new bike or new wheels?

new bike or new wheels?

Post by vabergf.. » Sat, 06 May 2000 04:00:00


Many years ago(15-25) I used to ride a lot, owning steel Italvega and
Pinarello frames.  I recently wanted to start riding again and bought
what seemed like the most bang for the buck, a '99 Specialized Allez w/
(mostly) 105 components, to see if I'd get hooked on riding again.
I've ridden for about a year and now have the itch to upgrade.  I
looked at a Trek 2300 and liked it, but someone suggested that a lot of
the difference came from the Rolf Vector Comp wheels.  I'm satisfied
with the components on my bike, but I know I could save weight with the
Trek's Ultegra.  Specialized won't publish frame weights, so I don't
know whether it is comparable or not.  Does anyone have an opinion as
to whether the '99 aluminum Allez frame is worth upgrading the wheels
on?  Or should I sell and buy a complete package?  The wheels on the
Allez are Mavic CXP 21 with Ritchie hubs (Comp 32?). I'm 41 and ride 50-
100 miles a week and hope to do a (flat) century by summers' end.
Thanks.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

 
 
 

new bike or new wheels?

Post by Qui si parla Campagno » Sun, 07 May 2000 04:00:00

<<  I
looked at a Trek 2300 and liked it, but someone suggested that a lot of
the difference came from the Rolf Vector Comp wheels. >>
Doubt that-

Getting faster comes from four things, IMO
-Fit-does the frameset fit you?
-fitness-are you as fit as possible?
-finesse-riding smart
-fat-lack there of on you-

You can buy a lighter wheelset but they will be only about 100 grams or so
lighter-about 1/3 of a pound, less than a full water bottle-
Plus Ulterga isn't hugely lighter than new 105-

Your frameset. if it fits ya, is fine-as things go south, upgrade, like Eddy
Merckx said, 'ride lots'-

Peter Chisholm
"Vecchio's" Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl ST.
Boulder, CO
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com

 
 
 

new bike or new wheels?

Post by Skippyst » Tue, 09 May 2000 04:00:00

Revolving weight is more important than non-revolving weight.  Back in the
Schwinn Varsity days, the technical editors of Bicycling used to tell readers
that if they switched the wheels between a Varsity (40+ lb monstrosity, all
steel everything) and a Schwinn Paramount (25 lb all Campy, Reynolds, the
ultimate American made road bike) and ran them over a given course, the Varsity
would be faster than the Paramount.
Hope this helps.  Hope you enjoy whatever you do.

 
 
 

new bike or new wheels?

Post by Jon Isaa » Tue, 09 May 2000 04:00:00

Quote:
>Revolving weight is more important than non-revolving weight.  Back in the
>Schwinn Varsity days, the technical editors of Bicycling used to tell readers
>that if they switched the wheels between a Varsity (40+ lb monstrosity, all
>steel everything) and a Schwinn Paramount (25 lb all Campy, Reynolds, the
>ultimate American made road bike) and ran them over a given course, the
>Varsity
>would be faster than the Paramount.
>Hope this helps.  Hope you enjoy whatever you do.

You might want to check previous threads on this one.  Certainly between a
Paramount and a Varsity there is significant difference though the rotating
mass is only important when accellerating.  At a constant speed it has the same
effect as other mass.  

With modern wheels this difference is small.

jon isaacs

 
 
 

new bike or new wheels?

Post by Mike Jacoubowsk » Tue, 09 May 2000 04:00:00

Quote:
> Revolving weight is more important than non-revolving weight.

Uh-oh...don't go there!  Could restart the TTNE (thread that never ends).
It seems that the engineers here have adequately demonstrated the physics
that show rotating weight is nearly irrelevant on a bicycle, since the
highest possible accelerations are so low in the grand scheme of things
that, for the most part, the differences between rotating weight and
otherwise drops out as noise in the equation.

This *does* fly in the face of seat-of-the-pants observations, but there
could be other issues involved, such as the fact that lighter-weight tires
and rims are more compliant than heavier ones and feel more lively etc etc.

--Mike--     Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


Quote:
> Revolving weight is more important than non-revolving weight.  Back in the
> Schwinn Varsity days, the technical editors of Bicycling used to tell
readers
> that if they switched the wheels between a Varsity (40+ lb monstrosity,
all
> steel everything) and a Schwinn Paramount (25 lb all Campy, Reynolds, the
> ultimate American made road bike) and ran them over a given course, the
Varsity
> would be faster than the Paramount.
> Hope this helps.  Hope you enjoy whatever you do.

 
 
 

new bike or new wheels?

Post by CV25 » Tue, 09 May 2000 04:00:00


Quote:
(Skippystev) writes:
>Revolving weight is more important than non-revolving weight.  

Yeah, it's SOOOOOOOOOOOOO important, it's usually blown out of proportion by
the average cyclist to the point of epic quantities.

Quote:
>Back in the
>Schwinn Varsity days, the technical editors of Bicycling used to tell readers
>that if they switched the wheels between a Varsity (40+ lb monstrosity, all
>steel everything) and a Schwinn Paramount (25 lb all Campy, Reynolds, the
>ultimate American made road bike) and ran them over a given course, the
>Varsity
>would be faster than the Paramount.
>Hope this helps.  Hope you enjoy whatever you do.

Does anyone ever really listen to the drivel printed in such mag's?

Robin Hubert

 
 
 

new bike or new wheels?

Post by Peter Col » Tue, 09 May 2000 04:00:00

I did several rounds on this subject in one of the MTB groups (which I'm not
eager to repeat), one of the things that occurred to me then was perhaps
some of the skew between perception and measurement could be due to the
gyroscopic forces (proportionally larger to rotating mass/inertia) making
the wheel feel 'mass-ier than it actually is.


Quote:
> > Revolving weight is more important than non-revolving weight.

> Uh-oh...don't go there!  Could restart the TTNE (thread that never ends).
> It seems that the engineers here have adequately demonstrated the physics
> that show rotating weight is nearly irrelevant on a bicycle, since the
> highest possible accelerations are so low in the grand scheme of things
> that, for the most part, the differences between rotating weight and
> otherwise drops out as noise in the equation.

> This *does* fly in the face of seat-of-the-pants observations, but there
> could be other issues involved, such as the fact that lighter-weight tires
> and rims are more compliant than heavier ones and feel more lively etc

etc.
 
 
 

new bike or new wheels?

Post by Jobst Bran » Tue, 09 May 2000 04:00:00

Quote:
Peter Cole writes:
> I did several rounds on this subject in one of the MTB groups (which
> I'm not eager to repeat), one of the things that occurred to me then
> was perhaps some of the skew between perception and measurement
> could be due to the gyroscopic forces (proportionally larger to
> rotating mass/inertia) making the wheel feel 'mass-ier than it
> actually is.

You must have missed all those discussions as well because there is no
gyroscopic force that you can feel for real physical reasons and that
these forces are so small that most bicyclists cannot ride no hands
because they are not sensitive to these light forces.  Besides, if you
have driven a car on snow or ice, you may recall that you can tell the
road is slippery by the weightless steering sensation (even without
power steering).  Automobile wheels turn faster and are heavier by a
large margin from a bicycle front wheel.


 
 
 

new bike or new wheels?

Post by Peter Col » Tue, 09 May 2000 04:00:00

Yes, you're right. My conjecture fell a little shy of half-baked, sorry, I
wasn't thinking.


Quote:
> Peter Cole writes:

> > I did several rounds on this subject in one of the MTB groups (which
> > I'm not eager to repeat), one of the things that occurred to me then
> > was perhaps some of the skew between perception and measurement
> > could be due to the gyroscopic forces (proportionally larger to
> > rotating mass/inertia) making the wheel feel 'mass-ier than it
> > actually is.

> You must have missed all those discussions as well because there is no
> gyroscopic force that you can feel for real physical reasons and that
> these forces are so small that most bicyclists cannot ride no hands
> because they are not sensitive to these light forces.  Besides, if you
> have driven a car on snow or ice, you may recall that you can tell the
> road is slippery by the weightless steering sensation (even without
> power steering).  Automobile wheels turn faster and are heavier by a
> large margin from a bicycle front wheel.



 
 
 

new bike or new wheels?

Post by Jeremy Mortime » Wed, 10 May 2000 04:00:00

Jobst Brandt wrote (apropos of the weight of wheels, more or less):

Quote:
> You must have missed all those discussions as well because there is no
> gyroscopic force that you can feel for real physical reasons and that
> these forces are so small that most bicyclists cannot ride no hands
> because they are not sensitive to these light forces.  Besides, if you
> have driven a car on snow or ice, you may recall that you can tell the
> road is slippery by the weightless steering sensation (even without
> power steering).  Automobile wheels turn faster and are heavier by a
> large margin from a bicycle front wheel.

I love these physics threads, but I wonder that the engineers never factor
in the placebo effect. I'm sure you could measure it. E.g. the original
poster - if people here had said "yes, those are great wheels", I bet he'd
have gone and bought them and gone faster, irrespective of the physics.

I suppose it's a bit off topic in this thread, but who has good tips for
exploiting this effect? I know I do my regular circuit faster if I polish
my bike first, I have the times to prove it. I suspect it might go faster
because it says "Bianchi" on every tube, too. Anyone else?

Jeremy

 
 
 

new bike or new wheels?

Post by Dieter Buerssn » Wed, 10 May 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

>You must have missed all those discussions as well because there is no
>gyroscopic force that you can feel for real physical reasons and that
>these forces are so small that most bicyclists cannot ride no hands
>because they are not sensitive to these light forces.

Most bicylists I know, can ride no hands. When I was about seven years
all my friends in the same age could do it already (IIRC). My grandfather,
who was almost 70, could still do it.

As a side note, I still follow "artistic bicycling" in Germany. I have
not seen a single person, that can ride no hands backwards (on the
fixed gear bikes used), while riding backwards on the back wheel only
no hands is not that difficult at all. So I wonder how much gyroscopic
forces have to do with balancing the bicycle.

--
Regards, Dieter Buerssner

 
 
 

new bike or new wheels?

Post by terry mors » Wed, 10 May 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

> I have not seen a single person, that can ride no hands backwards
> (on the fixed gear bikes used), while riding backwards on the back wheel
> only no hands is not that difficult at all. So I wonder how much gyroscopic
> forces have to do with balancing the bicycle.

I doubt that anyone could ever ride backwards with no hands. When
ridden backwards, a normal bicycle's steering is inherently unstable.
Any small error in steering is amplified quickly into a large error,
and down goes the rider.

Ever notice how slowly one can ride a bicycle without falling over? The
gyroscopic forces at these speeds are miniscule.

-terry

 
 
 

new bike or new wheels?

Post by Tom Kunic » Wed, 10 May 2000 04:00:00


Quote:
> Jobst Brandt wrote (apropos of the weight of wheels, more or less):

> > You must have missed all those discussions as well because there is no
> > gyroscopic force that you can feel for real physical reasons and that
> > these forces are so small that most bicyclists cannot ride no hands
> > because they are not sensitive to these light forces.  Besides, if you
> > have driven a car on snow or ice, you may recall that you can tell the
> > road is slippery by the weightless steering sensation (even without
> > power steering).  Automobile wheels turn faster and are heavier by a
> > large margin from a bicycle front wheel.

> I love these physics threads, but I wonder that the engineers never factor
> in the placebo effect. I'm sure you could measure it. E.g. the original
> poster - if people here had said "yes, those are great wheels", I bet he'd
> have gone and bought them and gone faster, irrespective of the physics.

Chances are he would have bought them and THOUGHT that he was going faster.

Quote:
> I suppose it's a bit off topic in this thread, but who has good tips for
> exploiting this effect? I know I do my regular circuit faster if I polish
> my bike first, I have the times to prove it. I suspect it might go faster
> because it says "Bianchi" on every tube, too. Anyone else?

Decal fiends find their bikes much faster with more decals on them than
without.
 
 
 

new bike or new wheels?

Post by Jobst Bran » Wed, 10 May 2000 04:00:00

Quote:
Terry Morse writes:
>> I have not seen a single person, that can ride no hands backwards
>> (on the fixed gear bikes used), while riding backwards on the back
>> wheel only no hands is not that difficult at all.  So I wonder how
>> much gyroscopic forces have to do with balancing the bicycle.
> I doubt that anyone could ever ride backwards with no hands.  When
> ridden backwards, a normal bicycle's steering is inherently
> unstable.  Any small error in steering is amplified quickly into a
> large error, and down goes the rider.

If you get a chance to see the silent film "Joe E Brown at the Six Day
Races" in which he does all the stunts you ever imagined, including
riding forward and backward.  In the stunt riding world championships,
riders balance on their shoulder against the head tube, rear wheel
strait up in the air and propel themselves around the stage "dialing
a number with one finger in the front spokes" so to speak.  Forwards
and backwards has no more meaning in this level of skill.  If it has a
wheel, it can be ridden.  The concept of designing a bicycle that
can't be ridden is nullified by these artists.

Quote:
> Ever notice how slowly one can ride a bicycle without falling over?
> The gyroscopic forces at these speeds are miniscule.

It's even smaller on a roller blade skate that is balanced in similar
manner and yet smaller on an ice skate.


 
 
 

new bike or new wheels?

Post by Ken Freela » Thu, 11 May 2000 04:00:00

Placebo affect? Please try one more time to convince me I cannot tell
the difference between an RSX hub and a Dura Ace or Spinergy.
Ken
Quote:

>Many years ago(15-25) I used to ride a lot, owning steel Italvega and
>Pinarello frames.  I recently wanted to start riding again and bought
>what seemed like the most bang for the buck, a '99 Specialized Allez w/
>(mostly) 105 components, to see if I'd get hooked on riding again.
>I've ridden for about a year and now have the itch to upgrade.  I
>looked at a Trek 2300 and liked it, but someone suggested that a lot of
>the difference came from the Rolf Vector Comp wheels.  I'm satisfied
>with the components on my bike, but I know I could save weight with the
>Trek's Ultegra.  Specialized won't publish frame weights, so I don't
>know whether it is comparable or not.  Does anyone have an opinion as
>to whether the '99 aluminum Allez frame is worth upgrading the wheels
>on?  Or should I sell and buy a complete package?  The wheels on the
>Allez are Mavic CXP 21 with Ritchie hubs (Comp 32?). I'm 41 and ride 50-
>100 miles a week and hope to do a (flat) century by summers' end.
>Thanks.

>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.