Calling all weight Junkies!

Mikey23

All modern road bikes are light and I really can't see any point in shaving micro grams off the weight unless you are a racing whippet. I have added to mine with a seat post bar and topeak box so I can carry all my stuff with me in comfort and on sportives and that is far more important to me me than shaving a minute off my time over 50 miles. I am over 60 and concentrating on improving my engine. If I can justify it in terms of performance I will buy a new lighter faster monster next year but until then I have better things to spend my money on and will work at getting good on my aluminium defy 4 entry level

simon_masterson

declan1 wrote:

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?

You didn't say that you are Eddy Merckx, but what you're saying has implications. The fact is that young Eddy on the bikes he rode in his heyday would get up the hill much, much faster than any of us no matter what bike we rode; therefore if a more powerful rider is still more powerful on the 'heavy' bike, clearly having a 'lighter' bike is the wrong cure for the illness, to use a cliché.

But the issue is still the same; yes, you might be faster with a lighter bike, but only very, very slightly! 'Perceived' and 'actual' speed are very different things. You might gain 3 minutes on your hour, but unless your fitness and training are top-notch, a much larger chunk of time hangs in the balance; hence to the average cyclist the advantage that weight (lack thereof) gives is irrelevant, and that's before the fact that 3 minutes is a trivial length of time outside of a race or time trial!

I appreciate that you want the bike that you most enjoy riding; we all do. The issue is that this doesn't merit discussion. The fact that many newbie cyclists waste their time fretting about the fact that their bike is too heavy on the other hand, does.

Zoomer37

To make my bike lighter ive removed all decals from my wheels, change the bar tape to black and also drilled holes in my chainstays, downtube, headtube, brake levers and rear back led light. Still can't do 30mph on the flat for more than 20 mins, but i think thats more down to aero stuff than the bike.

Mikey23

Helium filled underpants ...works for me

blackpoolkev

I've ridden lots of bikes,the lighter ones go faster.
Riding fast is nice but any sort of riding is cool.

DavidJB

Lets not forget that lighter bikes are normally better quality so are stiffer, more responsive etc. It's everything combined that gives you a better bike and improves your performance.

I can go a lot faster on my race bike than with my training bike. Yes beginners will really see no difference but for those of us that train 6 days a week and compete it makes a massive difference both mentally and physically and if you 'feel' fast then you are fast! Confidence is key in a race situation.

Comparing one of the greatest bike riders in history to a weekend warrior as an argument against lighter kit is pretty stupid.

dw300

Guys, unless you build identical bikes in terms of aero and stiffness, that vary only in weight, even the time differences given in this thread don't tell the whole story.

If its just weight that you want to find out how much of a difference it'll make, then simply calculate it ..

If I cycle at 200W for an hour (about 20 miles) on a 10kg bike on the flat, and then change to a 7kg bike, I would save less than 7-8 seconds (about 0.5% faster).

If I cycled at the same power on the same bikes up a 5% grade for 20 miles (1600m or 1 mile elevation gain, ie. a huge climb, I believe Alp d'Huez is about 1100m gain) .. I'd go 4 minutes faster on the lighter bike .. that's about 3% faster.

Ron Stuart

dw300 wrote:

Guys, unless you build identical bikes in terms of aero and stiffness, that vary only in weight, even the time differences given in this thread don't tell the whole story.

If its just weight that you want to find out how much of a difference it'll make, then simply calculate it ..

If I cycle at 200W for an hour (about 20 miles) on a 10kg bike on the flat, and then change to a 7kg bike, I would save less than 7-8 seconds (about 0.5% faster).

If I cycled at the same power on the same bikes up a 5% grade for 20 miles (1600m or 1 mile elevation gain, ie. a huge climb, I believe Alp d'Huez is about 1100m gain) .. I'd go 4 minutes faster on the lighter bike .. that's about 3% faster.

Not sure about the numbers exactly but certainly this man has made the correct point, along with a machine that effectively lays the power down when it comes to the hills fighting gravity is key.