Stompier
Senior Member
Mudguards usually make excellent parachutes - it probably explains why you have to work harder on that bike to stay with the group.
How does ageing affects your purchasing prospects?
- Thread starter gavroche
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Mudguards usually make excellent parachutes - it probably explains why you have to work harder on that bike to stay with the group.
PaulSB
Legendary Member
- Location
- Chorley, Lancashire
Anyway, I'd rather have five different £1000 bikes than one £5000 bike
Can I ask why? All my riding is on road and generally with groups. I have a winter bike, summer bike and one hanging on the wall I love too much to get rid of!!
If I had five bikes I'd always find myself choosing the one I like most and leaving the others in the garage.
OP
OP
gavroche
Getting old but not past it
- Location
- North Wales
Same here, all the kids know they can share the value of our house when we are gone and not to expect any money but the problem is that none of us know how long we are here for, so spending still has to be measured. Running out of money before our sale by date is not a prospect I fancy,
PaulSB
Legendary Member
- Location
- Chorley, Lancashire
Yes, this is also a factor for me when considering if I should make a major purchase - a bike or otherwise. For example I have the money to buy a new car. I would enjoy that but I don't need it so I'll stick with the one I have for as long as possible.
PaulSB
Legendary Member
- Location
- Chorley, Lancashire
Well again I don't do the science behind these things. I've read similar before but never met anyone who feels the same.
I fully accept mudguards etc. will add drag to an extent but I don't believe it's that significant.
Stompier
Senior Member
Depends how you quantify 'significant' I guess. It might be enough to make you feel you are working 'slightly' harder to achieve the same road speed, which is something you alluded to earlier.
Weight has everything to do with how easier a bike rides, if you have two cars with exactly the same engine and same bhp transmission etc, but one has a significantly lighter body, the lighter one is going to be quicker to get up to speed and once they are at the same speed the lighter one will use less fuel to maintain that speed, the same principle applies to bike and cyclist.
Stompier
Senior Member
Unless the body of one of the cars offers significantly more drag than the other.
Same drag just a lighter body, do you agree with the comparison?
Stompier
Senior Member
Not sure I do, to be honest. Weight - once underway - and assuming a level surface - should not be an influencing factor. It makes no odds on a bicycle, so I don't see why it would be any different for any other type of powered vehicle.
So if your saying a lighter car won't use less fuel than an heavier car, all other things been equal we will have to agree to disagree.
Stompier
Senior Member
I'll wait for a physicist to come along and explain why Newton's laws of momentum and inertia don't apply in your example. Meanwhile, I'll keep an open mind.
12boy
Guru
- Location
- Casper WY USA
The weight that makes the most difference is the weight of the wheel and even more so the tire. I understand that 20 degree F is 25% denser than 70 degree F air, so a more aero position is more important, perhaps. In these parts the windiest months are winter months, another reason for a winter bike to allow for a less upright posture. I agree with both of the last 2 guys...in two identical vehicles the lighter takes more energy to move, especially when accelerating or climbing. Once up to speed on level ground not so much.
Ajax Bay
Guru
- Location
- East Devon
I'm with @Stompier here. Think you're not recognising the excellent efficiency of a bicycle compared to that of a car - which is where your comparison is flawed (or at least the difference is so marginal as not to be useful). This is CycleChat for goodness sake: why are you bringing motor vehicles into it?
Since the system weight is bike + rider, a difference in bike weight will mean a rather small %age difference in system weight.
Have a play with this 'Bike Calculator'.
A rider averaging 150w over 100km on the flat (and everything else kept the same) on a 9kg bike would complete 14 seconds faster than a rider on a 10kg bike (210:57 v 211:11). On that analysis is (bike) weight "[one of the two] most important factors"? I suggest not.
If one sets the amount of climb to 1% (rather flat for Devon), then the difference is greater: the rider on a 9kg bike takes nearly a minute shorter (shock, horror - the bike is sooo much 'easier' to ride - not).
The issue with all this is riders whose fitness and strength has reduced with age yet they want to keep up and ride with 'better' riders on the hills - a light bike may give them a psychological boost (hurrah and nothing wrong with that) - but it's in the mind, not the body. Just ride steady up the hills, put a bit more effort in on the flat and let the endurance developed by many miles over many years pull the younger guys in a few hours later. Fitting 5000s would be a good way of getting an extra 15w (as opposed to Gatorskins, say).
PaulSB
Legendary Member
- Location
- Chorley, Lancashire
I'd better continue with my two pennyworth here. As I've said I cannot offer science only my practical 2/3 times a week experience.
I don't agree with the idea mudguards etc have sufficient impact to make a big difference. I'm sure science can be found to prove me wrong. At my level the science is largely irrelevant as we are not discussing marginal gains but the performance a summer bike will deliver over a winter bike and also whether simply buying a better bike does aid the rider.
If we use the example above that on both bikes once up to speed the effort required should be equal, I agree this is the case. This being on the perfect ride. It ignores that on most rides one is constantly having to get up to speed. At junctions, out of bends etc. on my winter bike I can find myself 10/20/25 metres off the back. My acceleration is not great but my better, summer bike overcomes this. On my winter bike I have to push to my limit to get back on - every time!! That is hard. The better bike delivers more of my effort in to forward motion.
I don't wish to offend those who can provide the science to back up their argument. I don't believe scientific numbers are important when I'm riding! What is relevant to me is the practical result of riding a better bike - I get more bang for my buck, my effort translates in to a higher pace without getting battered!
I don't agree with the idea mudguards etc have sufficient impact to make a big difference. I'm sure science can be found to prove me wrong. At my level the science is largely irrelevant as we are not discussing marginal gains but the performance a summer bike will deliver over a winter bike and also whether simply buying a better bike does aid the rider.
If we use the example above that on both bikes once up to speed the effort required should be equal, I agree this is the case. This being on the perfect ride. It ignores that on most rides one is constantly having to get up to speed. At junctions, out of bends etc. on my winter bike I can find myself 10/20/25 metres off the back. My acceleration is not great but my better, summer bike overcomes this. On my winter bike I have to push to my limit to get back on - every time!! That is hard. The better bike delivers more of my effort in to forward motion.
I don't wish to offend those who can provide the science to back up their argument. I don't believe scientific numbers are important when I'm riding! What is relevant to me is the practical result of riding a better bike - I get more bang for my buck, my effort translates in to a higher pace without getting battered!
Last edited:
