Power of a bicycle accelerating up a slope.

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the power required for a cyclist to accelerate up a slope at a constant rate. Initial calculations were incorrect due to unrealistic assumptions about distance and acceleration, with a cyclist covering only 30 meters in one minute instead of the calculated 1800 meters. Corrections were made to include changes in potential and kinetic energy, leading to a revised power calculation of approximately 7731.9 W, which raised concerns about its realism. Suggestions were made to simplify the problem by considering constant velocity instead of constant acceleration or to adjust parameters for a more realistic scenario. The conversation emphasizes the importance of realistic figures and proper physics principles in problem formulation.
Kraken_Head
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
No template because originally posted in wrong thread
Hello everyone :alien:
I have been assigned to create a physics problem involving bicycles. I thought up the following, but I had questions regarding if it was properly made / worked out.

A cyclist is accelerating constantly up a slope at 1 m/s ^-2 The slope is at a 15 degree angle and is 30 m long. It takes the cyclist 1 minute to reach the end of the slope. The combined mass of the cyclist and the bicycle is 80 kg. How much power is needed to make this possible ? (Neglect air resistance and drag)

I was thinking of using the formula: F = mg sin θ + ma to calculate the force needed to go up the slope, and then incorporating the found value of F into the formula: P = work / time = ( F x d ) / t to find the amount power needed to complete this task. The working out looks like this:

P = ( ( mg sin θ + ma ) x d ) / t
P = ( (( 80 x 9.81 ) sin ( 15 ) + ( 80 x 1 )) 30 ) / 60
P = 141.6 W

Is this correct ? Are there any variables of e.g. vectors, forces, etc. that I have forgotten to include in this calculation? or am I over complicating things ?

Thank you very much !
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How do you know that after 1 minute, the bicycle only covers 30 m? I get 1800 m (almost 2 km). The work is also calculated incorrectly. The work is equal to the change in potential energy plus the change in kinetic energy. Also, the power is not constant. The work divided by the time is equal to the average power.
 
Chestermiller said:
How do you know that after 1 minute, the bicycle only covers 30 m? I get 1800 m (almost 2 km). The work is also calculated incorrectly. The work is equal to the change in potential energy plus the change in kinetic energy. Also, the power is not constant. The work divided by the time is equal to the average power.

Thank you for making me notice that ! At the time, I was just trying to make up some figures off the top of my head, but now I realize I had to use the formula:
d = 1/2 a t^2 to figure out the distance traveled at that acceleration.
I also appreciate the correction on the work done formula. If I'm correct, it should look like this now :

W = Δ Ep + Δ Ek
____________________________________________________________________________________________

ΔEp = mg Δh
= ( 80 ) ( 9.81 ) Δ( length of X = 465.9 m - see right angled triangle )
= 319915.8 J

vtimxrajzbuard4hsj78_jpg_150×200_pixels.png

SOH
X = sin(15) x 1800 = 465.9 m
___________________________________________________________________________________________

ΔEk = Ek f - Ek i
= (1/2 m (v final)^2) - (1/2 m (v initial)^2)
v initial = 0
v final = (v initial) + at = (0) + (1)(60) = 60 m.s^-1
= (1/2 (80) (60)^2) - (1/2 (80) (0)^2)
= 144000 J
___________________________________________________________________________________________
W = (319915.8) + (144000)
= 463,915 .8 J

Average Power = work / time


Av P = ( 463,915.8) / 60
= 7731.9 W
____________________________________________________________________________________

However, upon seeing the final answer I can't help but feel like I miscalculated something ( I suspect an error when calculating the change in kinetic energy, or maybe the scenario simply isn't realistic ) because the magnitude of the answer - I feel - is too big for a cyclist.

Thank you for your feedback !
 
Kraken_Head said:
However, upon seeing the final answer I can't help but feel like I miscalculated something ( I suspect an error when calculating the change in kinetic energy, or maybe the scenario simply isn't realistic ) because the magnitude of the answer - I feel - is too big for a cyclist.

The scenario isn't realistic, cyclists don't cycle at over 200km/hr (60m/s) and can't accelerate at a constant rate. They are close enough to constant power device, like a car. A quick google says an elite cyclist can maintain ~500W over an hour, ~1,200W in short bursts.
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2
billy_joule said:
The scenario isn't realistic, cyclists don't cycle at over 200km/hr (60m/s) and can't accelerate at a constant rate. They are close enough to constant power device, like a car. A quick google says an elite cyclist can maintain ~500W over an hour, ~1,200W in short bursts.
Thank you !
 
Perhaps simplify the problem by making it constant velocity rather than constant acceleration? or would that be too easy?

Perhaps turn the problem on it's head. The max power a cyclist can generate is 300W, how fast can he go up the slope?

How about a problem involving a unicyclist and working out the angle he must lean forwards or something like that?
 
  • Like
Likes Kraken_Head
You can still use the problem as stated, but you have some input numbers that you can play with to make the problem more realistic: the angle, the time, the acceleration. Play around with these until you get a more realistic power value.
 
CWatters said:
Perhaps simplify the problem by making it constant velocity rather than constant acceleration? or would that be too easy?

Perhaps turn the problem on it's head. The max power a cyclist can generate is 300W, how fast can he go up the slope?

How about a problem involving a unicyclist and working out the angle he must lean forwards or something like that?

Thats a very good idea! Thanks for helping me out.
 
Chestermiller said:
You can still use the problem as stated, but you have some input numbers that you can play with to make the problem more realistic: the angle, the time, the acceleration. Play around with these until you get a more realistic power value.

Thank you! Ill toy around with the equation a bit
 
Back
Top