Yet, yet another gem.

[Cubist]

What was the question again?

It wasn't a question, it was a very interesting discussion on aerodynamics,
which led to the following conclusion:

It's harder to go uphill in a headwind, especially if you're a fat bastard like me.....compounded by the fact that if you are a fat bastard you're less likely to wear skinsuits, so you're at a double disadvantage

This then led to a further revelation, which concluded that yur wife will appreciate a diamond ring far more than a pearl necklace, but the black eye I got when I first tried it was proof enough for me anyway. Mrs C does not like anything organic round her neck, especially if she isn't expecting it............

 

[jimboalee]

It wasn't a question, it was a very interesting discussion on aerodynamics,
which led to the following conclusion:

It's harder to go uphill in a headwind, especially if you're a fat bastard like me.....compounded by the fact that if you are a fat bastard you're less likely to wear skinsuits, so you're at a double disadvantage

This then led to a further revelation, which concluded that yur wife will appreciate a diamond ring far more than a pearl necklace, but the black eye I got when I first tried it was proof enough for me anyway. Mrs C does not like anything organic round her neck, especially if she isn't expecting it............

Thanx for the vote of confidence ( I took it as one anyway ).

The statement in bold text will come as no surprise to most. The more interesting 'side issues' within my postings are :-
"There will be an increase in power when climbing a hill" and "There will be an increase in power when riding into a headwind".

Many authors have stated "the legs should not feel a difference", but if this is adhered to and the maths is done with power remaining constant, speeds dwindle to a pace where walking would be quicker.
If cyclists followed this premise, cycling up hill and against the wind would require not only constant power, but constant kCals/min consumption, so my much earlier statement "Hills make no difference" would be true.

In the real world however, cyclist don't dawdle along at speeds dictated by mathematical and physical rules. The give more power to get up the hill or down the road against the wind at a speed that does not make them look like pedal spinning idiots.

I have made another implication about hills which would read something like "hills shallower than 4% can be ignored from energy calculators".
On a 'circular' route, the average gradient is 0%. When there are hills steeper than 4%, these should be counted toward an addition to the energy requirement for that ride.

Audax has a formula for calculating Altitude Award points. Does anyone want to know how I adapt it into my Energy calc sheets? No. good.

Back to the wind. Would it come as a surprise to hear the Cd of a cyclist riding backward is less than when he rides in a forward direction? What the… ?? what's this for?
A tail wind has less effect on the rider's speed and power consumption than a headwind.

The upshot of this is that on circular route, the windier it is the more energy is required. It doesn't balance.

If you have noticed, riding into the wind is more knackering of course, but when you turn and the wind is with you, it doesn't appear the wind is helping much. Your arched back is more streamlined than your tucked front. Unfair, isn't it.

So when you go riding an out-and-back Audax in a gale, you must eat more.

I'll stop now.

 

[tyred]

Oddly enough, I was thinking about this last night when I was riding into a headwind and on a level straight where I can normal get 22mph, last night with the wind, I could only manage 19 -19.7.

 

[jimboalee]

It is only when the windspeed measured by a weather station is greater than your cycling speed in the same direction, that you get 'slippage'.

A trick to combat/take advantage of a crosswind is to angle your body like a sail.
The Xsection shape of your torso resembles an airfoil so will act like an aeroplane's wing and assist your forward movement.

It may only be a 1 Watt saving, but it's 1 Watt more than bugger all.