|
Originally Posted by BillyD
(Post 15178128)
You guys aren't seeing my point . . . I'm probably not presenting it adequately.
First off, there is NO argument from me about the physics. None. Now let me try another approach. I contend that all this weight weenie obsessiveness will only be truly meaningful in a finely tuned racing machine like a professional racer. Because only at the extreme limits of his performance will the bike's weight come into play in his performance. For the rest of us - the Joe Blows - it only makes a difference in your mind, because there are too many other variables in our conditioning and daily existence that will effect our performance well before the weight of the bike comes into play. Again, I am not arguing the physics. Unquestionably a fine-tuned machine requires less effort to propel a lighter bike. Only an idiot would argue otherwise. MY point is that WE are not fine tuned machines, and so therefore we're only fooling ourselves if we think we're improving our performance on any given day. Now if one doesn't care about fooling himself, then that's another matter. I think it's the difference between the theoretical and the empirical. They market the light weight stuff based on the theoretical, but in empirical reality the vast majority of us cannot take advantage it. I don't know any other way to make my point clearer. |
Originally Posted by BillyD
(Post 15178128)
You guys aren't seeing my point . . . I'm probably not presenting it adequately.
I don't know any other way to make my point clearer. I see evidence of reading comprehension failure as well. |
Originally Posted by BillyD
(Post 15178128)
You guys aren't seeing my point . . . I'm probably not presenting it adequately.
First off, there is NO argument from me about the physics. None. Now let me try another approach. I contend that all this weight weenie obsessiveness will only be truly meaningful in a finely tuned racing machine like a professional racer. Because only at the extreme limits of his performance will the bike's weight come into play in his performance. For the rest of us - the Joe Blows - it only makes a difference in your mind, because there are too many other variables in our conditioning and daily existence that will effect our performance well before the weight of the bike comes into play. Again, I am not arguing the physics. Unquestionably a fine-tuned machine requires less effort to propel a lighter bike. Only an idiot would argue otherwise. MY point is that WE are not fine tuned machines, and so therefore we're only fooling ourselves if we think we're improving our performance on any given day. Now if one doesn't care about fooling himself, then that's another matter. I think it's the difference between the theoretical and the empirical. They market the light weight stuff based on the theoretical, but in empirical reality the vast majority of us cannot take advantage it. I don't know any other way to make my point clearer. Perhaps your perception is not as fine as you believe it to be. |
Originally Posted by patentcad
(Post 15178142)
It's like trying to talk to a cavemen about car insurance.
we already know you dont get it. |
The quality of the Nyack field is really impressive some days. Gavi, a Cat 1 kind of semi-pro has ridden in domestic pro stage races and finished in the top 1/3 of the field in the TTs. Bunch of 1s, lots of 2s. It's fast.
|
I don't know if I get Mr. BillyD's point exactly, but I will offer my own. This is specific to hiking, but I think it applies.
When I hike, my daypack is roughly 16-20 lbs, most of which is water weight. When I do extended days, I carry 35-40 lbs. There is a slight decrease in my speed of travel when I have the larger pack, but it is not significant. I always attributed to the fact that the weight limit didn't push me to my extreme capacity, so the weight is irrelevant. If 35 lbs doesn't decrease my speed, how will cutting 5 lbs increase it? Of the people that I hike with, most of their loaded daypacks do not weigh as much as mine, probably in the 10-14 lb. range. When they pack for a long weekend, they tend to overpack, and have 50 to 60 lb packs. This change tends to destroy their pace and progress. So they are pushing their capacity, so lightening may help, but even that will typically exceed their capacity. What I am trying to say is that weight matters if you are at or exceeding your sustainable output. I think more often than not, however, we are not. EDIT: had gibberish sentence on the end |
Originally Posted by RollCNY
(Post 15177932)
Okay, so here is my trivia question:
How many real first names of contributors do you know? I know Mr. Rjones28, PCad, gsteinb, datlas, billyd, truck stop, and Lestero'Puppets. And mine. So I'll go with 8. |
Originally Posted by RUOkie
(Post 15177985)
Trivia question:
who here is actually coasting's or pcad's sock puppet. I say pcad's are: Soloist, WHOOOSH, billyD, and gsteinb. Coasting's are: VeloVol, rjones, ls01, and velogator. |
Originally Posted by BillyD
(Post 15178128)
You guys aren't seeing my point . . . I'm probably not presenting it adequately.
First off, there is NO argument from me about the physics. None. Now let me try another approach. I contend that all this weight weenie obsessiveness will only be truly meaningful in a finely tuned racing machine like a professional racer. Because only at the extreme limits of his performance will the bike's weight come into play in his performance. For the rest of us - the Joe Blows - it only makes a difference in your mind, because there are too many other variables in our conditioning and daily existence that will effect our performance well before the weight of the bike comes into play. Again, I am not arguing the physics. Unquestionably a fine-tuned machine requires less effort to propel a lighter bike. Only an idiot would argue otherwise. MY point is that WE are not fine tuned machines, and so therefore we're only fooling ourselves if we think we're improving our performance on any given day. Now if one doesn't care about fooling himself, then that's another matter. I think it's the difference between the theoretical and the empirical. They market the light weight stuff based on the theoretical, but in empirical reality the vast majority of us cannot take advantage it. I don't know any other way to make my point clearer. pros will throw away a half full water bottle on a climb because it saves them watts. Those few oz. of water make a difference. If a finely tuned machine that is a pro cyclist will concern himself with the few oz. in a half full water bottle with all the wattage at their disposal. How am I incorrect to concern myself about my power to weight ratio when I can generate substantially less? I will counter your argument, that as a non pro, non athlete, I need to focus on every oz. I can eliminate to take advantage of every watt I can generate. I think it is even more important at the end of the scale that I occupy. I dont have the wattage to spare like a pro athlete. |
Originally Posted by RollCNY
(Post 15178193)
I don't know if I get Mr. BillyD's point exactly, but I will offer my own. This is specific to hiking, but I think it applies.
When I hike, my daypack is roughly 16-20 lbs, most of which is water weight. When I do extended days, I carry 35-40 lbs. There is a slight decrease in my speed of travel when I have the larger pack, but it is not significant. I always attributed to the fact that the weight limit didn't push me to my extreme capacity, so the weight is irrelevant. If 35 lbs doesn't decrease my speed, how will cutting 5 lbs increase it? Of the people that I hike with, most of their loaded daypacks do not weigh as much as mine, probably in the 10-14 lb. range. When they pack for a long weekend, they tend to overpack, and have 50 to 60 lb packs. This change tends to destroy their pace and progress. So they are pushing their capacity, so lightening may help, but even that will typically exceed their capacity. What I am trying to say is that weight matters if you are at or exceeding your sustainable output. I think more often than not, however, we are not. EDIT: had gibberish sentence on the end Say you hike with a group of people every Saturday. All use a 25 lbs. pack, all have roughly the same abilities. Every week you are going to be in roughly the same place on the hike and you will know where individual members are based on earlier performances. Now you take 5 lbs. out of your pack, but only you. Will it show up at the beginning of the hike when everyone is fresh? Not much really. How about 50 miles later, after a few hill climbs? I would have to say yes it will show a difference. or you will be able to perceive a difference based on past performances and known abilities of the group. I beleive Lemond said it best. It never gets easier, you just go faster. |
Originally Posted by patentcad
(Post 15178178)
The quality of the Nyack field is really impressive some days. Gavi, a Cat 1 kind of semi-pro has ridden in domestic pro stage races and finished in the top 1/3 of the field in the TTs. Bunch of 1s, lots of 2s. It's fast.
|
The wind absolutely sucked today. Just sayin'.....
|
Originally Posted by Velo Vol
(Post 15178020)
Where's the video?
|
Originally Posted by LowCel
(Post 15178381)
The wind absolutely sucked today. Just sayin'.....
I thought the wind normally blew? |
Some of you are putting alot of thought and effort into these posts, which leads me to believe someone else must be writing them:innocent:
|
Originally Posted by BillyD
(Post 15177881)
ls01, I would wager a fortune that if somebody added 5 lbs to the weight of your bike without your knowledge it would NOT make a difference in your performance. 999 times out of 1,000 it would be some other variable that made the difference.
Oh yes, you would notice the difference in the feel of the bike, and that, my friend would be more likely to affect your performance than the weight itself. It's all in the mind. |
Originally Posted by ls01
(Post 15178391)
I thought the wind normally blew?
|
Here's my final argument, maybe this can strike home.
If you and your buddy have a race and he beats you, and he just happens to have a lighter bike, is your excuse going to be "Yeah, but your bike is lighter"? Of course not. If you do, that's lame. Most likely he's just in better condition than you. Or he got more sleep last night than you. Or he had a healthier breakfast than you. Or he always eats healthier than you. Or he was better hydrated than you. Or he didn't have sex last night like you. (yeah right!) Or he didn't make as many tactical racing mistakes as you. Or your mind wandered at mile 13. Or he has fewer issues, less stress in his life. Or it's a little cooler than you like. The list can go on and on and on. This is my point. There are tons of conditions in your daily life that have to be optimized before you will take advantage of a weenie difference in bike weight. And for me, BillyD, I know for a fact that 5 lbs of weight will have no effect on my performance. I'm too frikkin' strong for 5 lbs to bother me. Even if I rode 199 miles and collapsed and fell off the bike before reaching 200, I'm going to say "Damn, I should have hydrated better". I'm not going to say "Damn, my bike should have been lighter". Because there's too many things in my control that *I* could have done differently that are more likely to have caused my failure. Hell even the psychological fact that it's a perfect weather day for me will have a larger effect. And with that, I'm going to cease this debate, it's boring the others. But mainly it's cuz the game is now on. :D |
Originally Posted by BillyD
(Post 15178410)
Here's my final argument, maybe this can strike home.
If you and your buddy have a race and he beats you, and he just happens to have a lighter bike, is your excuse going to be "Yeah, but your bike is lighter"? Of course not. If you do, that's lame. Most likely he's just in better condition than you. Or he got more sleep last night than you. Or he had a healthier breakfast than you. Or he always eats healthier than you. Or he was better hydrated than you. Or he didn't have sex last night like you. (yeah right!) Or he didn't make as many tactical racing mistakes as you. Or your mind wandered at mile 13. Or he has fewer issues, less stress in his life. Or it's a little cooler than you like. The list can go on and on and on. This is my point. There are tons of conditions in your daily life that have to be optimized before you will take advantage of a weenie difference in bike weight. And for me, BillyD, I know for a fact that 5 lbs of weight will have no effect on my performance. I'm too frikkin' strong for 5 lbs to bother me. Even if I rode 199 miles and collapsed and fell off the bike before reaching 200, I'm going to say "Damn, I should have hydrated better". I'm not going to say "Damn, my bike should have been lighter". Because there's too many things in my control that *I* could have done differently that are more likely to have caused my failure. Hell even the psychological fact that it's a perfect weather day for me will have a larger effect. And with that, I'm going to cease this debate, it's boring the others. But mainly it's cuz the game is now on. :D |
Hiking ≠ cycling
That said, it really is a facepalm to see all the posts by overweight amateur cyclists on how they are shaving a pound or two off their bicycles. |
Originally Posted by Velo Vol
(Post 15178452)
Hiking ≠ cycling
That said, it really is a facepalm to see all the posts by overweight amateur cyclists on how they are shaving a pound or two off their bicycles. |
Originally Posted by LowCel
(Post 15178381)
The wind absolutely sucked today. Just sayin'.....
|
Money spent on a power meter is a way better speed on the bike investment than some ww stuff that takes off a couple lbs off a bike.... assuming you use it and train.
|
what is wrong with my sig?
|
Originally Posted by LowCel
(Post 15178457)
I guess that would kind of be like you giving fashion advice?
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:38 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.