Will a lighter bike benefit me?
Comments
-
bernithebiker wrote:Always take quoted bike weights with a pinch of salt.....
Don't do this.
Everybody knows salt rots carbon, that's why everyone has a "winter" bike.0 -
noodleman wrote:This whole 'bottles of water and tools' statement that keeps coming up is funny. If you put bottles and tools on a light bike and claim the benefit is gone, do you not put bottles and tools on the heavier bike then??
But if the bike weighs 5kg and you put 3Kg of kit on it - then say a 1kg saving is now only 12.5% of the bike weight.
If the bike weight 5Kg and you don't bother with any extras - then the 1kg saving is now 20% of the bike weight.
(so put the bottles and tools in your back pockets for maximum effect....)0 -
I just spent the winter on a 1989 7 speed steelie. Tube shifters and the original stock wheels, it weighed in at 12.7kg (28lb) :shock: .
I was as fast on it as I am on my 7.3kg (16lb) carbon bike.
Perhaps I burned more calories but I certainly didn't feel any the worse for it.
I am looking at a new bike, weight is a consideration, but definitely the deciding factor.0 -
In all fairness the Trek website quotes 7.5kg for a 56 Emonda, so the weight claims are very accurate, maybe the weights stated above are for the SLR?
As far as a lighter bike being quicker I'm sitting firmly in the yes camp, my winter bike is a 2012 defy 1 with full mudguards and lights etc and that weighs 9.8 kg, the Emonda feels hugely different when going uphill (but it is 2kg lighter). On the flats it "seems" easier to sustain a good pace although this may be down to the plush ride the carbon frame gives over the aluminium.0 -
These days I always ride everywhere with 2 empty water bottles mounted - it means my bike is 1.5kg lighter!mamil314 wrote:Stormtrooper wrote:What differance does bike weight make?
By the time you have two full bottles of fluid, saddle bag with spare tube, levers, air cartridge and even a puncture kit as back up.
Plus food to keep yourself going and then your big heavy a*# sat on the saddle, by the time you add these things, unless your racing and you don't need them does a bike weight really matter?
Seriously, the water bottles argument, again? Does your body lose requirement to hydrate when on light bike?
To prevent dehydration I carry a couple of full water bottles in my jersey pockets.0 -
ddni wrote:I just spent the winter on a 1989 7 speed steelie. Tube shifters and the original stock wheels, it weighed in at 12.7kg (28lb) :shock: .
I was as fast on it as I am on my 7.3kg (16lb) carbon bike.
Perhaps I burned more calories but I certainly didn't feel any the worse for it.
I am looking at a new bike, weight is a consideration, but definitely the deciding factor.
Did you go up many hills?0 -
noodleman wrote:This whole 'bottles of water and tools' statement that keeps coming up is funny. If you put bottles and tools on a light bike and claim the benefit is gone, do you not put bottles and tools on the heavier bike then??
The point they are making is the large expense of buying a lighter bike which has limited effect on weight loss. Fine if you are a pro competing at the margins or ride long distances, at speed in very hilly terrain but for most riders more of a nice to have.0 -
Kajjal wrote:noodleman wrote:This whole 'bottles of water and tools' statement that keeps coming up is funny. If you put bottles and tools on a light bike and claim the benefit is gone, do you not put bottles and tools on the heavier bike then??
The point they are making is the large expense of buying a lighter bike which has limited effect on weight loss. Fine if you are a pro competing at the margins or ride long distances, at speed in very hilly terrain but for most riders more of a nice to have.
Eh? A lighter bike has limited effect on weight loss?? The point i'm making is that people seem to forget you still need the same tools and fluid on a light bike as you do on a heavy one. A six kilo bike with two bottles of water will still be way nicer and cause less fatigue on a ride with 8000ft of climbing than a 9 kilo bike with two bottles of water :?argon 18 e116 2013 Vision Metron 80
Bianchi Oltre XR Sram Red E-tap, Fulcrum racing speed xlr
De Rosa SK pininfarina disc
S Works Tarmac e-tap 2017
Rose pro sl disc0 -
The bottles argument is irrelevant. You're going to need the same bottles, kit, and everything else on a light bike as you do on a heavy bike. So the weight advantage of a lighter bike is there no matter how you measure it.
Will it make the OP faster? Not by much, but does it matter? It will certainly be nicer to ride, and bikes that a nicer to ride encourage you to push them harder - which *will* make them faster!0 -
bernithebiker wrote:ddni wrote:I just spent the winter on a 1989 7 speed steelie. Tube shifters and the original stock wheels, it weighed in at 12.7kg (28lb) :shock: .
I was as fast on it as I am on my 7.3kg (16lb) carbon bike.
Perhaps I burned more calories but I certainly didn't feel any the worse for it.
I am looking at a new bike, weight is a consideration, but definitely the deciding factor.
Did you go up many hills?
Yes! I live in an extremely hilly part of the UK.0 -
ddni wrote:bernithebiker wrote:ddni wrote:I just spent the winter on a 1989 7 speed steelie. Tube shifters and the original stock wheels, it weighed in at 12.7kg (28lb) :shock: .
I was as fast on it as I am on my 7.3kg (16lb) carbon bike.
Perhaps I burned more calories but I certainly didn't feel any the worse for it.
I am looking at a new bike, weight is a consideration, but definitely the deciding factor.
Did you go up many hills?
Yes! I live in an extremely hilly part of the UK.
OK, well each 100m of climbing cost you 980 x 5.4 = 5292 extra joules of energy on the heavier bike.0 -
bernithebiker wrote:ddni wrote:bernithebiker wrote:ddni wrote:I just spent the winter on a 1989 7 speed steelie. Tube shifters and the original stock wheels, it weighed in at 12.7kg (28lb) :shock: .
I was as fast on it as I am on my 7.3kg (16lb) carbon bike.
Perhaps I burned more calories but I certainly didn't feel any the worse for it.
I am looking at a new bike, weight is a consideration, but definitely the deciding factor.
Did you go up many hills?
Yes! I live in an extremely hilly part of the UK.
OK, well each 100m of climbing cost you 980 x 5.4 = 5292 extra joules of energy on the heavier bike.
5292 joules = 1.2 kilocalories so a thousand metres climbing cost me an extra 12 kilocalories over a lighter bike? Not much extra really.
Still good to know thanks. Perhaps that's why the Christmas pudding didn't stick to me this year!
Cycling Majorca in September!
0 -
Always good to see the same tired old arguments trotted out.....;-)
A lighter bike will handle better and accelerate faster than a heavier one. Lighter wheels can also feel a bit less planted on descents so it's not always goodness. Acceleration counts on climbs and general riding, it doesn't make much difference (if any) to holding speed on the flat. My nice bike is 2kg lighter than my winter bike, it's much more fun to ride, partially due to the weight, partially due to the nice expensive groupset, wheels, etc, that are on it.
Ignore the plonkers who discount weight by talking about water bottles, taking a dump, carrying less tools, etc, etc. All of those things you can do on whatever bike you are on so they are neutral, what you can't do is magically take 300grammes of weight off the bike frame. Whether weight savings are worth it to you entirely depends on your propensity to spend money, chasing marginal weight losses gets expensive quickly for fairly minimal benefit. But to pretend the benefit isn't real is a tad inane.
Unless you are commuting up Ventoux everyday then most of us would get considerably more benefit from focusing on an aero position though, which is free but involves less shiny carbon stuff ;-)0 -
^ a very well written reply ;-)
It's slightly contradictory though in saying the money spent gives minimal benefits as it becomes expensive.
To speed/performance perhaps, but as you said, every single pedal stroke is more enjoyable.
If you enjoy cycling that's close to priceless IMO.0 -
For the £600 being discussed here =- you'd be able to have a great week cycling abroad. Sunshine and warmth and smooth roads. I'd vote that....0
-
Fenix wrote:For the £600 being discussed here =- you'd be able to have a great week cycling abroad. Sunshine and warmth and smooth roads. I'd vote that....
In fact, I hear that for that money you can get a 5* hotel cycle tour in Mallorca....
0
