Does being overweight mean you're slow on a bike?

[Kiwiavenger]

http://www.strava.com/activities/154970187

just saying - 15 stone and "overweight" with a bit of a belly. i know i can go faster if i dropped the lard but its become a companion to me and i dont want to see it go!

 

[MikeG]

........ know i can go faster if i dropped the lard.........

That's the whole thread summed up in less than a dozen words. People accepting the evident truth of this could have saved 8 pages, and goodness knows how many extra entrants to the Ignore function. There's a world of difference between "slow" and "slower than otherwise" in the thread title.

 

[marzjennings]

MOD Edit - Quotes Deleted post

So, you've yet to answer the question, do you think a riders mass has little affect on acceleration?

 

[MikeG]

....... do you think a riders mass has little affect on acceleration?

For anyone who wants a little help with the answer, remember your basic physics........ F=MA, thus A = F/M (where F= Force, M = Mass, and A = Acceleration). Therefore, anyone claiming that acceleration is unaffected by mass would need to demonstrate that F (power in this instance) increases in direct proportion to Mass. Is a bloke who is say, twice as heavy as another automatically twice as strong? ie A = 2F/ 2M If not, you've lost the argument.

 

[welsh dragon]

For anyone who wants a little help with the answer, remember your basic physics........ F=MA, thus A = F/M (where F= Force, M = Mass, and A = Acceleration). Therefore, anyone claiming that acceleration is unaffected by mass would need to demonstrate that F (power in this instance) increases in direct proportion to Mass. Is a bloke who is say, twice as heavy as another automatically twice as strong? ie A = 2F/ 2M If not, you've lost the argument.

I was just about to say that, but you beat me to it

 

[KneesUp]

For anyone who wants a little help with the answer, remember your basic physics........ F=MA, thus A = F/M (where F= Force, M = Mass, and A = Acceleration). Therefore, anyone claiming that acceleration is unaffected by mass would need to demonstrate that F (power in this instance) increases in direct proportion to Mass. Is a bloke who is say, twice as heavy as another automatically twice as strong? ie A = 2F/ 2M If not, you've lost the argument.

It depends on the "bloke" I'd expect someone near to starvation would be more than twice the weight and more than twice as fast at a healthy weight.

 

[MikeG]

It depends on the "bloke" I'd expect someone near to starvation would be more than twice the weight and more than twice as fast at a healthy weight.

You're changing the parameters, and changing the argument. I didn't say anything about speed whatsoever, and you reply by saying "twice as fast".

 

[KneesUp]

You're changing the parameters, and changing the argument. I didn't say anything about speed whatsoever, and you reply by saying "twice as fast".

You're correct. My point stands if you swap 'strong' for 'fast' though.

If you're not talking about speed you're off topic though

 

[MikeG]

You're correct. My point stands if you swap 'strong' for 'fast' though.

If you're not talking about speed you're off topic though

I was answering a question about acceleration........rate of change of speed.

As for your previous point.....you accept that you are talking reductio ad absurdum? This is of course a valid use of logic, but in this case it says nothing about the general case we are discussing.

 

[brand]

I like you, you're funny.

So, you've yet to answer the question, do you think a riders mass has little affect on acceleration?

Being fast over a short distance like 100 metres is not severely affected by weight. Most top sprinter are overweight albeit as product of greater muscle mass than the average person​

I was replying to 100 metres sprint therefore running. Also stated not severely affected.

PS I know I am funny

 

[KneesUp]

I was answering a question about acceleration........rate of change of speed.

As for your previous point.....you accept that you are talking reductio ad absurdum? This is of course a valid use of logic, but in this case it says nothing about the general case we are discussing.

The whole thread is absurd - I refer you to my own post from 11 days ago - http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/does-being-overweight-mean-youre-slow-on-a-bike.157997/post-3121509

 

[brand]

I was answering a question about acceleration........rate of change of speed.

As for your previous point.....you accept that you are talking reductio ad absurdum? This is of course a valid use of logic, but in this case it says nothing about the general case we are discussing.

You are being sesquipedalian. As Tex and his fellow countrymen would say "you are using $10 words where 50 cent words will do!"

[MOD Edit: Remainder removed]

 

[brand]

The whole thread is absurd - I refer you to my own post from 11 days ago - http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/does-being-overweight-mean-youre-slow-on-a-bike.157997/post-3121509

Get a grip of yourself all threads go off topic!
It invariably makes it more interesting for everyone except for the original poste'e.
MikeG am I using the right word in the right context?​

 

[MikeG]

MikeG am I using the right word in the right context?

I have no idea. I haven't really got much of a clue as to what point you are trying to make, so can't help you with your word choice. As I said a while back, some people here need to be more selective with the words they use, because, for instance, discussing speed and acceleration are two different conversations.

 

[Old Plodder]

does-being-overweight-mean-youre-slow-on-a-bike

The answer is 'no'.
It is more to do with fitness.
Whilst being heavier is a disadvantage going up hill, it is a distinct advantage going down.
Also, once your mass is moving, it is working for you; sort of like a flywheel does for rotary propulsion.