Bikes: 700/23 vs 700/25 tires?

[Tim McNamara]

In article
<51d914f1-5ca2-414d-9553-4c04ce94d45e@p6g2000pre.************.com>,
"bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjweiner@**********> wrote:

> On Feb 27, 6:16*pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwei...@**********>
> wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 10:47*am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@**********> wrote:
> >
> > > Now, can someone do that test and report?
> >
> > I asked for an error budget on any suggested experiment. Let us
> > assume for the sake of argument that a 10% improvement in
> > performance - racer A beats B 55% of the time, rather than 50% -
> > would be worthwhile. *I think many racers would consider such an
> > improvement significant. *It would certainly be considered
> > important in Vegas. In your suggested experiment, how many races
> > would the two have to do in a season to detect this 10% improvement
> > (at say 95% confidence)?
>
> To be clear, I should have called this a "10% improvement in results"
> where by results I mean rank-order of race finishes.

You mean, placing 9th instead of 10th, 18th instead of 20th, 36th
instead of 49th, and so on?

> I want to keep distinct the percentage improvements in ability (such
> as watts/kg, or speed on climbs), finishing time, and rank ordered
> results, since they are frequently not linearly related.

"Not linearly related" = "influenced by random events," which has been
one of Frank's main points all along.

[Michael Press]

In article <mdqjq49nr3bb3sh7j19ll6mili2b6fmuqp@********>,
John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 17:30:18 -0800, Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> >The argument is that very small advantages abide. They
> >are always there, saving energy. A small difference in
> >efficiency that is the result of a sum of small advantages
> >can be enough at a critical point in the race to enable
> >a racer to match an acceleration without going anaerobic.
> >Going anaerobic is a big bet. Racers prefer to call raises
> >with a large stack of chips; that is match acceleration,
> >bridge to a breakaway, or fake a break without going
> >anaerobic. In racer's parlance: only so many matches to burn.
>
> But your forget Frank's point that most changes racers make probably
> have disadvantages that outweigh the advantages. So the rider is
> probably going to go slower or crash or have the bike break. Yes, I
> know its' confusing, so here it is, more clearly, from Frank:
>
> "If something increases speed, but by so small a margin that it is
> practically undetectable, it should be considered negligible. Its
> detriments will probably overbalance the minuscule benefit."

I respect Frank for knowing how 'minuscule' is spelled.

--
Michael Press

[Tim McNamara]

In article
<b54cebfc-d5e4-408a-83d6-1dcbadcbecf1@m24g2000vbp.************.com>,
"bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjweiner@**********> wrote:

> On Mar 1, 4:17*pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> >
> > > 1. The first idea is that quantities may be related by a
> > > non-linear relation. *For example, speed on a climb is nearly
> > > linear in watts/kg ("nearly" because there's a small amount of
> > > air resistance too). *But speed on the flats goes as watts^1/3,
> > > because the power to overcome air drag goes as speed^3. *That's
> > > non-linear.
> >
> > That's a consistent ratio and predictable, which is still a linear
> > concept.
>
> Drag ~ speed^3 is not a consistent ratio, it's a consistent exponent.
> You just can't call this linear without causing massive confusion.

It's still clear, predictable and consistent. I will stipulate the
terminology to avoid confusion even though doing so obfuscates the point
being made.

> Speed is not linearly proportional to power. Race results in placings
> are not linearly proportional to speed - if you look at the time gaps
> in most races (not just sprints) there are small time gaps in the top
> places and bigger ones at the back.

Yes, those are the riders who have either (1) worked themselves into the
ground for their team leaders or (2) are lacking in physiological or
tactical abilities. Their equipment is usually no different than those
at the sharp end of the race.

> Small improvements can make a difference. This is why Armstrong
> spends time in the wind tunnel, trains a lot, and weighs his oatmeal.
> This doesn't prove that tires make a difference, just that if you
> argue as if things were linear, you'll get screwed up.

Lance Armstrong weighs his oatmeal because he's obsessive. All your
argument demonstrates is that you can't identify the factors leading to
success, so you fall back on the notion that all are important and all
must be pursued. It's a fool's errand.

[Frank Krygowski]

On Mar 3, 5:38*pm, Bret <bret.w...@**********> wrote:
>
> [quoting:]
> AL: Oh yeah, that was TOTALLY from the guys and from the team. In our
> minds there's no reason why you shouldn't have an aero road frame.
> What we said to Felt was that if we could save energy in road races,
> six hour road races, even if you save five or six watts because your
> bike is aerodynamic, that stuff adds up in one day's racing. So if you
> can make a bike that's as stiff, that handles as well, is as light as
> our road bikes... So they started experimenting with that last year
> and they made us a version that wasn't light enough for the mountains
> but was perfect for the flats, and the guys tested it out and they
> just raved about it. They really felt it was a huge advantage.

Hmm. "They really felt..." Some feel the same about their lucky
socks. But some are skeptical.

> You look at the gains you can get by training an athlete
> physiologically, you're talking about small percent gains. When you're
> talking about the gains you can get through aerodynamics, you're
> talking 10, 20, 30 percent gains.

Wait - 30 percent gain in what? In bike+rider Cd? No way. If you
remove absolutely all the air drag of the bike, you might get a 30
percent improvement!

We somehow need to get back to talking about realistic numbers. And
we need to remember that we've been here before. It happened in the
early 1980s. It was called Shimano AX. It was claimed to "reduce air
resistance by an amazing 21.6%." (That was just bike drag, of
course, a small percentage of the total drag of bike+rider.)

And it went out of fashion in a year or two, because it DIDN'T win
races.

- Frank Krygowski

[Tim McNamara]

In article
<18233728-de45-40e2-a3e7-59eaa034c274@w1g2000prk.************.com>,
Bret <bret.wade@**********> wrote:

> If you have the physical ability

Bingo. The key to racing success. That and tactics.

[Bret]

On Mar 3, 5:27*pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> In article
> <18233728-de45-40e2-a3e7-59eaa034c...@w1g2000prk.************.com>,
>
> *Bret <bret.w...@**********> wrote:
> > If you have the physical ability
>
> Bingo. *The key to racing success. *That and tactics.

I believe that there are key moments where the bike can make a
difference. Frank dodged that part of my post.

Another example, in a mountain road race I once summited Wolf Creek
pass, an eight mile climb, well down on the race leaders, but only 20
seconds down on a strong chase group that eventually rolled up
everyone in front of them. It wouldn't have taken much of a difference
for me to have been at the front of that race.

Bret

[Bret]

On Mar 3, 11:02*pm, carlfo...@************ wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 21:44:40 -0800 (PST), Bret <bret.w...@**********>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Mar 3, 5:27*pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <18233728-de45-40e2-a3e7-59eaa034c...@w1g2000prk.************.com>,
>
> >> *Bret <bret.w...@**********> wrote:
> >> > If you have the physical ability
>
> >> Bingo. *The key to racing success. *That and tactics.
>
> >I believe that there are key moments where the bike can make a
> >difference. Frank dodged that part of my post.
>
> >Another example, in a mountain road race I once summited Wolf Creek
> >pass, an eight mile climb, well down on the race leaders, but only 20
> >seconds down on a strong chase group that eventually rolled up
> >everyone in front of them. It wouldn't have taken much of a difference
> >for me to have been at the front of that race.
>
> >Bret
>
> Dear Bret,
>
> No offense intended, but . . .
>
> This thread is full of claims about how a tiny change in the bike
> _might_ let posters catch up or hang on.
>
> But where are the psoters claiming that a tiny change in the bike
> actually let them start catching up, hanging on, or even winning?
>
> The latter would be more convincing.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

OK. After racing for 14 years, I never won a race solo until I bought
a pair of deep sections wheels (Zipp 440) and then I won solo in my
first race with those wheels. And then I did it several more times in
the following years. Some might say that deep section wheels don't
qualify as a tiny change and I wouldn't argue. I've often said that
that is one place you can throw money at your bike and get significant
speed in return.

But my main point is that if a race is decided by a very small margin
then a very small change could otherwise make a difference. If you
have lost a 200m sprint by 2cm as I have, how could you not believe
that a 1% improvement in overall aerodynamics would have made a
difference. It's not normally possible to attribute a specific win/
loss to a small change, but it is logical to believe that it can
happen.

Bret

[Bret]

On Mar 4, 1:59*pm, carlfo...@************ wrote:
> I'm just wondering about the pattern of claims that a tiny change
> might have led to a razor-thin victory, as opposed to the apparently
> missing pattern of claims that a tiny change _did_ lead to a
> razor-thin victory.

Yo Carl,

You're asking for a discrete example to prove the effectiveness of a
philosophical position. You might as well ask a Christian to prove
that the golden rule works.

Bret

[Bret]

carlfo...@************ wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 20:51:32 -0800 (PST), Bret <bret.wade@**********>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mar 4, 1:59�pm, carlfo...@************ wrote:
> >> I'm just wondering about the pattern of claims that a tiny change
> >> might have led to a razor-thin victory, as opposed to the apparently
> >> missing pattern of claims that a tiny change _did_ lead to a
> >> razor-thin victory.
> >
> >Yo Carl,
> >
> >You're asking for a discrete example to prove the effectiveness of a
> >philosophical position. You might as well ask a Christian to prove
> >that the golden rule works.
> >
> >Bret
>
> Dear Bret,
>
> Or a dowser to prove that dowsing works.
>
> :-)
>
> Interesting that the topic has turned into a philosophical question.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

I don't think that dowsing is a good example. I doubt that much
thought goes into that. Philosophically, my quest for speed is no more
absurd that your quest for flat protection. There's no right answer,
you choose based on your judgement.

Bret

[Frank Krygowski]

On Mar 5, 1:26*am, Bret <bret.w...@**********> wrote:
> carlfo...@************ wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 20:51:32 -0800 (PST), Bret <bret.w...@**********>
> > wrote:
> > You might as well ask a Christian to prove
> > >that the golden rule works.
>
> > Dear Bret,
>
> > Or a dowser to prove that dowsing works.
>
>
> I don't think that dowsing is a good example.

That's a shame - because I have a real-life dowsing story that I think
is a knockout. (It's a bit long, though.)

- Frank Krygowski