Upgrade suggestions for weight

13»

Comments

  • bernithebiker
    bernithebiker Posts: 4,148
    The lighter ONE is, the more it helps to lighten your bike.

    1kg off a 60kg rider and a 7kg bike = 1.5% lighter, but 1kg off an 80kg rider and a 7kg bike is 1.15%.

    A 60kg rider will put out less power than an equally fit 80kg rider, so needs more help on aero and weight.

    This is why big strong guys are good at blasting along the flat into the wind, and smaller light guys are good at going up hills. (I fall into the latter category!)
  • ednino
    ednino Posts: 684
    The lighter ONE is, the more it helps to lighten your bike.


    A 60kg rider will put out less power than an equally fit 80kg rider, so needs more help on aero and weight.

    You've got it right exactly here
    I lack big output power, don't TT well and im ruined by a head wind. My low red cell count also means I can't hold heavy effort for long without getting abit dizzy.
    But... im confident doing 100 mile sportives & im not bad up hills :wink:
  • Bobbinogs
    Bobbinogs Posts: 4,841
    ednino wrote:
    The lighter ONE is, the more it helps to lighten your bike.

    A 60kg rider will put out less power than an equally fit 80kg rider, so needs more help on aero and weight.

    You've got it right exactly here
    I lack big output power, don't TT well and im ruined by a head wind. My low red cell count also means I can't hold heavy effort for long without getting abit dizzy.
    But... im confident doing 100 mile sportives & im not bad up hills :wink:

    ...so you are not far off my facets in that I weigh 65kg, don't TT well but can do long distances reasonably quickly even if they include hills. However, I still don't think we have nailed the objective ednino, what is it that you want to achieve: Simply make the bike lighter or go quicker?

    I could do a TT with/without a water bottle and the times won't be much different and yet one won't get many upgrades that will save 500g easily (outside of wheels) irrespective of cost. However, a few weeks of structured training and help with good aero positioning will make anyone (heavy or light) quicker. I do think bernithebiker has it spot on...when he recommends cycling holidays :wink:
  • ednino
    ednino Posts: 684
    The aim was to make the bike lighter, hence the original question

    If I wanted to go faster I probably would have asked how
  • citrus_
    citrus_ Posts: 60
    Hi ednino, can I ask what is the point of making the bike lighter then?

    Is it not so that you will end up going faster?

    Please excuse my ignorance, I'm a beginner!
  • neeb
    neeb Posts: 4,467
    I much prefer riding a bike that weighs 6.8kg than one that weighs 9kg, all else being equal. If you are a light rider, you will definitely notice that difference in the way the bike climbs and accelerates. It's debatable if you will notice anything much less than that sort of difference, but the point is that if you want a light bike you have to be selective in the choice of all of the components, frame and wheels - all of those little 50g differences add up. It's possibly not very sensible to replace heavier but perfectly functional components with lighter ones (unless you can use the old components on another bike or sell them for a really good price), but it's sensible to always choose light components when you are buying them in the first place and if the extra expenditure for that 2.5kg or so of weight savings makes sense to you.
  • simon_masterson
    simon_masterson Posts: 2,740
    citrus wrote:
    Hi ednino, can I ask what is the point of making the bike lighter then?

    Is it not so that you will end up going faster?

    Please excuse my ignorance, I'm a beginner!

    It's a silly macho thing among many, and ignorance (fuelled by marketing and conformity) amongst others. If your bike weighs 12kg or less, it is amply light enough. Some cyclists get a kick out of demonstrating to their friends (i.e. whilst not actually cycling) that it's possible to lift their bike up by one finger, etc. Pushing air out of the way accounts for the vast majority of your effort; the less weight you need to carry up a steep hill the better, but until your times on your very long and very steep hilly runs are very low and consistently so, it is hardly relevant.

    I.e. If you were to go out regularly with Contador (with or without steaks)/Froome/Wiggins/Emma Pooley/etc and co on a 12kg bike, it wouldn't be the bike that held you back. ;)

    That isn't of course to say that a lighter bike won't be nicer to ride (depending on your preferences) of course, but spending hundreds to turn a 9kg bike into an 8.2kg bike is silly. As discussed earlier, chances are if you spend enough to have a really top-notch bike, it will be pretty light anyway.
  • flasher
    flasher Posts: 1,734
    If anyone, skinny racing snake or lardy w/e warrior wants a lighter bike and has the money to blow why the hell not, answer the question and don't tell him off like some naughty schoolboy!

    Fwiw. OP you're in the wrong forum you need to seek guidance over at Weight weenies.
  • bernithebiker
    bernithebiker Posts: 4,148

    It's a silly macho thing among many, and ignorance (fuelled by marketing and conformity) amongst others. If your bike weighs 12kg or less, it is amply light enough.

    My bike weighs 6kg, and I think it handles and accelerates very nicely. Are you really telling me that if I was to duct tape six bags of sugar onto the frame in various places, I wouldn't feel the difference?
  • neeb
    neeb Posts: 4,467
    An extra 6kg of bike weight would make about 5 minutes difference for me on a long, steepish climb of around 1 hour duration. That's about 8%, i.e. rather significant and more than my fitness typically varies throughout the year. On Alpe d'Huez it would very probably make the difference between doing it in under an hour or not. Even with 2kg you are talking the best part of 2mins on a long climb. If you are at all competitive (even at a mediocre amateur level) that's a lot.

    It will make less difference on a flat course obviously, but even on short steep hills you will feel it. Try running up 3 or 4 flights of stairs with and without 6kg of shopping in a rucksack - you will notice the difference!
  • iPete
    iPete Posts: 6,076
    I assume all of these people are racing and riding these perfectly good 12kg machines?
  • bernithebiker
    bernithebiker Posts: 4,148
    neeb wrote:
    An extra 6kg of bike weight would make about 5 minutes difference for me on a long, steepish climb of around 1 hour duration. That's about 8%, i.e. rather significant and more than my fitness typically varies throughout the year. On Alpe d'Huez it would very probably make the difference between doing it in under an hour or not. Even with 2kg you are talking the best part of 2mins on a long climb. If you are at all competitive (even at a mediocre amateur level) that's a lot.

    It will make less difference on a flat course obviously, but even on short steep hills you will feel it. Try running up 3 or 4 flights of stairs with and without 6kg of shopping in a rucksack - you will notice the difference!

    All true, but what a lot of people overlook in the 'light bike' debates, is the handling and acceleration, the 'feel' of the bike.

    Every twitch to go round a pothole, every burst to catch a rider up front or crest a ridge, braking, alpine bends, etc. etc. all these things benefit from low weight.

    F=ma and all the above examples are accelerations of some sort (yes, even cornering at constant speed), so the lower the mass, the lower the forces involved.
  • simon_masterson
    simon_masterson Posts: 2,740

    It's a silly macho thing among many, and ignorance (fuelled by marketing and conformity) amongst others. If your bike weighs 12kg or less, it is amply light enough.

    My bike weighs 6kg, and I think it handles and accelerates very nicely. Are you really telling me that if I was to duct tape six bags of sugar onto the frame in various places, I wouldn't feel the difference?

    Of course not; merely that if it is that weight or below (though I'm sure plenty of cycling feats have been achieved on heavier bikes still) then it is 'adequate'. You probably won't win a hilly time trial on it, but it won't prevent you from finishing the course.

  • It's a silly macho thing among many, and ignorance (fuelled by marketing and conformity) amongst others. If your bike weighs 12kg or less, it is amply light enough.

    My bike weighs 6kg, and I think it handles and accelerates very nicely. Are you really telling me that if I was to duct tape six bags of sugar onto the frame in various places, I wouldn't feel the difference?

    Of course not; merely that if it is that weight or below (though I'm sure plenty of cycling feats have been achieved on heavier bikes still) then it is 'adequate'. You probably won't win a hilly time trial on it, but it won't prevent you from finishing the course.

    So how many bags of sugar would Berni have to tape to his bike to prevent him from finishing this 'hilly time trial' then Simon?

    Just wondering :wink:
    "You really think you can burn off sugar with exercise?" downhill paul
  • simon_masterson
    simon_masterson Posts: 2,740
    Given the weight of the shopping I've carried before, probably a fair bit. :lol:
  • simon_masterson
    simon_masterson Posts: 2,740
    neeb wrote:
    An extra 6kg of bike weight would make about 5 minutes difference for me on a long, steepish climb of around 1 hour duration. That's about 8%, i.e. rather significant and more than my fitness typically varies throughout the year. On Alpe d'Huez it would very probably make the difference between doing it in under an hour or not. Even with 2kg you are talking the best part of 2mins on a long climb. If you are at all competitive (even at a mediocre amateur level) that's a lot.

    It will make less difference on a flat course obviously, but even on short steep hills you will feel it. Try running up 3 or 4 flights of stairs with and without 6kg of shopping in a rucksack - you will notice the difference!

    All true, but what a lot of people overlook in the 'light bike' debates, is the handling and acceleration, the 'feel' of the bike.

    Every twitch to go round a pothole, every burst to catch a rider up front or crest a ridge, braking, alpine bends, etc. etc. all these things benefit from low weight.

    F=ma and all the above examples are accelerations of some sort (yes, even cornering at constant speed), so the lower the mass, the lower the forces involved.

    These are obviously valid points, but as we discussed earlier, lighter bikes tend to be so because they are better, and bikes with great frames and wheels will (hopefully) handle much better. If your bike weighs 6kg, I've got pretty good reason to believe that it won't be an old gas pipe with wonky wheels. ;)