Bike weight=Rider weight

Penster said:

If I lose 1lb in weight by eating salad and not burgers, is that the same as
spending $$$ on lightweight components to make my bike 1lb lighter?
Mick

Of course not ;-)

Lou
--
Posted by news://news.nb.nu

Penster said:

If I lose 1lb in weight by eating salad and not burgers, is that the same as
spending $$$ on lightweight components to make my bike 1lb lighter?
Mick

No, it's better, assuming you're currently overweight and your diet
regime doesn't affect your strength. Both your bike an your fat [censored]
need to be hauled up hills, but your [censored] is also consuming energy all
the while to maintain the excess tissue.

Kinky Cowboy*

*Batteries not included
May contain traces of nuts
Your milage may vary

Penster said:

If I lose 1lb in weight by eating salad and not burgers, is that the same as
spending $$$ on lightweight components to make my bike 1lb lighter?
Mick

Unless you wear it out or crash, the pound off the bike stays off. Odds
are, the pound you lose off your body will come back.

Penster said:

If I lose 1lb in weight by eating salad and not burgers, is that the same as
spending $$$ on lightweight components to make my bike 1lb lighter?
Mick

Nice troll but yes with the added benefit of you being healthier-

Penster says...

Quoted message said:

If I lose 1lb in weight by eating salad and not burgers, is that the same as
spending $$$ on lightweight components to make my bike 1lb lighter?
Mick

Losing rotating weight (wheels, tires, cranks, pedals) is more
important, but other than that, it's about the same.

"Penster" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

If I lose 1lb in weight by eating salad and not burgers, is that the
same as spending $$$ on lightweight components to make my bike 1lb
lighter? Mick

Depends on your definitionof "better". Also depends on which 1 pound of
body weight you lost. If part of your weight loss is muscle or blood,
then losing weight off your bike is probably better. If the 1 pound is
pure fat, then that is as good as losing it off your bike.

Penster said:

If I lose 1lb in weight by eating salad and not burgers, is that the same as
spending $$$ on lightweight components to make my bike 1lb lighter?

If your riding buddies like to hoist each others' bikes to see who has
the lightest one, then taking the pound off the bike is the way to go.

If your riding buddies are in the habit of hoisting each other to see
who's lost a pound... well, you just need to get new riding buddies.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Penster said:

If I lose 1lb in weight by eating salad and not burgers, is that the same as
spending $$$ on lightweight components to make my bike 1lb lighter?
Mick

No, salad is much cheaper than lightweight components.

Chris

Barnard Frederick said:

Penster says...

Quoted message said:

If I lose 1lb in weight by eating salad and not burgers, is that the same as
spending $$$ on lightweight components to make my bike 1lb lighter?
Mick

Losing rotating weight (wheels, tires, cranks, pedals) is more
important, but other than that, it's about the same.

Calves and feet rotate too! I am actually surprised at how many people
go nuts on lightweight stuff but ride a round in heavy (relatively
speaking in terms of grams per $ compared to other bike components)
shoes.

Joseph

Quoted message said:

Penster said:

If I lose 1lb in weight by eating salad and not burgers, is that the same as
spending $$$ on lightweight components to make my bike 1lb lighter?
Mick

Unless you wear it out or crash, the pound off the bike stays off. Odds
are, the pound you lose off your body will come back.

I can't wait till I read your motivational books.

:p

------------- Back on Topic ------------

For me, I know for me, being late-30's bad knee and bum hip, every
pound I lose isn't just a pound lighter riding, but a pound I don't
carry around with me everyday. So my knee and hip don't take such a
pounding, and I can ride longer, and harder.

I have more room to lose weight than lighten my bike. Or my bike
would float away. 😉

later,

tom @ www.BlankHelp.com

"Penster" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

If I lose 1lb in weight by eating salad and not burgers, is that the
same as spending $$$ on lightweight components to make my bike 1lb
lighter? Mick

Depends which side of the bike component cost-benefit hump you start out
on.

If you're replacing cast iron with aluminum, maybe.

If you're replacing stainless with carbon or titanium, then you need to
consider will you, or your heirs, recoup more money by selling your
upgraded body when you're done with it than by selling your upgraded bike?

Lou Holtman said:

Quoted message said:

If I lose 1lb in weight by eating salad and not burgers, is that the same as
spending $$$ on lightweight components to make my bike 1lb lighter?
Mick

Of course not ;-)

Indeed. Everyone knows that a ton of lead is heavier than a ton of
feathers.

Barnard Frederick said:

Quoted message said:

If I lose 1lb in weight by eating salad and not burgers, is that the same as
spending $$$ on lightweight components to make my bike 1lb lighter?
Mick

Losing rotating weight (wheels, tires, cranks, pedals) is more
important, but other than that, it's about the same.

At the speed and weight delta of bicycle components, the effect here
really is minimal unless you are doing the TdF without the steroids.

[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Calves and feet rotate too! I am actually surprised at how many people
go nuts on lightweight stuff but ride a round in heavy (relatively
speaking in terms of grams per $ compared to other bike components)
shoes.

Joseph

Very true and unfortunately you get what you pay for in shoes. My uber
expensive Sidi Dominator 4's are a work of art in terms of fit and
comfort. My road shoes are Shimano R130's, which are OK, but it's one
of those things where I wished I had dropped another C-note and got the
Sidi.

- Bob - says...

Quoted message said:

At the speed and weight delta of bicycle components, the effect here
really is minimal unless you are doing the TdF without the steroids.

Depends on your definition of minimal. Tires, tubes and rims have about
twice the stored energy as the same amount of non-rotating weight.

Barnard Frederick said:

Depends on your definition of minimal. Tires, tubes and rims have about
twice the stored energy as the same amount of non-rotating weight.

Which is a very small portion of the total weight. For other rotating
parts (like shoes) the effect is considerably less because of their
slower rotating speed.

Ron Ruff says...

Quoted message said:

Which is a very small portion of the total weight. For other rotating
parts (like shoes) the effect is considerably less because of their
slower rotating speed.

Ok, I'll do the math, since you didn't want to bother. For a lightweight
road bike tire, rim and tube combo:

rim: 425g
Tire: 225g
Tube: 100g
Total: 750g, or 1500g for both wheels, which is 3.3 lbs. For a
lightweight bike, say 18 lbs total, that is more than 18% of the total
weight. Not only is that a very significant portion of the total
weight, but losing weight from tires and tubes is by far the best and
easiest way to put a porky bike on a diet. This is especially true for
low end mountain bikes, where losing a pound per wheel might be possible
just by going to a lightweight tire and tube. Even for the above
example where the parts are already light, there are still some savings
to be had, if you want them.

Barnard Frederick said:

Ron Ruff says...

Quoted message said:

Which is a very small portion of the total weight. For other rotating
parts (like shoes) the effect is considerably less because of their
slower rotating speed.

Ok, I'll do the math, since you didn't want to bother. For a lightweight
road bike tire, rim and tube combo:

rim: 425g
Tire: 225g
Tube: 100g
Total: 750g, or 1500g for both wheels, which is 3.3 lbs. For a
lightweight bike, say 18 lbs total, that is more than 18% of the total
weight. Not only is that a very significant portion of the total
weight, but losing weight from tires and tubes is by far the best and
easiest way to put a porky bike on a diet. This is especially true for
low end mountain bikes, where losing a pound per wheel might be possible
just by going to a lightweight tire and tube. Even for the above
example where the parts are already light, there are still some savings
to be had, if you want them.

Dear Barnard,

As Ron says, the rim, tube, and tire are a very small portion of the
total weight of the bicycle plus rider. Leaving the rider out inflates
the importance of the spinning parts by an order of magnitude.

For a total weight of 100 kg (220 lbs) for a conveniently hefty rider
plus bike, your 1500g of rims, tires, and tubes becomes only 1.5% of
the total, not a terribly significant amount.

Slim the rider down so that he and his bike weigh only 75 kg (165
lbs), and your 1500g in the rims, tires, and tubes rises to only 2% of
the total mass, still not much and still only about a tenth of your
18%+ figure.

Reducing your 1500g tire, tube, and rim figure by 50% would change
things overall a whopping 1%, not that anyone is likely to find 750g
that they can remove from their rims, tires, and tubes.

In any case, reducing mass affects only acceleration, not top speed.

That's why most arguments about rotating mass fail to have much
practical application outside desperate racing sprints, and even then
the difference tends to be in heads of the sprinters, who are eight to
ten times as massive as their lightweight bicycles

It's also why most of the fuss about non-rotating weight is fun, but
of little practical value:

But don't feel bad. Our obsession with the weight of bicycle parts
regularly leads us to make elaborate calculations that ignore the
elephant sitting on the bicycle seat.

Recently in another thread, a long-time 220-lb poster mentioned in
good faith that he likes to use 14/15 gauge spokes on the rear, but
15/16 gauge on the front, partly to save weight. The weight saved
amounted to 25 grams, an overall weight reduction of a 0.02311%:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/6c1fc6de5a6ccd89

A while ago, I caught myself wondering how much my slightly heavier
new tire pump would affect the speed of my daily ride, but I resisted
the urge to weigh the old and the new pump on the post office scales.

I did, however, make a quick calculation that indicated that the extra
weight would not slow me down enough to notice, since I don't time
myself in units smaller than seconds.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

Barnard Frederick said:

Ron Ruff says...

Quoted message said:

Which is a very small portion of the total weight. For other rotating
parts (like shoes) the effect is considerably less because of their
slower rotating speed.

Ok, I'll do the math, since you didn't want to bother. For a lightweight
road bike tire, rim and tube combo:

rim: 425g
Tire: 225g
Tube: 100g
Total: 750g, or 1500g for both wheels, which is 3.3 lbs. For a
lightweight bike, say 18 lbs total, that is more than 18% of the total
weight. Not only is that a very significant portion of the total
weight, but losing weight from tires and tubes is by far the best and
easiest way to put a porky bike on a diet. This is especially true for
low end mountain bikes, where losing a pound per wheel might be possible
just by going to a lightweight tire and tube. Even for the above
example where the parts are already light, there are still some savings
to be had, if you want them.

Dear Barnard,

As Ron says, the rim, tube, and tire are a very small portion of the
total weight of the bicycle plus rider. Leaving the rider out inflates
the importance of the spinning parts by an order of magnitude.

For a total weight of 100 kg (220 lbs) for a conveniently hefty rider
plus bike, your 1500g of rims, tires, and tubes becomes only 1.5% of
the total, not a terribly significant amount.

Slim the rider down so that he and his bike weigh only 75 kg (165
lbs), and your 1500g in the rims, tires, and tubes rises to only 2% of
the total mass, still not much and still only about a tenth of your
18%+ figure.

All the equations have that rotating mass multiplied by pi. Now it is still
relatively unimportant compared to things like wheels that don't break. But
let's give the inertial devil his due.

Quoted message said:

That's why most arguments about rotating mass fail to have much
practical application outside desperate racing sprints, and even then
the difference tends to be in heads of the sprinters, who are eight to
ten times as massive as their lightweight bicycles

It's also why most of the fuss about non-rotating weight is fun, but
of little practical value:

But don't feel bad. Our obsession with the weight of bicycle parts
regularly leads us to make elaborate calculations that ignore the
elephant sitting on the bicycle seat.

Recently in another thread, a long-time 220-lb poster mentioned in
good faith that he likes to use 14/15 gauge spokes on the rear, but
15/16 gauge on the front, partly to save weight. The weight saved
amounted to 25 grams, an overall weight reduction of a 0.02311%:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/6c1fc6de5a6ccd89

A while ago, I caught myself wondering how much my slightly heavier
new tire pump would affect the speed of my daily ride, but I resisted
the urge to weigh the old and the new pump on the post office scales.

I did, however, make a quick calculation that indicated that the extra
weight would not slow me down enough to notice, since I don't time
myself in units smaller than seconds.

It is however fun to fuss with this stuff. Even for my largish self.

Ron