Forum home Mountain biking forum MTB general

Rider to bike weight ratio

RealManRealMan Posts: 2,166
edited April 2010 in MTB general
Lots of people seem to be more interested in shedding 30g off a cassette then a couple of kilos off their stomachs. But do they realise just how light their bike is compared to them?

Me: 121 lbs
Bike: 26 lbs

Rider:Bike Ratio: 4.65

Which means that I'm over four and a half times my bikes weight. And my bikes not particularly light, whereas I am.

What's yours?
«13

Posts

  • richg1979richg1979 Posts: 1,087
    me 210lb
    bike 27lb

    ratio 7.77

    doubt ill be able too lose much weight though, dont really carry much weight (fat) anyway.
  • RealManRealMan Posts: 2,166
    Maybe, but the point is that sure, a nice new bit of carbon does look nice, and when you pick the bike up, it might feel a bit lighter, but once you're sitting on it, it won't make censored all difference.
  • DufferDuffer Posts: 379
    210lbs ish
    30lbs ish

    7 ish

    If we get quite a few peoples ratios together, it'll make interesting reading - in a sad sort of way.
  • angry_birdangry_bird Posts: 3,785
    RealMan wrote:
    Maybe, but the point is that sure, a nice new bit of carbon does look nice, and when you pick the bike up, it might feel a bit lighter, but once you're sitting on it, it won't make censored all difference.

    Its a fair point but if you look at it that essentially the bike is just a dead weight, it doesn't do any work to move itself along, you have to provide the energy to do so.

    Your body on the otherhand, is a much greater weight, but not an extra weight you are carrying, unless you do happen to be carrying a bit around the waist :wink: Your body weight to a certain point is useful so its not just as simple as a rider:bike ratio.

    Although i do agree shaving a few grams off with a seatpost seems like a waste of money to me, shaving a few kgs off on the otherhand...

    oh and my ratio is 5.23
  • NorthwindNorthwind Posts: 14,675
    RealMan wrote:
    Maybe, but the point is that sure, a nice new bit of carbon does look nice, and when you pick the bike up, it might feel a bit lighter, but once you're sitting on it, it won't make censored all difference.

    Not true at all, the bike and rider aren't a single fixed unit, loads of stuff you do on the trail involves moving the bike in relation to you and there bike weight is what counts. Manuals, sidehops, pumps and really tight tree-avoidance and such where you shift the bike under you not so much with you. And then there's rotational weight and such- I took 1kg out of the weight of the front wheel on my 170kg motorbike and it made a huge difference even though it's less than half a percent of the rider + bike weight.

    Anyway. I'm 142lbs, Soul is 25lbs, Hemlock is 29lbs (depending on what kit's on them and whether they have the gravity dropper on) so that gives you 5.68 and 4.89.
    Uncompromising extremist
  • RealManRealMan Posts: 2,166
    Northwind wrote:
    loads of stuff you do on the trail involves moving the bike in relation to you and there bike weight is what counts. Manuals, sidehops, pumps and really tight tree-avoidance and such where you shift the bike under you not so much with you.

    But most of those things are done at speed, and are based on the rider shifting their weight. Of course, the more the rider weighs, the more effort they have to put in to shift said weight.

    Although you do have a point on rotational weight, it does make a big difference for acceleration and climbing I think. Quite important for XC racing especially.
  • robertpbrobertpb Posts: 1,866
    With a ratio of 4.57 I keep telling myself when I get a bike that is 6lbs lighter I'll go like a rocket, until then I'm building muscles. :)
    Now where's that "Get Out of Crash Free Card"
  • me - 240lb
    bike - Lets be optimistic... 28lb?

    ratio of 8.57
  • asdfhjklasdfhjkl Posts: 333
    Me: about 200lbs
    Bike: about 32lbs

    Ratio: 6.25

    It'll be interesting to see what the "average" ratio is, and if the heavier riders have the lightest bikes or vice versa.
  • NorthwindNorthwind Posts: 14,675
    RealMan wrote:
    based on the rider shifting their weight. Of course, the more the rider weighs, the more effort they have to put in to shift said weight.

    But the less the bike weighs, the more effect shifting their weight has.
    Uncompromising extremist
  • delcoldelcol Posts: 2,848
    me 145.6 lb
    sc 32lb
    and demo7 is 38lb.

    now can someone help a thick bas***d out and tell me how to or work out my ratio :oops:
  • SDK2007SDK2007 Posts: 782
    Me : 180lbs
    Bike : 24lbs

    Ratio : 7.5

    The problem I see with this is that I'm light weight for my height (6' 2") so I don't see what you're getting out of these bike ratio numbers.

    For me, on the people side, max heart and recovery rates are more important ;)
    i.e. you could be super light weight but on the fitness side fail to pedal up a small hill without dying :P
  • asdfhjklasdfhjkl Posts: 333
    The whole rider weight argument means little without knowing what the weight is. I'm quite athletic at 200lbs, whereas others are fat at 200lbs. I suppose you could say that a higher percentage of my body weight contributes to the effort taken to shift my weight, making it easier than someone who's weighed down by more "dead" weight.
  • RealMan
    I am double what you weigh :lol:
  • SDK2007SDK2007 Posts: 782
    asdfhjkl - I'm guessing you meant to say

    "The whole rider weight argument means little without knowing what the height is"
  • asdfhjklasdfhjkl Posts: 333
    SDK2007 wrote:
    asdfhjkl - I'm guessing you meant to say

    "The whole rider weight argument means little without knowing what the height is"

    Sorry I should've been a bit clearer. I meant what is the weight composed of; so is it someone who's quite fat, someone who's muscular.etc Of course height also comes into play, you're right.
  • blister pusblister pus Posts: 5,780
    delcol wrote:
    me 145.6 lb
    sc 32lb
    and demo7 is 38lb.

    now can someone help a thick bas***d out and tell me how to or work out my ratio :oops:

    145.6 divided by 32 = 4.55
  • blister pusblister pus Posts: 5,780
    203 ish
    31 ish

    6.54 ish
  • GHillGHill Posts: 2,402
    Probably somewhere between 7 and 8. Not sure losing a kilo would help me that much.
  • blister pusblister pus Posts: 5,780
    For me, dropping the bike weight down to 28 or less is going to make it a lot more chuckable and enjoyable, as bigbenj is probably finding out.
  • tjwoodtjwood Posts: 328
    edited April 2010
    Is the ratio in any way a useful number?

    Because if I got really fat and kept the same bike the ratio would be bigger, but I'd be slower.
    If the bike got lighter and I stayed the same the ratio would be bigger, but I'd be faster.

    Probably only any use if you know the rider is lean. But even so you could have two riders who are lean, one skinny and nimble and the other with bulging muscles, on the same bike they'd have massively different ratios but they might be the same speed (muscles is more powerful, but has more weight to shift).

    I'm 6'4", so I weigh more than than someone 5'10" of the same build, but also my 21" bike probably weighs more than their 17" one, even with the same components...



    Not really sure what I'm saying here other than there are too many variables. And I've forgotten what my bike weighs (I wrote it down somewhere but I can't find the bit of paper...) so can't work mine out right now.
  • For me, dropping the bike weight down to 28 or less is going to make it a lot more chuckable and enjoyable, as bigbenj is probably finding out.

    Yar tis definately better for trail riding :)

    however, I need to lean up myself a bit more ... my legs are rock solid though, when tense they're wider than my head :lol:
    Just need to work on some endurance I think, although I wasn't tired at all after last saturday :x
  • rudedogrudedog Posts: 523
    rider to bike weight ratios? sweet baby jesus, whatever next?
  • D-Cyph3rD-Cyph3r Posts: 847
    Me - 160lbs
    Bike - Probably down to 26-27lbs now

    Ratio - 6.1
  • tjwoodtjwood Posts: 328
    Actually thinking about it the important ratio is that between combined bike + rider mass and force your legs can deliver. Force = mass x acceleration which is why lower mass = bigger acceleration.
    If you train and your muscles get more massive then the combined mass increases but probably the force you can deliver increases by a greater amount so you can accelerate more.
  • wheezeewheezee Posts: 461
    edited April 2010
    This is an utterly pointless exercise, producing completely meaningless numbers.

    Genius. :D


    Oops. Nearly forgot: 4.9
  • nicklousenicklouse Posts: 50,675 Lives Here
    tjwood wrote:
    Is the ratio in any way a useful number?

    not at all.

    One bike i have is less than 10kg and another is over 30kg.
    "Do not follow where the path may lead, Go instead where there is no path, and Leave a Trail."
    Parktools :?:SheldonBrown
  • BriggoBriggo Posts: 3,537
    wheezee wrote:
    This is an utterly pointless exercise, producing completely meaningless numbers.

    Genius. :D

    Realman seems to be on a roll with starting up pointless topics.

    This ratio means nothing, far too many factors to take into account. Riding type, riders height and most of all what that weight actually comprises of.

    Considering muscle is what 30-40% heavier than fat is it not? ;)
  • eyepiceyepic Posts: 58
    Hey .... I could win this one


    Me 18st 10 Bike approx 26lbs

    Lets call it 10:1


    Ohh and I am 5ft 10.5 (need that .5 of an inch)
Sign In or Register to comment.