For exercise/fitness, wouldn't you want the HEAVIEST bike you could get?
CesspoolCyclist
Posts: 4
Who is correct, me or the BikePurist?
Me:
I don’t understand the point of a featherweight bike, unless you are in the Tour De France. If you’re not in a timed race, the entire concept of a “race” bike seems pointless. Why do cubicle worker types go for bike rides? If it’s for exercise, it seems counterproductive to have a light/fast bike. For exercise, you want a $100 WalMart mountain bike, which will give you a better workout.
=================================
BikePurist:
Not true. If it's a workout you want, you want to be on a bike with proper geometry that allows you to get into a rhythm. As far as weight, the single most important parts are the wheels (due to the increased impact of rotational inertia on speed). Light, aero wheels allow for faster acceleration up hills and more momentum in the flats, which also aids a sustainable rhythm for longer distances. That said, it is true that the importance of low weight is overrated in most other (non moving) parts of the bike. Im sure you can cover a hundred miles on your 100 dollar Walmart huffy. And if you're really fit, you might even be fast. Just be prepared for some major body pain and a week long recovery.
=================================
Me:
What? You can’t get into a rhythm on a cheap bike? Sounds like marketing BS. Why does a cheap bike necessarily have “bad geometry”? Cheap bike maker can clone any geometry they want.
There are 2 very distinct and contradicting use cases for a bicycle: If I wanted to travel as far as I could (using bike to commute to work, or as a legitimate transportation vehicle), then I’d want the lightest bike I can get, to increase range.
But, for fitness and exercise, I’d want the heaviest bike I can get. The only situation I can see a lighter bike yielding a better workout is when the hill is TOO steep to be traversed by a heavy bike, and you need to walk it.
Then a light bike works better since you can actually ride it up the hill.
Otherwise, it seems like its analogous to putting the treadmill on 3.0 At this speed, it takes very little effort, just like it takes less effort to move a light bike. A light bike will be easier to pedal, thus yielding a less efficient workout. So, to get the same workout on a 3.0, you’d have to jog for hours compared to putting the treadmill on 6.0 or 8.0 (riding a heavier bike)
Even for pro bikers who are training, it seems the most logical training bike would be the heaviest bike you can find. Just like putting those donut weights on the baseball bat when you’re in the on deck circle.
Just be prepared for some major body pain and a week long recovery.
Yea, isn’t that kind of the point? I’d rather ride the tank Huffy for 1 hour than to ride the AeroSpace bike for 6 hours to get the same calories burned. Less is more!
Me:
I don’t understand the point of a featherweight bike, unless you are in the Tour De France. If you’re not in a timed race, the entire concept of a “race” bike seems pointless. Why do cubicle worker types go for bike rides? If it’s for exercise, it seems counterproductive to have a light/fast bike. For exercise, you want a $100 WalMart mountain bike, which will give you a better workout.
=================================
BikePurist:
Not true. If it's a workout you want, you want to be on a bike with proper geometry that allows you to get into a rhythm. As far as weight, the single most important parts are the wheels (due to the increased impact of rotational inertia on speed). Light, aero wheels allow for faster acceleration up hills and more momentum in the flats, which also aids a sustainable rhythm for longer distances. That said, it is true that the importance of low weight is overrated in most other (non moving) parts of the bike. Im sure you can cover a hundred miles on your 100 dollar Walmart huffy. And if you're really fit, you might even be fast. Just be prepared for some major body pain and a week long recovery.
=================================
Me:
What? You can’t get into a rhythm on a cheap bike? Sounds like marketing BS. Why does a cheap bike necessarily have “bad geometry”? Cheap bike maker can clone any geometry they want.
There are 2 very distinct and contradicting use cases for a bicycle: If I wanted to travel as far as I could (using bike to commute to work, or as a legitimate transportation vehicle), then I’d want the lightest bike I can get, to increase range.
But, for fitness and exercise, I’d want the heaviest bike I can get. The only situation I can see a lighter bike yielding a better workout is when the hill is TOO steep to be traversed by a heavy bike, and you need to walk it.
Then a light bike works better since you can actually ride it up the hill.
Otherwise, it seems like its analogous to putting the treadmill on 3.0 At this speed, it takes very little effort, just like it takes less effort to move a light bike. A light bike will be easier to pedal, thus yielding a less efficient workout. So, to get the same workout on a 3.0, you’d have to jog for hours compared to putting the treadmill on 6.0 or 8.0 (riding a heavier bike)
Even for pro bikers who are training, it seems the most logical training bike would be the heaviest bike you can find. Just like putting those donut weights on the baseball bat when you’re in the on deck circle.
Just be prepared for some major body pain and a week long recovery.
Yea, isn’t that kind of the point? I’d rather ride the tank Huffy for 1 hour than to ride the AeroSpace bike for 6 hours to get the same calories burned. Less is more!
0
Comments
-
Power output is the important metric for training stress. Putting out 300W for an hour on a heavy bike will yield pretty much the same training effect as putting out 300W on a flyweight. Only you'll go farther, faster, see more of the countryside, and generally have a far more pleasant experience riding the lighter bike ;-)0
-
So many misconceptions in one post....0
-
Clearly the bikepurist is the correct one because they are out riding their bike not spamming various cycling forums with this shite!0
-
A heavy poorly setup bike with low quality components will be hard work to ride, not give you the best workout and potentially give you injuries.
A good quality bike that is properly setup will allow you to concentrate on riding without having to fight the bike. You will also go faster / further while being able to consistently push yourself closer to your limits than on an ill fitting heavy bike.0 -
Get a light bike, ride faster for the same given effort and you can work on your bike handling while you're at it.
#endthread.0 -
Better to set brakes to rub and go out only when there is a raging headwind to ride into0
-
Here is what another friend said:
I understand what you're saying about how it seems that cheap and heavy bikes should be a better workout, but it doesn't actually work that way in reality. Those cheap bikes are so ill-fitting and awful to ride, that it's difficult to sit on them for long enough to get a good workout. The way you get a good workout on a bike is to have a decent bike that fits properly and works well, then ride it as fast on the flats and/or as far uphill as much you can handle. It doesn't have to be a form of ass torture to be a good workout.
I also ride not just for the exercise, but to be outside and see beautiful places under my own power, and because it's fun. A lot of the road bikes you see people riding aren't actually "race" bikes, in that they're not a good choice for "racing" (keep in mind there are many different types of road racing), but they're a good choice for the type of distance riding that person wants to do.0 -
Why does a cheap heavy bike automatically fit so poorly? Don't they have things like seat adjustment and various frame sizes also?0
-
If it's a cheap heavy bike with rack eyes, you could carry some panniers full of bricks0
-
Even better, carry the bike, the panniers, the bricks and run. Preferably in bare feet on broken glass.Simon Masterson wrote:If it's a cheap heavy bike with rack eyes, you could carry some panniers full of bricks
That would be a proper workout.0 -
I do alot of training on a properly set up commutor that weighes 16kg. To ride it quickly takes real effort and i find it hard to match that effort on my race bike. Sometimes you just cant ride too quickly due to conditions.
The bike purist has talked nonsense from start to finish. Rotational mass my ..... how many times does that have to be debunked.
Cheap nasty bikes are no good for training. For training buy a well fitted bike that has reliable kit. Add a rack and panniers and ride. On your way around you can buy eggs jam e.t.c that what i do. Also those days you ride to work carrying your weeks clothes with you you geta real workout on hills. Given the pace is generally low if you run tallish gearing then every hill beckme low cadance strength training. This is why i use a 53/39T chainset and a 13-26T cassette.http://www.thecycleclinic.co.uk -wheel building and other stuff.0 -
For swimming, they have a "parachute" device that is used in training to create additional drag. Along those lines, I figure that a cyclist who's training could buy a child trailer and put a cinder block in it... that way he could ride his high-end bike, but still get a crazy, heavy bike workout :-D Of course, don't do this on a hilly course as one's brakes won't like work so hot :shock:0
-
While you're at it, go for a long walk in the mountains with a few bricks in your rucksack. Much better training that way.0
-
Riding a lighter bike is more enjoyable than riding a heavier one, so I ride more because of that.
That's all I've got.Carrera Subway 2015
Boardman Hybrid Team 20140 -
thumbs up, agree totallyOmar Little wrote:Clearly the bikepurist is the correct one because they are out riding their bike not spamming various cycling forums with this shite!All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....0 -
Sleeper Service wrote:Riding a lighter bike is more enjoyable than riding a heavier one, so I ride more because of that.
That's all I've got.
And that's exactly the reason. A lighter bike is one which is nicer to ride, you enjoy riding it more, so you push it harder, so you end up getting better training that way, that's all there is to it.0 -
Sleeper Service wrote:Riding a lighter bike is more enjoyable than riding a heavier one, so I ride more because of that.
That's all I've got.
And that's exactly the reason. A lighter bike is one which is nicer to ride, you enjoy riding it more, so you push it harder, so you end up getting better training that way, that's all there is to it.0 -
Keen amateurs will appreciate and enjoy riding a good qualtiy bike. Usually, a good quality bike will be lighter and maybe have some aero considerations. However, most will have some concession to real world utility. The answer to getting fit, is to enjoy the process, because it is a long term thing that you need to stick to. Riding around on a tank isn't much fun.
I don't think you have to engage too many brain cells to see why the pro's wouldn't train on a purposefully heavy and slow bike. The pro's do make some concessions to utility when training, but ultimately, I would think that they want to train on something very close to their race bike.0 -
Alex99 wrote:Riding around on a tank isn't much fun.
Actually this isn't so. There's nothing wrong with a good quality, heavy bike - but we assume that a heavy bike won't be good quality and it is poor quality bikes that aren't much fun. Last summer I spent three months cycling from Yorkshire to the North Cape on a touring bike that, loaded, weighed over 35kg. It was fun to ride. Infact, after a while I wasn't consciously aware that I was riding a bike any heavier than my lightweight carbon bike. I rode the same cadences and I was on the road for the same amount of time as I'd normally ride - the only difference was I wasn't getting as far in a day!
On a linear road trip through Norway that relative lack of distance doesn't matter at all - but of course, if you are doing loops from home, a faster bike gets you further which means far more variety of places to go. And that is more fun.Faster than a tent.......0 -
Rolf F wrote:Alex99 wrote:Riding around on a tank isn't much fun.
Actually this isn't so. There's nothing wrong with a good quality, heavy bike - but we assume that a heavy bike won't be good quality and it is poor quality bikes that aren't much fun. Last summer I spent three months cycling from Yorkshire to the North Cape on a touring bike that, loaded, weighed over 35kg. It was fun to ride. Infact, after a while I wasn't consciously aware that I was riding a bike any heavier than my lightweight carbon bike. I rode the same cadences and I was on the road for the same amount of time as I'd normally ride - the only difference was I wasn't getting as far in a day!
On a linear road trip through Norway that relative lack of distance doesn't matter at all - but of course, if you are doing loops from home, a faster bike gets you further which means far more variety of places to go. And that is more fun.
Yes, you're right. 'Tank' was the wong word... should have said 'poor quality'. In most cases, apart from e.g. specific touring bikes like you say, low quality usually means heavy, or at least heavier.0 -
Sleeper Service wrote:Riding a lighter bike is more enjoyable than riding a heavier one, so I ride more because of that.
That's all I've got.
+1Raleigh RX 2.0
Diamondback Outlook
Planet X Pro Carbon0 -
Riding a heavier bike all winter always makes me appreciate the lighter summer bikes.
If you were looking to get more out of a club ride then it would be reasonable to take the winter sh1tter but, as others have said, it does dampen the enjoyment.
You've come to a good forum to gain support for your argument though as many on here think you need to be a fat dentist to own a nice bike
"You really think you can burn off sugar with exercise?" downhill paul0 -
I agree, not all heavier bikes are poor quality. A good tourer bike can be a nicer more comfortable ride than a lighter bike. You can also have a good workout on that type of bike if you want - you just won't go as fast.Rolf F wrote:Alex99 wrote:Riding around on a tank isn't much fun.
Actually this isn't so. There's nothing wrong with a good quality, heavy bike - but we assume that a heavy bike won't be good quality and it is poor quality bikes that aren't much fun. Last summer I spent three months cycling from Yorkshire to the North Cape on a touring bike that, loaded, weighed over 35kg. It was fun to ride. Infact, after a while I wasn't consciously aware that I was riding a bike any heavier than my lightweight carbon bike. I rode the same cadences and I was on the road for the same amount of time as I'd normally ride - the only difference was I wasn't getting as far in a day!
On a linear road trip through Norway that relative lack of distance doesn't matter at all - but of course, if you are doing loops from home, a faster bike gets you further which means far more variety of places to go. And that is more fun.0 -
I used to take my daughter to the childminder in a bike trailer, about 8miles each way. It certainly built up my leg strength and when I rode without her it felt like a superlightweight bike that would fly up the hills!0
