8kg - thoughts

124

Comments

  • bernithebiker
    bernithebiker Posts: 4,148
    Paul - question; if I made you right your next sportive with 2 bags of sugar in your back pockets, I'm guessing you'd be pretty cheesed off right?

    This is effectively what you are doing every day by riding your 10kg bike instead of an 8kg one.
  • ai_1
    ai_1 Posts: 3,060
    Paul

    The problem is you keep saying the same thing for no apparent reason instead of addressing the arguments put to you. No-one has disagreed with you that a rider carrying extra weight may be able to lose more weight than the bike. However you are taking your personal preference (i.e. that you will not consider a lighter bike until you lose any possible excess body weight) and claiming that it is the only logical way to proceed. It is not. It's an arbitrary choice based on personal circumstance and priorities. You have failed dismally to appreciate this or deal with the reasoned responses from myself and others pointing this out. I should have stopped responding by now, as I'm clearly wasting my time but I'm intrigued by your thought process or lack thereof and would really like to read some response from you that does not sound like an answering machine and actually indicates you're willing and able to look outside your bubble. Is that too much to ask?
  • downhill paul
    downhill paul Posts: 236
    I do understand the benefits of lighter bikes. but for someone who weighs as much as I do right now, spending the extra money on a lighter bike seems pointless. I would love a carbon bike that is as light as possible. even though with a few more weeks of saving I could easily afford one, I know deep down that I am not light enough or fast enough to make the most of a lighter carbon bike. as it stands, if i continue training and losing weight on a heavier bike, when I am light enough and fast enough and I do buy a lighter bike, it will make so much more difference than it would if I had a lighter bike now.
  • drlodge
    drlodge Posts: 4,826
    Train on a heavy bike, race on a light one! There's more to a bike than weight.

    My "expensive" [non-carbon] bike weighs 8kg. Its a good weight, and as fast as a fast BSO thing.
    WyndyMilla Massive Attack | Rourke 953 | Condor Italia 531 Pro | Boardman CX Pro | DT Swiss RR440 Tubeless Wheels
    Find me on Strava
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,380
    I do not do the miles that justify a super Italian thoroughbred carbon machine with Campag Super Record 11 and Eurus wheels plug plug plug

    But I don't give a monkeys. The difference from jumping off the winter bike and on to the summer machine is incredible. I look forward to it every spring.
    I have been cycling twentyeleventythirty years now and I am no fitter than what I was 5 years ago but my average speed is 3mph quicker than then - all because the steel frame got ditched for an alu frame which led to a carbon bike and the odd wheel upgrade. Technology, I just love it. Buying bike bits is nearly as good as sex (well).
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • ai_1
    ai_1 Posts: 3,060
    edited May 2014
    downhill paul wrote:
    I do understand the benefits of lighter bikes. but for someone who weighs as much as I do right now, spending the extra money on a lighter bike seems pointless. I would love a carbon bike that is as light as possible. even though with a few more weeks of saving I could easily afford one, I know deep down that I am not light enough or fast enough to make the most of a lighter carbon bike. as it stands, if i continue training and losing weight on a heavier bike, when I am light enough and fast enough and I do buy a lighter bike, it will make so much more difference than it would if I had a lighter bike now.
    Yayyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!

    Now this is more or less the appropriate clarification which we've been asking for since the first page of the thread when you posted this:
    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.
    Your original statement, as written, was nonsense.
    Your more recent version is perfectly reasonable.

    Finally we know what you really meant!
  • drlodge
    drlodge Posts: 4,826
    pinarello001 wrote:
    Technology, I just love it. Buying bike bits is nearly as good as sex (well).

    Its not buying the bits, its using them surely? I practically creamed my pants on Sunday with my deep carbon tubs fitted, hammering along at 35mph on the flat :D
    WyndyMilla Massive Attack | Rourke 953 | Condor Italia 531 Pro | Boardman CX Pro | DT Swiss RR440 Tubeless Wheels
    Find me on Strava
  • downhill paul
    downhill paul Posts: 236
    drlodge wrote:
    Train on a heavy bike, race on a light one! There's more to a bike than weight.

    My "expensive" [non-carbon] bike weighs 8kg. Its a good weight, and as fast as a fast BSO thing.

    That is exactly what I am doing. although I haven't entered that many races and I don't have a lighter bike to race on.
  • ai_1
    ai_1 Posts: 3,060
    pinarello001 wrote:
    Buying bike bits is nearly as good as sex
    I suspect you're doing it wrong
  • drlodge
    drlodge Posts: 4,826
    Ai_1 wrote:
    pinarello001 wrote:
    Buying bike bits is nearly as good as sex
    I suspect you're doing it wrong

    Are you referring to the buying, or the "other"? :wink:
    WyndyMilla Massive Attack | Rourke 953 | Condor Italia 531 Pro | Boardman CX Pro | DT Swiss RR440 Tubeless Wheels
    Find me on Strava
  • ai_1
    ai_1 Posts: 3,060
    drlodge wrote:
    Ai_1 wrote:
    pinarello001 wrote:
    Buying bike bits is nearly as good as sex
    I suspect you're doing it wrong

    Are you referring to the buying, or the "other"? :wink:
    Yes!
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,380
    Ai_1 wrote:
    drlodge wrote:
    Ai_1 wrote:
    pinarello001 wrote:
    Buying bike bits is nearly as good as sex
    I suspect you're doing it wrong

    Are you referring to the buying, or the "other"? :wink:

    Yes!
    Don't tell me you have failed to notice the Wiggle Honda team ? :roll:
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • downhill paul
    downhill paul Posts: 236
    Ai_1 wrote:
    downhill paul wrote:
    I do understand the benefits of lighter bikes. but for someone who weighs as much as I do right now, spending the extra money on a lighter bike seems pointless. I would love a carbon bike that is as light as possible. even though with a few more weeks of saving I could easily afford one, I know deep down that I am not light enough or fast enough to make the most of a lighter carbon bike. as it stands, if i continue training and losing weight on a heavier bike, when I am light enough and fast enough and I do buy a lighter bike, it will make so much more difference than it would if I had a lighter bike now.
    Yayyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!

    Now this is more or less the appropriate clarification which we've been asking for since the first page of the thread when you posted this:
    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.
    Your original statement, as written, was nonsense.
    Your more recent version is perfectly reasonable.

    Finally we know what you really meant!

    I've said the same thing quite a few times. ok so my first post may have been a bit misleading.
    I have nothing against light bikes or people who ride them, and I do understand why people ride light bikes.
    but if you have a slightly heavier rider such as myself, it will be more of an advantage to lose weight from your body first. then once you are at your ideal weight, the only other thing you can lose weight from is the bike.
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    pinarello001 wrote:
    Ai_1 wrote:
    drlodge wrote:
    Ai_1 wrote:
    pinarello001 wrote:
    Buying bike bits is nearly as good as sex
    I suspect you're doing it wrong

    Are you referring to the buying, or the "other"? :wink:

    Yes!
    Don't tell me you have failed to notice the Wiggle Honda team ? :roll:

    If you buy some Wiggle Honda shorts and wear them - does that mean you've got into their knickers?! :o
  • downhill paul
    downhill paul Posts: 236
    pinarello001 wrote:
    Ai_1 wrote:
    drlodge wrote:
    Ai_1 wrote:
    pinarello001 wrote:
    Buying bike bits is nearly as good as sex
    I suspect you're doing it wrong

    Are you referring to the buying, or the "other"? :wink:

    Yes!
    Don't tell me you have failed to notice the Wiggle Honda team ? :roll:

    My girlfriend has just bought the full Wiggle Honda team kit. aren't I a lucky boy :D
  • ai_1
    ai_1 Posts: 3,060
    downhill paul wrote:
    ....but if you have a slightly heavier rider such as myself, it will be more of an advantage to lose weight from your body first. then once you are at your ideal weight, the only other thing you can lose weight from is the bike.
    There is no reason, besides personal preference, for waiting until you are at your "ideal weight" to get a lighter bike. Why is it "more of an advantage to lose weight from your body first"? In performance terms this is not true. There is more advantage in doing both simultaneously. Having a lighter bike gives immediate benefits and need not impact your weight loss which can proceed just as it would have if you stuck with the heavier bike. You can get a lighter bike while you are losing weight and have the benefits from day one or you can wait and treat yourself with a lighter bike later and get the advantage then. There is something to be said for delayed gratification but if that's what you're talking about it's not clear.
  • ai_1
    ai_1 Posts: 3,060
    pinarello001 wrote:
    Ai_1 wrote:
    drlodge wrote:
    Ai_1 wrote:
    pinarello001 wrote:
    Buying bike bits is nearly as good as sex
    I suspect you're doing it wrong

    Are you referring to the buying, or the "other"? :wink:

    Yes!
    Don't tell me you have failed to notice the Wiggle Honda team ? :roll:
    You bought the Wiggle Honda team? I think that's illegal!
  • downhill paul
    downhill paul Posts: 236
    Ai_1 wrote:
    downhill paul wrote:
    ....but if you have a slightly heavier rider such as myself, it will be more of an advantage to lose weight from your body first. then once you are at your ideal weight, the only other thing you can lose weight from is the bike.
    There is no reason, besides personal preference, for waiting until you are at your "ideal weight" to get a lighter bike. Why is it "more of an advantage to lose weight from your body first"? In performance terms this is not true. There is more advantage in doing both simultaneously. Having a lighter bike gives immediate benefits and need not impact your weight loss which can proceed just as it would have if you stuck with the heavier bike. You can get a lighter bike while you are losing weight and have the benefits from day one or you can wait and treat yourself with a lighter bike later and get the advantage then. There is something to be said for delayed gratification but if that's what you're talking about it's not clear.

    I guess it must just be personal preference.
    I can see the benefits of a light rider and a light bike. I don't mean that a lighter bike will offer no benefit to a heavier rider, but a lighter bike will be of more benefit to a lighter rider.
  • ai_1
    ai_1 Posts: 3,060
    downhill paul wrote:
    Ai_1 wrote:
    downhill paul wrote:
    ....but if you have a slightly heavier rider such as myself, it will be more of an advantage to lose weight from your body first. then once you are at your ideal weight, the only other thing you can lose weight from is the bike.
    There is no reason, besides personal preference, for waiting until you are at your "ideal weight" to get a lighter bike. Why is it "more of an advantage to lose weight from your body first"? In performance terms this is not true. There is more advantage in doing both simultaneously. Having a lighter bike gives immediate benefits and need not impact your weight loss which can proceed just as it would have if you stuck with the heavier bike. You can get a lighter bike while you are losing weight and have the benefits from day one or you can wait and treat yourself with a lighter bike later and get the advantage then. There is something to be said for delayed gratification but if that's what you're talking about it's not clear.

    I guess it must just be personal preference.
    I can see the benefits of a light rider and a light bike. I don't mean that a lighter bike will offer no benefit to a heavier rider, but a lighter bike will be of more benefit to a lighter rider.
    True. And if the weight doesn't harm the enjoyment you get from riding your bike then it doesn't matter what it weighs!
  • mfin
    mfin Posts: 6,729
    I rode past a group of 8 cycling on flash bikes on Sunday and not a single one of them could have been under 15 stone, not a chance. 6 of them had 50mm carbon deep sections and 2 were wearing Sky kit. But live and let live, the only real crime on show was the Sky kit, the 15 stone, and the 50mm deep sections.

    I would say "at least they were out exercising" but I don't really care if the general population exercises or not.
  • ai_1
    ai_1 Posts: 3,060
    mfin wrote:
    I rode past a group of 8 cycling on flash bikes on Sunday and not a single one of them could have been under 15 stone, not a chance. 6 of them had 50mm carbon deep sections and 2 were wearing Sky kit. But live and let live, the only real crime on show was the Sky kit, the 15 stone, and the 50mm deep sections.

    I would say "at least they were out exercising" but I don't really care if the general population exercises or not.
    To be honest there's nothing wrong with any of that. Personally I wouldn't wear sponsors names unless they were paying me but that's nothing to do with weight.
  • downhill paul
    downhill paul Posts: 236
    Ai_1 wrote:
    mfin wrote:
    I rode past a group of 8 cycling on flash bikes on Sunday and not a single one of them could have been under 15 stone, not a chance. 6 of them had 50mm carbon deep sections and 2 were wearing Sky kit. But live and let live, the only real crime on show was the Sky kit, the 15 stone, and the 50mm deep sections.

    I would say "at least they were out exercising" but I don't really care if the general population exercises or not.
    To be honest there's nothing wrong with any of that. Personally I wouldn't wear sponsors names unless they were paying me but that's nothing to do with weight.

    That does make a lot of sense.
    I stopped wearing my discovery channel kit for similar reasons.
    also because of my size. at 14.5 stone it would take more than a team kit to make me look like a pro rider.
    not that I do try to look like a pro rider. as I said my weight is a dead give away that I am not a pro rider.
  • keef66
    keef66 Posts: 13,123
    mfin wrote:
    I rode past a group of 8 cycling on flash bikes on Sunday and not a single one of them could have been under 15 stone, not a chance. 6 of them had 50mm carbon deep sections and 2 were wearing Sky kit. But live and let live, the only real crime on show was the Sky kit, the 15 stone, and the 50mm deep sections.

    I would say "at least they were out exercising" but I don't really care if the general population exercises or not.

    You should do; it's costing us a small fortune we don't have treating the obesity epidemic.
  • mfin
    mfin Posts: 6,729
    keef66 wrote:
    mfin wrote:
    I rode past a group of 8 cycling on flash bikes on Sunday and not a single one of them could have been under 15 stone, not a chance. 6 of them had 50mm carbon deep sections and 2 were wearing Sky kit. But live and let live, the only real crime on show was the Sky kit, the 15 stone, and the 50mm deep sections.

    I would say "at least they were out exercising" but I don't really care if the general population exercises or not.

    You should do; it's costing us a small fortune we don't have treating the obesity epidemic.

    Oh I dunno, a lot of people who are really overweight have got there more through eating than lack of exercise. Exercise is good but it's not the only answer by a mile, a couple less portions of chips a day, not having a cake every time you have a drink, or not eating a bucket of ice cream after every meal tends to have more effect on weight than piddling around burning the odd 1000 calories each weekend on a bike.
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,380
    @Ai1 and downhill paul - haven't you two kissed and made up yet? We are now on the subject of the Wiggle Honda team and you're still at it :shock:

    @ Can we have some pics of the aforesaid in her Wiggle Honda outfit?
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • downhill paul
    downhill paul Posts: 236
    pinarello001 wrote:
    @Ai1 and downhill paul - haven't you two kissed and made up yet? We are now on the subject of the Wiggle Honda team and you're still at it :shock:

    @ Can we have some pics of the aforesaid in her Wiggle Honda outfit?

    We aren't still at it at all.
    no. my girlfriend is for my eyes only.
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    edited May 2014
    downhill paul wrote:
    I have nothing against light bikes or people who ride them, and I do understand why people ride light bikes.
    but if you have a slightly heavier rider such as myself, it will be more of an advantage to lose weight from your body first. then once you are at your ideal weight, the only other thing you can lose weight from is the bike.

    More of an advantage for what? Your (ones) wallet?

    If you feel that way surely you would have said something like:
    'I really want a light bike but I am not getting one until I have lost x stone'
    Instead of:
    "I really do not understand this obsession with light bikes"

    So what is the weight loss/light bike upgrade plan exactly then?
    What weight are you going to be by what date, and how light a bike are you getting when you get there?

    Have you lost any weight to date (i.e. were you heavier)?

    Sounds a pain to link body weight to bike weight unless its a prize for reaching a goal.
    Keeping them separate makes more sense to me.
    Get the best/lightest bike you want/can and get as fit/lean as you can whilst riding it.
  • dilatory
    dilatory Posts: 565
    My CAAD10 arrived today. 7.9kg with pedals, cages, empty bottles and Garmin. Will be quite the leap from my previous 13.6kg monster.
  • downhill paul
    downhill paul Posts: 236
    edited May 2014
    I was just over 15 stone, now I am 14.5 stone. playing around with bike fit over the last few weeks revealed that my saddle was too low and too far back. now I am much more comfortable on my bike which will make longer rides more enjoyable. I'm not sure how long it will take me to lose the weight I want, but I'm hoping to be at least 12 stone, maybe 11 at a push. the bike I have in mind is the specialized allez race. I like the feel and fit of the allez, plus I also like the 105 groupset. if I was going for carbon, which I still might, I would have the tarmac SL4 elite.
    I took a roubaix for a test ride before I got my allez. I didn't like the bike that much, I could feel the frame flexing while accelerating and climbing out of the saddle, but I fell in love with the 105 groupset.
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    dilatory wrote:
    My CAAD10 arrived today. 7.9kg with pedals, cages, empty bottles and Garmin. Will be quite the leap from my previous 13.6kg monster.

    30lb :shock: What was it? A TDF?

Categories