Calling all weight Junkies!

Gabbo

To what extremes will you go to just to reduce the weight of your bike?

u05harrisb

definitely eat one less biscuit and take a poo before riding!

alihisgreat

I can't afford to take it to extremes.

izza

u05harrisb wrote:

definitely eat one less biscuit and take a poo before riding!

Too high a risk of agitating the chalfonts.

Drop the saddle bag - that's why you have three pockets!

Ron Stuart

izza wrote:

u05harrisb wrote:

definitely eat one less biscuit and take a poo before riding!

Too high a risk of agitating the chalfonts.

Drop the saddle bag - that's why you have three pockets!

Don't drop the saddle bag and put less or nothing in those pockets.

Reasons:-

1.) Every time you lift yourself out of the saddle you lift the additional weight..... If it's in your pockets!

2.) Its very annoying once you’re out of the saddle to have the weight of the kit swaying from side to side behind your back.

3.) On hot days it just adds to the insulating effect at the base of the back adding to additional sweating (dehydration).

4.) The contents of the pockets can end up covered in sweat and along with your clothing just adding additional weight.

5.) The only items that are smart to keep in pockets are those items that need accessing whilst on the move, such as route card in clear plastic wallet, gels, energy bars, maybe a banana or other nibbles to suit.

So basically if you don't have a support car anything that will be needed whilst stationary :- puncture kit, rain cape, spares etc are much better off being carried in that saddle bag or as some do in a holder in the second bottle cage.

Lastly think about just how much fluid you actually need plus a little extra just in case, I have noticed at a lot of events that there are folk with hyper light bikes that cost a small fortune turning up at a feed with two 750cl bottles one with a little left in it plus another full, the second bottle weighing as much as the frame that supports it!

Coach H

Ron Stuart wrote:

Lastly think about just how much fluid you actually need plus a little extra just in case, I have noticed at a lot of events that there are folk with hyper light bikes that cost a small fortune turning up at a feed with two 750cl bottles one with a little left in it plus another full, the second bottle weighing as much as the frame that supports it!

This is me Ron, but you only have to turn up at a feed to find there is no water left (yes it does happen) to realise that extra 750g +bottle is well worth it!

Other than wheels and tires beig a "weight Junkie" is about ego not performance.

springtide9

Being 86kg, there is little point in me looking at the components on the bike to reduce weight! :roll:

If I lost 10kg (which is possible, but not probable), that would be the equivalent of my entire bike, including full saddle bag and two water bottles!

On the other hand, I could spend £1000 on upgrading my bike to save approx 0.5kg - which is the same as my body weight appears to vary on a day to day basis!

adr82

springtide9 wrote:

Being 86kg, there is little point in me looking at the components on the bike to reduce weight! :roll:

I think this is true for the vast majority of cyclists, regardless of actual weight. It's a hell of a lot easier (and cheaper) to lose 1kg yourself than it is to try and knock that sort of weight off an already light bike.

Ron Stuart

Coach H wrote:

Ron Stuart wrote:

Lastly think about just how much fluid you actually need plus a little extra just in case, I have noticed at a lot of events that there are folk with hyper light bikes that cost a small fortune turning up at a feed with two 750cl bottles one with a little left in it plus another full, the second bottle weighing as much as the frame that supports it!

This is me Ron, but you only have to turn up at a feed to find there is no water left (yes it does happen) to realise that extra 750g +bottle is well worth it!

Other than wheels and tires beig a "weight Junkie" is about ego not performance.

Water running out isn't common in this country, in the Etape yes 40C+.

I have never experienced fluid running out, although I have seen the food going early more to do with poor management/anticipation. Remember the old TDF boys used to raid shops and cafes. :P

You spell tyres in American :?

ScreaminWargasm

Ron Stuart wrote:

izza wrote:

u05harrisb wrote:

definitely eat one less biscuit and take a poo before riding!

Too high a risk of agitating the chalfonts.

Drop the saddle bag - that's why you have three pockets!

Don't drop the saddle bag and put less or nothing in those pockets.

Reasons:-

1.) Every time you lift yourself out of the saddle you lift the additional weight..... If it's in your pockets!

2.) Its very annoying once you’re out of the saddle to have the weight of the kit swaying from side to side behind your back.

3.) On hot days it just adds to the insulating effect at the base of the back adding to additional sweating (dehydration).

4.) The contents of the pockets can end up covered in sweat and along with your clothing just adding additional weight.

5.) The only items that are smart to keep in pockets are those items that need accessing whilst on the move, such as route card in clear plastic wallet, gels, energy bars, maybe a banana or other nibbles to suit.

So basically if you don't have a support car anything that will be needed whilst stationary :- puncture kit, rain cape, spares etc are much better off being carried in that saddle bag or as some do in a holder in the second bottle cage.

Lastly think about just how much fluid you actually need plus a little extra just in case, I have noticed at a lot of events that there are folk with hyper light bikes that cost a small fortune turning up at a feed with two 750cl bottles one with a little left in it plus another full, the second bottle weighing as much as the frame that supports it!

+1

And if you happen to come off your bike, a cycle pump amongst other things digging in your back bloody hurts :oops:

Anonymous

tyre, 2 levers, pump in middle pocket (wrapped in an elastic). Phone in LH pocket. Housekey, card, £10 and quicklink in RH pocket.
Maybe a bar in either side and a banana in the middle. 2 bottles if going far.
Saddle backs look like scrotums

Also, as for losing weight off your bike and not your body. Imagine your 85KG on a 15kg bike and the same on a 10kg bike. Easier, see?

MattC59

coriordan wrote:

Also, as for losing weight off your bike and not your body. Imagine your 85KG on a 15kg bike and the same on a 10kg bike. Easier, see?

But how many weight junkies are riding 15kg bikes, or 10kg bikes for that matter ???

mike6

Saddle pack for me. I came off on a diesel covered corner, at speed, and the scar from my multi tool is still very evident on my lower back. My mobile phone would still have hurt, and got broken, in the slide, but the metal multi tool did the damage, and I think I was lucky it did not do more damage.

Anyway, a small saddle pack weighs next to nowt, and you have to carry the spares anyway, so why ruin the cut of your fine designer jersey. Phone, cash and banana in pockets, the rest in the saddle pack. Small pump clamped to the frame.

napoleond

I've lost 10kg in the last 4 months. The effect on my riding is astounding even though I'm not 'training' like I used to. I'm not far off the weight where I was when I was racing now. However I fully intend to lose at least another 5kg.

I have a pretty light bike (Cervelo R3 with Sram Red/Rotor and ligh tweight mostly carbon bits) I'm really tempted to get some mega light 20mm carbon wheels built up.

simon_masterson

If I had spent £2000+ on a fancy carbon fibre racer, I would care. What's the point of buying it otherwise? I'm planning to build up a retro racey sort of bike (being the best kind of racey bike I can afford), and it will have 'relatively light' parts. I have no interest in ending up with something that has no advantage over what I already have.

Otherwise, I don't really care very much. I can tell the difference between 'perceived speed' and 'actual speed'.

My favourite bike is an Ernie Clements-era Falcon, British-made in Tange plain gauge. Really nice ride, looks great, and as far as I'm concerned is the coolest bike on Earth as it was my dad's and I used to ogle it as a youngster. It's reasonably light as it is (not that you can buy a road bike that's truly 'heavy'), but it's not a racing machine and I have no interest in trying to make it into something that it fundamentally is not, particularly when what it fundamentally is is so good.

As for me, I'm fortunate enough to be reasonably light. I've largely had a summer off from cycling (not by choice) and can't keep a bike where I live at the moment and therefore don't have a regular commute, but still I'm only a few kilos over what I usually am when doing lots of riding: around 10 and a half stone and I'm 6'0. Fitness on the other hand...

Defyand

Knock one out beforehand

Just Cannondales

I have 5 bikes ranging from under 15lbs to 23lbs. I am 85kgs and I can definatly tell when riding a light bike.

Dont knock light bikes untill you have used one,

Rich...

simon_masterson

Just Cannondales wrote:

I have 5 bikes ranging from under 15lbs to 23lbs. I am 85kgs and I can definatly tell when riding a light bike.

Dont knock light bikes untill you have used one,

Rich...

But if you ride each one on the same course, how much quicker are you on the lightest bike than the heaviest?

declan1

I think people who claim that lighter bikes don't make a difference are the ones that haven't ridden light bikes (or heavy ones) and don't know the difference. I can tell you - it makes a difference. I'm pretty lightweight anyway (68KG) so I can really feel and differences in the bike.

stueys

Just Cannondales wrote:

I have 5 bikes ranging from under 15lbs to 23lbs. I am 85kgs and I can definatly tell when riding a light bike.

Dont knock light bikes untill you have used one,

Rich...

Yep, I've a 19.5lbs bike and one just under 15lbs, weigh 79kgs and can definitely feel the difference between the two. Part of that is that the more expensive bike is stiffer as well. But on a hill every kg helps....

adr82

I don't think anybody is denying that a lighter bike doesn't make a difference, but unless you're extremely fit already then you'll more than likely see more improvement in performance by simply doing more training rather than spending thousands on a lightweight bike.

simon_masterson

declan1 wrote:

I think people who claim that lighter bikes don't make a difference are the ones that haven't ridden light bikes (or heavy ones) and don't know the difference. I can tell you - it makes a difference. I'm pretty lightweight anyway (68KG) so I can really feel and differences in the bike.

But how much quicker are you?

The fact is that young Eddy Merckx on his 'heavy' 531 bike would humble you in any contest, no matter what bike you have. You might FEEL a bit quicker and you just might lose a couple of minutes but that's all. Most of us could be better at performing optimally and could lose a few pounds anyway; if you aren't as light as you can be with a very low percentage of body fat and strict training to get the best of yourself for hours on end, it's for ego not performance. You are the majority contingent on the bike by a very long way. If you think about it, paying hundreds of pounds to lose the equivalent weight of a water bottle and then expecting a life changing difference is pretty stupid, isn't it? Try riding without bottles; how much difference does it make?

As usual, it's the difference between 'perceived' and 'actual' speed that beginners need to get.

flipp

1 1/2 minutes over 12 miles differance between my 10kg ish road bike and 21kg pig iron commute bike which feels almost as fast sometimes(verified by bike comp)probably because it feels more planted on the road and I tend not to slow down until later at junctions and some corners,although its a hell of a lot harder work going up hill(but I just look at this as making me work harder for my own benefit) and only a couple of mph difference up the biggest one.

declan1

Simon Masterson wrote:

declan1 wrote:

I think people who claim that lighter bikes don't make a difference are the ones that haven't ridden light bikes (or heavy ones) and don't know the difference. I can tell you - it makes a difference. I'm pretty lightweight anyway (68KG) so I can really feel and differences in the bike.

But how much quicker are you?

The fact is that young Eddy Merckx on his 'heavy' 531 bike would humble you in any contest, no matter what bike you have. You might FEEL a bit quicker and you just might lose a couple of minutes but that's all. Most of us could be better at performing optimally and could lose a few pounds anyway; if you aren't as light as you can be with a very low percentage of body fat and strict training to get the best of yourself for hours on end, it's for ego not performance. You are the majority contingent on the bike by a very long way. If you think about it, paying hundreds of pounds to lose the equivalent weight of a water bottle and then expecting a life changing difference is pretty stupid, isn't it? Try riding without bottles; how much difference does it make?

As usual, it's the difference between 'perceived' and 'actual' speed that beginners need to get.

For starters, I'm not one to spend hundreds of pounds to lose a little bit of weight. In fact, my entire bike cost £200 and weighs 13KG. When I ride a friend's bike (Giant Defy 2) which weight a little over 9KG, I can keep up a high speed for much longer with little effort, and I can climb hills MUCH faster and easier than with my bike.

iPete

Simon Masterson wrote:

declan1 wrote:

I think people who claim that lighter bikes don't make a difference are the ones that haven't ridden light bikes (or heavy ones) and don't know the difference. I can tell you - it makes a difference. I'm pretty lightweight anyway (68KG) so I can really feel and differences in the bike.

But how much quicker are you?

The fact is that young Eddy Merckx on his 'heavy' 531 bike would humble you in any contest, no matter what bike you have. You might FEEL a bit quicker and you just might lose a couple of minutes but that's all. Most of us could be better at performing optimally and could lose a few pounds anyway; if you aren't as light as you can be with a very low percentage of body fat and strict training to get the best of yourself for hours on end, it's for ego not performance. You are the majority contingent on the bike by a very long way. If you think about it, paying hundreds of pounds to lose the equivalent weight of a water bottle and then expecting a life changing difference is pretty stupid, isn't it? Try riding without bottles; how much difference does it make?

As usual, it's the difference between 'perceived' and 'actual' speed that beginners need to get.

You are comparing riders here, not bikes.

Whilst I largely agree, especially when it comes to beginners who would better concentrate on fitness, there is a certain level of enjoyment from riding lighter wheels and bikes. And perceived speed is just as important as actual. If that perceived speed makes a ride more enjoyable its worth every penny. Also that minute saved might sound tiny but you were probably grinning from ear to ear on the quicker bike.

Infact I've just binned my geared bike because the perception of speed and efficiency was so much greater on my much lighter fixed bike. The fixie probably is marginally quicker but it highlights how important feel and perception are to my enjoyment of a ride.

Anyway, massive OT, the guy asked a question, not a debate on how we spend money on our hobby.

Actually think I added one, I saved weight by not having gears

simon_masterson

flipp wrote:

1 1/2 minutes over 12 miles differance between my 10kg ish road bike and 21kg pig iron commute bike which feels almost as fast sometimes(verified by bike comp)probably because it feels more planted on the road and I tend not to slow down until later at junctions and some corners,although its a hell of a lot harder work going up hill(but I just look at this as making me work harder for my own benefit) and only a couple of mph difference up the biggest one.

Bingo. Real information here.

I too find that with my old Raleigh. 'Heavy' plain gauge steel, cheap steel rims, flat bars... I've averaged over 25mph over 18 miles on it, and I know that even at peak fitness I can't go that much faster than that; on any bike. It's as stiff as a board though, so it has a nice ride quality in one respect!

simon_masterson

declan1 wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

declan1 wrote:

I think people who claim that lighter bikes don't make a difference are the ones that haven't ridden light bikes (or heavy ones) and don't know the difference. I can tell you - it makes a difference. I'm pretty lightweight anyway (68KG) so I can really feel and differences in the bike.

But how much quicker are you?

The fact is that young Eddy Merckx on his 'heavy' 531 bike would humble you in any contest, no matter what bike you have. You might FEEL a bit quicker and you just might lose a couple of minutes but that's all. Most of us could be better at performing optimally and could lose a few pounds anyway; if you aren't as light as you can be with a very low percentage of body fat and strict training to get the best of yourself for hours on end, it's for ego not performance. You are the majority contingent on the bike by a very long way. If you think about it, paying hundreds of pounds to lose the equivalent weight of a water bottle and then expecting a life changing difference is pretty stupid, isn't it? Try riding without bottles; how much difference does it make?

As usual, it's the difference between 'perceived' and 'actual' speed that beginners need to get.

For starters, I'm not one to spend hundreds of pounds to lose a little bit of weight. In fact, my entire bike cost £200 and weighs 13KG. When I ride a friend's bike (Giant Defy 2) which weight a little over 9KG, I can keep up a high speed for much longer with little effort, and I can climb hills MUCH faster and easier than with my bike.

Unless you really are as good as Eddy Merckx (or more seriously, riding at a very high level), I can only assume that there must be something wrong with the bike, it doesn't fit you, has a VERY unfavourable setup or it is unsuitable for the job. 4kg just isn't a lot of weight. Except that I can't really give much credence to the latter two: Below is a picture of the bike I described in the post above; as you can see it is not a speed machine to any degree. The only difference between that bike as I rode it in the time I described above and that pictured (which was some months previous) was the saddle, which I changed for a Charge Spoon. Everything else is as you see, and puts a big red cross against many of the things we generally call 'requirements' for fast road cycling: flat bars, 5 speed gears, worn 35mm hybrid tyres on cheap old steel rims, and a rack which had a racktop bag with work stuff in it. I know that I can't go exponentially faster on my road bike, or even a modern flashy one I don't own.



In all seriousness, I highly, highly doubt that you are expending much less effort. If that were so, I would expect you to be able to go significantly faster over a shorter distance. If you were to do a time trial on both bikes (on the same course in similar conditions, obviously), I think you would find that your times were very, very close; much like those of the gent who posted above. A bike can't make you put out more power than you are actually capable of.

simon_masterson

iPete wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

declan1 wrote:

I think people who claim that lighter bikes don't make a difference are the ones that haven't ridden light bikes (or heavy ones) and don't know the difference. I can tell you - it makes a difference. I'm pretty lightweight anyway (68KG) so I can really feel and differences in the bike.

But how much quicker are you?

The fact is that young Eddy Merckx on his 'heavy' 531 bike would humble you in any contest, no matter what bike you have. You might FEEL a bit quicker and you just might lose a couple of minutes but that's all. Most of us could be better at performing optimally and could lose a few pounds anyway; if you aren't as light as you can be with a very low percentage of body fat and strict training to get the best of yourself for hours on end, it's for ego not performance. You are the majority contingent on the bike by a very long way. If you think about it, paying hundreds of pounds to lose the equivalent weight of a water bottle and then expecting a life changing difference is pretty stupid, isn't it? Try riding without bottles; how much difference does it make?

As usual, it's the difference between 'perceived' and 'actual' speed that beginners need to get.

You are comparing riders here, not bikes.

Whilst I largely agree, especially when it comes to beginners who would better concentrate on fitness, there is a certain level of enjoyment from riding lighter wheels and bikes. And perceived speed is just as important as actual. If that perceived speed makes a ride more enjoyable its worth every penny. Also that minute saved might sound tiny but you were probably grinning from ear to ear on the quicker bike.

Infact I've just binned my geared bike because the perception of speed and efficiency was so much greater on my much lighter fixed bike. The fixie probably is marginally quicker but it highlights how important feel and perception are to my enjoyment of a ride.

Anyway, massive OT, the guy asked a question, not a debate on how we spend money on our hobby.

Actually think I added one, I saved weight by not having gears

I agree with you, I really do. I'm just trying to make the point that weight is a really, really overrated as a factor in cycling, and I think it distracts beginner cyclists from what's really important. I used to worry about how heavy my bike is, and I started enjoying cycling so much more when I realised that the 'engine' is so much more important. I see no wrong in anyone buying however much bike they can afford, though; almost all of us have more bike than we really 'need'!

And I'm also thinking about doing a fixed gear road bike build. Glad you're getting on well with yours!

stelfc2005

the way i look at it is it all depends on the type of rider you are , ie the person who is riding to loose a bit of weight and get some fitness does not need to spend hundreds on the lightest kit same as someone who enjoys the a relaxed 30 mile ride. The rider who competes against others at a decent level is the person who looks to loose weight in all areas, personally i cant justify spending £100 upwards on some pedals to save a couple of grams.

I fall in to the fitness / 30 to 40 mile rider i have defy 2 which is fine for me not the lightest but light enough.
Remember its not suppose to be that easy

simon_masterson

iPete wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

declan1 wrote:

I think people who claim that lighter bikes don't make a difference are the ones that haven't ridden light bikes (or heavy ones) and don't know the difference. I can tell you - it makes a difference. I'm pretty lightweight anyway (68KG) so I can really feel and differences in the bike.

But how much quicker are you?

The fact is that young Eddy Merckx on his 'heavy' 531 bike would humble you in any contest, no matter what bike you have. You might FEEL a bit quicker and you just might lose a couple of minutes but that's all. Most of us could be better at performing optimally and could lose a few pounds anyway; if you aren't as light as you can be with a very low percentage of body fat and strict training to get the best of yourself for hours on end, it's for ego not performance. You are the majority contingent on the bike by a very long way. If you think about it, paying hundreds of pounds to lose the equivalent weight of a water bottle and then expecting a life changing difference is pretty stupid, isn't it? Try riding without bottles; how much difference does it make?

As usual, it's the difference between 'perceived' and 'actual' speed that beginners need to get.

You are comparing riders here, not bikes.

Whilst I largely agree, especially when it comes to beginners who would better concentrate on fitness, there is a certain level of enjoyment from riding lighter wheels and bikes. And perceived speed is just as important as actual. If that perceived speed makes a ride more enjoyable its worth every penny. Also that minute saved might sound tiny but you were probably grinning from ear to ear on the quicker bike.

Infact I've just binned my geared bike because the perception of speed and efficiency was so much greater on my much lighter fixed bike. The fixie probably is marginally quicker but it highlights how important feel and perception are to my enjoyment of a ride.

Anyway, massive OT, the guy asked a question, not a debate on how we spend money on our hobby.

Actually think I added one, I saved weight by not having gears

I agree with you, I really do. I'm just trying to make the point that weight is a really, really overrated as a factor in cycling, and I think it distracts beginner cyclists from what's really important. I used to worry about how heavy my bike is, and I started enjoying cycling so much more when I realised that the 'engine' is so much more important. I see no wrong in anyone buying however much bike they can afford, though; almost all of us have more bike than we really 'need'!

And I'm also thinking about doing a fixed gear road bike build. Glad you're getting on well with yours!

declan1

Simon Masterson wrote:

iPete wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

declan1 wrote:

I think people who claim that lighter bikes don't make a difference are the ones that haven't ridden light bikes (or heavy ones) and don't know the difference. I can tell you - it makes a difference. I'm pretty lightweight anyway (68KG) so I can really feel and differences in the bike.

But how much quicker are you?

The fact is that young Eddy Merckx on his 'heavy' 531 bike would humble you in any contest, no matter what bike you have. You might FEEL a bit quicker and you just might lose a couple of minutes but that's all. Most of us could be better at performing optimally and could lose a few pounds anyway; if you aren't as light as you can be with a very low percentage of body fat and strict training to get the best of yourself for hours on end, it's for ego not performance. You are the majority contingent on the bike by a very long way. If you think about it, paying hundreds of pounds to lose the equivalent weight of a water bottle and then expecting a life changing difference is pretty stupid, isn't it? Try riding without bottles; how much difference does it make?

As usual, it's the difference between 'perceived' and 'actual' speed that beginners need to get.

You are comparing riders here, not bikes.

Whilst I largely agree, especially when it comes to beginners who would better concentrate on fitness, there is a certain level of enjoyment from riding lighter wheels and bikes. And perceived speed is just as important as actual. If that perceived speed makes a ride more enjoyable its worth every penny. Also that minute saved might sound tiny but you were probably grinning from ear to ear on the quicker bike.

Infact I've just binned my geared bike because the perception of speed and efficiency was so much greater on my much lighter fixed bike. The fixie probably is marginally quicker but it highlights how important feel and perception are to my enjoyment of a ride.

Anyway, massive OT, the guy asked a question, not a debate on how we spend money on our hobby.

Actually think I added one, I saved weight by not having gears

I agree with you, I really do. I'm just trying to make the point that weight is a really, really overrated as a factor in cycling, and I think it distracts beginner cyclists from what's really important. I used to worry about how heavy my bike is, and I started enjoying cycling so much more when I realised that the 'engine' is so much more important. I see no wrong in anyone buying however much bike they can afford, though; almost all of us have more bike than we really 'need'!

And I'm also thinking about doing a fixed gear road bike build. Glad you're getting on well with yours!

I agree with your statement that most beginners are distracted by weight, but I'm not. I would love to have a lighter bike. Argue all you like, but it will be quicker than my one and as someone said above, it would put a huge smile on my face. I unfortunately can't afford a lighter bike at the moment.

I'm admittedly not as fit as I could be. I think my current, heavy bike will improve my fitness faster than a lighter one, which is an advantage.

Also, when did I ever say I was Eddy Merckx?