Rider to bike weight ratio

13»

Comments

  • mrfmilo
    mrfmilo Posts: 2,250
    edited April 2010
    Me: 130lbs/60kg, 5ft 8, 13 yrs old
    Bike: will be around 35/36 lbs i'd say
    Marin
  • JamesBrckmn
    JamesBrckmn Posts: 1,360
    me- 45kg/99lbs, 5 ft 2, age 13
    bike- 13kg/28.6lbs
    so, 3.461538462
  • RealMan
    RealMan Posts: 2,166
    Must resist urge to tell people off for quoting more decimal places then they measured to...
  • Briggo
    Briggo Posts: 3,537
    RealMan wrote:
    Must resist urge to tell people off for quoting more decimal places then they measured to...

    Oh dear, someone doing something you dont approve of again?

    I do feel for you. :wink:
  • bails87
    bails87 Posts: 12,998
    Me: 140lbs, 6', 22 (and a half!) very little fat at a guess.

    Bike: 24lbs

    Ratio: 5.83
    MTB/CX

    "As I said last time, it won't happen again."
  • R.lepecha
    R.lepecha Posts: 67
    i'll find my ratio when i rebuild my bike at the weekend, hopefully this time i wont crack my frame!
  • blister pus
    blister pus Posts: 5,780
    bails87 wrote:
    Me: 140lbs, 6', 22 (and a half!) very little fat at a guess.

    6 feet 22 and a half what?
  • bails87
    bails87 Posts: 12,998
    blister pus wrote:
    bails87 wrote:
    Me: 140lbs, 6', 22 (and a half!) very little fat at a guess.

    6 feet 22 and a half what?

    I just re-read that and knew someone would do that :wink:

    6 feet, 22 and a half gnat's eyes.

    Or 22 and a half years old.
    MTB/CX

    "As I said last time, it won't happen again."
  • silveringsurfer
    silveringsurfer Posts: 225
    Hmm - there is a flaw to the argument. I have no desire to race anorexic teenagers up hills so I don't give a stuff about my 'ratio'. :roll:
    I think I'd rather buy some bling for the bike and have a double cheese burger with bacon. I could then roll past real man on the downhills and sit at the bottom bouncing up and down on my 33lb all mountain bike looking at the latest shiny bits. Now that's 'fun'! :wink:
    Scott Genius 08, Marin Rock Springs 08, Marin Pine Mountain 89
  • MacAndCheese
    MacAndCheese Posts: 1,944
    Me - 172lbs, 5"7, 26 yrs old
    Bike 1 (IFT) - 23lbs (ish - not officially weighed)
    Bike 2 (wolf ridge) 35lb

    so
    bike 1 ratio = 7.5 ish
    bike 2 ratio = 4.9 ish
    Santa Cruz Chameleon
    Orange Alpine 160
  • RealMan
    RealMan Posts: 2,166
    Briggo wrote:
    Oh dear, someone doing something you dont approve of again?

    I do feel for you. :wink:

    You don't have any idea how hard it is.. :D
    silveringsurfer wrote:
    Hmm - there is a flaw to the argument. I have no desire to race anorexic teenagers up hills so I don't give a stuff about my 'ratio'. :roll:
    I think I'd rather buy some bling for the bike and have a double cheese burger with bacon. I could then roll past real man on the downhills and sit at the bottom bouncing up and down on my 33lb all mountain bike looking at the latest shiny bits. Now that's 'fun'! :wink:

    You're making two assumptions which may very well be wrong there.

    1. You're assuming I would wait for you at the top.

    2. You're assuming anyone who is quick uphill can't be quick downhill as well.

    :D
  • BigJimmyB
    BigJimmyB Posts: 1,302
    MInes 7, exactly.

    Bike weighs 28 lbs........

    I'm overwieght! :oops:
  • Dobbs
    Dobbs Posts: 186
    Will you stop starting these tedious threads. You are a schoolkid FFS, you have nothing worth listening to in you.
    And for what reason? To tell everyone how little you are? How unfit you are?
  • El Capitano
    El Capitano Posts: 6,401
    SDK2007 wrote:
    For me, on the people side, max heart and recovery rates are more important ;)

    [Pedantic]It's how low you can get your heart rate at resting that's the measure of how fit you are, not the max...[/Pedantic]

    Me: 188Lbs
    NRS: 24.03921lbs (That's 10904g - and no, I don't use the bathroom scales, I have my own set for weighing bike components...)
    Gives a ration of: 7.8205564:1
    1 2 3 4 (Dead)5 6
  • Dobbs
    Dobbs Posts: 186
    It's how low you can get your heart rate at resting that's the measure of how fit you are, not the max..

    No its not, it's recovery time VO2 anaerobic threshold.
    Resting heart rate is an indicator at best. A very low Hr can indicate poor health (or even death!) as much as a high one .
  • Bikerbaboon
    Bikerbaboon Posts: 1,017
    RealMan wrote:
    Must resist urge to tell people off for quoting more decimal places then they measured to...

    you have no idea the decimal places they measured to... only that they have reported to the closest 0.5 of a unit.

    I do have to say well done to real man on manageing to pick 2 major willy waveing points of bikes and then stick them together with a conpleatly pointless number and then get every one posting this random number.


    my ratio is 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288...

    its easy as pi to get up the hills.
    Nothing in life can not be improved with either monkeys, pirates or ninjas
    456
  • RealMan
    RealMan Posts: 2,166
    Dobbs wrote:
    Will you stop starting these tedious threads. You are a schoolkid FFS, you have nothing worth listening to in you.
    And for what reason? To tell everyone how little you are? How unfit you are?

    How about next time you see a thread, check if its started by me. If it is, don't click on it. Then everyone wins.
    Bikerbaboon wrote:
    my ratio is 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288...

    its easy as pi to get up the hills.

    And the winner of Nerd Joke of the Year is... :D:D
  • cavegiant
    cavegiant Posts: 1,546
    I quite liked this thread.

    I was taking the info in a slightly diferent way to most of the whingers, but I won't explain or they will whinge more.

    So good thread, but I am not telling you why :roll:
    Why would I care about 150g of bike weight, I just ate 400g of cookies while reading this?
  • cmm303
    cmm303 Posts: 59
    Love the thread, idle banter, as good as watching tom and jerry.

    My ration: 5.4 with a bike weighing in at 31lbs

    Ability to go uphill fast is about power to (combined) weight. The less weight you have the less power you need to get to the top in the same time. I can't see it matters where the weight is when tallking about grinding up a non-technical hill unless it contributes to power.

    So Realman has a point, albeit limited in its applicability .... but notheless important: I would be less knackered after a hill if I dropped 5kg of DEAD weight. I cannot afford to takethat off my bike but would save on beer taking it off me!

    I know that the weight of a walker's boots is critical. Something like, every 4 ounces of shoe weight results in a ton of foot-lift over a day. Therefpre weight in our shoes is hugely disproportionately more tiring than round the tummy tum tum. Could this be compared with the importance of bike weight when manoeuvering a bike over technical stuff?
    ChrisM
  • dan shard
    dan shard Posts: 722
    me - 163.1 lb
    bike - 27.9 lbs

    ratio 1 : 5.84
  • Mccraque
    Mccraque Posts: 819
    Bike 27lbs
    Me 195 lbs

    7.2
  • mikeyj28
    mikeyj28 Posts: 754
    Me = 153lbs

    Bike = 24.4lbs

    Ratio = 1: 6.27
    Constantly trying to upgrade my parts.It is a long road ahead as things are so expensive for little gain. n+1 is always the principle in my mind.
  • RealMan
    RealMan Posts: 2,166
    cmm303 wrote:
    I know that the weight of a walker's boots is critical. Something like, every 4 ounces of shoe weight results in a ton of foot-lift over a day. Therefpre weight in our shoes is hugely disproportionately more tiring than round the tummy tum tum. Could this be compared with the importance of bike weight when manoeuvering a bike over technical stuff?

    Might be the walking equivalent of rotational weight?
  • meanredspider
    meanredspider Posts: 12,337
    Me 92 kgs
    Bike 10.5 kgs

    Ratio 8.76

    (I copied these cos they're so close to me anyway)

    There's loads of truth in the arguments here. Weight loss high up the bike or on rotational parts will make more difference than low-down & non-rotational parts. Rotational inertia under acceleration/braking is a big effect. Equally weight off "unsprung" masses (wheels in particular on suspension systems) will improve their ability to follow undulations and improve grip. If you're going to spend money, wheels and tyres is where you should spend it.

    Equally though, it's loads easier to lose it off the rider - especially where there's a bit to lose. I once read that there's no point in taking weight off the bike until you can see your abs. The rider though is double-sprung - any suspension, plus legs and arms - and the weight can be shifted around to trim the bike. This will be one of the reasons that a lighter bike feels good.

    Ironically, I cycle to lose weight to go motor racing. Several years ago, I realised that it was costing me £100/kg to remove weight from my car and yet the driver weighed 108kg. I lost 15kg (£1500 in parts) but it cost me far more to buy a whole new wardrobe of clothes cos none fitted any more. I'm happy though cos the weight's stayed off. And not just for racing, but for running, hockey, cycling etc. And that's my last point - weight off the bike is only useful when you're riding that bike. weight off you is useful all the time.
    ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH
  • RealMan
    RealMan Posts: 2,166
    meanredspider wrote:
    And that's my last point - weight off the bike is only useful when you're riding that bike. weight off you is useful all the time.

    Big +1.
  • largephil
    largephil Posts: 358
    me 190 lbs

    bike 35 lbs

    ratio 5.43 : 1
  • cmm303
    cmm303 Posts: 59
    meanredspider wrote:
    Ironically, I cycle to lose weight to go motor racing. [snip] ....... I lost 15kg (£1500 in parts) but it cost me far more to buy a whole new wardrobe of clothes cos none fitted any more. I'm happy though cos the weight's stayed off. And not just for racing, but for running, hockey, cycling etc. And that's my last point - weight off the bike is only useful when you're riding that bike. weight off you is useful all the time.

    Superbly put :lol:
    ChrisM

Categories