Weight Weighting

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Am I wrong in believing that the variation of the weight of bikes is small compared with the
variation of the weight of the riders ?

Compared to my slim and sylph like figure 2 tandems with trailers are light weight :-((

--
A T (Sandy) Morton on the Bicycle Island In the Global Village sandymillport.fsnet.co.uksandymillport.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

As a novice cyclist trying to get the opinions of the experienced cyclist in assessing the
merits of individual bikes I have been struck by the emphasis which many seem to place on the
weight of bikes.

Am I wrong in believing that the variation of the weight of bikes is small compared with the
variation of the weight of the riders ?

At the higher end of the market you are correct. You can end up paying hundreds of quid to save a
weight you could have equally lost by having a haircut.

There is, however, a great deal of benefit in considering weight if you are looking at the cheaper
bikes. There can be some big variations here and a really heavy bike is a horror story.

Quoted message said:

As a novice cyclist trying to get the opinions of the experienced cyclist in assessing the
merits of individual bikes I have been struck by the emphasis which many seem to place on the
weight of bikes.

Am I wrong in believing that the variation of the weight of bikes is small compared with the
variation of the weight of the riders ?

I'd certainly be alot better off shedding 3 stones from my waist rather than 3lbs from my bike! But
having just had to go back to an old and heavy specialised whe my much lighter Kona went to the
local scrotes, a few pounds on the bike does make a big difference!

pk

Quoted message said:

As a novice cyclist trying to get the opinions of the experienced cyclist in assessing the
merits of individual bikes I have been struck by the emphasis which many seem to place on the
weight of bikes.

Am I wrong in believing that the variation of the weight of bikes is small compared with the
variation of the weight of the riders ?

Correct, but you can increase your enjoyment and the advantage you have over heavier riders even
further by riding a lighter bike. It does make a difference - particularly to climbing, acceleration
and general handling & feel. To be fair, the heavier you (and your luggage) are, the less difference
each pound off the bike will make.

~PB

Quoted message said:

As a novice cyclist trying to get the opinions of the experienced cyclist in assessing the
merits of individual bikes I have been struck by the emphasis which many seem to place on the
weight of bikes.

Am I wrong in believing that the variation of the weight of bikes is small compared with the
variation of the weight of the riders ?

No, you're not wrong. (Adult) Riders might vary in weight from, say, 50kg to over 100 kg, which is a
much bigger variation than the variation in the weight of bikes.

But I think you're really asking whether the weight of the bike is all that important. Well, if
you're massively overweight then you'll certainly improve your performance by losing body weight and
this should be your priority over buying a lighter bike. If you're already very slim *and* you're
close to your performance maximum then saving bike weight may make an improvement. However, for the
vast majority of us saving grams is pointless - and expensive.

Bike weight (within reason) is really only important for the racing cyclist. When touring the load
is going to be a significant part of the all up weight and the bike weight less important. A
stronger, perhaps heavier, bike might be a better investment.

One final comment - some people say that lighter bikes are more fun to ride.
--
Michael MacClancy Random pleonasm - ´In the city today, the temperature rose to 105 degrees. This
sudden rise of temperature was responsible for the intolerable heat.¡ www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk

"[Not Responding]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As a novice cyclist trying to get the opinions of the experienced cyclist in assessing the
merits of individual bikes I have been struck by the emphasis which many seem to place on the
weight of bikes.

Am I wrong in believing that the variation of the weight of bikes is small compared with the
variation of the weight of the riders ?

No.

Quoted message said:

There is, however, a great deal of benefit in considering weight if you are looking at the cheaper
bikes. There can be some big variations here and a really heavy bike is a horror story.

Yes, A right bugger when trying to carry them up stairs.

Heavy bikes feel bad when riding in certain ways. But when you are cycling along sitting down, it
makes very little difference.

Quoted message said:

As a novice cyclist trying to get the opinions of the experienced cyclist in assessing the
merits of individual bikes I have been struck by the emphasis which many seem to place on the
weight of bikes.

Am I wrong in believing that the variation of the weight of bikes is small compared with the
variation of the weight of the riders ?

No.

However, every extra pound on the bike is an extra pound you have to shift up *every* hill. You'll
find the emphasis put on weight varies with locality, with people in flat areas happier to accept
heavier bikes and people in hillier areas being generally more pernickety about weight.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

'graveyards are full of indispensable people'

Arguably its more important for heavy,less fit cyclists to have light bikes, as it is less to push around.

You have to balance this against the chance of said light bike breaking under the lardy rider.

Being on the cumfy side myself, I enjoy my nice light bikes.

Nobody yet has discussed rotating weight. While weight on the frame is important, extra weight on
anything that moves needs more work to get it going (and stop it too!)

Heavy wheels & tyres *are* significant.

Some cheap bikes are *really* heavy & horrible. You should lift a few bike before you buy anything
and get a 'feel' for what they're like.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden] Edgware.

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

Nobody yet has discussed rotating weight. While weight on the frame is important, extra weight on
anything that moves needs more work to get it going (and stop it too!)

I think the effect is often over-rated though, and there's less weight difference between common rim
models than many people realise (tyres usually make far more weight difference). Having said that, I
still like to use lightweight rims for my best bike - but as much for sake of total weight as
rotational. Hubs and spokes are virtually irrelevant when it comes to rotational weight - and
probably chainrings and sprockets too because radiuses are so small.

Quoted message said:

Heavy wheels & tyres *are* significant.

Fortunately, the days of steel rims are virtually over so even cheap wheels now aren't toooo heavy.
However, I agree that some tyres are so heavy (and slow rolling) that they make a significant
difference.

~PB

"Helen Deborah Vecht" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nobody yet has discussed rotating weight. While weight on the frame is important, extra weight on
anything that moves needs more work to get it going (and stop it too!)

But accellerations are a very small part of your overall effort, and rim/tyre weight is a very small
part of that.

2* very small * very small ... is ?

Quoted message said:

Heavy wheels & tyres *are* significant.

For the feel of the bike, no doubt at all. Whether it translates into real performance differences
is an entirely different matter.

Quoted message said:

As a novice cyclist trying to get the opinions of the experienced cyclist in assessing the
merits of individual bikes I have been struck by the emphasis which many seem to place on the
weight of bikes.

Am I wrong in believing that the variation of the weight of bikes is small compared with the
variation of the weight of the riders ?

Well, mountain bikes can weigh between about 22lb and 40lb, which is quite a substantial difference.

For some reason weight on the bike seems worse than weight on the person. It doesn't move around as
much for a start. For the same reason, some people swear by a rucksack instead of panniers because
the load "feels" lighter.

And a heavy rider on a light bike makes for brilliant bunny-hopping ability - ask Jez Avery.

"W K" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

"Helen Deborah Vecht" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nobody yet has discussed rotating weight. While weight on the frame is important, extra weight
on anything that moves needs more work to get it going (and stop it too!)

Quoted message said:

But accellerations are a very small part of your overall effort, and rim/tyre weight is a very
small part of that.

Really? Town cyclists are starting & stopping all the time. Then there are those lovely farcilities
with their 'Cyclists Dismount' signs. Unless you are cycling in a straight line on the flat, you are
accelerating all the time (or is my now 30-year-old O Level Physics just too rusty?)

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden] Edgware.

"Helen Deborah Vecht" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"W K" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

"Helen Deborah Vecht" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nobody yet has discussed rotating weight. While weight on the frame is important, extra weight
on anything that moves needs more work to get

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

going (and stop it too!)

Quoted message said:

But accellerations are a very small part of your overall effort, and rim/tyre weight is a very
small part of that.

Really? Town cyclists are starting & stopping all the time. Then there are those lovely
farcilities with their 'Cyclists Dismount' signs.

I tend to go slow in town anyway. But what % of your time do you think you are spending hammering it
between, say 0-10 mph? (at about this speed more power going into wind resistance).

Quoted message said:

Unless you are cycling in a straight line on the flat, you are accelerating all the time (or is my
now 30-year-old O Level Physics just too rusty?)

physics + pedantry: you can be accelerating on the flat, or doing a constant speed on a hill. going
round corners is accelleration that doesn't require your power.

physics: You don't have much spare power to accellerate with at usual speeds (15-25), and don't
spend much time at lower speeds accelerating.

The other part was about the small % of mass being accelerating wheels. compared to 90kg other stuff
thats also got to get up to speed, 450 grams of extra rotating mass (hence x2) is still only 1% of
the total.

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As a novice cyclist trying to get the opinions of the experienced cyclist in assessing the
merits of individual bikes I have been struck by the emphasis which many seem to place on the
weight of bikes.

Am I wrong in believing that the variation of the weight of bikes is small compared with the
variation of the weight of the riders ?

No.

However, every extra pound on the bike is an extra pound you have to shift up *every* hill.

If we look at %ages, it would only make a difference if you timed yourself up long hills, or try to
follow groups going at the limits of your ability.

Quoted message said:

You'll find the emphasis put on weight varies with locality, with people in flat areas happier to
accept heavier bikes and people in hillier areas being generally more pernickety about weight.

I'd suggest thats also got a lot to do with feel. Lighter bikes are nicer if you spend more time out
of the saddle.

"W K" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

"Helen Deborah Vecht" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But accellerations are a very small part of your overall effort, and rim/tyre weight is a very
small part of that.

Really? Town cyclists are starting & stopping all the time. Then there are those lovely
farcilities with their 'Cyclists Dismount' signs.

Quoted message said:

I tend to go slow in town anyway. But what % of your time do you think you are spending hammering
it between, say 0-10 mph? (at about this speed more power going into wind resistance).

I don't ride at all now. I counted over 60 sets of traffic lights on a 16 mile commute so much of my
*effort* (not time) was spent accelerating from a standstill. Bicycle don't need much effort to keep
going and their weight is not much of a factor here. Starting and stopping are a lot of work and
cycle weight, especially but not exclusively rotating weight, does figure.

Quoted message said:

physics: You don't have much spare power to accellerate with at usual speeds (15-25),

true but you don't need much power to maintain movement at that speed.

Quoted message said:

and don't spend much time at lower speeds accelerating.

Time is not the problem but 10 seconds of flat-out acceleration probably burns as many calories as a
couple of minutes on the flat.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden] Edgware.

"Michael MacClancy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As a novice cyclist trying to get the opinions of the experienced cyclist in assessing the
merits of individual bikes I have been struck by the emphasis which many seem to place on the
weight of bikes.

Am I wrong in believing that the variation of the weight of bikes is small compared with the
variation of the weight of the riders ?

No, you're not wrong. (Adult) Riders might vary in weight from, say, 50kg to over 100 kg, which is
a much bigger variation than the variation in the weight of bikes.

But I think you're really asking whether the weight of the bike is all

that

Quoted message said:

important. Well, if you're massively overweight then you'll certainly improve your performance by
losing body weight and this should be your priority over buying a lighter bike. If you're already
very slim *and* you're close to your performance maximum then saving bike weight may make an
improvement. However, for the vast majority of us saving grams is pointless - and expensive.

Bike weight (within reason) is really only important for the racing cyclist. When touring the load
is going to be a significant part of the all up weight and the bike weight less important. A
stronger, perhaps heavier, bike might be a better investment.

One final comment - some people say that lighter bikes are more fun to ride.
--
Michael MacClancy Random pleonasm - ´In the city today, the temperature rose to 105

degrees.

Quoted message said:

This sudden rise of temperature was responsible for the intolerable heat.¡
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk www.macclancy.co.uk

I think that there is a real difference between a 23lb bike and one weighing 30lb assuming both are
designed for the same function. I suspect this is not solely because of weight. As bikes become
lighter they become more expensive and moving parts (hubs transmissions etc.) better engineered. At
least this is how I account for the difference between my 2 road bikes..

Julia