shock absorbers - waste energy?



Status
Not open for further replies.
Rick Onanian <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

[snip]

> Practical effect of hitting a bump: The _bump_ probably moves a little, or flexes, or takes some
> fatigue. You and the bike slow down and must pedal harder to resume previous speed. Suspension can
> help reduce the amount of forward speed lost.
>

[snip]

Dear Rick,

Here's a simplified example that may put things in a different light.

Roll two balls of the same size and weight down the same bumpy slope.

One is a steel ball hollowed out enough to match the weight of the other ball--extremely stiff and
resilient. It bounces off the bumps and into the air in a harsh, non-suspended fashion.

The other is a basketball filled with jello. It rolls smoothly over the bumps, deforming instead of
bouncing in a much smoother, suspended fashion.

Same weight, same size--which reaches the bottom first?

Carl Fogel
 
Carl Fogel wrote:
> Rick Onanian <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>
> [snip]
>
> > Practical effect of hitting a bump: The _bump_ probably moves a little, or flexes, or takes some
> > fatigue. You and the bike slow down and must pedal harder to resume previous speed. Suspension
> > can help reduce the amount of forward speed lost.
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> Dear Rick,
>
> Here's a simplified example that may put things in a different light.
>
> Roll two balls of the same size and weight down the same bumpy slope.
>
> One is a steel ball hollowed out enough to match the weight of the other ball--extremely stiff and
> resilient. It bounces off the bumps and into the air in a harsh, non-suspended fashion.
>
> The other is a basketball filled with jello. It rolls smoothly over the bumps, deforming instead
> of bouncing in a much smoother, suspended fashion.
>
> Same weight, same size--which reaches the bottom first?
>
> Carl Fogel

This is a loaded question. If the steel ball is the same size and weight as the basketball filled
with jello, then it must be hollow as you say. This means a greater concentration of weight away
from the axis of rotation, which gives the steel ball a greater moment of inertia compared to the
basketball (especially if the jello can rotate within the basketball). This goes back to the
arguments about rolling mass on a wheel, but it's a very real effect. Try rolling two identical soup
cans down a slope, one frozen and one thawed.

A better comparison would be two identical steel balls, one covered in felt and one naked.
 
Originally posted by Jacobe Hazzard
Carl Fogel wrote:
> Rick Onanian <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>
> [snip]
>
> > Practical effect of hitting a bump: The _bump_ probably moves a little, or flexes, or takes some
> > fatigue. You and the bike slow down and must pedal harder to resume previous speed. Suspension
> > can help reduce the amount of forward speed lost.
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> Dear Rick,
>
> Here's a simplified example that may put things in a different light.
>
> Roll two balls of the same size and weight down the same bumpy slope.
>
> One is a steel ball hollowed out enough to match the weight of the other ball--extremely stiff and
> resilient. It bounces off the bumps and into the air in a harsh, non-suspended fashion.
>
> The other is a basketball filled with jello. It rolls smoothly over the bumps, deforming instead
> of bouncing in a much smoother, suspended fashion.
>
> Same weight, same size--which reaches the bottom first?
>
> Carl Fogel

This is a loaded question. If the steel ball is the same size and weight as the basketball filled
with jello, then it must be hollow as you say. This means a greater concentration of weight away
from the axis of rotation, which gives the steel ball a greater moment of inertia compared to the
basketball (especially if the jello can rotate within the basketball). This goes back to the
arguments about rolling mass on a wheel, but it's a very real effect. Try rolling two identical soup
cans down a slope, one frozen and one thawed.

A better comparison would be two identical steel balls, one covered in felt and one naked.

Dear Jacob,

I feel silly saying, "But I didn't know it was loaded!"

Particularly since you're not only absolutely right,
but I actually learned what you're pointing out in
physics class.

Duh. Maybe it'll stick now?

Hoops roll slower than disks. Disks roll slower than
hollow balls. Hollow balls roll slower than solid balls.
(All other things being equal.)

A felt cover is thin enough to make the two balls
roll a bit differently without affecting the mass
much.

I wanted something that would show a big difference,
so I hollowed out my steel ball to show how clever
I was about jello being less dense than steel,
and--bam!--shot myself in the foot.

If I could, I'd specify two same-volume solid balls of
steel and something-like-jello-with-the-density-of-steel,
but I can't think of any common soft substance that would
work.

Soft, near-molten steel would work pretty well, but few
of us have much feel for how near-molten metal rolls.

We could get around the whole problem it by using a
vacuum, which would let us roll solid balls of any
substance and any size downhill without the mass or
surface area mattering, but a vacuum is getting tricky,
too.

Any ideas for two equal-weight, same-volume balls,
one as stiff as steel, the other squishy as jello,
different enough to give a dramatic result rolling
down the same slope in broad daylight?

Carl Fogel
 
Originally posted by carlfogel
Dear Jacob,

I feel silly saying, "But I didn't know it was loaded!"

Particularly since you're not only absolutely right,
but I actually learned what you're pointing out in
physics class.

Duh. Maybe it'll stick now?

Hoops roll slower than disks. Disks roll slower than
hollow balls. Hollow balls roll slower than solid balls.
(All other things being equal.)

A felt cover is thin enough to make the two balls
roll a bit differently without affecting the mass
much.

I wanted something that would show a big difference,
so I hollowed out my steel ball to show how clever
I was about jello being less dense than steel,
and--bam!--shot myself in the foot.

If I could, I'd specify two same-volume solid balls of
steel and something-like-jello-with-the-density-of-steel,
but I can't think of any common soft substance that would
work.

Soft, near-molten steel would work pretty well, but few
of us have much feel for how near-molten metal rolls.

We could get around the whole problem it by using a
vacuum, which would let us roll solid balls of any
substance and any size downhill without the mass or
surface area mattering, but a vacuum is getting tricky,
too.

Any ideas for two equal-weight, same-volume balls,
one as stiff as steel, the other squishy as jello,
different enough to give a dramatic result rolling
down the same slope in broad daylight?

Carl Fogel

Beach Ball 1
Propylene glycol and an arbitrary unit of Jello sufficient to gel.

Beach Ball 2
Water and 3% NaCL (or sugar if you intend to thaw and consume the contents after the experiment) by weight to adjust for the differences in specific gravity, add the same unit of Jello.

Cool balls to about 0-10 F.

Beach Ball 2 has a solid interior.
Beach Ball 1 has a gel interior.
 
On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 19:48:28 -0500, "David L. Johnson"
<[email protected]> may have said:

>Well, also, if you climb out of the saddle, a suspension gets you bouncing up and down as if you
>had hit a bump. All that bouncing is lost energy. You have to learn to sit and spin rather than
>climbing out of the saddle.

This is actually the one thing about the suspension fork that has been of some value to me outside
of the trails; by causing me to want to stay in the saddle instead of getting up off of it on
accelerations, and because small bumps are no longer a problem, I find that I'm paying more
attention to being in the right gear and maintaining a smooth pedalling style. Otherwise, the rigid
fork would be back on that one already.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something,
it's also possible that I'm busy.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
 
Originally posted by meb
Beach Ball 1
Propylene glycol and an arbitrary unit of Jello sufficient to gel.

Beach Ball 2
Water and 3% NaCL (or sugar if you intend to thaw and consume the contents after the experiment) by weight to adjust for the differences in specific gravity, add the same unit of Jello.

Cool balls to about 0-10 F.

Beach Ball 2 has a solid interior.
Beach Ball 1 has a gel interior.

Dear Meb,

Well, I did ask for dramatic results, but I'm not
sure that the pieces of the frozen ball would even
reach the bottom of the bumpy slope.

Perhaps we could put the imaginary shattered
ice on the imaginary hole in my foot?

Carl Fogel
 
Werehatrack <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 05 Feb 2004 14:46:25 +0000 (GMT), David Damerell <[email protected]> may
>have said:
>
>>Werehatrack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>On 4 Feb 2004 16:06:07 -0800, [email protected] (wle) may have said:
>>>>but - is it true that any shock absorbing mechanism wastes energy that could be used to propel
>>>>the bike ahead?
>>>Only for the ones with no real damping at all, which is most that are sold as original equipment
>>>on bikes under $800.
>>
>>Bunk. Damping converts kinetic energy into heat. Where do you suppose that kinetic energy comes
>>from? Little green men?
>
>If the damping was sufficiently effective (which it seldom is), there would be little suspension
>motion from pedalling. The more motion, the more loss. Damping reduces motion, and loss; below a
>certain point, it could be ignored. I doubt that any OE shock on an under-$800 bike has damping
>that even reduces the motion to any appreciable extent. (None that I've tried would qualify, in
>any event.)

It's not a matter of spending money - it's a matter of physics. A shock has to react to changing
dynamics,. whether they're terrain-induced or pedaling induced.

If you're saying there are bikes out there that don't sag when you lean on the bars, then what you
say is possible. I've just never, ever seen one, and don't suppose there really are any (other than
those with rigid or lockout forks, that is...).

But if you are curious enough, simply push down and pull up on your bars lightly while coasting
(with the equivalent force of lifting 10 pounds / 5kg) at a rate similar to pedaling (1.5x per
second, give or take). I have never seen a bike that won't "bob" when doing this. I'll wager you
haven't either.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
 
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 06:25:13 GMT, carlfogel
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Jacobe Hazzard wrote:
> > Carl Fogel wrote:
> > > Rick Onanian <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:<[email protected]>...
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > Practical effect of hitting a bump: The _bump_ probably moves a little, or flexes, or takes
> > > > some fatigue. You and the bike slow down and must pedal harder to resume previous speed.
> > > > Suspension can help reduce the amount of forward speed lost.
> > > >
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > Dear Rick,
> > >
> > > Here's a simplified example that may put things in a different light.
> > >
> > > Roll two balls of the same size and weight down the same bumpy slope.
> > >
> > > One is a steel ball hollowed out enough to match the weight of the other ball--extremely
> > > stiff and resilient. It bounces off the bumps and into the air in a harsh, non-suspended
> > > fashion.
> > >
> > > The other is a basketball filled with jello. It rolls smoothly over the bumps, deforming
> > > instead of bouncing in a much smoother, suspended fashion.
> > >
> > > Same weight, same size--which reaches the bottom first?
> > >
> > > Carl Fogel
> > This is a loaded question. If the steel ball is the same size and weight as the basketball
> > filled with jello, then it must be hollow as you say. This means a greater concentration of
> > weight away from the axis of rotation, which gives the steel ball a greater moment of inertia
> > compared to the basketball (especially if the jello can rotate within the basketball). This
> > goes back to the arguments about rolling mass on a wheel, but it's a very real effect. Try
> > rolling two identical soup cans down a slope, one frozen and one thawed. A better comparison
> > would be two identical steel balls, one covered in felt and one naked.
>
>
>
>Dear Jacob,
>
>I feel silly saying, "But I didn't know it was loaded!"
>
>Particularly since you're not only absolutely right, but I actually learned what you're pointing
>out in physics class.
>
>Duh. Maybe it'll stick now?
>
>Hoops roll slower than disks. Disks roll slower than hollow balls. Hollow balls roll slower than
>solid balls. (All other things being equal.)
>
>A felt cover is thin enough to make the two balls roll a bit differently without affecting the
>mass much.
>
>I wanted something that would show a big difference, so I hollowed out my steel ball to show how
>clever I was about jello being less dense than steel, and--bam!--shot myself in the foot.
>
>If I could, I'd specify two same-volume solid balls of steel and something-like-jello-with-the-density-of-
>steel, but I can't think of any common soft substance that would work.
>
>Soft, near-molten steel would work pretty well, but few of us have much feel for how near-molten
>metal rolls.
>
>We could get around the whole problem it by using a vacuum, which would let us roll solid balls of
>any substance and any size downhill without the mass or surface area mattering, but a vacuum is
>getting tricky, too.
>
>Any ideas for two equal-weight, same-volume balls, one as stiff as steel, the other squishy as
>jello, different enough to give a dramatic result rolling down the same slope in broad daylight?
>
>Carl Fogel

For the solid ball, a balloon full of water, for the squishy one a balloon full of vodka flavoured
jello, then do the experiment at sub zero temperature so the water freezes. Should be possible with
this set up to equalise diameter volume mass and rotational moment of inertia, and the protein
latice in the jello will constrain the vodka to rotate at the same speed as the balloon.

Kinky Cowboy*

*Batteries not included May contain traces of nuts Your milage may vary
 
[email protected] (Carl Fogel) wrote in message > > Only for the ones with >
> As others have pointed out, working the suspension takes energy, but is worthwhile if it makes the
> ride possible, saves the frame, or doesn't rob too much energy.
>
> Interestingly, many downhill racers insist on hard-tail frames when they coast down dry ski-resort
> runs at frightening speeds.
>
> I think that the racers have found that they roll down the slope faster with as little suspension
> as possible. Maybe someone familiar with this odd sport will explain what's really happening.
>
> Carl Fogel

Right, that's why DH bikes are designed with more and more suspension travel every year. Tests have
shown that for damn near every riding condition except really smooth climbs, full suspension rigs
are faster than hardtails.
 
On a flat smooth surface, such as a road or a sandstone slab in Utah, yes. The kinetic energy you
are putting into the bike is being bled off some by the shock.

On an uneven surface, however, I believe it surface, as you don't have to get the entire bike over
the obstacle, just the wheel.

There is, of course, the fatigue factor involved as well. If you have ever ridden a hardtail
straight fork (no suspension) MTB over unforgiving terrain, you will understand this.

"May you have the wind at your back. And a really low gear for the hills!"

Chris Zacho ~ "Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

Chris'Z Corner http://www.geocities.com/czcorner
 
Originally posted by Kinky Cowboy
>

For the solid ball, a balloon full of water, for the squishy one a balloon full of vodka flavoured
jello, then do the experiment at sub zero temperature so the water freezes. Should be possible with
this set up to equalise diameter volume mass and rotational moment of inertia, and the protein
latice in the jello will constrain the vodka to rotate at the same speed as the balloon.

Kinky Cowboy*

*Batteries not included May contain traces of nuts Your milage may vary

Since the vodka has a specific gravity less than 90% of water, would need to disolve over 10% by weight of sugar or a salt in the Vodka to equalize the densities. Anyone know if you can disolve that much sugar/salt in vodka, particularly with the Jello present? ;)
 
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 06:25:13 GMT, carlfogel
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Any ideas for two equal-weight, same-volume balls, one as stiff as steel, the other squishy as
>jello, different enough to give a dramatic result rolling down the same slope in broad daylight?

I haven't got the balls for that.

<G>

No, really, I haven't got any balls to fit that description. Why don't we try it with bicycles,
since that's what we're concerned with anyway? Approach a bump at a specified speed, and check speed
immediately after bump (or check distance rolled before coming to a stop). Then, put a vise-grip or
clamp on the fork, or if you have a lockout, lock it out, and repeat the experiment.

That sounds easier than trying to come up with some sort of weird balls.
 
[email protected] (Scott Hendricks) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Carl Fogel) wrote in message > > Only for the ones with >
> > As others have pointed out, working the suspension takes energy, but is worthwhile if it makes
> > the ride possible, saves the frame, or doesn't rob too much energy.
> >
> > Interestingly, many downhill racers insist on hard-tail frames when they coast down dry ski-
> > resort runs at frightening speeds.
> >
> > I think that the racers have found that they roll down the slope faster with as little
> > suspension as possible. Maybe someone familiar with this odd sport will explain what's really
> > happening.
> >
> > Carl Fogel
>

Dear Werehatrack, Meb, and Scott,

From what you all say, I suspect that things are tricky. I'm thinking of extreme, high-speed, ski-
run coasting, but for all I know they may have switched to rear suspension.

The pitch-forward problem might complicate things. When the first mono-shock Yamaha trials
motorcycles appeared in the 1970's (ultra-low-speed), one problem was that the damned things popped
up alarmingly as your front wheel dropped over the lip of a drop.

For more normal downhill riding, I expect that Scott's long-travel rear suspension is a godsend. But
in normal downhill riding, the improved traction for braking and cornering on bumpy trails far
outweighs any potential speed lost to the suspension.

I think (but may well be wrong) that this normal downhill riding differs from the ski-run stuff as
much as normal motorcyle hill climbing differs from extreme motorcycle hill climbing, with its locked-
open throttles and engines controlled by kill-buttons.

In the real world, the comfort and traction advantages of suspension, both front and rear, seem to
outweigh any loss of speed. That is, I still think that a rigid frame would roll faster downhill in
absolute terms, but suspension is obviously necessary if you want to reach the bottom alive.

I've read that the small-wheeled Moulton's real advantage in paved races before it was banned by the
UCI was not its small wheels, but the suspension necessary to keep the harsher small-wheel ride from
breaking frames.

On a paved but rough course where cornering matters more than usual, a bike with suspension keeps
its tires on the ground and can out-corner the rigid frame competition.

(To give a contrasting example of such trade-offs, Hailwood's Honda had poor suspension and
indifferent brakes compared to the rest of the motorcycles, but the fantastic six-cylinder engine
let him turn courses into a series of drag-races, each ending with a white-knuckled brake-and-turn.
The kindest comment on the Honda's twin rear damping units was that they provided a secure place to
store the springs. Whether the dampers really used fish-oil, as alleged, is a mystery.)

I'm still pondering the posts that argue that suspension makes bikes roll faster over bumps. They
strike me as mistaken, but the details are interesting.

Carl Fogel
 
Rick Onanian <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 06:25:13 GMT, carlfogel <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Any ideas for two equal-weight, same-volume balls, one as stiff as steel, the other squishy as
> >jello, different enough to give a dramatic result rolling down the same slope in broad daylight?
>
> I haven't got the balls for that.
>
> <G>
>
> No, really, I haven't got any balls to fit that description. Why don't we try it with bicycles,
> since that's what we're concerned with anyway? Approach a bump at a specified speed, and check
> speed immediately after bump (or check distance rolled before coming to a stop). Then, put a vise-
> grip or clamp on the fork, or if you have a lockout, lock it out, and repeat the experiment.
>
> That sounds easier than trying to come up with some sort of weird balls.

Dear Rick,

Your idea sounds reasonable, but I think that the differences are small enough that an ordinary bump
won't reveal much. Roll-outs are notoriously variable, due to dull things like the vagaries of the
wind masking the crucial details that we're pursuing.

My only practical experience is a rigid touring bike banging over four speed humps (eight-foot wide
humps, not bumps) at 20-30 mph daily on the the road behind the zoo. (The speed range is due to the
wind---usually around 24 mph.)

I pull up a bit and unweight a little as I hit them, mimicking suspension, but have yet to see any
noticeable change in speed--the effect must be small. (And using muscles is powered suspension, not
passive suspension, another complication.)

But a related test might work for lockouts.

Coast down a long slope on the rumble strip, with and without lockouts, timing alternate runs to try
to filter out the wind and other vagaries, such as whether you're running over the same part of the
scallops each time--sand builds up one one side.

That should provide plenty of reasonably repeatable suspension work that the rider can't affect by
pulling up on the bars or unweighting. Perhaps he should try to coast standing with his knees flexed
at the same angle? After all, sitting full-weight on a seat for a few minutes on a rumble strip
doesn't sound like much fun.

Unfortunately, although I have several miles of smoothly sloping rumble strips, there's no way to
ship them to someone with lockouts. And the frame and wheels might not finish the test in their
original state.

Hmmm, I've read about this sort of thing somewhere . . .

Lieutenant Scheisskopf longed desperately to win parades and sat up half the night working on it
while his wife waited amorously for him in bed thumbing through Krafft-Ebing to her favorite
passages. He read books on marching. He manipulated boxes of chocolate soldiers until they melted in
his hands adn then maneuvered in ranks of twelve a set of plastic cowboys he had bought from a mail-
order house under an assumed name and kept locked away from everyone's eyes during the day.
Leonardo's exercises in anatomy proved indispensable. One evening he felt the need for a live model
and directed his wife to march around the room.

"Naked?" she asked hopefully.

Lieutenant Scheisskopf smacked his hands over his eyes in exasperation. It ws the despair of
Lieutenant Scheisskopf's life to be chained to a woman who was

desire to the titanic struggles for the unattainable in which noble man could become
heroically engaged.

"Why don't you ever whip me?" she pouted one night.

"Because I haven't the time," he snapped at her impatiently. "I haven't the time. Don't you know
there's a parade going on?"

And he really did not have the time. There it was Sunday already, with only seven days left in the
week to get ready for the next parade. He had no idea where the hours went. Finishing last in three
successive parades had given Lieutenant Scheisskopf an unsavory reputation, and he considered every
means of improvement, even nailing the twelve men in each rank to a long two-by-four beam of
seasoned oak to keep them in line. The plan was not feasible, for making a ninety-dgree turn would
have been impossible without nickel-alloy swivels inserted in the small of every man's back, and
Lieutenant Scheisskopf was not sanguine at all about obtaining that many nickel-alloy swivels from
Quartermaster or enlisting the co-operation of the surgeons at the hospital.

. . . And the week after that his squadron made history by winning the red pennant two weeks in a
row! Now Lieutenant Scheisskopf had confidence enough in his powers to spring his big surprise.
Lieutenant Scheisskopf had discovered in his extensive research that the hands of marchers,
instead of swinging freely, as was then the popular fashion, ought never to be moved more than
three inches from the center of the thigh . . .

. . . Lieutenant Scheisskopf's first thought had been to have a friend of his in the sheet metal
shop sink pegs of nickel alloy into each man's thighbones and link them to the wrists by strands
of copper wire with exactly three inches of play, but there wasn't time--there was never enough
time--and good copper wire was hard to come by in war-time . . .

. . . And all week long he chortled with repressed delight at the officers'club. Speculation grew
rampant among his closest friends.

"I wonder what that Shithead is up to," Lieutenant Engle said.

--Catch-22, Chapter Eight

For translations, see http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/tr

With repressed delight,

Carl Vogelgeheirn
 
On 6 Feb 2004 15:20:42 -0800, [email protected] (Carl Fogel)
wrote:
>My only practical experience is a rigid touring bike banging over four speed humps (eight-foot wide
>humps, not bumps) at 20-30 mph daily on the

Speed humps are smooth and are just small hills. You climb them and then descend them. They do not
force the bike in a complete vertical direction.

>I pull up a bit and unweight a little as I hit them, mimicking suspension, but have yet to see any
>noticeable change in speed--the effect must

There will be no more effect than doing the same when the grade changes as you crest a hill.

<snip horney wife and oblivious idiot with wrong priorities>
>. . . And all week long he chortled with repressed delight at the officers'club. Speculation grew
> rampant among his closest friends.
>
>"I wonder what that Shithead is up to," Lieutenant Engle said.
>
>--Catch-22, Chapter Eight

I have this book. In fact, I can see it from where I'm sitting. It was suggested by a friend a long
time ago; I bought it in a hurry on my way out to vacation, then a brief evaluation told me it
wasn't a book I'd have bought normally. I didn't read it.

Maybe I should.
--
Rick Onanian
 
[email protected] (wle) wrote:

> but - is it true that any shock absorbing mechanism wastes energy that could be used to propel the
> bike ahead?
>
> it seems that this must be true..

That is never more true than when the shock absorbing mechanism is the rider.

Damping must come from somewhere, as the rider is not perfectly elastic. When your muscles are
your shock absorbers, you suffer losses both in rollout efficiency and, ultimately, in available
pedal power.

Chalo Colina
 
Chalo Colina writes:

>> But - is it true that any shock absorbing mechanism wastes energy that could be used to propel
>> the bike ahead? It seems that this must be true..

> That is never more true than when the shock absorbing mechanism is the rider.

Not necessarily so, because a rider can use active suspension that does not need to dampen the
motion in a viscous friction manner that absorbs energy in both directions. The rider can travel
essentially in a level course as the bicycle rolls over a series of rolling undulations about the
length of the bicycle. Shock absorbers would dump bound and rebound into heat while a rider can
leave constant pressure on the pedals while standing and allowing the bicycle to go over the bump
while not changing rider elevation.

> Damping must come from somewhere, as the rider is not perfectly elastic. When your muscles are
> your shock absorbers, you suffer losses both in rollout efficiency and, ultimately, in available
> pedal power.

As I said, not necessarily. Active suspension is less lossy than passive suspension with shock
absorption. F1 race cars are making use of this method for good reason.

Jobst Brandt [email protected]
 
David Reuteler wrote:

> Rick Onanian <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I didn't read it. Maybe I should.
>
> well, it is a good book & i even read it in high-school.. but, nah. this is still america.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3aa2r
>
> here .. make it a double-header.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2lduz

Urk -- no way, read the books.

--
Benjamin Lewis

"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you
underneath. At night, the ice weasels come." --Matt Groening
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
Replies
30
Views
1K
J
T
Replies
164
Views
9K
Mountain Bikes
Jeff Strickland
J