Originally Posted by
Bacciagalupe
Bike weight, especially non-rotating weight, has almost no effect on performance. Aerodynamics, rider position, and drive train efficiency are more important. E.g. TT bikes and recumbents are both heavier and faster than standard bikes. Similarly aero, trispoke and disc wheels are heavier than traditional wheel designs but, in many circumstances, are significantly faster.
This is the crux of our disagreement. So let me ask you what evidence is there for this assertion? Bear in mind that:
1. Theoretical arguments based on the pseudo-physics of mechanical energy "conservation" are entirely unconvincing if not completely misguided.
2. The vast majority of riders out there, including myself, obviously think that weight has a very important effect on performance.
3. I even see many recumbent riders arguing that the biggest roadblock preventing recumbent bikes from beating the pants off uprights in the real world (as aerodynamic considerations suggest they should) is that they're mostly too heavy.
4. The only controlled real world experiments I've seen demonstrating an insensitivity to bike weight apply only to the obviously very limited context of a flat course with only a single stop at the end (the absolute best case scenario for weight insensitivity).
Am I missing something? Because it seems to me that in all practical riding weight is extremely important.