You weigh less or bike weigh less?

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

Quoted message said:

Here's a scenario regarding identical twins, Jim and John:

Jim weighs 160 pounds and rides a 20 pound bike. John weighs 155 pounds and rides a 25 pound bike.

With everything else being equal who should ride faster?

Unless his BMI is less than 18, John will ride faster. His cardio system will work better.

John, because he is in better shape, beats Jim up and takes his lighter bike and then rides most speedily 🙂

Pat Fleming said:

Here's a scenario regarding identical twins, Jim and John:

Jim weighs 160 pounds and rides a 20 pound bike. John weighs 155 pounds and rides a 25 pound bike.

Hey! You said they were identical. Are you my long lost relative from the ancient holy land
of Ireland?

Pat Fleming said:

Here's a scenario regarding identical twins, Jim and John:

Jim weighs 160 pounds and rides a 20 pound bike. John weighs 155 pounds and rides a 25 pound bike.

With everything else being equal who should ride faster?

Sorry, it's not like some 5th grade math problem. Too many variables aren't accounted for. Jim could
be more motivated than John (or visa versa) and everything else wouldn't matter.

riiiiight....

Got any other brain teasers for the mentally impaired there Pat?

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

Quoted message said:

Here's a scenario regarding identical twins, Jim and John:

Jim weighs 160 pounds and rides a 20 pound bike. John weighs 155 pounds and rides a 25 pound bike.

With everything else being equal who should ride faster?

Quoted message said:

Here's a scenario regarding identical twins, Jim and John:

Jim weighs 160 pounds and rides a 20 pound bike. John weighs 155 pounds and rides a 25 pound bike.

With everything else being equal who should ride faster?

Humm, good question.

My guess is that Jim and John will ride at the same speed - which is probably not the answer you're
looking for. But I base my answer on the fact that you specified that "everything" else was to be
equal. 'Everything' to me would mean horsepower and road friction as well as wind drag and all
that. So, if you 'push" two bikes down the road with "everything equal", then they must travel at
the same speed.

But I think what you really wanted to know is whether or not there is a tradeoff between bike weight
and rider weight that is capable of optimization - and with everything else subject to change as
dictated by the intrinsic variability of the two situations - meaning the two similar riders and
their two similar bikes. And I think the answer to that question is not nearly so obvious.

In thinking about it we can envision a peak in the velocity of any rider when his bike is lightest,
and when he is most fit. This is what makes one rider faster than another - being on a light bike
and being more fit. So, the problem resolves itself once one we realizes that both of these riders
are generally not equally fit. If Jim is at his optimum weight, he will ride faster than his
lightweight brother. But if John is at his optimum weight, he will ride faster than his overweight
brother. In short, either one can be faster. Fitness is the key.

There is however the possibility that each cyclist is equally fit by virtue of being unfit in equal
amounts but in opposite directions - if you know what I mean. In other words, Jim is a little
underweight, and riding a heavier bike, and John is a little overweight but riding a lighter bike.
Who then will ride faster? Hummm, I think we've been here before. This sounds a lot like the
original question. And here I suspect that the situation will resolve itself by more rigorously
defining what is meant by "equally unfit".

I think I'll go for a bike ride now,

- Stan Shankman

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Jim weighs 160 pounds and rides a 20 pound bike. John weighs 155 pounds and rides a 25
pound bike.

With everything else being equal who should ride faster?

Unless his BMI is less than 18, John will ride faster. His cardio system

will

Quoted message said:

work better.

Naw ... Jim ... he'll have the psychological advantage of having a better bike;-) depends on what
the 5 lbs is ... fat John wins ... muscle Jim would win ...

"smiles" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:gfk7b.3518
[email hidden]:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Naw ... Jim ... he'll have the psychological advantage of having a better bike;-) depends on what
the 5 lbs is ... fat John wins ... muscle Jim would win ...

That depends on the course. On a very hilly course more muscle could actually be a bad thing. Then
again 5 lbs. difference probably would matter much. It also depends on where the weight is
distributed. If he has 5 lbs. more leg muscle, then Jim will probably win the sprint. However, if it
is on his upper body, John will probably drop Jim in the hills.

- Boyd S.

"Stan Shankman" <[email hidden]> wrote in
:"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Here's a scenario regarding identical twins, Jim and John:

Jim weighs 160 pounds and rides a 20 pound bike. John weighs 155 pounds and rides a 25
pound bike.

With everything else being equal who should ride faster?

Humm, good question.

My guess is that Jim and John will ride at the same speed - which is probably not the answer
you're looking for. But I base my answer on the fact that you specified that "everything" else was
to be equal. 'Everything' to me would mean horsepower and road friction as well as wind drag and
all that. So, if you 'push" two bikes down the road with "everything equal", then they must travel
at the same speed.

But I think what you really wanted to know is whether or not there is a tradeoff between bike
weight and rider weight that is capable of optimization - and with everything else subject to
change as dictated by the intrinsic variability of the two situations - meaning the two similar
riders and their two similar bikes. And I think the answer to that question is not nearly so
obvious.

In thinking about it we can envision a peak in the velocity of any rider when his bike is
lightest, and when he is most fit. This is what makes one rider faster than another - being on a
light bike and being more fit. So, the problem resolves itself once one we realizes that both of
these riders are generally not equally fit. If Jim is at his optimum weight, he will ride faster
than his lightweight brother. But if John is at his optimum weight, he will ride faster than his
overweight brother. In short, either one can be faster. Fitness is the key.

There is however the possibility that each cyclist is equally fit by virtue of being unfit in
equal amounts but in opposite directions - if you know what I mean. In other words, Jim is a
little underweight, and riding a heavier bike, and John is a little overweight but riding a
lighter bike. Who then will ride faster? Hummm, I think we've been here before. This sounds a lot
like the original question. And here I suspect that the situation will resolve itself by more
rigorously defining what is meant by "equally unfit".

I think I'll go for a bike ride now,

- Stan Shankman

Nice way to side step the question.

I think what the original poster mean was this:

"Can my fatty master's ass keep up with the fitter guys on my group ride (on *relatively* heavy
bikes) by buying a crazy expensive, crazy light bike?"

From what I've seen on my group rides, the answer is no.

Just my $0.02.

- Boyd S.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Here's a scenario regarding identical twins, Jim and John:

Jim weighs 160 pounds and rides a 20 pound bike. John weighs 155 pounds and rides a 25
pound bike.

With everything else being equal who should ride faster?

Unless his BMI is less than 18, John will ride faster. His cardio system will work better.

With an equal BMI and equal levels of fitness, not to mention a lighter bike, Jim would win. Think
of two engines with the same horsepower per cc output and the same weight, except one of them has a
larger displacement.

On a climb with both on the same type of bike it gets more complicated.

The problem with this problem is that "everything else" can't be equal. If both have the same power
output, then John is better conditioned while Jim would have smaller lungs, less cardio capacity
and/or less strength but higher Cx. If they have the same BMI and level of fitness, they can't have
the same power. Etc.

JP

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Jim weighs 160 pounds and rides a 20 pound bike. John weighs 155 pounds and rides a 25 pound
bike.

With everything else being equal who should ride faster?

Unless his BMI is less than 18, John will ride faster. His cardio system

will

Quoted message said:

work better.

Naw ... Jim ... he'll have the psychological advantage of having a better bike;-) depends on what
the 5 lbs is ... fat John wins ... muscle Jim would win ...

The limiting factor in (road) bike racing is rarely muscle. It's an endurance sport.

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

Quoted message said:

Here's a scenario regarding identical twins, Jim and John:

Jim weighs 160 pounds and rides a 20 pound bike. John weighs 155 pounds and rides a 25 pound bike.

With everything else being equal who should ride faster?

There are too many factors to consider, not in evidence. If you keep going in this direction and the
additional weight added to one bike was in the wheels, I think it would grow to be a large factor.

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

Quoted message said:

Here's a scenario regarding identical twins, Jim and John:

Quoted message said:

Jim weighs 160 pounds and rides a 20 pound bike. John weighs 155 pounds and rides a 25 pound bike.

Quoted message said:

With everything else being equal who should ride faster?

Given that John probably has less muscle mass and a less voluminious circulatory system,
probably Jim.

-Sonarrat.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Naw ... Jim ... he'll have the psychological advantage of having a

better

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

bike;-) depends on what the 5 lbs is ... fat John wins ... muscle Jim

would

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

win ...

The limiting factor in (road) bike racing is rarely muscle. It's an

endurance

Quoted message said:

sport.

You must not have cycling legs;-)

Since when is the mass sprint for the finish have anything to do with endurance?? Draft and sprint
.. Cipo or Petacchi??

Is it me or does this sound like Pokemon ...

s boardnbike.comboardnbike.comOpen ↗

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

Quoted message said:

Here's a scenario regarding identical twins, Jim and John:

Jim weighs 160 pounds and rides a 20 pound bike. John weighs 155 pounds and rides a 25 pound bike.

With everything else being equal who should ride faster?

What's equal their (sustainable) power output or their power to weight ratio?

If power output, then John would be faster up the hill if he had the same weight bike. He still
might be faster even with the heavier bike if it is a standing climb. It takes more power to
continually lift a 5lb heavier body than a 5lb lighter body.

If power to weight ratio, then Jim is faster because he has more power with the same overall weight.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Naw ... Jim ... he'll have the psychological advantage of having a

better

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

bike;-) depends on what the 5 lbs is ... fat John wins ... muscle Jim

would

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

win ...

The limiting factor in (road) bike racing is rarely muscle. It's an

endurance

Quoted message said:

sport.

You must not have cycling legs;-)

Since when is the mass sprint for the finish have anything to do with endurance?? Draft and sprint
.. Cipo or Petacchi??

Dumbass -

According to:

cycling4fans.dee2b cipollini.htmOpen ↗

Cipollini is 6'4" and 174 lbs. That's a BMI of: 21.2 which I'll bet is much less than your Fat Ass.

Here's a calculator for you so you can see by how much:

nhlbisupport.combminojs.htmOpen ↗

When The Lion Queen trained in San Diego one winter, he did Palomar in ~60 minutes. Most Cat 1
climbers around here can't do that.

The sprinters have to get to the finish after 150+k of racing without getting dropped and having
some energy left for the sprint. Note how Nothstein has shed mucho weight (40 or 50 lbs?) since
converting to road.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You must not have cycling legs;-)

Since when is the mass sprint for the finish have anything to do with endurance?? Draft and
sprint .. Cipo or Petacchi??

Dumbass -

you're the dumbass ... taking time to research this;-) ... this is a hypothetical situation ... and
is therefore a waste of energy to figure out ...anyway, i was just ribbing you, since based on your
previous responses to most posts you're a "better than all" pompous ass who thinks this is serious
in most cases and deserve to be baited;-)

Duh, on the getting to the mass sprint ... and stay away from my "fat ass"

s boardnbike.comboardnbike.comOpen ↗

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You must not have cycling legs;-)

Since when is the mass sprint for the finish have anything to do with endurance?? Draft and
sprint .. Cipo or Petacchi??

Dumbass -

you're the dumbass ... taking time to research this;-) ... this is a hypothetical situation ...
and is therefore a waste of energy to figure out

It's not a hypothetical situation at all. Road Racing is an endurance sport. Even sprinters need a
lot of miles in their legs or they arrive at the finish line with nothing.

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in
:"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in
:"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Sure, but almost never is lack of muscle mass a deciding factor in road racing.

I dunno -- one could make a good argument that in a race with a lot of climbing the scrawny guys
who lack muscle mass will beat the burly sprinter types.

I agree, perhaps my wording was not adequate to get the point across.

Smiles was trying to claim that if one of the twins had more muscle, he would win.

Even sprinters (road) tend to go better when they are lighter.

Of course. Your wording was perfectly clear -- I was just perverting your intended meaning to help
you make your point by giving an example that contradicted smiles' assertion.

But I was a dumbass because I had skipped the post that had the total weights equal by making one
bike heavy.

I'm wondering if "smiles" is an alias for Dan Volker -- I think it was about 2 years ago or more he
popped in here and started arguing about how bodybuilding was a great way to develop a racer. I was
curious how the musclemen would do in the races in South Florida, but I'll assume they sucked or
Volker would have come back to rub our noses in it if they had done well. Or maybe they got tossed
for testing positive for steroids.

NS

ps -- I only remember Volker by name because I'd also seen him spouting off in scuba NGs