Steel frames and le Tour

wrote in message
...

Well, it's the kind of thing that I'd have come up with myself before
I looked into things.

Bret seems quite reasonable to me. He felt _something_ different, and
so did his whole team, so if it doesn't make sense with 350 watt
examples, maybe it was because of the 1350 watt sprint?

Jeez, will you think about this for a minute Carl? The human body is
connected to the bicycle like a coat of paint. There is a lot of spring in
that connection and the difference in frame weight will cause that
connection to move about differently. As I've said, I agree with you (I
think I was one of the first to SAY that the weight didn't make much of a
difference in acceleration) that the combined unit acceleration is very
little different.

And this isn't heaving side or side of back and forth or whatever you think
you mean by that. When you jump on the pedals of the lighter bike it tries
to accelerate out from under you differently and quite noticeably in some
cases.

By the way - are you saying that you're generating 350 watts?

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 20:01:14 -0700, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo.
com wrote:

wrote in message
.. .

Well, it's the kind of thing that I'd have come up with myself before
I looked into things.

Bret seems quite reasonable to me. He felt _something_ different, and
so did his whole team, so if it doesn't make sense with 350 watt
examples, maybe it was because of the 1350 watt sprint?

Jeez, will you think about this for a minute Carl? The human body is
connected to the bicycle like a coat of paint. There is a lot of spring in
that connection and the difference in frame weight will cause that
connection to move about differently. As I've said, I agree with you (I
think I was one of the first to SAY that the weight didn't make much of a
difference in acceleration) that the combined unit acceleration is very
little different.

And this isn't heaving side or side of back and forth or whatever you think
you mean by that. When you jump on the pedals of the lighter bike it tries
to accelerate out from under you differently and quite noticeably in some
cases.

By the way - are you saying that you're generating 350 watts?

Dear Tom,

Sorry, but I can't even follow whatever you're trying to disagree
with.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Scott Hendricks wrote:
On Jul 18, 1:51 am, Donald Munro wrote:
wrote:
Keep up the good work! By the end of the Tour, you'll be ready for a full
12 month tour of duty in RBR.
You mean we're entitled to veteran benefits (unless McCain wins).

If you believe that McCain will somehow do away with or severely
restrict VA benefits, you're nuts.

Supporting the troops is only important when they are out fighting for
God and Corporation. After all, for the most part the troops do not come
from the classes as the politicians do, or more importantly, the classes
the politicians serve.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.

wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 00:57:07 +0200, Lou Holtman
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:08:40 -0600, Bret Wade
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:13:43 -0600, Bret Wade
wrote:

wrote:

The original question was whether a rider can _feel_ such tiny
changes--that same old laughable "noticeably robust forward thrust."
I wouldn't put it in those words but I have felt that sensation when
switching from a 4 lb Ti frame to a 2.5 lb Al frame. It felt faster from
the first pedal stroke. It was a team bike that I was somewhat skeptical
of riding, so it wasn't just wishful thinking. Others on the team had
similar experiences. I understand physics well enough to know that the
sensation was misleading.

Bret
Dear Bret,

Forgive a long-winded answer, but you're so refreshingly reasonable
that I want to avoid any offense.

What interests me is the idea that a 1.5 lb lighter frame "felt faster
from the first pedal stroke"--possibly a generalization or even
hyperbole, but it's what we have to work with.

I don't know the actual weights, but it was a whole team, so a 150
pound rider and a 16.5 pound bike would probably be in the ballpark.

That theoretical 166.5 pound bike and rider would drop to 165 pounds,
about 0.9%.

The bike itself would have dropped from 16.5 to 15.0 pounds, about
10%.

The bike might twitch from side to side or heave forward 10% easier.

But I gather that we agree that the speed and acceleration
improvements are going to be so small that a calculator is necessary
to see them.

In fact, they don't show up on my first effort:
http://bikecalculator.com/veloUS.html

I tried 400 watts, a 150 pound rider, 15 and 16.5 pound bikes,
tubulars, and drops.

Because the calculator has only 2-decimal precision, both bikes went
the same speed--27.85 mph.

(A quick look at the time for 20 miles reassured me that the
calculator is still grinding out infinitesimal details--43.08 minutes
versus 43.09 minutes, a 0.01 minute lead, 0.6 seconds.)

Let's send the bikes up the Alp d'Huez, which I have handy at 8.1% and
13.8 km (8.56 miles):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_d'Huez

The steep grade teases out a speed difference, but it's still nothing
that a rider could detect.

I get 41.03 minutes versus 41.33, a 0.3 minute or 18 second lead after
almost 2500 seconds. That's ~1% faster.

The speeds are 12.52 mph versus 12.43 mph.

Raise the power to 500 watts, and the time and difference shrink to
34.04 versus 34.27, a little under 14 seconds, at 15.09 versus 14.99
mph.

In other words, it takes the Alp d'Huez and a light, world-class rider
to produce a tenth of a mile per hour and 14-second difference with a
1.5 pound lighter bike.

So I'm glad that you understand the physics well enough to know that
the impression was probably misleading. In unblinded testing, it's
hard to tell which way our misperceptions will go. Just paying
attention (because we're testing) distorts what we think we feel. Evil
psychologists love to demonstrate how students will mis-measure the
same lumber with the same measuring tapes, according to whether
they've been told that it's important for the boards not to be too
long, for them not to be too short, or that the measurement accuracy
does (or doesn't) really matter.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
Dear Carl,

No need to apologize, I understand that bad habits can be hard to break.
The hardest thing I've done in my life is break a pack a day Marlboro habit.

Anyway, I'll just point out that your very detailed analysis involves
steady state aerobic climbing whereas most "Wow, this bike is fast!"
moments will come during anaerobic accelerations. Not that I think the
result would be much different. A small change in total mass won't
affect either situation much.

The bike weighed 16 lbs, rider was 165 lbs and max power was 1350 watts.

Cheers,
Bret
Dear Bret,

It doesn't much matter whether we talk about a momentary acceleration
or steady-state cruising.

Heck, it doesn't much matter whether we're talking about a grandmother
setting off to the grocery store or a pro suddenly giving everything
he's got up the Alp d'Huez.

The mistaken belief that Newton's world changes dramatically for
really powerful riders or really steep hills keeps coming up in this
thread, so forgive me for ploughing through the same old stuff again.

***

160 + 16.0 = 176.0 lbs = 72.727 kg + 7.273 kg = 80.000 kg
160 + 17.5 = 177.5 lbs = 72.727 kg + 7.955 kg = 80.682 kg

177.5/176.0 = ~1.008, so acceleration should increase 1% in the real
world.

Sprint acceleration calculator:
http://www.analyticcycling.com/DiffE...n500_Page.html

First, let's see how much faster the 1.5-lb-lighter bike accelerates
from a standing start at 1350 watts up a convenient 8.1% stretch of
the Alp d'Huez.

Use max power 1350, avg power 1349.9, slope 0.081, and do it for a
distance of 10 meters (the very last field).

Then do it again for a max power of 100 watts and an average of 99.9.

1350 watts 100 watts
176.0 177.5 176.0 177.5
meters time time time time
1.0 0.3 0.3 1.1 1.1
2.5 0.6 0.6 2.4 2.4
5 1.2 1.2 4.2 4.2
10 2.1 2.1 7.6 7.6
15 2.8 2.8 10.9 11.0
20 3.3 3.3 14.3-14.4
25 3.9 3.9 17.6-17.8
50 6.4 6.4 34.4 34.7
100 10.6 10.7* 68.0 68.6
150 14.6 14.6 101.7 102.5
200 18.4 18.4 135.4 136.5
250 22.0-22.1 169.2 170.6
300 25.7-25.8 203.1 204.8

* shows how rounding can affect things

In other words, a 1.5-lb acceleration difference takes a long time up
an 8.1% grade to show up on a calculator that reads in tenths of a
second.

It takes 250 meters for a ~0.5% time difference to show up reliably on
a 0.1 second stopwatch for the powerful rider.

Neither rider is going to notice an off-the-line ~1% acceleration
increase with the seat of his pants.

If he's extrapolating from the change in how he can heave the 10%
lighter bike around, then he must have an impressive calculator inside
his head.

***

For steady-state cruising up the same hill, the speed differences are
even less than the acceleration differences.

Use 1350 watts, 8.1% grade, rider 160, bikes 16 and 17.6 lbs,
tubulars, hoods he
http://bikecalculator.com/veloUS.html

I get 27.99 mph versus 27.90 mph, 99.678% as fast. Once you accelerate
to cruising speed, the high speed wind drag effect reduces the ~1%
idealized mass difference to ~0.3%.

Now try grandma at 100 watts up the same 8.1% grade.

She goes 3.15 versus 3.17 mph.

***

As has been suggested, something besides the 1.5 lb frame difference
might account for the faster-from-the-first-pedal impression.

All of the technical possibilities (stiffer frame, different tires,
better aero, and so on) are dwarfed by the stubborn psychological
effect of trying a new bike.

Even the same thing with a different paint scheme will feel
"different" if we're told "go ahead and try this new [fill in the
blank]."

Trying something with an eye toward comparing it puts us in an
entirely different position than just using something familiar.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

You can stop now Carl. You take away peoples illusions and beliefs with
your straightforward calculation. I someway this ****es them off. You
are arguing now with people who don't want to belief. No point in that.
'...... anaerobic accelerations.....' Geezes what crap is that?

Lou

Dear Lou,

Well, it's the kind of thing that I'd have come up with myself before
I looked into things.

Bret seems quite reasonable to me. He felt _something_ different, and
so did his whole team, so if it doesn't make sense with 350 watt
examples, maybe it was because of the 1350 watt sprint?

You're being slightly disingenuous.I never questioned your results. I
just pointed out that your analysis was framed improperly wrt to the claims.

Bret

Tom Kunich wrote:
"Bret Wade" wrote in message
m...
Lou Holtman wrote:

You can stop now Carl. You take away peoples illusions and beliefs
with your straightforward calculation.

What illusions? I specifically said that a small change in mass
doesn't have much affect.

I someway this ****es them off.

I'm not mad.

You are arguing now with people who don't want to belief.

We're not arguing.

No point in that.

No.

'...... anaerobic accelerations.....' Geezes what crap is that?

That crap is the **** that will kill them in uphill sprint finishes.

Seems to be sort of weird that the people claiming the math explains
everything are those who don't seem able to understand the entire point
of the conversation.

Yep. Like a lot of ideological arguments, you don't have to understand.
You just have to be able to tell which side you're on.

Tom Kunich wrote:
"Clive George" wrote in message
et...
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in message
m...

I never quite figured out why they would use carbon fiber for brake
levers and the like since there can't be a significant weight
difference and the cf levers fail a bit too often for my tastes.

CF or plastic? I've got plastic ones (mirage) and they seem fine. Do
they really fail outside crashes?

But there is one really good thing about cf or plastic levers - they
don't hurt your fingers nearly so much when it gets cold.

I've seen quite a few carbon fiber levers fail for one reason or
another. Insignificant falls that would scratch an aluminum lever can
break the cf fulcrum point. I've seen two cf levers fail at that spot
under normal use without a fall.

Yes and no. I've been using CF levers on my cross bikes for years and
crashed many times with no damage. In one race I crashed three times,
landing on my face twice, but no damage to the bike. Then recently I had
a small mishap on a heavily rutted jeep road. The front wheel slipped
into a rut, I walked off the bike, but the handlebars hit the ground
hard and I broke one of the levers. The pivot point was broken on one
side and the lever popped out. Once I got the bike home, I was able to
get the lever back in place and it's working fine with 1.5 pivot points.
Things break sometimes, not that often. Here's a picture taken mid-ride:

http://fischer-wade.net/WP_Cross/slides/IMG_2212.html

Bret

In article ,
wrote:

The rest of the "heavier" feeling was probably due to all the extra
attention that I paid (does it feel heavier? lighter? how does it
normally feel?), plus the unavoidable knowledge that there were
_seven_ whole pounds sitting right there in plain sight whenever I
looked down at the speedometer.

One point I haven't seen made, Carl: this isn't exactly a blind test, is it? If
you really wanted to seriously test this, I think you'd have to devise a way to do it
so you were unaware of when the bike had the extra weight on it when you went out on
the road.

--
tanx,
Howard

The bloody pubs are bloody dull
The bloody clubs are bloody full
Of bloody girls and bloody guys
With bloody murder in their eyes

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
Are you retarded?

Well he is competing in the special olympics.

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:30:32 -0700, Howard Kveck
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

The rest of the "heavier" feeling was probably due to all the extra
attention that I paid (does it feel heavier? lighter? how does it
normally feel?), plus the unavoidable knowledge that there were
_seven_ whole pounds sitting right there in plain sight whenever I
looked down at the speedometer.

One point I haven't seen made, Carl: this isn't exactly a blind test, is it? If
you really wanted to seriously test this, I think you'd have to devise a way to do it
so you were unaware of when the bike had the extra weight on it when you went out on
the road.

Dear Howard,

Here's the relevant post:

Time for fun!

Here are my last seven daily 15.1 mile ride times, sorted from fastest
to slowest:

mm:ss ss

1. 46:21 2781 fastest
2. 46:48 2808 +27
3. 47:14 2834 +26
4. 48:09 2889 +55
5. 48:51 2931 +42
6. 49:12 2952 +21
7. 49:26 2966 +11

The fastest time was ~94% of the slowest time.

If you had to guess, which ride(s) would you guess--

Er, which ride(s) would you predict had 7 pounds of steel rods added
to the top tube of a ~27 pound bicycle with a ~193 pound rider?

Explaining predictions may be as much fun as pointing out flaws in the
test or comparing it to the original article about the "noticeably
robust forward thrust" noticed when the reporter rode a 14-lb bike for
a day instead of his usual 21-lb behemoth.

***

The eight 400-gram rods were tucked inside two sections of MTB inner
tube and hose-clamped to the top tube, a convenient setup that changed
wind drag as little as possible:

http://i27.tinypic.com/f19ijn.jpg

Here's the inner tube with 8 rods showing and a 9th example rod:

http://i29.tinypic.com/ng28t0.jpg

The rods are just dot-matrix printhead guide rods salavaged from old
wide printers, all weighing 399 grams on my digital scale.

***

The bike felt "heavier" with eight 400-gram steel rods tucked into a
piece of MTB inner tube and clamped to the top tube with three
hose-clamps.

Part of the "heavy" feeling must have been due to the additional 7
pounds.

But much of the "heaviness" may have been due to my expectations and
to the damping effect of 7 pounds of rubber-wrapped steel rods on the
familiar vibration.

After all, the bike felt "heavy" at ~ 40 mph downhill on a 65 mph
highway, even though I was tucked in and coasting instead of pushing
against the pedals.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...6f5dc66401a3b3

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 22:33:36 -0600, Bret Wade
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 00:57:07 +0200, Lou Holtman
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:08:40 -0600, Bret Wade
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:13:43 -0600, Bret Wade
wrote:

wrote:

The original question was whether a rider can _feel_ such tiny
changes--that same old laughable "noticeably robust forward thrust."
I wouldn't put it in those words but I have felt that sensation when
switching from a 4 lb Ti frame to a 2.5 lb Al frame. It felt faster from
the first pedal stroke. It was a team bike that I was somewhat skeptical
of riding, so it wasn't just wishful thinking. Others on the team had
similar experiences. I understand physics well enough to know that the
sensation was misleading.

Bret
Dear Bret,

Forgive a long-winded answer, but you're so refreshingly reasonable
that I want to avoid any offense.

What interests me is the idea that a 1.5 lb lighter frame "felt faster
from the first pedal stroke"--possibly a generalization or even
hyperbole, but it's what we have to work with.

I don't know the actual weights, but it was a whole team, so a 150
pound rider and a 16.5 pound bike would probably be in the ballpark.

That theoretical 166.5 pound bike and rider would drop to 165 pounds,
about 0.9%.

The bike itself would have dropped from 16.5 to 15.0 pounds, about
10%.

The bike might twitch from side to side or heave forward 10% easier.

But I gather that we agree that the speed and acceleration
improvements are going to be so small that a calculator is necessary
to see them.

In fact, they don't show up on my first effort:
http://bikecalculator.com/veloUS.html

I tried 400 watts, a 150 pound rider, 15 and 16.5 pound bikes,
tubulars, and drops.

Because the calculator has only 2-decimal precision, both bikes went
the same speed--27.85 mph.

(A quick look at the time for 20 miles reassured me that the
calculator is still grinding out infinitesimal details--43.08 minutes
versus 43.09 minutes, a 0.01 minute lead, 0.6 seconds.)

Let's send the bikes up the Alp d'Huez, which I have handy at 8.1% and
13.8 km (8.56 miles):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_d'Huez

The steep grade teases out a speed difference, but it's still nothing
that a rider could detect.

I get 41.03 minutes versus 41.33, a 0.3 minute or 18 second lead after
almost 2500 seconds. That's ~1% faster.

The speeds are 12.52 mph versus 12.43 mph.

Raise the power to 500 watts, and the time and difference shrink to
34.04 versus 34.27, a little under 14 seconds, at 15.09 versus 14.99
mph.

In other words, it takes the Alp d'Huez and a light, world-class rider
to produce a tenth of a mile per hour and 14-second difference with a
1.5 pound lighter bike.

So I'm glad that you understand the physics well enough to know that
the impression was probably misleading. In unblinded testing, it's
hard to tell which way our misperceptions will go. Just paying
attention (because we're testing) distorts what we think we feel. Evil
psychologists love to demonstrate how students will mis-measure the
same lumber with the same measuring tapes, according to whether
they've been told that it's important for the boards not to be too
long, for them not to be too short, or that the measurement accuracy
does (or doesn't) really matter.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
Dear Carl,

No need to apologize, I understand that bad habits can be hard to break.
The hardest thing I've done in my life is break a pack a day Marlboro habit.

Anyway, I'll just point out that your very detailed analysis involves
steady state aerobic climbing whereas most "Wow, this bike is fast!"
moments will come during anaerobic accelerations. Not that I think the
result would be much different. A small change in total mass won't
affect either situation much.

The bike weighed 16 lbs, rider was 165 lbs and max power was 1350 watts.

Cheers,
Bret
Dear Bret,

It doesn't much matter whether we talk about a momentary acceleration
or steady-state cruising.

Heck, it doesn't much matter whether we're talking about a grandmother
setting off to the grocery store or a pro suddenly giving everything
he's got up the Alp d'Huez.

The mistaken belief that Newton's world changes dramatically for
really powerful riders or really steep hills keeps coming up in this
thread, so forgive me for ploughing through the same old stuff again.

***

160 + 16.0 = 176.0 lbs = 72.727 kg + 7.273 kg = 80.000 kg
160 + 17.5 = 177.5 lbs = 72.727 kg + 7.955 kg = 80.682 kg

177.5/176.0 = ~1.008, so acceleration should increase 1% in the real
world.

Sprint acceleration calculator:
http://www.analyticcycling.com/DiffE...n500_Page.html

First, let's see how much faster the 1.5-lb-lighter bike accelerates
from a standing start at 1350 watts up a convenient 8.1% stretch of
the Alp d'Huez.

Use max power 1350, avg power 1349.9, slope 0.081, and do it for a
distance of 10 meters (the very last field).

Then do it again for a max power of 100 watts and an average of 99.9.

1350 watts 100 watts
176.0 177.5 176.0 177.5
meters time time time time
1.0 0.3 0.3 1.1 1.1
2.5 0.6 0.6 2.4 2.4
5 1.2 1.2 4.2 4.2
10 2.1 2.1 7.6 7.6
15 2.8 2.8 10.9 11.0
20 3.3 3.3 14.3-14.4
25 3.9 3.9 17.6-17.8
50 6.4 6.4 34.4 34.7
100 10.6 10.7* 68.0 68.6
150 14.6 14.6 101.7 102.5
200 18.4 18.4 135.4 136.5
250 22.0-22.1 169.2 170.6
300 25.7-25.8 203.1 204.8

* shows how rounding can affect things

In other words, a 1.5-lb acceleration difference takes a long time up
an 8.1% grade to show up on a calculator that reads in tenths of a
second.

It takes 250 meters for a ~0.5% time difference to show up reliably on
a 0.1 second stopwatch for the powerful rider.

Neither rider is going to notice an off-the-line ~1% acceleration
increase with the seat of his pants.

If he's extrapolating from the change in how he can heave the 10%
lighter bike around, then he must have an impressive calculator inside
his head.

***

For steady-state cruising up the same hill, the speed differences are
even less than the acceleration differences.

Use 1350 watts, 8.1% grade, rider 160, bikes 16 and 17.6 lbs,
tubulars, hoods he
http://bikecalculator.com/veloUS.html

I get 27.99 mph versus 27.90 mph, 99.678% as fast. Once you accelerate
to cruising speed, the high speed wind drag effect reduces the ~1%
idealized mass difference to ~0.3%.

Now try grandma at 100 watts up the same 8.1% grade.

She goes 3.15 versus 3.17 mph.

***

As has been suggested, something besides the 1.5 lb frame difference
might account for the faster-from-the-first-pedal impression.

All of the technical possibilities (stiffer frame, different tires,
better aero, and so on) are dwarfed by the stubborn psychological
effect of trying a new bike.

Even the same thing with a different paint scheme will feel
"different" if we're told "go ahead and try this new [fill in the
blank]."

Trying something with an eye toward comparing it puts us in an
entirely different position than just using something familiar.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

You can stop now Carl. You take away peoples illusions and beliefs with
your straightforward calculation. I someway this ****es them off. You
are arguing now with people who don't want to belief. No point in that.
'...... anaerobic accelerations.....' Geezes what crap is that?

Lou

Dear Lou,

Well, it's the kind of thing that I'd have come up with myself before
I looked into things.

Bret seems quite reasonable to me. He felt _something_ different, and
so did his whole team, so if it doesn't make sense with 350 watt
examples, maybe it was because of the 1350 watt sprint?

You're being slightly disingenuous.I never questioned your results. I
just pointed out that your analysis was framed improperly wrt to the claims.

Bret

Dear Bret,

Sorry. I didn't mean to give you that impression.

Possibly I've misunderstood you.

Which claims by whom?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel