I think that a 70-odd year old who still rides with a club is entitled to any weight foolishness that she might want to enjoy!
And yes, I see old guys (Damn! They must be in their 50s!) with bellies and XXL racing jerseys on carbon -- sorry, crabon bikes. -- Saith Patrick who just last Sunday turned 54 but who is proud of his trim figure. Speaking of bike weight: at High Desert Bicycles in Rio Rancho the other day (that is a shop that is doing very, very well, with customers driving across town into Rio Rancho to patronize it; they plan to open an ABQ location, I was told) I saw and hefted a couple of Orbea high ends ($6699), sans pedals of course, but they must have weighed less than 15 lb. I felt as if I were picking up a newborn baby: that I might somehow damage it if I didn't hold it right. I must say that *if* I could have light weight with all the other qualities of a good bike, I'd choose it. But up to a point -- note! -- I agree it makes no difference. I'm not sure where that point is; I know that my God-knows-how-heavy Monocog 29er (no knobs on the tires -- Big Apples -- and a 17 inch c-c frame) is a heavy dog on pavement, even though the BAs roll quite well; I did not find my erstwhile Diamond Back mtb fixie, with 559 Big Apples, similarly sluggish. On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery < thill....@gmail.com> wrote: > > In my experience selling bicycles and parts, the most weight conscious > cyclists are not the racers, but the aging club riders who fear being > the anchor on a group ride. I remember a 70ish woman who had some 17 > lb bike refusing to consider tires as fat as 25 mm because she > believed that such wide tires would result in a considerably slower > ride. And when I was working at a Trek shop, the guys who showed > interest in the lightest, raciest (most expensive) bikes and parts > were always 60-somethings with 50 extra pounds of pot belly. Of all > the group rides I've ever attended, I can't recall that individual > speed capabilities were sorted along any obvious correlation with bike > weight. > > On Mar 25, 9:17 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote: > > On Mar 25, 2009, at 3:11 AM, Bill M. wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mar 24, 9:51 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote: > > >> On Mar 24, 2009, at 10:52 PM, Bill M. wrote: > > > > >>> The 'less than a full water bottle' arguement always seems > > >>> specious to > > >>> me. I don't carry less water to make up for a heavier bike. > > > > >> That's not the point of that argument. The point is that- at least > > >> IME- no one complains that the weight of their water bottles (about > > >> 2.5 pounds for 2 20-oz bottles) slows them down or that they can even > > >> feel the difference between full and empty bottles on their bike. > > >> Yet people will get all lathered up over a bike component that weighs > > >> 100 g more than another. > > > > >> Grant's attitude to this, as part of the guiding philosophy of RBW, > > >> seems to be "meh." Adding a few ounces of steel to the frame with > > >> slightly thicker tubes means a bike that might very well outlive its > > >> 40 year old purchaser. > > > > >> Back in my racing days I chased those 100 grams, generally at much > > >> expense and never for any measurable improvement in performance. Now > > >> I ride my bike for fun and I don't sweat it. I've got bikes ranging > > >> from 21 lbs to 27 lbs and I don't to have any less fun on any of > > >> them. I prefer to measure my rides in smiles per hour these days... > > > No one complains about the weight of water because it's fixed (though > > > racers will dump extra water before a major climb or sprint finish so > > > that they don't carry the extra weight). You can't make it any > > > lighter and you need to carry enough to meet your need so you have to > > > accept it for what it is. So, I don't find that the water bottle > > > arguement convinces me that bike weight is not important. There are > > > better ways to make that case IMO. > > > > I raced for 9 years and never, ever saw anyone from Cat 5 to Cat 1 > > dump their water bottles before a climb. Even pros often don't > > bother to do this, and there is no need for them to carry water up > > the last climb in a race (pros will often dump their bottles before a > > sprint finish for safety reasons, as a loose water bottle rolling on > > the ground in the middle of a pack can wreak havoc- you can see them > > being jettisoned out of the bunch about a km before the end of the > > race). > > > > Can you feel the difference in climbing or any other type of riding > > as to whether your water bottles are full or empty? Do they make you > > slower if they are full? I've never, ever noticed the difference > > except when picking the bike up. > > > > > Bike weight gets attention because it can be controlled. If I have > > > the choice between two components of equal function, light weight is > > > one criterion I would pay attention to (others include cost, > > > appearance and longevity). But, yeah, spending hundreds to chase > > > grams makes little sense and reasonably light is generally light > > > enough. The rider to bike weight ratio for my Riv is about 8.5:1. My > > > commuter is more like 5:1 (and I can feel the difference!), really > > > light bikes can get to 10:1. > > > > Since I am 6'4" and 220 lbs, it's pretty easy for my bikes to be in > > the 10:1 range. ;-) Harder for 140 lb riders to do. > > > -- Patrick Moore Albuquerque, NM Professional Resumes. Contact resumespecialt...@gmail.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
