Why the pros are slowing down.

On Jul 29, 10:43*pm, Dan O wrote:
On Jul 29, 9:24 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:









On Jul 29, 11:39 pm, Dan O wrote:

On Jul 29, 7:28 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Jul 29, 6:40 pm, James wrote:

On 28/07/12 15:08, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Jul 27, 9:47 pm, *wrote:
On Saturday, July 28, 2012 3:21:37 AM UTC+10, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jul 27, 3:21 am, *wrote:

On 27/07/12 13:26, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Well, I suppose we could say that perhaps the test wasn't sufficient to

demonstrate the benefits of any feature but reduced weight.

I'm surprised it took you this long to reach a conclusion I'm sure many

others had reached long ago.

I probably should have underlined "_could_" to indicate my skepticism

of that idea.

Oh, so now you're trying ot back out of it, Frank? *It's pretty cut and dried.

Sheesh, did you even read my next paragraph? *"[but] then we'd have
to..." etc.

James, you've got to decide: *Does a 3.4% increase in speed from a
3.3% decrease in weight prove or disprove speed increase from the
other factors? *Physics says it was the weight that mattered. *The
rest is lost, down in the realm of experimental error.

Man, you've confused me. *Let me spell out what you wrote above:

"I suppose we _could_ say [with skepticism] the test wasn't sufficient
to demonstrate the benefits of any feature but reduced weight."

I took that to mean that you thought the [timed] test wasn't sufficient
to demonstrate the benefits of any feature but reduced weight.

Despite a few anomalies in the data (that is pretty thin) I agreed, but
now you seem to indicate with your skepticism that that is not what you
meant, presumable that is to say you think the test may have shown some
benefits from factors not only weight.

You should work on clearing that up.

I'm surprised you're confused, but I'll try again.

Yes, the results of that test do not indicate any benefit from
anything other than the weight difference. *Others may claim that a
longer test might detect some other benefit. *I do not claim that.. *I
think a ten mile climb would give the same result: that weight is what
matters on an uphill, and that within reasonably attainable limits,
stiffness and handling and aero and lotsa gears don't really do much
beyond tickling personal preferences.

I'm *not* surprised that you're confused, but just because numbers
sort of coincide doesn't prove the correlation. *Now, of course we all
stipilate the correlation between weight and speed up a hill for given
energy, but it's not that simple, and you're completely out of your
depth.

As a retired teacher of (among other things) Engineering Dynamics, I'm
out of my depth??

Yep.

What were your qualifications again?

In touch with my world.

Frank can't touch that with a ten foot pole.
There is no evidence or "data" which would suggest his competence.
Quite to the contary actually.
I have never though much of Jobst' cold prickly personality, but
Jobst' had him pegged.
http://groups.google.com/group/ba.bi...0dc0d9fe9eaea9

I thought not.

You're a sad, sad man. *I still wish you well for eventual recovery.

Sadly, it does not seem likely.
DR

On Jul 29, 7:19*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jul 29, 5:50*pm, " wrote:

On Jul 29, 9:53*am, Frank Krygowski let the
attack dog within him loose, and wrote:

So are you saying you have ceramic bearings on every bike you own?
Have you taken the time to drill lots of holes in your chainrings?
Did you ream out the inside of your seatpost yet? *If not, is there
some good reason your behavior doesn't match your arguments here? *Be
specific.

How about "taping your ears", Frank. That's one of your favorite
insults.

I don't think taping your ears counts as an insult, D-Y. *If you want
to see insults, read DR's or Duane's posts.

Frank
You might want to be a bit more specific. It is not an "insult" when
you are objectively shown to be in error or to have lied, no matter
how YOU perceive it. The same goes for your creation of fictional
characters to rail against.


But there certainly are people who
Wow! Speak of the devil! There you go again!

repeatedly say every tiny
improvement counts, at least in racing; and that their rides with
friends are nearly as tough.
Do you have some problem specifically naming Jay?

*They say microscopic aero improvements
never go away, every ounce less makes one reliably faster up a hill,
every gram less makes one accelerate faster, and that ignoring that
can be the difference between winning and placing second.
Well that is mostly accurate on a strictly phyiscal basis, but that is
not was has been said here. The clear consensus honors the pursuit of
all benefits with regard to the cost/benefit ratio of each, even if
that is an individual determination. And conversely there is no
support to be found for the the Krygowskian standard of "it is not
worth considering unless it can be shown to win races."

Yet these same people do _not_ remove every gram.
*They do not drill
chainrings, nor ream seatposts.
Time out. When where and who has ever made any reference to reaming
out a seatpost. That is utter nonsense, a complete Krygowskian
fabrication. If someone in THIS century were interested in a light
seatpost they would buy carbon "off the rack," not weaken an aluminum
post by reaming.

*Only one guy talked of streamlining
bike parts. *And nobody here seems to have gone for that tiny
improvement in bearing friction claimed for ceramics.
Frank, ceramic bearings have been mentioned numerous times in this
thread. The consensus is quite clear that they are not considered to
have sufficient benefit/cost for the weekend warriors here. Nobody
(you included) has disputed the potential benefit or the practicality
for those with better funding such as pro teams.

You mentioned tin-foil rims failing. *Yes, that's obviously removing
too much weight. *My one friend removed too much when he drilled out
the center of his seatpost bolt and had it break miles from home.

Frank, your friend is an idiot plain and simple. But sorry, your broad
erroneous conclusion notwithstanding, nobody here has espoused doing
anything so silly.
You hang out out with the wrong crowd.

*But
it is absolutely inconsistent when a "nothing is negligible" debater
leaves so many parts totally unmodified. *Look at a Dura Ace
chainring. *There's plenty of space to drill holes!
Where has anyone here suggested that drilling, chainrings is
desirable, practical or worthwhile?

Understand, there is a real history of doing such things. Read about
the technical trials in France in the 1930s, when builders went to
extremes to find grams to remove.

Part of what I'm arguing against here is the weird notion that
anything _supposedly_ better for racers must never be questioned for
anyone else.

sarcasm You're absolutely right! We would never want even consider
whether things like Tulio's complex creation to allow multiple GEARS
for racers might ever find any use for non-racers./sarcasm

*People claim STI shifts easier, so even a tourist
shouldn't use bar-ends. *Or, SPD is more secure, so riding with toe
clips is foolish. *Or, carbon fiber is lighter and stiffer, so riding
old steel is quirky and ignorant.
{Previously addressed]

There we go, those last few words are telling. "Quirky and ignorant".

Well, that's what's being implied! Heck, I stated my practical reasons

There, there, Frank no need to be so sensitive!
for not preferring SPD, and got hammered.

Frank you got hammered for implicitly lying about your [non]
experience with SPD's and for expressly lying about Sheldon having
agreed with you in an email. Sorry dude you were busted. Don't forget
it. I won't.

Seems that if someone
doesn't want to use special shoes, he's not allowed to post here.

Poor, Poor Frank.
Hint: Try this next time. Instead of saying "I use option A which is
clearly better than Option B." Try a little humility with an honest
approach like "I have never tried Option B, but I use option A and am
happy with it."

I have foot problems due to injury that were no doubt whatsoever
exacerbated by years of using clips and straps.

I'm sorry about that. *But do you understand I don't have that
problem, and that I ride just fine with much more ordinary shoes?




But another part of what I'm arguing is the strange idea that in
racing, nothing is negligible. We have people here claiming that _any_
reduction in weight _always_ helps - even in a flat time trial. We've
had at least one guy once talk about the aero advantages of proper
finger position in a TT! And we've had people say that if it helps
even a little in a TT, it can't be negligible even drafting in the
middle of a huge peloton.

[also addressed elsewhere]

Yet nobody here has told of implementing several of these minuscule
improvements and demonstrating significant benefit, let alone a race
win. *And even the "nothing is negligible" crowd no longer bothers to
drill a hundred holes in their chainrings.http://www.43bikes.com/fortythree/ww/drilling-do1.jpg
So how did _that_ become negligible?

People figured out that, along with tinfoil rims, lightness wasn't
everything if your bike didn't make it across the finish line.
I never saw much breakage due to drilling ...

Yet it's gone out of fashion. *So the grams that were removed by
drilling holes are apparently negligible. *Other grams? *Not so, I'm
told.

Yeah, I understand about minimum weight limits. *But I think few of
the "nothing is negligible" crowd are below those limits, or even
competing where such rules apply.

- Frank Krygowski

What you gloss over is that we are in the 21st century. Drillium is a
30 or 40 year old phenomenon. Light weight is wonderful thing but is
not the be-all and end-all of bicycle technology. The present weight
limit is a regulatory limitation not a technological one. Pro bikes
can be optimized at well below legal limits (extremely light wheels
for instance) and simply "ballasted" to meet legalities. But the
technology trickles down to the public resulting in bikes that can
offer better reliability, function and "performance" than bikes of the
past. I put "performance" in quotes because its meaning is effectively
lost on someone who views Lyotard 23's, Rockport and bar end shifter
as technological bliss. Make no mistake, as far as I am concerned you
can find bliss wherever you choose and I am VERY happy for you, but
please do not make the mistake of suggesting or believing that I or
anyone else should have any reason to adopt your point of view.
I am also thrilled for you that you rarely get dropped on group rides
or that you are usually at the front on climbs. I can hardly imagine
more solid palmares as a "performance rider" However I have seen you
club website. It seems that not being dropped would primarily be a
function of not suffering a heart attack during a ride. That is not an
insult. That is an observation.
DR

On 30/07/12 16:11, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Jul 29, 10:43 pm, Dan wrote:
On Jul 29, 9:24 pm, Frank wrote:
What were your qualifications again?

In touch with my world.

Frank can't touch that with a ten foot pole.
There is no evidence or "data" which would suggest his competence.
Quite to the contary actually.
I have never though much of Jobst' cold prickly personality, but
Jobst' had him pegged.
http://groups.google.com/group/ba.bi...0dc0d9fe9eaea9

Thanks, DR. I enjoyed that.

--
JS.

DirtRoadie writes:

I'd suggest that a more significant metric
for mere mortals could be easily estimated by looking at the spread of
finishing times in your last uphill time trial, computing the average
difference, then computing how much weight you'd have to shave from your
bike to make up that interval (one place). Â*That would be about the
smallest significant weight of interest.

For example, for the hill-climb I mentioned earlier, taking just the
finishers 2 through 5 in my age group (I omit the first place 'cause he
was significantly faster than the rest), the average time difference was
2.5 seconds. Â*Or about 0.5% of the total. Â*So the minimum relevant
weight difference is about 0.5% of the weight of bike plus rider. Â*In my
case that is about 0.75 lbs, or 340 grams.

--
Joe Riel

Talk about paralysis by analysis!

I'd suggest the opposite. By realizing what is significant, one doesn't
waste time and money mucking with stuff that doesn't matter.

Actually that provides a compelling argument for optimizing bike
weight (any weight) and maybe even for deciding whether it can be
ridden without a water bottle)
BTW I can also provide TT data where there was less than 1 second
between 3rd and 4th (or between 2nd and 3rd if results are split into
pro/amateur)

Of course you can, if you cherry pick races, or places in a given race.
If you invariably lose by 1 second in a time trial, then you might
consider using that as the relevant margin and compute accordingly.

How about we look at the percentage spread between the top five
finishers in the Olympic road time trial that will be run in a couple
days. That is, compute (T5-T1)/5/T5; that is approximately the
average percent difference between top places in the race.

--
Joe Riel

On 7/30/2012 2:22 AM, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Jul 29, 7:19 pm, Frank wrote:
On Jul 29, 5:50 pm, wrote:

On Jul 29, 9:53 am, Frank let the
attack dog within him loose, and wrote:
So are you saying you have ceramic bearings on every bike you own?
Have you taken the time to drill lots of holes in your chainrings?
Did you ream out the inside of your seatpost yet? If not, is there
some good reason your behavior doesn't match your arguments here? Be
specific.
How about "taping your ears", Frank. That's one of your favorite
insults.
I don't think taping your ears counts as an insult, D-Y. If you want
to see insults, read DR's or Duane's posts.
Frank
You might want to be a bit more specific. It is not an "insult" when
you are objectively shown to be in error or to have lied, no matter
how YOU perceive it. The same goes for your creation of fictional
characters to rail against.

Oh, I'd like to make this perfectly clear. When I tell Frank to go ****
himself, it is definitely intended as an insult. I hope that there was
no confusion there. He may try to lightly veil his insults by his
stupid innuendo but I prefer that there's no confusion.
But there certainly are people who
Wow! Speak of the devil! There you go again!

repeatedly say every tiny
improvement counts, at least in racing; and that their rides with
friends are nearly as tough.
Do you have some problem specifically naming Jay?

They say microscopic aero improvements
never go away, every ounce less makes one reliably faster up a hill,
every gram less makes one accelerate faster, and that ignoring that
can be the difference between winning and placing second.
Well that is mostly accurate on a strictly phyiscal basis, but that is
not was has been said here. The clear consensus honors the pursuit of
all benefits with regard to the cost/benefit ratio of each, even if
that is an individual determination. And conversely there is no
support to be found for the the Krygowskian standard of "it is not
worth considering unless it can be shown to win races."

Yet these same people do _not_ remove every gram.
They do not drill
chainrings, nor ream seatposts.
Time out. When where and who has ever made any reference to reaming
out a seatpost. That is utter nonsense, a complete Krygowskian
fabrication. If someone in THIS century were interested in a light
seatpost they would buy carbon "off the rack," not weaken an aluminum
post by reaming.

Only one guy talked of streamlining
bike parts. And nobody here seems to have gone for that tiny
improvement in bearing friction claimed for ceramics.
Frank, ceramic bearings have been mentioned numerous times in this
thread. The consensus is quite clear that they are not considered to
have sufficient benefit/cost for the weekend warriors here. Nobody
(you included) has disputed the potential benefit or the practicality
for those with better funding such as pro teams.
Ceramic bearings seem to be some sort of point that Frank thinks he's
making. I haven't seen where he has said anything specific against
them. While I wouldn't spend the money, I imagine that there were a few
being used in the TDF or maybe currently in London.

You mentioned tin-foil rims failing. Yes, that's obviously removing
too much weight. My one friend removed too much when he drilled out
the center of his seatpost bolt and had it break miles from home.
Frank, your friend is an idiot plain and simple. But sorry, your broad
erroneous conclusion notwithstanding, nobody here has espoused doing
anything so silly.
You hang out out with the wrong crowd.
Must not have been the little old lady with the audacity to remove her
hand from the handlebars while riding down the center of main street in
the local village.


But
it is absolutely inconsistent when a "nothing is negligible" debater
leaves so many parts totally unmodified. Look at a Dura Ace
chainring. There's plenty of space to drill holes!
Where has anyone here suggested that drilling, chainrings is
desirable, practical or worthwhile?

Understand, there is a real history of doing such things. Read about
the technical trials in France in the 1930s, when builders went to
extremes to find grams to remove.

Part of what I'm arguing against here is the weird notion that
anything _supposedly_ better for racers must never be questioned for
anyone else.
sarcasm You're absolutely right! We would never want even consider
whether things like Tulio's complex creation to allow multiple GEARS
for racers might ever find any use for non-racers./sarcasm

People claim STI shifts easier, so even a tourist
shouldn't use bar-ends. Or, SPD is more secure, so riding with toe
clips is foolish. Or, carbon fiber is lighter and stiffer, so riding
old steel is quirky and ignorant.
{Previously addressed]

WTF is a tourist in this context? Some new affected way of saying a
touring bike rider? Gotta say that I have bar ends on my touring bike.
And I can tell you definitely that I prefer the brifters on my road
bike. And BTW, though carbon is likely stiffer than steel, I find it
hard to believe that it isn't definitely lighter.

There we go, those last few words are telling. "Quirky and ignorant".
Well, that's what's being implied! Heck, I stated my practical reasons
There, there, Frank no need to be so sensitive!
for not preferring SPD, and got hammered.
Frank you got hammered for implicitly lying about your [non]
experience with SPD's and for expressly lying about Sheldon having
agreed with you in an email. Sorry dude you were busted. Don't forget
it. I won't.

Seems that if someone
doesn't want to use special shoes, he's not allowed to post here.
Poor, Poor Frank.
Hint: Try this next time. Instead of saying "I use option A which is
clearly better than Option B." Try a little humility with an honest
approach like "I have never tried Option B, but I use option A and am
happy with it."

it's more the way of saying not only that option B is better, it's
saying option B is better and all of you less intelligent idiots that
are purely succeptible to some outrageous marketing strategy are just
ignorant for disagreeing with me.
Frank's world is boolean. True/False, Black/White, Right/Wrong.
I have foot problems due to injury that were no doubt whatsoever
exacerbated by years of using clips and straps.
I'm sorry about that. But do you understand I don't have that
problem, and that I ride just fine with much more ordinary shoes?




But another part of what I'm arguing is the strange idea that in
racing, nothing is negligible. We have people here claiming that _any_
reduction in weight _always_ helps - even in a flat time trial. We've
had at least one guy once talk about the aero advantages of proper
finger position in a TT! And we've had people say that if it helps
even a little in a TT, it can't be negligible even drafting in the
middle of a huge peloton.
[also addressed elsewhere]

Yet nobody here has told of implementing several of these minuscule
improvements and demonstrating significant benefit, let alone a race
win. And even the "nothing is negligible" crowd no longer bothers to
drill a hundred holes in their chainrings.http://www.43bikes.com/fortythree/ww/drilling-do1.jpg
So how did _that_ become negligible?
People figured out that, along with tinfoil rims, lightness wasn't
everything if your bike didn't make it across the finish line.
I never saw much breakage due to drilling ...
Yet it's gone out of fashion. So the grams that were removed by
drilling holes are apparently negligible. Other grams? Not so, I'm
told.

Yeah, I understand about minimum weight limits. But I think few of
the "nothing is negligible" crowd are below those limits, or even
competing where such rules apply.

- Frank Krygowski
What you gloss over is that we are in the 21st century. Drillium is a
30 or 40 year old phenomenon. Light weight is wonderful thing but is
not the be-all and end-all of bicycle technology. The present weight
limit is a regulatory limitation not a technological one. Pro bikes
can be optimized at well below legal limits (extremely light wheels
for instance) and simply "ballasted" to meet legalities. But the
technology trickles down to the public resulting in bikes that can
offer better reliability, function and "performance" than bikes of the
past. I put "performance" in quotes because its meaning is effectively
lost on someone who views Lyotard 23's, Rockport and bar end shifter
as technological bliss. Make no mistake, as far as I am concerned you
can find bliss wherever you choose and I am VERY happy for you, but
please do not make the mistake of suggesting or believing that I or
anyone else should have any reason to adopt your point of view.
I am also thrilled for you that you rarely get dropped on group rides
or that you are usually at the front on climbs. I can hardly imagine
more solid palmares as a "performance rider" However I have seen you
club website. It seems that not being dropped would primarily be a
function of not suffering a heart attack during a ride. That is not an
insult. That is an observation.


I really don't see why you don't just ignore this idiot. He's just
succeeding in hijacking every thread that we start and offering nothing
but his bully pulpit bull****. Don't feed the troll. You can never get
rid of them then.
Gotta go, taking the day off for a bike ride...

On Jul 29, 4:47*pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)" ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 7/28/2012 11:07 AM, wrote:

Flexy bikes were once favored by climbers*on the way up the hills*
and greatly feared, at least by some, and quite notably, by others.
Not to mention having to ride what you are supplied as a trade-team
professional rider.

I thought the pros got to ride whatever they want, with the sponsor(s)
labels covering the originals?

Sometimes. From what I've read.
--D-y

On Jul 29, 8:19*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

How about "taping your ears", Frank. That's one of your favorite
insults.

I don't think taping your ears counts as an insult, D-Y. *If you want
to see insults, read DR's or Duane's posts.

I can just look at *your* posts.
I'll explain: taping one's ears back would be uncomfortable, and would
look kind of stupid, especially since helmets have been mandatory for
many years and the helmet covers up your ears, so forth and so on.

You mean it as a jibe and an insult. Take credit for your work, Frank.

But there certainly are people who repeatedly say every tiny
improvement counts, at least in racing; and that their rides with
friends are nearly as tough. *They say microscopic aero improvements
never go away, every ounce less makes one reliably faster up a hill,
every gram less makes one accelerate faster, and that ignoring that
can be the difference between winning and placing second.

Yet these same people do _not_ remove every gram. *They do not drill
chainrings, nor ream seatposts. *Only one guy talked of streamlining
bike parts. *And nobody here seems to have gone for that tiny
improvement in bearing friction claimed for ceramics.

But they buy light bikes, built with modern materials, with modern
drivetrains. They don't use DT shifters and heavy, clunky, inferior-
handling steel frames, and they don't use weak, difficult-to-operate
old-fashioned brakes.

I call that paying attention to the big stuff.

You still haven't made those pesky grams go away. They never, ever
will, Frank. Never. Flail as you will.

You mentioned tin-foil rims failing. *Yes, that's obviously removing
too much weight. *My one friend removed too much when he drilled out
the center of his seatpost bolt and had it break miles from home.

Well, join the club of those who learned, mostly long long ago, to
*not* drill out bicycle components! Even the ones not made out of
carbon fiber!

*But
it is absolutely inconsistent when a "nothing is negligible" debater
leaves so many parts totally unmodified. *Look at a Dura Ace
chainring. *There's plenty of space to drill holes!

MOS

Understand, there is a real history of doing such things. Read about
the technical trials in France in the 1930s, when builders went to
extremes to find grams to remove.

You don't find carbon fiber bicycle frames "going to extremes"? Wait,
you do find carbon fiber bicycle frames "going to extremes" and you
don't like carbon fiber bicycle frames as a result.

Part of what I'm arguing against here is the weird notion that
anything _supposedly_ better for racers must never be questioned for
anyone else.

I never ever said anything of the sort and I don't remember ever
seeing anyone around here saying anything of the sort, either.
The only think you've ever seen from me is "ride what you want",
speaking personally. I might not think it's the "best stuff" to use,
but I have an appreciation for the old stuff, as I've said many times.
I just don't want to ride it-- because, in general (just to leave a
disclaimer) the new stuff works so much better. Brakes, shifting,
rigidity, weight, some (Ti) resistant to corrosion, you name it.

*People claim STI shifts easier, so even a tourist
shouldn't use bar-ends. *Or, SPD is more secure, so riding with toe
clips is foolish. *Or, carbon fiber is lighter and stiffer, so riding
old steel is quirky and ignorant.

There we go, those last few words are telling. "Quirky and ignorant".

Well, that's what's being implied! Heck, I stated my practical reasons
for not preferring SPD, and got hammered. Seems that if someone
doesn't want to use special shoes, he's not allowed to post here.

That's not true. Given the choice between "non-special" and my Sidi's?
For anything more than a ride around the block, if that, I'll go with
my Sidi's every time.
"Much more comfortable", for starters. Speaking as one who owned and
wore out at least a couple pairs of the old Beta Biker "cycling
sneakers".

I'm sorry about that. *But do you understand I don't have that
problem, and that I ride just fine with much more ordinary shoes?

More power to you. Many have suffered damage from toe straps, is what
I said.

Yeah, I understand about minimum weight limits. *But I think few of
the "nothing is negligible" crowd are below those limits, or even
competing where such rules apply.

Oh, lots of folks are below the UCI limit.
I don't know about "nothing is negligible" but I do know those grams
still haven't gone away and they never will just be good and go away,
either. No matter how loud the "noise" is or how much bleach and hot
water are used in "the wash".

Remember, I told you that I don't "allow" people to talk down
(deprecate) their own "old" bikes and I've said "ride what you like"
lots of times.
I know what I like, and I've explained why-- you've pushed hard enough
to get a little poke or two back, perhaps, but I recognize the
attractions of the "old stuff", including purchase price.

From where I sit, there's a problem in some quarters which I could
name the "Bikes are supposed to be cheap" syndrome.

Some bikes still are, relatively speaking. And there is choice, both
new and used (or NOS g) like never before in the market place.

I haven't seen any racers using multi-speed hubs or disc brakes at the
crit series here in Austin. Yet. Or drive belts. Who knows what
progress might bring?
What do you have against progress, Frank?
--D-y

Joe Riel wrote:
writes:

I'd suggest that a more significant metric
for mere mortals could be easily estimated by looking at the spread of
finishing times in your last uphill time trial, computing the average
difference, then computing how much weight you'd have to shave from your
bike to make up that interval (one place). That would be about the
smallest significant weight of interest.

For example, for the hill-climb I mentioned earlier, taking just the
finishers 2 through 5 in my age group (I omit the first place 'cause he
was significantly faster than the rest), the average time difference was
2.5 seconds. Or about 0.5% of the total. So the minimum relevant
weight difference is about 0.5% of the weight of bike plus rider. In my
case that is about 0.75 lbs, or 340 grams.

--
Joe Riel

Talk about paralysis by analysis!

I'd suggest the opposite. By realizing what is significant, one doesn't
waste time and money mucking with stuff that doesn't matter.

Unfortunately, such logic doesn't work with people who claim nothing is
negligible.


--
- Frank Krygowski

James wrote:
On 30/07/12 12:46, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jul 29, 9:34 pm, wrote:
On 30/07/12 10:22, Joe Riel wrote:









writes:

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/articl...l-with-jim-fel...


"According to Felt engineer Ty Buckenberger, total rider-plus-bike
drag typically measures around 3,000g, which at typical time trial
speeds is said to equate to a power output of around 394W. A realistic
post-wind tunnel testing reduction of 30g – just one percent – equates
to about 3W of energy savings. Translated into time, that's about
15sec
shaved off of a typical one-hour time trial."

it's obvious (to most except you it seems) why so much attention
is payed to these things.

James, if you dig back through the discussions between you and me,
you'll find many times I've said that aero is important in TTs. But
having said that, I still think it's silly to pretend that the
importance is as great in a typical road race, when drafting erases
much of the difference. And frankly, I doubt a 30g difference is
going to reliably get a time trialer a 15 second improvement. Amount
of sleep, stress on the job, the menu of Thursday's dinner,
motivation
level, lucky socks and maybe the previous phone call from a girl
friend could have at least as much effect.

The laws of statistics says the mean time would be reduced by 15
seconds (unless the math in the article is wrong - and no I haven't
checked.)

There is a confusion here between weight and force. The 30 gram
force referred to in the wind tunnel article is for aero drag.
Reducing the weight of a bike by 30 grams will have a much smaller
effect on the speed. Consider that to achieve an equivalent
percentage speed increase (0.33%) on a climb you need to reduce the
total weight (bike and rider) by 0.33%. For the racers in the original
article, that would be about 230 g. And that would only apply to
the climb.

Frank seems often confused and is confusing in that he doesn't say what
he means and then tries to alter what others thought he meant.

I understood that the wind tunnel test mention of 30g was a drag force
of 30g - not a weight difference.

Not that I recall a lot about aerodynamics, but after a brief google
refresher;

F = 0.5 Cd � A V^2

And assuming;

Cd = 1.17 (cylinder)
p = 1.2250 kg/m^3
A = 0.100 * 0.040 = 0.004 m^3 (think bicycle head tube)
V = 40 km/h = 11.11 m/s

F = 0.5 * 1.17 * 1.2250 * 0.004 * 11.11 * 11.11
F = 0.354 N or 36g

A nicely formed aero head tube (Cd ~ 0.04, say) would cut that to 1.2 g,
and save 15 seconds in an hour time trial @ 40 km/h.

... and so you'll do that to your bike? ;-)


On CFRP bikes, it's already done as much as is allowed by "The Authority".

I don't ride enough time trials (maybe 1 a year) to worry, however that
is not to say if was racing the Olympic time trial I wouldn't want the
most aero bike "The Authority" allowed.



--
- Frank Krygowski

On Jul 29, 8:42*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jul 29, 6:16*pm, " wrote:









On Jul 29, 10:35*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Jul 29, 10:03*am, wrote:

When I read your comment it seemed to me that you only mentioned mentioned your lady friend preferring downtube mounted friction shifters in order to disparage others who prefer Ergo or STI shifting.

No, it was a reaction to a statement (quoted by several here) by a
young racer in that magazine's "old vs. new" test. *The young boy said
that downtube shifters were scary or dangerous or something similar;
and here we heard "See? *See?" *Yet somehow my friend manages, without
fear.

It seems to me that the groups you ride with are not interested in attaining speed with minimum effort or comfort or safety.

The people I ride with seldom race these days, so rides I'm on are not
training rides, concentrating on speed. Yes, some of us might crank it
up for fun. *(Believe it or not, I almost never get dropped, despite
my bike's weight and gearing.)

But comfort? *Nobody seems to complain about being uncomfortable.
Safety? *Oddly, they seem to think cycling is very safe; there's no
fear. *And while most of my friends do ride STI, I've never heard one
claim it was for some safety advantage.

Index shifting was a real boon to new riderswho then did not have to spend a lot of time learning how to shift properly with downtube mounted friction shifters. That in turn made bicycling a lot more appealing to a lot more people who wanted a multi-gear bicycle. Now you have a lot of bicyclists who have not even heard of friction shifting let alone used it.

Certainly, few people now know about friction shifting. *But did index
make bicycling a lot more appealing to a lot more people? *To some,
certainly; but if it made a _big_ difference, I think we'd have seen a
pretty large and sustained bike boom when index shifting came in. I
don't recall that happening. *Frankly, most people don't understand
what all our gear ratios are for!

Many advances such as indexshifting, integrated brake/**** levers, 8, 9, 10 or 11 closer ratio gears rather than 5 or 6 makie bicycling more enjoyable for many. I remember the days of the 5 or even 6 rear gears whereone gear would be a bit too high to maintain comfortably but the next lower gear would be a bit too low. Even 8 rear gears (if the high and low gears are the same) help prevent that as the jumps between gears are less. This, in my opinion, encourages people to ride further as the effort is less because it is much more likely that the most efficient gear is there for them to select as the terrain changes slightly.

Well, maybe the best thing to say is that some people find that really
important, and some people really don't. *My wife, I notice, is way
more tolerant of less-than-perfect gear ratios than I am. *She happily
spins faster or slower when I'll change gears; and I don't have close-
ratio gears on my bikes.

There is nothing wrong with a person prefering a steel frame vintage bicycle with downtube mounted friction shifters. However, to say that all of the advances in bicycle technology since those days is reverse eliteism and reverse bike snobbery.

sigh First, it looks like you omitted part of your sentence; and
that you, too, were trying to misstate my views.

I'm not saying that "all" advances have no value, if that's what you
meant. *I am saying that many "advances" are greatly over-hyped. *I am
saying that many advances are really negligible. And I'm saying that
many, perhaps most, cyclists can have perfectly valid reasons for
choosing bikes, equipment or riding styles that are far different from
what the most up-to-the-minute racers are choosing.

Not all advances in bike technology mean that you'll go a whole lot faster but many of those advances do mean that you'll be able to ride with less effort and more safety.

And BTW, please don't start into hinting that new style equipment is
necessary for safety. *If you do, I _will_ ask you for data!

Oh data data data.

I don't remember anyone saying "necessary" for safety. What I see is
"safer". You don't like this, quite apparently, but having your hands
in a "control position"-- a position of strength for both holding onto
the bars, as well as a position of strength for steering the bike-- is
safer. Safer than letting go of the handlebars with one hand to reach
down to a DT shifter-- and let's include "fiddle time" when trying to
find and securely engaging a chosen-- or "lucky strike"-- gear. I
still remember using DT shifters, Frank, you can't get by with any
crap about the wonderfulness of DT shifters with me.

The same "control position" jargon applies to bar-end shifters, too.
Maybe to less of an extent, as the hands stay a little closer to the
handlebars compared to DT shifters.
But you're still losing control position totally for at least a
moment, *and the grasping position while operating bar ends does not
begin to compare to the "hands on the hoods" position that one can
maintain with brifters.

Again, Frank, if you like bar ends, by all means use them. They're not
as "functional" as brifters.

I remember having to be careful to "scope" the road ahead while using
DT's and "planning" shifts and all the rest of it. No thanks, when
there's something better available.

I ran through a "hole" today while riding, unseen due to light/shade
mottling-- very bright sun, very dark shade. Good thing I wasn't in
the middle of a DT or bar-end shift when that happened.

Yes, "safer". Plus easier, more conducive to good feelings and more
fun for all users, newbies and veterans alike. In a word, "better".

Drop the "overcomplicated", "maintenance-intensive" etc. etc. because
my brifters have given me far, far more trouble-free riding time than
the Campy or Simplex DT shifters I used in the past ever did.
Installed and maintained by professional bicycle mechanics, I hasten
to add.

"But but but..."
--D-y

D-y, you're welcome to prefer STI. *You've never had problems with
it. *And apparently, it also makes you feel safer. *If you need that
feeling, fine.

Me, I've never had safety problems from _any_ shifter. *Heck, I drink
from my water bottle, put on my hat, take off my jacket and more while
riding. *I'm not worried about moving a hand occasionally.

And as I've said, I have had friends who did have STI shifter
problems, including one who called me to fix her brand new shifter
just before a week-long tour. *And on one long tour, my daughter's STI
routinely required two tries to get her largest cog. *So for my use, I
prefer something less complicated, something that can be taken apart
and fixed on the road, should it be necessary.

I'm not alone. *There are lots and lots of non-STI cyclists. *There
are lots and lots of non-SPD cyclists. *There are also lots of non-
carbon cyclists, non-aero cyclists, and lots of cyclists who just
don't care about having every supposed performance advantage. *Their
priorities may be different than yours. *Let them be.

Compared to you, I am World Champion at "letting them be".

"Needing a feeling of safety" was another slam (insult), btw. That's
pretty funny, Frank. I've raced in 100-man Cat IV packs in my day.
I've ridden the bad-boys 100 +++ mile dirt-road rides, where we didn't
go hard until the dirt and gravel started. I have played amongst the
Winnebagos in Rocky Mountain descents.
IOW, I'm not exactly a Shrinking Violet.
I think of using brifters as kind of an IQ test-- let's see: "Works
better, all the way around-- faster, much more certain engagement,
shifts under power, more ratios, comes with better brakes...". Those
are the "feelings" I like g.
--D-y