RE: [CR]was: 3rd eye; heavy riders, dress sizes, now bike weight

(Example: Framebuilding:Brazing Technique)

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: [CR]was: 3rd eye; heavy riders, dress sizes, now bike weight
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 13:24:25 -0400
Thread-Topic: [CR]was: 3rd eye; heavy riders, dress sizes, now bike weight
Thread-Index: AcHvoyFROY2d2FtrEda/zwBQBLC6Xg==
From: "Rich Rose" <rrose@normandassociates.com>
To: "Tom Dalton" <tom_s_dalton@yahoo.com>, <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>


The plus's / minus's of a bikes weight seem to be a recurring topic here. (DUH!) When I was getting into cycling (late 1970's), it seems like 20lbs. was a pretty light bike. There were a lot of fine bikes in the 22-23lb. Range, but to get down to 20 or a little under you had to spend a lot more money. There was a sort of law of diminishing return, based on cost per ounce or similar? With this talk of very light current bikes (I have a speadsheet from a guy who details how his new bike will weigh in at under 12lbs!), it begs the question... What should a top quality road bike weigh? I don't care if it is classic or brand spanking new, there must be an "ideal" somewhere? I know, I know.., too many variables right? Still, what seems reasonable, weight wise, to this group? I mean, 25 lbs. is certainly too heavy, and riding in a crosswind with a sub 15 pounder is probably not ideal either? I think that my current road bike goes about 19 1/2lbs. It would be pretty easy (though expensive), to make it lighter. Most of the guys I ride with are on something lighter. I think my PX10 fixed gear is just under 19 lbs. So, at what point does one fall into the category of "weight weenie"?? Richard (wishing I could come to the 'Cirque), Rose (Toledo, Ohio)

-----Original Message----- From: classicrendezvous-admin@bikelist.org [mailto:classicrendezvous-admin@bikelist.org] On Behalf Of Tom Dalton Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 11:12 AM To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org Subject: [CR]was: 3rd eye; now: heavy riders, dress sizes.

I think "heavier rider" is a nominal designation, the meaning of which has shifted as bikes have become lighter and more delicate. At the elite level, riders are certainly carrying less weight these days, but not to a degree that offsets the new, super-delicate bikes. The fagile wonderbikes of today only work because top teams (and the consumersthat emulate) are willing to replace equipment more often, not because of a new race of tiny bike gnomes. In any event, I think this "not for larger riders" stuff is just an excuse that can be dragged out when 17 pound bikes fall apart under 165 pound guys. This shift in meaning is not unlike Levi Strauss slowly increasing the actual dimensions of a given nominal waist size. I heard they started to do this to mirror the expanding girth of the Baby Boom segment of their market. I'm not certain that this actually happened, but I'm pretty sure a woman's size 2 dress is a lot bigger than it used to be. My girlfrind has fit into some size 0 stuff lately. She's small, but not THAT small. BTW, check out the latest Cycle Sport. There is a buying guide in there. The weights and prices of the bikes may shock CR types. Bikes down to 15 lbs and up to $9500 (Pinarello Prince LS/Record 10/Hyperions). Tom Dalton Bethlehem, PA