8kg - thoughts
Comments
-
The issue with which you have irritated many is the quoted post in which you've said carbon is pointless and bike weight makes no difference unless you're on a hill of 10%+ gradient. Both of these points are clearly untrue. If you'd like to debate the point feel free to respond with a reasoned argument to any or all of the responses you've received. Now if what you really meant was that material choice and bike weight potentially have less impact on performance than rider weight then I doubt many will disagree with you but it would be unclear why you felt the need to raise that point!downhill paul wrote:Carbonator wrote:downhill paul wrote:What is the obsession with lightweight bikes?
unless you are seriously competing in races then carbon is pointless.
bike weight also makes no difference unless you are on a hill that is 10% or more.
bike fit and rider weight are more important.
What a load of utter tosh!
Lighter bikes are always better, from the cradle to the grave.
Why are you suggesting you would not be just as likely to get a light bike that fits?
Rider weight is a completely separate issue :roll:
Keep spreading the rumour though because it makes people with cheap heavy bikes feel better.
Especially if they then think everyone who spent more on a light bike are mugs.
I am not suggesting that you won't find a light bike that fits. where on earth did you get that from? I said that bike fit is far more important than bike weight. and rider weight is more important than bike weight.
I also didn't say that anyone who buys a light bike is a mug. but it sounds to me like you think anyone on a cheaper or heavier bike than you is a mug.
Due to the way in which you suggested that bike fit and rider weight are more important than bike weight and that bike material and weight should be ignored it could be and has been inferred that you're suggesting you can't have both. If this wasn't your intention then why even raise the topic?
Bike weight is generally independent of rider weight and ability to get a good fit so unless you think otherwise, why would you raise the subject?0 -
Wow, some people got their bibs on this one.
1kg saved on a bike does not make a huge difference, but losing weight for the rider does, so I can see his point. I can also see that carbon is 'pointless' as it makes naff all difference to the overall speed of a bike.
I also completely fail to see how people can infer that light and well fitting are not possible. Was it the fact that both were mentioned in a post that people drew wacky assumptions from that?
Flame away.0 -
Ai_1 wrote:
The issue with which you have irritated many is the quoted post in which you've said carbon is pointless and bike weight makes no difference unless you're on a hill of 10%+ gradient. Both of these points are clearly untrue. If you'd like to debate the point feel free to respond with a reasoned argument to any or all of the responses you've received. Now if what you really meant was that material choice and bike weight potentially have less impact on performance than rider weight then I doubt many will disagree with you but it would be unclear why you felt the need to raise that point!downhill paul wrote:Carbonator wrote:downhill paul wrote:What is the obsession with lightweight bikes?
unless you are seriously competing in races then carbon is pointless.
bike weight also makes no difference unless you are on a hill that is 10% or more.
bike fit and rider weight are more important.
What a load of utter tosh!
Lighter bikes are always better, from the cradle to the grave.
Why are you suggesting you would not be just as likely to get a light bike that fits?
Rider weight is a completely separate issue :roll:
Keep spreading the rumour though because it makes people with cheap heavy bikes feel better.
Especially if they then think everyone who spent more on a light bike are mugs.
I am not suggesting that you won't find a light bike that fits. where on earth did you get that from? I said that bike fit is far more important than bike weight. and rider weight is more important than bike weight.
I also didn't say that anyone who buys a light bike is a mug. but it sounds to me like you think anyone on a cheaper or heavier bike than you is a mug.
Due to the way in which you suggested that bike fit and rider weight are more important than bike weight and that bike material and weight should be ignored it could be and has been inferred that you're suggesting you can't have both. If this wasn't your intention then why even raise the topic?
Bike weight is generally independent of rider weight and ability to get a good fit so unless you think otherwise, why would you raise the subject?
I never said that bike material and weight should and can be ignored. I also didn't mean that.
my point is that I don't understand why people get so obsessed with light weight bikes, especially when you consider that such people could easily lose weight from their body rather than from their bike. which would be far more beneficial to the rider and would also be a lot cheaper. plus there is only so much weight you can lose from a bike.
for example, my specialized allez road bike with mavic aksium race wheels weighs 10kg exactly. if I spent up to £7,000 or if I built a bike myself then I would be able to get a bike closer to the UCI minimum weight limit of 6.2kg. which would be 0.59 stone lighter than the bike I currently own. I currently weigh 14.5 stone, with a bit more effort I could quite easily lose a few stone from my body weight, however as I said before, there is only so much weight you can lose from your bike. you can lose far more weight from your body than you can from your bike.
when you consider someone over a certain weight such as myself, any advantages that are to be gained by riding a light carbon bike will be overshadowed by the extra weight carried by the rider.0 -
I don't understand why people get so obsessed about people getting obsessed with light weight bikes :roll:"You really think you can burn off sugar with exercise?" downhill paul0
-
downhill paul wrote:especially when you consider that such people could easily lose weight from their body rather than from their bike.
I don't think you mean me?
But why not lose weight from both?"You really think you can burn off sugar with exercise?" downhill paul0 -
Charlie Potatoes wrote:downhill paul wrote:especially when you consider that such people could easily lose weight from their body rather than from their bike.
I don't think you mean me?
But why not lose weight from both?
That is the winning idea. :P0 -
My comments in blue. That is alldownhill paul wrote:Ai_1 wrote:
The issue with which you have irritated many is the quoted post in which you've said carbon is pointless and bike weight makes no difference unless you're on a hill of 10%+ gradient. Both of these points are clearly untrue. If you'd like to debate the point feel free to respond with a reasoned argument to any or all of the responses you've received. Now if what you really meant was that material choice and bike weight potentially have less impact on performance than rider weight then I doubt many will disagree with you but it would be unclear why you felt the need to raise that point!downhill paul wrote:Carbonator wrote:downhill paul wrote:What is the obsession with lightweight bikes?
unless you are seriously competing in races then carbon is pointless.
bike weight also makes no difference unless you are on a hill that is 10% or more.
bike fit and rider weight are more important.
What a load of utter tosh!
Lighter bikes are always better, from the cradle to the grave.
Why are you suggesting you would not be just as likely to get a light bike that fits?
Rider weight is a completely separate issue :roll:
Keep spreading the rumour though because it makes people with cheap heavy bikes feel better.
Especially if they then think everyone who spent more on a light bike are mugs.
I am not suggesting that you won't find a light bike that fits. where on earth did you get that from? I said that bike fit is far more important than bike weight. and rider weight is more important than bike weight.
I also didn't say that anyone who buys a light bike is a mug. but it sounds to me like you think anyone on a cheaper or heavier bike than you is a mug.
Due to the way in which you suggested that bike fit and rider weight are more important than bike weight and that bike material and weight should be ignored it could be and has been inferred that you're suggesting you can't have both. If this wasn't your intention then why even raise the topic?
Bike weight is generally independent of rider weight and ability to get a good fit so unless you think otherwise, why would you raise the subject?
I never said that bike material and weight should and can be ignored. I also didn't mean that.
You stated explicitly that the weight of the bike "makes no difference unless you are on a hill that is 10% or more". Now you're saying "I never said that bike material and weight should and can be ignored" Now maybe I'm being a bit dim but it seems to me that if you are saying something makes no difference then you're saying it can be ignored. If you didn't intend to say that, fine, but we're not disagreeing with what you meant to say. We're disagreeing with what you said. We're not mindreaders - well I'm not.
my point is that I don't understand why people get so obsessed with light weight bikes, especially when you consider that such people could easily lose weight from their body rather than from their bike. which would be far more beneficial to the rider and would also be a lot cheaper. "such people"? Which people are these? There are a lot of riders who cannot benefit from losing body weight.
Why do you say "rather than from their bike"? Why can't they do both? Bike weight reduction and rider weight reduction are not mutually exclusive. Work required to get up a hill or power required to achieve a given acceleration are due to the mass of the bike+rider+clothing+water, etc. It's perfectly valid to try and optimise weight in any or all of these areas....
plus there is only so much weight you can lose from a bike.
for example, my specialized allez road bike with mavic aksium race wheels weighs 10kg exactly. if I spent up to £7,000 or if I built a bike myself then I would be able to get a bike closer to the UCI minimum weight limit of 6.2kg (6.8kg I believe). which would be 0.59 stone lighter than the bike I currently own. I currently weigh 14.5 stone, with a bit more effort I could quite easily lose a few stone from my body weight, however as I said before, there is only so much weight you can lose from your bike. you can lose far more weight from your body than you can from your bike. Not if you're already at or close to your optimum weight.
when you consider someone over a certain weight such as myself, any advantages that are to be gained by riding a light carbon bike will be overshadowed by the extra weight carried by the rider. Agreed!!!!! - So what? Overshadowed is not eliminated. The proportional benefit is greater for a lighter rider and the relevance of the advantage will depend on what they're trying to achieve but there is an advantage nevertheless. Furthermore you are assuming all riders are overweight and every rider should try and lose weight - Why?0 -
Nothing wrong with trying to lose weight from your bike - heck I've even done it mid ride - 30 miles to go, 2 full bottles - didn't need one so emptied it... why not? It saves 750g and was quick enough to do - probably saved me all of 1 second - but it made me feel better
Don't think it's all down to bike weight - different materials respond differently - an aluminium frame will feel different to a carbon frame - on the flat as well as climbs..0 -
Did the same yesterday, 10 miles to go but a big hill to climb, I had 2 x half full bottles so I poured one out as I wouldn't need it all. Mentally gives you a boost as you now have a lighter bike than you did a moment ago.0
-
I did say that bike weight makes no difference unless you are on a hill that is 10% or more. the reason bike weight can't be ignored is because people don't want to ignore it. there has never been a case where I have been on my bike and though, if only this bike was a bit lighter. on the other hand there have been times when I have thought, if only I was a bit lighter. of course I am not saying that every cyclist is over weight and needs to lose weight, where you get that from I have no idea. losing weight from your bike and your body will help instead of losing weight from one or the other, my point is that losing weight from your body is much easier and cheaper than losing weight from your bike. of course if you have many thousands of pounds that you have no other use for, and can afford the lightest bike possible then good for you. of course if a rider is already at their optimum weight then losing any weight from the bike is the only other step they can take. this I have no problem with. what I do find totally pointless is when you see riders who are overweight, or who aren't as slim as they would like to be, who think having a lighter bike will suddenly turn them in to a much better, fitter and faster cyclist. if you are over a certain weight then the performance advantages of riding the lightest bike you can find will be so small, you will struggle to see any difference. you might as well save the money you could spend on a light bike, spend it on something more worthwhile and work a bit harder to try to lose the weight from your body instead.0
-
downhill paul wrote:of course if a rider is already at their optimum weight then losing any weight from the bike is the only other step they can take. this I have no problem with.
Phew! "You really think you can burn off sugar with exercise?" downhill paul0 -
downhill paul wrote:
for example, my specialized allez road bike with mavic aksium race wheels weighs 10kg exactly. if I spent up to £7,000 or if I built a bike myself then I would be able to get a bike closer to the UCI minimum weight limit of 6.2kg. which would be 0.59 stone lighter than the bike I currently own. I currently weigh 14.5 stone, with a bit more effort I could quite easily lose a few stone from my body weight, however as I said before, there is only so much weight you can lose from your bike. you can lose far more weight from your body than you can from your bike.
As soon as you mention bike weight people assume your fat & that you should worry about your own weight first :?
I like to keep bike weight down. I weight 60kg, do I need to lose weight myself? A light bike is more important to a lighter rider because it is a bigger % of the over all weight.
and for the record my 7kg bike cost me about £2,000 not £7,000 :roll: .You don't have to spend a fortune on carbon big brand stuff to save weight0 -
ednino wrote:downhill paul wrote:
for example, my specialized allez road bike with mavic aksium race wheels weighs 10kg exactly. if I spent up to £7,000 or if I built a bike myself then I would be able to get a bike closer to the UCI minimum weight limit of 6.2kg. which would be 0.59 stone lighter than the bike I currently own. I currently weigh 14.5 stone, with a bit more effort I could quite easily lose a few stone from my body weight, however as I said before, there is only so much weight you can lose from your bike. you can lose far more weight from your body than you can from your bike.
As soon as you mention bike weight people assume your fat & that you should worry about your own weight first :?
I like to keep bike weight down. I weight 60kg, do I need to lose weight myself? A light bike is more important to a lighter rider because it is a bigger % of the over all weight.
and for the record my 7kg bike cost me about £2,000 not £7,000 :roll: .You don't have to spend a fortune on carbon big brand stuff to save weight
People don't need to assume I am fat. I have already mentioned that I weigh 14.5 stone, or 92kg.
I also never said that all cyclists need to lose weight. but you have got my point spot on. a light bike is of more benefit to a light rider. I would never think about buying a lighter bike while I am at my current weight because there would be little or no performance advantages.
I see a lot of people who are overweight, in other words, as heavy or heavier than me who buy the lightest bike they can as an alternative to getting fitter and faster. they seem to think that a light bike will instantly make them fitter and faster. those are the people who annoy me, not genuine cyclists who chose to ride a light weight bike.0 -
Paul,
Your oblivious abuse of conversation offends me.
You make an assertion. It meets with disagreement and reasoned rebuttals. You say you didn't say what we think you said and then re-state that same position in a very slightly different way but still essentially as we had interpreted it. Further efforts are made to point out the failures of your argument and again you completely miss the point and again re-state your position. You are either a troll, you're not reading the posts or you simply don't understand the conversation. Either way it's a big waste of everyones time.0 -
This is becoming an epic thread worthy of my two pence (i''ll keep it short).
Carbon - fantastic shock absorption on our fantastically smooth roads.
My Alu winter hack weighs in at 9.6kg's. That's with the lights, mudguards and a full bottle of water. It cost me well over £1400. So I don't know wtf I am doing wrong.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Ai_1 wrote:Paul,
Your oblivious abuse of conversation offends me.
You make an assertion. It meets with disagreement and reasoned rebuttals. You say you didn't say what we think you said and then re-state that same position in a very slightly different way but still essentially as we had interpreted it. Further efforts are made to point out the failures of your argument and again you completely miss the point and again re-state your position. You are either a troll, you're not reading the posts or you simply don't understand the conversation. Either way it's a big waste of everyones time.
Would you care to give us your view/opinion on bike and rider weight?
I just don't see the point in having a light bike when with a little more effort, you can lose far more weight from your body. which costs nothing to do and is far more beneficial than a lighter bike. you can only lose so much weight from the bike its self, but you can lose as much weight as you like from your body. obviously there is also a limit to how much weight you can lose from your body before you start to sacrifice performance. but still you can lose more weight from your body than you can from your bike. which is why I said that a lighter rider is more beneficial than a lighter bike. I have already said that I weigh 14.5 stone, my ideal weight would be about 11. so I can lose 3.5 stone from my body, but there is no way I could lose 3.5 stone from my bike as it only weighs 1.57 stone or 10kg.
of course, if you are a rider that is already at their ideal weight then a lighter bike, if they don't already have one is the only way to go if they really want to lose more weight.0 -
downhill paul wrote:Ai_1 wrote:Paul,
Your oblivious abuse of conversation offends me.
You make an assertion. It meets with disagreement and reasoned rebuttals. You say you didn't say what we think you said and then re-state that same position in a very slightly different way but still essentially as we had interpreted it. Further efforts are made to point out the failures of your argument and again you completely miss the point and again re-state your position. You are either a troll, you're not reading the posts or you simply don't understand the conversation. Either way it's a big waste of everyones time.
Would you care to give us your view/opinion on bike and rider weight?
I just don't see the point in having a light bike when with a little more effort, you can lose far more weight from your body. which costs nothing to do and is far more beneficial than a lighter bike. you can only lose so much weight from the bike its self, but you can lose as much weight as you like from your body. obviously there is also a limit to how much weight you can lose from your body before you start to sacrifice performance. but still you can lose more weight from your body than you can from your bike. which is why I said that a lighter rider is more beneficial than a lighter bike. I have already said that I weigh 14.5 stone, my ideal weight would be about 11. so I can lose 3.5 stone from my body, but there is no way I could lose 3.5 stone from my bike as it only weighs 1.57 stone or 10kg.
of course, if you are a rider that is already at their ideal weight then a lighter bike, if they don't already have one is the only way to go if they really want to lose more weight.
You're kidding aren't you?
There's no way this could possibly be a sincere response to the post from me that you've quoted.....right?
It's got to be a joke!0 -
downhill paul wrote:Ai_1 wrote:Paul,
Your oblivious abuse of conversation offends me.
I'm puzzled by the term 'abuse of conversation'. It's a bit like 'abuse of alcohol' which to me is missing your mouth or pouring beer on the pub floor.Ai_1 wrote:You make an assertion...
I just don't see the point in having a light bike when with a little more effort, you can lose far more weight from your body...
Help, I already weigh 63.9kg's how bloody skinny do you want me to be?seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Ai_1 wrote:downhill paul wrote:Ai_1 wrote:Paul,
Your oblivious abuse of conversation offends me.
You make an assertion. It meets with disagreement and reasoned rebuttals. You say you didn't say what we think you said and then re-state that same position in a very slightly different way but still essentially as we had interpreted it. Further efforts are made to point out the failures of your argument and again you completely miss the point and again re-state your position. You are either a troll, you're not reading the posts or you simply don't understand the conversation. Either way it's a big waste of everyones time.
Would you care to give us your view/opinion on bike and rider weight?
I just don't see the point in having a light bike when with a little more effort, you can lose far more weight from your body. which costs nothing to do and is far more beneficial than a lighter bike. you can only lose so much weight from the bike its self, but you can lose as much weight as you like from your body. obviously there is also a limit to how much weight you can lose from your body before you start to sacrifice performance. but still you can lose more weight from your body than you can from your bike. which is why I said that a lighter rider is more beneficial than a lighter bike. I have already said that I weigh 14.5 stone, my ideal weight would be about 11. so I can lose 3.5 stone from my body, but there is no way I could lose 3.5 stone from my bike as it only weighs 1.57 stone or 10kg.
of course, if you are a rider that is already at their ideal weight then a lighter bike, if they don't already have one is the only way to go if they really want to lose more weight.
You're kidding aren't you?
There's no way this could possibly be a sincere response to the post from me that you've quoted.....right?
It's got to be a joke!
I'm serious. if you think I am so wrong then feel free to correct me.0 -
downhill paul wrote:Ai_1 wrote:downhill paul wrote:Ai_1 wrote:Paul,
Your oblivious abuse of conversation offends me.
You make an assertion. It meets with disagreement and reasoned rebuttals. You say you didn't say what we think you said and then re-state that same position in a very slightly different way but still essentially as we had interpreted it. Further efforts are made to point out the failures of your argument and again you completely miss the point and again re-state your position. You are either a troll, you're not reading the posts or you simply don't understand the conversation. Either way it's a big waste of everyones time.
Would you care to give us your view/opinion on bike and rider weight?
I just don't see the point in having a light bike when with a little more effort, you can lose far more weight from your body. which costs nothing to do and is far more beneficial than a lighter bike. you can only lose so much weight from the bike its self, but you can lose as much weight as you like from your body. obviously there is also a limit to how much weight you can lose from your body before you start to sacrifice performance. but still you can lose more weight from your body than you can from your bike. which is why I said that a lighter rider is more beneficial than a lighter bike. I have already said that I weigh 14.5 stone, my ideal weight would be about 11. so I can lose 3.5 stone from my body, but there is no way I could lose 3.5 stone from my bike as it only weighs 1.57 stone or 10kg.
of course, if you are a rider that is already at their ideal weight then a lighter bike, if they don't already have one is the only way to go if they really want to lose more weight.
You're kidding aren't you?
There's no way this could possibly be a sincere response to the post from me that you've quoted.....right?
It's got to be a joke!
I'm serious. if you think I am so wrong then feel free to correct me.
If you put as much effort into your riding as you seem to your ill thought out argument then you'd soon lose that weight and be able to get that lighter bike.
And once more I'll state that a carbon bike isn't just about lightness - there's more to it than that.
My speed stepped up as soon as I bought a carbon bike - we know it's not the weight, the bike is the same geometry as my aluminum one, wheels may make a small difference, but there's a factor in there that's not quantifiable - that's the 'feel good' factor that encourages you to put just that little bit more effort in ... that's the major speed difference. Doesn't have to be a carbon bike - just one that is racier than the other one (it doesn't work if you buy a CX - I've tried it)0 -
How many times would you like me to do so? I have already told you why you are wrong on several occassions. You have not rebutted any of my comments. You've just re-stated your nonsense. This is the very topic of my previous post and then you respond with this.downhill paul wrote:Ai_1 wrote:downhill paul wrote:Ai_1 wrote:Paul,
Your oblivious abuse of conversation offends me.
You make an assertion. It meets with disagreement and reasoned rebuttals. You say you didn't say what we think you said and then re-state that same position in a very slightly different way but still essentially as we had interpreted it. Further efforts are made to point out the failures of your argument and again you completely miss the point and again re-state your position. You are either a troll, you're not reading the posts or you simply don't understand the conversation. Either way it's a big waste of everyones time.
Would you care to give us your view/opinion on bike and rider weight?
I just don't see the point in having a light bike when with a little more effort, you can lose far more weight from your body. which costs nothing to do and is far more beneficial than a lighter bike. you can only lose so much weight from the bike its self, but you can lose as much weight as you like from your body. obviously there is also a limit to how much weight you can lose from your body before you start to sacrifice performance. but still you can lose more weight from your body than you can from your bike. which is why I said that a lighter rider is more beneficial than a lighter bike. I have already said that I weigh 14.5 stone, my ideal weight would be about 11. so I can lose 3.5 stone from my body, but there is no way I could lose 3.5 stone from my bike as it only weighs 1.57 stone or 10kg.
of course, if you are a rider that is already at their ideal weight then a lighter bike, if they don't already have one is the only way to go if they really want to lose more weight.
You're kidding aren't you?
There's no way this could possibly be a sincere response to the post from me that you've quoted.....right?
It's got to be a joke!
I'm serious. if you think I am so wrong then feel free to correct me.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!!!0 -
If I lose weight I will be able to get a lighter bike?
does that mean someone is going to give me a lighter bike once I lose weight?
it doesn't matter what weight I am, if and when I feel the need for a lighter bike then I will get one.0 -
Please go away Paul0
-
Please tell me why I should.
I said I don't see the point of carbon/lightweight bikes and you think you have the right to order me to leave the forum? I think not.0 -
downhill paul wrote:Please tell me why I should.
I said I don't see the point of carbon/lightweight bikes and you think you have the right to order me to leave the forum? I think not.
You don't see the point in lightweight/carbon bikes yet every pro does, the stupidly high percentage majority does and the manufacturers do so at a guess, with an open mind, who do you think is wrong?!
Do you see the point in economical cars, progress or development?!
Some people are born with a chip on their shoulder...Giant Propel Advanced Pro 1 Disc 2020
Giant TCR Advanced SL 1 Disc 2020
Giant TCR Advanced 2 2020
Canyon Lux CF SL 7.0 2019
Canyon Spectral CF 7.0 2019
Canyon Speedmax CF 8.0 Di2 2020
Wattbike Atom V2
Garmin Edge 5300 -
So how many pro riders do we have on the forum? how many riders do we have on the forum who can really take full advantage of a lightweight carbon bike? probably very few, if any. of course, if you want to walk in to your LBS and walk out with several thousand pounds worth of lightweight carbon racing bike, I have no doubt that the salesman will be more than happy to point you in the direction of what you seek. they don't care if you are a pro rider buying a new bike before your next big race, or if you are just an average rider who has a lot of money to spend on a new bike.
I wasn't born with a chip on my shoulder, I'm simply making a point.0 -
Seems to me that you have light bike/carbon bike/expensive bike envy, and you just want to justify your heavier bike.
Personally I think a light bike is a big advantage for a heavier or lighter rider.
Seems cruel to make fat people ride heavy bikes lol.
Lose weight from both. The two are not linked unless you go over weight limits.
I weigh 14 stone and trust me........ my 16lb bike rides a lot nicer/faster than my 21lb bike.
Not sure how much more weight I could lose, but fcuk if I am going to wait around and do it on a heavy bike.
Don't live in denial. Get a light bike if you can/want one or stick with your heavier one and stop moaning about it!
Is your bike the perfect weight then? Why not sell it and get a cheaper heavier one :roll:0 -
downhill paul wrote:So how many pro riders do we have on the forum? how many riders do we have on the forum who can really take full advantage of a lightweight carbon bike? probably very few, if any. of course, if you want to walk in to your LBS and walk out with several thousand pounds worth of lightweight carbon racing bike, I have no doubt that the salesman will be more than happy to point you in the direction of what you seek. they don't care if you are a pro rider buying a new bike before your next big race, or if you are just an average rider who has a lot of money to spend on a new bike.
I wasn't born with a chip on my shoulder, I'm simply making a point.
I'm a 70KG 2nd cat, not a 'pro' by any stretch of the imagination but I spend a lot of time on bikes and race them.
I have an aluminium training bike weighing around 9.5kg and a carbon 'race bike' that tips the scales at 6.75kg.
The carbon bike is so much better in pretty much every way, stiffness, responsiveness and weight. Its also more comfortable to ride and faster up climbs. Yes, it's much more expensive but you're pretty much wrong about alu. It's a fine material and I do hundreds of miles a week on it, however, carbon is a better material for a bike frame for many reasons. My next training frame will be carbon because alu really doesn't dampen enough on 100 mile base rides and is too flexy.
I don't give a rats behind about 'average speed' on my training sessions because I ride to power...a watt is a watt to me so my choice to switch to carbon next time is based on all the other merits of carbon.
If you look around the start line of an E/1/2 race you bet your backside everyone but Madison Genesis will be riding carbon and most of those people have to pay for their own gear and know a thing or two about riding hard.0 -
If alu is too flexy and doesn't dampen enough you won't want this CAAD 10 I was going to give you then?
Obviously not good enough for 2nd Cat lads either.Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
I am not trying to justify my heavier bike and I certainly don't have light bike/carbon bike/expensive bike envy.
I did ride quite a few carbon bikes belonging to friends before I settled on the bike I have now.
as light as the carbon bikes were, and they were slightly faster. but because of my extra weight I couldn't really tell that much difference. so in a case such as this, I believe that being lighter myself will be more beneficial than being slightly over weight and riding a lighter bike. of course once I have lost all the weight that I want to, buying a lighter bike will be the only move I can make.
I know it may seem like I hate carbon bikes but I don't. I just don't see the point of them in certain situations.0
