D
David Damerell
Guest
Thomas Reynolds <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (H) wrote :
>>Arthur Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>"sittingduck" wrote:
>>>>While rotating weight has a MUCH higher penalty than say, frame weight
>>>Oh really? Could you quantify that "MUCH higher penalty"?
>>If the weight is along the tire it takes twice as much energy to get it
>>going under acceleration (basic physics).
>A long discussion in this forum a couple of years ago pushed the
>conclusion that, while your statement is technically correct,
Not even that, since of course the weight of an inner tube is not on the
very outer circumference of the wheel.
[I suppose you could argue that the statement is correct but irrelevant.]
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
>[email protected] (H) wrote :
>>Arthur Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>"sittingduck" wrote:
>>>>While rotating weight has a MUCH higher penalty than say, frame weight
>>>Oh really? Could you quantify that "MUCH higher penalty"?
>>If the weight is along the tire it takes twice as much energy to get it
>>going under acceleration (basic physics).
>A long discussion in this forum a couple of years ago pushed the
>conclusion that, while your statement is technically correct,
Not even that, since of course the weight of an inner tube is not on the
very outer circumference of the wheel.
[I suppose you could argue that the statement is correct but irrelevant.]
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?