But as I noted, you can't simplify like that.
Certainly, in a hillclimb a weight savings may offer an advantage. And in the Tour de France, where millions are at stake, a specialized hillclimbing bike might make sense--similar, but to a lesser extent, a time trial a bike with disc-wheels makes sense. (There are data supporting the benefits of aerodynamics--unlike extreme weight savings.) But, to continue the comparison, disc-wheeled time tial bikes aren't suitable for every day riding just as stripped down mountain specific road bikes have limited utility at best. (Indeed, the bikes used in some mountain stages are so unsuitable, that riders often switch to more conventional bikes for the descents.)
And straight hillclimbs are tiny part of most races (particularly ones where you can get swap your hyper-light hill bike at the summit for a more practical ride for the rest of the race), especially in the US. For most racing the weight difference is immaterial to performance except perhaps for some psychological edge. The lack of durability and other other compromises are material. (No pun intended.)
Further, besides getting free bikes so they can afford throw away equipment, the pros may be willing to risk things other people won't. They certainly do things with drugs that I wouldn't do.
Finally, what the pros choose is at least as much driven by marketing hype, superstition, and style as science.
Again, I defy anyone here to show empirical data that show that extreme weight savings materially affects performance. Really, show me the data.
It the rider, not the equipment. And to what extent it is the the equipment weight is pretty much trial.
Regards,
John "Just Replies To The List, Not To The List and To Original Sender" Taglia
>
> 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/
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Classicrendezvous mailing list
> Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>
http://www.bikelist.org/
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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/