- 29,089
- 20,712
No it doesn't. That's not what the question asks at all.Orodruin said:The question asks for the net force from the bike on the biker (in the travel direction).
That's the question that would yield the given answer.
No it doesn't. That's not what the question asks at all.Orodruin said:The question asks for the net force from the bike on the biker (in the travel direction).
Well, as I pointed out in the beginning, the actual question quoted is badly worded and nonsense. If you are going to debate a nonsense question you will end up with nonsense and differing interpretation. I see no point in preferentially interpret ”providing force” as ”force used to propel the bike”. With that in mind, we have to attempt to interpret the question in the light of what the person posing the question wanted for an answer.PeroK said:No it doesn't. That's not what the question asks at all.
That's the question that would yield the given answer.
The actual question made perfect sense to me. Just how would you have worded it to the student?Orodruin said:Well, as I pointed out in the beginning, the actual question quoted is badly worded and nonsense. If you are going to debate a nonsense question you will end up with nonsense and differing interpretation. I see no point in preferentially interpret ”providing force” as ”force used to propel the bike”. With that in mind, we have to attempt to interpret the question in the light of what the person posing the question wanted for an answer.
”What is the component of the net force with which the biker acts on the bike in the direction of travel?”bob012345 said:The actual question made perfect sense to me. Just how would you have worded it to the student?
The question seemed badly strained to me.bob012345 said:The actual question made perfect sense to me. Just how would you have worded it to the student?
Disagree. Your beef is with the word ”provide” which does not have a standard meaning and even if you do interpret it as the force putting energy into the system it still makes the question unanswerable without further specification of gears etc. Making it pretty clear that this is not the intended interpretation.PeroK said:The answer is the same. But saying that the driver provides the force in this case is, I would say, simply wrong.
I'm having trouble seeing how the gear ratio comes into play. The force accelerating the rider at ##-0.3 \rm{\frac{m}{s^2}}## doesn't care what gear the bike is in. What force acting on the bike does?jbriggs444 said:[The astute reader realizes that the problem does not specify a gear ratio, and assumes that the writer intended the problem to be solvable. So the natural reading cannot be the intended one]
The force applied to the pedals. Which is, of course, a critical factor for the cyclist.erobz said:I'm having trouble seeing how the gear ratio comes into play. The force accelerating the rider at ##-0.3 \rm{\frac{m}{s^2}}## doesn't care what gear the bike is in. What force acting on the bike does?
Ok, I think I'm seeing it. That force applied to the pedals can grow in the direction normal to the slope due to the gear ratio.PeroK said:The force applied to the pedals. Which is, of course, a critical factor for the cyclist.
Or reduce. That's the purpose of low gears.erobz said:Ok, I think I'm seeing it. That force applied to the pedals can grow in the direction normal to the slope due to the gear ratio.
Give me a fulcrum and a lever and I shall move the Earth.PeroK said:Or reduce. That's the purpose of low gears.
What gears do wasn't my issue of contention. It was the interplay between the various forces that is the subtle bit to me.PeroK said:Or reduce. That's the purpose of low gears.
That’s not a very accurate model to be honest. All of those forces except weight will generally be in other directions. Weight will generally not be concentrated right above the saddle. The typical connection at the steering rod is leaning on it, making the force from the rod be up and backwards.erobz said:What gears do wasn't my issue of contention. It was the interplay between the various forces that is the subtle bit to me.
View attachment 317055
If this is a person cycling on horizontal ground (while sitting) with acceleration ##a## and ##F_p## changes from a change in gears, the only other force that can change is ##N## in this model. This is what I was not initially picking up...not "what gears do".
If you imagine a bike suspended above the ground, then there would be no linear motion, but the force on the pedals would drive a rotation of the back wheel. The ratio of rotation of the pedals to rotation of the back wheel is critical. Unless the back wheel slips then this determines the speed of the bicycle when accelerating or going uphill. That determines the force required to move the pedals, notably when starting from rest.erobz said:What gears do wasn't my issue of contention. It was the interplay between the various forces that is the subtle bit to me.
View attachment 317055
If this is a person cycling on horizontal ground (while sitting) with acceleration ##a## and ##F_p## changes from a change in gears, the only other force that can change is ##N## in this model. This is what I was not initially picking up...not "what gears do".
I still think it captures the basic idea. You can ride a bike like that. Sit on the seat, arms in tension as a two force member (fixed by rider + bike geometry), pedals pivot and the applied force stays pretty vertical on them. The part with the weight being not directly above the saddle...I'm not analyzing torques? There are some friction forces missing at the saddle and the pedal, but they would be fixed by the acceleration. If you rapidly change to a high gear and try to maintain acceleration you can start to come off the seat. I never said it was accurately capturing all ways of riding a bike...it's a crude model, first round draft to get some insight (probably my only one though).Orodruin said:That’s not a very accurate model to be honest.
All I have to do to move the Earth is to stand up.Orodruin said:Give me a fulcrum and a lever and I shall move the Earth.
In my experience, the arms are normally in compression and provide some of the support for the upper body. If one "stands up" on the pedals then the seat ceases to be a factor and the arms go into tension, alternating right and left in synch with the cadence.erobz said:I still think it captures the basic idea. You can ride a bike like that. Sit on the seat, arms in tension [...]
Fine, lets ride without hands then. We can even lean forward a bit to balance the torques.jbriggs444 said:In my experience, the arms are normally in compression and provide some of the support for the upper body. If one "stands up" on the pedals then the seat ceases to be a factor and the arms go into tension, alternating right and left in synch with the cadence.
I just went and checked. I definitely feel tension (not compression) in my arms while seated and accelerating on my Mt. bike. I think the position you are describing is what riding at constant velocity feels like.jbriggs444 said:In my experience, the arms are normally in compression and provide some of the support for the upper body. If one "stands up" on the pedals then the seat ceases to be a factor and the arms go into tension, alternating right and left in synch with the cadence.
On average, you are at constant velocity.erobz said:I just went and checked. I definitely feel tension (not compression) in my arms while seated and accelerating on my Mt. bike. I think the position you are describing is what riding at constant velocity feels like.
Ok, but I'm not on average at constant velocity while I'm accelerating. You are saying most of the time while riding "normally" you are at constant velocity. I say that depends on the riding you are doing. For instance, I ride downhill mountain biking ( like Red Bull Rampage ). Most of the time on a bike in that type of riding is spent accelerating. Obviously in that type of riding it's a mix of tension and compression depending on whether or not I'm descending or jumping.jbriggs444 said:On average, you are at constant velocity.
we seem to be getting further and further from the original question. How about a separate thread?erobz said:Ok, but I'm not on average at constant velocity while I'm accelerating. You are saying most of the time while riding "normally" you are at constant velocity. I say that depends on the riding you are doing. For instance, I ride downhill mountain biking ( like Red Bull Rampage ). Most of the time on a bike in that type of riding is spent accelerating. Obviously in that type of riding it's a mix of tension and compression depending on whether or not I'm descending or jumping.
No need for that, I’ll let it be.haruspex said:we seem to be getting further and further from the original question. How about a separate thread?