Steel frames and le Tour

Tom Sherman wrote:
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.

I was wondering how global warming affects climbing speed.

On Jul 19, 10:15*pm, 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.

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

Carl (Dear?)

I think I know what the problem is. I have a similar problem with
wine. To me, if the wine doesn't taste like pure alcohol, or like
vinegar, I cannot distinguish between a $15 bottle of wine and a $150
bottle of wine. I am merely casual wine drinker and will never be a
pro wine taster.

With bicycles, it is the same. Maybe we are casual cyclists that
cannot distinguish between materials or weighs. JT and jb are more
likely the professional sort that have their bodies so fine tuned to
bicycles as wine taster have their tongues tuned for wine. TDF riders,
being pros, are even more sensitive to this subtle differences being
able to distinguish bb types, composition of chainstays, seatstays,
integrated headsets, carbon vs alloy cranks, and even age of the
bicycle.

So, even though I can down a bottle of wine like the more
sophisticated wine taster, and ride a fairly good distance at good
speed like some of the sensitive cycling types, I certainly have not
developed the subtle sense necessary to distinguish the fruity
flavors, the oak, the chocolate, the age, the carbon seatstays, the
oversize bb, the carbon brifters, etc.

So, maybe you and I are of the less sophisticated kind for whom
aromatherapy will not work for recovery. Not sure if this is an
advantage or a disadvantage. Advantage wise, I am happy with my
inexpensive bikes and with my $10-$15 bottles of wine. However, maybe
I am not truly enjoying some of the subtleties of life.

(XOXOXO?)

Andres

In article
,
" wrote:

I think I know what the problem is. I have a similar problem with
wine. To me, if the wine doesn't taste like pure alcohol, or like
vinegar, I cannot distinguish between a $15 bottle of wine and a $150
bottle of wine. I am merely casual wine drinker and will never be a
pro wine taster.

Pure alcohol tastes better. The most important part of a purchasing
decision is quantity of alcohol/$. You can calculate this quite easily:
ABV*vol/$.

After that, maybe sweetness codes,

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

wrote:
On Jul 19, 10:15 pm, 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.

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

Carl (Dear?)

I think I know what the problem is. I have a similar problem with
wine. To me, if the wine doesn't taste like pure alcohol, or like
vinegar, I cannot distinguish between a $15 bottle of wine and a $150
bottle of wine. I am merely casual wine drinker and will never be a
pro wine taster.

With bicycles, it is the same. Maybe we are casual cyclists that
cannot distinguish between materials or weighs. JT and jb are more
likely the professional sort that have their bodies so fine tuned to
bicycles as wine taster have their tongues tuned for wine. TDF riders,
being pros, are even more sensitive to this subtle differences being
able to distinguish bb types, composition of chainstays, seatstays,
integrated headsets, carbon vs alloy cranks, and even age of the
bicycle.

So, even though I can down a bottle of wine like the more
sophisticated wine taster, and ride a fairly good distance at good
speed like some of the sensitive cycling types, I certainly have not
developed the subtle sense necessary to distinguish the fruity
flavors, the oak, the chocolate, the age, the carbon seatstays, the
oversize bb, the carbon brifters, etc.

So, maybe you and I are of the less sophisticated kind for whom
aromatherapy will not work for recovery. Not sure if this is an
advantage or a disadvantage. Advantage wise, I am happy with my
inexpensive bikes and with my $10-$15 bottles of wine. However, maybe
I am not truly enjoying some of the subtleties of life.

(XOXOXO?)

Andres


So, the laws of physics don't apply to the more 'sensitive' riders?

Lou

Donald Munro wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
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.

I was wondering how global warming affects climbing speed.

Yes, the hot air being generated in this thread will certainly
contribute to global warming.

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

In article ,
Bret Wade wrote:

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.

Yes, that 22 grams must be the critical difference. Perhaps less so if
your brake levers snap off on a descent...

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 08:14:25 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Jul 19, 10:15*pm, 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.

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

Carl (Dear?)

I think I know what the problem is. I have a similar problem with
wine. To me, if the wine doesn't taste like pure alcohol, or like
vinegar, I cannot distinguish between a $15 bottle of wine and a $150
bottle of wine. I am merely casual wine drinker and will never be a
pro wine taster.

With bicycles, it is the same. Maybe we are casual cyclists that
cannot distinguish between materials or weighs. JT and jb are more
likely the professional sort that have their bodies so fine tuned to
bicycles as wine taster have their tongues tuned for wine. TDF riders,
being pros, are even more sensitive to this subtle differences being
able to distinguish bb types, composition of chainstays, seatstays,
integrated headsets, carbon vs alloy cranks, and even age of the
bicycle.

So, even though I can down a bottle of wine like the more
sophisticated wine taster, and ride a fairly good distance at good
speed like some of the sensitive cycling types, I certainly have not
developed the subtle sense necessary to distinguish the fruity
flavors, the oak, the chocolate, the age, the carbon seatstays, the
oversize bb, the carbon brifters, etc.

So, maybe you and I are of the less sophisticated kind for whom
aromatherapy will not work for recovery. Not sure if this is an
advantage or a disadvantage. Advantage wise, I am happy with my
inexpensive bikes and with my $10-$15 bottles of wine. However, maybe
I am not truly enjoying some of the subtleties of life.

(XOXOXO?)

Andres

Dear Andres,

Actually, "sophisticated" wine tasters may be just as happy as you,
but they're mostly fooling themselves. The same is probably true for
many of our more indignant posters, who believe (in good faith) that
their bicycling shorts can detect speed and acceleration differences
in the range of ~2%.

Wine tasting lends itself to much easier testing than adding weight to
bicycles. (Luckily, Newton can tell us what happens with the weights,
so it's no big deal in the bicycle world.)

Wine-tasting claims have never survived real testing:

"Expectations also affect your perception of taste. In 1963 three
researchers secretly added a bid of red food color to white winest of
it the bluse of a rose. They then asked a group of experts to rate its
sweetness in comparison with the untinted wine. The experts perceived
the fake rose as sweeter than the white, according to their
expectation. Another group of researchers gave a group of oenology
students two wine samples. Both samples contained the same white wine,
but to one was added a tasteless grape anthocyanin dye that made it
appear to be red wine. The students also perceived differences betwee
the red and the white corresponding to their expectations. . . . "

[What would riders "detect" if they rode two identical bikes lacking
cyclocomputers, but were told that one bike weighed 2.2 or 4.4 pounds
less?]

"Wine tasters are also often fooled by the flip side of the expectancy
bias: a lack of context. Holding a chunk of horseradish under your
nostril, you'd probably not mistake it for a clove of garlic . . . But
if you sniff clear liquid scents, all bets are off. At least that what
happened when two researchers presented experts with a series of
sixteen random odors: the experts misidentified about 1 ouit of every
4 scents."

[What would riders "detect" about their speed and acceleration if they
rode an unfamiliar generic white-painted bike for a week with a small
fake black electronics box, ostensibly to test gear-shifting and
braking habits or lean angles or whatever--but they weren't told that
the box merely held 1 to 7 pounds of lead weights, depending on the
day of the week?]

"Given all these reasons for skepticism, scientists designed ways to
measure wine experts' taste discrimination directly. One method is to
use a wine triangle. It is not a physical triangle but a metaphor:
each expert is given three wines, two of which are identical. The
mission: to choose the odd sample. In a 1990 study, the experts
identified the odd sample only two-thirds of the time, which means
that in 1 out of 3 taste challenges these wine gurus couldn't
distinguish a pinot noir with, say, 'an exuberant nose of wild
strawberry, luscious blackberry, and raspberry,' from one with the
scent of distinctive dried plums, yellow cherries, and silky cassis.'
In the same study an ensemble of experts was asked to rank a series of
wines based on 12 componets, such as alcohol content, the presence of
tannins, sweetness, and fruitiness. The experts disagreed
significantly on 9 of the 12 components. Finally, when asked to match
wines with the descriptions provided by other experts, the subjects
were correct only 70 percent of the time."

[Three identical bikes, all with two black water bottles. Get on and
ride down the block. Which one had a two full water bottle? Or did two
have two full water bottles? Or did all three have one full water
bottle, two full water bottles, or no water at all?]

"Wine critics are conscious of all these difficulties. 'On many levels
.. . . [the ratings system] is nonsensical,' says the editor of 'Wine
and Spirits Magazine'. And according to a former editior of 'Wine
Enthusiast', 'The deeper you get into this the more you realize how
misguided and misleading this all is.'"

["Bicycling" magazine has to rate new bikes every month, whether they
can actually detect any difference at all. Otherwise, they have
nothing to print. As Ryan Cousineau has pointed out, magazines rate
bicycles on a scale of 4 to 5.]

--"Drunkard's Walk," Mlodinow, p. 132-133

I omit Mlodinow's scurrilous comment that Coke and Pepsi partisans,
asked to confrim their preference by a taste-test, were fooled (21 out
of 30 times) because the testers had put Coke in the Pepsi bottle and
vice-versa. Giving people Pepsi to drink instead of Coke crosses the
line between decent science and unethical abuse.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article ,
Bret Wade wrote:

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.

Yes, that 22 grams must be the critical difference. Perhaps less so if
your brake levers snap off on a descent...

60 gms if you count both levers. Every little bit helps. I have no
regrets about how I've built the bike up. I've raced it for years with
no unusual problems and a fair amount of success.

wrote:
Dear Andres,

Actually, "sophisticated" wine tasters may be just as happy as you,
but they're mostly fooling themselves. The same is probably true for
many of our more indignant posters, who believe (in good faith) that
their bicycling shorts can detect speed and acceleration differences
in the range of ~2%.

Wine tasting lends itself to much easier testing than adding weight to
bicycles. (Luckily, Newton can tell us what happens with the weights,
so it's no big deal in the bicycle world.)

Wine-tasting claims have never survived real testing:
[snip]

Carl,

I don't imagine you to be much of television watcher (neither am I), but
I think you'll get a kick out of this nonetheless. There was an episode
of Myth-Busters where they tested the claim that running cheap vodka
through a water filter would improve it and that 10 runs through the
filter would bring it up to top shelf quality.

So they ran batches of vodka through store bought Brita filters
1,2,3,...,and 10 times. They then had a renowned vodka critic come in a
rate the 10 filtered batches along with the unfiltered cheap vodka and
the unfiltered top shelf vodka.

Much to my surprise, he ranked all twelve vodkas correctly.

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

"Paul M. Hobson" wrote in message
...

Much to my surprise, he ranked all twelve vodkas correctly.

And REAL(tm) wine tasters can get incredibly accurate as well. It's just
that people with that fine a taste aren't common and people with fairly good
taste try to pass themselves off as better.