Why the pros are slowing down.

[James]

http://www.sportsscientists.com/

Very interesting article - WITH DATA!! (Frank will be so overjoyed).

Nothing to do with pedals, helmets or the colour of their leotards.

--
JS.

[datakoll]

there's good money in it.

[DirtRoadie]

And here I thought it was because the bikes were getting worse! That's
what the village idiot tried to tell us once.
No question that we are not seeing some of the performances that we
once did where a rider just lights the afterburners on a climb and
disappears up the road. And then does the same thing the next day.
Basso and Pantani both did things like that. Yeah, I guess LA did too.
DR

[dusto...@mac.com]

The "people responsible" are the rule makers.
The riders are just pawns.

Try this thought experiment: The races are run with no rules about
performance-enhancing substances. How many "positives" would there be
then?

Adjust to "testing carried out fairly and on the day", with emphasis
on detecting use of harmful substances such as amphetamines ("speed"
by whatever particular description), heroin, cocaine. That would be a
neat demarcation of "dope" and "doping" compared to mere "performance
enhancing". Much less "sensational", don't you think?

This "we're going to clean up Sport" business is a cheap hustle, worse
than anything the worst of the "dopers" ever came up with.

And there's that "moral outrage" rhetoric, front and center, in that
article. Plus a good helping of "aren't you angry that you were
fooled???".

Be wary of one-sided moral outrage as well as people who pray in
public, you'll likely be better off.
--D-y

[datakoll]

with a different social structure....eg: killing the losing soccer team....no doubt Formula Libre Cycle runs no problem.

Remeber, we just got over female full body swimsuits effortlessly moving into HIV and AIDS.

kinda what you'll find with FL: a few dead riders. But so what, big deal. There's good money and entertainment value. Prime Time.

That's what ASO has done minus dead riders. ASO's ethical position is $$$.

And USDADA ? formulate visavee Bonds and Clemens et al. Surly urnot gonna compare Lance with Clemens...nada.

Who knows what goes on ? Could be a lay back till the heats off.

But buzzz up the hill ? Sure, a couple buzzzz up....lookit Wiggins' second....a few follow...the rest look like they got out of county jail this morning.

Drugs extend the performance plateau at your peak, for your extension past your peak into middle age but not create ...... ?

[frkr...@gmail.com]

It is interesting. And regarding discussions here, it would be interesting to use similar calculation techniques to quantify the actual benefits from modern "must-have" technology.

- Frank Krygowski

[DirtRoadie]

Right.
The problem comes when someone assumes that all benefits must be
quantifiable and then tries to synthesize numbers to that end.
We have seen that sort of imposed (and erroneous) analysis before.

"Quantify", for example, a more comfortable saddle or more convenient
shifting system. Or, heaven forbid, ease of pedal entry. It probably
cannot be done in a meaningful fashion. Benefits can be clear but not
numerically measurable.
There are some people (well one I know of) who think that the world
turns on how it is measured. Sadly for them. They would measure a
symphony performance rather than listen to it.

DR

[Frank Krygowski]

When competitive racers start to eschew performance gains to improve the
artistic value of their bikes, your logic will make sense.

"Sure, Fabio beat me in that sprint. But the 'Famous Composers' card in
my spokes plays a Bach fugue, so I don't mind."


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Dan O]

I've plonked the dickhead, but yeah - he's such an armchair "expert".
Racing is pretty simple when you get right down to it; there's only
one number that matters, and that's finishing position.

The rest - preferences and feel and being alive... shit! (I was going
to recommend Jay be sure to consider getting his new bike in red,
too.) it's an extreme example, but a red bike *can* make the
difference between winning or not in a race. Jeez he just likes to
argue, and he's not even that bright. (But I still wish him well and
a full recovery before he shuffles oiff this mortal coil.)

[DirtRoadie]

[DirtRoadie]

On Jul 22, 12:18 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:

Oops, Sorry for the blank post.
At the very least it should have read:
+1
DR

[DirtRoadie]

On Jul 22, 9:07 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:

Frank, why must you make up people to justify your arguments (and your
incomplete perspective on realty)? You make little sense to anyone
interested in tech discussion in the real world.
DR

[James]

I was more interested in the reduction of performance, though there have
been some minor technological improvements to the bicycle.

You may recall discussions about how Milan San Remo race times "prove"
that technology makes no difference.

Perhaps technological improvements are lost in the noise of biological
enhancements.

--
JS.

[DirtRoadie]

Errata:
Although I would fully expect it to be inaccurate, I have no specific
reason to question Frank's perspective on real estate.
However, to the extent that it is included within his overall
perspective on REALITY, I do believe it is incomplete.
DR

[Frank Krygowski]

James wrote:
> On 21/07/12 08:31, dusto...@mac.com wrote:
>
>
> I was more interested in the reduction of performance, though there have
> been some minor technological improvements to the bicycle.

It's interesting, all right.

> You may recall discussions about how Milan San Remo race times "prove"
> that technology makes no difference.

That was interesting too, wasn't it?

> Perhaps technological improvements are lost in the noise of biological
> enhancements.

Or, loss of "enhancements."

--
- Frank Krygowski

[DirtRoadie]

On Jul 22, 10:23 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:
> James wrote:

> > On 21/07/12 08:31, dustoyev...@mac.com wrote:
>
> > I was more interested in the reduction of performance, though there have
> > been some minor technological improvements to the bicycle.
>
> It's interesting, all right.
>
> > You may recall discussions about how Milan San Remo race times "prove"
> > that technology makes no difference.
>
> That was interesting too, wasn't it?

> --
> - Frank Krygowski

First, for anyone who doesn't recall, James' comment about MSR was
tongue in cheek. What was most interesting was that anyone with any
understanding of bicycles and or bike racing would make any such
suggestion on any day other than April 1. This is without even taking
into account other obvious variables which inherently establish that
there is no basis for drawing any conclusion based upon average speed
of a road race.

DR

[Jay Beattie]

It's been done. http://www.fredericgrappe.com/media/revues/manipvelo.pdf
Sorry, modern racers don't like the olde tyme stuff, and they do go
slower.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Frank Krygowski]

DirtRoadie wrote:
>
> ... there is no basis for drawing any conclusion based upon average speed
> of a road race.

:-) Classic!


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Yes, we discussed that pretty thoroughly. IIRC, it was strictly an
uphill test; and we found here that the difference in performance was
directly proportional to the difference in total weight, which was small.

From a technical standpoint, that means there was no detectable benefit
from all the other developments, such as greater number of gears,
improved BB stiffness, lower spoke count, other aero gains, "better
handling," "saving rotating weight," etc. etc.

Of course, the young riders found they didn't like the feel of the bike
they were not used to. Not much of a surprise there, either.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[DirtRoadie]

On Jul 23, 10:16 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:

Too many factors. But you know that.
DR

[DirtRoadie]

On Jul 23, 10:48 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:

> Jay Beattie wrote:
> > On Jul 21, 9:00 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 9:39:16 PM UTC-4, James wrote:
> >>>http://www.sportsscientists.com/
>
> >>> Very interesting article - WITH DATA!!  (Frank will be so overjoyed).
>
> >>> Nothing to do with pedals, helmets or the colour of their leotards.
>
> >>> --
> >>> JS.
>
> >> It is interesting.  And regarding discussions here, it would be interesting to use similar calculation techniques to quantify the actual benefits from modern "must-have" technology.
>

> > It's been done.http://www.fredericgrappe.com/media/revues/manipvelo.pdf

> > Sorry, modern racers don't like the olde tyme stuff, and they do go
> > slower.
>
> Yes, we discussed that pretty thoroughly. IIRC, it was strictly an
> uphill test; and we found here that the difference in performance was
> directly proportional to the difference in total weight, which was small.
>
>  From a technical standpoint, that means there was no detectable benefit
> from all the other developments, such as greater number of gears,
> improved BB stiffness, lower spoke count, other aero gains, "better
> handling," "saving rotating weight," etc. etc.
>
> Of course, the young riders found they didn't like the feel of the bike
> they were not used to.  Not much of a surprise there, either.
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

Ah yes. Krygowskian religious dogma at its finest!
DR

[Jay Beattie]

On Jul 23, 9:48 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:

> Jay Beattie wrote:
> > On Jul 21, 9:00 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 9:39:16 PM UTC-4, James wrote:
> >>>http://www.sportsscientists.com/
>
> >>> Very interesting article - WITH DATA!!  (Frank will be so overjoyed).
>
> >>> Nothing to do with pedals, helmets or the colour of their leotards.
>
> >>> --
> >>> JS.
>
> >> It is interesting.  And regarding discussions here, it would be interesting to use similar calculation techniques to quantify the actual benefits from modern "must-have" technology.
>

> > It's been done.http://www.fredericgrappe.com/media/revues/manipvelo.pdf

> > Sorry, modern racers don't like the olde tyme stuff, and they do go
> > slower.
>
> Yes, we discussed that pretty thoroughly. IIRC, it was strictly an
> uphill test; and we found here that the difference in performance was
> directly proportional to the difference in total weight, which was small.
>
>  From a technical standpoint, that means there was no detectable benefit
> from all the other developments, such as greater number of gears,
> improved BB stiffness, lower spoke count, other aero gains, "better
> handling," "saving rotating weight," etc. etc.
>
> Of course, the young riders found they didn't like the feel of the bike
> they were not used to.  Not much of a surprise there, either.

Not just weight. The riders were "fighting" the bike up and down the
hill -- meaning that it was flexing all over the place. They didn't
like DT shifting and found it dangerous trying to shift while
descending because the bike was too unstable to take a hand off the
bars. The brakes were "slow to respond." The flexibility of the
Pinarello was caused by the frame, stem, wheels and forks -- all
components that have changed over the last 20 years.

Yes, these young riders are used to stiff, light, responsive bikes and
are not used to flexible, unresponsive, heavy bikes with friction
shifting. That does not make the latter better than the former. Being
that I am lucky to fiind a flat spot of pavement on my side of town, a
better climbing and descending bike is just a better bike.

-- Jay Beattie.

[DirtRoadie]

What I found most interesting was the actual improvement in measured
rider power, i.e efficiency, at a well controlled level of intensity
(as shown by heartrate). That's not an "uphill" specific
measurement.

Frank's blindness is further demonstrated by his comment about riders
not liking "the feel of the bike they were not used to." That's pretty
funny. Had he read the article he might have noticed that some of the
riders also found the high zoot bikes "too stiff." But they were still
objectively faster and subjectively higher rated.

It's sad to see an old geezer with a deathgrip on his Olin Mark IV's.
Scott boots (or Hanson Exhibitions) anyone?

DR

[James]

On 24/07/12 02:16, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> DirtRoadie wrote:
> >
>> ... there is no basis for drawing any conclusion based upon average speed
>> of a road race.
>
> :-) Classic!
>

Not even the Classics.

--
JS.

[Frank Krygowski]

It's been months, so I'd prefer not to rehash the entire conversation,
but the point was: The difference in weight alone predicts a certain
increase in speed on the climb. IIRC, the increase in speed they
measured matched that prediction very well, although they never
mentioned that fact.

If the increase in speed is exactly (or almost exactly) what's predicted
based only on weight difference, then there's no evidence for a speed
gain from stiffness, responsiveness, index shifting, aero components, or
whatever. You may say those factors are nice, and I may agree; but that
article doesn't prove they make one faster. Quite the opposite, in fact.

(I am astonished, though, that someone can be afraid to take one hand
off the handlebars of any functional bike. Gosh, how did we survive?)

--
- Frank Krygowski

[James]

The lesser braking performance, steering and control was cited as a
reason that descents would be slower on the older bike.

--
JS.

[Jay Beattie]

On Jul 23, 5:11 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>

The Pinarellos were also slower down the hill. Plus, the test
measured power output and not just speed. "Because of the stiffness of
the Lapierres, the riders were capable of providing 10 watts more in
an intense time trial type effort."

However, I would like to see the bikes put through the guess-o-meter
over at Analytic Cycling to see what difference weight alone yields. I
never thought those models were accurate because they do not account
for exhaustion -- the additional slowing caused by being worn out.
They assume this constant power output with speed affected only by
drag, weight, etc.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Chalo]

DirtRoadie wrote:
>
> There are some people (well one I know of)  who think that the world
> turns on how it is measured. Sadly for them. They would measure a
> symphony performance rather than listen to it.

People aren't buying ugly-assed plastic bikes out of an appreciation
of their harmonious qualities. They're measuring them, e.g. using
their gram scales and spending limits to tell them which one to buy.

For all the good it does them.

Chalo

[DirtRoadie]

So can we assume that your shop sells no plastic bikes?
Nor any road bikes for "sport" riding or racing?
Just curious.
DR

[Frank Krygowski]

It's pretty easy to put the data in, Jay. Back on April 18, I did
something even simpler: I just computed the average difference in total
weight, and compared it with the average difference in uphill speed.
They matched extremely well: 3.28% improvement in weight, 3.42% increase
in speed.

I'd give a link to that post, but I don't see how to do that in the new
Google Groups, so I'll paste the post in:

=======================================================

dusto...@mac.com wrote:
>
>
> As far as "really helping", relating to old bikes v. new bikes, we can
> start with the new bikes' weighing five or six pounds less, approx.
> than the "old steel bikes", and reference here, as well:
>
> http://www.fredericgrappe.com/media/revues/manipvelo.pdf
>
> If that article is just a part of a vast marketing conspiracy to you,
> Frank, so be it.

Let's remind everybody (again and again) that the primary thing I've
been discussing is clearance for wider tires. While that was an
interesting article, none of the testers seemed to say "Those fork
blades just skimming by the tire sidewalls really added speed!"

Understand, I've never said older, heavier bikes are faster. And if you
search the archives for this group, you can probably find me advising
riders that aerodynamics are more important than weight for most riders
(although training and coaching are even more important for racers).
Yes, as James says, accumulating dozens of small improvements can yield
a meaningful difference in racing, particularly time trialing. However,
that doesn't translate into nothing being negligible, which seems to be
where some people go with this.

About the test in the magazine: The uphill course seemed chosen to
maximize the new bike's advantages. As I've said before, weight
advantages disappear on the flat; aero advantages nearly disappear in
the pack. This course had neither.

Furthermore, since the riders averaged 66.6 kg, the difference in weight
of the bike+rider would be 3.28% on the lighter bike. The difference in
time for their uphill course amounted to 3.42%. Seems clear to me that
the primary mechanism for the improved climbing time was simply gravity,
no matter what the riders thought they perceived about "soggy" or
whatever.

Furthermore, one rider alluded to a more upright position on the
Pinarello. If correct, that would be the dominant factor in
aerodynamics. The aerodynamics of the bike+rider package is so
dominated by the rider's body that small changes to minor components
really do disappear in the noise. Remember Shimano AX? Where did it go?

Finally, psychological effects were pretty uncontrolled in that test.
Riders were all folks who were very used to the characteristics of a
current racing bike, and very un-used to those of the Pinarello. In the
1980s, I never heard anyone complain about having to take their hands
off the bars to make a shift, yet one rider even said it was "dangerous"
to move his hand to the shift lever. I wonder if in future years, STI
will be considered dangerous by some, because one has to physically move
a lever, rather than just twitching an electric button?

While a blind test would have been impossible, it might be interesting
to repeat the test after these young riders had a year on the Pinarello
to get used to its handling and its controls. Obviously, handling is a
preference issue, and part of one's preference is what one is used to.

In summary, looks to me like within the limits of experimental accuracy,
the measured performance difference is due to a reduction in weight (and
nobody has ever, AFAIK, claimed a heavier bike is faster uphill if other
things are equal.) But a 3.4% difference in uphill speed with a 3.3%
difference in weight does make one wonder: Where is the effect of the
increased stiffness? Where is the effect of the better aerodynamics of
the bike itself? How much effect did familiarity have?

Oh, and how much of that extra 0.1% was due to fork blades that skim
tire sidewalls? Not much, I'm betting.

===========================================================

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Jay Beattie]

And not to pile on, but my plastic-bike owning friends seem to be more
concerned with ride quality and position than weight. Even marketing
seems to be trending towards comfort and ride quality rather than
weight, e.g. the Modones coming in three different geometires with
longer/shorter headtube, stack height, reach. Same with the Felt Z
versus F series, Specialized Roubaix versus Tarmac, Cannondale Synapse
versus SuperSix. Comfort and the "harmonious" qualities of plastic are
big selling points -- and big buying points. Sure, the real or
imagined racers are out there with their gram scales, but they've
always been out there with their gram scales -- even back in the days
of drilled chain rings and SRP Ti Super Record replacement bits and
Ergal rims. However, the sporty crowd that used to buy Raleigh
Internationals and Paramount P-10s is now buying Tarmacs and Synapses.
And that's the way it is. . .

-- Jay Beattie.

[Duane]

I think ride quality and position are my main concern. If the bike is
lighter, so much the better.

Maybe I'm one of the "sporty crowd". I certainly prefer the Tarmac over
the Roubaix. Next time Im slugging through the woods in the mud on my
way to work in the rain, I'll ask myself that. Maybe I'm only sometime
sporty.

[DirtRoadie]

On Jul 24, 9:34 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>

Frank, thanks for conceding that the article in question does make a
clear showing that modern bikes are faster than their historical
counterparts and that they do not need to transcend physics to achieve
that result.

But also note that several of your rhetorical questions are answered
within the body of the article.

Otherwise, nobody really cares whether that is meaningful to YOU or
not.

DR

[Jay Beattie]

> sporty.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Actually, I meant to say Roubaix, since that is the more upright
Specialized offering akin to the sport bikes. So maybe you are "haute-
sportiff," the next level up. Are you commuting on the Tarmac? I
would think that if you are slugging through the forest in the rain,
you would want my commuter bike, which is a cross-bike with lots of
fender clearance.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Duane]

I have a prefectly good Bianchi Volpe 1994 that I can use to commute
rain or shine.

The problem is that much prefer riding the Tarmac so I usually take that
one instead. I was mostly being sarcastic. There is a 1/2 kilometer
stretch through some woods that I have to take and I have had to do it
in rain/snow/slush but it's not very often. The rest of the ride is on
the road.

I thought to buy the Roubaix initially because the geometry was closer
to the Bianchi and I thought that it would be more comfortable. But a
test of the Tarmac changed my mind.

[Frank Krygowski]

DirtRoadie wrote:
> On Jul 24, 9:34 am, Frank Krygowski<frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
> wrote:
>>

>> ...

>> In summary, looks to me like within the limits of experimental accuracy,
>> the measured performance difference is due to a reduction in weight (and
>> nobody has ever, AFAIK, claimed a heavier bike is faster uphill if other
>> things are equal.) But a 3.4% difference in uphill speed with a 3.3%
>> difference in weight does make one wonder: Where is the effect of the
>> increased stiffness? Where is the effect of the better aerodynamics of

>> the bike itself? How much effect did familiarity have?...

>>
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
> Frank, thanks for conceding that the article in question does make a
> clear showing that modern bikes are faster than their historical
> counterparts and that they do not need to transcend physics to achieve
> that result.

:-) Your misinterpretation is funny! What was shown is that a lighter
bike+rider is faster uphill than a heavier bike+rider, given equal
power. That's been known for quite a while, DR.

Now where in that data is the proof that stiffness adds uphill speed?
Or better handling? Or lots of rear cogs? Or integrated shifters? Or
more aero frames or wheels?

Answer: It's not in that data. Within limits of accuracy, the extra
speed is entirely accounted for by the reduced weight. All the other
much-praised features apparently made only 0.1% difference in speed -
and even that may be an illusion caused by random experimental error.

If we wanted to vary the test, this would be a way to do it: Take your
hallowed "modern" plastic aero bike and add enough weight inside a water
bottle so it matched the weight of a "historic" bike. Ride them both up
a good hill. If the results are consistent with that magazine
article's, their speed would be the same - which is just as physics
predicts, of course.

(At least, until "Newton's Law of Stiff But Compliant" is discovered.)

--
- Frank Krygowski

[DirtRoadie]

On Jul 24, 2:17 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:

Let us know if and when you read the article, rather than simply
assuming what you think it says, what you would have liked for it to
say or making up straw arguments.

And note, some (not all) of it was subjective opinion. Yes, heresy, of
course.
NOBODY can ever simply like the feel of one bike over another. Right?
You think you know better simply because you have erroneously assumed
you own infallibility. Operative word "erroneously."

And if you want to conduct your own tests, have at it.
But please actually conduct them rather than merely telling us how
they would come out. We look forward to the humor to be derived from
those.

Why don't you start with an objective test of ease of pedal entry.
Sure, let's say an objective measure of time and subjective feedback
of ease. You had already (once again) made yourself look foolish by
initiating a discussion with the assertion that your pedals are EASIER
to get into than double sided SPD's while subsequently making clear
that not only can you NOT know, but there is nobody else who believes
what you claimed. Faith based belief!
Put up or shut up!
And I still have those two pairs of mod 23's for your friends if they
should choose to abandon their previous pedals of choice for double
centuries.

Note that you went WAY beyond merely saying that you were happy with
what you had. I'm sure most of us have things that we are not
interested in switching. I certainly do. But I am not foolish enough
to presume that what I have is better simply because I have not
actually made the necessary comparison.

The funny thing is that in contrast to the old cloned unibikes (Thanks
Jay) newer bike designs are commonly optimized by engineers capable of
actually working with materials and design parameters to create
desirable characteristics. And than you stand alone in the wilderness
thinking perfection for EVERYONE was reached with a now antique
Cannondale. Few in this group are so blind.

And thanks again for acknowledging that newer bikes are better/faster
despite all your kicking and screaming.
Why is that so difficult for you to accept?

So how about posting the complete protocol for your pedal tests here
for review and then posting video of the tests themselves on YouTube?
Time to put up or shut up, Frank.

DR

[Jay Beattie]

On Jul 24, 1:17 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:

Or take your hallowed steel frame bike and reduce the tube wall
thickness and BB shell thickness to the point where the frame weighs
about 1200g, the weight of our heavy-ish hypothetical CF frame. Build
up two bikes with the same parts (to the extent possible). Ride them
both up a good hill. According to you, both riders should reach the
top at the same time -- which may be true, if the steel frame rider
gets a ride in a car. Have you never ridden a really flexible bike?
It's frustrating -- it feels like you have flat tires. In a sprint,
it's hard to hold a straight line. These are not imaginary things --
as illustrated by the increased power output on the Lapierre frames as
compared to the Pinarello.

-- Jay Beattie.

[i_am_cyc...@yahoo.ca]

On Tuesday, July 24, 2012 6:17:11 PM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:
> On Jul 24, 1:17 pm, Frank Krygowski &lt;frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com&gt;
> wrote:
> &gt; DirtRoadie wrote:
> &gt; &gt; On Jul 24, 9:34 am, Frank Krygowski&lt;frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com&gt;
> &gt; &gt; wrote:
> &gt;
> &gt; &gt;&gt; ...
> &gt; &gt;&gt; In summary, looks to me like within the limits of experimental accuracy,
> &gt; &gt;&gt; the measured performance difference is due to a reduction in weight (and
> &gt; &gt;&gt; nobody has ever, AFAIK, claimed a heavier bike is faster uphill if other
> &gt; &gt;&gt; things are equal.)  But a 3.4% difference in uphill speed with a 3.3%
> &gt; &gt;&gt; difference in weight does make one wonder:  Where is the effect of the
> &gt; &gt;&gt; increased stiffness?  Where is the effect of the better aerodynamics of
> &gt; &gt;&gt; the bike itself?  How much effect did familiarity have?...
> &gt;
> &gt; &gt;&gt; - Frank Krygowski
> &gt;
> &gt; &gt; Frank, thanks for conceding that the article in question does make a
> &gt; &gt; clear showing that modern bikes are faster than their historical
> &gt; &gt; counterparts and that they do not need to transcend physics to achieve
> &gt; &gt; that result.
> &gt;
> &gt; :-) Your misinterpretation is funny!  What was shown is that a lighter
> &gt; bike+rider is faster uphill than a heavier bike+rider, given equal
> &gt; power. That&#39;s been known for quite a while, DR.
> &gt;
> &gt; Now where in that data is the proof that stiffness adds uphill speed?
> &gt; Or better handling?  Or lots of rear cogs?  Or integrated shifters?  Or
> &gt; more aero frames or wheels?
> &gt;
> &gt; Answer: It&#39;s not in that data.  Within limits of accuracy, the extra
> &gt; speed is entirely accounted for by the reduced weight.  All the other
> &gt; much-praised features apparently made only 0.1% difference in speed -
> &gt; and even that may be an illusion caused by random experimental error.
> &gt;
> &gt; If we wanted to vary the test, this would be a way to do it:  Take your
> &gt; hallowed &quot;modern&quot; plastic aero bike and add enough weight inside a water
> &gt; bottle so it matched the weight of a &quot;historic&quot; bike.  Ride them both up
> &gt; a good hill.  If the results are consistent with that magazine
> &gt; article&#39;s, their speed would be the same - which is just as physics
> &gt; predicts, of course.
> &gt;
> &gt; (At least, until &quot;Newton&#39;s Law of Stiff But Compliant&quot; is discovered.)

>
> Or take your hallowed steel frame bike and reduce the tube wall
> thickness and BB shell thickness to the point where the frame weighs
> about 1200g, the weight of our heavy-ish hypothetical CF frame. Build
> up two bikes with the same parts (to the extent possible). Ride them
> both up a good hill. According to you, both riders should reach the
> top at the same time -- which may be true, if the steel frame rider
> gets a ride in a car. Have you never ridden a really flexible bike?

> It&#39;s frustrating -- it feels like you have flat tires. In a sprint,
> it&#39;s hard to hold a straight line. These are not imaginary things --

> as illustrated by the increased power output on the Lapierre frames as
> compared to the Pinarello.
>
> -- Jay Beattie.

Hi Jay.

Yes, super flexible frames don't always mean you'll go faster. Back in the mid-1980's a fellow bike shop employee bought a 56 cm Vitus aluminium frame bike and put two-piece clip-on aero bars on it. The aero bars were not joined to each other at the ends. He could barely control the bike with that setup because the aluminium Vitus frame was so flexible. He soon removed those aero bars. Moral, what good is a super light flexible frame if you can't maintain conntrol of it at speed.

A few years ago I read of ultra-light weight aluminium frames that had tubing walls so thin that if the front forks suddenly turned and the handlebar hit the top tube the tube would get dented.

Cheers

[James]

On 25/07/12 07:24, DirtRoadie wrote:

> Put up or shut up!

I might offer, "Pull up or shut up." ;-)

--
JS.

[DirtRoadie]

Touche!
DR

[Frank Krygowski]

Yes. One of my best cycling friends, back when he worked for Bike
Nashbar, owned an Alan (along with Lord knows how many other bikes and
equipment). He loaned it to me. It was flexible enough that I could
scrape both sides of the (Campy) front derailleur cage. It still seemed
to scoot very satisfactorily when I sprinted, although I could have done
without the scraping sound. I didn't do any big climbs with it, however.

But as I recall, Alan (and the similar Vitus aluminum bikes) were
popular with the pros who were top climbers back in those days. I'm not
sure if you think the pros of that day were hopelessly ignorant, but
they seemed to think the bikes worked well on climbs.

I really think you (or someone else) should address the technical
question I posed. If a 3.3% reduction in total weight yields a 3.4%
increase in speed, that indicates all but 0.1% of the speed gain is due
to the weight. And the 0.1% might be experimental error, or perhaps the
higher aero drag of the more upright position described for the heavier
bike.

So, for a "tech" discussion group: Where's the evidence of the other
speed benefits you claim?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[DirtRoadie]

On Jul 24, 9:09 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>

Frank - your "this is a tech discussion group" chant is pretty funny.
Is this your "do as I say not as I do" request?
Back at ya' - Both Jay and I have mentioned the elephant in the room
about the modern bikes being "faster" (yes physics- described in the
article). It's quite clear in the article to anyone who read it. Hint:
it has nothing to do with climbing. Keep trying until you find it.

Oh yeah. Alans, Vituses and many other many ancient things were
thought to be just dandy until something better came along. You can't
call those old time pros ignorant because they had no opportunity to
compare to anything better. But, speaking of ignorance, can you
believe there's an idiot in this newsgroup who still thinks old
clipped Lyotard pedals are easier to get into than double sided SPD's?
HA! Of course even though they have been around for over 20 years,
he's never TRIED SPD's.

DR

[Dan O]

Since I had to sell my Miyata 914 for grocery money, no harcore road
action for me. I suppose the reason I never crashed it was that it
kind of spooked me. It was fast and quick, pavement is hard, and I
tend to push things looking for limits. I'm just not a roadie
(haunted by images of Mark Brelsford). That Miyata sure was a
beautiful specimen of classic optimization and quality in a mass-
produced product, though (the Seiko watch of bicycles).

My Surly LHT (commuter) would make a great boat anchor, and handles
like a full grown pig who needs a nap, but it's versatile :-) I've
gotten familiar enough with the handling to throw it around without
thinking about it, and have had a blast - not just fun but a bonafide
transcendent *blast* on heavier, even more sluggish bikes.

My wheeljie bike is what it is - a not really light low-end but not
*quite* crappy MTB, old but not old enough to be classic, stripped to
essentials and "city-fied" with some rise in the handlebars,
suspension seatpost, air saddle, and big, bouncy slick tires. It's
faster than walking, bouncy fun, cheap and not so terribly endearing
to park anywhere unlocked (not that it matters much here).

The old Stumpjumper (frame by Miyata, I think) is by far the most
versatile bike for *riding*. With ~inch-and-a half slicks pumped up
it's pretty fast on the road; with the addition of some gnarly Nokian
200+ stud tires, it would be virtually *unstoppable* anywhere.

(Thinking about Stumpy's lack of hauling capacity without racks
mounted, you know what's really versatile? My good ol' $40 Pedro's
Messenger Bag.)

[Frank Krygowski]

I'm talking about the data, DR, not the "Golly, I sure like new stuff"
fluff.

> And note, some (not all) of it was subjective opinion. Yes, heresy, of
> course.
> NOBODY can ever simply like the feel of one bike over another. Right?

You can like anything you want. I hope you'll allow me the same
courtesy. But I keep waiting for you to talk about data.

If the increase in speed is, within experimental accuracy, exactly what
would be predicted by reduced weight alone, where is the evidence for
speed benefit from other features? This is a tech group! Let's talk
about the numbers, OK?

> Why don't you start with an objective test of ease of pedal entry.

Why don't you put the pedal questions in the pedal thread, i.e. stick to
losing one argument at a time?

Explain to me how a 3.4% increase in uphill speed, from a 3.3% reduction
in weight, provides evidence of great benefit from anything _other_ than
the obvious weight difference.

Try the Analytic Cycling website, for example. Average rider weight was
66.57 kg. Adding the two bike weights gives total weights of 73.67 kg
and 76.17 kg, a little over 3% difference. Now you can run that model
with either of their power measurements or with the average power - it
makes little difference. I did it with the default aero values (i.e.
without the supposed aero advantage of the newer bike.) Using the
average power of 312.85 Watts predicts a 17.9 second time difference
based on weight alone. The magazine guys measured a 19.0 second time
difference.

That leaves about 1.1 second difference out of a roughly nine minute run
that you might attribute to the new bike's "modern" characteristics
beyond its weight. 1.1 seconds out of nine minutes is roughly 0.2%
difference - in other words, the values are equal within normal
experimental error.

And that's with the young racers riding a bike they weren't even
familiar with! Would being familiar with a bike make you faster? If it
helps even 0.2%, then amazing stiffness, responsiveness, extra gears,
aerodynamics, comfort, handling, etc. don't make this racing bike any
faster at all. The only thing that mattered was the weight.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[DirtRoadie]

On Jul 24, 10:36 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>

Frank the data is right there in the article. Enough of your smoke and
mirrors.
DR

[DirtRoadie]

On Jul 24, 10:36 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>

Yes, of course, Frank! it's obvious that, given a little more time to
adjust, the test riders would certainly be expected to favor downtube
shifters on the heavier, LESS EFFICIENT*, less comfortable, poorer
handling bikes. And that choice could undoubtedly be solidified even
further by giving them the option of leotard pedals with clips in lieu
of their own clipless pedals that these poor hapless chaps were stuck
using for the test.

DR
*According to the data - even YOUR data

[Duane]

This is just nonsense. All other things being equal, the lighter bike
will be faster. Otherwise, the bike that transmits the rider's power
into the wheels most efficiently will be faster. Data? How about the
reams that the engineers designing these things use? How can you be
arguing with someone that doesn't get that DR?

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Dan O:

>My Surly LHT (commuter) would make a great boat anchor, and handles
>like a full grown pig who needs a nap, but it's versatile :-) I've
>gotten familiar enough with the handling to throw it around without
>thinking about it, and have had a blast - not just fun but a bonafide
>transcendent *blast* on heavier, even more sluggish bikes.

I think that points up something I've always thought, but seldom
gets articulated: people get used to stuff and one's perceptions
are relative to what one is used to.

My bikes are all pigs by any rational roadie standard.

But they're light-weight, high-performance miracles to my
son-in-law-who-rides-a-$140-Wallmart-Bike.

For me, when I go from my FS w/55-55's to my rigid with 38's it's
"Yeeeeeee-haaa". I can even get much of the same feeling just
by taking the panniers off of the rigid.... not to mention going
fender-less.

But if my neighbor want from his 17-pound road bike with 23's to
my rigid, I'm pretty sure he'd wonder how I even rode the thing.
--
Pete Cresswell

[Jay Beattie]

On Jul 24, 8:09 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>

Frank, you keep over looking the disparity between the measured power
output on the bikes in article. Also, in the case of the Alan and
Vitus frames, you overlook the weight difference between those and
then-current steel frames. Again, two bikes of the same weight, one
very flexible -- think about it. I agree, though, that some frame
flex is perceived as a good thing by many and that it effects riders
differently. Front end flex drives me crazy, but I've had friends
complain that their front wheels are too stiff. But from a power
meter standpoint, the Lapierres were more efficient -- although a
rider could see that as "harsh" or not "lively."

-- Jay Beattie.

[Joe Riel]

Duane <duane....@group-upc.com> writes:

> This is just nonsense. All other things being equal, the lighter bike
> will be faster. Otherwise, the bike that transmits the rider's power
> into the wheels most efficiently will be faster. Data? How about the
> reams that the engineers designing these things use? How can you be
> arguing with someone that doesn't get that DR?

I would be surprised if the frame manufacturers are doing any analysis
directly relating frame characteristics to rider performance. Sure,
they might use a CAD system to estimate stiffness of the frame, but
that is not the same thing.

The article has a distincy paucity of data. The only useful metric I
could find was that the power input decreased by 3% with the old frames.
Even that is suspect given that is was averaged over all riders and the
accuracy of the SRM power meter is unknown (some are 0.5%, some 2%).
Assuming it is accurate, that would account for half the time difference
(I estimated the total time it would take, since the article did not
provide the figures). Why should the power input be different? Could
that be due to a lack of adaptation to the old bikes?


--
Joe Riel

[Lou Holtman]

Op 25-7-2012 5:09, Frank Krygowski schreef:

Frank if you only count in the climb it is only weight that matters. But
what goes up must come down and there a flexible frame sucks. I once
read an interview with Steven Rooks, a former Dutch pro, and he said
that the light 7.5 kg steel bikes he rode at the end of his carreer
scared the shit out of him in the descents. Pro riders are very skilled
riders so they can got away with those flexible frames, but light, stiff
and comfortable is better. All these three properties are within reach
if you use carbon. The first attemps in the past failed (successor of
the Colnago C50 frame was to flexible for the Rabobank pro's ie.) but
they are getting there. Thank god the emphasis today is not only on
weight and more and more on comfort. A property where most of us benefit
more from. The 6.8 kg weight limit is the main reason weight is not so
important anymore.

Lou, there are many stupid pro riders in the tech department.

[Frank Krygowski]

Joe Riel wrote:
> Duane<duane....@group-upc.com> writes:
>
>> This is just nonsense. All other things being equal, the lighter bike
>> will be faster. Otherwise, the bike that transmits the rider's power
>> into the wheels most efficiently will be faster. Data? How about the
>> reams that the engineers designing these things use? How can you be
>> arguing with someone that doesn't get that DR?

Duane is demonstrating a distinct lack of understanding. He's not even
following the argument. (DR is following it, but as usual, covering his
eyes and spouting insults instead of thinking.)

_Nobody_ is claiming that, other things being equal, a heavier bike will
be faster uphill. In fact, what I'm saying is that it's not difficult
to calculate how _much_ faster a lighter bike will be. Hence my
references to Analytic Cycling (a site developed by an engineer who now
works for Cervelo).

However, there certainly _are_ people claiming significant speed
advantages for better stiffness, better handling, aero frames, aero
wheels, extra cogs, STI shifting, etc. Yet in that article, the bikes
with and without all those features climbed exactly as fast as would be
expected based on weight alone.

The weight made a difference. The other features apparently made no
difference. THAT is what the data shows, and THAT is the technical
point that needs discussed.

> I would be surprised if the frame manufacturers are doing any analysis
> directly relating frame characteristics to rider performance. Sure,
> they might use a CAD system to estimate stiffness of the frame, but
> that is not the same thing.
>
> The article has a distincy paucity of data. The only useful metric I
> could find was that the power input decreased by 3% with the old frames.
> Even that is suspect given that is was averaged over all riders and the
> accuracy of the SRM power meter is unknown (some are 0.5%, some 2%).
> Assuming it is accurate, that would account for half the time difference
> (I estimated the total time it would take, since the article did not
> provide the figures). Why should the power input be different? Could
> that be due to a lack of adaptation to the old bikes?

The young riders (who had apparently never ridden an older bike) said
quite a lot about how strange the old bike felt to them. I'd certainly
expect that to affect their power output at least a bit. And yes, the
measured difference in power output was just 9.5 Watts, i.e. 3%. In
many lab experiments, 3% would be treated as equal, within the realm of
experimental error.

So who else besides Joe is willing to actually think intelligently about
numbers?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Joe Riel]

I do have an issue with your assertion that the weight difference
accounted for the time difference. First, it isn't clear if you mean
the weight *and* the measured power difference, since the power
difference seems to account for half the difference. Second, the
article did not indicate the weight difference. Or did I miss it (as
with most such articles, it was more concerned with showing pictures of
the bikes/riders than highlighting relevant data)? I can estimate the
difference, but it would be better to know what it was. Of course, that
alone isn't sufficient---if this were any sort of scientific study they
would have given the weights of the bikes, riders, individual times,
etc. All we get is the average of the total time difference, over all
riders. That can hide a lot of sins.

--
Joe Riel

[Frank Krygowski]

Personal preference is certainly a factor, I agree. (Despite what you
may think, I prefer a stiff frame.)

Regarding the power difference: As I just posted in reply to Joe, that
test was done with young riders who apparently had never ridden an older
bike. They made much about how strange the old bike felt. (Downtube
shifters are dangerous?? Geez...) Given that, I'm not the least
surprised that the older bike averaged 9.5 Watts, or 3% less power.

And that doesn't even take experimental accuracy into account. I taught
countless engineering lab sessions, graded hundreds of lab reports, and
did various lab tests as a consultant for local manufacturers. Whether
working with fairly simple stresses and strains, fluids, heat transfer,
or whatever, there are plenty of times that 3% variance is considered
just fine. And that's in a climate-controlled laboratory, no "human
performance" psychology at work.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Joe Riel wrote:
>
>
> I do have an issue with your assertion that the weight difference
> accounted for the time difference. First, it isn't clear if you mean
> the weight *and* the measured power difference, since the power
> difference seems to account for half the difference. Second, the
> article did not indicate the weight difference. Or did I miss it (as
> with most such articles, it was more concerned with showing pictures of
> the bikes/riders than highlighting relevant data)? I can estimate the
> difference, but it would be better to know what it was. Of course, that
> alone isn't sufficient---if this were any sort of scientific study they
> would have given the weights of the bikes, riders, individual times,
> etc. All we get is the average of the total time difference, over all
> riders. That can hide a lot of sins.

First, the article gave the riders' weights. (Or masses, if you want to
get super-technical.) I averaged them myself, and got 66.57 kg
(standard deviation 8.22 kg). I then added the bikes' weights to
calculate the percent difference.

I played around with the numbers using Analytic Cycling using a couple
different models, computing the difference in elapsed time based only on
the weight, and computing the predicted elapsed times given power and
weight. I used default values for aero effects, despite the fact that
the old bike was expected to be less streamlined and (more
significantly) had the rider sitting more upright. I used minimum power
(308.1W), maximum power (317.6W) and average power (312.85W) in various
runs.

Now some of this was done hastily and late at night, so my notes are a
bit scratchy. But it's interesting that calculating speed for each
bike's weight and power output, then manually computing elapsed time for
3000 meters, yielded an even greater difference than observed. IOW, it
predicts the old Pinarello taking 9:52 versus 9:20 for the new Lapierre,
a 32 second difference. The magazine measured 9:15 for the old
Pinarello and 8:56 for the new Lapierre, a mere 19 second difference.

So the Pinarello seemed to perform better than predicted, and deliver a
smaller gap than expected. Were the Pinarello's bugs actually "features"?

And yet again: Where is the evidence of speed gain from modern
stiffness, better handling, extra gears, etc?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Duane]

There's no lack of understanding on my part. I think that Frank is
cherry picking from post to post in order to argue against any technical
advancement beyond his own style of riding.

Again, the lighter bike will be faster, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL.
Otherwise the bike that transmits the riders power into the wheels will
be better. It is NOT only weight that matters, not even when climbing
though it is probably more predominant when climbing. I'm surprised
that anyone can argue with that. And no, the "data" cited was not very
convincing.

And as to "who is willing to think intelligently" Frank, go fuck
yourself. You don't get to decide who is or isn't intelligent.

[DirtRoadie]

On Jul 25, 9:07 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:
> Joe Riel wrote:
> > Duane<duane.heb...@group-upc.com>  writes:

This

> I'd certainly
> expect that to affect their power output at least a bit.  And yes, the
> measured difference in power output was just 9.5 Watts, i.e. 3%.  In
> many lab experiments, 3% would be treated as equal, within the realm of
> experimental error.
>
> So who else besides Joe is willing to actually think intelligently about
> numbers?

I have no problem with what Joe has said. Joe raises questions about
the data, he does not simply wave it out of existence. You, in stark
contrast, simply ignore that which does not fit with your agenda. You
continue to do that. Shame on you.

When are YOU going to begin intelligent discussion of and drop your
faith based agenda?

DR

[Joe Riel]

Frank Krygowski <frkrygo...@gEEmail.com> writes:

> Joe Riel wrote:
>>
>>
>> I do have an issue with your assertion that the weight difference
>> accounted for the time difference. First, it isn't clear if you mean
>> the weight *and* the measured power difference, since the power
>> difference seems to account for half the difference. Second, the
>> article did not indicate the weight difference. Or did I miss it (as
>> with most such articles, it was more concerned with showing pictures of
>> the bikes/riders than highlighting relevant data)? I can estimate the
>> difference, but it would be better to know what it was. Of course, that
>> alone isn't sufficient---if this were any sort of scientific study they
>> would have given the weights of the bikes, riders, individual times,
>> etc. All we get is the average of the total time difference, over all
>> riders. That can hide a lot of sins.
>
> First, the article gave the riders' weights. (Or masses, if you want
> to get super-technical.) I averaged them myself, and got 66.57 kg
> (standard deviation 8.22 kg). I then added the bikes' weights to
> calculate the percent difference.

I see it now, in the pictures of the riders. I missed the frame weights
because they were in a part of the pdf that didn't show up on my screen
initially (the frame weight difference was close to what I estimated).

>
> I played around with the numbers using Analytic Cycling using a couple
> different models, computing the difference in elapsed time based only
> on the weight, and computing the predicted elapsed times given power
> and weight. I used default values for aero effects, despite the fact
> that the old bike was expected to be less streamlined and (more
> significantly) had the rider sitting more upright. I used minimum
> power (308.1W), maximum power (317.6W) and average power (312.85W) in
> various runs.
>
> Now some of this was done hastily and late at night, so my notes are a
> bit scratchy. But it's interesting that calculating speed for each
> bike's weight and power output, then manually computing elapsed time
> for 3000 meters, yielded an even greater difference than observed.
> IOW, it predicts the old Pinarello taking 9:52 versus 9:20 for the new
> Lapierre, a 32 second difference. The magazine measured 9:15 for the
> old Pinarello and 8:56 for the new Lapierre, a mere 19 second
> difference.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I got.

>
> So the Pinarello seemed to perform better than predicted, and deliver
> a smaller gap than expected. Were the Pinarello's bugs actually
> "features"?
>
> And yet again: Where is the evidence of speed gain from modern
> stiffness, better handling, extra gears, etc?

--

Joe Riel

[Duane]

And drop his implication that anyone not in agreement of his basic straw
man premise is too stupid to understand the math.

[DirtRoadie]

There is a classic quote attributed to Andy Hampsten when he was
describing a high-tech-at-that-time Look carbon frame used by his La
Vie Claire team for mountain stages.
In essence the said there was only one thing that scared him more than
descending on one of those frames - and that was climbing without one.
DR

[Jay Beattie]

On Jul 25, 8:21 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>

It appears that the measurements were taken on the uphill and not the
downhill -- the downhill generating the complaints about DT shifting.
And the "strange feeling" of the old bike was exactly why the power
output was less -- the old bike was too flexible. I doubt these top
ranked European amateurs had any difficulty adjusting to the feel of
the bike, at least in terms of being able to maximize their power
output. But sure, noise and variation is part of every experiment,
and maybe this one could have been better controlled -- but you wanted
data, and now we have data.

Also, don't get too tied to the Analytic Cycling model. It assumes a
constant power output, which is not how riders work. Let's say you
can output 300 watts for twenty minutes -- which is exactly how long
it takes you to get to the top of a steep climb on your carbon wonder
bike. Now, on your Surley LHT with 35mm tires, three bottles and
loaded panniers, let's say Analytic Cycling calculates that it would
take you 24 minutes to get to the top with a constant power output of
300 watts. The problem is, you're not outputting 300 watts after
minute 20. In fact, you may be totally blown. Your speed may drop by
half. You may get off and cry . . . who knows. Your actual time to
the top will be more than 24 minutes -- which may be fine, because you
have plenty of water and cookies in your panniers and want to stop for
a snapshot anyway.

Personally, I care about outputting as many watts as possible to get
as far as possible because I ride with racers who are far younger and
more fit than I am. Maximizing my waning physical resources is
important. I do not look forward to the Sunday group ride on my
cross bike (slated as mostly climbing and descending) but at least
I'll have a killer excuse.

-- Jay Beattie.

[DirtRoadie]

On Jul 25, 9:21 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>

I'm not sure what planet you ride on but here on earth I regularly
encounter situations where I would not think of removing a hand from
the handlebars, much less reaching down to operate a downtube shifter.
But shifting with a modern integrated shifter under those conditions
is both SAFE and easy.

> Given that, I'm not the least
> surprised that the older bike averaged 9.5 Watts, or 3% less power.

"Not being surprised" is a statement of opinion, not of fact, not of
data. And in any case it does not negate that the figures mentioned
are fully consistent with more efficient transmission of power. And,
of course in the big picture, this is also in a bike which is
subjectively more comfortable to ride than the old-school bike it is
being compared to.

> And that doesn't even take experimental accuracy into account.  I taught
> countless engineering lab sessions, graded hundreds of lab reports, and
> did various lab tests as a consultant for local manufacturers.  Whether
> working with fairly simple stresses and strains, fluids, heat transfer,
> or whatever, there are plenty of times that 3% variance is considered
> just fine. And that's in a climate-controlled laboratory, no "human
> performance" psychology at work.
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

Frank, we get it. You gave up thinking or discussing long ago in order
to promote your blind agenda. In your mind ALL RIDERS would prefer
heavier, less efficient, less comfortable, slower bikes with downtube
shifters and Leotard pedals with clips. And of course the ONLY reason
that those riders do not prefer those things is because they just
haven't spent enough time on them.
Yeah that's the ticket!

DR

[DirtRoadie]

On Jul 25, 9:48 am, Duane <duane.heb...@group-upc.com> wrote:
> On 07/25/2012 11:19 AM, Joe Riel wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> writes:
>
> >> Joe Riel wrote:

> >>> Duane<duane.heb...@group-upc.com>  writes:

+1
Despite his mantra, Frank is rarely (if ever) able to take into
account all the bits and pieces of consistent and contradictory
information that comprise "data."

> And as to "who is willing to think intelligently" Frank, go fuck
> yourself.  You don't get to decide who is or isn't intelligent.

+1
A bit harsh, but nonetheless accurate and succinct.

DR

[Duane]

Sorry but it seems that Frank's particular brand of arrogant stupidity
is my personal bete noire.

[DirtRoadie]

No need to apologize for accurate observations.
DR

[James]

On 26/07/12 00:37, Joe Riel wrote:
> Duane<duane....@group-upc.com> writes:
>
>> This is just nonsense. All other things being equal, the lighter bike
>> will be faster. Otherwise, the bike that transmits the rider's power
>> into the wheels most efficiently will be faster. Data? How about the
>> reams that the engineers designing these things use? How can you be
>> arguing with someone that doesn't get that DR?
>
> I would be surprised if the frame manufacturers are doing any analysis
> directly relating frame characteristics to rider performance. Sure,
> they might use a CAD system to estimate stiffness of the frame, but
> that is not the same thing.

Performance, or handling? A few degrees more or less in the head tube
wont affect power output or speed on a flat road, but it will affect
handling characteristics, and I'm sure they try to optimize that aspect.

Plenty has been done to increase comfort over bumps, while retaining BB
to rear wheel stiffness for optimal power transmission.

> The article has a distincy paucity of data. The only useful metric I
> could find was that the power input decreased by 3% with the old frames.
> Even that is suspect given that is was averaged over all riders and the
> accuracy of the SRM power meter is unknown (some are 0.5%, some 2%).

Accuracy maybe variable between units, but what about precision?

> Assuming it is accurate, that would account for half the time difference
> (I estimated the total time it would take, since the article did not
> provide the figures). Why should the power input be different? Could
> that be due to a lack of adaptation to the old bikes?

Maybe because it feels like jelly by comparison which creates a feeling
of unease, and if the CR, crank and frame all flexes out of the way
during the down stroke, is that spring energy returned to the chain?

--
JS.

[James]

On 26/07/12 01:07, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Joe Riel wrote:
>> Duane<duane....@group-upc.com> writes:
>>
>>> This is just nonsense. All other things being equal, the lighter bike
>>> will be faster. Otherwise, the bike that transmits the rider's power
>>> into the wheels most efficiently will be faster. Data? How about the
>>> reams that the engineers designing these things use? How can you be
>>> arguing with someone that doesn't get that DR?
>
> Duane is demonstrating a distinct lack of understanding. He's not even
> following the argument. (DR is following it, but as usual, covering his
> eyes and spouting insults instead of thinking.)
>
> _Nobody_ is claiming that, other things being equal, a heavier bike will
> be faster uphill. In fact, what I'm saying is that it's not difficult to
> calculate how _much_ faster a lighter bike will be. Hence my references
> to Analytic Cycling (a site developed by an engineer who now works for
> Cervelo).

Well, blow me down with a feather. You mean there are engineers working
for these bike manufacturers? Not just a bunch of sales folks dreaming
up gimmicks to sell?

> However, there certainly _are_ people claiming significant speed
> advantages for better stiffness, better handling, aero frames, aero
> wheels, extra cogs, STI shifting, etc. Yet in that article, the bikes
> with and without all those features climbed exactly as fast as would be
> expected based on weight alone.

You expect the advantages of these things to be exposed in a short
climbing test? I thought you claimed to be an engineer? Lucky you
don't work for a bicycle manufacturer!

Check out the wheels used on the modern bicycle in the test. IIRC,
Mavic R-sys are some of the least aero wheel available. However it is a
short climb that doesn't allow speeds to be particularly high anyway -
so aero isn't evaluated.

--
JS

[James]

On 26/07/12 01:37, Frank Krygowski wrote:

> And yet again: Where is the evidence of speed gain from modern
> stiffness, better handling, extra gears, etc?

Why not throw a single speed track bike in the test and note that it is
faster than both the others?

--
JS.

[Frank Krygowski]

James wrote:
> On 26/07/12 01:07, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> Joe Riel wrote:
>>> Duane<duane....@group-upc.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> This is just nonsense. All other things being equal, the lighter bike
>>>> will be faster. Otherwise, the bike that transmits the rider's power
>>>> into the wheels most efficiently will be faster. Data? How about the
>>>> reams that the engineers designing these things use? How can you be
>>>> arguing with someone that doesn't get that DR?
>>
>> Duane is demonstrating a distinct lack of understanding. He's not even
>> following the argument. (DR is following it, but as usual, covering his
>> eyes and spouting insults instead of thinking.)
>>
>> _Nobody_ is claiming that, other things being equal, a heavier bike will
>> be faster uphill. In fact, what I'm saying is that it's not difficult to
>> calculate how _much_ faster a lighter bike will be. Hence my references
>> to Analytic Cycling (a site developed by an engineer who now works for
>> Cervelo).
>
> Well, blow me down with a feather. You mean there are engineers working
> for these bike manufacturers? Not just a bunch of sales folks dreaming
> up gimmicks to sell?

Of course there are engineers working for bike manufacturers. Including
engineer who developed a respected website that calculates things like
uphill speed, and gives results some people here refuse to discuss
numerically.

But regarding engineers working for companies producing consumer
products: Does the comic strip _Dilbert_ make it to Australia? It
gives an idea of the level of influence engineers frequently enjoy.
Personally, I suspect that when Zertz inserts were dreamed up, it was
done by Marketing. I suspect the engineers rolled their eyes and said
"Oh, shit."

>
>> However, there certainly _are_ people claiming significant speed
>> advantages for better stiffness, better handling, aero frames, aero
>> wheels, extra cogs, STI shifting, etc. Yet in that article, the bikes
>> with and without all those features climbed exactly as fast as would be
>> expected based on weight alone.
>
> You expect the advantages of these things to be exposed in a short
> climbing test? I thought you claimed to be an engineer? Lucky you don't
> work for a bicycle manufacturer!
>
> Check out the wheels used on the modern bicycle in the test. IIRC, Mavic
> R-sys are some of the least aero wheel available. However it is a short
> climb that doesn't allow speeds to be particularly high anyway - so aero
> isn't evaluated.

Yet, if we dig back into r.b.tech archives, we can probably find claims
that every little aero advantage _might_ be critical, and so must never
be neglected! ;-)

However, I do agree with your (present) position that aero effects would
be expected to be negligible in this 3 kilometer, 7.2% uphill climb. (I
don't think most cyclists would call that a short climb, however.)

But would you care to explain why there was no apparent benefit from the
increased stiffness, the better handling, the extra cogs (so one could
find a cog that precisely matched their preference), the STI shifting
(so that perfect cog could be selected at any moment), the better
comfort, and any other benefits that are normally touted here? Again,
it certainly looks like the only thing that mattered was the weight.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[James]

That's why you don't see may pros riding R-Sys wheels - unless it was
for a special occasion perhaps, like a time trial up a 14% grade.

> However, I do agree with your (present) position that aero effects would
> be expected to be negligible in this 3 kilometer, 7.2% uphill climb. (I
> don't think most cyclists would call that a short climb, however.)

I certainly would call it a short climb, considering they go on to talk
about the Galibier that is an 18km climb. Even in this country, that is
not very mountainous, we have quite a few 20 km climbs, and the odd 30
km climb. Mt Hotham springs to mind.

http://www.cyclingprofiles.com.au/HTM/CyclingInform/CI_BBCMtHotham.htm

> But would you care to explain why there was no apparent benefit from the
> increased stiffness, the better handling, the extra cogs (so one could
> find a cog that precisely matched their preference), the STI shifting
> (so that perfect cog could be selected at any moment), the better
> comfort, and any other benefits that are normally touted here? Again, it
> certainly looks like the only thing that mattered was the weight.
>

Certainly.

Increased stiffness (note that one of the lighter riders said the new
bike was far too stiff) is mostly beneficial in a sprint. The smaller
lighter climbers may not care too much, as their torque output would not
flex the frame and BB much. Stiffness is more important for bigger
stronger riders. Though the heaviest rider (and sprinter) wasn't
concerned with the less stiff old bike, this test wasn't a sprint. That
same rider did complain about the handling of the old bike while
descending. The timed test was not on a descent however.

As I alluded to in another post, you could probably ride a track bike up
there faster, or at least as fast - on a single gear - assuming the
grade is relatively constant. That doesn't mean you could keep up on
the flat or descent, and with fewer intermediate gears, there are more
times that you can't find just the right gear - which will become
important after hours racing in the saddle. This test wasn't conducted
over hours or days.

In the old days, the sprinters had to select their sprint gear well
before the sprint. It is now possible to change gear *during* a sprint
if necessary. Again, this test was not a sprint, but sprints are often
where races are won and lost.

Actually, the riders seemed to prefer the old bike saddle for comfort.
sadly it would be a contributor to the weight that slowed the riders on
the old bike.

Yes, in this particular test, weight is the most dominant factor. Road
races are not 3 km uphill time trials though.

--
JS

[DirtRoadie]

On Jul 25, 5:13 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:

> James wrote:
> > On 26/07/12 01:07, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> Joe Riel wrote:

Frank,
Your own numerical analysis came up with number reflecting a speed
benefit that would not be accounted for by weight alone. QED. That you
chose to simply discard it reflects your bias and lack of rigor.

You sound desperate (and very uneducated) when you start making up
arguments about some fictional poster in the past ("we can probably
find claims ..." or "there certainly _are_ people claiming significant
speed ...") who you believe (or would have us believe) made some claim
that you would prefer to characterize as ridiculous. Even if such a
claim exists (most do not, being only your distorted remembrance of
what was claimed or taken out of context) it has no relevance
whatosever to any present discussion.

For example, aren't you still clinging to your delusion that Sheldon
did not say that SPD'S beat platforms (like mod 23s) "hands down" for
ease of entry?

It's interesting that you so quickly paint other bicycle engineers as
being so powerless and incompetent when it comes to actually being
innovators in bicycle technology.
Tell us more about Zertz. I have never tried them not do I have any
particular inclination in that direction Do you have the same
extensive experience with them that you have with SPD's?

DR

[thirty-six]

On Jul 26, 12:13 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:

> James wrote:
> > On 26/07/12 01:07, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> Joe Riel wrote:

I like square pad brake shoes. Chrome shows class. :-)

>
> However, I do agree with your (present) position that aero effects would
> be expected to be negligible in this 3 kilometer, 7.2% uphill climb.  (I
> don't think most cyclists would call that a short climb, however.)

that's a climb, a beer, a climb.

>
> But would you care to explain why there was no apparent benefit from the
> increased stiffness, the better handling, the extra cogs (so one could
> find a cog that precisely matched their preference), the STI shifting
> (so that perfect cog could be selected at any moment), the better
> comfort, and any other benefits that are normally touted here?  Again,
> it certainly looks like the only thing that mattered was the weight.

it's better for someone if it costs more.

[Jay Beattie]

On Jul 25, 4:13 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:

> James wrote:
> > On 26/07/12 01:07, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> Joe Riel wrote:

None of the riders complained about the gear selection -- so the
provided gears must have been close enough, which appears to be the
case since cadence was basically the same between the two bikes. As
for STI, it is convenient and may be energy saving since you don't
have to sit and shift or reach down for a shift, but on a short climb
with a consistent grade, it may just be dead weight. Who knows how
much shifting occurred on the way up. I love STI because I like to
climb and shift out of the saddle, and it does save energy for me --
but I'm not sure that's it's selling point. It was sold originally as
the great "secret weapon" for racing. And it was -- STI changed the
way crits were raced, at least for me. None of that pre-shifting,
coast in to corners, none of the grinding coming out. It got a lot
easier racing in and out of corners. It is one thing I would never
give up.

-- Jay Beattie.

[James]

On 26/07/12 10:46, Jay Beattie wrote:

> I love STI because I like to
> climb and shift out of the saddle, and it does save energy for me --
> but I'm not sure that's it's selling point. It was sold originally as
> the great "secret weapon" for racing. And it was -- STI changed the
> way crits were raced, at least for me. None of that pre-shifting,
> coast in to corners, none of the grinding coming out. It got a lot
> easier racing in and out of corners. It is one thing I would never
> give up.
>

Ah, takes me back. Thanks. How 'bout those horrid toe clips and
straps! Thank God (and the engineers) for clipless pedals.

--
JS.

[Frank Krygowski]

DirtRoadie wrote:
>
>
> Frank,
> Your own numerical analysis came up with number reflecting a speed
> benefit that would not be accounted for by weight alone.

Um... yes, roughly 1 second difference. The run was nine minutes long.

> QED. That you
> chose to simply discard it reflects your bias and lack of rigor.

DR, you're presenting strong evidence that you don't understand the
concept of experimental error, don't understand the concept of
"significant" and don't understand the concept of "negligible."

--
- Frank Krygowski

[DirtRoadie]

On Jul 25, 9:06 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:

Frank, Frank, Frank, Frank, Frank,
Its' amazing how quickly you latch on to "experimental error" in
support of YOUR position when the data has any aspect which may not be
not favorable to your dogma.
If it's truly experimental error then you truly don't know do you? Or
do you just not understand the concept of experimental error?
The problem is that you (we) can't actually figure the experimental
error from the nature of the data that IS available. Sure, if you are
intent upon dishonestly supporting your dogma, you can cite
experimental error from other matters, the more the merrier. What the
hell, once accuracy is no longer a concern, you can cite Gallup polls.

You might as well suggest that GOD is on YOUR side. And in fact you
do, in your own smarmy way.
Sad that you are so incapable of objective analyis.
So tell me again about youe extensive experience with ZERTZ and SPD's.

Quick side note (I'll show you what's behind door #1): Mike Sinyard,
the founder of (love it or hate it) Specialized, was one of three co-
inventors of ZERTZ: Would you now like to put some money now on the
title/function of the other two?

DR

[Duane]

On 07/25/2012 08:09 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:

> Tell us more about Zertz. I have never tried them not do I have any
> particular inclination in that direction Do you have the same
> extensive experience with them that you have with SPD's?

I ride a Specialized bike that has Zertz inserts in the seat post.
The bike is very comfortable. Is it due to the Zertz inserts? Don't
have a clue.

[Frank Krygowski]

DirtRoadie wrote:
> On Jul 25, 9:06 pm, Frank Krygowski<frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
> wrote:
>> DirtRoadie wrote:
>>
>>> Frank,
>>> Your own numerical analysis came up with number reflecting a speed
>>> benefit that would not be accounted for by weight alone.
>>
>> Um... yes, roughly 1 second difference. The run was nine minutes long.
>>
>>> QED. That you
>>> chose to simply discard it reflects your bias and lack of rigor.
>>
>> DR, you're presenting strong evidence that you don't understand the
>> concept of experimental error, don't understand the concept of
>> "significant" and don't understand the concept of "negligible."
>>
>> --
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
> Frank, Frank, Frank, Frank, Frank,
> Its' amazing how quickly you latch on to "experimental error" in
> support of YOUR position when the data has any aspect which may not be
> not favorable to your dogma.
> If it's truly experimental error then you truly don't know do you? Or
> do you just not understand the concept of experimental error?
> The problem is that you (we) can't actually figure the experimental
> error from the nature of the data that IS available.

DR, does your keyboard not have numeral keys? Is that why you so seldom
mention actual numbers?

Let's try again:

"... 1.1 second difference out of a roughly nine minute run that you
might attribute to the new bike's "modern" characteristics beyond its
weight. 1.1 seconds out of nine minutes is roughly 0.2% difference - in
other words, the values are equal within normal experimental error."

What part of that do you not understand?


--
- Frank Krygowski

[DirtRoadie]

On Jul 26, 9:36 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>

OK. But in the same post you ask "Explain to me how a 3.4% increase in
uphill speed, from a 3.3% reduction in weight, provides evidence of
great benefit from anything _other_ than
the obvious weight difference...."

In other words you fully concede that the measured increase in speed
is 3% greater than what would be expected due to weight alone.

In your usual fashion you attempt to mislead by suggesting that what
was claimed was "great" benefit

Nobody, not even the in article, has suggested that that the measured
power between old and new bikes is HUGELY different. But it is
measurably different as was shown there and you implicitly conceded.

As I accurately stated, your own analysis undermines your claim.
DR

[Joe Riel]

DirtRoadie <DirtR...@aol.com> writes:

> OK. But in the same post you ask "Explain to me how a 3.4% increase in
> uphill speed, from a 3.3% reduction in weight, provides evidence of
> great benefit from anything _other_ than
> the obvious weight difference...."
>
> In other words you fully concede that the measured increase in speed
> is 3% greater than what would be expected due to weight alone.

It isn't clear how you got that 3%. The only rationale I can see
is that you are taking percents of percents, that is, (3.4-3.3)/3.3 = 3%.
While that may be numerically correct, the computation is bogus.
There is zero chance that the data taken can support that precision.



--
Joe Riel

[DirtRoadie]

On Jul 26, 11:38 am, Joe Riel <j...@san.rr.com> wrote:

Then we just go back to the article where power measured on the "new"
bike was roughly 3% greater than that measured on the "old" bike.
And, yes, it can be argued all day as to what that means.

I will concede that the data is the article is imperfect, but it
becomes even worse when massaged using further estimates or
assumptions that may or may not be applicable. It does not, in any
case, lend itself to the type of picayune analysis that Frank would
impose upon us.
The article is best read as a whole including the subjective portion
to help understand the context.

DR

[Frank Krygowski]

I can't tell if you're misunderstanding what you read, or if you're
basing your argument on a percentage of a percentage. In either case,
you're flat wrong. Give it up.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

DirtRoadie wrote:
>
> The article is best read as a whole including the subjective portion
> to help understand the context.

In other words, you want people to only pay attention to the "Gee whiz,
I sure like the feel of new stuff!" IOW: Forget the data!! Buy what's
advertised!!

Not much "tech" in that attitude.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[DirtRoadie]

On Jul 26, 1:41 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>

Frank explain the power figures. You can't.
DR

[Joe Riel]

DirtRoadie <DirtR...@aol.com> writes:

> Frank explain the power figures. You can't.

I'd suggest that it was due, in part, to a difference in calibration
between the two units. There were two bikes, each with their own power
meter. Note, too, that the average heart rate difference between the
two bikes was 1 bpm. That corresponds to roughly 3W, not the 8W
reported by the meters. As you've noted, the data doesn't appear good
enough to draw fine distinctions.

--
Joe Riel

[thirty-six]

On Jul 24, 9:17 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:

>

> (At least, until "Newton's Law of Stiff But Compliant" is discovered.)

How about a variable stiffness rear triangle chosen (two or three
settings) according to cadence and effort?

[thirty-six]

On Jul 25, 5:36 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:

> And that's with the young racers riding a bike they weren't even
> familiar with!  Would being familiar with a bike make you faster?  If it
> helps even 0.2%, then amazing stiffness, responsiveness, extra gears,
> aerodynamics, comfort, handling, etc. don't make this racing bike any
> faster at all.  The only thing that mattered was the weight.

and scrubbed clean handlebar tape.

[DirtRoadie]

On Jul 26, 2:23 pm, Joe Riel <j...@san.rr.com> wrote:

That's a perspective, but is nonetheless just one interpretation
Huh. Imagine that.
First, I don't think anyone, Frank included, disputes that the newer
bikes were faster in the manner that they were tested.
Faster is faster.
And the subjective portion of the test was clear that the newer bikes
were unanimously and strongly preferred for characteristics such as
comfort and handling which facilitate fast riding.
Few here have any difficulty understanding the comments,
notwithstanding the idiotic statements by the resident luddite (who
apparently rides most fast corners with only one hand on his
handlebars and stays in the same gear any time he's out of the
saddle)
So as I said, the whole test is perfectly usable and informative
especially if viewed as whole. Choose not to believe whatever you
want.
We know Frank is not educable.

DR

[DirtRoadie]

On Jul 26, 1:46 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:

So, lets see, the newer bikes were faster. OK. What was your issue? Oh
yes, They WERE faster, but not because of some straw features that you
sought to attack (based upon misquoting others), but because they are
expected to be faster.
Yes I would have expected them to be faster, too, - your
mischaracterization of me notwithstanding. So if that what you want me
to agree with - done!

DR

[Jay Beattie]

On Jul 26, 1:23 pm, Joe Riel <j...@san.rr.com> wrote:

[thirty-six]

On Jul 25, 11:03 pm, James <james.e.stew...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Maybe because it feels like jelly by comparison which creates a feeling
> of unease, and if the CR, crank and frame all flexes out of the way
> during the down stroke, is that spring energy returned to the chain?

The energy is lost in the tyres, less so with tubulars. With a soft
frame, one generally has to match cadence to the natural frequency to
get the most satisfactory climb rate and efficiency.

[James]

Frank should try riding a full suspension downhill MTB out of the
saddle. Pushing on a pogo stick with a damper is not good for powering
the back wheel.

--
JS.

[dusto...@mac.com]

On Jul 26, 2:46 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:

Well... if the riders didn't have to shift, in a short uphill "drag
race", of course there's no advantage to having more gears or
handlebar shifting, cable or even looking toward the future when
everyone will be using "electric". Well, not *everyone* will be using
button shifting, of course.

Stiffness? Well (again), maybe stiffness per se isn't so important if
you're talking the difference between the Pinarello and the Lapierre,
where it might be important if you comparing a flexy-flier alu or ti
bike from the ancient past. But that is only on the uphill.

Let me say that again: that's only on the uphill. Did every single
rider (racer) in the test bust on the Pinarello for its comparably
poor handling at speed, especially downhill?
Including one racer from this group, Thibault Pinot, who won a tough
Stage 8 (seven climbs with a difficult final uphill) in this year's
Tour de France...?

I mean, even as a much younger rider, Mr. Pinot seems to have had some
expertise. He's got a pretty good list in his early palmares, too. You
could look him up.

I noted the one side of beef sprinter dude (180lbs!!!) didn't complain
about the flex with the Pinarello. Roughly 30 lbs. heavier than the
average for the group. Sounds like he has a smooth pedaling style <g>.

That leads to an observation: the test was only 3 km and on a 7.2%
grade. That's short, and pretty shallow, too. A snapshot, and since we
don't have robots riding the bikes (which would be the only way to
control power input to the bike), it's just a snapshot. And they used
two different power meters-- calibration?

I could say that in a race such as the Tour de France, this data would
very quickly fade into the noise, while those forced to ride
Pinarellos would be far, far behind on the Champs, at the conclusion
of the race. Well, I wouldn't risk life and limb trying to keep up on
the descents with racers on good-handling bikes. Make that "bikes with
far superior handling and far superior braking power and modulation".
And "Lots more gear combinations, wider range, vastly superior
shifting both in speed and precision".
Not to mention the danger involved in having to take a hand off the
bars to shift in the pack-- how many more would have fallen in that
first crash-filled week of the Tour, had they not brifters?

Dang, those racer dudes who spend the bucks to get bikes that work
better are looking smarter and smarter as I go along here.

If you're not racing, who cares? Ride what you like for whatever
reasons might apply, and be happy!
I mean, that seems like a much better use of precious time on Earth,
compared to cherry-picking suspect "data" from a rather informal road
test and using it to try to prove some kind of unsustainable point--
such as "Racing bicycles have not actually improved functionally in
the last 25 years".

I forget how long it's been since I asked-- if ever-- but Frank, have
you ridden a current-issue road bike? Say, a nice brushed titanium
frame (no paint to fall off and no rust if it did have paint to fall
off, but it's still made of metal), and perhaps a step back in
technology to the quite mature 10 speed platform? Say, something
Campagnolo, with the later, improved brifter internals that you can
still work on if needed?

I'm asking because it doesn't sound like you have-- and maybe you
should. And not just a 3 km ride up a 7.2% grade, either.

Sure, I could probably still slap-shift a double on a DT-shifter bike,
at least with a little warm-up, and I remember how to tighten the D-
ring on the right side before starting up a hill, and I can bend brake
arms to stop squeal, and I guess I could still squeeze an old-
fashioned brake lever hard enough to get stopped in an emergency, and
I still have a couple of old rear wheels around so I could easily swap
out to juggle gear ratios to some extent, at least, depending on the
ride plan (etc. etc.) but the point is, I don't have to do any of that
stuff anymore.

So far, my budget and Scot sense of monetary propriety has prevented
me from owning cf. But I have ridden cf. The ti and steel (!!! my
climber bike with the Triple on it) bikes I have are just fine, but
I'm not kidding myself or worse, sour-graping (sour cherry-picking?)
the better-performing material.
--D-y

[Frank Krygowski]

Well, I suppose we could say that perhaps the test wasn't sufficient to
demonstrate the benefits of any feature but reduced weight.

What's odd about that is that then, we've got to disagree with the
writers of the magazine, the designers of the test, and the guys who
rode the bikes. That's the crew that set the entire thing up, and when
they (and the magazine's owners) started shelling out money to do this
test, you can bet they were sure it would be valid. And when
publication time came around, they weree convinced that they'd really
proven something!

I think a lot of people underestimate the effort needed to do a good job
on things like this. There must have been no small effort involved in
just acquiring the bikes (esp. the Pinarello with NOS equipment) and the
power meters and the riders and the test location, etc. etc.

But really, isn't it sort of a matter of faith to say a longer, more
thorough test would demonstrate tremendous benefit that didn't appear in
this test? Based on these results, we really don't know that.

If we really wanted a more thorough test, I guess we could look at the
speed data from, say, some classic pro race that's been run over the
same route year after year, and see how much its speed has increased
over the decades.

Oh wait... we did that, didn't we? ;-)

(And what was the title of this thread again?)

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Lou Holtman]

Op 27-7-2012 5:26, Frank Krygowski schreef:

>
> Oh wait... we did that, didn't we? ;-)
>
> (And what was the title of this thread again?)
>

First there is talent,
then training/nutricion,
after that medical 'enhancemments',
and last equipment.

To test equipment you have to make the first three equal and over the
years that is not possible with the third valuable in the equation.

Lou

[James]

I'm surprised it took you this long to reach a conclusion I'm sure many
others had reached long ago.

But hang on, didn't all the riders say the old leather saddle was more
comfortable? Is comfort a measurable thing?

Come to think of it, how do you measure handling? Is there a
handling-o-meter you can use to measure it? No, of course not, we have
to rely on feed back from people using it. I think that is what they
tried to do.

How on earth can we make decisions when we have to rely on peoples
feelings about stuff, and not measured values? Heaven forbid.

> What's odd about that is that then, we've got to disagree with the
> writers of the magazine, the designers of the test, and the guys who
> rode the bikes. That's the crew that set the entire thing up, and when
> they (and the magazine's owners) started shelling out money to do this
> test, you can bet they were sure it would be valid. And when publication
> time came around, they weree convinced that they'd really proven something!

BS. Straw.

> I think a lot of people underestimate the effort needed to do a good job
> on things like this. There must have been no small effort involved in
> just acquiring the bikes (esp. the Pinarello with NOS equipment) and the
> power meters and the riders and the test location, etc. etc.

You need someone to pay for it.

> But really, isn't it sort of a matter of faith to say a longer, more
> thorough test would demonstrate tremendous benefit that didn't appear in
> this test? Based on these results, we really don't know that.

For those who have actually used the old and the new, they can probably
decide for themselves, and don't need study results to prove anything.
The only ones who seem to need proof are those that don't have experience.

--
JS.

[Duane Hebert]

But aren't we scoffing at a mere 1 second speed increase in a 7 minute
climb?
If you're talking about the TDF I can't imagine that any of the riders
(or their sponsors)
wouldn't pay dearly for that.

That nonsense about not taking a hand off the bar is someone that has
never descended
at speed into a curve.

> Dang, those racer dudes who spend the bucks to get bikes that work
> better are looking smarter and smarter as I go along here.

Yeah, if the tech matters, it's worth the money.

> If you're not racing, who cares? Ride what you like for whatever
> reasons might apply, and be happy!
> I mean, that seems like a much better use of precious time on Earth,
> compared to cherry-picking suspect "data" from a rather informal road
> test and using it to try to prove some kind of unsustainable point--
> such as "Racing bicycles have not actually improved functionally in
> the last 25 years".

+1

Actually Frank once told me that there has been no measurable
improvement in bicycles
since the penny farthing.


<snip>

[i_am_cyc...@yahoo.ca]

On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 9:39:16 PM UTC-4, James wrote:
> http://www.sportsscientists.com/
>
> Very interesting article - WITH DATA!! (Frank will be so overjoyed).
>
> Nothing to do with pedals, helmets or the colour of their leotards.
>
> --
> JS.

Something I've often wondered about regarding top speeds. I've read that to go twice the speed you use four times the energy. I think that a lightweight bike and aero components would mean that the rider would be using less energy to get to and to maintain their top speed. That would man they are less fatigued at the end of the day which in turn would mean that they would have an easier recovery for te next day. I think that on a multi-day race that saved energy could really add up.

Cheers

[Duane]

You have to be careful with Aero wheels. I'm just having a discussion
with a friend that is riding in a charity race from Toronto to Montreal.
It's in 3 stages over 3 days. He has aero wheels and their group
leader advised him to swap them for this race. The idea being that
fighting the crosswinds is going to tire him more than the gain of the
aeros. I know I've ridden his bike and it's like a kite when the wind
is from the side.

Otherwise, I think that you're right and any energy saved in a
multi-stage race is going to make recovery easier. Color of the
leotards notwithstanding.