> Accelerating a pedal-powered bike by 135kph / 83mph is a stunning accomplishment. I am flabbergasted that you don't see that as something notable.
I just don't know either way. I would imagine it comes down to how much time or distance she had to accomplish that acceleration.
Because without significant wind resistance, and with appropriate gearing ratios on the bike, honestly I just don't know what else would be physically demanding.
> As Holbrook accelerates, the cyclist will push 700 watts for more than a minute to stay inside the draft pocket behind the dragster’s fairing. That’s about what a Tour de France sprinter produces in the final minute of a stage.
The gyroscopic effect is not what causes a bike to balance, it's the arrangement of centres of mass around the pivot or steering. It is harder to maintain that balance at high speeds since small adjustments to the steering produce much quicker responses.
That's highly inaccurate. The gyroscopic effect is not everything, but it does get stronger at higher speeds. That's why even a simple wheel without any frame or steering mechanism will run mostly stable at high speeds. So when going at high speeds on a bike, it indeed is more stable than when going slow.
The article you link only claims that the gyroscopic effect is not everything stabilizing a bike.
