2

Consider a bicycle with multiple gears. Suppose that you are in a starting position with someone holding your bike upright (so when you start there's no issue with clipping in etc). It's well-known (and easily testable) that if you start in a low gear, then you accelerate away faster than in a high gear. (Obviously, if you start in the lowest gear and have a climbing mtb, then you'll have to change gear which can slow you etc - to ignore this, suppose you're on a road bike and using a not too low gear etc.)

Now, if the bike (and your body) is (are) perfectly efficient, then applying the same amount of force over a given distance gives the same work done. However, this could be done at a different rate (power). (Does the human body output at a certain power or is it the work done?) However, this outcome clearly isn't realised, so there must be some inefficiencies. Here are a few that I can think of (mainly the first one then the next two):

  1. Torque. Am I correct in thinking that changing gears is very similar to the situation, say, of undoing a nut and bolt with a spanner and changing the length of the spanner. (Consider also opening a door by pushing in different places (horizontally) on the door.)

  2. The body is far more efficient using the optimal cadence than a very bad cadence. Eg, pushing really hard and slowly is inefficient: the extra effort doesn't translate into extra power; similarly, if the cadence is too high, then you cannot move your legs up and then back down fast enough to give the required speed.

  3. A very high strain on the chain is inefficient ("uses up" a lot of the power).

  4. Very fast/slow turning of the legs can cause loss of balance, so effort can be spent on trying to maintain this.

Is there something key that I'm missing, or are these just the main things?

Any insight would be appreciated! :) - thanks!

Sam OT
  • 155
  • "applying the same amount of force will give the same acceleration" --- I'm not sure this is true here, because different gear ratios mean that the same force applied to the pedal results in a different force applied by the bike to the ground. – The Photon Jan 02 '15 at 19:57
  • That was what I wasn't sure about. The difference isn't force though, if completely efficient, surely? There may be a difference in torque. Consider for example if you push a door really near the frame: pushing really hard doesn't do much, while pushing not very hard at the far edge moves it easily. – Sam OT Jan 02 '15 at 20:08
  • Energy is conserved, so given output of a certain amount of energy the same amount of work should be done. But work is force times distance - doesn't matter how fast it's done (power). Thus, perhaps, the same amount of work is done, just over a larger period of time? – Sam OT Jan 02 '15 at 20:09
  • Ah just realised another key thing which I have added in (now number 1) in the list. – Sam OT Jan 02 '15 at 20:23
  • 1
    This question might be better answered in http://bicycles.stackexchange.com/ – Hot Licks Jan 02 '15 at 20:26
  • I did think about that, but I decided that this would be better. After all, it is a physics question most specifically (a similar principle could apply to other sports). :) – Sam OT Jan 02 '15 at 23:05

2 Answers2

2

The question is quite complex, but there are several fairly simple things that can be observed:

First off, the standard bicycle, as a machine, is quite efficient. Very little energy is lost in the "drive train", with the vast majority of "lost" energy (mechanical energy input at the crank that is not converted to momentum) being expended as either air friction or friction between tire and roadway.

The human body, on the other hand, is often an incredibly inefficient machine. Not only are there simple concerns of "energy efficiency" -- how many calories of food, say, it takes to produce an erg of "work" -- but there are also major issues of "durability" and "endurance", both in the short term and long-term.

The average human body tends to have a "sweet spot" for cycling where the cadence is (depending on the individual and the circumstances) somewhere between maybe 60 and 90 RPM. Cycling within the "sweet" range for the individual produces a large amount of energy (though perhaps not the "peak" energy) and, more importantly, minimizes fatigue and optimizes endurance (as measured, say, in total energy produced in a given 24-hour period, including rest, eating, sleeping, etc).

In terms of gear ratio, in addition to determining cadence on relatively level ground, it also, of course, affects climbing. An individual is limited as to the total torque they can place on the bike crank arms, and hence what degree of incline they can climb at a given gear ratio. Lowering gear ratio (obviously) reduces the torque required to turn the crank arms and hence enables climbing a steeper incline. Here the "sweet spot" (for a relatively short climb) is below the level ground "sweet spot", but there still is one.

When considering cadence both on level ground and climbing it needs to be considered that muscles are more efficient when in "aerobic" mode -- burning "fuel" using oxygen supplied from the lungs via the bloodstream. Aerobic mode is perhaps twice as efficient as anaerobic mode (though don't quote me on that number), and, of major importance, it produces far fewer metabolic byproducts which can accumulate in the body and eventually become toxic. Although there are several factors that determine whether exercise is aerobic or anaerobic, a major one is, in fact, cadence, with lower cadences being more likely to be anaerobic.

Hot Licks
  • 1,189
  • Excellent answer, thank you. I agree that the bike is very efficient. Slip-streaming/drafting is so good! =P Although, that doesn't necessarily show that the drive chain is efficient (but it is!). – Sam OT Jan 02 '15 at 23:09
  • Thanks for the biological/nutritional insight also. I, along with my fellow skinny cyclists, enjoy spinning at 90-100 RPM, whereas some more hench cyclists go down to 60 or less. I find that lowering the cadence (so putting in more effort more slowly) means that I can't last as long. I've heard that this causes a build up of lactic acid in the legs. (I believe that) this is very difficult to get rid of, and only really goes with rest; as such, once it's basically going to be there until the end of the ride, so need to be careful when "red-lining". Does this seem correct to you? :) – Sam OT Jan 02 '15 at 23:13
  • @SmileySam - That's about right. There's been amazingly little scientific work studying optimal cadence (not counting, perhaps, the work by the TdF teams who keep their stuff very secret). 20-odd years ago one of the cycling magazines reported on experiments that showed that a cadence above 80 (for the half-dozen cyclists in the study) was not as optimal as lower (even though the cyclists believed the higher cadence was better). But, again, there's surprising little "science". – Hot Licks Jan 02 '15 at 23:19
  • I know that Specialized do quite a lot of stuff - even have their own wind tunnel. But as you said, very secretive. I think it also depends an enormous amount on your build. As I said above, I like a high cadence - I cycle with someone who's up to 120 RPM and is as skinny, if not more, than me - but others will like lower if they have bigger legs. – Sam OT Jan 02 '15 at 23:21
  • (My advice to inexperienced cyclists is to always maintain a cadence that is at least equal to your breathing rate, and, ideally, about twice your breathing rate. This works remarkably well for a variety of circumstances, from a slow "amble" to flat-out racing.) – Hot Licks Jan 02 '15 at 23:22
  • I'm reasonably inexperienced at cycling, but very experienced at a reasonably high level of tennis, and base my game a lot around fitness/movement. So whilst I'm fairly new, I'm fairly good for my experience (not that good though ;)!). I used to do around 60-75 rpm - just what I thought was best - but then I cycled with a friend who uses 100+ and he was always saying to me to change down: I tried it and love it - even if I'm maxing out for the last mile bit of a ride I'll sometimes be up to 120 rpm (a bit too high, I think!). Been trying to drop it to about 80 these days! – Sam OT Jan 02 '15 at 23:24
1

The power inserted into a mechanical system equates to the power dissipated by the system plus the rate of gain of energy that stays in the system. As a formula it would look like:

$$P_{in} = P_{out} + \dot E_{internal}$$

$P_{in}$ is the power the cyclist is introducing into the system by moving his legs.

$P_{out}$ is the energy being lost from the system. This is what you're looking for here in your question.

$\dot E_{internal}$ is the rate of gain of internal energy, and, for a bike, mainly deals with rates of gain of kinetic and gravitational potential energy. Elastic energy might also be including, in the metal frame of the bike, but I doubt it will have too much of an impact over time.

Some of the sources of $P_{out}$ that I can think of:

When you pedal, you will be combating a frictional torque due to the rubbing together of the mechanical parts. The work done against this frictional torque leads to some heat loss.

When you are moving, you will be working against air resistance. The air particles collide with the moving bicycle, and the collision of the air transfers some of the energy away from the bicycle. The faster the bicycle, the faster air resistance dissipates energy. This also occurs on a smaller scale when the pedals go around very fast: the pedals collide with the air particles when rotating, and hence lose energy.

The tyres on the road do a good job at not slipping, but when they do (which I would suspect must happen regularly, if not constantly to some extent), the tyres are doing work against the friction from the road. This results in heat dissipation.

And, as an intentional design of the bicycle, the brakes do a wonderful job at contributing to $P_{out}$, because, when you use your brakes, you really want to drain as much of the kinetic energy (stored as part of $E_{internal}$) as possible. This works by constantly applying a strong frictional force against each wheel, dissipating a lot of heat energy.

That is what I could think up of for now, but I'm sure there are additional means of losing energy from the system that I missed.

Involute
  • 1,931
  • I would argue that frictional torque due to rubbing together of mechanical parts is fairly minimal. I have a fairly high-end racing bike ('05 model, but was about £1.8k when new - I got it at the start of summer for £600 =D!). – Sam OT Jan 02 '15 at 23:16
  • Tyres do play a part. But I use ~100psi and very thin tyres, so it's not a big deal. (You can see that the above two are not a big deal since, when in a good draft, you can coast along the flat for a long time.) But, from a pure physics point of view, the tyres don't need to be slipping* in order to be working against friction. [*As mainly a pure mathematician, "pure physics" is not a phrase I like to use... ;)!] – Sam OT Jan 02 '15 at 23:18
  • I do 100% agree that air resistance is a big thing - the biggest by far. (I love drafting someone downhill - they're pedalling hard and I'm just cruising!) – Sam OT Jan 02 '15 at 23:18
  • Thanks for your answer though. I was forgetting about the fact that when accelerating you're storing energy in the bike - mostly KE in the wheels; the rest doesn't make much difference (on the flat, I mean!). – Sam OT Jan 02 '15 at 23:19
  • 1
    That's a fair point. In most cases, the frictional torque is really not going to be that significant, but I thought I'd add it for completeness sake. It would only be significant for bicycles with rusted or poorly fitting mechanisms. – Involute Jan 02 '15 at 23:24
  • 1
    @SmileySam - Actually, as seen here, the amount of energy stored in the wheels is not nearly as substantial as it is often claimed. It basically only increases the apparent mass of the bike by the weight of the tires and rims being included a second time. – Hot Licks Jan 02 '15 at 23:26
  • @HotLicks - Yeah, actually, thinking about it, they're very easy to stop if spinning not touching the ground, implying that they don't actually have much KE. Dependent on the event (eg if really flat), some TTers will use heavy wheels because, once they're up to speed, they maintain their speed better than lighter wheels (but are harder to get up to the speed). I guess that this has the advantage that, if relaxing off a bit and then getting back up to speed, doesn't slow down so much... would seem weird for a pro to do this though. Hm, not really sure! =P – Sam OT Jan 03 '15 at 12:35
  • @SmileySam - I suspect that many TTers have read the same bogus statements that others have, claiming that weight on the wheels is "really significant". On the flat there's really no difference between having additional weight on the wheels vs having twice that additional weight on the frame (or the cyclist). Any difference would only be on an uphill. – Hot Licks Jan 03 '15 at 12:58
  • And that difference would be a negative effect! However, I was meaning professional teams. That's what I've heard anyway - my sources could be wrong... :) – Sam OT Jan 03 '15 at 18:34