bbbean 

My technology is more advanced than you suspect.

DaveWC

If he lost 20lbs and bought the carbon bike he'd be even faster.

Stucky

If I were disinterested enough with the actual ride that I had nothing better to do than to keep of time to the second....it would be time for another sport/hobby.

I ride my bike. I enjoy my rides. 30 or 40 seconds is of no consequence to me, because I spend longer than that lingering at my turn-around point and enjoying the scenery. I hear, at UPS, they count the number of steps a driver takes from the truck to the door of the house/business he is delivering to; and how many seconds making left turns takes, vs. making right turns. I'll bet UPS is run by cyclists!

To bad there isn't a way to pin your post to the top of thread, 'cause all one would have to do is read that, and it would save them from reading 20 pages.

Lazyass

Inccorrect. The carbon would not make him faster.

DaveWC

So to combat that, you participate in threads about bike weight making sure that no one else focuses on a 20-30 second time saving.

You just don't get it. No one on this thread is telling you that YOU need to concern yourself with time savings from a lighter bike. No one is trying to convince you to buy a lighter bike. No one actually gives a damn what bike you ride. People are disagreeing that a lighter bike yields no time savings. They are telling you that a 20-30 second saving means something to them. They don't give a $h!t whether you agree. Why is that a problem? When you start paying for my bikes, you can have a say about my values.

WalksOn2Wheels

It is simply and utterly amazing that BF manages to take a very simple concept with a very limited set of variables (point A to point B, rider weight, bike weight, % grade) and conflate them into 20+ pages of drivel.

Bikes are fun. Sometimes a lighter bike is fun. Sometimes your old classic, which is clearly heavier, can be as much or more fun. Some people like chocolate. Some people like vanilla.

I mean seriously guys, find a(nother) hobby, please.

jtaylor996

Holy crapoly. Same height, my inseam is only 30"...

FrozenK

If we are talking the real world, unless you want custom geometry the carbon frame is likely to be equally priced if not cheaper than the heavier steel frame.

datlas 

Make sure you are talking "cycling" inseam which is typically a few inches longer than your pants inseam. Cycling inseam is from bottom of pubic bone to the floor. My pants inseam is around 34 inches. Still pretty long for my height.

jtaylor996

Yeah, my cycling inseam is 30.7" to the floor.

big john

I do. One of my favorite routes has 4 climbs in the 5 mile range averaging 5% and a bunch of other climbs.

rpenmanparker 

I assume you mean 20 lb of body weight. Unless that weight were 100% fat and no muscle, which is essentially impossible, there is no way that the steelie would even be AS fast. It would certainly not be faster. Your hypothesis is absurd.

Lazyass

You keep carrying on about some 20-30 second time saving you read on the internet somewhere, you don't ride 5% grades for 5 miles, possibly couldn't even physically do it, and have never actually tested the theory yourself. Light bikes are cool, nobody is denying that, but unless you're racing against Nibali up the Alpe d'Huez you are not going to tell a lick of difference in 32 freaking ounces. You just aren't. With all components the same, you will not be slower on a high end steel frame as opposed to a carbon frame. You nor anyone else here rides at a level where it would matter. This entire discussion is silly.

rpenmanparker 

Measurement is not the problem. Experimental control is the problem. There is no way to control the conditions of the experiment so that the random error is not greater than the difference being measured. That doesn't mean the difference is not real, just that you can't see it buried in the random error. What kinds of error? Wind differences, traffic differences, traffic control differences, rider energy and metabolic differences, etc. Too many tyoes of error from experimental run to experimental run for the results to be significant.

69chevy

The most histerical part of this entire thread is that I calculated the time savings for a 5lb drop on a 5 mile 5% grade hill and the weight weenies ate it up.

It became 2lbs..

It became 20-30 sec.

Somehow no one bothered figuring out that this hill has about 1300ft of climb over 5 miles.

"My light bike saves me half a minute on a hill.." LOL

69chevy

Geez, I was just messing with you..

It would certainly be possible for me. Wiggo is my height and routinely 45lbs lighter.

He would be faster than any of us on any of our bikes while riding your steelie and simultaneously eating a sandwich.

Blackdays

2 lbs matters to every single racer on this forum.

DaveWC

Yeah, that's histerical [sic]. What was actually hysterical is that you thought that your example proved that the 5 mile hill produced a wash. Once you recognized that that was not the case, you "extrapolated" the data to include other circumstances not included in your example (rolling hills, flats) and somehow that produced a wash. Cus Physics!

DaveWC

I'd venture that it would not be possible for you to lose 20lbs of 100% fat with no muscle loss... Wiggins be damned. I'd also suggest that if you've got 20lbs to lose your time would be better spent on the bike instead of in front of the computer.

69chevy

Autocorrect got me.

You really think 5lbs will knock you out of a group ride.

I know it doesn't knock me out of mine.

It's not a wash for you.

It is a wash for me.

I'm OK with that.

69chevy

I don't have any reason to try to lose 20lbs.

I'm about 16% body fat, don't race, and am not obsessed with my cycling speed, but thanks for the unsolicited advice.

rpenmanparker 

Here is what is important. Not everyone (road cyclists) needs the lightest bike. But everyone should be thankful it exists. If someone had not cared about the first two pound weight savings, we would still all be riding 35 lb bikes. And that would be much less fun than we now experience. So you can make fun of each subtraction of a few grams and deride the uber-light Emonda, etc., but if it weren't for the constant drive to lowest possible weight, you wouldn't be talking about a steelie that weighs 17 lb vs. a carbon bike at 15. There would be only steel, hi-ten or worse, and you would need help to carry it around. Even folks who say they love their 22 lb bikes need to know they only exist because someone was committed to reducing bicycle weight. So to the low weight deniers I say don't be so smug. You benefit from the weight fixation just like the super weenie. It is about time you realized it.

Kind of like the joke about the girl offered $10,000 to have sex with a man she just met in a bar. She agrees. Then he changes the offer to $10. "What kind of girl do you think I am, she asks. "We've already established that," he says. "Now we are just haggling over the price." Well, we're just haggling over the weight.

So unless you are so pure that you are still riding that fabled Schwinn Varsity, don't be telling us how you're not that kind of girl, how weight doesn't matter.

Blackdays

First post in this thread that's OK with the fact that different people have different needs.

DaveWC

You clearly missed the point. When you lose weight, you lose both fat & muscle.

Lazyass

No it doesn't. I know guys who race cat 5 on flat courses and are B group riders. It don't matter to them. But every single racer can get a steel framed bike down to the UCI, USAC, ect weight limit.