Rider to bike weight ratio
Comments
-
Me 92 kgs
Bike 10.5 kgs
(please not the use of proper units)
Ratio 8.760 -
Me - 164lbs (5'8"), less than 9% bodyfat, 30" waist, BMI just in overweight category (!!)
Bike - 22.5lbs
ratio - 7.30 -
Whilst the ratio might be pointless, im sure someone could come up with some meaningful mathematical system.
meaningful, but not that useful!0 -
furby wrote:Whilst the ratio might be pointless, im sure someone could come up with some meaningful mathematical system.
meaningful, but not that useful!
n+10 -
Who cares? Stuff like this is kind of fun!
A bit concerned about Realmans weight though - that's very very light!0 -
177lbs me
26.5lbs bike
Ratio 6.68.
Pointless numbers
The funniest thing is he's "realman" and under 9st
0 -
Me 150 lbsRealMan wrote: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?
Bike 25lbs
Ratio 6.0
RM, you are rather light!"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Me 266 lbs (curse working away for 3 months and living in hotels drinking too much beer)
Bike 23 lbs
Ratio 11.5
Do I win?
I keep up with and am faster than some of the guys I ride with that are lighter than me by some considerable margin. So your theory is flawed mate
0 -
-
Steve_b77 wrote:The funniest thing is he's "realman" and under 9st
Depends on your definition of "real" and "man"..
And yes, in terms of who is fastest, this ratio is quite pointless.
But I wasn't think about speed. My point was that (been seeing a lot of 6s and 7s) that if you lose 1% of your bodyweight, it makes around 6 or 7 times the difference to losing 1% of your bikes weight.
The point is, would you rather go on a diet, or go for a dump, then buy a new, lighter cassette or seatpost? You burn off a bit off fat, you look better, you feel better, you will be healthier (up to a point, for example, I don't have much to lose..). I think the only reason people seem to think a lighter bike will be better then a lighter body, is that you don't notice yourself get lighter as its usually a more gradual process.
You buy a new cassette, and the only thing that gets noticeably lighter is your wallet.. 0 -
My point was that (been seeing a lot of 6s and 7s) that if you lose 1% of your bodyweight, it makes around 6 or 7 times the difference to losing 1% of your bikes weight.
On paper, yes. Out riding, no - it is usually easier to feel the weight loss on the bike due to mechanics, centre of mass and other things.0 -
supersonic wrote:On paper, yes. Out riding, no - it is usually easier to feel the weight loss on the bike due to mechanics, centre of mass and other things.
Care to explain a bit more..?
I think it's all about the fact that losing body weight is more gradual, and so you get used to it - there's no big changes that will really stand out. But going from a DH bike to an XC bike is an instant change, and of course makes it noticeable.
I'm not arguing that bike weight doesn't make a difference - it does. But nowhere near as big as rider weight.
A couple of people commenting saying I'm quite light, and I am. I f**king fly up hills. I love it.
Someone said they were double me? So basically if I was going up a hill with you, you'd have to do nearly twice the work I was doing just to keep up. And from start, if we both had the same power output, your acceleration would be roughly half mine.
The only time when my weight being a disadvantage is when going downhill on road bikes. I'm spinning like mad in top gear, on the drops, and people tear past me on the hoods freewheeling. Its because of the ratio of weight to surface area (air resistance) I think.0 -
I agree with that - I'd struggle to drop a kilo off my bike and pay hundreds to do it. Losing about 5kg over the last year has cost nout and has had a noticeable effectRealMan wrote:Steve_b77 wrote:The point is, would you rather go on a diet, or go for a dump, then buy a new, lighter cassette or seatpost? You burn off a bit off fat, you look better, you feel better, you will be healthier (up to a point, for example, I don't have much to lose..). I think the only reason people seem to think a lighter bike will be better then a lighter body, is that you don't notice yourself get lighter as its usually a more gradual process.
You buy a new cassette, and the only thing that gets noticeably lighter is your wallet.. "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
A basic experiment - put a 10 lbs weight where the riders COG is, say a rucksack, and ride. Now put it where the bike is in the front triangle. Go and ride a demanding trail.
Now tell me what you notice? Look at the differences when cornering, moving the bike under you, lifting the front end, bunny hops etc,.
It is not as simple as just mass, it is location and how it moves.
Yes, small changes are hard to notice, but overall mass lost from the bike is better than off the person. Though both is ideal0 -
A mate of mine at my boxing club who wasn't particularly fat - about 5"9 or 10 I think and 80k - lost over 10kg in about a month. For a couple of quid per week for the boxing sessions. And of course, he's not just lighter - he's fitter and stronger. And that (for all you people who are going on about speed), is what makes you faster.0
-
That is another part to the argument - fitter and stronger is good. And we all should aim for that.
But weight for weight - off the bike is generally better.0 -
Oh yeah, if you're talking a kilo off the body or a kilo off the bike, then go for the bike. Obviously.
But losing a kilo off a bike is bloody hard, and expensive. Losing a kilo off your body can be done in less then a week, for nothing other then a bit of commitment.0 -
depends if you're losing muscle mass or flab.
Muscle weight quite a lot more than flab...so for some of us, losing weight means losing muscle!0 -
Anyway, the figures: just been outside with the scales lol.
I was 12st 13 which is 181 lbs.
Me and bike were 14 stone 9 which puts the bike at 24lbs.
Ratio = 7.54:10 -
-
WHich is what 90% of people here have done lol.0
-
Well I didn't bloody know :P
tis somewhere between 28lb and 29lb according to the scales
Not bad!0 -
Not too bad! Maybe swap to a Zaskar Carbon frame will knock 3lbs off in an instant ;-0
-
Me - 151.8 lbs
Bike - 30 lbs
ratio - 4.61Trek Madone 3.5 (RS80s, Arione)
Trek Madone 3.1 (Upgraded)
Ribble TT Bike
Trek Mamba (Garry Fisher Collection)0 -
bigbenj_08 wrote:Well I didn't bloody know :P
Its quite a similar build to mine actually, maybe add 1 or 2lbs for the frame, and maybe the bashguard and wheels. So you are probably right with 28ish.0 -
II like this, I like it more because I'm so small and my bikes so fat.
I'm 140lbs
Bikes 38-42ish lbs."This is ******!, We can't ride out bikes in the dirt like this!"0 -
Northwind wrote:Depends how heavy you are. I'm already borderline underweight, if I lose a kilo my dietician would shout at me.
Yes, of course. I did say before..RealMan wrote:You burn off a bit off fat, you look better, you feel better, you will be healthier (up to a point, for example, I don't have much to lose..).
But when you're already quite light, it doesn't seem to matter as much (or at least to me) how light the bike is. You're already flying up the hills.0 -
It comes from being 5ft 4" and having a Peeler."This is ******!, We can't ride out bikes in the dirt like this!"0
