Ummm...sorry but THIS statement is wrong. Riding against wind resistance is not acceleration. Acceleration is change of velocity, regardless of the reason, and if velocity is constant, acceleration is zero. Also, gravity does not cause deceleration at all if it is perpendicular to the direction of motion.
I look at it this way. In reducing the weight of a bike, as well as making any improvement, there is always a point of diminishing returns. We reached that point a long time ago, and by now, the only possible weight improvements are pretty minor. So, the issue invariably becomes, what is the effect of an exceedingly minor improvement in weight? Especially in view of the fact that a decrease of even a pound is well below 1% of the weight of the bike and rider. This is absolutely trivial for anyone except a racer, and maybe even for him. Frankly, I have no interest whatsoever in racing, and if the racers want to waste their money on technological snake oil, that's fine with me.
The first time I went touring, I was surprised at how little difference 30+ pounds of packs made. Sure, I could feel it, and my average speed slowed by 1-2 MPH, but that's it. Weight just isn't a big issue for real people doing real riding.
I think John makes some intelligent points. I also would like to see some empirical data on performance and weight, if only because, I suspect, the weight weenies might be in for a big surprise.
Steve Maas Long Beach, California
Louis Schulman wrote:
> Well, let's hold on a minute. I am not an advocate of superlight
> bicycles. But this statement is wrong.
>
> Riding a bicycle on Earth, you are accelerating most of the time, to
> counter the deceleration caused by gravity and air resistance. You
> wouldn't be accelerating all the time, if you were bicycling in space.
>
> So, if we are going to drag science and facts(!) into the argument, it
> gets more complicated. The deceleration caused by gravity is related
> to mass, but not linearly, since the force of gravity is generally
> perpendicular to the motion of a bicycle.
>
> The more important consideration is that the mass of the bicycle is
> small compared to the mass of the rider. Go on a diet, and this
> argument is moot.
>
> Louis Schulman
> Tampa, Florida (warm and sunny in Paradise, I don't know how anyone can
> live where it snows)
>
> On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:45:08 -0600, Todd Kuzma wrote: