You weigh less or bike weigh less?



Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Smiles

Guest
"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
> > > > Since when is the mass sprint for the finish have anything to do
with
> > > > endurance?? Draft and sprint .. Cipo or Petacchi??
> > > Dumbass -
> > >
> >
> > you're the dumbass ... taking time to research this;-) ... this is a hypothetical situation ...
> > and is therefore a waste of energy to figure
out
>
> It's not a hypothetical situation at all. Road Racing is an endurance
sport.
> Even sprinters need a lot of miles in their legs or they arrive at the
finish
> line with nothing.
>

true ... but this thread is "hypothetical" ... some of the faster guys i ride with are tanks (which
may mean i am slow;)... there is way more than body weight and bike weigth to the story.

s
 
K

Kurgan Gringion

Guest
"smiles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:p[email protected]...
> > > > > Since when is the mass sprint for the finish have anything to do
> with
> > > > > endurance?? Draft and sprint .. Cipo or Petacchi??
> > > > Dumbass -
> > > >
> > >
> > > you're the dumbass ... taking time to research this;-) ... this is a hypothetical situation
> > > ... and is therefore a waste of energy to figure
> out
> >
> > It's not a hypothetical situation at all. Road Racing is an endurance
> sport.
> > Even sprinters need a lot of miles in their legs or they arrive at the
> finish
> > line with nothing.
> >
>
> true ... but this thread is "hypothetical" ... some of the faster guys i ride with are tanks
> (which may mean i am slow;)... there is way more than body weight and bike weigth to the story.

Sure, but almost never is lack of muscle mass a deciding factor in road racing.
 
N

Nev Shea

Guest
"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:%[email protected]:

> Sure, but almost never is lack of muscle mass a deciding factor in road racing.

I dunno -- one could make a good argument that in a race with a lot of climbing the scrawny guys who
lack muscle mass will beat the burly sprinter types.

NS
 
K

Kurgan Gringion

Guest
"Nev Shea" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:%[email protected]:
>
> > Sure, but almost never is lack of muscle mass a deciding factor in road racing.
>
>
> I dunno -- one could make a good argument that in a race with a lot of climbing the scrawny guys
> who lack muscle mass will beat the burly sprinter types.

I agree, perhaps my wording was not adequate to get the point across.

Smiles was trying to claim that if one of the twins had more muscle, he would win.

Even sprinters (road) tend to go better when they are lighter.
 
S

Smiles

Guest
"Nev Shea" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm wondering if "smiles" is an alias for Dan Volker -- I think it was about 2 years ago or more
> he popped in here and started arguing about how bodybuilding was a great way to develop a racer.

You girly man have complex and cannot even pick up your bike?? ha ha ... you come to the gym and we
will pump you up!!!

Like Hans and Franz I am a skinny s*&t who need pillows to bulk up ... well at least skinny in terms
of arm and legs ... now days my belly sticks out more than the chest so maybe "skinny" is not an
accurate term;-)

Back to the discussion ... my point is 5lbs is not much weight either distributed on the bike or
body ... but everything being "equal" if the 5lbs was fat he'd be slower ... if it was muscle he'd
be faster ... did not expand "details" of what the 5 lbs muscle was ... "equal" assume all cardio
and mental aspects are the same ... when i first started back cycling I was trying to lose weight,
what happened was I lost inches and kept the same weight for some time ... quite frustrating ... i
went from barely able to survive a 8 mile ride to have no problem handling a 20mph pace for 28 miles
... hence from this experience fat burned, muscle grew resulting in no weight change and the basis
for my muscle will help hypothesis. Granted if i had gone to the gym and bulked up i may still be
struggling the 8 mile ride ... don't know since last time i "pumped iron" was almost 20 years ago
and i was in 33 min 10k shape ...

s
 

Carl Sundquist

New Member
Jul 18, 2003
20
0
0
Originally posted by Smiles
"Nev Shea" <[email protected]> wrote in message

Back to the discussion ... my point is 5lbs is not much weight either distributed on the bike or
body ... but everything being "equal" if the 5lbs was fat he'd be slower ... if it was muscle he'd
be faster ... did not expand "details" of what the 5 lbs muscle was ... "equal" assume all cardio
and mental aspects are the same ... when i first started back cycling I was trying to lose weight,
what happened was I lost inches and kept the same weight for some time ... quite frustrating ...

Five pounds (a bit more than 2 kilos) can be an enormous difference. If you put a five pound weight on Genevieve Jeanson and had her climb, it would slow her down noticeably. If you put a five pound weight on a Clydesdale triathlete, the difference would be much less. Plenty of riders can manage toting extra weight up hills, but they are not the contenders for the finish.

Also, no one has declared where the five pounds of muscle are. If it's on his upper body, how is it going to make him faster?
 
T

Top Sirloin

Guest
On 11 Sep 2003 23:44:44 +0950, Carl Sundquist <[email protected]> wrote:

>Five pounds (a bit more than 2 kilos) can be an enormous difference. If you put a five pound weight
>on Genevieve Jeanson and had her climb, it would slow her down noticeably. If you put a five pound
>weight on a Clydesdale triathlete, the difference would be much less. Plenty of riders can manage
>toting extra weight up hills, but they are not the contenders for the finish.
>
>Also, no one has declared where the five pounds of muscle are. If it's on his upper body, how is it
>going to make him faster?

Large biceps give your arms a teardrop shape making you more aero.

It's true!

--
Scott Johnson "Here's an idea of how you can change global events: quit smoking pot long enough to
register to vote!" -ddt
 
J

Jms

Guest
"Pat Fleming" <[email protected]> wrote in message...
> Jim weighs 160 pounds and rides a 20 pound bike. John weighs 155 pounds and rides a 25 pound bike.
> With everything else being equal who should ride faster?

I think this is an interesting question, but so far no one replying seems to be capable of thinking
in abstraction. The question is whether the disadvantages of weight -- IRRESPECTIVE OF FITNESS --
depend on the location of that weight (i.e., on your body or on the bike). Sure, it is probably
impossible to lose five pounds without somehow changing your level of fitness. But that does not
mean that the lost weight alone has no independent effect.

So, here's a revision to the question that hopefully makes it clearer: Jim and John both weigh
exactly 155 pounds and have identical levels of fitness. Jim straps weights on his body totalling 5
pounds, and rides a 20 pound bike. John rides a 25 pound bike, and does not strap on any weights.
Who should ride faster?

JMS
 
R

Raptor

Guest
Carl Sundquist wrote:
> Also, no one has declared where the five pounds of muscle are. If it's on his upper body, how is
> it going to make him faster?

Descents?

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall "I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we
could to protect our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security." --Microsoft VP in
charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.
 
N

Nick Burns

Guest
"JMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> So, here's a revision to the question that hopefully makes it clearer: Jim and John both weigh
> exactly 155 pounds and have identical levels of fitness. Jim straps weights on his body totalling
> 5 pounds, and rides a 20 pound bike. John rides a 25 pound bike, and does not strap on any
> weights. Who should ride faster?
>
> JMS

For the love of God, will you give it up? It is a STUPID question. It makes no sense. Performance in
cycling (and in many other sports) is directly related to power to weight ratio. If you are not
changing power or weight, you are not changing the ratio and thus performance is unchanged! So
either specify *a change* to one or both of the variables, or move on!
 
S

Smiles

Guest
"JMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> So, here's a revision to the question that hopefully makes it clearer: Jim and John both weigh
> exactly 155 pounds and have identical levels of fitness. Jim straps weights on his body totalling
> 5 pounds, and rides a 20 pound bike. John rides a 25 pound bike, and does not strap on any
> weights. Who should ride faster?

Well where is the weight strapped?? ... ;-)

s
 
J

Jms

Guest
"Nick Burns" <[email protected]> wrote ...
> Performance in cycling (and in many other sports) is directly related to power to weight ratio. If
> you are not changing power or weight, you are not changing the ratio and thus performance is
> unchanged!

This is an answer to my question. Thank you, I guess. There was no need to be rude about it.

JMS
 
S

Smiles

Guest
"JMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "Nick Burns" <[email protected]> wrote ...
> > Performance in cycling (and in many other sports) is directly related to power to weight ratio.
> > If you are not changing power or
weight,
> > you are not changing the ratio and thus performance is unchanged!
>
> This is an answer to my question. Thank you, I guess. There was no need to be rude about it.

huh ... this group is about being condescending and rude ... ;-)

s http://boardnbike.com
 
K

Kurgan Gringion

Guest
"smiles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "JMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Nick Burns" <[email protected]> wrote ...
> > > Performance in cycling (and in many other sports) is directly related to power to weight
> > > ratio. If you are not changing power or
> weight,
> > > you are not changing the ratio and thus performance is unchanged!
> >
> > This is an answer to my question. Thank you, I guess. There was no need to be rude about it.
>
> huh ... this group is about being condescending and rude ... ;-)

Dumbass -

you are correct.
 

Dura_Ace

New Member
Sep 15, 2003
8
0
0
Jim rides faster, when his bike is lighter and he has the same power like John (maybe Jim has bigger arms or whatever).
That's because you have to accelerate the bike first, and the body next. His wheels are lighter and that's what counts first. The body is just ballast, but doesnt influent it as much as weight.
 
W

William Belafor

Guest
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> dura-ace-<< That's because you have to accelerate the bike first, and the body next. His wheels
> are lighter and that's what counts first. The body is just ballast, but doesnt influent it as much
> as weight. >><BR><BR>
>
> what crappola The energy to accelerate a bicycle from a start is the mass of the bike and
the
> rider. Where the weight is doesn't matter, particulalry this fantastic 'fly wheel effect' BS of
> the wheels.

Not up on your physics are you?

It's not "flywheel effect", it's rotational inertia. Weight of the wheels does matter more, a pound
saved on the wheels (on a rotating part, not the axle) will matter more than a pound on the frame.
Where the weight is saved is important, the difference in inertia is proportional to the square of
the distance to the center of the axle.

If you like, I can post the equations. It's basic physics.

What is debateable (that point isn't, unless you can come up with a theory to supercede Newton's
laws), is whether a rider can feel the difference.
 
G

Glenn Dowdy

Guest
"William Belaforous Kelly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> Not up on your physics are you?
>
> It's not "flywheel effect", it's rotational inertia. Weight of the wheels does matter more, a
> pound saved on the wheels (on a rotating part, not the axle) will matter more than a pound on the
> frame. Where the weight is
saved
> is important, the difference in inertia is proportional to the square of
the
> distance to the center of the axle.
>
> If you like, I can post the equations. It's basic physics.
>
Please do so, including the available power from the rider and the parameters of starting and final
velocities and the deltas in standard v. lightweight wheels. Focus on system results.
>
>
> What is debateable (that point isn't, unless you can come up with a theory
to
> supercede Newton's laws), is whether a rider can feel the difference.
>
But is it measurable?

Glenn D.
 
N

Nick Burns

Guest
"William Belaforous Kelly" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> It's not "flywheel effect", it's rotational inertia. Weight of the wheels does matter more, a
> pound saved on the wheels (on a rotating part, not the axle) will matter more than a pound on
> the frame.

True.

Where the weight is saved
> is important,

Important? I dunno about that. It depends on how much weight we are talking about.

the difference in inertia is proportional to the square of the
> distance to the center of the axle.
>
> If you like, I can post the equations. It's basic physics.

It is surprising that you are the first to articulate this here on RBR (unless I just
missed others).

> What is debateable (that point isn't, unless you can come up with a theory
to
> supercede Newton's laws), is whether a rider can feel the difference.

Again, it comes down to quantity and is situational. I remember my first set of Mavic GEL 330s that
I first put on my bike in place of GP4s. Not a huge difference (about 50 grams per wheel) and they
certainly felt very different. Lighter wheels can be tossed side to side much more easily and that
can create a sense of lightness. How much real difference in velocity? I doubt much at all. I still
valued lighter wheels because I like the feel when out of the saddle while climbing. I have always
lived and trained in areas with lots of hills, so that was always very important to me. I never
confused my preference for actual performance though, and I think that others not distinguishing
between preference and performance is where all of the myth and legend comes from.
 
N

Nick Burns

Guest
"Glenn Dowdy" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> But is it measurable?
>
> Glenn D.

Yes, at a cost. Is it worth measuring? It looks like it is not since I am not aware of anyone that
has bothered to try.
 
J

Jp

Guest
[email protected] (Qui si parla Campagnolo) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> dura-ace-<< That's because you have to accelerate the bike first, and the body next. His wheels
> are lighter and that's what counts first. The body is just ballast, but doesnt influent it as much
> as weight. >><BR><BR>
>
> what crappola The energy to accelerate a bicycle from a start is the mass of the bike and the
> rider. Where the weight is doesn't matter, particulalry this fantastic 'fly wheel effect' BS of
> the wheels.

You're neglecting the "roadrunner" effect where the rider spins up the pedals and wheels first
before zooming away.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.