Weights of my bikes

On 5/21/2021 7:41 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 12:40:27 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/21/2021 10:36 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 6:30:39 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/20/2021 3:57 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 9:36:15 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/20/2021 11:33 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:


Acceleration of gravity is 8 m/2^2 ...
No.

You just love it when I make a typo. That gives you the chance to pretend that I'm wrong.

Didn't you mean TWO "typos"? ;-)

So it is your opinion that 9.8 m/s^2 is not the acceleration of gravity?
If anyone can explain Tom's blather to me, please do. What he wrote
above makes absolutely no sense.


--
- Frank Krygowski

I am not surprised you don't understand simple physics, https://www.physicsclassroom.com/cla...ion-of-Gravity

Please, that's stuff I learned in high school.

What I don't understand is how you can pretend
"Acceleration of gravity is 8 m/2^2"
is equivalent to
"Acceleration of gravity is 9.8 m/s^2"

Can you really not spot the differences?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 21 May 2021 07:36:56 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 6:30:39 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/20/2021 3:57 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 9:36:15 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/20/2021 11:33 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:


Acceleration of gravity is 8 m/2^2 ...
No.

You just love it when I make a typo. That gives you the chance to pretend that I'm wrong.

Didn't you mean TWO "typos"? ;-)

So it is your opinion that 9.8 m/s^2 is not the acceleration of gravity?

Yes. 9.8 m/s^2 is NOT the accleration of gravity. Gavity does not
accelerate. 9.8 meters/second^2 is the acceleration of an object
under the influence of the earths gravity at the equator at mean sea
level altitude. More correctly, 9.80665 meters/second^2 is the
"standard gravitational acceleration":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_acceleration
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth

Sorry, you missed another great chance and instead simply looked
like John with his copying and pasting Google because he doesn't
know anything himself.

Frank provided the correct number. You didn't.

I still suspect that you are intentionally supplying wrong
information, answers and numbers. Nobody could make so many mistakes
by accident. It has to be intentional, possibly to attact attention.

--
Jeff Liebermann
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 5/21/2021 6:26 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

snip

Frank provided the correct number. You didn't.

I still suspect that you are intentionally supplying wrong
information, answers and numbers. Nobody could make so many mistakes
by accident. It has to be intentional, possibly to attact attention.

It's really hard to know if he's simply clueless or just pushing
people's buttons by intentionally promulgating such a huge quantity of
false information.

On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 9:26:11 p.m. UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2021 07:36:56 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 6:30:39 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/20/2021 3:57 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 9:36:15 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/20/2021 11:33 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:


Acceleration of gravity is 8 m/2^2 ...
No.

You just love it when I make a typo. That gives you the chance to pretend that I'm wrong.

Didn't you mean TWO "typos"? ;-)

So it is your opinion that 9.8 m/s^2 is not the acceleration of gravity?
Yes. 9.8 m/s^2 is NOT the accleration of gravity. Gavity does not
accelerate. 9.8 meters/second^2 is the acceleration of an object
under the influence of the earths gravity at the equator at mean sea
level altitude. More correctly, 9.80665 meters/second^2 is the
"standard gravitational acceleration":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_acceleration
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth
Sorry, you missed another great chance and instead simply looked
like John with his copying and pasting Google because he doesn't
know anything himself.
Frank provided the correct number. You didn't.

I still suspect that you are intentionally supplying wrong
information, answers and numbers. Nobody could make so many mistakes
by accident. It has to be intentional, possibly to attact attention.
--
Jeff Liebermann
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Yet many here persist in giving Tom the attention they think he craves.

Cheers

On Fri, 21 May 2021 19:30:20 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 9:26:11 p.m. UTC-4, wrote:
I still suspect that you are intentionally supplying wrong
information, answers and numbers. Nobody could make so many mistakes
by accident. It has to be intentional, possibly to attact attention.

Yet many here persist in giving Tom the attention they think he craves.
Cheers

If I can't be part of the solution, I may as well have some fun and be
part of the problem.

--
Jeff Liebermann
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 10:05:44 AM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 7:42:19 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Monday, May 17, 2021 at 12:05:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Op maandag 17 mei 2021 om 19:39:41 UTC+2 schreef :
Colnago CLX3.0 bare - 15.8 lbs
Lemond Zurich bare - 20.3 lbs
Douglas Vector with seatpack. - 17.4
Douglas Ti with water bottle and seat pack. - 20.3 lbs.
Eddy Merckx with bottle half full and heavy seatpack - 20.8

My 2018 Trek Emonda bare was 17.5 lbs.

As you can see, aluminum bikes do not necessary have a weight penalty. Nor are titanium bikes particularly light.

I would say that since about 2001 that most decent bikes couldn't be declared as "heavy". The complete Look KG585 which was a light climbing bike was 16 lbs even bare.
With off the shelf parts 2014 and a heavy saddle:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/N8frpRqH5fuj2tuA6
https://photos.app.goo.gl/PMxriEU7B8VVnMieA
Still my climbing bike,
According to those here you are taking your life in your hands with a fatigue prone titanium bike that weighs in under 15 lbs.
Who said that? Moreover, Lou's Ti Moots gravel bike probably comes in closer to 18lbs, assuming he has some reasonably fat tires on it. His 15lb bike is a Canyon CF road bike.

What people said is NOT that modern Ti is failure prone but that it is not immune from failure as you said. Like any other material, it can fail for a number of reasons -- and failures can occur after infancy. I do not know where Ti stands in terms of failure rate compared to aluminum, steel and CF, but I would assume well made Ti frames have a lower failure rate than steel or aluminum because of the character of the metals and their fatigue limits. Ti is a nice material, and I don't think anyone disputes that here.

-- Jay Beattie.

I dispute it!!!!!!! I'm not sure what I'm disputing, but that doesn't really matter.

On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 12:01:08 PM UTC-5, Joerg wrote:
On 5/17/21 10:39 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
Colnago CLX3.0 bare - 15.8 lbs
Lemond Zurich bare - 20.3 lbs
Douglas Vector with seatpack. - 17.4
Douglas Ti with water bottle and seat pack. - 20.3 lbs.
Eddy Merckx with bottle half full and heavy seatpack - 20.8

My 2018 Trek Emonda bare was 17.5 lbs.

As you can see, aluminum bikes do not necessary have a weight penalty. Nor are titanium bikes particularly light.

I would say that since about 2001 that most decent bikes couldn't be declared as "heavy". The complete Look KG585 which was a light climbing bike was 16 lbs even bare.

My road bike and the MTB are each between 30-40lbs depending on
destination. With full tool kit, first aid gear, pump, big lighting
battery, tow rope (no joke ...), sturdy lock, MP3 player and often more
than a gallon or water. Sometimes also a bottle of homebrew beer plus
sandwiches.

Considering that I weigh 210lbs myself it all doesn't really matter.
Interestingly I have so far only used the tools and first aid for others
and they were not always cyclist. Pumping up a motorcycle tire with a
pocket rocket pump is serious exercise.

--
Regards, Joerg

Motorcycle riders in California who get a flat, can repair it on the side of the road? And then air the tire up to continue on their way. I've never given much thought to punctured tires on motorcycles. With cars you just carry a whole inflated tire in the trunk (or under the bed if a pickup truck) and install the new unpunctured tire. But motorcycles must be different with flats. They can't carry a spare wheel in case of a flat. Do motorcyclists today carry those tubeless tire patch plugs and insert them into the hole in the tire? And then carry an inflator that plugs into the 12 Volt outlet? How did motorcyclists deal with flats long ago?

On Fri, 21 May 2021 21:18:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/21/2021 7:41 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 12:40:27 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/21/2021 10:36 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 6:30:39 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/20/2021 3:57 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 9:36:15 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/20/2021 11:33 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:


Acceleration of gravity is 8 m/2^2 ...
No.

You just love it when I make a typo. That gives you the chance to pretend that I'm wrong.

Didn't you mean TWO "typos"? ;-)

So it is your opinion that 9.8 m/s^2 is not the acceleration of gravity?
If anyone can explain Tom's blather to me, please do. What he wrote
above makes absolutely no sense.


--
- Frank Krygowski

I am not surprised you don't understand simple physics, https://www.physicsclassroom.com/cla...ion-of-Gravity

Please, that's stuff I learned in high school.

What I don't understand is how you can pretend
"Acceleration of gravity is 8 m/2^2"
is equivalent to
"Acceleration of gravity is 9.8 m/s^2"

Can you really not spot the differences?

Come on Frank! That is really complicated stuff. Give the poor boy a
chance, After all he got the "/" right.

Re gravity did you know that a feather falls at the same speed as a
bowling ball? See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E43-CfukEgs

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 21 May 2021 19:15:21 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 5/21/2021 6:26 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

snip

Frank provided the correct number. You didn't.

I still suspect that you are intentionally supplying wrong
information, answers and numbers. Nobody could make so many mistakes
by accident. It has to be intentional, possibly to attact attention.

It's really hard to know if he's simply clueless or just pushing
people's buttons by intentionally promulgating such a huge quantity of
false information.

Some people "when they ain't got nothing going for them" do exhibit
certain irrational tendencies :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 21 May 2021 16:41:29 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 12:40:27 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/21/2021 10:36 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 6:30:39 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/20/2021 3:57 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 9:36:15 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/20/2021 11:33 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:


Acceleration of gravity is 8 m/2^2 ...
No.

You just love it when I make a typo. That gives you the chance to pretend that I'm wrong.

Didn't you mean TWO "typos"? ;-)

So it is your opinion that 9.8 m/s^2 is not the acceleration of gravity?
If anyone can explain Tom's blather to me, please do. What he wrote
above makes absolutely no sense.


--
- Frank Krygowski

I am not surprised you don't understand simple physics, https://www.physicsclassroom.com/cla...ion-of-Gravity


OOOh Tommy, you googled it! and here you were bad mouthing Frank and I
for googling. And now you are doing the same thing.

the pot and the kettle?
--
Cheers,

John B.