No road is perfectly flat. And one is never riding at a 100% constant velocity. So for every micro-acceleration, a reduction of weight will help. Albeit, the gains are significantly smaller at this point. But I've bike toured with 90 pounds of gear on "flat" roads and there's no way I can go as fast as my race bike.

Interesting comment. I think you're throwing about sweeping generalisations there. Some engineers are brilliant mathematicians and some are appalling. I have a friend who is a brilliant physician and also very lacking in other areas. We are what we are.The one thing I've always noticed about physicians that I've worked with is that they need engineers to work out what they are trying to achieve and make it for them. They have the ideas, but often struggle with the basics. That's only the ones I've worked with though

From your comments I assume that you are a maths teacher? I'd hate to generalise about maths teachers, based on the ones that have taught my friends children!

I've found that the more physics and theory one studies regarding cycling the worse one's cycling performance is. You don't need physics or math to give excuses why you suck, just go ride your bike.

I did a maths undergrad degree and then an engineering masters. Every day i'm aware that my maths knowledge is crap...

Coming back to the WW side of things: Last year i did a hillclimb (700m at 22%) in 2minutes 10.2 seconds. i was 13th. the guy who came 5th did 2minutes 8.8 seconds.

I weigh 60kg + 6kg bike. if i save 2kg on my bike that's a 3% reduction which should give me a 3% decrease in time since it's so steep. So my time would have been 2 minutes 6.3 seconds. Enough for 5th place and a fiver in prize money.
So... this year i'm building a 4kg hillclimb bike.

Physics for Engineers is generally a "baby" course compared to Physics for Physics/Math majors. Physics for Biology/Pre-Med is even more watered-down than Physics for Engineers. And then Physics for Poets is even more watered down than that. Some schools even have an Astronomy in effect for basket-weavers/video-game players/potheads which is even lower than Physics for Poets.

You reminded me of one of my math classes at school. There was this student in a hard core math class (for math majors) and he was one of the top students in the class. He was a EE major. As I used to say, he's EE* but he's good in math. This of course flies in the face of the popular misconception prevalent among laypeople that engineers are good at math.

[size=91]* actually I said "he's 6-1, but he's good in math", and those in the know, will know what that means[/quote][/size]

I have not taken both and you probably have not either. I would hazard a guess though that any differences are minor and would be a wash three years after graduation (as in washed from the brain). Any popular misconception prevalent among physics majors that these courses are drastically different are only perpetuated to boost one's ego. And egos of the physics grad population are rather large until over 80% of them get their first paycheck (or lack thereof).

...and that's the thing Arky; an engineer would 'hazard a guess', multiply it by a factor of two or ten depending upon the size of their ego, and then put it up as gospel, while a physicist would go and figure it out, regardless of the size of their ego or their paycheque.

PS I have taught engineering physics, and past first year, the engineer's course content IS significantly different from a physics major course (at least in Australia). Having said that, physicists and engineers often work in areas that have significant overlap, and both probably could have a fair crack at the other's work, given time and inclination, but both will still have expertise that the other doesn't have.

I presume you meant "physicists", not physicians? I did have some commentary on physicians over here.

I am a math* doer, not a maths* teacher, but as part of doing, I have to informally teach engineers, managers, etc.

* I am a bloody yank, don't you know

Same can be said for brilliant mathematicians and physicists who have no clue how the human body operates or works. What is so wrong about that? There is no way for a person to know everything and to be good at everything. It just doesn't work that way. That is why successful companies use a multidisciplinary approach where they have specialists from several areas working together as a team. That is the only way to make the best product or provide the best service.

_________________
"Let's plunge ourselves into the roar of time, the whirl of accident; may pain and pleasure, success and failure, shift as they will -- it's only action that can make a man."

I love the 'take less water with me' argument to save weight on the bike.

Great argument - I get it too, when people pick up my (not very) WW bike - "Wouldn't you save more weight if you took the bottles off it?"
"Yes, but then I would have nothing to drink"
"But your bike weighs a Kilo more with the bottles, that makes it 7.3kg - you could just ride a 7.3kg bike"
"Yes, but then I would have nothing to drink - and the 7.3kg bike would weigh 8.3kg with full bottles, dumbass".

_________________
http://worksrider.wordpress.com/