So, what wheels does lance ride now?
Mike Reed
miniscule performance advantages.
32H 3x rear, 32h 2x front:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos.php?id=/photos/2006/news/may06/may12news/LanceGiro1-06
All of you great shop guys should show this to customers looking to
replace torched boutique wheels. Especially since everyone wants to be
like Lance ;)
-Mike
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Copy to Trek dealers.......
Mark Hickey
>Sensible wheels, that's what. He has no team van, and no need for
>miniscule performance advantages.
>
>32H 3x rear, 32h 2x front:
>http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos.php?id=/photos/2006/news/may06/may12news/LanceGiro1-06
Is it just me, or is that just about the ugliest bike I've seen in a
while? I haven't yet warmed up the the Dura Ace "aesthetics", and
coupled with a dull black frame... I dunno. I suppose I'm biased
toward another monochromatic theme... but....
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
Mike Reed
with that blue/red/yellow combo he's got going.
Anthony A.
Perhaps he's going for a more upright posture in his dotage.
What's next - flat bars & sprung saddle?
Jeff Starr
wrote:
I think it's you, I like it;-) It has kind of a stealth thing going.
Put on some red cages and red tape on the bars, it would brighten
right up.
If everybody agreed on color and style, we wouldn't have/need so many
options. The Lance haters won't like it, but so what, they aren't
riding it.
Life is Good!
Jeff
Art Harris
> Put on some red cages and red tape on the bars, it would brighten
> right up.
No, I say red frame with black tape and black tires.
> If everybody agreed on color and style, we wouldn't have/need so many
> options.
I suppose. Interesting to see the 32-spoke wheels though. What rims are
those?
Art Harris
dusto...@mac.com
Mark Hickey wrote:
> Is it just me, or is that just about the ugliest bike I've seen in a
> while?
Agreed, poor tire color choice there. --D-y
Mike Reed
Art Harris wrote:
> Interesting to see the 32-spoke wheels though. What rims are
> those?
Velocity AeroHeads with Bontrager stickers?
Mike Reed
Art Harris wrote:
> Interesting to see the 32-spoke wheels though. What rims are
> those?
Oh, wait, it might be some old surplus wheels from the team, like these
Bontrager Classics:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2004/tour04/tech/?id=usps_stage3/CN-TDF04-Tech36_LA_trek
http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2004/tour04/tech/?id=usps_stage3/CN-TDF04-Tech32_Bontrager
Mike Jacoubowsky
Your later post is correct; Lance's bike is shown with the heavier
"training" wheels, used by the team in the same manner that some runners
train with ankle weights. You'll not see those wheels in race conditions,
aside from a variant for Paris Roubaix. They're tanks.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Mike Jacoubowsky
Surely you didn't just discover Cyclingnews.com last week? Old news, as
mentioned in a later post. They're the training wheels the team uses, the
same way some runners use ankle weights.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote in message
news:1147437260....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
sal bass
usually see the Campagnolo pointing sky high like that.
Sorni
> Sensible wheels, that's what. He has no team van, and no need for
> miniscule performance advantages.
>
> 32H 3x rear, 32h 2x front:
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos.php?id=/photos/2006/news/may06/may12news/LanceGiro1-06
Damn, he's even got a saddle bag and stem spacers! Now just slap a triple
on there, and he's in MY league...
Bill "except I need engine work, of course" S.
Sorni
> "Mike Reed" <waterr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sensible wheels, that's what. He has no team van, and no need for
>> miniscule performance advantages.
>>
>> 32H 3x rear, 32h 2x front:
>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos.php?id=/photos/2006/news/may06/may12news/LanceGiro1-06
>
> Is it just me, or is that just about the ugliest bike I've seen in a
> while? I haven't yet warmed up the the Dura Ace "aesthetics", and
> coupled with a dull black frame... I dunno. I suppose I'm biased
> toward another monochromatic theme... but....
Reminds me of Sugar Ray Leonard wearing ugly, plain, black boxing gear for
his second fight against Duran. No tassles, no glitter; just a big can of
whoop-ass.
Agree re. the new D-A crank. My 9-speed looks a lot "prettier" IMO.
Werehatrack
wrote:
>The frame itself doesn't bother me, but you can tell he's a bachelor
>with that blue/red/yellow combo he's got going.
Bachelor or not, real men (and real women, for that matter) wear and
use whatever they damn well please. Fashionability is for
fashionistas.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
john
>The Bontrager Classic wheels feature 32 hole tubular box-section, heat treated >rims, 21.5mm wide with eyelets, with the spoke holes on the rear wheel 2.5mm >right of center to eliminate any dish in the rear wheel.
>Photo ©: Tim Maloney/Cyclingnews
Whoa, baby!
Specifically:
>with the spoke holes on the rear wheel 2.5mm right of center to eliminate any dish in the rear wheel
Fer starters, Asymmetrical rims have the spoke holes off set to the
left of Ctr.
Secondly, they don't eliminate dish, they reduce it (which is a good
thing, of course)
And 3rd, the rims in the picture are not asymmetrical.
Aside from those minor glitches, a very accurate caption.
John
randol...@hotmail.com
time I check I had to pay for my bikes and the ugly ones can ride as
well if not better than some "pretty" ones.
When I'm going anarobic at the base of a hill I don't see anything but
the pavement in front of me. When I reach the top of the hill
everything looks a hell of a lot prettier not least of all my bike that
got me there.
Before getting off my soapbox I'll mention it's funny how marketing has
convinenced everyone that Sora components can get a novice biker to
China, but won't get Lance Armstrong to the closest stop light without
fatigue failure. What does that tell us?
Granted Tiagra shifters are easier than Sora. Honestly if I could buy
a bike that fit me with Sora components and Tiagra shifters I'd ride it
for a life time without shame or worry.
Randolf
John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
>Sensible wheels, that's what. He has no team van, and no need for
>miniscule performance advantages.
>
>32H 3x rear, 32h 2x front:
>http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos.php?id=/photos/2006/news/may06/may12news/LanceGiro1-06
>
He almost certainly always rode wheels like that. In training.
If he started racing again, he'd use lighter and more aerodynmic
stuff.
This is not news of any sort -- it's obvious.
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
diann...@yahoo.com
Great photos! What a find.
But the rims on Lance's "retirement rig" look slightly taller to me,
since the red decals are on the sides (not the hub-facing surface).
I think Lance's wheels might be the team's standard issue training
wheels. Discovery's Solvang camp last year:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos.php?id=photos/2006/features/discoverytraining/P1010014
or http://tinyurl.com/z7zb4
And even the year before:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=photos/2005/news/jan05/discoverytraining/LanceDanielsonDTC063
or http://tinyurl.com/kt2w7
G.T.
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:Sz19g.71398$F_3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
So? Does he need anything but "tanks" if he is just riding? Does ANYONE
need anything other than "tanks" just for riding?
Greg
Hank Wirtz
<randol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147470090....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Before getting off my soapbox I'll mention it's funny how marketing has
> convinenced everyone that Sora components can get a novice biker to
> China, but won't get Lance Armstrong to the closest stop light without
> fatigue failure. What does that tell us?
>
> Granted Tiagra shifters are easier than Sora. Honestly if I could buy
> a bike that fit me with Sora components and Tiagra shifters I'd ride it
> for a life time without shame or worry.
>
> Randolf
>
Oh, fer chrissakes, that's what, 17 "Dura-Ace sux, Tiagra ruelz" posts this
week?
Mind you, I don't disagree, that mid-level components are perfectly fine and
better bang for buck, but dude, give it a rest....
Mike Reed
Yeah, my 36H Ultegra Deep Vs are tanks. They probably weigh twice what
those Bontrager trainers weigh. I've actually attacked Lance on similar
wheels here in Austin (at the Tuesday Night World Championships), but
he somehow managed to chase me down. Go figure.
-Mike
J Jones
"Mark Hickey" <ma...@habcycles.com> wrote in message
news:8q1962legbqc1uflk...@4ax.com...
> "Mike Reed" <waterr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Sensible wheels, that's what. He has no team van, and no need for
>>miniscule performance advantages.
>>
>>32H 3x rear, 32h 2x front:
>>http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos.php?id=/photos/2006/news/may06/may12news/LanceGiro1-06
>
> Is it just me, or is that just about the ugliest bike I've seen in a
> while? I haven't yet warmed up the the Dura Ace "aesthetics", and
> coupled with a dull black frame... I dunno. I suppose I'm biased
I do like the DuraAce aesthetics - and always have. However, I have to
agree - that is one ugly-ass bike. It reminds me of the Huffy 10-speed I
rec'd for my birthday in 1976. Although, Lance's doesn't have the cool
kickstand that mine had!
Jeff
Mike Reed
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 12 May 2006 05:27:19 -0700, "Mike Reed" <waterr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Sensible wheels, that's what. He has no team van, and no need for
> >miniscule performance advantages.
> >
> >32H 3x rear, 32h 2x front:
> >http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos.php?id=/photos/2006/news/may06/may12news/LanceGiro1-06
> >
>
> He almost certainly always rode wheels like that. In training.
>
> If he started racing again, he'd use lighter and more aerodynmic
> stuff.
>
> This is not news of any sort -- it's obvious.
I've been out training and crossed paths with Lance in Austin several
times a year, and I don't recall ever seeing anything but race wheels
on his bike. Not deep carbons, but paired-spoke Bontragers. Same with
Chann McRae, Michael Creed, Michael Barry, and a few other pros who
I've bumped into on the roads around here in recent years.
At any rate, if it's obvious, why isn't it obvious to anyone else? Most
every racer or racer wannabe rides the lightweight or aero stuff
full-time (at least here in Austin).
-Mike
Mike Reed
I've never seen them in person though. I wonder what the criteria is...
Mike Reed
Well, then I go see Diane's post above, and there they are with their
training wheels. I dunno, I've seen race wheels with my eyeball, but
those camp photos are clearly of training wheels.
John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
>
>At any rate, if it's obvious, why isn't it obvious to anyone else? Most
>every racer or racer wannabe rides the lightweight or aero stuff
>full-time (at least here in Austin).
I think a lot of those people are using older stuff that's beat. Top
line once.
Dennis P. Harris
<waterr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, my 36H Ultegra Deep Vs are tanks. They probably weigh twice what
> those Bontrager trainers weigh. I've actually attacked Lance on similar
> wheels here in Austin (at the Tuesday Night World Championships), but
> he somehow managed to chase me down. Go figure.
>
try training with heavier wheels... heh
Mike Jacoubowsky
> I've never seen them in person though. I wonder what the criteria is...
Heavy, harsh-riding and strong. The idea is that you train on the nasty
wheels, then your lightweight wheels feel all that much better. As I pointed
out previously, it's little different from runners training with weights on
their ankles.
Mike Jacoubowsky
> training wheels. I dunno, I've seen race wheels with my eyeball, but
> those camp photos are clearly of training wheels.
Mike: You did, in fact, see Lance (and others) on their standard racing
wheelsets. They do the heavy-wheel thing whenever they have training camps,
near as I can tell. Otherwise, you're unlikely to see them on those wheels.
That's been the pattern for the past couple of years anyway.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Mike Reed" <waterr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147484233.4...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> > Copy to Trek dealers.......
>
> Surely you didn't just discover Cyclingnews.com last week? Old news, as
> mentioned in a later post. They're the training wheels the team uses, the
> same way some runners use ankle weights.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Well, actually runners don't normally run with ankle weights cuz it
causes damage to connective tissue. i think the point is many sales
lizards at bike shops push the paired spoke, racey wheels, too light
for the rider, lack of reliability, be just like Lance type sales
pitch...
And they would be better off with standard wheels, not paired spoke,
32h, aluminum rim, type bike wheels butaren'tassexy type wheels.
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> > Yeah, nice observation. I guess they do ride those training wheels.
> > I've never seen them in person though. I wonder what the criteria is...
>
> Heavy, harsh-riding and strong.
I'll bet they weigh about the same as any hub, Velocity rim, 32 spoke
wheel, and about the same as many Bontrager labeled paired spoke
offerings...harsh riding?? C'mon mike, use a fatter tire and less
air...geeeezzzzz.....Nothing is harsher than a 40-50mm carbon rim
The idea is that you train on the nasty
> wheels, then your lightweight wheels feel all that much better. As I pointed
> out previously, it's little different from runners training with weights on
> their ankles.
And again, as a runner for 10 years, never saw or heard anybody mention
running with ankle weights, Great way to get injured.
G.T.
>>Yeah, nice observation. I guess they do ride those training wheels.
>>I've never seen them in person though. I wonder what the criteria is...
>
>
> Heavy, harsh-riding and strong.
Harsh-riding? And how heavy? You make it sound like they're filled
with lead. They're just frickin' regular wheels.
Greg
--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons
Eric
I dunno, he's always kinda rode his shifters up high like that. I've often though of them as
impromptu bullhorn or TT bars.
Mike Jacoubowsky
>>>I've never seen them in person though. I wonder what the criteria is...
>>
>>
>> Heavy, harsh-riding and strong.
>
> Harsh-riding? And how heavy? You make it sound like they're filled with
> lead. They're just frickin' regular wheels.
The wheels they're using in the latest photos look like fairly "normal"
rims, probably 470 grams. Two years ago they were using fairly deep aero
rims designed primarily for tandem and other heavy-duty use; those rims were
on the order of 560 grams or so. That *is* heavy, at least in my book.
Offsetting the aero nature of the deep rim are the 32 spokes.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"G.T." <getn...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:126ca57...@corp.supernews.com...
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >>>Yeah, nice observation. I guess they do ride those training wheels.
> >>>I've never seen them in person though. I wonder what the criteria is...
> >>
> >>
> >> Heavy, harsh-riding and strong.
> >
> > Harsh-riding? And how heavy? You make it sound like they're filled with
> > lead. They're just frickin' regular wheels.
>
> rims, probably 470 grams. Two years ago they were using fairly deep aero
> rims designed primarily for tandem and other heavy-duty use; those rims were
> on the order of 560 grams or so. That *is* heavy, at least in my book.
> Offsetting the aero nature of the deep rim are the 32 spokes.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
'Book'? 100 grams per rim, 200 grams per wheelset, for a 185 pound+
package, even Lance baby...8 ounces, about a tube, tire levers and
teeny bag....
Reality needs to rear it's ugly head again...these small difference
mean nothing to a recreational rider, when he is riding. It means
everything to him in the coffee shop on Sunday, I guess....
Mike Jacoubowsky
>> rims, probably 470 grams. Two years ago they were using fairly deep aero
>> rims designed primarily for tandem and other heavy-duty use; those rims
>> were
>> on the order of 560 grams or so. That *is* heavy, at least in my book.
>> Offsetting the aero nature of the deep rim are the 32 spokes.
>>
>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
> 'Book'? 100 grams per rim, 200 grams per wheelset, for a 185 pound+
> package, even Lance baby...8 ounces, about a tube, tire levers and
> teeny bag....
>
> Reality needs to rear it's ugly head again...these small difference
> mean nothing to a recreational rider, when he is riding. It means
> everything to him in the coffee shop on Sunday, I guess....
Guess it wouldn't be any fun if we always agreed, eh? I maintain that the
difference of half a pound in a bike is noticeable to even the recreational
rider, despite the fact that it's a tiny percentage of the overall package
weight. It all adds up (including, as you mentioned, the tube, tire levers,
teeny bag... although I use a very large bag...) and when standing, it's
quite obvious. Seated? No. But when you're standing on the pedals on a
climb, moving the bike back and forth underneath you, you're isolating your
body weight from the bike and yes, I, and many others, can certainly notice
the difference. Someone who climbs entirely seated probably won't notice
much, if any difference.
How much does that difference make in the physics of getting up the hill?
Very, very little. But it definitely affects how the bike feels. Is that not
relevant? Do we either not believe that bicycles have personalities, or that
they're irrelevant? Is a bike just a tool, nothing more? I can accept the
fact that for many it is, perhaps for you, but for me, it's something
special, something that does magical things when I get on it and ride (which
is different from the folk who talk about their bikes at the coffee shop...
not something I can relate to... in my book, a bike wants to be ridden, it
exists to be ridden, and an un-ridden bike is a sin against... well, a sin
against something really powerful, for which the ramifications are truly
terrible!).
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote in message
news:1147612121....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
carl...@comcast.net
<mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[snip]
>Guess it wouldn't be any fun if we always agreed, eh? I maintain that the
>difference of half a pound in a bike is noticeable to even the recreational
>rider, despite the fact that it's a tiny percentage of the overall package
>weight. It all adds up (including, as you mentioned, the tube, tire levers,
>teeny bag... although I use a very large bag...) and when standing, it's
>quite obvious. Seated? No. But when you're standing on the pedals on a
>climb, moving the bike back and forth underneath you, you're isolating your
>body weight from the bike and yes, I, and many others, can certainly notice
>the difference. Someone who climbs entirely seated probably won't notice
>much, if any difference.
[snip]
Dear Mike,
If a daily coin flip comes up heads, have someone put a
half-pound bag of lead fishing sinkers into your very large
bag before each ride for two weeks, while you're not
watching.
(No hefting the bike, shaking it, and so forth--we're
interested in riding impressions. Pack a towel into the bag
if needed to make it hard to tell if something is rattling
around.)
Then compare what you notice with the record of what was
actually in the bag.
A weighted seat-post would be harder.
Even more trouble would be changing a pair of regular tubes
for a pair of Slime tubes with a little extra slime.
If you're riding a 20-lb bike, you're able to notice a 5%
weight increase when the half-pound is added.
It would be interesting to find out what you really can
notice. (I suspect that "the recreational rider" wouldn't
notice a half-pound increase in the total weight of a bike,
bag, and pump.)
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
russell...@yahoo.com
Bob Breedlove, the many times RAAM rider killed in the 2005 RAAM,
trained with ankle weights. And weights in a Jandd Mountaineering III
saddlebag.
Mark
>>training with weights on their ankles.
Yeah, that comment was really dumb the first time too since no runner
with the slightest clue would ever use ankle weights due to the risk of
injury.
Competitive runners may, however, train in shoes that weigh 10-14
ounces
and switch to racing flats in the 6-8 ounce range for competition.
Much like switching to fancy racing wheels for the local time trial,
the
lighter shoes feel really good and the mental effect of donning your
"racing"
shoes to do battle at the weekly 5K rec run works wonders.
Mark
Qui si parla Campagnolo
I agree with everything you say, completely and it has nothing, NOTHING
to do with what it weighs. Not the isolated, teeny little thing of what
it weighs. YES, bicycles have personalities and they are mostly
subjective( I swear my Merckx and Mondonico have a 'soul') and I think
mostly influenced by material and build type but certainly not just
weight. Lighter things are only that and to impart something magical to
those few grams lost or gained is just too much marketing for me to
bear. If it were, ANY bicycle weighing the same weights would be as
'magical', and that ain't so. Rememeber this satrted as what Lance now
rides, went to his wheels, went to 'heavy, harsh', and now to weight in
general. Weight means ohh so little, when taken in isolation.
Jean
> On Sun, 14 May 2006 20:52:04 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
> <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>Guess it wouldn't be any fun if we always agreed, eh? I maintain that the
>>difference of half a pound in a bike is noticeable to even the recreational
>>rider, despite the fact that it's a tiny percentage of the overall package
>>weight. It all adds up (including, as you mentioned, the tube, tire levers,
>>teeny bag... although I use a very large bag...) and when standing, it's
>>quite obvious. Seated? No. But when you're standing on the pedals on a
>>climb, moving the bike back and forth underneath you, you're isolating your
>>body weight from the bike and yes, I, and many others, can certainly notice
>>the difference. Someone who climbs entirely seated probably won't notice
>>much, if any difference.
>
>
> [snip]
>
> Dear Mike,
>
>
> It would be interesting to find out what you really can
> notice. (I suspect that "the recreational rider" wouldn't
> notice a half-pound increase in the total weight of a bike,
> bag, and pump.)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
My guess is that a typical "recreational rider" would be more prone to
noticing a weight increase in the bike. A "once in a while" rider is
likely to have a lower horsepower capacity than an avid/frequent rider.
So, an increase in weight would take a higher percentage of his/her
maximum sustainable HP ..ie, it would be more noticeable.
Jean
sal bass
Mike Reed
I think a typical rec rider isn't enough in tune with his/her
physiology to ride with a consistent effort that would expose any
equipment performance issues. Fitness is only noticeably hampered by
weight when you're in a climb -- unless our "rec rider" is a track
sprinter.
My bike weighs about 1 lb. more than when I bought it 5.5 years ago. I
like it a lot more in its heavier configuration. The weight differences
come from wheels, pedals, and saddle.
If I add another 1.5 lbs. to it, my bike actually goes faster --
because sometimes I clip on my aero bars.
-Mike
randol...@hotmail.com
carl...@comcast.net
wrote:
Dear Jean,
You may have misunderstood things.
On a 180-lb bicycle and rider combination, a half-pound
weight makes about 0.3% difference in the total weight.
The difference that this tiny increase makes in acceleration
and climbing is so small that it can only be predicted with
theoretical calculators like this:
http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm
If you select hands-on-the-tops, change the grade to a 10%
climb, and enter 1 mile for the distance, you'll find that
the default 179.1 lb bike-and-rider takes 14:38.0 minutes at
160 watts
Raise the bike weight half a pound to 22.4 lbs, and you'll
get the same answer.
Fiddle around and you can figure out the range:
bike 10%
weight 1-mile
lbs time
19.32 14:17.1 -- time-change point
19.33 14:38.0 -- 5lb range
23.81 14:38.0 --
23.82 15:00.0 -- time-change point
Losing 4.50 pounds lowers the exactly 15-minute time by 42.9
seconds, so half a pound means about a 5-second improvement
in fifteen minutes (900 seconds). It's unlikely that anyone
pedaling a mile up a 10% grade would notice that 0.55%
difference in elapsed time without a stopwatch.
What Mike is thinking about is not the speed lost uphill to
the extra half-pound, but how a 5% heavier bike "feels" when
he stands up and heaves it back and forth sideways--the
slightly more massive bicycle will offer slightly more
inertial resistance as he waves it back and forth sideways
between his knees.
Half-a-pound might be enough to notice that way, but I'm
skeptical. What we "feel" in such matters is greatly
influenced by what we "know"--a large sticker stating that a
bicycle weighs only 18.5 pounds can have a marvelous effect
on a 20-lb bicycle.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
randol...@hotmail.com
Half a pound is worth a pretty penny to anyone simple enough to buy
into your line. I'd wager that "fit is king". Weight becomes an issue
when you are climbing or accelerating and ONLY when competing. How
many real competitors read these threads? I'd wager not many if any
(no disrespect intended). Though, I have only three PhD's and two
Olympic gold medals under my belt so maybe I'm not one to be giving
advice (just being a smart@ss).
When you or I have sponsors beating down our doors then I'll start
demanding 12 pound bikes.
Randolf
Mike Jacoubowsky
You are only partially correct about weight being an issue only when
climbing or accelerating. Bike weight becomes obvious *anytime* you stand on
the bike and move it from side-to-side (which typically happens when
standing or accelerating). Whether a half pound falls below a noticeable
threshold or not is up to debate, but it all adds up. And yes, the water
bottle issue is an obvious one; two full bottles (instead of just one) adds
up to 24 ounces (a pound and a half) of weight and is *very* noticeable.
The wheel issue? Between fairly light (sub-1500 gram, light but not
stupid-light) and the wheels the Discovery team was seen on (around 2000
grams?), you're talking a full pound of difference.
And we're not talking 12-pound bikes here; rather, equipment that is very
reliable and can be ridden on for day-in day-out use.
None of this takes away from the fit being, by far, the most-important
consideration. If you're not comfortable on the bike, it doesn't matter how
light it is, or what its personality is, longer times in the saddle just
aren't going to be very fun.
Mike Jacoubowsky
> the extra half-pound, but how a 5% heavier bike "feels" when
> he stands up and heaves it back and forth sideways--the
> slightly more massive bicycle will offer slightly more
> inertial resistance as he waves it back and forth sideways
> between his knees.
>
> Half-a-pound might be enough to notice that way, but I'm
> skeptical. What we "feel" in such matters is greatly
> influenced by what we "know"--a large sticker stating that a
> bicycle weighs only 18.5 pounds can have a marvelous effect
> on a 20-lb bicycle.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
Carl: It's easy enough to test. Especially if you want to do a 1.5 pound
weight comparison. Just ride with a filled water bottle vs unfilled. You
could even do this as a "blind" test, not knowing which is which, by having
a dark-colored bottle. If worried about water sloshing around, freeze it. If
concerned you'll notice the condensation, freeze the empty one too... the
initial appearance will be close to the same. Obviously someone else has to
place the bottles on the bike for you! :>)
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
<carl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:s86h62lvn6jpomhkp...@4ax.com...
Mike Jacoubowsky
> to do with what it weighs. Not the isolated, teeny little thing of what
> it weighs. YES, bicycles have personalities and they are mostly
> subjective( I swear my Merckx and Mondonico have a 'soul') and I think
> mostly influenced by material and build type but certainly not just
> weight. Lighter things are only that and to impart something magical to
> those few grams lost or gained is just too much marketing for me to
> bear. If it were, ANY bicycle weighing the same weights would be as
> 'magical', and that ain't so. Rememeber this satrted as what Lance now
> rides, went to his wheels, went to 'heavy, harsh', and now to weight in
> general. Weight means ohh so little, when taken in isolation.
Peter: I never said weight was the only thing that mattered... if so, those
early Vitus bikes would be a wonderful ride! Weight is just one part of the
personality of a bike. Weight by itself doesn't impart something magical,
but it does change how it feels. Where that threshold is (the point where
someone notices that change) may be different from person to person, but on
a heavier bike, when climbing, I do *not* enjoy the feeling it gives me when
standing on the pedals. The side-to-side motion doesn't feel nearly as
lively... something we'd normally ascribe to geometry differences, but comes
up when I add extra bottles, heavier pack, heavier wheels, whatever.
And it's not what Lance rode, it's what the entire team rode at training
camps. Lance happened to be using one of those bikes. The team deliberately
trains at those camps on equipment that is not as nice as what they'll race
on, so they get a mental boost when they get on their better gear. The
extent to which it works on a physical level (training on heavier equipment,
to make you stronger) is unlikely to be relevant. Which brings up an
interesting point. Are we suggesting that top-level racers are more
susceptible to marketing than the rest of us?
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote in message
news:1147696551.5...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
randol...@hotmail.com
accept pedaling a 100lb beast.
Personally, I don't see how anyone can stand on a road bike and climb.
I've tried that maybe twice and it was like walking a tight
rope...seriously. The bike wanted to tip over. So, I just push my
butt to the back of the seat and put my tree trunk legs into "crank
mode". Like having an extra gear without the gear change. Anyone else
do this?
I know, I know...need a larger bike.
Randolf
Derk
> Personally, I don't see how anyone can stand on a road bike and climb.
I do it often, but it seems to be ineffective and bad for your knees.
Greets, Derk
David Damerell
>Personally, I don't see how anyone can stand on a road bike and climb.
>I've tried that maybe twice and it was like walking a tight
>rope...seriously.
What's really funky is getting back on a lightish solo after riding a
tandem for any length of time. It feels _incredibly_ unstable by
comparison.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is Second Sunday, May - a weekend.
Antti Salonen
> Personally, I don't see how anyone can stand on a road bike and climb.
> I've tried that maybe twice and it was like walking a tight
> rope...seriously. The bike wanted to tip over.
I haven't noticed anything like that ever, and as a short guy I've used
pretty short stems. I'm also not much of an acrobat, but rather
somewhat lacking in the coordination department. Of course a road bike
is slightly more twitchy, or perhaps "lively" than some other kinds of
bikes.
If your not convinced that it can be done without falling, I suggest you
take a look at a mountain stage of a professional cycling race on TV.
-as
Mike Reed
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
Are we suggesting that top-level racers are more
> susceptible to marketing than the rest of us?
Much more so. They often /are/ the marketing. I think a lot of pro
cyclists drink the punch as soon as someone starts to pay for stuff for
them. I know I would have back when I was trying to "make it."
-Mike
Mike Reed
David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting <randol...@hotmail.com>:
> >Personally, I don't see how anyone can stand on a road bike and climb.
> >I've tried that maybe twice and it was like walking a tight
> >rope...seriously.
>
> What's really funky is getting back on a lightish solo after riding a
> tandem for any length of time. It feels _incredibly_ unstable by
> comparison.
Yeah, no kidding. It feels like you've completely forgotten how to
ride.
I've even experienced that phenomenon in a single ride. I used to climb
Mt. Evans in CO with a pack full of winter clothes while wearing shorts
and ss jersey. Average maybe 9 mph for 3 hours. Get to the top,
disoriented at 14,260 ft, completely spent from 3 hours of nonstop
climbing, and layer up with your clothes. Maybe even with ski goggles.
Point your bike down the hill, and you're fighting to get below 45 mph
in the corners for the next 40 minutes.
The change of clothes insulates you from the road feel, and the change
is speed is very disorienting. On top of that, there are no guard rails
of any kind above timber line, so if you did lay it down, you'd fly
right off into the adjacent steep tundra/boulder field.
twitch... twitch... shiver...
-Mike
G.T.
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:sN1ag.71053$_S7....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> You are only partially correct about weight being an issue only when
> climbing or accelerating. Bike weight becomes obvious *anytime* you stand
on
> the bike and move it from side-to-side (which typically happens when
> standing or accelerating).
Oh please, I switch between a 29 lb mtn bike and a 23 lb road bike and have
never noticed a difference when moving it from side-to-side. How far are
you leaning your bike from vertical, 90 degrees?
The only time I notice a difference is when carrying them over an obstacle.
Greg
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> > I agree with everything you say, completely and it has nothing, NOTHING
> > to do with what it weighs. Not the isolated, teeny little thing of what
> > it weighs. YES, bicycles have personalities and they are mostly
> > subjective( I swear my Merckx and Mondonico have a 'soul') and I think
> > mostly influenced by material and build type but certainly not just
> > weight. Lighter things are only that and to impart something magical to
> > those few grams lost or gained is just too much marketing for me to
> > bear. If it were, ANY bicycle weighing the same weights would be as
> > 'magical', and that ain't so. Rememeber this satrted as what Lance now
> > rides, went to his wheels, went to 'heavy, harsh', and now to weight in
> > general. Weight means ohh so little, when taken in isolation.
>
> Peter: I never said weight was the only thing that mattered
Your statment-"Guess it wouldn't be any fun if we always agreed, eh? I
maintain that the
difference of half a pound in a bike is noticeable to even the
recreational
rider, despite the fact that it's a tiny percentage of the overall
package"
... if so, those
> early Vitus bikes would be a wonderful ride!
Good enough for Sean Kelly....
Weight is just one part of the
> personality of a bike. Weight by itself doesn't impart something magical,
> but it does change how it feels. Where that threshold is (the point where
> someone notices that change) may be different from person to person, but on
> a heavier bike, when climbing, I do *not* enjoy the feeling it gives me when
> standing on the pedals. The side-to-side motion doesn't feel nearly as
> lively... something we'd normally ascribe to geometry differences, but comes
> up when I add extra bottles, heavier pack, heavier wheels, whatever.
The 'flapping' sound is the BS flag in the wind.
>
> And it's not what Lance rode, it's what the entire team rode at training
> camps. Lance happened to be using one of those bikes. The team deliberately
> trains at those camps on equipment that is not as nice as what they'll race
> on, so they get a mental boost when they get on their better gear.
Sorry, BS again...'not as nice', 'better gear'?? You have to put the
koolaide down!! Heavier, more reliable does not equal-'worse' or 'not
nice'..lighter is just......lighter.
The
> extent to which it works on a physical level (training on heavier equipment,
> to make you stronger) is unlikely to be relevant. Which brings up an
> interesting point. Are we suggesting that top-level racers are more
> susceptible to marketing than the rest of us?
Nope they are suseptible to the paycheck they receive from Trek,
shimano, etc and well as others. I have talked to Henk Vogels about
this stuff and it really means little what he rides, as long as it
works for him. Hasn't hurt him getting Stewie in 3 stage wins at te
Giro...
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
> Nope they are suseptible to the paycheck they receive from Trek,
> shimano, etc and well as others. I have talked to Henk Vogels about
> this stuff and it really means little what he rides, as long as it
> works for him. Hasn't hurt him getting Stewie in 3 stage wins at te
> Giro...
Robbie, Stewie...they're Aussie, they all look alike to me...
Mike Reed
lmao -- yeah, they're like twins
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Gotta agree-take an upright 16 pound rod and a 20 pound rod, and
measure how much energy each takes to move it thru a 12 inch arc,
..Bet it's pretty small difference....engineers, START your
Calculators!!!!
Mike Jacoubowsky
>> personality of a bike. Weight by itself doesn't impart something magical,
>> but it does change how it feels. Where that threshold is (the point where
>> someone notices that change) may be different from person to person, but
>> on
>> a heavier bike, when climbing, I do *not* enjoy the feeling it gives me
>> when
>> standing on the pedals. The side-to-side motion doesn't feel nearly as
>> lively... something we'd normally ascribe to geometry differences, but
>> comes
>> up when I add extra bottles, heavier pack, heavier wheels, whatever.
>
> The 'flapping' sound is the BS flag in the wind.
RIght. Weight is irrelevant and makes no difference. You can load up your
bike with all manner of gear and it rides exactly the same. Maybe *your*
bike, not mine. Maybe *your* style of riding, not mine.
>> And it's not what Lance rode, it's what the entire team rode at training
>> camps. Lance happened to be using one of those bikes. The team
>> deliberately
>> trains at those camps on equipment that is not as nice as what they'll
>> race
>> on, so they get a mental boost when they get on their better gear.
>
> Sorry, BS again...'not as nice', 'better gear'?? You have to put the
> koolaide down!! Heavier, more reliable does not equal-'worse' or 'not
> nice'..lighter is just......lighter.
Peter, I"m not the guy at the training camp, telling them which equipment to
use. That's up to Bruyneel and Julian. Not me, not Trek. Keep in mind that
they didn't use Bontrager wheels for quite a few years. It wasn't a money
thing; people offer all manner of exhorbitant sums to have them ride a
particular wheel. But they established a relationship with the guys
designing and building the wheels (which includes one former contributor to
this newsgroup) and believed they could have something different and, I
daresay, better than the other guys. It's not just money. There are real,
live people involved. And as for racing, yes, heavier generally equals
worse, all other things being equal (and Discovery didn't suffer wheel
failures, so they were evidently good enough for the job). To say that
"lighter is just... lighter" at the top racing level amazes me. You can make
that argument for yourself, customers, etc., but to say that weight is
irrelevant to a pro? You're not drinking KoolAid, you're smoking something!
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote in message
news:1147784722....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Diablo Scott
>
> Gotta agree-take an upright 16 pound rod and a 20 pound rod, and
> measure how much energy each takes to move it thru a 12 inch arc,
> ..Bet it's pretty small difference....engineers, START your
> Calculators!!!!
>
Please provide center of gravity location from the pivot point.
Matt O'Toole
> carl...@comcast.net wrote:
>> It would be interesting to find out what you really can notice. (I
>> suspect that "the recreational rider" wouldn't notice a half-pound
>> increase in the total weight of a bike, bag, and pump.)
> My guess is that a typical "recreational rider" would be more prone to
> noticing a weight increase in the bike. A "once in a while" rider is
> likely to have a lower horsepower capacity than an avid/frequent rider.
> So, an increase in weight would take a higher percentage of his/her
> maximum sustainable HP ..ie, it would be more noticeable.
I think this is true too.
But Carl is right. I don't know what my bike weighs -- probably under 18
LB -- but I can't say I notice the extra half pound of my rain jacket, or
a couple of sandwiches in my pockets, or even two water bottles vs. one.
Matt O.
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> > Weight is just one part of the
> >> personality of a bike. Weight by itself doesn't impart something magical,
> >> but it does change how it feels. Where that threshold is (the point where
> >> someone notices that change) may be different from person to person, but
> >> on
> >> a heavier bike, when climbing, I do *not* enjoy the feeling it gives me
> >> when
> >> standing on the pedals. The side-to-side motion doesn't feel nearly as
> >> lively... something we'd normally ascribe to geometry differences, but
> >> comes
> >> up when I add extra bottles, heavier pack, heavier wheels, whatever.
> >
> > The 'flapping' sound is the BS flag in the wind.
>
> RIght. Weight is irrelevant and makes no difference. You can load up your
> bike with all manner of gear and it rides exactly the same. Maybe *your*
> bike, not mine. Maybe *your* style of riding, not mine.
Weight tho, as described by MOST salespeople and no doubt, your own, to
the recreational cyclist, is the holy grail of sales. Point at anything
'bike' today and the bottom line is how much it weighs, and that is
just hooey. Something that works, fits and looks good may also weigh
less than something but weight of a part,as if that somehow imparts
performance, like 112 gram savings of a brake set that costs $410 is
just looney.
>
> Peter, I"m not the guy at the training camp, telling them which equipment to
> use. That's up to Bruyneel and Julian. Not me, not Trek. Keep in mind that
> they didn't use Bontrager wheels for quite a few years. It wasn't a money
> thing; people offer all manner of exhorbitant sums to have them ride a
> particular wheel. But they established a relationship with the guys
> designing and building the wheels (which includes one former contributor to
> this newsgroup) and believed they could have something different and, I
> daresay, better than the other guys. It's not just money. There are real,
> live people involved. And as for racing, yes, heavier generally equals
> worse, all other things being equal (and Discovery didn't suffer wheel
> failures, so they were evidently good enough for the job). To say that
> "lighter is just... lighter" at the top racing level amazes me. You can make
> that argument for yourself, customers, etc., but to say that weight is
> irrelevant to a pro? You're not drinking KoolAid, you're smoking something!
Gee, I never said it was irrevelent to a pro, but also will say it's
not as important as 'some' pros think. It should not be the reason some
customer buys something tho, but it is everyday the bike shop is open.
i am worn out by this gadget driven business, and how some widget, that
weighs less than that one, is somehow 'better'.
BTW-lighter in the peloton does not always equal better, when
reliability suffers and it suffers in the area of wheels most often.
You and I are in the bike biz but our biz couldn't be more different. A
gent came in yesterday wanting ceramic bearings for his FSA BB, to save
weight and 'make him faster'. I talked him out of these. If somebody
comes in and asks for our 'best' bike, we have no answer. No such thing
as a 'best' bike. I suspect when somebody comes into your store and
asks the same thing, the salesperson will also mention that madone with
high zoot wheels is ' is light too'.
Mike Jacoubowsky
> gent came in yesterday wanting ceramic bearings for his FSA BB, to save
> weight and 'make him faster'. I talked him out of these. If somebody
> comes in and asks for our 'best' bike, we have no answer. No such thing
> as a 'best' bike. I suspect when somebody comes into your store and
> asks the same thing, the salesperson will also mention that madone with
> high zoot wheels is ' is light too'.
Not so different as you apparently believe; we don't stock ceramic bearings,
for the same reasons you mention. They're not going to do anything for the
rider; they're certainly not going to change anything about the "feel" of
the bike. But if someone comes in asking what our "best bike" is, yes, we
might show him/her one of the Madones. Not the most-expensive one, unless
we're really trying to make a point, which would be that the "best bike"
isn't the most-expensive one (unless you're Lance), but the most-appropriate
one for how and where you're going to ride (which obviously includes fit).
It could be a Madone, it could be a Portland, it could be a Trek 1000, it
could be a "feel no pain" hybrid with suspension fork & seatpost. But until
we can lead them through the procees of what the most-appropriate bike is,
it does sometimes help to show them the most-expensive bike so they can put
things into some sort of perspective (because price is all they can
initially relate to, and they need to be de-programmed).
There is a distinction between the most-expensive and "best" bike, and the
better job we can do educating the customer about that, the more bikes we
sell. And we are, in fact, in business to sell product. It keeps the doors
open. It keeps us around to take care of the customer down the road etc. But
we're not in business to sell the most-expensive bike possible. That breeds
a different attitude in the shop; an attitude that caters to the "trophy"
customer who doesn't ride so much and talks about their bike more than
spends time on it. That sort of customer doesn't have an infectious
enthusiasm for cycling that gets more people into the activity. The extent
to which cycling becomes an elitist activity is a very bad thing for the
LBS, as there aren't enough of that type of customer to keep the doors open,
and they really don't "need" us because their bikes don't get any miles. And
if they don't "need" us, then they're likely to purchase their bling
elsewhere anyway.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote in message
news:1147869119.2...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
data...@yahoo.com
Larry Coon
> Guess it wouldn't be any fun if we always agreed, eh? I maintain that the
> difference of half a pound in a bike is noticeable to even the recreational
> rider,
Problem is, in order to determine whether it is truly noticeable,
you have to run blinded trials. The psychological factors of
expectation influencing perception are well documented. For
example, audiophiles will often detect a "profound" difference in
sound quality between Component A and Component B when they know
which they're listening to, but their ability to percive a
difference disappears when the test is double-blinded, and neither
subject nor experimenter is aware which component he is listening
to -- and when the subject listens to the SAME component but is
TOLD he is now listening to Component B, he still perceives a
profound difference.
Back when I was in college & working in bike shops we used to run
experiments. A rider would be given either two full water bottles
or two empty ones, and had to tell by the feel of the bike which
he had. Their accuracy was never beyond chance. The riders were
everything from novices to Cat 1 racers.
Larry Coon
University of California
carl...@comcast.net
wrote:
Dear Larry,
Ah, to have a bike shop and handy supply of riders and test objects!
Enviously,
Carl Fogel
Diablo Scott
>
> Problem is, in order to determine whether it is truly noticeable,
> you have to run blinded trials. The psychological factors of
> expectation influencing perception are well documented. For
> example, audiophiles will often detect a "profound" difference in
> sound quality between Component A and Component B when they know
> which they're listening to, but their ability to percive a
> difference disappears when the test is double-blinded, and neither
> subject nor experimenter is aware which component he is listening
> to -- and when the subject listens to the SAME component but is
> TOLD he is now listening to Component B, he still perceives a
> profound difference.
>
I did a similar experiment in college involving wine tasting -
audiophiles have nothing on oenophiles. In one sample we had disguised
bottles but sneakily left tops visible - screw top bottles consistently
scored the worst despite being unrelated to the wine they were actually
tasting. Actually these were oenophile posers, not "true" connoisseurs.
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Diablo,
Hmmm . . . I wonder whether the "true" connoisseurs would be just as
likely to downgrade the screw top bottles as the oenophile posers?
(Of course, a true connoisseur can instantly tell the difference
between canned and bottled Coca-Cola and is still haunted by the
startling memory of the over-sugared stuff bottled in the Caribbean.)
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Dane Buson
>>audiophiles have nothing on oenophiles. In one sample we had disguised
>>bottles but sneakily left tops visible - screw top bottles consistently
>>scored the worst despite being unrelated to the wine they were actually
>>tasting. Actually these were oenophile posers, not "true" connoisseurs.
>
> likely to downgrade the screw top bottles as the oenophile posers?
John Cleese actually has a reasonably amusing documentary about wine.
"Wine for the confused" done for the Food Network; written by John
Cleese and David Kennard. It includes some blind taste tests, with
similar results to what you fellows are talking about.
It's worth a watch if you're into wine or like John Cleese.
--
Dane Buson - sig...@unixbigots.org
"Judges, as a class, display, in the matter of arranging
alimony, that reckless generosity which is found only in men
who are giving away someone else's cash." -P. G. Wodehouse