Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Books Media Book Reviews Technology

Bicycling Science, Third Edition 345

Posted by timothy from the two-wheels-good-four-wheels-bad dept.
sdedeo writes "Perhaps the only competitor of rock climbing for the canonical geek sport, cycling -- for utility or amusement -- asks for a good blend of engineering and physiological savvy. For many the hands-on tinkering of bicycle maintenance and cycling technique provides welcome relief from more abstract manipulations in the library or office. Whether you think of cycling as the ultimate open source engineering project, or as a handy metaphor for your computer-of-choice, its appeal to the mechanism-oriented mind is undeniable." Read on for the rest of DeDeo's review.
Bicycling Science, Third Edition
author David Gordon Wilson
pages 476
publisher MIT Press
rating 10
reviewer Simon DeDeo
ISBN 0262232375
summary A technical look at two-wheeled self-propulsion blending engineering and physiological savvy.

Released this April, David Gordon Wilson's updated Bicycling Science fills the gap between, on the one hand, shop manuals and training guides, and on the other the contemporary literature on human powered vehicles. Wilson, Professor Emeritus at MIT, navigates physics and physiology to produce a hefty source of insight.

Wilson splits his book into three broad sections -- the biology of human power generation, the physics of turning complicated muscle motions into linear velocity, and radical redesigns of the standard diamond bicycle frame.

The first section explains, among other things, the role of oxygen uptake and distribution, and gives empirical and theoretical backing to some, but not all, of the conventional wisdom surrounding cycling. The curious will find a detailed explanation of why high pedal cadence allows for long-term, low-intensity, high-efficiency power generation. Modifications to the standard choices -- from elliptical chain-wheels to hand-powered cranks -- are analyzed critically.

The second section might be jokingly termed "extreme high school physics." Wilson explains how people intuitively balance and steer on two wheels, and the design of braking systems to avoid flip-over. He gets down-and-dirty in the metallurgical literature to explain the role of metal fatigue in frame failure, and into fluid dynamics to discuss air drag in laminar and turbulent air flows.

Wilson manages to give a sense of how the different demands physics makes on all aspects of bike design cohere into the more-or-less efficient system that we recognize today as the road and mountain bike. Wilson is an innovator, but he has a healthy respect for current designs along with a good deal of skepticism for passing fads such as that for ultralight components.

The final section covers Wilson's love: the radical redesigns of human powered vehicles to enable people to not only cover vast distances or reach high speeds, but also to swim, submarine, fly and even hover or flap on the power -- between 100 and 700 W -- the "NASA standard" man or woman can provide on timescales between hours and seconds.

The text occasionally jumps into a wider historical and social context to provide lighter relief, such as the diagrams that compare cycling's efficiency to other modes of of transportation (cyclists handily undercut a fully loaded diesel commuter train for calories expended per rider.) Wilson is not amused by those who would compare cyclists to dolphins or hawks in terms of efficiency, distance, or speed -- too bad. A brief rant against cars near the end is the exception to the rule of Wilson's professional, honest style.

Bicycling Science can be used as a handbook for the armchair designer of human powered vehicles. Or, if you prefer, as a way to answer the nagging science questions that arise after a thoughtful bike ride. Perhaps its most inspiring use, however, is as a bed-table compendium of stand-alone investigations into what engineers have come up with on a device that has been perfected, again and again, for decades longer than the internal combustion engine.

You can purchase the Bicycling Science, Third Edition from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, carefully read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bicycling Science, Third Edition More

Bicycling Science, Third Edition

Comments Filter:

  • I read the second edition. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Power Everywhere ( 778645 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @01:26PM (#9153492) Homepage
    I have to say they've changed a lot about the book, more than is noted above. It's more accuruate now, but it's kind of unnerving how many incorrect explanations of fluid dynamics and quantum mechanics slipped by last time.

    • I didn't read it. (Score:2, Informative)

      by kabauze ( 145859 )
      I haven't read this book, and I'm not sure I want too, because it seems to be overkill. Bicyclists in search of a practical, down-to-earth analysis of the bike might check out the prodigious writings of Jobst Brandt [yarchive.net], a mechanical engineer and avid touring rider. Brandt eschews quantum mechanics and other irrelevancies and instead analyzes and explains the real problems of bicycles. Most notably, Brandt published The Bicycle Wheel [avocet.com], the definitive text on the function, response, and building of spoked whee

  • Bikes the top geek transportation method? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Ensign Regis ( 249331 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @01:27PM (#9153498)
    Forget bikes! Real geeks use the Segway!

    • Top geek transportation method - Irish mail (Score:4, Interesting)

      by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @01:39PM (#9153688)
      Forget bicycles: Try the Irish mail [msu.edu]. The one in the picture is not the weirdest example: there is a model that looks like a giant metal bicycle seat. The big stick in the front provides propulsion.

      You'll fit in real good at the scientist loony bin in the "She Blinded me with Science" music video. If it looks out of place there (like a regular bike would), it is not "real geek".

    • Re:Bikes the top geek transportation method? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by WormholeFiend ( 674934 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @01:43PM (#9153754)
      I'm working on modding my mountain bike, the same way people mod their PC cases... with come cool lighting from fossilfool.com and some strategically placed EL wire.

      I'd love to put a laptop somewhere on it, but I have yet to figure out what it should be used for, and I dont want to put wi-fi on it.

    • Re:Bikes the top geek transportation method? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Suburbanpride ( 755823 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @01:43PM (#9153764)
      I am a certified geek, and I love my bikes (I have about 6) For me tinkering on a bike is more fun that tinking on a computer. Bikes are very simple machines, but they require a lot of work to run perfectly. Bike are also high tech. Forget the old schewin cruiser you rode as a kid. todays bikes are made out of things like titanium and carbon fiber. The cycling industry actually perfected the manafacturing of carbon fiber. Car makers are begining to adobt it, the new sony ultalight laptop uses it, and there are rumors of apple using it in their new powerbooks. I'd love to have my laptop math my bike. Bicycles are the most efficent form of traspertation out there. As a geek, you should admire that. My only problem with bikes is that the nearest Fry's isn't close enough to ride to.
      • Heh. My Specialized has a sticker saying 'Designed on Sun Microsystems' immediately followed with 'Made in Taiwan'. How's that for outsourcing?

        (It's still a great bike...)

    • Re:Bikes the top geek transportation method? (Score:5, Funny)

      by jkujawa ( 56195 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @02:18PM (#9154345) Homepage
      I was nearly wiped out on the bike path last year by one of those damned, infernal machines. The guy was riding right in the middle of the path because the thing was so high he would have hit trees.
      What a waste. A segway lasts, what, an hour on a charge, and maxes out at 12MPH. I can ride my bike all day at 12MPH, and I can go significantly faster for distances of under 40 miles.

      You can buy a top-of-the-line road bike for what a segway costs, and you'll stay in shape.

      In summary: Fuck segway. Fuck it in the ear.
    • Yeah, but they gut the motor and replace it with a Campy crankset.

      KFG
    • Yeah, but they gut the motor and replace it with a Campy crankset.

      I'm still trying to figure out how the fit the Spinergy wheels though. A Segway just ain't a Segway until it's riding on silk sewups.

      KFG

  • bah (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nizo ( 81281 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @01:27PM (#9153512) Homepage Journal
    For many the hands-on tinkering of bicycle maintenance....

    Or in my case, watching the hands-on tinkering of the guy up the street at the bicycle shop. Seriously, after fiddling with the guts of the insides of various PCs all day, the last thing I want to do is rip the back tire off my bike and fix a flat (which is something I currently need to do).

    • Fixing a flat is ridiculously easy, it's the equivalent of opening up Word using Windows. If you don't cycle much, fine, take it to the shop, but if you do, you'd be far better learning the basics. There aren't many 'guys up the street' to be found when you are out touring 25k from the nearest civilisation. (I speak from experience and now know how to fix a flat.)
      • Thank goodness for that! My flat needs painting and decorating. Any good at cutting in?
      • You should never ride very far without carrying a spare tube and/or patch kit!

        Just 2 weeks ago I was on a 40 mile out and back ride, and at about 16 miles out, I flatted... That was the second time I had gotten a flat, took me a few minutes to swap the tube out, the small pump I keep strapped to my bike was a little slow in filling my tire up, but I was on the road again in under a half hour.

        It is also a good idea to carry an extra energy bar on long rides incase you get a flat...
      • I can change tyres but fiddling with the gears is a *real* pain-in-the arse. Hours of endless fun.

        h
      • Fixing a flat is ridiculously easy, it's the equivalent of opening up Word using Windows.

        Might be true for someone who has done it before. But not generally true. I bought a used bike and it needed new tubes. I spent probably 20 minutes on the first tire. I got to the other tire and severly messed it up. I took it to a bike shop and they replaced it for like $5.

        In contrast, opening up Word requires a two clicks of the mouse.

    • Not me. I don't bike much, but I love toying with things. As I told my current employer, I'm the type of guy who spends his day playing with computers, then goes home and plays with his computer.

      Seriously, I love tinkering. That's why I own British cars...

  • Canonical geek sport? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by foolip ( 588195 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @01:31PM (#9153559) Homepage
    Perhaps the only competitor of rock climbing for the canonical geek sport, cycling

    Is there any sort of data to back up the claim that either rock climbing or bicycling is a popular among geeks? Among the geeks I know some sort of martial arts is far more common that rock climbing or cycling (i.e. I don't know anyone who climbs or cycles, but many who do martial arts).

    • all three.

      climb occasinally. Indoor mostly.

      Cycle if street BMX counts. still trying to pull off a truck driver without landing on my ass.

      Just picked up Kendo.

      I'd agree that Martial arts are most common. Most of my College RPG club was also in Monday Morning Tai-Chi.

    • This is anecdotal, but there do seem to be a disproportionate number of research mathematicians who are serious rock climbers and whitewater kayakers. Furthermore, there have been/are a number of top climbers (John Gill, Robert Underhill, Hassler Whitney, eg.) and strong kayakers who are mathematicians or former mathematicians. I've thought about why this might be but haven't come to any satisfactory conclusions. Mathematicians do like challenges, but that doesn't really narrow things down to climbing a

      • Re:Canonical geek sport? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by kjd ( 41294 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @02:19PM (#9154388)
        The typical introverted geek usually keeps few close friends and is not highly social, and avoids unnecessary physical conflict. This same nature extends to choice of sport. Seclusive sports such as rock climbing, kayaking, bicycling are easy choices for people with this sort of personality, as they can be practiced alone, or with a close friend or two. When done together, these are often cooperative sports rather than competitive.

        This is not to say that all geeks are this way, or that geeks that are are afraid of other sports, but that a noticable number of geeks find solitary sports more comfortable.

    • Re:Canonical geek sport? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by superdan2k ( 135614 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @01:51PM (#9153912) Homepage Journal
      Let's see...I've been a competitive cyclist for 15 years now and within 5 years, I'll be getting out of I.T. to open my own bike shop. I took up rock climbing about six months ago, and I'm horribly addicted. I went through a lot of hand-to-hand fighting training in the Army. And I definitely fit the definition of a geek. But from what I've noticed, geeks gravitate to sports that are gear intensive -- cycling and rock climbing both definitely fit the bill.
    • All the geeks that I know who "do martial arts" are quite pathetic at it, but all seem to think they rock at it...

    • Is there any sort of data to back up the claim that either rock climbing or bicycling is a popular among geeks? Among the geeks I know some sort of martial arts is far more common that rock climbing or cycling (i.e. I don't know anyone who climbs or cycles, but many who do martial arts).

      I'm an ex-climbing gym manager turned programmer in Pittsburgh. The climbing gym was (and still is) packed with researchers and students from the CS department at CMU. And since I joined the world of programming, my con

    • I highly suggest either :

      1.Tai Chi
      2.Kendo (Samurai swordsmanship)

      both are very good at clearing the mind.

    • Great geek sport! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by MooseByte ( 751829 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @02:57PM (#9154942)

      "Is there any sort of data to back up the claim that either rock climbing or bicycling is a popular among geeks?"

      Anecdotal evidence makes poor statistics, but I climb (prefer outdoors) as does my wife (another geek) and many of our climbing partners are various incarnations of the Geek Genome as well.

      I chalk it up (pardon the pun) to three things:

      • It's one of the very few activities that completely grabs your focus. And I mean completely. Had a really crappy week at work? Project falling apart? That weekend try being 80' up a cliff and finding that you're out of gear (placing protection) that will fit that narrow finger jam. Work doesn't exist. Poof. Gone.
      • Climbing is a fascinating exercise in center of gravity, friction and body placement problems. It's a great puzzle that also comes with an adrenaline rush.
      • And for those of us "trad" (traditional) climbers who place our own protection (cams, hexes, nuts, etc.), it's also a really fun (or terrifying...) exercise in gear management, and placement physics. You're only as safe as the protection you've successfully (or tragically incorrectly) placed. On multipitch climbing where you'll end up hundreds of feet above the ground (or even thousands), planning, forethought and hands-on situational reaction come into laser-tight focus. And if you placed wrong, your next fall is going to be your last.

      Footnote: It's the shorter climbs that'll kill you. Folks simply don't realize the danger. Without a helmet, a 10 ft fall headfirst onto jagged granite shatters your grape like a fragile egg. Damn shame more folks don't wear helmets when climbing outdoors

      And finally, unlike Tribes 2 or your favorite Jumping Cartoon Character game (which I also like ;-) if you screw up on the rock, you stand a good chance of splattering your visceral goo in a very real and lasting way. Something about the stakes of Real Life Physics makes the reward of grokking the system all the more tangible and tasty.

  • Wear a helmet (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Just remember: wear a helmet! All it takes is one particularly hard cranial impact with cement, and you'll "go *BSD".

    • No *elmet wars! (Score:3, Informative)

      by YrWrstNtmr ( 564987 )
      please...There is enough junk science floating around about helmets to make your head spin.

      research and understand the construction and testing of current style bike helmets, and the serious crash types that lead to blue-screening yourself.

      You'll be surprised as to what a foamie can and can't do.

      Not saying that a helmet isn't a good idea, but it's assuredly not a panacea, either.

  • Motorized bicycles (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 14, 2004 @01:32PM (#9153577)
    Just wait until they motorize these bicycles. Imagine the possibilities of riding a bicycle without a helmet at 90 mph. They could form entire gangs of people riding these motorized bicycles.
    And geeks could look down on them for using a higher-tech solution than their regular bicycles. Ironic how they see nothing wrong with a Linux Users group, but as soon as it's a Motorcycle Users Group, they're some kind of lower life form.

  • metaphor (Score:5, Funny)

    by nizo ( 81281 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @01:35PM (#9153623) Homepage Journal
    Whether you think of cycling as the ultimate open source engineering project, or as a handy metaphor for your computer-of-choice.

    Boy, I can't pass that up. If the windows NT server next to me were a bicycle, it would be nice and shiney, have one gear (slow), and the wheels would fly off every now and then for no apparent reason, with the random luckiness that it attracts meteorites(i.e. worms and virii) from the sky. But hey I can upgrade to the new even shiner M$ bicycle, which has pretty much all of the features mentioned above, except it is faster because it would be running on brand new hardware (but mostly just attracts meteorites faster too).

    • Re:metaphor (Score:5, Funny)

      by radish ( 98371 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @01:55PM (#9153982) Homepage
      Whereas the Linux one would come with a choice of saddles, none of which are particularly comfortable, and your choice of exactly 1 or 3 hand grips. You'd have to buy brakes, gears and chains seperatly, and a lot of the most popular ones wouldn't fit. Some models (made by Gentoobluar Bikes, inc) would actually just come as a big box of iron ore and a sheet of instructions. In german.

    • Re:metaphor (Score:3, Informative)

      by hal9000 ( 80652 )
      "have one gear (slow)"

      Actually, fixed gear and singlespeed bikes are not necessarily slow at all. Track bikes, for example, are fixed gear, meaning no shifting and no coasting. When the wheels are a spinnin', so be the feet. Speed is all about the gear ratio of the chain wheel & rear sprocket, and the cadence of the cyclist. The pros can get up to the 150 rpm range. If they're riding at 52/14 (chainwheel/sprocket teeth; too high for regular riding but good for training and racing) with a standard 210
    • If the windows NT server next to me were a bicycle, it would be nice and shiney, have one gear (slow)

      That part of your analogy is poor. Fixed-gear bicycles are extremely reliable, quiet, strong, and require very little maintenance. You can re-gear if a task requires it. Ask a bicycle courier or mountain bike trials rider.

      And there's no such thing as a "slow" gear. Horses for courses. It either brings you up to speed quickly but lacks top-end power, or it takes forever to get there but once it's the

  • I don't drive (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Capt'n Hector ( 650760 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @01:38PM (#9153664)
    I don't drive. I bicycle. It's very easy to get anywhere I need to go around town, and for greater distances there's always public transportation. Over the past few months, I've watched gas prices soar over the 2 dollar mark, I've heared everybody complaining and all the while I silently snicker at these poor drivers, half of whom could easily pick up a bike and cut their gas consumption in half.

    But the bicycle from a broad design perspective has not changed much since its invention, save from a departure from amusingly large front (or is it back) wheels. So it seems to me that the bicycle is far from optimised in terms of muscle use. I've seen various contraptions over the years that I suppose attempt to imrove on this. One that I saw just a few days ago appeared to be powered like a rowing machine. Another more popular variation on the cycle has the rider sit much lower to the ground. But I believe this one only serves to have the rider in a more upright position. So does this book point out the "best" design for the cycle?

    • Re:I don't drive (Score:4, Interesting)

      by jridley ( 9305 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @01:48PM (#9153856)
      The classic diamond shape is actually pretty damned efficient. I think some recumbent designs are good too, but they're largely designed for long distance comfort. I just bought a new bike, and I passed up recumbents for a basic hybrid commuter.

      It's hard to beat a good stiff road bike with high pressure tires for efficiency.

      I also bike commute to work (10 miles one way), though I am a car driver as well. I live in Michigan, and since I switched from a road bike to a hybrid bike this year, I'm *considering* biking in the winter, but normally I only get about 5 months a year on the bike. I also don't ride in the rain, though I'm planning on dumping some money into some good goretex rain gear.

      When I can't bike, public transportation is NOT an option (this is true in most areas of the country). It's about 5 miles into town to get to a bus stop, and that's a local commuter line; if I wanted to go more than 20 miles, I'd have to get off at the greyhound station 15 miles away and transfer there. Amtrak goes right through town here but I don't even know where the nearest depot is; about 30 miles I think; they don't even slow down through my town.

      Still, between my bike and my Ford Taurus, I'm averaging about 120 MPG the last couple of weeks :-)
    • the only thing I miss about New York is not having to drive anyway (well and St. Marks) Living in California Bay Area is a pain in the ass. Too many bridges and tunnel and freeways. Public Transport sucks the big one

      maybe when the big one hits they can start over and build these cities with some sanity.

      I've always wondred about those "recling" cycles. Are the more effecient or something? I personally think they look incredibly silly, but what do I know I ride a bike with one gear ratio.

      The most interesin

      • Recumbents put you in a normal seat rather than a saddle, so your butt has something to push against. This means you can push harder than what you weigh, allowing your legs to generate more power.

        'bent newbies tend to be very hard on their knees until they learn to downshift and spin the pedals faster.

        They are not necessarily more efficient, but they can be very comfortable on long rides, they can have a ton of cargo space (particularly 'bent trikes) and can tow decent trailers.

        The problem with internal
      • I don't think Jeep invented the AWD mtb, I think they just rebranded one of these:

        Christini

        I'd like to try one, there are definitely situations where, if it works well, it could be really handy.

        -Spyky
    • The "best" design for a cycle depends on the situation, the environment, and most of all the rider. You ride; you know this.

      The bicycle where you saw the rider low to the ground is called a "recumbent". These fuckers really scream, due to the vast aerodynamic advantage over a conventional bike. You see some pretty nerdy dudes riding these.

      Anyway, this book doesn't put forth the hard-and-fast "best" design, but merely explains all the physical forces acting on a bicycle so that the engineer can plan acc

    • Recumbents (Score:3, Informative)

      by blorg ( 726186 )
      Recumbent [recumbentcyclistnews.com] bicycles [ihpva.org] (random links plucked from Google) have an advantage because above about 15mph the key issue is wind resistance, which they reduce significantly, while also improving comfort.

      Recumbents are great on the flat but don't climb so well, so they wouldn't necessarily make a great all-rounder but could suit your circumstances. The low position is not the greatest in traffic either.

      One of the issues holding back bike evolution is that the racing organisations have strict restrictions on design
      • The climbing thing takes some getting used to on a recumbent, but it's not a problem really. There are two ways to climb - grinding (slow power strokes with all your weight on the pedals) and spinning (smooth fast cadence with minimal force applied). You can't grind on a recumbent, for the simple reason that you can't bring your weight to bear on the pedals. Once you get used to spinning, though - and maintaining your balance while slowly riding up a hill - climbing isn't a problem.

        As for visibility in tra
    • I've been riding a recumbent (a RANS Rocket [ransbikes.com], which is a fairly basic entry-level model) for over a year now and I have to say I love it. Comfortable, efficient, low wind resistance compared to a wedgie^H^H^H^H^H^H upright (and that's without a fairing), and cool to boot. Check them out, I highly recommend them.
    • ...here in the UK it is more like 5 dollars a gallon of petrol at the moment. But I'm happy cycling 8 miles to work and back each night, after all day in front of a computer 45 minutes of a bit of gentle exercise is a great way to de-stress. Felt like hard work to start with but now, it's pretty good. Aged 37 so I'm starting to have to keep fit rather than just be fit :-)

      Bijker (!) wrote a really good book which discusses the evolution of the bicycle, some of the false starts and ideas which got dropped

    • If you ride to work every day, you have my envy and admiration. Envy that you're getting exercise and not paying for gas; admiration for the death-defying feat you are performing, for not minding that you are sweaty and smelly when you get to work, and for choosing such an environmentally benign lifestyle.

      I, too, would like to bike to work, but considering it's 10 miles through some of the most insane drivers around with no continuous sidewalk and very narrow streets with no shoulders, I'd rather chew on a

      • Don't ride on sidewalks (Score:4, Informative)

        by loosifer ( 314643 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @02:49PM (#9154842) Homepage
        I mean, unless you've kind of got a death wish. It's about the best way to get hit by a car -- they are far more likely to see you if you are on the road, but when some guy turns directly into you because he didn't see you on the sidewalk...

        Oh, and it's usually illegal.

        Get a city map, pick some routes that are calmer (i.e., avoid industrial areas, find some back roads, get off the 4 lane commuting routes), and check them out on the weekends. Once you find a good route or two, try it to work. Set a goal of doing it twice a week 6 months a year. You'll never look back. :)
    • Once you try one, you'll never be quite so keen on a normal bicycle design again.

      The single drawback of cycling a recumbent is that you cannot use your body weight at the top of the chainwheel arc for extra drive. But with cleated pedals you can push with one foot and pull with the other on a recumbent. And you have a much lower centre of gravity (read: stability) and a lesser drag profile.

      Motorists tend to give you a wider berth too - they seem to respect you as a not-so-average cyclist. A recumbent bicy

  • Cycling is excellent stress relief (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Neil Blender ( 555885 ) <neilblender@gmail.com> on Friday May 14, 2004 @01:39PM (#9153676)
    I commute by bike. I have found that it is a great way to burn off the stress of the day. On my ride home, I can think about all the things that pissed my off that day (or in general) and get them out of mind by the time I get home. If I drive, I really notice a difference in how I feel when I get home. Plus it's good excerise as well as I can get a good laugh when I pass a gas station sell regular for $2.40 a gallon.
  • it can tell me why it's always hard to pedal uphill, no matter how low a gear I'm in.

    There's a possible psychological explanation: I'm too impatient and competitive to relax and let the gears do the work. But I think there's something more, maybe the force is distributed over the pedal cycle in a way that's less efficient....

    • I'll venture to guess that you're out of shape. Doesn't take a PhD to figure that out.

    • Physics explanation: You are carrying your weight to a higher altitude, thereby raising your potential energy. Conservation of energy dictates that you've gotta put equivalent kinetic energy in there yourself.

      I ride a fixed gear bicycle, which disallows coasting in favor of a direct mechanical connection between pedals and rear wheel. There is exactly one gear. I find that this helps the psychological aspect of hills -- basically, you know you have no choice but to stand up and work harder, so you just
      • Ok, people didn't get the question.

        Physics explanation: You are carrying your weight to a higher altitude, thereby raising your potential energy. Conservation of energy dictates that you've gotta put equivalent kinetic energy in there yourself.

        Yes, I have to expend energy to go uphill. But the whole point of gears is mechanical advantage: I can spread out the energy cost over a greater distance (ie, a greater number of pedal revolutions), so I can apply less force (energy = force * distance). Accordin

    • 5 possibilities that I can think of...

      1) This might seem obvious, but it could be the tire pressure. If you're on a mountain bike, get a pump with a gauge and inflate the tire to 50 psi (check the side of the tire first to see the safe ranges for inflation -- usually 40 to 65 psi). Usually that's the NUMBER ONE reason behind why people find that they're putting a lot of effort into riding.

      If you're just eyeballing the tire and feeling it until "it's solid" then you still might be underinflating. Even 20 p

  • The science of cycling (Score:3, Interesting)

    by shockwaverider ( 78582 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @01:41PM (#9153724)
    Cycling science has really come on in the past few years. I remember the bicycles of my youth resembling drainpipes welded together - heavy and clunky with all the response and verve of a coffee table.

    Now I was somewhat suprised to find that more modern bikes are superb machines. Cheap. Reliable. Light and really really fun to ride.

    The added benefit of being a) ecologically sustainable and b) acutually *quicker* in the city is just a bonus.....

    This one goes out to all those car luvin' geeks. Borrow a high quality bike and see what the rest of us are a raving about.....Do this now.
    • Yeah, to give you an idea...I work 17 miles from home. I ride my bike. Every damn day. My ride time is faster than public transportation -- about 55 minutes, door-to-door. The drive takes about 30 minutes. I'm happier, healthier, and more productive when I ride and my stress levels are a lot lower.
    • I used to commute from Stockport to Bolton by bicycle. There was this guy on my street who drove a Porsche and would leave at the same time as me some mornings. I'd beat him to the centre of Manchester every time.
    • Major Taylor, the first Black and the the first American to become a world champion in a professional sport rode a 10 pound track bike circa 1880.

      I'm afraid the old "gas pipe" bikes you remember are the result of market forces, not science or engineering. Suberb lightweight bikes have been available for a long time, although you might have to give up the modern bias against steel to realize it.

      Where bikes have really come a long way in their engineering is in their brakes and gear shifting mechanisms. The

  • ultralight components (Score:4, Informative)

    by ydnar ( 946 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @01:41PM (#9153730) Homepage
    Wilson is an innovator, but he has a healthy respect for current designs along with a good deal of skepticism for passing fads such as that for ultralight components.

    Hardly a passing fad [starbike.com]. People have been drilling their chainrings (and everything else) for as long as there have been hills to climb.

    Every day I ride home to the top of my hill I'm glad to be hauling 17 pounds of bike versus 25.
    • Have you been watching the Giro D'Italia? Several bikes wearing a sticker that says "Legalize My Cannondale" because Cannondale has produced a carbon fiber and aluminum frame bike so lightweight that it's not legal for the Giro or the Tour de France. So they added some weight and that sticker.

      • Re:ultralight components (Score:2, Interesting)

        by ydnar ( 946 )
        UCI ( Union Cycliste Internationale [uci.ch], the international bicycle racing governing body) has a number of controversial (depending on who you ask) rules regarding bicycle weight and design.

        Besides the 6.8kg weight minimum, there's the "double diamond" frame design restriction, that effectively bans all non-traditional frame designs from upper level racing. Trek, Softride, Kestrel, and a number of other companies have designed some very novel wind-cheating non-traditional frame designs--ostly revolving around el
        • I can sort of see where they're coming from. I was a cross country ski racer in the late 1970s, early 1980s, when composite materials were just coming for the fore. The FIS (Federation Internationale du Ski) banned skis narrower than 44mm because ski racing was becoming a race to see who could survive a whole race with the narrowest skis. People would try narrower and narrower skis, and who cares if you broke your skis in one out of three races as long as you placed well in the other ones. They set an a
    • Every day I ride home to the top of my hill I'm glad to be hauling 17 pounds of bike versus 25.

      I agree that weight is a real issue and not just a fad. However, I'd much rather have a 20 lb bike that lasts 5 years than a 17 pound bike that lasts 2 years.

      I'm a serious mountain biker. I'll spend $2000 on a bike, but I'll never buy XTR components [shimano.com]. Sure if you're professional racer, then you're likely getting a new bike every year anyway and that extra pound is worth the money (especially if you're sponso

    • Re:ultralight components (Score:3, Informative)

      by avi33 ( 116048 )
      His point is probably more from a scientific point of view; that is, is the tradeoff between weight, cost, and performance worth it?

      Serious cycling [amazon.com] is an excellent book by a former US Olympic cycling coach that addresses this. I don't remember the exact numbers, but it goes something like this:
      -a one pound reduction in bike weight will save a cyclist 2 seconds over the course of a kilometer
      -a simple reduction in aerodynamic drag, such as replacing 36-spoke wheels with disc wheels will save a cyclist 40

    • Re:ultralight components (Score:4, Interesting)

      by superdan2k ( 135614 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @04:00PM (#9155863) Homepage Journal
      Yeah, as someone who's been serious about cycling (competitively) for the last 15 years, I have to agree with the other poster that "ultralight components" are not a passing fad. Cycling, perhaps more than any other sport has a materials science and mechanical engineering war brewing. Every company is looking for an edge in materials -- look at the recent adoption of scandium-aluminum alloys for frames. Old ideas get rehashed every so often -- it used to be that carbon fiber frames were three main tubes of carbon, lugged together with aluminum. That "fad" passed away, but has returned now that people realize that blending materials in certain parts of the frame have benefits -- adding carbon seatstays to an aluminum frame cuts weight and dampens road-shock before it reaches the rider...and recently, LeMond bikes have shown up where the primary stress-bearing portion of the frame (the chainstays, down tube, and head tube) are titanium and the remainder of the bike (seat stays, seat tube and top tube) are Trek's proprietary OCLV carbon (LeMond is owned by Trek)...making for a very light bike that rides smoothly (the carbon upper portion gives it nice shock absorption) and is torsionally stiff (thank you, titanium), so it rides nice, is much lighter than typical titanium frames, and it sprints and climbs like a m-therf-cker.

      Sure there are fads, and they pass, but most of the time, Joe Average bike user isn't going to be concerned with it, becaus a Joe Average bike shop bike (not a department store bike) sees those development years after the "lightweight, passing-fad" parts have been put through the evolutionary wringer of the market. If the design concept works, it trickles down into Joe Average bikes -- things like aluminum frames, indexed shifting, threadless headsets, etc. -- and if it doesn't work or is too expensive to be anything but a high-end product, then you won't see it on entry-level bikes. Things like titanium bolt sets (expensive, not worth the weight savings) come to mind.

      The last two to three years have brought some seriously interesting developments, some of which I suspect will be see in Joe Average bikes within 5 years -- the aforementioned carbon seatstays, scandium-aluminum alloy framesets, paired-spoke wheels, etc.

      Just because the market is being used to filter out what works and what doesn't, doesn't mean that every attempt at a lightweight part is a passing fad.
  • Fromt he article: "You know, the computer that is now taking over the planet thanks to the iPod"

    Ok, come on, maybe the iPod is a pretty successful device but apple has never been further away from world market share in terms of desktop computers than it is now. With cheapo Windows machines and Linux on the other side they had to come up with a success. The iPod might have saved their lives but world domination is waaaay out of reach.

  • cos its gets me out in the country side and fresh air after way too many hours slumped in front of a computer in a stuffy office. It does eat time out of your day but I really consider it relaxation so I dont mind.

  • Really? (Score:3, Funny)

    by AviLazar ( 741826 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @01:52PM (#9153932) Journal
    Apple Macintosh (you know, the computer that is now taking over the planet thanks to the iPod).
    Which planet are we talking about?
  • I have recently and at long last become reacquainted with my bikeE recumbent. Or, well, semi-recumbent as some people like to call them, since it's more like a propped-against-a-wall position. However, I guess a *true* recumbent would involve you lying senseless on a mattress or something, so I call kibosh on that aspect of the name game ;)

    As recumbents go, bikeE bikes are (or were, since the company is now out of business, but *are* in that their products still exist ...) low-end: a bit heavy, a lot cheap
    • 1. Hills on a recumbent. Yeah, on a BikeE the hills are gonna hurt. Some of the high-performance designs can climb just about as well as an upright (see Bacchetta, Barcroft, Lightning for a few examples).

      2. Cost. Prices in the recumbent market are dropping. There are a number of excellent 'bents out there for less than $1000, and some good ones as low as $500. You'll pay only a slight premium for a recumbent over a similar-quality road or mountain bike these days (see RANS, Burley, Lightning, Sun for a few
  • There is nothing that compares to a bicycle for efficiency of transport. I ride 60-100km most days and the only fuel I require is a protein shake (aprox. $1.00) and a couple of bottles of water. Positive physical side-effects aside, there is nothing more enjoyable than passing some Bicycling Science, Third Edition reading weenie on his tricked out, rarely ridden road bike! BTW, true geeks ride recumbants! (those ridiculous looking Lazy-Boy contraptions)

  • Gosh darn it (Score:3, Funny)

    by MoxFulder ( 159829 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @02:04PM (#9154113) Homepage
    And I thought I had broken out of geekiness by riding a bike to work every day, and becoming an enthusiastic rock climber.

    Thanks for destroying my illusions of normalcy, Slashdot!!!
  • For a few reasons.

    1. They are quite easily the most efficient means of transport there is. By a long way.

    2. I have a recumbent bicycle. Actually a Pashley PDQ [pashley.co.uk] based on the Counterpoint design. Sunbed and exercise bike in one.

    3. Cycling keeps you healthy.

    4. It moves you from A to B rapidly, quietly and with minimum environmental impact. Soon after crude is $100 per barrel, cyclists will reclaim their rightful place at the top of the roaduser hierarchy. Grr.

    5. I have a quasi-religious belief that in The

  • (from the author) Replies to some Qs (Score:5, Informative)

    by sdedeo ( 683762 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @03:32PM (#9155448) Homepage Journal
    I'm happy to see the discussion the review has generated. Here are some scattered replies to questions (sorry if I've missed any -- I am logging in just briefly, busy day.)

    * Riding in traffic exhaust: there is no good discussion of bike-car interactions. (I recommend Effective Cycling, John Forrester, pub. MIT Press, for lots of statistical and practical information on this subject.) Unfortunately, neither EC or BS cover exhaust; I remember some studies done before gas (petrol) went unleaded in London that showed elevated lead levels in cyclists. Not sure how the trend to LEVs has helped.

    * Effeciency of the bicycle design. It is definitely the case that recumbents are more efficient. This is in large part due to wind resistance. In general, designs that allow for continuous motion (e.g., circular motion of pedals) are far better than pumping (discontinuous change of direction), and that's what we've got. Attempts to make the pedal motion more efficient on the upright have not been too successful -- it seems we adapt well and smooth out the minor troubles.

    * Bicycle weight: yes, I was wrong to call it a "new" trend to drill out chainwheels and generally obsess over grams. The new trend is perhaps the use of Ti and exotic compounds to lessen weight without sacrificing strength. In any case, even a one pound change in the weight (very large for the obsessives) has little effect on efficiency compared to, e.g., tire pressure, out of alignment parts, chain loss, &c&c. Lance needs it, but Lance has a team of engineers to keep everything else in check! Check it out!

    * My comment on the traffic "rant." I am a huge anti-car person when it comes to urban design, and I generally agree with the conclusions of his rant. However, he makes some unsubstantiated claims about traffic flow in order to support his argument, and I just don't think they hold up. It is in stark contrast to the rest of the book, where he is very careful to cite and discuss the evidence for even the most "obvious" assertion.

    * Climbing and cycling are totally the geek sports! No question. They are problem solving sports, where you combine smaller syntactical units to form original solutions to constantly changing conditions. (Martial arts fits this description very well, as well.) In cycling, the problem solving happens "offline" and during training, of course, where as martial arts and rock climbing are live. Compiling C versus interpreting LISP, I guess.

    Thanks, all who contributed and will contribute! It is fun to see people's opinions, and to discover the number of /bikes.

  • Bicycle Economics, Physics, and Culture (Score:3, Interesting)

    by taoboy ( 118003 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @06:13PM (#9157396)
    Funny, a lot of the "wisdom" about bikes goes out the window in a setting where:
    • No private autos allowed: everyone rides bikes to get around, or walk
    • Distance between the farthest points on land is 2 1/2 miles - it's an island in the Central Pacific
    • Salt from the ocean makes for one of the most corrosive environments in the world


    This is Kwajalein (9Nx167E), where I currently live. Green one-speed Huffys rule here - flat terrain, and why spend more than $90 if the damned thing's gonna be a pile of rust powder inside of 8 months? The most popular mod is a 3-foot extension of the handlebar yoke so you can rest your forearms on the handlebars without bending over. Bike trailers are a must, for transporting large boxes home from the post office or schlepping SCUBA tanks to the beach. Adkins diet is a killer, because you need carbs to pedal a bike, go figure! And most important, there are many more bikes than the few government vehicles prowling around, so bikes rule the road - yeah!

    The local store has brought in aluminum-frame bikes with 4-speed internal transmissions - they'll last about 2 years before the steel components go. I have one, sprayed a couple of coats of clear Krylon on it, and it's still going after a year and a half - did have to replace the chain. But at $300 apiece, the economics of the green Huffy still rule.

    Some folks with time on their hands will scrounge parts from Bicycle Heaven (where all rusty bikes go) to build their primary tranporation - hey, what's a little rust, or a off-true wheel that shoves the seat up your butt, when all you need is a ride from the dorm to the chow hall?

    We do have competitive cyclists on-island, and they get into the standard stuff - aerodynamics, lightweight materials and such. But we also have folks who compete in the annual triathalon (aptly called "The Rustman") with "Kwaj-condition" bikes.

    All this to say it's been interesting living in a world where bikes really do rule...

Slashdot Top Deals

Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.

Close