After wheels, what's the best way to reduce weight?

alihisgreat

Hoopdriver wrote:

Bordersroadie wrote:

It always puzzles me that the "lose bodyweight" argument seems to suggest it's mutually exclusive from losing bike weight, but surely

"x" kg lost from bodyweight plus
1kg lost from the bike

is theoretically more beneficial than

"x" kg lost from bodyweight.

Surely this is the whole weight weenie argument?

A separate, and more telling, discussion is "how much additional energy is expended by having a bike "x" kilos more than another?" . This subject is addressed in some fascinating detail in Wikipaedia.

It is simple really - a typical person could probably lose a stone without too much trouble. Shaving the equivalent stone - or fourteen pounds - off a bicycle would leave you carrying around what? A set of handlebars and a saddle? It is much, much simpler and cheaper and far more effective to shed weight off the rider than it is to shed weight off the bike. Not only will shedding weight off the rider result in the entire bike-rider package being lighter (and it is the whole package that matters, not just the bike) but the engine that is powering said package (you) has been considerably tuned up. A happier result all around.

but what's wrong with loosing weight off the bike?

it can take a year to shave off a stone if you are doing it properly.. it will make you faster... but it won't make the bike handle or feel any better... only making changes to the bike can do that.

this forum is so predictable.. instead of making valuable suggestions.. the majority of replies are along the lines of
"loose some fat you lard arse... you don't deserve to have a light bike until you're skinnier than Wiggins"

jgsi

Lossie Loon wrote:

At this level (Road Beginners) where we are simply keen recreational road cyclists, I can't imagine that losing grams here and there on upgrading components will make any difference of note whatsoever, so I would save your money if losing bike weight is your only motivation. If you are upgrading components because you want better quality, then fine, but the weight issue is neglible for guys like us.

OP may have ideas about racing, we don't know.
Spending a bit of money by ditching some od the rather grim (sometimes) oem componentry and thus enhancing the bike to your own taste thus expanding one's own fettling knowledge is to be encouraged .
If you do race or want to be in a position of obtaining 'gold' times then I want to be on a level playing field when it comes to bikes and most bikes in competition are not overweight clunkers... overweight meaning anything over 8kg.

I am quite happy in my possession of an 83kg engine fueled by soreen and caffeine.

Bobbinogs

JGSI wrote:

OP may have ideas about racing, we don't know.

To be fair, I don't think the OP has been able to get a word in edgeways after starting the thread. He asked "what's next on the list" and we have all called him a fat b*stard

springtide9

Just like any other hobby, people enjoy spending more money than actually needed on it, which enhances the enjoyment.

I guess with our busy lives we want to make the most of the small amount of free time that we have. And obviously if you have the money, what is actually wrong with buying something that gives a lot of pleasure?

Generally for most people on this forum (especially in the Beginners section), there is very little 'justification' (as in 'they really need it) for people's purchases, but that doesn't make it wrong. It's all about the difference between 'need' and 'want'.

I guess what I am saying is that if the OP asks:
'After wheels, what's the best way to reduce weight?'
He/She is not looking for a guidance on eating habits and.or loosing weight, but after advice on the best way to spend money on an upgrade.

t4tomo

springtide9 wrote:

Generally for most people on this forum (especially in the Beginners section), there is very little 'justification' (as in 'they really need it) for people's purchases, but that doesn't make it wrong. It's all about the difference between 'need' and 'want'.

+1. Outside of wheels and tyres, upgrading other components fro something a touch lighter won't make the bike noticably faster for the relative lard arses and wannabees that inherit this forum (self included). The bike being 100g lighter won't make a stuff of difference perormance wise.

However if you want to make your bike look nicer / blingier / more personal or have Ultegra or 105 on you gear bobbins so you can exude an air of superiority next to the chaps with Sora on theirs, then thats a perfectly valid reason to go out and splash the cash, just don't think it will go any faster.

Pross

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

but what's wrong with loosing weight off the bike?

it can take a year to shave off a stone if you are doing it properly.. it will make you faster... but it won't make the bike handle or feel any better... only making changes to the bike can do that.

this forum is so predictable.. instead of making valuable suggestions.. the majority of replies are along the lines of
"loose some fat you lard ars*... you don't deserve to have a light bike until you're skinnier than Wiggins"

Nothing wrong with losing weight off the bike. It's just that some people obsess about it whilst neglecting the concept that they are likely to be lugging around the equivalent to a wheelset or frame and forks in unrequired body fat that they could shed in a week or two.

As for the bit in bold - a year to lose a stone properly? 2lb a week is a perfectly achievable target for most people who need to lose weight so a stone should be achievable in 2 months (I've just done it in 6 weeks without having to resort to eating dust).

flasher

If you have a look at Weight Weenies you'll see that to get a really light bike it's not about only one or two things being light, but the whole package, everything is individually weighed and changed right down to the smallest bolt!

However the next best ww thing to change after the wheels/tyre assuming you have a light frame would be to change to SRAM Red.

t4tomo

Flasher wrote:

If you have a look at Weight Weenies you'll see that to get a really light bike it's not about only one or two things being light, but the whole package, everything is individually weighed and changed right down to the smallest bolt!.

the whole point is no-one should have a look at weight weenies - these people are ill. They are velo world equivalent of bulimics and anorexics and they need our help.

if you know one get around his /her house, slap them with a wet haddock and yell "stop tinkering with your derailleur stop adjustment screws and lose some weight of your falbby arse"

This will help everyone.

springtide9

t4tomo wrote:

Flasher wrote:

If you have a look at Weight Weenies you'll see that to get a really light bike it's not about only one or two things being light, but the whole package, everything is individually weighed and changed right down to the smallest bolt!.

the whole point is no-one should have a look at weight weenies - these people are ill. They are velo world equivalent of bulimics and anorexics and they need our help.

if you know one get around his /her house, slap them with a wet haddock and yell "stop tinkering with your derailleur stop adjustment screws and lose some weight of your falbby ars*"

This will help everyone.

... says the person with 'Ultegra' ....

rolf_f

t4tomo wrote:

I don't see this obsession with bike weight, as mentioned above losing rider weight is far easier and more effective as is riding more and getting stronger legs.

However, it is important to note that saving rider weight and saving bike weight are not mutually exclusive - you are allowed to do both at the same time!

woozor

I think like most cyslists theres always an excuse to buy something. you wouldnt even be happy if you had some 5k bike. Youd still be looking on wiggle for cough "upgrades"

Its if those upgrades are worthwhile or not. And whilst not to some people, others can justify it if not only for a psychological boost.

Also you could take into consideration, peoples physiques (not everyone over 10-11stone is fat ). Myself for example weighing 14stone muscular build with low bfat %. those few lbs off a bike could make a noticeable difference on the right bike. Where as the only place I could remove weight from would be to lose muscle mass. However Im quite happy lugging mself up the hill in pain

Hoopdriver

Bobbinogs wrote:

JGSI wrote:

OP may have ideas about racing, we don't know.

To be fair, I don't think the OP has been able to get a word in edgeways after starting the thread. He asked "what's next on the list" and we have all called him a fat b*stard

Hang on, I don't recall anyone referring to the OP as a fat b*stard; I certainly haven't. The question was - what's next on the list and many of us chimed in with losing weight as the cheapest and most effective option for lightening the load. Which it is.

Nobody - certainly not I - has said or suggested that only the elite should possess a lightweight bike, or that he needs to undergo some weight loss catharsis to be deserving. Far from it.

He asked a simple question and got a simple answer - and it's advice that I would, and am, following myself.

And no, in reponse to another poster, a lighter weight bike does not necessarily handle better or become more responsive - that's largely a function of design and the fit of the bike to the rider. The pleasure of a bicycle ride does not hinge on the weight of the bike. It very often does though on the fitness and condition of the rider.

t4tomo

springtide9 wrote:

t4tomo wrote:

Flasher wrote:

If you have a look at Weight Weenies you'll see that to get a really light bike it's not about only one or two things being light, but the whole package, everything is individually weighed and changed right down to the smallest bolt!.

the whole point is no-one should have a look at weight weenies - these people are ill. They are velo world equivalent of bulimics and anorexics and they need our help.

if you know one get around his /her house, slap them with a wet haddock and yell "stop tinkering with your derailleur stop adjustment screws and lose some weight of your falbby ars*"

This will help everyone.

... says the person with 'Ultegra' ....

In my defence, I bought the Bianchi secondhand and it came with Ultegra - didn't upgrade anything except tyres (which were worn) and the faded white bar tape for some blingy italian tricolour stripes. The tyres were possibly heavier, but overall faster as less stopping for puntures. The italian striped bar tape makes the bike go 10% faster.

springtide9

t4tomo wrote:

springtide9 wrote:

t4tomo wrote:

Flasher wrote:

If you have a look at Weight Weenies you'll see that to get a really light bike it's not about only one or two things being light, but the whole package, everything is individually weighed and changed right down to the smallest bolt!.

the whole point is no-one should have a look at weight weenies - these people are ill. They are velo world equivalent of bulimics and anorexics and they need our help.

if you know one get around his /her house, slap them with a wet haddock and yell "stop tinkering with your derailleur stop adjustment screws and lose some weight of your falbby ars*"

This will help everyone.

... says the person with 'Ultegra' ....

In my defence, I bought the Bianchi secondhand and it came with Ultegra - didn't upgrade anything except tyres (which were worn) and the faded white bar tape for some blingy italian tricolour stripes. The tyres were possibly heavier, but overall faster as less stopping for puntures. The italian striped bar tape makes the bike go 10% faster.

LOL - but you'll replace Ultegra with Ultegra right?

BTW, I'm not throwing stones in my greenhouse...
I swapped out my virtually unused FSA chainset for an SRAM Red version for cosmetic reasons. The rest of my groupset was Red, so wanted it all to match.

citrus_

Obviously saving rider weight is the easiest way to save large amounts of weight, however it does come with associated power losses, where as saving weight on components has no disadvantages (assuming stiffness etc remains constant).

So if a rider drops from 16 stone to 14 stone, yes there is a big weight saving there, but there may also be a significant loss in power. Where as if you save 200 grams on your wheels, that has no associated disadvantages.

t4tomo

springtide9 wrote:

blah blah....

LOL - but you'll replace Ultegra with Ultegra right?

BTW, I'm not throwing stones in my greenhouse...
I swapped out my virtually unused FSA chainset for an SRAM Red version for cosmetic reasons. The rest of my groupset was Red, so wanted it all to match.

Not sure I'm a yorkshireman so I look after the pennies. Guess it depends on what breaks or wears out. cassette would happily drop in a 105 as replacement.. Shifters or mech etc that has Ultegra pretty visible on it I'm be tempted to replace with lightly used second hand like for like - maximise the bling : value ratio. But going back on topic - weight of said component would not be a factor.

Anyone going to tell citrus the 2 stone does not equal 200g? I blame the teachers nowadays

citrus_

If you could point me in the direction of where I said that 2 stone does equal 200g Id be very interested!

keef66

You didn't.

You did however say: "So if a rider drops from 16 stone to 14 stone, yes there is a big weight saving there, but there may also be a significant loss in power"

Most people* who are able to drop from 16 to 14 stone would be doing so by shifting fat. I doubt this would negatively affect their power output. It would significantly improve their power to weight ratio though.

If increased exercise was used to reduce the weight, chances are they've increased muscle mass a bit and actually lost more than 2 stones of fat.

*unless you're imagining a 16st track cyclist who's suddenly switched to endurance road cycling and lost a stone from each thigh.

citrus_

If you lose 2 stone though, your legs suddenly dont have to work as hard when you walk around so lose muscle.

I see this all the time as Im a member of a rowing club, where your power is directly measured on ergs (rowing machines). You'll see people come to use as quite overweight, they'll drop a few stone, but they will also watch their erg times get slower.

Im not saying it isnt beneficial to lose weight, because obviously it is, and obviously a lighter cyclist will go faster than a heavier cyclist all else equal. Im just pointing out that there can be power losses.

keef66

That's interesting but just so counter-intuitive. I have no direct experience of massive weight loss, rowers or Ergs, so I'll take your word for it.

As you say, on the bike not having to carry the extra 2 stone should more than compensate for any small drop in power.

thortweezul

I always used to to take a fiver with me when riding, i'd stop half way and have a cuppa (£1.00) then i'd get 4 pound coins in change. I soon realised that that was an extra 40-50g of weight on the second half of my ride - that must be why I was getting so tired towards the end!

When I get my change now I just throw it in the nearest bin, it costs me a bit but that's the price to pay for shedding those all important few grams of weight.

Wirral_paul

citrus wrote:

If you lose 2 stone though, your legs suddenly dont have to work as hard when you walk around so lose muscle.

I see this all the time as Im a member of a rowing club, where your power is directly measured on ergs (rowing machines). You'll see people come to use as quite overweight, they'll drop a few stone, but they will also watch their erg times get slower.

Im not saying it isnt beneficial to lose weight, because obviously it is, and obviously a lighter cyclist will go faster than a heavier cyclist all else equal. Im just pointing out that there can be power losses.

Good job we dont ride on ergs then!! As per the post above by Keef, losing weight by regular cycling by someone who has previously done little proper excercise will likely see a large jump in power as well as considerable weight loss. Surely nobody is going to realistically going to try and argue that losing weight will make you a slower bike rider??

Regardless, for any beginner i'd suggest aiming at getting down to a decent target weight through exercise and diet and improve your cardio-vascular system / overall stamina. Worrying about power in the early months is pretty pointless really - that will come later with training, after getting the base fitness sorted out.

iPete

So for those people at target weight, what is the best component to shed weight from?

Saddle and post?

okgo

Why bother?

it makes almost no difference, 3kg is worth about 25-30 secs over 25 miles apparently (based on bodyweight, but principle similar on parts that don't move or touch the ground)

springtide9

iPete wrote:

So for those people at target weight, what is the best component to shed weight from?
Saddle and post?

To actually answer your question rather than give some smug comment about it's not worth it (when they are usually riding a £2k bike rather than a £300 one!)....

It depends on what components you currently have fitted... if you are interested in dropping weight from the bike you need to basically list each of the components and compare them against a 'potential upgrade'.

Weight Weenies helps a as a guide, even if they don't list the current model (just compare to older version or similar components to get an idea). Price vs weight reduction is 'almost exponential', so where you might save 200-300g on a pair of wheels going from a £200 to a £500 set of wheels, you will generally have to spend a lot more than £1000 to save another 200g (e.g £2k).

But I think there is little point in building up a bike with based on a £200 frame/fork combo, with components worth £2000 (unless you plan to get a bling frame later!). Parts also wear out and need replacing, so running higher quality components will increase 'running costs'.

Wirral_paul

okgo wrote:

Why bother?

it makes almost no difference, 3kg is worth about 25-30 secs over 25 miles apparently (based on bodyweight, but principle similar on parts that don't move or touch the ground)

Why bother - because he wants to. 3kg will make a much bigger difference than 30s on a hill rather than the flat - especially if losing some of that weight on the wheel and tyres as you suggest.

I could ride a 10kg bike but i'd rather ride a 7kg bike......not because i need to but because i want to, can afford to, and dont need to justify my spending

springtide9

Wirral_Paul wrote:

okgo wrote:

Why bother?
it makes almost no difference, 3kg is worth about 25-30 secs over 25 miles apparently (based on bodyweight, but principle similar on parts that don't move or touch the ground)

Why bother - because he wants to. 3kg will make a much bigger difference than 30s on a hill rather than the flat - especially if losing some of that weight on the wheel and tyres as you suggest.

I could ride a 10kg bike but i'd rather ride a 7kg bike......not because i need to but because i want to, can afford to, and dont need to justify my spending

FYI
This looks lovely; "okgo" race bike from his blog:
Its not about the bike! Ok, maybe it is....
http://firstseasoncycling.blogspot.com/ ... it-is.html

Cervelo S2, made up almost totally of second hand bits, but looks pretty fresh to my eye. Worth shopping around as I think off retail of all the new parts I saved over 50 % over all. And when you consider the frame, wheels and group were over £3500 new it certainly shows what can be done!

Spec:
2010 Cervelo S2 (carbon version of the S1 for those that don't know)
Zipp 404 Alu Clinchers (one of the heavier sets of zipps about, but at 1650g they are not too bad)
Ultegra 6700 group - KMC Gold lightweight chain
3T Bar + Stem
GP4000S
LOOK Keo Max 2 pedals
Weight - 7.2kg

Note to @okgo
You do race so there is absolutely nothing wrong with owning a bike worth £3.5k, and even more so if you only paid 50% (which is still £1750).

But I do find it rather contradictory people stating:
"It's not all about the bike... save your cash... loose some weight.. etc, etc etc "
When in most cases, they don't practice what they preach.

okgo

I couldn't care less about the weight of it, if it was 8kg it would make barely any difference, the bike is fast due to aero parts, not because its light.

A smart chap from our club worked out what a kg was worth in a hill, and its bugger all, its really not worth messing around, but yes, if you want to and can afford to, then great, but be under no illusion as to the small difference it will make.

rolf_f

springtide9 wrote:

But I do find it rather contradictory people stating:
"It's not all about the bike... save your cash... loose some weight.. etc, etc etc "
When in most cases, they don't practice what they preach.

Not really - a smoker is probably the best person to advise a non smoker to stay a non smoker.......

rpd_steve

But to answer the OP question... Assuming you dont want to change the frame, and have done the wheels then its baby gains from there - no more big chunks of flab to come off. The next biggest bit may be your saddle, a £80 one may only weigh 200g and the stock one on my Spech was 380g. Changing to a full carbon seat post from Al may save 80-100g if your lucky (but also improves ride). Then it is little bits fom the groupset. Cassetts can be heavy buggers if you have a lower groupset. Strangely SRAM cassetts seem to be a lot lighter that the equivilent price Shimarno/Campag. Tyres and tubes can be a lot too. Thin/thick tubes (Spech normal vs turbo for example) are about 50g lighter, and heavy tyres can be 600-700g a pair with light folding 'race' tyres (Michelin Pro3Race...) only about 400g/pair.

So after wheels you are then looking at bits everywhere. You wont notice any one part, but assuming you have heavy parts now and changed your saddle, seatpost, cassete, tyres and tubes you may save 0.8 kg. I have done all of the above and wheels and lost 2kg from the bike.