A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 17th 19, 05:57 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 621
Default Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter

OK, I just went out and weighed my road bikes again. Just like I would walk out the door with.

Basso Loto - this is the final year of production and used Basso Tubing Concepts tubes instead of Columbus tubes. 22.12 lbs

Time VX - 28 mm tires and aluminum BB lugs and multi-shaped carbon tubes. - 21.9 lbs

Colnago CLX 3.0 - carbon wheels and everything else possible. 20.17 lbs.

Now it seems pretty plain that I could reduce the weight of the Basso to very close to that of the Colnago. But to do so would mean I would have to put carbon wheels on it. And maybe a carbon fork which would put me in a position of having a hybrid carbon/steel bike which seems to kill the idea of having a steel bike in the first place.

The real question is does this weight really make a difference?

A 22 lb bike and a 190 lb lard-assed rider makes that 2 lb difference only 0.01% difference in weight and the truth is that lifting that weight up the climbs is far overshadowed by the high speed frictional drag of the body. I could more than off-set that difference by riding on the drops downhill and on the flats if it wasn't so uncomfortable to an old broken down body.

As a comparison I pulled the Pinarello Stelvio off the shelf and without a flat kit or water bottle it weighed in at 21.7 lbs. The Pinarello also has custom tubing and the tubes have a slightly larger diameter than the Basso. On the local fast descents the Pinarello doesn't bounce at the bottom. And presently I have heavy Look cyclocross pedals on it so that the weights of the Pinarello and Basso are probably identical with a more modest flat kit and full water bottles.

I have a Ridley cross bike that rides like a dream as a gravel bike and the Redline Conquest cyclocross bike with disk brakes. If I could sell these two I would have sufficient room to keep all of my road bikes and start riding the Pinarello again rather than trying to keep it in clean condition.

What these numbers tell to me is that the only real advantage of the carbon fiber bikes is that they are more aero and so you can hold a higher speed into a headwind. What if I were to simply lower my expectations of speed-into-the-wind and keep all of my road bikes and simply concentrate on upgrading them to 11 speeds since it is unlikely that the 12 speed will ever find any markets outside of racing? Keeping the 10 speed would be preferable but spare parts are getting much more difficult and expensive to come by.

Any opinions? Jay in particular is more of the riding type I do but perhaps Duane and a few others so this sort of riding as well.
Ads
  #2  
Old June 18th 19, 04:14 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,486
Default Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter

On 6/17/2019 12:57 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:

A 22 lb bike and a 190 lb lard-assed rider makes that 2 lb difference only 0.01% difference in weight and the truth is that lifting that weight up the climbs is far overshadowed by the high speed frictional drag of the body. I could more than off-set that difference by riding on the drops downhill and on the flats if it wasn't so uncomfortable to an old broken down body.


I agree. The effect of a couple pounds of weight is tiny.

....

What these numbers tell to me is that the only real advantage of the carbon fiber bikes is that they are more aero and so you can hold a higher speed into a headwind.


I think the same logic applies to the aerodynamics of the bike frame.
Yes, there are bikes that are designed to be more aerodynamic. But the
great bulk of the air drag comes from the rider. It makes no sense to
measure the reduced drag of the frame alone, any more than to compare a
20 pound bike with an 18 pound bike and say "It's 10% lighter, I should
go 10% faster!"

Aero wheels will be a bit faster, but colossally expensive. And I expect
their advantage could be swamped by the effect of wearing a jersey that
flaps a bit because it's a little too loose in the shoulders.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #3  
Old June 18th 19, 04:42 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,405
Default Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter

On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 11:14:20 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/17/2019 12:57 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:

A 22 lb bike and a 190 lb lard-assed rider makes that 2 lb difference only 0.01% difference in weight and the truth is that lifting that weight up the climbs is far overshadowed by the high speed frictional drag of the body. I could more than off-set that difference by riding on the drops downhill and on the flats if it wasn't so uncomfortable to an old broken down body.


I agree. The effect of a couple pounds of weight is tiny.

...

What these numbers tell to me is that the only real advantage of the carbon fiber bikes is that they are more aero and so you can hold a higher speed into a headwind.


I think the same logic applies to the aerodynamics of the bike frame.
Yes, there are bikes that are designed to be more aerodynamic. But the
great bulk of the air drag comes from the rider. It makes no sense to
measure the reduced drag of the frame alone, any more than to compare a
20 pound bike with an 18 pound bike and say "It's 10% lighter, I should
go 10% faster!"

Aero wheels will be a bit faster, but colossally expensive. And I expect
their advantage could be swamped by the effect of wearing a jersey that
flaps a bit because it's a little too loose in the shoulders.


--
- Frank Krygowski


I often wonder just how much of the aero advantages offered by many components actually is when coupled with t he churned up air created by the bicyclist. My guess is that if the bicyclist is NOT pedaling then the aerodynamic benefits of many things might be a bit greater than if pedaling is occurring.

Cheers
  #4  
Old June 18th 19, 05:55 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 436
Default Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter

On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 20:42:18 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 11:14:20 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/17/2019 12:57 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:

A 22 lb bike and a 190 lb lard-assed rider makes that 2 lb difference only 0.01% difference in weight and the truth is that lifting that weight up the climbs is far overshadowed by the high speed frictional drag of the body. I could more than off-set that difference by riding on the drops downhill and on the flats if it wasn't so uncomfortable to an old broken down body.


I agree. The effect of a couple pounds of weight is tiny.

...

What these numbers tell to me is that the only real advantage of the carbon fiber bikes is that they are more aero and so you can hold a higher speed into a headwind.


I think the same logic applies to the aerodynamics of the bike frame.
Yes, there are bikes that are designed to be more aerodynamic. But the
great bulk of the air drag comes from the rider. It makes no sense to
measure the reduced drag of the frame alone, any more than to compare a
20 pound bike with an 18 pound bike and say "It's 10% lighter, I should
go 10% faster!"

Aero wheels will be a bit faster, but colossally expensive. And I expect
their advantage could be swamped by the effect of wearing a jersey that
flaps a bit because it's a little too loose in the shoulders.


--
- Frank Krygowski


I often wonder just how much of the aero advantages offered by many components actually is when coupled with t he churned up air created by the bicyclist. My guess is that if the bicyclist is NOT pedaling then the aerodynamic benefits of many things might be a bit greater than if pedaling is occurring.

Cheers


See https://dc.uwm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.c...31&context=etd

which says that the rider contributes about 70% of the total drag.

Wasn't Greg LeMond's wining the 1989 TdeF attributed in part to an
aerodynamic helmet?
--

Cheers,

John B.
  #5  
Old June 18th 19, 07:27 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 451
Default Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter

On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 6:57:10 PM UTC+2, Tom Kunich wrote:
OK, I just went out and weighed my road bikes again. Just like I would walk out the door with.

Basso Loto - this is the final year of production and used Basso Tubing Concepts tubes instead of Columbus tubes. 22.12 lbs

Time VX - 28 mm tires and aluminum BB lugs and multi-shaped carbon tubes. - 21.9 lbs

Colnago CLX 3.0 - carbon wheels and everything else possible. 20.17 lbs.

Now it seems pretty plain that I could reduce the weight of the Basso to very close to that of the Colnago. But to do so would mean I would have to put carbon wheels on it. And maybe a carbon fork which would put me in a position of having a hybrid carbon/steel bike which seems to kill the idea of having a steel bike in the first place.

The real question is does this weight really make a difference?

A 22 lb bike and a 190 lb lard-assed rider makes that 2 lb difference only 0.01% difference in weight and the truth is that lifting that weight up the climbs is far overshadowed by the high speed frictional drag of the body.. I could more than off-set that difference by riding on the drops downhill and on the flats if it wasn't so uncomfortable to an old broken down body.

As a comparison I pulled the Pinarello Stelvio off the shelf and without a flat kit or water bottle it weighed in at 21.7 lbs. The Pinarello also has custom tubing and the tubes have a slightly larger diameter than the Basso. On the local fast descents the Pinarello doesn't bounce at the bottom. And presently I have heavy Look cyclocross pedals on it so that the weights of the Pinarello and Basso are probably identical with a more modest flat kit and full water bottles.

I have a Ridley cross bike that rides like a dream as a gravel bike and the Redline Conquest cyclocross bike with disk brakes. If I could sell these two I would have sufficient room to keep all of my road bikes and start riding the Pinarello again rather than trying to keep it in clean condition.

What these numbers tell to me is that the only real advantage of the carbon fiber bikes is that they are more aero and so you can hold a higher speed into a headwind. What if I were to simply lower my expectations of speed-into-the-wind and keep all of my road bikes and simply concentrate on upgrading them to 11 speeds since it is unlikely that the 12 speed will ever find any markets outside of racing? Keeping the 10 speed would be preferable but spare parts are getting much more difficult and expensive to come by.

Any opinions? Jay in particular is more of the riding type I do but perhaps Duane and a few others so this sort of riding as well.


Tom, your bikes are relatively heavy according to current light weight 'standards'. I have a sub UCI weight bike (6.7 kg IIRC) and an aerobike which is a little heavier (7.6 kg). I'm faster on the latter.
Just ride the bikes you have and enjoy. Everybody gets slower with age. Fortunately you can set so much filters on Strave that makes you the fastest on one or more segments ;-)

Lou
  #6  
Old June 18th 19, 07:29 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 451
Default Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter

On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 5:42:20 AM UTC+2, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 11:14:20 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/17/2019 12:57 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:

A 22 lb bike and a 190 lb lard-assed rider makes that 2 lb difference only 0.01% difference in weight and the truth is that lifting that weight up the climbs is far overshadowed by the high speed frictional drag of the body. I could more than off-set that difference by riding on the drops downhill and on the flats if it wasn't so uncomfortable to an old broken down body.


I agree. The effect of a couple pounds of weight is tiny.

...

What these numbers tell to me is that the only real advantage of the carbon fiber bikes is that they are more aero and so you can hold a higher speed into a headwind.


I think the same logic applies to the aerodynamics of the bike frame.
Yes, there are bikes that are designed to be more aerodynamic. But the
great bulk of the air drag comes from the rider. It makes no sense to
measure the reduced drag of the frame alone, any more than to compare a
20 pound bike with an 18 pound bike and say "It's 10% lighter, I should
go 10% faster!"

Aero wheels will be a bit faster, but colossally expensive. And I expect
their advantage could be swamped by the effect of wearing a jersey that
flaps a bit because it's a little too loose in the shoulders.


--
- Frank Krygowski


I often wonder just how much of the aero advantages offered by many components actually is when coupled with t he churned up air created by the bicyclist. My guess is that if the bicyclist is NOT pedaling then the aerodynamic benefits of many things might be a bit greater than if pedaling is occurring.

Cheers


TOUR magazine measures aero drag with a dummy pedalling on the tested bike.

Lou
  #7  
Old June 18th 19, 08:11 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,517
Default Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter

On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 11:57:10 AM UTC-5, Tom Kunich wrote:
OK, I just went out and weighed my road bikes again. Just like I would walk out the door with.

Basso Loto - this is the final year of production and used Basso Tubing Concepts tubes instead of Columbus tubes. 22.12 lbs

Time VX - 28 mm tires and aluminum BB lugs and multi-shaped carbon tubes. - 21.9 lbs

Colnago CLX 3.0 - carbon wheels and everything else possible. 20.17 lbs.

Now it seems pretty plain that I could reduce the weight of the Basso to very close to that of the Colnago. But to do so would mean I would have to put carbon wheels on it. And maybe a carbon fork which would put me in a position of having a hybrid carbon/steel bike which seems to kill the idea of having a steel bike in the first place.

The real question is does this weight really make a difference?

A 22 lb bike and a 190 lb lard-assed rider makes that 2 lb difference only 0.01% difference in weight



190+22.12=212.12
190+20.17=210.17
Difference = 1.95 lbs
1.95 divided by 212.12 = .009193
Converting to percentage, which means moving the decimal point two places to the right, equals 0.92% if rounding to two decimal points for percentages.. A little less than 1%. Yet, you write "0.01%". I will not ask what grades you received in basic math classes during your elementary school education. But it might help your so called argument if you used correct math skills.

Now, does 1% make any difference? In the 2019 Giro d'Italia the final stage was a 17 kilometer time trial. The winning time was 22 minutes, 7 seconds. Second place was 22 minutes, 11 seconds. A difference of 4 seconds. 4 seconds is 0.30% of the winning time. Less than one third of one percent. Or three tenths of one percent.

The winner of the Giro d'Italia 2019 won in 90 hours, 1 minute, 47 seconds total time. Second place was 1 minute, 5 seconds behind. 1 minute, 5 seconds, is 0.02% of the total winning time. Much, much, much less than 1%. Its one fiftieth of one percent.

Does 1% weight difference matter? Maybe that 1% weight difference is equal to one fiftieth of one percent difference in time. Maybe.


and the truth is that lifting that weight up the climbs is far overshadowed by the high speed frictional drag of the body. I could more than off-set that difference by riding on the drops downhill and on the flats if it wasn't so uncomfortable to an old broken down body.

As a comparison I pulled the Pinarello Stelvio off the shelf and without a flat kit or water bottle it weighed in at 21.7 lbs. The Pinarello also has custom tubing and the tubes have a slightly larger diameter than the Basso. On the local fast descents the Pinarello doesn't bounce at the bottom. And presently I have heavy Look cyclocross pedals on it so that the weights of the Pinarello and Basso are probably identical with a more modest flat kit and full water bottles.

I have a Ridley cross bike that rides like a dream as a gravel bike and the Redline Conquest cyclocross bike with disk brakes. If I could sell these two I would have sufficient room to keep all of my road bikes and start riding the Pinarello again rather than trying to keep it in clean condition.

What these numbers tell to me is that the only real advantage of the carbon fiber bikes is that they are more aero and so you can hold a higher speed into a headwind. What if I were to simply lower my expectations of speed-into-the-wind and keep all of my road bikes and simply concentrate on upgrading them to 11 speeds since it is unlikely that the 12 speed will ever find any markets outside of racing? Keeping the 10 speed would be preferable but spare parts are getting much more difficult and expensive to come by.

Any opinions? Jay in particular is more of the riding type I do but perhaps Duane and a few others so this sort of riding as well.


  #8  
Old June 18th 19, 08:46 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tosspot[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,330
Default Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter

On 18/06/2019 07.29, wrote:
On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 5:42:20 AM UTC+2, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 11:14:20 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 6/17/2019 12:57 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:

A 22 lb bike and a 190 lb lard-assed rider makes that 2 lb
difference only 0.01% difference in weight and the truth is
that lifting that weight up the climbs is far overshadowed by
the high speed frictional drag of the body. I could more than
off-set that difference by riding on the drops downhill and on
the flats if it wasn't so uncomfortable to an old broken down
body.


I agree. The effect of a couple pounds of weight is tiny.

...

What these numbers tell to me is that the only real advantage
of the carbon fiber bikes is that they are more aero and so you
can hold a higher speed into a headwind.

I think the same logic applies to the aerodynamics of the bike
frame. Yes, there are bikes that are designed to be more
aerodynamic. But the great bulk of the air drag comes from the
rider. It makes no sense to measure the reduced drag of the frame
alone, any more than to compare a 20 pound bike with an 18 pound
bike and say "It's 10% lighter, I should go 10% faster!"

Aero wheels will be a bit faster, but colossally expensive. And I
expect their advantage could be swamped by the effect of wearing
a jersey that flaps a bit because it's a little too loose in the
shoulders.


-- - Frank Krygowski


I often wonder just how much of the aero advantages offered by many
components actually is when coupled with t he churned up air
created by the bicyclist. My guess is that if the bicyclist is NOT
pedaling then the aerodynamic benefits of many things might be a
bit greater than if pedaling is occurring.

Cheers


TOUR magazine measures aero drag with a dummy pedalling on the tested
bike.


I know people qualified for that job :-)
  #9  
Old June 18th 19, 11:16 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,519
Default Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter

wrote:
On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 11:57:10 AM UTC-5, Tom Kunich wrote:
OK, I just went out and weighed my road bikes again. Just like I would
walk out the door with.

Basso Loto - this is the final year of production and used Basso Tubing
Concepts tubes instead of Columbus tubes. 22.12 lbs

Time VX - 28 mm tires and aluminum BB lugs and multi-shaped carbon tubes. - 21.9 lbs

Colnago CLX 3.0 - carbon wheels and everything else possible. 20.17 lbs.

Now it seems pretty plain that I could reduce the weight of the Basso to
very close to that of the Colnago. But to do so would mean I would have
to put carbon wheels on it. And maybe a carbon fork which would put me
in a position of having a hybrid carbon/steel bike which seems to kill
the idea of having a steel bike in the first place.

The real question is does this weight really make a difference?

A 22 lb bike and a 190 lb lard-assed rider makes that 2 lb difference
only 0.01% difference in weight



190+22.12!2.12
190+20.17!0.17
Difference = 1.95 lbs
1.95 divided by 212.12 = .009193
Converting to percentage, which means moving the decimal point two places
to the right, equals 0.92% if rounding to two decimal points for
percentages. A little less than 1%. Yet, you write "0.01%". I will not
ask what grades you received in basic math classes during your elementary
school education. But it might help your so called argument if you used
correct math skills.

Now, does 1% make any difference? In the 2019 Giro d'Italia the final
stage was a 17 kilometer time trial. The winning time was 22 minutes, 7
seconds. Second place was 22 minutes, 11 seconds. A difference of 4
seconds. 4 seconds is 0.30% of the winning time. Less than one third of
one percent. Or three tenths of one percent.

The winner of the Giro d'Italia 2019 won in 90 hours, 1 minute, 47
seconds total time. Second place was 1 minute, 5 seconds behind. 1
minute, 5 seconds, is 0.02% of the total winning time. Much, much, much
less than 1%. Its one fiftieth of one percent.

Does 1% weight difference matter? Maybe that 1% weight difference is
equal to one fiftieth of one percent difference in time. Maybe.


and the truth is that lifting that weight up the climbs is far
overshadowed by the high speed frictional drag of the body. I could more
than off-set that difference by riding on the drops downhill and on the
flats if it wasn't so uncomfortable to an old broken down body.

As a comparison I pulled the Pinarello Stelvio off the shelf and without
a flat kit or water bottle it weighed in at 21.7 lbs. The Pinarello also
has custom tubing and the tubes have a slightly larger diameter than the
Basso. On the local fast descents the Pinarello doesn't bounce at the
bottom. And presently I have heavy Look cyclocross pedals on it so that
the weights of the Pinarello and Basso are probably identical with a
more modest flat kit and full water bottles.

I have a Ridley cross bike that rides like a dream as a gravel bike and
the Redline Conquest cyclocross bike with disk brakes. If I could sell
these two I would have sufficient room to keep all of my road bikes and
start riding the Pinarello again rather than trying to keep it in clean condition.

What these numbers tell to me is that the only real advantage of the
carbon fiber bikes is that they are more aero and so you can hold a
higher speed into a headwind. What if I were to simply lower my
expectations of speed-into-the-wind and keep all of my road bikes and
simply concentrate on upgrading them to 11 speeds since it is unlikely
that the 12 speed will ever find any markets outside of racing? Keeping
the 10 speed would be preferable but spare parts are getting much more
difficult and expensive to come by.

Any opinions? Jay in particular is more of the riding type I do but
perhaps Duane and a few others so this sort of riding as well.




It’s hard to say based on experience. My current bike is a Specialized
Tarmac Pro. It weighs a bit less than 15lbs. It’s somewhat lighter than my
last bike and a lot lighter than my steel Volpe. But this current bike is
an 11 speed SRAM with mid compact rings and 11-28. The last bike was a 10
speed Ultegra 53/39. This one is size 52. The last was size 54. I’m a
perfect 53 which no one makes. It’s not possible to compare these two
bikes and point to any one thing.

I think I’m faster on this bike based on my Strava records of the same
rides but it’s hard to say if it’s something about the bike, or my training
level or what the weather was like or...

I’ll say that I’m more comfortable with the Tarmac geometry in general.
The mid compact suits me better than the 53/39 or a full compact. I don’t
spin well. The 11 speed gives me better choices without changing rings.

Generally I think you find a bike you like and ride the thing every chance
you get.

--
duane
  #10  
Old June 18th 19, 05:46 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,486
Default Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter

On 6/18/2019 3:11 AM, wrote:
On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 11:57:10 AM UTC-5, Tom Kunich wrote:
OK, I just went out and weighed my road bikes again. Just like I would walk out the door with.

Basso Loto - this is the final year of production and used Basso Tubing Concepts tubes instead of Columbus tubes. 22.12 lbs

Time VX - 28 mm tires and aluminum BB lugs and multi-shaped carbon tubes. - 21.9 lbs

Colnago CLX 3.0 - carbon wheels and everything else possible. 20.17 lbs.

Now it seems pretty plain that I could reduce the weight of the Basso to very close to that of the Colnago. But to do so would mean I would have to put carbon wheels on it. And maybe a carbon fork which would put me in a position of having a hybrid carbon/steel bike which seems to kill the idea of having a steel bike in the first place.

The real question is does this weight really make a difference?

A 22 lb bike and a 190 lb lard-assed rider makes that 2 lb difference only 0.01% difference in weight



190+22.12=212.12
190+20.17=210.17
Difference = 1.95 lbs
1.95 divided by 212.12 = .009193
Converting to percentage, which means moving the decimal point two places to the right, equals 0.92% if rounding to two decimal points for percentages. A little less than 1%. Yet, you write "0.01%". I will not ask what grades you received in basic math classes during your elementary school education. But it might help your so called argument if you used correct math skills.

Now, does 1% make any difference? In the 2019 Giro d'Italia the final stage was a 17 kilometer time trial. The winning time was 22 minutes, 7 seconds. Second place was 22 minutes, 11 seconds. A difference of 4 seconds. 4 seconds is 0.30% of the winning time. Less than one third of one percent. Or three tenths of one percent.

The winner of the Giro d'Italia 2019 won in 90 hours, 1 minute, 47 seconds total time. Second place was 1 minute, 5 seconds behind. 1 minute, 5 seconds, is 0.02% of the total winning time. Much, much, much less than 1%. Its one fiftieth of one percent.

Does 1% weight difference matter? Maybe that 1% weight difference is equal to one fiftieth of one percent difference in time. Maybe.


When comparing weight (or aero) difference percentages, I don't think
it's realistic to transform them into racing elapsed time percentages,
for at least two reasons.

First, the speed vs. power curve is very non-linear, especially at
racing speeds. It's a cubic function. So producing (say) 2% more power
(or saving 2% of one's power by not having to move a heavier bike) will
not increase one's speed by 2%. The speed benefit will be less.

Second, in any race but a time trial, there is a _lot_ of stuff going on
that will mask the tiny differences we're talking about. Case in point:
I mentioned a club ride last week where I drafted a strong rider and so
finished five minutes or more ahead of everyone other than that strong
rider. The drafting was the benefit. It completely masked the fact that
I was on a 26 pound touring bike with added bags and fenders, 5 cogs in
back, toe clips, friction shifters, etc.

In a road race, there's drafting, choosing lines through corners,
guessing when to jump and when to let go, getting boxed in or not
getting boxed in, avoiding patches of bad pavement, getting enough sleep
the night before, and much much more. I think the effect of any design
feature of the bike is almost always lost in the noise.

And if someone's not racing? To me, finishing a "training" ride or a
recreational ride ten seconds earlier is of no value whatsoever. In
fact, if my fenders or handlebar bag make me finish five minutes later,
they're still a net benefit.

--
- Frank Krygowski
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Steel is real Doug Landau Techniques 10 December 28th 16 06:11 PM
Steel is real - again Ralph Barone[_3_] Techniques 18 January 5th 16 07:29 AM
Steel may be real but.... Andre Jute[_2_] Techniques 5 June 4th 13 03:06 AM
Steel is Real Gags Australia 12 August 18th 05 11:57 AM
Steel is real. A real dick! [email protected] Mountain Biking 0 February 11th 05 02:53 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.