Bicycle weight on hills?

team47b

davis wrote:

team47b wrote:

... I ... don't eat pies, ... don't drink beer/wine...

You do realise what you've just said?

Yeah, you're right, should have kept that quiet

jedster

ah ha but what about all the chunky monkeys (my self included) having more power in their legs to lump all their timber up hills?

I resemble that remark but the bad news is that its not strong legs that get you up a hill fast (anything but a very short pull anyway) its power output to weight and power output is more about VO2 max than muscularity (can always take a lower gear and spin faster).

SimonAH

Which is why I hate dem hills.

mudcow007

jedster wrote:

ah ha but what about all the chunky monkeys (my self included) having more power in their legs to lump all their timber up hills?

I resemble that remark but the bad news is that its not strong legs that get you up a hill fast (anything but a very short pull anyway) its power output to weight and power output is more about VO2 max than muscularity (can always take a lower gear and spin faster).

so what your saying is, if i lose my timber i will be even more awesome?

rhext

I'm very sceptical that it makes as much difference as people claim. Maybe for 'proper' racers, where 10ths of a second are important. But for me, combined weight of me plus bike plus kit about 110Kg.

Quick squint at the Canyon website tells me that knocking 1.8KG off their cheapest road bike, will cost me about £3,000. So £3,000 for less than 2% of my overall weight. People go on about how it's distributed, rotating mass being somehow magically much worse than static etc etc.... I don't buy any of it.

Bottom line is that it's going to take me roughly 2% longer to get from the bottom to the top of a hill: if I'm climbing for hours and I'm in a race, that's important. But I'm just getting to work. From practical experience gathered over many long trips, including some loaded (spare clothes, washkit, lunch, lock, toolkit) and some not, the things which make a big difference are:

1) wind direction

2) tyres - pressure and slicks

3) how knackered I'm feeling

4) plenty of fluid and a light snack in the afternoon

5) having a reasonably well maintained and good quality bike which doesn't break down very often (spend enough money to meet that criterion and it's hardly going to be a tractor anyway!)

Weight hardly figures at all, and even if it did, it would be a lot cheaper for me to lose a KG than to shave it off the bike.

EKE_38BPM

rhext wrote:

I'm very sceptical that it makes as much difference as people claim. Maybe for 'proper' racers, where 10ths of a second are important. But for me, combined weight of me plus bike plus kit about 110Kg.

Quick squint at the Canyon website tells me that knocking 1.8KG off their cheapest road bike, will cost me about £3,000. So £3,000 for less than 2% of my overall weight. People go on about how it's distributed, rotating mass being somehow magically much worse than static etc etc.... I don't buy any of it.

Bottom line is that it's going to take me roughly 2% longer to get from the bottom to the top of a hill: if I'm climbing for hours and I'm in a race, that's important. But I'm just getting to work. From practical experience gathered over many long trips, including some loaded (spare clothes, washkit, lunch, lock, toolkit) and some not, the things which make a big difference are:

1) wind direction

2) tyres - pressure and slicks

3) how knackered I'm feeling

4) plenty of fluid and a light snack in the afternoon

5) having a reasonably well maintained and good quality bike which doesn't break down very often (spend enough money to meet that criterion and it's hardly going to be a tractor anyway!)

Weight hardly figures at all, and even if it did, it would be a lot cheaper for me to lose a KG than to shave it off the bike.

Very true, but a pro racer is as light as they can be (generally), so the weight has to come off of the bike.
To the bloke on the street, the 2% you mention would be barely noticeable on the daily commute for the reasons you mention, but the weekend century would now *only* feel like 98 miles and we all know the last two miles are the hardest. As for hill climbing, as has been mentioned, ride up a hill with an extra 2kilos strapped to your bike and I'm SURE you'd notice the diference.

okgo

You'd barely notice 2kg up a hill. That's two bottles of drink and a saddle bag.

EKE_38BPM

okgo wrote:

You'd barely notice 2kg up a hill. That's two bottles of drink and a saddle bag.

Depends on the hill, how hard you are attacking it, how fatigued you are etc

mudcow007

okgo wrote:

You'd barely notice 2kg up a hill. That's two bottles of drink and a saddle bag.

also depends on the size of saddle bag

kelsen

okgo wrote:

You'd barely notice 2kg up a hill. That's two bottles of drink and a saddle bag.

Pretty sure you would on a 5 mile climb, and if you're riding a 10kg bike, instead of an 8kg bike, plus those drinks and saddlebag, that would mean an extra 4kg!

okgo

EKE_38BPM wrote:

okgo wrote:

You'd barely notice 2kg up a hill. That's two bottles of drink and a saddle bag.

Depends on the hill, how hard you are attacking it, how fatigued you are etc

Why does it depend on how hard you're attacking it?

daviesee

okgo wrote:

Why does it depend on how hard you're attacking it?

If you attack even slightly too hard you will fatigue before the top.
Extra weight with the same effort means you will fatigue earlier.

Heavier riders can power their way to the top of a short hill but will fatigue on a long climb*.

Lighter riders may be out powered on a short climb but are less likely to fatigue.

*Long climbs being several kms long. Personal experience being a fat bloke with strong legs.

Bordersroadie

Interesting thread. My commute bike is 11kg, best bike 9kg.

I train on both, up to 80 mile routes (sometimes well loaded with food, water etc), so often have direct comparisons of the same route/climbs. Subjectively I feel the lighter bike goes up hills better but it has more optimal gearing for climbing, a stiffer frame and just feels more direct. It's also much more comfortable for fast descending.

Maybe there is a real quantifiable difference, but it's hard to say, as the conditions of the road, weather and my own body and mind vary from ride to ride and these all have an effect.

On reflection, when I do, say, hill "x" on an evening 30 miler, with the light bike and a small bottle of water, it most definitely feels easier than hill "x" at the start of an 80 mile ride on the fully loaded winter bike, so yes, a few kg does make a difference.