Re: [CR]The canard of lightweight


Example: Framebuilders:Norman Taylor

Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:55:37 -0800 (PST)
From: ken denny <kendenny66@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [CR]The canard of lightweight
To: wayofftheback <wayofftheback@yahoo.com>, classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
In-Reply-To: <20030225190026.38600.qmail@web20110.mail.yahoo.com>


I think you are missing the point, a bit. It's not the obsession with weight, but the obsession with performance, in which weightis a distinct variable in a multivariate formula. Might as well squeeze every drop out of it as you can. Campy did when they developed the SR rear derailleur, which was only slightly improved over the NR derailleur, but its reduced weight. Besides, from a fremebuilders perspective I'm guessing that it's fun. Take care, ken wayofftheback <wayofftheback@yahoo.com> wrote:Howdy, All,

I still amazed that folks think that weight is all that important to a racing bicycle. I have seen no data indication that it matters relative to the true drag a cyclist faces--aerodynamic drag. Compared to wind drag, weight in almost all situations is trivial. Even the much vaunted rotational weight pales before wind resistance.

Consequently, I find dismissing steel for reasons of weight is foolishness.

Regards,

John Taglia Chicago, the windy city (and darn cold, too, today)