Bike weight vs rider weight.

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

gaz

Cycle Camera TV
Location
South Croydon
From the bits i skimmed over, they don't seem to mention how much easier it is to ride a carbon bike. The less weight means you need less effort. You may be no quicker of the distance but you use less energy.
 

kettle

Senior Member
Location
Ladybank, Fife
being 2 stones overweight I have never been drawn to think that a lighter bike is the way forward. The total weight of bike and rider is what matters especially when touring. I also get a reallity check when I see parts advertised telling me that eg I can get a bottle cage that will save me 5 grammes. Just sends my mind back to my firt point in this post.
 

vernon

Harder than Ronnie Pickering
Location
Meanwood, Leeds
From the bits i skimmed over, they don't seem to mention how much easier it is to ride a carbon bike. The less weight means you need less effort. You may be no quicker of the distance but you use less energy.

It might be less energy but not a by significant amount.

A few percent lighter makes next to no difference on a flattish route.

One kilogram on a 1000m climb is 10000 Joules - 10kJ - around 2.30 kcals - about 0.1 jelly baby if 100% of its calories are available and 0.4 jelly babies if one assumes 25% efficiency of humans.

This is in addition to all other energy demands.

So it seems that the weight reduction is insignificant all other things being equal.
 

P.H

Über Member
 Not very scientific is it, a sample of one.  Twice he mentions the carbon bike being uncomfortable, why didn't he buy a comfortable one?  In my unscientific observations there's a definite link between comfort and speed. I would go slower over a rough bit of road on a harsher bike.  On my old 13 mile each way commute, my road bike was 2 mph faster, though there were more differences than weight. 
 

fossyant

Ride It Like You Stole It!
Location
South Manchester
Guys.......it's usually down to the 'rubber' choice'............ TYRES........... beyond that it's lots of stuff............. I could go on and on and on...... but it's all
 

gaz

Cycle Camera TV
Location
South Croydon
It might be less energy but not a by significant amount.

A few percent lighter makes next to no difference on a flattish route.

One kilogram on a 1000m climb is 10000 Joules - 10kJ - around 2.30 kcals - about 0.1 jelly baby if 100% of its calories are available and 0.4 jelly babies if one assumes 25% efficiency of humans.

This is in addition to all other energy demands.

So it seems that the weight reduction is insignificant all other things being equal.
but it does make a difference when holding a high speed and accelerating away from the lights.
 

vernon

Harder than Ronnie Pickering
Location
Meanwood, Leeds
but it does make a difference when holding a high speed and accelerating away from the lights.

It's not the carbon bike per se that makes the difference to acceleration but the mass and radial mass distribution of the wheels that makes the difference to acceleration.

Holding a high speed is more due to aerodynamics and tyre choice than the weight of the bike.
 

Smokin Joe

Legendary Member
People who write this stuff don't understand the purpose of a lightweight bike. It matters little on a flattish seven mile commute to work, a great deal when you have a number on your back and you are grovelling on a wheel at 35mph after 80 miles and several leg breaking hills.

God save us from "Experts".
 

vernon

Harder than Ronnie Pickering
Location
Meanwood, Leeds
People who write this stuff don't understand the purpose of a lightweight bike. It matters little on a flattish seven mile commute to work, a great deal when you have a number on your back and you are grovelling on a wheel at 35mph after 80 miles and several leg breaking hills.

God save us from "Experts".

It's a matter of audience and purpose.

If the audience is the 'all gear no idea' brigade then the article serves them well to disabuse them of the notion that lightweight is everything.

I suspect that not many of the readers of the article or, indeed, this forum are capable of grovelling on a wheel at 35mph after eighty miles and leg breaking hills.
 

Vikeonabike

CC Neighbourhood Police Constable
People who write this stuff don't understand the purpose of a lightweight bike. It matters little on a flattish seven mile commute to work, a great deal when you have a number on your back and you are grovelling on a wheel at 35mph after 80 miles and several leg breaking hills.

God save us from "Experts".


The point, I think is that if you have a number on your back and grovelling on a wheel at 35mph.......you probaly had stopped eating Donuts a few years back.
Think the article may well be aimed at those of us who are a few pounds over our optimum...

Me I'm happy to do without the carbon bike and keep eating Donuts....it's my raison d'etre!

I ride......therefore I Donut!
 

Firestorm

Veteran
Location
Southend on Sea
The very reason why I am keeping the 30 year old pug at least until I shift 4 stone of lard / wean myself off cakes and fags.

However there is always the thought that going out and buying a tasty bit of kit will motivate me to ride more often and lose the weight that way.....
 

vernon

Harder than Ronnie Pickering
Location
Meanwood, Leeds
The very reason why I am keeping the 30 year old pug at least until I shift 4 stone of lard / wean myself off cakes and fags.

However there is always the thought that going out and buying a tasty bit of kit will motivate me to ride more often and lose the weight that way.....

I know myself well enough to know that wouldn't work for me.
 

TheDoctor

Europe Endless
Moderator
Location
The TerrorVortex
A rule of thumb I heard a while back was to have the bike weigh 10% of what the rider weighs.
Makes it simple to see if the bike is a lardy fatso, or if it's me...
 
Top Bottom