a very heavy bike vs. a very light bike
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2021
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,044
Bikes: addict, aethos, creo, vanmoof, sirrus, public ...
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1284 Post(s)
Liked 1,405 Times
in
714 Posts
a very heavy bike vs. a very light bike
i've now done a particular segment exactly 50 times in the last 9 months or so. 6.85 miles, 917 feet of elevation gain. it's almost a complete loop, with an upwind section that's half uphill, half downhill, and then a downwind section that's mostly gradually uphill.
half of them with a 29lb electric road bike with the motor turned off completely. the other half with a 14.5lb road bike. no motor, obviously. except in the derailleurs
the gearing is similar at the low end (42:42 on one, 36:34 on the other) but a little better on the high end for the lighter bike: 42:10 (4.2) vs 52:11 (4.73).
they currently have very similar tires - GP5000TL 32mm vs GP5000S TR 30mm, although prior to that the new bike had 26mm turbo cottons with tubes. no measurable speed difference there. similar but not identical geometry, same rider, same weight, same clothes, same shoes, same pedals, same saddle, same cockpit.
average heart rate for the first batch of rides on the old bike, 112. for the rides on the new bike, 114. the average moving time on the heavy bike is/was 31 minutes and 35 seconds. the light bike, 29 minutes even. in the end, the time doesn't matter for recreational riding, but the non-electric super-light bike really is WAY more fun/satisfying to ride. this is a pretty extreme case, carrying around 14lb of extra bike for no reason, but i thought the data was interesting. that one super fast ride on the old bike was a rare day when the wind was blowing from the north rather than the usual west, southwest, or northwest, pretty clearly illustrating how the wind (in an extreme case) can make a bigger difference than a hugely heavier bike, even on a hilly route!
half of them with a 29lb electric road bike with the motor turned off completely. the other half with a 14.5lb road bike. no motor, obviously. except in the derailleurs
the gearing is similar at the low end (42:42 on one, 36:34 on the other) but a little better on the high end for the lighter bike: 42:10 (4.2) vs 52:11 (4.73).
they currently have very similar tires - GP5000TL 32mm vs GP5000S TR 30mm, although prior to that the new bike had 26mm turbo cottons with tubes. no measurable speed difference there. similar but not identical geometry, same rider, same weight, same clothes, same shoes, same pedals, same saddle, same cockpit.
average heart rate for the first batch of rides on the old bike, 112. for the rides on the new bike, 114. the average moving time on the heavy bike is/was 31 minutes and 35 seconds. the light bike, 29 minutes even. in the end, the time doesn't matter for recreational riding, but the non-electric super-light bike really is WAY more fun/satisfying to ride. this is a pretty extreme case, carrying around 14lb of extra bike for no reason, but i thought the data was interesting. that one super fast ride on the old bike was a rare day when the wind was blowing from the north rather than the usual west, southwest, or northwest, pretty clearly illustrating how the wind (in an extreme case) can make a bigger difference than a hugely heavier bike, even on a hilly route!
Likes For mschwett:
#3
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2021
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,044
Bikes: addict, aethos, creo, vanmoof, sirrus, public ...
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1284 Post(s)
Liked 1,405 Times
in
714 Posts
on some, but not on this particular type. the motor is fully disengaged by a clutch where the bottom bracket would normally be. there is essentially zero resistance other than the weight.
#4
Zoom zoom zoom zoom bonk
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 4,624
Bikes: Giant Defy, Trek 1.7c, BMC GF02, Fuji Tahoe, Scott Sub 35, Kona Rove, Trek Verve+2
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 551 Post(s)
Liked 722 Times
in
366 Posts
Regression analysis please.
Looks like the heavy bike was making you work and rewarding you with speed improvements.
Light bike not so much.
Looks like the heavy bike was making you work and rewarding you with speed improvements.
Light bike not so much.
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 3,715
Bikes: Too many bikes, too little time to ride
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 443 Post(s)
Liked 472 Times
in
327 Posts
You mentioned similar tires; what about the wheelsets? If they are significantly different, can you do another 50 segments with wheels swapped and report back? 😁
Likes For tFUnK:
#6
Should Be More Popular
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Malvern, PA (20 miles West of Philly)
Posts: 43,104
Bikes: 1986 Alpine (steel road bike), 2009 Ti Habenero, 2013 Specialized Roubaix
Mentioned: 560 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22650 Post(s)
Liked 8,967 Times
in
4,178 Posts
Most experienced cyclists know that the value of light-weight, per se, is of very little value. It may feel more responsive, but makes little difference.
Of course, it gets complicated because higher-end (and better) components are lighter. But it's not the weight that makes them better.
On a flat course, the difference would be even smaller.
Of course, it gets complicated because higher-end (and better) components are lighter. But it's not the weight that makes them better.
On a flat course, the difference would be even smaller.
Likes For datlas:
#7
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2021
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,044
Bikes: addict, aethos, creo, vanmoof, sirrus, public ...
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1284 Post(s)
Liked 1,405 Times
in
714 Posts
Most experienced cyclists know that the value of light-weight, per se, is of very little value. It may feel more responsive, but makes little difference.
Of course, it gets complicated because higher-end (and better) components are lighter. But it's not the weight that makes them better.
On a flat course, the difference would be even smaller.
Of course, it gets complicated because higher-end (and better) components are lighter. But it's not the weight that makes them better.
On a flat course, the difference would be even smaller.
#8
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2021
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,044
Bikes: addict, aethos, creo, vanmoof, sirrus, public ...
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1284 Post(s)
Liked 1,405 Times
in
714 Posts
not same, but very similar. roval terra clx vs roval alpinist clx. the terra are wider, and just a tad heavier. i’m sure there are some modest aero differences based on the width and tire profile.
#9
Senior Member
That's all well and good but if you're a crit racer you know the value of weight accelerating out of every corner. A 135lb rider vs 180 is also going to value weight differently.
#10
Habitual User
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 8,109
Bikes: 2023 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2018 Trek Procaliber 9.9 RSL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5035 Post(s)
Liked 8,234 Times
in
3,892 Posts
Most experienced cyclists know that the value of light-weight, per se, is of very little value. It may feel more responsive, but makes little difference.
Of course, it gets complicated because higher-end (and better) components are lighter. But it's not the weight that makes them better.
On a flat course, the difference would be even smaller.
Of course, it gets complicated because higher-end (and better) components are lighter. But it's not the weight that makes them better.
On a flat course, the difference would be even smaller.
Light bikes feel good to ride. Feeling good inspires me to ride harder. Riding harder means going faster. Therefore, light bikes are faster.
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
Likes For Eric F:
Likes For mschwett:
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 7,983
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7058 Post(s)
Liked 11,111 Times
in
4,745 Posts
What would be the dependent variable and independent variable(s)?
I'm not sure that regression (of anything) would help, anyway. Having power data would make this much more useful. But I don't think the OP signed on to do a proper controlled experiment.
Anyway, I just got back from doing intervals on my 27 lb (guesstimate, as I've never weighed it) fendered light touring bike...And guess what? It was a good workout with a reasonable average speed. (Not that speed matters when I'm doing a solo training ride.)
I'm not sure that regression (of anything) would help, anyway. Having power data would make this much more useful. But I don't think the OP signed on to do a proper controlled experiment.
Anyway, I just got back from doing intervals on my 27 lb (guesstimate, as I've never weighed it) fendered light touring bike...And guess what? It was a good workout with a reasonable average speed. (Not that speed matters when I'm doing a solo training ride.)
#13
Should Be More Popular
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Malvern, PA (20 miles West of Philly)
Posts: 43,104
Bikes: 1986 Alpine (steel road bike), 2009 Ti Habenero, 2013 Specialized Roubaix
Mentioned: 560 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22650 Post(s)
Liked 8,967 Times
in
4,178 Posts
Likes For datlas:
#14
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2021
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,044
Bikes: addict, aethos, creo, vanmoof, sirrus, public ...
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1284 Post(s)
Liked 1,405 Times
in
714 Posts
What would be the dependent variable and independent variable(s)?
I'm not sure that regression (of anything) would help, anyway. Having power data would make this much more useful. But I don't think the OP signed on to do a proper controlled experiment.
Anyway, I just got back from doing intervals on my 27 lb (guesstimate, as I've never weighed it) fendered light touring bike...And guess what? It was a good workout with a reasonable average speed. (Not that speed matters when I'm doing a solo training ride.)
I'm not sure that regression (of anything) would help, anyway. Having power data would make this much more useful. But I don't think the OP signed on to do a proper controlled experiment.
Anyway, I just got back from doing intervals on my 27 lb (guesstimate, as I've never weighed it) fendered light touring bike...And guess what? It was a good workout with a reasonable average speed. (Not that speed matters when I'm doing a solo training ride.)
#16
Full Member
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 425
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Liked 291 Times
in
163 Posts
Most experienced cyclists know that the value of light-weight, per se, is of very little value. It may feel more responsive, but makes little difference.
Of course, it gets complicated because higher-end (and better) components are lighter. But it's not the weight that makes them better.
On a flat course, the difference would be even smaller.
Of course, it gets complicated because higher-end (and better) components are lighter. But it's not the weight that makes them better.
On a flat course, the difference would be even smaller.
Aero will trump weight in most cases but for long steep climbs, a light bike can pay dividends. Of course, there are just so many variables to take into account but I don't agree that we can generalise by saying aero is always better or lightweight is of little value, as in this case - and I'm a very experienced cyclist, won my share of races at National, League and Club level.
For my nearest long climb, circa 12 miles at an average 5%, I am consistently around 2 minutes quicker on my 13lb bike vs my 17lb aero bike. On shorter, steeper climbs, circa 8 - 20%, the margin of difference is even greater in real terms. As a 53 yr old Strava KOM-hunter for training (motivates me for interval training), I'm in competition with cyclists half my age, so I try both aero and lightweight and use my bikes to my advantage. As such, in varied weather conditions, personal conditioning etc, I have a substantial amount of segment data to compare and draw conclusions with.
In an actual race, flat and mildly lumpy, I would always choose aero over lighter weight unless I could have both*. A hill TT, any steep climb taken as an individual segment or a particularly hilly GranFondo race, the lighter bike is best, I find.
*if you can have both aero and lightweight, then that is overall the better option, naturally.
For leisurely rides on mild terrain, yeah, pick the bike that's most comfortable as there will be little difference at low speeds unless, again, the gradient is very steep, in which case, lighter will be faster for any given watts.
Lighter can also be easier depending upon what one wants as the OP has learned. Easier due to less watts required on a steep gradient to maintain the same speed as a heavier bike. Or faster using the same watts as on a heavier bike. I know a lot of folks don't like to talk watts but ultimately, it is about energy, power and resistance and the numbers don't lie, power meters are very useful for comparisons such as this.
Likes For AlgarveCycling:
#17
Klaatu..Verata..Necktie?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 18,078
Bikes: Litespeed Ultimate, Ultegra; Canyon Endurace, 105; Battaglin MAX, Chorus; Bianchi 928 Veloce; Ritchey Road Logic, Dura Ace; Cannondale R500 RX100; Schwinn Circuit, Sante; Lotus Supreme, Dura Ace
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10483 Post(s)
Liked 12,004 Times
in
6,147 Posts
Ah, but did you get a better workout on the heavier bike?
__________________
"Don't take life so serious-it ain't nohow permanent."
"Everybody's gotta be somewhere." - Eccles
"Don't take life so serious-it ain't nohow permanent."
"Everybody's gotta be somewhere." - Eccles
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 2,009
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2730 Post(s)
Liked 488 Times
in
353 Posts
Aero will trump weight in most cases but for long steep climbs, a light bike can pay dividends. Of course, there are just so many variables to take into account but I don't agree that we can generalise by saying aero is always better or lightweight is of little value, as in this case - and I'm a very experienced cyclist, won my share of races at National, League and Club level.
For my nearest long climb, circa 12 miles at an average 5%, I am consistently around 2 minutes quicker on my 13lb bike vs my 17lb aero bike. On shorter, steeper climbs, circa 8 - 20%, the margin of difference is even greater in real terms. As a 53 yr old Strava KOM-hunter for training (motivates me for interval training), I'm in competition with cyclists half my age, so I try both aero and lightweight and use my bikes to my advantage. As such, in varied weather conditions, personal conditioning etc, I have a substantial amount of segment data to compare and draw conclusions with.
In an actual race, flat and mildly lumpy, I would always choose aero over lighter weight unless I could have both*. A hill TT, any steep climb taken as an individual segment or a particularly hilly GranFondo race, the lighter bike is best, I find.
*if you can have both aero and lightweight, then that is overall the better option, naturally.
For leisurely rides on mild terrain, yeah, pick the bike that's most comfortable as there will be little difference at low speeds unless, again, the gradient is very steep, in which case, lighter will be faster for any given watts.
Lighter can also be easier depending upon what one wants as the OP has learned. Easier due to less watts required on a steep gradient to maintain the same speed as a heavier bike. Or faster using the same watts as on a heavier bike. I know a lot of folks don't like to talk watts but ultimately, it is about energy, power and resistance and the numbers don't lie, power meters are very useful for comparisons such as this.
For my nearest long climb, circa 12 miles at an average 5%, I am consistently around 2 minutes quicker on my 13lb bike vs my 17lb aero bike. On shorter, steeper climbs, circa 8 - 20%, the margin of difference is even greater in real terms. As a 53 yr old Strava KOM-hunter for training (motivates me for interval training), I'm in competition with cyclists half my age, so I try both aero and lightweight and use my bikes to my advantage. As such, in varied weather conditions, personal conditioning etc, I have a substantial amount of segment data to compare and draw conclusions with.
In an actual race, flat and mildly lumpy, I would always choose aero over lighter weight unless I could have both*. A hill TT, any steep climb taken as an individual segment or a particularly hilly GranFondo race, the lighter bike is best, I find.
*if you can have both aero and lightweight, then that is overall the better option, naturally.
For leisurely rides on mild terrain, yeah, pick the bike that's most comfortable as there will be little difference at low speeds unless, again, the gradient is very steep, in which case, lighter will be faster for any given watts.
Lighter can also be easier depending upon what one wants as the OP has learned. Easier due to less watts required on a steep gradient to maintain the same speed as a heavier bike. Or faster using the same watts as on a heavier bike. I know a lot of folks don't like to talk watts but ultimately, it is about energy, power and resistance and the numbers don't lie, power meters are very useful for comparisons such as this.
#19
Full Member
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 425
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Liked 291 Times
in
163 Posts
However, few races would work where there is no wind to be faced at all - lateral winds for example. So it would need to be someone in a Peloton surrounded by other riders all of the time. In practice, we do experience wind resistance enough to find an aero bike an advantage on all but the mountainous routes. Making light bikes aero is the ultimate solution, which many manufacturers are doing and so the differences become increasingly marginal.
Trek are still keeping aero and lightweight separate but the difference between a new 6.8kg Trek Emonda and the new Madone at 7.5kg, is not great, since they are both essentially light, both have aero elements and so there are only very marginal gains between them that you need to be into the wind at high speed for, over a long period, for the aero bike to be a true advantage. Of course, given races tend to be fast and can be long, then the Madone is generally slightly faster - even if there is some climbing. Where the Emonda excels is on very hilly routes. Light bikes do still have value, aero light bikes best overall in most cases.
Get the lightest most aero bike you can afford, basically, for most racing.
In the UK, they have hill TT's where the bikes are super-light, down to 4kg. Aero means nothing there. Just you and gravity. Light trumps all in terms of bike advantage.
#20
Senior Member
As I understand it, Nearly all of the energy required to push the extra weight up a hill is returned on the downside if you don't apply the brakes. But the extra speed on the downside is subject to significantly more wind risistance. So if we apply 10% more power climbing, We might get 6- 7% back. Any breaking sucks up more. This, and some other variables could easily explain your real world results.
As far as feel goes, The flywheel effect of more weight might give the perception that the heavier bike is much slower, Which might be the case...for a very short time accererating. This is the problem racing, But the overall average probably won't be as much as expected.
I swapped bikes with an old friend once. He rode my 34 lb comfort bike with cheap 2" wide tires and I rode his vitage Raleigh road bike, perhaps 18 lbs. I laughed to myself when he said my treasured comfort bike doesn't move any faster when he pushed the pedals harder. While his road bike felt positively sporty, responding instantly with increasing effort.
As far as feel goes, The flywheel effect of more weight might give the perception that the heavier bike is much slower, Which might be the case...for a very short time accererating. This is the problem racing, But the overall average probably won't be as much as expected.
I swapped bikes with an old friend once. He rode my 34 lb comfort bike with cheap 2" wide tires and I rode his vitage Raleigh road bike, perhaps 18 lbs. I laughed to myself when he said my treasured comfort bike doesn't move any faster when he pushed the pedals harder. While his road bike felt positively sporty, responding instantly with increasing effort.
Last edited by xroadcharlie; 07-21-22 at 03:11 PM.
#21
The Wheezing Geezer
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Española, NM
Posts: 1,073
Bikes: 1976 Fredo Speciale, Rivendell Clem Smith Jr., Libertas mixte
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 415 Post(s)
Liked 952 Times
in
457 Posts
Love your data. Makes sense to me. Do you think increased fitness or increased effort accounts for any of the differences?
Thanks for posting!
Thanks for posting!
#22
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2021
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,044
Bikes: addict, aethos, creo, vanmoof, sirrus, public ...
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1284 Post(s)
Liked 1,405 Times
in
714 Posts
As I understand it, Nearly all of the energy required to push the extra weight up a hill is returned on the downside if you don't apply the brakes. But the extra speed on the downside is subject to significantly more wind risistance. So if we apply 10% more power climbing, We might get 6- 7% back. Any breaking sucks up more. This, and some other variables could easily explain your real world results.
As far as feel goes, The flywheel effect of more weight might give the perception that the heavier bike is much slower, Which might be the case...for a very short time accererating. This is the problem racing, But the overall average probably won't be as much as expected.
I swapped bikes with an old friend once. He rode my 34 lb comfort bike with cheap 2" wide tires and I rode his vitage Raleigh road bike, perhaps 18 lbs. I laughed to myself when he said my treasured comfort bike doesn't move any faster when he pushed the pedals harder. While his road bike felt positively sporty, responding instantly with increasing effort.
As far as feel goes, The flywheel effect of more weight might give the perception that the heavier bike is much slower, Which might be the case...for a very short time accererating. This is the problem racing, But the overall average probably won't be as much as expected.
I swapped bikes with an old friend once. He rode my 34 lb comfort bike with cheap 2" wide tires and I rode his vitage Raleigh road bike, perhaps 18 lbs. I laughed to myself when he said my treasured comfort bike doesn't move any faster when he pushed the pedals harder. While his road bike felt positively sporty, responding instantly with increasing effort.
#23
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2021
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,044
Bikes: addict, aethos, creo, vanmoof, sirrus, public ...
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1284 Post(s)
Liked 1,405 Times
in
714 Posts
i do think the increase in speed over the first few months with the old bike were a mix of fitness and somewhat increasing skill. but you can see the data is pretty much flat for the new bike, indicating not much change!
#24
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2021
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,044
Bikes: addict, aethos, creo, vanmoof, sirrus, public ...
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1284 Post(s)
Liked 1,405 Times
in
714 Posts
power meters say no, except for the slightly increased caloric expenditure from the longer ride at a similar level of effort. but i don't have unlimited time to ride so those extra minutes come off somewhere...
Likes For mschwett:
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,997
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3978 Post(s)
Liked 7,425 Times
in
2,986 Posts
So, the lighter bike was 8% faster? That's a lot -- I'd pay good money for that.