I think LA is skipping the TDF this year to focus on the hour record

Bob Schwartz wrote:

MagillaGorilla wrote:

Carl,


I take issue with you on your statement that corners cause acceleration.
Corners slow down riders compared to straightaways in bikes and
everything else.


NASCARs go SLOWER in the turn, not faster. So do planes, trains, and
automobiles.


The reason why turns slow you down is because you are changing your
inertia and it is being lost in extra friction with the track. Going
straight is the most efficient.


So if you want to design the fastest TT track it would be a 40k long
straight piece of wood.


Thanks,


Magilla
Professor of Physics


Dude, your identity is blown:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...e?dmode=source

Carl is right. Trace the route of the center of gravity of the bicycle
plus rider as it travels around a velodrome. The CoG drops in the turns.
It also takes a shorter route than the wheels do on the track surface.

When I first saw a power tap profile from a 3K pursuit I rode it took
me a while to figure out where the sawtooth pattern was coming from. I
initially thought it was the wind, but the period was 2X/lap, not one.
Because it was from the turns.

I wish I'd have figured that out years earlier, I'd have been a much
faster pursuit rider if I had.

Bob Schwartz

Bobby Brady,

Physics are the same for everybody - I copied Newton. Your application
of physics is missing something because it's not possible for me to
believe you go faster in turns.

You are also climbing slightly in the turns. And the 2x 'peak' in speed
you see is probably the result of you accelerating in the straightaway
after coming off each turn, which you do twice per lap too.

So there.


Magilla

Bobby Brady,

Physics are the same for everybody - I copied Newton. Your
application
of physics is missing something because it's not possible for me to
believe you go faster in turns.

You are also climbing slightly in the turns. And the 2x 'peak' in
speed
you see is probably the result of you accelerating in the
straightaway
after coming off each turn, which you do twice per lap too.


dumbass, i've heard that you go faster in turns because your head is
going slower than your feet so it feels less drag. i've never been on a
track so i don't know what happens when you're actually on one.

but, imagine a tiny velodrome where your head stayed in the same spot
and your wheels went around the track. anyone could break the hour
record on that.

"amit" wrote in message

but, imagine a tiny velodrome where your head stayed in the same spot
and your wheels went around the track. anyone could break the hour
record on that.


If you don't vomit first.

On 14 Feb 2005 10:59:44 -0800, amit wrote:
but, imagine a tiny velodrome where your head stayed in the same spot
and your wheels went around the track. anyone could break the hour
record on that.

http://snurl.com/shorttrack

--
Firefox Web Browser - Rediscover the web - http://getffox.com/
Thunderbird E-mail and Newsgroups - http://gettbird.com/

MagillaGorilla wrote:
Bob Schwartz wrote:

MagillaGorilla wrote:
Physics are the same for everybody - I copied Newton. Your application
of physics is missing something because it's not possible for me to
believe you go faster in turns.

You are also climbing slightly in the turns. And the 2x 'peak' in speed
you see is probably the result of you accelerating in the straightaway
after coming off each turn, which you do twice per lap too.

So there.

Ape****,

You're flat out ****ing wrong on both counts. Newton thinks you're
a dork.

You are on the straight. Your CoG is X meters above the track surface.

Now you are banked at 45 degrees in a turn. The blue band is level.
Assuming you are sticking close to the blue band, is your CoG at a
higher or lower elevation than when on the straight?

Also, as you lean your CoG traces a different radius through the turn
than the blue band. Your CoG takes a slightly shorter radius. What
happens to the circumference of a circle as it's radius decreases?
Show your work. Dumbass.

You're not cut out for physics or mathematics.

Here's another way to look at it. There are a number of points on
the track where you might make an exchange in a team pursuit.
Probably the easiest technically would be on the straights, just
like in a TTT on the road. An exchanging rider might get back in
line just as the team entered the turn.

Or you might make an exchange as the team enters a turn. Very
simple, the lead rider heads straight up the bank and drops down
at the end midway through the turn.

Either of those points would be easier technically than heading
up the bank in the steep part of the turn and dropping in at the
back as the team exits the turn. Yet that's where most teams do
it. What do you think might be up with that?

Bob Schwartz

MagillaGorilla wrote:
Bob Schwartz wrote:

MagillaGorilla wrote:

Carl,


I take issue with you on your statement that corners cause
acceleration.
Corners slow down riders compared to straightaways in bikes and
everything else.


NASCARs go SLOWER in the turn, not faster. So do planes, trains,
and
automobiles.


The reason why turns slow you down is because you are changing your

inertia and it is being lost in extra friction with the track.
Going
straight is the most efficient.


So if you want to design the fastest TT track it would be a 40k
long
straight piece of wood.


Thanks,


Magilla
Professor of Physics


Dude, your identity is blown:


http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...e?dmode=source

Carl is right. Trace the route of the center of gravity of the
bicycle
plus rider as it travels around a velodrome. The CoG drops in the
turns.
It also takes a shorter route than the wheels do on the track
surface.

When I first saw a power tap profile from a 3K pursuit I rode it
took
me a while to figure out where the sawtooth pattern was coming
from. I
initially thought it was the wind, but the period was 2X/lap, not
one.
Because it was from the turns.

I wish I'd have figured that out years earlier, I'd have been a
much
faster pursuit rider if I had.

Bob Schwartz

Bobby Brady,

Physics are the same for everybody - I copied Newton. Your
application
of physics is missing something because it's not possible for me to
believe you go faster in turns.

You are also climbing slightly in the turns. And the 2x 'peak' in
speed
you see is probably the result of you accelerating in the
straightaway
after coming off each turn, which you do twice per lap too.

So there.


Magilla

NASCAR cars slow in the turns because their straightaway speeds exceed
the traction limits for their tires in the turns. Oh, yea, the driver
leaning his head doesn't significantly change the cars COG.

Once I read about the affect on speed when "cornering" on a track, I
modified my climbing technique to capitalize on the effect. While you
may not think you're accelerating on the track, try this the next time
you're climbing and see how it works for you: when entering a
switchback, swing wide as if you're taking a gentle arc around the
less-steep outside, then just about at the apex turn sharply and lean
into the curve. If you apply even moderately steady pressure to the
pedals, you'll accelerate noticeably as you go through the rest of the
curve and out of the switchback.

It's particularly noticeable if you're climbing on a fixed gear bike
(which I often do). You'll notice an increase in cadence as well as a
sensation of reduced resistance on the pedals. Without braking, it's
not possible NOT to pick up the cadence to match the acceleration of
the bike.

My guess is you don't notice the effect on the track as much as you're
likely to be at nearly your max sustainable speed, anyway.

MagillaGorilla wrote:

I take issue with you on your statement that corners cause
acceleration.
Corners slow down riders compared to straightaways in bikes and
everything else.

NASCARs go SLOWER in the turn, not faster. So do planes, trains, and

automobiles.

The reason why turns slow you down is because you are changing your
inertia and it is being lost in extra friction with the track. Going

straight is the most efficient.

Apey,

On a flat surface or a shallow bank, cars have to slow
through the turn to avoid losing traction and breaking free.
On a steeply banked surface like a velodrome that's not
necessary.

You are changing your momentum in the turn because the track
is exerting a force on you. Because you are pulling extra
g-force, the rolling resistance should go up slightly, but this
is much less than the effect of dropping your CoG (you have to
give that energy back when you exit the turn) and your body
taking a shorter path than the wheels (you don't have to give
that back).

Where's the change in momentum coming from? The track is
pushing on you, and - equal and opposite reaction - you are
pushing on the track. It's a good thing there aren't more
track riders, or the unequal forces on the Earth, since they
always turn left, could throw the Earth off its axis. It's
a potential weapon of mass destruction - ban track racing now!

Ben
Physics Crackpot

P.S. I guess the harmful consquences of track racing could be
cancelled out by having equal numbers of riders in Northern
and Southern hemispheres.

On 14 Feb 2005 13:07:40 -0800, wrote:
P.S. I guess the harmful consquences of track racing could be
cancelled out by having equal numbers of riders in Northern
and Southern hemispheres.

When LANCE decides to build his new track high up in the Atacama desert,
will he turn right to take advantage of the coriolis force?

--
Firefox Web Browser - Rediscover the web - http://getffox.com/
Thunderbird E-mail and Newsgroups - http://gettbird.com/

Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
On 14 Feb 2005 13:07:40 -0800, wrote:
P.S. I guess the harmful consquences of track racing could be
cancelled out by having equal numbers of riders in Northern
and Southern hemispheres.

When LANCE decides to build his new track high up in the Atacama
desert,
will he turn right to take advantage of the coriolis force?




Dutch Dumbass -

If I were building a custom velodrome, I'd make it semi-covered and
attempt to arrange the ingress and egress of air in such a manner that
the prevailing winds would cause the air current in the velodrome to
swirl in a counterclockwise direction, like a whirlpool.


K. Gringioni.
head up my ass

"Scott" wrote in message
oups.com...

MagillaGorilla wrote:
Bob Schwartz wrote:

MagillaGorilla wrote:

Carl,


I take issue with you on your statement that corners cause
acceleration.
Corners slow down riders compared to straightaways in bikes and
everything else.


NASCARs go SLOWER in the turn, not faster. So do planes, trains,
and
automobiles.


The reason why turns slow you down is because you are changing your

inertia and it is being lost in extra friction with the track.
Going
straight is the most efficient.


So if you want to design the fastest TT track it would be a 40k
long
straight piece of wood.


Thanks,


Magilla
Professor of Physics


Dude, your identity is blown:


http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...e?dmode=source

Carl is right. Trace the route of the center of gravity of the
bicycle
plus rider as it travels around a velodrome. The CoG drops in the
turns.
It also takes a shorter route than the wheels do on the track
surface.

When I first saw a power tap profile from a 3K pursuit I rode it
took
me a while to figure out where the sawtooth pattern was coming
from. I
initially thought it was the wind, but the period was 2X/lap, not
one.
Because it was from the turns.

I wish I'd have figured that out years earlier, I'd have been a
much
faster pursuit rider if I had.

Bob Schwartz

Bobby Brady,

Physics are the same for everybody - I copied Newton. Your
application
of physics is missing something because it's not possible for me to
believe you go faster in turns.

You are also climbing slightly in the turns. And the 2x 'peak' in
speed
you see is probably the result of you accelerating in the
straightaway
after coming off each turn, which you do twice per lap too.

So there.


Magilla

NASCAR cars slow in the turns because their straightaway speeds exceed
the traction limits for their tires in the turns. Oh, yea, the driver
leaning his head doesn't significantly change the cars COG.

Once I read about the affect on speed when "cornering" on a track, I
modified my climbing technique to capitalize on the effect. While you
may not think you're accelerating on the track, try this the next time
you're climbing and see how it works for you: when entering a
switchback, swing wide as if you're taking a gentle arc around the
less-steep outside, then just about at the apex turn sharply and lean
into the curve. If you apply even moderately steady pressure to the
pedals, you'll accelerate noticeably as you go through the rest of the
curve and out of the switchback.

That's because you aren't going up the hill when you do that (a least not as
steeply). That's why switchbacks are built in the first place -- to
sacrifice a shorter route for a slighter grade. In this case you eventually
have to follow the road so you're just postponing the inevitable for a
couple of seconds.

--Art


It's particularly noticeable if you're climbing on a fixed gear bike
(which I often do). You'll notice an increase in cadence as well as a
sensation of reduced resistance on the pedals. Without braking, it's
not possible NOT to pick up the cadence to match the acceleration of
the bike.

My guess is you don't notice the effect on the track as much as you're
likely to be at nearly your max sustainable speed, anyway.