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
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.
Let's see...I've been a competitive cyclist for 15 years now and within 5 years, I'll be getting out of I.T. to open my own bike shop. I took up rock climbing about six months ago, and I'm horribly addicted. I went through a lot of hand-to-hand fighting training in the Army. And I definitely fit the definition of a geek. But from what I've noticed, geeks gravitate to sports that are gear intensive -- cycling and rock climbing both definitely fit the bill.
blog |
The typical introverted geek usually keeps few close friends and is not highly social, and avoids unnecessary physical conflict. This same nature extends to choice of sport. Seclusive sports such as rock climbing, kayaking, bicycling are easy choices for people with this sort of personality, as they can be practiced alone, or with a close friend or two. When done together, these are often cooperative sports rather than competitive.
This is not to say that all geeks are this way, or that geeks that are are afraid of other sports, but that a noticable number of geeks find solitary sports more comfortable.
"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.