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.
I have to say they've changed a lot about the book, more than is noted above. It's more accuruate now, but it's kind of unnerving how many incorrect explanations of fluid dynamics and quantum mechanics slipped by last time.
BLING BLING. Meet the architecture that's changing everything.
Forget bikes! Real geeks use the Segway!
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).
Just remember: wear a helmet! All it takes is one particularly hard cranial impact with cement, and you'll "go *BSD".
Just wait until they motorize these bicycles. Imagine the possibilities of riding a bicycle without a helmet at 90 mph. They could form entire gangs of people riding these motorized bicycles.
And geeks could look down on them for using a higher-tech solution than their regular bicycles. Ironic how they see nothing wrong with a Linux Users group, but as soon as it's a Motorcycle Users Group, they're some kind of lower life form.
Boy, I can't pass that up. If the windows NT server next to me were a bicycle, it would be nice and shiney, have one gear (slow), and the wheels would fly off every now and then for no apparent reason, with the random luckiness that it attracts meteorites(i.e. worms and virii) from the sky. But hey I can upgrade to the new even shiner M$ bicycle, which has pretty much all of the features mentioned above, except it is faster because it would be running on brand new hardware (but mostly just attracts meteorites faster too).
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
But the bicycle from a broad design perspective has not changed much since its invention, save from a departure from amusingly large front (or is it back) wheels. So it seems to me that the bicycle is far from optimised in terms of muscle use. I've seen various contraptions over the years that I suppose attempt to imrove on this. One that I saw just a few days ago appeared to be powered like a rowing machine. Another more popular variation on the cycle has the rider sit much lower to the ground. But I believe this one only serves to have the rider in a more upright position. So does this book point out the "best" design for the cycle?
Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?
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.
You'll fit in real good at the scientist loony bin in the "She Blinded me with Science" music video. If it looks out of place there (like a regular bike would), it is not "real geek".
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Cycling science has really come on in the past few years. I remember the bicycles of my youth resembling drainpipes welded together - heavy and clunky with all the response and verve of a coffee table.
Now I was somewhat suprised to find that more modern bikes are superb machines. Cheap. Reliable. Light and really really fun to ride.
The added benefit of being a) ecologically sustainable and b) acutually *quicker* in the city is just a bonus.....
This one goes out to all those car luvin' geeks. Borrow a high quality bike and see what the rest of us are a raving about.....Do this now.
Remember kids! Guns don't kill people - Americans kill people.
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.
Hardly a passing fad. People have been drilling their chainrings (and everything else) for as long as there have been hills to climb.
Every day I ride home to the top of my hill I'm glad to be hauling 17 pounds of bike versus 25.
please...There is enough junk science floating around about helmets to make your head spin.
research and understand the construction and testing of current style bike helmets, and the serious crash types that lead to blue-screening yourself.
You'll be surprised as to what a foamie can and can't do.
Not saying that a helmet isn't a good idea, but it's assuredly not a panacea, either.
I'll venture to guess that you're out of shape. Doesn't take a PhD to figure that out.
The copper bosses killed you, Joe. 'I never died', said he.
Recumbent bicycles (random links plucked from Google) have an advantage because above about 15mph the key issue is wind resistance, which they reduce significantly, while also improving comfort.
Recumbents are great on the flat but don't climb so well, so they wouldn't necessarily make a great all-rounder but could suit your circumstances. The low position is not the greatest in traffic either.
One of the issues holding back bike evolution is that the racing organisations have strict restrictions on design regarding what is permitted in races.
Apple Macintosh (you know, the computer that is now taking over the planet thanks to the iPod).
Which planet are we talking about?
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Heh. My Specialized has a sticker saying 'Designed on Sun Microsystems' immediately followed with 'Made in Taiwan'. How's that for outsourcing?
(It's still a great bike...)
I have recently and at long last become reacquainted with my bikeE recumbent. Or, well, semi-recumbent as some people like to call them, since it's more like a propped-against-a-wall position. However, I guess a *true* recumbent would involve you lying senseless on a mattress or something, so I call kibosh on that aspect of the name game ;)
...) low-end: a bit heavy, a lot cheap (compared to many recumbents, which are designed and priced like sculpture). I had hoped they represented a sufficient mainstreaming of recumbent bikes, and a sufficient lowering of the price, that they would fill an obvious market gap and thrive, but ... No. Turns out they were not able to pull an eMachines, despite the similar naming scheme.
:) For Steve Roberts with his 210 gears, maybe, but not for me with my mere 21 ;) It's also more for streets and other flattish surfaces than for mountainous territory ;) However, the tires are sufficiently knobby it's certainly not confined to artificially perfect racing conditions. For the places and reasons I'm likely to ride it (mostly urban transport, for fun and utility, grabbing milk from the store etc) it's perfect.
As recumbents go, bikeE bikes are (or were, since the company is now out of business, but *are* in that their products still exist
So, now after a year of not riding it (long story, friend's delivery plan from the other coast was interrupted), I have the pieces, and soon will re-assemble my heavy but super-cruisy blue semi-recumbent.
Riding recumbent takes a few minutes to adjust, less so probably on the bikeE than on the truly radical ones, which I have long wanted to try but never have. It's cruisy! turns are a bit slow (long wheelbase), hills are enough to make me walk a lot of them, in contradiction to claims that they're no worse on a recumbent than on a conventional upright bike. Uh, Yeah right
(Who is Steve Roberts, you ask?)
However (and this is the reason I have bothered to type this much on an old bike), I have not yet located a bike rack that would hold one of these on the *back* of my small station wagon (subaru legacy outback). Has anyone seen one of these? I don't want a rooftop rack for it -- unless someone can provide evidence that rear carriers are just as bad, fuel-wise. Around town, the fuel difference is not so bad. I just ended a 9,500 mile road trip though, and may be taking one of similar length in August. At current gas prices, and even at old ones we may ne'er see again, I don't want to add anything unnecessary to the fule bill.
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
There is nothing that compares to a bicycle for efficiency of transport. I ride 60-100km most days and the only fuel I require is a protein shake (aprox. $1.00) and a couple of bottles of water. Positive physical side-effects aside, there is nothing more enjoyable than passing some Bicycling Science, Third Edition reading weenie on his tricked out, rarely ridden road bike! BTW, true geeks ride recumbants! (those ridiculous looking Lazy-Boy contraptions)
...and one of the most useless. Variations of the double-bun hornless seat have been around for years. The horn is extremely important in controlling the bike.
A far better hardware solution to the problems "solved" by the hornless bike seat is the "crotchless" seat, with a strategically shaped hole or slot in the middle. Terry (a woman's bike company) first popularized these seats marketed towards women, but men liked them enough that Terry introduced a men's model with a different brand. Others have copied the basic design with varying success.
Another type I've had success with is the old-fashioned unpadded streched leather seat. Only moderatly comfortable at first, after a long ride they stay moderatly comfortable
Some good bike stores will let you test-ride saddles for a few days on your own bike.
Take a suitably wide piece of paper. Lay it down on a carpeted floor.
Sit on it, and rock your pelvis forward a little.
Notice the two major depressions? Those are your pelvic bones. That is what you want to contact the seat.
Mark circles on the paper where the depressions are, and take it to a bike shop. Compare it against several seats.
Buy one.
Further info here.
And I thought I had broken out of geekiness by riding a bike to work every day, and becoming an enthusiastic rock climber.
Thanks for destroying my illusions of normalcy, Slashdot!!!
My bicyles
I haven't read this book, and I'm not sure I want too, because it seems to be overkill. Bicyclists in search of a practical, down-to-earth analysis of the bike might check out the prodigious writings of Jobst Brandt, a mechanical engineer and avid touring rider. Brandt eschews quantum mechanics and other irrelevancies and instead analyzes and explains the real problems of bicycles. Most notably, Brandt published The Bicycle Wheel, the definitive text on the function, response, and building of spoked wheels. I used it to select parts for and to build my current wheels and let me tell you, building your first set of bike wheels is even more interesting than building your first PC.
Brandt is a tourer of some note. His Alpine and Sierra Nevada tours are legendary and have inspired a lot of cyclists.
You can access and search Brandt's writings via USENET: try looking at rec.bicycles.tech.
- Kabauze
Drill baby drill - on Mars
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."
If I had mod points I'd mod you troll, but surely you must know that in many municipalities cycling on the sidewalk is illegal and cyclists are obligated to ride in the street.
Not only that, but on streets without bike lanes, the law often dictates that a cyclist ride in the middle of the lane.
-carl
. We've got computers, we're tapping phone lines, you know that ain't allowed - Talking Heads, "Life During Wartime"
It doesn't require a laptop (too heavy anyway) but a PDA. I just bought a personal GPS receiver and am working on a program for my Pocket PC to give me audible directions while biking/driving using maps I build myself (tracing over aerial imagery).
I mean, unless you've kind of got a death wish. It's about the best way to get hit by a car -- they are far more likely to see you if you are on the road, but when some guy turns directly into you because he didn't see you on the sidewalk...
:)
Oh, and it's usually illegal.
Get a city map, pick some routes that are calmer (i.e., avoid industrial areas, find some back roads, get off the 4 lane commuting routes), and check them out on the weekends. Once you find a good route or two, try it to work. Set a goal of doing it twice a week 6 months a year. You'll never look back.
Basically it comes down to technique. On most reasonable length, gradual (less than 4% grade) hills, you can find this happy zone where you really aren't pedaling any harder than on flat land. It took me about 3 or 4 months of solid riding (150+ mile weekends) to really find the timing and gearing. For me the easiest way to find it was to drop to my middle front ring with the smallest back ring and work down the gears from there. I am generally happy on long hills somewhere in the middle of the back rings and on my middle front ring, shifting up or down as my legs dictate.
bkr
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
"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?
* Riding in traffic exhaust: there is no good discussion of bike-car interactions. (I recommend Effective Cycling, John Forrester, pub. MIT Press, for lots of statistical and practical information on this subject.) Unfortunately, neither EC or BS cover exhaust; I remember some studies done before gas (petrol) went unleaded in London that showed elevated lead levels in cyclists. Not sure how the trend to LEVs has helped.
* Effeciency of the bicycle design. It is definitely the case that recumbents are more efficient. This is in large part due to wind resistance. In general, designs that allow for continuous motion (e.g., circular motion of pedals) are far better than pumping (discontinuous change of direction), and that's what we've got. Attempts to make the pedal motion more efficient on the upright have not been too successful -- it seems we adapt well and smooth out the minor troubles.
* Bicycle weight: yes, I was wrong to call it a "new" trend to drill out chainwheels and generally obsess over grams. The new trend is perhaps the use of Ti and exotic compounds to lessen weight without sacrificing strength. In any case, even a one pound change in the weight (very large for the obsessives) has little effect on efficiency compared to, e.g., tire pressure, out of alignment parts, chain loss, &c&c. Lance needs it, but Lance has a team of engineers to keep everything else in check! Check it out!
* My comment on the traffic "rant." I am a huge anti-car person when it comes to urban design, and I generally agree with the conclusions of his rant. However, he makes some unsubstantiated claims about traffic flow in order to support his argument, and I just don't think they hold up. It is in stark contrast to the rest of the book, where he is very careful to cite and discuss the evidence for even the most "obvious" assertion.
* Climbing and cycling are totally the geek sports! No question. They are problem solving sports, where you combine smaller syntactical units to form original solutions to constantly changing conditions. (Martial arts fits this description very well, as well.) In cycling, the problem solving happens "offline" and during training, of course, where as martial arts and rock climbing are live. Compiling C versus interpreting LISP, I guess.
Thanks, all who contributed and will contribute! It is fun to see people's opinions, and to discover the number of /bikes.
Protect your liberties. Donate to the ACLU
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...
If you are trying to bike more (for the environment, to save money, for your health, etc..) you should join a local Bike Coalition (which could be a little different than a Bike Club depending on your area). They work for geting things like more bike lanes, enforcement of stiffer penalties for people who drive dangerously, better access for bike to transit, etc... They are good places to meet like minded individuals as well as provide a place to volunteer to help change things. In San Francisco, you can contact the San Francisco Bike Coalition http://www.sfbike.org which has great local information, as well as links to other bike coalitions around the area/country.
This is Kwajalein (9Nx167E), where I currently live. Green one-speed Huffys rule here - flat terrain, and why spend more than $90 if the damned thing's gonna be a pile of rust powder inside of 8 months? The most popular mod is a 3-foot extension of the handlebar yoke so you can rest your forearms on the handlebars without bending over. Bike trailers are a must, for transporting large boxes home from the post office or schlepping SCUBA tanks to the beach. Adkins diet is a killer, because you need carbs to pedal a bike, go figure! And most important, there are many more bikes than the few government vehicles prowling around, so bikes rule the road - yeah!
The local store has brought in aluminum-frame bikes with 4-speed internal transmissions - they'll last about 2 years before the steel components go. I have one, sprayed a couple of coats of clear Krylon on it, and it's still going after a year and a half - did have to replace the chain. But at $300 apiece, the economics of the green Huffy still rule.
Some folks with time on their hands will scrounge parts from Bicycle Heaven (where all rusty bikes go) to build their primary tranporation - hey, what's a little rust, or a off-true wheel that shoves the seat up your butt, when all you need is a ride from the dorm to the chow hall?
We do have competitive cyclists on-island, and they get into the standard stuff - aerodynamics, lightweight materials and such. But we also have folks who compete in the annual triathalon (aptly called "The Rustman") with "Kwaj-condition" bikes.
All this to say it's been interesting living in a world where bikes really do rule...
If you look at the issues, I think you'll find that far from being "dangerous" the health benefits of cycling are huge, big enough to overwhelm any other worries, like the risks of collisions (which probably aren't as high as you think they are anyway). Do some web searches, you'll turn up things like this.
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...)