# Not making sense



## dm69 (Jun 16, 2006)

What is the obsession of having a light bike? 

It is now a well known fact that the weight of your bike is pretty much irrelevant compared to improved aerodynamics/ stiffness anyway. Cervelo did a recent test that showed slightly better aero equiptment that is a few grams heavier absolutely annialated a light bike on a HILLY!!! course.

The litespeed ghisallo and other lightweight titanium frames have been shown to test very poorly in stiffness tests.

As far as stiffness goes some light bikes are good eg. R3, cr1 pro, BMC but those titanium poseur bikes are just a joke.

I cant understand why you would spend rediculous money a superlight crankset before you even think of getting a power meter which would actually improve your performance. Is it just a status symbol to have an expensive/ light bike? of course it is. What are you trying to prove? that your more worried keeping your bike clean as apposed to actually doing efforts on it? cool .

Needless to say a lot of the stomachs on a lot of weight weenies could be seriously shaved!

If its improved performance your after you are better off wearing a tight fitting shirt and leave the titanium bike at the coffee shop or dare I say it "train".

By all means if you are commited to racing, train hard and have the money then by yourself that light bike but don't expect it to help you in any way on the road.


----------



## Juanmoretime (Nov 24, 2001)

*For the unknowing.*

If you don't like what this section of the forum is all about don't read in this section of the forum.

My lightest bike is 12.8 lbs in a size 59 and the frame will be 10 years old in October. Throw away? I don't think so. I have broken one part since first bought. Use and use it hard? Hell yes! Ride it daily? Yes. 

Loose some gut? I'm 6'2" 154 lbs and currently about 3.5% bodyfat. Does it look like I could loose some weight?

You can always make general statement but you will find 80% precent of the weight weenies are just like me!


----------



## FTF (Aug 5, 2003)

Juanmoretime said:


> Loose some gut? I'm 6'2" 154 lbs and currently about 3.5% bodyfat. Does it look like I could loose some weight?


If you are actually at 3.5% body fat, that's quite unhealthy.


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

FTF said:


> If you are actually at 3.5% body fat, that's quite unhealthy.


hardly


----------



## alienator (Jun 11, 2004)

dm69 said:


> What is the obsession of having a light bike?
> 
> It is now a well known fact that the weight of your bike is pretty much irrelevant compared to improved aerodynamics/ stiffness anyway. Cervelo did a recent test that showed slightly better aero equiptment that is a few grams heavier absolutely annialated a light bike on a HILLY!!! course.
> 
> ...


Ah, yes. This is what we've needed all along: someone who is qualified to tell everyone how to spend their money, what they need to buy, what they do or don't deserve, what is silly or not, and...blah blah blah.

Well, for the holier than thou OP,.....I've dumped a lot of money into my bike, and some of that money has been spent on some pretty expensive, lightweight stuff. Alas, I rarely ride with others, so apparently my bike--if it's supposed to be a status symbol--is failing as a status symbol, because the symbol isn't being seen by many. Alas, I also rarely wash the thing. It's kept in good mechanical shape, diligently, I might add, but clean is just not one of my things. Alas, I do ride it, nearly everyday. I didn't buy a power meter because a power meter isn't the end-all of training tools. You might be surprised to learn that there have been a handful of people, throughout history, that have managed to train to their desired level and results without powermeters. Silly me, I guess I really messed up when I bought some of my components because I never expected them to improve my performance. With that silly physics degree I got, I was able pretty quickly to calculate just how little less weight and less rotating mass would affect my performance. Silly me, I did buy some components because I appreciate the fine handiwork in them and their fine function....guess that comes with being a gearhead. I guess I could lose some weight, but only about 5 lbs, and as anyone with a bit of science or engineering in their background will tell you, that 5 lb weight loss won't make much of a difference on a bicycle in terms of performance. Of course I'm doubly silly for having the audacity to spend my money as my wife and I see fit. I really should have thought to ask you, first, before buying anything.

I'm really sorry.


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

I'm sure everyone will sell their Ti bikes and buy something else based on your proven 16 post history on this forum...Nice way to introduce yourself to the board....


----------



## b987654 (Aug 18, 2005)

all the light stuff (for the most part) functions as well as the heavier options, i guess it comes down to what is important to you and what you can afford. Have you ever tried an ultra-light ti race bike?


----------



## gremelm (Apr 7, 2005)

alienator said:


> Ah, yes. This is what we've needed all along: someone who is qualified to tell everyone how to spend their money, what they need to buy, what they do or don't deserve, what is silly or not, and...blah blah blah.
> 
> Well, for the holier than thou OP,.....I've dumped a lot of money into my bike, and some of that money has been spent on some pretty expensive, lightweight stuff. Alas, I rarely ride with others, so apparently my bike--if it's supposed to be a status symbol--is failing as a status symbol, because the symbol isn't being seen by many. Alas, I also rarely wash the thing. It's kept in good mechanical shape, diligently, I might add, but clean is just not one of my things. Alas, I do ride it, nearly everyday. I didn't buy a power meter because a power meter isn't the end-all of training tools. You might be surprised to learn that there have been a handful of people, throughout history, that have managed to train to their desired level and results without powermeters. Silly me, I guess I really messed up when I bought some of my components because I never expected them to improve my performance. With that silly physics degree I got, I was able pretty quickly to calculate just how little less weight and less rotating mass would affect my performance. Silly me, I did buy some components because I appreciate the fine handiwork in them and their fine function....guess that comes with being a gearhead. I guess I could lose some weight, but only about 5 lbs, and as anyone with a bit of science or engineering in their background will tell you, that 5 lb weight loss won't make much of a difference on a bicycle in terms of performance. Of course I'm doubly silly for having the audacity to spend my money as my wife and I see fit. I really should have thought to ask you, first, before buying anything.
> 
> I'm really sorry.


You are "the Man" when it comes to obvious sarcasm and that's why I enjoy reading your post...they seem to have a truth of the obvious that most don't yet know how to grasp. But to the enlightened, like myself, I can see me in the words in your post. Keep those funny and insightful posts coming.  

And I agree with all that you'd said. :thumbsup:


----------



## galanz (Oct 28, 2004)

dm69 said:


> Not making sense


You should have stopped there....


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

What Robin was trying to say is, because our bikes are way cooler than yours


----------



## dm69 (Jun 16, 2006)

alienator said:


> Ah, yes. This is what we've needed all along: someone who is qualified to tell everyone how to spend their money, what they need to buy, what they do or don't deserve, what is silly or not, and...blah blah blah.
> 
> Well, for the holier than thou OP,.....I've dumped a lot of money into my bike, and some of that money has been spent on some pretty expensive, lightweight stuff. Alas, I rarely ride with others, so apparently my bike--if it's supposed to be a status symbol--is failing as a status symbol, because the symbol isn't being seen by many. Alas, I also rarely wash the thing. It's kept in good mechanical shape, diligently, I might add, but clean is just not one of my things. Alas, I do ride it, nearly everyday. I didn't buy a power meter because a power meter isn't the end-all of training tools. You might be surprised to learn that there have been a handful of people, throughout history, that have managed to train to their desired level and results without powermeters. Silly me, I guess I really messed up when I bought some of my components because I never expected them to improve my performance. With that silly physics degree I got, I was able pretty quickly to calculate just how little less weight and less rotating mass would affect my performance. Silly me, I did buy some components because I appreciate the fine handiwork in them and their fine function....guess that comes with being a gearhead. I guess I could lose some weight, but only about 5 lbs, and as anyone with a bit of science or engineering in their background will tell you, that 5 lb weight loss won't make much of a difference on a bicycle in terms of performance. Of course I'm doubly silly for having the audacity to spend my money as my wife and I see fit. I really should have thought to ask you, first, before buying anything.
> 
> I'm really sorry.


Its OK we all make mistakes. Marketing hype really is hard to fend off. Who could have thought a carbon fibre/ titanium stem wouldn't improve your "performance"...

Seriously if you've got the money then OK do what you want, IM JEALOUS .

As far as performance goes you need a stiff/light frame (carbon fibre or well made aluminium). Titanium is flexier than other materials even it is comfy. You need a super stiff handlebar/ stem setup use aluminium, the pro's do, why? because its better! atleast in that area of the bike. 

Rims/ tyres are the most important as speed goes and you want aero first then weight second. Look at zipp's.

But more than anything spending all that money is a waste compared to a PM and tight clothing and an aero helmet. Im not so much knocking the money you have but the stupid belief that lightweight=fast! Its whats riding the damn thing that counts for 99.99% then the other .01% is wind resistance. Maybe we should have an "aeroweenies" forum?

Buy the way I am not employed by Cervelo, SRM, Zipp or cycleops


----------



## dm69 (Jun 16, 2006)

Juanmoretime thats not healthy 3.5% is unecessary unless you have the energy to train effectively at that weight. (doubt it).

Just by looking at the pic I doubt you are 3.5% anyhoo.

PS: wear shoecovers and a tighter fitting shirt. How much training do you do and what cat race is that in the pic?


----------



## alienator (Jun 11, 2004)

dm69 said:


> Its OK we all make mistakes. Marketing hype really is hard to fend off. Who could have thought a carbon fibre/ titanium stem wouldn't improve your "performance"...


Yeah, I guess you're right, and your mistakes are many. The first would be posting in a forum as a troll. The second would be assuming what you know is right.



dm69 said:


> As far as performance goes you need a stiff/light frame (carbon fibre or well made aluminium). Titanium is flexier than other materials even it is comfy. You need a super stiff handlebar/ stem setup use aluminium, the pro's do, why? because its better! atleast in that area of the bike.


Your wrongness, here, is overwhelming. You've been reading too much Bicycling magazine and believing too much of what the bicycle "mechanics" at Walmart have been telling you. 



dm69 said:


> Rims/ tyres are the most important as speed goes and you want aero first then weight second. Look at zipp's.


You're talking to whom? You are aware, aren't you, that most people here don't believe that lightweight parts improve performance, aren't you? Hello....McFly.......



dm69 said:


> But more than anything spending all that money is a waste compared to a PM and tight clothing and an aero helmet. Im not so much knocking the money you have but the stupid belief that lightweight=fast! Its whats riding the damn thing that counts for 99.99% then the other .01% is wind resistance. Maybe we should have an "aeroweenies" forum?


So aero losses are only 0.01% of the total energy expenditure riding a bike? Where are your units? Who has the stupid belief that lightweight=fast? 



dm69 said:


> Buy the way I am not employed by Cervelo, SRM, Zipp or cycleops


Thank god. Their sales would tank if someone so uninformed worked for them.

:ciappa:


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

Regarding the aero helmets and tight clothing...DM69 has done a ton of research on the subject. He read the MIT cycling team article in the new Bicycling magazine..

That surely qualifies him as an expert....


----------



## foz (Sep 30, 2004)

I'd love to have only 0.01% air resistance - I could probably do 287.3kmh with no problems... are hour records in the outer reaches of the galaxy valid, or will the UCI create a new category? if weight isn't important, you should try doing a tour with a loaded bike weighing 60kg. that might change your mind...


----------



## Juanmoretime (Nov 24, 2001)

dm69 said:


> Juanmoretime thats not healthy 3.5% is unecessary unless you have the energy to train effectively at that weight. (doubt it).
> 
> Just by looking at the pic I doubt you are 3.5% anyhoo.
> 
> PS: wear shoecovers and a tighter fitting shirt. How much training do you do and what cat race is that in the pic?


You credentials are to be such an expert off a photo? The race was the Illinois State Championship road race Masters 45+.

I have no reason to not tell the truth and you are entitled to your opinions.


----------



## Mdeth1313 (Nov 1, 2001)

Dave Hickey said:


> Regarding the aero helmets and tight clothing...DM69 has done a ton of research on the subject. He read the MIT cycling team article in the new Bicycling magazine..
> 
> That surely qualifies him as an expert....



yup- wasnt that article right after STYLE MAN-- every year or so I send in that card for 2 free issues-- I just cant get myself to read that crap or even find it worthwhile!


----------



## alienator (Jun 11, 2004)

Juanmoretime said:


> You creditials are to be such an expert off a photo? The race was the Illinois State Championship road race Masters 45+.
> 
> I have no reason to not tell the truth and you are entitled to your opinions.


Well, we have a history, you and me, and I think you'd agree that you owe _me_ the truth, what with how I saved your ass in 'nam, back in '68, in that little scuffle at Coo Chee Coo Chee Coo, with that male escort you hired for the night......


----------



## sgt_hedgehog (Jun 28, 2004)

alienator said:


> Well, we have a history, you and me, and I think you'd agree that you owe _me_ the truth, what with how I saved your ass in 'nam, back in '68, in that little scuffle at Coo Chee Coo Chee Coo, with that male escort you hired for the night......


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

dm69: Shut. Up. it was bad enough when you were insulting his bike, now you go after his body and training? That's a dick move. WHAT THE F**K do shoe covers have to do with anything???? how many racers do you see wearing shoe covers in road races? Also, there could be hell of reasons why his jersey isn't ultra Euro-cut tight. Maybe his team clothing sponsor cuts their clothing differently. or Maybe he just likes it that way. just like he Likes his nice bike, that you so obviously hate and envy.


----------



## alienator (Jun 11, 2004)

Juanmoretime said:


> If you don't like what this section of the forum is all about don't read in this section of the forum.
> 
> My lightest bike is 12.8 lbs in a size 59 and the frame will be 10 years old in October. Throw away? I don't think so. I have broken one part since first bought. Use and use it hard? Hell yes! Ride it daily? Yes.
> 
> ...


You know, in that pic, you don't look nearly as effeminate as people assume you are.


----------



## alienator (Jun 11, 2004)

Dave Hickey said:


> I'm sure everyone will sell their Ti bikes and buy something else based on your proven 16 post history on this forum...Nice way to introduce yourself to the board....


Yup. I just sold, 5 minutes ago, the dream bike I've spent the last year building--one of those silly Ti bikes w/ a bunch of that silly lightweight stuff on it--and I ran down to Walmart and bought myself a sweet Roadmaster bicycle. It's nice and heavy, so it's gotta be good.


----------



## Juanmoretime (Nov 24, 2001)

alienator said:


> Well, we have a history, you and me, and I think you'd agree that you owe _me_ the truth, what with how I saved your ass in 'nam, back in '68, in that little scuffle at Coo Chee Coo Chee Coo, with that male escort you hired for the night......


Well I did tell the pimp I wanted something different but the male escort was not really what I had in mind. The combination of the China White, hashish and with the moonlight reflecting off his doe like eyes and stainless steel teeth make it seem alright. An evening to be filled with romance and rubber tubing. Who would have ever suspected that such an evening could go wrong? Did I ever thank you? The rash I break out with very now and then brings back memories of that night!


----------



## Ligero (Oct 21, 2005)

Juanmoretime said:


> You creditials are to be such an expert off a photo? The race was the Illinois State Championship road race Masters 45+.
> 
> I have no reason to not tell the truth and you are entitled to your opinions.


Juan, Photoshop has a new bodyfat percentage plugin and I ran it on your picture and according to your picture you are 4.2%


----------



## alienator (Jun 11, 2004)

Ligero said:


> Juan, Photoshop has a new bodyfat percentage plugin and I ran it on your picture and according to your picture you are 4.2%


I think you're in error, here. If you use the published weight for a Juanmoretime from the catalog, you do indeed get 4.2%. However, given the production variance in weights for Juanmoretimes discussed over at Weight Weenies, if you use actual weights you'll see Juanmoretime bodyfat ranging from 3.48% to 17.9%. The Photoshop plugin's calculation is very good, but unfortunately it needs an accurate body weight calculation.


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

Juanmoretime said:


> If you don't like what this section of the forum is all about don't read in this section of the forum.
> 
> My lightest bike is 12.8 lbs in a size 59 and the frame will be 10 years old in October. Throw away? I don't think so. I have broken one part since first bought. Use and use it hard? Hell yes! Ride it daily? Yes.
> 
> ...


3.5% body fat! My God, man, you're a gastropod. Call Richard Simmons. There may be time to save you from a lifetime of heart disease and diabetes. On a more serious note, you're in serious danger of being thrown out of the weight weenies club- carrying two water bottles. Just dehydrate yourself and die like a man. That's the way we used to do it, and we never complained. And I'm not even going to talk about what appear to be a picture of a bike with aero-wheels in the WW forum. I'll bet you even have underwear on. Tsk, tsk.


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

dm69 said:


> What is the obsession of having a light bike?
> 
> It is now a well known fact that the weight of your bike is pretty much irrelevant compared to improved aerodynamics/ stiffness anyway. Cervelo did a recent test that showed slightly better aero equiptment that is a few grams heavier absolutely annialated a light bike on a HILLY!!! course.
> 
> ...


You're right, and it's been pointed out before. The best place (and easiest) to loose weight is in the motor. And aerodynamics are much more important than weight. These things had me puzzled, too, until someone pointed out that weight is about the only part a bike that owners can seriously measure on their own. There's very little aero data released, and far too few low speed wind tunnels to record your own. (Interesting historical fact- a key component of the world's first wind tunnel was- bicycle spokes. No surprises there, as the Wrights built it.) What does that leave? Plus, it wasn't always shaving grams which you'll never notice. 30 years ago 40 pound bikes weren't uncommon. Trade that for a 22 pound bike and it's like getting a rocket ship. I've never ridden a 12 pound bike, but I'll bet it feels faster than a 20 pound bike even if on the open road the better aero bike is fastest. Then, or course, there's achievement for achievement's sake. People compete in all kinds of events that have no practical use- who can grow the biggest gord, make the prettiest quilt, build the highest house of cards, burp the loudest, etc. Why not who can make the lightest bike?


----------



## Juanmoretime (Nov 24, 2001)

California L33 said:


> 3.5% body fat! My God, man, you're a gastropod. Call Richard Simmons. There may be time to save you from a lifetime of heart disease and diabetes. On a more serious note, you're in serious danger of being thrown out of the weight weenies club- carrying two water bottles. Just dehydrate yourself and die like a man. That's the way we used to do it, and we never complained. And I'm not even going to talk about what appear to be a picture of a bike with aero-wheels in the WW forum. I'll bet you even have underwear on. Tsk, tsk.


Underwear No! Those aero wheels are 1004 grams for the pair so the weight weenie crowd has not tossed me to the lions.


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

Juanmoretime said:


> Underwear No! Those aero wheels are 1004 grams for the pair so the weight weenie crowd has not tossed me to the lions.


 It looks like a great ride, and super light- want to brag about it?


----------



## odeum (May 9, 2005)

without the weight weenie gladiators fighting against the 7 lb. sp frames of the 90's we'd all be ridin' 23lb bikes today.
FWIW, probike of today commonly weigh 17 lb.s.
www.cyclingnews.com/tech/2006/probikes/?id=milram_colnago_beck
there are more here, checkout the menu on the top left.







IUbike said:


> What Robin was trying to say is, because our bikes are way cooler than yours


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

->Alas, I also rarely wash the thing.<-

My uncle's rule on cleaning guns- you clean them when they stop working, otherwise you're just wasting valuable shooting time, works with bikes, too. (Substitute the word riding for shooting or it becomes really bizarre.)

On the other hand, a true weight weenie wouldn't want to haul around all that extra dirt. 

And finally, the weight weenies in the air force calculate paint weight when trying to figure out if a plane is too heavy to fly. (I think I've just come up with a way to save a few grams on painted bikes. Fetch my sandpaper, boy.)


----------



## Juanmoretime (Nov 24, 2001)

California L33 said:


> ->Alas, I also rarely wash the thing.<-
> 
> My uncle's rule on cleaning guns- you clean them when they stop working, otherwise you're just wasting valuable shooting time, works with bikes, too. (Substitute the word riding for shooting or it becomes really bizarre.)
> 
> ...


According to the Surgeon General those that take the time to keeping their drive train clean, live longer, function with less friction giving you more speed, are just better looking people and get all the women.


----------



## alienator (Jun 11, 2004)

Juanmoretime said:


> According to the Surgeon General those that at that take the time to keeping their drive train clean, live longer, function with less friction giving you more speed, are just better looking people and get all the women.


I *do* keep my drive train clean. I try to clean it several times a day, if at all possible.


----------



## cadence90 (Sep 12, 2004)

Now, I'm not wearing my "I Hate 6.8" t-shirt right now, because it's at the dry cleaners for a pressing and some weight reduction treatment, but I gotta say this thread is Not making sense, Not making sense at all....


----------



## Juanmoretime (Nov 24, 2001)

cadence90 said:


> Now, I'm not wearing my "I Hate 6.8" t-shirt right now, because it's at the dry cleaners for a pressing and some weight reduction treatment, but I gotta say this thread is Not making sense, Not making sense at all....


Really? Mine is on the way from Madcow. Did you drill your t-shirt to lighten it or just trim some material?


----------



## alienator (Jun 11, 2004)

Juanmoretime said:


> Really? Mine is on the way from Madcow. Did you drill your t-shirt to lighten it or just trim some material?


You know, I don't get you "don't include a quote from the person to whom I'm addressing this response" guys. Who are you talking.....er.....typing to, JMT?

FWIW, to lighten my "6.8....." t-shirt, I removed every other thread to lighten it. Duh.


----------



## MaestroXC (Sep 15, 2005)

Hah, when you guys were ordering your high-zoot "6.8" shirts, I bought a simple black t-shirt without the fancy decals that weighs less. It's lighter, unbelieveably stiff and incredibly compliant, it makes you feel like you're levitating, smooths out chip and seal, turns lead into gold and steel into titanium. 

Sure, it's made in Taiwan, but I only spent $2.56.


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

MaestroXC said:


> Hah, when you guys were ordering your high-zoot "6.8" shirts, I bought a simple black t-shirt without the fancy decals that weighs less. It's lighter, unbelieveably stiff and incredibly compliant, it makes you feel like you're levitating, smooths out chip and seal, turns lead into gold and steel into titanium.
> 
> Sure, it's made in Taiwan, but I only spent $2.56.


Yeah, but if you were hard core you would dispense with the shirt entirely and tattoo "I hate 6.8" on your chest with special light weight ink. (If the UCI changes its mind, what's a little tattoo removal between friends?)


----------



## MaestroXC (Sep 15, 2005)

True, or I could be like Dave Clinger and tattoo the words "I hate being employed" all over my face in Maori.


----------



## cadence90 (Sep 12, 2004)

Juanmoretime said:


> Really? Mine is on the way from Madcow. Did you drill your t-shirt to lighten it or just trim some material?


Man, Madcow really has delivery "issues" with you and the Alienator. I got mine _weeks_ ago!
I didn't drill, I used a 3-hole punch to create a "dimpled" effect to reduce aero-drag...works great, I must say.

But then, since I have more than 3.5% body fat I tend to sweat, so I'm having the dry cleaner alter it by putting in some defence-grade MD carbon-fiber underarm gussets, Should reduce the weight considerably. :thumbsup:


----------



## cadence90 (Sep 12, 2004)

MaestroXC said:


> True, or I could be like Dave Clinger and tattoo the words "I hate being employed" all over my face in Maori.


LOL!


----------



## Fogdweller (Mar 26, 2004)

nmnmnmnmnm


----------



## Fogdweller (Mar 26, 2004)

Christ Juan! 6'2" and 154? Can you get my son's football out of the sewer?


----------



## XCGEEK (Jan 23, 2002)

dm69 said:


> PS: wear shoecovers and a tighter fitting shirt. How much training do you do and what cat race is that in the pic?


Shoe covers? Seriously... the last dependable data (the MIT student crap doesn't count...) said that they don't matter one bit. Food for thought.


----------



## haz a tcr (Sep 29, 2005)

Fogdweller said:


> Christ Juan! 6'2" and 154? Can you get my son's football out of the sewer?


Ahhh thats nothing... I'm 6'2" and 141


----------

