Wileyone 

Heavy bikes give you a better workout when you get home and have to carry them up 2 flights of stairs.

Koyote

I'm not sure about the physics of this claim, but I do know that I strongly prefer a lighter bike for commuting in a city. I'm safer if I can better keep up with the flow of traffic (rather than being passed by more vehicles) and get through intersections more quickly.

In commuting, safety outweighs all other concerns.

livedarklions

From experience, I can state categorically this is true. When people have asked me whether they should spend the money for a lighter bike, my first question is usually whether they're going to need to carry it and the follow up is whether they have a bad back.

Heavy bikes aren't just heavy, negotiating security doors, etc., and carrying them around staircase corners can be very awkward.

Aladin

Think.. suggest you need to ride the lighter bike at speed and report back.

CargoDane

LOL, what are actually suggesting? That a lighter bike is impossible to ride at higher speeds? Or that you can't use a heavier gear on a lighter bike?

I know for a fact you can ride a lighter bike faster than a heavier bike. And in a higher gear for the same effort.

Edited to add:
Or maybe it's completely flat where you are, meaning you can't really tell a difference when at speed - and at speeds where wind resistance isn't a factor?

Wileyone 

Here is N+1 "again".

livedarklions

Like I said, different riders, different cities. I'm covering a lot more ground riding a fast light bike in the Boston area than I could do on a heavy bike. Whatever workout gain I get from the marginal increase in effort at a traffic light on the heavy bike I more than make up for by getting to more lights on the light bike and increasing my riding range.

I know from previous postings that you are a lot lighter than I am, so differences in bike weights are a lot smaller proportion of the gross vehicle weight for me than they are for you. That probably makes it a bigger difference in effort per mile for you than it does me.

livedarklions

You're assuming that the "correct" measure of the quality of workout is effort per mile. For me, the far more relevant measure would be effort per hour, and for those, there's really no significant difference. If I spend less effort on my fixed distance commute, I'm just going to ride more recreational miles.

Koyote

I don't understand your point. A lighter bike, other things equal, allows me to better keep up with traffic and maneuver in an urban setting, regardless of my "strength." That's just physics.

livedarklions

I've ridden with 30 pounds of groceries on my bike quite a few times, there's no way I can accelerate as fast as I can on an unladen bike. But I've never experienced a situation where I thought the lack of acceleration somehow made me incapable of dealing with traffic or was otherwise a safety issue.

If someone is trying to ride comfortably in the traffic lane with a heavy load of groceries, that's their business, but I'm basically riding some form of FRAP most of the time, so I can't take this idea seriously at all.

Koyote

I don't ride in traffic with 30 lbs of cargo, either. Was just pointing out that cubewheels 's post makes no sense.

livedarklions

I was agreeing with you.

CargoDane

What you seem to forget is that if you're strong - regardless of you being almost superhuman, you can still ride faster on a lighter bike.It's physics, you can't cheat it.
Try riding a cargo bike with 70-90 kgs on it and then do it with, say, 10 kgs afterwards. You'd be amazed at the difference.
Or, how about going bike touring at some stage. You will quickly notice that the more weight you're carrying, the slower you are. It doesn't matter how strong you are, you will always be faster on a lighter bike.

CargoDane

All this makes you wonder why people who race professionally don't train on bikes whose tubes are filled with lead. I mean, heavier bikes are better, so their training bikes must weigh, oh, I don't know, 70-100 kilos, right.

​​​​​​​

CargoDane

1) Placing yourself correctly will avoid the need for "sprint starts", lol.
2) Your rear wheel bounces when you stand up and pedal unless it's loaded down with groceries? What the hell?

Aladin

Remember well.. a 'heavy hauler' in FL many winters ago. Loaded to around 3-4' width... riding a narrow busy highway.. sorta windy too. Me driving car towards him I see the semi w no intent on slowing much for the pass of said 'hauler'. I slowed ... now.. and got far right against railing. Sweep of wind did unsettle 'hauler'.. some ..nearly nailed by car following semi.

The semi and car "operators" are what they are.. circumstances of riding a bike. Yet 'hauler' riding that bike on that route was much, much more stooopid. Moronic.

CargoDane

Again: Why do the training bikes of the pros not weigh 70-100 kgs? I mean, it's better according to you people.

In reality, you only need to use a higher gear on a lighter bike to spend the same amount of calories on a fixed distance as you would in a lower gear on the heavier bike. That's how home trainers/rollers work: Resistance.

shelbyfv

Again, you seem to be in over your depth. Cycling might be described as a mature activity, in that it's not necessary for each new rider to reinvent the wheel.

CargoDane

People ride mountain bikes over much more rugged surfaces without having their rear wheel "bounce all of the place" when standing up and powering through. And without heavy bags at the back.


Actually, having weight at the back (and not the front) makes it harder to stand up and power through. That's why most recommend having weight on the front while touring. Having things either hanging loosely from your saddle as on your previous bike or having heavy bags on the back will make the bike more prone to being pulled from side to side. As it is, and on a normal bike, most of the weight (the rider) is on the rear wheel as it is. Leaning over your handlebars so much that you lose grip on the rear is far from the "ideal out of the saddle position".

But, anyway, "heavy bikes are best"

CargoDane

Oh, so heavier bikes are NOT better? Makes the whole "use a heavier gear" much more appropriate than getting a heavier bike, doesn't it?


The pros I've known didn't have a car with them when they trained solo.

Yet, those circumstances doesn't change the physics one bit.
How do you think indoor trainers work?
Unless you have a singlespeed or fixie, you can change the resistance (i.e. "weight") as you please (gears for the win!). Hence, some are "spinners" and some are "mashers". I'm the latter, but trying to become more of a spinner after my amputation.
Perhaps I also need to remind you that I ride a cargo bike, and have been riding such bikes for years. Heavy is not good.

livedarklions

Here's where I think you're getting in over your head in this "argument". If you want to say "under this particular set of circumstances, a heavier bike might give you a better workout than a lighter one", that's fine, but you've now qualified the general statement that heavier bikes give a better workout so much that it doesn't make much sense. I've carried 30 pounds of groceries on a 24 pound bike and on a 50 pound bike. If I have a choice, I'm going to take the 24 pound bike any day.

CargoDane

It was you, yourself, who brought up that your rearwheel bounced when you were in your preferred out-of-the-saddle position. That was all you. You also mentioned that in order for that to NOT happen, you needed the groceries in the back. That was all you.
I try to make heads and tale of what you're saying, and your response: That you didn't have any problems in a video you posted.

Make up your mind.



Exactly as I said: Too much weight in the rear will create a problem. But again, overdoing the weight shift forward to the extent that it unloads your rear tire on flat ground is way too much.

Make up your mind.




Of course you think it's impossible to overdo. That's why you rear wheel loses traction and "bounces all over the place" when not loaded down with groceries.

Again: That's exactly what you described earlier when you said there wasn't enough traction on the rear and that the rear "bounced" when you were out of the saddle unless you had loaded it with groceries.

Okay, you keep digging and keep contradicting yourself, so I will ignore you for a while in order to not completely ruin this thread too.

ofajen

I think we decided that cycling is a poor form of exercise anyway, so why bother with a heavy bike? 😊

Otto

CargoDane

I said I'd ignore you for a while, but taking your claims as they are put forth is not to "pick out [your] words and put together in a bad way". I have not edited your words. Especially not when you contradict yourself from one sentence to the next.
Okay, I'm done. People can re-read your contradictions up-thread.

AlmostTrick

The peer pressure to ride the same type of feather weight bike as the rest of the crowd is overwhelming. Even when training, where one should be devoting their hours to building up their muscles.

It's only a matter of time until some brave racer thinks outside the box, loads his/her bike down with weights for training, and then goes on to crush the competition at the races.

The following year the "monkey see, monkey do" mentality will spin the other way and everyone will be loading down their training bikes for that competitive edge. Noticing the trend, manufactures will quickly begin marketing specialized heavy "muscle building" training bikes. Bike Forums will have a sub forum devoted to 'em, where riders share their reverse weight weenie secrets and 100 kg will be the baseline for training bike bragging rights.