Re: [CR]The canard of lightweight

(Example: Events:Cirque du Cyclisme:2002)

Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:52:04 -0800 (PST)
From: "wayofftheback" <wayofftheback@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [CR]The canard of lightweight
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
In-Reply-To: <20030225205537.77698.qmail@web13303.mail.yahoo.com>


Actually, I think weight weenies are missing the point. If you can drop weight at no other cost, fine. But in the real world in which we live, there are costs to extreme light-weight.

Even beyond the cost to the fisc, these costs are numerous and great. Cost such as durability, safety, and distraction from more important performance parameters.

The problem with weight is that it is an easily measured change. Scales are cheap and readily available; wind tunnels are not. Even actual objective field test are far harder to do than simply tossing the bike on the scale.

Because weight is so easily measured, designers do tend to overemphasize to exclusion of such subtler and more important variables such as aerodynamic drag, ergonomics, and mechanical efficiency.

Other subtle important variables--at least important to riders who plan on using their bikes for years and for more than one purpose--are ignored. Thus, factors such as durability, ease of maintenance, reliability, etc. get short shrift to style.

Regards,

JJT


--- ken denny wrote:


>
> 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)
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Classicrendezvous mailing list
> Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> http://www.bikelist.org/mailman/listinfo/classicrendezvous
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more

__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ Classicrendezvous mailing list Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org http://www.bikelist.org/mailman/listinfo/classicrendezvous