Years ago, I renounced cycle computers, heart rate monitors and other digitalia as bearers of bad news.
Without them, you never have to know that you are slow, in the wrong heart rate zone, or down on power.
So why, when my prehistoric mechanical scales gave such satisfactory readings, did I decide to buy a digital scale?
Whereas in my older and happier analogue world my Ritchey Breakaway was a 19lb featherweight, in the cold light of digital day it weighs 9.54kg, a mere gnats whisker under 21lbs.
It is time to confess that all my earlier bragging was untrue, and that Oli's Hillbrick is the lighter by a sizeable margin.
Some uncharitable readers may opine that we should consider the combined weight of bike and rider, however it is style not weight that counts, but having seen Oli carving through the streets of Wellington on his Bianchi I know when I'm beaten.
7 comments:
Thank god you're back.
Go and grab some booze, lock yourself in the shed with your p'uter and start ranting...
A good start none the less.
Go the technology.
I think I'll choose to take this post on the merits of it's final sentiment, so cheers! :D
I too have been victim of the fish scale lie, which I think is akin to the male member length issue - rarely as advertised...
How strong are your roof trusses? I'll bring the Pug around.
(Weighing anything in my quiver of bikes would just lead to depression)
Antoine
I haven't dared weigh any more bike either.
How's that Cross Check coming along?
Stalled awaiting a drop in the US dollar, a lotto win or a redundancy check.
My wife did however buy me a top-shelf off-road unicycle for Christmas, my first true brakeless fixie, so that's keeping me occupied.
Unless you can ride your bike without pedals, you shouldn't weigh it that way.
Look closer, there's a small but perfectly formed pair of Eggbeaters
Post a Comment