On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 14:52:12 -0800, Pat White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Frank's bike don't need no steenkeeng brakes! Looks like it's got none. > Nice bike, I bet it's very light. > > Pat White >
Thanks Pat (and Chris, too). Whenever anyone asks where the brakes are, I slap my thighs real loud and say, "Here's my brakes, buddy!" <vbg> The bike's pretty light, but not especially so. About 18 pounds. Top of the line road bikes for climbing mountains (like in the Tour de France) come in at about 16 pounds, even with all their brakes and gears - mind you, who has $10,000 to spend on a 16 pound bike? (I think someone else buys Lance's bikes for him). My 18 pounds is with pretty stock parts - all aluminium, pretty much. If I went titanium or carbon fibre, I could probably trim a pound or two, but at a very high price. That being said, track bikes aren't usually particularly light. The guys on the velodrome at the Olympics have bikes in the 25 pound range, believe it or not. They produce so much torque that they need super heavy-duty stuff. Lightness isn't nearly as important as power transfer to them - so they need ultra-stiff. Any flex means lost power and torque, and when races are literally won by inches, well, you get the idea. One thing about my frame is that since it's made of those big tubes, it is very very stiff. Especially down at the Bottom Bracket (which is where the pedals stick out of the frame). That's where a lot of frames flex, even if a bit. I noticed going from my last track bike (as I told Keith, a Cyclops) which had a steel frame, that this bike has no flex at all down there. It wasn't noticeable on the other bike, until I road this one and thus had a point of reference. Anyway, I love to talk about my bike (even though it tried to kill me last month <g>), and my posting this PAW was merely a way that I could do so <g>. I'll shut up now. <vbg> cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
