P
Penster
Guest
If I lose 1lb in weight by eating salad and not burgers, is that the same as
spending $$$ on lightweight components to make my bike 1lb lighter?
Mick
spending $$$ on lightweight components to make my bike 1lb lighter?
Mick
L
Lou Holtman
Guest
Penster wrote:
>
> If I lose 1lb in weight by eating salad and not burgers, is that the same as
> spending $$$ on lightweight components to make my bike 1lb lighter?
> Mick
>
>
>
Of course not ;-)
Lou
--
Posted by news://news.nb.nu
>
> If I lose 1lb in weight by eating salad and not burgers, is that the same as
> spending $$$ on lightweight components to make my bike 1lb lighter?
> Mick
>
>
>
Of course not ;-)
Lou
--
Posted by news://news.nb.nu
K
Kinky Cowboy
Guest
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 08:26:41 GMT, "Penster" <***@***.com> wrote:
>
>If I lose 1lb in weight by eating salad and not burgers, is that the same as
>spending $$$ on lightweight components to make my bike 1lb lighter?
>Mick
>
No, it's better, assuming you're currently overweight and your diet
regime doesn't affect your strength. Both your bike an your fat ****
need to be hauled up hills, but your **** is also consuming energy all
the while to maintain the excess tissue.
Kinky Cowboy*
*Batteries not included
May contain traces of nuts
Your milage may vary
>
>If I lose 1lb in weight by eating salad and not burgers, is that the same as
>spending $$$ on lightweight components to make my bike 1lb lighter?
>Mick
>
No, it's better, assuming you're currently overweight and your diet
regime doesn't affect your strength. Both your bike an your fat ****
need to be hauled up hills, but your **** is also consuming energy all
the while to maintain the excess tissue.
Kinky Cowboy*
*Batteries not included
May contain traces of nuts
Your milage may vary
S
Penster wrote:
> If I lose 1lb in weight by eating salad and not burgers, is that the same as
> spending $$$ on lightweight components to make my bike 1lb lighter?
> Mick
Unless you wear it out or crash, the pound off the bike stays off. Odds
are, the pound you lose off your body will come back.
> If I lose 1lb in weight by eating salad and not burgers, is that the same as
> spending $$$ on lightweight components to make my bike 1lb lighter?
> Mick
Unless you wear it out or crash, the pound off the bike stays off. Odds
are, the pound you lose off your body will come back.
Q
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Guest
Penster wrote:
> If I lose 1lb in weight by eating salad and not burgers, is that the same as
> spending $$$ on lightweight components to make my bike 1lb lighter?
> Mick
Nice troll but yes with the added benefit of you being healthier-
> If I lose 1lb in weight by eating salad and not burgers, is that the same as
> spending $$$ on lightweight components to make my bike 1lb lighter?
> Mick
Nice troll but yes with the added benefit of you being healthier-
B
Barnard Frederick
Guest
Penster says...
> If I lose 1lb in weight by eating salad and not burgers, is that the same as
> spending $$$ on lightweight components to make my bike 1lb lighter?
> Mick
Losing rotating weight (wheels, tires, cranks, pedals) is more
important, but other than that, it's about the same.
> If I lose 1lb in weight by eating salad and not burgers, is that the same as
> spending $$$ on lightweight components to make my bike 1lb lighter?
> Mick
Losing rotating weight (wheels, tires, cranks, pedals) is more
important, but other than that, it's about the same.
S
sally
Guest
"Penster" <***@***.com> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> If I lose 1lb in weight by eating salad and not burgers, is that the
> same as spending $$$ on lightweight components to make my bike 1lb
> lighter? Mick
Depends on your definitionof "better". Also depends on which 1 pound of
body weight you lost. If part of your weight loss is muscle or blood,
then losing weight off your bike is probably better. If the 1 pound is
pure fat, then that is as good as losing it off your bike.
news:[email protected]:
> If I lose 1lb in weight by eating salad and not burgers, is that the
> same as spending $$$ on lightweight components to make my bike 1lb
> lighter? Mick
Depends on your definitionof "better". Also depends on which 1 pound of
body weight you lost. If part of your weight loss is muscle or blood,
then losing weight off your bike is probably better. If the 1 pound is
pure fat, then that is as good as losing it off your bike.
M
Mark Hickey
Guest
"Penster" <***@***.com> wrote:
>If I lose 1lb in weight by eating salad and not burgers, is that the same as
>spending $$$ on lightweight components to make my bike 1lb lighter?
If your riding buddies like to hoist each others' bikes to see who has
the lightest one, then taking the pound off the bike is the way to go.
If your riding buddies are in the habit of hoisting each other to see
who's lost a pound... well, you just need to get new riding buddies.
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
>If I lose 1lb in weight by eating salad and not burgers, is that the same as
>spending $$$ on lightweight components to make my bike 1lb lighter?
If your riding buddies like to hoist each others' bikes to see who has
the lightest one, then taking the pound off the bike is the way to go.
If your riding buddies are in the habit of hoisting each other to see
who's lost a pound... well, you just need to get new riding buddies.
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
C
Chris Nelson
Guest
Penster wrote:
> If I lose 1lb in weight by eating salad and not burgers, is that the same as
> spending $$$ on lightweight components to make my bike 1lb lighter?
> Mick
No, salad is much cheaper than lightweight components.
Chris
> If I lose 1lb in weight by eating salad and not burgers, is that the same as
> spending $$$ on lightweight components to make my bike 1lb lighter?
> Mick
No, salad is much cheaper than lightweight components.
Chris
J
Barnard Frederick wrote:
> Penster says...
>
> > If I lose 1lb in weight by eating salad and not burgers, is that the same as
> > spending $$$ on lightweight components to make my bike 1lb lighter?
> > Mick
>
> Losing rotating weight (wheels, tires, cranks, pedals) is more
> important, but other than that, it's about the same.
Calves and feet rotate too! I am actually surprised at how many people
go nuts on lightweight stuff but ride a round in heavy (relatively
speaking in terms of grams per $ compared to other bike components)
shoes.
Joseph
> Penster says...
>
> > If I lose 1lb in weight by eating salad and not burgers, is that the same as
> > spending $$$ on lightweight components to make my bike 1lb lighter?
> > Mick
>
> Losing rotating weight (wheels, tires, cranks, pedals) is more
> important, but other than that, it's about the same.
Calves and feet rotate too! I am actually surprised at how many people
go nuts on lightweight stuff but ride a round in heavy (relatively
speaking in terms of grams per $ compared to other bike components)
shoes.
Joseph
T
Tom The Great
Guest
On 12 Aug 2006 04:09:16 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>Penster wrote:
>> If I lose 1lb in weight by eating salad and not burgers, is that the same as
>> spending $$$ on lightweight components to make my bike 1lb lighter?
>> Mick
>
>Unless you wear it out or crash, the pound off the bike stays off. Odds
>are, the pound you lose off your body will come back.
I can't wait till I read your motivational books.
------------- Back on Topic ------------
For me, I know for me, being late-30's bad knee and bum hip, every
pound I lose isn't just a pound lighter riding, but a pound I don't
carry around with me everyday. So my knee and hip don't take such a
pounding, and I can ride longer, and harder.
I have more room to lose weight than lighten my bike. Or my bike
would float away.
later,
tom @ www.BlankHelp.com
>
>Penster wrote:
>> If I lose 1lb in weight by eating salad and not burgers, is that the same as
>> spending $$$ on lightweight components to make my bike 1lb lighter?
>> Mick
>
>Unless you wear it out or crash, the pound off the bike stays off. Odds
>are, the pound you lose off your body will come back.
I can't wait till I read your motivational books.
------------- Back on Topic ------------
For me, I know for me, being late-30's bad knee and bum hip, every
pound I lose isn't just a pound lighter riding, but a pound I don't
carry around with me everyday. So my knee and hip don't take such a
pounding, and I can ride longer, and harder.
I have more room to lose weight than lighten my bike. Or my bike
would float away.
later,
tom @ www.BlankHelp.com
W
wvantwiller
Guest
"Penster" <***@***.com> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> If I lose 1lb in weight by eating salad and not burgers, is that the
> same as spending $$$ on lightweight components to make my bike 1lb
> lighter? Mick
>
>
>
Depends which side of the bike component cost-benefit hump you start out
on.
If you're replacing cast iron with aluminum, maybe.
If you're replacing stainless with carbon or titanium, then you need to
consider will you, or your heirs, recoup more money by selling your
upgraded body when you're done with it than by selling your upgraded bike?
news:[email protected]:
>
> If I lose 1lb in weight by eating salad and not burgers, is that the
> same as spending $$$ on lightweight components to make my bike 1lb
> lighter? Mick
>
>
>
Depends which side of the bike component cost-benefit hump you start out
on.
If you're replacing cast iron with aluminum, maybe.
If you're replacing stainless with carbon or titanium, then you need to
consider will you, or your heirs, recoup more money by selling your
upgraded body when you're done with it than by selling your upgraded bike?
A
Andrew Price
Guest
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 10:33:57 +0200, Lou Holtman
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> If I lose 1lb in weight by eating salad and not burgers, is that the same as
>> spending $$$ on lightweight components to make my bike 1lb lighter?
>> Mick
>
>Of course not ;-)
Indeed. Everyone knows that a ton of lead is heavier than a ton of
feathers.
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> If I lose 1lb in weight by eating salad and not burgers, is that the same as
>> spending $$$ on lightweight components to make my bike 1lb lighter?
>> Mick
>
>Of course not ;-)
Indeed. Everyone knows that a ton of lead is heavier than a ton of
feathers.
B
- Bob -
Guest
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 08:53:57 -0400, Barnard Frederick
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> If I lose 1lb in weight by eating salad and not burgers, is that the same as
>> spending $$$ on lightweight components to make my bike 1lb lighter?
>> Mick
>
>Losing rotating weight (wheels, tires, cranks, pedals) is more
>important, but other than that, it's about the same.
At the speed and weight delta of bicycle components, the effect here
really is minimal unless you are doing the TdF without the steroids.
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> If I lose 1lb in weight by eating salad and not burgers, is that the same as
>> spending $$$ on lightweight components to make my bike 1lb lighter?
>> Mick
>
>Losing rotating weight (wheels, tires, cranks, pedals) is more
>important, but other than that, it's about the same.
At the speed and weight delta of bicycle components, the effect here
really is minimal unless you are doing the TdF without the steroids.
B
Barnard Frederick
Guest
[email protected] says...
> Calves and feet rotate too! I am actually surprised at how many people
> go nuts on lightweight stuff but ride a round in heavy (relatively
> speaking in terms of grams per $ compared to other bike components)
> shoes.
>
> Joseph
Very true and unfortunately you get what you pay for in shoes. My uber
expensive Sidi Dominator 4's are a work of art in terms of fit and
comfort. My road shoes are Shimano R130's, which are OK, but it's one
of those things where I wished I had dropped another C-note and got the
Sidi.
> Calves and feet rotate too! I am actually surprised at how many people
> go nuts on lightweight stuff but ride a round in heavy (relatively
> speaking in terms of grams per $ compared to other bike components)
> shoes.
>
> Joseph
Very true and unfortunately you get what you pay for in shoes. My uber
expensive Sidi Dominator 4's are a work of art in terms of fit and
comfort. My road shoes are Shimano R130's, which are OK, but it's one
of those things where I wished I had dropped another C-note and got the
Sidi.
B
Barnard Frederick
Guest
- Bob - says...
> At the speed and weight delta of bicycle components, the effect here
> really is minimal unless you are doing the TdF without the steroids.
Depends on your definition of minimal. Tires, tubes and rims have about
twice the stored energy as the same amount of non-rotating weight.
> At the speed and weight delta of bicycle components, the effect here
> really is minimal unless you are doing the TdF without the steroids.
Depends on your definition of minimal. Tires, tubes and rims have about
twice the stored energy as the same amount of non-rotating weight.
R
Ron Ruff
Guest
Barnard Frederick wrote:
> Depends on your definition of minimal. Tires, tubes and rims have about
> twice the stored energy as the same amount of non-rotating weight.
Which is a very small portion of the total weight. For other rotating
parts (like shoes) the effect is considerably less because of their
slower rotating speed.
> Depends on your definition of minimal. Tires, tubes and rims have about
> twice the stored energy as the same amount of non-rotating weight.
Which is a very small portion of the total weight. For other rotating
parts (like shoes) the effect is considerably less because of their
slower rotating speed.
B
Barnard Frederick
Guest
Ron Ruff says...
> Which is a very small portion of the total weight. For other rotating
> parts (like shoes) the effect is considerably less because of their
> slower rotating speed.
Ok, I'll do the math, since you didn't want to bother. For a lightweight
road bike tire, rim and tube combo:
rim: 425g
Tire: 225g
Tube: 100g
Total: 750g, or 1500g for both wheels, which is 3.3 lbs. For a
lightweight bike, say 18 lbs total, that is more than 18% of the total
weight. Not only is that a very significant portion of the total
weight, but losing weight from tires and tubes is by far the best and
easiest way to put a porky bike on a diet. This is especially true for
low end mountain bikes, where losing a pound per wheel might be possible
just by going to a lightweight tire and tube. Even for the above
example where the parts are already light, there are still some savings
to be had, if you want them.
> Which is a very small portion of the total weight. For other rotating
> parts (like shoes) the effect is considerably less because of their
> slower rotating speed.
Ok, I'll do the math, since you didn't want to bother. For a lightweight
road bike tire, rim and tube combo:
rim: 425g
Tire: 225g
Tube: 100g
Total: 750g, or 1500g for both wheels, which is 3.3 lbs. For a
lightweight bike, say 18 lbs total, that is more than 18% of the total
weight. Not only is that a very significant portion of the total
weight, but losing weight from tires and tubes is by far the best and
easiest way to put a porky bike on a diet. This is especially true for
low end mountain bikes, where losing a pound per wheel might be possible
just by going to a lightweight tire and tube. Even for the above
example where the parts are already light, there are still some savings
to be had, if you want them.
C
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 07:17:21 -0400, Barnard Frederick
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Ron Ruff says...
>
>> Which is a very small portion of the total weight. For other rotating
>> parts (like shoes) the effect is considerably less because of their
>> slower rotating speed.
>
>Ok, I'll do the math, since you didn't want to bother. For a lightweight
>road bike tire, rim and tube combo:
>
>rim: 425g
>Tire: 225g
>Tube: 100g
>Total: 750g, or 1500g for both wheels, which is 3.3 lbs. For a
>lightweight bike, say 18 lbs total, that is more than 18% of the total
>weight. Not only is that a very significant portion of the total
>weight, but losing weight from tires and tubes is by far the best and
>easiest way to put a porky bike on a diet. This is especially true for
>low end mountain bikes, where losing a pound per wheel might be possible
>just by going to a lightweight tire and tube. Even for the above
>example where the parts are already light, there are still some savings
>to be had, if you want them.
Dear Barnard,
As Ron says, the rim, tube, and tire are a very small portion of the
total weight of the bicycle plus rider. Leaving the rider out inflates
the importance of the spinning parts by an order of magnitude.
For a total weight of 100 kg (220 lbs) for a conveniently hefty rider
plus bike, your 1500g of rims, tires, and tubes becomes only 1.5% of
the total, not a terribly significant amount.
Slim the rider down so that he and his bike weigh only 75 kg (165
lbs), and your 1500g in the rims, tires, and tubes rises to only 2% of
the total mass, still not much and still only about a tenth of your
18%+ figure.
Reducing your 1500g tire, tube, and rim figure by 50% would change
things overall a whopping 1%, not that anyone is likely to find 750g
that they can remove from their rims, tires, and tubes.
In any case, reducing mass affects only acceleration, not top speed.
That's why most arguments about rotating mass fail to have much
practical application outside desperate racing sprints, and even then
the difference tends to be in heads of the sprinters, who are eight to
ten times as massive as their lightweight bicycles
It's also why most of the fuss about non-rotating weight is fun, but
of little practical value:
But don't feel bad. Our obsession with the weight of bicycle parts
regularly leads us to make elaborate calculations that ignore the
elephant sitting on the bicycle seat.
Recently in another thread, a long-time 220-lb poster mentioned in
good faith that he likes to use 14/15 gauge spokes on the rear, but
15/16 gauge on the front, partly to save weight. The weight saved
amounted to 25 grams, an overall weight reduction of a 0.02311%:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/6c1fc6de5a6ccd89
A while ago, I caught myself wondering how much my slightly heavier
new tire pump would affect the speed of my daily ride, but I resisted
the urge to weigh the old and the new pump on the post office scales.
I did, however, make a quick calculation that indicated that the extra
weight would not slow me down enough to notice, since I don't time
myself in units smaller than seconds.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Ron Ruff says...
>
>> Which is a very small portion of the total weight. For other rotating
>> parts (like shoes) the effect is considerably less because of their
>> slower rotating speed.
>
>Ok, I'll do the math, since you didn't want to bother. For a lightweight
>road bike tire, rim and tube combo:
>
>rim: 425g
>Tire: 225g
>Tube: 100g
>Total: 750g, or 1500g for both wheels, which is 3.3 lbs. For a
>lightweight bike, say 18 lbs total, that is more than 18% of the total
>weight. Not only is that a very significant portion of the total
>weight, but losing weight from tires and tubes is by far the best and
>easiest way to put a porky bike on a diet. This is especially true for
>low end mountain bikes, where losing a pound per wheel might be possible
>just by going to a lightweight tire and tube. Even for the above
>example where the parts are already light, there are still some savings
>to be had, if you want them.
Dear Barnard,
As Ron says, the rim, tube, and tire are a very small portion of the
total weight of the bicycle plus rider. Leaving the rider out inflates
the importance of the spinning parts by an order of magnitude.
For a total weight of 100 kg (220 lbs) for a conveniently hefty rider
plus bike, your 1500g of rims, tires, and tubes becomes only 1.5% of
the total, not a terribly significant amount.
Slim the rider down so that he and his bike weigh only 75 kg (165
lbs), and your 1500g in the rims, tires, and tubes rises to only 2% of
the total mass, still not much and still only about a tenth of your
18%+ figure.
Reducing your 1500g tire, tube, and rim figure by 50% would change
things overall a whopping 1%, not that anyone is likely to find 750g
that they can remove from their rims, tires, and tubes.
In any case, reducing mass affects only acceleration, not top speed.
That's why most arguments about rotating mass fail to have much
practical application outside desperate racing sprints, and even then
the difference tends to be in heads of the sprinters, who are eight to
ten times as massive as their lightweight bicycles
It's also why most of the fuss about non-rotating weight is fun, but
of little practical value:
But don't feel bad. Our obsession with the weight of bicycle parts
regularly leads us to make elaborate calculations that ignore the
elephant sitting on the bicycle seat.
Recently in another thread, a long-time 220-lb poster mentioned in
good faith that he likes to use 14/15 gauge spokes on the rear, but
15/16 gauge on the front, partly to save weight. The weight saved
amounted to 25 grams, an overall weight reduction of a 0.02311%:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/6c1fc6de5a6ccd89
A while ago, I caught myself wondering how much my slightly heavier
new tire pump would affect the speed of my daily ride, but I resisted
the urge to weigh the old and the new pump on the post office scales.
I did, however, make a quick calculation that indicated that the extra
weight would not slow me down enough to notice, since I don't time
myself in units smaller than seconds.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
R
RonSonic
Guest
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 12:41:48 -0600, [email protected] wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 07:17:21 -0400, Barnard Frederick
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Ron Ruff says...
>>
>>> Which is a very small portion of the total weight. For other rotating
>>> parts (like shoes) the effect is considerably less because of their
>>> slower rotating speed.
>>
>>Ok, I'll do the math, since you didn't want to bother. For a lightweight
>>road bike tire, rim and tube combo:
>>
>>rim: 425g
>>Tire: 225g
>>Tube: 100g
>>Total: 750g, or 1500g for both wheels, which is 3.3 lbs. For a
>>lightweight bike, say 18 lbs total, that is more than 18% of the total
>>weight. Not only is that a very significant portion of the total
>>weight, but losing weight from tires and tubes is by far the best and
>>easiest way to put a porky bike on a diet. This is especially true for
>>low end mountain bikes, where losing a pound per wheel might be possible
>>just by going to a lightweight tire and tube. Even for the above
>>example where the parts are already light, there are still some savings
>>to be had, if you want them.
>
>Dear Barnard,
>
>As Ron says, the rim, tube, and tire are a very small portion of the
>total weight of the bicycle plus rider. Leaving the rider out inflates
>the importance of the spinning parts by an order of magnitude.
>
>For a total weight of 100 kg (220 lbs) for a conveniently hefty rider
>plus bike, your 1500g of rims, tires, and tubes becomes only 1.5% of
>the total, not a terribly significant amount.
>
>Slim the rider down so that he and his bike weigh only 75 kg (165
>lbs), and your 1500g in the rims, tires, and tubes rises to only 2% of
>the total mass, still not much and still only about a tenth of your
>18%+ figure.
All the equations have that rotating mass multiplied by pi. Now it is still
relatively unimportant compared to things like wheels that don't break. But
let's give the inertial devil his due.
>That's why most arguments about rotating mass fail to have much
>practical application outside desperate racing sprints, and even then
>the difference tends to be in heads of the sprinters, who are eight to
>ten times as massive as their lightweight bicycles
>
>It's also why most of the fuss about non-rotating weight is fun, but
>of little practical value:
>
>But don't feel bad. Our obsession with the weight of bicycle parts
>regularly leads us to make elaborate calculations that ignore the
>elephant sitting on the bicycle seat.
>
>Recently in another thread, a long-time 220-lb poster mentioned in
>good faith that he likes to use 14/15 gauge spokes on the rear, but
>15/16 gauge on the front, partly to save weight. The weight saved
>amounted to 25 grams, an overall weight reduction of a 0.02311%:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/6c1fc6de5a6ccd89
>
>A while ago, I caught myself wondering how much my slightly heavier
>new tire pump would affect the speed of my daily ride, but I resisted
>the urge to weigh the old and the new pump on the post office scales.
>
>I did, however, make a quick calculation that indicated that the extra
>weight would not slow me down enough to notice, since I don't time
>myself in units smaller than seconds.
It is however fun to fuss with this stuff. Even for my largish self.
Ron
>On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 07:17:21 -0400, Barnard Frederick
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Ron Ruff says...
>>
>>> Which is a very small portion of the total weight. For other rotating
>>> parts (like shoes) the effect is considerably less because of their
>>> slower rotating speed.
>>
>>Ok, I'll do the math, since you didn't want to bother. For a lightweight
>>road bike tire, rim and tube combo:
>>
>>rim: 425g
>>Tire: 225g
>>Tube: 100g
>>Total: 750g, or 1500g for both wheels, which is 3.3 lbs. For a
>>lightweight bike, say 18 lbs total, that is more than 18% of the total
>>weight. Not only is that a very significant portion of the total
>>weight, but losing weight from tires and tubes is by far the best and
>>easiest way to put a porky bike on a diet. This is especially true for
>>low end mountain bikes, where losing a pound per wheel might be possible
>>just by going to a lightweight tire and tube. Even for the above
>>example where the parts are already light, there are still some savings
>>to be had, if you want them.
>
>Dear Barnard,
>
>As Ron says, the rim, tube, and tire are a very small portion of the
>total weight of the bicycle plus rider. Leaving the rider out inflates
>the importance of the spinning parts by an order of magnitude.
>
>For a total weight of 100 kg (220 lbs) for a conveniently hefty rider
>plus bike, your 1500g of rims, tires, and tubes becomes only 1.5% of
>the total, not a terribly significant amount.
>
>Slim the rider down so that he and his bike weigh only 75 kg (165
>lbs), and your 1500g in the rims, tires, and tubes rises to only 2% of
>the total mass, still not much and still only about a tenth of your
>18%+ figure.
All the equations have that rotating mass multiplied by pi. Now it is still
relatively unimportant compared to things like wheels that don't break. But
let's give the inertial devil his due.
>That's why most arguments about rotating mass fail to have much
>practical application outside desperate racing sprints, and even then
>the difference tends to be in heads of the sprinters, who are eight to
>ten times as massive as their lightweight bicycles
>
>It's also why most of the fuss about non-rotating weight is fun, but
>of little practical value:
>
>But don't feel bad. Our obsession with the weight of bicycle parts
>regularly leads us to make elaborate calculations that ignore the
>elephant sitting on the bicycle seat.
>
>Recently in another thread, a long-time 220-lb poster mentioned in
>good faith that he likes to use 14/15 gauge spokes on the rear, but
>15/16 gauge on the front, partly to save weight. The weight saved
>amounted to 25 grams, an overall weight reduction of a 0.02311%:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/6c1fc6de5a6ccd89
>
>A while ago, I caught myself wondering how much my slightly heavier
>new tire pump would affect the speed of my daily ride, but I resisted
>the urge to weigh the old and the new pump on the post office scales.
>
>I did, however, make a quick calculation that indicated that the extra
>weight would not slow me down enough to notice, since I don't time
>myself in units smaller than seconds.
It is however fun to fuss with this stuff. Even for my largish self.
Ron
Similar threads
