Re: [CR]The canard of lightweight

(Example: Framebuilding:Technology)

Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:42:50 -0700
From: "Chuck Schmidt" <chuckschmidt@earthlink.net>
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Subject: Re: [CR]The canard of lightweight
References: <20030225222448.81254.qmail@web20107.mail.yahoo.com>


Well, after a particularly hellatious climb, you'll never hear me utter the words, "That would have been a whole lot easier with another three or four pounds added to my bike!"

Chuck "straw dog" Schmidt L.A.

wayofftheback wrote:
>
> First, straight guage pipes on a Pashley aren't
> sturdier than 531, etc. This another canard. It's
> lot easier to bend carbon steel than high quality
> chro-moly or moly mag. If you can get a reduction in
> weight without any other compromise (other than
> relatively small one in cost), then do it.
>
> Second, there is a subjective difference in feel in
> comparing a light bike with a sligtly heavier bike;
> but beyond a certain point there is litle discernible
> in performance despite the subjective difference in
> feel.
>
> Certainly a 16 lb bike will be marginally faster than
> a 22 lb bike, if all other things are equal, but only
> ever so slightly. And all things are never
> equal--ceteris paribus is only true in academic
> economic models.
>
> Losing weight involves compromises, and the
> compromises needed to shave the weight of a bike may
> compromise other parameters of performance such as
> durability, reliability, fit, comfort, etc.
>
> To some extent, people are deluded--they really assume
> that light weight = fast bike. Yet they fail to offer
> any empirical data that takes into account all the
> factors that define what makes one bike faster than
> another. The reason they do fail to examine these
> things is they are too complex to easily model. So
> they stick with one simplistic measure to the over all
> detriment of the bicycle as a whole.
>
> Regards,
>
> John Taglia,
> Chicago
>
> --- JONATHAN COWDEN <slx53@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> > Every few months this discussion comes down the
> > pipe. Weight doesn't matter, so the saying goes.
> > How come riders are obsessing about it? Have
> > manufacturers bought everybody off, fooled the
> > masses into thinking that disposable frames are
> > superior, and so on and on?
> >
> > To this I reply: If you really think that weight
> > doesn't matter, if a couple of pounds here or there
> > doesn't make or break a race, or a training ride, or
> > a frame, then why do people order fancy new steel
> > steed made out of 531, SLX, 753, 853, SL, etc? Why
> > not a straight gauge behemoth made out of the same
> > pipes as the Pashley I used to own? Straight gauge,
> > sturdy, heavy as my VW bus. And cheap. Lots to
> > recommend it on lots of dimensions. Nobody uses
> > that stuff anymore on a fancy high end steel frame.
> > No way. And why do people collect "lightweight"
> > steel frames? Are both of these things the result of
> > some collective delusion, too?
> >
> > The period pieces of today were the lightweight
> > marvels of yesterday. Straight gauge gave way to
> > butted, standard gauge to OS, and then steel
> > gradually fell away as it became clear that durable
> > (at least for a race) exotics could produce
> > something lighter -- and faster? Sub 2.5 pounds
> > these days for something top shelf, and in certain
> > cases, something that teeters on 2 pounds (Calfee
> > custom). Steel can't touch that. It's really that
> > simple.
> >
> >
> >
> > Jon Cowden
> > SB, CA
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: wayofftheback
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 2:01 PM
> > To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> > Subject: [CR]The canard of lightweight
> >
> > Howdy, All,
> >
> > I still amazed that folks think that weight is all
> > that important to a racing bicycle. I have seen no
> > data indication that it matters relative to the true
> > drag a cyclist faces--aerodynamic drag. Compared to
> > wind drag, weight in almost all situations is
> > trivial.
> > Even the much vaunted rotational weight pales before
> > wind resistance.
> >
> > Consequently, I find dismissing steel for reasons of
> > weight is foolishness.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > John Taglia
> > Chicago, the windy city (and darn cold, too, today)
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> > http://taxes.yahoo.com/
> > _______________________________________________
> > Classicrendezvous mailing list
> > Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> >
> http://www.bikelist.org/mailman/listinfo/classicrendezvous
> >
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Classicrendezvous mailing list
> Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> http://www.bikelist.org/mailman/listinfo/classicrendezvous _______________________________________________ Classicrendezvous mailing list Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org http://www.bikelist.org/mailman/listinfo/classicrendezvous