4 ms·
> Also you reclaim the energy on the downhill. Not really. Bikes don't have a battery to store reclaimed energy, if that would even be a thing. Maybe you go a
by roelschroeven 4y ago
> Also you reclaim the energy on the downhill.
Not really. Bikes don't have a battery to store reclaimed energy, if that would even be a thing. Maybe you go a bit faster on the downhill; I wouldn't call that reclaiming energy.
> Mass doesn't matter as much as people used to think.
On a flat road at a constant speed, mass doesn't matter (except for the slightly increased rolling resistance). With speed changes (in situations with sharp corners for example, or if you want to accelerate fast to escape from the bunch or to catch someone else) or in hilly/mountainous areas, mass does matter.
For recreational use, spending lots of money for shaving of a few grams here and there is not worth the effort, that's true. But a few kilograms more or less do make a difference.
> Hence no modern bikes being made out of drillium.
Modern top-of-the-line road bikes for climbing are already as light as allowed by the UCI. It makes no sense to drill holes in such a bike: you wouldn't be allowed to use it in a race.
- fluoridation 4y agoThe flaw in that reasoning is that it assumes that the only conceivable use for a lightweight bike is to compete in a UCI-sanctioned event.
- roelschroeven 4y agoAn unstated assumption in my comment was that situations where light weight is most desirable are always UCI-sanctioned events. I admit that that view is probably too narrow.
- burnished 4y agoKinetic energy is still energy, you store it going up hill and reclaim it going down.
- DangitBobby 4y agoUnless there is a stop sign, traffic signal, or sharp curve at the bottom before you've gotten to spend all that energy you worked so hard to build up. It's just not a guarantee that you can go full tilt down the gigantic hill you just climbed.
- burnished 4y agoThat isn’t how physics works - you have to spend energy to counteract that kinetic energy you’ve ineluctably released by going downhill. This sort of edge case maximalism feels useless and needlessly contrarian - it seems as though if I were to claim you can pay for things by credit card, you’d claim “that doesn’t work what if the power is out”.
- DangitBobby 4y agoWhat are you on about? I do hilly rides all the time and personally feel the pain of not being able to reap the benefits of the climb _all the time_. Let's say I climb a big hill and there's a red light at the bottom of the other side. Guess where all my precious kinetic energy goes? It dissipates as sound and heat into my brake pads. Whoops! I ride about 60 miles a week on very hilly terrain. Off the top of my head, I can think of 3 very large hills that end in a stop sign at the bottom in the first 20 minutes of my regular ride! I actually can't think of a single hill where I'm totally free and clear going down the other side. In my experience, hilly rides are just harder and I'm more tired after them. It's actually very surprising that what I would expect to be a common sense viewpoint is being considered the contrarian one! Sure, apply elementary physics and hills are meaningless, but apply real-world physics and maybe they aren't so meaningless. And we aren't even considering the differences in energy efficiency when your body has to work harder, or the major differences in energy loss through air drag at high speeds. There are also concerns about how comfortably and efficiently you are able to convert muscle energy into motion through pedaling (similar to how speed-walking gaits are very inefficient) at both the high (downhill) and low ends (uphill) of pedal RPM.
- toast0 4y ago> I actually can't think of a single hill where I'm totally free and clear going down the other side. The big hills I can think of near me all have either stop signs at the bottom, or another hill to climb.
- DangitBobby 4y ago
- roelschroeven 4y agoWhat you store going uphill is potential energy, not kinetic energy.