Weight-Weenieism
#351
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,950
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3952 Post(s)
Liked 7,299 Times
in
2,947 Posts
I hate those lizard people. My sister married one, and he turns every family gathering into some kind of mind control experiment. On the upside, he can get a table at any restaurant in town on short notice.
Likes For tomato coupe:
#352
Junior Member
On the topic of rotating mass: where does the energy to overcome gyroscopic inertia encountered when rocking the bike side to side come from? Surely that energy would have not been available to move the bike forward?
#353
Method to My Madness
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: Orange County, California
Posts: 3,663
Bikes: Trek FX 2, Cannondale Synapse, Cannondale CAAD4, Santa Cruz Stigmata GRX
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1948 Post(s)
Liked 1,471 Times
in
1,020 Posts
#354
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,491
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7652 Post(s)
Liked 3,478 Times
in
1,836 Posts
I last built a bike in 2017. The 800-gram frame cost $800. The 105 (5800) group set cost I think $400. Wheels were about $500 (about 1500 grams.) Riding weight, with pedals, pump, tools and tubes, tail lights, no computer, was (I think) 16.25 or so. Really nice, light bike. Oh ... it has rim brakes.
The cost of each component has doubled, last I checked. And the disc version of the frame (which I wanted, but it was not available any more) would have weighed more, as would the brake components.
Please send the build list for your $1500 15-lb disc bike. I have the cash. I don't need the bike, but .... wow, i would like it.
Likes For Maelochs:
#355
Senior Member
Factor disc aero wunderbike:
Factor's new Ostro VAM blurs boundaries with aero and lightweight design | GCN (globalcyclingnetwork.com)
And here is what Factor sponsored rider thinks about discs on road racing bikes:
Chris Froome unhappy to be on disc brakes | Cyclingnews
Chris Froome once again derides disc brakes on road bikes | Cyclingnews
Quite unusual for a sponsored rider to even peep about gear. You ride on whatever you are given, and personally accept blame for any (any!) problems experienced on the road.
Froome may have kissed and made up, but two years ago he was one of the few riders with the experience and prestige to be able to critique anything about his gear. Now, given his age and recent record, he'll be happy to ride what he's given. So now he'll be happy on discs. Or a skateboard if that is the team issue.
Factor's new Ostro VAM blurs boundaries with aero and lightweight design | GCN (globalcyclingnetwork.com)
And here is what Factor sponsored rider thinks about discs on road racing bikes:
Chris Froome unhappy to be on disc brakes | Cyclingnews
Chris Froome once again derides disc brakes on road bikes | Cyclingnews
Quite unusual for a sponsored rider to even peep about gear. You ride on whatever you are given, and personally accept blame for any (any!) problems experienced on the road.
Froome may have kissed and made up, but two years ago he was one of the few riders with the experience and prestige to be able to critique anything about his gear. Now, given his age and recent record, he'll be happy to ride what he's given. So now he'll be happy on discs. Or a skateboard if that is the team issue.
Likes For Dave Mayer:
#356
Senior Member
Thank you !
The static analysis presented elsewhere here assumes the rider and bike combo is like a sold block of wood getting pushed up an incline. In the real world, on the hard climbs, the rider is humping on the pedals with the bike swaying back and forth underneath. A lot of that energy ends up on the pedals, but some ends up absorbed by the riders legs and arms. And then there is the constant surges and accelerations that require immediate responses, and even on the climbs, frequent braking to avoid pile-ups. As if a single rider isn't enough of a complex system, then add 100 other riders to the mix, some of which are trying to help you, but most trying to lose you or make you go slower. This is so complex that basic physics isn't enough.
And what the UCI-sponsored teams use on the mountain stages may not be an indication of best gear solution. For example, everyone wants to be on tubulars for the combo of lower rotating weight and safety. But the team may not have tubular options, and have to accept something sub-optimal for their sponsors, such as tubeless clinchers. The sponsors pay money not just to win races, but to showcase gear that will be bought by dentists with platinum cards. Nowadays, you cannot sell tubulars.
Or you put most of the team on heavier aero bikes/wheels, because they are disposable and will certainly be shed off the peloton on the first giant climb. But the team leaders: they will be on the lightest possible bikes and wheels.
#357
Habitual User
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 7,997
Bikes: 2023 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2018 Trek Procaliber 9.9 RSL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4955 Post(s)
Liked 8,097 Times
in
3,832 Posts
Factor disc aero wunderbike:
Factor's new Ostro VAM blurs boundaries with aero and lightweight design | GCN (globalcyclingnetwork.com)
And here is what Factor sponsored rider thinks about discs on road racing bikes:
Chris Froome unhappy to be on disc brakes | Cyclingnews
Chris Froome once again derides disc brakes on road bikes | Cyclingnews
Quite unusual for a sponsored rider to even peep about gear. You ride on whatever you are given, and personally accept blame for any (any!) problems experienced on the road.
Froome may have kissed and made up, but two years ago he was one of the few riders with the experience and prestige to be able to critique anything about his gear. Now, given his age and recent record, he'll be happy to ride what he's given. So now he'll be happy on discs. Or a skateboard if that is the team issue.
Factor's new Ostro VAM blurs boundaries with aero and lightweight design | GCN (globalcyclingnetwork.com)
And here is what Factor sponsored rider thinks about discs on road racing bikes:
Chris Froome unhappy to be on disc brakes | Cyclingnews
Chris Froome once again derides disc brakes on road bikes | Cyclingnews
Quite unusual for a sponsored rider to even peep about gear. You ride on whatever you are given, and personally accept blame for any (any!) problems experienced on the road.
Froome may have kissed and made up, but two years ago he was one of the few riders with the experience and prestige to be able to critique anything about his gear. Now, given his age and recent record, he'll be happy to ride what he's given. So now he'll be happy on discs. Or a skateboard if that is the team issue.
Froome changed his opinion in 2023, citing rubbing and alignment issues with his first disc brake experiences, and acknowledged that the issues had been resolved.
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
#358
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,442
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4414 Post(s)
Liked 4,867 Times
in
3,012 Posts
Thank you !
The static analysis presented elsewhere here assumes the rider and bike combo is like a sold block of wood getting pushed up an incline. In the real world, on the hard climbs, the rider is humping on the pedals with the bike swaying back and forth underneath. A lot of that energy ends up on the pedals, but some ends up absorbed by the riders legs and arms. And then there is the constant surges and accelerations that require immediate responses, and even on the climbs, frequent braking to avoid pile-ups. As if a single rider isn't enough of a complex system, then add 100 other riders to the mix, some of which are trying to help you, but most trying to lose you or make you go slower. This is so complex that basic physics isn't enough.
And what the UCI-sponsored teams use on the mountain stages may not be an indication of best gear solution. For example, everyone wants to be on tubulars for the combo of lower rotating weight and safety. But the team may not have tubular options, and have to accept something sub-optimal for their sponsors, such as tubeless clinchers. The sponsors pay money not just to win races, but to showcase gear that will be bought by dentists with platinum cards. Nowadays, you cannot sell tubulars.
Or you put most of the team on heavier aero bikes/wheels, because they are disposable and will certainly be shed off the peloton on the first giant climb. But the team leaders: they will be on the lightest possible bikes and wheels.
The static analysis presented elsewhere here assumes the rider and bike combo is like a sold block of wood getting pushed up an incline. In the real world, on the hard climbs, the rider is humping on the pedals with the bike swaying back and forth underneath. A lot of that energy ends up on the pedals, but some ends up absorbed by the riders legs and arms. And then there is the constant surges and accelerations that require immediate responses, and even on the climbs, frequent braking to avoid pile-ups. As if a single rider isn't enough of a complex system, then add 100 other riders to the mix, some of which are trying to help you, but most trying to lose you or make you go slower. This is so complex that basic physics isn't enough.
And what the UCI-sponsored teams use on the mountain stages may not be an indication of best gear solution. For example, everyone wants to be on tubulars for the combo of lower rotating weight and safety. But the team may not have tubular options, and have to accept something sub-optimal for their sponsors, such as tubeless clinchers. The sponsors pay money not just to win races, but to showcase gear that will be bought by dentists with platinum cards. Nowadays, you cannot sell tubulars.
Or you put most of the team on heavier aero bikes/wheels, because they are disposable and will certainly be shed off the peloton on the first giant climb. But the team leaders: they will be on the lightest possible bikes and wheels.
#359
Habitual User
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 7,997
Bikes: 2023 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2018 Trek Procaliber 9.9 RSL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4955 Post(s)
Liked 8,097 Times
in
3,832 Posts
The 2023 TdF stage 16 really drove in the importance of aerodynamics vs weight. Vingegaard did the whole TT with his "heavy" Cervelo P5 with a disc rear wheel no less, whereas Pogačar swapped to a much lighter "climbing" bike before the 2,5km 9 % climb at the end of the stage.
In the end Vingegaard smoked Pogačar and kept gaining time throughout the climbing section even though Pogačar was on a much lighter bike. Granted, Vingegaard was ahead before the climb started, but Pogacar just kept on losing a LOT of time on the climb.
From what I could scrounge up there's almost a kilogram of difference in bike weights between the two and with Vingegaards high profile front rim and disc wheel a lot of Vingegaards weight was rotating weight. Considering how light the two riders are a kilogram is significant.
In the end Vingegaard smoked Pogačar and kept gaining time throughout the climbing section even though Pogačar was on a much lighter bike. Granted, Vingegaard was ahead before the climb started, but Pogacar just kept on losing a LOT of time on the climb.
From what I could scrounge up there's almost a kilogram of difference in bike weights between the two and with Vingegaards high profile front rim and disc wheel a lot of Vingegaards weight was rotating weight. Considering how light the two riders are a kilogram is significant.
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
#360
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,442
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4414 Post(s)
Liked 4,867 Times
in
3,012 Posts
And what the UCI-sponsored teams use on the mountain stages may not be an indication of best gear solution. For example, everyone wants to be on tubulars for the combo of lower rotating weight and safety. But the team may not have tubular options, and have to accept something sub-optimal for their sponsors, such as tubeless clinchers. The sponsors pay money not just to win races, but to showcase gear that will be bought by dentists with platinum cards. Nowadays, you cannot sell tubulars.
#361
Senior Member
The static analysis presented elsewhere here assumes the rider and bike combo is like a sold block of wood getting pushed up an incline. In the real world, on the hard climbs, the rider is humping on the pedals with the bike swaying back and forth underneath. A lot of that energy ends up on the pedals, but some ends up absorbed by the riders legs and arms. And then there is the constant surges and accelerations that require immediate responses, and even on the climbs, frequent braking to avoid pile-ups. As if a single rider isn't enough of a complex system, then add 100 other riders to the mix, some of which are trying to help you, but most trying to lose you or make you go slower. This is so complex that basic physics isn't enough.
And what the UCI-sponsored teams use on the mountain stages may not be an indication of best gear solution. For example, everyone wants to be on tubulars for the combo of lower rotating weight and safety. But the team may not have tubular options, and have to accept something sub-optimal for their sponsors, such as tubeless clinchers. The sponsors pay money not just to win races, but to showcase gear that will be bought by dentists with platinum cards. Nowadays, you cannot sell tubulars.
But it would seem that the sponsors are indeed doing that. If you look at the fastest rubber at bicyclerollingresistance you'll notice that the fastest tubular on there isn't even in the top 10. Tubulars can't beat tubeless any more.
Or you put most of the team on heavier aero bikes/wheels, because they are disposable and will certainly be shed off the peloton on the first giant climb. But the team leaders: they will be on the lightest possible bikes and wheels.
#362
Junior Member
If you grab the axle of a wheel, and tip it side to side, that takes energy. If you spin that wheel, and tip it side to side while it's spinning, that takes much more energy. If you tip a lighter spinning wheel, that takes less energy than a heavier spinning wheel. Energy that is used for something other than moving the bike and rider forward doesn't help you go faster, cf: tire pressure.
#363
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,950
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3952 Post(s)
Liked 7,299 Times
in
2,947 Posts
Originally Posted by Dave Mayer
This is so complex that basic physics isn't enough.
#364
Habitual User
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 7,997
Bikes: 2023 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2018 Trek Procaliber 9.9 RSL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4955 Post(s)
Liked 8,097 Times
in
3,832 Posts
Vittoria Corsa Speed 23mm tubular @ 132psi = 8.9W (narrow and hard is the fastest!!)
Vittoria Speed G+ 2.0 25mm tubeless @ 80psi = 8.3W
I intentionally compared tires from the same manufacturer. The Veloflex Record TLR 25 is faster than the Vittoria.
That pesky scientific data ruins everything!
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
Last edited by Eric F; 02-16-24 at 04:05 PM.
Likes For Eric F:
#365
Habitual User
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 7,997
Bikes: 2023 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2018 Trek Procaliber 9.9 RSL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4955 Post(s)
Liked 8,097 Times
in
3,832 Posts
If you grab the axle of a wheel, and tip it side to side, that takes energy. If you spin that wheel, and tip it side to side while it's spinning, that takes much more energy. If you tip a lighter spinning wheel, that takes less energy than a heavier spinning wheel. Energy that is used for something other than moving the bike and rider forward doesn't help you go faster, cf: tire pressure.
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
#366
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,950
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3952 Post(s)
Liked 7,299 Times
in
2,947 Posts
#367
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,442
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4414 Post(s)
Liked 4,867 Times
in
3,012 Posts
If you grab the axle of a wheel, and tip it side to side, that takes energy. If you spin that wheel, and tip it side to side while it's spinning, that takes much more energy. If you tip a lighter spinning wheel, that takes less energy than a heavier spinning wheel. Energy that is used for something other than moving the bike and rider forward doesn't help you go faster, cf: tire pressure.
#368
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,442
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4414 Post(s)
Liked 4,867 Times
in
3,012 Posts
#369
Habitual User
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 7,997
Bikes: 2023 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2018 Trek Procaliber 9.9 RSL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4955 Post(s)
Liked 8,097 Times
in
3,832 Posts
#370
Junior Member
Lol. It takes more energy to move rotating mass side-to-side than it takes to move non-rotating mass. That energy comes from somewhere, and it's not going into moving the bike and rider forward.
#371
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,491
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7652 Post(s)
Liked 3,478 Times
in
1,836 Posts
If you grab the axle of a wheel, and tip it side to side, that takes energy. If you spin that wheel, and tip it side to side while it's spinning, that takes much more energy. If you tip a lighter spinning wheel, that takes less energy than a heavier spinning wheel. Energy that is used for something other than moving the bike and rider forward doesn't help you go faster, cf: tire pressure.
Everyone "knew" that lighter was better ... until actual experimentation and calculation proved that except for very long steep climbs, aero saved more energy.
If you think that side-to-side leaning is seriously impacting speed, do the testing, analyze the results, show the math, and people can see what's up.
Otherwise we are all just talking, and none of it means anything.
I am very different than many posters here. I can actually admit that there have been times when I said, "Well, it is just that way. It makes sense.. Think about ti and you will see." only to later be shown the actual experimental results, at which time I was (eventually) able to say, "Okay, I was wrong about that."
I feel okay about this because even Albert Einstein, did it ... he rejected quantum mechanics at first ("God does not play dice with the universe") but later he had to admit that even though the premises seemed ridiculous, the math worked out.
So ... my takeaway is that it is alright to learn.
I wish that opinion were more widely shared.
Likes For Maelochs:
#372
Junior Member
Provide quantities. Everyone "knew" that rotating mass was more important or impactful than static mass .... until the actual math proved that differences were minuscule.
Everyone "knew" that lighter was better ... until actual experimentation and calculation proved that except for very long steep climbs, aero saved more energy.
If you think that side-to-side leaning is seriously impacting speed, do the testing, analyze the results, show the math, and people can see what's up.
Otherwise we are all just talking, and none of it means anything.
I am very different than many posters here. I can actually admit that there have been times when I said, "Well, it is just that way. It makes sense.. Think about ti and you will see." only to later be shown the actual experimental results, at which time I was (eventually) able to say, "Okay, I was wrong about that."
I feel okay about this because even Albert Einstein, did it ... he rejected quantum mechanics at first ("God does not play dice with the universe") but later he had to admit that even though the premises seemed ridiculous, the math worked out.
So ... my takeaway is that it is alright to learn.
I wish that opinion were more widely shared.
Everyone "knew" that lighter was better ... until actual experimentation and calculation proved that except for very long steep climbs, aero saved more energy.
If you think that side-to-side leaning is seriously impacting speed, do the testing, analyze the results, show the math, and people can see what's up.
Otherwise we are all just talking, and none of it means anything.
I am very different than many posters here. I can actually admit that there have been times when I said, "Well, it is just that way. It makes sense.. Think about ti and you will see." only to later be shown the actual experimental results, at which time I was (eventually) able to say, "Okay, I was wrong about that."
I feel okay about this because even Albert Einstein, did it ... he rejected quantum mechanics at first ("God does not play dice with the universe") but later he had to admit that even though the premises seemed ridiculous, the math worked out.
So ... my takeaway is that it is alright to learn.
I wish that opinion were more widely shared.
#373
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,442
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4414 Post(s)
Liked 4,867 Times
in
3,012 Posts
But you are not going to actually put more effort into rocking your bike are you? You will put the same force into rocking the bike, but it will just rock slightly less.
#374
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,659
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1248 Post(s)
Liked 1,323 Times
in
674 Posts
Thank you !
The static analysis presented elsewhere here assumes the rider and bike combo is like a sold block of wood getting pushed up an incline. In the real world, on the hard climbs, the rider is humping on the pedals with the bike swaying back and forth underneath. A lot of that energy ends up on the pedals, but some ends up absorbed by the riders legs and arms. And then there is the constant surges and accelerations that require immediate responses, and even on the climbs, frequent braking to avoid pile-ups. As if a single rider isn't enough of a complex system, then add 100 other riders to the mix, some of which are trying to help you, but most trying to lose you or make you go slower. This is so complex that basic physics isn't enough.
And what the UCI-sponsored teams use on the mountain stages may not be an indication of best gear solution. For example, everyone wants to be on tubulars for the combo of lower rotating weight and safety. But the team may not have tubular options, and have to accept something sub-optimal for their sponsors, such as tubeless clinchers. The sponsors pay money not just to win races, but to showcase gear that will be bought by dentists with platinum cards. Nowadays, you cannot sell tubulars.
Or you put most of the team on heavier aero bikes/wheels, because they are disposable and will certainly be shed off the peloton on the first giant climb. But the team leaders: they will be on the lightest possible bikes and wheels.
The static analysis presented elsewhere here assumes the rider and bike combo is like a sold block of wood getting pushed up an incline. In the real world, on the hard climbs, the rider is humping on the pedals with the bike swaying back and forth underneath. A lot of that energy ends up on the pedals, but some ends up absorbed by the riders legs and arms. And then there is the constant surges and accelerations that require immediate responses, and even on the climbs, frequent braking to avoid pile-ups. As if a single rider isn't enough of a complex system, then add 100 other riders to the mix, some of which are trying to help you, but most trying to lose you or make you go slower. This is so complex that basic physics isn't enough.
And what the UCI-sponsored teams use on the mountain stages may not be an indication of best gear solution. For example, everyone wants to be on tubulars for the combo of lower rotating weight and safety. But the team may not have tubular options, and have to accept something sub-optimal for their sponsors, such as tubeless clinchers. The sponsors pay money not just to win races, but to showcase gear that will be bought by dentists with platinum cards. Nowadays, you cannot sell tubulars.
Or you put most of the team on heavier aero bikes/wheels, because they are disposable and will certainly be shed off the peloton on the first giant climb. But the team leaders: they will be on the lightest possible bikes and wheels.
#375
Junior Member
How far the bike rocks has more to do with range of motion and skeletal measurement ratios than with how much "work" it takes to rock the bike that far. It's obviously simpler to model a non-rocking bike, but I think that's an oversimplification.