Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - hugovl

Pages: [1]
1
Ah, that i agree with 100%, but it's not at all what you wrote or meant in your previous message :)
When i say aero matters, i'm not saying that only the frame matters, and you can ride upright, w 50cm bars, panniers on the sides of the fork, wearing a baggy open jacket and an afro the size of Jupiter. I'm saying, aero matters :)

Point taken :)

2
Exact. Except 150g weight difference even up a 2h climb results in a rounding error. Your body weight will fluctuate more than that over such a climb.

1. wrong, literally by definition / mathematically.
2. wrong, i guess you dont do much riding.
3. wrong as proven even by GCN IRL, i think they did the same mountain pass with / without an extra bottle and couldn't see a difference. Or mathematically, you can input a gradient, 2 different weights, and see the watts difference required to get up. it system weight is 85kg vs 85.2kg, good luck finding a difference IRL.

You might be a troll given this is your first message, idk. If you really mean your message, truly, you're years behind the curve.

Sorry, not trying to troll here. And maybe I didn't explain myself at best, fair enough.
But what I'm trying to say is, aero gains are not only determined by the bike but also by the rider and the rider's position.
You can ride an aero bike, but if you can't maintain an aero position on it for a few hours, which I think most ordinary people can't, what's the point then?




3
Sorry mate, just watch the latest Nero Show on the aero matter please.
I'm not repeating or agreeing fully on their opinion, in case of factory/brand claims. But honestly, aero just comes into play for speeds of at least 40k/h (the pro's speed).
For us ordinary mortals riding at 30k an hour, it does not make the impact you are suggesting.

Therefore a much bigger impact will be a lighter bike for many cyclists.

Pages: [1]