patentcad

I'd say bike weight really is only a factor when you're going uphill. But what's your point? If you live in IOWA I suppose that's OK. Everyplace I've ridden has HILLS. Little ones, big ones, steep ones, long ones, short ones. Especially where I live.

ZachS

have you paid attention to the facts presented in this thread about how miniscule a factor it is?

GuitarWizard

My bike itself is around 17.5 pounds....

Two 24 oz. waterbottles....add another 3 pounds.

Seatpack consists of 2 spare tubes, tire levers, cell phone, mini-tool, C02 kit w/ a few extra cylinders....which is another 3 pounds or so total.

Granted, by the end of a ride, it's 3 pounds lighter if I have nothing left in my waterbottles....

patentcad

My mistake for participating. It won't happen again.

cbip

Maybe you dont understand the laws of physics or maybe they cease to exsist in your kitchen, sorry had to throw that one in.
I think what is important to remember is time. A track rider is not riding for 5 or 6 hours, we are. I can tell you from expereance that if you ride for 5 hours on a 24 pound bike and ride the same route for 5 hours on a 18 pound bike, you will be considerably less tired on the 18 pound bike at the end. Not only will you climb with less effort, you will accelarate faster with the same effort as on the heavy bike. All rotational weight matters if you have to get it moving. Now you do lose speed on downhills and in windy conditions, all things being equal between the 2 bikes.

ZachS

right, I don't disagree the basic physics of this at alll... i do disagree with the contention that you will go considerably farther or faster, or expend considerably less energy. that's all.

by this measure, six pounds of extra weight over a liberal four hours of climbing comes out to about an additional seven minutes in the saddle. certainly important in a race, but in other contexts? give me a break.



then again, i don't need to justify the purchase of thousands of dollars worth of equipment.

sick light bikes are really cool for all kinds of reasons - aesthetics, technology, and just plain ocp badness. but don't kid yourselves about function.

Bob Ross

I don't give a hoot how much faster -- or not -- a lightweight bike will be on the road. But I live on the 4th floor & often have to carry my bike downstairs; yer damn right I want the lightest bike possible!

cbip

If you dont agree then try this some day, fill both your water bottles with sand or lead powder or just put 4 pound ankle weights on each leg and try riding for a couple hours. I think you will then understand how it can add up to having less energy and going slower.
By the way, what the hell does OCP stand for?

53-11_alltheway

Haha. Total weight matters (when going up a hill) and that is all. As far as acceleration goes I still get a good chuckle out of reading about people say this matters. The rotational weight at the rim/tire is a joke too. If this really matters we'd all be using tubulars for this reason.

badhat

well two things:

if you read my first post i said that weight matters more in context of climbing than on flats, so the suggestion that every third thread here is about weight doesnt contradict that, or actually have anything to do with it.

and the second thing is i dont take the unaccountable opinions of anonymous internet posters as seriously as i take information i've gleaned from personal and annecdotal experience of peopel i've actually met and ridden with.

thats not to say that i dont care, cuz why would i be here if i didnt, but that i take it with a grain of salt.

in anycase the important thing here is that yes i've noticed that theres a lot of talk here about weight, but in the absense of any evidence one way or the other, i'm gonna assume that people whining about weight are concerned (somewhat reasonably) with climbing weight, and not track weight.

esandman

I think bike weight gets progressively more important as a riders weight gets lighter. The percent weight that the bike contributes to the whole rider/bike weight is proportionally greater with a lighter rider than it is for a heavier rider. All else being equal though the lighter bike will accelerate faster (think crit racing) and be easier to roll up a hill than a heavier one.

Ritterview

I dunno, but I expect that when my new 14 lb. bike I ordered comes in, that I will be able to traverse the flat 9.38 miles to work faster than the 29 min 56 sec that is the best I've done on my 21 lb. bike.

531Aussie

You suggested -- as I quoted -- that, apart from the context of climbing hills, and vanity, you've never "heard it seriously suggested that weight matters much anyway". There are hundreds of people on this forum who think that bike weight and wheel weight seriously matters, even if they're just riding up to the 7/11.


If you're not referring to this fourm, or others (as you also suggested), then fair enough (I guess), but what's REALLY FUNNY, and the point of this thread, is that in light on the countless discussions that go on and on and on and on and on about rotational/external mass, super light wheels and light bikes, the elite track riders of the world are riding relatively heavy bikes with heavy wheels

Some people here crap on and on about how 80g less of tube/tyre/rim tape weight will increase the rotational speed of their wheels, yet the fastest guys in the world are using 2kg wheelsets.

Come on!! Admit it's funny!

badhat

i dunno i guess those people are idiots and i dont take them seriously.

thats all i can say. i've never hear anyone with a brain suggest it.

if i misunderstood the spirit of yout post, i'm sorry.

mine wasnt an attack, just a clarification.

531Aussie

well, I've never considered this -- this is a new one! Maybe I could use the six steps at the front of my house as an excuse to buy new stuff

531Aussie

It may well do, but it might not be the 7lb weight reduction that increases your speed. The nice new wheels with smooooooth hubs (and possibly better aerodynamics) you'll be getting will probably make the biggest difference, and the motivation of being on a fantastic new bike will give you an adrenalin boost, and the new bike might also be slightly more aero. You could also have longer cranks and/or be in a better postition

These power calculators are a bit of fun:

This one suggests that a drop in bike weight of 7lbs will increase your speed by 0.1mph at 300w output
https://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm

This one suggests that an extra 4kg of bike weight on flat ground only requires an extra 2 watts to maintain 35kmh: https://www.2peak.com/tools/powercalculator.php

Similar result on this one: https://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesPower_Page.html

fmw

I've been thinking about this for the past couple of days. The reason is that I tend to average 1/4 to 1/2 mph. faster average speeds on my standard routes on my heavier bike. The heavier bike is 4 1/2 lbs. heavier. I've been wondering about this and I think I have an answer. The heavier bike is a triple and I spend most of the time on the middle 42 tooth ring. The lighter bike is a 50/36 double and I spend most of the time on the 50 ring. I think I maintain a somewhat higher cadence on the triple and I think that may be the difference for me. My point, I guess, is that gearing is certainly more important than weight when it comes to bike performance - at least it seems so in my case.

merlinextraligh

Nothstein in a crit(looks pretty light to me) https://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...lr%3D%26sa%3DN

shokhead

All this matters very little if your just riding 100 miles aweek. Big difference between what racers need and what reg riders really need and thats pretty much where it is,need vs want.