Re: Re: [CR]To ride or not/fairly short...


Example: Framebuilding

From: Tom Dalton <tom_s_dalton@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [CR]To ride or not/fairly short...
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
In-Reply-To: <20020909183106.18356.qmail@veloworks.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:04:40 -0700 (PDT)

"Steven L. Sheffield" wrote:

Joseba Beloki's Team ONCE Giant weighed less than Lance's Trek 5900.

So why didn't Beloki win the Tour?

Hmm ... those ounces must not have made that much of a difference.

Lance was the strogest rider. The Tour is particularly funny that way.

Few people would argue that Lance is not THE MAN to beat in the tour. He has been in another league when compared to the other riders in recent Tours. At the same time, most people are also aware that Lance obsesses over every aspect of his preparation, including his equipment, and including the weight of his equipment. While Beloki's bike may have been a few oz's lighter, I've little doubt that Lance optimized his equipment within the restrictions of his obligations to Trek, Shimano, et al and the rules of the UCI. Point is, weight matters, even to a guy who is so strong that he'd probably win on a bike that weighed a few of extra pounds.

-------- On Mon, 09 Sep 2002 10:17:25 -0700 Chuck Schmidt wrote:

Rich Rose wrote:
>
> Chuck Schmidt wrote, in part:
>
> "Modern bicycles are all about weight, which is just
> one of the reasons lug steel construction is moot. And with modern
> bicycles (we are talking about racing bicycles I assume) 3 oz count."
>
> My response: Really?? 3 oz. of non-rotational weight counts? As in the
> difference between winning & loosing?
> Richard (non-believer) Rose

Yes, if you are talking about the top racing bikes in the TdF peloton (and that's what I talking about) 3 oz., rotational, non-rotational, is obsessed over.

Counts? Lance Armstrong is certainly concerned over it and thinks it does.

Chuck Schmidt
SoPas, SoCal