Cyclingnews follies.

On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 06:47:39 -0800 (PST), Qui si parla Campagnolo
wrote:

Absolutely!! 6/10 of 1% is HUGE,

Nice straw man. I point out you're an order of magnitude off in your
math and you pull that. LOL

and I'm sure Todd 'likely misses'
that 50 gram weight savings.

On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 06:47:39 -0800 (PST), Qui si parla Campagnolo
wrote:

I'm sure Todd 'likely misses'
that 50 gram weight savings.

Like you notice that special tubular ride. LOL.

Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
On Nov 21, 9:46 am, "
wrote:
On Nov 21, 9:50 am, "PatTX" wrote:



::
::: Article on Todd Wells cross bike,
::: "Wells was in the minority last season with his choice of a carbon
::: fiber handlebar but jumped on the bandwagon for '08 with a more
::: conventional KORE Road Elite model made of 7075 aluminum. Though he
::: likely misses the carbon bar's 50g weight savings, the aluminum
::: bar's durability advantage and grippier surface was apparently
::: enough to justify the switch.
:::
::: Do ya suppose he misses that .06 of 1% weight savings?
::
:: Your math is way wrong..
So. show us your math, then.
Pat in TX
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/2008...wells_gtr_type...

8.17 kg total bike weight. 50 / 8170 grams is .006. Or 0.6% of total
weight.

Tough to ride the bike w/o a rider.

Tough to carry a bike with a rider.

This is a cycle cross bike, after all.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
If you are not a part of the solution, you are a part of the precipitate.

On Nov 21, 6:28*am, Qui si parla Campagnolo
wrote:
Article on Todd Wells cross bike,
"Wells was in the minority last season with his choice of a carbon
fiber handlebar but jumped on the bandwagon for '08 with a more
conventional KORE Road Elite model made of 7075 aluminum. Though he
likely misses the carbon bar's 50g weight savings, the aluminum bar's
durability advantage and grippier surface was apparently enough to
justify the switch.

Do ya suppose he misses that .06 of 1% weight savings?

sigh.....

I just hope he paid for both of them. The economy, normally fueled by
athlete and yuppie epiphanies, is way down.

tf

On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 14:36:51 GMT, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 05:54:28 -0800 (PST), Qui si parla Campagnolo
wrote:

On Nov 21, 6:58*am, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 05:28:25 -0800 (PST), Qui si parla Campagnolo

wrote:
Article on Todd Wells cross bike,
"Wells was in the minority last season with his choice of a carbon
fiber handlebar but jumped on the bandwagon for '08 with a more
conventional KORE Road Elite model made of 7075 aluminum. Though he
likely misses the carbon bar's 50g weight savings, the aluminum bar's
durability advantage and grippier surface was apparently enough to
justify the switch.

Do ya suppose he misses that .06 of 1% weight savings?

Your math is way wrong.. * *

170 pound rider, 18 pound bike=188 pounds times 454=85,352 gram
'package'. 50 divided by 85,352= .00058581........

It's a cross bike and he's a cross racer. He's lifting the bike alone
sometimes. So it's .6 of 1% at those times.

Dear John,

So your math is "way wrong" for every second of the event except for
the half second instances in which the rider lifts the bike.

Either way, you're calling 0.6% versus 0.06% "way wrong".

Keep showing us these examples of your sense of proportion.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 15:09:54 GMT, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 06:47:39 -0800 (PST), Qui si parla Campagnolo
wrote:

I'm sure Todd 'likely misses'
that 50 gram weight savings.

Like you notice that special tubular ride. LOL.

Dear John,

Tubulars can be ridden at lower pressures than clinchers without
pinch-flatting. The smoother ride is one reason that road pros prefer
tubulars for long races like the Tour de France.

In cyclocross, the lower pressures made possible by tubulars provide
much better traction, which is quite noticeable.

Keep those examples of common sense coming!

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 12:14:48 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 15:09:54 GMT, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 06:47:39 -0800 (PST), Qui si parla Campagnolo
wrote:

I'm sure Todd 'likely misses'
that 50 gram weight savings.

Like you notice that special tubular ride. LOL.

Dear John,

Tubulars can be ridden at lower pressures than clinchers without
pinch-flatting. The smoother ride is one reason that road pros prefer
tubulars for long races like the Tour de France.

In cyclocross, the lower pressures made possible by tubulars provide
much better traction, which is quite noticeable.

Keep those examples of common sense coming!

Dear er douchecarl

I know tubulars can be ridden at lower pressure w/o pinch flatting and
actually ride tubulars myself in key events. I don't do cross but am
aware of the value of very low pressure in that sport.

But the smoother ride thing at the same pressure is baloney which I
imagine if I had said you would attack me on with your passive
aggressive questionging style.

I was referring to Chisholm's past claims that he can feel the
difference in tubulars at the same pressure, which I think is
impossible.

So stalk away you jackass.

On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 11:37:44 -0700, wrote:


Either way, you're calling 0.6% versus 0.06% "way wrong".

It's an order of magnitude. If you want to be such a dope to
criticize me for that, go ahead. It's pathetic.

In article ,
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 05:54:28 -0800 (PST), Qui si parla Campagnolo
wrote:

On Nov 21, 6:58*am, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 05:28:25 -0800 (PST), Qui si parla Campagnolo

wrote:
Article on Todd Wells cross bike,
"Wells was in the minority last season with his choice of a carbon
fiber handlebar but jumped on the bandwagon for '08 with a more
conventional KORE Road Elite model made of 7075 aluminum. Though he
likely misses the carbon bar's 50g weight savings, the aluminum bar's
durability advantage and grippier surface was apparently enough to
justify the switch.

Do ya suppose he misses that .06 of 1% weight savings?

Your math is way wrong.. * *

170 pound rider, 18 pound bike=188 pounds times 454=85,352 gram
'package'. 50 divided by 85,352= .00058581........

It's a cross bike and he's a cross racer. He's lifting the bike alone
sometimes. So it's .6 of 1% at those times.

I'm reminded of the joke whose punchline is "you're in a helicopter!"*

Yes, cyclocrossers lift and carry their bikes. I have not yet seen a
competitive cyclocrosser, outside of the children's division, who would
notice--much less be impeded by--a 50g weight difference while carrying
their bikes.

This is one of those "performance measures" that basically does not
matter. For one thing, the speed through a bike-carry section is almost
entirely dependent on skillful transitions on and off the bike, and the
running speed of the rider through the bike-carry.

This season, I've been racing on two different bikes, and the weight
difference between them has been about an order of magnitude more than
the difference between Todd Wells' old and new bikes (~500g by my
semi-informed guess). The heavy bike displays its weight by being
notably tail-heavy, since the extra weight is mainly in the nonsensical
8-speed gearhub out back.

Despite that, lifting and carrying the two bikes is essentially the
same. When I carry either bike through a barrier section, the
overwhelming majority of my power is going to running through the
barrier section and jumping back on the bike (a circumstance dependent
on my ability to lift my own weight into the air). The bike lift is
entirely a skill move, not in any way limited by the bike weight within
reasonable parameters. Maybe if I started CXing on a big-hit mountain
bike, I might notice that 35 pounds was more heft than 20 pounds. At
that point I'd be riding with enough weight penalty that I'd start
falling behind on any rideable climbs...

Just the time itself should matter, if nothing else: a race with a whole
lot of lift-and-carry action might see a racer actually lifting their
bike for 2 seconds out of every lap. So we're talking about a
"performance" difference that would cause a probably-immeasurable
disadvantage for something less than 1% of the race. 0.01 x ~0 ~= 0. (I
assumed a lap time of 4 minutes or more, and a typical cross course has
2-3 lifts per lap; this is generous in the extreme, as UCI CX courses
are at least 2.5 km per lap).

But please, feel free to model for us your estimate of time-loss during
bike lifts between bikes that are 50-500g different in weight.

*http://searchenterpriselinux.techtar...sid39_gci12284
24,00.html

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

In article ,
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 06:47:39 -0800 (PST), Qui si parla Campagnolo
wrote:

Absolutely!! 6/10 of 1% is HUGE,

Nice straw man. I point out you're an order of magnitude off in your
math and you pull that. LOL

No, you've constructed a rhetorical nonsense-argument, a work of
sophistry.

There was no mistake in the first place: the figures given were right
for the "system weight" of both bike and rider, the weight that matters
when (mostly) riding up hills.

When you claimed the magnitude-higher figure would be significant when
the rider was lifting said CX bike, you proceeded into a land of
insignificant differences during tiny fractions of the race, and I defy
you to sensibly model a circumstance in which the 50g weight difference
would even measurably impede the bike lift, which isn't after all an
important factor in actual CX dismount/remount speeds. I'd elaborate,
but I think you'll concede the point when you model the physical act in
your head (or better yet, go out and practice it once or twice; no
barriers necessary, you don't even need to have a CX bike.*)

We're talking about 7000g versus 7050g, or figures of that ilk, when the
real impediments are whether or not the rider in question dismounts
successfully, and what their running speed is, and how quickly they can
start pedaling again after the running section, and on long climbing
run-ups, the combined weight of bike and rider.

*To test my guesses about bike-lift speed, I grabbed a bike-boom
10-speed sitting in my yard, with a U-lock attached. I practised a few
lifts-to-shoulder to see what the times were like. Even with that heavy
example of a bike, I was able to lift it fast. Maybe half-a-second or
so. I got really interested in the answer, though, so I grabbed a few
videos I have of amateur CX racing. Because I'm lazy, I fast-forwarded
to the first dismount/lift in the first race I could find. I think it
was a Men's "A" race. From the time the first rider had both feet on the
ground to the time his bike was high enough to clear the barrier was
about 0.3 seconds. I checked a few others, and this seems a pretty
typical lift-speed.

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