What makes a bike fast, anway?

[Kraig Willett]

"Jim Edgar" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:BADFDFAE.412FD%[email protected]...
> Kraig Willett at [email protected] wrote on 5/7/03 6:47
PM:
> > "Jim Edgar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>
> >> IIRC: The conclusion was that at 30 mph there was a slight difference
in the
> >> wind tunnel (i.e. - TT conditions), but at speeds below that it was
within
> >> the margin of error, no?
> >
> > I am glad the data was available to you so that you could make your own conclusion.
> >
> > My conclusion was not as stated above.
>
> See, now you make me go back and reread the thing. Didn't put it together that you were the author
> of that article until now. At any rate...
>
> You stated "Tunnel director Jorge Martinez claims that the wind tunnel balance will provide force
> data that is accurate to +/-0.05 lbs."
>
> So, if the average axial forces in pounds are TT Alpha Q = .73, Oval Jetstream .71, and Reynolds
> Ouzo Pro .70 under calm conditions, (.67, .62, .61 under crosswind, respectively) as shown in your
> chart, how is that not covered by the margin of error?
>

It is, and there was some reference to this in the text.

>
> Clearly I didn't "RC" as I first stated above and I apologize for
confusing
> the issue with my initial statement.

I think I am still confused as to what you are claiming. I was under the impression that you were
originally claiming the axial forces of the aero forks and the EMS fork were within the measurement
uncertainty.

> But, I'm assuming that the extrapoloation to watts and 40K Times use the average axial force as a
> basis, and times times and wattage outputs listed in the last chart also fall wthin the margin of
> error you list.
>
> Even with the margin of error, there is a demonstratable benefit from the 1996 Kestrel fork, as
> you state.

And this is the only point I am trying to make -> less axial force and same power = more speed. Aero
forks do something, and now we can put a number on the magnitude.

> But, my point is that if he's _not_ in a TT, rather in a dynamic
environment
> shielded by other riders in a moving group, how much difference will it make?

If he's taking pulls he's in the same flow-field as the tunnel or a TT, unless you can convince me
that the guy a bike length and a half behind him is altering the flow around the OP's front fork. In
this non-TT taking a pull situation, IMHO, the OP would be faster.

I agree that while drafting, the effect is less - but all else being equal it is still an
improvement over the non-aero fork. I can't definitively comment on the magnitude in that situation
- anyone else?

--
==================
Kraig Willett www.biketechreview.com
==================

 

[Kraig Willett]

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Kraig-<< I think the estimate is backed up by science and puts a good,
solid
> number on the potential magnitude of the effect. My conclusion is more solid
than
> the "equipment does nothing" claim.
>
> This discussion has fallen wildly out of context. The original guy wanted
to
> know if he would be vastly faster on a new bike.

That is not the way I understood the question, and if one looks back at my initial post the context
is clear. IMHO, you are misrepresenting the OP's question.

> That 'good solid number' applies to info recorded in a wind tunnel and may
not
> apply. I think you see my point in retail, in looking some guy in the eye
and
> telling him some sort of equipment 'will make him faster'. I have seen
others
> do this with disasterous results("I want my $ back, I was not faster").

The only reason I commented at all was because a proposterous claim of "nothing" was made with
regard to equipment choices. I felt obligated to comment.

> << What will the discussion be like the next time a customer of yours
wants a
> Reynolds Aero fork on a new Calfee frame? Won't it be nice to be able to intelligently comment on
> the subject and not just be speculating at the answer?
>
> See above, I will tell him it is more aero in wind tunnel testing, I will
not
> say it will make him 'faster'.
>

Then the implication of improved performance is still there.

> << Aero wheels work. The effect is well documented. << What is not so clear is how much, or even
> if, there is a difference between the brands.
>
> Not saying they don't but you cannot make the statement that one wheel or another will make you
> '2-3% faster on a given course'.
>

Depends on the model, equipment database, and working assumptions used to analyze the given course,
but there is no reason one could not make a very similar claim and have an accurate prediction. See:

http://tinyurl.com/b6wh

> << It comes down to magnitude and significance. I can only help out on magnitudes. The
> significance is up to the individual.
>
> The magnitude is up to the individaul as well..

IMHO, it really isn't. It is up to science.

>
> << Still no comment on the clear contradiction in your ever-present wheel marketing/sales pitch
> and your views on the performance effects of
equipment
> touted in this thread?
>
> I will not say to any customer that I can predict performance changes due
to
> any piece of equipment.
>
> People ask all the time if this or that will make them climb better,
decend
> better, whatever better and unless it deals with bike fit, I say 'maybe,
maybe
> not'...

How much do you charge for a fit with and without a bike purchase?

 

[Jim Edgar]

Kraig Willett at [email protected] wrote on 5/8/03 6:37 PM:
> I think I am still confused as to what you are claiming. I was under the impression that you were
> originally claiming the axial forces of the aero forks and the EMS fork were within the
> measurement uncertainty.

Sorry, I was speaking imprecisely. The thought I had when I first finished the article was "all that
and not a measurable difference between them" - referring to the margin of error between the tested
forks, not against the "baseline" results of the Kestrel EMS.

>> But, I'm assuming that the extrapoloation to watts and 40K Times use the average axial force as a
>> basis, and times times and wattage outputs listed in the last chart also fall wthin the margin of
>> error you list.
>>
>> Even with the margin of error, there is a demonstratable benefit from the 1996 Kestrel fork, as
>> you state.
>
> And this is the only point I am trying to make -> less axial force and same power = more speed.
> Aero forks do something, and now we can put a number on the magnitude.
>

Again, under TT conditions. If he's in a rotating paceline of 5 riders, the only benefit will be
when he's on the front. If you use the 40K @ 30 mph benefits from the article, you're down in the
4-5 second range, which I don't think translates into a lead (see next comment, below).

>> But, my point is that if he's _not_ in a TT, rather in a dynamic
> environment
>> shielded by other riders in a moving group, how much difference will it make?
>
> If he's taking pulls he's in the same flow-field as the tunnel or a TT, unless you can convince me
> that the guy a bike length and a half behind him is altering the flow around the OP's front fork.
> In this non-TT taking a pull situation, IMHO, the OP would be faster.

That's an interesting point, but in the practical sense, if someone starts taking a pull in a group
and speeding up slightly, the riders behind will more than likely continue moving up in the rider's
slipstream, negating any increase of speed. It may chop off some riders towards the rear as the
accordian stretches and gaps appear, but since the difference is incremental rather than a hard
burst, I don't think it will result in a breakaway.

I think in this sense, the valid argument would be that the rider is saving some energy when they
are moving against the wind, and that saved energy might be put to use later for a sprint or
breakaway attempt.

>
> I agree that while drafting, the effect is less - but all else being equal it is still an
> improvement over the non-aero fork. I can't definitively comment on the magnitude in that
> situation - anyone else?

Again, reaching into the memory banks: I recall an article/interview with John Cobb (? - the fellow
who used to design faster-than-hell go-karts and now was paying attention to bicyclng aerodynamics).
At one point, he doscissed the effects of a group of riders on airflow. One small comment he made
was that as you move back in the group, the air that is being pushed up by the front of the group
comes back down (simplifying, obviously), making it less efficient to be, say number 20 in a group
of 25 than number 6 or 8.

Which steers me toward the idea of testing forks by themselves. As you say above, it's doubtful that
the rider 1 - 1 1/2 lengths back is altering airflow, but how much does the frame/rider alter
airflow behind a fork? Does a downtube like a Cervelo or Litespeed Blade change the flow compared to
a standard round downtube? It would seem that small differences in forks could be negated by rider
position or even the structure of the frame.

Back to the original point of the thread, I have nothing against aero equipment and am not saying
there isn't a benefit under certain conditions. The OP was being told that he could go faster on a
new bike, with no valid evidence to support the statement. At his level and under the conditions he
described, I would still bet there are more gains to be made by continuing to learn how to push the
pedals harder, train right, get more relaxed in the bike and gain tactical racing experience.

-- Jim

 

[Tom Nakashima]

The rider. -tom

 

[Mike S.]

"Matt J" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So we were sitting around after my school's bike club meeting, talking about riding and racing
> and training, and the subject of me and my bike came up. Now, I ride a 1987 Trek road bike that
> was my dad's and was never used until I got to it last year. I've upgraded tires, saddle, a rear
> wheel (sort of) bar tape, and added a computer. Full suntour, except for the brakes, which are
> DiaCompe. I ride it all the time on group rides and in pacelines up to 28 or so mph. Someone
> says, "Man, you could be fast if you had a new bike." I'm puzzled by this - what is so different
> about a new bike than my current one? STI shifters: ok, those make shifting easier, but don't
> directly make me faster.
>
> 9/10 speed drivetrain: also doesn't directly make me faster.
>
> Carbon fork: sure it "feels nice," maybe, and is a little more aero, but not significant... right?
>
> Frame: They claimed that a frame would make me faster. Different geometry, ligher, etc. How? I can
> see how geometry might help comfort or make it a little quicker around turns, but faster? How? I'm
> always the first one off from stoplights, so lightness can't be that much of an issue. And my
> frame now fits just fine.
>
> Wheels: This I can believe. I've got simply 32 hole wheels with box-section rims, nothing aero or
> anything like that. But still, these can't make a significant difference.
>
> So, what is it about a new bike that would make me faster? Is it worth saving up months of
> allowance, pay, a birthday, etc, for a new bike? Thanks Matt

I've been contemplating this since this thread began. There's not much that really "makes a bike
fast" except the rider. There are things that make riding fast easier: aero bars/wheels, etc. and
more convenient: STI/Ergo, but its the legs (and more importantly the mind) of the rider that makes
the difference.

If the OP is riding downtubes, changing to STI will make finding that "perfect" gear easier because
he won't have to move his hands as far to shift. That may make him a little quicker because he may
be in a "better" gear.

Aero wheels will help ride faster at the top end, but won't do much at slower speeds.

Races aren't always won by the strongest, but by the one that wants it bad enough to suffer the
most for it. Having a 15# bike won't make too much of a difference if the rider's mind isn't in
the riding.

I take great pleasure riding the wheels off guys with $4-5000 bikes. My bikes are a whole lot
less expensive than their Litespeed/Merlin/Look/Pinarello/etc. I chuckle harder the more
expensive the bike.

So, my recommendations to the OP. Find yourself some aero wheels, upgrade to STI if you haven't
already, and ride the hell out of your bike. Save your money for something important like EPO
that'll really help you go faster!

Mike

 

[Mark Hickey]

"B. Sanders" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Coasting downhill ranks in my Top 5 Most Pleasurable Things. Most of the rest of the Top 5 can't be
>mentioned in polite company

Oh, you're talking about that "bent thing" again, huh? ;-)

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Andy Coggan]

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Kraig-<< I think the estimate is backed up by science and puts a good,
solid
> number on the potential magnitude of the effect. My conclusion is more solid
than
> the "equipment does nothing" claim.
>
> This discussion has fallen wildly out of context. The original guy wanted
to
> know if he would be vastly faster on a new bike.
>
> That 'good solid number' applies to info recorded in a wind tunnel and may
not
> apply. I think you see my point in retail, in looking some guy in the eye
and
> telling him some sort of equipment 'will make him faster'. I have seen
others
> do this with disasterous results("I want my $ back, I was not faster").
>
>
> << What will the discussion be like the next time a customer of yours
wants a
> Reynolds Aero fork on a new Calfee frame? Won't it be nice to be able to intelligently comment on
> the subject and not just be speculating at the answer?
>
> See above, I will tell him it is more aero in wind tunnel testing, I will
not
> say it will make him 'faster'.
>
>
> << Aero wheels work. The effect is well documented. << What is not so clear is how much, or even
> if, there is a difference between the brands.
>
> Not saying they don't but you cannot make the statement that one wheel or another will make you
> '2-3% faster on a given course'.

Why not? It's been shown that you can predict the power requirement of outdoor cycling to w/in 1-2%
based on wind tunnel testing.

> << It comes down to magnitude and significance. I can only help out on magnitudes. The
> significance is up to the individual.
>
> The magnitude is up to the individaul as well..
>
>
> << Still no comment on the clear contradiction in your ever-present wheel marketing/sales pitch
> and your views on the performance effects of
equipment
> touted in this thread?
>
> I will not say to any customer that I can predict performance changes due
to
> any piece of equipment.

That's only because A) you're overly conservative, concerned about your reputation as a retailer,
and/or B) ignorant of the research that has been done in this area. Meanwhile, those who have become
students of this aspect of the sport are winning national championships...

> People ask all the time if this or that will make them climb better,
decend
> better, whatever better and unless it deals with bike fit, I say 'maybe,
maybe
> not'...

Rather ironic, considering that bicycle fit is far more subjective than aerodynamics...

Andy Coggan

 

[Andy Coggan]

"Mike S." <mikeshaw2@coxDOTnet> wrote in message news:7cSua.26385$eJ2.1612@fed1read07...

> So, my recommendations to the OP. Find yourself some aero wheels, upgrade to STI if you haven't
> already, and ride the hell out of your bike. Save your money for something important like EPO
> that'll really help you go faster!

This is funny, because the effects of EPO are roughly similar in magnitude to the effects of aero
equipment, i.e., in the 5% range. Yet people are willing to believe that injecting yourself with EPO
will turn you into Superman, yet they discount the effects of aero equipment.

Andy Coggan

 

[Andy Coggan]

"Jim Edgar" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:BAE10A4F.4143C%[email protected]...
> Kraig Willett at [email protected] wrote on 5/8/03 6:37
PM:
> > I think I am still confused as to what you are claiming. I was under
the
> > impression that you were originally claiming the axial forces of the
aero
> > forks and the EMS fork were within the measurement uncertainty.
>
> Sorry, I was speaking imprecisely. The thought I had when I first finished the article was "all
> that and not a measurable difference between them" - referring to the margin of error between the
> tested forks, not against the "baseline" results of the Kestrel EMS.

You need to brush up on your statistics...

> >> But, I'm assuming that the extrapoloation to watts and 40K Times use
the
> >> average axial force as a basis, and times times and wattage outputs
listed
> >> in the last chart also fall wthin the margin of error you list.
> >>
> >> Even with the margin of error, there is a demonstratable benefit from
the
> >> 1996 Kestrel fork, as you state.
> >
> > And this is the only point I am trying to make -> less axial force and
same
> > power = more speed. Aero forks do something, and now we can put a
number on
> > the magnitude.
> >
>
> Again, under TT conditions. If he's in a rotating paceline of 5 riders,
the
> only benefit will be when he's on the front.

By that logic boats might as well be designed with square fronts, since you rarely have laminar flow
in the ocean.

> If you use the 40K @ 30 mph benefits from the article, you're down in the 4-5 second range, which
> I don't think translates into a lead (see next comment, below).
>
> >> But, my point is that if he's _not_ in a TT, rather in a dynamic
> > environment
> >> shielded by other riders in a moving group, how much difference will it make?
> >
> > If he's taking pulls he's in the same flow-field as the tunnel or a TT, unless you can convince
> > me that the guy a bike length and a half behind
him
> > is altering the flow around the OP's front fork. In this non-TT taking
a
> > pull situation, IMHO, the OP would be faster.
>
> That's an interesting point, but in the practical sense, if someone starts taking a pull in a
> group and speeding up slightly, the riders behind will more than likely continue moving up in the
> rider's slipstream, negating
any
> increase of speed. It may chop off some riders towards the rear as the accordian stretches and
> gaps appear, but since the difference is
incremental
> rather than a hard burst, I don't think it will result in a breakaway.
>
> I think in this sense, the valid argument would be that the rider is
saving
> some energy when they are moving against the wind, and that saved energy might be put to use later
> for a sprint or breakaway attempt.
>
> >
> > I agree that while drafting, the effect is less - but all else being
equal
> > it is still an improvement over the non-aero fork. I can't definitively comment on the magnitude
> > in that situation - anyone else?
>
> Again, reaching into the memory banks: I recall an article/interview with John Cobb (? - the
> fellow who used to design faster-than-hell go-karts and now was paying attention to bicyclng
> aerodynamics).

The mere fact that you have to put a question mark following the name suggests to me that you are
inadequately aware of all the work that has been done in this area.

>At one point, he doscissed the effects of a group of riders on airflow. One small comment
he
> made was that as you move back in the group, the air that is being pushed
up
> by the front of the group comes back down (simplifying, obviously), making it less efficient to
> be, say number 20 in a group of 25 than number 6 or
8.
>
> Which steers me toward the idea of testing forks by themselves. As you say above, it's doubtful
> that the rider 1 - 1 1/2 lengths back is altering airflow, but how much does the frame/rider alter
> airflow behind a fork?
Does
> a downtube like a Cervelo or Litespeed Blade change the flow compared to a standard round
> downtube? It would seem that small differences in forks
could
> be negated by rider position or even the structure of the frame.

Another red herring: unless there's some interaction between the fork and what lies behind it (and
there's absolutely no reason to expect there to be one, given the separation distance), then the
fork can be viewed as independent from the frame - so put the fastest fork on the fastest frame, and
there you go.

Andy Coggan

 

[Jim Edgar]

Andy Coggan at [email protected] wrote on 5/9/03 12:15 PM:

> "Jim Edgar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Sorry, I was speaking imprecisely. The thought I had when I first finished the article was "all
>> that and not a measurable difference between them" - referring to the margin of error between the
>> tested forks, not against the "baseline" results of the Kestrel EMS.
>
> You need to brush up on your statistics...

Please enlighten me. I'm not at all sure what you mean by that comment.

>> Again, reaching into the memory banks: I recall an article/interview with John Cobb (? - the
>> fellow who used to design faster-than-hell go-karts and now was paying attention to bicyclng
>> aerodynamics).
>
> The mere fact that you have to put a question mark following the name suggests to me that you are
> inadequately aware of all the work that has been done in this area.

Actually, I put a question mark behind his name because I didn't have the time to confirm the
spelling before running out to work. The parenthetical continuation of information was to make sure
that people knew to whom I was referring within the context of his historical efforts.

Since you seem to be aware of who I meant, it would seem that was an appropriate use of punctuation.

-- Jim

 

[Kraig Willett]

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Kraig-<< The only reason I commented at all was because a proposterous
claim of
> "nothing" was made with regard to equipment choices
>
> Don't think it is preposterous at all...a piece of equipment may not have
any
> affect...may, but may not.

It sounds as if you want to change your claim from "nothing" to "maybe". Or can't you make up your
mind on the topic?

Your ambiguous, waffling, and often times contradictory stance on the topic confuses me. It also
reminds me of the Robert Heinlein quote:

"Take sides! Always take sides! You will sometimes be wrong - but the man who refuses to take sides
must always be wrong. Heaven save us from poltroons who fear to make a choice."

> << Then the implication of improved performance is still there.
>
> Implications and perceptions.... < < Depends on the model, equipment database, and working
> assumptions used
to
> analyze the given course, but there is no reason one could not make a very similar claim and have
> an accurate prediction. See:
>
> Also depends on how the guy feels that day. I completely understand trying
to
> put numbers onto equipment differences, it is what marketing is made
of...but
> you cannot ignore the 'human' part of the equation, and that is not very predictable .

Your logic regarding numbers and marketing is amusing - I got a good chuckle out of it. Even more
amusing when you consider it in the context of this discussion and your wheel marketing slogan: "get
a handbuilt, cheaper, lighter, better made".

A powermeter would document the effect you describe, and even at the lower power output the rider
still has an improvement with the aero wheel/fork over standard equipment. Your conjecture, red
herrings, and dodging grow tiresome.

It comes down to science (documentation of the magnitude of the equipment selection effect and its
impact on performance). This stuff is not the "mag ic" you want it to be.

Your customers deserve better than this.

--
==================
Kraig Willett www.biketechreview.com
==================

 

[Kraig Willett]

"Jim Edgar" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:BAE10A4F.4143C%[email protected]...
> Again, under TT conditions. If he's in a rotating paceline of 5 riders,
the
> only benefit will be when he's on the front. If you use the 40K @ 30 mph benefits from the
> article, you're down in the 4-5 second range, which I don't think translates into a lead (see next
> comment, below).

This (a lead) is not what the orginal claim nor my comments were relating to. Perhaps another thread
is in order if this is what you would like to discuss.

Basically, it sounds as if we are in agreement WRT aero equipment - it has an effect and the effect
is increased speed (with your stipulation being that it has to be "under the right conditions").

I can live with that.

> Which steers me toward the idea of testing forks by themselves. As you say above, it's doubtful
> that the rider 1 - 1 1/2 lengths back is altering airflow, but how much does the frame/rider alter
> airflow behind a fork?
Does
> a downtube like a Cervelo or Litespeed Blade change the flow compared to a standard round
> downtube? It would seem that small differences in forks
could
> be negated by rider position or even the structure of the frame.

Review inviscid theory and use the case of a 2-d circular cylinder to get an approximation of the
effect you describe (upstream velocity effects due to a downstream object).

> Back to the original point of the thread, I have nothing against aero equipment and am not saying
> there isn't a benefit under certain
conditions.
> The OP was being told that he could go faster on a new bike, with no valid evidence to support the
> statement. At his level and under the conditions
he
> described, I would still bet there are more gains to be made by continuing to learn how to push
> the pedals harder, train right, get more relaxed in
the
> bike and gain tactical racing experience.

The OP didn't ask a training question. He asked an equipment question, which is why I responded.
Check out my original post to see where I think equipment stacks up in the mix, and I think you will
find that we are more or less in agreement.

--
==================
Kraig Willett www.biketechreview.com
==================

 

[Kraig Willett]

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Andy-<< and/or B) ignorant of the research that has been done in this area. Meanwhile, those who
> have become students of this
aspect
> of the sport are winning national championships...
>
> Like the bunch that were on the GT "superbike" on the track???

I see you are a proponent of the either/or line of thinking. What will you tell us next, that the
tealeaves, or your astrologer, said equipment aerodynamics do "nothing" - I won't be convinced.

I am sure that Andy (heck, even Doug Milliken) will comment more insightfully on the specifics of
that project, but again, your logic is suspect and, in the end, it will only expose the weakness of
your position.

--
==================
Kraig Willett www.biketechreview.com
==================

 

[Kraig Willett]

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Kraig-<< It sounds as if you want to change your claim from "nothing" to "maybe". Or can't you
> make up your mind on the topic?
>
> No reason to get personal....

Nothing personal - just making it clear that you have an inconsistent stance on the topic of
equipment benefits. If you want to debate semantics and not science (I would rather debate science,
personally), your reasoning and logic are all that you have. In this case, you don't even have that.

> << Your ambiguous, waffling, and often times contradictory stance on the
topic
> confuses me. It also reminds me of the Robert Heinlein quote:
>
> It reminds me to filter you out of this NG....

That is your choice.

> << "get a handbuilt, cheaper, lighter, better made".
>
> I say conventional wheels made exceptionally well.

Your reply in many wheel threads has been exactly as quoted above.

> A Record or DA hub, with Velocity rims is lighter, cheaper andc probably
better
> made than MANY wheels outta boxes...

How much do you charge for a pair of wheels built with record hubs and open pro rims (32 hole,
brass, 2.0/1.8)?

> << Your conjecture, red herrings, and dodging grow tiresome.
>
> Then don't respond. This is a DISCUSSION group, afterall. I'm sorry I
don't
> agree with everything you say, your highness...

I felt obligated to respond simply because you were spreading misinformation about the magnitude of
the effect of aero equipment on cycling performance. It is unfortunate that you take these things so
personally - as you said, this is a discussion group. Generally, it is best to stick to claims that
you can back up. In this case, the overwhelming majority of evidence rests on the side of aero
equipment improving performance.

> < Your customers deserve better than this. >>
>
> When that kid comes into my shop and asks if an aero fork will make his
1987
> TREK faster, I will say, "yes it does!!, How would you like to pay for it?"...righto-spend some
> time in a bike shop, and outside of the
windtunnel.

Unfortunately, your feelings have been hurt, and you have missed the point of my contribution in
this discussion.

--
==================
Kraig Willett www.biketechreview.com
==================

 

[Paul]

>I take great pleasure riding the wheels off guys with $4-5000 bikes. My
bikes are a whole lot less expensive than their Litespeed/Merlin/Look/Pinarello/etc. I chuckle
harder the more expensive the bike.

Why is it that people get all excited when they can beat a person with a more expensive bike. Just
because someone has a better job and more disposable income doesn't mean he has to be a better
rider. Does a person who buys a Porche have to race everyone from stoplight to stoplight. There are
guys in our club with Litespeed ghissallo's and Colnago C40's who regularly get beat by guys with
bikes worth well under $500. The difference is these guys are mulit-millionaires and the money they
spent on these bikes is chump change to them. If you weren't so insecure you wouldn't be worrying
about what other riders ride. Also, I guess anyone with a cheaper bike than you is chuckling every
time he hasses you

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>, "Paul" <[email protected]> wrote:

> >I take great pleasure riding the wheels off guys with $4-5000 bikes. My
> bikes are a whole lot less expensive than their Litespeed/Merlin/Look/Pinarello/etc. I chuckle
> harder the more expensive the bike.
>
> Why is it that people get all excited when they can beat a person with a more expensive bike. Just
> because someone has a better job and more disposable income doesn't mean he has to be a better
> rider. Does a person who buys a Porche have to race everyone from stoplight to stoplight. There
> are guys in our club with Litespeed ghissallo's and Colnago C40's who regularly get beat by guys
> with bikes worth well under $500. The difference is these guys are mulit-millionaires and the
> money they spent on these bikes is chump change to them. If you weren't so insecure you wouldn't
> be worrying about what other riders ride. Also, I guess anyone with a cheaper bike than you is
> chuckling every time he hasses you

I knew it! I knew that ******* was laughing at me! I'll show him good...

Riding a $500 Pinarello,
--
Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

 

[Hawke]

"Paul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> >I take great pleasure riding the wheels off guys with $4-5000 bikes. My
> bikes are a whole lot less expensive than their Litespeed/Merlin/Look/Pinarello/etc. I chuckle
> harder the more expensive the bike.
>
> Why is it that people get all excited when they can beat a person with a more expensive bike. Just
> because someone has a better job and more disposable income doesn't mean he has to be a better
> rider. Does a person who buys a Porche have to race everyone from stoplight to stoplight.
There
> are guys in our club with Litespeed ghissallo's and Colnago C40's who regularly get beat by guys
> with bikes worth well under $500. The difference is these guys are mulit-millionaires and the
> money they spent
on
> these bikes is chump change to them. If you weren't so insecure you wouldn't be worrying about
> what other riders ride. Also, I guess anyone with a cheaper bike than you is chuckling every time
> he hasses you

This be true! Jealousy knows no bounds.

Hawke

 

[Per ElmsäTer]

"Paul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> Why is it that people get all excited when they can beat a person with a more expensive bike. Just
> because someone has a better job and more

I get all excited when I can beat somebody that is younger than me

--
Perre

 

[Kraig Willett]

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> But on a bike, in the outside, with a average rider, the magnitude of the results are not clear
> cut and may not
exist
> at all, from day to day, ride to ride.

See:

http://tinyurl.com/b6wh <- you really ought to read this, since I will continue to post the link.

Where is your proof? Show me the data/study that supports your claims. It is your claim and the
burden of proof is up to you. I don't accept statements based on faith.

> << Unfortunately, your feelings have been hurt, and you have missed the
point
> of my contribution in this discussion.
>
> Just a question, why isn't the information on your web site free?

Since you are a retailer, it is surprising to me that you have to ask a question like this - I think
it is clear that I have some expenses I need to cover.

Do you sell many Deda/TTT/ITM stems? There are some interesting things I discovered along the way.

--
==================
Kraig Willett www.biketechreview.com
==================

 

[H. M. Leary]

In article <[email protected]>, "Per Elmsäter"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "Paul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
> > Why is it that people get all excited when they can beat a person with a more expensive bike.
> > Just because someone has a better job and more
>
>
> I get all excited when I can beat somebody that is younger than me
>
> --
> Perre
>
>
>
>

Damn! I get all excited when I can finnish the ride! I do have an expensive bike , but I can¹t ride
it any faster.

HAND

--
³Freedom Is a Light for Which Many Have Died in Darkness³

- Tomb of the unknown - American Revolution