Wheel upgrade - a question
Comments
-
So no evidence then. We'll file this one right next to the valve weight concern, shall we?0
-
I'd suggest a more likely answer is that you P_Troll are just plain wrong, have no idea what the one single equation of theoretical Physics you choose to latch on to in an effort to keep your trolling going actually means, and that most on here and the rest of the cycling world from TdF pro's down have found out through practical experience over the past 100 years or so is actually correct in that lighter wheels are better on hills!!!
I think we all know you actually dont even think you're right - you're yet again out to troll yet another thread and ruin any sort of sensible discussion................ just like usual for you!!0 -
Wirral_Paul wrote:I'd suggest a more likely answer is that you P_Troll are just plain wrong, have no idea what the one single equation of theoretical Physics you choose to latch on to in an effort to keep your trolling going actually means, and that most on here and the rest of the cycling world from TdF pro's down have found out through practical experience over the past 100 years or so is actually correct in that lighter wheels are better on hills!!!
I think we all know you actually dont even think you're right - you're yet again out to troll yet another thread and ruin any sort of sensible discussion................ just like usual for you!!
Yet you can't disprove anything I say. Guess that makes you the f*ckwit.0 -
balls i wrote a big post and it disappeared
the essence of it was that moving an object against the force of gravity (i.e. up a hill) requires a given level of force based on the mass of that object and the force of gravity on the planet you happen to be cycling on today. Reducing the mass of the object means you need less force to get up that hill. Right? How do you reduce mass. Ok eat less pies for starters. What else? By replacing your wheels you can get great bang for your bike when you consider the following factors:
- time taken to effect the change
- mechanical expertise required to effect the change
- bling factor
It is dead easy to change a wheel even for someone as inept as me. In addition to that by changing that single component (which is actually a bundle of components but people as thick as me don't see it that way) we are changing a fairly hefty item. Compare the mass of my wheels to that of my casette, crank, and other items. It's easier to change the wheels and I can save more weight more easily by doing so.
Doesn't that make sense? Sorry if it is covering old grand that already got shat on by the force that is p_tucker but i got lost in the threads above.2010 Specialized Rockhopper
2012 Bianchi Infinito0 -
P_Tucker wrote:So no evidence then. We'll file this one right next to the valve weight concern, shall we?
You (not the forum) will file it there - the rest of the forum will be filing all your input to this thread as yet more trolling - just like all the other posts you make on here!!0 -
P_Tucker wrote:Wirral_Paul wrote:I'd suggest a more likely answer is that you P_Troll are just plain wrong, have no idea what the one single equation of theoretical Physics you choose to latch on to in an effort to keep your trolling going actually means, and that most on here and the rest of the cycling world from TdF pro's down have found out through practical experience over the past 100 years or so is actually correct in that lighter wheels are better on hills!!!
I think we all know you actually dont even think you're right - you're yet again out to troll yet another thread and ruin any sort of sensible discussion................ just like usual for you!!
Yet you can't disprove anything I say. Guess that makes you the f*ckwit.
I dont have to disprove anything you say - you already admitted on page 1 that lighter wheels are faster uphill
As for who's the f*ckwit - are you willing to take a vote on that and let the forum decide??0 -
Dubcat wrote:balls i wrote a big post and it disappeared
the essence of it was that moving an object against the force of gravity (i.e. up a hill) requires a given level of force based on the mass of that object and the force of gravity on the planet you happen to be cycling on today. Reducing the mass of the object means you need less force to get up that hill. Right? How do you reduce mass. Ok eat less pies for starters. What else? By replacing your wheels you can get great bang for your bike when you consider the following factors:
- time taken to effect the change
- mechanical expertise required to effect the change
- bling factor
It is dead easy to change a wheel even for someone as inept as me. In addition to that by changing that single component (which is actually a bundle of components but people as thick as me don't see it that way) we are changing a fairly hefty item. Compare the mass of my wheels to that of my casette, crank, and other items. It's easier to change the wheels and I can save more weight more easily by doing so.
Doesn't that make sense? Sorry if it is covering old grand that already got shat on by the force that is p_tucker but i got lost in the threads above.
1. Not once has anyone claimed that lowering the weight of the system won't make a bike climb better. Since everyone agrees on that, we've moved onto "does it matter where the weight is?". I say no, I've explained why, and people refuse to accept it without being able to offer any evidence.
2. The sums to work out how much weight saved affects speed are simple. Subject to a few reasonable assumptions, 1lb saved will make you go 0.06mph faster up a 7% hill. Its up to you to decide whether that's significant to you.0 -
Wirral_Paul wrote:I dont have to disprove anything you say - you already admitted on page 1 that lighter wheels are faster uphill
Yes, yet you keep charging at that windmill. As I CLEARLY SAID, everyone knows that if you reduce the weight of the whole system it'll climb faster; the question is whether where the weight is matters. Do try to keep up FFS.Wirral_Paul wrote:As for who's the f*ckwit - are you willing to take a vote on that and let the forum decide??
Nah, my A* in A-level physics is all the proof we need.0 -
Right but my point is that wheels ARE a good place to make a saving for non-physics reasons. Easy to change (does not required strong mechanical expertise). Quick to change (apart from being easy to change you don't need to mess around with lots of other components to get to the them).
Aesthetic value and bragging rights which result from effective marketing campaigns are just a bonus.2010 Specialized Rockhopper
2012 Bianchi Infinito0 -
Dubcat wrote:Right but my point is that wheels ARE a good place to make a saving for non-physics reasons. Easy to change (does not required strong mechanical expertise). Quick to change (apart from being easy to change you don't need to mess around with lots of other components to get to the them).
Aesthetic value and bragging rights which result from effective marketing campaigns are just a bonus.
Yeah, no argument from me. Bling wheels look awesome.
See Wirral_Paul? I don't argue for the sake of it, only when people are being stupid. Which in your case means all the time.0 -
P_Tucker wrote:2. The sums to work out how much weight saved affects speed are simple. Subject to a few reasonable assumptions, 1lb saved will make you go 0.06mph faster up a 7% hill. Its up to you to decide whether that's significant to you.
The real question is do you really believe that in the real world on a complex system like a bike, are the sums simple? Frankly I dont and thats why i gave up trying to explain it - some clever mathematician could probably do a PhD thesis on it!! Do you believe the theory posted with a few lines of equations that clearly over-simplify matters and make a load of assumptions by an unknown author on Wikipedia prove what millions of cyclist have found through practical experience over a 100+ years?? Does anyone really think that P_Tucker and Scouselander need proving wrong.... or is it a reasonable assumption (seeing as that got brought up) to just say they're wrong.0 -
In what way do they oversimplify? Specifics please, not a "waaaaah, pro cyclists waaaaah".
Imagine how detailed the calculations would have to be to understand all the variables in an attempt to launch a rocket to the moon - temperature, wind direction, humidity etc etc. Was there sufficient computational power in the world to do all that in 1969? Nope - yet a rocket got to the moon because the tiny details are immaterial and can be ignored. Same here.0 -
P_Tucker wrote:See Wirral_Paul? I don't argue for the sake of it, only when people are being stupid. Which in your case means all the time.
Somehow i get the feeling that everyone on this forum will think otherwise!! Given the number of posts i've seen aimed at you - I know for sure that many see who's the stupid one!
Example...
"I have read a few posts that you have contrbuted to PT, it seems to me the best thing you have going for you is your willingness to make yourself look like a complete and unmitigated twunt."
http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40013&t=12870437&start=40
Keep digging anyway - some will pity you, some think you a complete t!t, and all will know you're the biggest troll on "Road". I doubt anyone takes you or anything you say in the slightest bit seriously mind0 -
P_Tucker 1 - BikeRadar 00
-
P_Tucker wrote:In what way do they oversimplify? Specifics please, not a "waaaaah, pro cyclists waaaaah".
Yawn. if i knew the specifics, i'd go and edit that Wikipedia page by unknown author that you like so much. As said though, lighter wheels for hills is commonly accepted wisdom worldwide (ie http://www.cycling-inform.com/equipment/177-cycling-equipment-to-help-you-climb-hills-faster ) - you're in a significant minority so that puts the onus on you, so you go ahead and prove your Physics to us all and prove the majority wrong.
If you cant then you can admit you cant prove accepted wisdom wrong0 -
I can't believe this thread is still going.
The consensus is that light wheels do help going up hills, this view is formed from years of other cyclists opinion/experience as well as years of research by teams etc.
P_Tucker is claiming this is all wrong and is applying an A-Level physics approach to proving why, we all should think this is wrong and then shooting down, in a poor and childish way, anyone who does not conform to his viewpoint.
If P_Tucker does not agree/disagree (I don't really care to be honest, I'm just fed up of this pointless thread constantly being at the top of the board) then I would kindly suggest s/he at least has the intelligence to provide some real evidence to back his theories up. Real evidence would be scientific journals/research and referenced accordingly. NOT his Wikipedia crap or what he claims to be A* 'A' level physics. I would point out that this real evidence IS available for those that care to look, however I am not going to do this idiots homework for them.
I look forward to some credible evidence being put forward by P_Tucker.
If P_Tucker is trolling, then I would suggest that he may like to approach the subject in a more intelligent way in future. Name calling, and swearing just make you look stupid.0 -
Wirral_Paul wrote:P_Tucker wrote:2. The sums to work out how much weight saved affects speed are simple. Subject to a few reasonable assumptions, 1lb saved will make you go 0.06mph faster up a 7% hill. Its up to you to decide whether that's significant to you.
The real question is do you really believe that in the real world on a complex system like a bike, are the sums simple? Frankly I dont and thats why i gave up trying to explain it - some clever mathematician could probably do a PhD thesis on it!! Do you believe the theory posted with a few lines of equations that clearly over-simplify matters and make a load of assumptions by an unknown author on Wikipedia prove what millions of cyclist have found through practical experience over a 100+ years?? Does anyone really think that P_Tucker and Scouselander need proving wrong.... or is it a reasonable assumption (seeing as that got brought up) to just say they're wrong.
Well, engineering is my day job and I have been doing it for some considerable time. If I got things like this wrong I guess I'd have been sacked by now. I'm pretty confident the some of the ideas posted such as "the pulsing of heavier wheels going up hill uses more energy" is completely bogus. Neither you, or anyone else could provide anything approximating an explanation of how this mechanism is supposed to work. The reason you gave up answering is because you couldn't answer even if you did have a phd.
I do think that neeb's suggestion was quite good although I suspect a lot of us are just falling victim to marketing hype regarding the value of slightly lighter wheels.0 -
thescouselander wrote:Wirral_Paul wrote:P_Tucker wrote:The reason you gave up answering is because you couldn't answer even if you did have a phd.
Thats the point - i dont have a PhD (and as per the above post, i dont need to). If i still had the 1250g tubular wheels that I used to race hills on, then i'd invite you over the river to try them out, and fill a bottle of water to the right level to balance them out on overall bike weight. As a disbeliever, you'd not believe the marketting hype but might believe your legs, brain and bike computer when you flew up a hill.
I assume you're in the Liverpool area then TheScouselander? Call Pete Matthews (wheelbuilder) and ask him http://petematthews.com/home/index.php/archive
Marketting hype wasnt around for most of cycling history so we can probably make a reasonable assumption and exclude that dont you think?0 -
Can we get back to the really important issue here.
Should I microwave or pan fry the next batch of popcorn I plan on eating while this thread continues?0 -
Before you find evidence you need to know where to look for it. That's how the scientific method works - the first thing you do is come up with a hypothesis, then you look for hard data to support it, then you try to falsify it. Without speculation you never get anywhere, it's imagination that separates doing science from being a technician.P_Tucker wrote:So no evidence then. We'll file this one right next to the valve weight concern, shall we?
I would suggest that a place such as Bike Radar is more suited to the speculative side of the science surrounding cycling than it is to rigorous presentation and analysis of data.
Incidentally, you still haven't come up with any figures to support your dismissal of rim weight asymmetry as being necessarily insignificant. We're talking up to 15g or so (for a valve). At about 30mph with a 33cm radius I calculate the centrifugal force of that 15g to be about 8 Newtons. That's 8 N squashing the tyre once every wheel revolution, small in relation to the total force exerted by the weight of the bike + rider (about 700 N in my case), but not so small as to be necessarily insignificant. I'll leave the rest to the physics PhDs as I only got a C at Scottish Higher...
<edit - of course it's 8 N per tyre and 350 N per tyre, not 8 N and 700 N, so even better>0 -
No, I'm not in Liverpool any more but I think I'll trust the theory anyway - it usually serves me well. I did try a slightly lighter set of wheels on my usual ride recently and I didn't notice the difference. That experience actually convinced me not to upgrade as I planned to do. I may still upgrade in the future but if I do I'll probably go for a good set of hand builts with the focus on aero, stiffness and durability - not sure I'll worry too much about cutting weight.0
-
thescouselander wrote:I may still upgrade in the future but if I do I'll probably go for a good set of hand builts with the focus on aero, stiffness and durability - not sure I'll worry too much about cutting weight.
If that suits the style of riding you do then cool - i'm also riding wheels that are handbuilt, aero and stiff at the moment on my summer bike.
Durability is yet to be proven after I delaminated the last rim on Holme Moss
(warranty replaced now with a new spec rim) 0 -
T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:P_Tucker 1 - BikeRadar 0
Yeeeeeesss! Get in.0 -
Wirral_Paul wrote:P_Tucker wrote:In what way do they oversimplify? Specifics please, not a "waaaaah, pro cyclists waaaaah".
Yawn. if i knew the specifics, i'd go and edit that Wikipedia page by unknown author that you like so much. As said though, lighter wheels for hills is commonly accepted wisdom worldwide (ie http://www.cycling-inform.com/equipment/177-cycling-equipment-to-help-you-climb-hills-faster ) - you're in a significant minority so that puts the onus on you, so you go ahead and prove your Physics to us all and prove the majority wrong.
If you cant then you can admit you cant prove accepted wisdom wrong So FINALLY you confess you don't know what you're talking about. About F*cking time. 0 -
P_Tucker wrote:Wirral_Paul wrote:P_Tucker wrote:In what way do they oversimplify? Specifics please, not a "waaaaah, pro cyclists waaaaah".
Yawn. if i knew the specifics, i'd go and edit that Wikipedia page by unknown author that you like so much. As said though, lighter wheels for hills is commonly accepted wisdom worldwide (ie http://www.cycling-inform.com/equipment/177-cycling-equipment-to-help-you-climb-hills-faster ) - you're in a significant minority so that puts the onus on you, so you go ahead and prove your Physics to us all and prove the majority wrong.
If you cant then you can admit you cant prove accepted wisdom wrong So FINALLY you confess you don't know what you're talking about. About F*cking time.
I know enough to know that most of the cycling world knows that lighter wheels make a significant difference on climbs. I also know that the physics arent as simple as you seem to think - as does pretty much everyone else on the forum. I think everyone (but you) will agree that there's a world of difference between not being able to quote complex mathematical equations for every single factor involved, and not knowing what someone is talking about.
Safe to say though, that its clear that your so damn desperate to try and justify yourself somehow, that you're trying to cling to me not having a PhD in Physics or Maths as a victory for you. As I said previously though - i dont need to prove what the vast majority already know and the onus is on you to come up with evidence to prove otherwise. Strangely you didnt even attempt this - no surprise given that everyone already knows you know nothing on the subject and just the same with Neeb's post!! Its clear to everyone just exactly what you are though, so think it a victory if you like - but all you have proved P_Tucker is that you know absolutely nothing yourself, cant back up anything at all using your own logic, and are only on this forum to continue trolling every single thread you decide to join in on.
Sad little man - as so many have already said!!!0 -
P_Tucker wrote:Wirral_Paul wrote:P_Tucker wrote: So FINALLY you confess you don't know what you're talking about. About F*cking time.
Come on, let's see the journals etc with real evidence to back your theories up. Maybe then you can give some valid input without resorting to swearing like a little boy.0 -
Wirral_Paul wrote:<blah blah blah> so think it a victory if you like <blah blah blah>
Awesome. Great thread, thanks for your input.0 -
Just to get rid of the pro rider argument...
Spartacus and Frankie, both climbing a mountain. Schleck is running 202s (light climbing rims), Cancellara 404s. Cancellara is the heavier rider by far, who should in theory benefit more from the light climbing rims than Frankie. So why is Schleck running them and Cancellara isn't?
Cancellara's job up the mountains would be to sit on the front at a constant high pace and try to make it too hard for Schleck's opponents to hang on. Constant pace, no accelerations, high pace. He's still running a light rim, but the aero aspect is more important, and the bike will still be down near the minimum weight limit anyway. Schleck, on the other hand, has to hang on to the back of Cancellara, and then either attack near the top, or match the attacks of his opponents. The attacks will be in the form of savage accelerations. The accelerations take you out of the steady state, and it's already well accepted that the lighter the rim, the faster the wheel will spin up.
In other words, if your climbing style involves a lot of accelerations and attacks, by all means use a very light climbing rim. If you climb at a constant pace, though, keep the aero benefits of the deeper rims in mind.0 -
Makes some sense, but I don't get this bit:
Surely any benefit is greater for the lighter rider, as any weight differences are proportionally more significant (whether bike weight as a percentage of total weight, or wheel weight in relation to power).whyamihere wrote:Cancellara is the heavier rider by far, who should in theory benefit more from the light climbing rims than Frankie0 -
Possibly could have worded that better. Essentially I meant 'Cancellara needs all the help he can get, Schleck, being a natural climber, not so much'.neeb wrote:Makes some sense, but I don't get this bit:
Surely any benefit is greater for the lighter rider, as any weight differences are proportionally more significant (whether bike weight as a percentage of total weight, or wheel weight in relation to power).whyamihere wrote:Cancellara is the heavier rider by far, who should in theory benefit more from the light climbing rims than Frankie0
