Analytical Nonsense

[MagillaGorilla]

http://www.analyticcycling.com/genmodel/LeanAnalysis.html

"Speeds in the turns are faster because potential energy is converted to
speed as the rider leans. This is offset by increased drag from the
faster speed. The rider looses this speed when potential energy
increases in the straights."

------

Reasons why this is incorrect:

1.) The act of leaning up and down in a turn is more inefficient than
the act of never having to lean up or down, as is done in a straightaway.

2.) Although potential energy is converted into kinetic energy in the
initial part of a turn, it must be converted back to potential energy as
the rider exits the turn and raises his body. This act of leaning both
ways must be less efficient than had one never leaned to begin with.
This is the equivalent of walking up and down a flight of stairs and
then concluding that you can run faster over stairs than flat land
because you gain energy going down stairs.

The act of leaning up when exiting a turn takes longer and more energy
than leaning down, making the act of leaning up and down a negative when
added together. It's like riding into a headwind and tailwind course
vs. a course with no wind. You will always go faster on the course
without wind because you spend more time into the headwind than you do
with a tailwind.

3.) Nowhere on this website is the issue of increased G-loads and
increased weight mentioned as it relates to increased friction on the
tires. When you are travelling at 30 mph and in a fraction of a second
you increase that person's weight to 1.5 times what it was in the
straightaway, you will cause that mass to decelerate. Jet planes go
fastest at 1g, not 2 g's or 3 g's. Same with cars and bicycles.

4.) Nowhere on this website does it mention the stress that one's
circulatory system is put under in a turn which does not take place in a
straightaway where gravity loads are stagnant at 1g. Therefore, rider
wattage must also decrease substantially in a turn.

5.) Nowhere on this website does it take into account that the act of
changing your direction of inertia 180-degrees in a few seconds is more
inefficient as a function of conservation of energy vs. maintining a
straight line, which is the path of least resistance. When you ride your
bike with no hands, it wants to continue to go straight, not enter a
turn and take you in a circle. That's because an object left
undisturbed will travel in the path of least resistance, which for a
bicycle is to go in a straight line. If turning were more efficient
(i.e. faster), your bike would immediately enter a turn when you try to
ride no hands. Everyone who rides a bike knows this does not occur.

6.) Although he concedes that aerodynamic forces increase in a turn, he
fails to state that the coefficient of friction also increases in turns.
He also fails to acknowledge that wattage does not stay constant, and in
fact decreases in turns due to increasing g's on your circulatory
system. This makes you go slower, even if there is a latent effect on
speed that is only observed in the straightaway.

7.) This individual did not provide any empirical data that supports the
contention that "speed increases in turns" other than by making that
declaration and then employing some superficial and incomplete math as
to why he THINKS speed increases, which he tries to pass off as an
observed fact. This is not how science works and he did not actually
observe that any rider goes faster in a turn. Anybody who comes to
conclusions like this has no clue of how science works. Science isn't
about guessing at outcomes and then calling your guesses fact just
because you can show some (incomplete) mathematical computations that
support your theory.



Because of these reasons, this website has little scientific veracity.


Thank you,

Magilla

[Scott]

On Dec 2, 2:10 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.analyticcycling.com/genmodel/LeanAnalysis.html
>
> "Speeds in the turns are faster because potential energy is converted to
> speed as the rider leans. This is offset by increased drag from the
> faster speed. The rider looses this speed when potential energy
> increases in the straights."
>
> ------
>
> Reasons why this is incorrect:
>
> 1.) The act of leaning up and down in a turn is more inefficient than
> the act of never having to lean up or down, as is done in a straightaway.
>
> 2.) Although potential energy is converted into kinetic energy in the
> initial part of a turn, it must be converted back to potential energy as
> the rider exits the turn and raises his body. This act of leaning both
> ways must be less efficient than had one never leaned to begin with.
> This is the equivalent of walking up and down a flight of stairs and
> then concluding that you can run faster over stairs than flat land
> because you gain energy going down stairs.
>
> The act of leaning up when exiting a turn takes longer and more energy
> than leaning down, making the act of leaning up and down a negative when
> added together. It's like riding into a headwind and tailwind course
> vs. a course with no wind. You will always go faster on the course
> without wind because you spend more time into the headwind than you do
> with a tailwind.
>
> 3.) Nowhere on this website is the issue of increased G-loads and
> increased weight mentioned as it relates to increased friction on the
> tires. When you are travelling at 30 mph and in a fraction of a second
> you increase that person's weight to 1.5 times what it was in the
> straightaway, you will cause that mass to decelerate. Jet planes go
> fastest at 1g, not 2 g's or 3 g's. Same with cars and bicycles.
>
> 4.) Nowhere on this website does it mention the stress that one's
> circulatory system is put under in a turn which does not take place in a
> straightaway where gravity loads are stagnant at 1g. Therefore, rider
> wattage must also decrease substantially in a turn.
>
> 5.) Nowhere on this website does it take into account that the act of
> changing your direction of inertia 180-degrees in a few seconds is more
> inefficient as a function of conservation of energy vs. maintining a
> straight line, which is the path of least resistance. When you ride your
> bike with no hands, it wants to continue to go straight, not enter a
> turn and take you in a circle. That's because an object left
> undisturbed will travel in the path of least resistance, which for a
> bicycle is to go in a straight line. If turning were more efficient
> (i.e. faster), your bike would immediately enter a turn when you try to
> ride no hands. Everyone who rides a bike knows this does not occur.
>
> 6.) Although he concedes that aerodynamic forces increase in a turn, he
> fails to state that the coefficient of friction also increases in turns.
> He also fails to acknowledge that wattage does not stay constant, and in
> fact decreases in turns due to increasing g's on your circulatory
> system. This makes you go slower, even if there is a latent effect on
> speed that is only observed in the straightaway.
>
> 7.) This individual did not provide any empirical data that supports the
> contention that "speed increases in turns" other than by making that
> declaration and then employing some superficial and incomplete math as
> to why he THINKS speed increases, which he tries to pass off as an
> observed fact. This is not how science works and he did not actually
> observe that any rider goes faster in a turn. Anybody who comes to
> conclusions like this has no clue of how science works. Science isn't
> about guessing at outcomes and then calling your guesses fact just
> because you can show some (incomplete) mathematical computations that
> support your theory.
>
> Because of these reasons, this website has little scientific veracity.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Magilla

I'm just curious, but what is it about this topic that so captivates
you? You're the only person to ever bring this concept up AND you're
apparently the only person who tries to refute what has been proven
both mathematically and empirically.

Is this the ultimate troll for you or are you just unwilling to change
your mind no matter how much evidence to the contrary of your view is
presented?

[Michael Press]

In article <fiv70i$6iu$1@aioe.org>,
MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:

> 5.) Nowhere on this website does it take into account that the act of
> changing your direction of inertia 180-degrees in a few seconds is more
> inefficient as a function of conservation of energy vs. maintining a
> straight line, which is the path of least resistance. When you ride your
> bike with no hands, it wants to continue to go straight, not enter a
> turn and take you in a circle. That's because an object left
> undisturbed will travel in the path of least resistance, which for a
> bicycle is to go in a straight line. If turning were more efficient
> (i.e. faster), your bike would immediately enter a turn when you try to
> ride no hands. Everyone who rides a bike knows this does not occur.

Oh! Well played, sir! This is as fine an example of
double-talk; misapprehension & bone-headed application
of physical principals; and dressed-up second hand oats
as it has ever been my privilege to witness.

--
Michael Press

[sergio]

On 2 Dic, 22:10, MagillaGorilla
<magi...@sandiegozoo.com> That's because
an object left
> undisturbed will travel in the path of least resistance, which for a
> bicycle is to go in a straight line. If turning were more efficient
> (i.e. faster), your bike would immediately enter a turn when you try to
> ride no hands. Everyone who rides a bike knows this does not occur.

Too bad bikes were not around at the times of Galileo and Euler.
But Einstein did ride bike!

Sergio
Pisa

[btrack90@hotmail.com]

On Dec 2, 6:34 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2:10 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.analyticcycling.com/genmodel/LeanAnalysis.html
>
> > "Speeds in the turns are faster because potential energy is converted to
> > speed as the rider leans. This is offset by increased drag from the
> > faster speed. The rider looses this speed when potential energy
> > increases in the straights."
>
> > ------
>
> > Reasons why this is incorrect:
>
> > 1.) The act of leaning up and down in a turn is more inefficient than
> > the act of never having to lean up or down, as is done in a straightaway.
>
> > 2.) Although potential energy is converted into kinetic energy in the
> > initial part of a turn, it must be converted back to potential energy as
> > the rider exits the turn and raises his body. This act of leaning both
> > ways must be less efficient than had one never leaned to begin with.
> > This is the equivalent of walking up and down a flight of stairs and
> > then concluding that you can run faster over stairs than flat land
> > because you gain energy going down stairs.
>
> > The act of leaning up when exiting a turn takes longer and more energy
> > than leaning down, making the act of leaning up and down a negative when
> > added together. It's like riding into a headwind and tailwind course
> > vs. a course with no wind. You will always go faster on the course
> > without wind because you spend more time into the headwind than you do
> > with a tailwind.
>
> > 3.) Nowhere on this website is the issue of increased G-loads and
> > increased weight mentioned as it relates to increased friction on the
> > tires. When you are travelling at 30 mph and in a fraction of a second
> > you increase that person's weight to 1.5 times what it was in the
> > straightaway, you will cause that mass to decelerate. Jet planes go
> > fastest at 1g, not 2 g's or 3 g's. Same with cars and bicycles.
>
> > 4.) Nowhere on this website does it mention the stress that one's
> > circulatory system is put under in a turn which does not take place in a
> > straightaway where gravity loads are stagnant at 1g. Therefore, rider
> > wattage must also decrease substantially in a turn.
>
> > 5.) Nowhere on this website does it take into account that the act of
> > changing your direction of inertia 180-degrees in a few seconds is more
> > inefficient as a function of conservation of energy vs. maintining a
> > straight line, which is the path of least resistance. When you ride your
> > bike with no hands, it wants to continue to go straight, not enter a
> > turn and take you in a circle. That's because an object left
> > undisturbed will travel in the path of least resistance, which for a
> > bicycle is to go in a straight line. If turning were more efficient
> > (i.e. faster), your bike would immediately enter a turn when you try to
> > ride no hands. Everyone who rides a bike knows this does not occur.
>
> > 6.) Although he concedes that aerodynamic forces increase in a turn, he
> > fails to state that the coefficient of friction also increases in turns.
> > He also fails to acknowledge that wattage does not stay constant, and in
> > fact decreases in turns due to increasing g's on your circulatory
> > system. This makes you go slower, even if there is a latent effect on
> > speed that is only observed in the straightaway.
>
> > 7.) This individual did not provide any empirical data that supports the
> > contention that "speed increases in turns" other than by making that
> > declaration and then employing some superficial and incomplete math as
> > to why he THINKS speed increases, which he tries to pass off as an
> > observed fact. This is not how science works and he did not actually
> > observe that any rider goes faster in a turn. Anybody who comes to
> > conclusions like this has no clue of how science works. Science isn't
> > about guessing at outcomes and then calling your guesses fact just
> > because you can show some (incomplete) mathematical computations that
> > support your theory.
>
> > Because of these reasons, this website has little scientific veracity.
>
> > Thank you,
>
> > Magilla
>
> I'm just curious, but what is it about this topic that so captivates
> you? You're the only person to ever bring this concept up AND you're
> apparently the only person who tries to refute what has been proven
> both mathematically and empirically.
>
> Is this the ultimate troll for you or are you just unwilling to change
> your mind no matter how much evidence to the contrary of your view is
> presented?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


The funny thing is, that they don't contradict each other.
Rider's center of gravity speeds up going into the turn, because of
it's hight difference in straight and in turn. As the center of
gravity goes up again going out of the turn, rider will slow down to
original speed, if the power output is constant.
Air resistance will increase with speed and G forces will increase the
tire friction and may have negative physiological effect.
On the other hand, rider's center of gravity will travels shorter
distance than meassured distance on the black line. It could be around
0.9 meters difference per lap at 50 km/hr. on typical 250 meters
track.
Peter Junek

[MagillaGorilla]

Scott wrote:

> On Dec 2, 2:10 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
>>http://www.analyticcycling.com/genmodel/LeanAnalysis.html
>>
>>"Speeds in the turns are faster because potential energy is converted to
>>speed as the rider leans. This is offset by increased drag from the
>>faster speed. The rider looses this speed when potential energy
>>increases in the straights."
>>
>>------
>>
>>Reasons why this is incorrect:
>>
>>1.) The act of leaning up and down in a turn is more inefficient than
>>the act of never having to lean up or down, as is done in a straightaway.
>>
>>2.) Although potential energy is converted into kinetic energy in the
>>initial part of a turn, it must be converted back to potential energy as
>>the rider exits the turn and raises his body. This act of leaning both
>>ways must be less efficient than had one never leaned to begin with.
>>This is the equivalent of walking up and down a flight of stairs and
>>then concluding that you can run faster over stairs than flat land
>>because you gain energy going down stairs.
>>
>>The act of leaning up when exiting a turn takes longer and more energy
>>than leaning down, making the act of leaning up and down a negative when
>>added together. It's like riding into a headwind and tailwind course
>>vs. a course with no wind. You will always go faster on the course
>>without wind because you spend more time into the headwind than you do
>>with a tailwind.
>>
>>3.) Nowhere on this website is the issue of increased G-loads and
>>increased weight mentioned as it relates to increased friction on the
>>tires. When you are travelling at 30 mph and in a fraction of a second
>>you increase that person's weight to 1.5 times what it was in the
>>straightaway, you will cause that mass to decelerate. Jet planes go
>>fastest at 1g, not 2 g's or 3 g's. Same with cars and bicycles.
>>
>>4.) Nowhere on this website does it mention the stress that one's
>>circulatory system is put under in a turn which does not take place in a
>>straightaway where gravity loads are stagnant at 1g. Therefore, rider
>>wattage must also decrease substantially in a turn.
>>
>>5.) Nowhere on this website does it take into account that the act of
>>changing your direction of inertia 180-degrees in a few seconds is more
>>inefficient as a function of conservation of energy vs. maintining a
>>straight line, which is the path of least resistance. When you ride your
>>bike with no hands, it wants to continue to go straight, not enter a
>>turn and take you in a circle. That's because an object left
>>undisturbed will travel in the path of least resistance, which for a
>>bicycle is to go in a straight line. If turning were more efficient
>>(i.e. faster), your bike would immediately enter a turn when you try to
>>ride no hands. Everyone who rides a bike knows this does not occur.
>>
>>6.) Although he concedes that aerodynamic forces increase in a turn, he
>>fails to state that the coefficient of friction also increases in turns.
>>He also fails to acknowledge that wattage does not stay constant, and in
>>fact decreases in turns due to increasing g's on your circulatory
>>system. This makes you go slower, even if there is a latent effect on
>>speed that is only observed in the straightaway.
>>
>>7.) This individual did not provide any empirical data that supports the
>>contention that "speed increases in turns" other than by making that
>>declaration and then employing some superficial and incomplete math as
>>to why he THINKS speed increases, which he tries to pass off as an
>>observed fact. This is not how science works and he did not actually
>>observe that any rider goes faster in a turn. Anybody who comes to
>>conclusions like this has no clue of how science works. Science isn't
>>about guessing at outcomes and then calling your guesses fact just
>>because you can show some (incomplete) mathematical computations that
>>support your theory.
>>
>>Because of these reasons, this website has little scientific veracity.
>>
>>Thank you,
>>
>>Magilla
>
>
> I'm just curious, but what is it about this topic that so captivates
> you? You're the only person to ever bring this concept up AND you're
> apparently the only person who tries to refute what has been proven
> both mathematically and empirically.
>
> Is this the ultimate troll for you or are you just unwilling to change
> your mind no matter how much evidence to the contrary of your view is
> presented?


I bet you $50 you believe in God.

Magilla

[Bob Schwartz]

Scott wrote:
> I'm just curious, but what is it about this topic that so captivates
> you? You're the only person to ever bring this concept up AND you're
> apparently the only person who tries to refute what has been proven
> both mathematically and empirically.
>
> Is this the ultimate troll for you or are you just unwilling to change
> your mind no matter how much evidence to the contrary of your view is
> presented?

Magilla has a trolling style that depends on volume. He
needs to constantly pick at the troll in order to keep
it bleeding. One technique he uses is to doggedly defend
indefensible positions.

I'd just let it go.

Bob Schwartz

[Phil Holman]

<btrack90@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f3c7743-b7a8-49f2-9f98-4af4418dae16@t47g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 2, 6:34 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 2, 2:10 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >http://www.analyticcycling.com/genmodel/LeanAnalysis.html
>>
>> > "Speeds in the turns are faster because potential energy is
>> > converted to
>> > speed as the rider leans. This is offset by increased drag from the
>> > faster speed. The rider looses this speed when potential energy
>> > increases in the straights."
>>
>> > ------
>>
>> > Reasons why this is incorrect:
>>
>> > 1.) The act of leaning up and down in a turn is more inefficient
>> > than
>> > the act of never having to lean up or down, as is done in a
>> > straightaway.
>>
>> > 2.) Although potential energy is converted into kinetic energy in
>> > the
>> > initial part of a turn, it must be converted back to potential
>> > energy as
>> > the rider exits the turn and raises his body. This act of leaning
>> > both
>> > ways must be less efficient than had one never leaned to begin
>> > with.
>> > This is the equivalent of walking up and down a flight of stairs
>> > and
>> > then concluding that you can run faster over stairs than flat land
>> > because you gain energy going down stairs.
>>
>> > The act of leaning up when exiting a turn takes longer and more
>> > energy
>> > than leaning down, making the act of leaning up and down a negative
>> > when
>> > added together. It's like riding into a headwind and tailwind
>> > course
>> > vs. a course with no wind. You will always go faster on the course
>> > without wind because you spend more time into the headwind than you
>> > do
>> > with a tailwind.
>>
>> > 3.) Nowhere on this website is the issue of increased G-loads and
>> > increased weight mentioned as it relates to increased friction on
>> > the
>> > tires. When you are travelling at 30 mph and in a fraction of a
>> > second
>> > you increase that person's weight to 1.5 times what it was in the
>> > straightaway, you will cause that mass to decelerate. Jet planes
>> > go
>> > fastest at 1g, not 2 g's or 3 g's. Same with cars and bicycles.
>>
>> > 4.) Nowhere on this website does it mention the stress that one's
>> > circulatory system is put under in a turn which does not take place
>> > in a
>> > straightaway where gravity loads are stagnant at 1g. Therefore,
>> > rider
>> > wattage must also decrease substantially in a turn.
>>
>> > 5.) Nowhere on this website does it take into account that the act
>> > of
>> > changing your direction of inertia 180-degrees in a few seconds is
>> > more
>> > inefficient as a function of conservation of energy vs. maintining
>> > a
>> > straight line, which is the path of least resistance. When you ride
>> > your
>> > bike with no hands, it wants to continue to go straight, not enter
>> > a
>> > turn and take you in a circle. That's because an object left
>> > undisturbed will travel in the path of least resistance, which for
>> > a
>> > bicycle is to go in a straight line. If turning were more
>> > efficient
>> > (i.e. faster), your bike would immediately enter a turn when you
>> > try to
>> > ride no hands. Everyone who rides a bike knows this does not
>> > occur.
>>
>> > 6.) Although he concedes that aerodynamic forces increase in a
>> > turn, he
>> > fails to state that the coefficient of friction also increases in
>> > turns.
>> > He also fails to acknowledge that wattage does not stay constant,
>> > and in
>> > fact decreases in turns due to increasing g's on your circulatory
>> > system. This makes you go slower, even if there is a latent effect
>> > on
>> > speed that is only observed in the straightaway.
>>
>> > 7.) This individual did not provide any empirical data that
>> > supports the
>> > contention that "speed increases in turns" other than by making
>> > that
>> > declaration and then employing some superficial and incomplete math
>> > as
>> > to why he THINKS speed increases, which he tries to pass off as an
>> > observed fact. This is not how science works and he did not
>> > actually
>> > observe that any rider goes faster in a turn. Anybody who comes to
>> > conclusions like this has no clue of how science works. Science
>> > isn't
>> > about guessing at outcomes and then calling your guesses fact just
>> > because you can show some (incomplete) mathematical computations
>> > that
>> > support your theory.
>>
>> > Because of these reasons, this website has little scientific
>> > veracity.
>>
>> > Thank you,
>>
>> > Magilla
>>
>> I'm just curious, but what is it about this topic that so captivates
>> you? You're the only person to ever bring this concept up AND you're
>> apparently the only person who tries to refute what has been proven
>> both mathematically and empirically.
>>
>> Is this the ultimate troll for you or are you just unwilling to
>> change
>> your mind no matter how much evidence to the contrary of your view is
>> presented?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> The funny thing is, that they don't contradict each other.
> Rider's center of gravity speeds up going into the turn, because of
> it's hight difference in straight and in turn. As the center of
> gravity goes up again going out of the turn, rider will slow down to
> original speed, if the power output is constant.
> Air resistance will increase with speed and G forces will increase the
> tire friction and may have negative physiological effect.
> On the other hand, rider's center of gravity will travels shorter
> distance than meassured distance on the black line. It could be around
> 0.9 meters difference per lap at 50 km/hr. on typical 250 meters
> track.

Cg is approx. 1m high. Difference in turn radius at a 40 deg lean from
vertical = 1*sin 40 = .64 m. This results in .64*2*3.142 = 4m per lap
(if, (big if) your wheels stay on the black line).

While we are at it, difference in potential energy for a 80kg rider and
bike = (1-cos 40)*80*9.81 = 184J. For the 5.86 seconds in the turn
(Adelaide), this will be equivalent to a 31.4 watt power increase.

Tire RR will increase by Fd = .004*mv^2/r = .004*80*14^2/26 = 2.4N. At
14m/s this is a 34 watt power decrease.

The differences in PE and tire RR are pretty much a wash leaving any
gains to how close you can hug the line (as much as 4m per lap). At
14m/s this will be .29 seconds per lap minus any increase in aero drag
(good luck with getting an area profile change for that analysis).

As for efficiency, this would be small (noise) and for the affect on
physiology, there is a delay in response to circulatory change so this
would be difficult to analyze and would probably affect speed in the
straightaway also.

Last big factor is for those chicken livers who back off in the turns.
Can't they go ride a mountain bike or something and leave track riding
to real cyclists :-)

Phil H

[MagillaGorilla]

btrack90@hotmail.com wrote:

> On Dec 2, 6:34 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 2, 2:10 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>http://www.analyticcycling.com/genmodel/LeanAnalysis.html
>>
>>>"Speeds in the turns are faster because potential energy is converted to
>>>speed as the rider leans. This is offset by increased drag from the
>>>faster speed. The rider looses this speed when potential energy
>>>increases in the straights."
>>
>>>------
>>
>>>Reasons why this is incorrect:
>>
>>>1.) The act of leaning up and down in a turn is more inefficient than
>>>the act of never having to lean up or down, as is done in a straightaway.
>>
>>>2.) Although potential energy is converted into kinetic energy in the
>>>initial part of a turn, it must be converted back to potential energy as
>>>the rider exits the turn and raises his body. This act of leaning both
>>>ways must be less efficient than had one never leaned to begin with.
>>>This is the equivalent of walking up and down a flight of stairs and
>>>then concluding that you can run faster over stairs than flat land
>>>because you gain energy going down stairs.
>>
>>>The act of leaning up when exiting a turn takes longer and more energy
>>>than leaning down, making the act of leaning up and down a negative when
>>>added together. It's like riding into a headwind and tailwind course
>>>vs. a course with no wind. You will always go faster on the course
>>>without wind because you spend more time into the headwind than you do
>>>with a tailwind.
>>
>>>3.) Nowhere on this website is the issue of increased G-loads and
>>>increased weight mentioned as it relates to increased friction on the
>>>tires. When you are travelling at 30 mph and in a fraction of a second
>>>you increase that person's weight to 1.5 times what it was in the
>>>straightaway, you will cause that mass to decelerate. Jet planes go
>>>fastest at 1g, not 2 g's or 3 g's. Same with cars and bicycles.
>>
>>>4.) Nowhere on this website does it mention the stress that one's
>>>circulatory system is put under in a turn which does not take place in a
>>>straightaway where gravity loads are stagnant at 1g. Therefore, rider
>>>wattage must also decrease substantially in a turn.
>>
>>>5.) Nowhere on this website does it take into account that the act of
>>>changing your direction of inertia 180-degrees in a few seconds is more
>>>inefficient as a function of conservation of energy vs. maintining a
>>>straight line, which is the path of least resistance. When you ride your
>>>bike with no hands, it wants to continue to go straight, not enter a
>>>turn and take you in a circle. That's because an object left
>>>undisturbed will travel in the path of least resistance, which for a
>>>bicycle is to go in a straight line. If turning were more efficient
>>>(i.e. faster), your bike would immediately enter a turn when you try to
>>>ride no hands. Everyone who rides a bike knows this does not occur.
>>
>>>6.) Although he concedes that aerodynamic forces increase in a turn, he
>>>fails to state that the coefficient of friction also increases in turns.
>>>He also fails to acknowledge that wattage does not stay constant, and in
>>>fact decreases in turns due to increasing g's on your circulatory
>>>system. This makes you go slower, even if there is a latent effect on
>>>speed that is only observed in the straightaway.
>>
>>>7.) This individual did not provide any empirical data that supports the
>>>contention that "speed increases in turns" other than by making that
>>>declaration and then employing some superficial and incomplete math as
>>>to why he THINKS speed increases, which he tries to pass off as an
>>>observed fact. This is not how science works and he did not actually
>>>observe that any rider goes faster in a turn. Anybody who comes to
>>>conclusions like this has no clue of how science works. Science isn't
>>>about guessing at outcomes and then calling your guesses fact just
>>>because you can show some (incomplete) mathematical computations that
>>>support your theory.
>>
>>>Because of these reasons, this website has little scientific veracity.
>>
>>>Thank you,
>>
>>>Magilla
>>
>>I'm just curious, but what is it about this topic that so captivates
>>you? You're the only person to ever bring this concept up AND you're
>>apparently the only person who tries to refute what has been proven
>>both mathematically and empirically.
>>
>>Is this the ultimate troll for you or are you just unwilling to change
>>your mind no matter how much evidence to the contrary of your view is
>>presented?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
>
> The funny thing is, that they don't contradict each other.
> Rider's center of gravity speeds up going into the turn, because of
> it's hight difference in straight and in turn. As the center of
> gravity goes up again going out of the turn, rider will slow down to
> original speed, if the power output is constant.
> Air resistance will increase with speed and G forces will increase the
> tire friction and may have negative physiological effect.
> On the other hand, rider's center of gravity will travels shorter
> distance than meassured distance on the black line. It could be around
> 0.9 meters difference per lap at 50 km/hr. on typical 250 meters
> track.
> Peter Junek


1) The power output is not constant. It's lower in a turn.
2) The coefficient of friction/rolling resistance increases in a turn.
3) Velocity has a vector component in physics equations that is being
constantly changed throughout a turn. This is inefficient and creates a
loss in energy. Energy to change the vector component of velociity is
lost in friction that is otherwiise conserved in a straightaway.
4) Aerodynamic drag is increased in a turn, not because of increased
speed but because the rider's direction of travel through a fluid is not
as efficient in a turn as it is in a straightaway. There is more
surface area on a rider's body hitting airflow in a turn.

If you were to do a test with a rider asked to ride a 10 km time trial
on a straight road vs. a rider doing 10k in a perfect oval velodrome,
the rider going straight would always win. According to you the rider
going in a circle would win. You are wrong.

You could make the same argument for a jet plane in a turn. When it's
wing dips and it's tailfin is facing perpendiclular, it's center of mass
is also lowered and traveling a shorter distance.

Are you saying a plane can also go faster in a turn than when it goes
straight?


Thanks,

Magilla

[Andy Coggan]

On Dec 2, 7:02 pm, btrac...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 2, 6:34 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 2, 2:10 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.analyticcycling.com/genmodel/LeanAnalysis.html
>
> > > "Speeds in the turns are faster because potential energy is converted to
> > > speed as the rider leans. This is offset by increased drag from the
> > > faster speed. The rider looses this speed when potential energy
> > > increases in the straights."
>
> > > ------
>
> > > Reasons why this is incorrect:
>
> > > 1.) The act of leaning up and down in a turn is more inefficient than
> > > the act of never having to lean up or down, as is done in a straightaway.
>
> > > 2.) Although potential energy is converted into kinetic energy in the
> > > initial part of a turn, it must be converted back to potential energy as
> > > the rider exits the turn and raises his body. This act of leaning both
> > > ways must be less efficient than had one never leaned to begin with.
> > > This is the equivalent of walking up and down a flight of stairs and
> > > then concluding that you can run faster over stairs than flat land
> > > because you gain energy going down stairs.
>
> > > The act of leaning up when exiting a turn takes longer and more energy
> > > than leaning down, making the act of leaning up and down a negative when
> > > added together. It's like riding into a headwind and tailwind course
> > > vs. a course with no wind. You will always go faster on the course
> > > without wind because you spend more time into the headwind than you do
> > > with a tailwind.
>
> > > 3.) Nowhere on this website is the issue of increased G-loads and
> > > increased weight mentioned as it relates to increased friction on the
> > > tires. When you are travelling at 30 mph and in a fraction of a second
> > > you increase that person's weight to 1.5 times what it was in the
> > > straightaway, you will cause that mass to decelerate. Jet planes go
> > > fastest at 1g, not 2 g's or 3 g's. Same with cars and bicycles.
>
> > > 4.) Nowhere on this website does it mention the stress that one's
> > > circulatory system is put under in a turn which does not take place in a
> > > straightaway where gravity loads are stagnant at 1g. Therefore, rider
> > > wattage must also decrease substantially in a turn.
>
> > > 5.) Nowhere on this website does it take into account that the act of
> > > changing your direction of inertia 180-degrees in a few seconds is more
> > > inefficient as a function of conservation of energy vs. maintining a
> > > straight line, which is the path of least resistance. When you ride your
> > > bike with no hands, it wants to continue to go straight, not enter a
> > > turn and take you in a circle. That's because an object left
> > > undisturbed will travel in the path of least resistance, which for a
> > > bicycle is to go in a straight line. If turning were more efficient
> > > (i.e. faster), your bike would immediately enter a turn when you try to
> > > ride no hands. Everyone who rides a bike knows this does not occur.
>
> > > 6.) Although he concedes that aerodynamic forces increase in a turn, he
> > > fails to state that the coefficient of friction also increases in turns.
> > > He also fails to acknowledge that wattage does not stay constant, and in
> > > fact decreases in turns due to increasing g's on your circulatory
> > > system. This makes you go slower, even if there is a latent effect on
> > > speed that is only observed in the straightaway.
>
> > > 7.) This individual did not provide any empirical data that supports the
> > > contention that "speed increases in turns" other than by making that
> > > declaration and then employing some superficial and incomplete math as
> > > to why he THINKS speed increases, which he tries to pass off as an
> > > observed fact. This is not how science works and he did not actually
> > > observe that any rider goes faster in a turn. Anybody who comes to
> > > conclusions like this has no clue of how science works. Science isn't
> > > about guessing at outcomes and then calling your guesses fact just
> > > because you can show some (incomplete) mathematical computations that
> > > support your theory.
>
> > > Because of these reasons, this website has little scientific veracity.
>
> > > Thank you,
>
> > > Magilla
>
> > I'm just curious, but what is it about this topic that so captivates
> > you? You're the only person to ever bring this concept up AND you're
> > apparently the only person who tries to refute what has been proven
> > both mathematically and empirically.
>
> > Is this the ultimate troll for you or are you just unwilling to change
> > your mind no matter how much evidence to the contrary of your view is
> > presented?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The funny thing is, that they don't contradict each other.
> Rider's center of gravity speeds up going into the turn, because of
> it's hight difference in straight and in turn. As the center of
> gravity goes up again going out of the turn, rider will slow down to
> original speed, if the power output is constant.
> Air resistance will increase with speed and G forces will increase the
> tire friction and may have negative physiological effect.
> On the other hand, rider's center of gravity will travels shorter
> distance than meassured distance on the black line. It could be around
> 0.9 meters difference per lap at 50 km/hr. on typical 250 meters
> track.
> Peter Junek

Congratulations, Magilla: you just got your muzzle tweaked by arguably
the most respected velodrome builder in history.

Andy Coggan

[MagillaGorilla]

Phil Holman wrote:

> <btrack90@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3f3c7743-b7a8-49f2-9f98-4af4418dae16@t47g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>>On Dec 2, 6:34 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Dec 2, 2:10 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>http://www.analyticcycling.com/genmodel/LeanAnalysis.html
>>>
>>>>"Speeds in the turns are faster because potential energy is
>>>>converted to
>>>>speed as the rider leans. This is offset by increased drag from the
>>>>faster speed. The rider looses this speed when potential energy
>>>>increases in the straights."
>>>
>>>>------
>>>
>>>>Reasons why this is incorrect:
>>>
>>>>1.) The act of leaning up and down in a turn is more inefficient
>>>>than
>>>>the act of never having to lean up or down, as is done in a
>>>>straightaway.
>>>
>>>>2.) Although potential energy is converted into kinetic energy in
>>>>the
>>>>initial part of a turn, it must be converted back to potential
>>>>energy as
>>>>the rider exits the turn and raises his body. This act of leaning
>>>>both
>>>>ways must be less efficient than had one never leaned to begin
>>>>with.
>>>>This is the equivalent of walking up and down a flight of stairs
>>>>and
>>>>then concluding that you can run faster over stairs than flat land
>>>>because you gain energy going down stairs.
>>>
>>>>The act of leaning up when exiting a turn takes longer and more
>>>>energy
>>>>than leaning down, making the act of leaning up and down a negative
>>>>when
>>>>added together. It's like riding into a headwind and tailwind
>>>>course
>>>>vs. a course with no wind. You will always go faster on the course
>>>>without wind because you spend more time into the headwind than you
>>>>do
>>>>with a tailwind.
>>>
>>>>3.) Nowhere on this website is the issue of increased G-loads and
>>>>increased weight mentioned as it relates to increased friction on
>>>>the
>>>>tires. When you are travelling at 30 mph and in a fraction of a
>>>>second
>>>>you increase that person's weight to 1.5 times what it was in the
>>>>straightaway, you will cause that mass to decelerate. Jet planes
>>>>go
>>>>fastest at 1g, not 2 g's or 3 g's. Same with cars and bicycles.
>>>
>>>>4.) Nowhere on this website does it mention the stress that one's
>>>>circulatory system is put under in a turn which does not take place
>>>>in a
>>>>straightaway where gravity loads are stagnant at 1g. Therefore,
>>>>rider
>>>>wattage must also decrease substantially in a turn.
>>>
>>>>5.) Nowhere on this website does it take into account that the act
>>>>of
>>>>changing your direction of inertia 180-degrees in a few seconds is
>>>>more
>>>>inefficient as a function of conservation of energy vs. maintining
>>>>a
>>>>straight line, which is the path of least resistance. When you ride
>>>>your
>>>>bike with no hands, it wants to continue to go straight, not enter
>>>>a
>>>>turn and take you in a circle. That's because an object left
>>>>undisturbed will travel in the path of least resistance, which for
>>>>a
>>>>bicycle is to go in a straight line. If turning were more
>>>>efficient
>>>>(i.e. faster), your bike would immediately enter a turn when you
>>>>try to
>>>>ride no hands. Everyone who rides a bike knows this does not
>>>>occur.
>>>
>>>>6.) Although he concedes that aerodynamic forces increase in a
>>>>turn, he
>>>>fails to state that the coefficient of friction also increases in
>>>>turns.
>>>>He also fails to acknowledge that wattage does not stay constant,
>>>>and in
>>>>fact decreases in turns due to increasing g's on your circulatory
>>>>system. This makes you go slower, even if there is a latent effect
>>>>on
>>>>speed that is only observed in the straightaway.
>>>
>>>>7.) This individual did not provide any empirical data that
>>>>supports the
>>>>contention that "speed increases in turns" other than by making
>>>>that
>>>>declaration and then employing some superficial and incomplete math
>>>>as
>>>>to why he THINKS speed increases, which he tries to pass off as an
>>>>observed fact. This is not how science works and he did not
>>>>actually
>>>>observe that any rider goes faster in a turn. Anybody who comes to
>>>>conclusions like this has no clue of how science works. Science
>>>>isn't
>>>>about guessing at outcomes and then calling your guesses fact just
>>>>because you can show some (incomplete) mathematical computations
>>>>that
>>>>support your theory.
>>>
>>>>Because of these reasons, this website has little scientific
>>>>veracity.
>>>
>>>>Thank you,
>>>
>>>>Magilla
>>>
>>>I'm just curious, but what is it about this topic that so captivates
>>>you? You're the only person to ever bring this concept up AND you're
>>>apparently the only person who tries to refute what has been proven
>>>both mathematically and empirically.
>>>
>>>Is this the ultimate troll for you or are you just unwilling to
>>>change
>>>your mind no matter how much evidence to the contrary of your view is
>>>presented?- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>>- Show quoted text -
>>
>>
>>The funny thing is, that they don't contradict each other.
>>Rider's center of gravity speeds up going into the turn, because of
>>it's hight difference in straight and in turn. As the center of
>>gravity goes up again going out of the turn, rider will slow down to
>>original speed, if the power output is constant.
>>Air resistance will increase with speed and G forces will increase the
>>tire friction and may have negative physiological effect.
>>On the other hand, rider's center of gravity will travels shorter
>>distance than meassured distance on the black line. It could be around
>>0.9 meters difference per lap at 50 km/hr. on typical 250 meters
>>track.
>
>
> Cg is approx. 1m high. Difference in turn radius at a 40 deg lean from
> vertical = 1*sin 40 = .64 m. This results in .64*2*3.142 = 4m per lap
> (if, (big if) your wheels stay on the black line).
>
> While we are at it, difference in potential energy for a 80kg rider and
> bike = (1-cos 40)*80*9.81 = 184J. For the 5.86 seconds in the turn
> (Adelaide), this will be equivalent to a 31.4 watt power increase.
>
> Tire RR will increase by Fd = .004*mv^2/r = .004*80*14^2/26 = 2.4N. At
> 14m/s this is a 34 watt power decrease.
>
> The differences in PE and tire RR are pretty much a wash leaving any
> gains to how close you can hug the line (as much as 4m per lap). At
> 14m/s this will be .29 seconds per lap minus any increase in aero drag
> (good luck with getting an area profile change for that analysis).
>
> As for efficiency, this would be small (noise) and for the affect on
> physiology, there is a delay in response to circulatory change so this
> would be difficult to analyze and would probably affect speed in the
> straightaway also.
>
> Last big factor is for those chicken livers who back off in the turns.
> Can't they go ride a mountain bike or something and leave track riding
> to real cyclists :-)
>
> Phil H
>
>

Your calculations show a rider will go slower around a turn. And when
you factor in physiological loss from higher g's and increased
aerodynamic drag in a turn and you add that to your 2.6 watt power loss
per lap, you are probably looking at a net loss of around 5-10 watts per
lap for nearly 6 seconds per lap. This is substantial.

I think you also need to do one more thing: a calculus equation for the
turn because you are constantly changing the vector component of your
velocity variable. Your calculation above shows only the increased
rolling resistance you would get on a straightaway if gravity (i.e.
rider weight) were somehow increased. In order to complete a 180-degree
turn, you are 'skidding' the tires the entire time in addition to the
increase in rolling resistance you would get from increased g's.

I'm telling you, it's a very complicated equation. But everything
points to more loss in energy aside from the center of mass gain.

This experiiment can be done. Ride a bike with a power meter on a
velodrome and keep the wattage constant. By keeping the wattage
constant, you will see your speed decrease in the turn because of all
these negative effects.

You will also get a loss in speed on the initial part of a straightaway
which is a latent effect of the increased stress on your circulatory
system from the higher g's experienced in a turn. Schumi claims this
physiological negative is huge and obviously gets worse as the event
gets longer. It might not be significant in a flying 200, but in an
hour record it could be the rate limiting factor.


Magilla

[Bob Schwartz]

Phil Holman wrote:
> Last big factor is for those chicken livers who back off in the turns.
> Can't they go ride a mountain bike or something and leave track riding
> to real cyclists :-)

Liver composition isn't as significant as ingrained TT
training. If you ride at a constant speed, you back
off in the turn and punch it as you transition to the
straight. Riding at a constant power and variable speed
will seem unnatural.

Bob Schwartz

[Rex Crater]

If it was up your ass you'd know.



"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:

Are you saying a plane can also go faster in a turn than when it goes
straight?

Thanks,

Magilla

[Andy Coggan]

On Dec 2, 10:05 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:

> 1) The power output is not constant. It's lower in a turn.

Usually, but not always, especially for an experienced rider on a
larger track.

> 2) The coefficient of friction/rolling resistance increases in a turn.

True.

> 3) Velocity has a vector component in physics equations that is being
> constantly changed throughout a turn. This is inefficient and creates a
> loss in energy. Energy to change the vector component of velociity is
> lost in friction that is otherwiise conserved in a straightaway.

True, but the effects of tire scrub on rolling resistance appear to be
minimal, because the Crr as measured on a velodrome is quite similar
to that measured on a comparable surface when traveling in a straight
line. For example, after correcting for the increase in normal force
in the turns, the Crr of ADT (which isn't the smoothest track in the
world) is 0.0028 for a rider using 20 mm Veloflex Record clincher
tires and latex tubes, inflated to 130 psi. This is nearly identical
to what others have obtained when, e.g., testing on a rotating drum,
with the minimal difference probably due to the very small steering
angle.

> 4) Aerodynamic drag is increased in a turn, not because of increased
> speed but because the rider's direction of travel through a fluid is not
> as efficient in a turn as it is in a straightaway. There is more
> surface area on a rider's body hitting airflow in a turn.

On the contrary, an effective crosswind (such as is encountered in the
turn on a track) can actually reduce your CdA.

> If you were to do a test with a rider asked to ride a 10 km time trial
> on a straight road vs. a rider doing 10k in a perfect oval velodrome,
> the rider going straight would always win. According to you the rider
> going in a circle would win. You are wrong.

No, you are wrong, for one very simple reason: even if all other
aspects are held constant, the center of resistance of the rider on
the velodrome wouldn't have traveled the full 10 km.

Andy Coggan

[bdbafh]

On Dec 2, 11:33 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> Phil Holman wrote:
> > <btrac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:3f3c7743-b7a8-49f2-9f98-4af4418dae16@t47g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>On Dec 2, 6:34 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>On Dec 2, 2:10 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>http://www.analyticcycling.com/genmodel/LeanAnalysis.html
>
> >>>>"Speeds in the turns are faster because potential energy is
> >>>>converted to
> >>>>speed as the rider leans. This is offset by increased drag from the
> >>>>faster speed. The rider looses this speed when potential energy
> >>>>increases in the straights."
>
> >>>>------
>
> >>>>Reasons why this is incorrect:
>
> >>>>1.) The act of leaning up and down in a turn is more inefficient
> >>>>than
> >>>>the act of never having to lean up or down, as is done in a
> >>>>straightaway.
>
> >>>>2.) Although potential energy is converted into kinetic energy in
> >>>>the
> >>>>initial part of a turn, it must be converted back to potential
> >>>>energy as
> >>>>the rider exits the turn and raises his body. This act of leaning
> >>>>both
> >>>>ways must be less efficient than had one never leaned to begin
> >>>>with.
> >>>>This is the equivalent of walking up and down a flight of stairs
> >>>>and
> >>>>then concluding that you can run faster over stairs than flat land
> >>>>because you gain energy going down stairs.
>
> >>>>The act of leaning up when exiting a turn takes longer and more
> >>>>energy
> >>>>than leaning down, making the act of leaning up and down a negative
> >>>>when
> >>>>added together. It's like riding into a headwind and tailwind
> >>>>course
> >>>>vs. a course with no wind. You will always go faster on the course
> >>>>without wind because you spend more time into the headwind than you
> >>>>do
> >>>>with a tailwind.
>
> >>>>3.) Nowhere on this website is the issue of increased G-loads and
> >>>>increased weight mentioned as it relates to increased friction on
> >>>>the
> >>>>tires. When you are travelling at 30 mph and in a fraction of a
> >>>>second
> >>>>you increase that person's weight to 1.5 times what it was in the
> >>>>straightaway, you will cause that mass to decelerate. Jet planes
> >>>>go
> >>>>fastest at 1g, not 2 g's or 3 g's. Same with cars and bicycles.
>
> >>>>4.) Nowhere on this website does it mention the stress that one's
> >>>>circulatory system is put under in a turn which does not take place
> >>>>in a
> >>>>straightaway where gravity loads are stagnant at 1g. Therefore,
> >>>>rider
> >>>>wattage must also decrease substantially in a turn.
>
> >>>>5.) Nowhere on this website does it take into account that the act
> >>>>of
> >>>>changing your direction of inertia 180-degrees in a few seconds is
> >>>>more
> >>>>inefficient as a function of conservation of energy vs. maintining
> >>>>a
> >>>>straight line, which is the path of least resistance. When you ride
> >>>>your
> >>>>bike with no hands, it wants to continue to go straight, not enter
> >>>>a
> >>>>turn and take you in a circle. That's because an object left
> >>>>undisturbed will travel in the path of least resistance, which for
> >>>>a
> >>>>bicycle is to go in a straight line. If turning were more
> >>>>efficient
> >>>>(i.e. faster), your bike would immediately enter a turn when you
> >>>>try to
> >>>>ride no hands. Everyone who rides a bike knows this does not
> >>>>occur.
>
> >>>>6.) Although he concedes that aerodynamic forces increase in a
> >>>>turn, he
> >>>>fails to state that the coefficient of friction also increases in
> >>>>turns.
> >>>>He also fails to acknowledge that wattage does not stay constant,
> >>>>and in
> >>>>fact decreases in turns due to increasing g's on your circulatory
> >>>>system. This makes you go slower, even if there is a latent effect
> >>>>on
> >>>>speed that is only observed in the straightaway.
>
> >>>>7.) This individual did not provide any empirical data that
> >>>>supports the
> >>>>contention that "speed increases in turns" other than by making
> >>>>that
> >>>>declaration and then employing some superficial and incomplete math
> >>>>as
> >>>>to why he THINKS speed increases, which he tries to pass off as an
> >>>>observed fact. This is not how science works and he did not
> >>>>actually
> >>>>observe that any rider goes faster in a turn. Anybody who comes to
> >>>>conclusions like this has no clue of how science works. Science
> >>>>isn't
> >>>>about guessing at outcomes and then calling your guesses fact just
> >>>>because you can show some (incomplete) mathematical computations
> >>>>that
> >>>>support your theory.
>
> >>>>Because of these reasons, this website has little scientific
> >>>>veracity.
>
> >>>>Thank you,
>
> >>>>Magilla
>
> >>>I'm just curious, but what is it about this topic that so captivates
> >>>you? You're the only person to ever bring this concept up AND you're
> >>>apparently the only person who tries to refute what has been proven
> >>>both mathematically and empirically.
>
> >>>Is this the ultimate troll for you or are you just unwilling to
> >>>change
> >>>your mind no matter how much evidence to the contrary of your view is
> >>>presented?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>- Show quoted text -
>
> >>The funny thing is, that they don't contradict each other.
> >>Rider's center of gravity speeds up going into the turn, because of
> >>it's hight difference in straight and in turn. As the center of
> >>gravity goes up again going out of the turn, rider will slow down to
> >>original speed, if the power output is constant.
> >>Air resistance will increase with speed and G forces will increase the
> >>tire friction and may have negative physiological effect.
> >>On the other hand, rider's center of gravity will travels shorter
> >>distance than meassured distance on the black line. It could be around
> >>0.9 meters difference per lap at 50 km/hr. on typical 250 meters
> >>track.
>
> > Cg is approx. 1m high. Difference in turn radius at a 40 deg lean from
> > vertical = 1*sin 40 = .64 m. This results in .64*2*3.142 = 4m per lap
> > (if, (big if) your wheels stay on the black line).
>
> > While we are at it, difference in potential energy for a 80kg rider and
> > bike = (1-cos 40)*80*9.81 = 184J. For the 5.86 seconds in the turn
> > (Adelaide), this will be equivalent to a 31.4 watt power increase.
>
> > Tire RR will increase by Fd = .004*mv^2/r = .004*80*14^2/26 = 2.4N. At
> > 14m/s this is a 34 watt power decrease.
>
> > The differences in PE and tire RR are pretty much a wash leaving any
> > gains to how close you can hug the line (as much as 4m per lap). At
> > 14m/s this will be .29 seconds per lap minus any increase in aero drag
> > (good luck with getting an area profile change for that analysis).
>
> > As for efficiency, this would be small (noise) and for the affect on
> > physiology, there is a delay in response to circulatory change so this
> > would be difficult to analyze and would probably affect speed in the
> > straightaway also.
>
> > Last big factor is for those chicken livers who back off in the turns.
> > Can't they go ride a mountain bike or something and leave track riding
> > to real cyclists :-)
>
> > Phil H
>
> Your calculations show a rider will go slower around a turn. And when
> you factor in physiological loss from higher g's and increased
> aerodynamic drag in a turn and you add that to your 2.6 watt power loss
> per lap, you are probably looking at a net loss of around 5-10 watts per
> lap for nearly 6 seconds per lap. This is substantial.
>
> I think you also need to do one more thing: a calculus equation for the
> turn because you are constantly changing the vector component of your
> velocity variable. Your calculation above shows only the increased
> rolling resistance you would get on a straightaway if gravity (i.e.
> rider weight) were somehow increased. In order to complete a 180-degree
> turn, you are 'skidding' the tires the entire time in addition to the
> increase in rolling resistance you would get from increased g's.
>
> I'm telling you, it's a very complicated equation. But everything
> points to more loss in energy aside from the center of mass gain.
>
> This experiiment can be done. Ride a bike with a power meter on a
> velodrome and keep the wattage constant. By keeping the wattage
> constant, you will see your speed decrease in the turn because of all
> these negative effects.
>
> You will also get a loss in speed on the initial part of a straightaway
> which is a latent effect of the increased stress on your circulatory
> system from the higher g's experienced in a turn. Schumi claims this
> physiological negative is huge and obviously gets worse as the event
> gets longer. It might not be significant in a flying 200, but in an
> hour record it could be the rate limiting factor.
>
> Magilla

but if in the experiment that you suggested ... the power is held
constant ...
wouldn't that screen out the "physiological negative"?

just seemed to be a bit inconsistent to me.

-bdbafh

[MagillaGorilla]

bdbafh wrote:

> On Dec 2, 11:33 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>
>>><btrac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:3f3c7743-b7a8-49f2-9f98-4af4418dae16@t47g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>>On Dec 2, 6:34 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>On Dec 2, 2:10 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>http://www.analyticcycling.com/genmodel/LeanAnalysis.html
>>
>>>>>>"Speeds in the turns are faster because potential energy is
>>>>>>converted to
>>>>>>speed as the rider leans. This is offset by increased drag from the
>>>>>>faster speed. The rider looses this speed when potential energy
>>>>>>increases in the straights."
>>
>>>>>>------
>>
>>>>>>Reasons why this is incorrect:
>>
>>>>>>1.) The act of leaning up and down in a turn is more inefficient
>>>>>>than
>>>>>>the act of never having to lean up or down, as is done in a
>>>>>>straightaway.
>>
>>>>>>2.) Although potential energy is converted into kinetic energy in
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>initial part of a turn, it must be converted back to potential
>>>>>>energy as
>>>>>>the rider exits the turn and raises his body. This act of leaning
>>>>>>both
>>>>>>ways must be less efficient than had one never leaned to begin
>>>>>>with.
>>>>>>This is the equivalent of walking up and down a flight of stairs
>>>>>>and
>>>>>>then concluding that you can run faster over stairs than flat land
>>>>>>because you gain energy going down stairs.
>>
>>>>>>The act of leaning up when exiting a turn takes longer and more
>>>>>>energy
>>>>>>than leaning down, making the act of leaning up and down a negative
>>>>>>when
>>>>>>added together. It's like riding into a headwind and tailwind
>>>>>>course
>>>>>>vs. a course with no wind. You will always go faster on the course
>>>>>>without wind because you spend more time into the headwind than you
>>>>>>do
>>>>>>with a tailwind.
>>
>>>>>>3.) Nowhere on this website is the issue of increased G-loads and
>>>>>>increased weight mentioned as it relates to increased friction on
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>tires. When you are travelling at 30 mph and in a fraction of a
>>>>>>second
>>>>>>you increase that person's weight to 1.5 times what it was in the
>>>>>>straightaway, you will cause that mass to decelerate. Jet planes
>>>>>>go
>>>>>>fastest at 1g, not 2 g's or 3 g's. Same with cars and bicycles.
>>
>>>>>>4.) Nowhere on this website does it mention the stress that one's
>>>>>>circulatory system is put under in a turn which does not take place
>>>>>>in a
>>>>>>straightaway where gravity loads are stagnant at 1g. Therefore,
>>>>>>rider
>>>>>>wattage must also decrease substantially in a turn.
>>
>>>>>>5.) Nowhere on this website does it take into account that the act
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>changing your direction of inertia 180-degrees in a few seconds is
>>>>>>more
>>>>>>inefficient as a function of conservation of energy vs. maintining
>>>>>>a
>>>>>>straight line, which is the path of least resistance. When you ride
>>>>>>your
>>>>>>bike with no hands, it wants to continue to go straight, not enter
>>>>>>a
>>>>>>turn and take you in a circle. That's because an object left
>>>>>>undisturbed will travel in the path of least resistance, which for
>>>>>>a
>>>>>>bicycle is to go in a straight line. If turning were more
>>>>>>efficient
>>>>>>(i.e. faster), your bike would immediately enter a turn when you
>>>>>>try to
>>>>>>ride no hands. Everyone who rides a bike knows this does not
>>>>>>occur.
>>
>>>>>>6.) Although he concedes that aerodynamic forces increase in a
>>>>>>turn, he
>>>>>>fails to state that the coefficient of friction also increases in
>>>>>>turns.
>>>>>>He also fails to acknowledge that wattage does not stay constant,
>>>>>>and in
>>>>>>fact decreases in turns due to increasing g's on your circulatory
>>>>>>system. This makes you go slower, even if there is a latent effect
>>>>>>on
>>>>>>speed that is only observed in the straightaway.
>>
>>>>>>7.) This individual did not provide any empirical data that
>>>>>>supports the
>>>>>>contention that "speed increases in turns" other than by making
>>>>>>that
>>>>>>declaration and then employing some superficial and incomplete math
>>>>>>as
>>>>>>to why he THINKS speed increases, which he tries to pass off as an
>>>>>>observed fact. This is not how science works and he did not
>>>>>>actually
>>>>>>observe that any rider goes faster in a turn. Anybody who comes to
>>>>>>conclusions like this has no clue of how science works. Science
>>>>>>isn't
>>>>>>about guessing at outcomes and then calling your guesses fact just
>>>>>>because you can show some (incomplete) mathematical computations
>>>>>>that
>>>>>>support your theory.
>>
>>>>>>Because of these reasons, this website has little scientific
>>>>>>veracity.
>>
>>>>>>Thank you,
>>
>>>>>>Magilla
>>
>>>>>I'm just curious, but what is it about this topic that so captivates
>>>>>you? You're the only person to ever bring this concept up AND you're
>>>>>apparently the only person who tries to refute what has been proven
>>>>>both mathematically and empirically.
>>
>>>>>Is this the ultimate troll for you or are you just unwilling to
>>>>>change
>>>>>your mind no matter how much evidence to the contrary of your view is
>>>>>presented?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>>- Show quoted text -
>>
>>>>The funny thing is, that they don't contradict each other.
>>>>Rider's center of gravity speeds up going into the turn, because of
>>>>it's hight difference in straight and in turn. As the center of
>>>>gravity goes up again going out of the turn, rider will slow down to
>>>>original speed, if the power output is constant.
>>>>Air resistance will increase with speed and G forces will increase the
>>>>tire friction and may have negative physiological effect.
>>>>On the other hand, rider's center of gravity will travels shorter
>>>>distance than meassured distance on the black line. It could be around
>>>>0.9 meters difference per lap at 50 km/hr. on typical 250 meters
>>>>track.
>>
>>>Cg is approx. 1m high. Difference in turn radius at a 40 deg lean from
>>>vertical = 1*sin 40 = .64 m. This results in .64*2*3.142 = 4m per lap
>>>(if, (big if) your wheels stay on the black line).
>>
>>>While we are at it, difference in potential energy for a 80kg rider and
>>>bike = (1-cos 40)*80*9.81 = 184J. For the 5.86 seconds in the turn
>>>(Adelaide), this will be equivalent to a 31.4 watt power increase.
>>
>>>Tire RR will increase by Fd = .004*mv^2/r = .004*80*14^2/26 = 2.4N. At
>>>14m/s this is a 34 watt power decrease.
>>
>>>The differences in PE and tire RR are pretty much a wash leaving any
>>>gains to how close you can hug the line (as much as 4m per lap). At
>>>14m/s this will be .29 seconds per lap minus any increase in aero drag
>>>(good luck with getting an area profile change for that analysis).
>>
>>>As for efficiency, this would be small (noise) and for the affect on
>>>physiology, there is a delay in response to circulatory change so this
>>>would be difficult to analyze and would probably affect speed in the
>>>straightaway also.
>>
>>>Last big factor is for those chicken livers who back off in the turns.
>>>Can't they go ride a mountain bike or something and leave track riding
>>>to real cyclists :-)
>>
>>>Phil H
>>
>>Your calculations show a rider will go slower around a turn. And when
>>you factor in physiological loss from higher g's and increased
>>aerodynamic drag in a turn and you add that to your 2.6 watt power loss
>>per lap, you are probably looking at a net loss of around 5-10 watts per
>>lap for nearly 6 seconds per lap. This is substantial.
>>
>>I think you also need to do one more thing: a calculus equation for the
>>turn because you are constantly changing the vector component of your
>>velocity variable. Your calculation above shows only the increased
>>rolling resistance you would get on a straightaway if gravity (i.e.
>>rider weight) were somehow increased. In order to complete a 180-degree
>>turn, you are 'skidding' the tires the entire time in addition to the
>>increase in rolling resistance you would get from increased g's.
>>
>>I'm telling you, it's a very complicated equation. But everything
>>points to more loss in energy aside from the center of mass gain.
>>
>>This experiiment can be done. Ride a bike with a power meter on a
>>velodrome and keep the wattage constant. By keeping the wattage
>>constant, you will see your speed decrease in the turn because of all
>>these negative effects.
>>
>>You will also get a loss in speed on the initial part of a straightaway
>>which is a latent effect of the increased stress on your circulatory
>>system from the higher g's experienced in a turn. Schumi claims this
>>physiological negative is huge and obviously gets worse as the event
>>gets longer. It might not be significant in a flying 200, but in an
>>hour record it could be the rate limiting factor.
>>
>>Magilla
>
>
> but if in the experiment that you suggested ... the power is held
> constant ...
> wouldn't that screen out the "physiological negative"?
>
> just seemed to be a bit inconsistent to me.
>
> -bdbafh


Correct. Good question. You would have to test for the physiological
negatives in a separate, maximum effort trial. All you have to do is
connect a power meter to a world class pursuiter - somebody like a Sarah
Hammer - and see what happens to her power in a 3km race. You would see
oscillations in power that correlate perfectly to the # of turns (+ the
latency time delay).

Since we know power wouldn't oscillate in phases in a 3km time trial
that takes place on a straight, flat course, you can then reasonably
deduce that any phase oscillations of power loss you see in a 3k
velodrome event must be due to the turns and some kind of negative
effect on one's physiology. It is important that this experiment be
done by a professional track rider because any other cyclist would
likely introduce noise into the test (i.e. by inadvertantly easing up in
the turn).

Another factor I haven't mentioned that would also cause a loss of power
is vertigo due to going around in circles. Going around in circles
cannot possibly be good for power. It must therefore also be considered
a negative physiological effect that is additive to the circulatory
negative.

If you were to do experiments where you took trained cyclists and have
them ride a 10km flat time trial at maximal effort, but that in one test
they ride the 10km time trial immediately after just getting off a
spinning merry-go-round, the post merry-go-round time trial would likely
always show a substantial loss of power compared to the non-vertigo time
trial. You would likely see negative effects even if the merry-go-round
was moving slowly.

So you can add vertigo to the negative column.

Professional figure skaters can testify to the vertigo effect...if you
notice they do successvie spins in opposite directions to help cancel
out the negative effect of vertigo which is caused by inner ear fluid
rotating in the same direction of the spin. Spinning in the opposite
direction helps dampen - or cancel out - the inertial motion of that
inner ear fluid.

I would suspect vertigo to not be a significant factor in a flying 200
vs. an hour record.



Magilla

[MagillaGorilla]

Okay Rectum Crater. You just made the after-school fight card at the
cafe in Saulsalito.

You and Pappy better make sure you have a goood cut man.

See you there at 3:00 p.m. on Friday.

Magilla




Rex Crater wrote:

> If it was up your ass you'd know.
>
>
>
> "MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
> Are you saying a plane can also go faster in a turn than when it goes
> straight?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Magilla
>
>

[Scott]

On Dec 3, 7:30 am, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> > I'm just curious, but what is it about this topic that so captivates
> > you? You're the only person to ever bring this concept up AND you're
> > apparently the only person who tries to refute what has been proven
> > both mathematically and empirically.
>
> > Is this the ultimate troll for you or are you just unwilling to change
> > your mind no matter how much evidence to the contrary of your view is
> > presented?
>
> Magilla has a trolling style that depends on volume. He
> needs to constantly pick at the troll in order to keep
> it bleeding. One technique he uses is to doggedly defend
> indefensible positions.
>
> I'd just let it go.
>
> Bob Schwartz

I was just trolling the troll, to see how he'd respond. Sort of like
picking a scab.

[MagillaGorilla]

Bob Schwartz wrote:

> Scott wrote:
>
>> I'm just curious, but what is it about this topic that so captivates
>> you? You're the only person to ever bring this concept up AND you're
>> apparently the only person who tries to refute what has been proven
>> both mathematically and empirically.
>>
>> Is this the ultimate troll for you or are you just unwilling to change
>> your mind no matter how much evidence to the contrary of your view is
>> presented?
>
>
> Magilla has a trolling style that depends on volume. He
> needs to constantly pick at the troll in order to keep
> it bleeding. One technique he uses is to doggedly defend
> indefensible positions.
>
> I'd just let it go.
>
> Bob Schwartz


Yeah, good advice, Bobby. Bobby Brady.


Magilla

[Andy Coggan]

On Dec 3, 8:30 am, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
wrote:

> I'd just let it go.

I would, too, but it's so much fun to see him repeatedly make a fool
of himself.

Andy Coggan

[btrack90@hotmail.com]

On Dec 3, 10:49 am, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 7:30 am, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Scott wrote:
> > > I'm just curious, but what is it about this topic that so captivates
> > > you? You're the only person to ever bring this concept up AND you're
> > > apparently the only person who tries to refute what has been proven
> > > both mathematically and empirically.
>
> > > Is this the ultimate troll for you or are you just unwilling to change
> > > your mind no matter how much evidence to the contrary of your view is
> > > presented?
>
> > Magilla has a trolling style that depends on volume. He
> > needs to constantly pick at the troll in order to keep
> > it bleeding. One technique he uses is to doggedly defend
> > indefensible positions.
>
> > I'd just let it go.
>
> > Bob Schwartz
>
> I was just trolling the troll, to see how he'd respond. Sort of like
> picking a scab.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



OK Magilla, build your velodrome in straight line, if you think it is
a better idea.
I'll keep building them oval and let the market decide.
P.J.

[MagillaGorilla]

Scott wrote:

> On Dec 3, 7:30 am, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Scott wrote:
>>
>>>I'm just curious, but what is it about this topic that so captivates
>>>you? You're the only person to ever bring this concept up AND you're
>>>apparently the only person who tries to refute what has been proven
>>>both mathematically and empirically.
>>
>>>Is this the ultimate troll for you or are you just unwilling to change
>>>your mind no matter how much evidence to the contrary of your view is
>>>presented?
>>
>>Magilla has a trolling style that depends on volume. He
>>needs to constantly pick at the troll in order to keep
>>it bleeding. One technique he uses is to doggedly defend
>>indefensible positions.
>>
>>I'd just let it go.
>>
>>Bob Schwartz
>
>
> I was just trolling the troll, to see how he'd respond. Sort of like
> picking a scab.


I'll see you at the cafe in Saulsalito too - 3:00 p.m. this Friday.

Be there.

Magilla

[MagillaGorilla]

btrack90@hotmail.com wrote:

> On Dec 3, 10:49 am, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 3, 7:30 am, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Scott wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'm just curious, but what is it about this topic that so captivates
>>>>you? You're the only person to ever bring this concept up AND you're
>>>>apparently the only person who tries to refute what has been proven
>>>>both mathematically and empirically.
>>
>>>>Is this the ultimate troll for you or are you just unwilling to change
>>>>your mind no matter how much evidence to the contrary of your view is
>>>>presented?
>>
>>>Magilla has a trolling style that depends on volume. He
>>>needs to constantly pick at the troll in order to keep
>>>it bleeding. One technique he uses is to doggedly defend
>>>indefensible positions.
>>
>>>I'd just let it go.
>>
>>>Bob Schwartz
>>
>>I was just trolling the troll, to see how he'd respond. Sort of like
>>picking a scab.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
>
>
> OK Magilla, build your velodrome in straight line, if you think it is
> a better idea.
> I'll keep building them oval and let the market decide.
> P.J.


If you are in fact a hamster wheel builder, you should take home from
this debate that you should build the largest velodrome oval you can get
away with under the rules if you want your track to set records.

So drop your cute attitude before I wipe the taste out of your mouth.

Magilla

[btrack90@hotmail.com]

On Dec 3, 3:43 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> btrac...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 10:49 am, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Dec 3, 7:30 am, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
> >>wrote:
>
> >>>Scott wrote:
>
> >>>>I'm just curious, but what is it about this topic that so captivates
> >>>>you? You're the only person to ever bring this concept up AND you're
> >>>>apparently the only person who tries to refute what has been proven
> >>>>both mathematically and empirically.
>
> >>>>Is this the ultimate troll for you or are you just unwilling to change
> >>>>your mind no matter how much evidence to the contrary of your view is
> >>>>presented?
>
> >>>Magilla has a trolling style that depends on volume. He
> >>>needs to constantly pick at the troll in order to keep
> >>>it bleeding. One technique he uses is to doggedly defend
> >>>indefensible positions.
>
> >>>I'd just let it go.
>
> >>>Bob Schwartz
>
> >>I was just trolling the troll, to see how he'd respond. Sort of like
> >>picking a scab.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>- Show quoted text -
>
> > OK Magilla, build your velodrome in straight line, if you think it is
> > a better idea.
> > I'll keep building them oval and let the market decide.
> > P.J.
>
> If you are in fact a hamster wheel builder, you should take home from
> this debate that you should build the largest velodrome oval you can get
> away with under the rules if you want your track to set records.
>
> So drop your cute attitude before I wipe the taste out of your mouth.
>
> Magilla- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



I have built a few velodromes, see: www.junek-velodromes.com
First two with my own money to provide a facility for St. Catharines
C.C.(Ont.,Canada), where Gord Singleton, Steve Bauer and many other
good ones came from. I know a bit about the mechanics of velodrome
riding and I am also racing on them for last 50 years. We are talking
here about fairly insignificant technical details, conditions are the
same for everybody racing on each particular velodrome, or piece of
road, what is the problem?
The only significant difference between straight road and oval
velodrome is factor of leaning for timed distance records.
For 1 hour record, for instance, rider's center of gravity would
travel 177.2 meters shorter distance on 250 meters velodrome, because
of leaning. Shorter the track, more lean and shorter the distance
which will rider's center of gravity travel. Somewhere around 200
meters track, physiological effect of increased G forces may start to
be negative. Trust me on this, I know how it feels, have raced on
velodromes from 120m to 500 meters, including pro six day races.
Your theory about longer the track the better is not correct, in this
respect.
Peter Junek

[MagillaGorilla]

btrack90@hotmail.com wrote:

> On Dec 3, 3:43 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
>>btrac...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Dec 3, 10:49 am, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>On Dec 3, 7:30 am, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>Scott wrote:
>>
>>>>>>I'm just curious, but what is it about this topic that so captivates
>>>>>>you? You're the only person to ever bring this concept up AND you're
>>>>>>apparently the only person who tries to refute what has been proven
>>>>>>both mathematically and empirically.
>>
>>>>>>Is this the ultimate troll for you or are you just unwilling to change
>>>>>>your mind no matter how much evidence to the contrary of your view is
>>>>>>presented?
>>
>>>>>Magilla has a trolling style that depends on volume. He
>>>>>needs to constantly pick at the troll in order to keep
>>>>>it bleeding. One technique he uses is to doggedly defend
>>>>>indefensible positions.
>>
>>>>>I'd just let it go.
>>
>>>>>Bob Schwartz
>>
>>>>I was just trolling the troll, to see how he'd respond. Sort of like
>>>>picking a scab.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>- Show quoted text -
>>
>>>OK Magilla, build your velodrome in straight line, if you think it is
>>>a better idea.
>>>I'll keep building them oval and let the market decide.
>>>P.J.
>>
>>If you are in fact a hamster wheel builder, you should take home from
>>this debate that you should build the largest velodrome oval you can get
>>away with under the rules if you want your track to set records.
>>
>>So drop your cute attitude before I wipe the taste out of your mouth.
>>
>>Magilla- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
>
>
> I have built a few velodromes, see: www.junek-velodromes.com
> First two with my own money to provide a facility for St. Catharines
> C.C.(Ont.,Canada), where Gord Singleton, Steve Bauer and many other
> good ones came from. I know a bit about the mechanics of velodrome
> riding and I am also racing on them for last 50 years. We are talking
> here about fairly insignificant technical details, conditions are the
> same for everybody racing on each particular velodrome, or piece of
> road, what is the problem?
> The only significant difference between straight road and oval
> velodrome is factor of leaning for timed distance records.
> For 1 hour record, for instance, rider's center of gravity would
> travel 177.2 meters shorter distance on 250 meters velodrome, because
> of leaning. Shorter the track, more lean and shorter the distance
> which will rider's center of gravity travel. Somewhere around 200
> meters track, physiological effect of increased G forces may start to
> be negative. Trust me on this, I know how it feels, have raced on
> velodromes from 120m to 500 meters, including pro six day races.
> Your theory about longer the track the better is not correct, in this
> respect.
> Peter Junek




Sure, your center of mass travels less distance, but keeping your center
of mass at a constant velocity does not take up as much energy on a flat
road as might think. You are exaggerating it's meaning. Reducing the
distance of your center of mass might matter more if you are constantly
accelerating (say in a standing start sprint of less than 500 meters).

Also, a human being is incapable of "feeling" the negative vs. positive
effects and coming up with an accurate total as to whether turns are
overall a positive or negative influence. You seem to be implying you
have some kind of built-in supercomputer in your body than can
accuratley determine this answer. You cannot. It needs to be done
experimentally.

Michele Ferarri claims a shorter velodrome hurts in an hour record
because of increased g-forces. Ferarri thinks g-forces on a velodrome
with respect to having a negative effect on physiology are real
important, but it's not clear how important. So it's not just 'my' theory.

Since you have easy access to aelodrome, then be our guinea pig and do
some experiments:

1) Ride a bike at constant wattage around a velodrome and then post the
results as a function against speed. I seriously doubt you will see a
speed increase in turns and any decrease in speed you see on
straightaways would have to be attributed largely to the negative
latency physiological effects caused by the turn.

2) Also do this easy experiment when you get the chance:

Remove a wheel and hold it perpendicular to the ground (the same as if
it were mounted on your bike). Spin it as fast as you can and then
suddenly bank the wheel at a 40-degree angle. That tremndous resistance
you feel is a negative effect that increases with the speed of your
wheel and only exists in a turn and serves to bleed energy along with
friction, increased rolling resistance, and negative physiological
effects (both circulatory and vertigo).

Your bike not only 'wants' to go straight (the path of least resistance)
but also wants to stay upright. A turn is a fight (read requires
energy input) against both the inertia of directional velocity and bank
angle, and sets in motion a cascade of negative equations that do not
occur when riding straight. You're probably looking at 10 equations
that occur in a turn - most of them calculus. And all but one are negative.

I'm afraid when you crunch all the negatives, turns are gonna be bad
news. Simply cherry picking the one center-of-mass advantage without
accurately calculating the assortment of negatives created by those same
turns does not impress me as a credible substitute for the actual
dimensional analysis calculation that needs to be done to answer this
question definitively.


Magilla

[cyclintom@gmail.com]

On Dec 3, 11:09 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> btrac...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> 2) Also do this easy experiment when you get the chance:
>
> Remove a wheel and hold it perpendicular to the ground (the same as if
> it were mounted on your bike). Spin it as fast as you can and then
> suddenly bank the wheel at a 40-degree angle. That tremndous resistance
> you feel is a negative effect that increases with the speed of your
> wheel and only exists in a turn and serves to bleed energy along with
> friction, increased rolling resistance, and negative physiological
> effects (both circulatory and vertigo).

I do find it interesting that you don't understand gyroscopic
precession and how it applies to a wheel.

[Michael Press]

In article <fj2uen$hde$1@aioe.org>,
MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:

> Remove a wheel and hold it perpendicular to the ground (the same as if
> it were mounted on your bike). Spin it as fast as you can and then
> suddenly bank the wheel at a 40-degree angle. That tremndous resistance
> you feel is a negative effect that increases with the speed of your
> wheel and only exists in a turn and serves to bleed energy along with
> friction, increased rolling resistance, and negative physiological
> effects (both circulatory and vertigo).

Once again, force perpendicular to the velocity does no work.
Study dynamics. Do not lecture those who know.

What you write is cargo cult physics. You know nothing.
You string words and phrases dropped by those who know
into bright plausible spangly icons of the original.
You know nothing. Those who give you the benefit of
the doubt can interpret some of your constructions as
being sort of true in a good light with a following wind.
The big giveaway is that you cannot discriminate what
is true in the replies you get.

--
Michael Press

[MagillaGorilla]

cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:

> On Dec 3, 11:09 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
>>btrac...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>2) Also do this easy experiment when you get the chance:
>>
>>Remove a wheel and hold it perpendicular to the ground (the same as if
>>it were mounted on your bike). Spin it as fast as you can and then
>>suddenly bank the wheel at a 40-degree angle. That tremndous resistance
>>you feel is a negative effect that increases with the speed of your
>>wheel and only exists in a turn and serves to bleed energy along with
>>friction, increased rolling resistance, and negative physiological
>>effects (both circulatory and vertigo).
>
>
> I do find it interesting that you don't understand gyroscopic
> precession and how it applies to a wheel.

-----

I see no measurable influence of this phenonmenon related to a bicycle
wheel in a velodrome turn. I like how you just throw the term out there
and expect people to make the link when it's obvious you can't even
articulate one yourself.

Magilla

[Tom Kunich]

"Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:rubrum-E6B402.16083804122007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net ...
>
> What you write is cargo cult physics.

Wow, Michael, there's probably 4 people here who understand that.

[btrack90@hotmail.com]

On Dec 4, 7:08 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article <fj2uen$hd...@aioe.org>,
>
> MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> > Remove a wheel and hold it perpendicular to the ground (the same as if
> > it were mounted on your bike). Spin it as fast as you can and then
> > suddenly bank the wheel at a 40-degree angle. That tremndous resistance
> > you feel is a negative effect that increases with the speed of your
> > wheel and only exists in a turn and serves to bleed energy along with
> > friction, increased rolling resistance, and negative physiological
> > effects (both circulatory and vertigo).
>
> Once again, force perpendicular to the velocity does no work.
> Study dynamics. Do not lecture those who know.
>
> What you write is cargo cult physics. You know nothing.
> You string words and phrases dropped by those who know
> into bright plausible spangly icons of the original.
> You know nothing. Those who give you the benefit of
> the doubt can interpret some of your constructions as
> being sort of true in a good light with a following wind.
> The big giveaway is that you cannot discriminate what
> is true in the replies you get.
>
> --
> Michael Press

Thanks Mike, I could not have answered like this myself. Closest I was
to Oxford was driving by, once.
In my last reply to Magilla, which did not show up here, I was trying
to explain the acceleration when entering turn comparing it to
piruette balet dancers or figure skaters can perform by pulling arms
in. Corellis (?) effect, I think it was called.
It is practically negligible riding on velodrome, riders are more
likely to feel slightly higher pedaling rpms, but only on small
tracks. I don't want to get into explaining that, now.
Peter Junek

[MagillaGorilla]

Michael Press wrote:

> In article <fj2uen$hde$1@aioe.org>,
> MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Remove a wheel and hold it perpendicular to the ground (the same as if
>>it were mounted on your bike). Spin it as fast as you can and then
>>suddenly bank the wheel at a 40-degree angle. That tremndous resistance
>>you feel is a negative effect that increases with the speed of your
>>wheel and only exists in a turn and serves to bleed energy along with
>>friction, increased rolling resistance, and negative physiological
>>effects (both circulatory and vertigo).
>
>
> Once again, force perpendicular to the velocity does no work.
> Study dynamics. Do not lecture those who know.
>
> What you write is cargo cult physics. You know nothing.
> You string words and phrases dropped by those who know
> into bright plausible spangly icons of the original.
> You know nothing. Those who give you the benefit of
> the doubt can interpret some of your constructions as
> being sort of true in a good light with a following wind.
> The big giveaway is that you cannot discriminate what
> is true in the replies you get.
>

-------
In a turn those forces are no longer perpendicular. They are
pependicular in a straightaway though.

Magilla

[Donald Munro]

Michael Press wrote:
>> What you write is cargo cult physics.

Tom Kunich wrote:
> Wow, Michael, there's probably 4 people here who understand that.

http://www.physics.brocku.ca/etc/cargo_cult_science.php

But of course you're one of those who wouldn't get it even if
you did read the whole thing since all your "science" is
based on right wing idealogy.

[amit.ghosh@gmail.com]

On Dec 5, 3:17 am, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
> >> What you write is cargo cult physics.
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > Wow, Michael, there's probably 4 people here who understand that.
>
> http://www.physics.brocku.ca/etc/cargo_cult_science.php
>
> But of course you're one of those who wouldn't get it even if
> you did read the whole thing since all your "science" is
> based on right wing idealogy.

dumbass,

according to koach kunich science was invented in the 1850s, roughly
120 years after the death of issac newton.

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Dec 5, 1:28 am, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Dec 5, 3:17 am, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Michael Press wrote:
> > >> What you write is cargo cult physics.
> > Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > Wow, Michael, there's probably 4 people here who understand that.
>
> >http://www.physics.brocku.ca/etc/cargo_cult_science.php
>
> > But of course you're one of those who wouldn't get it even if
> > you did read the whole thing since all your "science" is
> > based on right wing idealogy.
>
> dumbass,
>
> according to koach kunich science was invented in the 1850s, roughly
> 120 years after the death of issac newton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes

[Michael Press]

In article
<9eaa89b3-f88d-4648-949b-bbf9dc401db4@b40g2000prf.googl
egroups.com>,
btrack90@hotmail.com wrote:

> On Dec 4, 7:08 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > In article <fj2uen$hd...@aioe.org>,
> >
> > MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> > > Remove a wheel and hold it perpendicular to the ground (the same as if
> > > it were mounted on your bike). Spin it as fast as you can and then
> > > suddenly bank the wheel at a 40-degree angle. That tremndous resistance
> > > you feel is a negative effect that increases with the speed of your
> > > wheel and only exists in a turn and serves to bleed energy along with
> > > friction, increased rolling resistance, and negative physiological
> > > effects (both circulatory and vertigo).
> >
> > Once again, force perpendicular to the velocity does no work.
> > Study dynamics. Do not lecture those who know.
> >
> > What you write is cargo cult physics. You know nothing.
> > You string words and phrases dropped by those who know
> > into bright plausible spangly icons of the original.
> > You know nothing. Those who give you the benefit of
> > the doubt can interpret some of your constructions as
> > being sort of true in a good light with a following wind.
> > The big giveaway is that you cannot discriminate what
> > is true in the replies you get.
>
> Thanks Mike, I could not have answered like this myself. Closest I was
> to Oxford was driving by, once.
> In my last reply to Magilla, which did not show up here, I was trying
> to explain the acceleration when entering turn comparing it to
> piruette balet dancers or figure skaters can perform by pulling arms
> in. Corellis (?) effect, I think it was called.
> It is practically negligible riding on velodrome, riders are more
> likely to feel slightly higher pedaling rpms, but only on small
> tracks. I don't want to get into explaining that, now.

I read with interest your article on the varieties
of velodromes. The increase pedal speed tells me
that the geometric-kinematic effect is manifest:
the effect of the difference in path lengths between
the center of mass and the contact patch.

--
Michael Press

[MagillaGorilla]

btrack90@hotmail.com wrote:

> On Dec 4, 7:08 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>In article <fj2uen$hd...@aioe.org>,
>>
>> MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Remove a wheel and hold it perpendicular to the ground (the same as if
>>>it were mounted on your bike). Spin it as fast as you can and then
>>>suddenly bank the wheel at a 40-degree angle. That tremndous resistance
>>>you feel is a negative effect that increases with the speed of your
>>>wheel and only exists in a turn and serves to bleed energy along with
>>>friction, increased rolling resistance, and negative physiological
>>>effects (both circulatory and vertigo).
>>
>>Once ag