What makes a bigger impact on uphill cycling - bike weight or gear ratios?

[Fab Foodie]

Heavier bike: http://www.evanscycles.com/products/ridgeback/speed-2014-hybrid-bike-ec059645

Lighter bike: http://www.evanscycles.com/products/pinnacle/neon-two-2015-hybrid-bike-ec054677

I'll riding around the city a few times a week, just for getting to the shops, etc. There are steep hills around though

Assuming both bikes are available in your size, the Ridgeback is a bargain!

My thoughts: The Pinnacle will 'feel' the faster and zippier of the two on account of slightly less weight and thinner wheels/tyres and no mudguards causing drag. However! That's if you want to ride at any speed. IF, you want to ride around town in comfort without having to look out for potholes, to get up all the hills and keep a bit cleaner in the rainy/muddy streets AND have the added advantage of being able to carry something on the back then the Ridgeback is a steal. You could almost cross continents on it. If outright speed and screaming round corners is not your thing then the Ridgeback.

 

[Citius]

The 15'' frame does fit me though, and if those things add up to 3kg in weight, couldn't I take them off and it'll be the same as the other bike in weight?

Possibly - but the Pinnacle is more expensive as it is a better spec - so you are still getting what you paid for.

 

[Fab Foodie]

Test ride them both.

 

[Thursday guy]

Assuming both bikes are available in your size, the Ridgeback is a bargain!

My thoughts: The Pinnacle will 'feel' the faster and zippier of the two on account of slightly less weight and thinner wheels/tyres and no mudguards causing drag. However! That's if you want to ride at any speed. IF, you want to ride around town in comfort without having to look out for potholes, to get up all the hills and keep a bit cleaner in the rainy/muddy streets AND have the added advantage of being able to carry something on the back then the Ridgeback is a steal. You could almost cross continents on it. If outright speed and screaming round corners is not your thing then the Ridgeback.

At 5'5'', the 15'' frame should fit me, as with the 'small' frame of the pinnacle as well.

Do you think I'll be able to fit on thinner tyres (i.e. 28mm) on the Ridgeback?

The specs only say its rims are 'ZAC-19SL'. Not sure what that means, I assume it means 19mm width?

The Pinnacle's rims are 'Alex Ace-19 32H'. Again, I assume it also means 19mm width, in which case, then that would suggest the Ridgeback could also take in 28mm tyres.

 

[Fab Foodie]

At 5'5'', the 15'' frame should fit me, as with the 'small' frame of the pinnacle as well.

Do you think I'll be able to fit on thinner tyres (i.e. 28mm) on the Ridgeback?

The specs only say its rims are 'ZAC-19SL'. Not sure what that means, I assume it means 19mm width?

The Pinnacle's rims are 'Alex Ace-19 32H'. Again, I assume it also means 19mm width, in which case, then that would suggest the Ridgeback could also take in 28mm tyres.

That seems a reasonable assumption. But the benefit is only if you're going to ride fast (15mph upwards) ... and remove the drag inducing mudguards. Otherwise at lower speeds the wider tyres are optimal. Again, think about what you'll really use the bike for. Not easy i know.

 

[slowmotion]

For a given rider weight and a given level of fitness, I find that low gearing is far more important than a few kilograms of extra bike weight. On holiday, and riding a really low geared steel MTB weighing 17kg, I could go up quite steep hills that would have been a major challenge on my 9kg road bike with 11-28 on the back and 50/34 on the front.

 

[Nigelnaturist]

Big price difference between them,

Possibly - but the Pinnacle is more expensive as it is a better spec - so you are still getting what you paid for.

Yea but imagine what you could put on the ridgeback for £200, easily make it a 10sp triple with quality components, but thats just me, tiagra or 105 FD/RD and cassette, choice of ratios up to 32th, or fit a MTB RD and go to 34th, options are endless, buying a bike is a bit like buying an S.L.R. camera you start with the basics a build from the knowledge and experience you gain.

 

[biggs682]

weight and fitness level come joint first closely followed by gear ratios

 

[nobbyp]

Don't think bike weight is the most critical as rider weight is more significant (and potentially changeable - I have lost more than the 3kg diff in Jan alone with exercise and diet) If you have the wrong gear set you will struggle to get even the lightest super bike up the hills as you are still trying to shift all your own weight plus that of the bike up the hill.

I'd choose the bike that fits you the best and you like the most as you can change the gearing and you can change wheels etc and get fitter and better at climbing technique but you will still be the same height / reach etc

 

[bpsmith]

The bike fitting is taken for granted, surely? Whichever bike is chosen, making sure it fits goes without saying!

 

[mrjamieholloway]

Which of these two factors are more important when it comes to making uphill climbs easier?

I'm looking at two bikes at the moment. One is about 3kg lighter than the other (10.4kg vs 13.5kg)

But if I got my calculations right (and please do check), the heavier bike has more a favorable gearing for uphill climbs. It has 48/38/28T chainrings and 12-32 cassette, so the lowest gear ratio is 28/32 (0.875). Whereas the lighter bike has 50/34T chainrings and 11-32 cassette, lowest gear ratio is 34/32 (1.06ar ratios and drive trains are easy to chain/upgrade so I would not get so caught up in that if you don't have enough range. A bicycle weight however is more fixed, and is difficult to make a meaningful change without changing large components like the frame, wheelset or Fork.

Which of these two factors are more important when it comes to making uphill climbs easier?

I'm looking at two bikes at the moment. One is about 3kg lighter than the other (10.4kg vs 13.5kg)

But if I got my calculations right (and please do check), the heavier bike has more a favorable gearing for uphill climbs. It has 48/38/28T chainrings and 12-32 cassette, so the lowest gear ratio is 28/32 (0.875). Whereas the lighter bike has 50/34T chainrings and 11-32 cassette, lowest gear ratio is 34/32 (1.06).

Hello, to really simply the answer, you need to understand that gear ratios and drive trains are easier and cheaper to upgrade or change on a bike than it's overall weight. You Will not be able to make a meaningful change in the weight of a bike without changing larger components like the frame, wheelset or fork. Other components are less likely to make a significant impact on the weight. From personal experience, 2-3kg does make a significant difference, especially on uphills. Even on more flat terrain, the lighter bike will accelerate and maintain its speed better and more consistently as no trail/road is completely flat. Other factors like whether your fork has a lockout, fast rolling tyres and tyre pressure also play a large factor. It really depends on what you want out of the bike. 13kg is usually average for a trail bike, and 11kg is more typical of a XC/gravel bike. If you are planning to do more downhill then go for the trail bike, and play around with gear ratio, fast rolling rear tyre and tyre pressure to get the most out of the bike. Another factor that hugely affects how a bike rides is its geometry, and this can very easily be over looked as it impacts the efficiency and fit of the rider. Hope this helps.

 

[rogerzilla]

Bike weight, as any fixie rider can tell you.

 

[Bristolian]

An even bigger factor is rider weight.

 

[ColinJ]

They haven't logged back in since 2016, so I don't think that we need to provide any more replies to the question!

 

[Dogtrousers]

Biggest factor is direction. Just saying