Creeping brake pad drag

On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 12:15:29 AM UTC, AMuzi wrote:

Sir Bradley Wiggins held 440W for an e n t i r e h o u r

None of us did or could.

Considering the average age of this forum, you'd better add "or should".

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

When I read that, my first thought was, "Hey, Wiggins is a latecomer to cycling, so there's hope for the rest of us yet." But, realistically...

Andre Jute
What if

On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 19:14:07 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Sunday, 24 November 2019 21:41:56 UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 15:32:56 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Sunday, 24 November 2019 18:03:26 UTC-5, wrote:
On Sunday, November 24, 2019 at 11:59:10 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Sunday, November 24, 2019 at 3:33:45 PM UTC-5, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, 24 November 2019 15:14:40 UTC-5, Duane wrote:


You’re arguing with people that had the same sort of argument about
brifters.

Some people still argue that Brifters or Ergos aren't needed on ANY bicycle.

"Needed"?

I'd say brifters are needed to be competitive in a criterium race. They're
often, but not always, needed to be competitive in the final sprint of a road
race.

When else are they "needed"?

I wonder how heated the arguments would have been had the internet been around when the transition from wooden frames or from wooden wheels to metal ones or from solid rubber tires to pneumatic tires?

When pneumatic tires were introduced, it became impossible to win a race on
solid tires. The difference in rolling resistance was that dramatic. So was
the difference in comfort.

The same can be said about multiple gears. Very soon, everybody saw the advantages
and knew the benefits outweighed the detriments.

But since then, returns on technology have diminished. The benefits of most
innovations since, oh, 2000 or so are barely measurable in most situations.

- Frank Krygowski

I came across this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mJ06mro5fw

Lou

So the differences between a retro bike with modern kit and a modern bike with modern kit are @25hph 8 watts, @35 kph 21 Watts, and @45 kph 25 Watts. I'm not up on the Watts measurements so must ask, just how significant are those increases?

Cheers

https://www.cyclinganalytics.com/blo...output-compare
FTP, or functional threshold power, is nominally the power output
that can be sustained for one hour.
Male Riders
49% of people have an FTP below 260W.
44.3% of people have an FTP of 270W or more.
6.7% of people have an FTP between 260W and 270W.

FTP per kg of body weight
48.6% of people have an FTP below 3.4W/kg.
42.1% of people have an FTP of 3.6W/kg or more.
9.3% of people have an FTP between 3.4W/kg and 3.6W/kg.

--
cheers,

John B.

Still hasn't answered if those increases I posted from the video are significant increases. Are they?

Cheers

Look at http://bikecalculator.com/index.html
Which seems to show that:
Based on a 1 hour effort of 259 watts on level ground, body weight 63
kg and bike weight 9 kg.
To ride at 259 watts would equate to a speed of 35.17 kph
at 259+12=267 watts = 35.57
at 259+21=280 watts = 36.19
at 259+45=304 watts = 37.29

I'm not sure how accurate these charts are but they should be
indicative.
--
cheers,

John B.

On 11/24/2019 7:04 PM, Duane wrote:

I have 11 speed SRAM and it works well. But honestly a typical 105 setup
today is light years ahead of the stuff we rode in the old days with
friction shifters and toe clips. Anyone can argue that new tech isn’t
necessary. Seems silly.

It probably depends on your personal definition of "necessary."

For some people, biking "necessary" is the same as a teenage girl's
definition when her mom takes her to the mall: "Mom, _everyone_ has that
style! I've _got_ to have it! It's _necessary_!!"

For me, "necessary" means something more like "I'd be unable to ride a
bike without it. Or at least, riding without it would be a terrible
experience."

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/24/2019 8:08 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:


So, just how much difference do those wattage differences from the video
and which numbers I posted make in real life?


I just ran some numbers. Lou can check me, but here's what I got.

I fitted an equation to the "modern kit, modern bike" curve - the one
that said 25kph takes only 79 Watts (not counting rolling resistance and
drivetrain friction). The equation I got was
Power = 0.0097 * speed ^ 2.7918

The "retro" bike took 87 Watts to go 25kph. So I backsolved to find out
what speed the "modern" bike would go with 87 Watts.

I came up with 26.05 kph.

In other words, if you ditched your "retro" bike with round tubes,
square section rims, old style handlebars, etc. and spent the money on a
super-sleek aero modern bike, a 25kph rider would be able to go 26 kph.

In miles per hour, that bike would take a 15.5 mph rider all the way up
to 16.1 mph. Roughly half a mile per hour faster.

I note that you get almost as much benefit switching from wrinkled wool
clothing to an aero racing suit.

So anyone NOT riding in a super-sleek racing suit should first buy one
of those and carefully measure how much difference it makes on your
normal rides. You can probably get a set of race clothes for a hundred
bucks. See for yourself what that much difference feels like before you
spend $2000+ on a full aero bike.



Stripping most of the math away, on a bike, power is proportional to CdA
times speed cubed. Therefore, a 10% improvement in CdA buys you a 3%
increase in speed (the example in the GCN video). More importantly, the
CdA of the bike is mostly overshadowed by that of the rider (CdA is
actually coefficient of drag (Cd) times area (A), and the average cyclist
has way more frontal area than their bike). So, as the GCN video stated,
changes in rider CdA can be both larger and cheaper than the corresponding
changes in bike CdA, but if you’ve already done that and are losing by
smallish increments, the aero bike will buy you those smallish increments,
and in the specialized case of coasting down a steep hill, reduction in
aero drag can buy you temporary power increases of an astounding magnitude.

On 24/11/2019 16:57, Ralph Barone wrote:
Tosspot wrote:
On 23/11/2019 23:30, wrote:

snip

There is another attempt to ridicule things Frank. Lets do the same.
If you are scared by simple hardware and software that poll 4 simple
switches and when it detects that a switch is actuated it sends a
predetermined amount of pulses and a direction signal to the right
stepper motor maybe you should consider a bike with a wheel you can
flip to get the other gear like in the very old days. Why risk a
failure of a cable or a complex mechanical device such as a
derailleur with multiple pivots and a springs that can fail. Then of
course you only have two gears and you have to stop and get off the
bike first but hey you are not racing so it shouldn't matter. Your
toaster, oven and dishwasher is more complicated than Di2.

Oooh! OOOH! Sir! SIR!

https://www.amazon.com/Toaster-Proje.../dp/1568989970

Recommended for one of those Friday night down the pub ideas that gets
out of hand....


That sounds like a very interesting book. Thanks for the link.

His attempt to buy a barrel of crude oil from, iirc, Esso, is priceless.

On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 12:32:59 AM UTC+1, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, 24 November 2019 18:03:26 UTC-5, wrote:
On Sunday, November 24, 2019 at 11:59:10 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Sunday, November 24, 2019 at 3:33:45 PM UTC-5, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, 24 November 2019 15:14:40 UTC-5, Duane wrote:


You’re arguing with people that had the same sort of argument about
brifters.

Some people still argue that Brifters or Ergos aren't needed on ANY bicycle.

"Needed"?

I'd say brifters are needed to be competitive in a criterium race. They're
often, but not always, needed to be competitive in the final sprint of a road
race.

When else are they "needed"?

I wonder how heated the arguments would have been had the internet been around when the transition from wooden frames or from wooden wheels to metal ones or from solid rubber tires to pneumatic tires?

When pneumatic tires were introduced, it became impossible to win a race on
solid tires. The difference in rolling resistance was that dramatic. So was
the difference in comfort.

The same can be said about multiple gears. Very soon, everybody saw the advantages
and knew the benefits outweighed the detriments.

But since then, returns on technology have diminished. The benefits of most
innovations since, oh, 2000 or so are barely measurable in most situations.

- Frank Krygowski

I came across this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mJ06mro5fw

Lou

So the differences between a retro bike with modern kit and a modern bike with modern kit are @25hph 8 watts, @35 kph 21 Watts, and @45 kph 25 Watts.. I'm not up on the Watts measurements so must ask, just how significant are those increases?

Cheers

I ride with a power meter for two years now so I think I got a feeling about numbers. For me from my experience:
recovery ride 100-110 Watts, average speed about 25-26 km/hr,
relative easy ride 140-150, Watts average speed about 28-29 km/hr
average ride 180-190 Watts, average speed about 30-31 km/hr
pushing really hard 200-210, average speed about 32-33 km/hr.
All flat terrain and moderate temperature and wind concitions.

So 15 -20 Watt increase in average power is very significant in intensity.

Lou

On 11/24/2019 10:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/24/2019 7:04 PM, Duane wrote:

I have 11 speed SRAM and it works well. But honestly a
typical 105 setup
today is light years ahead of the stuff we rode in the old
days with
friction shifters and toe clips. Anyone can argue that
new tech isn’t
necessary. Seems silly.

It probably depends on your personal definition of "necessary."

For some people, biking "necessary" is the same as a teenage
girl's definition when her mom takes her to the mall: "Mom,
_everyone_ has that style! I've _got_ to have it! It's
_necessary_!!"

For me, "necessary" means something more like "I'd be unable
to ride a bike without it. Or at least, riding without it
would be a terrible experience."


The line is very personal and dependent on taste more than
engineering analysis. I'm riding around on a bog simple
fixie yet you 'need' those complex gear choices. For another
guy 2x12 suits his needs better than his old 3x10 for
reasons you may not appreciate but they are real for him.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 4:57:17 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/24/2019 8:08 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:


So, just how much difference do those wattage differences from the video and which numbers I posted make in real life?


I just ran some numbers. Lou can check me, but here's what I got.

I fitted an equation to the "modern kit, modern bike" curve - the one
that said 25kph takes only 79 Watts (not counting rolling resistance and
drivetrain friction). The equation I got was
Power = 0.0097 * speed ^ 2.7918

The "retro" bike took 87 Watts to go 25kph. So I backsolved to find out
what speed the "modern" bike would go with 87 Watts.

I came up with 26.05 kph.

In other words, if you ditched your "retro" bike with round tubes,
square section rims, old style handlebars, etc. and spent the money on a
super-sleek aero modern bike, a 25kph rider would be able to go 26 kph.

In miles per hour, that bike would take a 15.5 mph rider all the way up
to 16.1 mph. Roughly half a mile per hour faster.

I note that you get almost as much benefit switching from wrinkled wool
clothing to an aero racing suit.

So anyone NOT riding in a super-sleek racing suit should first buy one
of those and carefully measure how much difference it makes on your
normal rides. You can probably get a set of race clothes for a hundred
bucks. See for yourself what that much difference feels like before you
spend $2000+ on a full aero bike.


--
- Frank Krygowski

1. no flappy clothes,
2. position on your bike,
3. better tires,
4. aero wheels,
5. aero bike

Lou

John B. writes:

On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 14:09:57 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 17:38:47 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Saturday, 23 November 2019 20:12:07 UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 16:30:21 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Saturday, 23 November 2019 18:43:26 UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 13:58:10 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 3:01:51 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 9:37:21 AM UTC-8, Frank
Krygowski wrote:
In my view, putting immense complexity into a sealed black box
does not make a system "simple."

From a user standpoint, Di2 is very simple -- more simple
than cables. No tension adjustment or lubrication, and no
sticking after riding in muck. You have to charge it now and
then -- and you can get fussy with programming (on bike, no
computer necessary for certain settings). Electronic shifting
is not an imperative, and it's expensive, but its a
reasonable choice.

Well, sure, everything is a reasonable choice for someone in
some situations.

But "no tension adjustment or lubrication"? I can't remember
the last time I
did a so-called tension adjustment on anything but the
folding bike; and for
whatever reason, that one seemed to settle down early this
year. I think all
my shift cables are lined with plastic, but for whatever
reason, I don't ever
seem to have to lubricate them. Well, except for where they
pass through that
open plastic channel under the bottom bracket of one bike,
and that's only
very rarely. Other lubrication? A Di2 derailleur still has
mechanical pivoting
joints, doesn't it?

It's OK if someone wants to buy e-shifting. And given basic
early adopter psychology, plus normal pride of ownership, it's
a given that most who spend
many hundreds of dollars for its tiny benefits will say it's worth it.

But it seems obvious that 99.9999% of the world's cyclists -
and even cycling
enthusiasts - get along just fine with mechanical
systems. This choice proves
that, at best, bike technology is now way, way deep into
diminishing returns.

And I really do think there's an important difference between
"simple to use
because of incredible complexity built into a tiny box" and
just plain "simple."
That difference shows up when something goes wrong.

- Frank Krygowski

Ah, but Frank. You apparently understand, It is NEW! (and therefore
obviously better :-)

And USians apparently have an almost unlimited amount of disposable
income - I read the other day that "shopping", i.e., going to the
Mall, is now considered a form of entertainment.

And, of course, one has to "keep up with the Jones" and one way to do
it is to have a more expensive bicycle. (we have at least one bloke
here who drops the casual mention of his $4,000 bike into the
conversation at frequent intervals).

What could be more up-market than electrical shifting. It is NEW, it
is EXPENSIVE, I got it and you don't. What better reasons could
possible be imagined for owning something?
--
cheers,

John B.

Once it's totally perfected, widespread and trickled-down to
mid-range groupsets; I can see electronic shifting getting
popular with touring bicyclists. There would be no problems with
cables. I have bicycles with downtube shifters and I have
bicycles with downtube shifters AND tubular tires. MY road
touring bicycle has Campagnolo 9-Speed Mirage Ergo levers on
it. Ratcheting front shifter lever mechanism. Why? Because I like
being able to have two hands on the handlebar when honking up a
hill or riding in strong cross winds on my loaded touring
bike. Franks and YMMV. I DO KNOW what works best for ME.

Cheers

Yes, I agree with you. When the price drops there will undoubtedly be
a lot of bicycles sold with electric shifting. And, I'm sure that as
more and more devices are developed/invented to eliminate any and all
requirement for physical activity they will be marketed... and
purchased.

And yes, I hear you... Oh! I wouldn't have to take my hands off the
handle bars. Really? Of course about the first thing that young
people do after finally learning to ride a bicycle is practice riding
"hands off".

And the great improvement of electric shifting over what exists today
seems to be that instead of flicking your first finger to shift you
now can simply press the tip of your finger on a tiny button.... and
for that you get to pay in the neighborhood of $1,500. Ohhh, such a
bargain :-)

One can only assume that the next step in eliminating any and all
requirement for physical activity will be the electric bicycle.And, of
course, it is:

https://tinyurl.com/urcmt3r
Electric bicycles are showing strong year-over-year growth in the
U.S., with dollar sales growing by 95 percent in the 12 months ending
July 2017, and unit sales up 96 percent, according to global
information company The NPD Group. A $64.9 million category today,
electric bicycle sales have nearly tripled over the last 36 months.
--
cheers,

John B.

John, sometimes it's hard to tell if you're trying to be funny or
obtuse. LOL VBEG

Cynical.

Here we have a two wheel vehicle that within living memory has largely
been a toy for adolescents and the poor who either couldn't get a
drivers license or were too poor to afford a "car" which suddenly
blossom out into a $12,000 plastic thing, which the great bulk of the
modern U.S. public wouldn't take if you paid them to.
Mechanically a design that dates back to about 1850, some 170 years
ago and a relatively simple designed then, with no major design
changes from then to now.

1850? We must have read different histories. 1890 is more like it for a
modern-looking safety bicycle, something that could reasonably be used
for transportation by people of ordinary ability. Add twenty years or
so to include people of ordinary means. The bicycle is, as much as the
automobile, or the airplane, a product of the modern industrial age.
A usable safety bicycle chain could no more have been manufactured in
1850 than a moon rocket.

Well, you came closer than I did :-)

https://www.liveabout.com/bikes-an-i...history-365776
A major breakthrough came in 1885 with John Kemp Starley's the
creation of (or maybe "return to" is more accurate) a bike design that
featured a rider perched much lower between two wheels of the same
size, coupled with a sprocket and chain system that drove the bike
from the rear wheel. This was the same basic "diamond frame" design
still in use in today's bikes.

As for making chains. As Starley designed and apparently built a
bicycle using a chain it is apparent that chains suitable for use as a
drive chain were in existence and as I doubt that they suddenly
appeared out of the blue just in time for building the first modern
bicycle I would suggest that they existed prior to 1885. Perhaps as
early as 1850 :-)

Big leather belts (scary things, really), and giant gear trains were
widely used for industrial power transmission back around 1850. I'm
sure there was a development process for roller chains that reaches back
further than I might guess. I'll bet the early ones were big and
clunky, hand made, and cost a minor fortune. I still think that chains
so cheap that ordinary cyclists could throw them away had to wait for
the twentieth century.

In other words, you've been alive for well over half the history of the
safety bicycle.

How so?

1885 to 2019 is 134 years, twice 67.

On Monday, 25 November 2019 09:27:59 UTC-5, wrote:
On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 4:57:17 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/24/2019 8:08 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:


So, just how much difference do those wattage differences from the video and which numbers I posted make in real life?


I just ran some numbers. Lou can check me, but here's what I got.

I fitted an equation to the "modern kit, modern bike" curve - the one
that said 25kph takes only 79 Watts (not counting rolling resistance and
drivetrain friction). The equation I got was
Power = 0.0097 * speed ^ 2.7918

The "retro" bike took 87 Watts to go 25kph. So I backsolved to find out
what speed the "modern" bike would go with 87 Watts.

I came up with 26.05 kph.

In other words, if you ditched your "retro" bike with round tubes,
square section rims, old style handlebars, etc. and spent the money on a
super-sleek aero modern bike, a 25kph rider would be able to go 26 kph.

In miles per hour, that bike would take a 15.5 mph rider all the way up
to 16.1 mph. Roughly half a mile per hour faster.

I note that you get almost as much benefit switching from wrinkled wool
clothing to an aero racing suit.

So anyone NOT riding in a super-sleek racing suit should first buy one
of those and carefully measure how much difference it makes on your
normal rides. You can probably get a set of race clothes for a hundred
bucks. See for yourself what that much difference feels like before you
spend $2000+ on a full aero bike.


--
- Frank Krygowski

1. no flappy clothes,
2. position on your bike,
3. better tires,
4. aero wheels,
5. aero bike

Lou

One of the tests in that video was a retro bike with modern kit/clothing and another test was with a modern bike with modern kit/clothing. Thus whatever difference there was should have been due to the differences with the bicycles alone not the rider. I do wonder now though if they used the same tires on all of the bikes?

Cheers