerodynamic drag experienced in turns (according to Dan
Connelly's calculation) is not worth that 10cm to you? Okay. So tell
me, Action Jackson, how much loss of distance does a 9% increase in
aerodynamic drag equate to in a turn (surely it's not ZERO. You imply a
9% increase in aerodynamic drag in a turn equates to ZERO loss of
speed/distance since you don't mention this increase in aerodynamic drag
at all).
Anybody who rides a bike knows that a 9% increase in aerodymanic drag is
bad news. Real bad news. It's like the cops knocking on your door to
tell you someone in your family has been murdered.
Also, according to your calculations, you would also have to concede you
LOSE 10 cm when you exit the turn and have to lean up and do the
opposite PE to KE conversion of what gave you that 10cm gain when you
initiated the turn with your lean. So the total effect of PE to KE
energy in leaning in a turn is cancelled out when exiting a turn and
probably inefficient (you probably lose 10.5 cm when leaning up in
exiting a turn).
All you did is calculate the tailwind effect on a crit course. And then
I came in and told you that you will go slower per lap because you will
spend more time into the headwind section on the other 50% of the
course. Nothing is free in physics, Sonny.
So why are you only describing the initial lean of a turn and leaving
out the loss of kinetic energy that must be converted back to PE when
you are forced to RAISE your CM of gravity when you exit the turn? This
effect would - according to you - slow you down back into the
straightaway (Carl's expert might be misinterpeting this as a loss of
speed on the straightaway when in fact it's merely a lag effect from the
loss of speed when exiting a turn).
This is a very complex thing you are trying to deduce. I am not
convinced people fully grasp the complexity of the stuff going on in a turn.
Where is Carl's velodrome expert? Where is the Italian Stallion? I
want to fight the Italian Stallion...where is he?
Apollo Magilla
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Jan 2007 16:53:24
From: Phil Holman
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote in message
news:oCudnUXoPKEoBzfYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> Phil Holman wrote:
>
>> "MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:U_OdnRRLcovfdTTYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>
>>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:5tKdnUu1ZIzhIzTYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Michael Press wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <BQCdnedT7NKSpTXYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
>>>>>>MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Despite my extensive lecture, I see most of you drama queens and
>>>>>>>pre-op transsexuals still think you go faster in velodrome turns
>>>>>>>than on the straightaway. According to you circus freakshow
>>>>>>>workers, the act of shortening the distance of travel of the
>>>>>>>center of mass (compared to the distance of travel of the bicycle
>>>>>>>wheels) means that you must therefore go faster in turns. You
>>>>>>>people say this despite not even quantifying it AFTER deducting
>>>>>>>all the negative effects that take place in a turn (which none of
>>>>>>>you seem to acknowledge, nor do you refute).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I have come to the conclusion this issue can be definitely
>>>>>>>resolved with a very simple experiment by someone in here. It
>>>>>>>need not even be done on a velodrome. So I want someone to do
>>>>>>>this and then report back in here as to what the results are so
>>>>>>>Carl and Billy and the rest of you assclowns can deal with it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The experiment:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>1. Must use a bike with a power meter.
>>>>>>>2. Ride the bike at a constant WATTAGE around a parking lot in a
>>>>>>>loop that roughly simulates a velodrome lap.
>>>>>>>3. In the turns, note what happens to your speed vs. the
>>>>>>>straightaways.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>According to Carl, Bill C, and the vast majority of you Einstein
>>>>>>>rapists...you all think that your speed will increase in the
>>>>>>>turns. I am 100% positive it will decrease.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I have come to the conclusion there is no reason this test must
>>>>>>>be done in a velodrome, since you are still leaning on a parking
>>>>>>>lot turn and the identical physics equation that Carl et al
>>>>>>>claims makes you go faster in a turn will also be present on a
>>>>>>>parking lot turn as the bank angle of a velodrome is not relevant
>>>>>>>according to Dan Connelly's calculations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Carl or Dan did not specify anything that would make a velodrome
>>>>>>>turn different than a parking lot turn with respect to this
>>>>>>>shortening the radius phenomenon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So go out and do it and then report back here what happens to
>>>>>>>your speed, you delusional counterfeit people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Good luck and pay the fuck attention to your speedometer in the
>>>>>>>turns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The experiment is done every day on the tracks. A rider on the
>>>>>>wheel of another fades back several centimeters as the front rider
>>>>>>enters the turn. The distance is recouped when the first rider
>>>>>>exits the turn.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Wow - what convincing evidence ("fades back several CENTIMETERS").
>>>>>I'm assuming you use laser surveying equipment to measure that 2.3
>>>>>cm loss?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>At around 50km/hr, a 4cm gap appears over one bike length from a 1
>>>>km/hr speed difference.
>>>>
>>>>Phil H
>>>
>>>
>>>And how do we know this speed difference is due to the physics
>>>inherent with a turn and not due to the increase in aerodynamic drag
>>>in a paceline turn (9% according to Dan Connelly's calculations) or
>>>the rider not being able to produce as many watts in a turn due to
>>>centrifugal pooling of blood? We don't.
>>>
>>>There's about 10 other reasons but the point is the reason why this
>>>is occurring cannot be attributed to the physics of a turn, since you
>>>failed to explain how you ruled out everything else.
>>>
>>>And to claim it is due to the turn itself is bizarre and absolutely
>>>not a scientific conclusion. You have NO idea why this gap is
>>>occurring, only that it is occurring.
>>>
>>>Therefore, the gap, if true, can mean any number of things.
>>>
>>>
>>>Magilla
>>
>>
>> Lets look at the transfer of PE to KE for a 90kg rider plus bike
>> leaning over at 45 degrees.
>> Drop in height from a 1.0m vertical cg will be 1.0 - 1.0/sqrt2 =
>> .293m
>> mgh = 1/2mV2^2 - 1/2mV1^2
>> 50kph = 13.9 m/s
>> 90*9.81*.293 = 45*V2^2 - 45*13.9^2
>> 258.7 = 45*V2^2 - 8694.45
>> 45*V2^2 = 8953.15
>> V2^2 = 198.96
>> V2 = 14.1 m/s
>> V2 = 50.78 kph
>>
>> There's a 3 cm gap for one bike length.
>>
>> At a 45 degree lean and a 20 m track radius, the cg will travel at a
>> radius of 19.293m. This will result in the wheels tracking at
>> 50*20/19.293 = 51.83 kph. That's another 7 cm of gap for a bike
>> length.
>>
>> So we get a 10 cm gap for these two effects.
>>
>> Any differences in rolling resistance or drag will not show up as
>> significant speed changes over one bike length.
>>
>> Phil H
>
>
> pH,
>
> A 9% increase in aerodynamic drag experienced in turns (according to
> Dan Connelly's calculation) is not worth that 10cm to you? Okay. So
> tell me, Action Jackson, how much loss of distance does a 9% increase
> in aerodynamic drag equate to in a turn (surely it's not ZERO. You
> imply a 9% increase in aerodynamic drag in a turn equates to ZERO loss
> of speed/distance since you don't mention this increase in aerodynamic
> drag at all).
>
Go read Dan's post again. Its a 9% reduction in power due to a decrease
of drag in the turn.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/b1004a76f898a7f/c90b0dad699bb115?lnk=st&q=Dan+Connelly+velodrome+turn&rnum=2#c90b0dad699bb115
And I never mentioned it because it is neglible over one bike length (it
has little effect on gapping the following rider). For my 50 kph rider,
a 9% drag decrease at constant power output would cause an initial
acceleration of approx. 450/13.9*.09/90 = .032 m/s^2. Around a 180 turn
of 20m radius, this would result in a velocity increase of .145 m/s.
Somebody call 911.
> Anybody who rides a bike knows that a 9% increase in aerodymanic drag
> is bad news. Real bad news. It's like the cops knocking on your door
> to tell you someone in your family has been murdered.
You are such a drama queen. We are talking about a 4.5 second decrease
in drag of 2.91 newtons.
>
> Also, according to your calculations, you would also have to concede
> you LOSE 10 cm when you exit the turn and have to lean up and do the
> opposite PE to KE conversion of what gave you that 10cm gain when you
> initiated the turn with your lean. So the total effect of PE to KE
> energy in leaning in a turn is cancelled out when exiting a turn and
> probably inefficient (you probably lose 10.5 cm when leaning up in
> exiting a turn).
Exactly, the leaning losses and gains are conserved. However the shorter
cg path is gravy.
>
> All you did is calculate the tailwind effect on a crit course. And
> then I came in and told you that you will go slower per lap because
> you will spend more time into the headwind section on the other 50% of
> the course. Nothing is free in physics, Sonny.
I've been demoted, I thought we were brothers.
>
> So why are you only describing the initial lean of a turn and leaving
> out the loss of kinetic energy that must be converted back to PE when
> you are forced to RAISE your CM of gravity when you exit the turn?
> This effect would - according to you - slow you down back into the
> straightaway.
Yes and supports the claim of going faster in the turn and slower in the
straightaway. Try harder in not supporting your broth.....I mean
opponents position.
(Carl's expert might be misinterpeting this as a loss of
> speed on the straightaway when in fact it's merely a lag effect from
> the loss of speed when exiting a turn).
>
> This is a very complex thing you are trying to deduce. I am not
> convinced people fully grasp the complexity of the stuff going on in a
> turn.
I can describe any of the losses you care to mention and determine their
order of magnitude.
>
> Where is Carl's velodrome expert? Where is the Italian Stallion? I
> want to fight the Italian Stallion...where is he?
>
He's just playing you until the hook, line and sinker appear out of your
blue ass tail pipe.
Phil H
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Jan 2007 23:01:31
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
Phil Holman wrote:
> "MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
> news:oCudnUXoPKEoBzfYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>
>>Phil Holman wrote:
> And I never mentioned it because it is neglible over one bike length (it
> has little effect on gapping the following rider). For my 50 kph rider,
> a 9% drag decrease at constant power output would cause an initial
> acceleration of approx. 450/13.9*.09/90 = .032 m/s^2. Around a 180 turn
> of 20m radius, this would result in a velocity increase of .145 m/s.
> Somebody call 911.
>
>
>>Anybody who rides a bike knows that a 9% increase in aerodymanic drag
>>is bad news. Real bad news. It's like the cops knocking on your door
>>to tell you someone in your family has been murdered.
>
>
> You are such a drama queen. We are talking about a 4.5 second decrease
> in drag of 2.91 newtons.
>
>
>>Also, according to your calculations, you would also have to concede
>>you LOSE 10 cm when you exit the turn and have to lean up and do the
>>opposite PE to KE conversion of what gave you that 10cm gain when you
>>initiated the turn with your lean. So the total effect of PE to KE
>>energy in leaning in a turn is cancelled out when exiting a turn and
>>probably inefficient (you probably lose 10.5 cm when leaning up in
>>exiting a turn).
>
>
> Exactly, the leaning losses and gains are conserved. However the shorter
> cg path is gravy.
I agree you. But with that gravy you also are the proud owner of
increased G-loads in a turn (increased centrifugal force), which slows
you down. On a straightaway you only have 1g.
Riddle me this joker: Do you think an F-16 can go faster at 1g or 7g's?
Answer: Top speed can only be attained between 0 - 1g. Anything over 1g
and it goes slower (assume constant thrust). Same as a bicycle in a
turn with constant wattage.
Answer this question: If you were to get up to 180 mph on a bike and
enter a velodrome turn at that speed, what do you think would happen?
I'll tell you. Your elbows would crumble under the G-loads and your
face would be smashed into the stem. Your speed would decrease to about
160 and you'd probably crash.
According to you, you would sail smoothly through the turn at 185 mph.
Ask a fighter pilot what happens in a turn at constant thrust. Speed
bleeds off in a turn. Why would a bike be different?
Magilla
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Jan 2007 22:05:57
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
In article <WXCdnesIhM8GYTfYUSdV9g@ptd.net >,
MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote:
> Phil Holman wrote:
>
> > "MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:oCudnUXoPKEoBzfYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> >
> >>Phil Holman wrote:
>
>
> > And I never mentioned it because it is neglible over one bike length (it
> > has little effect on gapping the following rider). For my 50 kph rider,
> > a 9% drag decrease at constant power output would cause an initial
> > acceleration of approx. 450/13.9*.09/90 = .032 m/s^2. Around a 180 turn
> > of 20m radius, this would result in a velocity increase of .145 m/s.
> > Somebody call 911.
> >
> >
> >>Anybody who rides a bike knows that a 9% increase in aerodymanic drag
> >>is bad news. Real bad news. It's like the cops knocking on your door
> >>to tell you someone in your family has been murdered.
> >
> >
> > You are such a drama queen. We are talking about a 4.5 second decrease
> > in drag of 2.91 newtons.
> >
> >
> >>Also, according to your calculations, you would also have to concede
> >>you LOSE 10 cm when you exit the turn and have to lean up and do the
> >>opposite PE to KE conversion of what gave you that 10cm gain when you
> >>initiated the turn with your lean. So the total effect of PE to KE
> >>energy in leaning in a turn is cancelled out when exiting a turn and
> >>probably inefficient (you probably lose 10.5 cm when leaning up in
> >>exiting a turn).
> >
> >
> > Exactly, the leaning losses and gains are conserved. However the shorter
> > cg path is gravy.
>
>
>
> I agree you. But with that gravy you also are the proud owner of
> increased G-loads in a turn (increased centrifugal force), which slows
> you down. On a straightaway you only have 1g.
>
> Riddle me this joker: Do you think an F-16 can go faster at 1g or 7g's?
>
> Answer: Top speed can only be attained between 0 - 1g. Anything over 1g
> and it goes slower (assume constant thrust). Same as a bicycle in a
> turn with constant wattage.
>
> Answer this question: If you were to get up to 180 mph on a bike and
> enter a velodrome turn at that speed, what do you think would happen?
>
> I'll tell you. Your elbows would crumble under the G-loads and your
> face would be smashed into the stem. Your speed would decrease to about
> 160 and you'd probably crash.
>
> According to you, you would sail smoothly through the turn at 185 mph.
>
> Ask a fighter pilot what happens in a turn at constant thrust. Speed
> bleeds off in a turn. Why would a bike be different?
Aerodynamic lift comes with the price of increased
drag. To turn at constant speed the airforil needs
additional lift that induces additional drag to
generate the lift. The bicycle does not use aerodynamic
lift to change direction, it uses the rigid track and
no dissipative forces are generated.
Thats five dollars for this lesson.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Jan 2007 22:19:20
From: Phil Holman
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote in message
news:WXCdnesIhM8GYTfYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> Phil Holman wrote:
>
>> "MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:oCudnUXoPKEoBzfYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>
>>>Phil Holman wrote:
>
>
>> And I never mentioned it because it is neglible over one bike length
>> (it has little effect on gapping the following rider). For my 50 kph
>> rider, a 9% drag decrease at constant power output would cause an
>> initial acceleration of approx. 450/13.9*.09/90 = .032 m/s^2. Around
>> a 180 turn of 20m radius, this would result in a velocity increase of
>> .145 m/s. Somebody call 911.
>>
>>
>>>Anybody who rides a bike knows that a 9% increase in aerodymanic drag
>>>is bad news. Real bad news. It's like the cops knocking on your door
>>>to tell you someone in your family has been murdered.
>>
>>
>> You are such a drama queen. We are talking about a 4.5 second
>> decrease in drag of 2.91 newtons.
>>
>>
>>>Also, according to your calculations, you would also have to concede
>>>you LOSE 10 cm when you exit the turn and have to lean up and do the
>>>opposite PE to KE conversion of what gave you that 10cm gain when you
>>>initiated the turn with your lean. So the total effect of PE to KE
>>>energy in leaning in a turn is cancelled out when exiting a turn and
>>>probably inefficient (you probably lose 10.5 cm when leaning up in
>>>exiting a turn).
>>
>>
>> Exactly, the leaning losses and gains are conserved. However the
>> shorter cg path is gravy.
>
>
>
> I agree you. But with that gravy you also are the proud owner of
> increased G-loads in a turn (increased centrifugal force), which slows
> you down. On a straightaway you only have 1g.
>
> Riddle me this joker: Do you think an F-16 can go faster at 1g or
> 7g's?
>
> Answer: Top speed can only be attained between 0 - 1g. Anything over
> 1g and it goes slower (assume constant thrust). Same as a bicycle in
> a turn with constant wattage.
>
> Answer this question: If you were to get up to 180 mph on a bike and
> enter a velodrome turn at that speed, what do you think would happen?
>
> I'll tell you. Your elbows would crumble under the G-loads and your
> face would be smashed into the stem. Your speed would decrease to
> about 160 and you'd probably crash.
At 1.5g this isn't a problem. Ever heard of the concept of critical
mass.
>
> According to you, you would sail smoothly through the turn at 185 mph.
>
> Ask a fighter pilot what happens in a turn at constant thrust. Speed
> bleeds off in a turn. Why would a bike be different?
>
Because it doesn't have any control surfaces to increase its drag.
Unlike a bycycle that relies on lateral (normal) traction to change
direction. That lateral traction has no forward or aft component to
resist forward motion.
Phil H
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Jan 2007 22:22:50
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
Phil Holman wrote:
> "MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
> news:oCudnUXoPKEoBzfYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
<SNIP >
>>
>>
>>pH,
>>
>>A 9% increase in aerodynamic drag experienced in turns (according to
>>Dan Connelly's calculation) is not worth that 10cm to you? Okay. So
>>tell me, Action Jackson, how much loss of distance does a 9% increase
>>in aerodynamic drag equate to in a turn (surely it's not ZERO. You
>>imply a 9% increase in aerodynamic drag in a turn equates to ZERO loss
>>of speed/distance since you don't mention this increase in aerodynamic
>>drag at all).
>>
>
>
> Go read Dan's post again. Its a 9% reduction in power due to a decrease
> of drag in the turn.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/b1004a76f898a7f/c90b0dad699bb115?lnk=st&q=Dan+Connelly+velodrome+turn&rnum=2#c90b0dad699bb115
>
> Phil H
>
>
Yes, you are correct. I misread Dan's conclusion. Dan is saying there
is a 9.3% SAVINGS in power in a turn due to a decrease in aerodynamic
drag in a turn. I have no reason to doubt this.
Dan seems to deduce this just from a decrease in radius distance
argument, which makes sense.
Here's the new problem.
Dan also needs to ADD to that what the increased effect in aerodynamic
drag that would come from changing one's directional vector in a turn.
On a straightaway the wind direction (assume an indoor velodrome) is
head-on. On a turn the wind speed is assymetrical on the body'
s centerline (the right side of the CM gets higher drag than the left,
but the inside of the left body gets more drag angle).
So this would have to increase a rider's drag. How much I don't know.
Dan seems to be deducing a 9.3% decrease that is due solely to there
being less distance travelled by the CM. But he doesn't ADD to that the
increase you would get for asymmetrical and increased drag on the CM
surface area in a turn due to a leftward yaw component in a turn.
What I mean is the direction of travel on a straightaway (vector of
travel) is directly in centerline with the aerodynamic drag and a
rider's front wheel on a straightaway. However, in a turn, the vector
of travel is not straight (there's a left-hand component), so more of
the CM surface area is EXPOSED to the wind in a turn than on a
straightaway. And also the CM has asymmetrical drag because the left
side of the CM is going slower than the right side.
Neither of these things are occurring in a straightaway, and Dan's
equation does not take them into account.
If you were to simulate this in a wind tunnel, I think a rider in a left
velodrome turn would be lining up a few centimeters to the right of the
wind tunnel centerline (to simulate a left-hand component of a turn).
The wind direction cannot also be in centerline with the rider since the
vector of travel is not centerline in a turn (therefore the wind would
also have a left component until the turn is finished).
Dan's equation would only be correct if the lean angle of a rider in a
velodrome turn was at a 90-degree bank in a perfectly circular velodrome
which would keep his travel directly in centerline with the bike's line
of forward travel. Once the bank angle gets below 90 there's a left
hand component to the aerodynamic drag.
So his equation needs to be modified to include these two factors, both
of which would decrease the 9.3% gain and might even eliminate it.
Magilla
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Jan 2007 20:06:08
From: Phil Holman
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote in message
news:n3ednewtgMMXbjfYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> Phil Holman wrote:
>
>> "MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:oCudnUXoPKEoBzfYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> <SNIP>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>pH,
>>>
>>>A 9% increase in aerodynamic drag experienced in turns (according to
>>>Dan Connelly's calculation) is not worth that 10cm to you? Okay. So
>>>tell me, Action Jackson, how much loss of distance does a 9% increase
>>>in aerodynamic drag equate to in a turn (surely it's not ZERO. You
>>>imply a 9% increase in aerodynamic drag in a turn equates to ZERO
>>>loss of speed/distance since you don't mention this increase in
>>>aerodynamic drag at all).
>>>
>>
>>
>> Go read Dan's post again. Its a 9% reduction in power due to a
>> decrease of drag in the turn.
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/b1004a76f898a7f/c90b0dad699bb115?lnk=st&q=Dan+Connelly+velodrome+turn&rnum=2#c90b0dad699bb115
>>
>
>> Phil H
>>
>>
>
>
> Yes, you are correct. I misread Dan's conclusion. Dan is saying there
> is a 9.3% SAVINGS in power in a turn due to a decrease in aerodynamic
> drag in a turn. I have no reason to doubt this.
>
> Dan seems to deduce this just from a decrease in radius distance
> argument, which makes sense.
>
> Here's the new problem.
>
> Dan also needs to ADD to that what the increased effect in aerodynamic
> drag that would come from changing one's directional vector in a turn.
>
> On a straightaway the wind direction (assume an indoor velodrome) is
> head-on. On a turn the wind speed is assymetrical on the body'
> s centerline (the right side of the CM gets higher drag than the left,
> but the inside of the left body gets more drag angle).
>
> So this would have to increase a rider's drag. How much I don't know.
This would take an integration of non-linear varying drag over the width
of the rider....yawn. Its a tedious calculation which will be an order
of magnitude less than the other two major variables.
There is an simpler way by determining the center of pressure. Similar
to a radius of gyration calculation, drag varies with the square of
velocity, so the center of pressure will be at the 58% point (middle is
50%). Given an average rider width of 40cm, this would move the
effective turn radius out by 3.2 cm with a whopping .08 kph speed
increase.
The drag increase factor would be (50.08/50)^2 = 1.0032 or a 0.32%
increase.
Phil H
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Jan 2007 23:33:39
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
Phil Holman wrote:
> "MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
> news:n3ednewtgMMXbjfYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>
>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:oCudnUXoPKEoBzfYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>
>><SNIP>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>pH,
>>>>
>>>>A 9% increase in aerodynamic drag experienced in turns (according to
>>>>Dan Connelly's calculation) is not worth that 10cm to you? Okay. So
>>>>tell me, Action Jackson, how much loss of distance does a 9% increase
>>>>in aerodynamic drag equate to in a turn (surely it's not ZERO. You
>>>>imply a 9% increase in aerodynamic drag in a turn equates to ZERO
>>>>loss of speed/distance since you don't mention this increase in
>>>>aerodynamic drag at all).
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Go read Dan's post again. Its a 9% reduction in power due to a
>>>decrease of drag in the turn.
>>>
>>>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/b1004a76f898a7f/c90b0dad699bb115?lnk=st&q=Dan+Connelly+velodrome+turn&rnum=2#c90b0dad699bb115
>>>
>>
>>>Phil H
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>Yes, you are correct. I misread Dan's conclusion. Dan is saying there
>>is a 9.3% SAVINGS in power in a turn due to a decrease in aerodynamic
>>drag in a turn. I have no reason to doubt this.
>>
>>Dan seems to deduce this just from a decrease in radius distance
>>argument, which makes sense.
>>
>>Here's the new problem.
>>
>>Dan also needs to ADD to that what the increased effect in aerodynamic
>>drag that would come from changing one's directional vector in a turn.
>>
>>On a straightaway the wind direction (assume an indoor velodrome) is
>>head-on. On a turn the wind speed is assymetrical on the body'
>>s centerline (the right side of the CM gets higher drag than the left,
>>but the inside of the left body gets more drag angle).
>>
>>So this would have to increase a rider's drag. How much I don't know.
>
>
> This would take an integration of non-linear varying drag over the width
> of the rider....yawn. Its a tedious calculation which will be an order
> of magnitude less than the other two major variables.
>
> There is an simpler way by determining the center of pressure. Similar
> to a radius of gyration calculation, drag varies with the square of
> velocity, so the center of pressure will be at the 58% point (middle is
> 50%). Given an average rider width of 40cm, this would move the
> effective turn radius out by 3.2 cm with a whopping .08 kph speed
> increase.
>
> The drag increase factor would be (50.08/50)^2 = 1.0032 or a 0.32%
> increase.
>
> Phil H
In your second sentence, you forgot the apostrophe in "it's." This
completely invalidates your calculation.
No actually I think you are assuming the center of mass is the same as
the center of pressure (aerodynamic drag). It's not.
In fact, the increased aerodynamic drag I am talking about is a function
of more of a rider's lateral surface area to his left side hitting the
leftward component of directional travel in a turn, which you cannot
possibly calculate since it has no relation to the CM.
It would have to be done in a wind tunnel and I think it's more negative
than you think it is. You're also dirtying laminar airflow over a rider
in a turn.
I think a smoke-trail in a wind tunnel of a rider's directional of
travel in a wind tunnel that would simulate a velodrome turn would show
a lot of vortices and a noticeable increase in aerodynamic loads from
the left side as well as assymetrical loads (the right side of the body
is going faster through the air than the left shoulder).
It's not the bank angle that affects this, but rather the act of turning
your forward vector of travel 180 degrees means that your line of travel
is also never in-centerline. You are exposing more lateral surface area
to wind in a turn than on a straightaway.
Magilla
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Jan 2007 22:45:05
From: Phil Holman
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote in message
news:OG2dnQNVk5i5mTbYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> Phil Holman wrote:
>
>> "MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:n3ednewtgMMXbjfYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>
>>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:oCudnUXoPKEoBzfYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>
>>><SNIP>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>pH,
>>>>>
>>>>>A 9% increase in aerodynamic drag experienced in turns (according
>>>>>to Dan Connelly's calculation) is not worth that 10cm to you? Okay.
>>>>>So tell me, Action Jackson, how much loss of distance does a 9%
>>>>>increase in aerodynamic drag equate to in a turn (surely it's not
>>>>>ZERO. You imply a 9% increase in aerodynamic drag in a turn
>>>>>equates to ZERO loss of speed/distance since you don't mention this
>>>>>increase in aerodynamic drag at all).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Go read Dan's post again. Its a 9% reduction in power due to a
>>>>decrease of drag in the turn.
>>>>
>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/b1004a76f898a7f/c90b0dad699bb115?lnk=st&q=Dan+Connelly+velodrome+turn&rnum=2#c90b0dad699bb115
>>>>
>>>
>>>>Phil H
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, you are correct. I misread Dan's conclusion. Dan is saying
>>>there is a 9.3% SAVINGS in power in a turn due to a decrease in
>>>aerodynamic drag in a turn. I have no reason to doubt this.
>>>
>>>Dan seems to deduce this just from a decrease in radius distance
>>>argument, which makes sense.
>>>
>>>Here's the new problem.
>>>
>>>Dan also needs to ADD to that what the increased effect in
>>>aerodynamic drag that would come from changing one's directional
>>>vector in a turn.
>>>
>>>On a straightaway the wind direction (assume an indoor velodrome) is
>>>head-on. On a turn the wind speed is assymetrical on the body'
>>>s centerline (the right side of the CM gets higher drag than the
>>>left, but the inside of the left body gets more drag angle).
>>>
>>>So this would have to increase a rider's drag. How much I don't
>>>know.
>>
>>
>> This would take an integration of non-linear varying drag over the
>> width of the rider....yawn. Its a tedious calculation which will be
>> an order of magnitude less than the other two major variables.
>>
>> There is an simpler way by determining the center of pressure.
>> Similar to a radius of gyration calculation, drag varies with the
>> square of velocity, so the center of pressure will be at the 58%
>> point (middle is 50%). Given an average rider width of 40cm, this
>> would move the effective turn radius out by 3.2 cm with a whopping
>> .08 kph speed increase.
>>
>> The drag increase factor would be (50.08/50)^2 = 1.0032 or a 0.32%
>> increase.
>>
>> Phil H
>
>
>
> In your second sentence, you forgot the apostrophe in "it's." This
> completely invalidates your calculation.
Darn!
>
> No actually I think you are assuming the center of mass is the same as
> the center of pressure (aerodynamic drag). It's not.
>
> In fact, the increased aerodynamic drag I am talking about is a
> function of more of a rider's lateral surface area to his left side
> hitting the leftward component of directional travel in a turn, which
> you cannot possibly calculate since it has no relation to the CM.
>
> It would have to be done in a wind tunnel and I think it's more
> negative than you think it is. You're also dirtying laminar airflow
> over a rider in a turn.
>
> I think a smoke-trail in a wind tunnel of a rider's directional of
> travel in a wind tunnel that would simulate a velodrome turn would
> show a lot of vortices and a noticeable increase in aerodynamic loads
> from the left side as well as assymetrical loads (the right side of
> the body is going faster through the air than the left shoulder).
>
> It's not the bank angle that affects this, but rather the act of
> turning your forward vector of travel 180 degrees means that your line
> of travel is also never in-centerline. You are exposing more lateral
> surface area to wind in a turn than on a straightaway.
In a velodrome with no wind, any and every instantaneous velocity vector
has a zero lateral air velocity component. You confuse cross wind
effects with changing direction.
Phil H
|
| |
Date: 13 Jan 2007 17:06:43
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
On Jan 13, 1:07 am, MagillaGorilla <MagillaGori...@zoo.com > wrote:
> >>According to Carl, Bill C, and the vast majority of you Einstein
> >>rapists...you all think that your speed will increase in the turns. I
> >>am 100% positive it will decrease.
>
> Magilla- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Once again you couldn't tell the truth to save your sorry ass. I've
never said that you go faster in the turns than in the straights. Basic
vector/force analysis makes it clear that that argument is like
arguing for a Flat Earth.
Even when you're right you're still a crossbreed between a monkey and
a donkey.
Maybe you need to move to Kansas and take up the fight. Shortly after
they'd be able to ban teaching Evolution based on you being an idiot.
Bill C
|
| | |
Date: 14 Jan 2007 00:01:32
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
Bill C wrote:
>
> On Jan 13, 1:07 am, MagillaGorilla <MagillaGori...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>>According to Carl, Bill C, and the vast majority of you Einstein
>>>>rapists...you all think that your speed will increase in the turns. I
>>>>am 100% positive it will decrease.
>>
>>Magilla- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
>
>
> Once again you couldn't tell the truth to save your sorry ass. I've
> never said that you go faster in the turns than in the straights. Basic
> vector/force analysis makes it clear that that argument is like
> arguing for a Flat Earth.
> Even when you're right you're still a crossbreed between a monkey and
> a donkey.
> Maybe you need to move to Kansas and take up the fight. Shortly after
> they'd be able to ban teaching Evolution based on you being an idiot.
> Bill C
>
Did I mistake you for someone else? It would take me 30 minutes of
Googling to research this for sure. I prefer to err on the side of
defamation and libel.
Magilla
|
| |
Date: 12 Jan 2007 21:01:16
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
In article <BQCdnedT7NKSpTXYUSdV9g@ptd.net >,
MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote:
> Despite my extensive lecture, I see most of you drama queens and pre-op
> transsexuals still think you go faster in velodrome turns than on the
> straightaway. According to you circus freakshow workers, the act of
> shortening the distance of travel of the center of mass (compared to the
> distance of travel of the bicycle wheels) means that you must therefore
> go faster in turns. You people say this despite not even quantifying
> it AFTER deducting all the negative effects that take place in a turn
> (which none of you seem to acknowledge, nor do you refute).
>
> I have come to the conclusion this issue can be definitely resolved with
> a very simple experiment by someone in here. It need not even be done
> on a velodrome. So I want someone to do this and then report back in
> here as to what the results are so Carl and Billy and the rest of you
> assclowns can deal with it.
>
> The experiment:
>
> 1. Must use a bike with a power meter.
> 2. Ride the bike at a constant WATTAGE around a parking lot in a loop
> that roughly simulates a velodrome lap.
> 3. In the turns, note what happens to your speed vs. the straightaways.
>
>
> According to Carl, Bill C, and the vast majority of you Einstein
> rapists...you all think that your speed will increase in the turns. I
> am 100% positive it will decrease.
>
> I have come to the conclusion there is no reason this test must be done
> in a velodrome, since you are still leaning on a parking lot turn and
> the identical physics equation that Carl et al claims makes you go
> faster in a turn will also be present on a parking lot turn as the bank
> angle of a velodrome is not relevant according to Dan Connelly's
> calculations.
Aren't you forgetting that in a turn on flat ground you will be encountering
scrub from the tire being leaned over relative to the surface it's on compared to
very little difference in tilt compared to the surface of a velodrome turn? The
scrub will cause speed to be reduced.
You're welcome.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | |
Date: 13 Jan 2007 10:14:06
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
Howard Kveck wrote:
> In article <BQCdnedT7NKSpTXYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Despite my extensive lecture, I see most of you drama queens and pre-op
>>transsexuals still think you go faster in velodrome turns than on the
>>straightaway. According to you circus freakshow workers, the act of
>>shortening the distance of travel of the center of mass (compared to the
>>distance of travel of the bicycle wheels) means that you must therefore
>>go faster in turns. You people say this despite not even quantifying
>>it AFTER deducting all the negative effects that take place in a turn
>>(which none of you seem to acknowledge, nor do you refute).
>>
>>I have come to the conclusion this issue can be definitely resolved with
>>a very simple experiment by someone in here. It need not even be done
>>on a velodrome. So I want someone to do this and then report back in
>>here as to what the results are so Carl and Billy and the rest of you
>>assclowns can deal with it.
>>
>>The experiment:
>>
>>1. Must use a bike with a power meter.
>>2. Ride the bike at a constant WATTAGE around a parking lot in a loop
>>that roughly simulates a velodrome lap.
>>3. In the turns, note what happens to your speed vs. the straightaways.
>>
>>
>>According to Carl, Bill C, and the vast majority of you Einstein
>>rapists...you all think that your speed will increase in the turns. I
>>am 100% positive it will decrease.
>>
>>I have come to the conclusion there is no reason this test must be done
>>in a velodrome, since you are still leaning on a parking lot turn and
>>the identical physics equation that Carl et al claims makes you go
>>faster in a turn will also be present on a parking lot turn as the bank
>>angle of a velodrome is not relevant according to Dan Connelly's
>>calculations.
>
>
> Aren't you forgetting that in a turn on flat ground you will be encountering
> scrub from the tire being leaned over relative to the surface it's on compared to
> very little difference in tilt compared to the surface of a velodrome turn? The
> scrub will cause speed to be reduced.
>
> You're welcome.
>
Sorry, I didn't read your post closely enough and misread it as pedal
scrubbing.
As for tire scrubbing issue you mention, there is no calculation in Dan
Connelly's equation (pasted below) that assigns a variable to it.
Therefore, it should have no effect at all.
And second, a velodrome (banked) turn only allows you to corner at
faster speeds without sliding out - it does not decrease the amount of
force on your tire in a given turn radius. The G-forces are identical
whether the turn surface is banked or flat for any given lean angle
relative to the track surface.
But like I said, you could do this experiment in an indoor velodrome and
you will get the same result. The bank angle of the track surface turn
(running track vs. velodrome) will not matter unless you are doing it at
a wattage that would cause you to slide out on a flat running track,
which I do not think is even possible unless you could hit close to 40 mph.
However, you will get a higher lean angle on a velodrome for any given
wattage given that the track's bank helps you lean, but so long as you
are also leaning in a flat running track turn, the exact same thing will
happen on a running track as a velodrome with respect to Dan Connelly's
radius equation (and Carl's theory) - and Dan's equation does not even
factor in the bank of the track surface. Therefore it cannot possibly
even matter unless Dan is willing to say his original equation is wrong
(it's not).
Thanks,
Magilla
---------------------------
(Dan's original post):
This is easy enough to calculate. Consider a 250 meter track, with 150
meters in corners, and 100 meters in straights. If the corners are
semicircular, they have a radius of R = (150 meters / 2 pi). If the
bike center-of-mass (COM) is going v = 60 km/hr = 16.7 m/sec, it is
experiencing a centrifugal acceleration relative to gravity of (v^2/R g)
= 1.19 (I'll define this as alpha). This is the tangent of the lean
angle. The sine of the lean angle times the normal height of the COM
(h_com) is the difference between the COM trajectory radius and the
contact point trajectory radius. So this difference is:
delta_r = [alpha / sqrt(1 + alpha^2)] * h_com
If h_com = 1.5 meters, then delta_r = 1.15 meters.
The COM is moving at v = 60 m/sec. The contact patch is therefore
moving faster by a factor:
v_contact / v = delta_r / R + 1 = 1.048.
So the contact patch is moving approx 5% faster than the COM in this
example.
Dan
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Jan 2007 08:04:54
From: Kyle Legate
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
> As for tire scrubbing issue you mention, there is no calculation in Dan
> Connelly's equation (pasted below) that assigns a variable to it.
> Therefore, it should have no effect at all.
>
Wrong. If Dan's equation doesn't have a variable for tire scrub, it
means Dan's equation is not complete.
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Jan 2007 04:02:03
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
Kyle Legate wrote:
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>>
>> As for tire scrubbing issue you mention, there is no calculation in
>> Dan Connelly's equation (pasted below) that assigns a variable to it.
>> Therefore, it should have no effect at all.
>>
>
> Wrong. If Dan's equation doesn't have a variable for tire scrub, it
> means Dan's equation is not complete.
Wrong. Dan and Carl were implying that Dan's equation was the SOLE and
COMPLETE reason why a rider goes faster in a velodrome turn than on the
straighaway. They denied there was any other negative effect (although
Connelly admitted that there was a 9% increase in aerodynamic drag on a
rider in a turn vs. a straightaway). Other than these two things, they
did not acknowledge any other factor.
Now that I pointed out that the formula they claimed was the TOTAL
EQUATION doesn't take into account track bank angle, people want to
claim it's incomplete. Otherwise, they would have to admit that turning
on a flat running track would yeeild the same effect as turning on a
velodrome (it would according to Dan's formula).
I got news for you people... Dan's equation is not even 1/10 complete.
It leaves out 4 other major things, of which tire scrub is probably
negligble. Those items are:
1) Centripetal force decreases speed. On a straightaway the G-force is
1. On a turn it's like 1.5 or more (I don't know the exact number).
This decreases your speed because G-forces increase your weight and tire
friction in a turn. The air pressure of your tires in a turn increases
due to this compression.
2) Loss of kinetic energy when leaning up when exiting a turn. It takes
longer to lean up when exiting a turn than leaning down to enter a turn,
so leaning up will yield a negative compared to no leaning on a
straightaway. Also the mere act of leaning up uses up energy that on a
straightaway would have gone into pedalling wattage.
3) The negative physiological effect of higher G-forces on one's
circulatory system in a turn. Ferrari claims this is more important
than almost any other thing in setting an hour record. Carl and Dan
don't even mention this effect and instead choose to talk about a
cyclist in a turn as if they were a machine! In fact, your blood pools
in your legs in a turn and your heart has to work considerably harder to
pump that blood back up to your heart in every turn than it does on a
straightaway. Your blood pressure also icnreases in a turn, which is bad
at maximum efforts. The faster you go around turns the worse this
physiological effect is. No such physiological effect occurs on a
straightaway regardless of speed.
4) 9% increase in aerodynamic drag on a rider in a turn vs. a straightaway.
5) Changing your vector force of travel 180 degrees in a turn
(momentum) is less efficient than going straight. That's why ice
skaters, NASCARS, jet airplanes, track runners, automobiles,
motorcycles, inline skaters, etc. go slower in turns than straightaways
(even if you eliminate skidding).
FACT: All speed records are set in straightaways, not turns. Why would
cycling be any different?
By fighting inertia which wants you to go straight, you must use up
energy (converted to friction and centripetal force) to execute the
turn. Turning 180 degrees in 2 seconds is incredibly inefficient
compared to going straight (no change in direction, no increased tire
friction, no increased G-loads).
I don't necessarily deny Dan Connelly or Carl's assertion that
shortening your CM radius in a turn with respect to your wheel travel
radius in a turn makes you go faster in a turn. It very well might. All
I'm saying is it's not the only thing going on in a turn. They were
implying it was.
Magilla
|
| | | | | |
Date: 15 Jan 2007 22:20:15
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
In article <Iu2dnUYid7sRbDTYUSdV9g@ptd.net >,
MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote:
> Kyle Legate wrote:
>
> > MagillaGorilla wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> As for tire scrubbing issue you mention, there is no calculation in
> >> Dan Connelly's equation (pasted below) that assigns a variable to it.
> >> Therefore, it should have no effect at all.
> >>
> >
> > Wrong. If Dan's equation doesn't have a variable for tire scrub, it
> > means Dan's equation is not complete.
>
>
> Wrong. Dan and Carl were implying that Dan's equation was the SOLE and
> COMPLETE reason why a rider goes faster in a velodrome turn than on the
> straighaway. They denied there was any other negative effect (although
> Connelly admitted that there was a 9% increase
^^^^^^^^
decrease
> in aerodynamic drag on a
> rider in a turn vs. a straightaway). Other than these two things, they
> did not acknowledge any other factor.
>
> Now that I pointed out that the formula they claimed was the TOTAL
> EQUATION doesn't take into account track bank angle, people want to
> claim it's incomplete. Otherwise, they would have to admit that turning
> on a flat running track would yeeild the same effect as turning on a
> velodrome (it would according to Dan's formula).
>
> I got news for you people... Dan's equation is not even 1/10 complete.
> It leaves out 4 other major things, of which tire scrub is probably
> negligble. Those items are:
>
> 1) Centripetal force decreases speed. On a straightaway the G-force is
> 1. On a turn it's like 1.5 or more (I don't know the exact number).
Why do you not know the number? Its your argument.
> This decreases your speed because G-forces increase your weight and tire
> friction in a turn. The air pressure of your tires in a turn increases
> due to this compression.
>
> 2) Loss of kinetic energy when leaning up when exiting a turn. It takes
> longer to lean up when exiting a turn than leaning down to enter a turn,
> so leaning up will yield a negative compared to no leaning on a
> straightaway. Also the mere act of leaning up uses up energy that on a
> straightaway would have gone into pedalling wattage.
delta-kinetic-energy = force . delta-displacement.
Show us the vector force, vector displacement, the
energy source and energy sink.
> 3) The negative physiological effect of higher G-forces on one's
> circulatory system in a turn. Ferrari claims this is more important
> than almost any other thing in setting an hour record. Carl and Dan
> don't even mention this effect and instead choose to talk about a
> cyclist in a turn as if they were a machine! In fact, your blood pools
> in your legs in a turn and your heart has to work considerably harder to
> pump that blood back up to your heart in every turn than it does on a
> straightaway. Your blood pressure also icnreases in a turn, which is bad
> at maximum efforts. The faster you go around turns the worse this
> physiological effect is. No such physiological effect occurs on a
> straightaway regardless of speed.
What is the g-force? How long does the rider spend in
each term? What is the time interval for onset of
performance degradation at this increased g-force?
> 4) 9% increase in aerodynamic drag on a rider in a turn vs. a straightaway.
decrease
> 5) Changing your vector force of travel 180 degrees in a turn
> (momentum) is less efficient than going straight. That's why ice
> skaters, NASCARS, jet airplanes, track runners, automobiles,
> motorcycles, inline skaters, etc. go slower in turns than straightaways
> (even if you eliminate skidding).
Calculate the losses for us.
delta-work = force dot delta-displacement.
What are the vector dissipative forces? What are the
vector displacements?
> FACT: All speed records are set in straightaways, not turns. Why would
> cycling be any different?
>
> By fighting inertia which wants you to go straight, you must use up
> energy (converted to friction and centripetal force) to execute the
> turn. Turning 180 degrees in 2 seconds is incredibly inefficient
> compared to going straight (no change in direction, no increased tire
> friction, no increased G-loads).
How much energy?
> I don't necessarily deny Dan Connelly or Carl's assertion that
> shortening your CM radius in a turn with respect to your wheel travel
> radius in a turn makes you go faster in a turn. It very well might. All
> I'm saying is it's not the only thing going on in a turn. They were
> implying it was.
Thats five dollars for this lesson in physics.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | | |
Date: 15 Jan 2007 20:17:16
From: Kyle Legate
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
MagillaGorilla wrote:
> Kyle Legate wrote:
>
>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> As for tire scrubbing issue you mention, there is no calculation in
>>> Dan Connelly's equation (pasted below) that assigns a variable to it.
>>> Therefore, it should have no effect at all.
>>>
>>
>> Wrong. If Dan's equation doesn't have a variable for tire scrub, it
>> means Dan's equation is not complete.
>
>
> Wrong. Dan and Carl were implying that Dan's equation was the SOLE and
> COMPLETE reason why a rider goes faster in a velodrome turn than on the
> straighaway. They denied there was any other negative effect (although
> Connelly admitted that there was a 9% increase in aerodynamic drag on a
> rider in a turn vs. a straightaway). Other than these two things, they
> did not acknowledge any other factor.
>
> Now that I pointed out that the formula they claimed was the TOTAL
> EQUATION doesn't take into account track bank angle, people want to
> claim it's incomplete. Otherwise, they would have to admit that turning
> on a flat running track would yeeild the same effect as turning on a
> velodrome (it would according to Dan's formula).
>
> I got news for you people... Dan's equation is not even 1/10 complete.
> It leaves out 4 other major things, of which tire scrub is probably
> negligble. Those items are:
>
So, in other words, I was right.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 14 Jan 2007 10:55:37
From: Carl Sundquist
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote in message
news:Iu2dnUYid7sRbDTYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>
> I got news for you people... Dan's equation is not even 1/10 complete. It
> leaves out 4 other major things, of which tire scrub is probably
> negligble. Those items are:
>
> 1) Centripetal force decreases speed. On a straightaway the G-force is 1.
> On a turn it's like 1.5 or more (I don't know the exact number). This
> decreases your speed because G-forces increase your weight and tire
> friction in a turn. The air pressure of your tires in a turn increases
> due to this compression.
G force is not fixed. It is affected by speed and the radius of the turn.
By your logic, the increase in tire pressure caused by increased tire
pressure due to greater G-force work toward canceling each other out.
>
> 2) Loss of kinetic energy when leaning up when exiting a turn. It takes
> longer to lean up when exiting a turn than leaning down to enter a turn,
> so leaning up will yield a negative compared to no leaning on a
> straightaway. Also the mere act of leaning up uses up energy that on a
> straightaway would have gone into pedalling wattage.
You mean forward motion wattage.
Ok. Numerous people have said that the apparent speed of the bike slows down
exiting the corner and you have to pedal harder at that point. That is what
you describe here. But the energy needed to go upright vs. overall power
requirements is tiny.
>
> 3) The negative physiological effect of higher G-forces on one's
> circulatory system in a turn. Ferrari claims this is more important than
> almost any other thing in setting an hour record. Carl and Dan don't even
> mention this effect and instead choose to talk about a cyclist in a turn
> as if they were a machine! In fact, your blood pools in your legs in a
> turn and your heart has to work considerably harder to pump that blood
> back up to your heart in every turn than it does on a straightaway. Your
> blood pressure also icnreases in a turn, which is bad at maximum efforts.
> The faster you go around turns the worse this physiological effect is. No
> such physiological effect occurs on a straightaway regardless of speed.
What does this physiological claim have to do with the issue at hand? It is
irrelevant.
>
>
> FACT: All speed records are set in straightaways, not turns. Why would
> cycling be any different?
It's not. If you'll recall, I said that as velodromes get smaller, the turn
radius tends to stay the same and the straights get shorter to help limit
speed.
>
> I don't necessarily deny Dan Connelly or Carl's assertion that shortening
> your CM radius in a turn with respect to your wheel travel radius in a
> turn makes you go faster in a turn. It very well might. All I'm saying is
> it's not the only thing going on in a turn. They were implying it was.
>
No one said the COM accelerates, just the bike underneath you. And the
overall forces cause the _bike_ to increase speed slightly in the beginning
of a turn, not continuously throughout the turn. And I never said it was the
only effect/force at play. It's obvious that it isn't, but it is the <ahem >
overriding one.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 14 Jan 2007 13:45:51
From: Carl Sundquist
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
"Carl Sundquist" <carlsun@cox.net > wrote in message
news:wgtqh.17523$sE7.5869@newsfe21.lga...
>
> By your logic, the increase in tire pressure caused by increased tire
> pressure due to greater G-force work toward canceling each other out.
Sorry, that should read the increase in air pressure caused by greater
compression on the tire by the higher G-forces...
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Jan 2007 14:29:32
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
In article <U7KcnSjjz6uiajXYUSdV9g@ptd.net >,
MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote:
> Howard Kveck wrote:
>
> > In article <BQCdnedT7NKSpTXYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> > MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Despite my extensive lecture, I see most of you drama queens and pre-op
> >>transsexuals still think you go faster in velodrome turns than on the
> >>straightaway. According to you circus freakshow workers, the act of
> >>shortening the distance of travel of the center of mass (compared to the
> >>distance of travel of the bicycle wheels) means that you must therefore
> >>go faster in turns. You people say this despite not even quantifying
> >>it AFTER deducting all the negative effects that take place in a turn
> >>(which none of you seem to acknowledge, nor do you refute).
> >>
> >>I have come to the conclusion this issue can be definitely resolved with
> >>a very simple experiment by someone in here. It need not even be done
> >>on a velodrome. So I want someone to do this and then report back in
> >>here as to what the results are so Carl and Billy and the rest of you
> >>assclowns can deal with it.
> >>
> >>The experiment:
> >>
> >>1. Must use a bike with a power meter.
> >>2. Ride the bike at a constant WATTAGE around a parking lot in a loop
> >>that roughly simulates a velodrome lap.
> >>3. In the turns, note what happens to your speed vs. the straightaways.
> >>
> >>
> >>According to Carl, Bill C, and the vast majority of you Einstein
> >>rapists...you all think that your speed will increase in the turns. I
> >>am 100% positive it will decrease.
> >>
> >>I have come to the conclusion there is no reason this test must be done
> >>in a velodrome, since you are still leaning on a parking lot turn and
> >>the identical physics equation that Carl et al claims makes you go
> >>faster in a turn will also be present on a parking lot turn as the bank
> >>angle of a velodrome is not relevant according to Dan Connelly's
> >>calculations.
> >
> >
> > Aren't you forgetting that in a turn on flat ground you will be
> > encountering
> > scrub from the tire being leaned over relative to the surface it's on
> > compared to
> > very little difference in tilt compared to the surface of a velodrome turn?
> > The
> > scrub will cause speed to be reduced.
> >
> > You're welcome.
> >
>
>
> Sorry, I didn't read your post closely enough and misread it as pedal
> scrubbing.
>
> As for tire scrubbing issue you mention, there is no calculation in Dan
> Connelly's equation (pasted below) that assigns a variable to it.
> Therefore, it should have no effect at all.
>
> And second, a velodrome (banked) turn only allows you to corner at
> faster speeds without sliding out - it does not decrease the amount of
> force on your tire in a given turn radius. The G-forces are identical
> whether the turn surface is banked or flat for any given lean angle
> relative to the track surface.
>
> But like I said, you could do this experiment in an indoor velodrome and
> you will get the same result. The bank angle of the track surface turn
> (running track vs. velodrome) will not matter unless you are doing it at
> a wattage that would cause you to slide out on a flat running track,
> which I do not think is even possible unless you could hit close to 40 mph.
>
> However, you will get a higher lean angle on a velodrome for any given
> wattage given that the track's bank helps you lean, but so long as you
> are also leaning in a flat running track turn, the exact same thing will
> happen on a running track as a velodrome with respect to Dan Connelly's
> radius equation (and Carl's theory) - and Dan's equation does not even
> factor in the bank of the track surface. Therefore it cannot possibly
> even matter unless Dan is willing to say his original equation is wrong
> (it's not).
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Magilla
>
> ---------------------------
> (Dan's original post):
>
> This is easy enough to calculate. Consider a 250 meter track, with 150
> meters in corners, and 100 meters in straights. If the corners are
> semicircular, they have a radius of R = (150 meters / 2 pi). If the
> bike center-of-mass (COM) is going v = 60 km/hr = 16.7 m/sec, it is
> experiencing a centrifugal acceleration relative to gravity of (v^2/R g)
> = 1.19 (I'll define this as alpha). This is the tangent of the lean
> angle. The sine of the lean angle times the normal height of the COM
> (h_com) is the difference between the COM trajectory radius and the
> contact point trajectory radius. So this difference is:
>
> delta_r = [alpha / sqrt(1 + alpha^2)] * h_com
>
> If h_com = 1.5 meters, then delta_r = 1.15 meters.
>
> The COM is moving at v = 60 m/sec. The contact patch is therefore
> moving faster by a factor:
>
> v_contact / v = delta_r / R + 1 = 1.048.
>
> So the contact patch is moving approx 5% faster than the COM in this
> example.
>
> Dan
Are you PUI? Firstly, a typical school track is a cinder covered affair of 400
meters. Not the same as a velodrome, hence not a valid comparison. Secondly, even if
a bike is leaned over, say 40 degrees from the horizon on both a flat turn and in a
turn on a velodrome, the bike itself is not leaned over the same amount relative to
the surface they're running on. On the flat turn it's leaned over 40 degrees from
the road surface; on a velodrome, it's still almost perpendicular. The issue of tire
scrub arises from the tilt relative to the road surface. On a flat turn, there is
*far* more scrub than what you'd see on a velodrome turn. Dan's computation does not
even begin to take into account anything other than the difference in distance
traveled between the COM and the contact point of the wheels. A banked surface in a
corner allows you go faster because it means the bike isn't leaned as far over
relative to the road surface, meaning traction issues are less a part of the
equation, as well as reducing tire scrub.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Jan 2007 18:27:59
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
Howard Kveck wrote:
> In article <U7KcnSjjz6uiajXYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Howard Kveck wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <BQCdnedT7NKSpTXYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
>>> MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Despite my extensive lecture, I see most of you drama queens and pre-op
>>>>transsexuals still think you go faster in velodrome turns than on the
>>>>straightaway. According to you circus freakshow workers, the act of
>>>>shortening the distance of travel of the center of mass (compared to the
>>>>distance of travel of the bicycle wheels) means that you must therefore
>>>>go faster in turns. You people say this despite not even quantifying
>>>>it AFTER deducting all the negative effects that take place in a turn
>>>>(which none of you seem to acknowledge, nor do you refute).
>>>>
>>>>I have come to the conclusion this issue can be definitely resolved with
>>>>a very simple experiment by someone in here. It need not even be done
>>>>on a velodrome. So I want someone to do this and then report back in
>>>>here as to what the results are so Carl and Billy and the rest of you
>>>>assclowns can deal with it.
>>>>
>>>>The experiment:
>>>>
>>>>1. Must use a bike with a power meter.
>>>>2. Ride the bike at a constant WATTAGE around a parking lot in a loop
>>>>that roughly simulates a velodrome lap.
>>>>3. In the turns, note what happens to your speed vs. the straightaways.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>According to Carl, Bill C, and the vast majority of you Einstein
>>>>rapists...you all think that your speed will increase in the turns. I
>>>>am 100% positive it will decrease.
>>>>
>>>>I have come to the conclusion there is no reason this test must be done
>>>>in a velodrome, since you are still leaning on a parking lot turn and
>>>>the identical physics equation that Carl et al claims makes you go
>>>>faster in a turn will also be present on a parking lot turn as the bank
>>>>angle of a velodrome is not relevant according to Dan Connelly's
>>>>calculations.
>>>
>>>
>>> Aren't you forgetting that in a turn on flat ground you will be
>>> encountering
>>>scrub from the tire being leaned over relative to the surface it's on
>>>compared to
>>>very little difference in tilt compared to the surface of a velodrome turn?
>>>The
>>>scrub will cause speed to be reduced.
>>>
>>> You're welcome.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Sorry, I didn't read your post closely enough and misread it as pedal
>>scrubbing.
>>
>>As for tire scrubbing issue you mention, there is no calculation in Dan
>>Connelly's equation (pasted below) that assigns a variable to it.
>>Therefore, it should have no effect at all.
>>
>>And second, a velodrome (banked) turn only allows you to corner at
>>faster speeds without sliding out - it does not decrease the amount of
>>force on your tire in a given turn radius. The G-forces are identical
>>whether the turn surface is banked or flat for any given lean angle
>>relative to the track surface.
>>
>>But like I said, you could do this experiment in an indoor velodrome and
>>you will get the same result. The bank angle of the track surface turn
>>(running track vs. velodrome) will not matter unless you are doing it at
>>a wattage that would cause you to slide out on a flat running track,
>>which I do not think is even possible unless you could hit close to 40 mph.
>>
>>However, you will get a higher lean angle on a velodrome for any given
>>wattage given that the track's bank helps you lean, but so long as you
>>are also leaning in a flat running track turn, the exact same thing will
>>happen on a running track as a velodrome with respect to Dan Connelly's
>>radius equation (and Carl's theory) - and Dan's equation does not even
>>factor in the bank of the track surface. Therefore it cannot possibly
>>even matter unless Dan is willing to say his original equation is wrong
>>(it's not).
>>
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>
>>Magilla
>>
>>---------------------------
>>(Dan's original post):
>>
>>This is easy enough to calculate. Consider a 250 meter track, with 150
>>meters in corners, and 100 meters in straights. If the corners are
>>semicircular, they have a radius of R = (150 meters / 2 pi). If the
>>bike center-of-mass (COM) is going v = 60 km/hr = 16.7 m/sec, it is
>>experiencing a centrifugal acceleration relative to gravity of (v^2/R g)
>>= 1.19 (I'll define this as alpha). This is the tangent of the lean
>>angle. The sine of the lean angle times the normal height of the COM
>>(h_com) is the difference between the COM trajectory radius and the
>>contact point trajectory radius. So this difference is:
>>
>>delta_r = [alpha / sqrt(1 + alpha^2)] * h_com
>>
>>If h_com = 1.5 meters, then delta_r = 1.15 meters.
>>
>>The COM is moving at v = 60 m/sec. The contact patch is therefore
>>moving faster by a factor:
>>
>>v_contact / v = delta_r / R + 1 = 1.048.
>>
>>So the contact patch is moving approx 5% faster than the COM in this
>>example.
>>
>>Dan
>
>
> Are you PUI? Firstly, a typical school track is a cinder covered affair of 400
> meters. Not the same as a velodrome, hence not a valid comparison.
It doesn't have to be an exact match to a velodrome. It just has to be
a 180 degree turn that is close to a velodrome. We're only trying to
duplicate a TREND in speed (increase or decrease) in a turn, not
duplicate the exact SPEED on different radi or bank angles.
Secondly, even if
> a bike is leaned over, say 40 degrees from the horizon on both a flat turn and in a
> turn on a velodrome, the bike itself is not leaned over the same amount relative to
> the surface they're running on.
It doesn't have to be. Carl said you would go faster with this lean.
Therefore the SPEED TREND in a turn would be the same for a flat turn
vs. a banked turn. The TREND would be the same (i.e. increase or
decrease), not the actual speed.
On the flat turn it's leaned over 40 degrees from
> the road surface; on a velodrome, it's still almost perpendicular.
So? What does that have to do with the radius of the CM being shortened
vs. the wheel travel? Show me where in Dan Connelly's equation the
angle of the track matters in this analysis (there is no variable
assigned to the bank angle of the track in the equation)?
The issue of tire
> scrub arises from the tilt relative to the road surface. On a flat turn, there is
> *far* more scrub than what you'd see on a velodrome turn.
Where are you getting this information from - do you know this for a
fact or are you just guessing?
Dan's computation does not
> even begin to take into account anything other than the difference in distance
> traveled between the COM and the contact point of the wheels.
That's my point assclown - Dan and Carl are using this simple equation
to come to a definitive conclusion about one's speed in a velodrome turn
or any turn. Nowhere in Dan or Carl's analysis do they talk about tire
scrub being a factor. Therefore, ACCORDING TO THEM, it doesn't matter.
They only talk about the CM radius being shortend vs. the wheel travel
radius. This occurs in ALL TURNS regardless of whether or not the track
surface is banked or flat.
So now that I tell you to do this experiment on a flat running track,
all of a sudden all you gerbil users say tire scrub mattters. Yet if
you look at Carl and Bill who adhere to Dan's formula - which they claim
is the reason you go faster in a turn - it shouldn't matter that you are
turning in a velodrome vs. a flat track because the forumla they are
using would give the SAME result for both a flat track and a velodrome
and there is nowhere in the formula where the angle of the track is even
factored in. So if this is the correct formula (according to them),
then you are admitting the bank angle does not matter (and thereby
neither does tire scrub).
Having said that, I don't necessarily even agree with you that so-called
"tire scrub" makes you go slower. Why? Because the same G-forces for
any given lean angle are present during a turn regardless of whether the
turn is banked or flat. It's just transmitted to a different part of
the tire on a flat turn vs. a velodrome turn. So long as the bike
doesn't skid or lose traction, the wheel track would be identical.
My intuitive feeling is that if you could measure tire scrub (good luck
trying to do this), it would exist, but it would be negligible.
In other words, I agree with Dan and Carl that tire scrub doesn't matter
(though I don't agree with their analysis that this formula measures
everything happeneing in a turn, since it doesn't measure the negative
effects). Therefore, you will get the same result on a velodrome as you
will on a running track.
Thanks,
Magilla
|
| | | | | |
Date: 14 Jan 2007 22:44:47
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
In article <pJydnejI-I1i9zTYUSdV9g@ptd.net >,
MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote:
> Howard Kveck wrote:
>
> > In article <U7KcnSjjz6uiajXYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> > MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
> >>---------------------------
> >>(Dan's original post):
> >>
> >>This is easy enough to calculate. Consider a 250 meter track, with 150
> >>meters in corners, and 100 meters in straights. If the corners are
> >>semicircular, they have a radius of R = (150 meters / 2 pi). If the
> >>bike center-of-mass (COM) is going v = 60 km/hr = 16.7 m/sec, it is
> >>experiencing a centrifugal acceleration relative to gravity of (v^2/R g)
> >>= 1.19 (I'll define this as alpha). This is the tangent of the lean
> >>angle. The sine of the lean angle times the normal height of the COM
> >>(h_com) is the difference between the COM trajectory radius and the
> >>contact point trajectory radius. So this difference is:
> >>
> >>delta_r = [alpha / sqrt(1 + alpha^2)] * h_com
> >>
> >>If h_com = 1.5 meters, then delta_r = 1.15 meters.
> >>
> >>The COM is moving at v = 60 m/sec. The contact patch is therefore
> >>moving faster by a factor:
> >>
> >>v_contact / v = delta_r / R + 1 = 1.048.
> >>
> >>So the contact patch is moving approx 5% faster than the COM in this
> >>example.
> >>
> >>Dan
> >
> >
> > Are you PUI? Firstly, a typical school track is a cinder covered affair
> > of 400 meters. Not the same as a velodrome, hence not a valid comparison.
>
> It doesn't have to be an exact match to a velodrome. It just has to be
> a 180 degree turn that is close to a velodrome. We're only trying to
> duplicate a TREND in speed (increase or decrease) in a turn, not
> duplicate the exact SPEED on different radi or bank angles.
>
> > Secondly, even if a bike is leaned over, say 40 degrees from the horizon
> > on both a flat turn and in a turn on a velodrome, the bike itself is not
> > leaned over the same amount relative to the surface they're running on.
>
>
> It doesn't have to be. Carl said you would go faster with this lean.
> Therefore the SPEED TREND in a turn would be the same for a flat turn
> vs. a banked turn. The TREND would be the same (i.e. increase or
> decrease), not the actual speed.
See the following for why I brought that up.
> > On the flat turn it's leaned over 40 degrees from
> > the road surface; on a velodrome, it's still almost perpendicular.
>
>
> So? What does that have to do with the radius of the CM being shortened
> vs. the wheel travel? Show me where in Dan Connelly's equation the
> angle of the track matters in this analysis (there is no variable
> assigned to the bank angle of the track in the equation)?
Keep reading and you'll get the answer.
> > The issue of tire scrub arises from the tilt relative to the road
> > surface. On a flat turn, there is *far* more scrub than what you'd see
> > on a velodrome turn.
>
> Where are you getting this information from - do you know this for a
> fact or are you just guessing?
Known for a fact. When a wheel and tire is rotating perpendicular to the road
surface, you have one component of travel at the contact point. As the wheel moves
off perpendicular, you add another component: as the wheel rotates, the area in
front of and behind the contact point is moving in a shearing pattern (tire
deformation at an angle adds to this effect). This adds friction and increases
rolling resistance. A wheel rolling perpendicular to the road surface will always
have less rolling resistance than one that is tilted off perpendicular because of
that.
> > Dan's computation does not even begin to take into account anything other
> > than the difference in distance traveled between the COM and the contact point
> > of the wheels.
>
> That's my point assclown - Dan and Carl are using this simple equation
> to come to a definitive conclusion about one's speed in a velodrome turn
> or any turn. Nowhere in Dan or Carl's analysis do they talk about tire
> scrub being a factor. Therefore, ACCORDING TO THEM, it doesn't matter.
> They only talk about the CM radius being shortend vs. the wheel travel
> radius. This occurs in ALL TURNS regardless of whether or not the track
> surface is banked or flat.
The last part of what you say is true. But I don't see that them not saying
anything about it means they don't believe it's there.
> So now that I tell you to do this experiment on a flat running track,
> all of a sudden all you gerbil users say tire scrub mattters. Yet if
> you look at Carl and Bill who adhere to Dan's formula - which they claim
> is the reason you go faster in a turn - it shouldn't matter that you are
> turning in a velodrome vs. a flat track because the forumla they are
> using would give the SAME result for both a flat track and a velodrome
> and there is nowhere in the formula where the angle of the track is even
> factored in. So if this is the correct formula (according to them),
> then you are admitting the bank angle does not matter (and thereby
> neither does tire scrub).
>
> Having said that, I don't necessarily even agree with you that so-called
> "tire scrub" makes you go slower. Why? Because the same G-forces for
> any given lean angle are present during a turn regardless of whether the
> turn is banked or flat. It's just transmitted to a different part of
> the tire on a flat turn vs. a velodrome turn. So long as the bike
> doesn't skid or lose traction, the wheel track would be identical.
Wheel track isn't identical. The more the bike leans over relative to the road
surface, the more you increase the slip angle of the rear wheel. As a bike leans,
the rear wheel contact patch angle increases relative to the arc the bike is
traveling. The front wheel will exhibit the same behavior but to a much smaller
degree because it can be (and is) turned to an angle closer to that of the turn arc.
Since the bike is near perpendicular to the road surface on a banked velodrome turn,
slip angle is very minute (and you will have less tire scrub and rolling
resistance). The bike in a banked velodrome turn behaves more like a bike on a
straightaway in terms of slip angle and tire scrub than one leaned over on a flat
turn.
> My intuitive feeling is that if you could measure tire scrub (good luck
> trying to do this), it would exist, but it would be negligible.
I disagree with you on that.
> In other words, I agree with Dan and Carl that tire scrub doesn't matter
> (though I don't agree with their analysis that this formula measures
> everything happeneing in a turn, since it doesn't measure the negative
> effects).
They didn't say that it didn't matter.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 15 Jan 2007 21:25:45
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
Howard Kveck wrote:
> In article <pJydnejI-I1i9zTYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Howard Kveck wrote:
>
> Wheel track isn't identical. The more the bike leans over relative to the road
> surface, the more you increase the slip angle of the rear wheel. As a bike leans,
> the rear wheel contact patch angle increases relative to the arc the bike is
> traveling. The front wheel will exhibit the same behavior but to a much smaller
> degree because it can be (and is) turned to an angle closer to that of the turn arc.
> Since the bike is near perpendicular to the road surface on a banked velodrome turn,
> slip angle is very minute (and you will have less tire scrub and rolling
> resistance). The bike in a banked velodrome turn behaves more like a bike on a
> straightaway in terms of slip angle and tire scrub than one leaned over on a flat
> turn.
>
You're forgetting something. A 75kg rider in a velodrome turn enduring
2g's of centrifugal force weighs 150kg.
You really think doubling a rider's weight in a turn doesn't cause a
deceleration in turns?
I do.
Magilla
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 15 Jan 2007 21:27:08
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
Howard Kveck wrote:
> In article <pJydnejI-I1i9zTYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Howard Kveck wrote:
>>
>
>>>The issue of tire scrub arises from the tilt relative to the road
>>>surface. On a flat turn, there is *far* more scrub than what you'd see
>>>on a velodrome turn.
>>
>>Where are you getting this information from - do you know this for a
>>fact or are you just guessing?
>
>
> Known for a fact. When a wheel and tire is rotating perpendicular to the road
> surface, you have one component of travel at the contact point. As the wheel moves
> off perpendicular, you add another component: as the wheel rotates, the area in
> front of and behind the contact point is moving in a shearing pattern (tire
> deformation at an angle adds to this effect). This adds friction and increases
> rolling resistance. A wheel rolling perpendicular to the road surface will always
> have less rolling resistance than one that is tilted off perpendicular because of
> that.
>
I agree. And all this causes deceleration in a turn.
Magilla
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Jan 2007 19:33:15
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
In article <AiKdncADsY1gqjHYUSdV9g@ptd.net >,
MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote:
> Howard Kveck wrote:
>
> > In article <pJydnejI-I1i9zTYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> > MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Howard Kveck wrote:
> >>
>
> >
> >>>The issue of tire scrub arises from the tilt relative to the road
> >>>surface. On a flat turn, there is *far* more scrub than what you'd see
> >>>on a velodrome turn.
> >>
> >>Where are you getting this information from - do you know this for a
> >>fact or are you just guessing?
> >
> >
> > Known for a fact. When a wheel and tire is rotating perpendicular to the
> > road surface, you have one component of travel at the contact point. As the
> > wheel moves off perpendicular, you add another component: as the wheel rotates,
> > the area in front of and behind the contact point is moving in a shearing
> > pattern (tire deformation at an angle adds to this effect). This adds friction
> > and increases rolling resistance. A wheel rolling perpendicular to the road
> > surface will always have less rolling resistance than one that is tilted off
> > perpendicular because of that.
> >
>
>
> I agree. And all this causes deceleration in a turn.
A ***flat*** turn. As I've said, in a turn on a velodrome, the wheel is still
very close to perpendicular to the road surface, therefore the loses due to all the
above factors (scrub and slip angle) is minimized. That's why you can't make a
direct comparison between a turn on a flat track like a school running track to a
turn on a velodrome.
Are you starting to come to your senses, Alex van Halen?
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Jan 2007 00:27:59
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
Howard Kveck wrote:
> In article <AiKdncADsY1gqjHYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Howard Kveck wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <pJydnejI-I1i9zTYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
>>> MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Howard Kveck wrote:
>>>>
>>
>>>>>The issue of tire scrub arises from the tilt relative to the road
>>>>>surface. On a flat turn, there is *far* more scrub than what you'd see
>>>>>on a velodrome turn.
>>>>
>>>>Where are you getting this information from - do you know this for a
>>>>fact or are you just guessing?
>>>
>>>
>>> Known for a fact. When a wheel and tire is rotating perpendicular to the
>>>road surface, you have one component of travel at the contact point. As the
>>>wheel moves off perpendicular, you add another component: as the wheel rotates,
>>>the area in front of and behind the contact point is moving in a shearing
>>>pattern (tire deformation at an angle adds to this effect). This adds friction
>>>and increases rolling resistance. A wheel rolling perpendicular to the road
>>>surface will always have less rolling resistance than one that is tilted off
>>>perpendicular because of that.
>>>
>>
>>
>>I agree. And all this causes deceleration in a turn.
>
>
> A ***flat*** turn. As I've said, in a turn on a velodrome, the wheel is still
> very close to perpendicular to the road surface, therefore the loses due to all the
> above factors (scrub and slip angle) is minimized. That's why you can't make a
> direct comparison between a turn on a flat track like a school running track to a
> turn on a velodrome.
>
Unless the bank angle is 90 degrees, there will always be a left-hand
component to your turn.
Having said this, I don't think this is a major force anyway.
The major loss of energy (speed) in a turn comes from the increased
centrifugal force in a turn. It requires a tremendous input of energy
to change the vector velocity of mass 180-degrees [momentum (M) = mv].
G-forces kill speed. That's why all speed records in cars, planes,
motorcycles, boats, running events, etc. are set in straightaways at 1g,
and never during turns where G-forces increase.
A turn radius of 180-degrees on a velodrome results in rather large
G-forces. A 75kg rider in a velodrome turn, depending upon their speed,
probably weighs 150 kg or 200 kg throughout most of the turn.
You think that makes you go faster?
Magilla
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Jan 2007 23:09:54
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
In article <KUGdna9Dhun9_zHYUSdV9g@ptd.net >,
MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote:
> Howard Kveck wrote:
> > A ***flat*** turn. As I've said, in a turn on a velodrome, the wheel is
> > still very close to perpendicular to the road surface, therefore the loses
> > due to all the above factors (scrub and slip angle) is minimized. That's
> > why you can't make a direct comparison between a turn on a flat track like
> > a school running track to a turn on a velodrome.
> >
>
>
> Unless the bank angle is 90 degrees, there will always be a left-hand
> component to your turn.
It'll be tiny compared to that of a flat turn.
> Having said this, I don't think this is a major force anyway.
>
> The major loss of energy (speed) in a turn comes from the increased
> centrifugal force in a turn. It requires a tremendous input of energy
> to change the vector velocity of mass 180-degrees [momentum (M) = mv].
>
> G-forces kill speed. That's why all speed records in cars, planes,
> motorcycles, boats, running events, etc. are set in straightaways at 1g,
> and never during turns where G-forces increase.
Actually speed records for most of those things are set on an entire lap of a
track. Right? Now you're saying that the reason cars slow down in turns is because
of increased G loads? That's not what you said earlier.
> A turn radius of 180-degrees on a velodrome results in rather large
> G-forces. A 75kg rider in a velodrome turn, depending upon their speed,
> probably weighs 150 kg or 200 kg throughout most of the turn.
I think you're guesstimating how much the G-force loads are on a bike in a banked
turn and your guess is off by a huge factor.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 14 Jan 2007 02:19:58
From: Bob Schwartz
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
MagillaGorilla wrote:
> That's my point assclown - Dan and Carl are using this simple equation
> to come to a definitive conclusion about one's speed in a velodrome turn
> or any turn. Nowhere in Dan or Carl's analysis do they talk about tire
> scrub being a factor. Therefore, ACCORDING TO THEM, it doesn't matter.
> They only talk about the CM radius being shortend vs. the wheel travel
> radius. This occurs in ALL TURNS regardless of whether or not the track
> surface is banked or flat.
Actually, what I'm waiting for is for you to ask Dan if he's ever had
a college level physics class.
Bob Schwartz
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 13 Jan 2007 21:03:15
From: Phil Holman
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
"Bob Schwartz" <bob.schwartz@REMOVEsbcglobal.net > wrote in message
news:irgqh.22776$sR.1491@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>> That's my point assclown - Dan and Carl are using this simple
>> equation to come to a definitive conclusion about one's speed in a
>> velodrome turn or any turn. Nowhere in Dan or Carl's analysis do
>> they talk about tire scrub being a factor. Therefore, ACCORDING TO
>> THEM, it doesn't matter. They only talk about the CM radius being
>> shortend vs. the wheel travel radius. This occurs in ALL TURNS
>> regardless of whether or not the track surface is banked or flat.
>
> Actually, what I'm waiting for is for you to ask Dan if he's ever had
> a college level physics class.
>
> Bob Schwartz
You said you did this experiment a couple of years ago. Even though you
backed off power in the turns your speed changed very little.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/74f12e35bb781e1c
Phil H
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Jan 2007 01:28:56
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
Phil Holman wrote:
> "Bob Schwartz" <bob.schwartz@REMOVEsbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:irgqh.22776$sR.1491@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>
>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>
>>>That's my point assclown - Dan and Carl are using this simple
>>>equation to come to a definitive conclusion about one's speed in a
>>>velodrome turn or any turn. Nowhere in Dan or Carl's analysis do
>>>they talk about tire scrub being a factor. Therefore, ACCORDING TO
>>>THEM, it doesn't matter. They only talk about the CM radius being
>>>shortend vs. the wheel travel radius. This occurs in ALL TURNS
>>>regardless of whether or not the track surface is banked or flat.
>>
>>Actually, what I'm waiting for is for you to ask Dan if he's ever had
>>a college level physics class.
>>
>>Bob Schwartz
>
>
> You said you did this experiment a couple of years ago. Even though you
> backed off power in the turns your speed changed very little.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/74f12e35bb781e1c
>
> Phil H
>
>
You gotta like this quote from Bill:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/74f12e35bb781e1c
"With respect to monkey boy's tortured physics, you can see that there
are only very slight variations in speed in spite of the pretty wide
swings in power output."
-------
If you back of power in the turns, is Bob saying his speed didn't
decrease?
You're a lunatic and your supposed "test model" is a joke, as are your
supposed observations.
I hate to tell you Bob, but a loss of 1 mph in speed at 33 mph is the
equivalent loss of power of losing like 5 mph at 21 mph.
It's significant.
Magilla
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Jan 2007 20:24:08
From: Bob Schwartz
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
MagillaGorilla wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/74f12e35bb781e1c
>
> "With respect to monkey boy's tortured physics, you can see that there
> are only very slight variations in speed in spite of the pretty wide
> swings in power output."
>
> -------
>
> If you back of power in the turns, is Bob saying his speed didn't decrease?
>
> You're a lunatic and your supposed "test model" is a joke, as are your
> supposed observations.
>
> I hate to tell you Bob, but a loss of 1 mph in speed at 33 mph is the
> equivalent loss of power of losing like 5 mph at 21 mph.
Assmunch,
As you recall (and I'm sure you do) there was an
accompanying Chung Chart.
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/schwartzpursuit.png
How does your model explain the numerous oppositional
relationships between power and speed?
You're spending an awful lot of time defending horseshit.
Bob Schwartz
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Jan 2007 21:18:00
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
Bob Schwartz wrote:
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
> Assmunch,
>
> As you recall (and I'm sure you do) there was an
> accompanying Chung Chart.
>
> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/schwartzpursuit.png
>
> How does your model explain the numerous oppositional
> relationships between power and speed?
>
> You're spending an awful lot of time defending horseshit.
>
> Bob Schwartz
This actually proves my case. First of all, I am somewhat surprised
there is not constant wattage in a 4km pursuit. But then it occurred to
me what is going on...
The reason why wattage has peaks and valleys in a 4km pursuit on a
velodrome is that you are losing power in the turns. If you weren't
losing power, you wouldn't see peaks and valleys like this (surely you'd
agree that had you done a 4km pursuit on a flat course, you would not
see evenly spaced power fluctuations like this). And there is no reason
to gain power in a turn.
It is my conclusion from this graph that the turns are causing these
dips in power due to the increased centrifugal force and its negative
effect on the cardiovascular system.
And right after each dip in power as you exit the turn, it's followed by
a gradual acceleration into the straightaway. The peaks and valleys of
power and speed are offset, which is also consistent with this analysis
because there is going to be a lag effect.
Surely you can't argue that a straightaway would cause these peaks and
valleys in power on a 4km ride as there is no reason to gain power in a
turn (even if you argue you can gain speed in a turn you cannot argue
you will gain power in a turn. So we know the dips must be caused by
the turn).
It's obvious the turns are causing this dip in power due to the
increased cardiovascular stress caused by increased G-loads in the turn.
Thanks for the evidence.
Thanks,
Magilla
P.S. Technically this does not answer the question of whether a bike
goes faster in a velodrome turn because the power has to be constant.
All this proves is a rider loses watts in a turn (and speed as well) due
to what appears to be a significant physiological effect in turns.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Jan 2007 03:44:05
From: Bob Schwartz
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
MagillaGorilla wrote:
> P.S. Technically this does not answer the question of whether a bike
> goes faster in a velodrome turn because the power has to be constant.
> All this proves is a rider loses watts in a turn (and speed as well) due
> to what appears to be a significant physiological effect in turns.
Dumbass,
But the rider is losing watts while also gaining speed, not
losing it.
You are spending an awful lot of time defending horseshit.
Bob Schwartz
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Jan 2007 23:36:58
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
Bob Schwartz wrote:
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>> P.S. Technically this does not answer the question of whether a bike
>> goes faster in a velodrome turn because the power has to be constant.
>> All this proves is a rider loses watts in a turn (and speed as well)
>> due to what appears to be a significant physiological effect in turns.
>
>
> Dumbass,
>
> But the rider is losing watts while also gaining speed, not
> losing it.
>
> You are spending an awful lot of time defending horseshit.
>
> Bob Schwartz
If you admit you were losing watts in a turn, this is bad news for your
camp. Now you're claiming you go faster while losing watts (prior to
this graph's revelation you merely argued that you will go faster with
constant watts).
Now you're actually going FASTER while LOSING watts.
You don't really believe what you're saying now, do you? My reading of
that graph shows you are losing watts in turns on the order of magnitude
of between 30-100 watts!
I hate to break it to you, but if you lose those kind of watts in a
velodrome turn than you are putting out on a straightaway, you won't be
going faster.
You're backed into a corner and fighting like a declawed cat.
Magilla
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Jan 2007 05:53:49
From: Bob Schwartz
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
MagillaGorilla wrote:
> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>
>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>
>>> P.S. Technically this does not answer the question of whether a bike
>>> goes faster in a velodrome turn because the power has to be constant.
>>> All this proves is a rider loses watts in a turn (and speed as well)
>>> due to what appears to be a significant physiological effect in turns.
>>
>>
>> Dumbass,
>>
>> But the rider is losing watts while also gaining speed, not
>> losing it.
>>
>> You are spending an awful lot of time defending horseshit.
>>
>> Bob Schwartz
>
>
> If you admit you were losing watts in a turn, this is bad news for your
> camp. Now you're claiming you go faster while losing watts (prior to
> this graph's revelation you merely argued that you will go faster with
> constant watts).
>
> Now you're actually going FASTER while LOSING watts.
>
> You don't really believe what you're saying now, do you? My reading of
> that graph shows you are losing watts in turns on the order of magnitude
> of between 30-100 watts!
>
> I hate to break it to you, but if you lose those kind of watts in a
> velodrome turn than you are putting out on a straightaway, you won't be
> going faster.
>
> You're backed into a corner and fighting like a declawed cat.
Earlier you asked for links. Here are a couple.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_Defense
also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serdar_Argic
Bob Schwartz
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Jan 2007 22:09:52
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
In article
<Ijwqh.59140$qO4.36962@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net >,
Bob Schwartz <bob.schwartz@REMOVEsbcglobal.net >
wrote:
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
> > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/74f12e35bb781e1c
> >
> > "With respect to monkey boy's tortured physics, you can see that there
> > are only very slight variations in speed in spite of the pretty wide
> > swings in power output."
> >
> > -------
> >
> > If you back of power in the turns, is Bob saying his speed didn't decrease?
> >
> > You're a lunatic and your supposed "test model" is a joke, as are your
> > supposed observations.
> >
> > I hate to tell you Bob, but a loss of 1 mph in speed at 33 mph is the
> > equivalent loss of power of losing like 5 mph at 21 mph.
>
> Assmunch,
>
> As you recall (and I'm sure you do) there was an
> accompanying Chung Chart.
>
> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/schwartzpursuit.png
>
> How does your model explain the numerous oppositional
> relationships between power and speed?
>
> You're spending an awful lot of time defending horseshit.
It's his horseshit. Problem is when he flings it.
--
Michael Press
|
| | |
Date: 13 Jan 2007 01:07:19
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
Howard Kveck wrote:
> In article <BQCdnedT7NKSpTXYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Despite my extensive lecture, I see most of you drama queens and pre-op
>>transsexuals still think you go faster in velodrome turns than on the
>>straightaway. According to you circus freakshow workers, the act of
>>shortening the distance of travel of the center of mass (compared to the
>>distance of travel of the bicycle wheels) means that you must therefore
>>go faster in turns. You people say this despite not even quantifying
>>it AFTER deducting all the negative effects that take place in a turn
>>(which none of you seem to acknowledge, nor do you refute).
>>
>>I have come to the conclusion this issue can be definitely resolved with
>>a very simple experiment by someone in here. It need not even be done
>>on a velodrome. So I want someone to do this and then report back in
>>here as to what the results are so Carl and Billy and the rest of you
>>assclowns can deal with it.
>>
>>The experiment:
>>
>>1. Must use a bike with a power meter.
>>2. Ride the bike at a constant WATTAGE around a parking lot in a loop
>>that roughly simulates a velodrome lap.
>>3. In the turns, note what happens to your speed vs. the straightaways.
>>
>>
>>According to Carl, Bill C, and the vast majority of you Einstein
>>rapists...you all think that your speed will increase in the turns. I
>>am 100% positive it will decrease.
>>
>>I have come to the conclusion there is no reason this test must be done
>>in a velodrome, since you are still leaning on a parking lot turn and
>>the identical physics equation that Carl et al claims makes you go
>>faster in a turn will also be present on a parking lot turn as the bank
>>angle of a velodrome is not relevant according to Dan Connelly's
>>calculations.
>
>
> Aren't you forgetting that in a turn on flat ground you will be encountering
> scrub from the tire being leaned over relative to the surface it's on compared to
> very little difference in tilt compared to the surface of a velodrome turn? The
> scrub will cause speed to be reduced.
>
> You're welcome.
>
Great question. I already thought of this.
You don't need to be going that fast. Go to your local 1/4-mile high
school running track, which although is slighly larger than a velodrome,
will not matter for this experiment.
All you have to do is ride the track at say 300 watts (it can be any #
watts so long as it is constant). Ride at a constant wattage that will
allow you to pedal throughout the turn (absolutely no coasting) since
the only requirement of the experiment is to maintain constant wattage.
But you should ride it AS FAST AS POSSIBLE but not so fast that you
cannot pedal throughout the turn (remember, you MUST maintain constant
watts in the turns and straightaways).
And while maintaining constant wattage, you will notice your speed
decrease in the turns. The higher wattage, the more pronounced the
decrease will be in the turns, so it's better to do this experiment at
350 watts than at 250 watts since the decrease will not be that ked
at lower speeds.
But you also have to be careful of wind. Wind will ruin this experiment
unless you did it on an indoor running track/velodrome. So pick a day
with calm conditions.
I have no idea what the maximum speed one can ride a running track at
before the lean angle will cause you to clip your pedals, but my guess
is you can ride a turn on any high school running track at speeds around
25 mph without clipping your pedals.
Carl, Bill and the rest of the gerbil stuffers in here say speed will
increase in a turn because of their superficial application of the
center of mass/radius argument. Basically, they are raping Einstein in
his grave. They fail to take into account the 4 negative effects that
are also taking place in a turn that are greater than any negligible
benefit in speed you gain from shortening the radius of the CM vs. the
wheel travel.
This experiment will prove once and for all who is the king of the
jungle and who is the pretender(s).
Magilla
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Jan 2007 01:16:08
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
MagillaGorilla wrote:
> Howard Kveck wrote:
>
>> In article <BQCdnedT7NKSpTXYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
>> MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Despite my extensive lecture, I see most of you drama queens and
>>> pre-op transsexuals still think you go faster in velodrome turns than
>>> on the straightaway. According to you circus freakshow workers, the
>>> act of shortening the distance of travel of the center of mass
>>> (compared to the distance of travel of the bicycle wheels) means that
>>> you must therefore go faster in turns. You people say this despite
>>> not even quantifying it AFTER deducting all the negative effects that
>>> take place in a turn (which none of you seem to acknowledge, nor do
>>> you refute).
>>>
>>> I have come to the conclusion this issue can be definitely resolved
>>> with a very simple experiment by someone in here. It need not even
>>> be done on a velodrome. So I want someone to do this and then report
>>> back in here as to what the results are so Carl and Billy and the
>>> rest of you assclowns can deal with it.
>>>
>>> The experiment:
>>>
>>> 1. Must use a bike with a power meter.
>>> 2. Ride the bike at a constant WATTAGE around a parking lot in a loop
>>> that roughly simulates a velodrome lap.
>>> 3. In the turns, note what happens to your speed vs. the straightaways.
>>>
>>>
>>> According to Carl, Bill C, and the vast majority of you Einstein
>>> rapists...you all think that your speed will increase in the turns.
>>> I am 100% positive it will decrease.
>>>
>>> I have come to the conclusion there is no reason this test must be
>>> done in a velodrome, since you are still leaning on a parking lot
>>> turn and the identical physics equation that Carl et al claims makes
>>> you go faster in a turn will also be present on a parking lot turn as
>>> the bank angle of a velodrome is not relevant according to Dan
>>> Connelly's calculations.
>>
>>
>>
>> Aren't you forgetting that in a turn on flat ground you will be
>> encountering scrub from the tire being leaned over relative to the
>> surface it's on compared to very little difference in tilt compared to
>> the surface of a velodrome turn? The scrub will cause speed to be
>> reduced.
>> You're welcome.
>>
>
>
> Great question. I already thought of this.
>
> You don't need to be going that fast. Go to your local 1/4-mile high
> school running track, which although is slighly larger than a velodrome,
> will not matter for this experiment.
>
> All you have to do is ride the track at say 300 watts (it can be any #
> watts so long as it is constant). Ride at a constant wattage that will
> allow you to pedal throughout the turn (absolutely no coasting) since
> the only requirement of the experiment is to maintain constant wattage.
> But you should ride it AS FAST AS POSSIBLE but not so fast that you
> cannot pedal throughout the turn (remember, you MUST maintain constant
> watts in the turns and straightaways).
>
> And while maintaining constant wattage, you will notice your speed
> decrease in the turns. The higher wattage, the more pronounced the
> decrease will be in the turns, so it's better to do this experiment at
> 350 watts than at 250 watts since the decrease will not be that ked
> at lower speeds.
>
> But you also have to be careful of wind. Wind will ruin this experiment
> unless you did it on an indoor running track/velodrome. So pick a day
> with calm conditions.
>
> I have no idea what the maximum speed one can ride a running track at
> before the lean angle will cause you to clip your pedals, but my guess
> is you can ride a turn on any high school running track at speeds around
> 25 mph without clipping your pedals.
>
> Carl, Bill and the rest of the gerbil stuffers in here say speed will
> increase in a turn because of their superficial application of the
> center of mass/radius argument. Basically, they are raping Einstein in
> his grave. They fail to take into account the 4 negative effects that
> are also taking place in a turn that are greater than any negligible
> benefit in speed you gain from shortening the radius of the CM vs. the
> wheel travel.
>
> This experiment will prove once and for all who is the king of the
> jungle and who is the pretender(s).
>
>
> Magilla
>
Doing this experiment in the LA indoor velodrome will give the most
accurate results because it will rule out any effect from wind and you
can ride it at higher watts without fear of clipping your left pedal.
The problem is you need to have a power meter on your bike, and
generally speaking they don't allow such contraptions on tracks.
But, if somebody slipped the night security guard at the LA gerbil wheel
$10....I'm sure it could be done.
You only need to do 5 or 6 laps to convince yourself that what you are
seeing is an obvious decrease in speed in the turns.
Magilla
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Jan 2007 21:00:27
From: Bob Schwartz
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
MagillaGorilla wrote:
> The problem is you need to have a power meter on your bike, and
> generally speaking they don't allow such contraptions on tracks.
Holy shit that's a lot of typing.
Are you sure no one hasn't figured out how to make a power
meter work with a fixed gear and done this experiment?
That's a rhetorical question. As we both know.
Bob Schwartz
|
| | | | | |
Date: 13 Jan 2007 16:53:25
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
Bob Schwartz wrote:
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>> The problem is you need to have a power meter on your bike, and
>> generally speaking they don't allow such contraptions on tracks.
>
>
> Holy shit that's a lot of typing.
>
> Are you sure no one hasn't figured out how to make a power
> meter work with a fixed gear and done this experiment?
>
> That's a rhetorical question. As we both know.
>
> Bob Schwartz
I want someone in here to do this and then come back in here and post
the data. I'm sure you never did the experiment (I have and already
know what the results are, but my data would be considered suspect so I
don't post it).
So you're right - it is a rhetorical question.
Thanks,
Magilla
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 13 Jan 2007 16:23:10
From: Carl Sundquist
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote in message
news:0eWcndMEM8hIyTTYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>
>>> The problem is you need to have a power meter on your bike, and
>>> generally speaking they don't allow such contraptions on tracks.
>>
>>
>> Holy shit that's a lot of typing.
>>
>> Are you sure no one hasn't figured out how to make a power
>> meter work with a fixed gear and done this experiment?
>>
>> That's a rhetorical question. As we both know.
>>
>> Bob Schwartz
>
>
> I want someone in here to do this and then come back in here and post the
> data. I'm sure you never did the experiment (I have and already know what
> the results are, but my data would be considered suspect so I don't post
> it).
>
> So you're right - it is a rhetorical question.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Magilla
It's been done. On an indoor velodrome, too.
For details, ask Jeff Broker.
Dr. Jeff Broker spent eight years working as a Senior Biomechanist with the
Sport Science and Technology Division at the United States Olympic Committee
(USOC). He continues to work closely with Olympic sports independently and
as an Adjunct Faculty member to the USOC's Coaching and Sport Division,
typically focusing on the optimization of sport-specific technique.
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/sports-science&coaching.htm
http://www.uccs.edu/~biology/faculty/broker.htm
BTW, if you've done it, but your data is suspect, how can you be sure?
Sounds like an EPO test.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Jan 2007 17:45:32
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
Carl Sundquist wrote:
> "MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
> news:0eWcndMEM8hIyTTYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>
>>Bob Schwartz wrote:
>>
>>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The problem is you need to have a power meter on your bike, and
>>>>generally speaking they don't allow such contraptions on tracks.
>>>
>>>
>>>Holy shit that's a lot of typing.
>>>
>>>Are you sure no one hasn't figured out how to make a power
>>>meter work with a fixed gear and done this experiment?
>>>
>>>That's a rhetorical question. As we both know.
>>>
>>>Bob Schwartz
>>
>>
>>I want someone in here to do this and then come back in here and post the
>>data. I'm sure you never did the experiment (I have and already know what
>>the results are, but my data would be considered suspect so I don't post
>>it).
>>
>>So you're right - it is a rhetorical question.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Magilla
>
>
> It's been done. On an indoor velodrome, too.
>
> For details, ask Jeff Broker.
>
> Dr. Jeff Broker spent eight years working as a Senior Biomechanist with the
> Sport Science and Technology Division at the United States Olympic Committee
> (USOC). He continues to work closely with Olympic sports independently and
> as an Adjunct Faculty member to the USOC's Coaching and Sport Division,
> typically focusing on the optimization of sport-specific technique.
>
> http://www.multi-science.co.uk/sports-science&coaching.htm
>
> http://www.uccs.edu/~biology/faculty/broker.htm
>
> BTW, if you've done it, but your data is suspect, how can you be sure?
> Sounds like an EPO test.
So where's the data?
My data is suspect only because I supervised someone who did it. It
wouldn't be viewed as objective coming from me.
If somebody did this experiment on an indoor velodrome let's see the data.
Magilla
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Jan 2007 19:40:40
From: Carl Sundquist
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote in message
news:BR-cncYIe7CQ_DTYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>
>> It's been done. On an indoor velodrome, too.
>>
>> For details, ask Jeff Broker.
>>
>> Dr. Jeff Broker spent eight years working as a Senior Biomechanist with
>> the Sport Science and Technology Division at the United States Olympic
>> Committee (USOC). He continues to work closely with Olympic sports
>> independently and as an Adjunct Faculty member to the USOC's Coaching and
>> Sport Division, typically focusing on the optimization of sport-specific
>> technique.
>>
>> http://www.multi-science.co.uk/sports-science&coaching.htm
>>
>> http://www.uccs.edu/~biology/faculty/broker.htm
>>
>> BTW, if you've done it, but your data is suspect, how can you be sure?
>> Sounds like an EPO test.
>
>
> So where's the data?
>
I'm not the one who needs convincing. You now have the source, you do the
work. Let us know what he says.
FYI, it was done on the Adelaide Superdome with SRMs.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Jan 2007 23:33:20
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
Carl Sundquist wrote:
> "MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
> news:BR-cncYIe7CQ_DTYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>
>>>It's been done. On an indoor velodrome, too.
>>>
>>>For details, ask Jeff Broker.
>>>
>>>Dr. Jeff Broker spent eight years working as a Senior Biomechanist with
>>>the Sport Science and Technology Division at the United States Olympic
>>>Committee (USOC). He continues to work closely with Olympic sports
>>>independently and as an Adjunct Faculty member to the USOC's Coaching and
>>>Sport Division, typically focusing on the optimization of sport-specific
>>>technique.
>>>
>>>http://www.multi-science.co.uk/sports-science&coaching.htm
>>>
>>>http://www.uccs.edu/~biology/faculty/broker.htm
>>>
>>>BTW, if you've done it, but your data is suspect, how can you be sure?
>>>Sounds like an EPO test.
>>
>>
>>So where's the data?
>>
>
>
> I'm not the one who needs convincing. You now have the source, you do the
> work. Let us know what he says.
>
> FYI, it was done on the Adelaide Superdome with SRMs.
>
Do you know him? Tell him to come in here and discuss it.
Magilla
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Jan 2007 01:44:59
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Calling all Carls, Calling all Carls
|
MagillaGorilla wrote:
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>> Howard Kveck wrote:
>>
>>> In article <BQCdnedT7NKSpTXYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
>>> MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Despite my extensive lecture, I see most of you drama queens and
>>>> pre-op transsexuals still think you go faster in velodrome turns
>>>> than on the straightaway. According to you circus freakshow
>>>> workers, the act of shortening the distance of travel of the center
>>>> of mass (compared to the distance of travel of the bicycle wheels)
>>>> means that you must therefore go faster in turns. You people say
>>>> this despite not even quantifying it AFTER deducting all the
>>>> negative effects that take place in a turn (which none of you seem
>>>> to acknowledge, nor do you refute).
>>>>
>>>> I have come to the conclusion this issue can be definitely resolved
>>>> with a very simple experiment by someone in here. It need not even
>>>> be done on a velodrome. So I want someone to do this and then
>>>> report back in here as to what the results are so Carl and Billy and
>>>> the rest of you assclowns can deal with it.
>>>>
>>>> The experiment:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Must use a bike with a power meter.
>>>> 2. Ride the bike at a constant WATTAGE around a parking lot in a
>>>> loop that roughly simulates a velodrome lap.
>>>> 3. In the turns, note what happens to your speed vs. the straightaways.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> According to Carl, Bill C, and the vast majority of you Einstein
>>>> rapists...you all think that your speed will increase in the turns.
>>>> I am 100% positive it will decrease.
>>>>
>>>> I have come to the conclusion there is no reason this test must be
>>>> done in a velodrome, since you are still leaning on a parking lot
>>>> turn and the identical physics equation that Carl et al claims makes
>>>> you go faster in a turn will also be present on a parking lot turn
>>>> as the bank angle of a velodrome is not relevant according to Dan
>>>> Connelly's calculations.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Aren't you forgetting that in a turn on flat ground you will be
>>> encountering scrub from the tire being leaned over relative to the
>>> surface it's on compared to very little difference in tilt compared
>>> to the surface of a velodrome turn? The scrub will cause speed to be
>>> reduced.
>>> You're welcome.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Great question. I already thought of this.
>>
>> You don't need to be going that fast. Go to your local 1/4-mile high
>> school running track, which although is slighly larger than a
>> velodrome, will not matter for this experiment.
>>
>> All you have to do is ride the track at say 300 watts (it can be any #
>> watts so long as it is constant). Ride at a constant wattage that
>> will allow you to pedal throughout the turn (absolutely no coasting)
>> since the only requirement of the experiment is to maintain constant
>> wattage. But you should ride it AS FAST AS POSSIBLE but not so fast
>> that you cannot pedal throughout the turn (remember, you MUST maintain
>> constant watts in the turns and straightaways).
>>
>> And while maintaining constant wattage, you will notice your speed
>> decrease in the turns. The higher wattage, the more pronounced the
>> decrease will be in the turns, so it's better to do this experiment at
>> 350 watts than at 250 watts since the decrease will not be that ked
>> at lower speeds.
>>
>> But you also have to be careful of wind. Wind will ruin this
>> experiment unless you did it on an indoor running track/velodrome. So
>> pick a day with calm conditions.
>>
>> I have no idea what the maximum speed one can ride a running track at
>> before the lean angle will cause you to clip your pedals, but my guess
>> is you can ride a turn on any high school running track at speeds
>> around 25 mph without clipping your pedals.
>>
>> Carl, Bill and the rest of the gerbil stuffers in here say speed will
>> increase in a turn because of their superficial application of the
>> center of mass/radius argument. Basically, they are raping Einstein in
>> his grave. They fail to take into account the 4 negative effects that
>> are also taking place in a turn that are greater than any negligible
>> benefit in speed you gain from shortening the radius of the CM vs. the
>> wheel travel.
>>
>> This experiment will prove once and for all who is the king of the
>> jungle and who is the pretender(s).
>>
>>
>> Magilla
>>
>
>
> Doing this experiment in the LA indoor velodrome will give the most
> accurate results because it will rule out any effect from wind and you
> can ride it at higher watts without fear of clipping your left pedal.
>
> The problem is you need to have a power meter on your bike, and
> generally speaking they don't allow such contraptions on tracks.
>
> But, if somebody slipped the night security guard at the LA gerbil wheel
> $10....I'm sure it could be done.
>
> You only need to do 5 or 6 laps to convince yourself that what you are
> seeing is an obvious decrease in speed in the turns.
>
>
> Magilla
In order to rule out wind when doing this experiment on an outdoor
running track, here is a simple test you can apply:
1. Your speed must either always decrease or always increase in ALL turns.
If you get a decrease in speed on one turn and an increase in another
turn then you know wind is causing this given constant wattage.
------------------
So the SPEED TREND in all turns must be identical (either you go faster
in all turns or you go slower).
------------------
Also, ride the track in the opposite direction and you should see the
identical trend results in turns as you saw in the initial direction.
Where are you Dan Connelly? Chung? You fuckers are Unabomber
mathematicians who go into hiding when Einstein Gorilla starts work on
the Manhattan Project.
The Enola Gay is fueling up...
Magilla
|
|
