Reddit reviews Bicycling Science (The MIT Press)

Heh, of course no one can hold their best 500 m time for 2k. But if you're well-trained, you should be able to predict your 2k time to a very rough approximation from your 500 m time. Yours isn't that far off, I would say. My bests were around 1:29 and 1:44.

A couple caveats: It's not a direct linear relationship, as split scales to the 1/3rs power of power output, and human power output is, obviously, a function of exertion time.

The linked plot appears in Bicycling Science, which has a ton of interesting information about human power output and endurance in general, which is applicable to rowing.

EDIT: Now I'm bored and curious. I'm going to apply the Concept II formula to the data in the human power curve. I will report back with a rough idea of humanity's rough limits for split vs. time. If I'm still bored, I'll give best efforts to distance and compare with actual records.

DOUBLE EDIT: Here we go! The splits here are comically low, which I believe reflects the fact that they're not only best efforts, but best efforts for an ideal mechanism, which the erg, while pretty good, is not.

TRIPLE EDIT: And here's the theoretical best times!. All the same caveats apply as before. Also note this is a log-log scale, rather than a semilog scale as before. The record data came from concept II. There actually is an individual 1 megameter record, but it's off the plot range it's so high. I'm not fixing the spelling error in the first plot.

Finally, something I can answer:

I have two books in my repertoire:

Bike Science 3rd Ed. - This breaks down the physics of what's happening. It goes in depth about materials, history, really everything bike related. It doesn't go into detail about makes and models though.

Zinn and the Art of Road Bike Maintenance - Where Bike Science is the why, Zinn gets down to brass tacks and gives you useful information on how to fix a bike (note that there is also a Zinn book for Mt. Bikes and triathlon bikes which I haven't read yet...). This is my go-to reference when something goes wrong with my bike.

BikeForums.net - So I don't know everything about anything but this is the place to do research. SRAM vs Ultegra? Trek vs Cannondale? Someone has already asked the question and it's on BikeForums somewhere. I trust people who've actually ridden/owned a bike I have a question about far more than some online review that was vetted by the manufacturer.

Hope it helps.

So you've read Bicycling Science, right?

In a book I'm currently reading (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bicycling-Science-David-Gordon-Wilson/dp/0262731541), there's a "mile/gallon" calculation for various modes of transport. Bicycles work out to be in the order of 500 mpg, if we assume there's food with the same calorific value as petrol... While not a particularly useful comparison, it puts things into perspective.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0262731541/ref=redir_mdp_mobile/179-6181336-7358164

This book is pretty thorough. Might be worth a buy considering your interests.

The book Bicycling Science is a great resource. It doesn't have all the answers but it has some really good information as a starting point to understand some of the more recent discussions.

https://www.amazon.com/Bicycling-Science-Press-Gordon-Wilson/dp/0262731541/

If I recall correctly that's more about handling than rider fit. The modern approach to rider fit is based on stack and reach, which you can read about here:

https://www.slowtwitch.com/Bike_Fit/Choosing_a_Tri_Bike_via_Stack_and_Reach/The_Stacktennial_3432.html

That exact question is addressed in David Wilson's "Bicycle Science" book. Don't have the reference handy, but it is an interesting read.

I got the 10% from the calculations in Bicycling Science by
David Gordon Wilson

There's a book by that very name: https://www.amazon.com/Bicycling-Science-Press-Gordon-Wilson/dp/0262731541/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

I've only read a few chapters, but it covers a lot of pretty interesting topics.

I think if you look around, you'll see that every major bicycle maker has a large variety of bicycles available. Almost all of them offer at least a few options made of carbon, aluminum, and steel. Not all high-end, lightweight bikes are carbon. Weight very much matters in some applications. In others, it doesn't as much. In your application, it doesn't as much.

Tires: Wider tires allows you to run lower pressure. This can help in both comfort and traction with certain surfaces.

I'm about your size, carfree, and live in a City with horrible roads (mostly from all the snow plowing). I wouldn't dream of running below 35cm front and rear. My most often used bike is a rigid 29er that weighs in near 30lbs with front and rear racks.

I'm not familiar wit touring bikes set up as you describe. Most touring rigs run wider than 23/25.

If you're into the science of this endeavor, this book is pretty great.

https://www.amazon.com/Bicycling-Science-Press-Gordon-Wilson/dp/0262731541

Excellent book on this subject: Bicycling Science by David Wilson. There's a formula in there for power vs. airspeed, if I remember right.