weight

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

i bought a new bike a BH connect but i find climbing mountain takes extra energy on this bike compare to my giant cadex 15 years old. the rim is shimano 105 which is heavier then campagnolo rim on my cadex. the difference on the back is around 1kg or less. is the rim the cost of my difficulty in climbing or is the geometry of the bike? my new bike is very smooth and calm on flat and small slopes. i sit and climb. sometimes i stand.:D :D

It could be a lot of things. Geometry, fitness, 'comfort' with a particular bike, tire size, gearing...

I find it hard to believe (although I am not familiar with either bike you refer to) that your new BH ride is heavier than your Giant.

i bought a new bike a BH connect but i find climbing mountain takes extra energy on this bike compare to my giant cadex 15 years old. the rim is shimano 105 which is heavier then campagnolo rim on my cadex. the difference on the back is around 1kg or less. is the rim the cost of my difficulty in climbing or is the geometry of the bike? my new bike is very smooth and calm on flat and small slopes. i sit and climb. sometimes i stand.:D :DI don't know what is causing you to have a problem with your new bike ...

Are the tyres signicantly different on the new bike?

Since both bikes have 130mm rear dropout spacing, why don't you put your old wheel in the new bike, and vice-versa, to see if the new wheel is truly the difference.

Of course, check the brake pad clearance on the new bike, FIRST ... some shops like to set the pads only a couple of millimeters away from the rim, and if the wheel is flexing it is could be scrubbed by the pads as you climb -- according to 'me' (vs. people who spec double-butted spokes for their wheels), a stiffer wheel is a better wheel.

i bought a new bike a BH connect but i find climbing mountain takes extra energy on this bike compare to my giant cadex 15 years old. the rim is shimano 105 which is heavier then campagnolo rim on my cadex. the difference on the back is around 1kg or less. is the rim the cost of my difficulty in climbing or is the geometry of the bike? my new bike is very smooth and calm on flat and small slopes. i sit and climb. sometimes i stand.:D :D

I'm betting the fit of the new bike. Weight is vastly overplayed in the bike 'equation', but one of only 2 things you can 'measure' at the bike shop. The other being price.

I'm betting the fit of the new bike. .....Agree, and/or different length cranks

Check that your cranks are the same length on each bike

This might sound silly, but one degree difference in seat-tube angle can make a bike feel very different.

Get a long ruler and check if your bikes are differently set up

...and then there are those days when even the pros complain about feeling like they had an "off day" while en route to some spectacular victory. Feelings and perceptions are a poor tool for measuring reality.

John Swanson
www.bikephysics.com

I'd be looking at fit differences.

Wheel stiffness has got dick to do with anything. Mavic's own tests have shown that riders can't reliably say what wheels are stiff and which ones aren't, and that's a pretty strong statement that stiffness affects climbing as much as a mouthful of piss. Moreover, those results from Mavic pretty much back up what the science and math say.

dear all, i would like to retract my question. the bike is solid. it is my error. i am not used to the bike. the bike is SUPER FAST :D :D .

haha:D

I'd be looking at fit differences.

Wheel stiffness has got dick to do with anything. Mavic's own tests have shown that riders can't reliably say what wheels are stiff and which ones aren't, and that's a pretty strong statement that stiffness affects climbing as much as a mouthful of piss. Moreover, those results from Mavic pretty much back up what the science and math say. I think that a mouthful of piss would cause me to climb very slowly, at least until I could spit it out and rinse my mouth out! Yech!:D

which is faster?

a guy who weighs 80kg on 9kg road bike OR that same guy, who lost 3kg (to 77kg) on a 12kg road bike (ok assuming its the same bike and i stick 3kg of dead weight to the top tube?)

Only one type of weight helps you go faster, losing weight. I took of ten pounds this year and it has helped me significantly. Lots of riding doesn't hurt either.

which is faster?

a guy who weighs 80kg on 9kg road bike OR that same guy, who lost 3kg (to 77kg) on a 12kg road bike (ok assuming its the same bike and i stick 3kg of dead weight to the top tube?)

Assuming the weight lose didn't also make the guy healthier, just looking at weight, same weight, same performance. Energy to accelerate a bike is the mass of the bike and rider.

I'd be looking at fit differences.

Wheel stiffness has got dick to do with anything. Mavic's own tests have shown that riders can't reliably say what wheels are stiff and which ones aren't, and that's a pretty strong statement that stiffness affects climbing as much as a mouthful of piss. Moreover, those results from Mavic pretty much back up what the science and math say.WOW! I guess YOU would know ... since that's what spews out of your mouth most of the time!

APPARENTLY, the UofA Engineering Department now teaches that you should accept the subjective feedback of individuals rather than checking the actual elapsed times for a given distance under specific conditions using control & test 'objects'/'subjects' (i.e., different wheels, in the case of MAVIC's tests) ... AND, pretend to draw "scientific" conclusions.

I hope the "math" you are referring to isn't Swanson's conclusions based on a single weight (has he done MORE work & posted MORE DATA, subsequently?) -- what was it, measuring the deflection of a single, 5kg (or, was it only 2.5kg?), static weight on various wheels which one was supposed to somehow extrapolate to represent a rider + bike (probable minimum of 65kg combined weight) carving through a turn at more than walking speeds?

How can anyone extrapolate anything meaningful from a single point on a graph? OR, is that something else they are teaching in Tucson, now?

OR, were you obtusely referring to something else?

YOU may be right, but I think your presentation is flawed and consequently your argument with regard to the insignificance of a bicycle wheel's lateral stiffness remains debatable.

WOW! I guess YOU would know ... since that's what spews out of your mouth most of the time!

APPARENTLY, the UofA Engineering Department now teaches that you should accept the subjective feedback of individuals rather than checking the actual elapsed times for a given distance under specific conditions using control & test 'objects'/'subjects' (i.e., different wheels, in the case of MAVIC's tests) ... AND, pretend to draw "scientific" conclusions.

I hope the "math" you are referring to isn't Swanson's conclusions based on a single weight (has he done MORE work & posted MORE DATA, subsequently?) -- what was it, measuring the deflection of a single, 5kg (or, was it only 2.5kg?), static weight on various wheels which one was supposed to somehow extrapolate to represent a rider + bike (probable minimum of 65kg combined weight) carving through a turn at more than walking speeds?

How can anyone extrapolate anything meaningful from a single point on a graph? OR, is that something else they are teaching in Tucson, now?

OR, were you obtusely referring to something else?

YOU may be right, but I think your presentation is flawed and consequently your argument with regard to the insignificance of a bicycle wheel's lateral stiffness remains debatable.

Wow. As usual, even with your deft use of colors, italics, and bold font, you read things that weren't even there.

First, perhaps you ought to read John's stuff more carefully.

Second, there has been no study that has shown any connection between frame or wheel stiffness that significantly or perceptibly improves performance. That is, in science, called a significant negative. Look it up.

Third: UofA? Uhm, its UA, and who the hell said I am in Engineering? You should get some remedial reading help.

Fourth: You quickly discount the results of one study that indicated that riders weren't able to reliably able to discern wheel stiffness quality. That study implied that riders had a probability of about 50% of "choosing" correctly. This suggests that riders couldn't with any accuracy ascribe performance benefits to a wheel, further suggesting that there may be no correlation (Uhm, correlation in the statistical sense. Again, look it up.) between wheel stiffness and performance gain/benefit.

Fifth: One point on a curve? Well, FYI, you can't fit a curve to one point. You can fit an infinite number of curves, but not one. Your math skills appear to be exceedingly weak. I did not draw a determination from "one point." You clearly don't understand the whole scientific method thing.

Sixth: Increased wheel stiffness has it's greatest effect entering corners under braking and exiting corners under power. It helps to maintain steering precision and confidence. Conversely, mid-corner increased wheel stiffness is not a bonus as the out of plane force inputs to the wheel are bumps, cracks, gravel and the like. A stiff wheel bounces off those defects, while a less stiff wheel flexes more in response to said inputs and better maintains its line. So, Professor, please tell me then which one is better and please justify your answer.

Alas, your presentation, as do all of your presentations, relies only on font trickery. Otherwise you've proven nothing, nor have you even shown that understand what you're talking about.

Wow. As usual, even with your deft use of colors, italics, and bold font, you read things that weren't even there.

First, perhaps you ought to read John's stuff more carefully.

Second, there has been no study that has shown any connection between frame or wheel stiffness that significantly or perceptibly improves performance. That is, in science, called a significant negative. Look it up.

Third: UofA? Uhm, its UA, and who the hell said I am in Engineering? You should get some remedial reading help.

Fourth: You quickly discount the results of one study that indicated that riders weren't able to reliably able to discern wheel stiffness quality. That study implied that riders had a probability of about 50% of "choosing" correctly. This suggests that riders couldn't with any accuracy ascribe performance benefits to a wheel, further suggesting that there may be no correlation (Uhm, correlation in the statistical sense. Again, look it up.) between wheel stiffness and performance gain/benefit.

Fifth: One point on a curve? Well, FYI, you can't fit a curve to one point. You can fit an infinite number of curves, but not one. Your math skills appear to be exceedingly weak. I did not draw a determination from "one point." You clearly don't understand the whole scientific method thing.

Sixth: Increased wheel stiffness has it's greatest effect entering corners under braking and exiting corners under power. It helps to maintain steering precision and confidence. Conversely, mid-corner increased wheel stiffness is not a bonus as the out of plane force inputs to the wheel are bumps, cracks, gravel and the like. A stiff wheel bounces off those defects, while a less stiff wheel flexes more in response to said inputs and better maintains its line. So, Professor, please tell me then which one is better and please justify your answer.

Alas, your presentation, as do all of your presentations, relies only on font trickery. Otherwise you've proven nothing, nor have you even shown that understand what you're talking about.You're still spewing piss.

AND, your 'sixth' point reenforces my contention despite your belief to the contrary. Let some air out of your tires if you want better handling in the middle of a turn.

No offense to Swanson, but I looked at his presentation the 'first day' and the data was scant & therefore meaningless -- an unfortunate waste of time as originally presented -- and, YOU were the one who presumes conclusions can be extrapolated from minimum data ...

Are you even reading what you write?

Why don't you show your postings to whichever department you are in?

Oh, wait. If you did THAT, you'd probably be kicked out of school because no professional or graduate school would want someone whose posts are so immature and generally belligerent to be degreed by them.

Wow. As usual, even with your deft use of colors, italics, and bold font, you read things that weren't even there.

First, perhaps you ought to read John's stuff more carefully.

Second, there has been no study that has shown any connection between frame or wheel stiffness that significantly or perceptibly improves performance. That is, in science, called a significant negative. Look it up.

Third: UofA? Uhm, its UA, and who the hell said I am in Engineering? You should get some remedial reading help.

Fourth: You quickly discount the results of one study that indicated that riders weren't able to reliably able to discern wheel stiffness quality. That study implied that riders had a probability of about 50% of "choosing" correctly. This suggests that riders couldn't with any accuracy ascribe performance benefits to a wheel, further suggesting that there may be no correlation (Uhm, correlation in the statistical sense. Again, look it up.) between wheel stiffness and performance gain/benefit.

Fifth: One point on a curve? Well, FYI, you can't fit a curve to one point. You can fit an infinite number of curves, but not one. Your math skills appear to be exceedingly weak. I did not draw a determination from "one point." You clearly don't understand the whole scientific method thing.

Sixth: Increased wheel stiffness has it's greatest effect entering corners under braking and exiting corners under power. It helps to maintain steering precision and confidence. Conversely, mid-corner increased wheel stiffness is not a bonus as the out of plane force inputs to the wheel are bumps, cracks, gravel and the like. A stiff wheel bounces off those defects, while a less stiff wheel flexes more in response to said inputs and better maintains its line. So, Professor, please tell me then which one is better and please justify your answer.

Alas, your presentation, as do all of your presentations, relies only on font trickery. Otherwise you've proven nothing, nor have you even shown that understand what you're talking about.

Wow. So educated. You really know how to turn a phrase. Rant on, fella. Italicize. Capitalize. Underline. Put it in a bold font, in a rainbow of colors. That's impressive.

Wow. So educated. You really know how to turn a phrase. Rant on, fella. Italicize. Capitalize. Underline. Put it in a bold font, in a rainbow of colors. That's impressive.You're still spewing piss!

You're still spewing piss!
Yay i'm mature, I can slag other people off... get a room you two.

I'll second the weight thing, I think the difference is more psychological than weight related. If you feel quick then you do go a bit quicker.

In terms of stiffness go with what feels good for you, although we can't agree how much difference it makes I think feeling good about the wheels is more important than any energy lost.

In terms of stiffness go with what feels good for you, although we can't agree how much difference it makes I think feeling good about the wheels is more important than any energy lost.

Exactly. A person should always go with what feels best or buffs their kettlebells.