Aero vs Lightweight when the rider is neither

Lumen

magicbastarder wrote: »

i think that's pretty much in line with what people are saying though - a 1KG loss in bike weight (which is probably a costly jump in price) makes a difference of less than 2% to climbing performance.

Yes, this is why you need to ditch the idea of a 6.8kg bike and buy a 4.8kg bike instead.

http://ax-lightness.de/en/cycling/bike-components/complete-bikes/vial-evo-ultra-etap/

magicbastarder

how much weight do you lose (and karma you gain) by donating a kidney?

harringtonp

magicbastarder wrote: »

i've often wondered if the difference is down to that (very generally) lighter bikes are more expensive. and more expensive means the frames are (very generally) better, and i don't just mean lighter; so they may be less likely to absorb the energy of the rider, and be a more efficient ride.
thus the fact that you perform better on such a bike is correlated to the weight, rather than cause by the weight.
someone who actually knows what they're talking about might be able to tell me if i'm talking ****e.

Would guess you have it right there. Carbon is light and stiff. Was in Majorca in Oct, hired a decent Carbon Wilier one day and was talked into a titanium bike the second. Started on the same climb both days and noticed a big difference. Titanium is marketed as comfortable but I didn't like it, it felt too "springy" every time there was any type of pace change on the climb (which was at least every corner),

nordicb

The stiffness is discussed in many sport disciplines and yet there is no consensus if it is a bad or good thing. For example in academic rowing, many assume that stiff shaft oar is more efficient oar, yet actual rowers find that softer oar doesn't slow them down because bending oar stores the energy and releases it later, it's about using that energy when time comes for it. I think similarly we can speak of flexy bike frames or wheels, the energy doesn't go anywhere, it is stored in this flex and released at some stage when it springs back and it is about getting used to the bike to use it's features best. However when doing A/B bike test, flexy frame may feel that is inefficient until we get used to the bike. I think.

magicbastarder

nordicb wrote: »

I think similarly we can speak of flexy bike frames or wheels, the energy doesn't go anywhere, it is stored in this flex and released at some stage when it springs back and it is about getting used to the bike to use it's features best.

i can understand the concept with oars; they bend backwards on a stroke, and will tend to store that energy and release it in the same plane, but a bike can probably flex in many more ways and not necessarily release the energy in a way that actually turns the wheels.

smacl

nordicb wrote: »

However when doing A/B bike test, flexy frame may feel that is inefficient until we get used to the bike. I think.

I think we'll always be more efficient on the type of bike we're used to simply on the basis that we've become adapted to it over time.