Current bike too heavy? All mountain

TheNorthernTrain

Oh yes, that comment reminds me, the reason I haven't answered the above question either with or without workings is because it doesn't interest me in the slightest. I was merely remarking on what a stupid comment you had made.

To answer the OPs question, a lighter bike is definitely easier. If you're happy lugging the one you've got up the hills then fine. Don't just get a new bike because you think it'll be easier or you think it will make you ride more.

Go to a shop, go on a demo day, wherever, just try some out and have a feel for yourself, see if YOU can notice the difference... It's a lot of money to shell out on something you've heard.

rockmonkeysc

There's a bit more too it than Newtons second law. If you got beyond GCSE physics you would understand why weight on the rim and tyre counts for so much more than weight anywhere else.
How's your calculus?

Tom Barton

A lighter bike is more nimble. Combined with good geometry, less weight will make changing direction and moving the bike around underneath you easier = more control. This is a significant reason why downhill bikes have been on such a diet the past few years.

It is well acknowledged that lighter wheels require less effort to spin.

In my experience, a number of years ago I upgraded from a heavy spesh enduro comp (36lbs with the wheels and tyres I had on) to a lapierre spicy 516 (31lbs). My fitness at the time was equally good on both bikes. The lighter spicy made a big difference to how much energy I burnt on the long climbs. My current new spicy shaves another 0.5lb off. This I haven't really been able to tell the difference on. However, the more modern suspension and geometry tweaks and stiffer frame/overall setup do seem to have translated into a much sharper machine than my original spicy.

I personally think you'll notice a huge difference between the marin and something such as a new spicy or enduro or which ever well rated enduro/all mountain bike you might choose. And not just in weight and how much pedalling fatigues you, the new bikes will feel stiffer, sharper and more nimble out on the trail.

slickmouse

RockmonkeySC wrote:

There's a bit more too it than Newtons second law. If you got beyond GCSE physics you would understand why weight on the rim and tyre counts for so much more than weight anywhere else.
How's your calculus?

Not so bad mate, hows yours, seems as one of the proposers has gone missing and the other is now saying he has no interest ? perhaps you can accept the challenge of quantifying in Meters per second/per second, which give the greatest advantage, having lighter wheels or shedding 10lb of riders weight

il start you off here is the formula for acceleration a = Δv/Δt. . feel free to use calculus if you feel it helps your case any

TheNorthernTrain

slickmouse wrote:

RockmonkeySC wrote:

There's a bit more too it than Newtons second law. If you got beyond GCSE physics you would understand why weight on the rim and tyre counts for so much more than weight anywhere else.
How's your calculus?

Not so bad mate, hows yours, seems as one of the proposers has gone missing and the other is now saying he has no interest ? perhaps you can accept the challenge of quantifying in Meters per second/per second, which give the greatest advantage, having lighter wheels or shedding 10lb of riders weight

il start you off here is the formula for acceleration a = Δv/Δt. . feel free to use calculus if you feel it helps your case any

No i never proposed fuck all... I was just making cooldad's post clearer for someone who obviously failed to read it properly.

You really are boring... people must love coming round to dinner. I think poor cooldad has been bored to death by you which is why he has appeared to go missing.

Seriously, lighten up and stop being such a borefest.

slickmouse

TheNorthernTrain wrote:

slickmouse wrote:

RockmonkeySC wrote:

There's a bit more too it than Newtons second law. If you got beyond GCSE physics you would understand why weight on the rim and tyre counts for so much more than weight anywhere else.
How's your calculus?

Not so bad mate, hows yours, seems as one of the proposers has gone missing and the other is now saying he has no interest ? perhaps you can accept the challenge of quantifying in Meters per second/per second, which give the greatest advantage, having lighter wheels or shedding 10lb of riders weight

il start you off here is the formula for acceleration a = Δv/Δt. . feel free to use calculus if you feel it helps your case any

No i never proposed fark all... I was just making cooldad's post clearer for someone who obviously failed to read it properly.

You really are boring... people must love coming round to dinner. I think poor cooldad has been bored to death by you which is why he has appeared to go missing.

Seriously, lighten up and stop being such a borefest.

So there no point me copying ALL those post where you made definitive statements about this subject, coz they eer dont exist ?

its put up or shut up time mate

im really light heart, its just I can see why I should be inundated with posts telling me Im wrong by people who completely refuse to back up their statements when challenged and instead resort to childish abuse

TheNorthernTrain

slickmouse wrote:

TheNorthernTrain wrote:

slickmouse wrote:

RockmonkeySC wrote:

There's a bit more too it than Newtons second law. If you got beyond GCSE physics you would understand why weight on the rim and tyre counts for so much more than weight anywhere else.
How's your calculus?

Not so bad mate, hows yours, seems as one of the proposers has gone missing and the other is now saying he has no interest ? perhaps you can accept the challenge of quantifying in Meters per second/per second, which give the greatest advantage, having lighter wheels or shedding 10lb of riders weight

il start you off here is the formula for acceleration a = Δv/Δt. . feel free to use calculus if you feel it helps your case any

No i never proposed fark all... I was just making cooldad's post clearer for someone who obviously failed to read it properly.

You really are boring... people must love coming round to dinner. I think poor cooldad has been bored to death by you which is why he has appeared to go missing.

Seriously, lighten up and stop being such a borefest.

So there no point me copying ALL those post where you made definitive statements about this subject, coz they eer dont exist ?

its put up or shut up time mate

im really light heart, its just I can see why I should be inundated with posts telling me Im wrong by people who completely refuse to back up their statements when challenged and instead resort to childish abuse

Go on then... find me "all those post" where I made definitive statements about this subject... Cos you're right they don't exist.

I believe I stated that the rim, tyre and tubes make part of the rotating mass, which is true... i never went any further than saying lighter ones would be better.. which lets face it lighter wheels would be better than heavier ones as long as they are up to the abuse.

I also stated a lighter bike will be easier... which is also true, a lighter bike is easier than a heavier one.

So there you go I've put up... :roll:

slickmouse

TheNorthernTrain wrote:

slickmouse wrote:

TheNorthernTrain wrote:

slickmouse wrote:

RockmonkeySC wrote:

There's a bit more too it than Newtons second law. If you got beyond GCSE physics you would understand why weight on the rim and tyre counts for so much more than weight anywhere else.
How's your calculus?

Not so bad mate, hows yours, seems as one of the proposers has gone missing and the other is now saying he has no interest ? perhaps you can accept the challenge of quantifying in Meters per second/per second, which give the greatest advantage, having lighter wheels or shedding 10lb of riders weight

il start you off here is the formula for acceleration a = Δv/Δt. . feel free to use calculus if you feel it helps your case any

No i never proposed fark all... I was just making cooldad's post clearer for someone who obviously failed to read it properly.

You really are boring... people must love coming round to dinner. I think poor cooldad has been bored to death by you which is why he has appeared to go missing.

Seriously, lighten up and stop being such a borefest.

So there no point me copying ALL those post where you made definitive statements about this subject, coz they eer dont exist ?

its put up or shut up time mate

im really light heart, its just I can see why I should be inundated with posts telling me Im wrong by people who completely refuse to back up their statements when challenged and instead resort to childish abuse

Go on then... find me "all those post" where I made definitive statements about this subject... Cos you're right they don't exist.

.. i never went any further than saying lighter ones would be better.. which lets face it lighter wheels would be better than heavier ones as long as they are up to the abuse.

cant be arsed looking at the moment so il settle for THAT definitive statement, better for what ? and by how much are they better when the rider is 10lbs over weight, ie would he ACTUALLY notice the difference

go on quantify YOUR statement

cts5555

Thanks Tom, informative advice.

I will try and get out on a Spicy, I'll rent if needed, I can see for myself before forking out a lump.

Thanks again

TheNorthernTrain

slickmouse wrote:

TheNorthernTrain wrote:

slickmouse wrote:

TheNorthernTrain wrote:

slickmouse wrote:

RockmonkeySC wrote:

There's a bit more too it than Newtons second law. If you got beyond GCSE physics you would understand why weight on the rim and tyre counts for so much more than weight anywhere else.
How's your calculus?

Not so bad mate, hows yours, seems as one of the proposers has gone missing and the other is now saying he has no interest ? perhaps you can accept the challenge of quantifying in Meters per second/per second, which give the greatest advantage, having lighter wheels or shedding 10lb of riders weight

il start you off here is the formula for acceleration a = Δv/Δt. . feel free to use calculus if you feel it helps your case any

No i never proposed fark all... I was just making cooldad's post clearer for someone who obviously failed to read it properly.

You really are boring... people must love coming round to dinner. I think poor cooldad has been bored to death by you which is why he has appeared to go missing.

Seriously, lighten up and stop being such a borefest.

So there no point me copying ALL those post where you made definitive statements about this subject, coz they eer dont exist ?

its put up or shut up time mate

im really light heart, its just I can see why I should be inundated with posts telling me Im wrong by people who completely refuse to back up their statements when challenged and instead resort to childish abuse

Go on then... find me "all those post" where I made definitive statements about this subject... Cos you're right they don't exist.

.. i never went any further than saying lighter ones would be better.. which lets face it lighter wheels would be better than heavier ones as long as they are up to the abuse.

cant be arsed looking at the moment so il settle for THAT definitive statement, better for what ? and by how much are they better when the rider is 10lbs over weight, ie would he ACTUALLY notice the difference

go on quantify YOUR statement

That's handy isn't it... Or maybe it's just there aren't any but you're still looking for an argument so you can turn it into science and win... Do us a favour and accept when you're wrong or fuck off.

A lighter bike is easier to chuck round a corner. Fact. How much by I have no idea and don't care for.. All I know is if you hold a wheel up spin it and try and lean it over, it's easier with a lighter one than a heavier one.

Yes no matter what the weight of the rider they will notice a difference. It's like saying lets put an 80hp engine in a car made purely out of steel and a car made purely from carbon... Which will be faster, easier to manoeuvre, more economical and will the driver notice a difference.

I'm not a numbers person but to shut you up and keep you happy so can come on here with some complex theorems and algorithms or whatever it is you like to beat yourself off to.

A rider weighing n stone will find it twice as easy to pedal a bike weighing 100kgs compared to a bike weighing 200kg. I'm sure in real life that's wrong and you can draw me a graph with a curved line saying how it's all relative or proportional.

So I'll leave you with that and let you bash one out to some sums.

So it's a good night from me, I bid you ajew

BigAl

Have you ever watched an ice-skater spin? Or moved inboard on a rotating roundabout? Or conversely used a long spanner to undo a particularly stubborn bolt. Or..., or,... or...

A lighter wheel accelerates faster than a heavier one for a given input. Fact. The further from the locus of rotation the mass reduction is the greater the increase in acceleration. Fact.

Suggesting a rider (even if a that rider is a little 'portly', apologies to the OP ) wouldn't notice a reduction in bike weight from 38 to 30 lbs is ridiculous. Fact.

Edit: 'TheNorthernTrain and I didn't collude. Fact. Posts crossed in the ether. Still a bit weird though. Fact

slickmouse

BigAl wrote:

Have you ever watched an ice-skater spin? Or moved inboard on a rotating roundabout? Or conversely used a long spanner to undo a particularly stubborn bolt. Or..., or,... or...

A lighter wheel accelerates faster than a heavier one for a given input. Fact. The further from the locus of rotation the mass reduction is the greater the increase in acceleration. Fact.

Suggesting a rider (even if a that rider is a little 'portly', apologies to the OP ) wouldn't notice a reduction in bike weight from 38 to 30 lbs is ridiculous. Fact.

you and you comrade were taking explicitly about lighter wheels, don't try and change the debate halfway through

How much EXACTLY improved acceleration would he experience with lighter wheels

here is a clue, you need to define how much lighter the wheels are to begin your calculations

if as seems likely you CANT define the improvement, then you cant possibly support your claim that its perceptible to the rider, can you ?

TheNorthernTrain

slickmouse wrote:

BigAl wrote:

Have you ever watched an ice-skater spin? Or moved inboard on a rotating roundabout? Or conversely used a long spanner to undo a particularly stubborn bolt. Or..., or,... or...

A lighter wheel accelerates faster than a heavier one for a given input. Fact. The further from the locus of rotation the mass reduction is the greater the increase in acceleration. Fact.

Suggesting a rider (even if a that rider is a little 'portly', apologies to the OP ) wouldn't notice a reduction in bike weight from 38 to 30 lbs is ridiculous. Fact.

you and you comrade were taking explicitly about lighter wheels, don't try and change the debate halfway through

How much EXACTLY improved acceleration would he experience with lighter wheels

here is a clue, you need to define how much lighter the wheels are to begin your calculations

Define it then.... Who gives a shit how it's lighter or what parts are lighter. Whatever makes the bike lighter, the bike is fucking lighter and will be easier.

Sheesh

EDIT: cos I've seen Big Al's edit. Don't let him fool you slickmouse we are comrades and we colluded right from the start. The whole world is against you...

slickmouse

TheNorthernTrain wrote:

slickmouse wrote:

BigAl wrote:

Have you ever watched an ice-skater spin? Or moved inboard on a rotating roundabout? Or conversely used a long spanner to undo a particularly stubborn bolt. Or..., or,... or...

A lighter wheel accelerates faster than a heavier one for a given input. Fact. The further from the locus of rotation the mass reduction is the greater the increase in acceleration. Fact.

Suggesting a rider (even if a that rider is a little 'portly', apologies to the OP ) wouldn't notice a reduction in bike weight from 38 to 30 lbs is ridiculous. Fact.

you and you comrade were taking explicitly about lighter wheels, don't try and change the debate halfway through

How much EXACTLY improved acceleration would he experience with lighter wheels

here is a clue, you need to define how much lighter the wheels are to begin your calculations

Define it then.... Who gives a shoot how it's lighter or what parts are lighter. Whatever makes the bike lighter, the bike is ******* lighter and will be easier.

Sheesh

its YOUR definitive statements, you made it, you back it up with some calculations

if you cant as seems likely you cant possible support your claim that its perceptible to the rider

N

TheNorthernTrain

slickmouse wrote:

TheNorthernTrain wrote:

slickmouse wrote:

BigAl wrote:

Have you ever watched an ice-skater spin? Or moved inboard on a rotating roundabout? Or conversely used a long spanner to undo a particularly stubborn bolt. Or..., or,... or...

A lighter wheel accelerates faster than a heavier one for a given input. Fact. The further from the locus of rotation the mass reduction is the greater the increase in acceleration. Fact.

Suggesting a rider (even if a that rider is a little 'portly', apologies to the OP ) wouldn't notice a reduction in bike weight from 38 to 30 lbs is ridiculous. Fact.

you and you comrade were taking explicitly about lighter wheels, don't try and change the debate halfway through

How much EXACTLY improved acceleration would he experience with lighter wheels

here is a clue, you need to define how much lighter the wheels are to begin your calculations

Define it then.... Who gives a shoot how it's lighter or what parts are lighter. Whatever makes the bike lighter, the bike is ******* lighter and will be easier.

Sheesh

its YOUR definitive statements, you made it, you back it up with some calculations

if you cant as seems likely you cant possible support your claim that its perceptible to the rider

N

What fucking definitive statement. Your really are a mong. Cooldad was right, you are one massive troll and doing a fine job of getting people to bite.

I don't need to back up my claim with any fucking calculations, a lighter bike is lighter and with an 8lbs difference it will be noticeable to anyone no matter how small or large. To be frank I don't give a toss about backing up calculations because that's what the bike companies are there for, they do the calculations, so I'd like you to go and tell them they are wrong and they need to stop making bikes lighter.

Go and ram your fucking calculations up your arse.

slickmouse

TheNorthernTrain wrote:

slickmouse wrote:

TheNorthernTrain wrote:

slickmouse wrote:

BigAl wrote:

Have you ever watched an ice-skater spin? Or moved inboard on a rotating roundabout? Or conversely used a long spanner to undo a particularly stubborn bolt. Or..., or,... or...

A lighter wheel accelerates faster than a heavier one for a given input. Fact. The further from the locus of rotation the mass reduction is the greater the increase in acceleration. Fact.

Suggesting a rider (even if a that rider is a little 'portly', apologies to the OP ) wouldn't notice a reduction in bike weight from 38 to 30 lbs is ridiculous. Fact.

you and you comrade were taking explicitly about lighter wheels, don't try and change the debate halfway through

How much EXACTLY improved acceleration would he experience with lighter wheels

here is a clue, you need to define how much lighter the wheels are to begin your calculations

Define it then.... Who gives a shoot how it's lighter or what parts are lighter. Whatever makes the bike lighter, the bike is ******* lighter and will be easier.

Sheesh

its YOUR definitive statements, you made it, you back it up with some calculations

if you cant as seems likely you cant possible support your claim that its perceptible to the rider

N

What ******* definitive statement. Your really are a mong. Cooldad was right, you are one massive troll and doing a fine job of getting people to bite.

I don't need to back up my claim with any ******* calculations, a lighter bike is lighter and with an 8lbs difference it will be noticeable to anyone no matter how small or large. To be frank I don't give a toss about backing up calculations because that's what the bike companies are there for, they do the calculations, so I'd like you to go and tell them they are wrong and they need to stop making bikes lighter.

Go and ram your ******* calculations up your ars*.

thats it mate, resort to childish abuse now youve been challenged, it seems Parr for the course with some folk here


Ok lets give you an easier one, going back to the OP

if you can A) reduce the weight of the rider by 10lb OR b) the weight of the bike by 8lbs, which of those will give the greater increase in acceleration

you dont even need a calculator for this one

BigAl

slickmouse wrote:

you and you comrade were taking explicitly about lighter wheels, don't try and change the debate halfway through

No, Not really. And it's an arguement not a debate and, please God, let it be more than halfway through!

slickmouse wrote:

How much EXACTLY improved acceleration would he experience with lighter wheels

Not sure why you're SHOUTING, perhaps because you forgot to put the words in the right order? Depends how much lighter the wheels are and how the mass is distributed.

slickmouse wrote:

here is a clue, you need to define how much lighter the wheels are to begin your calculations

Thanks for the clue, I'd be clueless without it. I don't have a list of rim, hub, tyre and spoke weights to hand. Tell you what, try an experiment. On your next ride stick a couple of pounds of lead in your Camelbak, then attach the same mass (evenly) to your rims. Do report back which you found easier

BigAl

slickmouse wrote:

if you can A) reduce the weight of the rider by 10lb OR b) the weight of the bike by 8lbs, which of those will give the greater increase in acceleration

you dont even need a calculator for this one

That's the first time you've been right; I don't need a calculator for that. I reckon you might though.

While you're working on it, why don't you lose 20% of your body weight. It's gonna make you faster after all

slickmouse

BigAl wrote:

slickmouse wrote:

you and you comrade were taking explicitly about lighter wheels, don't try and change the debate halfway through

No, Not really. And it's an arguement not a debate and, please God, let it be more than halfway through!

slickmouse wrote:

How much EXACTLY improved acceleration would he experience with lighter wheels

Not sure why you're SHOUTING, perhaps because you forgot to put the words in the right order? Depends how much lighter the wheels are and how the mass is distributed.

slickmouse wrote:

here is a clue, you need to define how much lighter the wheels are to begin your calculations

Thanks for the clue, I'd be clueless without it. I don't have a list of rim, hub, tyre and spoke weights to hand. Tell you what, try an experiment. On your next ride stick a couple of pounds of lead in your Camelbak, then attach the same mass (evenly) to your rims. Do report back which you found easier

An argument is the point being contested, a debate is the process of resolving the argument by dialog

honestly

slickmouse

BigAl wrote:

slickmouse wrote:

if you can A) reduce the weight of the rider by 10lb OR b) the weight of the bike by 8lbs, which of those will give the greater increase in acceleration

you dont even need a calculator for this one

That's the first time you've been right; I don't need a calculator for that. I reckon you might though.

While you're working on it, why don't you lose 20% of your body weight. It's gonna make you faster after all

ive wrapped 4 bl of lead flashing round my frame, as at just under 12 kg it doesnt give me sufficient work out,

BigAl

slickmouse wrote:

BigAl wrote:

slickmouse wrote:

you and you comrade were taking explicitly about lighter wheels, don't try and change the debate halfway through

No, Not really. And it's an arguement not a debate and, please God, let it be more than halfway through!

slickmouse wrote:

How much EXACTLY improved acceleration would he experience with lighter wheels

Not sure why you're SHOUTING, perhaps because you forgot to put the words in the right order? Depends how much lighter the wheels are and how the mass is distributed.

slickmouse wrote:

here is a clue, you need to define how much lighter the wheels are to begin your calculations

Thanks for the clue, I'd be clueless without it. I don't have a list of rim, hub, tyre and spoke weights to hand. Tell you what, try an experiment. On your next ride stick a couple of pounds of lead in your Camelbak, then attach the same mass (evenly) to your rims. Do report back which you found easier

An argument is the point being contested, a debate is the process of resolving the argument by dialog

honestly

That's more b*ll* cks. Other definitions of "arguement" are available. Look it up

slickmouse

BigAl wrote:

slickmouse wrote:

BigAl wrote:

slickmouse wrote:

you and you comrade were taking explicitly about lighter wheels, don't try and change the debate halfway through

No, Not really. And it's an arguement not a debate and, please God, let it be more than halfway through!

slickmouse wrote:

How much EXACTLY improved acceleration would he experience with lighter wheels

Not sure why you're SHOUTING, perhaps because you forgot to put the words in the right order? Depends how much lighter the wheels are and how the mass is distributed.

slickmouse wrote:

here is a clue, you need to define how much lighter the wheels are to begin your calculations

Thanks for the clue, I'd be clueless without it. I don't have a list of rim, hub, tyre and spoke weights to hand. Tell you what, try an experiment. On your next ride stick a couple of pounds of lead in your Camelbak, then attach the same mass (evenly) to your rims. Do report back which you found easier

An argument is the point being contested, a debate is the process of resolving the argument by dialog

honestly

That's more b*ll* cks. Other definitions of "arguement" are available. Look it up

youve not borrowed cool dads childs dictionary have you ?

coulddobetter

Here you go: The "rotational weight" of MTB wheel components, relative to their static weight, is: tire: 92% tube: 89% rim: 72% rim tape: 71% nipples: 67% spokes: 30% hub: 0.2% 
This is how I get it - correct me if I'm wrong: The acceleration that you get when applying a certain pedaling force, is inversly proportional to the linearly moving mass of the bike, which is equal to the total mass of the bike and the rider, given that the rider is not moving in a front-back direction: a=F/m. The acceleration is also inversly proportional to the rotating wheel masses, multiplied with one plus the square of the "mass radius" divided by the wheel radius: a= F/(m*(1+sqr(r/R))). If we now ignore the rider's movements on the bike, the bike's upwards and downwards movement, and other moving parts such as crankset, pedals, and chain, we get the following equations for the wheel components, at acceleration on plane ground: a: linear acceleration of the wheel along the ground [m/s2) F: force pulling the wheel forward [N] f: friction force between ground and wheel [N] m: mass of the wheel component [kg] T: torque on the wheel [Nm] I: the components's moment of inertia [kgm2] b: angular acceleration of the wheel [1/s] r: radius of the thin, hollow cylinder that has the same moment of inertia as the component [m] R: outer radius of the wheel [m] (1) F-f=m*a (2) T=I*b (3) I=m*r2 (moment of inertia for thin, hollow cylinder) (4) a=b*R (5) T=f*R Solving these equations gives the expression a= F/(m*(1+sqr(r/R))), or that the "linearly accelerating equivalent mass" is m*(1+sqr(r/R)). By measuring a typical MTB wheel, we can get as an approximation that, from a moment of inertia point of view, the wheel components' corresponding hollow, thin cylinder radius, expressed as percent of the wheel's outer diameter, is: outer diameter: 100% tire: 96% tube: 95% rim: 85% rim tape: 84% nipples: 82% spokes: 55% hub: 4% Putting these numbers into the formula above, we get the "acceleration equivalent mass" of the wheel components: tire: 92% tube: 89% rim: 72% rim tape: 71% nipples: 67% spokes: 30% hub: 0.2% Finally, some examples and conclusions based on this: - 100 g extra tire mass (OK, "weight") slows down acceleration as much as 100*1.92=192 g extra frame weight does. - Saving 50 g on a rim is from acceleration point of view like saving 50*1.72=86 g on the frame. - Saving 30 g on a hub is from acceleration point of view like saving 30*1.002=30.06 g of the frame, and it is obvious that the "rotational weight" of hubs is negligable.

coulddobetter

If slippery rodent understands that then I am a weight weenie .!............... wonder what a shaved mouse would look like ( only reason is one also has to factor aerodynamics into the equation)

rgliniany

slickmouse wrote:

TheNorthernTrain wrote:

slickmouse wrote:

TheNorthernTrain wrote:

slickmouse wrote:

BigAl wrote:

Have you ever watched an ice-skater spin? Or moved inboard on a rotating roundabout? Or conversely used a long spanner to undo a particularly stubborn bolt. Or..., or,... or...

A lighter wheel accelerates faster than a heavier one for a given input. Fact. The further from the locus of rotation the mass reduction is the greater the increase in acceleration. Fact.

Suggesting a rider (even if a that rider is a little 'portly', apologies to the OP ) wouldn't notice a reduction in bike weight from 38 to 30 lbs is ridiculous. Fact.

you and you comrade were taking explicitly about lighter wheels, don't try and change the debate halfway through

How much EXACTLY improved acceleration would he experience with lighter wheels

here is a clue, you need to define how much lighter the wheels are to begin your calculations

Define it then.... Who gives a shoot how it's lighter or what parts are lighter. Whatever makes the bike lighter, the bike is ******* lighter and will be easier.

Sheesh

its YOUR definitive statements, you made it, you back it up with some calculations

if you cant as seems likely you cant possible support your claim that its perceptible to the rider

N

What ******* definitive statement. Your really are a mong. Cooldad was right, you are one massive troll and doing a fine job of getting people to bite.

I don't need to back up my claim with any ******* calculations, a lighter bike is lighter and with an 8lbs difference it will be noticeable to anyone no matter how small or large. To be frank I don't give a toss about backing up calculations because that's what the bike companies are there for, they do the calculations, so I'd like you to go and tell them they are wrong and they need to stop making bikes lighter.

Go and ram your ******* calculations up your ars*.

thats it mate, resort to childish abuse now youve been challenged, it seems Parr for the course with some folk here


Ok lets give you an easier one, going back to the OP

if you can A) reduce the weight of the rider by 10lb OR b) the weight of the bike by 8lbs, which of those will give the greater increase in acceleration

you dont even need a calculator for this one

its so true......

i have 2 bikes...... a 29er..... basic specs... bog standard...
and a road bike..(same diameter wheels give or take) bog standard i could get it up to x/kmh a whole lot quicker..... i wonder why? do you need a clue? its cos the BIKE is lighter... (and before you say anything else i matched the gearing)

and here is something that might just spin your mathematical mind :roll: ..... i put a new lighter wheelset on before a ride last night... same innertubes and tyres, pressure etc cos i know you are a stickler for fairness and such....guess what.... you got it captain!! quicker up to speed...... same weight as last week too, same fitness level... possibly a little better as i did go to an rpm class between rides so you will have to forgive me for that.......

so in conclusion..... without formulas...... lighter bike... quicker up to speed easier to manouver etc..... lighter rider heavy bike... potentially slower up to speed due to me not knowing if the op is a unit with powerful legs....and a mare to chuck around....

cooldad

I already invented the Slickmong headset tool. I wonder if it would work as a tool removing tool as well?

cooldad wrote:

I've just invented a new headset fitting tool. Think it'll sell?

ste_t

To answer a very simple question in a suitable fashion, yes your bike is too heavy for the application required. Get a lighter, more suitable bike. Test ride a couple and the answer will become clear.

Why slickmouse feels the need to demand calculations to quantify the obvious I do not know, but please don't think that is the norm.

felix.london

slickmouse wrote:

ive wrapped 4 bl of lead flashing round my frame, as at just under 12 kg it doesnt give me sufficient work out,

really? That is possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard!!

TheNorthernTrain

felix.london wrote:

slickmouse wrote:

ive wrapped 4 bl of lead flashing round my frame, as at just under 12 kg it doesnt give me sufficient work out,

really? That is possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard!!

I know. Imagine how much more of a workout he'd have got if he'd taped it to his wheels.

rockmonkeysc

I used 4lb of carbon fibre on my frame. Its lighter than 4lb of lead so it's better