A low-sweat bike?

Every time someone suggests that to avoid sweat you need a heavy bike... I face palm and wish that the device that could stab people over the internet had been created already.

list of people you want to stab;

BlueQuinn
edscoble
lemonade
magnuswinwick
brokenbetty
vinylvillain

Get him a HRM

On easy commute days (e.g. morning after turbo) if I keep HR @ 125-130 vs my max of 182 (I'm old) = zero sweat

Get him an HRM and tell him keep it in zone 1 or whatever

Yes.

I might settle for just punching them next time I see them.

Your sense of logic need tweaking David.

At least he has a sense of logic.

I wasnt saying a bike has to be heavy, i would love it if my Pashley wasnt such a lard ass, it just happens that most of the bike that have the comfiest position are big old tanks like Pashleys and Dutch bikes

Although some of the Specialized Globe bikes arent too heavy

Your sense of logic need tweaking David.

No, it's working just fine.

Moving 1KG over a distance of 1KM requires more energy than moving 0.5KG over the same distance.

It is obvious that an increased amount of energy, relating to a bicycle, would mean a greater amount of exertion.

To reduce exertion, you therefore want to reduce weight: carry as little as possible, and for the bicycle itself to weigh as little as possible.

Reducing exertion in the context of this thread, is to try to avoid sweating. But hey, the same science works perfectly well for saving energy so that you can go farther or faster for the finite energy that you have... hence the whole weight weenie thing.

The only part that I agree with in what has been said by the people you named, is that lower gearing on the Boris bikes and their ilk is what leads to a more pootling pace and a lower chance of sweat.

But still... you can get the benefit of both worlds by doing as I said up above... get a low-geared single-speed that is light... now you are fighting on two fronts and unless you're feeling particularly competitive will have achieved the desired outcome.

My logic is sound, you're just very very wrong.

You could be forgiven for believing that the Enlightenment never happened after stumbling into this thread.

Science... it doesn't exist in Eds world.

Unless it happens to conform to his beliefs.

The only part that I agree with in what has been said by the people you named, is that lower gearing on the Boris bikes and their ilk is what leads to a more pootling pace and a lower chance of sweat.

But still... you can get the benefit of both worlds by doing as I said up above... get a low-geared single-speed that is light... now you are fighting on two fronts and unless you're feeling particularly competitive will have achieved the desired outcome.

The low gearing plus extra weight is what force people to take it easy, frankly, a lightweight bicycle with light gearing I honestly don't think it would work as well.

If someone is too fucking stupid to realise that the way to reduce sweat is to take it easy I'm not sure they should be allowed out on the streets to be honest.

The bike which encourages me personally to take it slowly is a low ratio brakeless FSFG bike on fat tyres... As long as I don't cycle fast.

Your sense of logic need tweaking David.

At least he has a sense of logic.

Don't sweat it. :)

Science... it doesn't exist in Eds world.

Unless it happens to conform to his beliefs.

In Scobliet Russia, science aspires to conform to Ed's beliefs. :)

No, it's working just fine.

But still... you can get the benefit of both worlds by doing as I said up above... get a low-geared single-speed that is light... now you are fighting on two fronts and unless you're feeling particularly competitive will have achieved the desired outcome.

As the creator of this thread, I will now repeat myself in the humble hope that someone proves me wrong:

"There are no framesets below 3kg available on the market which have a genuine dutch-style upright geometry."

None of the dutch bike companies publish their frame weights. Only a few publish their whole bike weights, so unless we start stripping bikes to weigh the frames... how could anyone know if your assertion is correct?

A quick scurry around says that a couple of German companies are listing city bikes at just under 12KG for the whole bike. As most other sites are publishing weights of 15KG > 19KG I'd say that at the lightest end the difference is significant enough not to be scoffed at.

Can't tell you the frame weight. None of that stuff is published.

No, it's working just fine.

To reduce exertion, you therefore want to reduce weight: carry as little as possible, and for the bicycle itself to weigh as little as possible.

Reducing exertion in the context of this thread, is to try to avoid sweating. .

If the problem is how to go at the same speed but sweat less then yes it'll have to be a lighter bike (and panniers), but that wasn't the problem. The guy's issue isn't excessive sweat at normal riding speeds, it's that he can't ride in a relaxed way.

Riding a bike that encourages slow but smooth riding by its geometry, weight and unwieldyness is going to mean this rider sweats less.

I'm not sure riding a light-weight city bike would be the best of both worlds since the smooth, relaxed riding style and safe, solid feeling of a roadster comes in part from its weight. The weight punishes stop-starty cycling and rewards smooth, realxed cycling.

When I started cycling someone told me a road bike was the best sort of bike for London. It was the worst piece of cycling advice I've ever got!

I'm not sure riding a light-weight city bike would be the best of both worlds since the smooth, relaxed riding style and safe, solid feeling of a roadster comes in part from its weight. The weight punishes stop-starty cycling and rewards smooth, realxed cycling.

this, exactly what I was trying to point out.

You will never ever sweat on that. Maybe if you're a Crip in Blood's neighbourhood.

no sweat

No, it's working just fine.

Moving 1KG over a distance of 1KM requires more energy than moving 0.5KG over the same distance.

It is obvious that an increased amount of energy, relating to a bicycle, would mean a greater amount of exertion.

To reduce exertion, you therefore want to reduce weight: carry as little as possible, and for the bicycle itself to weigh as little as possible.

Reducing exertion in the context of this thread, is to try to avoid sweating. But hey, the same science works perfectly well for saving energy so that you can go farther or faster for the finite energy that you have... hence the whole weight weenie thing.

The only part that I agree with in what has been said by the people you named, is that lower gearing on the Boris bikes and their ilk is what leads to a more pootling pace and a lower chance of sweat.

But still... you can get the benefit of both worlds by doing as I said up above... get a low-geared single-speed that is light... now you are fighting on two fronts and unless you're feeling particularly competitive will have achieved the desired outcome.

My logic is sound, you're just very very wrong.

Your logic is only true if all else is equal, ie speed. The nature of the dutch bike encourages slower riding. Two effects come into play now.

1. Power is a measure of force x speed, by reducing the speed less power is required to move an object over a given distance, sweating occurs because of the speed you are producing energy, not from the production itself.
   
2. Drag is proportional to the square of speed, all else being equal if you halve your speed you require a quarter of the power.
   
   

Yes, a lighter upright bike will reduce energy required even more, but it so happens that most upright bikes are built like tanks.

I am with Velocio and I doubt that a bike's encouraging to take it easy comes from the weight at all, it's coming solely from the geometry.

Compare it to paragliding, that's also something that feels very light and easy but it has (usually) nothing to do with racing.

The rider is the one in control of the effort they put in, not the bike. Are some of you seriously saying the bike leads you on somehow?

light and easy = put a little more effort than you normally would when accelerating (start/stop traffic).

Did that with the Globe Haul before it got stolen despite it's relaxed geo and alu frame.

The rider is the one in control of the effort they put in, not the bike. Are some of you seriously saying the bike leads you on somehow?

Of course the bike can 'lead you on'! At least, it can if by 'lead you on' you mean that the kind of bike you're riding influences your riding style. Consider the following analogy, which I haven't thought out properly but which might work: the driver controls the speed of the car - and even slow cars can go really fast very easily - but I'm sure it wouldn't be controversial if somebody said that people drive faster in sports cars than in old bangers with small engines.

Or an even more tenuous analogy: you are responsible for what you do and say and how you act, not your clothes. But you are probably more confident around members of the opposite sex (or same sex if that's your thing) when you are wearing clothes you think look good than when you're wearing ugly ones.