Notices
General Cycling Discussion Have a cycling related question or comment that doesn't fit in one of the other specialty forums? Drop on in and post in here! When possible, please select the forum above that most fits your post!

Weight-Weenieism

Old 02-16-24, 05:59 AM
  #326  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Eastern Shore MD
Posts: 949

Bikes: Lemond Zurich/Trek ALR/Giant TCX/Sette CX1

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 604 Post(s)
Liked 869 Times in 439 Posts
Originally Posted by Dave Mayer
I think the currently popular erroneous "weight doesn't matter" narrative is due to the bike industry needing to turn over the bike fleet. The dominant trends in the industry is selling new stuff and legal butt covering. Since disc brakes bikes are invariably heavier than rim brake equivalents, especially in the wheels, and since aero is heavy as well, any suggestion from more knowledgeable and experience riders that in fact weight very much does matter is responded to with hair on fire from the industry shills.

Sure, an aero bike may be faster if some is riding solo, or on the front. So say someone strong could maintain 2-3 mph faster on an aero bike with deep section wheels. At a fast pace, a 2mph speed advantage is significant. However, when your porky disc-brake aero bike results in you not being able to keep up with the surges and accelerations in the pack (riding at an even higher pace), then the assumed aero advantage means nothing. The pack slowly recedes into the distance at 30mph, and you are dying at 23mph. But at least with your aero bike, you are dying slightly faster!
Since you didn't respond to my other post where I pointed out that it would take over 30#'s of additional weight to create the 16% time difference you were spouting off about... I don't expect you to respond to this either. But anyhow...

I got to looking last night - found an Emonda SLR 7 with Sram Force DISC brakes and 50MM deep CF wheels.

A fairly aero bike, with deep wheels and disc brakes - and not top spec equipped.

Total weight for a 56CM frame- 15.6#. 1/2 a pound over the UCI minimum weight limit - and its not a top spec bike.

1/2 a pound.

As a 180# rider - that 1/2 a pound means diddly squat in a group ride or race. I'm not losing anyone's wheel, not getting dropped...

Now, the UCI minimum weight - that's the standard. It was set back in 2000. Well before disc brakes, well before deep section wheels were common, well before the big aero push.

Yet, one can purchase, off the shelf, a disc brake bike with aero wheels that is = to the UCI weight min.

So, if the disc brake bike with aero wheels is the lightest it can be legally - what is your point again?
Jughed is offline  
Likes For Jughed:
Old 02-16-24, 08:17 AM
  #327  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 8,057
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7094 Post(s)
Liked 11,213 Times in 4,789 Posts
Originally Posted by Dave Mayer
I think a lot of the naysayers here are used to riding on cargo bikes with farm tractor wheels, and have never experienced the life-altering performance boost of a set of 1,200- gram tubulars.l
Hyperbole much?

Originally Posted by smd4
Some people here would demand math to prove the superiority of a Stradivarius.
Failing to understand the math (the physics, really) doesn’t change it.

If you’ve built your bike (or your whole cycling experience) around the notion that lighter is always better, then sure, evidence to the contrary is upsetting. Science has a history of upsetting people…just ask Galileo.
Koyote is online now  
Likes For Koyote:
Old 02-16-24, 08:20 AM
  #328  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 5,959

Bikes: 1989 Cinelli Supercorsa

Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3620 Post(s)
Liked 3,045 Times in 1,841 Posts
Originally Posted by Koyote
Failing to understand the math (the physics, really) doesn’t change it.

If you’ve built your bike (or your whole cycling experience) around the notion that lighter is always better, then sure, evidence to the contrary is upsetting. Science has a history of upsetting the established dogma…just ask Galileo.
Well, I haven’t done that. My bike is a balance of weight, style and performance.
smd4 is offline  
Old 02-16-24, 08:26 AM
  #329  
Senior Member
 
Steel Charlie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,001
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 404 Post(s)
Liked 595 Times in 308 Posts
It's been long time established that belief systems are immune to empirical data/evidence or rational argument. Opposition to the system only serves to strengthen it.

A situation easily observed in certain elements of the population relative to political beliefs.
Steel Charlie is offline  
Likes For Steel Charlie:
Old 02-16-24, 08:55 AM
  #330  
Senior Member
 
Trakhak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,573
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2596 Post(s)
Liked 3,121 Times in 1,776 Posts
Originally Posted by Steel Charlie
It's been long time established that belief systems are immune to empirical data/evidence or rational argument. Opposition to the system only serves to strengthen it.

A situation easily observed in certain elements of the population relative to political beliefs.
It's a shame that emotion-based assessments of reality aren't confined exclusively to utterly inconsequential topics. Such as everything that gets argued over endlessly on Bike Forums.
Trakhak is offline  
Old 02-16-24, 09:24 AM
  #331  
Mother Nature's Son
 
delbiker1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Sussex County, Delaware
Posts: 3,140

Bikes: 2014 Orbea Avant MD30, 2004 Airborne Zeppelin TI, 2003 Lemond Poprad, 2001 Lemond Tourmalet, 2014? Soma Smoothie

Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 860 Post(s)
Liked 1,455 Times in 828 Posts
I guess I got a touch of this ism. Though, I tell myself it is just curiosity. I have a 9000 Dura Ace group, minus the cranks set, with a set of C24 wheels, that I acquired from a friend. I purchased a couple of the Aerothan tubes that were on sale, this morning I mounted those with GK 26mm slicks on the DA wheels. I put those on my 1X Airborne Zeppelin, that dropped the weight from 17.5 pound s to 17.2. I'll feel like I am riding a crotch rocket.
I was going to sell the 9000 group, and still might. But, I pick up the components individually and am amazed at how light they are. So, maybe my 1X will go back to a 2X, or, my Smoothie can become a DA Smoothie. Never even considered Dura Ace in my past.
delbiker1 is online now  
Likes For delbiker1:
Old 02-16-24, 10:29 AM
  #332  
Habitual User
 
Eric F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 8,160

Bikes: 2023 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2018 Trek Procaliber 9.9 RSL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5058 Post(s)
Liked 8,334 Times in 3,935 Posts
Originally Posted by Koyote
Science has a history of upsetting people…just ask Galileo.
Galileo. Figaro?
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
Eric F is online now  
Old 02-16-24, 10:50 AM
  #333  
Habitual User
 
Eric F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 8,160

Bikes: 2023 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2018 Trek Procaliber 9.9 RSL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5058 Post(s)
Liked 8,334 Times in 3,935 Posts
Originally Posted by LarrySellerz
The idea of faster riders being peeved about slower riders drafting the group in order to do a group ride is kind of absurd to me. The only time it makes sense is when you're "training with your team" literally trying to do a team TT thing, and frankly even in that situation I doubt most would mind if a random drafted them. The groups around here are open to everyone (as they obviously should be...) and the strongest people are at the front, with people of all ages and skills in the back. Drafting is the equalizer in cycling
I don't agree with you very often, but in this case, I do. Unless the slower rider is doing something to disrupt the vibe/flow of the group, someone sitting on the back isn't generally an issue, even with a smaller group. Larger packs tend to settle into whatever people can handle - cycling Darwinism. The strong thrive at the front and drive the pace. The weak get dropped. Those in between do what they can do, and may develop into a stronger rider.
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
Eric F is online now  
Likes For Eric F:
Old 02-16-24, 10:57 AM
  #334  
Habitual User
 
Eric F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 8,160

Bikes: 2023 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2018 Trek Procaliber 9.9 RSL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5058 Post(s)
Liked 8,334 Times in 3,935 Posts
Originally Posted by smd4
Well, I haven’t done that. My bike is a balance of weight, style and performance.
Although our aesthetic preferences are different, I tend to be the same. I am excited by the way my bikes look, and I have taken some measures to make them lighter (basically to the limit of what I consider financially reasonable), but high-performance is still a top priority.
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
Eric F is online now  
Likes For Eric F:
Old 02-16-24, 11:21 AM
  #335  
Grupetto Bob
 
rsbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: Seattle-ish
Posts: 6,417

Bikes: Bikey McBike Face

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2675 Post(s)
Liked 5,905 Times in 3,033 Posts
https://www.globalcyclingnetwork.com...tweight-design
__________________
Road 🚴🏾‍♂️ & Mountain 🚵🏾‍♂️







rsbob is offline  
Old 02-16-24, 11:51 AM
  #336  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 943
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 454 Post(s)
Liked 1,080 Times in 455 Posts
After having built several bikes, I believe a lightweight bike is just more enjoyable to ride, plus I live in a hilly area that requires climbing every direction I go. Lightweight deep dish aero wheels exist, so there's not really a major weight penalty to put aero wheels on your bike unless you're aiming to build a 4kg climbing build. Also the older I get, a lightweight bike puts less strain on my body and especially my knees. I can easily build a 7kg disc bike for less than $1500 USD. I could probably build a 6-6.5kg for under $2k. I know there's extreme weight weenism, but I think being a practical weight weenie is perfectly fine.

I'm beginning to think wheels matter more than any other component on a bike. I'd rather own a cheap alloy road frame and have a budget groupset, but ride the best wheels I can afford.
jonathanf2 is offline  
Old 02-16-24, 12:03 PM
  #337  
Senior Member
 
Dave Mayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,511
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1382 Post(s)
Liked 485 Times in 284 Posts
The Factor 'climbing bike' at 6.8kg is almost 15 pounds... The Trek Emonda SLR (rim brake) could have been brought below 13 pounds without any extreme weight-weenie measures. Of course you'd shed the extraneous discs. Anyone around here need to comply with the arbitrary UCI weight limit that could be revoked at any minute?

Actually I did go hunting for one of these at my local Trek dealer a couple of years ago with a short discussion that went like this:
Perky young salesman (PYS): "How can we help you sir?"
Me: "I'm looking for a road bike."
PYS: "What is your price range?"
Me: "$15."
PYS: "Hundred?"
Me: "No thousand.

That go his attention.

Me: "I want the Trek Emonda SLR rim brake with H2 geometry".
PYS: "We looked everywhere including the computer and cannot find anything.
Me: "Do you have anything anywhere that can be build up at less than 14 pounds?"
PYS: after deep consultation with Manager: "No"
Me: "Bye."
Dave Mayer is offline  
Old 02-16-24, 12:14 PM
  #338  
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,781
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4577 Post(s)
Liked 5,116 Times in 3,159 Posts
Originally Posted by Fredo76
You have vacillated on this subject before. However, your kernal of truth is showing. Now all we are left with is to answer is how tiny is tiny. And BTW, people are saying exactly that
Sure, we can do just that then. Let's look at the power required to accelerate the mass (both static and rotating) from say 0-20 kph in 3 seconds and then see how much power or time we can save if we reduce the wheel rim weight by 500g.

So my simple bike model:-

Static mass m = 85 kg
Rotating Mass (wheels and tyres) mw = 3 kg


Kinetic Energy of static mass = 0.5 x m x v^2 = 1309J
Kinetic Energy of rotating mass = m x v^2 = 92J (Simplification with 100% of rotating mass at the tyre radius)
Kinetic Energy total = 1402J

Av Power total = KE/t = 467W
Av Power for total rotating mass = 31W

If we saved 500g from the rotating mass:-

KE static = 1309J
KE rotating = 77J
KE total = 1386J

Av Power total = 462W - a saving of 5W over baseline

So a saving of 5W for a 500g wheel rim weight reduction when sprinting from 0-20 kph in 3 seconds. Or expressed in terms of time gained at the original power level it is 0.03s.

Also consider that this calculation doesn't include the additional power required to overcome air resistance and rolling resistance. It is only the power required to accelerate the mass. So the power saving will be even less of a percentage of the total power required to make this very hard acceleration.

Last edited by PeteHski; 02-16-24 at 01:24 PM.
PeteHski is offline  
Likes For PeteHski:
Old 02-16-24, 12:41 PM
  #339  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,706
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1273 Post(s)
Liked 1,378 Times in 700 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski
Sure, we can do just that then. Let's look at the power required to accelerate the mass (both static and rotating) from say 20-40 kph in 3 seconds and then see how much power or time we can save if we reduce the wheel rim weight by 500g.

So my simple bike model:-

Static mass m = 85 kg
Rotating Mass (wheels and tyres) mw = 3 kg


Kinetic Energy of static mass = 0.5 x m x v^2 = 1309J
Kinetic Energy of rotating mass = m x v^2 = 92J (Simplification with 100% of rotating mass at the tyre radius)
Kinetic Energy total = 1402J

Av Power total = KE/t = 467W
Av Power for total rotating mass = 31W

If we saved 500g from the rotating mass:-

KE static = 1309J
KE rotating = 77J
KE total = 1386J

Av Power total = 462W - a saving of 5W over baseline

So a saving of 5W for a 500g wheel rim weight reduction when sprinting from 20-40 kph in 3 seconds. Or expressed in terms of time gained at the original power level it is 0.03s.

Also consider that this calculation doesn't include the additional power required to overcome air resistance and rolling resistance. It is only the power required to accelerate the mass. So the power saving will be even less of a percentage of the total power required to make this very hard acceleration.
The calculations affirm that when a rider is pushing their limits, head down, tongue hanging out, teetering on the edge of being dropped from the local group ride, rotational weight indeed plays a crucial role. That mere .03 of a second is the determinator of whether the rider is bound to endure the solitary journey of shame for the remaining 100 miles, with vultures circling and coyotes howling in anticipation of their impending feast. As your cheerful group of fellow riders fades into the sunset, eagerly anticipating a cold beer and a hearty laugh at the individual who underestimated the significance of rotational weight.
Atlas Shrugged is offline  
Likes For Atlas Shrugged:
Old 02-16-24, 12:42 PM
  #340  
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,781
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4577 Post(s)
Liked 5,116 Times in 3,159 Posts
Originally Posted by Dave Mayer
I think the currently popular erroneous "weight doesn't matter" narrative is due to the bike industry needing to turn over the bike fleet. The dominant trends in the industry is selling new stuff and legal butt covering. Since disc brakes bikes are invariably heavier than rim brake equivalents, especially in the wheels, and since aero is heavy as well, any suggestion from more knowledgeable and experience riders that in fact weight very much does matter is responded to with hair on fire from the industry shills.
The qualified physicists and engineers are actually saying that rotational inertia is the least important factor in wheel design. You are stating that it is the most important factor and wondering why everyone who understands the physics is strongly disagreeing. Then you invent an industry wide conspiracy theory to fill in the gap between your superior knowledge and the reality of modern road bikes.
PeteHski is offline  
Likes For PeteHski:
Old 02-16-24, 12:48 PM
  #341  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,271
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1981 Post(s)
Liked 1,299 Times in 630 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski
Sure, we can do just that then. Let's look at the power required to accelerate the mass (both static and rotating) from say 20-40 kph in 3 seconds and then see how much power or time we can save if we reduce the wheel rim weight by 500g.

So my simple bike model:-

Static mass m = 85 kg
Rotating Mass (wheels and tyres) mw = 3 kg


Kinetic Energy of static mass = 0.5 x m x v^2 = 1309J
Kinetic Energy of rotating mass = m x v^2 = 92J (Simplification with 100% of rotating mass at the tyre radius)
Kinetic Energy total = 1402J

Av Power total = KE/t = 467W
Av Power for total rotating mass = 31W

If we saved 500g from the rotating mass:-

KE static = 1309J
KE rotating = 77J
KE total = 1386J

Av Power total = 462W - a saving of 5W over baseline

So a saving of 5W for a 500g wheel rim weight reduction when sprinting from 20-40 kph in 3 seconds. Or expressed in terms of time gained at the original power level it is 0.03s.
Due to the quadratic term, that's not how the math shakes out. 20->40 is not the same as 0->20. For the static portion, it's not...
.5*85*(5.55556^2)
...but rather...
.5*85*(11.1111^2 - 5.55556^2)
...which is 3935J.
Similarly, the rotating KE difference is about 278J, or 231J for the 2.5kg example.

On the flip side, if we're talking about performance road bikes, you're using incredibly high numbers for mass-at-rim equivalence. (Although the 500g difference is realistic across the extremes).

Also consider that this calculation doesn't include the additional power required to overcome air resistance and rolling resistance. It is only the power required to accelerate the mass. So the power saving will be even less of a percentage of the total power required to make this very hard acceleration.
What's also notable is that, if the weight difference is arising from different styles of rim (such as aero depth), the heavier rim can have a reduction in other losses. And aerodynamic benefits do not disappear during acceleration.

It's a bit more complicated of a problem, but things get interesting when you start comparing mass-versus-CdA tradeoffs in difference realistic acceleration profiles and air conditions.

Originally Posted by Steel Charlie
It's been long time established that belief systems are immune to empirical data/evidence or rational argument. Opposition to the system only serves to strengthen it.

A situation easily observed in certain elements of the population relative to political beliefs.
I think it's an especially big issue in bicycle performance because people can actually feel things that their brain interprets as certain types of performance differences. Like how cyclists often feel the rumble from excessive tire pressure as "speed."

The rotational inertia of the wheels have a huge impact on how a bicycle "moves" beneath a rider. The way it torques the steering column, or resists being tossed side-to-side. Cyclists can't really discern the acceleration difference for a given applied pedaling effort*, but they can feel the handling change, and their brain is trained to feel the latter as the former.

*Compare how easy it is to feel a 500g difference at the rim to how difficult it is to feel a 1kg weight attached below the bottom bracket. Kinematically, these things create exactly the same resistance to forward acceleration.
HTupolev is offline  
Likes For HTupolev:
Old 02-16-24, 01:09 PM
  #342  
climber has-been
 
terrymorse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 7,257

Bikes: Scott Addict R1, Felt Z1

Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3557 Post(s)
Liked 3,716 Times in 1,862 Posts
Originally Posted by elcruxio
The 2023 TdF stage 16 really drove in the importance of aerodynamics vs weight. Vingegaard did the whole TT with his "heavy" Cervelo P5 with a disc rear wheel no less, whereas Pogačar swapped to a much lighter "climbing" bike before the 2,5km 9 % climb at the end of the stage.
Yes, aerodynamics may be more significant than weight on a climb, but that depends on how fast the rider is going.

When the best cyclists in the world are going full gas up a 9% grade, they're still moving fast enough that aerodynamics is significant.

For the rest of us on a 9% grade (actually, the end of TdF TT was an 8.5% grade), we're better off dropping as much weight as possible and ignoring the aero.
__________________
Ride, Rest, Repeat. ROUVY: terrymorse



Last edited by terrymorse; 02-16-24 at 01:25 PM.
terrymorse is offline  
Old 02-16-24, 01:09 PM
  #343  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,055

Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4010 Post(s)
Liked 7,518 Times in 3,025 Posts
Originally Posted by Dave Mayer
The Factor 'climbing bike' at 6.8kg is almost 15 pounds... The Trek Emonda SLR (rim brake) could have been brought below 13 pounds without any extreme weight-weenie measures.
Do you think people are too stupid to notice the dishonesty of your "Bike A is xx pounds" vs "Bike B could have been yy pounds" comparison?

Originally Posted by Dave Mayer
Actually I did go hunting for one of these at my local Trek dealer a couple of years ago with a short discussion that went like this:
Perky young salesman (PYS): "How can we help you sir?"
Me: "I'm looking for a road bike."
PYS: "What is your price range?"
Me: "$15."
PYS: "Hundred?"
Me: "No thousand.

That go his attention.

Me: "I want the Trek Emonda SLR rim brake with H2 geometry".
PYS: "We looked everywhere including the computer and cannot find anything.
Me: "Do you have anything anywhere that can be build up at less than 14 pounds?"
PYS: after deep consultation with Manager: "No"
Me: "Bye."
Does this story have a point?
tomato coupe is offline  
Likes For tomato coupe:
Old 02-16-24, 01:17 PM
  #344  
Habitual User
 
Eric F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 8,160

Bikes: 2023 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2018 Trek Procaliber 9.9 RSL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5058 Post(s)
Liked 8,334 Times in 3,935 Posts
Originally Posted by tomato coupe
Does this story have a point?
Old bikes good. New bikes bad.
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
Eric F is online now  
Likes For Eric F:
Old 02-16-24, 01:20 PM
  #345  
Senior Member
 
OldsCOOL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: northern michigan
Posts: 13,319

Bikes: '77 Colnago Super, '76 Fuji The Finest, '88 Cannondale Criterium, '86 Trek 760, '87 Miyata 712

Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 660 Post(s)
Liked 601 Times in 314 Posts
When one rather spend hundreds for a 100gr weight loss in a component and fail to realize what losing 5 pounds of fat will do.
OldsCOOL is offline  
Old 02-16-24, 01:22 PM
  #346  
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,781
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4577 Post(s)
Liked 5,116 Times in 3,159 Posts
Originally Posted by HTupolev
Due to the quadratic term, that's not how the math shakes out. 20->40 is not the same as 0->20. For the static portion, it's not...
.5*85*(5.55556^2)
...but rather...
.5*85*(11.1111^2 - 5.55556^2)
...which is 3935J.
Similarly, the rotating KE difference is about 278J, or 231J for the 2.5kg example.
Good catch, I had forgotten that my spreadsheet was starting with u=0
So those figures are actually for 0-20 kph

20-40 kph in 3 seconds requires around 1400W with a 15W saving for 0.5kg rim mass. Time saving is the same at 0.03 sec.

Either way it's not a lot for a seriously major acceleration and very large rim mass saving.

Last edited by PeteHski; 02-16-24 at 03:00 PM.
PeteHski is offline  
Old 02-16-24, 01:24 PM
  #347  
Habitual User
 
Eric F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 8,160

Bikes: 2023 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2018 Trek Procaliber 9.9 RSL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5058 Post(s)
Liked 8,334 Times in 3,935 Posts
Originally Posted by OldsCOOL
When one rather spend hundreds for a 100gr weight loss in a component and fail to realize what losing 5 pounds of fat will do.
Not once have one of my cycling buddies picked me up and said, "Wow! So light!!". Isn't that the real reason why we want a light bike?
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
Eric F is online now  
Likes For Eric F:
Old 02-16-24, 01:25 PM
  #348  
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,588

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7684 Post(s)
Liked 3,579 Times in 1,885 Posts
This thread ... and so many others ... is a perfect demonstration of why I never argue with Flat-Earthers. "Yes, the Earth is flat .... you are so smart not to be fooled." Then I walk away.

I mean, we all Know math was invented by the Illuminati and the pedophile cannibals and the Bilderbergers and the aliens to keep the masses under control. We know they are lying to us when they say 1+1=2 ..... and then they show us what they call "higher math" ... and there are hardly even any numbers!!

I mean, how can e=mc^2 be an "equation"?? How can you "square" the letter "c"?


We are not fooled.

Originally Posted by HTupolev
I think it's an especially big issue in bicycle performance because people can actually feel things that their brain interprets as certain types of performance differences. Like how cyclists often feel the rumble from excessive tire pressure as "speed."

The rotational inertia of the wheels have a huge impact on how a bicycle "moves" beneath a rider. The way it torques the steering column, or resists being tossed side-to-side. Cyclists can't really discern the acceleration difference for a given applied pedaling effort*, but they can feel the handling change, and their brain is trained to feel the latter as the former.

*Compare how easy it is to feel a 500g difference at the rim to how difficult it is to feel a 1kg weight attached below the bottom bracket. Kinematically, these things create exactly the same resistance to forward acceleration.
I cannot follow the math .... I am not one of you brainwashed "scientists" with your fake math ..... but yes, people mistake their sensations. As I and a couple people have said, the first two pedal strokes feel different with lighter wheels, so we think we are faster, even when measurements show we are not, I mean, it is only two pedal strokes, when I am pedaling 80 rpm ... that is not a higher speed for much time ... 0.03 seconds? Whatever ... you brainwashed "scientists" fight it out.

The human brain is easily fooled. Our preconceived notions can even affect our perceptions so that we don't notice or incorrectly interpret what we feel to make it support what we want to think we already know.

Yeah, you mind-controlled "science" types think you get around that by performing experiments multiple times using "controls" and such to minimize variables .... but we who are not alien-controlled sheeple know your science is bunk.

Hard tires on light rims are faster, and aero only matters to aeroplanes ..... I know, because that is what I want to feel and think ... You Cannot Control my Thoughts and Feelings. Take you alien magic elsewhere.

The Earth IS flat ... except for the hills, of course. And it's not just because some guy on YouTube told me .... several other people on YouTube agreed. And since that makes me feel good and think I am right ... obviously I am.

I really feel sorry for all you guys who wasted your lives in "higher education," getting conditioned by the Illuminati and the aliens to spread their propaganda. I hope some day you can all see the truth.

By the way .... I am way too smart to think that just because the fastest cyclists in the world find, through testing, that aero adds more benefit over the course of an actual race than does marginally lighter weight .... We Insiders know that UCI stands for Universal Control Institute, and is wholly run by lizard-people. They are so obviously part of "The Plan," it is shocking they have not been exposed yet. Just another part of the mind-control we really smart people reject.

Okay, I am out. I have to go buy some shoes with velcro closures, because I am not smart enough to tie my own shoes ..... but I am smart where it really counts. YouTube told me.
Maelochs is offline  
Likes For Maelochs:
Old 02-16-24, 01:35 PM
  #349  
Senior Member
 
OldsCOOL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: northern michigan
Posts: 13,319

Bikes: '77 Colnago Super, '76 Fuji The Finest, '88 Cannondale Criterium, '86 Trek 760, '87 Miyata 712

Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 660 Post(s)
Liked 601 Times in 314 Posts
Thanx for the grin
OldsCOOL is offline  
Old 02-16-24, 01:38 PM
  #350  
Senior Member
 
3alarmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,998

Bikes: old ones

Mentioned: 305 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26479 Post(s)
Liked 10,444 Times in 7,246 Posts
Originally Posted by Maelochs
....

By the way .... I am way too smart to think that just because the fastest cyclists in the world find, through testing, that aero adds more benefit over the course of an actual race than does marginally lighter weight .... We Insiders know that UCI stands for Universal Control Institute, and is wholly run by lizard-people. They are so obviously part of "The Plan," it is shocking they have not been exposed yet. Just another part of the mind-control we really smart people reject.

Okay, I am out. I have to go buy some shoes with velcro closures, because I am not smart enough to tie my own shoes ..... but I am smart where it really counts. YouTube told me.
...cheer up. You don't need to be very smart to construct a straw man. Some old clothes, some straw or hay for stuffing. Boom, you're there.
3alarmer is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.