new saddle

"Pat Lamb" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

GaryG said:

"Zoot Katz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:16:59 -0700, <[email hidden]>,
"GaryG" <garyg@shasta_SPAMBEGONE_software.com> wrote:

>Adding a Brooks B-17 saddle to an 18 lb bike would increase the weight

of

Quoted message said:

>the bike by about 5% (18.89 / 18 = 1.049444), and would be noticeable.
>Would it slow me down "significantly"? Probably not. But, as I said,

I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>prefer a light bike. I just don't like the idea of dragging excess

baggage

Quoted message said:

>uphill, when there are lightweight, comfortable, reasonably priced
>alternatives. I apply the same criteria to wheels, tires, tubes, and

other

Quoted message said:

>components.

Subtract the weight of the saddle it replaces.

Perhaps I wasn't clear in my example, so here's the clarified version:

Take a bike that weighs 18 lbs, with a Selle Italia SLR saddle

installed.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Swap out the Selle Italia SLR saddle for a Brooks B-17. After the swap,

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

overall weight of the bike will have increased by 5%.

To some people, this is no big deal. Likewise, for some people heavy
wheelsets, frames, tires, etc. are no big deal. It depends on your

weight,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

riding style, and cycling goals. Different strokes and all.

I prefer to ride a light bike, and don't choose components that will
increase weight when comfortable, reasonably priced, lightweight
alternatives are readily available.

GG

No, Gary, you were very clear the first, second, third, etc. times.
However, you're missing Zoot's point. If adding a Brooks saddle to
your bike increases the weight you propel by 5% (including bike,
saddle, and rider), then you are indeed a lightweight.

Hmmm...so, we've devolved to name-calling, eh? I'd heard that members of
the Church of the Copper Rivet were a prickly and defensive lot :-). BTW -
I never said that adding a Brooks would increase the overall bike+rider
weight by 5%...only the weight of the bike.

But, seriously, if you're asserting that an additional 400+ grams on the
bike is insignficant, at what point does additional weight become an issue?
1 lb? 2 lbs? 5 lbs?

From my perspective, excess weight is excess weight. I don't obsess about
it (much), and clearly there are cost/benefit tradeoffs involved. But, if
the choice is between two equally functional components, at roughly the same
price point, I'll choose the lighter one most of the time. Since I average
around 200,000 feet of climbing per year, I'm comfortable with my bias
against heavyweight components. Ergo, no copper rivets for me, and I'm OK
with that.

GG

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As pointed out previously, you're moving the weight of the rider and
the bike up the hill.
Void your bladder at the bottom if you're counting grams on the way
up.
--
zk

😉

[cut]

Quoted message said:

Hmmm...so, we've devolved to name-calling, eh? I'd heard that members of
the Church of the Copper Rivet were a prickly and defensive lot :-).
BTW -
I never said that adding a Brooks would increase the overall bike+rider
weight by 5%...only the weight of the bike.

But, seriously, if you're asserting that an additional 400+ grams on the
bike is insignficant, at what point does additional weight become an
issue?
1 lb? 2 lbs? 5 lbs?

From my perspective, excess weight is excess weight. I don't obsess
about
it (much), and clearly there are cost/benefit tradeoffs involved. But,
if
the choice is between two equally functional components, at roughly the
same
price point, I'll choose the lighter one most of the time. Since I
average
around 200,000 feet of climbing per year, I'm comfortable with my bias
against heavyweight components. Ergo, no copper rivets for me, and I'm
OK
with that.

GG

I average as much climbing as I can get in CT, and I honestly care way
more about function than weight. For me, my Brooks allows me to ride
80-100 miles comfortably, which keeps me on the bike longer. My previous
saddles didn't. Moreover, when I ride that long, my Camelback probably
weighs as much as my darn bike, so I'm not really worried about shaving a
few grams off my bike. By contrast, I just want to make sure that I get
home when I'm 60+ miles away from home.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

garyg@shasta_SPAMBEGONE_software.com said:

But, seriously, if you're asserting that an additional 400+ grams on the
bike is insignficant, at what point does additional weight become an
issue? 1 lb? 2 lbs? 5 lbs?

It depends on the application. My heaviest bike is 10 lbs heavier than my
lightest bike, and although it feels like it makes a bit of a difference, I
haven't observed any change in my commute times, which includes a 4 km long
8% grade hill.

Quoted message said:

From my perspective, excess weight is excess weight. I don't obsess
about it (much), and clearly there are cost/benefit tradeoffs involved.
But, if the choice is between two equally functional components, at
roughly the same price point, I'll choose the lighter one most of the
time.

Well sure; and if I found a plastic saddle that was as comfortable as my
Brooks and that I thought was just as aesthetically pleasing, that's
probably what I would go with too. I wouldn't delude myself that it was
saving me significant time while climbing, however.

--
Benjamin Lewis

"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips
over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come."
--Matt Groening

Benjamin Lewis said:

I wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

About 0.5 %, obviously, if the hill is reasonably steep.

Quoted message said:

Sure, if by "reasonably steep" you mean "vertical" 🙂.

I said "about 0.5 %", as on a hill that most people would see as
"reasonably steep" most of the rider's effort goes into beating gravity.
Rolling resistance increases only linearly with speed and is always
quite small on a road bike. On steeper hills where even strong riders
can't go faster than about 20 km/h aerodynamic drag is also a non-issue.
So, without bothering to do the actual calculations, a good guess is
around 0.4 %.

-as

Quoted message said:

As pointed out previously, you're moving the weight of the rider and
the bike up the hill.

Not exactly. From an absolute efficiency standpoint, that's basically
correct. But when you're off the saddle (climbing), you're essentially
isolating your weight from that of the bike, and I find it very easy to tell
the difference, in feel, between a bike that's a pound lighter than another
one. Probably because you're swinging the bike back & forth underneath you,
and (especially with a saddle's high center of gravity) you're changing the
direction of that mass perhaps several hundred times. Obviously, this
doesn't result in massive lost energy, since you recover nearly all of the
energy as if it were a spring. But it definitely feels different.

For what it's worth, when I'm riding my heavier bikes, I don't seem to mind
the weight difference nearly as much when I stay seated.

Quoted message said:

Void your bladder at the bottom if you're counting grams on the way
up.

Heck, as you get older, you might not be carrying that much at any one point
in time anyway. But heck, if you can use weight reduction as an excuse for
having to stop more often, why not?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Zoot Katz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:16:59 -0700, <[email hidden]>,

GaryG' garyg@shasta_SPAMBEGONE_software.com said:

Adding a Brooks B-17 saddle to an 18 lb bike would increase the weight of
the bike by about 5% (18.89 / 18 = 1.049444), and would be noticeable.
Would it slow me down "significantly"? Probably not. But, as I said, I
prefer a light bike. I just don't like the idea of dragging excess
baggage
uphill, when there are lightweight, comfortable, reasonably priced
alternatives. I apply the same criteria to wheels, tires, tubes, and
other
components.

Subtract the weight of the saddle it replaces.
As pointed out previously, you're moving the weight of the rider and
the bike up the hill.
Void your bladder at the bottom if you're counting grams on the way
up.
--
zk

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

As pointed out previously, you're moving the weight of the rider and
the bike up the hill.

Not exactly. From an absolute efficiency standpoint, that's basically
correct. But when you're off the saddle (climbing), you're essentially
isolating your weight from that of the bike, and I find it very easy to tell
the difference, in feel, between a bike that's a pound lighter than another
one. Probably because you're swinging the bike back & forth underneath you,
and (especially with a saddle's high center of gravity) you're changing the
direction of that mass perhaps several hundred times. Obviously, this
doesn't result in massive lost energy, since you recover nearly all of the
energy as if it were a spring. But it definitely feels different.

For what it's worth, when I'm riding my heavier bikes, I don't seem to mind
the weight difference nearly as much when I stay seated.

I wonder if this is what "responsive" means when referring to a bicycle?
You know, when we read an automobile review, "responsive" means it
accelerates and brakes quickly, can turn sharply, and so forth. Those
don't really mean anything on a bike; any bike accelerates as fast as
the rider makes it, any bike (with decent brake pads) can skid, turn
rate is determined by lean rate.

Perhaps, then, when you're reading a review of a bike, "responsive"
means something like "bike flops back and forth wildly when climbing out
of the saddle."

In the same vein, "twitchy steering" doesn't mean it oversteers; it
means something like "bike wants to fall over when bars turned less than
10 degrees."

Anyone want to give odds on these definitions making it into
Buycycling's FAQ?

Pat
early morning (CDT) retrogrouch

Quoted message said:

Perhaps, then, when you're reading a review of a bike, "responsive" means
something like "bike flops back and forth wildly when climbing out of the
saddle."

In the same vein, "twitchy steering" doesn't mean it oversteers; it means
something like "bike wants to fall over when bars turned less than 10
degrees."

It's definitely part of it, although geometry has a lot to do with how your
bike handles when you're standing as well. A poorly-designed frameset will
tend to "flop" from side to side when you're out of the saddle, due to a
mis-match between the head tube angle and the fork rake.

Quoted message said:

Anyone want to give odds on these definitions making it into Buycycling's
FAQ?

Zero, because it's too subjective for those who write & add to the FAQ. Oh,
wait, you're talking about BUYcycling's FAQ, not the official usenet
version. If it can be worded so it pleases the advertisers, I'm sure it
would be added.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Pat Lamb" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

As pointed out previously, you're moving the weight of the rider and
the bike up the hill.

Not exactly. From an absolute efficiency standpoint, that's basically
correct. But when you're off the saddle (climbing), you're essentially
isolating your weight from that of the bike, and I find it very easy to
tell the difference, in feel, between a bike that's a pound lighter than
another one. Probably because you're swinging the bike back & forth
underneath you, and (especially with a saddle's high center of gravity)
you're changing the direction of that mass perhaps several hundred times.
Obviously, this doesn't result in massive lost energy, since you recover
nearly all of the energy as if it were a spring. But it definitely feels
different.

For what it's worth, when I'm riding my heavier bikes, I don't seem to
mind the weight difference nearly as much when I stay seated.

I wonder if this is what "responsive" means when referring to a bicycle?
You know, when we read an automobile review, "responsive" means it
accelerates and brakes quickly, can turn sharply, and so forth. Those
don't really mean anything on a bike; any bike accelerates as fast as the
rider makes it, any bike (with decent brake pads) can skid, turn rate is
determined by lean rate.

Perhaps, then, when you're reading a review of a bike, "responsive" means
something like "bike flops back and forth wildly when climbing out of the
saddle."

In the same vein, "twitchy steering" doesn't mean it oversteers; it means
something like "bike wants to fall over when bars turned less than 10
degrees."

Anyone want to give odds on these definitions making it into Buycycling's
FAQ?

Pat
early morning (CDT) retrogrouch

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

Perhaps, then, when you're reading a review of a bike, "responsive" means
something like "bike flops back and forth wildly when climbing out of the
saddle."

In the same vein, "twitchy steering" doesn't mean it oversteers; it means
something like "bike wants to fall over when bars turned less than 10
degrees."

It's definitely part of it, although geometry has a lot to do with how your
bike handles when you're standing as well. A poorly-designed frameset will
tend to "flop" from side to side when you're out of the saddle, due to a
mis-match between the head tube angle and the fork rake.

Quoted message said:

Anyone want to give odds on these definitions making it into Buycycling's
FAQ?

Zero, because it's too subjective for those who write & add to the FAQ. Oh,
wait, you're talking about BUYcycling's FAQ, not the official usenet
version. If it can be worded so it pleases the advertisers, I'm sure it
would be added.

Yeah, I was a bit pejorative there. It was a surprise to me when it
finally filtered through my thick skull (what, two days after reading
your post?) that "reponsive" in a bike review was nothing like
"responsive" in a car review.

I do notice the difference when I'm not commuting, and take the panniers
off my touring bike -- it's a lot different, at least for 15 seconds or
so. After that I just don't notice the difference very much, except on
those hills.

"Responsive," given this daffynition, seems like an over-hyped,
misunderstood term for the average bicyclist. I'm really not trying to
insult you here, Mike; I know you have to sell bikes to make a living.
But pitching a bike on how well it "responds" laterally is like
discussing an NFL running back based on how well he jukes side to side
in the backfield. I'd think most cyclists are more interested in axial
responsivity, moving forward -- like NFL backs are rated on how many
yards they move the ball up the field, vs. sideways. Or am I missing
something, the human side, that deals with how lateral responsivity is
perceived as being fun, part of what makes a cyclist want to get out and
ride? How much of the enjoyable cycling experience (what you REALLY
want to sell), is bound up in that perception?

Pat

Quoted message said:

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Pat Lamb" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

>As pointed out previously, you're moving the weight of the rider and
>the bike up the hill.

Not exactly. From an absolute efficiency standpoint, that's basically
correct. But when you're off the saddle (climbing), you're essentially
isolating your weight from that of the bike, and I find it very easy to
tell the difference, in feel, between a bike that's a pound lighter than
another one. Probably because you're swinging the bike back & forth
underneath you, and (especially with a saddle's high center of gravity)
you're changing the direction of that mass perhaps several hundred times.
Obviously, this doesn't result in massive lost energy, since you recover
nearly all of the energy as if it were a spring. But it definitely feels
different.

For what it's worth, when I'm riding my heavier bikes, I don't seem to
mind the weight difference nearly as much when I stay seated.

I wonder if this is what "responsive" means when referring to a bicycle?
You know, when we read an automobile review, "responsive" means it
accelerates and brakes quickly, can turn sharply, and so forth. Those
don't really mean anything on a bike; any bike accelerates as fast as the
rider makes it, any bike (with decent brake pads) can skid, turn rate is
determined by lean rate.

Perhaps, then, when you're reading a review of a bike, "responsive" means
something like "bike flops back and forth wildly when climbing out of the
saddle."

In the same vein, "twitchy steering" doesn't mean it oversteers; it means
something like "bike wants to fall over when bars turned less than 10
degrees."

Anyone want to give odds on these definitions making it into Buycycling's
FAQ?

Pat
early morning (CDT) retrogrouch