Clydesdales/Athenas (200+ lb / 91+ kg) - bike weight, rider weight and speed: whats the real deal?

Ok, OBVIOUSLY the lighter the bike (or any vehicle, for that matter), the easier to accelerate, and the less power it requires to maintain velocity.

Also, the lighter the rider (and assuming equal power capacity) the quicker acceleration and higher top speed capacity.

But we are "clydes." How much does bike weight matter in relation to body weight? I, for instance, weigh 300#, with tree trunks for legs. How much difference woul I really notice between a 30lb bike vs. a 22lb bike?

I know that rotational mass, specifically rims and tires, is the ideal place to cut weight, but are the extra couple of pounds of frame and components all that improtant, especially with people our size?

Great Question, I've been wondering the same thing.

Not exactly...

Yes lighter means less effort to get up to speed and to get up hills, but once you are at speed (on the flats) weight has virtually no effect... think of a freight train - once it gets moving (very sluggish and requires obscene amount of power) it will roll on its own for a long long way until you hit the brakes or come to a hill.

Same goes for rotating weight - more weight means more effort to start up, but has virtually no effect on cruising speed on the flats.

I wonder for medium-big folks such as yourself (I am a puny 260 lbs) how much extra drag will come from overstressed bearings and flattened out tires - my guess would be not too much, because I do fast group rides on my road bike with a bunch of 'people' under 200 lbs (and a few of those under 160 lbs) and I can keep up easily until we hit a long hill.

If you are riding a road or hybrid bike, make sure that you have slightly wider tires (many people run 23mm wide tires, clydes should probably have 28 or 32 for the road), and that they are pumped up to their maximum pressure (hopefully 85 lbs or more, over 100psi is best),
and that when you are slecting new wheels or a new bike that you make sure the hubs are good quality, and that you maintain them diligently with fresh grease and new bearings when necessary.

To answer your question, most people won't notice too much difference between a 22 lb bike and a 30 lb bike, if the only difference between the bikes is the weight. Often, however, the bikes with higher quality tires and bearings tend to be the lighter ones, and this could mean more of a difference than overall bike weight. However, if you are planning some long mountain rides with thousands of feet of climbing, you will likely appreciate a bike that is 8 lbs lighter.

Not exactly...

Yes lighter means less effort to get up to speed and to get up hills, but once you are at speed (on the flats) weight has virtually no effect... think of a freight train - once it gets moving (very sluggish and requires obscene amount of power) it will roll on its own for a long long way until you hit the brakes or come to a hill.

Same goes for rotating weight - more weight means more effort to start up, but has virtually no effect on cruising speed on the flats.

I wonder for medium-big folks such as yourself (I am a puny 260 lbs) how much extra drag will come from overstressed bearings and flattened out tires - my guess would be not too much, because I do fast group rides on my road bike with a bunch of 'people' under 200 lbs (and a few of those under 160 lbs) and I can keep up easily until we hit a long hill.

If you are riding a road or hybrid bike, make sure that you have slightly wider tires (many people run 23mm wide tires, clydes should probably have 28 or 32 for the road), and that they are pumped up to their maximum pressure (hopefully 85 lbs or more, over 100psi is best),
and that when you are slecting new wheels or a new bike that you make sure the hubs are good quality, and that you maintain them diligently with fresh grease and new bearings when necessary.

To answer your question, most people won't notice too much difference between a 22 lb bike and a 30 lb bike, if the only difference between the bikes is the weight. Often, however, the bikes with higher quality tires and bearings tend to be the lighter ones, and this could mean more of a difference than overall bike weight. However, if you are planning some long mountain rides with thousands of feet of climbing, you will likely appreciate a bike that is 8 lbs lighter.


Good post!

I do, however, disagree on one point. Weight DOES matter for maintaining velocity, as weight increases friction.

Fr = μN

Force of friction is equal to the coefficient of friction multiplied by the force pushing the two bodies together. In this case the force is gravity, the force of gravity being F=ma, with a=9.8m/s as a constant, so the mass is what dictates the amount of force.

With that said, that is going to be a bigger issue with rider weight than bike weight, imo.

Good post!

I do, however, disagree on one point. Weight DOES matter for maintaining velocity, as weight increases friction.

Fr = μN

Force of friction is equal to the coefficient of friction multiplied by the force pushing the two bodies together. In this case the force is gravity, the force of gravity being F=ma, with a=9.8m/s as a constant, so the mass is what dictates the amount of force.

With that said, that is going to be a bigger issue with rider weight than bike weight, imo.

I disagree... the friction you are calculating is the friction between the tire and the road keeping the tire from sliding... not keeping the tire from rolling. I agree extra weight will make it harder to drag the tire, but not to roll it. If that equation was correct then a 200 lb person would have to work twice as hard as a 100 lb person to keep a bike moving (neglecting air resistance), but this is not the case.

...If you are riding a road or hybrid bike, make sure that you have slightly wider tires (many people run 23mm wide tires, clydes should probably have 28 or 32 for the road), and that they are pumped up to their maximum pressure (hopefully 85 lbs or more, over 100psi is best)...

With all due respect, I'd be VERY cautious about this particular advice. Rims are manufactured with an expectation of a specific range of tire sizes. What you're advocating may exceed all safety parameters. A 32mm wide tire may be far beyond the rim's design. Having exceeded the design, you then advocate maximum tire pressure (exerting even more pressure on the already overstressed rim). And since this is the Clyde forum, we then put a heavier than normal rider on the combination of too wide a tire and too high a pressure.

The results can be disastrous. I speak from experience. I had a Mavic rim fail on me from the exact combination of factors mentioned above. Fortunately, I wasn't badly injured or killed, but I still have neurological damage from that incident.

Cyclocross racers can get away with wide tires on road rims because their tire pressures are less and the riders weigh less. Clydes (and particularly those running high tire pressures) should beware. Check with the rim manufacturer about the appropriate range of tire sizes for the specific rim. If the proposed tire width is within the manufacturer's specs, then maximum-rated pressure (listed on the tire sidewall) is probably OK.

I disagree... the friction you are calculating is the friction between the tire and the road keeping the tire from sliding... not keeping the tire from rolling. I agree extra weight will make it harder to drag the tire, but not to roll it. If that equation was correct then a 200 lb person would have to work twice as hard as a 100 lb person to keep a bike moving (neglecting air resistance), but this is not the case.

This is correct if you think about it not at the point that the tire meets the road, since you want this to be 'sticky', but rather at the hub, where the rotation is effected through the bearings. In this case, the direction of force is down, the force is gravity, and the COF would be whatever that is for the steel bearings and grease-I don't know this off hand :)

This is the dichotomy of the wheel! you want to maximize the effect of the coefficient of static friction at the perimeter, where the 'rubber meets the road', and minimize the effect of the coefficient of sliding friction at the hub.

Very good point. THank you.

This is correct if you think about it not at the point that the tire meets the road, since you want this to be 'sticky', but rather at the hub, where the rotation is effected through the bearings. In this case, the direction of force is down, the force is gravity, and the COF would be whatever that is for the steel bearings and grease-I don't know this off hand :)

This is the dichotomy of the wheel! you want to maximize the effect of the coefficient of static friction at the perimeter, where the 'rubber meets the road', and minimize the effect of the coefficient of sliding friction at the hub.

Actually, the friction in rolling element bearings like in bicycle wheels does not work on the same F = uN equation - it has to do with the type of lubrication, the size of the balls, the number of balls, the hardness of the materials, etc... The balls are still rolling inside the hub, just like the wheel. The friction in a rolling element bearing will increase with greater rider weight, just not anywhere near a linear "2 X weight = 2 X friction" relationship. If the force on the bearing (from heavy rider/bike combo or from poor assembly or materials) is beyond the capacity of the bearing then the bearing will have a lot more friction while it is getting chewed into oblivion.

Frankly, I don't think many need to worry about actual bike weight. More important is the quality of the bearings and associated races in moving parts. High quality hubs and bottom bracket will make a noticeable difference. An even bigger difference will be gained by loosing body weight and improving the engine.

In other words, replacing wheels to get good hubs will help. But not as much as improving yourself.

I'm down 28 pounds now, from 205 (no longer a clyde, course, I'm only 5'7"). I'm on the same bike and components. I'm really noticing a difference from my fitness level and improved strength and endurance. The engine has improved a lot.

I disagree... the friction you are calculating is the friction between the tire and the road keeping the tire from sliding... not keeping the tire from rolling. I agree extra weight will make it harder to drag the tire, but not to roll it. If that equation was correct then a 200 lb person would have to work twice as hard as a 100 lb person to keep a bike moving (neglecting air resistance), but this is not the case.


You are correct. I am not too knowledgeable about physics.

it still seems that a heavy load requires more work to maintain velocity. I mean, I know my pickup truck gets better mileage with an empty bed than with a heavy load on long trips.

Am I missing something?

You are correct. I am not too knowledgeable about physics.

it still seems that a heavy load requires more work to maintain velocity. I mean, I know my pickup truck gets better mileage with an empty bed than with a heavy load on long trips.

Am I missing something?

Simple Newtonian physics...

For each action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Meaning if you are heavier it will require more force to get you going than if you were lighter. Likewise...

An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. Meaning it requires more "unbalanced force" to stop a heavier object than a lighter object. In a vacuum with no friction or other forces it would require more force to stop a 300lb moving object than a 150lb moving object. A heavier object has more inertia than a lighter object.

Ohh Physics! I can just see myself on my way home this afternoon doing calculations as I climb up a 8% grade for 1.5 miles in 87 deg heat. :bike2:

Yup that's what I'll be thinking about. :p

wikipedia has some interesting words on bike weight on performance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_performance#Weight_vs_power

"For instance, lowering a bike's weight by 1 lb, a major effort considering they may weigh less than 15 lb to start with, will have the same effect over a 40 km time trial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_trial) as removing a protrusion into the air the size of a pencil."

given that us clydes "protrude into the air" far more than a pencil, I'm saying bike weight doesn't have that much effect.

wow, great link!

So getting my fat ass out of the wind is like cutting 10 bikes worth of weight!

Would a hybrid with a drop bar look wierd? hahaha

FWIW: I currently ride a 17-lb road bike. My old beast tips the scales at probably 20+ lbs or more. When I took my lighter one into the shop for some work on it, I rode the older, heavier one. I noticed the difference in weight instantly. Felt like I was riding through sand all the time...just very sluggish.

Actually, a hybrid with drop bars is called "a touring bike" :thumb:

If you can find a touring bike that is comfortable for you, they are the best of all worlds (maybe not gnarly offroading, but just about everything else).

FWIW: I currently ride a 17-lb road bike. My old beast tips the scales at probably 20+ lbs or more. When I took my lighter one into the shop for some work on it, I rode the older, heavier one. I noticed the difference in weight instantly. Felt like I was riding through sand all the time...just very sluggish.

How much of that is the weight of the bike vs. the wheels/components?

How much of that is the weight of the bike vs. the wheels/components?

And are all other things equal on the bikes, or is you 17lb bike a shiny new high quality bike and the 20 lb bike is older and lower quality (and possibly needing new tires, bearings, etc)?

Light bikes are nice. For me, I'm not going to worry about shopping for a bike that is ten pounds lighter when I can spend my energy making me sixty pounds lighter. I think that will do far more to increase my speed and make my rides feel easier. I'll just keep riding my 29# touring bike and smiling. I will comment on the point made about quality components. Even though my steel touring bike is pretty heavy, it has fairly nice components and it feels noticably easier to ride than some other bikes of similar weight with lots of wear or slightly less desirable parts.

"clydes should probably have 28 or 32 for the road), and that they are pumped up to their maximum pressure (hopefully 85 lbs or more, over 100psi is best)"


I would definitely disagree with this. I started riding at 315+ and have always ridden 23 cm tires. I have never had any issues with them and usually run them at their near max of 120+ (depending on the tire). I can't imagine why I would need a wider tire for road use.

I have seen this thinking posted elsewhere on this forum and am puzzled as to why people think Clydes have to roll on bikes built like tanks. I now weigh 240 and my legs are bigger than ever - even when I used to do powerlifting. So believe me when I say that I can put a hurtin' on a bike.

As far as the speed/weight question goes, I think the only place that weight matters for Clydes is in hill climbing. Descending is awesome:D, flats don't matter, and the weight can even be a benefit when there are rollers. The only place I have gotten slower since riding (been on the same bike since I started 3 years ago - it weighs 19) is on the descents because I don't have as much weight pulling me down the hills. But saving a few pounds on the bike doesn't mean near as much as getting rid of the pounds around my waist!

We seem to be mostly forgetting the number one cause of bikes (and riders) not going faster - wind resistance.

Drop bars, presenting less of a profile to the wind through weight loss - both will improve speed and efficiency, especially at higher bicycle speeds.

It is not a linear relationship.

Ok, OBVIOUSLY the lighter the bike (or any vehicle, for that matter), the easier to accelerate, and the less power it requires to maintain velocity.

Also, the lighter the rider (and assuming equal power capacity) the quicker acceleration and higher top speed capacity.

But we are "clydes." How much does bike weight matter in relation to body weight? I, for instance, weigh 300#, with tree trunks for legs. How much difference woul I really notice between a 30lb bike vs. a 22lb bike?

I know that rotational mass, specifically rims and tires, is the ideal place to cut weight, but are the extra couple of pounds of frame and components all that improtant, especially with people our size?

The biggest difference between a 30lb bike and a 22lb bike, is going to be the weight of your wallet, which will be considerably lighter with the 22lb bike.

On flat ground, it's not going to make any difference, once your moving, going up hill, gravity doesn't differentiate between bike weight and "engine" weight. If your racing, then weight can mean a huge difference, providing all other factors are the same, especially when races are won and lost by .01 seconds. However if your not racing, then spending $1000 on a crank that is 3g lighter then a $100 crank, is darn right silly, no matter whether your 150lbs or 300lbs. When over 90% of the weight is in the engine, that is the obvious place to start cutting excess weight, it's also the cheapest.

You also do realise that rotational mass is only an issue during the earliest phase of acceleration, and that it becomes much less important as speed increases.

There are other factors though, rolling resistance, which can often be solved by wider or higher pressure tires (or both), wind resistance is also a major factor, it's the sail effect, the smaller your profile to the wind, the less wind resistance your going to see. Another factor, although a smaller one, is drive train efficiency, a stiff, dirty old chain, and hubs that haven't seen grease in years, is going to hurt efficiency more then an extra 1lb of bike weight, even rotational mass.

Probably the biggest factor though is engine efficiency, how efficient is the engine in turning fuel into pedal motion, that is typically accomplished with a lot of miles, and a lot of training, which is a lot of hard work, but being able to kick the butt of a rider that is 50lbs lighter and 15 years younger, going up the side of heart attack ridge is priceless. :D

I have a 17 lb road bike and I have a 27 lb touring bike. I am significantly faster on the road bike than I am on the touring bike. I accelerate faster, I climb faster, and it is easier to maintain my speed on the flats. The only place that I have found the touring bike to be faster is on long and steep descents (this may be due to the additional weight but the touring bike has a longer wheel base as well as longer chain stays.)

If it's speed I want, I take the 17 lb bicycle every time. If It's comfort, versatility, and carrying loads... the touring bike gets the call.

I have a 17 lb road bike and I have a 27 lb touring bike. I am significantly faster on the road bike than I am on the touring bike. I accelerate faster, I climb faster, and it is easier to maintain my speed on the flats. The only place that I have found the touring bike to be faster is on long and steep descents (this may be due to the additional weight but the touring bike has a longer wheel base as well as longer chain stays.)

If it's speed I want, I take the 17 lb bicycle every time. If It's comfort, versatility, and carrying loads... the touring bike gets the call.Yes, but ITR, I think we're bucking conventional Clyde wisdom here...

:D

How much of that is the weight of the bike vs. the wheels/components?

Doesn't matter as we're only comparing absolute weights here. I don't ride a frame. Neither do I ride a wheelset. It all goes together. What I said was, when on the 25+ lb bike I felt more sluggish than when on my lighter bike. Unless you're arguing inferior bearings in BB and hubs. I'd have to be convinced that that is what I'm feeling.

I don't concern myself with weight. When I train, I ride faster. When I was in shape (25 lbs ago) I went out with a local race team to do their crit training rides. I don't race and only a rec rider. This night I was on my 98 CAAD3 Cannondale with my $25 budget rear rim. All the other guys were on CAAD8's with $1500 wheels. Me and 3 other guys dropped the group of about 20 riders. 30 mile ride with my 2000 gram wheels? It was the training!

That was the night I realized, I don't need no stinking lite bike!:roflmao:

Boy, do I need to get back into shape!:p

Actually, a hybrid with drop bars is called "a touring bike" :thumb:



You mean I just paid $1200 for a hybrid with drop bars? :(

yes. That is exactly what I am saying.

(edit)
If you actually do find this thought upsetting, then you have the wrong idea about 'hybrid' bikes...

most hybrid bikes sold (like >90%) are basic bikes people use to ride around town, ride with the kids on bike paths, etc.

But the term 'hybrid' only refers to a 'hybrid' between road and monutain bikes - large road-size wheels (usually) for efficiency, and an upright mountain bike style bar for comfort. THe cheapest ones are generally more similar to 'comfort' mountain bikes, the best are more similar to touring bikes.

The more expensive hybrids (sometimes called straight-bar road bikes or street bikes or some such thing) can cost a whole lot more, and are very high quality bikes that ride well and can handle any road or path with much higher efficiency than a mountain bike or basic hybrid.

You mean I just paid $1200 for a hybrid with drop bars? :(

Sort of, but one with better brakes, etc. Better than a hybrid's hubs, as well. You paid for better components, all around.

HI,
I went by my LBS and a riding expert showed me some models for CLydes he told me that yes I could buy a entry level frame and wheels but they have spoke and bearing problems in less than a year. ITs the weight of the rider vesus potholes, curbs,and such
He showed me a wheel on a specialized bike that had off set spokes that go straight into the wheel spindle thru flanges that are alligned with the spoke he says that prevents all that twisting at the wheel hub and he said a 5oo.oo dollar rear wheel will last 10 times longer than a entry level bike.
Sooo my next bike may cost neat 2,000.00 but heck I am worth it.
My entry level bike-direct mountian is still a pleasure to ride at only 450..
Doug
NO problems yet.. nock on wood.

I'm afraid I'm not following the physics discussion ... but, from personal experience (and I'm old and heavy ... 50 yrs and 260lbs 5'10") ... I can hang with the faster guys and keep a 20mph pace for 40 miles on relatively flat ground, but get dropped like an anchor when we hit hills. That said, I do ride a lightweight steel bike and I think it helps ... probably just in my head.

To me, the overlooked issue in all this is why people are riding in the first place. You get on your bike and ride an hour or two or whatever, and end up the same place you started. Net travel: Zero. Consequently, when you start looking at better ways to get back to where you started, it's not really a logical persuit. Logic dictates that you just stay there in the first place, or if you want to go fast, you ride a motorcycle. So toss the logic.

Consider why you're riding, then. Probably either for fun or exercise. Any bike will give you a lot of exercise if you work at it, so that's not really a distinction. What you're left with is the Fun issue. Is riding a lighter bike more fun? If so, it doesn't really matter if it's much faster or not. Ditto with one that's prettier or a fixie or whatever. If you're riding in a big circle and having fun doing it and getting exercise, mission accomplished. If the bike is too uncomfortable or too heavy or geared wrong or keeps breaking down, it won't be fun

HI,
I went by my LBS and a riding expert

He showed me a wheel on a specialized bike that had off set spokes that go straight into the wheel spindle thru flanges that are alligned with the spoke he says that prevents all that twisting at the wheel hub and he said a 5oo.oo dollar rear wheel will last 10 times longer than a entry level bike.



That is called 'radial lacing'. Ask the expert why is the drive side of a rear built with crossing spokes and the non drive side sometimes built with a radial laced pattern? If the radial is so much stronger, why is the wheel built with crossed spokes on the side that takes most of the abuse.:thumb:

Ask the expert if you buy a 105 wheel for $100, will a $500 wheel last 10 times longer?

Ask the expert why wheels are built with crossing patterns on the rear wheel with trailing spokes are laced to the inside of the hub flange for reinforcement during flex and if radial laced drive side wheels would provide the same support?

I'm not 100% sure, but not everyone that works in a bike shop is an expert.:p

(and I'm old and heavy ... 50 yrs and 260lbs 5'10") ...

No, you are 50 years young, and I am 68 years young!

You gotta change your attitude.

No, you are 50 years young, and I am 68 years young!

You gotta change your attitude.

You are never old, because old is 20+ years older then what you are.:D

You are never old, because old is 20+ years older then what you are.:D

:beer:

So, a guy, 50, thinks that I, at 68, am almost "old?"

Grr!!

No, you are 50 years young, and I am 68 years young!

You gotta change your attitude.

No he doesn't. He's planning to sucker the younguns. Keep quiet or they'll catch on.

I would like to be a contrarian and argue that a light bike and especially light wheels are slower on the flats than a heavier bike. The heavier bike feels sluggish when you accelerate, but it holds its speed better once you get going, so you get less of the repeated "surge and lag" effect that a light bike would give you.

Of course no road is completely flat, so in reality a light bike will be better on most road rides due to the fact that it is a bit faster over even the shallowest uphill sections, and for a variety of reasons that overrides any slight advantage weight might have on flat or downhill sections. If you were aiming to set an average speed record on an indoor track, a heavy bike is not a disadvantage, and heavy wheels may actually be the best choice.

And if you're racing downhill, pour a whole lot of lead slugs into your seat tube.

Of course this all depends on "all other things being equal", which they never are.

I would hazard to guess that the bearings and wheel quality, size, and tire, and the gearing have much more to do with how fast on a bike you are, than the 10 or 20 pounds difference in weight. If you weigh 300 lbs, and ride two bikes that are identical in components, but one is 10 lbs different, you would probably be 3% more efficient on the lighter bike. On the other hand, if you weighted 160, and rode one bike that was 20 lbs lighter, you would be 12.5% more efficient, much more of a gain. I believe that efficiency would be much more of an accurate gauge than friction, but don't take my made up numbers as fact, because its not that easy to figure efficiency out.

Since weight is only one small part of the total energy balance equation, I have to say your numbers are pretty much meaningless.

weight is a big part, I understand higher quality hubs between two bikes make a difference but if you think that weight doesn't matter load up 10 lbs (two bags of sugar) to your frame and ride around. same hubs, BB, wheels, aero area, etc, but i guarantee it is much more difficult.

This is very apparent on my commuter where the bike weighs ~28 lbs with no load then i add at least 5 lbs every morning, When i switch to the 19 lb roadie Huge difference, even unloaded of same bike big difference. I know some of you have the "on flat land" disclaimer, which is kinda BS model realistically or not at all. Do the "add 10lbs" experiment and you will find that accelerating/ hills account for the majority of your riding time.

Do the "add 10lbs" experiment and you will find that accelerating/ hills account for the majority of your riding time.

Hills, maybe, but the extra weight has little overall impact on your riding speed through effects on acceleration: it slows both acceleration and deceleration (everybody forgets about deceleration!) and those cancel out. Sure, it's hard to get up to speed, and the weight may make you a feel a bit more sluggish, but as soon as you reach cruising speed and ease up on your efforts, the weight pushes you along and you don't slow as quickly. Of course if your ride involves repeatedly braking, then a heavy bike is slower.

To me, the overlooked issue in all this is why people are riding in the first place...Consider why you're riding, then. Probably either for fun or exercise. Any bike will give you a lot of exercise if you work at it, so that's not really a distinction. What you're left with is the Fun issue. Is riding a lighter bike more fun? If so, it doesn't really matter if it's much faster or not...

One of the best comments on this subject that I've seen. Bravo, StephenH! Well done. :thumb:

i brake quite a bit and accelerate quite a bit. The stop signs and red lights get me in my suburban area, so in my area the weight is very noticable. If you literally had a 30 mile flat path with no peds or signage the cruising speed of these things should not be different, but like someone mentioned this is where the lighter = higher quality friction points comes into play as i cruise faster on my lighter bike too.

When i ride for fun i ride the fast bike, so the lighter bike is more fun :) but i love all of my bikes.

actually the XC bike on the trails is the heaviest and the slowest, but i enjoy the scenic trails probably the most of any ride. but 15 on a trail feels alot faster than 20 on the road

What you're left with is the Fun issue. Is riding a lighter bike more fun? If so, it doesn't really matter if it's much faster or not.


One of the best comments on this subject that I've seen. Bravo, StephenH! Well done. :thumb:

But remember, debating about bike issues is fun too.

But remember, debating about bike issues is fun too.

exactly. I dont ride my bike sad that its heavy or happy that its light. I just like to learn while not riding.:thumb:

Ok,let me 'weigh' in here.
I'm just barely over 200 as of this post but back in june (when I got the 16.7 pound CF MOtobecane on the road) I weighed in at 222.
For the past umpteen years my main ride was a 23 pound paramount with 36 3x wheels weighing in over 2400 grms per set.
The difference between the CF moto with it's 1600 grm wheels and super stiff BB and the Tange Prestige OS tubbed Paramount with its 2400 grm wheels is...night and day.
Beyond quicker sprints or easier hill climbs,it's the endurance factor that seems to come into play (for me anyway). The more effecient transfer of my energy seems to make those looonnng rides a lot easier. There's less lactic acid buildup (again,for me)less muscle fatigue.

On the flip side,one has to watch those light weight wheels (especially the bladed spoke ones)when factoring in the bikes weight.
I learned about wheel wobble with 20f 24r bladed lightweight wheels. It's probably going to cost me half what I paid for the bike to remedy the situation.

weight is a big part, I understand higher quality hubs between two bikes make a difference but if you think that weight doesn't matter load up 10 lbs (two bags of sugar) to your frame and ride around. same hubs, BB, wheels, aero area, etc, but i guarantee it is much more difficult.

This is very apparent on my commuter where the bike weighs ~28 lbs with no load then i add at least 5 lbs every morning, When i switch to the 19 lb roadie Huge difference, even unloaded of same bike big difference. I know some of you have the "on flat land" disclaimer, which is kinda BS model realistically or not at all. Do the "add 10lbs" experiment and you will find that accelerating/ hills account for the majority of your riding time.


I do this experiment almost every day - I strap 15 lbs of clothes and panniers and shoes to the back of my bike and ride 14 km to work... some days I only bring a shirt and underwear, some days I bring nothing. My cruising speed on the flat sections of road are identical, but I can actually maintain the speed better on the flats after coming down a hill. I usually forget that my bike is loaded until I get to a hill... that is where the weight is a serious penalty.

Also, carrying 20lbs of panniers, 20lbs of backpack or 20 lbs of extra body fat all have the same effect on road riding speed for me - virtually none on flats, same penalty on hills.

I can actually maintain the speed better on the flats after coming down a hill. I usually forget that my bike is loaded until I get to a hill.

This is an important point. A heavy bike (and especially one with heavy wheels) feels sluggish when you accelerate and you notice that because you are making an effort. But you are less likely to notice the benefits - that it holds its speed better - because that doesn't involve effort. So when people say it's obvious that a light bike is faster because it just feels faster, they are only noticing half the story.