i agree with mark's assessment, snipped and pasted below. furthermore, i often wonder if the pros, i.e., those whose careers depend on the use of these bicycles and parts, are as analytical in their choice of equipment. for years, it has been an industry supported sport, and nearly everyone in the pro ranks uses the exact same goods sold down at the mall. (okay, prologue bicycles & record attempts not- withstanding). i never hear or read anything from that camp that echos the list debate from the last couple o' days. surely, someone will find an exception to this, but by and large it <seems> that racers don't focus as much of their energy (?!) on these matters. so why do we?
that's a rhetorical question. i'm not suggesting that the differences don't exist or that there isn't an academic explanation for all this. and i'm not asking for an end to the thread; i am enjoying following it and learning about differing points of view. i do feel, though, that there is a point (for me, at least) when bicycle riding ceases to be beautiful as a result of continued microscopic dissection. when i ride or train, i never focus on these things. i just enjoy the activity and the outdoors. thanks for reading... e-RICHIE leaving for a ride in chester, ct
On Sun, 2 Jun 2002 01:21:28 -0700 Mark Bulgier <mark@bulgier.net> writes:
>
> Everyone agrees some is wasted, turned into heat, a process called
> hysteresis. The question is how much.
> But I'm in the camp that thinks most of the spring energy is useful,
> partly from looking at all the great riders who have chosen the most
> flexible frames they could find. Example: Sean Kelly on Vitus
aluminum.
> His average output was what, half again more? - than that of anyone on
> this list, and his peak output in a sprint, maybe double. How many
Tour
> green jerseys did he win, 5 maybe? Mostly on those Al noodles. Of
> course he might have won even more editions of Paris-Nice if he hadn't
> been wasting so much energy, but it's hard to imagine these pros
wouldn't
> notice that they were faster on stiffer bikes, if indeed they were.
> The best you can say for the stiffer bikes is that if they are more
> efficient, it's by too small an amount for the pro peloton to
> notice. Note, some pros will *say* they like a stiff frame, then go
and
> choose a flexible one without realizing it is so. Many times I've
heard a
> racer say he likes a particular frame because it's so stiff, when I
knew it was
> one of the more flexy ones out there. He liked it, and thought he
liked 'em
> stiff (had been told stiff was good), so the one he liked must
therefore
> be stiff, right?! .
> Example: Davis Phinney one season had two supposedly identical
> Serottas made of True Temper tubing, and raced them both enough to
> notice that he consistently liked one better than the other. He
couldn't
> put his finger on it, one just felt faster to him, and he wondered why.
> So at the end of the season he gave the two frames to True Temper and
> asked them to test them and tell him the difference. The lab boys
found
> that the one Davis liked was significantly more flexible, and that that
was
> the only significant difference they could find.
> Mark Bulgier
> Seattle, Wa
> USA