xpc316e said:
Having looked at your link to the mathematcial proof that my post is BS, as you so eloquently describe it, may I point out that the proof that you cite deals with climbing hills and rotational mass? I was talking about the acceleration of rotating mass - it is a totally different thing.
Actually, you're 100% wrong. The equation listed in the link is an equation of motion for a bicycle, and it's valid whether the bike is being pedaled on the flats, uphill, downhill, or where ever.
I was also writing about the liveliness of a light bike: it is far more enjoyable for me (at 260 lbs) to ride a 17 lbs bike than it is for a 240 lbs me to ride a 37 lbs bike. Perhaps you can find a mathematical proof that my enjoyment of a lightweight bike is also BS, but I doubt it.
Alas, you didn't say anything about it being far more enjoyable for you. What you said was this:
Losing a few pounds from the weight of your bike has a far greater effect than losing the same weight from your body. Try riding a bike with lightweight wheels to find out how a small amount of mass removed from those large, rotating flywheels at each end of the machine can radically change things.
A few pounds. A few pounds is 20? There is no difference losing static weight from your body or from the bike. As for rotational weight, the equation I supplied in the link shows just how small that effect is. It's very small. As for those "large, rotating flywheels," they have a very small mass moment of inertia, meaning their effect on acceleration is not large. On the flats, their effect is even smaller as accelerations are limited. There is no reason for their to be a "radical" change as a result in switching to wheels with a smaller MOI.
My advice was for the OP to buy a lightweight carbon bike if he wished - that is not 'about the worst advice a person could give'. You may disagree with my opinions about light bikes and cite mathematical proof of your own ideas. That doesn't make my advice, about buying a bike and enjoying it for what it is, the worst a person could give.
Ah, but then you ventured into wild imaginings when you made claims about "radical changes" and the like.
Perhaps the worst advice a person could give would be to recommend joining an internet forum discussion whilst simultaneously expecting sound reasoning and good manners.
Don't worry. If you work at it, you can improve your reasoning. And I wasn't rude. I stated in simple words that you were wrong about your claims about performance gains and that your advice was bad. The thread revolves around road bikes. Unless a person does their road bike shopping at Walmart or some other discount department store, they're going to find that the vast majority of bikes, now, weigh in at less than 20 lbs. Given that this is clydesdale sub-forum, i.e. one having to do with riders that weigh 200 lbs +, that means the overwhelming majority of people in the sub-forum will have or be looking--if they're shopping for a road bike--at buying something that is only 1% or less of their body weight, or roughly 9% or less of the total bike/rider system weight. That means the bicycle and any and all of its components--uhm, including the wheels--will have a small effect on performance. Very small. Rider weight is the major influence, behind aero drag (in all situations except for climbs exceeding approximately 8-10% in grade), for any bicycle, on acceleration. Full stop.
If you state your opinion as fact, as you did, you should expect that it might be challenged. I said absolutely nothing about your enjoyment of your ride.
