Re: power of positive thinking

alanstew@sbcglobal.net

On Jun 21, 6:52*am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
wrote:
> Dear Carl,
>
> If it doesn't matter, we can only assume you are happy to add the 7.

JFT...Since I can't even PRETEND to understand physics the only thing
I have to contribute here is this:
Bianchi, 1998, 28 lbs.
While riding this baby my bathroom scale went from 180 to 165.

Trek, 2007, 23 lbs.
And while riding this my bathroom scale went from 165 to 163.
Doh!!!

My conclusion: the cheaper older heavier bike was "better" for what I
want to do.
And since I'm not happy with these results, I had been thinking of
adding back 5 lbs of excess weight onto the Trek.
Since I think Carl is right, I'll take 5 of those 7, and since I think
you're right too, Carl can add only the extra 2.
Anybody who doesn't agree with my Solomonic proposal can meet me in
the alley for a Marquis of Queensbury.

Bike, bike, bike, meow,
ABS

Chalo

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
> Carl Fogel wrote:
> >
> >Alas, the calculators predict that Joe was yet another victim of
> >weight-weenie wishful thinking--surely you should be able to feel the
> >difference when you start pushing the pedals of a bike 1/3 lighter!
>
> You might not be able to feel the difference in speed (though 3% is
> conceivably noticeble), but you surely can feel some difference
> (perhaps it's handling, perhaps it's stability/instaility).
>
> Funny that a difference that large in bike weight is derided as
> weigh-weeniness. *Funny that 3% in time is considered weeniness.
>
> Dear Carl. *Please place a six pound piece of lead on your bike and
> leave it there for the next year or so.

I have a tool roll that I move around among all my bikes. It weighs a
few pounds-- less than six, but probably three or four. When I
combine it with a tube, a decent pump, a lock, and the bag to hold all
these things, I reckon that I've got at least six pounds of weight
that I add to any given bike when I ride.

I have never noticed any effect of that "extra weight", but I will say
this: My rides are more comfortable when I have those things along
with me than when I forget them.

Chalo

carlfogel@comcast.net

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 06:17:50 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
com> wrote:

><carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:h32p54ps4b9poso8qi7d5i2ilbofr5erq7@4ax.com...
>>
>> As for racing drivers, that's pretty much a myth. They rely on the pit
>> crew's stop watches to find out what equipment combinations are
>> actually faster. Their "feelings" about speed are notoriously
>> unreliable, which is hardly surprising, given the tremendous physical
>> stress of modern car racing and the tiny differences involved in lap
>> times. Without electronic timing, modern racing would be chaos. If
>> you're interested, "The Physics of NASCAR" gives some details about
>> such things.
>
>Actually when I worked with racing motorcycles the opinions of the riders
>were almost irrelevant. Many time a faster engine would feel slower simply
>because I'd widened the power band and that caused the bike to accelerate
>more smoothly and the rider would swear it was slower despite what the watch
>said.

Dear Tom,

Your opening "Actually" seems to suggest disagreement, but everything
else agrees with what I wrote.

So we're on the same page here, right?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Tom Kunich

<carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:60rq54han0namsapetc98p99987ji0hi3u@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 06:17:50 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
> com> wrote:
>>
>>Actually when I worked with racing motorcycles the opinions of the riders
>>were almost irrelevant. Many time a faster engine would feel slower simply
>>because I'd widened the power band and that caused the bike to accelerate
>>more smoothly and the rider would swear it was slower despite what the
>>watch
>>said.
>
> Your opening "Actually" seems to suggest disagreement, but everything
> else agrees with what I wrote.
>
> So we're on the same page here, right?

We're mostly on the right page save the fact that you're attempting to argue
where a simple mild disagreement exists.