Seat

In aus.bicycle on Sun, 29 Jul 2007 00:53:17 +1000

TimC said:

What's the point of the back of a seat of a time trial bike? You
could save 50g, and no one, particularly Cadel, ever uses it.

Yours in wedginess, TimC.

For the "sit up and raise hands in victory" bit?

Be rather disturbing television for the guy to sit up raise hands and
then crash as the rest of the seat goes where it shouldn't.

Yours preferring proper wide supportive seatbacks that go all the way
up to the shoulders, Zebee

From the UCI rules governing equipment:

1.3.014 The saddle support shall be horizontal. The length of the
saddle shall be 24 cm minimum and 30 cm maximum.

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

Quoted message said:

What's the point of the back of a seat of a time trial bike? You
could save 50g, and no one, particularly Cadel, ever uses it.

Yours in wedginess, TimC.

TimC said:

What's the point of the back of a seat of a time trial bike? You
could save 50g, and no one, particularly Cadel, ever uses it.

Yours in wedginess, TimC.

I want to know why nobody uses the behind the seat drink bottle holders
triathletes use? I recall reading an article on the amount of time
difference each little thing can make and although I cant recall exact
numbers, removing the bidon from the downtube was well worth it.

DaveB

DaveB said:

TimC said:

What's the point of the back of a seat of a time trial bike? You
could save 50g, and no one, particularly Cadel, ever uses it.

Yours in wedginess, TimC.

I want to know why nobody uses the behind the seat drink bottle holders
triathletes use? I recall reading an article on the amount of time
difference each little thing can make and although I cant recall exact
numbers, removing the bidon from the downtube was well worth it.

DaveB

The back of the seat is useful when one occasionally slides back a bit.
Anyway, a 50g advantage is a negligible one compared to the
propelling effect of the prospect of gaining a yellow jersey.

Behind the seat drink bottles are for those who don't mind fumbling
around.

Before the bottle went to the down tube/s, they used place them in front
of the handlbars,
and some stronger riders had little powered hot plates where a sausage
could be cooked up as they rode the particularly looooonnnggg stages in
the early years of the TDF,
where support, gears, and any assistance was all banned.

The sausage kept jumping off the hot plates, to be grabbed by the
opposition, who'd eat then
half cooked and still win. This was due to the very poor state of French
roads in 1920.
So the cookers went out of style, like so many things do, and what you
eat during a race
was given much thought. Poms bringing nicely cut sandwiches didn't seem
to do any better.

Anquetil started the craze for keeping bottled refreshments on the down
tube where
it would be kept cool by easy air flow, especially on mountain stages.
Especially appropriate if it was champagne. And on a down tube, its less
likely
to be pinched by a persuing Belgian.

And the Italians never found it easy in their attempts to steal the
yellow.
Trying to deal with spaggetti in a 50kph breeze is never easy.
And we know why there's never been a winning rider from China or Japan.
Its chopsticks. Where does one carry them?

You'd think that with 1 billion bicycles in China, there would be a
couple of dudes
who be game to be devils on pushbikes and ride like the wind,
and be able to give Cadel a real shock but
I heard the Chinese Communist Party banned anyone to a forced labour
camp
who rode faster than card carrying member could run, (and that was
damned slow.)
When you see films with millions of chinese cycling along, they all
appear to be going
at a snail's pace. Kinda gliding gracefully along Bejing's wide streets
without a car in sight.
Why? Is it because they hate going to work? Is it because nobody is "on
a promise"?
Sponsorship no good?
Maybe that's why its a one child per family place.
Or maybe they have seat problems they won't talk about.

Patrick Turner.

DaveB said:

TimC wrote:

Quoted message said:

I want to know why nobody uses the behind the seat drink bottle holders
triathletes use? I recall reading an article on the amount of time
difference each little thing can make and although I cant recall exact
numbers, removing the bidon from the downtube was well worth it.

Who wants to be a drinks waiter forthe guys following you?

As a tourer, there is usually something there and if there isn't, it s
because I'm hoping to pick up a decent watermelon along the road {:-).

On 2007-07-28, NickP (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

What's the point of the back of a seat of a time trial bike? You
could save 50g, and no one, particularly Cadel, ever uses it.

Yours in wedginess, TimC.

From the UCI rules governing equipment:

1.3.014 The saddle support shall be horizontal. The length of the
saddle shall be 24 cm minimum and 30 cm maximum.

Spoilsports. Sorry Zebee, UCI rules.

--
TimC
My other car is a cdr

DaveB said:

TimC said:

What's the point of the back of a seat of a time trial bike? You
could save 50g, and no one, particularly Cadel, ever uses it.

Yours in wedginess, TimC.

I want to know why nobody uses the behind the seat drink bottle holders
triathletes use? I recall reading an article on the amount of time
difference each little thing can make and although I cant recall exact
numbers, removing the bidon from the downtube was well worth it.

DaveB

You must have read a different article to me.
According to John Cobbs tests a water bottle on the down tube is faster
than behind the seat.

http://www.profile-design.com/road_test_press/water_bottles.html

Dorfus

Dorfus Dippintush said:

DaveB said:

TimC said:

What's the point of the back of a seat of a time trial bike? You
could save 50g, and no one, particularly Cadel, ever uses it.

Yours in wedginess, TimC.

I want to know why nobody uses the behind the seat drink bottle
holders triathletes use? I recall reading an article on the amount of
time difference each little thing can make and although I cant recall
exact numbers, removing the bidon from the downtube was well worth it.

DaveB

You must have read a different article to me.
According to John Cobbs tests a water bottle on the down tube is faster
than behind the seat.

http://www.profile-design.com/road_test_press/water_bottles.html

Dorfus

Thanks for that article. Now I'm trying to find the report I read.

DaveB

Dorfus Dippintush said:

You must have read a different article to me.
According to John Cobbs tests a water bottle on the down tube is
faster than behind the seat.

Surely the water bottle would be travelling at the same speed no matter
where on the bike it was mounted.

Theo :-)

Theo Bekkers said:

Dorfus Dippintush said:

You must have read a different article to me.
According to John Cobbs tests a water bottle on the down tube is
faster than behind the seat.

Surely the water bottle would be travelling at the same speed no matter
where on the bike it was mounted.

Theo :-)

Placed ahead of the rider's stomache, there will be a net rearwood
weight transfer everytime a drink is taken.

Aeek said:

"Theo Bekkers wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Surely the water bottle would be travelling at the same speed no
matter where on the bike it was mounted.

Quoted message said:

Placed ahead of the rider's stomache, there will be a net rearwood
weight transfer everytime a drink is taken.

Certainly, but there is also a rearward weight transfer when the rider
subsequently takes a 'natural break'. This rearward transfer will result in
a net weight loss.

If a rear-of-seat bidon is faster than one mounted on the down-tubes, how
come it remains behind the seat?

Theo

Theo Bekkers said:

Aeek said:

Theo Bekkers said:

Surely the water bottle would be travelling at the same speed no
matter where on the bike it was mounted.

Placed ahead of the rider's stomache, there will be a net rearwood
weight transfer everytime a drink is taken.

Certainly, but there is also a rearward weight transfer when the rider
subsequently takes a 'natural break'. This rearward transfer will result in
a net weight loss.

If a rear-of-seat bidon is faster than one mounted on the down-tubes, how
come it remains behind the seat?

Theo

If it's anchored firmly enough it will actually assist the bike and
rider, particularly in a bunch sprint. If it's not attached well
enough it just falls off. Once it loses contact with the bike it's
simply a regular bidon again and has no special properties until the
next time it comes in contact with a bike. Even then it must be a
carbon frame to get the full benefit and since the weight of a bidon
cage strong enough to take the torque developed by a rear-of-seat-
bidon is so heavy almost no-one uses them.