what makes a light bike really light?

[Doug Taylor]

On 28 Feb 2006 11:23:08 -0800, "Mike Reed" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Yep, materialism is what keeps the high-end parts market in business.
>Certainly keeping up with the latest widget in any hobby can become a
>hobby in itself. Quite fun for a lot of people, but always annoying to
>the grass-roots participants in said hobby.

Over generalization. Buying and using improvements in technology are
not necessarily limited to poseurs with too much cash. For every
poseur on any type of equipment in any sport above their ability
level, there are always an equal number of even MORE annoying, smug
and self important retrogrouches living in the past using obsolete
equipment. Hard to decide who is the bigger jerk off.

In the middle of the bell curve are people who watch technology
evolve, separate hype and marketing from truth, and enjoy well made,
well designed, functional machinery.

Very quickly off the top of my head in some of the sports I do:
brifters on road bikes, full suspension and disc brakes on mountain
bikes, shaped alpine skis, clap skates... The list goes on...

 

[Leo Lichtman]

"Michael Press" wrote: (clip) the active rider is not entirely a dead load.
By throwing himself forward on pedal strokes it may be that he can
accelerate himself independently of the acceleartion of the bicycle. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The laws of physcs say otherwise. When the rider arrives at the top of a
hill, his body and his bike arrive essentially together--the energy to raise
the total weight up the hill comes from the rider's body.

 

[Michael Press]

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

> "Michael Press" wrote: (clip) the active rider is not entirely a dead load.
> By throwing himself forward on pedal strokes it may be that he can
> accelerate himself independently of the acceleartion of the bicycle. (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> The laws of physcs say otherwise. When the rider arrives at the top of a
> hill, his body and his bike arrive essentially together--the energy to raise
> the total weight up the hill comes from the rider's body.

I am thinking about the laws of physics during one pedal
stroke. The bicycle is dead load, the body is live load.
The interactions are complicated. Perhaps there is nothing
to it. One day I might attempt to model it. You excised
the disclaimer that I put in there.

And what makes you imply that I am unacquainted with the
laws of physics? Did you read the entire article?

--
Michael Press

 

[Leo Lichtman]

"Michael Press" wrote: You excised the disclaimer that I put in there.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Merely to shorten it--not trying to change the meaning.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And what makes you imply that I am unacquainted with the laws of physics?
Did you read the entire article?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes, I did read the entire article. The laws of physics can be discussed
objectively--let's not treat it as a personal attack on you. If a rider can
somehow move his body to get himself forward and up, on a single pedal
stroke, then he can repeat this on every pedal stroke, so he will arrive at
the top of the hill having done a certain amount of work. This has to come
from the food that he eats, through his muscular system. Whether you look
at a single pedal cycle, as you suggest, or sum them up and treat it as a
ride to the top of the hill, as I suggest, makes no difference. It's the
law of conservation of energy, with which I am sure you are familiar.

 

[Mike Reed]

Doug Taylor wrote:
> On 28 Feb 2006 11:23:08 -0800, "Mike Reed" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> Very quickly off the top of my head in some of the sports I do:
> brifters on road bikes, full suspension and disc brakes on mountain
> bikes, shaped alpine skis, clap skates... The list goes on...

Yeah, but those are genrally major advances that are adopted across the
board for nearly anyone who gets involved in a given sport. I'm talking
about stuff like paired spokes, hydraulic disc brakes, electric
vibration dampening in skis, etc. Is there a benefit? Sure. Most of the
ameteur sporting public will never realize any measurable improvement.

Oh, and full-suspension is totally over done. Racing against myself, I
could get 30 seconds on a reasonable 15 minute climb rigid vs. FS, but
wouldn't lose even 5 seconds on the 3.5 minute descent. (99% of XC
courses I've ridden: Colorado front range, Moab, SLC, Austin). All that
money, all that weight, all that mantainence.

FS is fine for downhill though.


-Mike

 

[G.T.]

"Mike Reed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Doug Taylor wrote:
> > On 28 Feb 2006 11:23:08 -0800, "Mike Reed" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > Very quickly off the top of my head in some of the sports I do:
> > brifters on road bikes, full suspension and disc brakes on mountain
> > bikes, shaped alpine skis, clap skates... The list goes on...
>
> Yeah, but those are genrally major advances that are adopted across the
> board for nearly anyone who gets involved in a given sport. I'm talking
> about stuff like paired spokes, hydraulic disc brakes, electric
> vibration dampening in skis, etc. Is there a benefit? Sure. Most of the
> ameteur sporting public will never realize any measurable improvement.
>
> Oh, and full-suspension is totally over done. Racing against myself, I
> could get 30 seconds on a reasonable 15 minute climb rigid vs. FS, but
> wouldn't lose even 5 seconds on the 3.5 minute descent.

It doesn't sound like you're taking advantage of the suspension and/or those
descents are rigid friendly.

Greg

 

[Mike Reed]

Could be.

During brief test rides, FS didn't appear to offer enough benefit to
convince me to buy, and I keep up fine on the trails (White Ranch
outside Boulder, Porcupine Rim, etc.)

I'm not saying FS is worthless, but its benefits don't outweigh its
weight and spongy feel for me.

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

D'ohBoy wrote:
> Quoth QSP:
>
> > ok, and?...........
>
> Not to wax pedantic, but you had made the following double
> condemnation/generalization of/about US sports enthusiasts:
>
> > > Not trying to be personal, PK, but the vast majority of american
> > > cyclists, including me, could afford to lose some portion of or an
> > > entire BW(bike weight, equaling 20 pounds).
>
> > > BUT americans don't train and ride lots, that is hard. They look to buy
> > > equipment to make them better. Whether it be cycling, golf, tennis,
> > > etc.
>
> I just wanted to clarify that despite my personal (1e-10)*(3,584,000
> gm) bulk and my enjoyment of high quality, low weight "go-fast" bikes,
> I didn't fit into you category of not training or riding a lot and
> shopping for equipment that will make me better.
>
> I train and ride a lot and enjoy mucking about with bikes and I could
> stand to lose at least 10% of my body weight. But I know that the
> difference between my 21 lb Schwinn SuperSport and my 16 lb Fuji is
> probably manifests almost completely in how much I enjoy riding each of
> the bikes.
>
> So there ;-)
>
> D'ohBoy

Ok, but why do you like the Fuji? The weight alone? I enjoy my 20 pound
Merckx and Mondoncio, very high end, very high quality, just 4 pounds
heavier than your Fuji. But I love to ride them and would not ever
consider a carbon anything, bicycle wise. It's like Subarus and Audis
here in the republic.

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Paul Hobson <[email protected]>:
>I can't quantify this, but my beater (Reynolds 531) has horribly heavy
>rims. My nicer bike (Columbus tubing from '87) has Velocity Aeroheads
>that are incredibly light (to me). The difference is amazing in both
>the heft of the whole bike and how easily it accelerates uphill.

Erm, generally when you come to a hill you decelerate. Under those
circumstances heavier rims will cause the bicycle to decelerate more
slowly (since they have more rotational kinetic energy). If this wasn't
just placebo effect you should perceive the beater as being better
initially uphill. Or, gee, maybe the beater has some _other_
characteristic that makes it slower?
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is Teleute, March.

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Mike Reed:
>Oh, and full-suspension is totally over done. Racing against myself, I
>could get 30 seconds on a reasonable 15 minute climb rigid vs. FS, but
>wouldn't lose even 5 seconds on the 3.5 minute descent.

That's performance in the sense of elapsed time between two points.

But there's also performance in the sense of how much electrical activity there
is in that little pleasure center in the rider's brain. I ride both, never
even *thought* about racing, and would argue that - depending on terrain - FS
definitely has it's moments....
--
PeteCresswell

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> D'ohBoy wrote:
> > Quoth QSP:
> >
> > > ok, and?...........
> >
> > Not to wax pedantic, but you had made the following double
> > condemnation/generalization of/about US sports enthusiasts:
> >
> > > > Not trying to be personal, PK, but the vast majority of american
> > > > cyclists, including me, could afford to lose some portion of or an
> > > > entire BW(bike weight, equaling 20 pounds).
> >
> > > > BUT americans don't train and ride lots, that is hard. They look to buy
> > > > equipment to make them better. Whether it be cycling, golf, tennis,
> > > > etc.
> >
> > I just wanted to clarify that despite my personal (1e-10)*(3,584,000
> > gm) bulk and my enjoyment of high quality, low weight "go-fast" bikes,
> > I didn't fit into you category of not training or riding a lot and
> > shopping for equipment that will make me better.
> >
> > I train and ride a lot and enjoy mucking about with bikes and I could
> > stand to lose at least 10% of my body weight. But I know that the
> > difference between my 21 lb Schwinn SuperSport and my 16 lb Fuji is
> > probably manifests almost completely in how much I enjoy riding each of
> > the bikes.
> >
> > So there ;-)
> >
> > D'ohBoy
>
> Ok, but why do you like the Fuji? The weight alone? I enjoy my 20 pound
> Merckx and Mondoncio, very high end, very high quality, just 4 pounds
> heavier than your Fuji.

"Just 4 pounds heavier"? Just??? Do you know that 4 pounds is *over
1800 grams*!?! What are you, a #%&*$% retrogrouch??

Or just a realist? ;-)


> But I love to ride them and would not ever
> consider a carbon anything, bicycle wise. It's like Subarus and Audis
> here in the republic.

Yep, bicycles that are popped out of a mold; totally lacking in "soul".
And they ride as dead as they look.

 

[D'ohBoy]

Hi, Michael -

Partial to the Glenlivet 21 year - wow!, Balvenie 12 year (I know these
are both not 15 year).

Barbecued doughnuts? Never tried 'em.

D'ohBoy

 

[D'ohBoy]

Peter asked:

> Ok, but why do you like the Fuji? The weight alone? I enjoy my 20 pound
> Merckx and Mondoncio, very high end, very high quality, just 4 pounds
> heavier than your Fuji.

I like the Fuji because:

1. It represents a bike project.
2. It is very light.
3. It is very pretty.
4. It makes me coffee in the morning.
5. It never asks me to clean the gutters.
6. Did I mention it is very light?
7. It almost fills out my bike history (still need a mg, a bamboo, a
tandem, and a ss)
8. "just 4 pounds"??!!
9. It is stiff as hell!

I have two steel bikes (Schwinn SuperSport 853, Sano Foco) a Schwinn
Paramount ti, and now the Fuji Carbon. I have owned a Cannondale and a
Klein. I choose the bikes I do because they represent the pinnacle of
the art at one time or another (okay, the SS is not the height of the
art at any time).

Ach, it's helmets and greased tapers, campy versus shimano all over
again.

I'm glad you like your bikes. And also glad I like mine. I like ALL
my bikes, but all are special, in some fashion, and thereby provide a
something I can't get on another.

Please note, however, this indulgence is limited, I drive a '91 Mazda
626 that I inherited from my grandmother.

D'ohBoy

 

[[email protected]]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> > D'ohBoy wrote:
> > > Quoth QSP:
> > >
> > > > ok, and?...........
> > >
> > > Not to wax pedantic, but you had made the following double
> > > condemnation/generalization of/about US sports enthusiasts:
> > >
> > > > > Not trying to be personal, PK, but the vast majority of american
> > > > > cyclists, including me, could afford to lose some portion of or an
> > > > > entire BW(bike weight, equaling 20 pounds).
> > >
> > > > > BUT americans don't train and ride lots, that is hard. They look to buy
> > > > > equipment to make them better. Whether it be cycling, golf, tennis,
> > > > > etc.
> > >
> > > I just wanted to clarify that despite my personal (1e-10)*(3,584,000
> > > gm) bulk and my enjoyment of high quality, low weight "go-fast" bikes,
> > > I didn't fit into you category of not training or riding a lot and
> > > shopping for equipment that will make me better.
> > >
> > > I train and ride a lot and enjoy mucking about with bikes and I could
> > > stand to lose at least 10% of my body weight. But I know that the
> > > difference between my 21 lb Schwinn SuperSport and my 16 lb Fuji is
> > > probably manifests almost completely in how much I enjoy riding each of
> > > the bikes.
> > >
> > > So there ;-)
> > >
> > > D'ohBoy
> >
> > Ok, but why do you like the Fuji? The weight alone? I enjoy my 20 pound
> > Merckx and Mondoncio, very high end, very high quality, just 4 pounds
> > heavier than your Fuji.
>
> "Just 4 pounds heavier"? Just??? Do you know that 4 pounds is *over
> 1800 grams*!?! What are you, a #%&*$% retrogrouch??
>
> Or just a realist? ;-)
>
>
> > But I love to ride them and would not ever
> > consider a carbon anything, bicycle wise. It's like Subarus and Audis
> > here in the republic.
>
> Yep, bicycles that are popped out of a mold; totally lacking in "soul".
> And they ride as dead as they look.

"Soul"? "Ride as dead"? I see you are a fan of the bicycle factory
marketing department. Will your next pronouncement be that "aluminum
will beat you to death"? Or a frame is "stiff but comfortable"? Or
"light but solid"? Or "lively but stable"?

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

[email protected] wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> > > D'ohBoy wrote:
> > > > Quoth QSP:
> > > >
> > > > > ok, and?...........
> > > >
> > > > Not to wax pedantic, but you had made the following double
> > > > condemnation/generalization of/about US sports enthusiasts:
> > > >
> > > > > > Not trying to be personal, PK, but the vast majority of american
> > > > > > cyclists, including me, could afford to lose some portion of or an
> > > > > > entire BW(bike weight, equaling 20 pounds).
> > > >
> > > > > > BUT americans don't train and ride lots, that is hard. They look to buy
> > > > > > equipment to make them better. Whether it be cycling, golf, tennis,
> > > > > > etc.
> > > >
> > > > I just wanted to clarify that despite my personal (1e-10)*(3,584,000
> > > > gm) bulk and my enjoyment of high quality, low weight "go-fast" bikes,
> > > > I didn't fit into you category of not training or riding a lot and
> > > > shopping for equipment that will make me better.
> > > >
> > > > I train and ride a lot and enjoy mucking about with bikes and I could
> > > > stand to lose at least 10% of my body weight. But I know that the
> > > > difference between my 21 lb Schwinn SuperSport and my 16 lb Fuji is
> > > > probably manifests almost completely in how much I enjoy riding each of
> > > > the bikes.
> > > >
> > > > So there ;-)
> > > >
> > > > D'ohBoy
> > >
> > > Ok, but why do you like the Fuji? The weight alone? I enjoy my 20 pound
> > > Merckx and Mondoncio, very high end, very high quality, just 4 pounds
> > > heavier than your Fuji.
> >
> > "Just 4 pounds heavier"? Just??? Do you know that 4 pounds is *over
> > 1800 grams*!?! What are you, a #%&*$% retrogrouch??
> >
> > Or just a realist? ;-)
> >
> >
> > > But I love to ride them and would not ever
> > > consider a carbon anything, bicycle wise. It's like Subarus and Audis
> > > here in the republic.
> >
> > Yep, bicycles that are popped out of a mold; totally lacking in "soul".
> > And they ride as dead as they look.
>
> "Soul"? "Ride as dead"? I see you are a fan of the bicycle factory
> marketing department. Will your next pronouncement be that "aluminum
> will beat you to death"? Or a frame is "stiff but comfortable"? Or
> "light but solid"? Or "lively but stable"?


I don't "buy into" that stuff, but the full CF bikes (and there have
been quite a few, going all the way back to early Kestrels) I've ridden
do have a strangely inert kind of quality, IMO. Perhaps it's just an
auditoiry illusion, as they do seem to ride pretty "silently".

All that said, I have no interest whatever in owning a molded plastic,
graphic covered, souless POS. YMMV.

BTW, aren't you the guy who said virtually no one rode road bikes prior
to the advent of brifters?

 

[D'ohBoy]

<snippage of OB's excessive lameness>

OB:

Do tell what rusty old POS you ride so we can all rank the s*** out if
it like you have just done to others.

D'ohBoy

 

[Paul Hobson]

David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting Paul Hobson <[email protected]>:
>
>>I can't quantify this, but my beater (Reynolds 531) has horribly heavy
>>rims. My nicer bike (Columbus tubing from '87) has Velocity Aeroheads
>>that are incredibly light (to me). The difference is amazing in both
>>the heft of the whole bike and how easily it accelerates uphill.
>
>
> Erm, generally when you come to a hill you decelerate.

Not if you mount your bike on a pretty decent hill (like I do everyday).

> Under those
> circumstances heavier rims will cause the bicycle to decelerate more
> slowly (since they have more rotational kinetic energy).

The heavy rims are definitely harder to slow down at the bottom of a
hill - which what I said in the part of my posted that you snipped.

> If this wasn't
> just placebo effect you should perceive the beater as being better
> initially uphill.

see first response. lighter rims are easier to move. period.

> Or, gee, maybe the beater has some _other_
> characteristic that makes it slower?

Gee, I wonder why I called one bike a beater and the other my "nicer"
bike. hmmm.
\\paul

p.s. it's currently 18 deg. C here in Atlanta. I'm going to go for a
ride.
--
Paul M. Hobson
Georgia Institute of Technology
..:change the f to ph to reply:.

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

D'ohBoy wrote:
> <snippage of OB's excessive lameness>
>
> OB:
>
> Do tell what rusty old POS you ride so we can all rank the s*** out if
> it like you have just done to others.
>
>

Well, what goes around comes around, eh?

My oldest, rustiest POS is a ca. 1974 Motobecane Grand Jubile (Reynold
531 main tubes) with the fork from a Grand Record (also 531), outfitted
with a mix of newer (but mostly pre 1991) components. Both frame and
fork seem very low mileage and are in wonderful (but not show bike)
condition (This bike was a frame up build last spring). It is a much
nicer ride than I had anticipated and I ride it far more than I thought
I would.

Next up is a 1990 HH Professional (Vitus GTI) with a Tange Fusion
aluminium fork. Campy CdA Delta brakes, Cinelli bar and stem and an
eclectic mix of Campy and Shimano stuff. IMO, the late 80's to early
90s produced some of the prettiest "racing" bikes ever. Pre-brifter,
pre-grossly fat tubes, pre-welded joints, pre-garish graphics all over
the bike. Purchased new as a frame only and built up in 1990.

Last is a 1991 Novara X-R, kinda similar to a Bianchi Volpe (Tange MTB
butted tubing). It's my all weather, throw it on the roof rack, etc.,
bike. A great bike for the $, IMO.

Fire away; as John Madden says, "I don't care what anyone says". I know
what I like.

Hey, if you like CF bikes, enjoy. And the Fuji seems like major
bang-for-the-buck in that arena.

However, CF bikes just leave me cold.

 

[Doug Taylor]

On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 09:11:18 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>But there's also performance in the sense of how much electrical activity there
>is in that little pleasure center in the rider's brain. I ride both, never
>even *thought* about racing, and would argue that - depending on terrain - FS
>definitely has it's moments....

I ride two bikes off road as well: an inexpensive fully rigid single
speed, and a big buck fully loaded dualie.

I would suppose that the former qualifies as "obsolete retrogrouch"
and the latter as "expensive high tech bling bling."

Bottom line: the single speed is a fun change of pace to use
occasionally to keep my line honest and build up my quads, but it
blows out my back, hardens my butt, and vibrates my hands and forearms
all to hell.

The dualie is for all out hammering, mega rocky rooty technical, long
rides, and even occasionally racing.

Bottom line: The single speed is a toy; the dualie is a bike.

 

[Mike Reed]

<sarcasm>
It's pretty cool that people can win 24 hour races on toys, huh?
</sarcasm>

I suppose that they have front suspension, but gears and rear
suspension are /not/ a clear advantage off road. It really depends on
the course. Here in Austin, I think everyone would be faster on an SS
with front suspension. When I was in Colorado, I doubt that would be
the case...

I have a friend who rides rigid SS exclusively. I joined him for a ride
on my geared front-supsension Stumpjumper. I couldn't quite keep up
with him on some moderately technical short-climb 2-hour rides. It was
close, but he'd always gain time on me. So I revived my old Bridgestone
MB-3 as a SS, and brought it out to ride with him again. I was keeping
up with him everywhere, and dropping him on some climbs (as expected --
I'm in slightly better condition).

I would have never believed that I'd be faster on an SS.