>> #1: It's somewhat arrogant to assume that a flat-bar bike exists only for
>> a bike path.
> Go to:
> http://www2.trekbikes.com/bikes/index.php
>
> I picked that bike from here:
> http://www2.trekbikes.com/bikes/category.php?c=4
>
> So please direct complaints to Trek 
.
And wouldn't you know it, I have, often times, had conversations with the
marketing department about the dangers of pigeon-holing customers into
certain types of bikes and/or riding.
>> #2: Discovery trains on heavier, 32-spoke wheels. Called the "Classic",
>> it's quite a bit heavier, and quite a bit less aero. But they like
>> training on them because they race wheels then feel so much faster. Guess
>> it's like runners training with ankle weights. Come race time, the
>> heavier wheels go away and the reduced-spoke-count wheels are used when
>> it matters.
>
> The aerodynamics are more strongly affected by rim profile than by
> spoke-count,
> from calculations I've seen. Not that a 2% or whatever difference in wind
> drag
> matters much on the bike path, or in metric centuries. In each case
> durability
> is by far the #1 consideration for wheels. I know, I know, Rolfs or
> Bontrager
> paired spoke wheels are quite durable. Still, the practices of the pro
> teams
> suggests conventional 32-36 spoke wheels are better.
It would be very difficult to do a reasonably-good job of optimizing a 1500
gram wheel and a 1900 gram version, and not have the 1900 gram wheel being
stronger. I suppose, if it were entirely for the purpose of training on
something heavier, they could provide optional weights to hang on the
spokes, but in terms of durability, if a set of wheels that weighs 3/4 pound
more than another isn't stronger, something would seem quite wrong.
Rim profile is a major contributor to aerodynamics, but not just height. The
pros (at least those on Discovery) generally ride on cross-sections wider
than what's sold to the general public. The wider cross section adds weight,
provides negligible improvement in strength, but significant improvements in
aerodynamics because it more-closely matches the width of the tire.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m> wrote in message
news:461AD81E.8020907@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m...
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>> No self-respecting metric century rider would be caught with these
>>> things:
>>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2007/tech/probikes/ballan_wilier07/BallanBike001.jpg
>>>
>>> In contrast, here's a bike built ready for the bike path:
>>> http://www2.trekbikes.com/images/bikes_my07/large/79fx_nudecarbon.jpg
>>
>> All joking aside, I have two serious comments-
>>
>> #1: It's somewhat arrogant to assume that a flat-bar bike exists only for
>> a bike path.
> Go to:
> http://www2.trekbikes.com/bikes/index.php
>
> I picked that bike from here:
> http://www2.trekbikes.com/bikes/category.php?c=4
>
> So please direct complaints to Trek .
>
>>
>> #2: Discovery trains on heavier, 32-spoke wheels. Called the "Classic",
>> it's quite a bit heavier, and quite a bit less aero. But they like
>> training on them because they race wheels then feel so much faster. Guess
>> it's like runners training with ankle weights. Come race time, the
>> heavier wheels go away and the reduced-spoke-count wheels are used when
>> it matters.
>
> The aerodynamics are more strongly affected by rim profile than by
> spoke-count,
> from calculations I've seen. Not that a 2% or whatever difference in wind
> drag
> matters much on the bike path, or in metric centuries. In each case
> durability
> is by far the #1 consideration for wheels. I know, I know, Rolfs or
> Bontrager
> paired spoke wheels are quite durable. Still, the practices of the pro
> teams
> suggests conventional 32-36 spoke wheels are better.
>
> Dan
