Weight's a weird thing

[Scot Brooks‏]

I spend about equal time on my Sam Hillborne and my Soma Double Cross. To abbreviate the way they're normally set up, the Sam's got a 40/24 12-36 drivetrain, 35c Soma New Xpress tires, front rack/basket/Shopsack. The Soma's got a 48/34 11-34 drivetrain, 35c Schwalbe Marathon Racers, front rack, front and rear Sackville bags. 

Anyway, I always assumed that my Soma was kind of a lightweight go-fast bike with it's fancy Tange Prestige tubing and slightly more aggressive geometry (shorter chain stays anyway). Compared to the Sam, it just takes off like crazy and feels incredibly quick and nimble. Lo-and-behold, I got one of those hook scale things today, and the total weight of each bike was 35lbs for the Sam and 31lbs for the Soma. 

I thought it was the weight that explained the difference in feel, but clearly that's not the case. Both are equally pleasurable to ride, but there must be far more factors involved in the overall "feel" of each bike than I might have guessed. 

[Jan Heine‏]

Weight is easily measured, but it's really not that important in itself.

If I fill up three water bottles and add them to my bike, I've just added about 5 pounds, yet the bike feels the same most of the time. During normal riding, the extra 5 pounds are a non-issue. (I may feel the extra weight when I rise out of the saddle and throw the bike from side to side, or when I carry the bike into the basement, and it probably is measurable against the stopwatch on a long climb.) In summary, the overall bike weight is not very important.

That doesn't mean that a heavy bike feels and rides the same as a lighter one. Here is why: If, during the design process of my bike, I added just half a pound to the frame of my bike by going to thicker tubing walls, by using larger tubing diameters, or by adding extra tubes, then my bike would feel radically different. Through almost a decade of testing at Bicycle Quarterly, we've found that frame flex characteristics, more than anything else, determine the feel of a bike. We tested this in a double-blind test, with three bikes that were identical, except one had thicker tubing walls. (Even the weights were equalized.) Two of our three testers could tell the bikes apart with 100% accuracy, and both strongly preferred the thinwall frames. This was despite the difference between the frames being very small - one was flexible by today's standards, the others were super-flexible. (I suspect that the third tester might have been able to tell the difference if we had tested bikes that were more dissimilar, for example, a Surly Long-Haul Trucker tubeset against that of a Roadeo.)

So the weight of the frame often does impact the ride and performance, because it usually is inversely correlated with stiffness. We've also found that it's not the overall flex that matters as much as the balance of the frame. Traditional frames had evolved over decades of trial and error until they arrived at a formula that worked well: A relatively flexible top tube (usually 1/8" smaller in diameter than the down tube), a somewhat stiffer top tube, and very stiff (i.e., heavy and relatively short) chainstays. Most of today's best racing bikes are still built to that formula, and actually perform very well. Some of today's builders change that balance, for example, with oversize top tubes, but their bikes often don't perform as well as a result.

If you are interested in this topic, I suggest looking at our blog's "Journey of Discovery" series, where we have more details on this:

http://janheine.wordpress.com/category/a-journey-of-discovery/

and especially the entry on "Frame Stiffness."

There are other factors that influence your bike's performance and feel, most notably the resistance of the tires, your riding position (more upright makes it harder to put out power), and aerodynamics (of the rider, not the bike).

Also, in the latest Bicycle Quarterly, we tested two titanium race bikes with electronic shifting, and then compared their hillclimbing performance against a steel 650B randonneur bike with fenders, lights, and even a handlebar bag in a hillclimbing competition. The results were truly surprising and showed that factors other than weight are important in determining a bicycle's performance.

It is important to remember that performance isn't everything. Not every bike is optimized for performance, and not every rider seeks out performance. It all depends on how you ride and what your priorities are. And different people seem to have different pedal strokes and sensitivities. Some riders can make almost any bike go, while others really benefit from a bike that is fine-tuned to their pedal stroke.

Jan Heine
Editor
Bicycle Quarterly
www.bikequarterly.com

[eflayer‏]

You might try a 16.5 lb Specialized Roubaix and let us know what you think about that :). Mine weighs about 4 lbs less than my lightest steel bike. I still like steel a ton, but for pure fast club road rides, the Roubaix is more fun in most ways.

[Jan Heine‏]

As a reader pointed out, I should have said "somewhat stiffer down tube" instead of "top tube" below.

On Sunday, January 13, 2013 6:33:31 AM UTC-8, Jan Heine wrote:

 a formula that worked well: A relatively flexible top tube (usually 1/8" smaller in diameter than the down tube), a somewhat stiffer top tube, and very stiff (i.e., heavy and relatively short) chainstays.

[ted‏]

Some 15 or 20 years ago I changed from a semi-custom Nobilette frame
to a Gios Torino frame. The Gios was noticeably stiffer. When I did
jumps (on either flats or hills) the Gios responded with more
immediacy and directness than the Nobilette. With the Nobilette it
seemed I could feel the frame flexing or winding up, and on the Gios
the increase in effort seemed to go directly to rear wheels contact
patch. My performance in races and group rides with local racing clubs
was as good or better with the Gios.
In my experience a stiffer frame does not necessarily imply reduced
performance.
I suspect that differences in riders physiques and pedaling styles
affect what "a bike fine-tuned to their pedaling stroke" is.

On Jan 13, 6:56 am, Jan Heine <hein...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> As a reader pointed out, I should have said "somewhat stiffer *down* tube"

[Michael‏]

I think it is difficult to measure the effect of weight on a bike's performance, when there are so many other factors that contribute to the ride, as Jan pointed out.

 

My Bleriot (22.1 lbs) is only about 3 lbs. heavier than my Giant defy 3.

I am not sure which bike is "faster" than the other.

The Bleriot feels slower, but I have my fastest commute time on it.

 

The Defy feels bouncy and twitchy but faster in take off and general riding.

The Bleriot feels stable and predictable and lower to the ground. I prefer the Bleriot ride because I feel safer on it and there have been times like yesterday when I am sure I would have crashed if I had been on the Defy road bike, but the wide tires of the Bleriot helped me roll harmlessly over road cracks along the narrow shoulder as a car passed.

 

 

 

[ted‏]

Is that 16.5 lbs your measurement? Does it include saddle, pedals, and
cages (race bikes are often weighed without those components)?
What is your lightest steel bike, and what wheels and components are
on it?
Also keep in mind that adding 4 lbs to your 16.5 lb roubaix is an
increase of nearly 25% whereas adding the same 4 lbs to a 31 lb bike
is only a 13% increase.

On Jan 13, 6:54 am, eflayer <eddie.fla...@att.net> wrote:
> You might try a 16.5 lb Specialized Roubaix and let us know what you think
> about that :). Mine weighs about 4 lbs less than my lightest steel bike. I
> still like steel a ton, but for pure fast club road rides, the Roubaix is
> more fun in most ways.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Saturday, January 12, 2013 9:33:04 PM UTC-8, Scot Brooks wrote:
>
> > I spend about equal time on my Sam Hillborne and my Soma Double Cross. To
> > abbreviate the way they're normally set up, the Sam's got a 40/24 12-36
> > drivetrain, 35c Soma New Xpress tires, front rack/basket/Shopsack. The
> > Soma's got a 48/34 11-34 drivetrain, 35c Schwalbe Marathon Racers, front
> > rack, front and rear Sackville bags.
>
> > Anyway, I always assumed that my Soma was kind of a lightweight go-fast
> > bike with it's fancy Tange Prestige tubing and slightly more aggressive
> > geometry (shorter chain stays anyway). Compared to the Sam, it just takes

> > off like crazy and *feels *incredibly quick and nimble. Lo-and-behold, I

[Scot Brooks‏]

In honor of Jan, I did my Ballard Trader Joe's grocery trip this morning with decreased tire pressures (about 65psi) and front loaded maybe 10 pounds of food in the basket. The Soma still climbed like mad rat. Budget grocery randonneur :)

[PATRICK MOORE‏]

It may not be weight, or it may be lower wheel weight, but I consistently -- over 10 years -- find myself climbing faster, particularly when I stand, on my 18 lb (pedals, cage, but no seat bag or bottle) gofast -- particularly noticeable because it is geared higher (75") than my other bikes. In particular I often find myself *not* bailing on one particular very steep 1/4 mile section, when I fully intend to, as I do on the other fixies and which is a struggle on the 34-to-40" outer ring low on the Fargo (38X32X29", 38X26X27.5" wheels respectively, even without a grocery load. 

OTOH, the Herse I used to own, which was a tank, felt faster than either the similarly weighted Sam Hill and the slightly heavier Fargo (with Kojak wheelset) even when cruising in a 73" gear compared to a 67" to 69" gear -- this with decidedly non-optimum tires (IRC Tandem belted 30 mm -- these felt better than the doggy 35 mm Pasela Tourguards). The Sam felt much like the Fargo with Kojak wheelset: Not bad at all but certainly more sluggish on the flats as on the hills. 

I have no fixed idea why there should be such differences, but I guess that, beside weight and wheel weight, and tire quality, there is fit: the Herse fit as well or almost as well as my custom Rivs.

FWIW again, the much lighter-tubed and narrower-tubed '73 Motobecane felt faster than the Sam or Fargo, but slower overall than the Herse or the Rivs. 67" gear -- shod with said IRCs.

On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Scot Brooks <scothi...@gmail.com> wrote:

In honor of Jan, I did my Ballard Trader Joe's grocery trip this morning with decreased tire pressures (about 65psi) and front loaded maybe 10 pounds of food in the basket. The Soma still climbed like mad rat. Budget grocery randonneur :)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/ifgdHEHPPf0J.

To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

--

-------------------------
Patrick Moore, Albuquerque, NM, USA
For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW
http://resumespecialties.com/index.html
-------------------------

[PATRICK MOORE‏]

One more remark on sensations of fastness -- which can be correlated, at least to some degree, with actual speed if you are accustomed to (1) riding the same gears or very similar gears on different bikes and (2) are sufficiently aware of your cadence: the tricycle (narrow-tubed 531, and light for a trike at ~28 lb with Old School parts, felt noticeably draggier than the Rivs, the Herse, and the Motobecane, and as well a bit slower than the Sam and the Fargo/Kojaks, gearing taken into account. I attribute this to the third wheel: the tires were, IIRC, IRC Tandem quality. Pushing the (in this case) 71" cruising gear my cadence and the related effort/torque was slower/higher, ceteris paribus.

Patrick "ceteris paribus to you to, buddy" Moore

[Garth‏]

Keep it simple.

The tires.   Unless you compare with the same tire on very similar wheels, the comparison is moot.

[Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery‏]

There is very little useful information contained in that oft-discussed quantity known as bike weight. If you shave 100 grams off your handlebar, the effect is different than shaving 100 grams off your tires. Even specifying frame weight tells only a small part of the story, since you can reduce frame weight in a variety of ways.

Personally, I don't think about weight. I select components that have the appropriate mix of function, looks, weight, durability, street cred, and affordability, and let the bike weight be the dependent variable. Then I add 30 pounds of miscellaneous crap in various bags and accessories. Then I ride and don't think about weight, or even speed.

For me, as an unracer and unrandonneur, weight and speed are irrelevant, except that I need to have a rough idea how many minutes I should expect for my commute, so I'm not late.

[Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery‏]

I should have clarified that I don't place much importance on bike weight. To a small extent I consider the weight of tires and rims, such that I don't use 1000-gram tires if punctures don't seem to be a major concern, nor do I use 400-gram rims on a bike I plan to thrash.

[eflayer‏]

my Roubaix weighs 16.5 with all the normal road riding parts; pedals saddle cages, etc. what's your point? light is fast and fun. some like/need a 30 lb bike, some prefer lighter. why truck when you can fly?

[Robert Zeidler‏]

Agreed. I normally ride anywhere from 66-69cm bikes. I love my Rivs for the ride quality. But if I'm doing a metric or a double-metric century w/thousands of feet in climbing on New England hills where there's a lot of 8-12% grades all the time, I'm taking my Roubaix (64cm, 18.2lbs), or a Seven (67cm, 19 lbs), or a Calfee (69cm, 19.8lbs w/disc brakes). If for no other reason that I can ride at a fast clip, but still enjoy the company of others, occasionally pass some people, and never quite run out of gas. This mostly comes into play on any long climb, where, even though I'm old, tall, heavy-ish, and relatively slow, I can get by w/ Cytomax as fuel and keep the cool kids in sight. 

IMHO, lighter is always righter. 

RGZ

Sent from my iPad

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/4hz-iWJpuXMJ.

[PATRICK MOORE‏]

You go, guy! I wholeheartedly agree with the general proposition that, ceteris paribus, lighter is righter. Of course there are many cetera to considera! 

Patrick "18, ~25 (with empty Sackville Med and #4 HpX and lights), ~29/33 lb, all ready to ride" Moore

[Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery‏]

A few years ago, I had an 80s univega that was similar in many ways to a Rambouillet. No racks or fenders, skinny 700x25 tires, roadie gearing, about 21-22 lbs. It was the lightest, raciest bike I ever had, and very comfortable for me. I rode it 200 miles that year, with 150 of those miles coming in a single ride. I rode it so few times because, like previous similar attempts, I found that riding a "road bike" was too confining. I relish the freedom to roll off the pavement more than I care about riding my fastest or keeping up with faster riders. To each his/her own, but now my speed bike is a Surly Cross-check with 700x40 marathon supremes. That said, I do sometimes get a wild hair and "casually" pass roadies on expensive bikes. This is especially fun on my Brompton or Pugsley.

[C.J. Filip‏]

Four bikes in my stable. The heaviest ones get ridden the most.
Heaviest being ~30lbs on my Saluki (and preferred ride) with rack and
bags. My lightest, a steel Specialized Allez circa 2003 weighing in
at ~19lbs, is a joy to ride, but I physically can't ride it without
being "kitted up" and ride in semi-sterile and relatively rare
conditions of paved roads in these parts. Boiler plate Riv-inspired
response, but true.

On Jan 13, 5:02 pm, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery <thill....@gmail.com>
wrote:

[charlie‏]

I love riding my Hillborne and don't even know what it weighs. I know I weigh 257 so it makes little difference to me if my bike weighs 2-5 pounds less than another one. I own an 80's go fast standard dimension Columbus SL tubed bicycle and it is no faster or more comfortable for me to ride. I put quite a few miles on three other frames similarly constructed with old school skinny tubing of varying thicknesses and my best ride so far has been my Surly Trucker with oversized tubing and my new (two top tubed) Hillborne. Maybe at my weight, I need them. A pure performance bike probably should have a more flexible frame and tuned to rider weight but I want a frame to last and will gladly give up a slight edge in performance for that feature.

On Saturday, January  12, 2013 9:33:04 PM UTC-8, Scot Brooks wrote: 

[dougP‏]

As long as I can carry my Atlantis up stairs & load onto the hooks on the train, it's not too heavy.  My guess is at least 35 lbs.  But the scale is upstairs and the bike is in the cold garage; maybe later.

dougP

[ted‏]

Cool, thanks for the added detail.
As to my point, Im not sure I have one, though Im not sure what yours
was either. The original poster seemed to opine that the 4 lb
difference between a 31lb bike and a 35 lb bike didn't matter much.
You suggested he try a bike that weighs about half as much, or about
16lbs less, or about 4 times as big a weight difference than he was
talking about.
By all means ride what you like.

[eflayer‏]

I was surprised the OP did not think that pounds of extra weight might not be responsible for the go fast feel of his go fast bike...even though by some standards both are relatively heavy. But 4 pounds is 4 pounds. I was suggesting weight is a significant factor in the gestalt of how a bike rides and feels to the rider. My custom steel with carbon fork weighs about 21 pounds. My Roubaix weighs about 16.5. I like them both a lot, but for pure paved road riding, given a choice, I most often seem to choose the Roubaix.

[Scot Brooks‏]

Eflayer,
I was just saying that I was surprised they felt so different but were both, in fact, bikes that might shop in the husky section of the store. I like hearing about the interesting nuances of bicycle feel, especially in this case where I have two bikes that I love equally and like to fawn over with analytical discussion.

[Peter Morgano‏]

The idea of me weighing a bike is like weighing myself, pointless other than to illustrate what I already know. I sure do like to ride the bikes I have though. I guess if it ever gets to where I am using a scale to weigh my food I can worry about a few pounds here or there on a bike. Not that there isnt a whole set of people for which this does make sense, and more power to them. This argument is somewhat "helmet-like" where the two sides probably will never see eye to eye and someone will get all un-civil like and ruin it.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/uhWMZ-Bo3h8J.

[Benz, Sunnyvale, CA‏]

Although I do not dispute that weight plays a part in how a bike feels, unless your Rivs weigh close to 30 lb or you weigh closer to 100 than 200 lb, those few pounds is only a very small percentage of the total bike+rider+accessories weight, which is what's important in a purely physics-based examination of performance factors. My experience is aligned with Jan's - I don't believe bike weight plays a primary factor in performance, at least at my level. Fit (aggressive vs. relaxed) and its associated rider position plays a much larger role in overall performance. As an example, my Della Santa and Independent Fab differ by probably 5 or more pounds (partially due to component mix), but both allow me to "mix it with the boys". And yes, long 8-12% roads are (unfortunately) common around these parts.

Stating this does not exclude me from being a weight-weenie though, as my chest of Ti hardware will attest to. :)

[Steve Palincsar‏]

On Sun, 2013-01-13 at 20:13 -0800, eflayer wrote:
> I was surprised the OP did not think that pounds of extra weight might
> not be responsible for the go fast feel of his go fast bike...even
> though by some standards both are relatively heavy. But 4 pounds is 4
> pounds. I was suggesting weight is a significant factor in the gestalt
> of how a bike rides and feels to the rider.

I don't think so. Does your bike feel different when ridden with full
vs. no water bottles, or with full vs. empty water bottles? I doubt you
could make any guess at all about the state of your water supply from
the way your bike feels.

Frame stiffness, now that's a totally different story, and one that is
largely independent of weight. Different tires can make a bike feel
very different, too -- and again, not because of any weight difference.

I'm confident if someone loaded the water bottles on your Specialized
with lead shot to bring it up to the weight of your other bike, it would
still feel different and better to you.

[eflayer‏]

now that is an interesting proposal. i'd bet against you on that one though :)

[Matthew J‏]

I have two Abus Bordo locks.  One is the very heavy Granite, the other the new ultra-light.

 

I got the ultra-light version for my Kellogg / Spectrum road bike.  Typically the only time I stop when on that bike is to pick up a drink or what not, so lock security is not an issue.  I like the lighter Bordo for this bike as there is less chance of it will scratch the paint.

 

A while back I was having work done on my city bike so I took the Kellogg to an appointment.  The Bordo Granite easily adds a pound over the ultra-light.  I cannot say I noticed any difference at all in the ride of the bike.

 

Switching from the Grand Boid Cerfs to 700x32 Extra Legers - Wow - that makes a difference!

[William‏]

My money is with Steve Palinscar.  

This reminds me of a long debate/argument I had with a coworker at the bike shop.  My coworker, Greg, insisted that an 18lb road bike was way faster than a 20lb road bike.  That's a commonly held position, as we all know.  I pointed out what I believe to be true that losing 2lbs off your body is equivalent to losing 2lbs off your bike.  That's another commonly held position, as we've all heard and read a dozen times.  This is where the debate got weird.  

Greg insisted that 2lbs off the bike is 10%, and therefore is equivalent to losing 10% of the rider's body weight.  an 18lb bike is way faster than a 20lb bike because it is 10% lighter.  A 180lb rider is way faster than a 200lb rider, because he is 10% lighter.  So it is more effective to lose a pound off the bike than it is off the body.  

I tried to counter his argument with the absurd example.  If mid climb, you took your full water bottle off your bike and put it in your jersey pocket, would you feel an instant rush of speed because the bike got 10% lighter and the rider got 1% heavier?  Greg insisted ABSOLUTELY YES, you would feel a burst of speed.  The debate devolved from there.  Greg insisted heavy shoes and light pedals is way faster since the pedal is part of the bike and the shoe is a part of the rider.  He explained that cleats are special, where the weight is shared.  My head exploded shortly thereafter and the argument ended.  

[Peter Morgano‏]

Maybe Greg spent too much time around the Framesaver. I hear it can kill brain cells, haha.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/c6xP4xRO-q0J.

[Scott Henry‏]

Its not so much the weight as the location and type of weight.

 

Take a racing bike, replace the low spoke count wheels with some heavy duty touring wheels.  Weight difference in the wheels can easily be felt.  Water bottle do add pounds, but not in the manner that rotating weight does. 

 

Outside of that, a carbon fiber or lightweight aluminun frame, moreso than just being lighter, is designed to ride differently.  Compairing just weights is not enough.  Take a lugged steel frame and re-create it with carbon or aluminum or even titanium, matching the angles and measurements and it will still ride differently.  You just can't compair one bike to a different one, thats why we all have so many bikes in our garages and basements.

 

The only real way to compair weights is to have a frame built up with normal duty "heavy" Riv-ish parts and then build it again with lighter "racing" parts.  Then you'd be able to notice a weight diffence.

Scott

 

 

 

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/OfVVvKvX5u8J.

[Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery‏]

William's buddy Greg is not alone. Lots of magical thinking pervades all aspects of cycling even among some who have a seemingly solid background in physics. Credit marketing hype for overpowering reason. I believe that, at some point, lightweight becomes an issue of bragging rights rather than a performance improvement. Sure, a 16 lb bike designed for racing is probably faster than a 30 lb touring bike. But when the recreational rider spends a couple thousand dollars extra to turn his/her 16 lb racing bike into a 15 lb racing bike, he/she is just showing off. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Performance improvement is a nice little lie we tell ourselves so we don't feel so silly and pompous about buying a $300 saddle upgrade to save 38 grams.

[Mike Schiller‏]

next thing you know someone is going to say skinnier tires are faster too!

~mike

[ted‏]

It should be fairly easy for you to do that experiment if you are
interested. I would like to hear how it comes out if you do.
Also though 4 lbs is 4 lbs, the significance of those 4 lbs varies
with the situation. Adding 4 lbs to a car means nothing, adding 4 lbs
to a motorcycle would be hard (or impossible) to detect by feel,
adding 4 lbs to a 30 lb bike is going to be less noticeable than
adding 4 lbs to a 16 lb bike. And of course when you are trying to
close a gap jumping out of a corner, 4 lbs on your rims/tires is quite
different from 4 lbs on your frame.

[Robert Zeidler‏]

And lighter.....

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 14, 2013, at 7:09 PM, Mike Schiller <mikey...@rocketmail.com> wrote:

next thing you know someone is going to say skinnier tires are faster too!

~mike

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/cwsz9iTMvwIJ.

[Robert Zeidler‏]

There applies the law of diminishing returns.

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 14, 2013, at 4:16 PM, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery <thil...@gmail.com> wrote:

> William's buddy Greg is not alone. Lots of magical thinking pervades all aspects of cycling even among some who have a seemingly solid background in physics. Credit marketing hype for overpowering reason. I believe that, at some point, lightweight becomes an issue of bragging rights rather than a performance improvement. Sure, a 16 lb bike designed for racing is probably faster than a 30 lb touring bike. But when the recreational rider spends a couple thousand dollars extra to turn his/her 16 lb racing bike into a 15 lb racing bike, he/she is just showing off. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Performance improvement is a nice little lie we tell ourselves so we don't feel so silly and pompous about buying a $300 saddle upgrade to save 38 grams.
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/ftF3Qs-bQQYJ.

[RJM‏]

The difference in ride and speed when I swap from Soma tires to Pari Motos on my Sam Hillborne is noticeable, noticeable enough that I have a second wheelset for each tire; one for clubby rides and the other for Just Riding!

 

The difference is 120 grams per tire, I believe. The performance difference probably isn't totally weight, but I am sure it doesn't hurt.

[Patrick in VT‏]

On Monday, January 14, 2013 2:58:13 PM UTC-5, Skenry wrote:

 

The only real way to compair weights is to have a frame built up with normal duty "heavy" Riv-ish parts and then build it again with lighter "racing" parts.  Then you'd be able to notice a weight diffence.

Scott

If that's the case, I'll weigh in.  I have two identical steel frame bikes - same exact fit on both.  One has a full-on race build for CX and weighs about 17lbs.  The other has a stouter build for gravel-grinding/rough-stuff and is around at 20-21lbs - but is still worthy as a pit-bike for CX racing and/or fast club riding.  I absolutely notice a difference between the bikes, but that difference is irrelevant to 90% of riding I do ... it doesn't matter and I don't think about it.  We're talking seconds (and not a lot of them) on a long climb or a TT.  That's what any "performance" gain amounts to from dropping a few pounds off a "go-fast" bike, or a rider's weight for that matter.  Seconds.  Maybe a couple minutes on a long ride. 

In my experience, step function improvement in performance primarily comes from improved fitness/power, particularly functional threshold power (basically the max power one can sustain for an hour).  Far bigger gains in performance can be had there.  Would I rather shave 5lbs bike/body or increase my functional threshold power from 300w to 325w?  It's a no-brainer.  Lightweight might feel good, but being strong and fit feels better - in my case, to the point where I don't sweat a carrying a few extra pounds on my frame or a bike frame. 

It's not all that different with running.  A general rule of thumb that gets kicked around is 2 seconds per mile per extra pound of body weight.  So if I weigh an extra 5lbs for a local 5k, i can expect to be about 30-45 seconds slower unless I improved my run fitness along with the weight gain.  in any event, we're still talking seconds or maybe a couple of minutes on a 10 mile run.  doesn't matter unless it matters, like trying to qualify for the Boston marathon or if somebody is serious about setting personal records (which a lot of runners are). 

[eflayer‏]

nicely said. when i discuss the difference in weight of my lightish steel and my still 4 lbs lighter carbon, i am never thinking about my measured performance or speed improvement. for me it is a more subtle appreciation of the overall quality of the ride. the unmeasured feel of getting up to speed faster and easier, standing up on the pedals and going like a rocket, and the seemingly overall ease when climbing something steep. completely unscientific, but i know it's true.

[Jan Heine‏]

Patrick in VT wrote: Would I rather shave 5lbs bike/body or increase my functional threshold power from 300w to 325w?  It's a no-brainer.

You are absolutely right. And that is why frame flex is so important. Imagine a bike that allows you to put out 325W instead of 300W for the same fatigue! From our testing, that is how "planing" works - the frame isn't more efficient for a given power output, but our power outputs vary with different frames. From our observations, it appears that you build up less lactic acid when the frame smoothes your pedal stroke, by storing energy during the downstrokes and releasing it during the dead spots.

For those who think power output is constant, no matter the bike, it may help to think about pushing against a concrete wall. The wall doesn't move, so no work is done. Zero Watts. Yet you'll get tired pushing against the wall in no time. Similarly, if your frame doesn't move during the downstroke, it seems to limit how much power you can put into the system before the bike "pushes back" like that concrete wall. Then your legs start to hurt, and muscle fatigue limits your power output. On a bike that "planes," your legs don't hurt, and your cardiovascular fitness becomes the (higher) limiting factor.

That explains why in our experience, performance correlates only very weakly with weight, but very strongly with optimized frame flex characteristics. (Of course, weight and optimized frame flex characteristics are correlated on most bikes, hence lightweight bikes often perform better than heavier ones.)

Jan Heine
Editor
Bicycle Quarterly

Follow our blog at http://janheine.wordpress.com/

On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 8:33:36 AM UTC-8, Patrick in VT wrote:

[Jan Heine‏]

On Monday, January 14, 2013 2:58:13 PM UTC-5, Skenry wrote:

 

The only real way to compair weights is to have a frame built up with normal duty "heavy" Riv-ish parts and then build it again with lighter "racing" parts.  Then you'd be able to notice a weight diffence.

Scott

You don't need to go through that much effort. You can just add a water bottle full of gravel to the lightweight bike. Compare it against a known rider on a known bike, before and after. We've done that multiple times in Bicycle Quarterly's bike tests, and the 4 pounds of gravel didn't make any noticeable difference in the performance of the bike.

When we first tested a bike made from "superlight" tubing, we were surprised how much better than my Alex Singer it climbed. Switching bikes back and forth, Mark and I found that whoever rode the "superlight" bike was faster. To make sure it wasn't the weight difference (one was a racing bike, the other a randonneur bike), we moved all the water bottles, food, etc. to the "superlight" bike, stuffing the rider's jersey pockets until the "superlight" bike was heavier than the Singer. The performance difference remained. Whoever rode the heavy "superlight" bike still was faster, and we switched back and forth multiple times.

The test method of switching bikes between well-matched riders is useful, because it accounts for environmental conditions (both ride side by side, so have the same wind, temperature, etc.) and fatigue (both riders fatigue at the same rate). This makes it easier to compare bikes than repeat runs up a hill, where it's obvious that Run 10 will be slower than Run 2, because the rider is getting tired.

[Steve Palincsar‏]

On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 09:08 -0800, Jan Heine wrote:
>
> That explains why in our experience, performance correlates only very
> weakly with weight, but very strongly with optimized frame flex
> characteristics.

For a mind-blowing example of the above, be sure to read the road test
of the titanium road bikes in the current issue of BQ. (I'm going to
leave the big reveal to Jan, if he wants to pick up on the cue...)

> (Of course, weight and optimized frame flex characteristics are
> correlated on most bikes, hence lightweight bikes often perform better
> than heavier ones.)

But http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0vEgU88IQQ

[PATRICK MOORE‏]

Beside weight, tire quality and width, strength, and frame flex -- or, better, suitability of frame for the rider: leaving these out, can anyone speak (with meaning) about rider position, bike fit, and geometry suited for rider position, and their relation to speed?

I come back to the Herse I owned: heavy, stiff, mediocre tires (at least my take after riding them for a few K miles on two bikes): yet the Herse seemed to encourage spirited riding in a way that other bikes of similar or even lighter weight and tires no worse did not. 

What I experienced on the Herse is what I experience on the two Riv customs: they just "feel" right and let me pedal at higher cadences for given perceived effort in a given gear or very close range of gears, again compared to other bikes that don't have the same "optimum fit and feel" quality. This includes the Motobecane which is made from light, narrow-tubed 531; the H and 2 Rs are of stouter (and in the case of the Rivs) larger diameter tubing.

Anyone? 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/ixuj4ebYfMsJ.

To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

--

-------------------------
Patrick Moore, Albuquerque, NM, USA
For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW
http://resumespecialties.com/index.html
-------------------------

[PATRICK MOORE‏]

Addendum: Since I've experienced this fit/feel-cum-speed thing over almost 15 years with the '99 and for almost 10 with the '03, I think I can discount psychology. With the Herse, the immediate feeling was: "How like the Rivs!"

Shoulda kept it -- except that I needed the $$. I hope the Ram ends up feeling as good -- and! That it does not end up costing as much as the Herse. So far, it's much less.

[PATRICK MOORE‏]

Oh! One last thing: "How like the Rivs!" I mean in the kind of feel that makes you pedal more effectively. I **don't** mean handling. It was fine, but not great -- *that's* another big reason for selling.

[Patrick in VT‏]

On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 12:18:52 PM UTC-5, Steve Palincsar wrote:

For a mind-blowing example of the above,  be sure to read the road test
of the titanium road bikes in the current issue of BQ.  (I'm going to
leave the big reveal to Jan, if he wants to pick up on the cue...)

i'm inclined to believe that frames of any material can have "optimized" frame flex characteristics as far as performance is concerned.  all the talk regarding stiffness with respect to racing bikes seems a little overdone, if not a little misleading, since removing material - be it steel, CF or Ti - from the frame to put them at combat weight must also reduce stiffness to some degree, esp. when that the bulk of that weight is in the main tubes.  i'm not 100% on that, but would agree with Jan that it points to a correlation with weight and flex.

[Kelly‏]

Also a quick measure can be found here... 

http://bikecalculator.com

Enjoy

[eflayer‏]

Just in case anyone is interested, my 2009 Specialized S-Works Roubaix frameset is now on ebay. My favorite ride in the last 10 years has now been replaced with the next size up.

[Scott Henry‏]

Please post the link

 

Scott

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/z9_jhMjI03EJ.

[eflayer‏]

http://my.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?MyEbay&gbh=1&CurrentPage=MyeBayAllSelling&ssPageName=STRK:ME:LNLK:MESX

[William‏]

My man eflayer posted a link.  I clicked it and it didn't work.  But I did find his auction:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/2009-Specialized-Roubaix-S-Works-frameset-58-/150980228930?pt=Road_Bikes&hash=item23271f7742

[Allingham II, Thomas J‏]

There must be beauty in that frame to many eyes, but it escapes me.  But then, I’m turning 60 in 3 weeks, and officially entering curmudgeonhood.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/qerrCbqoCNAJ.

To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ****************************************************

To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this message was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state or local tax law provisions or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
****************************************************
****************************************************

This email (and any attachments thereto) is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email (and any attachments thereto) is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error please immediately notify me at (212) 735-3000 and permanently delete the original email (and any copy of any email) and any printout thereof.

Further information about the firm, a list of the Partners and their professional qualifications will be provided upon request.
****************************************************
==============================================================================

[eflayer‏]

that weird as it works when i click on it in your message and my message.

[eflayer‏]

i much prefer the look of fine steel and own two and have owned many, many more. i am still not that fond of the looks of modern monococked carbon, but do really enjoy the ride.

To post to this group, send email to rbw-own...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[William‏]

eflayer

That's I'm not you.  Only you are you.  :-)  

When you click your link, it goes to "My Ebay".  When I click on your link, it goes to "My Ebay".  I'm not selling a Roubaix frameset, so "My Ebay" isn't the way for me to get there.  

[William‏]

News flash.  My man Pudge has retro-grouch tendencies.  Show us your beer-truck again!

[Allingham II, Thomas J‏]

Which one, Bill – they’re all slow and load-carrying.  It’s just a question of a six, a case, or a keg….

 

From: rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com [mailto:rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of William
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 6:58 PM
To: rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: Weight's a weird thing

 

News flash.  My man Pudge has retro-grouch tendencies.  Show us your beer-truck again!

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/LBP3hfpwnNMJ.

To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[Allingham II, Thomas J‏]

Eflayer’s response does make me think I gotta ride on of those things at least once in my life.  But gateway drugs frighten me…

 

From: rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com [mailto:rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of William
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 6:58 PM
To: rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: Weight's a weird thing

 

News flash.  My man Pudge has retro-grouch tendencies.  Show us your beer-truck again!

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/LBP3hfpwnNMJ.

To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[eflayer‏]

Dudes. I did not ride one of those until I was 61 years old.

On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 4:00:29 PM UTC-8, Pudge wrote:

Eflayer’s response does make me think I gotta ride on of those things at least once in my life.  But gateway drugs frighten me…

 

From: rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com [mailto:rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of William
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 6:58 PM
To: rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: Weight's a weird thing

 

News flash.  My man Pudge has retro-grouch tendencies.  Show us your beer-truck again!

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/LBP3hfpwnNMJ.

To post to this group, send email to rbw-own...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[Allingham II, Thomas J‏]

Ah, there’s hope for  yet!

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/piBH5D0InCQJ.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[Allingham II, Thomas J‏]

For <me> yet, that is

[William‏]

Pudge tells me to jump, and I ask "How High?"

I tell Pudge to show his beer-truck and he asks "Which One?"

perfecto!

On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 3:59:18 PM UTC-8, Pudge wrote:

Which one, Bill – they’re all slow and load-carrying.  It’s just a question of a six, a case, or a keg….

 

From: rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com [mailto:rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of William
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 6:58 PM
To: rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: Weight's a weird thing

 

News flash.  My man Pudge has retro-grouch tendencies.  Show us your beer-truck again!

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/LBP3hfpwnNMJ.

To post to this group, send email to rbw-own...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[Marc Schwartz‏]

"Its still not weird enough for me"................ ; )

.......abide..........
________________________________________
From: rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com [rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com] on behalf of William [tape...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 6:14 PM

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/XQCaiM_Jr3EJ.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

[Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery‏]

I wish there was a "like" button.

[Mike Schiller‏]

Bill, maybe you should sell your Roubaix... it would be closer to Pudge's size.

~mike

[charlie‏]

I think this whole frame flex business has something to do with rider power and weight also. I don't believe a super light tubed frame would last long with me riding it and would most likely develop cracks sooner. Were I 165 pounds again maybe not but the average beginner male cyclist over 40 who is able to afford a pricey frame probably doesn't weigh that either......probably closer to 200 I'd wager. Just wanted to put a dose of reality into perhaps why the G-man makes stouter frames that many. Do they perform significantly worse than a skinny, thin tubed frame? I don't know but I'll bet we'd be splitting some pretty fine hairs.

[Scott Henry‏]

I'm fine talking steel, lugs, carbon, groupsets, touring, fixies, really just about anything bike related.  Nothing really gets me going like talking about rider weight.  I am 6' and right around 225 pounds.  Yes, I will be the first to admit that I need to lose some weight, but I refuse to call myself fat.  I am a man and I am an American man.  Its my right to eat and drink beer AND enjoy my sport.

 

I can ride a Riv weighing closer to 35# with a stout frame and 36 spoke heavy wheels and have a blast.

I can also ride my carbon race bike with low spoke custom wheels and have a blast too at half the bike weight.

I even have an old 979 set as a urban fixie, and its super fun too.

 

Any bike can be fun and bicycles as a whole are overbuilt to the point that rider weight doesn't really matter.  A powerful track sprinter probably would flex my Vitus in half, but for normal people with normal power, a bike will perform just fine. 

 

I will vnture a guess that most of us here have more than one bike availiable to us.  If I am doing a fast ride, I ride my racing bike.  A long ride on a weekend, I pick something else.  Every thing has its specific use.   Anyone remember the movie Tin Cup, where Kevin Costner play the back nine golf holes with only a 7 iron?  It can be done, but why would you try?   I can tour on my carbon, but why when I have my touring bike.   I could race on my Atlantis, but why when I have a racing bike on the hook next to it?

 

 

Scott

 

 

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/oQ9-E59_Yo4J.

[Patrick in VT‏]

On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 11:18:01 PM UTC-5, charlie wrote:

I think this whole frame flex business has something to do with rider power and weight also.

Yes, that's the idea - planing is realizing optimal frame flex characteristics for a given rider.  Kind of like getting fit for a pair of xc skis, which are fit by weight in order to optimize flex, and therefore, performance.  Anyway, most folks riding performance oriented bikes (for the sake of actual performance) are way, way under 200lbs so the conversation naturally revolves around lightweight frames - I don't think anybody is arguing that a Clydesdale needs to be on a super flexy frame to experience "planing" or maximize their performance on the bike (which, at that weight, probably isn't a concern). 

In any event, it's definitely splitting hairs as going fast on a bike is primarily determined by power to weight ratio and aerobic capacity - even if Jan is right that we can eek some extra wattage by optimizing frame flex, that still takes a backseat along with tires and all the other stuff, which eflayer wrote, results in a subtle appreciation of the overall quality of the ride.  We develop preferences based on those subtleties and eventually land on something that works for us if we're paying attention or geeky enough to care.  It's certainly related to performance to some degree, but I'd argue that it's more of a conversation about preferences and feel - stuff that is mostly subjective and fun to babble about. 

Performance is another matter all together, and one that should focus on the rider and not the bike, which becomes largely irrelevant (so long as we're talking apples to apples) when you start talking about about rider's physiology - the stuff that is entirely objective and puts real performance into perspective.  It's hard to overstate the difference between the engines of a Cat 2 amateur racer or a Jan Heine and the enthusiast who does the occasional event whether it's racing, randonneuring, club riding or whatever.

[Cicloski‏]

On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 9:18:52 AM UTC-8, Steve Palincsar wrote:

On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 09:08 -0800, Jan Heine wrote:
>
> That explains why in our experience, performance correlates only very
> weakly with weight, but very strongly with optimized frame flex
> characteristics.

For a mind-blowing example of the above,  be sure to read the road test
of the titanium road bikes in the current issue of BQ.  (I'm going to
leave the big reveal to Jan, if he wants to pick up on the cue...)

> (Of course, weight and optimized frame flex characteristics are
> correlated on most bikes, hence lightweight bikes often perform better
> than heavier ones.)

But http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0vEgU88IQQ


The builder of the bike that was consistently ridden faster in the test, states that the reason being it is "stiffer in the bottom bracket area".  I would have expected the other bike to be the faster based upon previous tests that Jan has done for BQ.  The builder goes on to point out that his bike is the less comfortable of the two bikes being compared, also because of this stiffness. The results just seem counter to the concept of "planing". I prefer to ride a more flexible frame, but not for the reason of pace.   Maybe Jan would like to expand more on this? 

[Robert Barr‏]

To the Group - this string is a perfect example of why I always try to read the RBW Owners Bunch. Thanks to all. Bob (Indiana)

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/lClv_1Gpe88J.

[Matt Beebe‏]

I've never known the weight of any of my bikes, and I've ridden lots of bikes throughout my life.    I mean, I've known published weights for frames I've owned, but have never weighed my bike when built up.

Obviously everybody has different things they look for in a bicycle, and different uses in mind.   For me the most important thing is how the bike handles for the riding I like to do-  not pedal-wise handling, or planing so to speak, or acceleration-   but gliding, carving, pulling it over obstacles, etc.   For example, I care how nimble it is when unloaded, or if can I bunnyhop easily (chainstay length and BB height affect this greatly) and whether the bike is still relatively stable when loaded (it seems chainstay length and BB height affect this too, though TT length and so on also come into play more here).     That alone is a delicate balance.    For me, most Rivendells achieve that balance-   in addition to their many other features-  nicely, as compared to, say, a cross or mountain bike with what I consider very short chainstays and super-high BB, or a Thorn Nomad, with three-foot chainstays for expedition touring.    I don't want a super thin-walled TT because I don't race, don't care about going fast compared to anyone else (on the road) and furthermore, I WILL dent the TT, if it is made of .7/.4/.7 tubing, in the course of locking the bike to a pole with other bikes, or something like that.     I care about a reasonable degree of toughness and service.    I try to use quality steel chainrings and long-wearing tires for that reason.   I believe without a doubt that ultra-thin walled TT tubing and/or lightness is great for racing and road performance, keeping up with a pack, etc. but I don't care about those types of riding.

Right now I'm riding studded nokian tires because it is winter in New England (though winters are tame these days-  resembling more an extension of late autumn straight to early spring).   I always notice quite a sluggish feeling on the road after putting the tires on in late December, but honestly I get used to it in about two rides to work and then forget about it.       In March, going back to Marathon tires, the bike feels fast on the road even though I'm sure some people would say Marathons feel like they're filled with sand.    Off road, on trails, I notice no difference whatsoever, because speed is on a whole different scale in that case, and any drag from tread or stout casing is overwhelmed by the unevenness of the root-laden, rocky, or muddy ground.