Bike too heavy for MF RR?
View Full Version : Bike too heavy for MF RR?
This might sound like a dumbass-masters-fattie-Fred question, but I bought my entry-level Giant road
bike in 2000 and it weighs 12kg (26.4
lb) with the pump, small seatpack (containing tube, multi-tool, levers, and patches), speedo/HRM,
and two bottle cages. These days you can buy road bikes for not much more money than I paid
(admittedly not much) that weigh less than 3/4 of that (i.e. < 9kg or 19.8lb).
Is my bike too heavy to be competitive? The UCI lower limit being 6.8kg, 12kg sounds like
way too much.
Btw, I actually am a MF, weighing 93kg @ 187 cm (that's 205lb @ 6'1"). I am planning to lose some of
this, but given my basic body mass should I stick to a stronger (and therefore heavier, given my low
budget) bike even if I could buy a lighter one?
&roo
1. continue with the heavy bike, sweat it out, lose the weight (10 kg at least)..
2. then consider new bike options.
the eventual reward should help you for phase one. and you'll look less delusional and laughable for
MF spotters.
Van Hoorebeeck Bart wrote:
> 1. continue with the heavy bike, sweat it out, lose the weight (10 kg at least)..
> 2. then consider new bike options.
>
> the eventual reward should help you for phase one. and you'll look less delusional and laughable
> for MF spotters.
I disagree. An identifying characteristic of MFs is the $4000 bike paired with $4 legs.
Robert Chung schreef:
>
> I disagree. An identifying characteristic of MFs is the $4000 bike paired with $4 legs.
hey this guy at least intends to change (not too convincingly, will lose 'some of it'....), so MF
characteristics should be dropped as radical as possible.
Van Hoorebeeck Bart wrote:
>
> hey this guy at least intends to change (not too convincingly, will lose 'some of it'....), so MF
> characteristics should be dropped as radical as possible.
>
Yep, I had been thinking of 10kg by coincidence - should take me 10 / .75 = 13.3 weeks (about three
months) if I stick to Dean Woods' weight loss plan. I just didn't think the number of kg was
relevant to my original post.
I can see the logic that persisting with the heavier bike will help me slim down faster, but don't
forget that the joy of riding a new bike might motivate me to train when otherwise I might stay at
home... :-)
&roo
"Andrew Swan" <usenet@SPAMMERSandrewMUSTswanDIE.com> wrote in message
news:nAF2b.179$rC1.6293@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
> Van Hoorebeeck Bart wrote:
> >
> > hey this guy at least intends to change (not too convincingly, will lose
'some
> > of it'....), so MF characteristics should be dropped as radical as
possible.
> >
> Yep, I had been thinking of 10kg by coincidence - should take me 10 / .75 = 13.3 weeks (about
> three months) if I stick to Dean Woods' weight loss plan. I just didn't think the number of kg was
> relevant to my original post.
>
> I can see the logic that persisting with the heavier bike will help me slim down faster, but don't
> forget that the joy of riding a new bike might motivate me to train when otherwise I might stay at
> home... :-)
Dear Fattie -
If you need a new bike to motivate you to train, then you're not going to make it.
6'1", 205? You're even fatter than Warren. Rest assured though, you are close to maximizing
your talent.
Andrew Swan <usenet@SPAMMERSandrewMUSTswanDIE.com> wrote in message
news:<nAF2b.179$rC1.6293@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>...
> Van Hoorebeeck Bart wrote:
> >
> > hey this guy at least intends to change (not too convincingly, will lose 'some of it'....), so
> > MF characteristics should be dropped as radical as possible.
> >
> Yep, I had been thinking of 10kg by coincidence - should take me 10 / .75 = 13.3 weeks (about
> three months) if I stick to Dean Woods' weight loss plan. I just didn't think the number of kg was
> relevant to my original post.
>
> I can see the logic that persisting with the heavier bike will help me slim down faster, but don't
> forget that the joy of riding a new bike might motivate me to train when otherwise I might stay at
> home... :-)
>
> &roo
Scribe jc wrote:
> no alcohol and ride lots, also upper body weight work. get down to 175 and then buy yourself a
> lighter bike as a reward. but always remeber, FIT is number one. better a pig of a bike that fits,
> than a merlin that doesnt fir you. get a builder like tom kellogg jc
175 lbs is too skinny for a 6'1" MF. What if Andy Roo is big boned? Anyway, the "no alcohol" advice
is excellent and probably some of the best advice (else reduce it by 80%).
I am 6'0" and am skinny already at 179 lbs (my marathon running weight). These days I am happy (and
definitely not slow) with anything under 190 on the bike.
-Ken
"Andrew Swan" <usenet@SPAMMERSandrewMUSTswanDIE.com> wrote in message
news:nAF2b.179$rC1.6293@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
> Van Hoorebeeck Bart wrote:
> >
> > hey this guy at least intends to change (not too convincingly, will lose
'some
> > of it'....), so MF characteristics should be dropped as radical as
possible.
> >
> Yep, I had been thinking of 10kg by coincidence - should take me 10 / .75 = 13.3 weeks (about
> three months) if I stick to Dean Woods' weight loss plan. I just didn't think the number of kg was
> relevant to my original post.
>
> I can see the logic that persisting with the heavier bike will help me slim down faster, but don't
> forget that the joy of riding a new bike might motivate me to train when otherwise I might stay at
> home... :-)
Keep your present bike, ride hard, often, fast and 2 1/2 - 3 hours, 4 times a week minimum.
No fattie foods, no fried foods, low alcohol consumption, eat healthy whole grain cerals, breads and
keep meat consumption low.
You will lose 20+ Kg in three months. By this time most outdoor riding is limited, train outdoors
when possible and get a trainer for indoors.
I expect to see a brand new man come next spring, this is the time to get your new bike.
Check back with me then! <G>
If you don't want to work hard at cycling and eating right, foget it and stay fat.
Dashii
Isn't about time for someone to tell us that they won the Diablo Hill Climb on a 12 lb bike? And
then Palachick and Andrews could tell us all that there's no way in hell that you could possibly do
well in a Cat 5 parking lot crit unless you had a 12 lb bike - oh yeah, and an 11 tooth.
"K. J. Papai" <ken@kenpapai.com> wrote in message
news:6100cab2.0308260823.3665560f@posting.google.com...
> Andrew Swan <usenet@SPAMMERSandrewMUSTswanDIE.com> wrote in message
news:<nAF2b.179$rC1.6293@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>...
> > Van Hoorebeeck Bart wrote:
> > >
> > > hey this guy at least intends to change (not too convincingly,
will lose 'some
> > > of it'....), so MF characteristics should be dropped as radical
as possible.
> > >
> > Yep, I had been thinking of 10kg by coincidence - should take me
10 /
> > .75 = 13.3 weeks (about three months) if I stick to Dean Woods'
weight
> > loss plan. I just didn't think the number of kg was relevant to my original post.
> >
> > I can see the logic that persisting with the heavier bike will
help me
> > slim down faster, but don't forget that the joy of riding a new
bike
> > might motivate me to train when otherwise I might stay at home...
:-)
> >
> > &roo
>
> Scribe jc wrote:
> > no alcohol and ride lots, also upper body weight work. get down
to 175 and
> > then buy yourself a lighter bike as a reward. but always remeber,
FIT is
> > number one. better a pig of a bike that fits, than a merlin that
doesnt fir
> > you. get a builder like tom kellogg jc
>
> 175 lbs is too skinny for a 6'1" MF. What if Andy Roo is big boned? Anyway, the "no alcohol"
> advice is excellent and probably some of
the best
> advice (else reduce it by 80%).
>
> I am 6'0" and am skinny already at 179 lbs (my marathon running
weight).
> These days I am happy (and definitely not slow) with anything under
190
> on the bike.
>
> -Ken
Earn your new bike through consistent training. When I got back into cycling a few years ago I rode
my 20 year old Windsor professional for several months until I got enough cycling fitness to feel
that I earned the right to ride a new bike - a Trek OCLV. But I was premature to reward myself with
an OCLV - it was too classy for me and I crashed it after 3 years and totaled it. Right now I'm
riding a Trek 2300 and that's about what I deserve right now. When you are getting close enough to
your ideal cycling weight that it becomes hard to reach it, then you can worry about ounces lost on
the machine itself. In the meantime get a solid middle of the road racing bike. Wheels and tires
make the most difference in speed. If you have extra pounds on your body, start there. Something
about average overweight riders on the sleekest bikes doesnt make sense to me - they look silly
riding those bikes. Its like those average joes you see with USPS shorts wearing a yellow jersey -
makes me want to gag.
Andrew Swan wrote in message ...
>Van Hoorebeeck Bart wrote:
>>
>> hey this guy at least intends to change (not too convincingly, will lose
'some
>> of it'....), so MF characteristics should be dropped as radical as
possible.
>>
>Yep, I had been thinking of 10kg by coincidence - should take me 10 / .75 = 13.3 weeks (about three
>months) if I stick to Dean Woods' weight loss plan. I just didn't think the number of kg was
>relevant to my original post.
>
>I can see the logic that persisting with the heavier bike will help me slim down faster, but don't
>forget that the joy of riding a new bike might motivate me to train when otherwise I might stay at
>home... :-)
>
>&roo
remove wrote:
> Earn your new bike through consistent training. When I got back into cycling a few years ago I
> rode my 20 year old Windsor professional for several months until I got enough cycling fitness to
> feel that I earned the right to ride a new bike - a Trek OCLV. But I was premature to reward
> myself with an OCLV - it was too classy for me and I crashed it after 3 years and totaled it.
> Right now I'm riding a Trek 2300 and that's about what I deserve right now.
All this advice about who deserves what bike is silly. My bike in 2003 is surely better than the
winner of the TDF's bike in 1950--does that mean that I don't deserve this bike?
This is a personal question, depending on the individual's passions, history, and financial state.
If I was a millionare, do you think I'd buy the latest and greatest? Absolutely. Would I deserve it?
If I earned the million rather than stealing it, then sure. Is it any of your business to tell me
what bike I deserve based on how serious I train? No way.
It was silly for the OP to ask for permission to buy the bike he has his sights set on, and it's
silly for people to try to tell him to lose weight or whatever to "earn" the bike. It's his money,
he earned it, therefore he earned the bike. Whether he wants to tie some training goal to a reward
of a new bike is his business. Maybe that's a good motivational approach, maybe not, but it has
nothing to do with actually deserving to ride the bike.
Shayne Wissler
"Shayne Wissler" <thales000@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f8b3b.276160$o%2.125872@sccrnsc02...
> remove wrote:
>
>Whether he wants to tie some training goal to a reward of a new bike is his business. Maybe that's
>a good motivational approach, maybe not, but it has nothing to do with actually deserving to ride
>the bike.
Dumbass -
If someone relies on their bike to get them motivated, they're not going to make it. Better to save
the money.
The satisfaction from bike riding and racing comes from sensations produced by your body, not what
piece of metal you're sitting on. If the sensations from your body on the crappy piece of metal
aren't enough, the nicer piece of metal will not make the difference.
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> "Shayne Wissler" <thales000@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:f8b3b.276160$o%2.125872@sccrnsc02...
>> remove wrote:
>>
>>Whether he wants to tie some training goal to a reward of a new bike is his business. Maybe that's
>>a good motivational approach, maybe not, but it has nothing to do with actually deserving to ride
>>the bike.
>
> Dumbass -
LOL!!
> If someone relies on their bike to get them motivated, they're not going to make it. Better to
> save the money.
I didn't see anyone mention being totally reliant on their bike to be motivated. It's just a fiction
you've invented to make your position seem tenable.
> The satisfaction from bike riding and racing comes from sensations produced by your body, not what
> piece of metal you're sitting on. If the sensations from your body on the crappy piece of metal
> aren't enough, the nicer piece of metal will not make the difference.
I rode on a 16-year-old Peugot up until this spring. Then I decided that I DESERVED a new bike. Not
because I was in great shape. I just deserved it.
So I bought a Lemond. Cycling got a lot more fun, and more comfortable. Call me hedonistic, but I
love fondling my new Ultegras as I ride down the road--sweet. And the bumps feel a lot softer with
the carbon forks. The nice and wide handlebars make me feel much more stable and comfortable. And I
love the color too.
I've put on more miles this summer than I have for a long time. I'm sure my bike isn't nearly as
good as your "piece of metal", but I'm still in love with it. It isn't my entire motivation, but it
is a factor.
Now, stop foaming at the mouth, and go ride your hunk of metal.
gregclimbs wrote:
> if you thinnk that the bike is too heavy.... take all that **** off of it and re-weight it...
>
> I bet w/o the "pump, small seatpack (containing tube, multi-tool, levers, and patches), speedo"
> and full water bottles, that the bike weight is probably closer to 8kg. not exactly heavy,
> 'specially if you still have 10kg to loose yourself.
The pump, small seatpack (containing tube, multi-tool, levers, and patches), and speedo combined
weigh 0.5kg (1.125lb). So the overall weight of my bike has gone from 12kg to 11.5kg, still nowhere
near 8kg, wouldn't you agree. Note this is all without water bottles, even empty ones. So the newer
bike I'm looking at is considerably lighter.
> UCI doesn't leave all that **** on the bike when they weight it, and unless you are racing in BFE
> w/o follow vehicles, neither should you.
>
> g
I don't know what BFE stands for, but my races are mostly crits where I take off all that "****" (as
you call it) except the speedo anyway. Sometimes my RRs and TTs are in the middle of nowhere and the
only way home is to ride, hence spare tube etc. is a must.
&roo
Dashi Toshii wrote:
>
> Keep your present bike, ride hard, often, fast and 2 1/2 - 3 hours, 4 times a week minimum.
Sounds good, but who has the time for 2.5 hour rides during the week (I have a day job)? Also, I'm
aware that it's bad to increase weekly mileage by too much at once, so I am ramping it up gradually
to give my body (and lifestyle and partner) time to adapt to the change.
>
> No fattie foods, no fried foods, low alcohol consumption, eat healthy whole grain cerals, breads
> and keep meat consumption low.
All good advice - taken.
>
> You will lose 20+ Kg in three months. By this time most outdoor riding is limited, train outdoors
> when possible and get a trainer for indoors.
I do have a trainer but I find it boring, esp. after 45 mins or more. Maybe I could set it up
in front of the TV. Anyway, it's nearly spring down here in the SH, so it won't really be
needed anyway.
> I expect to see a brand new man come next spring, this is the time to get your new bike.
>
> Check back with me then! <G>
Yes, I think the "reward" approach is the way to go, mainly to give me a carrot. I know some people
think one should just jump out of bed totally motivated to conquer the world, but in my experience
many people are all too human, and the more sources of motivation (e.g. your reply), the better.
Thanks again!
&roo
"Shayne Wissler" <thales000@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gSf3b.118360$2x.32480@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
>
> > If someone relies on their bike to get them motivated, they're not going to make it. Better to
> > save the money.
>
> I didn't see anyone mention being totally reliant on their bike to be motivated. It's just a
> fiction you've invented to make your position seem tenable.
Dumbass -
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Swan" <usenet@SPAMMERSandrewMUSTswanDIE.com> Newsgroups:
rec.bicycles.racing Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 2:20 AM Subject: Re: Bike too heavy for MF RR?
<snip>
>
> I can see the logic that persisting with the heavier bike will help me slim down faster, but don't
> forget that the joy of riding a new bike might motivate me to train when otherwise I might stay at
> home... :-)
>
> &roo
"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni.remove.it.for.mail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vbo3b.10007$Nc.5751209@news1.news.adelphia.net...
>
> "Shayne Wissler" <thales000@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:gSf3b.118360$2x.32480@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> >
> > > If someone relies on their bike to get them motivated, they're not
going
> > > to make it. Better to save the money.
> >
> > I didn't see anyone mention being totally reliant on their bike to be motivated. It's just a
> > fiction you've invented to make your position
seem
> > tenable.
>
> Dumbass -
What's up with that word? Is this an RBR thing or is there some cultural phenomenon going on in
kindergarten that I'm unaware of?
In any case, nothing in the below tells you what his *entire* motivation was, you're just presuming
to know it so you can have fun with your new vocabulary word.
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Swan" <usenet@SPAMMERSandrewMUSTswanDIE.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.racing Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 2:20 AM Subject: Re: Bike too heavy
> for MF RR?
>
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > I can see the logic that persisting with the heavier bike will help me slim down faster, but
> > don't forget that the joy of riding a new bike might motivate me to train when otherwise I might
> > stay at home... :-)
> >
> > &roo
>
>
>
>
"Shayne Wissler" <thales000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a4p3b.121298$2x.35175@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
>
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni.remove.it.for.mail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:vbo3b.10007$Nc.5751209@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> >
> > "Shayne Wissler" <thales000@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:gSf3b.118360$2x.32480@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> > >
> > > > If someone relies on their bike to get them motivated, they're not
> going
> > > > to make it. Better to save the money.
> > >
> > > I didn't see anyone mention being totally reliant on their bike to be motivated. It's just a
> > > fiction you've invented to make your position
> seem
> > > tenable.
> >
> > Dumbass -
>
> What's up with that word? Is this an RBR thing or is there some cultural phenomenon going on in
> kindergarten that I'm unaware of?
>
> In any case, nothing in the below tells you what his *entire* motivation was, you're just
> presuming to know it so you can have fun with your new vocabulary word.
Hey Dumbass -
The word "dumbass" is not new.
As for the bike - if you need a new bike to help motivate you to ride, you will remain a Fattie.
Don't get me wrong, there's nothing the matter with being a Fattie, unless you're racing your bike
or wish to minimize health risk. Please be a Fattie. I applaud Fattie-dom.
"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni.remove.it.for.mail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c8p3b.10032$Nc.5766077@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> Hey Dumbass -
>
> The word "dumbass" is not new.
Well, of course it's not new. Sometimes when a child uses a word over and over, it's because they
just learned it. That in combination with your simplistic reasoning would explain a lot.
> As for the bike - if you need a new bike to help motivate you to ride, you will remain a Fattie.
Kindergarten reasoning.
If we add 10lbs to Lance's bike, give him an uncomfortable seat, and throw in some components that
work most but not all of the time, how many TDF's do you think he's going to be riding in?
Cycling is inherently a technological sport, a large part of its enjoyment comes, directly and
indirectly, from the technology. The better the technology is, the better the ride is. It is faster,
more efficient, more comfortable, and more fun. If all you care about is searing legs and lungs,
strap some weights around your neck and go run up a mountain, it's far cheaper and you get the same
physical effect.
Besides, if you're a serious racer, you should love it when "fatties" buy expensive bikes: it means
the bike makers get better economies of scale, and it makes your bike cheaper in the long run. Or is
what you hate the fact that the "fatties" went to college, learned better words than "Dumbass", and
can afford better bikes than you?
"Shayne Wissler" <thales000@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2sp3b.220627$Oz4.58670@rwcrnsc54...
>
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni.remove.it.for.mail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c8p3b.10032$Nc.5766077@news1.news.adelphia.net...
>
> > Hey Dumbass -
> >
> > The word "dumbass" is not new.
>
> Well, of course it's not new. Sometimes when a child uses a word over and over, it's because they
> just learned it. That in combination with your simplistic reasoning would explain a lot.
>
Welcome to RBR.
> > As for the bike - if you need a new bike to help motivate you to ride,
you
> > will remain a Fattie.
>
> Kindergarten reasoning.
>
> If we add 10lbs to Lance's bike, give him an uncomfortable seat, and throw in some components that
> work most but not all of the time, how many TDF's
do
> you think he's going to be riding in?
The induhvidual you are conversing with looks for angles to develop criticism. For his critique to
work, he needed to assume that the current bike was perfectly functional and simply heavier than the
proposed new bike. Since that assumption was needed, that is what he did.
>
> Cycling is inherently a technological sport, a large part of its enjoyment comes, directly and
> indirectly, from the technology. The better the technology is, the better the ride is. It is
> faster, more efficient, more comfortable, and more fun. If all you care about is searing legs and
lungs,
> strap some weights around your neck and go run up a mountain, it's far cheaper and you get the
> same physical effect.
>
> Besides, if you're a serious racer, you should love it when "fatties" buy expensive bikes: it
> means the bike makers get better economies of scale,
and
> it makes your bike cheaper in the long run. Or is what you hate the fact that the "fatties" went
> to college, learned better words than "Dumbass",
and
> can afford better bikes than you?
He does love it. He loves to criticize. He freely admits to it. You are assuming that his flaming is
associated with hatred and unhappiness. On the contrary, it is with great pleasure that he finds
issues to criticise that he feels justify his pet phrase \ contracted to the word, "dumbass".
However, a truly motivated athlete will continue to train as just as frequently with the heavier
bike as long as there are no other problems that cause premature fatigue (like the way it fits). For
example, the 6 foot tall dude in the other thread with the 52 cm Vitus needs a new bike before he
starts extending his training too much since he may injure himself from the extremely poor fit.
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
