You are reading a single comment by @miro_o 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.

  • Did you just quote reddit for #pubscience?

    Mid 90s pro bikes were around 8kg I think. Frames were certainly less stiff. Wheels were light or aero (not both). All the best engines had turbos.

    Reduced rotating mass helps you jump onto someone's wheel on a climb a bit at lower speeds. They help people going very slowly on climbs I guess but that's not often applicable for the pros.

About

Avatar for miro_o @miro_o started