kmcentee

I like new gear as much as the next guy but the heaviest thing on my bike is me. Taking a pound there is a lot cheaper than taking a pound off the bike. Will the impact on my climbing be the same?

RPK79

Probably depends on where you're shedding weight from the bike.

sanmi

It will probably have a greater impact than losing weight from the bike because you'll lenkely gain strength and endurance at the same time!

rpenmanparker 

But you won't have the pleasure of riding a lighter bike. Forget about speed differences. No matter how much weight you lose personally, lighter bikes are more fun to ride than heavier ones. BOOM!

woodcraft

+1 If you left off the back tire- definitely not the same.

bbbean 

Apples and oranges.

if I offered you two identical bikes to ride right now, with the only difference being that one had an additional weight in the frame, the lighter bike would be faster.

If the question was "what can I do to be faster a month from now?", you could be even faster still by losing weight on your body.

Ideally, you will train hard, lose weight, AND have a bike that hits a sweet spot between light/aero/and suited to your needs. But there is seldom, if ever a situation where there is a genuine choice between losing weight or riding a lighter bike. Do both.

chaadster

True.

The only trick is not to go so light that you break it!

Abe_Froman

To directly answer the OP, for steady speed climbing, a pound is a pound. Doesn't matter where it comes from. At all.

Cyclist0108

If you can tell the difference between a full and empty water bottle or two ...

FWIW, I have found a 10 pound loss is equivalent to being able to ride up an 8% grade in the next highest gear. (This doesn't deconvolve weight loss from strength gain, but since I am 54, I think it is primarily weight loss.)

12strings

I think this is the best answer, because if you worked hard to lose the pound, that will make you faster than taking a pound off the bike.

rgconner

More than taking a pound off the bike.

You will be more aero!

merlinextraligh

Untrue, because it ignores the physiological l effect of fat on your body.

The human body is only 18-23 percent efficient cycling. The other 75 plus percent goes to heat that has to be dissapated.

Take fat off your body and your heat dissapation improves.

So lose a pound off your body and climbing improves 3 ways; the power needed for a given speed is less; the heat produced is less, and you better dissapate the heat produced (which increases the power you can sustain). Loosing a pound off the bike only gets 2 of 3

And as stated above, lose the pound off your body by better training and diet, and your power will also increase ( excepting that .1 percent of the population already at or below their ideal cycling weight)

merlinextraligh

Forgot that one. But if you run the models, like kruezotter, it does make a difference aerodynamically that is measurable in speed.

rgconner

As someone who is working on losing his "3rd bike" worth of weight, 1 lbs is not noticeable, but 5 sure as hell is!

Seattle Forrest

You don’t gain strength and endurance by eating less.

Most people lose muscle when they lose weight. That’s why race cyclists don’t try to lose weight in season, and it’s why body builders eat until they’re tired of eating. Muscle tissue is metabolically expensive, to build and to maintain, so your body does not want to invest in it unnecessarily, especially in lean times. You can gain muscle on a calorie deficit, but it takes work and attention to your diet. Much easier to get stronger at the same weight.

Also, most people who lose weight gain it back. Most bikes that lose weight do not.

Seattle Forrest

This is actually a lot more important than people realize. Heat dissipation is why a man can run a marathon faster than a horse can. We don’t have (much) body hair. Only dogs can out (distance) run us, and only in the cold.

On that note, the fittest humans on Earth are Nordic skiers, with VO2max as high as 100 ml/kg/min. One of the dogs running the Iditarod Trail was tested at 240! Puts a thoroughbred horse to shame.

Abe_Froman

Is this actually true??

edit: Hrmm. It's certainly possible anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_versus_Horse_Marathon

I'd be curious about more info on it. The wikipedio entry notes times of nearly 2 hrs flat...that's basically world class marathon speed. Were these seriously trained racing horses...or just, a horse?

Drew Eckhardt 

More when you're climbing out of the saddle because that means less energy spent lifting your center of gravity.

The same climbing seated.

indyfabz

Which weighs more: 1 lb. of apples or 1 lb. of oranges?

Abe_Froman

I don't think that really comes into play. More weight lifted just means more potential energy created. It will just be transferred back to the pedals. No power gained or lost.

RPK79

The foot and hoof race that pits humans against horses - CNN

cruiserhead

Only on the internet could this be a valid debate. Hilarious!

The bike has nothing to do with how fast you are.
You loose weight and slim down, and it's going to make you a faster cyclist. Real, measurable gains that are huge in comparison to any theoretical marketing hyperbole.
Loosing fat weight is not a end, it's a by-product of becoming fit.

Ignore the bike because, as any fred on a Venge will tell you, marketing hype doesn't make you any faster.

Spend money and energy on your body. You will get huge benefits from it.



This--> 100%

Stratocaster

I was going to say "how dare you give a simple answer and deny the 41 of arguing over this serious question!!!"
...but alas, I can see I would have been wrong.

Seattle Forrest

Yes it’s actually true. Everybody knows horses are fast runners, so it seems crazy. But they’re not distance runners. We are. A horse will win a 5K every time and lose a 50K (which is an ultra) every time.

The race you linked to, sometimes humans run it faster than horses, and it’s not even a full marathon.

redlude97

nope.