What is the truth behind bike weight? Does it really help THAT much?

Originally Posted by Crankyfeet

Another typical demeaning type "I'm superior" post from the cyclingforums science legend. Well put argument... not.

Here's the point. John makes claims of his model producing linear efficiencies as a function of "power". But the amount of deflection in the frame is not proportional to power. It is proportional to the torque which is dependant on resistance to one's pedal thrust.

So if the model theory/results are invalidated, then they aren't worth much in my book.

I might be wrong, but please show me my error in thinking. I'm prepared to accept that I might have made an error. Can't see it myself though. Otherwise I will have to assume there is no answer to my points of contention and they invalidate the model.

Science is cool because it is egoless and searches for the truth as its primary value. Hypothesis, theory, testing, data, and peer review are all part of this process, as you should know alienator, assuming your claims of being a scientist are true (given your other snake oil BS though... I'm not convinced).

So please don't belittle Phill, the qualified mechanical engineer, with personal condescension. Stick to the points in the debate. Which so far I see that your points are baseless, other than some claim that you have done analysis and looked at all the research on this topic, and stand behind John's results blindly it seems because they support your own opinion.

Originally Posted by thoughtforfood

I dont think Mr. Chickenshit will be back any time soon. He is the cowardly type. Demean someone, get your ass handed to you for doing that, and then lay low. I think I called him a "fuckwit." I stand by that observation.

Originally Posted by Crankyfeet

I think I'll need to see your data... .

Please explain your model that produced "fuckwit" as a result. I stuck him into my model and it produced "Pretentious Patronizing Prick". I think you might have included his self-perceived "power" instead of just looking at all his bullshit "torque"....

Originally Posted by thoughtforfood

I dont think Mr. Chickenshit will be back any time soon. He is the cowardly type. Demean someone, get your ass handed to you for doing that, and then lay low. I think I called him a "fuckwit." I stand by that observation.

Originally Posted by alienator

uh-huh. Yeah. That must be it, because you said so. "ass handed to you..." uh-huh.

Originally Posted by alienator

uh-huh. Yeah. That must be it, because you said so. "ass handed to you..." uh-huh.

Originally Posted by alienator

uh-huh. Yeah. That must be it, because you said so. "ass handed to you..." uh-huh.

Originally Posted by Crankyfeet

uh-huh. Yeah. That must be it, because you said so. "Stiffness of the frame is irrelevant..." uh-huh.

Originally Posted by alienator

uh-huh. Yeah. That must be it, because you said so. "ass handed to you..." uh-huh.

Originally Posted by thoughtforfood

You could actually put that quote to music, you are talented!

Originally Posted by Crankyfeet

Look, let's not get too personal thoughtforfood. Alienator does make some useful contributions that members appreciate. We don't want him to sulk off and leave the forum, like he did for a week the last time his bullshit was exposed.

He might run away and go to another cycling forum like RBR. Hang on... he can't do that. He was banned from there for being a pretentious patronizing prick.... Maybe somewhere else.

Originally Posted by Crankyfeet

Here's the point. John makes claims of his model producing linear efficiencies as a function of "power". But the amount of deflection in the frame is not proportional to power. It is proportional to the torque which is dependant on resistance to one's pedal thrust. You can't load up the frme much if you take the chain off and stomp down on the pedal. But try putting a 300 tooth chainring on the front and then stomp down from a stationary start and see how much force is lost at the tire/road connection.