Is saving weight worth the bother?

♠ChumBucket♠

robbo2011 wrote:

Chumbucket, we don't have trouble understanding what you are saying. The problem is, that your contention that someone in an aero position is no faster than when they are in a normal position is plain and simply wrong.

It's an obvious and demonstrable point. find a few long descents and try it yourself, you'll soon see.

I'm not arguing against aero Vs none aero (this is the trouble bit that you seem to have)

I'm arguing against normal aero (normal descending position) Vs sitting on the top bar curled up like a monkey!

napoleond

The thing is chum bucket, everyone is different. He may be more aero in that position. The others behind can get an aero effect at high speeds quite a long distance behind, tens of metres.

Have you ever done a long high speed descent in a group?

Pretty much any time a lone rider or one on the front is on a long straight descent in a pro race they adopt that position. It reduces frontal area see... The ones behind don't need to.

Pross

You do get benefit from a rider in front even if they are 15 - 20 bike lengths in front. A the speed they are travelling that will take around two seconds to cover and the 'hole' in the air won't have reformed. Even on a velodrome you notice the difference as soon as you get into the same straight as a group of riders for this very reason. I can't believe anyone is that dense that they think a reduced frontal area won't help you go faster, if that were the case we could all be riding around on nice comfortable sit up and beg bikes as we wouldn't have to compromise comfort for speed. Of all the dim witted arguments I've seen people try to make on this forum and others I think this takes the biscuit (or completely re-writes the laws of physics).

slowbike

CB is so good at watching TV he can see the air molecules ....

mpatts

To answer the OP.....

Weight is all about hills - and it's not linear (1% weight loss does not equal 1% faster) - you need much less power the faster you go if you are lighter.

napoleond

mpatts wrote:

To answer the OP.....

Weight is all about hills - and it's not linear (1% weight loss does not equal 1% faster) - you need much less power the faster you go if you are lighter.

Stop bringing this thread back on topic!

mpatts

NapoleonD wrote:

mpatts wrote:

To answer the OP.....

Weight is all about hills - and it's not linear (1% weight loss does not equal 1% faster) - you need much less power the faster you go if you are lighter.

Stop bringing this thread back on topic!

Sorry, good point.

I find ALL mountain bikers to be rude and never return my greetings. And all Audi drivers are knobs.

arran77

mpatts wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

mpatts wrote:

To answer the OP.....

Weight is all about hills - and it's not linear (1% weight loss does not equal 1% faster) - you need much less power the faster you go if you are lighter.

Stop bringing this thread back on topic!

Sorry, good point.

I find ALL mountain bikers to be rude and never return my greetings. And all Audi drivers are knobs.

Don't even bring up the whole being friendly thing, I did, and even though I said to begin with I knew that I'd get flamed and don't care if others greet you or not I still got flamed

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40088&t=12941570

Schoie81

mpatts wrote:

To answer the OP.....

Weight is all about hills - and it's not linear (1% weight loss does not equal 1% faster) - you need much less power the faster you go if you are lighter.

Sorry, but I too would just like to add a little to the original thread topic, and avoid getting involved in the 'discussion' about aerodynamics.... So how much weight loss would you need before you noticed a difference climbing a steep hill? I'm talking about losing weight off me, not the bike, so if I lost 1kg (the bike and I currently weigh about 87kg together) would I find hills noticeably easier? Or would I need to lose 5kg, 10kg,....more before I could tell any difference?

mpatts

Schoie81 wrote:

mpatts wrote:

To answer the OP.....

Weight is all about hills - and it's not linear (1% weight loss does not equal 1% faster) - you need much less power the faster you go if you are lighter.

Sorry, but I too would just like to add a little to the original thread topic, and avoid getting involved in the 'discussion' about aerodynamics.... So how much weight loss would you need before you noticed a difference climbing a steep hill? I'm talking about losing weight off me, not the bike, so if I lost 1kg (the bike and I currently weigh about 87kg together) would I find hills noticeably easier? Or would I need to lose 5kg, 10kg,....more before I could tell any difference?

For me, every kilo felt huge - but it's very difficult to say as I lost the kilos whilst getting fitter!

All I can say is that you will notice all weight - try climbing with and without 2 full water bottles, and you'll see what I mean.

Pross

Schoie81 wrote:

mpatts wrote:

To answer the OP.....

Weight is all about hills - and it's not linear (1% weight loss does not equal 1% faster) - you need much less power the faster you go if you are lighter.

Sorry, but I too would just like to add a little to the original thread topic, and avoid getting involved in the 'discussion' about aerodynamics.... So how much weight loss would you need before you noticed a difference climbing a steep hill? I'm talking about losing weight off me, not the bike, so if I lost 1kg (the bike and I currently weigh about 87kg together) would I find hills noticeably easier? Or would I need to lose 5kg, 10kg,....more before I could tell any difference?

I lost nearly 10kg a year or so back and I would say I started to notice the difference after about 3kg but I also started exercising a lot more to help lose the weight so my fitness levels had also picked up. To be honest it is hard to judge when an improvement happens as it's a gradual process but I really started to notice when I went out on club runs and was no longer the first to get dropped on a climb (and in some cases even stayed with the lead group).

styxd

Steep hills are more about technique and fitness in my opinion, since they're only short.

Long climbs in the alps are where you notice weight

jonomc4

I find not wearing a helmet makes me lighter and therefore faster and it makes me more aerodynamic going down hills - therefore don't wear a helmet and you will go faster - get popcorn

♠ChumBucket♠

Pross wrote:

You do get benefit from a rider in front even if they are 15 - 20 bike lengths in front. A the speed they are travelling that will take around two seconds to cover and the 'hole' in the air won't have reformed. Even on a velodrome you notice the difference as soon as you get into the same straight as a group of riders for this very reason. I can't believe anyone is that dense that they think a reduced frontal area won't help you go faster, if that were the case we could all be riding around on nice comfortable sit up and beg bikes as we wouldn't have to compromise comfort for speed. Of all the dim witted arguments I've seen people try to make on this forum and others I think this takes the biscuit (or completely re-writes the laws of physics).

I couldn't believe that anyone would pull up on the pedals because they think the pro's do it & it makes you climb better- but they do!!

I wouldn't say there was much difference in frontal area between the two positions. There is no way the others are being dragged at that distance & speed by one man & such a small breaking area!!

I can imagine the conversation with the guys behind-

"Hey, why don't we sit on our top bars like him in front?"
"Naa, he looks a total tit for no benefit!"
"Aye but there's a bunch of "pro's" on BikeRadar who say it's the in thing & has to be done"
"Aye, that'll be the same ones pulling on their pedals 'cos they think we do it"
"There's one animal on there, big post count he has too, who even "dared" someone to take it into the "pro race" section"!!!!!!!
"WHAT?!!!!!" the "pro race section"? That's the place where all the big lunch boxes hang out isn't it? Man, what a hero, that's one mean dare!"
"hey look, see, what did I tell you, he's no further away"
"that just can't be true, my eyes must be lying, he must be further away, the BikeRadar gang say it's impossible to be any other way!"
"Dinnae worry son, the industry turns on ssuckers like them!"

robbo2011

When you are in a hole, stop digging

♠ChumBucket♠

robbo2011 wrote:

When you are in a hole, stop digging

Humour Robbo, humour son.

I do agree with your comment though & hope you all take heed, for your own sakes!!

SpokeyDokeyBlog

The answer is always ride your bike more to lose more weight. When you ride more you also wear stuff out quicker, when it wears out you buy a slightly lighter replacement part.
So the answer is, ride more, reward yourself with better kit to replace your worn stuff.

dennisn

On re-thinking this question I'm sort of the opinion that "saving weight" is not so much a bother, but more of a question on how much you want to spend. It's no more bother one way or another to simply click the box for either the 600 gram frame for $7000.00 or the 1200 gram frame for $1000.00. Same thing with every other part you need, you simply buy one or the other. Where's the bother in that? It's easy enough. Of course, almost choking to death when you get the credit card bill is another matter altogether.

napoleond

Perhaps bumchucket needs to watch the last 10km of today's U23 worlds men's road race

Mikey23

Chance would be a fine thing... Couldn't see it on anywhere and working anyway

Mikey23

Can there really be a 'hole in the air' at 15 to 20 bike lengths?

napoleond

It was on on uci's YouTube channel.

napoleond

Mikey23 wrote:

Can there really be a 'hole in the air' at 15 to 20 bike lengths?

Yeah, at higher speeds.

♠ChumBucket♠

NapoleonD wrote:

Mikey23 wrote:

Can there really be a 'hole in the air' at 15 to 20 bike lengths?

Yeah, at higher speeds.

Yeah, like 100 mph!! NOT 30mph. Hole in his backside would be of more use!!

Really, I'm shocked yet again, it's becoming a regular feature for me here!!

napoleond

Can notice it on the same straight on the track at 30mph

♠ChumBucket♠

NapoleonD wrote:

Can notice it on the same straight on the track at 30mph

Yeah Nap, I believe you man, I really do. Do I get to join the click now??

Barbarossa

littledove44 wrote:

Man and bike weigh 100kg say.
Reduce bike weight by 1kg without changing the aerodynamic profile.
So we have reduced weight by 1%.

Assuming nothing else changes, the same power input from your legs should increase your speed by 1% (actually a little less because some of the increased power is consumed by increased drag of the higher new speed)

So, on a 3 hour ride I will save 1.8 minutes.
Important if you are racing, but irrelevant otherwise.

Is this fundamentally incorrect?

This thread has got a little lost hasn't it?

Lower weight will only help when you are accelerating or climbing. So saving 1% in weight will save far less than 1% on the time of your usual loop.

♠ChumBucket♠

Barbarossa wrote:

littledove44 wrote:

Man and bike weigh 100kg say.
Reduce bike weight by 1kg without changing the aerodynamic profile.
So we have reduced weight by 1%.

Assuming nothing else changes, the same power input from your legs should increase your speed by 1% (actually a little less because some of the increased power is consumed by increased drag of the higher new speed)

So, on a 3 hour ride I will save 1.8 minutes.
Important if you are racing, but irrelevant otherwise.

Is this fundamentally incorrect?

This thread has got a little lost hasn't it?

Lower weight will only help when you are accelerating or climbing. So saving 1% in weight will save far less than 1% on the time of your usual loop.

I think many of the posters have become a little "lost" too!!

rolf_f

♠ChumBucket♠ wrote:

Barbarossa wrote:

littledove44 wrote:

Man and bike weigh 100kg say.
Reduce bike weight by 1kg without changing the aerodynamic profile.
So we have reduced weight by 1%.

Assuming nothing else changes, the same power input from your legs should increase your speed by 1% (actually a little less because some of the increased power is consumed by increased drag of the higher new speed)

So, on a 3 hour ride I will save 1.8 minutes.
Important if you are racing, but irrelevant otherwise.

Is this fundamentally incorrect?

This thread has got a little lost hasn't it?

Lower weight will only help when you are accelerating or climbing. So saving 1% in weight will save far less than 1% on the time of your usual loop.

I think many of the posters have become a little "lost" too!!

I can't believe you know this little. I think you are just trolling.

♠ChumBucket♠

Rolf F wrote:

♠ChumBucket♠ wrote:

Barbarossa wrote:

littledove44 wrote:

Man and bike weigh 100kg say.
Reduce bike weight by 1kg without changing the aerodynamic profile.
So we have reduced weight by 1%.

Assuming nothing else changes, the same power input from your legs should increase your speed by 1% (actually a little less because some of the increased power is consumed by increased drag of the higher new speed)

So, on a 3 hour ride I will save 1.8 minutes.
Important if you are racing, but irrelevant otherwise.

Is this fundamentally incorrect?

This thread has got a little lost hasn't it?

Lower weight will only help when you are accelerating or climbing. So saving 1% in weight will save far less than 1% on the time of your usual loop.

I think many of the posters have become a little "lost" too!!

I can't believe you know this little. I think you are just trolling.

I think the same about you Rolf :roll: