Joined
·
440 Posts
The thread is 80 posts long. If you're referring to a link, add it. No one is going to guess which one you're talking about.I’m talking about suspension or impedance losses. If u bother to read what the links say and what I’m saying you’d find you’re actually agreeing with me in that the body converting possibly hundreds of watts in momentum to heat seems unrealistic. That’s what they say. That’s the definition of suspension or impedance losses
This is more or less a correct explanation. Any forward motion transferred to vertical force lifting the bike/rider would have a reactionary force down into the ground ( causing heat). And the opposite when the bike/rider lowers 'land' on the ground.They could be trivially caused by micro-jumps due to road irregularities. In a jump, part of the energy is probably lost in the landing and not converted in forward motion.
This is not true. Solid objects have friction.if a body riding a bike has no possible friction, such as a block of concrete,
U don’t have to be the popcorn guy again and you can be an engineer this time. Give it a shot.I am really disappointed you guys couldn't wait for me to make more popcorn.
Nope. I'm the popcorn guy. I sell beer and peanuts too.U don’t have to be the popcorn guy again and you can be an engineer this time. Give it a shot.
Give up. You're embarrassing yourself. The vibrations transmitted to the body by lack of compliance of your tires is converted to heat. It's such an amazingly simple concept that apparently you are unable to comprehend it.I’m talking about suspension or impedance losses. If u bother to read what the links say and what I’m saying you’d find you’re actually agreeing with me in that the body converting possibly hundreds of watts in momentum to heat seems unrealistic. That’s what they say. That’s the definition of suspension or impedance losses
Suspension Losses Confirmed – Rene Herse Cycles
www.renehersecycles.com
but there’s room for variables as written below (gotten from discussion at bottom of the link just above): Micro jumps.
“However, I am not sure that this suspension losses are caused by vibrations in the body tissues. They could be trivially caused by micro-jumps due to road irregularities. In a jump, part of the energy is probably lost in the landing and not converted in forward motion. Even Josh Poertner seems to suggest a similar explanation.
However, apart from my hypothetical explanations, to establish if the losses are due to body tissue vibrations or micro-jumps, would be hard to do. Probably one should use a trike (able to travel for short distances with no one on board) with ballast and on a slope, and see if the results are the same, that is lower pressure leading to faster speeds. If the results are confirmed also for an unammend trike, then the reason for suspension losses is not body tissue vibrations but micro jumps.”
(the solid ballast (concrete) vs water/fat/bone roll test I also proposed).
the energy of course has to go somewhere. Bike suspension forks heat up but is it the spring itself’s internal friction, which would be analogous to our body on the bike, or is it friction of the other fork parts.
You should tell all these guys to stop doing research and they’re embarrassing themselves and it just turns to heat:It's such an amazingly simple concept that apparently you are unable to comprehend it.
the question is WHERE is it turning to heat. But best you not think about it. Wait for some authority to tell you. Is there one?There are not "hundreds of watts" of energy taken from a bicycle’s momentum and turned to heat. That's ridiculous
You repeatedly question whether the shaking of human tissue can generate heat. Is this just a troll or do you really not believe this is how energy from road vibrations is dissipated? If you really don't believe it, then you either think it is dissipated in some other form or you don't believe the vibrational energy is dissipated. Please explain which of these you believe. Or are you just trolling.You should tell all these guys to stop doing research and they’re embarrassing themselves and it just turns to heat:
![]()
PART 4B: ROLLING RESISTANCE AND IMPEDANCE
The concept of Impedance is a relatively new and uncharted territory for cycling blogs, yet is something that each of us have a feel for.blog.silca.cc
Tell everyone to stop all research related to energy transfer and it just turns to heat duh. It’s all so simple they just haven’t figured it out like you have.
Who is embarrassed? Just me or tig too?
the question is WHERE is it turning to heat. But best you not think about it. Wait for some authority to tell you. Is there one?
the great part is the answers can likely be figured through simple experiments as they’re doing and the resulting info could greatly alter bicycle design. Do u really want that fancy stiff bike or are seemingly outdated old steel bikes more efficient? Maybe Fignon wouldve beaten LEMOND with a softer saddle and more bar tape? For sure his over-pumped skinny tires didn’t help. Maybe he would’ve just said it turns to heat and he’s comfy in second place.
What on earth is a watt of momentum?I question that 100s of watts of momentum ...
i shouldve written energy or joules. watts are joules per second.What on earth is a watt of momentum?
If that's what you meant, then what on earth is a Joule of momentum? The units for energy (Joule) are kg m^2/s^2 for momentum it's kg m/s. Do you understand how momentum, force, energy, and power are related?i shouldve written energy or joules. watts are joules per second.
This is correct.i dont know any related math
This is not.... but feel safe in saying there is potential energy stored in a moving body/bike.
i take it back and still believe there is potential energy in a bicycle. potential energy is there as the bicycle is deflected by micro bumps. the kinetic energy of the moving bike is partially turned to potential. kinetic energy, or maybe can be formally dubbed momentum, is redirected upward against gravity when a bump is hit where it becomes potential energy.This is correct.
This is not.
Perhaps you should write less and read more.
I have no problem, it's wrong, but that doesn't pose a problem for me. Perhaps it's time to review the rule of holes.i take it back and still believe there is potential energy in a bicycle. potential energy is there as the bicycle goes up and over micro bumps. the kinetic energy of the moving bike is partially turned to potential. You have a problem with that?
care to explain how a moving bicycle isnt turning its kinetic energy to potential as it hits micro bumps. if we go further and say..biggg bumps we have what we could term a jump and then its obvious there is kinetic turned to potential. go ahead. dont just say it show it. i think youre wrong and im right.I have no problem, it's wrong, but that doesn't pose a problem for me. Perhaps it's time to review the rule of holes.
It's been my experience that I learn very little when I'm talking (writing).doesnt bother me talking about stuff im not familiar with. that's how you learn sometimes.