You are reading a single comment by @Smallfurry and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.
  • The internet seems to disagree with that:

    http://www.reddit.com/r/Velo/comments/29oedw/the_case_against_rotating_weight/

    https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=7559

    Yes, the wheel weight counts more than the frame weight. The reaon is that when you accelerate the bike everything moves forward together but the wheels also rotate. The average velocity over the whole wheel is the same as the rest of the bike, because the different parts move all the different directions in a circle. however, energy goes as the square of the velocity, and the rotational energy of the wheel just adds to the energy of the average motion. So you have to pump more energy into the bike to get a pound of wheel moving than to get a pound of frame moving. If all the weight of the wheel were out at the rim (which isn’t too far from true) the total wheel energy per pound would be twice the frame energy per pound, i.e. equal rotational and static weight. The real rotational number would be a little less.
    Of course if you’re going uphill, the extra work to lift the bike against gravity only depends on the ordinary weight, not how it’s distributed.

  • No it doesnt

    Obviously gravity doesnt give a shit where the weight is. Thats not my argument. My argument is that the Wheel weight has more effect when accelerating (which that article agrees With), and that as you lose momentum faster up hill. You effectivly need to accelerate more going uphill (which that article doesnt mention. But try rolling a ball uphill. I'm not lying here).

  • Intuitively (and I'm more than willing to concede I'm wrong here) I don't think you accelerate more going uphill, as acceleration is defined as the rate of change in velocity.

    I don't think I'm speeding up and slowing down with each pedal stroke when climbing.

About

Avatar for Smallfurry @Smallfurry started