Actually a cyclist should gain weight in the form of muscle in his legs (horsepower) and lose body fat overall thereby increasing his cardiovascular efficiency. Aerodynamics influence speed more than any factor including power output of the cyclist but given a similar riding position between the two bicycles there wouldn't be much difference. Good hill climbing as most of us already know is the result of having low body fat, strong legs and huge lung and heart capacity. Champion cyclists are born and then trained. For the rest of us, we muddle on hopefully enjoying the ride in the process. I like Grants musing on riding fast............it makes more sense to just enjoy riding. If you can't keep up its probably not the bike and if your riding pals won't ride with you and insist on riding away then its time for new riding pals and a cold beer at the next stop. I like the South Butt clothing lines slogan...."never stop relaxin"! Thats what I intend to do. Life is short.
On Dec 14, 3:09 pm, Steve Palincsar <palin...@his.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2010-12-14 at 14:59 -0800, William wrote: > > I don't get why he repeatedly throws in that it might be better for > > the cyclist to lose weight than it would be for the bike to lose > > weight. That wasn't part of his experiment. > > He's a doctor. Don't they /always/ recommend the cyclist lose weight? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
