Steel frames and le Tour

In article ,
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 01:04:33 -0700, Howard Kveck
wrote:

In article ,


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:

No, Carl, you state in your above post "the unavoidable knowledge that
there were _seven_ whole pounds sitting right there in plain sight." That
pretty much defines it as *not* a blind test.

Dear Howard,

Er, where did I argue with you?

The relevant post that I quoted in full makes it plain as sin that it
wasn't a blind test.

The point was that doing a blind test is the proper scientific way. Doing it so
you know the condition of the bike ("I can see the extra weight") makes the results
of minimal value.

For fun, tell us how you would "seriously test" for the speed and
acceleration effects of a 7-lb bicycle weight increase and what
blinding procedures you'd use.

I'd think it would be obvious that you need to have a bike with a package on it
that is enclosed. You have someone other than yourself either fill the package with
seven pounds or not fill it. Then you ride it, not knowing the condition (standard
weight or seven extra pounds).

--
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?

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 20:56:40 -0700, Howard Kveck
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 01:04:33 -0700, Howard Kveck
wrote:

In article ,


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:

No, Carl, you state in your above post "the unavoidable knowledge that
there were _seven_ whole pounds sitting right there in plain sight." That
pretty much defines it as *not* a blind test.

Dear Howard,

Er, where did I argue with you?

The relevant post that I quoted in full makes it plain as sin that it
wasn't a blind test.

The point was that doing a blind test is the proper scientific way. Doing it so
you know the condition of the bike ("I can see the extra weight") makes the results
of minimal value.

For fun, tell us how you would "seriously test" for the speed and
acceleration effects of a 7-lb bicycle weight increase and what
blinding procedures you'd use.

I'd think it would be obvious that you need to have a bike with a package on it
that is enclosed. You have someone other than yourself either fill the package with
seven pounds or not fill it. Then you ride it, not knowing the condition (standard
weight or seven extra pounds).

Dear Howard,

The rider would probably notice the extra weight if he tips the
familiar bike slightly sideways or just rolls it out the garage, so we
have to be awfully careful to get him to sit on it.

If he stood up, he might well notice the extra weight as the bike
tipped from side to side.

On a reasonable paved road, he might notice the vibration damping of
the extra 7 pounds.

Of course, you'd have to go to a lot of trouble to have someone else
insert an extra 7 pounds on a random basis. The steel rods were handy,
exactly the right weight, and didn't involve awkward wind drag
questions or boxes.

In any case, blind testing would be far more trouble than it's worth.

In Newton's world we don't need a blind test to figure out the effect
on acceleration or cruising speed when we add 7 pounds to a bicycle
and rider of known mass--it's so trivial that it will be lost in the
ordinary real-road variations of wind and rider power.

Anyone can log times for a 15 mile ride for a week and see how much
the time varies.

Incidentally, it was John Tomlinson who kept demanding that I add the
weight, apparently unable to understand how little difference it would
make. He wanted it added for a year, an even less rigorous test. After
all, my power output next year is likely to be lower, given my age.

So far, no one has wondered out loud what the obvious effect of paying
more attention would be and whether it would be likely to outweigh
(sorry, couldn't resist it) the effect of a 4% weight increase.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Howard Kveck wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 01:04:33 -0700, Howard Kveck
wrote:

In article ,


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:
No, Carl, you state in your above post "the unavoidable knowledge that
there were _seven_ whole pounds sitting right there in plain sight." That
pretty much defines it as *not* a blind test.
Dear Howard,

Er, where did I argue with you?

The relevant post that I quoted in full makes it plain as sin that it
wasn't a blind test.

The point was that doing a blind test is the proper scientific way. Doing it so
you know the condition of the bike ("I can see the extra weight") makes the results
of minimal value.

For fun, tell us how you would "seriously test" for the speed and
acceleration effects of a 7-lb bicycle weight increase and what
blinding procedures you'd use.

I'd think it would be obvious that you need to have a bike with a package on it
that is enclosed. You have someone other than yourself either fill the package with
seven pounds or not fill it. Then you ride it, not knowing the condition (standard
weight or seven extra pounds).

I don't think that will help much. Seven pounds all in one place on the
bike will be easy to detect; this blind is easy to "break". I haven't
followed this thread closely, but I gather most agree that a heavy bike
can be "felt", especially one imbalanced by a seven pound parcel. The
disagreement is whether it affects either speed or "thrust".

So, in short, a package that may or may not contain seven pounds won't
be much "blinder" than the seven pounds that Carl could see. Proper
design to make this experiment meaningful is gonna be nontrivial.

Mark J.

Mark wrote:
...
I don't think that will help much. Seven pounds all in one place on the
bike will be easy to detect; this blind is easy to "break". I haven't
followed this thread closely, but I gather most agree that a heavy bike
can be "felt", especially one imbalanced by a seven pound parcel. The
disagreement is whether it affects either speed or "thrust".

So, in short, a package that may or may not contain seven pounds won't
be much "blinder" than the seven pounds that Carl could see. Proper
design to make this experiment meaningful is gonna be nontrivial.

What is going on here has nothing to do with weight of bicycles. That
should be obvious to RBT regulars, but likely not to RBR regulars who do
not follow RBT.

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

In article ,
says...
Some posters might want to try the experiment of just adding a few
extra pounds to their familiar bike and comparing whatever difference
they "feel" to whatever happens to their actual times around a
familiar route.

I have two road bikes with similar geometry. One is a 37-year old
Reynolds 531 that's ~ 4 lb heavier than my 6-year old Ti frame/carbon
fork bike. I have them set up with the same handlebar height, seat
height, and seat-to-bar distance and I run them on identical sets of
wheels and tires. Both run 105 9-speed drive train. Aside from the
fact that the vintage bike has significant toe overlap with the front
wheel, I cannot distinguish the difference between them in either riding
times or road feel. The Ti frame does feel slightly stiffer laterally
when I get out of the saddle climbing hills, but not nearly as much as
one might believe after reading cycling mags.

Java

Tom Kunich wrote:
"Bret Wade" wrote in message
m...
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:12:18 -0600, Bret Wade
wrote:

I've been using CF levers on my cross bikes for years and crashed
many times with no damage.

O M G

Bike weight is important on in a cross race what with all the lifting,
especially for those of us with bad backs.

And if there's one sure way to save weight it's carbon levers.


30 gms per lever, comparing Record to Centaur on my scale.

wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 20:56:40 -0700, Howard Kveck
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 01:04:33 -0700, Howard Kveck
wrote:

In article ,

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:
No, Carl, you state in your above post "the unavoidable knowledge that
there were _seven_ whole pounds sitting right there in plain sight." That
pretty much defines it as *not* a blind test.
Dear Howard,

Er, where did I argue with you?

The relevant post that I quoted in full makes it plain as sin that it
wasn't a blind test.
The point was that doing a blind test is the proper scientific way. Doing it so
you know the condition of the bike ("I can see the extra weight") makes the results
of minimal value.

For fun, tell us how you would "seriously test" for the speed and
acceleration effects of a 7-lb bicycle weight increase and what
blinding procedures you'd use.
I'd think it would be obvious that you need to have a bike with a package on it
that is enclosed. You have someone other than yourself either fill the package with
seven pounds or not fill it. Then you ride it, not knowing the condition (standard
weight or seven extra pounds).

Dear Howard,

The rider would probably notice the extra weight if he tips the
familiar bike slightly sideways or just rolls it out the garage, so we
have to be awfully careful to get him to sit on it.

If he stood up, he might well notice the extra weight as the bike
tipped from side to side.

Might I suggest a set up similar to yours, but with weight on the chain
stays, and near the BB at the seat tube and down tube. That gets the
weight considerably lower, though I'm not sure that it eliminates the
tipping detectability of the added weight.

On a reasonable paved road, he might notice the vibration damping of
the extra 7 pounds.

Lowering the weight wouldn't help here, I imagine.

--
Paul M. Hobson
..:change the f to ph to reply:.

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 00:08:13 -0600, Bret Wade
wrote:

Tom Kunich wrote:
"Bret Wade" wrote in message
m...
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:12:18 -0600, Bret Wade
wrote:

I've been using CF levers on my cross bikes for years and crashed
many times with no damage.

O M G

Bike weight is important on in a cross race what with all the lifting,
especially for those of us with bad backs.

And if there's one sure way to save weight it's carbon levers.


30 gms per lever, comparing Record to Centaur on my scale.

Dear Bret,

Sorry to hear that you have back trouble.

To put that weight in perspective, thirty grams is ~11 random pennies
on my scale.

That example is only approximate because the penny dropped from 3.1
grams to 2.5 grams during 1982.

Obviously, pre-1982 heavyweights should never be mixed with post-1982
lightweights if you use pennies for weights for testing bicycle
minutiae, and unreliable 1982 pennies should be given to charity.

Thirty grams is also just over the US Post Office ounce limit. A first
class letter needs more postage if it weighs over 28.5 grams.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 21:24:39 -0700, Mark
wrote:

Howard Kveck wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 01:04:33 -0700, Howard Kveck
wrote:

In article ,


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:
No, Carl, you state in your above post "the unavoidable knowledge that
there were _seven_ whole pounds sitting right there in plain sight." That
pretty much defines it as *not* a blind test.
Dear Howard,

Er, where did I argue with you?

The relevant post that I quoted in full makes it plain as sin that it
wasn't a blind test.

The point was that doing a blind test is the proper scientific way. Doing it so
you know the condition of the bike ("I can see the extra weight") makes the results
of minimal value.

For fun, tell us how you would "seriously test" for the speed and
acceleration effects of a 7-lb bicycle weight increase and what
blinding procedures you'd use.

I'd think it would be obvious that you need to have a bike with a package on it
that is enclosed. You have someone other than yourself either fill the package with
seven pounds or not fill it. Then you ride it, not knowing the condition (standard
weight or seven extra pounds).

I don't think that will help much. Seven pounds all in one place on the
bike will be easy to detect; this blind is easy to "break". I haven't
followed this thread closely, but I gather most agree that a heavy bike
can be "felt", especially one imbalanced by a seven pound parcel. The
disagreement is whether it affects either speed or "thrust".

So, in short, a package that may or may not contain seven pounds won't
be much "blinder" than the seven pounds that Carl could see. Proper
design to make this experiment meaningful is gonna be nontrivial.

Mark J.

Dear Mark,

It was sheer luck when I noticed that long dot-matrix printhead rods
were about the right length to hose-clamp to my top tube and weighed
one on my scale. It was 399 grams, and so were all the others that I
weighed. Eight of them plus a little inner-tube and some hose-clamps
did just fine for a 7-lb weight.

But once you find a suitable weight that doesn't increase wind drag
(much), any test is fraught with problems.

How do you get a rider to put out the same power for a 15.1 mile real
ride on a real road, blind or not?

How do you deal with the wind, temperature, barometric pressure, and
so on?

A power meter and a good odometer might help, but a rather expensive
Power Tap is only claimed to be good to 1.5% accuracy, and we're
talking about a 4% change in mass.

(Presumably I'd have to weigh myself before and after each ride on an
impressively accurate scale.)

Before I clamped the weight on, I fiddled with several bike speed
calculators, wondering what Newton's disciples might predict. My best
estimate, before I set off, was that I might be giving away as much as
30 seconds on my ~3,000 second ride--a ~1% time penalty.

In other words, anyone hoping for a "proper" field test needs to
remember that it just ain't gonna happen--real-world variations will
swamp the tiny effect.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 23:26:13 -0700, "Paul M. Hobson"
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 20:56:40 -0700, Howard Kveck
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 01:04:33 -0700, Howard Kveck
wrote:

In article ,

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:
No, Carl, you state in your above post "the unavoidable knowledge that
there were _seven_ whole pounds sitting right there in plain sight." That
pretty much defines it as *not* a blind test.
Dear Howard,

Er, where did I argue with you?

The relevant post that I quoted in full makes it plain as sin that it
wasn't a blind test.
The point was that doing a blind test is the proper scientific way. Doing it so
you know the condition of the bike ("I can see the extra weight") makes the results
of minimal value.

For fun, tell us how you would "seriously test" for the speed and
acceleration effects of a 7-lb bicycle weight increase and what
blinding procedures you'd use.
I'd think it would be obvious that you need to have a bike with a package on it
that is enclosed. You have someone other than yourself either fill the package with
seven pounds or not fill it. Then you ride it, not knowing the condition (standard
weight or seven extra pounds).

Dear Howard,

The rider would probably notice the extra weight if he tips the
familiar bike slightly sideways or just rolls it out the garage, so we
have to be awfully careful to get him to sit on it.

If he stood up, he might well notice the extra weight as the bike
tipped from side to side.

Might I suggest a set up similar to yours, but with weight on the chain
stays, and near the BB at the seat tube and down tube. That gets the
weight considerably lower, though I'm not sure that it eliminates the
tipping detectability of the added weight.

On a reasonable paved road, he might notice the vibration damping of
the extra 7 pounds.

Lowering the weight wouldn't help here, I imagine.

Dear Paul,

It's an idea, but look into how much metal you have to clamp onto each
chain-stay and what kind of clearance is involved for tires and heels.

My top tube was open, long enough, and easy to watch.

My faith in the three hose-clamps didn't stop me from giving the eight
rods in the two sections of inner tube a quick tug now and then to
make sure that they weren't working loose and about to make me regret
the whole escapade.

It's awfully hard to expect any rider not to notice that a familiar
bicycle has gained 7 pounds if he tips or pushes it. That's what leads
to most of the confusion here.

In the original 14 vs. 21 pound example, the bike is either gaining
50% or losing 33% of its weight.

But people confuse that irrelevant change with the real change in what
the rider must power, the total mass of bike and rider, which changes
less than 4%, an order of magnitude less.

In any case, as I just pointed out in another reply, how do you get
the rider to put out the same power against the same drag once a day
for a week and measure it?

A Powertap and a good odometer sound like a solution at first, but a
Powertap is accurate to only about 1.5%. Power changes more than
speed, but that's cutting things pretty close for the kind of
differences that Newton predicts. My best guess, working with several
calculators before I set off, was that I might be giving away as much
as 30 seconds on my ~3,000 second loop, about 1%.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel