Interesting this slacking bizz. An anti slacking proponent i respect is Henry Rollins,.. i can see where he is coming from. On the other hand, the more people delve into native and older societies the more it becomes plain that many of the earlier humans 'slacked off' a lot. That is to say, they had lots of leasure and do nothing time. It seems to be a beneficial thing to do for many humans.
For a very interesting (and elequent though easy to follow) essay on leisure vs. work/toil/play vs. slacking vs. jobs. check out the essay by Bob Black i have on my page:
http://www.rhizomes.nl/abolition%20of%20work.html
The intro reads (and it only gets better IMO)
---
No one should ever work.
Work is the source of nearly all the misery in the world. Almost any evil you'd care to name comes from working or from living in a world designed for work. In order to stop suffering, we have to stop working.
That doesn't mean we have to stop doing things. It does mean creating a new way of life based on play; in other words, a ludic conviviality, commensality, and maybe even art. There is more to play than child's play, as worthy as that is. I call for a collective adventure in generalized joy and freely interdependent exuberance. Play isn't passive. Doubtless we all need a lot more time for sheer sloth and slack than we ever enjoy now, regardless of income or occupation, but once recovered from employment-induced exhaustion nearly all of us want to act. Oblomovism and Stakhanovism are two sides of the same debased coin.
---
Any thoughts on this anyone?
Also to get back to the weight thing. If one is really concerend about weight/speed/climbing a strong case could be made for buying a 20 inch Bike Friday.
You can buy a good Sub 20 pound Bike Friday bike at less than $ 2000. The small wheels will accelerate better, climb faster and allow you to draft way more efficiently. Additionally you get the folding functionality to boot. IMO cyclists have been deluded by history/tradition into using larger wheels than is necessary or beneficial. Let me just plug another excerpt from a page i have written:
Small wheels:
-climb better due to a smaller diameter that needs to be rotated.
-accelerate faster for the same reason.
-are more responsive - they turn and steer more easily - the feel is rather like having 'power steering' on your car.
-have a lower surface area, have lower wind resistance in headwinds.
When riding in a group, small wheels enable you to get closer together and draft better.
The design of many folders allows a smaller and and lighter overall package than a egular bike, and smallness and lightness are factors in going fast.
In fact tests have shown that up to 16 mp/h, the small wheel is more efficient than a big wheel. Between 16 and 33 mp/h there is little difference. Over 33 mp/h the gyroscopic effect of the big wheel makes it more effective. Most folks do not go over 33 mp/h. Source: 1984 Olympic Men's Road Race Gold Medal winner, Alexi Grewal during a conversation with Jeff Linder. Alexi owns a Pocket Rocket.
Note: 33 mp/h is more than 53 Kilometers per Hour! Even 7 time Tour De France winner Lance Armstrong (arguably the world's fastest and best cyclist) averaged just shy of 42 Kilometers per Hour in his last tour despite large wheels and skinny tires. The world cycling hour record is about 56 Kilometers per Hour and there are probably about a dozen guys in the world that can even get close to this. I for one know that i will never even be anywhere near to going 33 mp/h under my own power (just like 99,9% of humanity).
Remember that large wheels originated from a time where there were no such thing as gears - witness the direct drive Penny Farthing bike. Now, the size of the wheel can be optimized - and that optimal size is a lot smaller than 26" or more.
http://www.rhizomes.nl/twenty.html
Any more thoughts...?