More weight, faster descents??

I've seen this notion in various forums. It typically takes the form
of "A heavier bike may be more work uphill, but is faster downhill due
to gravity..." Something like that.

The notion -- which I think is incorrect -- really should take the
form of "Greater total mass (rider + bike + stuff) may be more work
uphill, but is faster downhill..."

In any case, reviewing the elementary physics, doesn't mass cancel in
the equations? Same reason a rock and feather both accelerate at g in
a vacuum? Ergo, that heavier bike isn't getting you down the hill any
faster.
Dave
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: More weight, faster descents??
    ... the form of "A heavier bike may be more work uphill, ... faster downhill due to gravity..." ... and the surface area is much less than doubled. ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)
  • Re: More weight, faster descents??
    ... of "A heavier bike may be more work uphill, but is faster downhill due ... that heavier bike isn't getting you down the hill any ... in a vacuum. ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)
  • Re: More weight, faster descents??
    ... of "A heavier bike may be more work uphill, but is faster downhill due ... that heavier bike isn't getting you down the hill any ... Not to address your actual point, but most of our cycling doesn't occur in a vacuum. ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)
  • Re: More weight, faster descents??
    ... DaveH wrote: ... of "A heavier bike may be more work uphill, but is faster downhill due ... that heavier bike isn't getting you down the hill any ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)
  • Re: More weight, faster descents??
    ... of "A heavier bike may be more work uphill, ... that heavier bike isn't getting you down the hill any ... forces are very significant wrt to field induced forces parallel to ... If we were riding in a vacuum there would be no advantage. ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)