How much difference does it make?

[Elefantino]

I'll start by saying I'm not a retrogrouch and have no snarky ill will toward people who go with the latest and greatest technological advances in cycling and cycling training.

I'm also no longer competitive, except for the occasional town-line sprints (of which I have won exactly ONE in about the last two years) and the occasional "race you to the bottom of (insert mountain name here)" mindlessness. Basically, I just like to ride.

But ... Many of you on this board converse in wattage output and supplement input and hip flex and Zipp flex and all things in between that I would consider, in my own case, to be frivolous and inconsistent with my mission as a recreational cyclist.

Which brings me to the question: For those of us whose goal is to ride to ride, would any of those things matter? I can see doing intervals once in a while (usually, I do them when I'm dropped and have to catch back up) but don't see the big buck bang for PowerTaps or Endurox or BB86 cranks or Chris Carmichael or anything made by Assos.

I need someone to talk me down.

[csm]

get a good fit
make time to ride
the rest will follow
even if it is just riding into your older years and feeling more healthy.

[Elefantino]

Fit isn't the issue. Neither is ride time. (Usually.)

At issue is whether for the average recreational cyclist, the high-zoot advances on the tech side matter or not.

Some things, I understand. I feel that my 1463-gram wheels climb better than my 1800-gram wheels. Record shifts better than Centaur. Speedplay pedals are better (for me; no flames) than Looks.

Others, like the iBike thing, just make me shake my head.

[gasman]

What do you need to talked down from, not a bad trip it's way past the 60's ? It sounds like you are being very sensible in your needs and desires.
I do a few races a year but am in no way competitive, I feel good to finish in the pack (cat 4). I have no desire to be serious about training as I just like to ride. Why would I spend the money for a powertap or Assos when I know I suck and Pearl products are just fine by me.

So good on you for being intelligent about your needs vs wants.

[Louis]

PowerTaps or Endurox or BB86 cranks or Chris Carmichael or anything made by Assos

Forget that cr@p - you need some Rapha gear, it'll make you faster and get you more tail than you know who :p

I don't have to justify my choices of cycling gear to anyone and I ride and use whatever I feel like riding. However, there have been a few times when I've tried something highly recommended around here and I've had to admit that yes, some of these guys do know what they are talking about.

Do whatever turns you on, take all the talk all with a grain of salt.

[Elefantino]

At issue is whether for the average recreational cyclist, the high-zoot advances on the tech side matter or not.
..

[paczki]

..


I find it fun to work on my wattage and my pedal stroke and all sorts of other stuff. I like getting stronger and training with wattage really gives you an objective measure. I like getting into the art of cycling and that's part of it for me.
I play musical instruments and I have no interest in performing but I play scales and work on technique because I enjoy it and it makes both the music and the playing better.

[Ken Robb]

go to Rivendell site and read some of Grant Petersen's articles on "non-serious" riding in "regular clothes". I'm a believer.

[Jack Brunk]

Top end equipment does make a difference. You just have to decide if it's worth to you or not.

[jimcav]

..
I started out riding to do triathlons, then decided to ride to work year round. that currently involves a 50 mile round trip. prior to this gig my old job was either 20 miles if it was pouring, 34 if nice, and 60 if i had time to go the long way.
I used to be fine with PI shorts, then they got fancy pads, which hurt me, so i tried assos, which were nice in fit, but not worth the price. i tried canari, which were awful, performance--worse, then I stepped up to girodana and etxe onde, which work for me, look good, and i buy mainly at sierra trading post or ebay.
I ride hard, often because i am trying to get to work on time, and i use accelerade etc because at least 2x a week i have to do a fairly serious work out with navy special warfare types right after i bike to work and i bonk and/or feel like crap by the end of the week if i don't supplement on my rides.

i have no "real" excuse for the nice bikes and campy record--i like bikes, i like light stuff that works well. i like dropping those i can, and i like trying to hang onto the really fast guys. I'd like to race or if not then get back into triathlons, either way the fast aero wheels and the power meter help me make the most of the time i can ride--which is to and from work.

it's really jack's fault that i love nice bikes--his fit me--thank goodness--i'd gotten to the look 585 on my own, and that was pretty much my ceiling--but that is his floor, so now i'm a converted uber-bike guy :)

jim

[Elefantino]

it's really jack's fault that i love nice bikes
He is the Timothy Leary of the Serotta forum, isn't he?
:D

[Elefantino]

I play musical instruments and I have no interest in performing but I play scales and work on technique because I enjoy it and it makes both the music and the playing better.
Good analogy. I wonder if, for quasi-slubbish riders like myself, the patience to practice is a lost art. I guess I'm like the guy who gets really good at playing a few songs on the piano and doesn't want to tackle Mozart ... or crosshand drills.

[TAW]

Well, I do race some, but I'm not overly serious about it. I'm absolutely sure that most of my equipment far exceeds my ability, but I do notice a difference in certain things, and part of the enjoyment for me is trying new stuff (actually, I buy mostly used) and finding things I like and don't like. I think that the "mental" factor of certain equipment does make a difference in your performance.

[Steve in SLO]

Here is a simpleton's (my) take on this:

A Racer:
Usually selects equipment and tools on the basis of how fast it gets them from point A to point B while maximizing the body's potential at the expense of some wear and tear.
Keywords: efficiency, optimization

A Recreational Cyclist:
Usually selects equipment and clothing on the basis of how it makes them feel while going from point A to point B sometimes sacrificing efficiency to maximize the experience.
Keywords: feel, style, emotion, gestalt

[Louis]

A Recreational Cyclist:
Usually selects equipment and clothing on the basis of how it makes them feel while going from point A to point B sometimes sacrificing efficiency to maximize the experience.
Keywords: feel, style, emotion, gestalt

Given: I am a recreational cyclist and in no way a racer.

If "how it makes them feel" means a chamois or saddle that is pain-free, or a jersey that keeps me cool or warm, depending on the outside temp, or a cassette that has the gear ratios my route and capabilities require, or a shoe that fits and does not give me hot-foot, then I agree.

If "how it makes them feel" is some random "makes me feel like Lance" or "makes me feel cool compared to the idiots and phreds I see around me" or "makes me feel like I'm in touch with my inner 50's era French racer" then I beg to differ. These "feelings" are way, way, way down the list of criteria I use when choosing my gear.

Louis

[Steve in SLO]

Louis,
What I meant by "feel" for the subject at hand is a combination of your two choices.
Comfort is certainly a good portion of it, but so is the tactile feel of a steel bike over absolute lightness/efficiency of a good CF offering. I'm sure for some, the "feel" of "I feel like Lance" is also important. I'm pretty sure there are a few racers who like that "feel", too.

Remember, it was a simpleton's take on the matter.

[Louis]

Hey Steve,

I know what you mean. It's just that as I read the "recreational" description it started to make me "feel" a bit too much like a Rapha-clad dude that I'm not, so I felt like I had to say something... ;)

Louis

[SoCalSteve]

I'll start by saying I'm not a retrogrouch and have no snarky ill will toward people who go with the latest and greatest technological advances in cycling and cycling training.

I'm also no longer competitive, except for the occasional town-line sprints (of which I have won exactly ONE in about the last two years) and the occasional "race you to the bottom of (insert mountain name here)" mindlessness. Basically, I just like to ride.

But ... Many of you on this board converse in wattage output and supplement input and hip flex and Zipp flex and all things in between that I would consider, in my own case, to be frivolous and inconsistent with my mission as a recreational cyclist.

Which brings me to the question: For those of us whose goal is to ride to ride, would any of those things matter? I can see doing intervals once in a while (usually, I do them when I'm dropped and have to catch back up) but don't see the big buck bang for PowerTaps or Endurox or BB86 cranks or Chris Carmichael or anything made by Assos.

I need someone to talk me down.

This is all about you rationalizing whether you should buy my Hors Cat or not, isnt it?

Just askin'

Steve

[soulspinner]

I'll start by saying I'm not a retrogrouch and have no snarky ill will toward people who go with the latest and greatest technological advances in cycling and cycling training.

I'm also no longer competitive, except for the occasional town-line sprints (of which I have won exactly ONE in about the last two years) and the occasional "race you to the bottom of (insert mountain name here)" mindlessness. Basically, I just like to ride.

But ... Many of you on this board converse in wattage output and supplement input and hip flex and Zipp flex and all things in between that I would consider, in my own case, to be frivolous and inconsistent with my mission as a recreational cyclist.

Which brings me to the question: For those of us whose goal is to ride to ride, would any of those things matter? I can see doing intervals once in a while (usually, I do them when I'm dropped and have to catch back up) but don't see the big buck bang for PowerTaps or Endurox or BB86 cranks or Chris Carmichael or anything made by Assos.

I need someone to talk me down.


No you dont. You are exactly right. Cheers.

[Ray]

Some of the stuff you're talking about are training tools (power tap, Chris Carmichael, Endurox, etc). If you're training for something, they might make sense to you. Or if you just like maximizing your performance without training for something, they might make sense to you. Or they might not. Endurox is more of a recovery tool, so if you're version of "riding to ride" includes lots of long back to back rides, that might make sense to you. Assos isn't a training tool - its just really good and really expensive cycling clothing. Whether its worth it to you has nothing to do with what you're training for or not training for - its whether you have the money and value the comfort/durability/image enough to spend it that way.

I also ride to ride. I used to ride to ride LOTS and did find some value in things like Endurox but don't ride long enough these days to need it or want it. I like Assos gear, but not enough to actually buy it for the prices they sell it for (but I'm full of ***** on this one because I do have a couple of Rapha jerseys and they were stupid expensive too - maybe I just like THAT image better). I see value in something like the new Garmin 705 GPS computer because I like to explore new areas and prefer it when I can find my way back and see where I've been, although I've always been able to before. I've never found much value in power monitoring equipment or super high-zoot racing parts because that's not how or why I ride. Whether you do is between you and your god and your wife. :cool:

-Ray

[Peter P.]

I'd like to believe cyclists gain enlightenment throughout their histories in the sport and sooner or later reach a point of zen, where they realize they can't buy their way to the podium.

From what I read on forums, I'm wrong.

Cycling appears to attract the technical types; those that love the comfort of the "irrefutable" laws of engineering which say things like, "lighter is better", "more aero is better", and "stiffer is better".

While from an engineering point this may be true regarding our bikes, measurable differences translate into performance differences so small they can in all practical senses, be disregarded. But it is comforting to know when we buy a new part for our bikes that meets any of the "mores" above we know we've not wasted our money because it's benefit cannot be denied.

The truth of the matter is, the greatest difference in performance comes from OURSELVES and we can't buy ourselves out of our genetically predisposed box. And, the stark realization of what's required to improve OURSELVES from a training-nutrition-discipline standpoint requires much more sacrifice and thus costs (money and otherwise) that it's too easy to look the other way, at what we can change on our bikes.

I look at people who claim they "enjoy" buying these parts all the time and say there's nothing wrong with it if they derive happiness from it and respond, you're chasing something you can't catch and your happiness is always fleeting.

Buy your bike and be happy with it and it's parts. BB90 will not make you faster than BB86/30/ISIS/Octalink/square taper cranks (or insert the name of your favorite part here). The frustration comes from always being at the limit of your abilities, which is never enough. Derive the greater satisfaction from seeking to change yourself physically and mentally.

There are better things to do with our money.

[Joellogicman]

I play musical instruments and I have no interest in performing but I play scales and work on technique because I enjoy it and it makes both the music and the playing better.

Don't many of the best violinists go out of their way to obtain violins made in the 17th century? And I seem to recall Steinway getting raves recently for starting a line of pianos patterned after what they were making in the late 20th and early 19th century.

[Joellogicman]

Here is a simpleton's (my) take on this:

A Racer:
Usually selects equipment and tools on the basis of how fast it gets them from point A to point B while maximizing the body's potential at the expense of some wear and tear.
Keywords: efficiency, optimization

A Recreational Cyclist:
Usually selects equipment and clothing on the basis of how it makes them feel while going from point A to point B sometimes sacrificing efficiency to maximize the experience.
Keywords: feel, style, emotion, gestalt

I ride for two primary reasons: 1) Getting around (I gave up my car for a bike) - which would include commuting to work, going to business meetings, the doctor, etc. - hardly recreation - along with going out for a night on the town - recreation I guess; and, 2) Self contained touring.

Most racing bits are worthless for either kind of riding because they tend to break down so quickly under loaded use. Not sure how you define efficiency, but stopping on the side of a busy street in the morning on the way to work or in the middle of no where with a bike and 70 pounds of gear to fix some light weight trinket is hardly efficient in my book.

[Smiley]

When I was younger I sailed and raced Beach catamarans, I mean every other weekend I was at another ragatta. Bought high speed racing sails, bought carbon tillers, bought all the high zoot go fast goodies you can to make a catamaran faster. I used to run and race too, that was on the opposite weekends I did not sailboat race. So now I just enjoy my bicycling. I can afford to build a light weight bike, I can afford all the goodies I want. I kind of find it absurd that a set of Zero Gravity brakes costs + $1000 and a set of carbon cranks even more.
I drank the dbrk kool aid and after seeing some of the great bikes he as well as others have I have decided that practicality makes more sense to me. fenders and racks, and wide tires. Been traveling lately with the bike for the past few years and now its about carrying cash and spares with me. Room to carry a jacket and cell phone, a few more power bars. I am glad that I can ride pain free and I can still hold my own but more important I am glad that I am enjoying the ride more so now then ever before. Looking forward to a new fendered do anything K Bedford which I am in line for. Told Kelly that I have now found the inspiration for a wide tire steel frame and fork fendered bike. I could of had a V8 ...ah Meivici but opted for a Bedford. Your doing just fine Elefantino and trust me your not alone in how you feel about staying ahead of technology's cycling curve.

[1centaur]

Much of what the OP was talking about comes down to maximizing speed for effort. There's a continuum all the way from "don't care about speed" to "trying to be Lance" that most of us fit in. The degree to which powermeters (I bought the iBike as a low cost way to find my ballpark, as a matter of curiosity, and once satisfied with the answer I stopped using it), periodization, intervals, hill repeats, and aero position/equipment are used reflects where along that continuum you really want to be.

Some of us are aging and sense a slide down that continuum, so all of the above may partially be a way to hang onto youth a little longer. After all, we don't want to be our friends that just "gave up," on their fitness and now can't withstand very much exertion at all. Some of us also don't want to give up the feeling of speed and power that has given us so much pleasure. As we age it takes greater effort to stay in place, so we do intervals to maintain rather than to improve.

Personally, I hate intervals - they hurt, and when I am trying to enjoy my weekend ride it makes no sense to hurt. I can do some of that on the Computrainer after work, but after another 75-minute commute following 11 hours of mental stress I don't necessarily want to hurt myself either. I know at this point I'll never be fast, but I like that I rode my fastest solo century ever this year, and that result came mostly from pedaling technique that I worked on after absorbing enough on-line thoughts. My average speed is faster than ever this year also because I finally bought aero wheels and disproved the notion that you have to be riding at 25 mph to benefit from them.

So I am somewhere on that continuum, do the occasional interval or CT hill repeats, try to get a little faster at the same perceived effort because I can still perceive progress, and don't beat myself up over the fact that riding for pleasure and fitness is really my goal. I buy light stuff because that also plays into effort per speed. I like efficient bikes for the same reason. I'll never be "in the coffin" on a bike and I'm fine with that - a few times of 3-minutes all out on a flat straight CT course to test my fitness gave me a glimpse at that world and I'll pass.

[Lifelover]

I'll start by saying I'm not a retrogrouch ......

I need someone to talk me down.

While the engineer in me is very interested in much of the high zoot stuff and how it may or may not impact performance, the practical side of me intentionally separates my riding from much of that. I ride because I enjoy it. Sometimes I enjoy trying to hang with the racer boys and sometimes I like being the hero and dragging a beginner group around on a long windy day. Sometimes I enjoy a rural country ride on a true road bike in full costume and sometimes it's jeans and a Tee shirt, my SS MTB with platforms riding sidewalks and MUTS along busy roads.

I know that if I ever turn my cycling into a goal specific activity, it's days will be numbered.

[Tobias]

Some things, I understand. I feel that my 1463-gram wheels climb better than my 1800-gram wheels.Of course they do, but is it enough to matter unless you are racing? :rolleyes:

The wheels save less than 1 pound which will allow you to climb less than 1 percent faster. Can you "feel" 1 percent in speed? Without a computer, I seriously doubt it. Even with a computer I doubt you can detect 1 percent.

For me it's about the numbers. Would I upgrade an 8 gig MP3 player by replacing it with a 8.08 gig similar unit? No way; a 1 percent improvement is not enough to justify the cost. The same goes for bike parts. Most stuff is not enough of an improvement when viewed objectively outside of competition.

On the other hand, when I can upgrade from 512 M to 8 G, that's a different matter. Again, it's all about the numbers.

[tuscanyswe]

I agree with previous post.

The most noticable change is when its in the other direction. When u have gotten use to light fast carbon wheels with tubulars, like i had on my cross bike. And then change those to everyday clinchers with studded tires. This change will be alot bigger than a 1% difference im sure but OMG the thing just wont move!

I like upgs alot less than i disslike downgrades.

The good part is that the new wheelset shipped from Germany to my door xt dischubs with dt rims and spokes cost me less including shipping than the 2 flats i had some weeks ago. Crazy.

[1centaur]

Of course they do, but is it enough to matter unless you are racing? :rolleyes:

The wheels save less than 1 pound which will allow you to climb less than 1 percent faster. Can you "feel" 1 percent in speed? Without a computer, I seriously doubt it. Even with a computer I doubt you can detect 1 percent.



So 2 lbs is less than 2% and 3lbs is less than 3% and 4lbs is less than 4%. 4% of 12mph climbing a hill is less than .5mph, which you probably can't perceive. Will you feel 4 lbs on a bike? I hope so, regardless of whether it's less or more than the bike you are used to.

Humans are not machines, our muscles perceive and react to load in a non-linear fashion (thus the concept of "lifting to failure"). Psychology is a large part of cycling fast and the psychology is not all about "wow, something new" it's also about "that's harder than I expected, I feel weak," or the opposite. Does it matter, even at 1lb? Yes. Going faster does not matter unless you are racing (somehow) but how it feels matters every time.

[Lifelover]

.....
Humans are not machines.....


As a matter of fact, we are the most complicated machines ever created.

That might explain why although weight doesn't matter, it matters!

[Ken Robb]

[QUOTE= Not sure how you define efficiency, but stopping on the side of a busy street in the morning on the way to work or in the middle of no where with a bike and 70 pounds of gear to fix some light weight trinket is hardly efficient in my book.[/QUOTE]

See! There you go being logical again. :)

[johnnymossville]

As a matter of fact, we are the most complicated machines ever created.

That might explain why although weight doesn't matter, it matters!

I really liked that. :)

[jbl]

I find that I enjoy my non-training oriented rides more when I'm efficient. That is, when I've been riding regularly for several weeks and have been consciously paying attention to and working on my form and pedal stroke. This is not necessarily at my fitness peak, which is a different matter. This is the time when my body feels most at one with the bike. Everything is fluid and, most of all, efficient. I think that's what I like most about road cycling. These relatively simple, light machines going at a decent clip with only a modicum of effort.

[bironi]

I'll start by saying I'm not a retrogrouch and have no snarky ill will toward people who go with the latest and greatest technological advances in cycling and cycling training.

I'm also no longer competitive, except for the occasional town-line sprints (of which I have won exactly ONE in about the last two years) and the occasional "race you to the bottom of (insert mountain name here)" mindlessness. Basically, I just like to ride.

But ... Many of you on this board converse in wattage output and supplement input and hip flex and Zipp flex and all things in between that I would consider, in my own case, to be frivolous and inconsistent with my mission as a recreational cyclist.

Which brings me to the question: For those of us whose goal is to ride to ride, would any of those things matter? I can see doing intervals once in a while (usually, I do them when I'm dropped and have to catch back up) but don't see the big buck bang for PowerTaps or Endurox or BB86 cranks or Chris Carmichael or anything made by Assos.

I need someone to talk me down.

For old farts like me, these things mean nothing. :beer:

[flickwet]

If you can afford them what the heck whether your puttin' em in the "motor" or on the bike, For recreational cyclists its just about where and how you get your enjoyment, If it enhances YOUR enjoyment then it is money well spent, at the recreational level there is no denying the placebo effect either. 11 speed super record won't make me any faster but I wouldn't hesitate to buy it if I could afford it, a power meter would be cool to play with and maybe the extra knowledge would make me faster, but for what.

[RPS]

So 2 lbs is less than 2% and 3lbs is less than 3% and 4lbs is less than 4%. 4% of 12mph climbing a hill is less than .5mph, which you probably can't perceive. Will you feel 4 lbs on a bike? I hope so, regardless of whether it's less or more than the bike you are used to.

Humans are not machines, our muscles perceive and react to load in a non-linear fashion (thus the concept of "lifting to failure"). Psychology is a large part of cycling fast and the psychology is not all about "wow, something new" it's also about "that's harder than I expected, I feel weak," or the opposite. Does it matter, even at 1lb? Yes. Going faster does not matter unless you are racing (somehow) but how it feels matters every time.Are you familiar with the principle of conservation of linear momentum?

I’m absolutely certain that the main reason cyclist perceive a bike as “feeling” lighter than it can actually impact performance is because of this. A bike 4 pounds lighter doesn’t “feel” only about 2 percent lighter under an average man; it “feels” much more than that because of how it interacts with the rider’s mass. However, performance during climbing is entirely another matter.

Whether evaluating or predicting how it feels or how fast it actually climbs, the impact of bike mass (and its distribution if applied to rotating items) must follow the laws of physics. There can be no variations – only our inability to account for them properly.

[nm87710]

After +30 years of cycling IMO there are only 3 innovations that made a significant difference for the sport and riders.

1. Indexed STI/Ergo/Doubletap shifters
2. Clipless pedals
3. Lycra clothing

[1centaur]

There can be no variations – only our inability to account for them properly.

Exactly, and when we compare the physics of Analytic Cycling to the biology of a human motor we find a lot that's difficult to account for. Chemicals are mixing, fuel is burning, blood is pumping, joint and muscular frictions are occurring and brain chemistry is reacting to all that in ways that simply don't play well with physics equations. All things being equal, the physics equations are useful. Since nothing's equal, the physics equations are peripheral, though they gain somewhat in importance at the pinnacle of athletic performance since more things are equal up there.

[paczki]

Don't many of the best violinists go out of their way to obtain violins made in the 17th century? And I seem to recall Steinway getting raves recently for starting a line of pianos patterned after what they were making in the late 20th and early 19th century.


That's why I have an SRM on my Penny Farthing!

[Ray]

That's why I have an SRM on my Penny Farthing!
Now if Lightweight or Lew or someone would just get around to making a serious WHEEL for that thing, you'd be in bidness!

-Ray

[Tobias]

Exactly, and when we compare the physics of Analytic Cycling to the biology of a human motor we find a lot that's difficult to account for. Chemicals are mixing, fuel is burning, blood is pumping, joint and muscular frictions are occurring and brain chemistry is reacting to all that in ways that simply don't play well with physics equations. All things being equal, the physics equations are useful. Since nothing's equal, the physics equations are peripheral, though they gain somewhat in importance at the pinnacle of athletic performance since more things are equal up there.I tend to view these physiological conditions you make reference to as equally possible whether one is riding a 15-pound bike or a 16-pound bike. For that matter, shouldn’t these same conditions apply even if riding a 200-pound stationary bike? I see it more as a function of effort, not bike.

I don’t doubt a 30-pound bike feels at least twice as heavy as a 15-pounder – particularly if trying to lift it onto the roof rack of a tall SUV – but it won’t make a rider climb twice as fast. For an average size man it should translate to climbing something in the range of about 10 percent slower. Whether the bike feels twice as heavy or not with each pedal stroke won’t make one much slower than about 10 percent when climbing.

Another way to look at the impact of weight on “feel” versus “performance” as mentioned above by RPS is to visualize what would happen if climbing on a much lighter bike with the difference of weight carried on your body (like say a Camelback) so as to make the total weight the same. In this case the lighter bike would still feel lighter during climbing, but the climbing rate would be about the same IMO.

[Ray]

Another way to look at the impact of weight on “feel” versus “performance” as mentioned above by RPS is to visualize what would happen if climbing on a much lighter bike with the difference of weight carried on your body (like say a Camelback) so as to make the total weight the same. In this case the lighter bike would still feel lighter during climbing, but the climbing rate would be about the same IMO.
FWIW, I can ride bikes of various weights and not "feel" much difference climbing, assuming similar geometry, fit, etc. I had an RB-1 that always felt like it climbed like bikes 6-7 pounds lighter, for example. But you can give me two different wheel sets on the same bike and I can almost always feel a difference between light wheels and heavy ones. And I'm not even talking huge differences. A set of Open Pros built around DA hubs and 32 spokes feels very different to me than my Mike Garcia wheels that are maybe a couple hundred grams lighter, total, but are far from superlight wheels. And my Ksyriums, which pretty much split the difference, feel different still, maybe because of the stiffer feel. I don't claim any of this affects my climbing speed significantly (not that anyone would know - I've never ridden under a clock), but the 'feel' and enjoyment of a particular ride are definitely affected.

-Ray

[1centaur]

At the tipping point, the muscles won't push any more and you stop. Somewhere before that, you reach the top of the hill with burning thighs and a heaving heart and that slows you down for the rest of the ride. Somewhere before that you feel the extra effort and worry that the prior event will occur and ruin your ride, whatever the goal. Some brains are more immune than others to such worries. Some legs are farther from a tipping point at 16lbs than others for a given grade. Some muscle require shifting slightly in the saddle to give the extra push, changing the muscles recruited and their efficiency.

I am saying the "does it matter" question is not all about speed, and relative speed for a human is not easily predicted by relative weight of a bike, regardless of physics. I don't think we disagree, I think we are focused on slightly different things.

[rounder]

Are you familiar with the principle of conservation of linear momentum?

I’m absolutely certain that the main reason cyclist perceive a bike as “feeling” lighter than it can actually impact performance is because of this. A bike 4 pounds lighter doesn’t “feel” only about 2 percent lighter under an average man; it “feels” much more than that because of how it interacts with the rider’s mass. However, performance during climbing is entirely another matter.

Whether evaluating or predicting how it feels or how fast it actually climbs, the impact of bike mass (and its distribution if applied to rotating items) must follow the laws of physics. There can be no variations – only our inability to account for them properly.

That was good. I gave a 89 bianchi to my nephew who is now at UC San Diego in a phd program majoring in computer science and physics. The guy doesn't drive cars, but now gets around on his bike that i gave him a year ago. My guess is that he could care less whether the tubes are lugged, that he is riding on times without cleats, or that he is riding on clinchers...when everyone know tubulars are more efficient. Fact is, if he were concerned, he might analyze it and come to all the philosophically correct conclusions (after weighing all the facts). That his position is all wrong, that he should be riding carbon, cleats allow you to provide power through the entire pedal stroke, and what happens if he gets a flat. My guess is he happy just being there and has a ride to class, but i am glad he likes riding his bike.

[Ken Robb]

I'll keep my eye out for him today when I lead a ride through UCSD. It is a riding paradise while almost eveyone is away for the holidays.

[endosch2]

I'll start by saying I'm not a retrogrouch and have no snarky ill will toward people who go with the latest and greatest technological advances in cycling and cycling training.

I'm also no longer competitive, except for the occasional town-line sprints (of which I have won exactly ONE in about the last two years) and the occasional "race you to the bottom of (insert mountain name here)" mindlessness. Basically, I just like to ride.

But ... Many of you on this board converse in wattage output and supplement input and hip flex and Zipp flex and all things in between that I would consider, in my own case, to be frivolous and inconsistent with my mission as a recreational cyclist.

Which brings me to the question: For those of us whose goal is to ride to ride, would any of those things matter? I can see doing intervals once in a while (usually, I do them when I'm dropped and have to catch back up) but don't see the big buck bang for PowerTaps or Endurox or BB86 cranks or Chris Carmichael or anything made by Assos.

I need someone to talk me down.




Here is my take on this long discussion of is technology worth it or is there better "value" in some beatiful hand made steel frame made in some hobbyists garage that is "better" to someone than a DeRosa Carbon, etc.

I think that everyone has obviously different preferences - that is it they are just preferences. People who pass judgement on the guy who spends 5K trying to get their Look below 13 pounds when instead they could have bought a handmade lugged brazed whatever steel bike are just expressing prefernces.

Do a test. If you really do not believe in the technical stuff like carbon cranks, 11 speed systems, etc, than you probably should be happy riding a Trek, Raleigh, whatever you can buy now for $1000 that weighs just 20 pounds. We used to spend a lot trying to get a bike below 20 pounds. Most of these are TIG welded aluminum frames from China, but are coming out lighter and lighter. You can buy a carbon fibre frame Schwinn road bike from Wal-mart for I think like $400. If that fit you, isnt that a great value and wouldnt you be happy on it?

The real "value" in the bike world right now is not that you can buy a retro hand made steel frame for $1900 vs a $6000 carbon Serotta, the real value is that you can buy a very high quality lightweight bike for very little money.

I was thinking of a 2009 Challenge for everyone who claims to not to be affected by technology. Everyone go out and buy the best new bike you can for under $250, and then lets have a contest to see how many miles you can put on it before the end of 2009. No fancy upgrades. Total budget including any upgrades $250 - thats it. Any takers??

[ericspin]

My take on this has nothing to do with machine weights or speed. My primary goal when I get on my bike is endurance. I long long rides. All day events with lot's of bull****ting, recovery eating and resting on the backside.

I could care less about high tech at this point in my riding history. To illustrate this, all of my road rides with the exception of a handful in the past year or so, have been fix geared. Pretty low tech.......save for the beautiful new frame the Kirk Pacenti built for me.

Now to my point...........Hammer Nutrition is my _advantage_. I live a healthy, deliberate, disciplined life. My eternal search on the bike has been for endurance, not high tech cutting edge components (although I tried it for awhile) amd Hammer helps me to this end. So, I will continue to spend _bike dollars_ with them.

Oh, and BTW, I love my Assos bibs! :banana:

[RPS]

I predict the following to remain true in 2009 for most of us non-professional riders:

1) About 90 percent of total weight and mass will have nothing to do with the bike.

2) By far the greatest amount of aerodynamic drag has nothing to do with the bike.

3) At least 95 percent of total inertia has nothing to do with rotating items like wheels.

4) A crappy bike is more fun for those who love riding than a great bike for those who don’t.

I’ll save my other predictions for 2010. ;)

Have a great year, :beer:
Ricardo

[Joellogicman]

That's why I have an SRM on my Penny Farthing!

Assuming one could manage to ride a Penny Farthing as long as a modern racer (I understand PF's are notoriously difficult to ride) wouldn't the health benefit be the same?

[paczki]

Assuming one could manage to ride a Penny Farthing as long as a modern racer (I understand PF's are notoriously difficult to ride) wouldn't the health benefit be the same?

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=53877

Fixie so more work.

[Joellogicman]

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=53877

Fixie so more work.

I missed the earlier post.

Seems like one of those things where at bar with friends I might be tempted to say I would like to try ride one, but then if someone actually produced a PF I would start wondering what I got myself into.

[martinrjensen]

[QUOTE=Which brings me to the question: For those of us whose goal is to ride to ride, would any of those things matter? [/QUOTE]
This is an easy quick answer. The answer is no. You "need" 2 wheels and a frame to ride. Most of the other stuff is purchased on a "I want' basis, but I suspect you really knew this anyway. Buy what you want, because you want it. That's all I do