Bike Weight...all that important ??
Comments
-
Huge difference between being overly muscular and very lean.
I may be a bit fatter these days, but will dust anyone that's built like arnie on the trails. I find normally that having that much muscle restrict motor skill movements, and that sort of destroys their climbing ability.
Saying that, i'm losing weight from riding at a reasonable weight and only want to be lean muscle and around 75kg, sitting at 90 now, and going on down day by day.0 -
i agree with OP 100%
I get asked all the time out on the trails what weight my bikes are!? i can never answer the said question... because.. it doesn't "really matter" I'm only buzzing around trail centres and my local stuff.. i remember mentioning one time to a mtb mate that my syncros pedals where 800grams he looked at me in horror.. for me weight doesn't matter.. pedals that don't fall apart on pedal strikes is more important... its funny how i climb up the hills a lot faster than he does and I find my self hanging around the trails with my "heavy bike" waiting for him to catch me up... lol
I think if i was racing then i can see the importance of weight on a bike.. but for local trails and trail centres.. i think it would do better loosing weight from my beer gut first..lol.. which brings me to my other point.. if I'm working harder with my so called heavy bike then surly that means I'm getting fitter ??0 -
Insomniac wrote:if I'm working harder with my so called heavy bike then surly that means I'm getting fitter ??
Yes, that's true, you will get stronger - but you may only benefit from it if you switch to a much lighter bike for a race, where you'll feel like you're flying. Much like some road racers, who train on heavier bikes, and then race on their lightest bike.
Going back to the OP - I'm not sure you get more traction just because you and the bike are heavier. You'll go downhill quicker, but this won't offset the time you'll lose going up again. It's an interesting point though - will you wheelspin less with more weight over the wheels, or will you wheelspin more because you've got too much weight to carry. Personally, I'd rather keep everything light and nimble so that you can adjust your weight to compensate for wheel spin/slide and not simply trudge my way around as if I was riding a motocross bike.
There is certainly vanity in having the top components. I'm very guilty of shodding my Cove with XTR when XT would be fine, but it wouldn't look as nice, and I felt I deserved to treat myself ! However, I think sometimes XTR can outlast XT, so as well as being lighter and looking nicer, then that's a seller for me.
If someone's commenting on your bike's weight because you're always lagging behind, they may just be showing some consideration. But if you don't appear to be getting slowed down, then it's daft of anyone to comment.
Me, I'm right in the middle on this argument. My hardtail weighs 26lbs but is much stronger than a pure XC racer MTB. So it's quick enough to race on, but I can follow (hang-on for dear life) full-sus riders down the roughest of trails without worrying about anything breaking. I think that's a good compromise.0 -
BG2000 wrote:It's an interesting point though - will you wheelspin less with more weight over the wheels, or will you wheelspin more because you've got too much weight to carry.
The two cancel each other out. The weight pulling you down the hill is proportional to the force pushing the rear wheel into the ground. Bear in mind heavier people often have stronger legs for general mobility but the extra strength rarely compensates for the extra weight when on the bike.I had to beat them to death with their own shoes...
HiFi Pro Carbon '09
LTS DH '96
The Mighty Dyna-Sore - The 90's?0 -
Shaggy_Dog wrote:BG2000 wrote:It's an interesting point though - will you wheelspin less with more weight over the wheels, or will you wheelspin more because you've got too much weight to carry.
The two cancel each other out. The weight pulling you down the hill is proportional to the force pushing the rear wheel into the ground. Bear in mind heavier people often have stronger legs for general mobility but the extra strength rarely compensates for the extra weight when on the bike.
It would depend on the friction co-efficient between the tyre and the road surface. The extra weight would increase the contact patch (given the same tyre pressure) there would then be a break point where the disadvantage of the extra weight would be overcome by the larger contact, this point would change in proportion to the increase or decrease in the friction co-efficient. SIMPLES!!. :?You've no won the Big Cup since 1902!0 -
I'm not sure you get more traction just because you and the bike are heavier. You'll go downhill quicker, but this won't offset the time you'll lose going up again
You'll roll downhill quicker under gravity (all other things being equal), but accelerate more slowly, so actually in most off road riding where you're braking/accelerating lots the heavier rider loses out again!0 -
Well, all that aside, in my experience, heavy guys on heavy bikes go uphill slower than light guys on light bikes!I had to beat them to death with their own shoes...
HiFi Pro Carbon '09
LTS DH '96
The Mighty Dyna-Sore - The 90's?0 -
There will be a crossover point, where weight (wither too little or too much) becomes a disadvantage though.Shaggy_Dog wrote:Well, all that aside, in my experience, heavy guys on heavy bikes go uphill slower than light guys on light bikes!0 -
Even uphill? There are clear assumptions about fitness, but if a rider weighed 100kg, then had liposuction to remove 1kg at a time, I'm fairly sure he'd just keep getting quicker uphill. Until he died of course, perhaps that's the crossover point.0
-
Yeah, I think so.
I mean, weight results in traction, but if you have more weight than is needed to achieve the necessary traction, then you need more energy to move yourself up the hill.
If on the other hand, you're soo light that you struggle for traction, then you aren't ever goig to make it up.
I don't know where these points would be, and don't even know if they weould fall in the realms of a normal human being.
But, I reckon if you've got a really greasy surface, maybe, a heavier rider could produce enough traction to get up when a lighter one wouldn't.0 -
I'm reasonably confident that the reduction in traction is vastly outweighed by the effort saved by being lighter!
I cleaned a climb for the first time earlier this year, I'd always lost traction at the steepest part previously. I'm at the ligthest I've been for a long time, on the lightest bike I've tried it on and had a Furious Fred tyre on the back, which doesn't offer much grip:
0 -
So you don't accept that weight has anything to do with traction?0
-
Surely a bike with a 30 stone rider would require a bigger force to make the tyres break traction than a bike with a 10 stone rider. Say if you had some device pushing the bike sideways, or trying to push backwards or forwards with the brakes fully on/wheels locked.
But then 'in the field' a 30 stone rider (all else being equal) will exert a bigger force than a 10 stone rider. So it might cancel out
I don't think that losing a couple of pounds off a bike would lead to a noticeable difference in traction though. In my humble opinion
0 -
I reckon, yeah. But, it's going to take more work to move that 30 stone rider.bails87 wrote:Surely a bike with a 30 stone rider would require a bigger force to make the tyres break traction than a bike with a 10 stone rider.
There must be some sweet spot, where the extra weight is just perfect for giving "just enough" traction, without going over, so the rider's not shifting excess weight.
This is way off topic by now though
0 -
Yes I agree with bails, and like I said, I am confident that the increased traction is cancelled out by the extra weight, ie you'll still be slower! I can spin the back wheel on my roadbike, particularly on bad surfaces, I may not do it if I weighed 5 stone more, but I'd be weezing up all the climbs!
I don't think the 'heavier riders climb better because of their increased traction' thing holds any weight (no pun intended!)0 -
Only to a point I mean. Of course there comes a point where weight is more of a hindrance.njee20 wrote:Yes I agree with bails, and like I said, I am confident that the increased traction is cancelled out by the extra weight, ie you'll still be slower! I can spin the back wheel on my roadbike, particularly on bad surfaces, I may not do it if I weighed 5 stone more, but I'd be weezing up all the climbs!
I don't think the 'heavier riders climb better because of their increased traction' thing holds any weight (no pun intended!)
And I'm not suggesting a 5 stone difference.
What if, for example, you carried an extra stone of muscle on you, but were still as lean.0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:
Only to a point I mean. Of course there comes a point where weight is more of a hindrance.njee20 wrote:Yes I agree with bails, and like I said, I am confident that the increased traction is cancelled out by the extra weight, ie you'll still be slower! I can spin the back wheel on my roadbike, particularly on bad surfaces, I may not do it if I weighed 5 stone more, but I'd be weezing up all the climbs!
I don't think the 'heavier riders climb better because of their increased traction' thing holds any weight (no pun intended!)
And I'm not suggesting a 5 stone difference.
What if, for example, you carried an extra stone of muscle on you, but were still as lean.
And then you've got the fact that any extra weight that increases the downward force from the tyres to ground will also increase the effort it takes to accelerate/brake/turn, so although you've got more traction, you need more traction to have the same 'breaking point'.0 -
I don't think the two would increase at the same rate though.0
-
yeehaamcgee wrote:I don't think the two would increase at the same rate though.
I guessed as much, so it comes down to that 'sweet spot' you mentioned.
"That's not a beer belly, it's traction-boosting ballast" 0 -
I might be wrong, it's just something this thread got me wondering about.0
-
0
-
njee20 wrote:I'm reasonably confident that the reduction in traction is vastly outweighed by the effort saved by being lighter!
I cleaned a climb for the first time earlier this year, I'd always lost traction at the steepest part previously. I'm at the ligthest I've been for a long time, on the lightest bike I've tried it on and had a Furious Fred tyre on the back, which doesn't offer much grip:
]
Nice one ! that's progress alright. I'm sure the overall loss of weight helps. When everything is lighter and you're more nimble, you respond better. So just when you feel loss of traction, you can compensate by easing off slightly, moving your weight backwards, balancing a bit, then easing down on the pedals to get going again. You need the lower weight to accelerate easier, and get out of sticky moments. If you're lighter and fitter you can pedal a higher gear which helps prevent wheelspin. You just get more control overall. And as you've seen, you don't need a tractor tyre to climb up slippy slopes - technique has a lot to do with it as well.0 -
-
What if, for example, you carried an extra stone of muscle on you, but were still as lean.
Unless I could put on 1 stone of muscle purely on my legs it would all be totally wasted weight, and even then I doubt I could put on 1 stone of useful muscle just in my legs, so I'd just be lugging more weight up hills.0 -
nah not really, it just makes you fitter with a heavier bike is all..I like bike, bike is bike.0
-
What is it with the forum? I'm more than wiling to admit when I'm wrong :roll:bails87 wrote:
Are you actually trying to wind me up again?0 -
I see where you're coming from, but I still think there must be a sweet spot.njee20 wrote:What if, for example, you carried an extra stone of muscle on you, but were still as lean.
Unless I could put on 1 stone of muscle purely on my legs it would all be totally wasted weight, and even then I doubt I could put on 1 stone of useful muscle just in my legs, so I'd just be lugging more weight up hills.
I mean, if you could theoretically make an F1 car weigh, say, 200 Kg, it would never get the power down effectively.
Like I said, I don't know if the realms of the weight that could affect this are even within realistic boundaries, but I'm just musing about the idea.
Oh, and I'm pretty sure you could put 1 stone of muscle just on your legs - especially seeing as this is a hypothetical scenario.0 -
I'm not heavy (80kg) and when I put some 2.5s on my old bike it became almost unrideable on anything other than dry fire roads. I wasn't heavy enough to achieve grip as the kg/mm2 had reduced with the bigger contact patch. Letting lots of pressure out helped (the tyre moulded to the surface rather than punctured it) but made it a dog to ride. Back to my old 2.1s and the bike was superb again.
The weight needed to maintain grip will vary with track surface and tyre combinations (pressure, tyre width & tread pattern). Once traction is achieved, any more weight (bike or rider) is a penalty.Boardman Elite SLR 9.2S
Boardman FS Pro0 -
Ok, taking this to a slight extreme.
Myself and a riding buddy both weight about 11 stone. My bit is a stumpy fsr 2007 pretty much bang on 28 pounds in weight, and his bike is an sx trail weighing about 37 pounds, Now according to some on here me losing 10 pounds, which has happened this year would make as much difference as the weight diff between these two bikes for climbing?
This simply isnt true, as i can hardly pedal his bike up the climbs at cwm i know i ahve tried on a few occassions. bike weight makes a huge difference but it needs to be a pound or two as we are just not sensative to notice else.
Trying to understand peoples points here. but mostly it sounds like people are treating bike and rider as single acceleration object which they aren't.0
