Upgraded Wheels Benefits

On 09/26/2012 03:41 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Sep 26, 8:23 am, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
I remembr many years ago when I bought my Columbus SL frame bike with Dura Ace groupset and tubular tires. That bike made my commute aceoss Toronto, Ontario, Canada much more enjoyable. Acceleration from a stop was much better as was the ease of climbing hills. Acceleration around dawdling bicyclists was also much easier. I figure that better/lighter wheels allows one to reach the same speed and to maintqin that speed with considerable less effort. Another way of looking at is that you can go faster with the same amount of effort. Either less effort to maintain a given speed or more speed for the same effort can be a real advantage to acommuting bicyclist who has a long commute.

I think that there are a lot of people who commute on racing-style bicycles because they enjoy the ease of getting up to their cruising speed and the ease of maintaining that speed compared to a heavy bike. Also, a lot of people use their commute rides for training or improving the person's fitness level. When I lived in Toronto I used to do a lot of interval training on my commutes. Sprinting from one stop light to the next was great fun as was seeing just how short a time I could get my commute down to.

Different bikes and or wheels for different folks.

Cheers

Around here, a lot of people race after work or train, so there is an
excuse for bringing a racing bike to work. For me, I like to ride
home through the hills, and I appreciate having a relatively light
commuting bike that can equip with "racing tires" if I want to waste
expensive rubber. Just a tire swap makes a huge difference. I don't
often bring my racing bike to work because I don't want it to get
banged up, tires worn out, swapping lights back and forth, etc, and I
don't like walking in Look-type cleats. And during winter, the disc
brakes on my cross bike give me much better stopping, and that bike
has fenders. I also use wider rubber which gives me much better
footing on wet or snowy pavement. Commuting on a racing bike doesn't
make much sense around here in winter, and riding a bike with fatter
rubber gives me some other options to get home -- maybe somewhat
slower, but after 25 years of commuting in the same place, the minor
off road sections help beat the boredom.

Another reason why I wouldn't use expensive wheels is because during
the fall/winter/spring, the rims would get ground down by the road
grime and rain, and fussy lightweight stuff may lack reliability --
and the last thing I want to do is get stuck in the rain or snow at
night dealing with a mechanical problem. Not saying that light wheels
necessarily lack reliability, but there is that issue. I also don't
like exposing expensive equipment to the types of hazards seen by my
cross bike during the fall/winter/spring -- like riding through
puddles that are over the BB or hitting pot holes in the dark.
http://bikeportland.org/2011/05/31/h...ocations-53967
I don't mind getting stuck in the rain on my racing bike, but if it is
raining, I take my cross bike because I don't want to go through the
fuss of clean-up.


So we can expand on the OP's sentiment to say Different bikes and or
wheels for different folks or different situations.

But that sounds a lot like "it depends" which we already know is not
acceptable. Next thing you know, you'll be saying that riding in
traffic sucks.

Sir Ridesalot wrote:

Crikey!

I find it astounding that a person can think that a Dua Ace groupset Carbon Fibre frame bicycle will be comparable to a Surly Long Haul Trucker in performance and trip time and ease on a commuting distance of over 15 miles and especially in distances of 30 miles or more.

I wasn't saying the LHT would be as fast, if that's what you mean by
"performance, trip time and ease." What I was saying is this: The
differences are at least roughly calculable. And for most normal
commutes, the differences in trip time will be minor.

Typical bike commutes are certainly not 30 miles; IIRC, they're less
than 10 miles. How much time would you expect to save using the faster
bike on a 10 mile commute? I'd expect the difference would be five
minutes or less.

You may like the feel of a CF racing bike better, and that may make your
commute more fun for you, but that's personal preference. There really
are people who prefer the feel of higher handlebars, tires that soak up
bumps better, lower gears for hills, etc.

The difference in the effort required to pedal a LHT compared to the effort to pedal a high-end groupset on a carbon frame (or even a Columbus SL frame) is quit noticeable. Compared to my 1985 vintage MIELE Sport-Touring bicycle my 1985 vintage MIELE Columbus SL bike *IS* both much faster and much easier to pedal. The SL flies along the flats and climbs like a homesick angel compared to the ST bike.

Yes, I've heard the "homesick angel" phrase before. But I'd be curious
if you've ever done something like comparing time trial times over the
same course with the two bikes, especially doing multiple tries. Or
even better, comparing commute times.

Recall, we had a long discussion here about a magazine article comparing
a current racing bike with a 1980s racing bike. The newer and lighter
bike was faster, but by the precise percentage one would expect from the
difference in weight. Many people were enraged at seeing no evidence
for speed difference due to stiffness, more gears, aero benefits, etc.
etc., but the numbers said the difference was just due to the weight,
even though the magazine writers never crunched the numbers to notice that.


Grocery shopping? In my case I use my Sport-Touring bike with 56 litres capacity rear panniers and smaller front ones for a major shopping trip. It also has a handlebar bag for small delicate items.

Sounds exactly the same as mine, except my handlebar bag is pretty big.

My SL bike is my version of a sports car and my Sport-Touring bike is my version of a heavy duty pickup truck. I'll say it again - Different strokes for different folks.

Sure. No problem.

A rhetorical question that I asked myself after reading the reply: If a LHT is as efficient as a carbon fibre frame bike with a quality road groupset on it, I wonder why we don't see any LHTers in the pro races?

Again, weight obviously makes a difference on uphills. If someone's
racing, they don't dare give up that advantage. If someone's needing to
shift gears instantaneously to jump into a sprint, they need STI or its
equivalent. If someone's likely to try a long, solo breakaway, they
need a low riding position, and aero wheels will help a little. The LHT
offers none of those, and there's always the chance those differences
will gain a couple places in the finishing order of a race. Someone
really wanting to win a race won't ignore all that.

But on a typical ride home from work? I'm guessing five minutes
benefit, if that. For me, the modifications I tried just didn't make a
detectable difference.

Here's the Analytic Cycling site: http://www.analyticcycling.com/ The
author works for Cervelo, and he's got a strong reputation. Try
plugging in realistically different variables and seeing some results.

--
- Frank Krygowski

datakoll wrote:
fail seeing urpoint...
marketplace dictates weights for frame type.
beyond that, its urmoney urtime.

outside of the climbers, uh what's that french word for long mileage maniacs ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randonneuring


--
- Frank Krygowski

Jay Beattie wrote:

Another reason why I wouldn't use expensive wheels is because during
the fall/winter/spring, the rims would get ground down by the road
grime and rain, and fussy lightweight stuff may lack reliability --
and the last thing I want to do is get stuck in the rain or snow at
night dealing with a mechanical problem. Not saying that light wheels
necessarily lack reliability, but there is that issue.

I sagged our club's century about a week ago. One of the guys I helped
was on a nice CF bike I'd never heard of - some small manufacturer in
Massachusetts, I think he said. Anyway, he didn't carry a pump, and he
was out of CO2 cartridges because of a puncture, followed soon after by
a blowout.

I found the chip of glass he missed, so he decided to patch his tube. I
pumped his tire, we put it in the frame, and I noticed the brake
scraping at one point. Turns out the rim's sidewall was bulging out.
At that point, I didn't know if he might have hit a pothole that he
didn't mention or what, but the bulge in the rim was almost certainly
responsible for the blowout, and it wouldn't make sense to try riding it
that way.

I asked him if he wanted me to try to squeeze the rim inward so he could
ride back to his car (not far away at that point). He said yes, so I
got my Channel Locks plus some stuff to protect his rim, and I was
astonished at how easy it was to squeeze the rim back in. It certainly
looked like the brake shoes had ground away enough rim to put it right
on the edge of failure.

Sorry, I didn't note the brand of rim. I could describe it if anyone's
curious and non-snarky.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 4:02:20 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:



Crikey!



I find it astounding that a person can think that a Dua Ace groupset Carbon Fibre frame bicycle will be comparable to a Surly Long Haul Trucker in performance and trip time and ease on a commuting distance of over 15 miles and especially in distances of 30 miles or more.



I wasn't saying the LHT would be as fast, if that's what you mean by

"performance, trip time and ease." What I was saying is this: The

differences are at least roughly calculable. And for most normal

commutes, the differences in trip time will be minor.



Typical bike commutes are certainly not 30 miles; IIRC, they're less

than 10 miles. How much time would you expect to save using the faster

bike on a 10 mile commute? I'd expect the difference would be five

minutes or less.



You may like the feel of a CF racing bike better, and that may make your

commute more fun for you, but that's personal preference. There really

are people who prefer the feel of higher handlebars, tires that soak up

bumps better, lower gears for hills, etc.



The difference in the effort required to pedal a LHT compared to the effort to pedal a high-end groupset on a carbon frame (or even a Columbus SL frame) is quit noticeable. Compared to my 1985 vintage MIELE Sport-Touring bicycle my 1985 vintage MIELE Columbus SL bike *IS* both much faster and much easier to pedal. The SL flies along the flats and climbs like a homesick angel compared to the ST bike.



Yes, I've heard the "homesick angel" phrase before. But I'd be curious

if you've ever done something like comparing time trial times over the

same course with the two bikes, especially doing multiple tries. Or

even better, comparing commute times.



Recall, we had a long discussion here about a magazine article comparing

a current racing bike with a 1980s racing bike. The newer and lighter

bike was faster, but by the precise percentage one would expect from the

difference in weight. Many people were enraged at seeing no evidence

for speed difference due to stiffness, more gears, aero benefits, etc.

etc., but the numbers said the difference was just due to the weight,

even though the magazine writers never crunched the numbers to notice that.

On Sep 26, 2:02*pm, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:

Crikey!

I find it astounding that a person can think that a Dua Ace groupset Carbon Fibre frame bicycle will be comparable to a Surly Long Haul Trucker in performance and trip time and ease on a commuting distance of over 15 miles and especially in distances of 30 miles or more.

I wasn't saying the LHT would be as fast, if that's what you mean by
"performance, trip time and ease."

[crap snipped]

You may like the feel of a CF racing bike better, and that may make your
commute more fun for you, but that's personal preference. *There really
are people who prefer the feel of higher handlebars, tires that soak up
bumps better, lower gears for hills, etc.

[more crap snipped]

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank the OP's WHOLE point was personal preference.
As usual you seem to be intent on establishing that YOUR personal
preference is superior.
It is not. And it's hardly even helpful.
DR

On Sep 26, 9:26*pm, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
Jay Beattie wrote:

Another reason why I wouldn't use expensive wheels is because during
the fall/winter/spring, the rims would get ground down by the road
grime and rain, and fussy lightweight stuff may lack reliability --
and the last thing I want to do is get stuck in the rain or snow at
night dealing with a mechanical problem. *Not saying that light wheels
necessarily lack reliability, but there is that issue.

I sagged our club's century about a week ago. *One of the guys I helped
was on a nice CF bike I'd never heard of - some small manufacturer in
Massachusetts, I think he said. *Anyway, he didn't carry a pump, and he
was out of CO2 cartridges because of a puncture, followed soon after by
a blowout.

I found the chip of glass he missed, so he decided to patch his tube. I
pumped his tire, we put it in the frame, and I noticed the brake
scraping at one point. *Turns out the rim's sidewall was bulging out.
At that point, I didn't know if he might have hit a pothole that he
didn't mention or what, but the bulge in the rim was almost certainly
responsible for the blowout, and it wouldn't make sense to try riding it
that way.

I asked him if he wanted me to try to squeeze the rim inward so he could
ride back to his car (not far away at that point). *He said yes, so I
got my Channel Locks plus some stuff to protect his rim, and I was
astonished at how easy it was to squeeze the rim back in. *It certainly
looked like the brake shoes had ground away enough rim to put it right
on the edge of failure.

Sorry, I didn't note the brand of rim. *I could describe it if anyone's
curious and non-snarky.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Was this the branding?

http://www.skevi.com/images/6490542.jpg

On Sep 26, 2:26*pm, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
Jay Beattie wrote:

Another reason why I wouldn't use expensive wheels is because during
the fall/winter/spring, the rims would get ground down by the road
grime and rain, and fussy lightweight stuff may lack reliability --
and the last thing I want to do is get stuck in the rain or snow at
night dealing with a mechanical problem. *Not saying that light wheels
necessarily lack reliability, but there is that issue.

I sagged our club's century about a week ago. *One of the guys I helped
was on a nice CF bike I'd never heard of - some small manufacturer in
Massachusetts, I think he said. *Anyway, he didn't carry a pump, and he
was out of CO2 cartridges because of a puncture, followed soon after by
a blowout.

I found the chip of glass he missed, so he decided to patch his tube. I
pumped his tire, we put it in the frame, and I noticed the brake
scraping at one point. *Turns out the rim's sidewall was bulging out.
At that point, I didn't know if he might have hit a pothole that he
didn't mention or what, but the bulge in the rim was almost certainly
responsible for the blowout, and it wouldn't make sense to try riding it
that way.

I asked him if he wanted me to try to squeeze the rim inward so he could
ride back to his car (not far away at that point). *He said yes, so I
got my Channel Locks plus some stuff to protect his rim, and I was
astonished at how easy it was to squeeze the rim back in. *It certainly
looked like the brake shoes had ground away enough rim to put it right
on the edge of failure.

Sorry, I didn't note the brand of rim. *I could describe it if anyone's
curious and non-snarky.

--
- Frank Krygowski

And just how is this tale of any relevance to anything?
Especially the theme "Different bikes and or wheels for different
folks?"
DR

On Sep 26, 1:26*pm, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
Jay Beattie wrote:

Another reason why I wouldn't use expensive wheels is because during
the fall/winter/spring, the rims would get ground down by the road
grime and rain, and fussy lightweight stuff may lack reliability --
and the last thing I want to do is get stuck in the rain or snow at
night dealing with a mechanical problem. *Not saying that light wheels
necessarily lack reliability, but there is that issue.

I sagged our club's century about a week ago. *One of the guys I helped
was on a nice CF bike I'd never heard of - some small manufacturer in
Massachusetts, I think he said. *Anyway, he didn't carry a pump, and he
was out of CO2 cartridges because of a puncture, followed soon after by
a blowout.

I found the chip of glass he missed, so he decided to patch his tube. I
pumped his tire, we put it in the frame, and I noticed the brake
scraping at one point. *Turns out the rim's sidewall was bulging out.
At that point, I didn't know if he might have hit a pothole that he
didn't mention or what, but the bulge in the rim was almost certainly
responsible for the blowout, and it wouldn't make sense to try riding it
that way.

I asked him if he wanted me to try to squeeze the rim inward so he could
ride back to his car (not far away at that point). *He said yes, so I
got my Channel Locks plus some stuff to protect his rim, and I was
astonished at how easy it was to squeeze the rim back in. *It certainly
looked like the brake shoes had ground away enough rim to put it right
on the edge of failure.

Sorry, I didn't note the brand of rim. *I could describe it if anyone's
curious and non-snarky.

I've ground down rims -- even pretty stout rims like Mod 51 and MA2s,
although not to the point of failure. My usual bit of stupidity is
wearing tires to the cord without noticing -- until I start flatting
in the middle of nowhere.

Like Duane says (is Duane the same as Duane Hebert or do we have
multiple Duanes?), light wheels are a personal choice -- and I'm all
for light wheels. In fact, I would love some super-light climbing
wheels that were also strong and would stay true and were not wickedly
expensive (cue music "To Dream the Impossible Dream"), With that
said, I couldn't imagine riding those wheels to work. If I were
riding those to work and whacked a pot hole or landed hard off a curb
or got a bunch of blow down in my wheel and broke the rims, I would
feel like a real tool. I would at least want to break them while on
some epic ride where they mattered rather than my paltry route to
work. Something light-ish is nice for the commuter bike so I can drag
race up the cemetery hill on the way home, but my commuter components
cannot be too dear -- I don't want anything that would make me cry if
I broke it.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 9:56:41 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:

I remembr many years ago when I bought my Columbus SL frame bike with Dura Ace groupset and tubular tires. That bike made my commute aceoss Toronto, Ontario, Canada much more enjoyable. Acceleration from a stop was much better as was the ease of climbing hills. Acceleration around dawdling bicyclists was also much easier. I figure that better/lighter wheels allows one to reach the same speed and to maintqin that speed with considerable less effort. Another way of looking at is that you can go faster with the same amount of effort. Either less effort to maintain a given speed or more speed for the same effort can be a real advantage to acommuting bicyclist who has a long commute.



I think that there are a lot of people who commute on racing-style bicycles because they enjoy the ease of getting up to their cruising speed and the ease of maintaining that speed compared to a heavy bike. Also, a lot of people use their commute rides for training or improving the person's fitness level. When I lived in Toronto I used to do a lot of interval training on my commutes. Sprinting from one stop light to the next was great fun as was seeing just how short a time I could get my commute down to.



Different bikes and or wheels for different folks.




I think a lot of the upgrade benefit depends on what you're upgrading

from, and what you're upgrading to. And, since this discussion group is

labeled "tech," I'll mention that a lot of the benefits are reasonably

quantifiable. IOW, we can work out reasonably accurately how much extra

acceleration you'd really get, how much more speed for the same effort

you'd get, how much faster your commute would be, etc. The physics of

the bike have been worked out for at least 100 years; it's not rocket

science. Websites like Damon Rinard's (who is a respected professional

in the bike industry) make many of those calculations pretty easy and

automatic. And although it can be fun to ride a bike that feels...

And there it is. You've said it. Absolutely right.


... snappier, it's hard to pretend that the performance gains really amount

to anything practical, at least for a typical commute.


Does it occur to you that a rider having fun may perform better?

And what's a "typical commute"? (I asked nicely.)

I actually like your whole post here quite a bit, but I notice that you seem very focused on measured data, which can really get in the way of fun.



In my case, I used to routinely treat my ride home from work as a time

trial - at least, if I caught the downtown traffic lights green. (If I

caught them red, I'd relax and ride more slowly.) By recording my

times, I proved to my satisfaction that using my lighter bike made me

faster. That was no surprise, because the ride home is mostly a climb

out of the valley.



But over the years, I did the ride with different tires (admittedly, all

clinchers), with and without fenders, with a standard vs. aero water

bottle, with ordinary or bladed spokes in the front wheel, with and

without a custom-built aero handlebar bag, with and without a rear wheel

disc cover for the spokes.



What I concluded was that the difference from any of those elements was

negligible for any practical purposes. Perhaps it might reduce my 27

minute ride to a 26 minute ride - which would be big news in a real time

trial - but it made no difference in my everyday life. In real life,

just one extra red light out in the suburbs, or two extra cars at a

four-way stop sign, would make the difference undetectable; and when I

got home, nothing I would do with the extra minute would make it really

worthwhile.



Ultimately, I stopped the practice of putting fenders on and taking them

off depending on the forecast. I had them set up so I could do it in

about three minutes, but riding without them wouldn't save me three

minutes anyway. I ditched the rear spoke covers (probably the most

effective speed increaser) because it made it that much more of a hassle

to inflate the tires or fix a flat, and I literally couldn't feel the

difference anyway.



In fact, when I was finally able to afford two road bikes and thus

devote one entirely to commuting/utility work, that bike became much

more pleasant to use for such work. I preferred the handiness of always

having fenders, lights, bags, racks, bungees, lock, mirror etc. etc. on

board and ready to go. The only adjustments I have to make are to

fasten on the front mudflap if the roads are wet, and hang the shopping

panniers if I'll be lugging something big, like the groceries.



I know there are people who have fun commuting on performance-oriented

road bikes. That's fine, if that's what they enjoy. However, I doubt

that many of them gain significant time from, say, riding a carbon fiber

Dura-Ace bike with aero wheels, compared to riding, say, a Long Haul

Trucker with fenders, a rack, a handlebar bag and decent road tires.

And groceries? My guess is they always use the car.