Slashdot Mirror
Bicycling Science, Third Edition
Released this April, David Gordon Wilson's updated Bicycling Science fills the gap between, on the one hand, shop manuals and training guides, and on the other the contemporary literature on human powered vehicles. Wilson, Professor Emeritus at MIT, navigates physics and physiology to produce a hefty source of insight.
Wilson splits his book into three broad sections -- the biology of human power generation, the physics of turning complicated muscle motions into linear velocity, and radical redesigns of the standard diamond bicycle frame.
The first section explains, among other things, the role of oxygen uptake and distribution, and gives empirical and theoretical backing to some, but not all, of the conventional wisdom surrounding cycling. The curious will find a detailed explanation of why high pedal cadence allows for long-term, low-intensity, high-efficiency power generation. Modifications to the standard choices -- from elliptical chain-wheels to hand-powered cranks -- are analyzed critically.
The second section might be jokingly termed "extreme high school physics." Wilson explains how people intuitively balance and steer on two wheels, and the design of braking systems to avoid flip-over. He gets down-and-dirty in the metallurgical literature to explain the role of metal fatigue in frame failure, and into fluid dynamics to discuss air drag in laminar and turbulent air flows.
Wilson manages to give a sense of how the different demands physics makes on all aspects of bike design cohere into the more-or-less efficient system that we recognize today as the road and mountain bike. Wilson is an innovator, but he has a healthy respect for current designs along with a good deal of skepticism for passing fads such as that for ultralight components.
The final section covers Wilson's love: the radical redesigns of human powered vehicles to enable people to not only cover vast distances or reach high speeds, but also to swim, submarine, fly and even hover or flap on the power -- between 100 and 700 W -- the "NASA standard" man or woman can provide on timescales between hours and seconds.
The text occasionally jumps into a wider historical and social context to provide lighter relief, such as the diagrams that compare cycling's efficiency to other modes of of transportation (cyclists handily undercut a fully loaded diesel commuter train for calories expended per rider.) Wilson is not amused by those who would compare cyclists to dolphins or hawks in terms of efficiency, distance, or speed -- too bad. A brief rant against cars near the end is the exception to the rule of Wilson's professional, honest style.
Bicycling Science can be used as a handbook for the armchair designer of human powered vehicles. Or, if you prefer, as a way to answer the nagging science questions that arise after a thoughtful bike ride. Perhaps its most inspiring use, however, is as a bed-table compendium of stand-alone investigations into what engineers have come up with on a device that has been perfected, again and again, for decades longer than the internal combustion engine.
You can purchase the Bicycling Science, Third Edition from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, carefully read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
Or in my case, watching the hands-on tinkering of the guy up the street at the bicycle shop. Seriously, after fiddling with the guts of the insides of various PCs all day, the last thing I want to do is rip the back tire off my bike and fix a flat (which is something I currently need to do).
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
Is there any sort of data to back up the claim that either rock climbing or bicycling is a popular among geeks? Among the geeks I know some sort of martial arts is far more common that rock climbing or cycling (i.e. I don't know anyone who climbs or cycles, but many who do martial arts).
Fixing a flat is ridiculously easy, it's the equivalent of opening up Word using Windows. If you don't cycle much, fine, take it to the shop, but if you do, you'd be far better learning the basics. There aren't many 'guys up the street' to be found when you are out touring 25k from the nearest civilisation. (I speak from experience and now know how to fix a flat.)
I commute by bike. I have found that it is a great way to burn off the stress of the day. On my ride home, I can think about all the things that pissed my off that day (or in general) and get them out of mind by the time I get home. If I drive, I really notice a difference in how I feel when I get home. Plus it's good excerise as well as I can get a good laugh when I pass a gas station sell regular for $2.40 a gallon.
Oh no you don't...
Every time I see a cyclist on the sidewalks, I get a strong urge to shove something into their spokes. The rules are there for a reason. Some jackass shifted into top speed careening down the sidewalk is going to hurt a pedestrian. They can stay to the right on the streets, and that's that. Get the hell off of my walkway unless you're planning on keeping one foot on the ground at all times.
And seriously, would it kill you bicyclists to operate responsibly on the streets? Just because you take up less space doesn't mean that you have the right to try to cut off everyone in dense urban traffic, run traffic lights, etc. Maybe if there weren't so many braindead bike messengers, I wouldn't notice it so much, but it's things like this which tell me a few things:
1) Bikes belong on the street.
2) Bike lanes must exist.
3) Cyclists should be licensed.
If you're going fast enough to hurt someone, you should be forced to take a test and own up to some responsibility for your actions.
Raptor
"Procrastination is great. It gives me a lot more time to do things that I'm never going to do."
"Is there any sort of data to back up the claim that either rock climbing or bicycling is a popular among geeks?"
Anecdotal evidence makes poor statistics, but I climb (prefer outdoors) as does my wife (another geek) and many of our climbing partners are various incarnations of the Geek Genome as well.
I chalk it up (pardon the pun) to three things:
Footnote: It's the shorter climbs that'll kill you. Folks simply don't realize the danger. Without a helmet, a 10 ft fall headfirst onto jagged granite shatters your grape like a fragile egg. Damn shame more folks don't wear helmets when climbing outdoors
And finally, unlike Tribes 2 or your favorite Jumping Cartoon Character game (which I also like ;-) if you screw up on the rock, you stand a good chance of splattering your visceral goo in a very real and lasting way. Something about the stakes of Real Life Physics makes the reward of grokking the system all the more tangible and tasty.
1) Bikes belong on the street.
Most assuredly yes.
2) Bike lanes must exist.
On every street? Why? Designated bike lanes add an extra element of confusion into the traffic mix. Wide curb lanes are far, far better. IMHO, of course.
See John Franklins writings (particularly on the the Milton Keynes Redway) for examples of why designated, striped bike lanes may not be the best solution.
3) Cyclists should be licensed.
Again, why? Has it helped motorists skills? >40k dead on the roads annually would say no.
Plus, then you start to infringe on the right to travel.
We accept licensing for motor vehicles, because of the potential for damage. A person on a bike hits something, and you get a few bruises.
At what age do we issue this bike license? 16? 14, 10?
All roads are not alike. You'd remove the ability of a kid to ride to school or a friends house.
What's next? A license to walk?
Everytime I top a hill, I curse the 40 lbs of flab I carry. Good tires are a must but I'll worry about components fancier than those on my $250 used bike when I've reduced my biggest drag. Every hill helps.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Having said that, I am a computer engineer, and an avid club cyclist.
As for martial arts, I am not aware of geeks who indulge in this...
I love riding my bike vs. driving, but the real problem with owning a bike IMO is not maintaining it, but keeping it! Even if you buy several huge impressive locks and wind them all around the bike you can still have various parts from the bike stolen that aren't or cannot be easily secured. So the thieves peck away at it piece by piece.
It's 2004, with all the bright minds out there can't someone come up with better bike locks than we have today? As it is I have to go out and buy locks made to secure heavy equipment and motorcycles to secure my bike and that's not a sure thing.
And aside from locks, what about tracking? Isn't there anyway to come up with some type of electronic tracking device that can be put inside a piece (or pieces) of the bike? The open source movement is great for software, I think we need to start open sourcing more things in our lives such as bike security for example, coming up with ideas for devices and spreading the information freely like one would with an open source program.
I would appreciate any suggestions on how to better secure bikes and any brainstorming on electronic tracking methods. Thanks for reading.
But the weather, that's a killer argument that's hard to get around. It helps explain why Los Angeles is legendary for being a bike friendly city.
(One reason you don't hear bike freaks talk about problems with bad weather is that *real* bike freaks don't think there is any such thing...)