Re: [CR]Re: Reducing the "Polar Moment of Inertia"

(Example: Events:Cirque du Cyclisme:2007)

From: "dave bohm" <davebohm@home.com>
To: "John Joseph Taglia" <jtagli1@uic.edu>, "Jerry & Liz Moos" <moos@penn.com>
Cc: <RMAugust@aol.com>, <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
References: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10104221711440.26217-100000@icarus.cc.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: [CR]Re: Reducing the "Polar Moment of Inertia"
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 16:30:52 -0700


You may like this website:

http://www.analyticcycling.com/

It has lots of calculators for just this kind of thing and many others.

Dave Bohm Bohemian

----- Original Message ----- From: John Joseph Taglia To: Jerry & Liz Moos Cc: RMAugust@aol.com ; classicrendezvous@bikelist.org Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 3:19 PM Subject: Re: [CR]Re: Reducing the "Polar Moment of Inertia"

This is interesting, but fails to take into account the only acceleration that is material: the acceleration of bike and rider. Unitl I see an equation, I will continue to believe that weigh of bike is pretty much immmaterial, and that wheel matters no more than any other.

I guess I don't think it is too much to ask for proof via an equation. (And the skater analoqy is flawed as speed stays constant--larger radiusx slower rpm=smaller radius x higher rpm. So no net change in enery or speed.)

On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Jerry & Liz Moos wrote:

> Thanks, Randy, guess I won't have to find my Engineering Dynamics book after > all. To elaborate, the inertia is a product of the weight (actually the mass) > and the distance from the axis of rotation, and inertia determines the ease with > which the wheel can accelerate or decelerate (brake). Since the hub is very > close to the axis of rotation, its weight is almost irrelevant. Since the rims > and tires are at the greatest distance from the axis, a small decrease in their > mass leads to a large decrease in inertia, so their weight is all-important. > Also, since the weight of the bike and rider acts thru the axle, it isn't > important in acceleration either. Total weight does play a small role in riding > at a steady pace, as it does affect rolling friction of the tires somewhat. It > matters a lot in climbing, since neglecting friction and wind resistance, the > energy required to lift the bike and rider to the top of the climb is the product > of the total weight and the vertical distance climbed. This is why track > sprinters, or road sprinters for that matter, are usually heavily muscled types, > since they have more power output, and their weight is no handicap, as the weight > of the rims and tires and the power applied mostly determines acceleration. In > climbing, however, it is the ratio of power to weight that matters, so a 130 lb > rider only has to have 2/3 of the power output of a 200 lb rider to make it to > the summit first. Never thought polar moment could explain why Cipollini > thrashes Pantani in the sprint, but Pantani destroys him on the l'Alpe d'Huez did > you? > > Regards, > > Jerry Moos > > RMAugust@aol.com wrote: > > > << Why doesn't someone offer some proof that weight matters all that much to > > begin with and that rim and tire weight matters more. All I see are > > unsubstantiated claims. I say until some one can prove different rotating > > weight doesn't matter more, and that weight in general doesn't matter all > > that much. > > >> > > Given two wheels of equal weight, one with a greater proportion of its weight > > in its rim and tire will have a greater polar moment of inertia which > > therefore will accelerate at a slower rate of speed. A good example of this > > is an ice skater rotating with arms extended (high polar moment) and then > > moving the arms in very close to the body (lower polar moment). The result is > > that the speed of rotation increases dramatically. > > > > Wind resistance plays a small role in this but mainly it's the reduction of > > the polar moment. In the case of wheels, reducing the polar moment makes a > > bike feel more fleet and in competition can give one an actual speed > > advantage off the line. That's the proof of why reducing rim and tire weight > > matters more than reducing weight in general. > > > > As to reducing weight in general, I think it's generally known that, given no > > other variables, a lighter bike will be more efficient to move owing to fact > > that less calories are required to fuel it. > > > > Randy > > Corral De Tierra, Ca. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Classicrendezvous mailing list > > Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org > > http://www.bikelist.org/mailman/listinfo/classicrendezvous > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Classicrendezvous mailing list > Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org > http://www.bikelist.org/mailman/listinfo/classicrendezvous >

_______________________________________________
    Classicrendezvous mailing list
    Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
    http://www.bikelist.org/mailman/listinfo/classicrendezvous