Re: [CR] Group Physics here stinks! (on topic)

(Example: Framebuilding:Tubing:Falck)

In-Reply-To: <c5.23c2bf16.2a2cecd0@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 21:50:08 -0400
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
From: "Warren & Elizabeth" <warbetty@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: [CR] Group Physics here stinks! (on topic)


Mike Kone writes..snip

He said of COURSE there is ENTROPY - but it is less than one percent and perhaps closer to one tenth of a percent.

snip

I should think that any energy loss even approaching one percent would be highly significant over the duration of a long, hilly race.

This discussion is getting down to brass tacks...does anyone have the empirical date about how much flex or deflection there is in an Alan or Vitus compared to a C-dale? We could "handicap" a frame based on energy loss based on Stevans "order of magnitude" analysis.

Unfortunately we are going to have a very difficult time pro-rating(?) the same flexible frames for the degree to which they reduce fatigue. Comfort is not easily measured except by the results we see, ie: Sean Kelly winning on a noodle bike.

I'm not serious about the analysis. Hell I'm not even capable. I think we've hit the wall on this one.

I really do like to ride my SL frame, but I feel faster on my EL-OS bike. I guess I'm a victim of the stiff-is-good myth that has been perpetuated...maybe.

Warren Young Toronto


>I did an "order of magnitude" analysis with a physicist friend of mine over
>the weekend looking in part to see how much energy would be lost in bottom
>bracket deflection and in part to see if there was any way the frame
>springing back to center could add to the pedal stroke. The absolute values
>are limited by the model used, the relative values are sound. Findings:
>If a frame deflects 10mm, there is an approximate 1% loss in efficiency.
>If a frame deflects 1mm, there is an approximate .1% loss in efficiency.
>Stevan Thomas
>Alameda, CA