Steel frames and le Tour

[Off The Back]

Donald Munro wrote:
> Damn and now I've paraded my fatty master excuse which I promised not
> to do. Oh well I'm sure Wim Vansevant has an excuse too.

You just better hope Kurgan doesn't dig this deep into such a boring thread!
Anyway, making excuses is a fundamental component of being a Masters Fattie,
some might even say it's the quintessential definition. But in reality,
pinning a number on and finishing is infinitely better than DNF'ing, which
is far above not starting in the first place.

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Jul 17, 3:20*pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:47:55 -0700 (PDT), "b...@mambo.ucolick.org"
>
> <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
> >On Jul 17, 1:47*am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> >> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:00:39 -0700, "Off The Back"
> >> <marco_fenne...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >That's not much of a climb over 15 miles, and I certainly agree with your
> >> >point that the impact of bike mass is not very significant for steady-state
> >> >riding on mostly flat terrain, compared to other factors. But...
>
> >> >...I regularly ride a 1,200 ft climb (2.9 miles long) and am pretty
> >> >confident that I could detect the *effect* of a 7-lb difference in my bike.
> >> >And I'm positive I could detect the mass difference because of the change in
> >> >the bike's characteristics moving side-to-side and fore-and-aft beneath me.
> >> >I'd put money on it.
>
> >> >Mark
> >> >http://marcofanelli.blogspot.com
>
> >> Dear Mark,
>
> >> Hang on to your money.
>
> >> *:-)
>
> >> Again, the original question was whether a rider could detect a
> >> "noticeably robust forward thrust" with a bike 7 pounds lighter.
>
> >> Not side-to-side tipping, not handling, not how it feels when hefted
> >> or rolled forward while walking next to it, not how it vibrates, but
> >> how it _accelerates_.
>
> >Dear Carl:
>
> >A gentleman, if prudence requires him to decline
> >a wager, does not do it with the phrase
> >"Hang on to your money."
>
> >Mark asserted that he would be able to detect the
> >difference in the dynamic handling of the bike, and
> >that was the "bet" he made. *The calculations you
> >showed do nothing to disprove this. *Admittedly,
> >it would be hard to disprove, and thus hard to
> >adjudicate the bet, but you could simply say that
> >rather than pontificating at length and redefining the
> >question to be about your assertion rather than
> >Mark's.
>
> >For what it's worth, I think there are three places
> >where bike weight really matters:
> >1) You're riding up Alpe d'Huez
> >2) You race cyclocross.
> >3) You live in a third-floor walkup apartment.
>
> >While in any of these cases you might not be able
> >to feel the extra 7 lb in a blind test, it still matters.
>
> >Ben
>
> Dear Ben,
>
> It may really matter to racers, who care about _any_ difference.
>
> And a rider can feel the extra 7 pounds in various ways, but it's
> unlikley that he can detect the resulting speed difference.
>
> Let's see what Newton predicts about the Alp d'Huez.
> *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_d'Huez
>
> Depending on where you start, 13.8 km, 8.1% grade. Let's try the
> default 70 kg rider, with a 6.36 kg (~14 lb) and 9.55 kg (~21 lb) bike
> and 500 watts, drops, tubulars:
> *http://bikecalculator.com/veloMetric.html
>
> I get 34.56 minutes versus 35.63 minutes, 1.07 minutes faster, or
> about a 64 second lead.
>
> That's about the handicap that Ullrich needed to saddle Armstrong with
> in the 2004 TT up the Alp d'Huez:
>
> 1. Lance Armstrong (Usa) en 39'41" (moy : 23.435 km/h)
> 2. Jan Ullrich (All) à 1'01"
>
> *http://www.memoire-du-cyclisme.net/eta_tdf_2004_2013/tdf2004_16.php
>
> Yikes! It takes 14 pounds to slow Armstrong down to the Ullrich level.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

Aaargh!

Going through the details over and over makes me sloppy.

That should have been 7 pounds, not 14, to hold Amrstrong back to
Ullrich's time up the Alpe d'Huez.

A 14-pound handicap would likely have given Ullrich the ~1
minute lead over Armstrong that Armstrong had over Ullrich.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:20:31 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:


>It may really matter to racers, who care about _any_ difference.

It may?

You've been rambling on in a thread which refers to the most
competitive cycling race in the world and that is just beginning to
sink into your brain.

Write write write some more dear Cheers

JT

[Scott]

On Jul 17, 3:51*pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:13:43 -0600, Bret Wade <bret.w...@xilinx.com>
> wrote:
>
> >carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> >> The original question was whether a rider can _feel_ such tiny
> >> changes--that same old laughable "noticeably robust forward thrust."
>
> >I wouldn't put it in those words but I have felt that sensation when
> >switching from a 4 lb Ti frame to a 2.5 lb Al frame. It felt faster from
> >the first pedal stroke. It was a team bike that I was somewhat skeptical
> >of riding, so it wasn't just wishful thinking. Others on the team had
> >similar experiences. I understand physics well enough to know that the
> >sensation was misleading.
>
> >Bret
>
> Dear Bret,
>
> Forgive a long-winded answer, but you're so refreshingly reasonable
> that I want to avoid any offense.
>
> What interests me is the idea that a 1.5 lb lighter frame "felt faster
> from the first pedal stroke"--possibly a generalization or even
> hyperbole, but it's what we have to work with.
>
> I don't know the actual weights, but it was a whole team, so a 150
> pound rider and a 16.5 pound bike would probably be in the ballpark.
>
> That theoretical 166.5 pound bike and rider would drop to 165 pounds,
> about 0.9%.
>
> The bike itself would have dropped from 16.5 to 15.0 pounds, about
> 10%.
>
> The bike might twitch from side to side or heave forward 10% easier.
>
> But I gather that we agree that the speed and acceleration
> improvements are going to be so small that a calculator is necessary
> to see them.
>
> In fact, they don't show up on my first effort:
> *http://bikecalculator.com/veloUS.html
>
> I tried 400 watts, a 150 pound rider, 15 and 16.5 pound bikes,
> tubulars, and drops.
>
> Because the calculator has only 2-decimal precision, both bikes went
> the same speed--27.85 mph.
>
> (A quick look at the time for 20 miles reassured me that the
> calculator is still grinding out infinitesimal details--43.08 minutes
> versus 43.09 minutes, a 0.01 minute lead, 0.6 seconds.)
>
> Let's send the bikes up the Alp d'Huez, which I have handy at 8.1% and
> 13.8 km (8.56 miles):
> *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_d'Huez
>
> The steep grade teases out a speed difference, but it's still nothing
> that a rider could detect.
>
> I get 41.03 minutes versus 41.33, a 0.3 minute or 18 second lead after
> almost 2500 seconds. That's *~1% faster.
>
> The speeds are 12.52 mph versus 12.43 mph.
>
> Raise the power to 500 watts, and the time and difference shrink to
> 34.04 versus 34.27, a little under 14 seconds, at 15.09 versus 14.99
> mph.
>
> In other words, it takes the Alp d'Huez and a light, world-class rider
> to produce a tenth of a mile per hour and 14-second difference with a
> 1.5 pound lighter bike.
>
> So I'm glad that you understand the physics well enough to know that
> the impression was probably misleading. In unblinded testing, it's
> hard to tell which way our misperceptions will go. Just paying
> attention (because we're testing) distorts what we think we feel. Evil
> psychologists love to demonstrate how students will mis-measure the
> same lumber with the same measuring tapes, according to whether
> they've been told that it's important for the boards not to be too
> long, for them not to be too short, or that the measurement accuracy
> does (or doesn't) really matter.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

If I may, it didn't feel faster because it was lighter, it felt faster
because it was stiffer.

[Bret Wade]

carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:13:43 -0600, Bret Wade <bret.wade@xilinx.com>
> wrote:
>
>> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>> The original question was whether a rider can _feel_ such tiny
>>> changes--that same old laughable "noticeably robust forward thrust."
>> I wouldn't put it in those words but I have felt that sensation when
>> switching from a 4 lb Ti frame to a 2.5 lb Al frame. It felt faster from
>> the first pedal stroke. It was a team bike that I was somewhat skeptical
>> of riding, so it wasn't just wishful thinking. Others on the team had
>> similar experiences. I understand physics well enough to know that the
>> sensation was misleading.
>>
>> Bret
>
> Dear Bret,
>
> Forgive a long-winded answer, but you're so refreshingly reasonable
> that I want to avoid any offense.
>
> What interests me is the idea that a 1.5 lb lighter frame "felt faster
> from the first pedal stroke"--possibly a generalization or even
> hyperbole, but it's what we have to work with.
>
> I don't know the actual weights, but it was a whole team, so a 150
> pound rider and a 16.5 pound bike would probably be in the ballpark.
>
> That theoretical 166.5 pound bike and rider would drop to 165 pounds,
> about 0.9%.
>
> The bike itself would have dropped from 16.5 to 15.0 pounds, about
> 10%.
>
> The bike might twitch from side to side or heave forward 10% easier.
>
> But I gather that we agree that the speed and acceleration
> improvements are going to be so small that a calculator is necessary
> to see them.
>
> In fact, they don't show up on my first effort:
> http://bikecalculator.com/veloUS.html
>
> I tried 400 watts, a 150 pound rider, 15 and 16.5 pound bikes,
> tubulars, and drops.
>
> Because the calculator has only 2-decimal precision, both bikes went
> the same speed--27.85 mph.
>
> (A quick look at the time for 20 miles reassured me that the
> calculator is still grinding out infinitesimal details--43.08 minutes
> versus 43.09 minutes, a 0.01 minute lead, 0.6 seconds.)
>
> Let's send the bikes up the Alp d'Huez, which I have handy at 8.1% and
> 13.8 km (8.56 miles):
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_d'Huez
>
> The steep grade teases out a speed difference, but it's still nothing
> that a rider could detect.
>
> I get 41.03 minutes versus 41.33, a 0.3 minute or 18 second lead after
> almost 2500 seconds. That's ~1% faster.
>
> The speeds are 12.52 mph versus 12.43 mph.
>
> Raise the power to 500 watts, and the time and difference shrink to
> 34.04 versus 34.27, a little under 14 seconds, at 15.09 versus 14.99
> mph.
>
> In other words, it takes the Alp d'Huez and a light, world-class rider
> to produce a tenth of a mile per hour and 14-second difference with a
> 1.5 pound lighter bike.
>
> So I'm glad that you understand the physics well enough to know that
> the impression was probably misleading. In unblinded testing, it's
> hard to tell which way our misperceptions will go. Just paying
> attention (because we're testing) distorts what we think we feel. Evil
> psychologists love to demonstrate how students will mis-measure the
> same lumber with the same measuring tapes, according to whether
> they've been told that it's important for the boards not to be too
> long, for them not to be too short, or that the measurement accuracy
> does (or doesn't) really matter.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

Dear Carl,

No need to apologize, I understand that bad habits can be hard to break.
The hardest thing I've done in my life is break a pack a day Marlboro habit.

Anyway, I'll just point out that your very detailed analysis involves
steady state aerobic climbing whereas most "Wow, this bike is fast!"
moments will come during anaerobic accelerations. Not that I think the
result would be much different. A small change in total mass won't
affect either situation much.

The bike weighed 16 lbs, rider was 165 lbs and max power was 1350 watts.

Cheers,
Bret

[Off The Back]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> Off The Back wrote:
>>
>> No, not that. I *know* that Tom-bot exaggerates his racing experience,
>> which best I can tell, consists of a few cat-4 masters events in the
>> early 90's plus the occasional twilight crit.
>
> By all means explain to me where I exaggerated my racing experience.
>

OK, maybe a sloppy choice of wording on my part, as you haven't really ever
mentioned specifics about your racing experience. Perhaps you should, if
nothing else to set the record straight.

>> Not that there's anything wrong with not racing much, it's just that he
>> shouldn't imply that his knowledge of bike racing is based on first-hand
>> experience like he often does.
>
> Then by all means you shouldn't have a problem citing where I've done
> that.

I'm comfortable enough with spewing forth my own opinions without exhaustive
citations to back them up, so I'll just say that my *impression* over a few
years in this group is that you often cite your racing experience(s) as
vigorous justification for much of what you write. Don't make me dig through
google groups for specific instances. Perhaps somebody with a better memory
than me could mention a few examples...

> The fact is that I raced motorcycles for years, was a professional AMA
> racing mechanic, I raced sailboats including season champions in many
> classes and I did some minor bicycle racing that I hardly ever mention
> save to underscore the fact that I KNOW how difficult it is.

That's great that you have a lot of experience with those other activities,
but it's hardly relevant to bike racing. Hell, my experience racing in the
US doesn't even make me qualified to comment on euro racing. IMnotHO anyway.
In other words (Rummy warning) I know what I don't know, i.e., there are
known unknowns, although they are knowable, but by whom I don't know.

> What's more, I coached several kids including a couple of stepchildren and
> some of their friends who came in in the top 15 nationally. Not that means
> a whole lot, but it does demonstrate a certain familiarity with the
> business.

Yes it does.

> Though I think that you need to stand behind the silly stuff you're
> printing.

....but...but...but... this is rbr! who does that?!?

>> Rather, my cryptic comment was based on the easily-stocked results I
>> found for Donald--who does indeed race--and since I've also occupied
>> Lantern Rouge territory, I thought it best not to mention it. Ooops, just
>> did!
>
> Munro prints garbage here. He almost never has anything to say that would
> come from anyone with a normal IQ. Pretending that he has is pure
> unadulterated BS.

Having never met the man, I cannot judge his IQ other than from what I read
here. Again IMHO, he's one of the wittiest posters around, and I for one
appreciate his concise'itivity. Both those traits suggest to me that he is
indeed quite smart.

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:07:13 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
com> wrote:

><bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
>news:01c53f53-4e5c-4fdb-aefa-92ca8fe47ad7@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> While in any of these cases you might not be able
>> to feel the extra 7 lb in a blind test, it still matters.
>
>I have an Atala cyclocross bike converted to a touring bike. It weighs about
>27 lbs. I have a Time VX that weighs about 20 lbs. I'd bet that blindfolded
>and lifting them you could tell one from the other.

Dear Tom,

Okay, I'll spell it out for you. Try telling the difference in time or
speed blindfolded.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[andresmuro@aol.com]

On Jul 17, 4:10 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Tuschinski" <lok...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d70e9a91-8002-4d86-a323-d40010068a3b@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >> And indeed when you look at the actual numbers of
> >> failures you find that a correctly built steel frame, even superlight
> >> ones,
> >> very seldom fail and when they do it is pretty plainly a workmanship or
> >> material error.
>
> > Oh come on Tom, that's blatantly false. Back in the days, when we all
> > raced Reynolds/Columbus we broke frames. Some of it by crashing, some
> > by bad handling, some by bad manufacturers.
>
> > And yes, we also broke Alu frames. And now we break CF frames
> > *shrug*.
>
> > Such is life ^^
>
> I don't follow you here. Well built steel frames seldom fail. Well built AL
> frames (the super light ones) fail whether you take good care of them or
> not. I have personally observed quite a few carbon fiber failures and these
> bikes are EXPENSIVE.
>
> And the total savings are: My Time VX costs almost 4 times more than my
> Basso Loto and they ride almost identically and weigh within a lb of each
> other.

I used to have a Basso Ascot. It was my favorite bike ever. It died in
a collision with a car and I didn't do too well either. It was a great
frame, though. I think that it was the geometry that made the bike
feel really nice. I don't know if your Lotto has the same geometry as
my Ascot, but if it does, I know why you like it. I am sure that I
will also be able to get a great ride with frames of different
materials that have the same geometry as my Ascot. A lot of the times,
a cyclist may like a bike more because the geometry makes it feel
faster.

I believe , like Carl, that the feeling is just that and your speed
does not necessarily increase or decrease that much. However, it is
great to ride on a bike that has "that" feeling.

Andres

[Tom Kunich]

"Off The Back" <marco_fennelli@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3BPfk.4$W64.3@newsfe09.iad...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>> Munro prints garbage here. He almost never has anything to say that would
>> come from anyone with a normal IQ. Pretending that he has is pure
>> unadulterated BS.
>
> Having never met the man, I cannot judge his IQ other than from what I
> read here. Again IMHO, he's one of the wittiest posters around, and I for
> one appreciate his concise'itivity. Both those traits suggest to me that
> he is indeed quite smart.

HAHHAHHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHHAH HAHHAHAHAAHA!!!!

Well, at least you have a sense of humor.

[Tom Sherman]

Andrew Muzi wrote:
> ...
> Look at any major high volume brand of race bike [1] up to the late
> 1980s next to even a moderately priced Gunnar, Soma, Bianchi of today.
> Without going to the level of Waterford, Richard Sachs, Jonny Cycles etc
> this industry just can't afford to deliver junk....

Are Waterford frames really any better made than Gunnar, considering
both are made by the same people?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.

[A Muzi]

> Andrew Muzi wrote:
>> ...
>> Look at any major high volume brand of race bike [1] up to the late
>> 1980s next to even a moderately priced Gunnar, Soma, Bianchi of today.
>> Without going to the level of Waterford, Richard Sachs, Jonny Cycles
>> etc this industry just can't afford to deliver junk....

Tom Sherman wrote:
> Are Waterford frames really any better made than Gunnar, considering
> both are made by the same people?

Gunnar are TIG, Waterford are TIG, silver filled lug or superlight TIG.
You're correct, same people, same tables, same paint shop. My point
being that there are not cut corners on a Gunnar.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:01:14 -0700 (PDT), SLAVE of THE STATE
<gwhite@ti.com> wrote:

>On Jul 17, 1:58*pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>> It only works if the rider is fooled by the way that the bike tips and
>> heaves underneath him. Otherwise, the "thrust" is reduced to an
>> awfully hard to notice ~4%.
>
>carl,
>
>Hi. Maybe I get your point. For example, your head is 100% up your
>ass. But you seem not to sense it.
>
>HAND,
>SoTS

Dear Slave,

Who can dispute such well-argued, well-supported points about
bicycling?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[Donald Munro]

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> Hi. Maybe I get your point. For example, your head is 100% up your ass.
> But you seem not to sense it.

Or 98% or perhaps 102%.

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 02:22:19 GMT, John Forrest Tomlinson
<usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:42:24 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:31:08 GMT, John Forrest Tomlinson
>><usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 02:58:44 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Dear John,
>>>>
>>>>In other words, you embarrassed yourself by replying to my one-line
>>>>post with the complaint that I'm long winded.
>>>>
>>>
>>>In other words, you're still long-winded
>>
>>Dear John,
>>
>>Ah, so two lines to explain things to you for the umpteenth time is
>>long-winded!
>>
>>I doubt you'll get to this second line,
>
>I stopped here.

Dear John,

Good work! Almost twice as far as usual.

Perhaps choosing a lighter font on your system would help you keep up?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 02:23:24 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@gmail.com>
wrote:

>In article <l34u74hcr0te42rg1u4g87nvluelko92a7@4ax.com>,
> John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 02:47:50 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>> >Again, the original question was whether a rider could detect a
>> >"noticeably robust forward thrust" with a bike 7 pounds lighter.
>>
>>
>> Dear Cheery Er cheer fogel er
>>
>> Er, it's funny how you can define what the "original question" was in
>> any thread, even a different one.
>>
>> You're a nut. A nut who has to go on an on about how weight doesn't
>> matter at all on a bike. Who can even drag that into a thread about
>> the most competitive bike race on the planet and ramble on and on
>> about it.
>>
>> So people overstate the impact of weight? So what? You're the mirror
>> image of that.
>>
>> Dears,
>
>Since JT is involved in this thread, I have to be the judge instead (JT
>recused).
>
>Carl has the lead in this argument, with the proviso that he has defined
>the argument narrowly (but fairly).
>
>I approve of JT's idea that a 7-pound weight makes a difference to
>racers, but the size of the difference matters only to racers.

Dear Ryan,

My lighter keyboard provided the crucial margin of victory.

:-)

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Jul 17, 7:23*pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <l34u74hcr0te42rg1u4g87nvluelko9...@4ax.com>,
> *John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 02:47:50 -0600, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > >Again, the original question was whether a rider could detect a
> > >"noticeably robust forward thrust" with a bike 7 pounds lighter.
>
> > Dear Cheery Er cheer fogel er
>
> > Er, it's funny how you can define what the "original question" was in
> > any thread, even a different one.
>
> > You're a nut. *A nut who has to go on an on about how weight doesn't
> > matter at all on a bike. Who can even drag that into a thread about
> > the most competitive bike race on the planet and ramble on and on
> > about it.
>
> > So people overstate the impact of weight? So what? You're the mirror
> > image of that.
>
> > Dears,
>
> Since JT is involved in this thread, I have to be the judge instead (JT
> recused).
>
> Carl has the lead in this argument, with the proviso that he has defined
> the argument narrowly (but fairly).

Hardly. Carl's pseudo-scientific arguments are junk. Great -- he
knows F=ma and so may have taken PHY101. So what?

He has presented no emipirical evidence of just how sensitive people
are, and the manner or conditions under which they can sense it. He
has not defined how well correlated a test/poll about weight must be
to say "over N people and M tests we have found they can sense delta x
lb with y confidence under z conditions." There is no definition of
sensitivity nor of the tests to determine it, or of knowing if the
test itself is the actual/best way for person A to detect
differences. There has been no empirical data and descriptions of
those tests and confidence. IOW, Carl is full of crap by assuming
these critical aspects in, and that is what he did.

If he could leave it at "I am unconvinced that people can reliably
sense 'this' sort of thing under 'these' conditions," then almost no
one could argue with that, because it is not unreasonable. But even
the cartoon analysis he did has problems.

Sure, there are a lot of ridiculous claims about bike performance --
no one is arguing that -- but I should say 7 lb, is getting to the
magnitude where I could not rule out some sensitivity, which itself is
not yet well-defined.

> I approve of JT's idea that a 7-pound weight makes a difference to
> racers, but the size of the difference matters only to racers.

How much it matters to anyone (and why) is personal value, which is
inherently subjective.

[Tom Sherman]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:20:31 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>
>
>> It may really matter to racers, who care about _any_ difference.
>
> It may?
>
> You've been rambling on in a thread which refers to the most
> competitive cycling race in the world and that is just beginning to
> sink into your brain.
>
> Write write write some more dear Cheers
>
Please do not encourage "Dear Carl".

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 02:24:43 GMT, John Forrest Tomlinson
<usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:20:31 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>
>
>>It may really matter to racers, who care about _any_ difference.
>
>It may?
>
>You've been rambling on in a thread which refers to the most
>competitive cycling race in the world and that is just beginning to
>sink into your brain.
>
>Write write write some more dear Cheers
>
>JT

Dear John,

What does Thor Hushvod's bicycle weigh, compared to the others?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[Donald Munro]

carlfogel wrote:
> My lighter keyboard provided the crucial margin of victory.

http://carcino.gen.nz/images/index.php/00b9a680/463c5922

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:40:06 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 02:24:43 GMT, John Forrest Tomlinson
><usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:20:31 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It may really matter to racers, who care about _any_ difference.
>>
>>It may?
>>
>>You've been rambling on in a thread which refers to the most
>>competitive cycling race in the world and that is just beginning to
>>sink into your brain.
>>
>>Write write write some more dear Cheers
>>
>>JT
>
>Dear John,
>
>What does Thor Hushvod's bicycle weigh, compared to the others?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Carl Fogel

Drat! The shorter the post, the bigger the typo looks:

Hushovd.

Not that John will notice--he rarely reaches the end of the first
line, much less addresses specific matters like weight.

CF

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:40:06 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 02:24:43 GMT, John Forrest Tomlinson
><usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:20:31 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It may really matter to racers, who care about _any_ difference.
>>
>>It may?
>>
>>You've been rambling on in a thread which refers to the most
>>competitive cycling race in the world and that is just beginning to
>>sink into your brain.
>>
>>Write write write some more dear Cheers
>>
>>JT
>
>Dear John,
>
>What does Thor Hushvod's bicycle weigh, compared to the others?

I don't know. Probalbly the same as other riders his size.

[bjw@mambo.ucolick.org]

On Jul 17, 8:58*pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:40:06 -0600, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> >Dear John,
>
> >What does Thor Hushvod's bicycle weigh, compared to the others?
>
>
> Drat! The shorter the post, the bigger the typo looks:
>
> Hushovd.
>
> Not that John will notice--he rarely reaches the end of the first
> line, much less addresses specific matters like weight.
>
> CF

I thought we were talking about total weight,
not specific weight.

Carl, you have been needled enough to lose
your cool. One sentence smartass paragraphs
and ad hominem remarks about John's
reading comprehension are inconsistent with
your Dear X salutations and mode of discourse.

Keep up the good work! By the end of the
Tour, you'll be ready for a full 12 month
tour of duty in RBR.

Ben
RBR Pressgang

[Donald Munro]

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> Keep up the good work! By the end of the Tour, you'll be ready for a full
> 12 month tour of duty in RBR.

You mean we're entitled to veteran benefits (unless McCain wins).

[jim beam]

Paul M. Hobson wrote:
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:37:34 -0700 (PDT), hizark21
>> <hizark21@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> But
>>> this illustrate how easily composite frames are damaged.
>>
>> But they're not. You just don't get it.
>>
>> Here's another example: a friend of mine was riding around warming up
>> at a race. He did a few sprints and something didn't feel right. He
>> looked carefully at the bike and saw the downtube was cracked.
>>
>> Does that prove anything? The bike may/probably was damaged in an
>> earlier crash. So what?
>>
>> Oh, byt the way, this was 1983 and the frame was Columbus SL.
>
> Just so you know John, this anecdote only supports the CFRP naysayers
> who prefer steel because it's failure is slow and noticeable -- not
> catastrophic.
>
> \\paul
>

er, steel's failure is catastrophic. and not always slow, certainly not
in a crash. fatigue failure is typically slow crack nucleation,
increasingly rapid crack growth, then catastrophic fracture.

carbon's failure in crash mode is catastrophic, so no real difference
there [except for the carbon being stronger of course]. carbon's
failure in fatigue, if you can wait around that long, is slow
disintegration accompanied by much audible cracking, creaking, and
otherwise voluble telltales. if you're standing on a plank of wood, and
it starts to creak and groan, it's rare that you wouldn't have time to
move off safely. for some reason though, when it comes to carbon, the
fredly world of r.b.t seems unable to understand and apply these same
principles to carbon bike components, and thus they desire to ignore
those warning signs, and indulge their desire for presumptive
scare-mongering. perverse.

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:08:40 -0600, Bret Wade <bret.wade@gmail.com>
wrote:

>carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:13:43 -0600, Bret Wade <bret.wade@xilinx.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> The original question was whether a rider can _feel_ such tiny
>>>> changes--that same old laughable "noticeably robust forward thrust."
>>> I wouldn't put it in those words but I have felt that sensation when
>>> switching from a 4 lb Ti frame to a 2.5 lb Al frame. It felt faster from
>>> the first pedal stroke. It was a team bike that I was somewhat skeptical
>>> of riding, so it wasn't just wishful thinking. Others on the team had
>>> similar experiences. I understand physics well enough to know that the
>>> sensation was misleading.
>>>
>>> Bret
>>
>> Dear Bret,
>>
>> Forgive a long-winded answer, but you're so refreshingly reasonable
>> that I want to avoid any offense.
>>
>> What interests me is the idea that a 1.5 lb lighter frame "felt faster
>> from the first pedal stroke"--possibly a generalization or even
>> hyperbole, but it's what we have to work with.
>>
>> I don't know the actual weights, but it was a whole team, so a 150
>> pound rider and a 16.5 pound bike would probably be in the ballpark.
>>
>> That theoretical 166.5 pound bike and rider would drop to 165 pounds,
>> about 0.9%.
>>
>> The bike itself would have dropped from 16.5 to 15.0 pounds, about
>> 10%.
>>
>> The bike might twitch from side to side or heave forward 10% easier.
>>
>> But I gather that we agree that the speed and acceleration
>> improvements are going to be so small that a calculator is necessary
>> to see them.
>>
>> In fact, they don't show up on my first effort:
>> http://bikecalculator.com/veloUS.html
>>
>> I tried 400 watts, a 150 pound rider, 15 and 16.5 pound bikes,
>> tubulars, and drops.
>>
>> Because the calculator has only 2-decimal precision, both bikes went
>> the same speed--27.85 mph.
>>
>> (A quick look at the time for 20 miles reassured me that the
>> calculator is still grinding out infinitesimal details--43.08 minutes
>> versus 43.09 minutes, a 0.01 minute lead, 0.6 seconds.)
>>
>> Let's send the bikes up the Alp d'Huez, which I have handy at 8.1% and
>> 13.8 km (8.56 miles):
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_d'Huez
>>
>> The steep grade teases out a speed difference, but it's still nothing
>> that a rider could detect.
>>
>> I get 41.03 minutes versus 41.33, a 0.3 minute or 18 second lead after
>> almost 2500 seconds. That's ~1% faster.
>>
>> The speeds are 12.52 mph versus 12.43 mph.
>>
>> Raise the power to 500 watts, and the time and difference shrink to
>> 34.04 versus 34.27, a little under 14 seconds, at 15.09 versus 14.99
>> mph.
>>
>> In other words, it takes the Alp d'Huez and a light, world-class rider
>> to produce a tenth of a mile per hour and 14-second difference with a
>> 1.5 pound lighter bike.
>>
>> So I'm glad that you understand the physics well enough to know that
>> the impression was probably misleading. In unblinded testing, it's
>> hard to tell which way our misperceptions will go. Just paying
>> attention (because we're testing) distorts what we think we feel. Evil
>> psychologists love to demonstrate how students will mis-measure the
>> same lumber with the same measuring tapes, according to whether
>> they've been told that it's important for the boards not to be too
>> long, for them not to be too short, or that the measurement accuracy
>> does (or doesn't) really matter.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>
>Dear Carl,
>
>No need to apologize, I understand that bad habits can be hard to break.
>The hardest thing I've done in my life is break a pack a day Marlboro habit.
>
>Anyway, I'll just point out that your very detailed analysis involves
>steady state aerobic climbing whereas most "Wow, this bike is fast!"
>moments will come during anaerobic accelerations. Not that I think the
>result would be much different. A small change in total mass won't
>affect either situation much.
>
>The bike weighed 16 lbs, rider was 165 lbs and max power was 1350 watts.
>
>Cheers,
>Bret

Dear Bret,

It doesn't much matter whether we talk about a momentary acceleration
or steady-state cruising.

Heck, it doesn't much matter whether we're talking about a grandmother
setting off to the grocery store or a pro suddenly giving everything
he's got up the Alp d'Huez.

The mistaken belief that Newton's world changes dramatically for
really powerful riders or really steep hills keeps coming up in this
thread, so forgive me for ploughing through the same old stuff again.

***

160 + 16.0 = 176.0 lbs = 72.727 kg + 7.273 kg = 80.000 kg
160 + 17.5 = 177.5 lbs = 72.727 kg + 7.955 kg = 80.682 kg

177.5/176.0 = ~1.008, so acceleration should increase <1% in the real
world.

Sprint acceleration calculator:
http://www.analyticcycling.com/DiffEqMotion500_Page.html

First, let's see how much faster the 1.5-lb-lighter bike accelerates
from a standing start at 1350 watts up a convenient 8.1% stretch of
the Alp d'Huez.

Use max power 1350, avg power 1349.9, slope 0.081, and do it for a
distance of 10 meters (the very last field).

Then do it again for a max power of 100 watts and an average of 99.9.

1350 watts 100 watts
176.0 177.5 176.0 177.5
meters time time time time
1.0 0.3 0.3 1.1 1.1
2.5 0.6 0.6 2.4 2.4
5 1.2 1.2 4.2 4.2
10 2.1 2.1 7.6 7.6
15 2.8 2.8 10.9 11.0
20 3.3 3.3 14.3<->14.4
25 3.9 3.9 17.6<->17.8
50 6.4 6.4 34.4 34.7
100 10.6 10.7* 68.0 68.6
150 14.6 14.6 101.7 102.5
200 18.4 18.4 135.4 136.5
250 22.0<->22.1 169.2 170.6
300 25.7<->25.8 203.1 204.8

* shows how rounding can affect things

In other words, a 1.5-lb acceleration difference takes a long time up
an 8.1% grade to show up on a calculator that reads in tenths of a
second.

It takes 250 meters for a ~0.5% time difference to show up reliably on
a 0.1 second stopwatch for the powerful rider.

Neither rider is going to notice an off-the-line ~1% acceleration
increase with the seat of his pants.

If he's extrapolating from the change in how he can heave the 10%
lighter bike around, then he must have an impressive calculator inside
his head.

***

For steady-state cruising up the same hill, the speed differences are
even less than the acceleration differences.

Use 1350 watts, 8.1% grade, rider 160, bikes 16 and 17.6 lbs,
tubulars, hoods here:
http://bikecalculator.com/veloUS.html

I get 27.99 mph versus 27.90 mph, 99.678% as fast. Once you accelerate
to cruising speed, the high speed wind drag effect reduces the ~1%
idealized mass difference to ~0.3%.

Now try grandma at 100 watts up the same 8.1% grade.

She goes 3.15 versus 3.17 mph.

***

As has been suggested, something besides the 1.5 lb frame difference
might account for the faster-from-the-first-pedal impression.

All of the technical possibilities (stiffer frame, different tires,
better aero, and so on) are dwarfed by the stubborn psychological
effect of trying a new bike.

Even the same thing with a different paint scheme will feel
"different" if we're told "go ahead and try this new [fill in the
blank]."

Trying something with an eye toward comparing it puts us in an
entirely different position than just using something familiar.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 09:47:12 +0200, Donald Munro
<fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote:

>SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>> Hi. Maybe I get your point. For example, your head is 100% up your ass.
>> But you seem not to sense it.
>
>Or 98% or perhaps 102%.

Dear Donald,

Do you think you would notice that? Try riding uphill with your head
stuck up 98%, and then have a friend adjust it so perhaps it is 100%
or perhaps just 96%.

Princess and the pea.

Cher Er cheers ercheersss

[bjw@mambo.ucolick.org]

On Jul 18, 12:51 am, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> > Keep up the good work! By the end of the Tour, you'll be ready for a full
> > 12 month tour of duty in RBR.
>
> You mean we're entitled to veteran benefits (unless McCain wins).

Google "stop loss policy". Sucker.


Ben
"The next day Colonel Cathcart was there, brimming
with tough pride in his new outfit and celebrating
his assumption of command by raising the number of
missions required from 25 to 30. Hungry Joe unpacked
his bags and rewrote the happy letters home."
-- Joseph Heller

[Scott]

On Jul 18, 1:51*am, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> > Keep up the good work! *By the end of the Tour, you'll be ready for a full
> > 12 month tour of duty in RBR.
>
> You mean we're entitled to veteran benefits (unless McCain wins).

If you believe that McCain will somehow do away with or severely
restrict VA benefits, you're nuts.

[Donald Munro]

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
>> > Keep up the good work! By the end of the Tour, you'll be ready for a
>> > full 12 month tour of duty in RBR.

Donald Munro wrote:
>> You mean we're entitled to veteran benefits (unless McCain wins).

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> "The next day Colonel Cathcart was there, brimming with tough pride in his
> new outfit and celebrating his assumption of command by raising the number
> of missions required from 25 to 30. Hungry Joe unpacked his bags and
> rewrote the happy letters home."
> -- Joseph Heller

I knew there'd be a catch.

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 02:34:01 -0700, "Paul M. Hobson"
<fobson@gatech.edu> wrote:

>> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 11:52:58 -0700 (PDT), Scott
>> <hendricks_scott@hotmail.com> wrote in regards
>> to steel frames in Le Tour de France:
>>> I said I wouldn't be surprised if someone
>>> were doing it this year. That's all. I wouldn't be surprised.
>>>
>>> For some silly-ass reason, YOU decide to chime in to tell me, in
>>> essence, I'm stupid for making my comment. Who's the *******?
>
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> I said you'd be wrong. If you take that as meaning I was calling you
>> stupid, then that's your interpretation.
>
>Wait, he's wrong that he wouldn't be surprised?

Fair point.

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 02:43:30 -0700, "Paul M. Hobson"
<fobson@gatech.edu> wrote:

>carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>> Dear Scott,
>>
>> It's easy to lose track of such insignificant figures, so pardon this
>> correction.
>>
>> In this sub-thread, the weight penalty was only 1 kg, 2.2 lbs, for an
>> imaginary elite rider putting out 400 watts up a 10% grade. It
>> produces a 0.18 km/h speed penalty, not the claimed 6 km/h.
>>
>> My point was that the wildly exaggerated claim that 1 kg would slow a
>> pro down 6 km/h was absurd (and, as usual, presumably made in good
>> faith). To slow someone like that imaginary pro down 6 km/h with extra
>> weight on that climb, you have to perch an imaginary 50 kg podium girl
>> on his handlebar.
>
>Carl:
>What about another rider and bike?
>http://tinyurl.com/6qo82g
><g>
>
>\\paul

Dear Paul,

Nice photos!

The terrible thing is that Horner and his passenger would have passed
the likes of me up that hill.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[Tom Sherman]

Scott Hendricks wrote:
> On Jul 18, 1:51 am, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
>>> Keep up the good work! By the end of the Tour, you'll be ready for a full
>>> 12 month tour of duty in RBR.
>> You mean we're entitled to veteran benefits (unless McCain wins).
>
> If you believe that McCain will somehow do away with or severely
> restrict VA benefits, you're nuts.

Supporting the troops is only important when they are out fighting for
God and Corporation. After all, for the most part the troops do not come
from the classes as the politicians do, or more importantly, the classes
the politicians serve.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.

[Tom Kunich]

"SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwhite@ti.com> wrote in message
news:ee6b8289-5bd3-4925-8806-3f0b20abba20@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Hardly. Carl's pseudo-scientific arguments are junk. Great -- he
> knows F=ma and so may have taken PHY101. So what?

I had an Eddy Merckx Corsa 0.1 that weighed 24 lbs and my Basso Loto that
weighs 20 lbs. You could absolutely tell the difference in acceleration by
the feelings in your legs. Now, I'm not arguing with Carl that the actual
acceleration is barely effected. But you aren't glued to the bike and the
back and forth movement of the bike under you has a substantial connection
to the total weight of your bike.

[Tom Kunich]

"Jay Beattie" <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com> wrote in message
news:0e54b1bb-b7f0-4465-adec-f11d07e91a10@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 17, 10:05 am, Tuschinski <lok...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > And indeed when you look at the actual numbers of
> > > failures you find that a correctly built steel frame, even superlight
> > > ones,
> > > very seldom fail and when they do it is pretty plainly a workmanship
> > > or
> > > material error.
> >
> > Oh come on Tom, that's blatantly false. Back in the days, when we all
> > raced Reynolds/Columbus we broke frames. Some of it by crashing, some
> > by bad handling, some by bad manufacturers.
> >
> > And yes, we also broke Alu frames. And now we break CF frames
> > *shrug*.
> >
> > Such is life ^^
>
> TK and others have described CF frames that were damaged in prior
> accidents (or that had latent flaws or cracks) and that failed
> catestrophically without warning.

I saw several steel frames have significant failures - such as cracking
entirely through the downtube - which were ridden home in that condition.

The aluminum frame failure I had was a Vitus coming unglued (an improperly
repaired frame as it turned out). There was no riding that one anywhere
since it was in three pieces. On the other hand the world's most beautiful
woman stopped and gave me a ride for 5 miles so it wasn't a total loss.

I am still healing from the carbon fork snapping off when I somehow got my
foot in the front wheel (low spoke count wheels definitely have that
weakness - you CAN get your foot in there while it's turning) A steel fork
would NOT have done that. On the other hand - a 32 or 36 spoke wheel
probably wouldn't have allowed that to happen either.

A medium sized dog ran across the street in front of a guy on one of our
tours while he was going downhill at about 25 mph. The bike snapped the
headtube off and it looked to me like it was held on with only one or two
layers of cloth! He had it repaired and it doesn't look any stronger to me.
And I thought he was dying when he was shooting spit 2 feet into the air
laying on his back with a broken neck. Thank heaven that he wasn't seriously
injured and is now completely back to what he calls normal.

I've seen some substantial failures on carbon bikes making them completely
unrideable. I've only seen one such total failure on steel bikes since I
came back to riding in about '85.

[Tim McNamara]

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> writes:

> A medium sized dog ran across the street in front of a guy on one of
> our tours while he was going downhill at about 25 mph. The bike
> snapped the headtube off and it looked to me like it was held on with
> only one or two layers of cloth! He had it repaired and it doesn't
> look any stronger to me. And I thought he was dying when he was
> shooting spit 2 feet into the air laying on his back with a broken
> neck. Thank heaven that he wasn't seriously injured...

Beg pardon? :-O

OK, I couldn't resist. I assume you meant "disabled" rather than
"seriously injured," since a broken neck is pretty definitively a
serious injury. And thankfully he wasn't disabled, which could so
easily have happened in a situation like that. Going over the bars is
a bad thing.

[Tom Kunich]

<andresmuro@aol.com> wrote in message
news:85f2549e-25e9-4481-8f63-c536170524bb@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 17, 4:10 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>> And the total savings are: My Time VX costs almost 4 times more than my
>> Basso Loto and they ride almost identically and weigh within a lb of each
>> other.
>
> I used to have a Basso Ascot. It was my favorite bike ever. It died in
> a collision with a car and I didn't do too well either. It was a great
> frame, though. I think that it was the geometry that made the bike
> feel really nice. I don't know if your Lotto has the same geometry as
> my Ascot, but if it does, I know why you like it. I am sure that I
> will also be able to get a great ride with frames of different
> materials that have the same geometry as my Ascot. A lot of the times,
> a cyclist may like a bike more because the geometry makes it feel
> faster.
>
> I believe , like Carl, that the feeling is just that and your speed
> does not necessarily increase or decrease that much. However, it is
> great to ride on a bike that has "that" feeling.

I had a Basso Gap as my first high end bike and it was a great bike after I
replaced the new Dura Ace headset with a new Campy headset that didn't have
a high speed wobble...

I'm tall - 6'4" and ride a 61 or 62 cm bike and some other VERY famous bikes
ride like crap in these sizes. I've had a large collection of increasingly
expensive bikes and yet none of them are any better than the Basso. Though
some of them are just as good.

The Bassos have always been good to me.

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:40:56 -0700 (PDT), "andresmuro@aol.com"
<andresmuro@aol.com> wrote:

>On Jul 17, 4:10 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> "Tuschinski" <lok...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:d70e9a91-8002-4d86-a323-d40010068a3b@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> >> And indeed when you look at the actual numbers of
>> >> failures you find that a correctly built steel frame, even superlight
>> >> ones,
>> >> very seldom fail and when they do it is pretty plainly a workmanship or
>> >> material error.
>>
>> > Oh come on Tom, that's blatantly false. Back in the days, when we all
>> > raced Reynolds/Columbus we broke frames. Some of it by crashing, some
>> > by bad handling, some by bad manufacturers.
>>
>> > And yes, we also broke Alu frames. And now we break CF frames
>> > *shrug*.
>>
>> > Such is life ^^
>>
>> I don't follow you here. Well built steel frames seldom fail. Well built AL
>> frames (the super light ones) fail whether you take good care of them or
>> not. I have personally observed quite a few carbon fiber failures and these
>> bikes are EXPENSIVE.
>>
>> And the total savings are: My Time VX costs almost 4 times more than my
>> Basso Loto and they ride almost identically and weigh within a lb of each
>> other.
>
>I used to have a Basso Ascot. It was my favorite bike ever. It died in
>a collision with a car and I didn't do too well either. It was a great
>frame, though. I think that it was the geometry that made the bike
>feel really nice. I don't know if your Lotto has the same geometry as
>my Ascot, but if it does, I know why you like it. I am sure that I
>will also be able to get a great ride with frames of different
>materials that have the same geometry as my Ascot. A lot of the times,
>a cyclist may like a bike more because the geometry makes it feel
>faster.
>
>I believe , like Carl, that the feeling is just that and your speed
>does not necessarily increase or decrease that much. However, it is
>great to ride on a bike that has "that" feeling.
>
>Andres

Dear Andres,

The day after I removed the 7 pounds of weights from my bike, I went
for my usual afternoon ride.

I didn't notice any surge in speed or acceleration when I lost the 7
pounds.

In fact, I didn't even have a twinge of boy-I'd-like-a-lighter-bike!

I suspect that a whole new bike might have felt (and looked) different
enough in various ways (tires, wheels, geometry, saddle, brakes, and
so on) to make me easy prey for a salesman.

But just strapping the extra weight onto the same old bike without
changing anything else left me with nothing more than the very suspect
feeling that the bike felt "heavier".

Much of that "heavier" feeling was probably just the vibration damping
of the extra rubber-encased 7 pounds on the top tube. (After all, it
amounted to only a 3.2% weight increase.)

The rest of the "heavier" feeling was probably due to all the extra
attention that I paid (does it feel heavier? lighter? how does it
normally feel?), plus the unavoidable knowledge that there were
_seven_ whole pounds sitting right there in plain sight whenever I
looked down at the speedometer.

Some posters might want to try the experiment of just adding a few
extra pounds to their familiar bike and comparing whatever difference
they "feel" to whatever happens to their actual times around a
familiar route.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[Lou Holtman]

carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:08:40 -0600, Bret Wade <bret.wade@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:13:43 -0600, Bret Wade <bret.wade@xilinx.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The original question was whether a rider can _feel_ such tiny
>>>>> changes--that same old laughable "noticeably robust forward thrust."
>>>> I wouldn't put it in those words but I have felt that sensation when
>>>> switching from a 4 lb Ti frame to a 2.5 lb Al frame. It felt faster from
>>>> the first pedal stroke. It was a team bike that I was somewhat skeptical
>>>> of riding, so it wasn't just wishful thinking. Others on the team had
>>>> similar experiences. I understand physics well enough to know that the
>>>> sensation was misleading.
>>>>
>>>> Bret
>>> Dear Bret,
>>>
>>> Forgive a long-winded answer, but you're so refreshingly reasonable
>>> that I want to avoid any offense.
>>>
>>> What interests me is the idea that a 1.5 lb lighter frame "felt faster
>>> from the first pedal stroke"--possibly a generalization or even
>>> hyperbole, but it's what we have to work with.
>>>
>>> I don't know the actual weights, but it was a whole team, so a 150
>>> pound rider and a 16.5 pound bike would probably be in the ballpark.
>>>
>>> That theoretical 166.5 pound bike and rider would drop to 165 pounds,
>>> about 0.9%.
>>>
>>> The bike itself would have dropped from 16.5 to 15.0 pounds, about
>>> 10%.
>>>
>>> The bike might twitch from side to side or heave forward 10% easier.
>>>
>>> But I gather that we agree that the speed and acceleration
>>> improvements are going to be so small that a calculator is necessary
>>> to see them.
>>>
>>> In fact, they don't show up on my first effort:
>>> http://bikecalculator.com/veloUS.html
>>>
>>> I tried 400 watts, a 150 pound rider, 15 and 16.5 pound bikes,
>>> tubulars, and drops.
>>>
>>> Because the calculator has only 2-decimal precision, both bikes went
>>> the same speed--27.85 mph.
>>>
>>> (A quick look at the time for 20 miles reassured me that the
>>> calculator is still grinding out infinitesimal details--43.08 minutes
>>> versus 43.09 minutes, a 0.01 minute lead, 0.6 seconds.)
>>>
>>> Let's send the bikes up the Alp d'Huez, which I have handy at 8.1% and
>>> 13.8 km (8.56 miles):
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_d'Huez
>>>
>>> The steep grade teases out a speed difference, but it's still nothing
>>> that a rider could detect.
>>>
>>> I get 41.03 minutes versus 41.33, a 0.3 minute or 18 second lead after
>>> almost 2500 seconds. That's ~1% faster.
>>>
>>> The speeds are 12.52 mph versus 12.43 mph.
>>>
>>> Raise the power to 500 watts, and the time and difference shrink to
>>> 34.04 versus 34.27, a little under 14 seconds, at 15.09 versus 14.99
>>> mph.
>>>
>>> In other words, it takes the Alp d'Huez and a light, world-class rider
>>> to produce a tenth of a mile per hour and 14-second difference with a
>>> 1.5 pound lighter bike.
>>>
>>> So I'm glad that you understand the physics well enough to know that
>>> the impression was probably misleading. In unblinded testing, it's
>>> hard to tell which way our misperceptions will go. Just paying
>>> attention (because we're testing) distorts what we think we feel. Evil
>>> psychologists love to demonstrate how students will mis-measure the
>>> same lumber with the same measuring tapes, according to whether
>>> they've been told that it's important for the boards not to be too
>>> long, for them not to be too short, or that the measurement accuracy
>>> does (or doesn't) really matter.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Carl Fogel
>> Dear Carl,
>>
>> No need to apologize, I understand that bad habits can be hard to break.
>> The hardest thing I've done in my life is break a pack a day Marlboro habit.
>>
>> Anyway, I'll just point out that your very detailed analysis involves
>> steady state aerobic climbing whereas most "Wow, this bike is fast!"
>> moments will come during anaerobic accelerations. Not that I think the
>> result would be much different. A small change in total mass won't
>> affect either situation much.
>>
>> The bike weighed 16 lbs, rider was 165 lbs and max power was 1350 watts.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Bret
>
> Dear Bret,
>
> It doesn't much matter whether we talk about a momentary acceleration
> or steady-state cruising.
>
> Heck, it doesn't much matter whether we're talking about a grandmother
> setting off to the grocery store or a pro suddenly giving everything
> he's got up the Alp d'Huez.
>
> The mistaken belief that Newton's world changes dramatically for
> really powerful riders or really steep hills keeps coming up in this
> thread, so forgive me for ploughing through the same old stuff again.
>
> ***
>
> 160 + 16.0 = 176.0 lbs = 72.727 kg + 7.273 kg = 80.000 kg
> 160 + 17.5 = 177.5 lbs = 72.727 kg + 7.955 kg = 80.682 kg
>
> 177.5/176.0 = ~1.008, so acceleration should increase <1% in the real
> world.
>
> Sprint acceleration calculator:
> http://www.analyticcycling.com/DiffEqMotion500_Page.html
>
> First, let's see how much faster the 1.5-lb-lighter bike accelerates
> from a standing start at 1350 watts up a convenient 8.1% stretch of
> the Alp d'Huez.
>
> Use max power 1350, avg power 1349.9, slope 0.081, and do it for a
> distance of 10 meters (the very last field).
>
> Then do it again for a max power of 100 watts and an average of 99.9.
>
> 1350 watts 100 watts
> 176.0 177.5 176.0 177.5
> meters time time time time
> 1.0 0.3 0.3 1.1 1.1
> 2.5 0.6 0.6 2.4 2.4
> 5 1.2 1.2 4.2 4.2
> 10 2.1 2.1 7.6 7.6
> 15 2.8 2.8 10.9 11.0
> 20 3.3 3.3 14.3<->14.4
> 25 3.9 3.9 17.6<->17.8
> 50 6.4 6.4 34.4 34.7
> 100 10.6 10.7* 68.0 68.6
> 150 14.6 14.6 101.7 102.5
> 200 18.4 18.4 135.4 136.5
> 250 22.0<->22.1 169.2 170.6
> 300 25.7<->25.8 203.1 204.8
>
> * shows how rounding can affect things
>
> In other words, a 1.5-lb acceleration difference takes a long time up
> an 8.1% grade to show up on a calculator that reads in tenths of a
> second.
>
> It takes 250 meters for a ~0.5% time difference to show up reliably on
> a 0.1 second stopwatch for the powerful rider.
>
> Neither rider is going to notice an off-the-line ~1% acceleration
> increase with the seat of his pants.
>
> If he's extrapolating from the change in how he can heave the 10%
> lighter bike around, then he must have an impressive calculator inside
> his head.
>
> ***
>
> For steady-state cruising up the same hill, the speed differences are
> even less than the acceleration differences.
>
> Use 1350 watts, 8.1% grade, rider 160, bikes 16 and 17.6 lbs,
> tubulars, hoods here:
> http://bikecalculator.com/veloUS.html
>
> I get 27.99 mph versus 27.90 mph, 99.678% as fast. Once you accelerate
> to cruising speed, the high speed wind drag effect reduces the ~1%
> idealized mass difference to ~0.3%.
>
> Now try grandma at 100 watts up the same 8.1% grade.
>
> She goes 3.15 versus 3.17 mph.
>
> ***
>
> As has been suggested, something besides the 1.5 lb frame difference
> might account for the faster-from-the-first-pedal impression.
>
> All of the technical possibilities (stiffer frame, different tires,
> better aero, and so on) are dwarfed by the stubborn psychological
> effect of trying a new bike.
>
> Even the same thing with a different paint scheme will feel
> "different" if we're told "go ahead and try this new [fill in the
> blank]."
>
> Trying something with an eye toward comparing it puts us in an
> entirely different position than just using something familiar.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel


You can stop now Carl. You take away peoples illusions and beliefs with
your straightforward calculation. I someway this pisses them off. You
are arguing now with people who don't want to belief. No point in that.
'...... anaerobic accelerations.....' Geezes what crap is that?

Lou

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Jul 18, 3:57*pm, Lou Holtman <lholditn...@planet.nl> wrote:

> '...... anaerobic accelerations.....' Geezes what crap is that?

Are you retarded?

If someone goes from a "cruise" of say 100W, then up to an
unsustainable peak of 1350W, and with any reasonable probability the
speed increased, what would you like to call it?

[Bret Wade]

Lou Holtman wrote:
> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:08:40 -0600, Bret Wade <bret.wade@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:13:43 -0600, Bret Wade <bret.wade@xilinx.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The original question was whether a rider can _feel_ such tiny
>>>>>> changes--that same old laughable "noticeably robust forward thrust."
>>>>> I wouldn't put it in those words but I have felt that sensation
>>>>> when switching from a 4 lb Ti frame to a 2.5 lb Al frame. It felt
>>>>> faster from the first pedal stroke. It was a team bike that I was
>>>>> somewhat skeptical of riding, so it wasn't just wishful thinking.
>>>>> Others on the team had similar experiences. I understand physics
>>>>> well enough to know that the sensation was misleading.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bret
>>>> Dear Bret,
>>>>
>>>> Forgive a long-winded answer, but you're so refreshingly reasonable
>>>> that I want to avoid any offense.
>>>>
>>>> What interests me is the idea that a 1.5 lb lighter frame "felt faster
>>>> from the first pedal stroke"--possibly a generalization or even
>>>> hyperbole, but it's what we have to work with.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know the actual weights, but it was a whole team, so a 150
>>>> pound rider and a 16.5 pound bike would probably be in the ballpark.
>>>>
>>>> That theoretical 166.5 pound bike and rider would drop to 165 pounds,
>>>> about 0.9%.
>>>>
>>>> The bike itself would have dropped from 16.5 to 15.0 pounds, about
>>>> 10%.
>>>>
>>>> The bike might twitch from side to side or heave forward 10% easier.
>>>>
>>>> But I gather that we agree that the speed and acceleration
>>>> improvements are going to be so small that a calculator is necessary
>>>> to see them.
>>>>
>>>> In fact, they don't show up on my first effort:
>>>> http://bikecalculator.com/veloUS.html
>>>>
>>>> I tried 400 watts, a 150 pound rider, 15 and 16.5 pound bikes,
>>>> tubulars, and drops.
>>>>
>>>> Because the calculator has only 2-decimal precision, both bikes went
>>>> the same speed--27.85 mph.
>>>>
>>>> (A quick look at the time for 20 miles reassured me that the
>>>> calculator is still grinding out infinitesimal details--43.08 minutes
>>>> versus 43.09 minutes, a 0.01 minute lead, 0.6 seconds.)
>>>>
>>>> Let's send the bikes up the Alp d'Huez, which I have handy at 8.1% and
>>>> 13.8 km (8.56 miles):
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_d'Huez
>>>>
>>>> The steep grade teases out a speed difference, but it's still nothing
>>>> that a rider could detect.
>>>>
>>>> I get 41.03 minutes versus 41.33, a 0.3 minute or 18 second lead after
>>>> almost 2500 seconds. That's ~1% faster.
>>>>
>>>> The speeds are 12.52 mph versus 12.43 mph.
>>>>
>>>> Raise the power to 500 watts, and the time and difference shrink to
>>>> 34.04 versus 34.27, a little under 14 seconds, at 15.09 versus 14.99
>>>> mph.
>>>>
>>>> In other words, it takes the Alp d'Huez and a light, world-class rider
>>>> to produce a tenth of a mile per hour and 14-second difference with a
>>>> 1.5 pound lighter bike.
>>>>
>>>> So I'm glad that you understand the physics well enough to know that
>>>> the impression was probably misleading. In unblinded testing, it's
>>>> hard to tell which way our misperceptions will go. Just paying
>>>> attention (because we're testing) distorts what we think we feel. Evil
>>>> psychologists love to demonstrate how students will mis-measure the
>>>> same lumber with the same measuring tapes, according to whether
>>>> they've been told that it's important for the boards not to be too
>>>> long, for them not to be too short, or that the measurement accuracy
>>>> does (or doesn't) really matter.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Carl Fogel
>>> Dear Carl,
>>>
>>> No need to apologize, I understand that bad habits can be hard to
>>> break. The hardest thing I've done in my life is break a pack a day
>>> Marlboro habit.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I'll just point out that your very detailed analysis involves
>>> steady state aerobic climbing whereas most "Wow, this bike is fast!"
>>> moments will come during anaerobic accelerations. Not that I think
>>> the result would be much different. A small change in total mass
>>> won't affect either situation much.
>>>
>>> The bike weighed 16 lbs, rider was 165 lbs and max power was 1350 watts.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Bret
>>
>> Dear Bret,
>>
>> It doesn't much matter whether we talk about a momentary acceleration
>> or steady-state cruising.
>>
>> Heck, it doesn't much matter whether we're talking about a grandmother
>> setting off to the grocery store or a pro suddenly giving everything
>> he's got up the Alp d'Huez.
>> The mistaken belief that Newton's world changes dramatically for
>> really powerful riders or really steep hills keeps coming up in this
>> thread, so forgive me for ploughing through the same old stuff again.
>>
>> ***
>>
>> 160 + 16.0 = 176.0 lbs = 72.727 kg + 7.273 kg = 80.000 kg 160 + 17.5
>> = 177.5 lbs = 72.727 kg + 7.955 kg = 80.682 kg
>>
>> 177.5/176.0 = ~1.008, so acceleration should increase <1% in the real
>> world.
>>
>> Sprint acceleration calculator:
>> http://www.analyticcycling.com/DiffEqMotion500_Page.html
>>
>> First, let's see how much faster the 1.5-lb-lighter bike accelerates
>> from a standing start at 1350 watts up a convenient 8.1% stretch of
>> the Alp d'Huez.
>>
>> Use max power 1350, avg power 1349.9, slope 0.081, and do it for a
>> distance of 10 meters (the very last field).
>>
>> Then do it again for a max power of 100 watts and an average of 99.9.
>>
>> 1350 watts 100 watts
>> 176.0 177.5 176.0 177.5
>> meters time time time time
>> 1.0 0.3 0.3 1.1 1.1
>> 2.5 0.6 0.6 2.4 2.4
>> 5 1.2 1.2 4.2 4.2
>> 10 2.1 2.1 7.6 7.6
>> 15 2.8 2.8 10.9 11.0
>> 20 3.3 3.3 14.3<->14.4
>> 25 3.9 3.9 17.6<->17.8
>> 50 6.4 6.4 34.4 34.7
>> 100 10.6 10.7* 68.0 68.6
>> 150 14.6 14.6 101.7 102.5
>> 200 18.4 18.4 135.4 136.5
>> 250 22.0<->22.1 169.2 170.6
>> 300 25.7<->25.8 203.1 204.8
>>
>> * shows how rounding can affect things
>>
>> In other words, a 1.5-lb acceleration difference takes a long time up
>> an 8.1% grade to show up on a calculator that reads in tenths of a
>> second.
>>
>> It takes 250 meters for a ~0.5% time difference to show up reliably on
>> a 0.1 second stopwatch for the powerful rider.
>>
>> Neither rider is going to notice an off-the-line ~1% acceleration
>> increase with the seat of his pants.
>>
>> If he's extrapolating from the change in how he can heave the 10%
>> lighter bike around, then he must have an impressive calculator inside
>> his head.
>>
>> ***
>>
>> For steady-state cruising up the same hill, the speed differences are
>> even less than the acceleration differences.
>>
>> Use 1350 watts, 8.1% grade, rider 160, bikes 16 and 17.6 lbs,
>> tubulars, hoods here:
>> http://bikecalculator.com/veloUS.html
>>
>> I get 27.99 mph versus 27.90 mph, 99.678% as fast. Once you accelerate
>> to cruising speed, the high speed wind drag effect reduces the ~1%
>> idealized mass difference to ~0.3%.
>>
>> Now try grandma at 100 watts up the same 8.1% grade.
>>
>> She goes 3.15 versus 3.17 mph.
>>
>> ***
>>
>> As has been suggested, something besides the 1.5 lb frame difference
>> might account for the faster-from-the-first-pedal impression.
>>
>> All of the technical possibilities (stiffer frame, different tires,
>> better aero, and so on) are dwarfed by the stubborn psychological
>> effect of trying a new bike.
>>
>> Even the same thing with a different paint scheme will feel
>> "different" if we're told "go ahead and try this new [fill in the
>> blank]."
>> Trying something with an eye toward comparing it puts us in an
>> entirely different position than just using something familiar.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>
>
> You can stop now Carl. You take away peoples illusions and beliefs with
> your straightforward calculation.

What illusions? I specifically said that a small change in mass doesn't
have much affect.

>I someway this pisses them off.

I'm not mad.

> You are arguing now with people who don't want to belief.

We're not arguing.

> No point in that.

No.

> '...... anaerobic accelerations.....' Geezes what crap is that?

That crap is the **** that will kill them in uphill sprint finishes.

Bret

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 00:57:07 +0200, Lou Holtman
<lholditniet@planet.nl> wrote:

>carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:08:40 -0600, Bret Wade <bret.wade@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:13:43 -0600, Bret Wade <bret.wade@xilinx.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The original question was whether a rider can _feel_ such tiny
>>>>>> changes--that same old laughable "noticeably robust forward thrust."
>>>>> I wouldn't put it in those words but I have felt that sensation when
>>>>> switching from a 4 lb Ti frame to a 2.5 lb Al frame. It felt faster from
>>>>> the first pedal stroke. It was a team bike that I was somewhat skeptical
>>>>> of riding, so it wasn't just wishful thinking. Others on the team had
>>>>> similar experiences. I understand physics well enough to know that the
>>>>> sensation was misleading.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bret
>>>> Dear Bret,
>>>>
>>>> Forgive a long-winded answer, but you're so refreshingly reasonable
>>>> that I want to avoid any offense.
>>>>
>>>> What interests me is the idea that a 1.5 lb lighter frame "felt faster
>>>> from the first pedal stroke"--possibly a generalization or even
>>>> hyperbole, but it's what we have to work with.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know the actual weights, but it was a whole team, so a 150
>>>> pound rider and a 16.5 pound bike would probably be in the ballpark.
>>>>
>>>> That theoretical 166.5 pound bike and rider would drop to 165 pounds,
>>>> about 0.9%.
>>>>
>>>> The bike itself would have dropped from 16.5 to 15.0 pounds, about
>>>> 10%.
>>>>
>>>> The bike might twitch from side to side or heave forward 10% easier.
>>>>
>>>> But I gather that we agree that the speed and acceleration
>>>> improvements are going to be so small that a calculator is necessary
>>>> to see them.
>>>>
>>>> In fact, they don't show up on my first effort:
>>>> http://bikecalculator.com/veloUS.html
>>>>
>>>> I tried 400 watts, a 150 pound rider, 15 and 16.5 pound bikes,
>>>> tubulars, and drops.
>>>>
>>>> Because the calculator has only 2-decimal precision, both bikes went
>>>> the same speed--27.85 mph.
>>>>
>>>> (A quick look at the time for 20 miles reassured me that the
>>>> calculator is still grinding out infinitesimal details--43.08 minutes
>>>> versus 43.09 minutes, a 0.01 minute lead, 0.6 seconds.)
>>>>
>>>> Let's send the bikes up the Alp d'Huez, which I have handy at 8.1% and
>>>> 13.8 km (8.56 miles):
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_d'Huez
>>>>
>>>> The steep grade teases out a speed difference, but it's still nothing
>>>> that a rider could detect.
>>>>
>>>> I get 41.03 minutes versus 41.33, a 0.3 minute or 18 second lead after
>>>> almost 2500 seconds. That's ~1% faster.
>>>>
>>>> The speeds are 12.52 mph versus 12.43 mph.
>>>>
>>>> Raise the power to 500 watts, and the time and difference shrink to
>>>> 34.04 versus 34.27, a little under 14 seconds, at 15.09 versus 14.99
>>>> mph.
>>>>
>>>> In other words, it takes the Alp d'Huez and a light, world-class rider
>>>> to produce a tenth of a mile per hour and 14-second difference with a
>>>> 1.5 pound lighter bike.
>>>>
>>>> So I'm glad that you understand the physics well enough to know that
>>>> the impression was probably misleading. In unblinded testing, it's
>>>> hard to tell which way our misperceptions will go. Just paying
>>>> attention (because we're testing) distorts what we think we feel. Evil
>>>> psychologists love to demonstrate how students will mis-measure the
>>>> same lumber with the same measuring tapes, according to whether
>>>> they've been told that it's important for the boards not to be too
>>>> long, for them not to be too short, or that the measurement accuracy
>>>> does (or doesn't) really matter.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Carl Fogel
>>> Dear Carl,
>>>
>>> No need to apologize, I understand that bad habits can be hard to break.
>>> The hardest thing I've done in my life is break a pack a day Marlboro habit.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I'll just point out that your very detailed analysis involves
>>> steady state aerobic climbing whereas most "Wow, this bike is fast!"
>>> moments will come during anaerobic accelerations. Not that I think the
>>> result would be much different. A small change in total mass won't
>>> affect either situation much.
>>>
>>> The bike weighed 16 lbs, rider was 165 lbs and max power was 1350 watts.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Bret
>>
>> Dear Bret,
>>
>> It doesn't much matter whether we talk about a momentary acceleration
>> or steady-state cruising.
>>
>> Heck, it doesn't much matter whether we're talking about a grandmother
>> setting off to the grocery store or a pro suddenly giving everything
>> he's got up the Alp d'Huez.
>>
>> The mistaken belief that Newton's world changes dramatically for
>> really powerful riders or really steep hills keeps coming up in this
>> thread, so forgive me for ploughing through the same old stuff again.
>>
>> ***
>>
>> 160 + 16.0 = 176.0 lbs = 72.727 kg + 7.273 kg = 80.000 kg
>> 160 + 17.5 = 177.5 lbs = 72.727 kg + 7.955 kg = 80.682 kg
>>
>> 177.5/176.0 = ~1.008, so acceleration should increase <1% in the real
>> world.
>>
>> Sprint acceleration calculator:
>> http://www.analyticcycling.com/DiffEqMotion500_Page.html
>>
>> First, let's see how much faster the 1.5-lb-lighter bike accelerates
>> from a standing start at 1350 watts up a convenient 8.1% stretch of
>> the Alp d'Huez.
>>
>> Use max power 1350, avg power 1349.9, slope 0.081, and do it for a
>> distance of 10 meters (the very last field).
>>
>> Then do it again for a max power of 100 watts and an average of 99.9.
>>
>> 1350 watts 100 watts
>> 176.0 177.5 176.0 177.5
>> meters time time time time
>> 1.0 0.3 0.3 1.1 1.1
>> 2.5 0.6 0.6 2.4 2.4
>> 5 1.2 1.2 4.2 4.2
>> 10 2.1 2.1 7.6 7.6
>> 15 2.8 2.8 10.9 11.0
>> 20 3.3 3.3 14.3<->14.4
>> 25 3.9 3.9 17.6<->17.8
>> 50 6.4 6.4 34.4 34.7
>> 100 10.6 10.7* 68.0 68.6
>> 150 14.6 14.6 101.7 102.5
>> 200 18.4 18.4 135.4 136.5
>> 250 22.0<->22.1 169.2 170.6
>> 300 25.7<->25.8 203.1 204.8
>>
>> * shows how rounding can affect things
>>
>> In other words, a 1.5-lb acceleration difference takes a long time up
>> an 8.1% grade to show up on a calculator that reads in tenths of a
>> second.
>>
>> It takes 250 meters for a ~0.5% time difference to show up reliably on
>> a 0.1 second stopwatch for the powerful rider.
>>
>> Neither rider is going to notice an off-the-line ~1% acceleration
>> increase with the seat of his pants.
>>
>> If he's extrapolating from the change in how he can heave the 10%
>> lighter bike around, then he must have an impressive calculator inside
>> his head.
>>
>> ***
>>
>> For steady-state cruising up the same hill, the speed differences are
>> even less than the acceleration differences.
>>
>> Use 1350 watts, 8.1% grade, rider 160, bikes 16 and 17.6 lbs,
>> tubulars, hoods here:
>> http://bikecalculator.com/veloUS.html
>>
>> I get 27.99 mph versus 27.90 mph, 99.678% as fast. Once you accelerate
>> to cruising speed, the high speed wind drag effect reduces the ~1%
>> idealized mass difference to ~0.3%.
>>
>> Now try grandma at 100 watts up the same 8.1% grade.
>>
>> She goes 3.15 versus 3.17 mph.
>>
>> ***
>>
>> As has been suggested, something besides the 1.5 lb frame difference
>> might account for the faster-from-the-first-pedal impression.
>>
>> All of the technical possibilities (stiffer frame, different tires,
>> better aero, and so on) are dwarfed by the stubborn psychological
>> effect of trying a new bike.
>>
>> Even the same thing with a different paint scheme will feel
>> "different" if we're told "go ahead and try this new [fill in the
>> blank]."
>>
>> Trying something with an eye toward comparing it puts us in an
>> entirely different position than just using something familiar.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>
>
>You can stop now Carl. You take away peoples illusions and beliefs with
>your straightforward calculation. I someway this pisses them off. You
>are arguing now with people who don't want to belief. No point in that.
>'...... anaerobic accelerations.....' Geezes what crap is that?
>
>Lou

Dear Lou,

Well, it's the kind of thing that I'd have come up with myself before
I looked into things.

Bret seems quite reasonable to me. He felt _something_ different, and
so did his whole team, so if it doesn't make sense with 350 watt
examples, maybe it was because of the 1350 watt sprint?

Until you work through some of these things, it's normal to think that
a lot of power or a really steep hill or a standing start or
_something_ will explain all the big jumps and falling-off-the-back
and other things that seem so obvious.

Remember, it took an awfully long time before people decided that
hefty objects dropped from a tower fall at about the same rate. And we
still have to explain on RBT that heavier riders coast downhill faster
because the power from gravity pulling on their extra mass rises
faster than their wind drag does.

That's why I keep working through the examples suggested by other
posters. (I keep wondering why they don't try playing with the
calculators themselves--it's not that hard.)

What if the Alp d'Huez really did produce a dramatically different
result for 7 extra pounds? What if a 1200-foot climb in 2.9 miles
somehow exaggerated the effect of extra weight? Does a 1350 watt burst
by a sprinter change the outcome that a 350 watt rider will see?

It turns out that F = M * A is dreadfully stubborn.

Armstrong could have carried a 7-lb handicap up the Alp d'Huez before
he slowed down to Ullrich's speed.

People really do see jumps, but they're due to either massively
mismatched power or one rider jumping a fraction of a second ahead of
the other, not 1, 2.2, or even 7-lb weight differences. The greater
the power, the _less_ the actual difference because wind drag isn't
linear.

Riders do fall off the back. But if you can't keep up while drafting
on the flats, you certainly haven't got the power to pull ahead.

They usually fall off when the pack hits a climb. The guys in back
have been hanging on because they could keep up while putting out 10%
to 20% less power. That advantage dwindles rapidly as the pack slows
down on the hill. That's when the guys who were in front show the real
power difference and pull away. That's why it's called being
"dropped"--they don't just creep away at 180 meters per hour (0.18
km/h), they pull away at ten times that speed (a whopping 1.8 km/h,
which should remind us how tiny the differences are in bicycling).

When that happens, it's human to blame it on the extra weight. After
all, every bicycle magazine and article weighs every part to the
nearest gram.

I expect that many posters believe in good faith that they're feeling
speed or acceleration when they're just feeling how much easier a
lighter bike is to heave back and forth and tip side to side. That
feeling is an order of magnitude greater than the acceleration or
speed change, so it's hard reason yourself out of it. An analogy would
be how fast does 75 mph feel on the highway? In a bouncy short
wheelbase jeep with deep-tread tires, 75 mph feels much "faster" than
the same 75 mph in a limousine (or 500 mph in a jetliner).

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[Donald Munro]

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> Are you retarded?

Well he is competing in the special olympics.

[Tom Kunich]

"Bret Wade" <bret.wade@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:foedncpPacNS1BzVnZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@earthlink.co m...
> Lou Holtman wrote:
>>
>> You can stop now Carl. You take away peoples illusions and beliefs with
>> your straightforward calculation.
>
> What illusions? I specifically said that a small change in mass doesn't
> have much affect.
>
>>I someway this pisses them off.
>
> I'm not mad.
>
>> You are arguing now with people who don't want to belief.
>
> We're not arguing.
>
>> No point in that.
>
> No.
>
>> '...... anaerobic accelerations.....' Geezes what crap is that?
>
> That crap is the **** that will kill them in uphill sprint finishes.

Seems to be sort of weird that the people claiming the math explains
everything are those who don't seem able to understand the entire point of
the conversation.

[Howard Kveck]

In article <cvi28496n1pbldc71d65mlqev6chs29bq6@4ax.com>, carlfogel@comcast.net
wrote:

> The rest of the "heavier" feeling was probably due to all the extra
> attention that I paid (does it feel heavier? lighter? how does it
> normally feel?), plus the unavoidable knowledge that there were
> _seven_ whole pounds sitting right there in plain sight whenever I
> looked down at the speedometer.

One point I haven't seen made, Carl: this isn't exactly a blind test, is it? If
you really wanted to seriously test this, I think you'd have to devise a way to do it
so you were unaware of when the bike had the extra weight on it when you went out on
the road.

--
tanx,
Howard

The bloody pubs are bloody dull
The bloody clubs are bloody full
Of bloody girls and bloody guys
With bloody murder in their eyes

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[andresmuro@aol.com]

On Jul 18, 8:24*pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:40:56 -0700 (PDT), "andresm...@aol.com"
>
>
>
> <andresm...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 17, 4:10 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >> "Tuschinski" <lok...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:d70e9a91-8002-4d86-a323-d40010068a3b@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com....
>
> >> >> *And indeed when you look at the actual numbers of
> >> >> failures you find that a correctly built steel frame, even superlight
> >> >> ones,
> >> >> very seldom fail and when they do it is pretty plainly a workmanship or
> >> >> material error.
>
> >> > Oh come on Tom, that's blatantly false. Back in the days, when we all
> >> > raced Reynolds/Columbus we broke frames. Some of it by crashing, some
> >> > by bad handling, some by bad manufacturers.
>
> >> > And yes, we also broke Alu frames. And now we break CF frames
> >> > *shrug*.
>
> >> > Such is life ^^
>
> >> I don't follow you here. Well built steel frames seldom fail. Well built AL
> >> frames (the super light ones) fail whether you take good care of them or
> >> not. I have personally observed quite a few carbon fiber failures and these
> >> bikes are EXPENSIVE.
>
> >> And the total savings are: My Time VX costs almost 4 times more than my
> >> Basso Loto and they ride almost identically and weigh within a lb of each
> >> other.
>
> >I used to have a Basso Ascot. It was my favorite bike ever. It died in
> >a collision with a car and I didn't do too well either. It was a great
> >frame, though. I think that it was the geometry that made the bike
> >feel really nice. I don't know if your Lotto has the same geometry as
> >my Ascot, but if it does, I know why you like it. I am sure that I
> >will also be able to get a great ride with frames of different
> >materials that have the same geometry as my Ascot. A lot of the times,
> >a cyclist may like a bike more because the geometry makes it feel
> >faster.
>
> >I believe , like Carl, that the feeling is just that and your speed
> >does not necessarily increase or decrease that much. However, it is
> >great to ride on a bike that has "that" feeling.
>
> >Andres
>
> Dear Andres,
>
> The day after I removed the 7 pounds of weights from my bike, I went
> for my usual afternoon ride.
>
> I didn't notice any surge in speed or acceleration when I lost the 7
> pounds.
>
> In fact, I didn't even have a twinge of boy-I'd-like-a-lighter-bike!
>
> I suspect that a whole new bike might have felt (and looked) different
> enough in various ways (tires, wheels, geometry, saddle, brakes, and
> so on) to make me easy prey for a salesman.
>
> But just strapping the extra weight onto the same old bike without
> changing anything else left me with nothing more than the very suspect
> feeling that the bike felt "heavier".
>
> Much of that "heavier" feeling was probably just the vibration damping
> of the extra rubber-encased 7 pounds on the top tube. (After all, it
> amounted to only a 3.2% weight increase.)
>
> The rest of the "heavier" feeling was probably due to all the extra
> attention that I paid (does it feel heavier? lighter? how does it
> normally feel?), plus the unavoidable knowledge that there were
> _seven_ whole pounds sitting right there in plain sight whenever I
> looked down at the speedometer.
>
> Some posters might want to try the experiment of just adding a few
> extra pounds to their familiar bike and comparing whatever difference
> they "feel" to whatever happens to their actual times around a
> familiar route.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

I have a ti road bike that weighs probably about 20 pounds without
anything and a TT Al bike that weighs about the same. I usually ride
anywhere three to five hours each day on weekends but no much during
the weeks. I teach a couple of spinning classes to stay in moderate
biking shape and I also run and swim. But, once in a while I do some
riding around my neighborhood. On weekends I carry three 24 ounce
water bottles, a toolbag with tubes, tools, keys, etc. (old tubie bike
filled with junk) a bento box with wallet, cellphone and granola bars.
When I pick up my bike it feels like an anchor. However, on it, I
really cannot tell the difference between my unloaded bike for the
occasional weekday ride and the loaded bike for the weekend adventure.
I haven't tried to make a conscious effort to feel the difference, but
apparently, it feels the same.

Both bikes have similar geometry (76 degree angles) and I have similar
position on both bikes. I only get narrower on the TT bike. The only
noticeable advantage is the aerobars on the TT bike. The aerobars
probably give me an extra mile of speed. I don't get that much lower
on my TT bike than on my road bike. I am probably just as low with on
the drops and on the aerobars. However, bringing my elbows together I
can feel less wind going into my chest, face. etc. When I am out of
shape and need to keep up with speed demons, I bring the TT bike and
hang on at the back.

Andres

[Espressopithecus (Java Man)]

In article <cvi28496n1pbldc71d65mlqev6chs29bq6@4ax.com>,
carlfogel@comcast.net says...
> Some posters might want to try the experiment of just adding a few
> extra pounds to their familiar bike and comparing whatever difference
> they "feel" to whatever happens to their actual times around a
> familiar route.
>
I have two road bikes with similar geometry. One is a 37-year old
Reynolds 531 that's ~ 4 lb heavier than my 6-year old Ti frame/carbon
fork bike. I have them set up with the same handlebar height, seat
height, and seat-to-bar distance and I run them on identical sets of
wheels and tires. Both run 105 9-speed drive train. Aside from the
fact that the vintage bike has significant toe overlap with the front
wheel, I cannot distinguish the difference between them in either riding
times or road feel. The Ti frame does feel slightly stiffer laterally
when I get out of the saddle climbing hills, but not nearly as much as
one might believe after reading cycling mags.

Java

[Bret Wade]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Bret Wade" <bret.wade@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:foedncpPacNS1BzVnZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@earthlink.co m...
>> Lou Holtman wrote:
>>>
>>> You can stop now Carl. You take away peoples illusions and beliefs
>>> with your straightforward calculation.
>>
>> What illusions? I specifically said that a small change in mass
>> doesn't have much affect.
>>
>>> I someway this pisses them off.
>>
>> I'm not mad.
>>
>>> You are arguing now with people who don't want to belief.
>>
>> We're not arguing.
>>
>>> No point in that.
>>
>> No.
>>
>>> '...... anaerobic accelerations.....' Geezes what crap is that?
>>
>> That crap is the **** that will kill them in uphill sprint finishes.
>
> Seems to be sort of weird that the people claiming the math explains
> everything are those who don't seem able to understand the entire point
> of the conversation.

Yep. Like a lot of ideological arguments, you don't have to understand.
You just have to be able to tell which side you're on.

[Tom Kunich]

<carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:94k2841feetq7dnffg0312vs8ooso9sqbj@4ax.com...
>
> Well, it's the kind of thing that I'd have come up with myself before
> I looked into things.
>
> Bret seems quite reasonable to me. He felt _something_ different, and
> so did his whole team, so if it doesn't make sense with 350 watt
> examples, maybe it was because of the 1350 watt sprint?

Jeez, will you think about this for a minute Carl? The human body is
connected to the bicycle like a coat of paint. There is a lot of spring in
that connection and the difference in frame weight will cause that
connection to move about differently. As I've said, I agree with you (I
think I was one of the first to SAY that the weight didn't make much of a
difference in acceleration) that the combined unit acceleration is very
little different.

And this isn't heaving side or side of back and forth or whatever you think
you mean by that. When you jump on the pedals of the lighter bike it tries
to accelerate out from under you differently and quite noticeably in some
cases.

By the way - are you saying that you're generating 350 watts?

[Bret Wade]

carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 00:57:07 +0200, Lou Holtman
> <lholditniet@planet.nl> wrote:
>
>> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:08:40 -0600, Bret Wade <bret.wade@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:13:43 -0600, Bret Wade <bret.wade@xilinx.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The original question was whether a rider can _feel_ such tiny
>>>>>>> changes--that same old laughable "noticeably robust forward thrust."
>>>>>> I wouldn't put it in those words but I have felt that sensation when
>>>>>> switching from a 4 lb Ti frame to a 2.5 lb Al frame. It felt faster from
>>>>>> the first pedal stroke. It was a team bike that I was somewhat skeptical
>>>>>> of riding, so it wasn't just wishful thinking. Others on the team had
>>>>>> similar experiences. I understand physics well enough to know that the
>>>>>> sensation was misleading.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bret
>>>>> Dear Bret,
>>>>>
>>>>> Forgive a long-winded answer, but you're so refreshingly reasonable
>>>>> that I want to avoid any offense.
>>>>>
>>>>> What interests me is the idea that a 1.5 lb lighter frame "felt faster
>>>>> from the first pedal stroke"--possibly a generalization or even
>>>>> hyperbole, but it's what we have to work with.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know the actual weights, but it was a whole team, so a 150
>>>>> pound rider and a 16.5 pound bike would probably be in the ballpark.
>>>>>
>>>>> That theoretical 166.5 pound bike and rider would drop to 165 pounds,
>>>>> about 0.9%.
>>>>>
>>>>> The bike itself would have dropped from 16.5 to 15.0 pounds, about
>>>>> 10%.
>>>>>
>>>>> The bike might twitch from side to side or heave forward 10% easier.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I gather that we agree that the speed and acceleration
>>>>> improvements are going to be so small that a calculator is necessary
>>>>> to see them.
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact, they don't show up on my first effort:
>>>>> http://bikecalculator.com/veloUS.html
>>>>>
>>>>> I tried 400 watts, a 150 pound rider, 15 and 16.5 pound bikes,
>>>>> tubulars, and drops.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because the calculator has only 2-decimal precision, both bikes went
>>>>> the same speed--27.85 mph.
>>>>>
>>>>> (A quick look at the time for 20 miles reassured me that the
>>>>> calculator is still grinding out infinitesimal details--43.08 minutes
>>>>> versus 43.09 minutes, a 0.01 minute lead, 0.6 seconds.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's send the bikes up the Alp d'Huez, which I have handy at 8.1% and
>>>>> 13.8 km (8.56 miles):
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_d'Huez
>>>>>
>>>>> The steep grade teases out a speed difference, but it's still nothing
>>>>> that a rider could detect.
>>>>>
>>>>> I get 41.03 minutes versus 41.33, a 0.3 minute or 18 second lead after
>>>>> almost 2500 seconds. That's ~1% faster.
>>>>>
>>>>> The speeds are 12.52 mph versus 12.43 mph.
>>>>>
>>>>> Raise the power to 500 watts, and the time and difference shrink to
>>>>> 34.04 versus 34.27, a little under 14 seconds, at 15.09 versus 14.99
>>>>> mph.
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, it takes the Alp d'Huez and a light, world-class rider
>>>>> to produce a tenth of a mile per hour and 14-second difference with a
>>>>> 1.5 pound lighter bike.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I'm glad that you understand the physics well enough to know that
>>>>> the impression was probably misleading. In unblinded testing, it's
>>>>> hard to tell which way our misperceptions will go. Just paying
>>>>> attention (because we're testing) distorts what we think we feel. Evil
>>>>> psychologists love to demonstrate how students will mis-measure the
>>>>> same lumber with the same measuring tapes, according to whether
>>>>> they've been told that it's important for the boards not to be too
>>>>> long, for them not to be too short, or that the measurement accuracy
>>>>> does (or doesn't) really matter.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>