View Single Post
Old 10-19-2013, 03:56 PM   #10 (permalink)
aerohead
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 16,268
Thanks: 24,393
Thanked 7,360 Times in 4,760 Posts
rationale

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf View Post
I'd really like to see the rationale for that claim. Since air density (& hence resistance) is higher at sea level than at Battle Mountain's moderate elevation (~4500 ft), it's likely that the top speed at sea level would have been less. (It's certainly true for airplanes...)

It might be thought that the pedaler would output less power due to thinner air, but that's not the case, particularly if he spent a few days training at similar altitudes. The body adapts - and a mere 4500 ft elevation isn't really enough to matter much, anyhow.
When I first went out there the HPA folks told me that it was a matter of metabolic equivalency.They expected muscle output to suffer from the lower oxygen transport and factored in the density difference with respect to drag issues.
At essentially the same elevation,east of them at Bonneville,my truck was down to 124 bhp vs 150 bhp at sea level due to the density altitude.I'd have about a 12% reduction in drag due to the thinner air,and if the salt could have produced a similar rolling force coefficient as pavement (not the case),my top speed should have been identical to sea level.
The temp and humidity is probably kinder to the riders at Battle Mountain as it might be at Daytona Beach,or out on California Highway-1 near Paradise Cove/Zuma Beach.
They're enclosed in the shells with virtually zero ventilation.Worse than NASCAR.
I felt,and feel that they've done their homework very well and have a high confidence in their numbers.
Watching Sam Whittingham coming at me at over 81 mph was a transformational experience to say the least.
__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
  Reply With Quote