3 ms·
it is true the difference in total weight is quite marginal (maybe 1%?) but that doesn't mean the impact is equal to 1%. there is a perceptual quality that is
by modzu 8y ago
it is true the difference in total weight is quite marginal (maybe 1%?) but that doesn't mean the impact is equal to 1%.
there is a perceptual quality that is often neglected when calculating the differences purely in terms of physical forces.
we agree a lighter bike will only be marginally faster in terms of speed on the ground but to say a rider doesn't notice a 1% difference in their speed requires an appeal to perception not to physics. those few seconds of a commute count.
i think that's why big granny gears that could roll a tank up a hill still don't solve the problem -- they just feel too slow
- modzu 8y agoanother way to think about it is this -- you could say to someone, "don't complain about your bike -- just lose 10 lbs and you'll get to your destination faster than you would by changing your bike". yeah ok, but like losing weight is easy (actually it is if you bike a lot, hehe). but if you put that person on a walmart beater and compare their commute with a carbon bike, they sure as hell will report a difference, even if the clock doesn't. the point is that we are concerned with getting people on bikes and moving their bodies, not about time trials (which ironically is where fast bikes are marketed, because the premise is that it doesn't matter for everyone else. maybe it does!) does it matter enough to spend 10k on a carbon bike today? well that depends on your finances. but when they are cost competitive? yes, please.
- nradov 8y agoWalmart bikes are miserable to ride because of the horrible groupsets, not the frame material. Carbon fiber bikes are available now for much less than $10K, but if you're on a tight budget it's usually better to pick a bike with a cheaper metal frame so that you can get a more expensive groupset.