NOTHING CONCLUSIVE!
My perfect bike would be really fast, really smooth, and a lot of fun. Logically the following things make sense to me:
1) Trying to reduce the weight of the bike by a few ounces does not matter. Everything being equal, if I raced myself on a lighter bike, any discernable advantage would be erased by the competitive nature of the one who’s losing (does that account for an extra amount of ‘push’?, you bet it would!). What if the me, on the lighter bike, decided to drink an extra 16 oz of water? Would that totally negate the lighter bikes advantage? What if I wore a lighter helmet, shaved all my hair, had my teeth cleaned, knocked the chip off of my shoulder, and thought happy thoughts, but the heavier bike had a better transmission? I think there may be something to being lighter, but unless and until I race myself, I think any advantage of being lighter is negligible at best. Unless I’m racing on an all uphill course. But I don’t think I’ll be racing up MT Kilimanjaro anytime soon. Besides, doesn’t inertia play a role in this too?
2) Who would win in a race on a big wheel? A six year old kid or a fully grown adult? Remember I said on a big wheel…. If you think as an adult, you’d win, go challenge a kid, but be prepared to be embarrassed. Their legs are the right length for the pedals turning radius. Taking that concept to adult vs. adult, my legs are longer than someone 8 inches shorter than me, but the turning radius on a bike is the same. Does that make sense? Shouldn’t longer legs ALWAYS call for a longer turning radius? Archimedes said ” If I had long enough lever and the right fulcrum, I could move the entire earth” (or something along those lines). Imagine trying to open a manhole cover with a one foot lever, now imagine doing it with a 10 foot lever. Which is easier, even in your mind? I’m going against the traditional thinking here and opting for the longest lever (cranks) I can get my hands on. I may even have to make them.
3) The number of chain rings….hmmmm. The most expensive bikes on the market have more chain rings. Is that because they are expensive? No. It’s because the more chain rings, the more efficient. Can you imagine paying $6000 for a bike and someone who modifies a much cheaper bike passes you? You must be having an off day, or they must be really conditioned or something else beyond your control is going on. Now imagine being the one who paid much less, but is going much faster. Is it because you are mentally or physically stronger, or is it because the efficiency is mechanical? The mechanical advantage goes to the number of chain rings, hands down.
4)Ball bearings. If you take apart an indoor cycling trainer, take out the magnetic brakes and spin the wheel, that thing will spin for a long time. If you keep the magnets in, the drag will stop it much, much sooner. Reducing friction is the goal. Do ceramic bearings have less friction…. yes! Pedal once and reap the benefit of two rotations…. give me that all day long. Who knows if it’s that much more efficient? I’ll find out though.
Maybe none of this stuff works, maybe all of it does. I’ll take in this information, test it on MY OWN and then come to a conclusion. But for now… a lighter bike doesn’t matter, a longer crank and more chain rings do and an efficient bearing system is the way to go.
Now…. To find/make that Ironman Bike.
