Bike Weight vs Body Weight ??

Well, after about 30 years off I'm riding again and shopping for an updated bike (to replace mid 70's Raleigh Pro's). When I was racing I weighed about 130, by mid 40's I was 210 and several years ago I went down to 155 and now range between 157 & 167. So the question:

Is saving 3lbs of static non-rotating weight on a bike the same as reducing my body weight by 3lbs?

In other words, how much is it worth to have a 14lb bike rather than a 17lb bike when loosing 3 lbs is A LOT cheaper (namely free)?

Good question, if your new bike is reasonable and suites your requirements, I would assume loosing body weight would be the best focus.

__________________
Steve
CyclingForums.com

Static mass is static mass.

__________________
Sex is horrid
Pain is Fun
I cut my fingers off
One by one

I would agree.


Unless, you are financially blessed.....money is no object.....you have great gobs of money to spend......


Then, buy that insanely expensive 14 pound bike and lose some body weight. You'll have the best of both worlds.

So If I lose the 30 lbs I need to, and my bike weighs 22, It will be like my bike weighs -8 lbs?

Correct.

The first may cost you a couple grand, the second only some (or a lot) of discipline.

Energy to accelerate a bicycle is the mass of the bike and rider. To the extreme, same energy with a 200 pound bike and 20 pound rider as 20 pound bike and 200 pound rider.

The 'issue' is that you can lose a LOT more weight off the body than the bike, as you know. 'Worth' is a personal decision but 3 pounds is 3 pounds regardless of where it is.

Many studies have shown rotational weight differences on a bicycle, altho measurable, are teeny, tiny.

Weight is VASTLY overplayed in the bike biz these days. Mostly cuz there are only 2 things you can measure on a bicycle, weight and price. So...lighter and more expensive becomes 'better', even if they aren't.

That's right. I tell guys all the time that if I lose 19 pounds my bike weighs zero....

A couple of thoughts on why they may be different.

- They 'seem' to be different. Nothing like pure conjecture :-) When I lost 40 lbs over the winter I expected a huge difference in riding. There was a difference, but it wasn't huge. It 'seems' though that if I'd been riding with a 40lb weight in the middle of my frame that if I removed it there would be a much more noticeable difference.

- Why? The 40lb weight in my bike frame is weight being acted upon. When I press down on my peddle going up a hill with that weight I'm acting against that weight. However, 40lbs of weight in my body is on the side of the peddle doing the acting, not the side being acted upon.

Additional 40 pounds on you isn't helping you push the pedal down. When you pedal you are acting against the weight(gravity) regardless of where it is. Gravity is gravity. It doesn't matter if you are riding the bike or carrying it, you still have to lift it up the hill.

When I lost 10 pounds I felt a HUGE difference, subjective to say the least.

I absolutely agree. The emphasis on weight differences between bikes in grams is misplaced. Comfort and durability should be at least as important.

Just another axiom:

If you lose 3lbs off the bike weight you will be 3 lbs lighter anytime you are riding your bike.

But only when you are riding your bike.

If you lose 3 lbs off your self, you'll be 3 lbs lighter regardless of what you're doing: climbing stairs, chasing the dog, walking down the street, lying on top of the missus, etc.

__________________
Originally Posted by Don Quijote
You have an attitude that rubs me very bad, I do not like you, and I also wish you to banish from my thread.

[QUOTE=Bob Ross;3905869
If you lose 3 lbs off your self, you'll be 3 lbs lighter regardless of what you're doing:... lying on top of the missus, etc.[/QUOTE]

To hell with that...I'm resting my legs and letting her do all the work on top...

Yep. No reason at all to make this an either/or comparison when the factors are completely independent.