Durability Of Velocity Aerohead Rims In 20/24 Hole Drillings.

In article
,
Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Nov 10, 1:55Â*am, Michael Press wrote:

In racing, negligible and nugatory advantages
add up to real measurable, race winning margins.
There is a name for those who do not seize every
negligible advantage: alsorans.

Cleverly stated, but not very accurate.

What do you think was clever?
Was it bringing in the non-standard reals?

--
Michael Press

On Nov 12, 11:05*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Nov 11, 11:27*am, "Barry" wrote:

So the question remains: If the tech tricks are doing anything
significant, then why is that M-SR race still run at the same average
speed?

Here are the average speeds from 2005 to 2009, in km/hr:

40.8 *45.2 *43.6 * 41.1 * 44.4

With such large variations, the average speed is not useful here, one way or
the other.

The article I cited, in Bicycle Quarterly's Summer 2010 issue, has a
graph showing the average speed of M-SR and the Tour de France going
back to 1910. *Superimposed is a line showing what the author claims
is the linear best fit to "athlete performance" based on results of
middle distance (5k and 10k) running.

You see fit to compare a (nearly) 300km cycle race that takes almost 7
hours to complete, with varying race tactics and weather conditions,
to athletic performance of runners over distances that only require
maximal aerobic output for fractions of an hour?

Try again. Maybe try the mens 4000m UCI world record.
http://oldsite.uci.ch/modello.asp?1s...&idnews =3454

You'll notice times from 5 minutes to a little over 4 minutes over the
past 40 years. Human athletic performance and equipment improvements
combined.

See if you can persuade a pro team to use one of your touring bikes
for the next MSR, and see how they compare.

James.

On Nov 11, 5:05*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Unlike the TdF, M-SR is held on pretty much the same course, year
after year. *That would seem to make it good for comparisons.

ONLY it were a time trial.
DR

On Nov 11, 7:52*pm, James wrote:
On Nov 12, 11:05*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:



On Nov 11, 11:27*am, "Barry" wrote:

So the question remains: If the tech tricks are doing anything
significant, then why is that M-SR race still run at the same average
speed?

Here are the average speeds from 2005 to 2009, in km/hr:

40.8 *45.2 *43.6 * 41.1 * 44.4

With such large variations, the average speed is not useful here, one way or
the other.

The article I cited, in Bicycle Quarterly's Summer 2010 issue, has a
graph showing the average speed of M-SR and the Tour de France going
back to 1910. *Superimposed is a line showing what the author claims
is the linear best fit to "athlete performance" based on results of
middle distance (5k and 10k) running.

You see fit to compare a (nearly) 300km cycle race that takes almost 7
hours to complete, with varying race tactics and weather conditions,
to athletic performance of runners over distances that only require
maximal aerobic output for fractions of an hour?

Try again. *Maybe try the mens 4000m UCI world record.http://oldsite.uci.ch/modello.asp?1s...&level2=12&idn...

You'll notice times from 5 minutes to a little over 4 minutes over the
past 40 years. *Human athletic performance and equipment improvements
combined.

See if you can persuade a pro team to use one of your touring bikes
for the next MSR, and see how they compare.

James, read back over what I've said: Time trials will show real
advantages from aero improvements; Match sprints will show tiny
advantages from aero or lightness. But I'm saying that in road racing
and crit racing, the advantages you're touting will disappear into the
noise.

Is the 4000 m race a road race? Is it a criterium? Or would you
judge it to be more like a time trial or a match sprint?

And again: I'm not saying anyone should use a touring bike for a road
race. I'm trying to estimate how much improvement your 100 gram
lighter wheels will cause. Because my numbers show the advantage to
be very tiny, and likely undetectable in your race results.

Despite the numbers, calculations and data _some_ of us have
contributed, you're still convinced they'll work wonders for you.
That's great! Then I suggest you spend the money, help the economy,
feel how wonderfully the bike just surges forward underneath you, and
let us know how many times you win as a result.

- Frank Krygowski

On Nov 12, 12:37*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Nov 11, 7:52*pm, James wrote:



On Nov 12, 11:05*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Nov 11, 11:27*am, "Barry" wrote:

So the question remains: If the tech tricks are doing anything
significant, then why is that M-SR race still run at the same average
speed?

Here are the average speeds from 2005 to 2009, in km/hr:

40.8 *45.2 *43.6 * 41.1 * 44.4

With such large variations, the average speed is not useful here, one way or
the other.

The article I cited, in Bicycle Quarterly's Summer 2010 issue, has a
graph showing the average speed of M-SR and the Tour de France going
back to 1910. *Superimposed is a line showing what the author claims
is the linear best fit to "athlete performance" based on results of
middle distance (5k and 10k) running.

You see fit to compare a (nearly) 300km cycle race that takes almost 7
hours to complete, with varying race tactics and weather conditions,
to athletic performance of runners over distances that only require
maximal aerobic output for fractions of an hour?

Try again. *Maybe try the mens 4000m UCI world record.http://oldsite.uci.ch/modello.asp?1s...&level2=12&idn...

You'll notice times from 5 minutes to a little over 4 minutes over the
past 40 years. *Human athletic performance and equipment improvements
combined.

See if you can persuade a pro team to use one of your touring bikes
for the next MSR, and see how they compare.

James, read back over what I've said: *Time trials will show real
advantages from aero improvements; *Match sprints will show tiny
advantages from aero or lightness. *But I'm saying that in road racing
and crit racing, the advantages you're touting will disappear into the
noise.

You trying to prove or disprove that, using MSR history, is laughable.

Is the 4000 m race a road race? *Is it a criterium? *Or would you
judge it to be more like a time trial or a match sprint?

You are the one comparing MSR to a short running race. Why not
compare a 4000m ITT on a bike to a short running race or MSR?

Have you considered, for example, that the human body cannot store
enough energy to complete MSR given the power output sustained during
the race? The ability of the human body to metabolise food and water
may be something else that keeps the race average speeds near
constant.

And again: *I'm not saying anyone should use a touring bike for a road
race.

Why not? Or do you think that there might be 100 very tiny
improvements between your heavy but sturdy tourer and a light purpose
built racing machine?

*I'm trying to estimate how much improvement your 100 gram
lighter wheels will cause. *Because my numbers show the advantage to
be very tiny, and likely undetectable in your race results.

Add up 100 tiny, no 100 very tiny advantages and you will see
results. Of course a tiny improvement may be difficult to see by
itself. It's not as though you can rerun a road race with different
equipment to test either.

I recently dropped almost 0.5kg off my bicycle, by changing the
pedals, saddle, frame and head stem. It sure feels livelier than it
did.

My claim remains. Lighter wheels will help more than a lighter
bicycle, all else being equal. The advantage being nearly 2:1 if the
weight reduction comes from the rim and/or tire.

Despite the numbers, calculations and data _some_ of us have
contributed, you're still convinced they'll work wonders for you.

I never said that either. You're full of words read in to what I've
written.

Saying a lighter set of wheels feels more lively and feels easier to
accelerate doesn't mean you'll instantly be able to out sprint Mark
Cavendish, but it'll sure help, and certainly not hinder. It's one of
the very tiny improvements you can make.

That's great! *Then I suggest you spend the money, help the economy,
feel how wonderfully the bike just surges forward underneath you, and
let us know how many times you win as a result.

For long I have resisted, but now I'll say it.

You patronising git.

Little regard left,
James.

On Nov 11, 6:37*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

And again: *I'm not saying anyone should use a touring bike for a road
race.

You aren't? The point you have hammering over and over is that no
single factor can make meaningful difference, therefore they can all
be ignored. That means your bike as a whole can''t be demonstrably
worse than what the pros use . To quote you precisely "any of these
improvements is so tiny as to be practically undetectable. They are
_not_ going to win a race."

I'm curious, (not that you would be remotely qualified) If you were
given the responsibility of providing equipment for a pro team what
would you give them and why? Show your work, but more importantly,
show how it is consistent with the position you been arguing here.

Despite the numbers, calculations and data _some_ of us have
contributed, you're still convinced they'll work wonders for you.

It's nice of you to acknowledge that James has provided some
excellent numbers, analysis and discussion to support exactly what he
has said. I agree. You, on the other hand seem incapable dealing with
more than than one piece of data at a time. And even then you simply
discard those you are incapable of understanding. That, unfortunately,
results in ignoring a HUGE body of useful information.

That's great! *Then I suggest you spend the money, help the economy,
feel how wonderfully the bike just surges forward underneath you, and
let us know how many times you win as a result.

Frank you continue to be smarmy.
Have I ever told you that you are an idiot; an ignorant, arrogant
complete ****ing idiot?
Well you are!

Don't forget your home work assignment above.

DR

On 11/11/2010 10:01 AM, DirtRoadie WHO? ANONYMOUSLY SNIPES:
On Nov 11, 8:51 am, Frank wrote:

Frank-
You're an idiot. An ignorant, arrogant complete ****ing idiot.
And since you cannot PROVE otherwise, it is established fact.


Brave talk from the sock puppet.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

In article ,
Tom Sherman °_° wrote:

On 11/10/2010 8:23 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
[...]
To repeat what I've already written, more plainly: Aero bars (which I
described using) are a very significant benefit in time trials. Disk
wheels (or spoke covers) are also significant for those time trialing
at a high level, although they never made a detectable difference for
me. But get much beyond those and you're back into imagination and
fashion.[...]

This is the technical improvement to go really fast:
http://...Varna_Tempest.jpg.

No good in a criterium. They'll cally you Hay Bale.
(and I did not click on the URL)

--
Michael Press

On Nov 11, 8:19*pm, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
On 11/11/2010 10:01 AM, DirtRoadie WHO? ANONYMOUSLY SNIPES:

On Nov 11, 8:51 am, Frank *wrote:

Frank-
You're an idiot. An ignorant, arrogant complete ****ing idiot.
And since you cannot PROVE otherwise, it is established fact.

Brave talk from the sock puppet.

Better get Timmie in here!
Or are you a solo act now?
DR