Mountain Biking - bike wieght and climbing

I have a question that so far has produced various answers.

Everyone knows that the ligther a bike......the easier it is to peddle up hill.

So, lets say I have 15 pounds of stuff that I need to bring into the forest with me. I can easily put attatch this 15 pounds of stuff to the bike frame OR I can carry it on my back.

The question is.....which method will be easier for hill climbing OR does it make no difference? (leave comfort of discomfort of backpack out of equation.)

My feeling is that it doens't matter. Once you get on the bike....you are essentially powering the load/weight together up the hill one way or the other.

Thanks!
Ken

I have a question that so far has produced various answers.

Everyone knows that the ligther a bike......the easier it is to peddle up hill.

So, lets say I have 15 pounds of stuff that I need to bring into the forest with me. I can easily put attatch this 15 pounds of stuff to the bike frame OR I can carry it on my back.

The question is.....which method will be easier for hill climbing OR does it make no difference? (leave comfort of discomfort of backpack out of equation.)

My feeling is that it doens't matter. Once you get on the bike....you are essentially powering the load/weight together up the hill one way or the other.

Thanks!
Ken

It's only faster to peddle uphill if there are people uphill to peddle it to. The uphill market isn't always easy to peddle to. Sometimes there are people downhill more willing to buy.

As far as weight goes...if you stand up to pedal up the hill, that extra weight pushing on the pedal would be more useful than dead weight being pushed.

Heh! Good one one on the peddle vs. pedal! I felt there wasn't something quite right about how that looked! Nothing like an incorrect word usage to distract from the main question.

Anyway, I'll mark that reply down as one for "better to have on your back...if standing." Thanks.

What are you taking into the forest that weight 15 lbs?

On the back. You can shift the weight around to get traction.

Thats my thought anyways.

On the back. You can shift the weight around to get traction.That's the only advantage to carrying the weight on your body rather than on the bike's body...you can move it around. Otherwise, it's the same amount of weight to be lifted the same distance, and thus the same amount of work to be done lifting it.

What are you taking into the forest that weight 15 lbs?That does not sound like enough beer to pack in. Are we talking cans or bottles?

What are you taking into the forest that weight 15 lbs?

Spare parts in case he cheetos something (see what i did there?)

My vote is for on the back. It seems that if the weight was on the back, your whole body would be supporting that 15 lbs, where as if it was on the bike, it'd all be on your legs basically. The point chelboed had about that weight helping to push the pedals rather than dead weight makes sense too.

What we need is some real-world testing!

I prefer to carry my water on my back, rather than on the frame. All other supplies are pulled behind me on a toboggan.

I think it depends on the terrain. More weight higher up (i.e. on your back) may affect your center of gravity more dramatically than if it is carried on the bike. So if you are on terrain that requires a lot of balance, it might be worth playing around with to find what works best for you. Personally, though, I think I would rather have it on my back as long as I could secure it from shifting too much.

Its all the same: If the weight is on the rider's back while standing, your legs still have to support the weight. So the energy saved by the muscles to push the pedal is transferred to energy used to stand up.

With the weight on the back of the bike, you get more traction from the back wheel but since you move the center of mass of the whole system away from center, the bike might tend to pop-up in front more.

But what do I know?...nothing really.

Propelling a lighter weight bike with gear on your back makes more sense to me...no point in reducing a bikes weight so that it accelerates quicker and climbs better and then throwing two full size water bottles on it, a seat pack, etc...kinda makes all that money you spend making it lighter a little moot don't ya think?

And to add another point, my backpack usually traps a lot of heat on my back. If it's all the same to you, I'd rather put it on the bike.

If it's all the same to you

It's obviously not.

Seems like a 50/50 split with no real substance to back it up.

I agree that it should be tested.

put it on the bike.

It also would depend where on the frame it sat. I would assume that 15 lbs. of weight strapped to the front of the bike might change the steering and cornering a bit. I've never experienced it, though, so it is only an assumption.

That does not sound like enough beer to pack in. Are we talking cans or bottles?

Maybe he's talking something more fun than beer. Watch out though, I imagine 15 lbs is above the 'intent to redistribute' limit.

I think it depends on the terrain. More weight higher up (i.e. on your back) may affect your center of gravity more dramatically than if it is carried on the bike. So if you are on terrain that requires a lot of balance, it might be worth playing around with to find what works best for you. Personally, though, I think I would rather have it on my back as long as I could secure it from shifting too much.

Wow, master Junkyard, in the time that I've been on these forums, this is the first time I've ever heard you give a real, non-BS replay. Part of me feels kinda dead.

Wow, master Junkyard, in the time that I've been on these forums, this is the first time I've ever heard you give a real, non-BS replay. Part of me feels kinda dead.Oh, he can be thoughtful; fortunately he usually resists the urge to do so :D.


Maybe he's talking something more fun than beer . . . .Now you're talkin' like on o' them BC Canadians.

Just to clarify, the 15lbs was just an arbitrary figure to get the discussion rolling, although beer would be great! It can be 3 lbs, 5 lbs, 7...whatever.

I was kinda thinkin what WildHare was, that it seems somewhat pointless to spend $1000's extra for a few lbs lighter bike if you end up just throwing a bunch of tools, water etc on the frame......

I wish there was some research on it.

I've noticed that when standing, you're doing the same motions as you would on a stair stepper at the gym. That is, you are climbing stairs. In that situation, I'd rather have the weight on the bike than on my back, so that it isn't lifted up and down with each stroke.

Wow, master Junkyard, in the time that I've been on these forums, this is the first time I've ever heard you give a real, non-BS replay. Part of me feels kinda dead.

I won't let it happen again. To make up for it, my advice: Calculate the additional amount of weight you plan on carrying. Lose this amount of weight through unsafe dieting practices (i.e. eating only yogurt for 6 months straight). Strap the weight to your back. Climb with the same ease you would have prior to losing the weight.

Throw some paniers on a mtn bike, load it with 15lbs of stuff and climb a hill. Put on a back pack, load it with 15lbs of stuff and climb a hill :) The bike itself should still accelerate and climb the same with the load on your body, not the bike. Essentially your bike goes from, as an example, 25 lbs to 40 lbs where your legs are trying to propel that 15 extra pounds beneath you instead of "carry" it on your upper body (which normally is going to be seated). 15 extra lbs on your upper body is nothing...

Granted, a heavy pack not properly secured to your torso/back would invite all kinds of problems...

Way, way too many variables to make flat out claims. It comes down to personal preference, as so many of these things do.

Type of bike? Type of terrain and trail? What's the load size and shape?

I carry a lot of crap, and mostly prefer it in the pack. Once in a while for short rides, it's nice to throw a bottle and spare tube/lever/tool/pump on the bike though.

I'm going with the back pack, easier to handle, if you put it on the bike and need to throw the bike around a little for some reason, it's going to be harder to maneuver and will mess with the fore aft balance of the bike depending on how you secure it..

a man's heaviest part is around his chest anyway so the extra weight there would not be as bad to maneuverability. a woman on the other hand is usually hip heavy which may be a reason to put the weight on the bike.

Put it on your body.

15 pounds added to a 150-pound person is adding 10%.

15 pounds on a 30-pound bike is adding 50%! (Weights are arbitrary, of course. But, the percentages will always favor carrying it on the body.)

You will be lifting wheels on the bike to ride over obstacles and whatnot. Keeping additional weight off the bike will assist there as well as with the general handling characteristics of the bike.


For clarification... I would only endorse this for mountain biking, where handling and physically moving the bike around are a constant. On a smoother (say, road) commute, definitely put the weight on the bike.

What are you taking into the forest that weight 15 lbs?

a giant filled bong

Carry 15lbs on the back, then lose 15lbs off your body:thumb:

Well, since I posted this, personally I am convinced that if you have 5 lbs or so to carry....it is better to use a pack than fix to your bike when it comes to climbing hills.

I didn't perform any scientific expirements but bascially did try both ways on the same hills on different days and swear the weight on back method was better.

Plus what Nd2PdlFstr said regarding percentages made a lot of sense to me.

carry on the back. what are you carrying that is 15lbs? tools for trail construction?

on the bike it might catch on things. on your back, you maneuver yourself and the pack to avoid hitting vegetation (assuming your trails are single track). as well, on the bike, your bike may become off-balanced due to the weight. might not matter 'till you start riding across a skinny ladder bridge, or have a drop off or something.

Put it on or over the rear wheel of the bike....then you can get the traction for the uphill climb while being able to change your angle because of the addition weight over the rear wheel. The lower to the ground, the better though. This is a theory, and hasn't been tested out...so take it with a grain of salt.

Physics doesn't lie: the steepest upgrade or downgrade that can be successively cycled is determined by a. the wheelbase of the bike (longer=better for this purpose) and b. the combined CG of the bike and rider (lower=better). This is why you try to get forward and low to climb the steepest possible hill.

Since the bike is BELOW you, putting the load as low a practicable on the bike will maximize control on the super-steep. Putting it forward will help climbing; aft would help descent.

Also, the weight to be overcome is a function of the COMBINED weight; the weight of cargo relative to the bike (or the frame, or the rear reflector, etc) is irrelevant.

Lol, there it is, the mandatory in-depth physics/scientific answer:p

Physics doesn't lie: the steepest upgrade or downgrade that can be successively cycled is determined by a. the wheelbase of the bike (longer=better for this purpose) and b. the combined CG of the bike and rider (lower=better). This is why you try to get forward and low to climb the steepest possible hill.

Since the bike is BELOW you, putting the load as low a practicable on the bike will maximize control on the super-steep. Putting it forward will help climbing; aft would help descent.

Also, the weight to be overcome is a function of the COMBINED weight; the weight of cargo relative to the bike (or the frame, or the rear reflector, etc) is irrelevant.

If Im reading you right, then a tandem bike would potentially be a better climber than a single?