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

In article
,
Frank Krygowski wrote:

It's my contention that a lot of the touted improvements are actually
negligible. Many are not worth precisely zero, and not all are
typically negligible, but I think a lot of them are. In fact, I think
some of the claimed performance gains would be significant only for a
world hour attempt. Yep, not even a stage win attempt.

We are not talking about the non-standard reals
where a 0* is not zero, yet multiplying 0* by
any natural number is still negligible: n x 0* = 0*.

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.

--
Michael Press

On Nov 10, 1:55*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.

The negligible or nugatory advantages we're discussing may,
occasionally, very rarely, add up to real race winning margins. But
they almost never do. Certainly, nobody here has shown that they do.

We've been through this before. Any mathematician would recognize
that the outcome of anything other than a classic time trial depends
on a very large number of independent factors. Most commonly, that's
a recipe for some sort of normal distribution of odds or results.
Sure, you can change some of those factors and improve the odds a bit
- but only a bit.

The equipment factors people are touting here aren't even the most
important. That is, with 50 guys that are anywhere near matched, 100
grams off the wheels is not going to be detectable as an advantage.
It will probably be less influential than the essentially random
variations like, say, a weird wrinkle in the rider's jersey, or a
helmet with a little more frontal areal, or needing to take an extra
swig from the water bottle during the race. It's going to be
absolutely swamped by things like tactics and alliances during the
race, not to mention training and genetics.

If someone looks at a race winner and says "Oh, he's got 18 spokes and
I've got 20. That's the difference," well, odds are tremendous that
he's fooling himself.

But buy what you like! We've got to get the economy going!

(BTW, why is nobody commenting on the lack of improvement in Milan-San
Remo speeds over 25 years? Why haven't all these advantages made that
race _much_ faster than it was in the 1970s?)

- Frank Krygowski

On Nov 10, 1:36*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Nov 10, 1:55*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.

Yes, Frank, by your analysis (which I understand that you, by choice,
limit to integer math) .1 rounds off to zero, so 100 x .1 is also
zero.

The negligible or nugatory advantages we're discussing may,
occasionally, very rarely, add up to real race winning margins. *But
they almost never do. *Certainly, nobody here has shown that they do.

And despite your howling you have not shown that they do NOT. I guess
you can stop arguing now. You lose even using you own distorted
logic.
Do you suppose you can talk one of these guys into riding your
touring bike?
http://cdn.media.cyclingnews.com//20...st4047_600.jpg
After all, NOBODY has SHOWN they would be at any disadvantage.

We've been through this before. *
You and your Straw friends?

Any mathematician would recognize
that the outcome of anything other than a classic time trial depends
on a very large number of independent factors. *

Ah yes the straw mathematician - he's on your side right?
OK, this is nonsensical and I don't agree, but I'll go with it to let
you help make my point.

(BTW, why is nobody commenting on the lack of improvement in Milan-San
Remo speeds over 25 years? *Why haven't all these advantages made that
race _much_ faster than it was in the 1970s?)

Most people here are smart enough to realize that setting up straw men
usually does little to establish a point. You have not yet figured
that out.
I would never have had any reason to suspect that MSR is a time
trial. That's hilarious !

Note that even though there is there is a fastest recorded _race_
time, no rider is credited with a "course record" for
MSR:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan_–_San_Remo#Records

Geez, Frank, are you really that ignorant about bike racing? Are you
one of the clueless folks who thinks that a bike race (including a
260K bike race) is a sprint from start to finish? I guess so. That's
about all that can be gleaned from your comment. You might note that
even track sprinters know that all that matters is crossing the line
first, not how fast they get there.
Just for your edification (from the wikipedia article)
"Despite its flat course and long finishing straight, sprinters teams
have been foiled from time-to-time by a determined attack on the last
hills."
If you don't understand, sorry. I'm not going to try to explain it to
you. It may very well be over your head.

If (as someone said) a race outcome depends on a very large number of
independent factors, that would be true for race _speed_ as well.
Strategy and tactics being right at the top.

BTW, you should to add this to your signatu
http://is.gd/gUGyK
In your case it has a double meaning.

Yes, Frank, I realize that you and pigs like mud wrestling.

DR

On Nov 11, 7:36*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Nov 10, 1:55*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.

The negligible or nugatory advantages we're discussing may,
occasionally, very rarely, add up to real race winning margins. *But
they almost never do. *Certainly, nobody here has shown that they do.

Why do they have photo finishes then? I've seen plenty of TDF photo
finishes that come down to just a few mm, at 60+km/h. That's
negligible? Not to the winners. Whether it was the wind or the
wheels, who knows, but why handicap yourself with something known to
be inferior to some small degree, all else being equal?

We've been through this before. *Any mathematician would recognize
that the outcome of anything other than a classic time trial depends
on a very large number of independent factors. *Most commonly, that's
a recipe for some sort of normal distribution of odds or results.
Sure, you can change some of those factors and improve the odds a bit
- but only a bit.

And sometimes a bit is all it takes.

The equipment factors people are touting here aren't even the most
important. *That is, with 50 guys that are anywhere near matched, 100
grams off the wheels is not going to be detectable as an advantage.

Lost in the noise is it?

(BTW, why is nobody commenting on the lack of improvement in Milan-San
Remo speeds over 25 years? *Why haven't all these advantages made that
race _much_ faster than it was in the 1970s?)

What sets a riders _average_ speed for a (long) race is predominantly
wind resistance and rider aerobic ability. It is obvious that neither
of these two have changed enough to promote detectable change in
_that_ race, even discounting that it is 10 km longer now than it used
to be.

The hour record has improved almost 7km/h since the early 70s.

James.

On Nov 10, 3:37*pm, James wrote:

The hour record has improved almost 7km/h since the early 70s.

Um, no - .3 kmh (yes there's a decimal point in there)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hour_record
As a result of rules changes which now limit aero equipment.
But that does show what a difference equipment can make.
DR

On Nov 11, 10:02*am, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Nov 10, 3:37*pm, James wrote:

The hour record has improved almost 7km/h since the early 70s.

Um, no *- .3 kmh *(yes there's a decimal point in there)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hour_record
As a result of rules changes which now limit aero equipment.
But that does show what a difference equipment can make.
DR

Depends which data set you look at.

This has also moved quite a long way from the topic of lighter wheels
(all else being equal) offering some advantage during acceleration.

JS.

On Nov 10, 4:10*pm, James wrote:
On Nov 11, 10:02*am, DirtRoadie wrote:

On Nov 10, 3:37*pm, James wrote:

The hour record has improved almost 7km/h since the early 70s.

Um, no *- .3 kmh *(yes there's a decimal point in there)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hour_record
As a result of rules changes which now limit aero equipment.
But that does show what a difference equipment can make.
DR

Depends which data set you look at.

Yes, there are all the interim (and formerly official) records,
culminating with Chris Boardman.

This has also moved quite a long way from the topic of lighter wheels
(all else being equal) offering some advantage during acceleration.

Agreed. And I'm about done dealing with Frank.
DR

On Nov 10, 5:37*pm, James wrote:
On Nov 11, 7:36*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:


(BTW, why is nobody commenting on the lack of improvement in Milan-San
Remo speeds over 25 years? *Why haven't all these advantages made that
race _much_ faster than it was in the 1970s?)

What sets a riders _average_ speed for a (long) race is predominantly
wind resistance and rider aerobic ability. *It is obvious that neither
of these two have changed enough to promote detectable change in
_that_ race, even discounting that it is 10 km longer now than it used
to be.

Read the article I cited, James.

First, the author's main point is that training, nutrition, chemicals
or whatever _have_ made people significantly faster in middle-distance
running, a sport that's as equipment-neutral as any can be.

Yes, wind resistance and aerobic ability should have made a
difference. Aerobic ability has gone up. But M-SR speeds have simply
not. How, then, can you pretend that the aero advantages of the last
30+ years have greatly helped?

You can pretend it all happens in the sprint. But one way to handle
an awesome sprinter is to motor him into fatigue for many miles, so he
doesn't have enough left at the end. You do that by riding faster for
those miles. Another way is to keep him out of a long breakaway, in
which the aero advantage of your bike should help keep you away, by
letting you ride at a higher speed. Why are those tactics not evident
in that race's average speeds?

The hour record has improved almost 7km/h since the early 70s.

Now there's a chance that you know more about racing than I do. But
I, at least, understand that the hour record IS a time trial!

And if you read back through my posts, you'll see that I readily
acknowledge that real aero improvements - NOT tiny ones like aero
finger positions or aero rear derailleurs - can make a practical
difference in time trials.

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.

- Frank Krygowski

On Nov 11, 1:23*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Nov 10, 5:37*pm, James wrote:

On Nov 11, 7:36*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

(BTW, why is nobody commenting on the lack of improvement in Milan-San
Remo speeds over 25 years? *Why haven't all these advantages made that
race _much_ faster than it was in the 1970s?)

What sets a riders _average_ speed for a (long) race is predominantly
wind resistance and rider aerobic ability. *It is obvious that neither
of these two have changed enough to promote detectable change in
_that_ race, even discounting that it is 10 km longer now than it used
to be.

Read the article I cited, James.

TLDR.

First, the author's main point is that training, nutrition, chemicals
or whatever _have_ made people significantly faster in middle-distance
running, a sport that's as equipment-neutral as any can be.

Why not long distance? How long is a middle distance running race in
time? 1 or 2 hours? How long is MSR? 6-7 hours.

Yes, wind resistance and aerobic ability should have made a
difference. *Aerobic ability has gone up.

Over long distance?

*But M-SR speeds have simply
not. *How, then, can you pretend that the aero advantages of the last
30+ years have greatly helped?

There have been only a few aero advantages to the road racing bicycle,
in fact the use of a foam hat may well have counteracted improvements
in other areas, such as wheels and thin forks.

Also, the cyclists may choose to race MSR using different tactics now,
with the help of race radio. A slower start and a faster finish,
perhaps.

None of this makes much difference to the subject of discussion, which
if I remember correctly is that a lighter set of wheels helps when
accelerating. BTW, it also helps with deceleration.

You can pretend it all happens in the sprint. *But one way to handle
an awesome sprinter is to motor him into fatigue for many miles, so he
doesn't have enough left at the end.

But he's got a team around him and they sit on your wheel saving 30%
of their effort compared with you. You get to the sprint and are
spent - bye bye.

*You do that by riding faster for
those miles.

You make it sound so easy. How will you achieve this extra bit of
speed? A motor in your seat tube?

*Another way is to keep him out of a long breakaway, in
which the aero advantage of your bike should help keep you away, by
letting you ride at a higher speed.

Yet there will no doubt be others with you in the break, and his team
will work like the devil to bring you back prior to the sprint.

*Why are those tactics not evident
in that race's average speeds?

Because they don't work.

The hour record has improved almost 7km/h since the early 70s.

Now there's a chance that you know more about racing than I do. *But
I, at least, understand that the hour record IS a time trial!

It is a race where aerodynamic and human improvement has yield faster
results, and you agree with that much - congratulations.

Stick to the subject at hand. Lighter wheels improves acceleration
more than a lighter bicycle, by almost 2:1 if the mass is located at
the rim or wheel.

James.

On 11/10/2010 5:02 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Nov 10, 3:37 pm, wrote:

The hour record has improved almost 7km/h since the early 70s.

Um, no - .3 kmh (yes there's a decimal point in there)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hour_record
As a result of rules changes which now limit aero equipment.
But that does show what a difference equipment can make.
DR

Uh, that article shows the man's and woman's hour records being 90.598
km and 84.0204 km, respectively.

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