marius-ciclistu

@PaulH You are right but the physics is the same for the crank and for the engine. Thanks all for the comments and questions. I updated the question. Sadly stachexchange has its habit of cutting through flash and closing quesitons.

If you take the time to read the article from the question you can see some simulations that can help you understand the impact of changing the rpm and force at the crank. Power is useless in cars if not transformed into force via rpm when it comes to dynamics.

If the human would produce constant force on 30-120 crank rpm then power would just be constant force multiplied by rotational speed so 100% directly proportinal. But, that does not happen in real life.

@WornChain You are right. The things that you miss in this hypothesis are the gears changing the propelling force and the change of the pedal force of the cyclist when the rpm of the crank changes. I noticed this while studying and simulating accelerations for cars.

@WornChain imagine you receive from the powermeter manufacturers average propelling (not crank) force in the last 10 min interval among the 300 W for example. Then when comparing 2 measurements you can go further and evaluate which produced more force (resulting in bigger speed). Thank you.

@WornChain I takled the answer in the linked article. The idea is that for the same power you can have multiple forces resulting in fuzzy matching between 2 riders or between 2 measurements that are not done at the same crank rpm and that have same power. If the powermeters can export a graph of force or torque by rpm it would be great.

Ok. Thanks. I will rephrase it.

portal.marius-ciclistu.ro/…

Nothing else to discuss atm. Thank you very much for your help. I hope you saw the updated question with the result. Thank you again.

Because I was prompted to do so because of the number of comments :)

I implemented the 2nd solution: 391.53 Nm if I take last middle or first value for A and T.

I will mark it as an answer once I code it and test it. I will reference the answer also in the calculator. Now I'm on phone.

Ok. Could I use another arbitrary torque value or it must be first? First value I think is not so accurate. Or it must be the one from min speed?

Or 600 is the new 100 nm constant?

Thanks. I'll give it a try and come back. Atm I don't see the 100 Nm constant torque in the shortcut as you reference the 600 Nm start torque.

Thank you. If I can't find that shortcut I'll have to display the calculated value only on comparison page when one of the calculations has constant torque + 1st gear is used on all its rpm range in both calculations + air friction is not taken into considerations in both calculations + the mass, wheels and gear ratios are the same in both calculations.

FYI: I ran your formula on another random electric-like torque graph and the equivalent seems to be calculated ok. But still I need to make 2 calculations/simulations for it... I'll have a look to see how I can get d2 and t2 (a shortcut) without the second simulation. I'll keep you posted.

2nd question: Could I avoid the 2nd calculation for 100 nm constant torque to find the 391.8 Nm constant torque? Taking into account that 100 is constant maybe I cand get those values easily without needing to do a new full simulation.

First of all thank you. The flow on my calculators is like this. You input data and hit calculate. On that calculate it would be perfect if I could display also this equivalent constant engine torque. To do that with your solution, I would need to recalculate again with 100 nm constant torque and then apply the formula. Question 1. In the example the gold/brown line is for the EQ 392 Nm simulation not for the real graph curve. What if the real torque graph will need to wait at full speed for the constant torque graph? Will your formula work?(I don't know now if that is a posible scenario).

ok.nevermind. I saw you upodated the askubuntu.com/questions/317763/… for removing bpth image and headers to free up space.nice

I use nouveaux from what I can remember

ok. that's a minor problem anyway

@DavidFoerster Than you again. Do you think there is a solution to this question? askubuntu.com/questions/712116/…

i checked the canonical partners and now it is updating

it works

thank you!!!:)

you are the best!!!

Install that package with Software Center -> it shows upgrade. I hit upgrade

I'll focus on the one that just updated

no

I got one to update to 4.4.0-45. Now I'll try your solution (they are both identical laptops)

and..the kernel is still 3.16

on that one I just used sudo apt-get update, then sudo apt-get upgrade and then sudo apt-get dist-upgrade

the other one is the one I updated yesterday to 4.4.0-45 and then removed the 4.4.0-45 kernel images and headers

i hit update in top left corner search (one of them just started to update to 4.4.0-45 kernel)

for now i don't know why 2 laptops with 3.16 kernels won't update....

ok. i'll update in a minute the laptop and make those thing you wrote

have a nice sunday:)

ok. no problem

ok. Thank you

it seems to 4.4.0-45 afterall not to 38 but still no luck.

in relation to this askubuntu.com/questions/816400/…

now i'm updating my laptop, after freeing inodes space, to 4.4.0-38 kernel to see if broadcom works after that

pleace correct it

@DavidFoerster correct is dpkg -l linux-headers-* | grep ii

bye

Ok. Thank you verry much. You speared me a lot of time because I was going to reinstall Ubuntu otherwise

no one in my town, but close