Bikes: 700/23 vs 700/25 tires?

[Dan O]

On Feb 17, 12:33 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@**********> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 12:08 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:25:16 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
>
> > <frkry...@**********> wrote:
> > >Let's review.
>
> > OK
>
> > >The OP never mentioned racing regarding his tire
> > >choice.
>
> > *You* have ragged all over small differences in bike equipment choice
> > for road racing.
>
> > > He just asked if the different sizes would make "that much
> > >difference," or something similarly vague. So he may have been
> > >talking about recreational riding.
>
> > He may have.
>
> > But let's review.
>
> > *You* have ragged all over small differences in bike equipment choice
> > for road racing.
>
> > I'm laughing right now.
>
> ?
>
> I have pointed out that certain "improvements" are so small that they
> make no practical difference in road racing. IOW, there is no
> reasonable way to expect them to increase your placing, let alone
> actually win something.
>
> My point of view extends to non-competitive rides. If a supposed
> performance improvement doesn't matter for a race, it certainly won't
> matter by making a recreational ride faster.
>
> IOW, my views are at least consistent.
>
> Of course, you disagree. That is, you apparently think anyone riding
> without an aero water bottle, "drillium" brake levers and chainrings,
> special aerodynamic brakes, STI cables taped back, etc. is a fool.
>

But the only reason I ever got into this at all was because it seemed
to me that you were saying anyone who credited these "small
differences" as significant was a fool.

As far as I'm concerned anyone can take it or leave it, I'm just
saying no one can tell me what matters to me.

On the way home tonight I kind of thought about the only things that
really make any difference (assuming a well tuned bike). In order of
importance, here it is:

1. Wind.
2. Mojo.
3. Other weather / road conditions.

[almost_fast]

On Feb 20, 6:01*pm, "Robert Chung" <anonymous.cow...@invalid.address>
wrote:
> almost_f...**********m wrote:
> >> There's a reasonable chance he would have won Stage 1 of the 2005
> >> TdF if he had.
>
> > Maybe Lance would've won more road races if he'd ridden Cervelos
> > instead of Treks, but probably not Stage 1 of the 2005 TdF 9a time
> > trial). Lance's Trek TTX prototype has been measured to have less drag
> > than the Cervelo P3C.
>
> The "narrow" bike? Wasn't that the one that *LANCE didn't use?

Right you are, I completely forgot about that. What was the drag
reductionn with the narrow bike?

[Frank Krygowski]

On Feb 21, 10:54*am, "Robert Chung" <anonymous.cow...@invalid.address>
wrote:
>
> Frank thinks that all changes are undetectable...

Frank thinks you will continue lying about what I've actually said, as
you did just then. Frank thinks is your clumsy, classless attempt to
save face.

- Frank Krygowski

[Tim McNamara]

In article <att3q49b6rilg4ftnmevb0u9prbqu62h5a@********>,
John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:12:02 -0600, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> >Nope, I stopped reading that newsgroup years ago when the Rude
> >Brigade took over and turned virtually every thread into a
> >flamefest.
>
> You think they're flamefests, but often they're not. They have harsh
> words but good content. As opposed to pleasant words pls aggressive
> (especially passive agressive, such as Carl Fogel) or flawed content,
> which we see a lot in this group.
>
> RBR has been quite good the last year to two.

I'm glad to hear that. Thanks for the update.

[Tim McNamara]

In article <h135q41sj2nae3hon57phdua1urorgttn7@********>,
John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 02:13:15 -0800 (PST), "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org"
> <bjweiner@**********> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 21, 9:37*am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@**********> wrote:
>
> >> BTW, it occurs to me that many - probably most - of those reading
> >> this are past their racing prime. We are never going to take
> >> another first place. (Hell, best I ever did was second place.)
> >> But let's think for a minute about the young kids who might be
> >> really good someday. Do we want to be telling them to train and
> >> learn tactics? Or do we want to be telling them that they can
> >> never win if they ignore any tiny - and expensive - potential
> >> equipment advantage?
> >
> >Oh noes, think of the children!
>
> Ben, I missed that bit from Frank but have to thank you for quoting
> it so I can pile on.
>
> Wow Frank, you're really stretching in an attempt to "win" your
> argument. Is anyone here saying a racer can never win if they ignore
> any tiny advantage? I haven't heard it.

> > In article <rubrum-BC5A63.18334103022009@news.sf.**************>,
> > Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > > 5) A racer who dismisses a potential advantage as negligible has
> > > already lost race.

You seem to be missing a lot of posts, JT. Perhaps you should contact
your ISP to make sure their NNTP server is functioning correctly and
not dropping posts out of the spool.

[Michael Press]

In article
<805447cb-6597-440b-8e74-6b33f67a2913@o36g2000yqh.************.com>,
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@**********> wrote:

> On Feb 23, 6:50*am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 02:13:15 -0800 (PST), "b...@mambo.ucolick.org"
> >
> > <bjwei...@**********> wrote:
> > >On Feb 21, 9:37*am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@**********> wrote:
> > >> BTW, it occurs to me that many - probably most - of those reading this
> > >> are past their racing prime. *We are never going to take another first
> > >> place. *(Hell, best I ever did was second place.) *But let's think for
> > >> a minute about the young kids who might be really good someday. *Do we
> > >> want to be telling them to train and learn tactics? *Or do we want to
> > >> be telling them that they can never win if they ignore any tiny - and
> > >> expensive - potential equipment advantage?
> >
> > >Oh noes, think of the children!
> >
> > Ben, I missed that bit from Frank but have to thank you for quoting it
> > so I can pile on. *
> >
> > Wow Frank, you're really stretching in an attempt to "win" your
> > argument. *Is anyone here saying a racer can never win if they ignore
> > any tiny advantage? I haven't heard it.
>
> ? Really? You haven't heard it?
>
> Have you read none of Michael Press's posts? "A racer who dismisses
> any potential advantage as negligible has already lost the race"?

Not the same, is it?

--
Michael Press

[Nick L Plate]

The determination is not the fastest tyre but the fastest wheel.

On 24 Feb, 20:00, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@**********> wrote:

>
> Likewise, in a road race, there's a LOT of stuff beyond "who has the
> fastest tires." *Changing that will change one tiny portion of the
> factors. *In any reasonable situation, it will never show up as the
> factor that made someone win a race.
>

Only the correct combination between rim, spokes and tyre can give the
'fastest ' wheel. A larger section tyre will permit the use of a
lighter more flexible rim. A very narrow hard tyre has a short
contact patch. A heavier rider on hard,narrow tyres will distort the
arch of the rim so as to effectively reduce the wheel radius. The
smaller effective wheel radius increases rolling resistance. Tyre and
rim choice are interdependent unless your a fairy.
TJ

[Frank Krygowski]

On Feb 25, 1:21*pm, "Barry" <Ba...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >
>
> How small an advantage is worth worrying about? *Suppose a rider is doing the
> Mount Washington hill climb. *Take combined body+bike weight to be 70kg, and
> estimated time of 70 minutes for the climb. *Quick rule of thumb says that
> reducing weight by 1 kg (1/70) would save about one minute on the climb.
>
> One minute will never be directly detectable. *Winning times for the top
> riders from year to year vary a lot more than that (weather is probably a big
> factor), and since the road is only open to bikes a few days a year, it would
> take years for a rider to generate usable statistics. *So if the rider could
> easily save one kg by removing his saddle bag, pump, second water bottle,
> etc., should he even bother? *If not, what's the smallest estimated time
> savings that should matter to him? *Should it be the several minutes (equating
> to several kg) of variability that he would probably see if he could do the
> climb many times? *How about the unit of time measurement - one second
> (equating to about 17g)? *Or something in between?
>
Like Robert, you're giving a time trial example, that is an example
designed to minimize the effects of random chance that I'm talking
about.

I don't deny that lightening a bike+rider will get the rider to the
top of a hill faster. That's a situation with even less randomness
than a flat-course time trial. Yet, as you say, there would still be
enough trial-to-trial variation to make the effect hard to notice.
Add in all the hundreds of random effects in a road race, and the
benefits of a slight improvement become practically undetectable.

Drill 200 1/8" holes in your chainrings if you want to. It was once
fashionable, and it probably won't hurt. But it did become
unfashionable, probably because it couldn't be shown to help.

- Frank Krygowski

[Michael Press]

In article
<89bca400-f4c7-496c-8271-9b3c7886d429@z9g2000yqi.************.com>,
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@**********> wrote:

> But most of the "nothing is negligible"
> crowd has been talking about equipment.

Remember when you were characterized as an anti-helmet zealot?

--
Michael Press

[Michael Press]

In article
<46b5e895-6ee0-42c9-9c3f-99040ce5260c@c36g2000yqn.************.com>,
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@**********> wrote:

> On Feb 27, 8:16*pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwei...@**********>
> wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 10:47*am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@**********> wrote:
> >
> > > On Feb 27, 4:43*am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwei...@**********>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > On the contrary, I embraced the idea. *I asked it be applied more
> > > realistically, to the problem I've been discussing, a road race. *I
> > > asked that you apply the +/- three sigma estimates to the rank order
> > > of a 20 person road race. *Your premises gave an unreasonable result -
> > > that a rider would never finish three places different from his
> > > average. *Obviously, this means your 5% sigma is unrealistic.
> >
> > You conflated 5% in time and in rank order again.
>
> Somehow, "returning to the subject" is being disparaged.
>
> When I first described tiny bike improvement as being negligible,
> JFT's (and others') objections were that any tiny bike improvement
> _might_ make a critical difference in the finish of a race - that they
> might enable one to outsprint an opponent, or perhaps win overall. At
> least, that's how I understood the argument.

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.

For a mathematical insight solve the problem of the gambler's ruin.

Two people, A and B, play a game in which the probability
that A wins is p, the probability that B wins is q, and
the probability of a draw is r. At the beginning, A has
m dollars and B has n dollars. At the end of each game
the winner takes a dollar from the loser. If A and B
agree to play until one of them loses all his/her money,
what is the probability of A winning all the money?

Small differences in a player's bank make large differences
in the outcome.

--
Michael Press