Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

wieght vs. aerodynamics...sorry everyone
Quote | Reply
ok this is not a flamer. i have always been on the fence about this.

which is more important? i mean both sides make great points.

i leaning toward aero because if you look at the fastest human powered craft like the cheetah. they are heavy multi wheeled recumbents with complete fairings.

i mean who really knows. is every ride so diffrent that you can't point to either and say one is better?

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.
Quote Reply
Re: wieght vs. aerodynamics...sorry everyone [customerjon] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Gotta read any thread with an apology built right into the title.

I'm no expert, so my opinion is just that, opinion. If we assume that you are talking about Triathlon as opposed to regular cycling, I have to believe that aero is better. I think that, on a relatively flat course, as most tris seem to be, you gain much more, with much less effort expended, by hiding from the wind, than you do by limiting your weight. Cyclists limit weight because they are going to be on that bike for hours and hours, day after day, going up and down mountains, and I suspect that a light bike is easier to get up the Alps, and easier to handle on the way down. Since we're trying to save our legs for the run, and generally don't have categorized climbs on tri courses, I'd put my money on a little heavier, much more aero bike. Same as Lance does for the time trial stages.
Quote Reply
Re: wieght vs. aerodynamics...sorry everyone [customerjon] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I noticed that as I lose weight, I become slimmer. And as I become slimmer, I become more aerodynamic. But that's just me. Therefore, I vote for both.


E-Z

--It ain't a good idea to swim near MY bubbles! Tongue
Quote Reply
Re: wieght vs. aerodynamics...sorry everyone [E-Z] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
i see. e-z nither sees the glass as half full nor half empty, just too big a glass.

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.
Quote Reply
Re: wieght vs. aerodynamics...sorry everyone [E-Z] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
seriously, why not both? sure you won't get down to a 12 lb bike, but some of the presumed most aero pieces are currently some of the lightest. it's hard to get a wheel set lighter than the 404's. the zipp disk is lighter than most rear wheels. the hed aerobar is about the lightest setup out there. etc.

I'm calculating that I can drop 2 lbs off my P2k without resorting to any Ti bolts or anything like that. I'm targeting IMC next year so both the aero and weight advantages should pay off. why compromise?
Quote Reply
Re: wieght vs. aerodynamics...sorry everyone [customerjon] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I too agree you can have both. $ is the issue though. Having both is not cheap. Having one is not that cheap either!!!

With Zipp 404 or 909s you have a pretty light and aero wheel combo. Mavic and Hed obviously make some light and aero wheels as well. If you put on 19mm tubulars then you get even more aero and lighter (not sure if best ride for an IM though - a bit bumpy)

Then if you get a full Dura-Ace grupo (new one even better) then you pretty much the lightest grupo around. The Campy carbon grupo is just as nice if not nicer. If you want to go crazy, get a pair of carbon cranks and you get even lighter.

Then you buy some King Cage water bottles for $50 a pop, a nice Easton or Alien carbon seatpost, a Deda or Easton handlebar (might not be able to have a carbon one if you plan on using aerobars). Or the new Hed aerobar!!

You might want to get a fork as well. Something like Q Fork (I think this is the lightest) or a Time or a Reynolds.

Then you get a pair of Speedplays, a saddle of your choice and off you go.

Oh the frame. Gosh the list is endless. Cervelo P3 or the new Carbon, Trek TT, Trek 110 Superlight, Litespeed Vortex or Ultimate, Giant TCR Composite......yada yada yada.

I hear those aero helmets help as well and not much heavier (might even be lighter).
Quote Reply
Re: wieght vs. aerodynamics...sorry everyone [customerjon] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Aero is most important, with weight being second. Look at the lightbike: is is not all that aero, but it weighs just over 11 lbs. Sure, it has aero wheels, but not nearly as aero as a full-on aero wheelset.

When you add surface area to a bike, it adds weight. There is no simpler explanation. The only way to really lighten and aero up a bike is to spend boat loads of money. Want light? Get something like a scandium tubed bike (with scandium, not carbon stays) with round tubes, no aero bars, and some really flyweight (read non-aero) wheels. Get some lightweight tuning bits. Can you get it up a hill? Before anyone else. Will it get beat by a 22 lbs TT bike in a TT? Hell yes.

The most aero bikes ever are amongst the heaviest bikes made. Cat Carbon Bikes' Cheetah (ala Natascha Badmann) is one of the lighter ones out there, but the Lotus is exceptionally heavy, my Samantha isn't too light, the Hotta wasn't that light, and I could go on and on. Sure, the P3 is a nice ride and pretty aero, but if UCI rules were not in place, I am sure that Tyler would ride something closer to that funky green Cervelo (forgot the name of it) that is in the archival section of Cervelo's website. Carbon can make an aero shape that is light for what it is.

It would be best to compromise lightweight and aerodynamics. It's no fun lugging a 25 lb TT bike up a hill, but a 20 lb TT bike that is plenty aero can be achieved with no special parts (okay- a 470 gram aero front wheel that originally cost over 900 bones- got it for $250), and that's lighter than what the pro peloton rode as a regular stage bike just five years ago.
Quote Reply
Re: wieght vs. aerodynamics...sorry everyone [bunnyman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
   

I've gone over every part on my bike and I believe that the following equasion will help anyone decide on the perfect setup:

IN THIS ORDER

1. Reliability - so much for a light bike that breaks, my buddy flatted out in a race recently because he pinch flatted his superlight conti clinchers ... ouch. I opt for tried and true.

2. Fit - yeah the P3 is trick and the Visions are sweet BUT ... do they fit your riding style? For me they do not.

3. Aero - yeah baby, this is where it gets pricey, retro and strange.

4. Weight - I'm a weight weenie but my bike weighs 19 lbs ... hmmm.

5. Price - really, after the other four criteria I dont have much choice here. Not too many items meet my specs, not much to choose from many times.

So, take this into account and you will build the perfect bike the first time.
Quote Reply
Re: wieght vs. aerodynamics...sorry everyone [bunnyman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
since you brought up your lew wheel...

do you know if the reynolds wheel is the same as the lew wheel or did they screw it up when they bought the company?
Quote Reply
Re: wieght vs. aerodynamics...sorry everyone [taku] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I saw that they were using the White Industries LTA hub (very nice hub). If anything, they may have them am lot better than Lew had them. I haven't seen one to take a good look at it. I do know, for certain, that the last year of the Lew wheel was probably the best.
Quote Reply
Re: wieght vs. aerodynamics...sorry everyone [TimeTrial.org] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
19lbs is not a bad weight for an aero bike. I got Samantha down to 18 lbs in climbing configuration, but I do give up aerodynamics.

To reiterate your point: Reliability is key when going lightweight. Not using the bike setup in anything but races helps, as well. 16 or 18 spoke front wheels will only hold up for timed races, not everyday training or criteriums. I used to remove the dustcaps and rebuild my hubs after every race for smoother rolling. I had a pair of brake levers that were lighter than anything available now, but since I drilled the $#@% out of them, they did not hold up. Be sensible when going lightweight.

Conti Supersonics are the biggest waste of money. I had a pair when I strayed from the path of real tyres. See, I can speak from experience on this clincher v. tubular debate.

I have seen a very few parts that are cheaper AND lighter than some, but (with the exception of the Renn disc, which is cheaper and lighter than quite a few discs out there) usually it is either a substandard part, or reliability is severely sacrificed.

As I say: go aero, then light.
Quote Reply