700/23 vs 700/25 tires ?

-snip snip-
Tim McNamara wrote:
I bet that's true. Hampsten even used Pino Morroni skewers; Pino made
his entire career out of splitting hairs.

The world is poorer without him. What a guy!
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

In article
,
Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Feb 20, 1:39*am, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
In article
,
*Frank Krygowski wrote:


Let me change, then, to "Chung, in his continued tendency to flee to
the subject of time trials, pointed to an extreme Cervelo tri- or TT-
bike, supposedly most aero in the world, as proof that aero matters.
But Cervelo also makes road bikes that are legal for road racing, and
are touted for their "outstanding aerodynamics." *Yet those legal-for-
road-racing frames are very rarely used in road races. *It's just
another case where racers do not grasp every advantage. *IOW, they
disagree with posters here."

How's that? *Same point, and I think all the details are up to
exacting Usenet standards.
But most Cervelo-sponsored pros do use their most aero road frame in
road races.

And most Cannondale-sponsored pros use Cannondale's top frame, and
most Trek-sponsored pros use Trek's top frame. *Not as aero, but those
riders seem to get by.

Now you're on shakier ground, for two reasons. First, the point of pro
riders is to get paid*, and thus they almost always use their sponsor's
gear. Second, the narrower design parameters of UCI-legal road frames
(versus TT frames) mean there is likely to be less variance in frame
performance. Third, I know of very good comparisons of TT-frame aero
performance, but I haven't read a good comparison of road-frame aero
performance, so unlike you I'm not going to claim that the Cervelo S3 is
more aero than the Trek Madone 6.9.

Admittedly, I can't prove that the Cervelo is more slippery than the
Trek. However, since Cervelo built its reputation almost entirely on
aero, I think most potential buyers would assume the Cervelo was more
aero. And that's good enough for us to examine racers' motivation and
equipment strategy.

Now, as to the first point above: Sponsored racers use their sponsors
equipment. (Well, most of the time. We know about re-badging,
repainting, etc. But we also know it's going to be impossible to
repaint a Cervelo into a Trek.) Still, I've got an easy job he
I'm arguing against absolutist positions that require only one
counterexample. I'm arguing against "No detail is negligible" and "A
racer who dismisses a potential advantage as negligible has already
lost the race."

So if (as out TT-fixated friend thinks) any tiny bit of aero drag ,
even finger position, is critically important; and if a Trek sponsored
rider accepts more aero drag from his free Trek frame, then indeed,
that Trek rider is deciding that the slight difference in aero drag on
his frame is negligible. Or at least, he's comparing tiny benefits
versus real detriments and making a rational decision, which is what
I've been advocating all along.

Frank, nobody else in this thread thought they'd have to point out that
pro bike racers are keen on getting paid. Also, do you know the
difference between "negligible" and "worthwhile compromise?"

A hangnail is a negligible injury. The agony of chemotherapy is a
worthwhile compromise.

Riders routinely use the best equipment possible, given the limits of
imperfect knowledge and imperfect economics. Within the parameters of
sponsorship, rules, economics, and their own limitations, the riders and
their teams seek the best possible equipment. They don't always make the
best choices.

Now let's move away from sponsored pros to the thousands upon
thousands of other road racers. *They very rarely use Cervelo frames.
As I said, it's just another case where racers do not grasp every
advantage. *IOW, they disagree with posters here.

Frank, seriously? Because they're amateurs. And like amateur golfers, a
lot of them, any other considerations notwithstanding, can't afford or
refuse to spend the price of the latest and greatest.

Of course! But by doing so, they are adding to the chorus that agrees
with me. They're saying "Oh, it's not likely to matter
significantly." And every time someone wins a little (or big) race on
a non-Cervelo frame, they prove they were right.

None of these three paragraphs mean what you think they mean.

Personally, I think it's crazy to continue pretending that racers must
never (or never do) dismiss an advantage as negligible. *That point
has been so easily, and so often, disproven that the "nothing is
negligible" crew should formally concede.

Frank, I'm just sitting here, eating popcorn, and calling you on your
more hilarious errors. I think about the best you'll be able to pin on
the posters in this thread is that some of them think racers should care
about smaller details than actual racers do care about.

Well, that, plus they're wildly overstating their positions, using
either inappropriate absolute statements, or giving TT examples of
wind tunnel finger positions, or retreating to "hahaha you just don't
understand."

I stand by my previous statement. And now I need more popcorn.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

Ryan Cousineau wrote:

I stand by my previous statement. And now I need more popcorn.

See, this is what I meant about Frank being kinda entertaining, in a Pee Wee
Herman froth-at-the-mouth sort of way.

On Feb 20, 8:55*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Well, that, plus they're wildly overstating their positions, using
either inappropriate absolute statements, or giving TT examples of
wind tunnel finger positions, or retreating to "hahaha you just don't
understand."


You demanded a quantified example from me.
I provided it using tire Crr and a road race (not a TT).
Which of these categories did you fit my clearly
worked out example into?

You had said:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...190b0b70849274

It takes a big change in weight or rolling resistance to be
detectable.

(I think you meant detectable in terms of speed/results,
here.)

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...e006ffea2f1bb1

I know you're writing to Carl, but (to use your phrasing): What I've
said is that something that has a tiny or extremely difficult to
measure effect has negligible effect. IOW, any benefits would be lost
in the noise. IOW, you could not pick their effect out of the race
results. IOW, any scientific analysis would say "Not worth it."

I think what I demonstrated is that a very small
difference in rolling resistance, which requires
painstaking efforts to measure, can have
non-negligible effect. You may choose to believe
that this Crr difference was not tiny nor difficult
to measure. In that case, your expression would be
tautologous: once an effect is demonstrated, it is
asserted to be not tiny, therefore your expression is
always right, at the cost of conveying zero information.

I don't _like_ that equipment or wind tunnel testing
makes a (small) difference. In my ideal world,
I wouldn't have to worry about tire choices, and
the only way I could improve my results would be
to train harder and not waste time arguing on
Usenet. However, it isn't my ideal world, and
I've been convinced by data of that. You don't
seem willing to be convinced of anything. Once
I demonstrated it, you had known it all along
and went back to arguing about dimes:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...01b2df221a8f32
This is unscientific. It's also lame.

Ben

On Feb 20, 9:26 am, "Bill Sornson" wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 20, 9:54 am, "Bill Sornson" wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 19, 8:38 pm, "Bill Sornson" wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 19, 9:34 am, "

I think the 22 pounds standard race bike weight is very accurate
for the days of steel bikes.
I have a Ritchey mountain bike with 2.4-inch tires that is lighter
than that. No fancy parts and a particularly heavy rear wheel.

Yeah, but how much with a crank, pedals, gears and changers?

Bill "only the most expensive hardtails get down to 22 lbs." S.

21 pounds including pedals. Steel. I got the frame at a swap meet
for under 200 bucks. Relatively expensive bike in its day though.

I would need to see a pic of it being weighed to believe that. Is it
a single speed? Rigid fork? Size XXXXXXS?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm with you. All these weights people quote just aren't believeable.

Well here's the thing. I have two mountain bikes, a Gary Fisher Paragon
(hardtail) and a Titus Switchblade (full suspension). Neither was cheap.
Even with the priciest components (XTR, Mavic, Marzocchi, etc.), both bikes
weigh well over 25 pounds; closer to 30 no doubt.

I find it extemely hard to believe that a swap meet steel steal could be
built up that much lighter than two fairly high-end aluminum rigs.

Believe it.

My Ritchey has a rigid fork, but is fully geared with basic parts. XT/
XTR derailleurs, Ritchey cranks, Mavic 517 front rim with XT hub, 36
hole Spinergy rear rim w/ ceramic on XT. WTB 2.4-inch tires, biggest
tires that will fit in the frame (some might argue that they do not
actually fit in the frame). Nothing special, no carbon, no ti. The
frame is light. Sure this has a rigid fork, but I've seen ti mtn bikes
with Fox forks that weigh about the same. Ritchey used to put out a
bike called the Project 20, fully geared 20 pound rigid, and my wife
owns one with a Rockshox Sid that comes in just slightly heavier.

Again, if it's a single speed or fixie AND has a rigid fork, then maybe it
might get close to 21 pounds -- but not with big fat (2.4") tires and a
"particularly heavy rear wheel".

No way. No how.

Bill "show me the digital read-out" S.

I'll get right on that, cause this is really important.

wrote:

I think what I demonstrated is that a very small
difference in rolling resistance, which requires
painstaking efforts to measure, can have
non-negligible effect. You may choose to believe
that this Crr difference was not tiny nor difficult
to measure.

I'm not sure that's what Frank is doing. I think he's actually saying that
the difference really is negligible.

I got into this thread kinda late, with what I thought was just a
clarificatory question to Frank: since he determines negligibility by
detectability (thought I), how small of an effect could he detect? But the
evidence from this thread is that his position is quite different: he's
decided the effect is negligible, so there's no need to detect it.

wrote:
On Feb 20, 9:26 am, "Bill Sornson" wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 20, 9:54 am, "Bill Sornson" wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 19, 8:38 pm, "Bill Sornson" wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 19, 9:34 am, "

I think the 22 pounds standard race bike weight is very
accurate for the days of steel bikes.
I have a Ritchey mountain bike with 2.4-inch tires that is
lighter than that. No fancy parts and a particularly heavy rear
wheel.

Yeah, but how much with a crank, pedals, gears and changers?

Bill "only the most expensive hardtails get down to 22 lbs." S.

21 pounds including pedals. Steel. I got the frame at a swap meet
for under 200 bucks. Relatively expensive bike in its day though.

I would need to see a pic of it being weighed to believe that. Is
it a single speed? Rigid fork? Size XXXXXXS?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm with you. All these weights people quote just aren't
believeable.

Well here's the thing. I have two mountain bikes, a Gary Fisher
Paragon (hardtail) and a Titus Switchblade (full suspension).
Neither was cheap. Even with the priciest components (XTR, Mavic,
Marzocchi, etc.), both bikes weigh well over 25 pounds; closer to 30
no doubt.

I find it extemely hard to believe that a swap meet steel steal
could be built up that much lighter than two fairly high-end
aluminum rigs.

Believe it.

My Ritchey has a rigid fork, but is fully geared with basic parts. XT/
XTR derailleurs, Ritchey cranks, Mavic 517 front rim with XT hub, 36
hole Spinergy rear rim w/ ceramic on XT. WTB 2.4-inch tires, biggest
tires that will fit in the frame (some might argue that they do not
actually fit in the frame). Nothing special, no carbon, no ti. The
frame is light. Sure this has a rigid fork, but I've seen ti mtn bikes
with Fox forks that weigh about the same. Ritchey used to put out a
bike called the Project 20, fully geared 20 pound rigid, and my wife
owns one with a Rockshox Sid that comes in just slightly heavier.

Again, if it's a single speed or fixie AND has a rigid fork, then
maybe it might get close to 21 pounds -- but not with big fat (2.4")
tires and a "particularly heavy rear wheel".

No way. No how.

Bill "show me the digital read-out" S.

I'll get right on that, cause this is really important.

Finally, a point of agreement is reached!

:-P

PS: don't remove the tubes for the pic!

In article
,
Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Feb 20, 12:11*am, Michael Press wrote:
In article
,
*Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Feb 18, 7:45*pm, " wrote:

If you've known people, per testimony, who thought 50g was going to
make a huge difference, fine. That doesn't mean that everyone who does
research on Weight Weenies or reads "aero tables" thinks anything like
your example whatsoever.

But what category do you put JFT in? *Or Robert Chung? *Or Michael
Press? *When I'm saying a few grams won't make a detectable
difference, they're after me with torches and pitchforks!

Remember Frank? When you were characterized as an anti-helmet-zealot?

I'm not following your meaning.

Here is a bit more exposition:
"they're after me with torches and pitchforks!"

--
Michael Press

In article
,
Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Feb 20, 12:11*am, Michael Press wrote:
In article
,
*Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Feb 18, 7:45*pm, " wrote:

If you've known people, per testimony, who thought 50g was going to
make a huge difference, fine. That doesn't mean that everyone who does
research on Weight Weenies or reads "aero tables" thinks anything like
your example whatsoever.

[...]

In his post above, D-y seemed to be claiming that many people trying
for tiny improvements were actually quite rational about it.
Normally, Michael, I think of you as very rational. But your
absolutist statement was different: "A racer who dismisses a
potential advantage as negligible has already lost the race."

Is there a chance you want to modify your statement somehow, to make
it more realistic?

Winning starts with an attitude. With that state of mind
a racer studies, and ideas occur to him. Saying to himself
"That is not a good idea" stifles the free flow of ideas.
Racing determines what is a good idea.

--
Michael Press

"
I think the 22 pounds standard race bike weight is very
accurate for the days of steel bikes.

wrote:
I have a Ritchey mountain bike with 2.4-inch tires that is
lighter than that. No fancy parts and a particularly heavy rear
wheel.

"Bill Sornson" wrote:
Yeah, but how much with a crank, pedals, gears and changers?
Bill "only the most expensive hardtails get down to 22 lbs." S.

wrote:
21 pounds including pedals. Steel. I got the frame at a swap meet
for under 200 bucks. Relatively expensive bike in its day though.

"Bill Sornson" wrote:
I would need to see a pic of it being weighed to believe that. Is
it a single speed? Rigid fork? Size XXXXXXS?- Hide quoted text -

wrote:
I'm with you. All these weights people quote just aren't
believeable.

Well here's the thing. I have two mountain bikes, a Gary Fisher
Paragon (hardtail) and a Titus Switchblade (full suspension).
Neither was cheap. Even with the priciest components (XTR, Mavic,
Marzocchi, etc.), both bikes weigh well over 25 pounds; closer to 30
no doubt.
I find it extemely hard to believe that a swap meet steel steal
could be built up that much lighter than two fairly high-end
aluminum rigs.


Believe it.

My Ritchey has a rigid fork, but is fully geared with basic parts. XT/
XTR derailleurs, Ritchey cranks, Mavic 517 front rim with XT hub, 36
hole Spinergy rear rim w/ ceramic on XT. WTB 2.4-inch tires, biggest
tires that will fit in the frame (some might argue that they do not
actually fit in the frame). Nothing special, no carbon, no ti. The
frame is light. Sure this has a rigid fork, but I've seen ti mtn bikes
with Fox forks that weigh about the same. Ritchey used to put out a
bike called the Project 20, fully geared 20 pound rigid, and my wife
owns one with a Rockshox Sid that comes in just slightly heavier.

"Bill Sornson" wrote:
Again, if it's a single speed or fixie AND has a rigid fork, then
maybe it might get close to 21 pounds -- but not with big fat (2.4")
tires and a "particularly heavy rear wheel".
No way. No how.
Bill "show me the digital read-out" S.

wrote:
I'll get right on that, cause this is really important.

Bill Sornson wrote:
Finally, a point of agreement is reached!
PS: don't remove the tubes for the pic!

I was an early (1979) Ritchey dealer and sold them through the MTB
weight weenie era in the '90s. It's a typical and reasonable weight, not
exaggerated.
A Ritchey is not a gaspipe Chinese bike. Tom Ritchey always had a good
eye for weight reduction and a relentless, comprehensive approach to
minimize weight (MTB 2x9 with road changer, etc)
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971