Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure if you know about Merckx's bike for his hour record - they did many interesting modifications to it aiming to reduce its weight
Yeah, Sheldon mentions it in this article. I don't think those mods helped. Weight has no impact on sustained speed.
MIT Aluminum Bicycle Project 1974 (2016)
21–30 of 152 posts
Re: MIT Aluminum Bicycle Project 1974 (2016)
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure if you know about Merckx's bike for his hour record - they did many interesting modifications to it aiming to reduce its weight
Yeah, Sheldon mentions it in this article. I don't think those mods helped. Weight has no impact on sustained speed.
On a nice track, assuming a perfectly smooth surface and zero elevation change, I'm willing to accept the effect may not matter enough to care. But introduce even just a little bumpiness or some elevation change (perhaps in the track curves), and it might matter for someone pursuing the hour record.
Re: MIT Aluminum Bicycle Project 1974 (2016)
#23This trend has continued -- it is very noticeable in road and mountain bikes.
But this trades off against impact resistance, aerodynamics, and the can-it-fit-between-your-legs-metric.
Re: MIT Aluminum Bicycle Project 1974 (2016)
#24I'm convinced titanium is a pretty optimal bike material. I hate aluminum frames, too stiff, some amount of flex makes a bike so much nicer. Hate carbon, too. Steel is nice. I've have a lite ghisallo frame which I think was under 2lbs. The whole bike is under 15lbs and still manages to carry my 200lbs of weight.
Re: MIT Aluminum Bicycle Project 1974 (2016)
#25I'm convinced titanium is a pretty optimal bike material. I hate aluminum frames, too stiff, some amount of flex makes a bike so much nicer. Hate carbon, too. Steel is nice. I've have a lite ghisallo frame which I think was under 2lbs. The whole bike is under 15lbs and still manages to carry my 200lbs of weight.
Titanium frames have a devoted fan base. Personally, I tried to notice the difference back when I did road racing but didn't. Maybe I didn't want to: Ti ain't cheap.
Re: MIT Aluminum Bicycle Project 1974 (2016)
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, Sheldon mentions it in this article. I don't think those mods helped. Weight has no impact on sustained speed.
You slow down incrementally between every power stroke.
Re: MIT Aluminum Bicycle Project 1974 (2016)
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure if you know about Merckx's bike for his hour record - they did many interesting modifications to it aiming to reduce its weight
Yeah, Sheldon mentions it in this article. I don't think those mods helped. Weight has no impact on sustained speed.
Re: MIT Aluminum Bicycle Project 1974 (2016)
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, Sheldon mentions it in this article. I don't think those mods helped. Weight has no impact on sustained speed.
> Weight has no impact on sustained speed. On a nice track, assuming a perfectly smooth surface and zero elevation change, I'm willing to accept the effect may not matter enough to care. But introduce even just a little bumpiness or some elevation change (perhaps in the track curves), and it might matter for someone pursuing the hour record.
Re: MIT Aluminum Bicycle Project 1974 (2016)
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, Sheldon mentions it in this article. I don't think those mods helped. Weight has no impact on sustained speed.
Rolling resistance increases linearly with weight, so it does have some impact.
Re: MIT Aluminum Bicycle Project 1974 (2016)
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
Titanium frames have a devoted fan base. Personally, I tried to notice the difference back when I did road racing but didn't. Maybe I didn't want to: Ti ain't cheap.
What is cheap these days?
For titanium, I'm seeing Black Friday deals starting at like, $3200-3500 (Lynskey / Litespeed). But they're often sold at higher prices than carbon bikes. (For my money, I prefer carbon frames -- you get more flexibility in tube shapes and the end result can be lighter and stronger than titanium.)