This is verging off topic, but all I'll say, is it might _feel_ lighter, and more lively to have lighter wheels, but the numbers say it isn't actually faster. Give me aero over light, or aero and light if I was swimming in cash.
http://www.analyticcycling.com/
Read the http://www.analyticcycling.com/
David -- David Bilenkey Ottawa, Ontario, Canada dbilenkey@sympatico.ca
> -----Original Message-----
> From: classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org
> [mailto:classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org] On Behalf Of
> Jerome & Elizabeth Moos
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 12:38 PM
> To: Fred Rafael Rednor; classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> Subject: Re: [CR] Lüders - Masi
>
>
> We've had this dicussion before, but it goes far beyond the
> wheels part in determining total bike weight. The rims and
> tires have a large moment arm about the axis of rotation (the
> hub axle), while everything else, including the frame, has
> essentially zero moment arm, so when it comes to accelerating
> and braking, rim weight counts for everything, while frame
> weight counts for nothing. So a bike with light wheels will
> feel lively, while a lighter bike with heavier wheels will
> feel more sluggish. This is the fundamental reason why I
> don't believe modern bikes are better, or maybe even as good,
> as those from the 70's. As the rear cluster has gone from 5
> to 6 to 8 to 10 cogs, dish has had to increase, leading to
> higher drive side spoke tension, which led to heavier rims to
> withstand it. And acceleration and braking have suffered,
> although the latter has been offset by better brakes. An
> early 70's bike with Fiamme Ergals will usually feel more
> lively than a $5000 modern carbon fibre wonder.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jerry Moos
> Big Spring, TX