Re: [CR]The canard of lightweight - Simplification

(Example: Production Builders:LeJeune)

Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:09:17 -0800 (PST)
From: "ken denny" <kendenny66@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [CR]The canard of lightweight - Simplification
To: wayofftheback <wayofftheback@yahoo.com>, classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
In-Reply-To: <20030225222448.81254.qmail@web20107.mail.yahoo.com>


I guess it's like this: If I can offer you two identical bikes, but one is lighter than the other, without effecting it's performance or structural integrity, and you are Lance Armstron, Cipo, JaJa, or ________(fill in the blank), which bike will you ride up the col d'azur? Maybe it's not for yo or I, but when it comes to state-of-the-art, performance driven, it's about what the pros choose. It has always been that way, as best i can remember. Besides, it's fun. Ken Denny Boston (the ADA Hub of the Universe on my CSC-Tiscali Pro Team Look KG381i) wayofftheback <wayofftheback@yahoo.com> wrote:First, straight guage pipes on a Pashley aren't sturdier than 531, etc. This another canard. It's lot easier to bend carbon steel than high quality chro-moly or moly mag. If you can get a reduction in weight without any other compromise (other than relatively small one in cost), then do it.

Second, there is a subjective difference in feel in comparing a light bike with a sligtly heavier bike; but beyond a certain point there is litle discernible in performance despite the subjective difference in feel.

Certainly a 16 lb bike will be marginally faster than a 22 lb bike, if all other things are equal, but only ever so slightly. And all things are never equal--ceteris paribus is only true in academic economic models.

Losing weight involves compromises, and the compromises needed to shave the weight of a bike may compromise other parameters of performance such as durability, reliability, fit, comfort, etc.

To some extent, people are deluded--they really assume that light weight = fast bike. Yet they fail to offer any empirical data that takes into account all the factors that define what makes one bike faster than another. The reason they do fail to examine these things is they are too complex to easily model. So they stick with one simplistic measure to the over all detriment of the bicycle as a whole.

Regards,

John Taglia,
Chicago


--- JONATHAN COWDEN wrote:


>
> Every few months this discussion comes down the
> pipe. Weight doesn't matter, so the saying goes.
> How come riders are obsessing about it? Have
> manufacturers bought everybody off, fooled the
> masses into thinking that disposable frames are
> superior, and so on and on?
>
> To this I reply: If you really think that weight
> doesn't matter, if a couple of pounds here or there
> doesn't make or break a race, or a training ride, or
> a frame, then why do people order fancy new steel
> steed made out of 531, SLX, 753, 853, SL, etc? Why
> not a straight gauge behemoth made out of the same
> pipes as the Pashley I used to own? Straight gauge,
> sturdy, heavy as my VW bus. And cheap. Lots to
> recommend it on lots of dimensions. Nobody uses
> that stuff anymore on a fancy high end steel frame.
> No way. And why do people collect "lightweight"
> steel frames? Are both of these things the result of
> some collective delusion, too?
>
> The period pieces of today were the lightweight
> marvels of yesterday. Straight gauge gave way to
> butted, standard gauge to OS, and then steel
> gradually fell away as it became clear that durable
> (at least for a race) exotics could produce
> something lighter -- and faster? Sub 2.5 pounds
> these days for something top shelf, and in certain
> cases, something that teeters on 2 pounds (Calfee
> custom). Steel can't touch that. It's really that
> simple.
>
>
>
> Jon Cowden
> SB, CA
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: wayofftheback
> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 2:01 PM
> To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> Subject: [CR]The canard of lightweight
>
> 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, 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

_______________________________________________ Classicrendezvous mailing list Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org http://www.bikelist.org/mailman/listinfo/classicrendezvous