Weight question

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The last figure I heard for Armstrong was 73kg which is about 160lbs,
I'm not sure how many stones that is.

-ilan

A stone is about 15 lbs, so that would make 160 = about ten and a half
stone.

Good grief. A stone is 14lbs so this makes him 11st 6lb or ~eleven and a
half stone.

PH

Philip Holman said:

<[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

A stone is about 15 lbs, so that would make 160 = about ten and a half
stone.

Good grief. A stone is 14lbs so this makes him 11st 6lb or ~eleven and a
half stone.

Sorry, the pound weight (used mostly in the US) has fallen against
the stone, given the rapid decline of the dollar against the euro.

I calibrated my cyclocomputer in kilometers, and the way our
economic policies are going, I expect that kph will rise above
0.8 mph before the end of the year. So when my 35 kph is 28 mph
I'll be able to easily ride away from my fellow Fatties.

Ron Ruff said:

A quick way to look at this, is that you'll never do better than the
ratio of the total weights... even on a climb so steep that all other
effects go to zero.

Hmmm... I'm the same height as Leipheimer and Popovich, and 1-2 kg
lighter. Is there a climb steep enough that will make my 15-20 extra
years and untold watts inferiority go to zero?

Quoted message said:

Hmmm... I'm the same height as Leipheimer and Popovich, and 1-2 kg
lighter. Is there a climb steep enough that will make my 15-20 extra
years and untold watts inferiority go to zero?

Sorry... power was a "fixed" quantity... and it only gets worse as it
gets steeper.

Quoted message said:

A stone is about 15 lbs, so that would make [...]

http://www.google.com/help/features.html#calculator

--
Firefox Browser - Rediscover the web - http://getffox.com/
Thunderbird E-mail and Newsgroups - http://gettbird.com/

in 474184 20050721 093045 Ewoud Dronkert said:

Quoted message said:

A stone is about 15 lbs, so that would make [...]

A stone is exactly 14 pounds.

Quoted message said:

I calibrated my cyclocomputer in kilometers, and the way our
economic policies are going, I expect that kph will rise above
0.8 mph before the end of the year. So when my 35 kph is 28 mph
I'll be able to easily ride away from my fellow Fatties.

Another good way to double your speed is to put 2 magnets on
diametrically opposed spokes. It works because the 2 magnets exert a
hyperbolically increasing attractive force. It may cause problems when
braking though.

Wins the KOF points competition.

-ilan

[email hidden] a écrit :

Quoted message said:

Philip Holman said:

<[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

A stone is about 15 lbs, so that would make 160 = about ten and a half
stone.

Good grief. A stone is 14lbs so this makes him 11st 6lb or ~eleven and a
half stone.

Sorry, the pound weight (used mostly in the US) has fallen against
the stone, given the rapid decline of the dollar against the euro.

I calibrated my cyclocomputer in kilometers, and the way our
economic policies are going, I expect that kph will rise above
0.8 mph before the end of the year. So when my 35 kph is 28 mph
I'll be able to easily ride away from my fellow Fatties.

Quoted message said:

Ron Ruff said:

A quick way to look at this, is that you'll never do better than the
ratio of the total weights... even on a climb so steep that all other
effects go to zero.

Hmmm... I'm the same height as Leipheimer and Popovich, and 1-2 kg
lighter. Is there a climb steep enough that will make my 15-20 extra
years and untold watts inferiority go to zero?

No, but if you can lose the pounds w/o losing the power...

Years ago my wife and I were on a hilly club ride on our tandem.
Another tandem had two guys, the stoker had huge shoulders - riding
behind them was like drafting a truck.

Huge stoker points to my wife and says "I wish I had my legs but her
weight." I replied "Then the rest of you would have to be made out of
toothpicks!"

Mark