The key here is to avoid the numbers, and focus on what the threshold is for
experience. Let's investigate.
Weight is traditionally discussed for going faster, but we are all "enlightened" enough to know to not spoil our riding experience with such matters. However, there are merits to the
pleasure of the riding experience being improved, as it relates to weight.
IF one routinely rides longer distances, particularly with lots of elevation gain, weight should be
considered, but not
fraught over. For shorter rides, particularly with minimal elevation change, weight has significantly less
potential to interfere with the pleasure of our rides. So far, these examples are equating pleasure with reduced effort.
However, the merits of a lightweight bicycle can be thoroughly enjoyed even within a ride as short as a few miles, with zero elevation change. This may depend on how much we care to engage with the bicycle, through spirited riding. All these factors depend on where we ride, how we ride, and where are thresholds lie for what is considered a "long" ride or one with "lots of climbing" (read: mental/physical fitness).
I will say that our intuition for what things weigh, is naturally, quite terrible. It is far too easy to unnecessarily weigh a bicycle down when you have convenient means of carrying personal items. When it comes to the bicycle itself, most are not technically minded enough to consider the net effects of choosing various (beautiful) parts in a system, that may or may not result in a bicycle weighing over 30, 35, or 40 pounds. Lastly, the gyroscopic forces of wheels are a worthy consideration, in the pursuit and feel of a well-riding bicycle. Sensibly lightweight rims, tires, and tubes (yes, tubes) will make the most difference. Note that I have not listed hubs there, as they do not participate in the gryoscopic forces of wheels.
I am currently conducting an experiment with my recently acquired Platypus. I have purchased it as a complete, which I'll be enjoying for some time. I will then strip it down and put an incredibly "balleur" build kit onto it, with significant weight reduction in nearly every component. For example, as it relates to this thread, I will be maintaining a 110/74bcd triple crankset, but will be saving half a pound even compared to the Silver cranks.
My experiment is for the following reasons:
1. To discover to what extent my Platypus can replace my drop-bar bicycle for longer distance riding.
2. The value of a $750 build kit vs a $2500+ build kit as a matter of experience.
2. A fun experiment in seeing how light a commuter can be (no compromise to functionality by the way, front and rear racks w/ dynamo lighting and kickstand will be present)
3. Lightweight parts happen to also be incredibly beautiful, well made, and in many circumstances, more durable and resilient.
Thanks for reading.
Armand
Santa Monica, CA
On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 10:51:28 AM UTC-8 Ron Mc wrote:
The scalar involved here, 6 lbs, and 15 lbs, hardly fits into weight weenie discussion. But I do remember a thread about why some bikes feel faster. Less energy going into changing the rotational speed of components means more energy going directly into drive.
I am not a weight weenie. I will take the beauty over the weight. I have enough low gears to not even think about.
Kim Hetzel
...loving my beautiful retirement bicycle.
On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 9:50:38 AM UTC-8 Patrick Moore wrote:
It's interesting to view a moderately weight weenie thread on this list! expect Rivendell make their frames as heavy as they are largely to avoid breakage and resulting costs of return or repairs; that's a guess.
But reviewers of even the Clem, which I gather from list discussions is built with heavier tubing than the Platypus, describe it as feeling agile and fast; I recall Patrick O'Grady's very favorable review of his new Clem some years ago I can't find it right now but I did come across a surprising number of positive reviews of the Clem in the -- well, perhaps not mainstream but certainly not RBW-list media.
I do think weight matters to how fast (or to put the same thing another way, how easy to pedal) a bike feels, but IME it's not the only or even the most determining factor, as some of the fastest "feeling" bikes I've owned have been relative tanks, and even had rather heavy wheels, tho' none had f+f+wheels. weighing 18 lb.
But I've certainly owned frames much lighter than Rivendells that seemed as able to carry loads and be durable and, in some cases, consistently feel faster than the Rivs they replaced - tho' I've owned heavy frames that also felt faster than comparable Rivendells.
... I fully believe a 15# weight difference WILL make a fairly big difference on a ride, esp one with hills.. at least for how I like to ride. I got my first Riv back in 2008ish and Grant certainly wasn't worrying about weight then as my Bleriot I had was certainly overbuilt for sure, but it wasn't too crazy..
Anyway, I'm certain I'm the outlier here in my thinking and that's ok, I still love looking at the classic Rivs and enjoy riding my Dad's AHH.
Chris in Sonoma County
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/0bb42cb8-93bd-4ceb-a422-0479280abf88n%40googlegroups.com.
