Re: More weight, faster descents??

DaveH wrote:
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

I'm 5'10", 130ish lbs. I just got back from the 6 Gap ride in the N. Georgia mountains. I was smoking people going uphill, but then they smoked my ass going down and I couldn't catch up no matter how hard I tried (save for a few with a high pucker factor).

Mass does cancel out in elementary physics, but if you add fluid mechanics into the picture (drag force), low weight loses going down.

\\paul
.

Relevant Pages

  • 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 ... -Weight or Volume scales with the cube of the linear dimensions. ...
    (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 ... Mass does cancel out in elementary physics, ... mechanics into the picture (drag force), ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)