asgelle

If anything that proves my point. The lighter bike is faster.

UniChris

Numbers would seem to suggest that on a long ride one could save time by bringing an extra water bottle. Eg, a kilo isn't going to slow you more than detouring into a route-adjacent store, fishing out wallet, waiting in line, or fighting with a low pressure water fountain.

​​​​​That's not to say a break itself isn't welcome, but supply stops seem to take 2-3x the actually useful break time.
​​​​​​

Eric F 

My primary road bike is half of that weight. There is nothing about my bike that is not durable for the type of riding it's designed for. My previous main road bike is about 1kg (2 lbs) heavier than the newer one. There is nothing about it that makes it more durable than the lighter one. The older one is 18 years old, and still rides like it did when it was new. How much durability do I need?

ColonelSanders

Are you saying your Giant FCR3500 weighs 15kg?

GhostRider62

My bike weighs 30-35 lbs depending on what I am carrying.

I wish it weighed 15 lbs.

livedarklions

By 30 seconds over 100 miles. My point was no one said it wasn't. Talk about moving the goal posts! And you understand that quote was from the same post you claimed said there was NO difference in speed. Basically, you were lying by quoting out of context.

asgelle

I'll make it simple. The poster made a statement (A), I said (A) is incorrect. Later in the original post, the poster showed an example where (A) was contradicted. Now you're saying by showing that example, the poster never made statement (A) in the first place.

According to you, if I write a post claiming (B) and later not (B), then when someone says (B) is wrong, I can say no, you're taking me out of context. I never claimed (B) was true because I also said not (B).

PedalingWalrus

i haven't read the responses so forgive me if I am repeating what has already been posted but

The video makes a good point for people who tour, people who ride alone or for people who are completely unaware of the topic at hand

but (and I am not one of those people) ...

If You are riding with a group of roadies and you need to stay with the group... being 5 seconds or 30 seconds behind will do You no good

so go ahead and obsess :-)

tomato coupe

The correct answer is C, obviously.

livedarklions

Let me get this straight--you think there is a contradiction between saying "I wouldn't expect to pick up any time on the flat" and "it would take 100 miles to make a 30 second difference?" That's really lame--it's very clear from the context, he's saying it's too small a difference for him to notice. You really have to feign some pretty bad reading comprehension skills to get the "contradiction" you're perceiving.

30 seconds over 100 miles is pretty much negated by a couple minutes of headwind or whatever random occurence you'll encounter over 100 miles, so the speed difference is really just rounding error level stuff.

Eric F 

If you're riding anywhere that has 100 miles of flat roads, you can bet it will be windy.

asgelle

That's exactly what I'm saying. Words have meaning. There are plenty of qualifiers that could have been used to make the statement correct. To say 30 seconds over 100 miles isn't significant, meaningful important, ... is a value judgement and people will value that difference based on their own priorities. What can not be in dispute is 30 is infinitely times more than 0.

And that's why I said the mental model is wrong. To say, "I wouldn't expect to pick up any time on the flat" indicates the writer believes rolling resistance doesn't depend on weight (I know that isn't what he meant or thinks). That gives the reader a false picture of rolling resistance.

asgelle

Now it's your mental model that needs correction. Whatever other factors may impact the ride, none of them will negate the energy saving or speed increase from the lower rolling resistance from the lighter bike.

fujidon

Finding a sport drink for our water bottles that matches the color of our bike.

UniChris

LOL

In reality just about ALL of them outrank that in impact. And you dishonestly snipped the direct evidence of that from what you quoted.

What you are talking about is little more than noise remaining when all other sources of difference are removed - which in the real world they never are.
​​​​​​

genejockey 

Si.

asgelle

I think you missed the point. However much larger the other factors are, the savings from lower rolling resistance is not affected by them and the increase in speed or reduction in power persists however drag or other factors may change.

genejockey 

Yeah, no. Nobody's denying the savings exist. They're pointing out that they work out to no larger than a rounding error.

livedarklions

So, you knew that wasn't what he meant, so you plucked out a sentence from the context to make it sound like that's what he meant. That's a confession, not a refutation. You're just trolling by fake nitpickery. At least be funny if you're going to post such drivel.

asgelle

The clarification came after I responded to the post. Please try to keep up.

I can't decide if the next post (and there's always a next post) warrants invoking the first rule of holes or the Shawshank quotation.

genejockey 

Uh, you cannot quote two things FROM THE SAME POST and claim that the second comes after your response to the first. Time still runs in just the one direction, at least as we humans experience it.

livedarklions

No one is missing the point, "I wouldn't expect" and words to that effect just mean that the difference is really too small for us non-racing people to notice. Basically, all you're doing is "correcting" people who are quite clear about what they're actually saying by telling them they're wrong for saying something they are not.

And speaking of wrong, my use of "negated" was perfectly correct. If I am doing the same exact ride on two bikes of different weights, and there's a random headwind that slows me only on the ride of the lighter bike, that will negate the time/speed advantage I got over the heavier bike ride. Since any ride of 100 miles is going to have some number of random occurrences affecting resistance, I will almost certainly not be able to sort out the effects of weight on speed, and it is for all practical non-racing purposes, insubstantial and irrelevant.

Now, if you would be so kind as to stop with the condescending and incorrect corrections, maybe we can have a decent conversation.

livedarklions

Your "clarification" admitted you did exactly what I said you did. I was ahead of you by at least two posts.

And, really, don't try to be clever, it just doesn't work for you.

asgelle

I don't know what you're talking about, The original statement came in post 122 my response was post 123, and the clarification in post 130.

UniChris

Except that you could be dramatically faster over non-hilly courses by adding weight.
​​​​
Specifically, by riding a fully faired recumbent.

In fact, "rolling resistance" is trivially overshadowed by a step that could easily be taken, but isn't. You'd actually make that worse, but potentially end up 30-40% faster.