You're right. Here's a sample scenario:
You climb a one-mile hill at an average speed of 4 mph, so the climb takes .25 hours (15 minutes).
You descend the same hill at an average speed of 30 mph. The descent takes .0333 hours (2 minutes).
Your total travel distance is 2 miles. Your total travel time is 0.283 hours, or 17 minutes. Your
average speed is 2 mi / 0.283 hours, or 7.067 mph.
Obviously you could plug in slightly different numbers; but just as obviously, over the same 2-mile
distance, you could easily maintain an average speed more than twice what you got ascending and then
descending the hill.
--
Greg Dunn www.BicycleCommuter.com
"baronn1" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You are oversiimplifying the math. I don't know the exact algorithm, but it's closer to a function
> of the length of time spent travelling at any given speed, not a simple average of the high and
> low speed...
>
> "Bill Hamilton" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
>
news:[email protected]...
> > Ron Levine <
[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> >
> > > On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 22:08:14 -0500, Cletus D. Lee <
[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >>In article
<
[email protected]>,
> > >>
[email protected] says...
> > >>> I am considering becoming a 'bent' owner BUT I live in the hilly mountainous State of New
> > >>> Hampshire. There are several very looong
> > > hills
> > >>> with 7 degree or more grades on some of my favorite loops. My
> > > question
> > >>> is, would a recumbent be practical for this kind of terrain? Thank You. Danielle
> > >>
> > >>It would depend on what your want out of the bike. If you do no mind being a little slower up
> > >>the hills with an increase in overall performance, then yes.
> > >
> > > Again, if you live in very hilly terrain, as I do (and as Cletus does not), then the greater
> > > speed you can get with the bent on the flats and the not-too-curvy descents will NOT make up
> > > for the penalty in climbing. In hilly terrain, climbing speed dominates average speed. Even if
> > > your descending speed were infinite, your average speed could be at most twice your climbing
> > > speed.
> >
> > Could you explain this? I think you'll turn the entire field of mathmatics on its head if you
> > can show a sound reasoning for your averaging above. If you manage 4 mph uphill, and 20 mph
> > downhill, then your average will be (4+20)/2=12 mph, far more than "twice your climbing speed".
> > In fact, the only way that your average will be twice your climbing speed is if your downhill
> > speed is three times your climbing speed.
> >
> > -Bill Hamilton