Re: Difference in weights.

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

Quoted message said:

You'd be better off with the heavier bike, lightweights are a waste of

time.

A bit like central heating and indoor plumbing then.
--
Regards,
Pete

Alan Holmes said:

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

Quoted message said:

I've just weighed my all up hybrid with lock, saddlebag, lights etc and
it
comes in at a whopping 42 lbs. I then weighed the new road bike I've
just
got as I'm going to review it and put a ride report together vs. the

hybrid

Quoted message said:

and it is 22 lbs.

I shall be heading for the hills when we get the next sunny day,
although
given that it's only got 2 chainrings it might be a bit of a struggle
lighter weight or not.

You'd be better off with the heavier bike, lightweights are a waste of
time.

Alan
--
Reply to alan(at)windsor-berks(dot)freeserve(dot)co(dot)uk

A heavy comfortable bike is not necessarily the problem that many cyclists
assume. The Dutch are some of the best long distance cyclists and they
plod on inexorably on bikes that most UK cyclists wouldn't be seen dead on.

I had a lightish drop handlebar road bike for years and thought it was the
bees knees until I got a hybrid style touring bike with dynamos, locks,
extra bottle cages, 26 X 1.5 Marathon tyres, extra spokes, massive hubs,
full racking etc. It was about 4 kilos heavier than the road bike.

Initially I panicked and wondered what I had done (it cost an arm and a
leg), but as soon as I put my leg over (as it were) I was converted. The
more upright position, the ample gearing, the powerful braking and the
shear sense of security and stability made the whole experience of cycling
utterly different. Shortly after getting it I cycled 140 miles to the York
Rally with full camping gear - it took 12 hours and I still had the energy
to walk into town for a drink and to go out for a fast spin on Saturday.
On the road bike I would have bonked out after about 8 hours because of
the extra concentration required on lighter weight bikes.

I still try and keep weight down where I can (I just bought a titanium
saucepan - how posey is that!!) but on the whole I no longer worry about
weight.

The trick with long distance cycling is to remain unstressed. You must eat
enough, drink enough and go slow enough to stay calm and relaxed all day
long. It might take a little bit longer to get there but you enjoy the
journey as well as the arriving.

--
--

J u l i a n

__o
_`\(,_
(_)/ (_)

"Julian Symondson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:opr81e2lkulihyoj@left...

Quoted message said:

Alan Holmes said:

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

Quoted message said:

I've just weighed my all up hybrid with lock, saddlebag, lights etc and
it
comes in at a whopping 42 lbs. I then weighed the new road bike I've
just
got as I'm going to review it and put a ride report together vs. the

hybrid

Quoted message said:

and it is 22 lbs.

I shall be heading for the hills when we get the next sunny day,
although
given that it's only got 2 chainrings it might be a bit of a struggle
lighter weight or not.

You'd be better off with the heavier bike, lightweights are a waste of
time.

Alan
--
Reply to alan(at)windsor-berks(dot)freeserve(dot)co(dot)uk

A heavy comfortable bike is not necessarily the problem that many cyclists
assume. The Dutch are some of the best long distance cyclists and they
plod on inexorably on bikes that most UK cyclists wouldn't be seen dead

on.

Quoted message said:

Thats because they dont HILLS over there!

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks for email address

Tumbleweed said:

"Julian Symondson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:opr81e2lkulihyoj@left...

Quoted message said:

Alan Holmes said:

"Simon Mason" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> I've just weighed my all up hybrid with lock, saddlebag, lights etc

and

Quoted message said:

> it
> comes in at a whopping 42 lbs. I then weighed the new road bike I've
> just
> got as I'm going to review it and put a ride report together vs. the
hybrid
> and it is 22 lbs.
>
> I shall be heading for the hills when we get the next sunny day,
> although
> given that it's only got 2 chainrings it might be a bit of a struggle
> lighter weight or not.

You'd be better off with the heavier bike, lightweights are a waste of
time.

Alan
--
Reply to alan(at)windsor-berks(dot)freeserve(dot)co(dot)uk

A heavy comfortable bike is not necessarily the problem that many
cyclists
assume. The Dutch are some of the best long distance cyclists and they
plod on inexorably on bikes that most UK cyclists wouldn't be seen dead

on.

Quoted message said:

Thats because they dont HILLS over there!

There just the same when the visit Scotland - its the tortoise and the
hare syndrome.

--
--

J u l i a n

__o
_`\(,_
(_)/ (_)

"Julian Symondson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:opr81e2lkulihyoj@left...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 16:48:02 +0100, Alan Holmes
<[email hidden]> wrote:
A heavy comfortable bike is not necessarily the problem that many cyclists
assume. The Dutch are some of the best long distance cyclists and they
plod on inexorably on bikes that most UK cyclists wouldn't be seen dead

on.

Yebbut I think that for leisure riders weight is less about speed and more
about handling and if, as you say, you prefer the handling of the heavier
bike that's great.
Lets face it, I've lost 5kg since xmas which is the same as the difference
between a lightweight racer and a hybrid but I'm not going faster (allowing
for the fact I get fitter as the winter becomes more of a memory) but I
still prefer the feel of a lightweight bike (I use a heavier one in the
winter).

It's just a matter of personal preference.
--
Regards,
Pete

Quoted message said:

It's just a matter of personal preference.

I'm not saying the lightweights aren't fun simply that for long distance
touring comfort is more important than weight - you can keep going longer
and further if you are comfortable.

--

J u l i a n

__o
_`\(,_
(_)/ (_)

Julian Symondson said:

A heavy comfortable bike is not necessarily the problem that many cyclists
assume. The Dutch are some of the best long distance cyclists and they
plod on inexorably on bikes that most UK cyclists wouldn't be seen dead on.

I'd like to see some statistics before accepting that Dutch long distance
cyclists use heavy bikes.

Quoted message said:

I had a lightish drop handlebar road bike for years and thought it was the
bees knees until I got a hybrid style touring bike with dynamos, locks,
extra bottle cages, 26 X 1.5 Marathon tyres, extra spokes, massive hubs,
full racking etc. It was about 4 kilos heavier than the road bike.

Initially I panicked and wondered what I had done (it cost an arm and a
leg), but as soon as I put my leg over (as it were) I was converted. The
more upright position, the ample gearing, the powerful braking and the
shear sense of security and stability made the whole experience of cycling
utterly different. Shortly after getting it I cycled 140 miles to the York
Rally with full camping gear - it took 12 hours and I still had the energy
to walk into town for a drink and to go out for a fast spin on Saturday.
On the road bike I would have bonked out after about 8 hours because of
the extra concentration required on lighter weight bikes.

I didn't know that concentration consumed so many calories. Are you sure
that something else isn't a factor in this?

Quoted message said:

I still try and keep weight down where I can (I just bought a titanium
saucepan - how posey is that!!) but on the whole I no longer worry about
weight.

The trick with long distance cycling is to remain unstressed. You must eat
enough, drink enough and go slow enough to stay calm and relaxed all day
long. It might take a little bit longer to get there but you enjoy the
journey as well as the arriving.

How much do you weigh?

--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "I've had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn't
it." -Groucho Marx
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk

Michael MacClancy said:

I'd like to see some statistics before accepting that Dutch long distance
cyclists use heavy bikes.

The chances that some of them do are approaching 1, if you think about
it. "Dutch long distance cyclists" are not, I would imagine, completely
unified in the machinery they ride.

But if you think serious long distances are untenable on a heavy bike go
to HP Velotechnik's site and see what people have got up to on
Streetmachines. Light they ain't, but they've been on some very serious
tours.

Quoted message said:

I didn't know that concentration consumed so many calories. Are you sure
that something else isn't a factor in this?

Concentration seems an odd thing to blame, but comfort and ability to
relax in terms of position /is/ a major factor IME. I probably expend
more calories on a day tour on the Streetmachine than my old drop bar
tourer but I'd feel wiped out after 100km on drops because my body
ached, as opposed to just my legs.

Pete x.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch said:

Michael MacClancy said:

I'd like to see some statistics before accepting that Dutch long distance
cyclists use heavy bikes.

The chances that some of them do are approaching 1, if you think about
it. "Dutch long distance cyclists" are not, I would imagine, completely
unified in the machinery they ride.

I agree. My comment was based on a suspicion that Julian was asserting
that the Dutch routinely ride long distances on their traditional Dutch
bikes.

Quoted message said:

But if you think serious long distances are untenable on a heavy bike go
to HP Velotechnik's site and see what people have got up to on
Streetmachines. Light they ain't, but they've been on some very serious
tours.

I didn't mean to suggest that long distances are untenable on a heavy bike.
And I'm sure that a recumbent would be my weapon of choice were I to do
some loaded touring although I might consider a Streetmachine a bit heavy
for my own lightweight frame. I think it's true to say that lighter riders
will be happier on lighter bikes so suggesting that heavy bikes are better
for touring is potentially misleading. I think lighter riders will also
try to carry lighter loads when touring although I don't have any personal
experience.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I didn't know that concentration consumed so many calories. Are you sure
that something else isn't a factor in this?

Concentration seems an odd thing to blame, but comfort and ability to
relax in terms of position /is/ a major factor IME. I probably expend
more calories on a day tour on the Streetmachine than my old drop bar
tourer but I'd feel wiped out after 100km on drops because my body
ached, as opposed to just my legs.

But you wouldn't be bonking, would you? Muscle aches and discomfort are
something else. I personally don't see why a well set-up lightweight bike
should be so much more tiring to ride than a heavier one. After all, Lance
Armstrong rides the Tour on a very light bike. The main reason IMO for
touring on a heavier bike is that it's going to be stronger.

--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "I've just learned about his illness. Let's hope it's
nothing trivial." - Irvin S. Cobb
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk

Michael MacClancy said:

I agree. My comment was based on a suspicion that Julian was asserting
that the Dutch routinely ride long distances on their traditional Dutch
bikes.

Quite a lot of them probably do. It might not be the biggest country in
Europe but there's plenty of scope for a good tour.

Quoted message said:

I think it's true to say that lighter riders
will be happier on lighter bikes so suggesting that heavy bikes are better
for touring is potentially misleading.

Fair comment.

Quoted message said:

But you wouldn't be bonking, would you? Muscle aches and discomfort are
something else. I personally don't see why a well set-up lightweight bike
should be so much more tiring to ride than a heavier one. After all, Lance
Armstrong rides the Tour on a very light bike. The main reason IMO for
touring on a heavier bike is that it's going to be stronger.

All other things being reasonably equal, quite so, but they often
aren't. It depends where the weight is going. If, as on the
Streetmachine, the weight goes on things designed to improve
load-lugging and comfort then the extra weight may well be a good thing.
I find it is for me, even on an effectively unladen day ride. On the
rougher backroads I like my roadgoing suspension: it not only makes the
ride more comfortable but it makes the bike more efficient, despite the
extra weight. Chunkier tyres can have a similar effect. Serious racks
modelled on the Forth Bridge weigh more but they don't oscillate if you
get out of the saddle like light duty ones do, so you don't lose energy
to moving your bags side to side and you don't lose a degree of control
which /is/ fatiguing. And so on.

Professional cyclists aren't very good case studies for typical touring,
as they're amongst the fittest people on earth and most of us, errrr,
aren't, and they aren't carrying luggage which affects the bike's
handling. I wouldn't like to tour on Lance's Tour bike: I wouldn't get
up the big hills with luggage and the saddle would probably cripple me.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Michael MacClancy said:

I didn't know that concentration consumed so many calories. Are you sure
that something else isn't a factor in this?

The brain uses a huge number of calories (perhaps someone can tell us how
many).

It might seem strange but I think that if you are worried about every
pebble and pothole that you do get tireder quicker than if you can just
keep rolling without any concern which can do on a heavier (ie stronger
and more reliable bike).

I find I do the best mileages when I am thinking about the bike least - ie
when I am on tour and everything is interesting and new. Fitness is
important of course but psychological state is as well.

Quoted message said:

How much do you weigh?

10.5 stone

--

J u l i a n

__o
_`\(,_
(_)/ (_)

Julian Symondson said:

The brain uses a huge number of calories (perhaps someone can tell us
how many).

I don't think you're actually using many more joules through worrying
about things, but I would agree it makes a difference to one's basic
feelings of tiredness if you're a nervous wreck (or partway to being).
The rather benign radio interview I did the other day /drained/ me,
though I don't think it burned many calories!

Quoted message said:

It might seem strange but I think that if you are worried about every
pebble and pothole that you do get tireder quicker than if you can just
keep rolling without any concern which can do on a heavier (ie stronger
and more reliable bike).

I like the Streetmachine because it does just this, but a lightweight
bike can be strong and reliable. If someone gave me the option of a
tour on a Moulton New Series or a Galaxy, I'd go for the (22 lb, but
very strong and fully suspended) Moulton!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Quoted message said:

I think lighter riders will also
try to carry lighter loads when touring although I don't have any
personal experience.

This doesn't apply in my case (10.5 stone). To reiterate previous points,
I think that comfort is everything when touring. If you find you need a
goose down pillow and silk pillow cases to get a good nights sleep then
take them. If you need 2 pints of beer to get to sleep - take them. It's
wrong to think of cycling only in terms of speed and distance. You need to
create a whole viable lifestyle when touring otherwise you get fed up and
go home or you simply blindly aim at targets all the time without enjoying
whats going on.

The idea that a heavy bike is misery to peddle is just not true - you just
go slower but otherwise its just the same.

Also consider Josie Dew who knows more about touring than any of us I
suspect.

http://www.josiedew.co.uk/faq.htm

--
--

J u l i a n

__o
_`\(,_
(_)/ (_)

Peter Clinch said:

Julian Symondson said:

The brain uses a huge number of calories (perhaps someone can tell us
how many).

I don't think you're actually using many more joules through worrying
about things, but I would agree it makes a difference to one's basic
feelings of tiredness if you're a nervous wreck (or partway to being).

Google says about 20W, ie 20% of your entire (resting) power. There's
little doubt in my mind that thinking hard about a problem uses extra
energy - I can get very hot when puzzling over something!

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 11:49:37 +0100, "Julian Symondson"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

Michael MacClancy said:

I didn't know that concentration consumed so many calories. Are you sure
that something else isn't a factor in this?

The brain uses a huge number of calories (perhaps someone can tell us how
many).

The brain uses about a fifth of the body's energy, and 100W bulbs are
used to simulate people in building thermal efficiency testing. (Or
certainly they used to be)

So it's about 20W (i.e. about 20J/sec, or about 72KJ/hour) of which
about 25% (=> ~5W) goes on visual signal processing.

Does anyone know the correct conversion factor to calories? IIRC it's
about 4KJ : 1 Kcal, so my guess is

~ 18Kcal/hour

But that's for sedentary people indoors.

I've no idea a) how brain energy consumption rises with mental effort,
or b) how mental effort when cycling compares with say, sitting in
front of the telly, or doing a crossword.

Quoted message said:

It might seem strange but I think that if you are worried about every
pebble and pothole that you do get tireder quicker than if you can just
keep rolling without any concern which can do on a heavier (ie stronger
and more reliable bike).

I find I do the best mileages when I am thinking about the bike least - ie
when I am on tour and everything is interesting and new. Fitness is
important of course but psychological state is as well.

Quoted message said:

How much do you weigh?

10.5 stone

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

in message <opr82hmgwilihyoj@left>, Julian Symondson

(') said:

The idea that a heavy bike is misery to peddle is just not true

Oh yes it is. No-one doon ra barras wants a heavy bike these days!

Given the choice between _pedalling_ a light bike and _pedalling_ a
heavy one, though (all other things being equal) I'd choose the light
one every time.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Das Internet is nicht fuer gefingerclicken und giffengrabben... Ist
nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen. Das mausklicken sichtseeren
keepen das bandwit-spewin hans in das pockets muss; relaxen und
watchen das cursorblinken. -- quoted from the jargon file

Julian Symondson [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

Also consider Josie Dew who knows more about touring than any of us I
suspect.

Having seen the photo of her bike in C+ (I think) the other month, I can
honestly say that I think she's a nutcase. While I agree that speed
isn't everything, the reason I like cycling is the balance between
covering enough ground to watch the scenery change, and travelling
slowly enough to notice. If I'm travelling too slowly, I don't enjoy it
any more. Given that my next bike is likely to be in the Streetmachine
order of weight and geared up for touring, it'll be interesting to see
how this pans out. When looking at camping equipment to use on cycle
touring, I'm naturally gravitating towards the lighter-weight "high-
tech" equipment in preference to standard camping fare.

Jon

Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote:

: Having seen the photo of her bike in C+ (I think) the other month, I can
: honestly say that I think she's a nutcase. While I agree that speed

I don't. I wouldn't travel that way myself but when you're away for
a long time (6 months - 12 months say) then create comforts start to
matter more than a bit of extra weight.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org
"Technolibertarians make a philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook

On 6 Jun 2004 16:37:30 GMT, "Arthur Clune" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I wouldn't travel that way myself but when you're away for
a long time (6 months - 12 months say) then create comforts start to
matter more than a bit of extra weight.

And a robust bike is at a premium when you might be several days walk
from the nearest bike shop.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University