On the belly or on the bike

[12boy]

Today I had a little jaunt on my Brompty where I picked up 11.7 lbs of dogfood cans in a 2.3 lb homemade front bag. About a stone, I guess. Didn't slow me down much on the flats but going uphill against a little headwind I needed to drop down a gear.
So I was pondering a question....if that stonesweight was on my belly would it have been easier going than having the weight in the front bag? I
have always wondered about this. Any thoughts?

 

[a.twiddler]

The stone's weight on your belly creeps up on you over a period of time so it would eventually affect your performance but your body might compensate for this by getting stronger if you continued to cycle the same amount during that time. If you were into recording your times you might notice you were becoming slower towards the fatter end of that time. Also you would notice hills being more difficult. If you are big a stone would be less of a problem than if you were smaller. Also, if the reason for gaining a stone was that you stopped cycling and spent your time slobbing about on the couch I think you would definitely notice the difference when you started again.

You could experiment by strapping the same weight to yourself and trying it. Maybe the more central weight would be easier to cycle with than the weight over the front wheel?

Of course, all this is just my view. Other opinions are available. Someone else could be along shortly with a different perspective.

 

[Kell]

I think it would be easier to carry on the bike for the most part.

it depends on your cycling style I guess. If you’re out the saddle a lot, then it would be easier to have the weight on the bike as you’re not lifting it off the bike or moving it around as often.

You could test it by seeing the difference between having a rucksack on your back or having the bag on the luggage carrier.

The only thing I’d say against that, is that might only apply ‘in the lab’. As the other issue you will have with a bag on the front is wind/air resistance.

 

[mitchibob]

Lose a stone off you belly and see what the difference is, assuming it's healthy to do so?

 

[Dolorous Edd]

The power required to gain elevation on a hill is proportional to the total mass of the bike plus rider. So where the weight is distributed makes no difference to that.

Of course, there may be second order effects such as ease of breathing if overweight, handling of the bike, etc.

 

[Tenkaykev]

The stone's weight on your belly creeps up on you over a period of time so it would eventually affect your performance but your body might compensate for this by getting stronger if you continued to cycle the same amount during that time. If you were into recording your times you might notice you were becoming slower towards the fatter end of that time. Also you would notice hills being more difficult. If you are big a stone would be less of a problem than if you were smaller. Also, if the reason for gaining a stone was that you stopped cycling and spent your time slobbing about on the couch I think you would definitely notice the difference when you started again.

You could experiment by strapping the same weight to yourself and trying it. Maybe the more central weight would be easier to cycle with than the weight over the front wheel?

Of course, all this is just my view. Other opinions are available. Someone else could be along shortly with a different perspective.

I once loaded up a rucksack with about 7kg worth of ballast and used it to demonstrate how much extra weight a friend was carrying. We were training for an endurance event at the time and he was overweight, it brought it home to him just how much extra work his body was doing, especially going uphills.

 

[burntoutbanger]

I always like to think of it like this. Extra weight on the body (fat/muscle) requires feeding with oxygen, glycogen etc. Extra weight on the bike does not.

I'm not sure how scientifically accurate that is but it makes sense to me (and I'm quite overweight at the moment.)

 

[Kell]

The power required to gain elevation on a hill is proportional to the total mass of the bike plus rider. So where the weight is distributed makes no difference to that.

Of course, there may be second order effects such as ease of breathing if overweight, handling of the bike, etc.

I think techincally, that's correct. But that's assuming you're sat down and the weight isn't moving.

However, I don't think all things are equal and I'm not sure what causes the most extra effort. Being up out of the saddle and lifting the weight up and down vertically because it's on you, or having it attached to bike and swinging it side-to-side.

it's not conclusive either way...

https://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/354/is-weight-better-on-the-bike-or-on-your-back

What i'd say (speaking from personal experience) is that the more weight you have on your belly the harder it is to pedal hard when you're doubled over because it's harder to breathe as everything gets crushed up.

Having put on a stone and a half during lockdown, I can confirm that.

 

[MichaelW2]

Lay off the dogfood. It is better in the can than your belly.
As for weight in general, belly mass can be suspended by standing on the pedals. Luggage is generally unsuspended weight so has to go up and down over every bump

 

[Dolorous Edd]

However, I don't think all things are equal and I'm not sure what causes the most extra effort. Being up out of the saddle and lifting the weight up and down vertically because it's on you, or having it attached to bike and swinging it side-to-side.

it's not conclusive either way...

https://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/354/is-weight-better-on-the-bike-or-on-your-back

The article talks about a 0.3 watt saving. Many recreational cyclists will be pushing out around 200 watts or more going up a hill. Could it make a difference? Yes. Is the difference big? No.

 

[Kell]

The article talks about a 0.3 watt saving. Many recreational cyclists will be pushing out around 200 watts or more going up a hill. Could it make a difference? Yes. Is the difference big? No.

It talks about 0.3 watts on a water bottle - not on a stone of weight.

Water bottles tend to be 500ml which is about +/- 0.5kg (depending on the weight of the bottle). A stone in weight is 6.35 kg.

Still under two watts though, so not a lot.

There was a GCN video in which Hank was given a trailer loaded up to 100kg (with him + bike + trailer) and asked to cycle up a hill. He couldn't do it.

Would a 93kg rider on a 7kg bike have fared any better? Would it be a fair test? They may have entirely different power profiles.

Who knows?

 

[12boy]

I appreciate your input although the question is not fully resolved in my mind. I have often read of it being pointed out to weight weenies that instead of going for ever lighter bikes, excess blub on the rider would be just as effective. I do believe that lighter wheels have a greater positive effect than losing an equivalent number of grams off the belly.
So far, l haven't been eating dogfood, though. My geriatric pooch has refused to eat kibble any more and hence canned food. For myself, l don't want to lose a stone. l might if l had to eat canned dogfood, though.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

The power required to gain elevation on a hill is proportional to the total mass of the bike plus rider. So where the weight is distributed makes no difference to that

Except it does. Belly fat is not biologically inert. Having that belly fat means your body is working harder even just staying still. Those fat cells are consuming resources that could have been used to propel you forward.

 

[Kell]

I appreciate your input although the question is not fully resolved in my mind.

Nor mine.

 

[mitchibob]

I as recently failed to finish the Dragon Ride Gran Fondo on a road bike, I can say that being about 9-10 kilos heavier than I wanted, at least on one of the climbs that I knew, plus still lacking some power since injuries earlier in the year, I can say, the weight the does not help going up. Devil's Elbow, a guy pushing his bike up was catching up with me, at which point, I decided to follow suit. But I entered it intending to do on Brompton (I'd have gone for double chainring, knowing you need bigger ring than 44T on descents, or it's more terrifying), but lockdown road bike and turbo might've softened me up... the breaking knee and wrist in January definitely didn't help as struggled to get back power.

Hoping that moving back to Wales, having beautiful mountain roads on the doorstep, is going to help with that for next year though. Although, having now tried it once, while it'd be great to try and do it on a Brommie next time, might just try to finish on any bike before I go for that. It was bloody tough! Plus, not sure about some of the descents when it starts to rain on a Brommie now after experiencing with disc brakes. Also, after scouting some of the bits of the Fred Whitton challenge, can see why they don't allow certain bikes, as some descents, my forearms were killing me from the time spent on the brakes on the Brommie, although, not sure I'm brave enough on any bike for that to not be the case, especially in the wet.

But, being 9 kilos heavier than I'd like does not justify spending a load on an N+1 that's significantly lighter than the bikes I'm currently riding, all around 11kg. Although, the mountains might justify something that I can get a more compact chainring for and closer ratios. Still need a reasonable ring for the descents. Maybe electronic? ;-).