Saving weight on tyres

concorde

What's the crack with this? 18 stone people wanting to run light tyres, wouldn't it be better to lose a stone? Or am I missing something?! Inertia or something?!

cheers

The Rookie

It doesn't matter where you loose weight from, you're still loosing weight, yes tyre weight has 2 effects, translational (moving sideways) and rotational inertias so you double your bang for the buck, but yes eating less and losing weight at 18 stone would make sense!

concorde

So an 18 stone person losing a few grams sees the same benefit as a 13 stone person losing a few grams I suppose, of course. But not eating for a day would save them a few grams and a lot of money! lol

turnerjohn

no mater what the weight of the rider lighter tires make a bike accelerate and handle far better......granted 18stone going up-hill is still a lot to lug around !
why run heavy kit when its not needed though ?!

njee20

Why 18 stone? Why not 15 stone, or 12 stone? I'd say anyone over 12 can stand to lose more weight than they'll ever save on tyres.

concorde

njee20 wrote:

Why 18 stone? Why not 15 stone, or 12 stone? I'd say anyone over 12 can stand to lose more weight than they'll ever save on tyres.

Personally I'd not want to weigh 12 stone. And if I did I wouldn't want to lose anymore weight. Just using 18 as I was talking to somebody the other day and he was about 17 stone and talking about saving weight on tyres and I was thinking just don't have a kebab tonight and you'll be way better off.

njee20

I'd not want to weigh 12 stone either, I'd have to gain a stone, and I'm trying to lose some weight!

So, my point stands... virtually anyone above 12 stone could lose more weight than they'll save in their tyres.

concorde

njee20 wrote:

I'd not want to weigh 12 stone either, I'd have to gain a stone, and I'm trying to lose some weight!

So, my point stands... virtually anyone above 12 stone could lose more weight than they'll save in their tyres.

I was just asking because people talk about light tyres as if it's a huge deal, so I thought I was missing something and the way they spin makes the weight quadruple or something, but from this I'm not missing anything so now I know I can just ignore people talking about lighter tyres and the massive difference it will make for them.

supersonic

I'd rather lose 100g of each tyre than 100g of myself, that is for sure. If durability and grip were not affected, that is.

The Rookie

Weight is arbitrary, depends on your height for starters, also your lifestyle can have two epopel of the same height being different weights without being fat, look at Rugby players, they are often 15+ stone but aren't fat.

When you first fit lighter tyres the difference under acceleration is quite noticeable, I went from clunky (cheap) slicks weighing about 750g to ones (still fairly cheap) weighing around 400g on my commuter and for a few days it felt lightning fast.....now I need to shed more weight as it feels normal!

12 stone would be better for me than my current 12.5, but much less than 11.5 and I look unwell.

njee20

Weight is arbitrary, depends on your height for starters, also your lifestyle can have two epopel of the same height being different weights without being fat, look at Rugby players, they are often 15+ stone but aren't fat.

Only arbitrary after a fashion, that rugby player is carrying around a lot of muscle bulk which is of no use on a bike. He's not fat correct, but he'd still be quicker up hill if he shed some weight.

tarbot18

njee20 wrote:

Weight is arbitrary, depends on your height for starters, also your lifestyle can have two epopel of the same height being different weights without being fat, look at Rugby players, they are often 15+ stone but aren't fat.

Only arbitrary after a fashion, that rugby player is carrying around a lot of muscle bulk which is of no use on a bike. He's not fat correct, but he'd still be quicker up hill if he shed some weight.

But not all off us want to look like a roadie or an xc wippet some of us need upper body strength and muscles for our job and like having a decent physique.I would look like id walked out of belsen if i was 12st yet im 14st with a low body fat index
As someone mentioned above muscles weigh more than fat and height comes into it if your a 5ft 8 dwarf then maybe 11st will look ok.

You do notice a big difference losing weight off your tyres, i lost half a pound each end when i changed mine, all weight lost off your bike will make it feel more nimble and help on the hills whatever your weight.
Whoever said someone over weight should not eat for a day is clearly an idiot if you stop eating for a day your body will initially conserve fat and you wont lose anything. :roll:

concorde

Yeah, they were some of the reasons I kind of had in mind. I wouldn't want to lose any weight at 13 stone. Being 11 stone people just look like children, I don't want that look! Lol.

So I guess the losing weight off tyres does make a big difference then, for the average person who doesn't want to be 11 stone, which lets face it, not many do!

Tarbot, I don't know where you get your info from but you're wrong. In a day you burn calories if you don't eat any then you have to lose weight, simple as that! There's no such thing as a free meal in this life.

njee20

But not all off us want to look like a roadie or an xc wippet some of us need upper body strength and muscles for our job and like having a decent physique.I would look like id walked out of belsen if i was 12st yet im 14st with a low body fat index
As someone mentioned above muscles weigh more than fat and height comes into it if your a 5ft 8 dwarf then maybe 11st will look ok.

You're misunderstanding my point. Concorde chose an arbitrary weight and said "what's the point in buying lighter tyres, you could save more weight off you". I'm saying that arbitrary weight is just that - you can nearly always save more weight off you if you're so inclined. Plenty of people (entirely justifiably) may not want to, but you could do it. I can't imagine weighing 14 stone, never ever been close to that!

Being 11 stone people just look like children, I don't want that look! Lol.

So there's your answer! I personally think Auschwitz-chique is very becoming! 5'10", 30" waist here, not ridiculously thin.

dhobiwallah

Concorde wrote:

Tarbot, I don't know where you get your info from but you're wrong. In a day you burn calories if you don't eat any then you have to lose weight, simple as that! There's no such thing as a free meal in this life.

But not at the same rate as if you were eating properly- your body won't want to expend the energy so freely so you will probably feel cold and lethargic. That is why even on a strict diet a minimum calorie intake is recommended - to prevent this 'starvation mode' . The few hundred grams you lose in weight will count for nothing against the fact you will be wiped and probably have to walk halfway up your first proper hill.

But we digress.......

dhobiwallah

Oh - and even as a

5'8" dwarf

11 stone would make me look emaciated.

Would someone tell Italian cycle clothing manufacturers that 36" is a waist size - not a chest size (and allegedly a Med at that!)

njee20

I've got a 36" chest!

bennett_346

I'm 10 stone and 6 foot tall, wouldn't want to be any heavier. Any weight saved from my tyres is a bonus, i can afford to have two burgers before a ride instead of none as i'm hardly pushing any weight around as it is!

supersonic

Losing weight on the bike can make it feel more agile and nimble underneath you. In terms of pure energy expended on a flat course, it makes no difference where the the weight is at constant speed. But we don't ride at constant speed, nor keep the bike on the floor at all times. If I have to carry stuff about I'd much rather have it in a rucksack than on a pannier on my bike due to the location of that mass.

bennett_346

If i'm riding on my hybrid i prefer stuff in the panniers than my shoulders. I feel like i notice the weight less.

njee20

I'd always rather weight was on me - put stuff in jersey pockets not on the bike.

cooldad

njee20 wrote:

I've got a 36" chest!

If you had a 24" waist I might even go for you.

concorde

Yeah I suppose I would agree with the majority of this stuff about weight. Not on the weighing 10 stone and 11 stone nonsense mind, man I am not a kid ;-)

Greer_

njee20 wrote:

I'd always rather weight was on me - put stuff in jersey pockets not on the bike.

+1, never understood weight weenies spending hundreds on bolts, bottle cages etc, then using two water bottles and a saddlebag rather than a camelback. Only time I use a water bottle now is a half filled one for racing!

njee20

Mmm, no I use bottles instead of a Camelbak actually, but I never use a saddle bag.

Greer_

Out of interest, why? I find bottles more awkward, and also generally not enough fluid for longer rides.

And what tools would you carry?

cooldad

You can carry plenty in jersey pockets. All you really need is a small mutitool, a tube and a CO2 inflator.
And some cake.

bennett_346

Well when i ride i ride for 6+ hours at a time so the space taken up by food and water is enourmous, and the weight this adds means i don't give a sh** how heavy my bike weighs.

njee20

Out of interest, why? I find bottles more awkward, and also generally not enough fluid for longer rides.

And what tools would you carry?

I just carry a Topeak Hexus multitool (plus CO2 pump and a tube).

For longer rides I carry a 750ml bottle on the frame, plus another one in a jersey pocket if it's a hot day. Would probably use my (very small) Camelbak for something like the South Downs Way, but for local 3-4 hour rides does me fine, usually stop for some cake anyway, so happy to fill up bottles then. I find Camelbaks move around and are irritating.

bennett_346

And the water gets hot.

njee20

In a bottle? Don't find it does I must say, the stuff in a Camelbak hose gets warm anyway, so unless you take a big mouthful it's no better, and I find they taint from a bladder too.

Still, each to their own, I understand why people use Camelbaks, just not that fussed myself.