Oh! One last thing: "How like the Rivs!" I mean in the kind of feel that makes you pedal more effectively. I **don't** mean handling. It was fine, but not great -- *that's* another big reason for selling.
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 11:17 AM, PATRICK MOORE <bertin...@gmail.com> wrote: > Addendum: Since I've experienced this fit/feel-cum-speed thing over almost > 15 years with the '99 and for almost 10 with the '03, I think I can > discount psychology. With the Herse, the immediate feeling was: "How like > the Rivs!" > > Shoulda kept it -- except that I needed the $$. I hope the Ram ends up > feeling as good -- and! That it does not end up costing as much as the > Herse. So far, it's much less. > > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 11:13 AM, PATRICK MOORE <bertin...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Beside weight, tire quality and width, strength, and frame flex -- or, >> better, suitability of frame for the rider: leaving these out, can anyone >> speak (with meaning) about rider position, bike fit, and geometry suited >> for rider position, and their relation to speed? >> >> I come back to the Herse I owned: heavy, stiff, mediocre tires (at least >> my take after riding them for a few K miles on two bikes): yet the Herse >> seemed to encourage spirited riding in a way that other bikes of similar or >> even lighter weight and tires no worse did not. >> >> What I experienced on the Herse is what I experience on the two Riv >> customs: they just "feel" right and let me pedal at higher cadences for >> given perceived effort in a given gear or very close range of gears, again >> compared to other bikes that don't have the same "optimum fit and feel" >> quality. This includes the Motobecane which is made from light, >> narrow-tubed 531; the H and 2 Rs are of stouter (and in the case of the >> Rivs) larger diameter tubing. >> >> Anyone? >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Jan Heine <hein...@earthlink.net>wrote: >> >>> Patrick in VT wrote: Would I rather shave 5lbs bike/body or increase my >>> functional threshold power from 300w to 325w? It's a no-brainer. >>> >>> You are absolutely right. And that is why frame flex is so important. >>> Imagine a bike that allows you to put out 325W instead of 300W for the same >>> fatigue! From our testing, that is how "planing" works - the frame isn't >>> more efficient for a given power output, but our power outputs vary with >>> different frames. From our observations, it appears that you build up less >>> lactic acid when the frame smoothes your pedal stroke, by storing energy >>> during the downstrokes and releasing it during the dead spots. >>> >>> For those who think power output is constant, no matter the bike, it may >>> help to think about pushing against a concrete wall. The wall doesn't move, >>> so no work is done. Zero Watts. Yet you'll get tired pushing against the >>> wall in no time. Similarly, if your frame doesn't move during the >>> downstroke, it seems to limit how much power you can put into the system >>> before the bike "pushes back" like that concrete wall. Then your legs start >>> to hurt, and muscle fatigue limits your power output. On a bike that >>> "planes," your legs don't hurt, and your cardiovascular fitness becomes the >>> (higher) limiting factor. >>> >>> That explains why in our experience, performance correlates only very >>> weakly with weight, but very strongly with optimized frame flex >>> characteristics. (Of course, weight and optimized frame flex >>> characteristics are correlated on most bikes, hence lightweight bikes often >>> perform better than heavier ones.) >>> >>> Jan Heine >>> Editor >>> Bicycle Quarterly >>> >>> Follow our blog at http://janheine.wordpress.com/ >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 8:33:36 AM UTC-8, Patrick in VT wrote: >>> >>>> On Monday, January 14, 2013 2:58:13 PM UTC-5, Skenry wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The only real way to compair weights is to have a frame built up with >>>>> normal duty "heavy" Riv-ish parts and then build it again with lighter >>>>> "racing" parts. Then you'd be able to notice a weight diffence. >>>>> Scott >>>>> >>>> >>>> If that's the case, I'll weigh in. I have two identical steel frame >>>> bikes - same exact fit on both. One has a full-on race build for CX and >>>> weighs about 17lbs. The other has a stouter build for >>>> gravel-grinding/rough-stuff and is around at 20-21lbs - but is still worthy >>>> as a pit-bike for CX racing and/or fast club riding. I absolutely notice a >>>> difference between the bikes, but that difference is irrelevant to 90% of >>>> riding I do ... it doesn't matter and I don't think about it. We're >>>> talking seconds (and not a lot of them) on a long climb or a TT. That's >>>> what any "performance" gain amounts to from dropping a few pounds off a >>>> "go-fast" bike, or a rider's weight for that matter. Seconds. Maybe a >>>> couple minutes on a long ride. >>>> >>>> In my experience, step function improvement in performance primarily >>>> comes from improved fitness/power, particularly functional threshold power >>>> (basically the max power one can sustain for an hour). Far bigger gains in >>>> performance can be had there. Would I rather shave 5lbs bike/body or >>>> increase my functional threshold power from 300w to 325w? It's a >>>> no-brainer. Lightweight might feel good, but being strong and fit feels >>>> better - in my case, to the point where I don't sweat a carrying a few >>>> extra pounds on my frame or a bike frame. >>>> >>>> It's not all that different with running. A general rule of thumb that >>>> gets kicked around is 2 seconds per mile per extra pound of body weight. >>>> So if I weigh an extra 5lbs for a local 5k, i can expect to be about 30-45 >>>> seconds slower unless I improved my run fitness along with the weight >>>> gain. in any event, we're still talking seconds or maybe a couple of >>>> minutes on a 10 mile run. doesn't matter unless it matters, like trying to >>>> qualify for the Boston marathon or if somebody is serious about setting >>>> personal records (which a lot of runners are). >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/ixuj4ebYfMsJ. >>> >>> 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. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> ------------------------- >> Patrick Moore, Albuquerque, NM, USA >> For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW >> http://resumespecialties.com/index.html >> ------------------------- >> > > > > -- > > ------------------------- > Patrick Moore, Albuquerque, NM, USA > For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW > http://resumespecialties.com/index.html > ------------------------- > -- ------------------------- Patrick Moore, Albuquerque, NM, USA For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW http://resumespecialties.com/index.html ------------------------- -- 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.
