Heavy Bike Rationalization

Jonathan Kaplan wrote:

To me, lugging a 200lb+ body up a hill is the biggest weight on the
bike. Losing 20 or 30 lbs would do far more for performance than
3oz on a titanium gaget.

Some of us don't have the luxury of dropping more weight from our
bodies, having maxed out that option already:

http://tinyurl.com/2atnw

Now the weight loss options get expensive.

--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/

This effect is even more pronounced with
income. Someone making $25,000 a year
only needs to make 35 K to be well off, but
someone making 50K needs 100K to be
prosperous.

"(Pete Cresswell)" in
Message-id: writes:

I weigh 215#. My bike weighs 32#. 32/215 = 15%

Somebody else weighs 160. Their bike weighs 26#. 26/160 = 16%.

Therefore I have the lighter bike.

??
--
PeteCresswell

"(Pete Cresswell)" wrote in message
...
I weigh 215#. My bike weighs 32#. 32/215 = 15%

Somebody else weighs 160. Their bike weighs 26#. 26/160 = 16%.

Therefore I have the lighter bike.

??
--
PeteCresswell

Your bike weight does not change if you stay on the earths surface (c:

I don't really see why body weight, and bike weight have any direct
correlation. Someone who is big and strong may have an easier time riding a
heavier bike than a scrawny wimp with a lighter bike, but body weight often
has little to do with that. I've seen a lot of 300# porkers who can barely
make it up a flight of stairs.

I've never seen the point in getting a lighter bike, at least, if you're
into biking for exercise. I like nice steel frame bikes, and it doesn't
bother me that I get a work out when I ride. If you want things to be easy,
might as well just take the car.

C.Q.C.

"BretCahill" wrote:
This effect is even more pronounced with
income. Someone making $25,000 a year
only needs to make 35 K to be well off, but
someone making 50K needs 100K to be
prosperous.

Ah, but if you get a 10 percent raise, and later a 10 percent pay cut,
you're worse off than you started.

But if you gain 10 percent in body weight, and later lose 10 percent, you're
better off than you started.

Art Harris

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:43:29 -0500, "Jonathan Kaplan"
may have said:

...Losing 20 or 30 lbs would
do far more for performance than 3oz on a titanium gaget.

As long as it's not muscle mass which is being lost; dieting alone,
without exercise, tends to strip muscle as well as (if not faster
than) fat. But I wholeheartedly agree that for the non-competitive
rider, high-priced gram-shaving on the bike is often just plain silly.

With this aim in mind, my goal is to try to lose between 30 and 50 lbs by
next bike season.

Talk to a physician about realistically achievable goals in this area.
6 to 8 pounds per month is what I've heard as a level that can be
reached without hazardous practices. In 6 months, you could probably
be in the range you seek.

In addition to improving my on wheel performance, it would
substantially improve my blood glucose levels. In addition, the faster and
longer I can ride, the more fun it will become. Biking is the only exercise
I don't hate! (Everytime someone says, "I love going to the gym, I say - I
hate it, but I have to.")
I'm a couch potato at heart.

Time for a recumbent? Best of both worlds?

(Meant in jest, but...there's a guy near here whose bent has a custom
seatcover made from the upholstery of the recliner that he credited
with being his former place of residence from the days before he
decided to lose some weight. He has both the bent and a conventional
bike, but the bent has a seat which provided him with the opportunity
to carry part of "an old friend" around with him, so he had the cover
made.)


--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something,
it's also possible that I'm busy.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

"(Pete Cresswell)" wrote in message . ..
I weigh 215#. My bike weighs 32#. 32/215 = 15%

Somebody else weighs 160. Their bike weighs 26#. 26/160 = 16%.

Therefore I have the lighter bike.

??

Dear Pete,

If my calculations are correct . . .

26/215 = 12.1%

215 pounds 160 pounds

. . . then you should take that bike
away from the little fellow.

Carl Fogel

Carl Fogel wrote:
: If my calculations are correct . . .

carl, are you really so unsure of your ability to divide 26 by 215? i double
checked your work and you did ok (12.0930232558... actually) -- fyi, i used a
calculator which takes all the difficulty and uncertainty out of it.
--
david reuteler

: If my calculations are correct . . .

carl, are you really so unsure of your ability to divide 26 by 215? i
double
checked your work and you did ok (12.0930232558... actually) -- fyi, i
used a
calculator which takes all the difficulty and uncertainty out of it.

Carl used his own calculator. It is very large, often inaccurate, and
inefficient, but still good to use.

Dave

(Pete Cresswell) wrote:

I weigh 215#. My bike weighs 32#. 32/215 = 15%

Somebody else weighs 160. Their bike weighs 26#. 26/160 = 16%.

Therefore I have the lighter bike.

Well, sort of. Heavier is still heavier though, for both bike and body. Given
equal fitness, the lighter person will still probably be able to climb better.

There seems to be a sweet spot in human size, for optimum power to weight ratio.
It's apparent in bicycling, running, rock climbing, and other endurance sports.
Top athletes rarely fall outside a certain size range -- you never see a 6'3"
champion marathon runner. It seems cyclists can be bigger than runners or rock
climbers, but there's still a limit. Top (male) runners always seemto be about
5'8" -- interestingly, average size for an adult male.

Matt O.

In article ,
"Matt O'Toole" wrote:

(Pete Cresswell) wrote:

I weigh 215#. My bike weighs 32#. 32/215 = 15%

Somebody else weighs 160. Their bike weighs 26#. 26/160 = 16%.

Therefore I have the lighter bike.

Well, sort of. Heavier is still heavier though, for both bike and body.
Given
equal fitness, the lighter person will still probably be able to climb
better.

There seems to be a sweet spot in human size, for optimum power to weight
ratio.
It's apparent in bicycling, running, rock climbing, and other endurance
sports.
Top athletes rarely fall outside a certain size range -- you never see a 6'3"
champion marathon runner. It seems cyclists can be bigger than runners or
rock
climbers, but there's still a limit. Top (male) runners always seemto be
about
5'8" -- interestingly, average size for an adult male.

Cycling is an interesting discipline in that it is much less
morphologically restrictive than most sports, at least in terms of
height (you still can't be fat).

That said, different sizes of riders generally become different types of
riders. The big ones become sprinters and time triallists, the small
ones become climbers, and the medium-sized ones with enormous VO2
numbers and a taste for lactic acid become Lance Armstrong.

One notable thing about cycling is that it's about the purest endurance
sport of all. There are considerable tactics at play in most road races,
but little technique needs to be learned: you turn the pedals, you
train, and you go. It's not like, say, most team sports, where technique
is as important as conditioning.

There are technique and form considerations in cycling, but the amount
of training time a cyclist spends working on technique stuff (body
position, pedalling style, the nuances of sprinting, TTT procedures,
etc.) is small compared to the time spent on conditioning (also known as
training rides).

--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club