|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter
OK, I just went out and weighed my road bikes again. Just like I would walk out the door with.
Basso Loto - this is the final year of production and used Basso Tubing Concepts tubes instead of Columbus tubes. 22.12 lbs Time VX - 28 mm tires and aluminum BB lugs and multi-shaped carbon tubes. - 21.9 lbs Colnago CLX 3.0 - carbon wheels and everything else possible. 20.17 lbs. Now it seems pretty plain that I could reduce the weight of the Basso to very close to that of the Colnago. But to do so would mean I would have to put carbon wheels on it. And maybe a carbon fork which would put me in a position of having a hybrid carbon/steel bike which seems to kill the idea of having a steel bike in the first place. The real question is does this weight really make a difference? A 22 lb bike and a 190 lb lard-assed rider makes that 2 lb difference only 0.01% difference in weight and the truth is that lifting that weight up the climbs is far overshadowed by the high speed frictional drag of the body. I could more than off-set that difference by riding on the drops downhill and on the flats if it wasn't so uncomfortable to an old broken down body. As a comparison I pulled the Pinarello Stelvio off the shelf and without a flat kit or water bottle it weighed in at 21.7 lbs. The Pinarello also has custom tubing and the tubes have a slightly larger diameter than the Basso. On the local fast descents the Pinarello doesn't bounce at the bottom. And presently I have heavy Look cyclocross pedals on it so that the weights of the Pinarello and Basso are probably identical with a more modest flat kit and full water bottles. I have a Ridley cross bike that rides like a dream as a gravel bike and the Redline Conquest cyclocross bike with disk brakes. If I could sell these two I would have sufficient room to keep all of my road bikes and start riding the Pinarello again rather than trying to keep it in clean condition. What these numbers tell to me is that the only real advantage of the carbon fiber bikes is that they are more aero and so you can hold a higher speed into a headwind. What if I were to simply lower my expectations of speed-into-the-wind and keep all of my road bikes and simply concentrate on upgrading them to 11 speeds since it is unlikely that the 12 speed will ever find any markets outside of racing? Keeping the 10 speed would be preferable but spare parts are getting much more difficult and expensive to come by. Any opinions? Jay in particular is more of the riding type I do but perhaps Duane and a few others so this sort of riding as well. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter
On 6/17/2019 12:57 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
A 22 lb bike and a 190 lb lard-assed rider makes that 2 lb difference only 0.01% difference in weight and the truth is that lifting that weight up the climbs is far overshadowed by the high speed frictional drag of the body. I could more than off-set that difference by riding on the drops downhill and on the flats if it wasn't so uncomfortable to an old broken down body. I agree. The effect of a couple pounds of weight is tiny. .... What these numbers tell to me is that the only real advantage of the carbon fiber bikes is that they are more aero and so you can hold a higher speed into a headwind. I think the same logic applies to the aerodynamics of the bike frame. Yes, there are bikes that are designed to be more aerodynamic. But the great bulk of the air drag comes from the rider. It makes no sense to measure the reduced drag of the frame alone, any more than to compare a 20 pound bike with an 18 pound bike and say "It's 10% lighter, I should go 10% faster!" Aero wheels will be a bit faster, but colossally expensive. And I expect their advantage could be swamped by the effect of wearing a jersey that flaps a bit because it's a little too loose in the shoulders. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter
On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 11:14:20 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/17/2019 12:57 PM, Tom Kunich wrote: A 22 lb bike and a 190 lb lard-assed rider makes that 2 lb difference only 0.01% difference in weight and the truth is that lifting that weight up the climbs is far overshadowed by the high speed frictional drag of the body. I could more than off-set that difference by riding on the drops downhill and on the flats if it wasn't so uncomfortable to an old broken down body. I agree. The effect of a couple pounds of weight is tiny. ... What these numbers tell to me is that the only real advantage of the carbon fiber bikes is that they are more aero and so you can hold a higher speed into a headwind. I think the same logic applies to the aerodynamics of the bike frame. Yes, there are bikes that are designed to be more aerodynamic. But the great bulk of the air drag comes from the rider. It makes no sense to measure the reduced drag of the frame alone, any more than to compare a 20 pound bike with an 18 pound bike and say "It's 10% lighter, I should go 10% faster!" Aero wheels will be a bit faster, but colossally expensive. And I expect their advantage could be swamped by the effect of wearing a jersey that flaps a bit because it's a little too loose in the shoulders. -- - Frank Krygowski I often wonder just how much of the aero advantages offered by many components actually is when coupled with t he churned up air created by the bicyclist. My guess is that if the bicyclist is NOT pedaling then the aerodynamic benefits of many things might be a bit greater than if pedaling is occurring. Cheers |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 20:42:18 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote: On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 11:14:20 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/17/2019 12:57 PM, Tom Kunich wrote: A 22 lb bike and a 190 lb lard-assed rider makes that 2 lb difference only 0.01% difference in weight and the truth is that lifting that weight up the climbs is far overshadowed by the high speed frictional drag of the body. I could more than off-set that difference by riding on the drops downhill and on the flats if it wasn't so uncomfortable to an old broken down body. I agree. The effect of a couple pounds of weight is tiny. ... What these numbers tell to me is that the only real advantage of the carbon fiber bikes is that they are more aero and so you can hold a higher speed into a headwind. I think the same logic applies to the aerodynamics of the bike frame. Yes, there are bikes that are designed to be more aerodynamic. But the great bulk of the air drag comes from the rider. It makes no sense to measure the reduced drag of the frame alone, any more than to compare a 20 pound bike with an 18 pound bike and say "It's 10% lighter, I should go 10% faster!" Aero wheels will be a bit faster, but colossally expensive. And I expect their advantage could be swamped by the effect of wearing a jersey that flaps a bit because it's a little too loose in the shoulders. -- - Frank Krygowski I often wonder just how much of the aero advantages offered by many components actually is when coupled with t he churned up air created by the bicyclist. My guess is that if the bicyclist is NOT pedaling then the aerodynamic benefits of many things might be a bit greater than if pedaling is occurring. Cheers See https://dc.uwm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.c...31&context=etd which says that the rider contributes about 70% of the total drag. Wasn't Greg LeMond's wining the 1989 TdeF attributed in part to an aerodynamic helmet? -- Cheers, John B. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter
On 6/18/2019 12:55 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 20:42:18 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 11:14:20 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/17/2019 12:57 PM, Tom Kunich wrote: A 22 lb bike and a 190 lb lard-assed rider makes that 2 lb difference only 0.01% difference in weight and the truth is that lifting that weight up the climbs is far overshadowed by the high speed frictional drag of the body. I could more than off-set that difference by riding on the drops downhill and on the flats if it wasn't so uncomfortable to an old broken down body. I agree. The effect of a couple pounds of weight is tiny. ... What these numbers tell to me is that the only real advantage of the carbon fiber bikes is that they are more aero and so you can hold a higher speed into a headwind. I think the same logic applies to the aerodynamics of the bike frame. Yes, there are bikes that are designed to be more aerodynamic. But the great bulk of the air drag comes from the rider. It makes no sense to measure the reduced drag of the frame alone, any more than to compare a 20 pound bike with an 18 pound bike and say "It's 10% lighter, I should go 10% faster!" Aero wheels will be a bit faster, but colossally expensive. And I expect their advantage could be swamped by the effect of wearing a jersey that flaps a bit because it's a little too loose in the shoulders. -- - Frank Krygowski I often wonder just how much of the aero advantages offered by many components actually is when coupled with t he churned up air created by the bicyclist. My guess is that if the bicyclist is NOT pedaling then the aerodynamic benefits of many things might be a bit greater than if pedaling is occurring. Cheers See https://dc.uwm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.c...31&context=etd which says that the rider contributes about 70% of the total drag. Wasn't Greg LeMond's wining the 1989 TdeF attributed in part to an aerodynamic helmet? That was a time trial stage, and it's true that time trials are one event where every tiny bit of improvement helps. For ordinary riding? No, most tiny improvements make no noticeable difference. Even though we all know the near-magic power of red paint. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter
On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 9:49:50 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/18/2019 12:55 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 20:42:18 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 11:14:20 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/17/2019 12:57 PM, Tom Kunich wrote: A 22 lb bike and a 190 lb lard-assed rider makes that 2 lb difference only 0.01% difference in weight and the truth is that lifting that weight up the climbs is far overshadowed by the high speed frictional drag of the body. I could more than off-set that difference by riding on the drops downhill and on the flats if it wasn't so uncomfortable to an old broken down body. I agree. The effect of a couple pounds of weight is tiny. ... What these numbers tell to me is that the only real advantage of the carbon fiber bikes is that they are more aero and so you can hold a higher speed into a headwind. I think the same logic applies to the aerodynamics of the bike frame. Yes, there are bikes that are designed to be more aerodynamic. But the great bulk of the air drag comes from the rider. It makes no sense to measure the reduced drag of the frame alone, any more than to compare a 20 pound bike with an 18 pound bike and say "It's 10% lighter, I should go 10% faster!" Aero wheels will be a bit faster, but colossally expensive. And I expect their advantage could be swamped by the effect of wearing a jersey that flaps a bit because it's a little too loose in the shoulders. -- - Frank Krygowski I often wonder just how much of the aero advantages offered by many components actually is when coupled with t he churned up air created by the bicyclist. My guess is that if the bicyclist is NOT pedaling then the aerodynamic benefits of many things might be a bit greater than if pedaling is occurring. Cheers See https://dc.uwm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.c...31&context=etd which says that the rider contributes about 70% of the total drag. Wasn't Greg LeMond's wining the 1989 TdeF attributed in part to an aerodynamic helmet? That was a time trial stage, and it's true that time trials are one event where every tiny bit of improvement helps. For ordinary riding? No, most tiny improvements make no noticeable difference. Even though we all know the near-magic power of red paint. What is a "tiny improvement"? The frame on my Emonda probably weighs less than the Columbus steel forks off my last custom racing bike. Those things were suitable for clubbing baby harp seals or home defense. Weight and stiffness do matter when climbing. If we're talking about aero bits, that's harder call -- except that dopes on aero bars riding in packs can result in a massive worsening of your riding experience. Wearing aero shoe covers may keep your feet warmer on chilly mornings, which might make you faster. It all adds up. -- Jay Beattie. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter
On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 5:42:20 AM UTC+2, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 11:14:20 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/17/2019 12:57 PM, Tom Kunich wrote: A 22 lb bike and a 190 lb lard-assed rider makes that 2 lb difference only 0.01% difference in weight and the truth is that lifting that weight up the climbs is far overshadowed by the high speed frictional drag of the body. I could more than off-set that difference by riding on the drops downhill and on the flats if it wasn't so uncomfortable to an old broken down body. I agree. The effect of a couple pounds of weight is tiny. ... What these numbers tell to me is that the only real advantage of the carbon fiber bikes is that they are more aero and so you can hold a higher speed into a headwind. I think the same logic applies to the aerodynamics of the bike frame. Yes, there are bikes that are designed to be more aerodynamic. But the great bulk of the air drag comes from the rider. It makes no sense to measure the reduced drag of the frame alone, any more than to compare a 20 pound bike with an 18 pound bike and say "It's 10% lighter, I should go 10% faster!" Aero wheels will be a bit faster, but colossally expensive. And I expect their advantage could be swamped by the effect of wearing a jersey that flaps a bit because it's a little too loose in the shoulders. -- - Frank Krygowski I often wonder just how much of the aero advantages offered by many components actually is when coupled with t he churned up air created by the bicyclist. My guess is that if the bicyclist is NOT pedaling then the aerodynamic benefits of many things might be a bit greater than if pedaling is occurring. Cheers TOUR magazine measures aero drag with a dummy pedalling on the tested bike. Lou |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter
On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 8:14:20 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/17/2019 12:57 PM, Tom Kunich wrote: A 22 lb bike and a 190 lb lard-assed rider makes that 2 lb difference only 0.01% difference in weight and the truth is that lifting that weight up the climbs is far overshadowed by the high speed frictional drag of the body. I could more than off-set that difference by riding on the drops downhill and on the flats if it wasn't so uncomfortable to an old broken down body. I agree. The effect of a couple pounds of weight is tiny. ... What these numbers tell to me is that the only real advantage of the carbon fiber bikes is that they are more aero and so you can hold a higher speed into a headwind. I think the same logic applies to the aerodynamics of the bike frame. Yes, there are bikes that are designed to be more aerodynamic. But the great bulk of the air drag comes from the rider. It makes no sense to measure the reduced drag of the frame alone, any more than to compare a 20 pound bike with an 18 pound bike and say "It's 10% lighter, I should go 10% faster!" Aero wheels will be a bit faster, but colossally expensive. And I expect their advantage could be swamped by the effect of wearing a jersey that flaps a bit because it's a little too loose in the shoulders. -- - Frank Krygowski Frank, these aero bikes also pull your down into a more aero position. It is extremely noticeable when we all start down a hill and I have at least 2 mph advantage on the normal bikes. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter
On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 6:57:10 PM UTC+2, Tom Kunich wrote:
OK, I just went out and weighed my road bikes again. Just like I would walk out the door with. Basso Loto - this is the final year of production and used Basso Tubing Concepts tubes instead of Columbus tubes. 22.12 lbs Time VX - 28 mm tires and aluminum BB lugs and multi-shaped carbon tubes. - 21.9 lbs Colnago CLX 3.0 - carbon wheels and everything else possible. 20.17 lbs. Now it seems pretty plain that I could reduce the weight of the Basso to very close to that of the Colnago. But to do so would mean I would have to put carbon wheels on it. And maybe a carbon fork which would put me in a position of having a hybrid carbon/steel bike which seems to kill the idea of having a steel bike in the first place. The real question is does this weight really make a difference? A 22 lb bike and a 190 lb lard-assed rider makes that 2 lb difference only 0.01% difference in weight and the truth is that lifting that weight up the climbs is far overshadowed by the high speed frictional drag of the body.. I could more than off-set that difference by riding on the drops downhill and on the flats if it wasn't so uncomfortable to an old broken down body. As a comparison I pulled the Pinarello Stelvio off the shelf and without a flat kit or water bottle it weighed in at 21.7 lbs. The Pinarello also has custom tubing and the tubes have a slightly larger diameter than the Basso. On the local fast descents the Pinarello doesn't bounce at the bottom. And presently I have heavy Look cyclocross pedals on it so that the weights of the Pinarello and Basso are probably identical with a more modest flat kit and full water bottles. I have a Ridley cross bike that rides like a dream as a gravel bike and the Redline Conquest cyclocross bike with disk brakes. If I could sell these two I would have sufficient room to keep all of my road bikes and start riding the Pinarello again rather than trying to keep it in clean condition. What these numbers tell to me is that the only real advantage of the carbon fiber bikes is that they are more aero and so you can hold a higher speed into a headwind. What if I were to simply lower my expectations of speed-into-the-wind and keep all of my road bikes and simply concentrate on upgrading them to 11 speeds since it is unlikely that the 12 speed will ever find any markets outside of racing? Keeping the 10 speed would be preferable but spare parts are getting much more difficult and expensive to come by. Any opinions? Jay in particular is more of the riding type I do but perhaps Duane and a few others so this sort of riding as well. Tom, your bikes are relatively heavy according to current light weight 'standards'. I have a sub UCI weight bike (6.7 kg IIRC) and an aerobike which is a little heavier (7.6 kg). I'm faster on the latter. Just ride the bikes you have and enjoy. Everybody gets slower with age. Fortunately you can set so much filters on Strave that makes you the fastest on one or more segments ;-) Lou |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Steel is real | Doug Landau | Techniques | 10 | December 28th 16 07:11 PM |
Steel is real - again | Ralph Barone[_3_] | Techniques | 18 | January 5th 16 08:29 AM |
Steel may be real but.... | Andre Jute[_2_] | Techniques | 5 | June 4th 13 03:06 AM |
Steel is Real | Gags | Australia | 12 | August 18th 05 11:57 AM |
Steel is real. A real dick! | [email protected] | Mountain Biking | 0 | February 11th 05 03:53 PM |