Captain Fastbastard Mayhem

NO!!!

.

Someone's been a busy boy!!!

Was thinking more like this...

First mustang for me please

Yeah. Gave them an extra 0.5 inches of travel in the back.

Ooooh. Now THAT sounds tasty!

Ooooh. Now THAT sounds tasty!

I run 1x10 with a 34 front ring and 11-36 at the back. The only limitation is the git in the saddle. I ride in tokai and can (if I'm feeling strong) get to the mast and make it around the noordhoek loop (which is a beeeeyatch of a route) It would be great to have that bail out gear on the bottom end (the 42t) but it's not a necessity. The more you ride the stronger you'll get As a bit of context to this... fully kitted, including bike, I am pedalling 130 kg up the hills. If I (as a moerse unfit weekend hacker) can do that, then well there you go

It's also because the rotational weight of a cars wheel is WAY higher than that of a bicycle

THREE Pikes!!!

A trail bike shod with weight weenie Racing Ralphs!? I was wondering why it was looking so wrong and then I saw them...

Speak for yourself!!!

IF you are averaging higher than the speed at which aerodynamic efficiency becomes more importanter than weight, yes.

LOL. I'm anything but. However, I can tuck quite well. And it always annoys roadies on their expensive bikes when they hear whirr whirr whirr whirr whirr and then see a 170mm all mountain machine with an okie in 5-10's, baggies and dayglo yellow top with a pink pisspot helmet and full finger gloves come rolling past them on the downs.

If it's over 30kph then for me it's useless. We've already determined that I'm up shaite creek, on flat ground.

If it is there, where I suspect it will be, then there we go. For the majority of us plebs, weight is more importanter than aero.

Most importantest of all...

After a certain speed, yeah. I remember distinctly from when I upgraded the tank to a full carbon jobbie ages ago. But then the major benefit was the weight - accelerated so much faster and smoother, went up hills easier, and I was able to maintain speed more easily. It was a combination of weight and aero. But the aero only came in at certain speeds... Far more important is the aero capability of the rider themselves though.

Dude, thos figures of a 50% reduction in drag coefficient are huge. Also - at what speed were these tests carried out?

Okay - above a certain speed, increases in aero capabilities are more important than decreases in weight. Especially when all the people around you are riding bikes int he same weight class as you. That is obvious. But that's only testing for one variable. Difference in aero considering a UCI hard limit on weight. The proper test would be to take an normal frame, and an aero frame that weigh the same amount, and determine how much weight would need to be added to the aero frame in order to overcome the aerodynamic efficiencies in that aero frame. I'm guessing not much. Then take those 2 frames, and determine the benefits that come from tweaking both aero and weight. Less aero on the aero bike (affecting the drag coefficient and the resultant necessary change in power output to maintain that speed) and comparing that against the removal of weight from the frame / wheels / wherever and its effect on the necessary change in power output to retain that speed. At the end, you'll have a result equating weight loss to increase in efficiency. That is the only way to determine at what point, and what speed, both weight and aero make a difference.

It matters more up until the point that aero becomes the primary concern. Thereafter, aero matters more. But not to the point that weight can be ignored completely. At low speeds, weight matters mostly. Aero has little to no effect. At higher speeds, aero matters more, yes. But weight still needs to remain comparable and respectable. Thus, it matters more.

That's still Maestro, afaik. Just a different shock positioning.

There you go. That monster of a caveat. If you're talking of a difference in weights of 500g then absolutely, weight wouldn't play that much of a role. But you never said that, did you... Fact is, weight matters more than aero. UNLESS THE BIKES ARE OF COMPARABLE WEIGHT. In which case, weight is STILL more important than aero.

Incorrect. You're accelerating all the time in order ot maintain the same speed. Each time you rotate the cranks is considered an acceleration. But your experiment with running up a flight of stairs with a wheel is flawed. You climb he stairs using your legs - that is the only thing (in addition to your total weight) governing your acceleration. On a bike, your legs are powering wheels, which have their own weight and potential energy. You're driving another item in order to get the acceleration. If the wheel was, say, 20kg it would make it that much more evident.