Climbing -- Does Bike Weight Really Matter?
#1
climber has-been
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 7,510
Bikes: Scott Addict R1, Felt Z1
Liked 4,058 Times
in
1,999 Posts
Climbing -- Does Bike Weight Really Matter?
The Guardian weighs in on whether or not bike weight matters when climbing:
"[T]here is a closely reasoned argument reiterating the important fact that ability to climb hills depends far more on the gear of a machine than on its weight. This is perfectly true. The difference between a 25 lb machine and a 35 lb machine is after all but a small fraction of the total weight of the machine and rider combined, which total weight is a measure of the work to be done against gravity in hill-climbing, and the high-geared featherweight will be a far inferior hill climber to the full-roadster cycle geared several inches lower."
The Guardian published this on May 1st, 1899. Settling this argument once and for all.
"[T]here is a closely reasoned argument reiterating the important fact that ability to climb hills depends far more on the gear of a machine than on its weight. This is perfectly true. The difference between a 25 lb machine and a 35 lb machine is after all but a small fraction of the total weight of the machine and rider combined, which total weight is a measure of the work to be done against gravity in hill-climbing, and the high-geared featherweight will be a far inferior hill climber to the full-roadster cycle geared several inches lower."
The Guardian published this on May 1st, 1899. Settling this argument once and for all.
Likes For terrymorse:
#2
Over the hill
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 24,426
Bikes: Giant Defy, Giant Revolt
Liked 1,265 Times
in
718 Posts
I stopped stressing over the weight of my bike when I realized that I was carrying a whole extra bike around my waistline anyway.
__________________
It's like riding a bicycle
It's like riding a bicycle
Likes For urbanknight:
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,929
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Liked 3,932 Times
in
2,053 Posts
Define "matter."
#4
Senior Member
The Guardian weighs in on whether or not bike weight matters when climbing:
"[T]here is a closely reasoned argument reiterating the important fact that ability to climb hills depends far more on the gear of a machine than on its weight. This is perfectly true. The difference between a 25 lb machine and a 35 lb machine is after all but a small fraction of the total weight of the machine and rider combined, which total weight is a measure of the work to be done against gravity in hill-climbing, and the high-geared featherweight will be a far inferior hill climber to the full-roadster cycle geared several inches lower."
The Guardian published this on May 1st, 1899. Settling this argument once and for all.
"[T]here is a closely reasoned argument reiterating the important fact that ability to climb hills depends far more on the gear of a machine than on its weight. This is perfectly true. The difference between a 25 lb machine and a 35 lb machine is after all but a small fraction of the total weight of the machine and rider combined, which total weight is a measure of the work to be done against gravity in hill-climbing, and the high-geared featherweight will be a far inferior hill climber to the full-roadster cycle geared several inches lower."
The Guardian published this on May 1st, 1899. Settling this argument once and for all.
So yeah, gearing matters.
Likes For Koyote:
#5
Senior Member
The Guardian weighs in on whether or not bike weight matters when climbing:
"[T]here is a closely reasoned argument reiterating the important fact that ability to climb hills depends far more on the gear of a machine than on its weight. This is perfectly true. The difference between a 25 lb machine and a 35 lb machine is after all but a small fraction of the total weight of the machine and rider combined, which total weight is a measure of the work to be done against gravity in hill-climbing, and the high-geared featherweight will be a far inferior hill climber to the full-roadster cycle geared several inches lower."
The Guardian published this on May 1st, 1899. Settling this argument once and for all.
"[T]here is a closely reasoned argument reiterating the important fact that ability to climb hills depends far more on the gear of a machine than on its weight. This is perfectly true. The difference between a 25 lb machine and a 35 lb machine is after all but a small fraction of the total weight of the machine and rider combined, which total weight is a measure of the work to be done against gravity in hill-climbing, and the high-geared featherweight will be a far inferior hill climber to the full-roadster cycle geared several inches lower."
The Guardian published this on May 1st, 1899. Settling this argument once and for all.
#6
Perceptual Dullard
#7
Perceptual Dullard
The Guardian weighs in on whether or not bike weight matters when climbing:
"[T]here is a closely reasoned argument reiterating the important fact that ability to climb hills depends far more on the gear of a machine than on its weight. This is perfectly true. The difference between a 25 lb machine and a 35 lb machine is after all but a small fraction of the total weight of the machine and rider combined, which total weight is a measure of the work to be done against gravity in hill-climbing, and the high-geared featherweight will be a far inferior hill climber to the full-roadster cycle geared several inches lower."
The Guardian published this on May 1st, 1899. Settling this argument once and for all.
"[T]here is a closely reasoned argument reiterating the important fact that ability to climb hills depends far more on the gear of a machine than on its weight. This is perfectly true. The difference between a 25 lb machine and a 35 lb machine is after all but a small fraction of the total weight of the machine and rider combined, which total weight is a measure of the work to be done against gravity in hill-climbing, and the high-geared featherweight will be a far inferior hill climber to the full-roadster cycle geared several inches lower."
The Guardian published this on May 1st, 1899. Settling this argument once and for all.
#8
Senior Member
I suspect the “officially recorded”” and “public street“ language is the source of some dispute…
Likes For Koyote:
#9
Senior Member
The Guardian weighs in on whether or not bike weight matters when climbing:
"[T]here is a closely reasoned argument reiterating the important fact that ability to climb hills depends far more on the gear of a machine than on its weight. This is perfectly true. The difference between a 25 lb machine and a 35 lb machine is after all but a small fraction of the total weight of the machine and rider combined, which total weight is a measure of the work to be done against gravity in hill-climbing, and the high-geared featherweight will be a far inferior hill climber to the full-roadster cycle geared several inches lower."
The Guardian published this on May 1st, 1899. Settling this argument once and for all.
"[T]here is a closely reasoned argument reiterating the important fact that ability to climb hills depends far more on the gear of a machine than on its weight. This is perfectly true. The difference between a 25 lb machine and a 35 lb machine is after all but a small fraction of the total weight of the machine and rider combined, which total weight is a measure of the work to be done against gravity in hill-climbing, and the high-geared featherweight will be a far inferior hill climber to the full-roadster cycle geared several inches lower."
The Guardian published this on May 1st, 1899. Settling this argument once and for all.
#10
Perceptual Dullard
Likes For RChung:
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 13,321
Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder
Liked 4,331 Times
in
2,788 Posts
Yeah, gears matter. But ... I rode the Mt Washington hill climb years ago. Geared the bike with a 28 1X and 13-21 FW, 12% lower than anyone with the then nearly "standard" 42-28 and Campy NR rear derailleur. I also left my WB and cage behind because that pound represented jacking up all four of a 2 ton car's wheels 12". On top of me riding myself and bike up that mountain.
Likes For 79pmooney:
#12
OM boy
The Guardian weighs in on whether or not bike weight matters when climbing:
"[T]here is a closely reasoned argument reiterating the important fact that ability to climb hills depends far more on the gear of a machine than on its weight. This is perfectly true. The difference between a 25 lb machine and a 35 lb machine is after all but a small fraction of the total weight of the machine and rider combined, which total weight is a measure of the work to be done against gravity in hill-climbing, and the high-geared featherweight will be a far inferior hill climber to the full-roadster cycle geared several inches lower."
The Guardian published this on May 1st, 1899. Settling this argument once and for all.
"[T]here is a closely reasoned argument reiterating the important fact that ability to climb hills depends far more on the gear of a machine than on its weight. This is perfectly true. The difference between a 25 lb machine and a 35 lb machine is after all but a small fraction of the total weight of the machine and rider combined, which total weight is a measure of the work to be done against gravity in hill-climbing, and the high-geared featherweight will be a far inferior hill climber to the full-roadster cycle geared several inches lower."
The Guardian published this on May 1st, 1899. Settling this argument once and for all.
'Give a lever long enough, and one can move the earth' all well and good, except there is real world stuff.
The more mass you have to move, the more work you have to do... fundamental to it all.
Gearing is just your lever
In today's real world, we have to assume (ensure) we have a lever for all the situations, mass and work needed.
Be it me or Alberto Contador, we can move less mass easier, than more mass. Gearing is not in a world of it's own, it's all relative to the rider and what they are challenged to do. Alberto's gearing choices will certainly differ from mine. As will the result... Would I try to climb a 1 mile 9% slope with a 90 inch gear? Dont; think I would get very far - 30 yards? LOL!
So be it a 25 lb roadie or 35 lb Opa Fiets, the optimum gear depends on the rider's abilities. Assuming we know our optimum gearing for any situation, our own mass being the same with either bike,
a LIGHTER bike (given other equal bike characteristics, like power transfer, 'fit', etc) will always be easier and faster to complete. If we don't use a gear within the best capabilities of our human machine, that's on us for misjudgment.
Proper gearing? Of course Great/highest power transfer? Sure Lightest Weight? Always !
Funny ! 1899, but not April 1...
Ride On
Yuri
Last edited by cyclezen; 05-02-24 at 05:57 PM.
Likes For cyclezen:
#13
Gearing is definitely more important than weight for climbing steep slopes. My mountain bike weighs around 12.5 kg, but I can climb steeper slopes on it than I can on my 7.8 kg road bike. Simply because it has a much lower gear range.
Roglic vs Thomas on last year’s Giro mountain TT was also a good demonstration of how lower gearing can be a major advantage on the steeps - even when dropping a chain 😂
More weight obviously requires more power to climb at the same speed. I typically climb at 3-4 W/kg, so for every kg of mass I add to my bike I need 3-4W more power to maintain my power/weight ratio. My bike is around 7.8 kg, so at the UCI minimum weight I would be saving 4W at the most. It’s not a big deal really.
Roglic vs Thomas on last year’s Giro mountain TT was also a good demonstration of how lower gearing can be a major advantage on the steeps - even when dropping a chain 😂
More weight obviously requires more power to climb at the same speed. I typically climb at 3-4 W/kg, so for every kg of mass I add to my bike I need 3-4W more power to maintain my power/weight ratio. My bike is around 7.8 kg, so at the UCI minimum weight I would be saving 4W at the most. It’s not a big deal really.
Likes For PeteHski:
#14
Perceptual Dullard
Lower gearing allows for lower maximum crank torque and lower minimum speed (before falling over), and thus lower power. Lower gearing isn't so much to make you climb faster, it's to allow you to climb slower. Like PeteHski, I can climb steeper hills on my 12kg MTB than my 8kg road bike.
Likes For RChung:
#15
Should Be More Popular
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Malvern, PA (20 miles West of Philly)
Posts: 43,634
Bikes: 1986 Alpine (steel road bike), 2009 Ti Habenero, 2013 Specialized Roubaix
Liked 9,565 Times
in
4,422 Posts
#16
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2023
Location: NorCal
Posts: 816
Bikes: Santa Cruz Blur 4 TR, Canyon Endurace cf sl, Canyon Ultimate cf slx, Canyon Strive enduro, Canyon Grizl sl8
Liked 1,552 Times
in
571 Posts
Weight isn't everything to me, but it definitely is a consideration. The bulk of my riding time is spent climbing (I average 112' elevation per mile,) so my main road bike is a fairly lightweight disc-brake climbing bike with some "aero optimizations." It has a 1:1 low gear, so I have the gearing covered as well.
My mountain bikes all have low gearing, climbing limitations are set on grip or balance, rather than gearing.
My mountain bikes all have low gearing, climbing limitations are set on grip or balance, rather than gearing.
#18
Yeah, weight would matter a lot more if you had to carry your bike up hills rather than ride it. A 10% gradient is an approx 6 deg slope angle, so only about 10% of your bike weight (sin 6 deg = 0.1) is actually being resisted by gravity against that slope. The other 90% of bike weight only contributes to rolling resistance. If we are talking about 1 or even 2 kg it’s not a huge difference. Bike weight is also only about 10% of the total rider + bike weight.
#19
cowboy, steel horse, etc
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: The hot spot.
Posts: 46,005
Bikes: everywhere
Liked 8,528 Times
in
4,543 Posts
Likes For LesterOfPuppets:
#20
cowboy, steel horse, etc
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: The hot spot.
Posts: 46,005
Bikes: everywhere
Liked 8,528 Times
in
4,543 Posts
#22
Interesting point about the surface your're riding on. I find it easier to climb uneven or irregular concrete on a MTB, but as soon as it gets smooth there is nothing better than sitting on a road bike. Literally feels like you're rolling on a cloud.
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lebanon (Liberty Hill), CT
Posts: 8,758
Bikes: CAAD 12, MASI Gran Criterium S, Colnago World Cup CX & Guru steel
Liked 1,429 Times
in
835 Posts
From all the GCN and other "scientific" studies I've seen, my conclusion is that it matters in terms of time up a given climb. But, much depends on who you are. And, for most of us, not much at all. FWIW, my GURU Photon weighs 16 lbs as ridden. My lightest bike. My Canyon Aeroad CF SL weighs 18 lbs as ridden. When I go for a ride it's always the Canyon I grab.. My times are pretty much no different.
#24
From all the GCN and other "scientific" studies I've seen, my conclusion is that it matters in terms of time up a given climb. But, much depends on who you are. And, for most of us, not much at all. FWIW, my GURU Photon weighs 16 lbs as ridden. My lightest bike. My Canyon Aeroad CF SL weighs 18 lbs as ridden. When I go for a ride it's always the Canyon I grab.. My times are pretty much no different.
#25
I'm good to go!
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 16,142
Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020
Liked 5,404 Times
in
3,729 Posts
Less weight just like more aero shows it's benefits better over the time of a long ride and not just comparing the results of one climb, or a short ride with several climbs.