Long Distance Competition/Ultracycling, Randonneuring and Endurance Cycling - Bicycle weight and long distance riding

How much does this matter, and what is generally a reasonable weight for an un-laden bike??

Weight is not as important as people think; training and aerodynamics are far more important.

Weight only slows you down in two situations: accelerating and climbing. You won't be accelerating enough during a typical LD ride for 5 or 10 extra pounds on the bike to make a difference; even in a Cat 5 or Cat 4 criterium, it's arguable if 5 pounds would actually slow you down.

As for climbing: Let's take a 150 pound rider, generating 160 watts, climbing a 2-mile, 4% grade. On a 17 pound bike, it'll take you 13 minutes and 15 seconds (9.1mph); on a 27 pound bike, 13 minutes and 45 seconds (8.7 mph). The heavier bike will also descend a hair faster -- about 8 seconds, going down the same grade; thus the total gap is more like 20-25 seconds. Maybe you will find that significant, maybe you won't; but I doubt it's as profound an effect as you expect.

One thing to note is that a lighter bike will often handle, or just feel, snappier than a heavier bike. Part of this is due to the weight, part is also due to design considerations. Lighter bikes are usually made to suit the tastes of the "alpha" set; so the geometry, frame materials and tube designs are selected to emphasize stiffness and responsiveness. Meanwhile, "sport touring" or "randonneuring" bikes are made more for comfort and stability. This may fool you into thinking the bike is slower, but it's mostly perception and expectations.

Most bikes these days wind up in the "reasonable" range, which to me is anywhere from 17 to 25 pounds. In some instances, things that will add weight can be highly advantageous. In the long run you may benefit more from strong wheels, tough tires, a compliant frame, stable handling and extra gear than you would from selecting lighter options.

Makes no difference unless you're in a race to get to the end of it. You will just go a bit slower for the same effort, since you will be using different gears, and you may want to ride the bike setup more laid back for comfort. The kind of weight differences we're usually talking about are not that significant compared to your weight and the weight of your stuff. Pay a lot of money to lose a couple of pounds on the bike, or pay nothing to carry less, or to lose the couple of pounds on your body if it's that important to you.

Touring bikes, real ones, tend to give you a different riding experience anyway. They don't require the cyclist to be pumping out a lot of speed and power at all times. It seems more natural, comfortable and very stable to be riding at a slower pace.

My brevet bike is a tank.

62cm Surly Cross Check with full fenders, SON hub, front rack and bag, Brooks saddle. If it's heavy, I've probably got it on my bike. Just checked it on my bathroom scale, and it's 33 pounds without water, and the front bag is empty.

My brevet bike is a tank.

62cm Surly Cross Check with full fenders, SON hub, front rack and bag, Brooks saddle. If it's heavy, I've probably got it on my bike. Just checked it on my bathroom scale, and it's 33 pounds without water, and the front bag is empty.

I have some ten-pound barbells if you want them.

Thanks for the input. I just got done putting together the summer turing bike. I never really thought much about weight as I could loose 10 pounds if it mattered that much. The bike seemed to be OK, 27 lbs with racks, but without water and gear. However, it occured to me I did not know what I should be shooting for. Saving 10 grams here, 100 grams there, though they might add up, did not seem to apply well.

Weight is not as important as people think; training and aerodynamics are far more important.

Weight only slows you down in two situations: accelerating and climbing. You won't be accelerating enough during a typical LD ride for 5 or 10 extra pounds on the bike to make a difference; even in a Cat 5 or Cat 4 criterium, it's arguable if 5 pounds would actually slow you down.

As for climbing: Let's take a 150 pound rider, generating 160 watts, climbing a 2-mile, 4% grade. On a 17 pound bike, it'll take you 13 minutes and 15 seconds (9.1mph); on a 27 pound bike, 13 minutes and 45 seconds (8.7 mph). The heavier bike will also descend a hair faster -- about 8 seconds, going down the same grade; thus the total gap is more like 20-25 seconds. Maybe you will find that significant, maybe you won't; but I doubt it's as profound an effect as you expect.

One thing to note is that a lighter bike will often handle, or just feel, snappier than a heavier bike. Part of this is due to the weight, part is also due to design considerations. Lighter bikes are usually made to suit the tastes of the "alpha" set; so the geometry, frame materials and tube designs are selected to emphasize stiffness and responsiveness. Meanwhile, "sport touring" or "randonneuring" bikes are made more for comfort and stability. This may fool you into thinking the bike is slower, but it's mostly perception and expectations.



a 20 lb difference in a rider putting out 125 watts over a 400km course with 3% avg grade could result in about 2.57 hours saved. (200 pound total bike + rider vs. 180 pound total bike + rider)

same weight @ same power over @ 600k = 3.85 hours

the lower the average power output, the greater percentage change one could expect, as low power + high weight = slower times.

the 400k above @ 100 watts = 3.35
the 600k above @ 100 watts = 5 hours saved

but note at 200 watts average the numbers look like this:

the 400k above @ 200 watts = 1.41 hours saved
the 600k above @ 100 watts = 2.12 hours saved


(source for the data is by playing with analytic cycling (http://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesLessWeight_Page.html))

so yes, on a short ride weight won't make much difference, but for a long ride, with someone who can't put out much average power (or who has a power output declines as the course gets longer...) weight plays a much greater role than you allude to. you'd have to check the descents for any sort of benefit to carrying more weight up hill just so you could go down faster - but it seems like a waste.

i'm not suggesting that all rando's run out and get zero gravity bikes and gear - obviously there is a blend between durability and comfort over the long haul versus having the lightest everything... becuase if you're on the side of the road fixing things - you're speed is zero, even slower than a heavy bike that works!

and yes, training, fit, and nutrition play huge roles into overall speed - but for a non racer, non 'competitive' rando - every little bit adds up. knock 5-10 pounds off the rider, 5-10 pounds off the gear that you carry, and build a bike up with sensible components that weight reasonable amounts for the level of $$ you spend and the level of risk on the road - and it all adds up.

I think loaded touring and long distance / randonneuring have really different answers to this question. Compared to the weight of all the other junk I'm carrying on a long tour, 5-10 pounds of bike makes little difference, but on a day ride the 15 pound difference between my roadie and my tour bike is very noticeable.

Your 27 pounds with racks is better than my 33 pounds with racks & fenders for my tour bike.

a 20 lb difference in a rider putting out 125 watts over a 400km course with 3% avg grade could result in about 2.57 hours saved. (200 pound total bike + rider vs. 180 pound total bike + rider)
If my calculations are correct, a 3% grade over a 248 mile course involves 39,000 feet of climbing. That's more than the Furnace Creek 408, or nearly twice the elevation of the allegedly "world's toughest double century," the Alta Alpina 8 Pass Challenge. Kind of ambitious, aren't we? ;)

At a 1% grade (around 13,000 feet of climbing), it's 45 minute difference. With a 0% grade, it's a 10 minute loss.

So while I do agree that lighter is better for a course that involves massive amounts of climbing (and perhaps didn't emphasise that enough), it seems like you have to look at a somewhat extreme scenario in order for weight to be a big factor....

If my calculations are correct, a 3% grade over a 248 mile course involves 39,000 feet of climbing. That's more than the Furnace Creek 408, or nearly twice the elevation of the allegedly "world's toughest double century," the Alta Alpina 8 Pass Challenge. Kind of ambitious, aren't we? ;)

At a 1% grade (around 13,000 feet of climbing), it's 45 minute difference. With a 0% grade, it's a 10 minute loss.

So while I do agree that lighter is better for a course that involves massive amounts of climbing (and perhaps didn't emphasise that enough), it seems like you have to look at a somewhat extreme scenario in order for weight to be a big factor....

i think Jan Heine did a great job of this (better than me) in BQ Vol 5 #1.
over the course of a PBP a 5kg difference in weight could turn anywhere from a 0:46 hour difference from someone putting out 250 average watts to a 2:45 hour difference for someone putting out 70 watts.

the point of the average grade is to exaggerate the differences. while a 3% grade over those distances certainly adds up to much much climbing, the Boston 600k had 22,000 feet on it, and most of it was far steeper than 3%, coming in several long climbs (from 2 miles+ to 6 miles+) and sharp rollers, so your speed suffers even more on these stretches. Add in the time to recover (while a time trialist or racer might put out the same power on a climb and a descent...most rando's i know don't put out the same power on the descents - but sit up, eat, breathe, rest, adjust cue sheets, etc. - ). if our courses were designed on perfect and 'average' gradients we could put our heads down at one end and put out the same power for the duration and arrive on a pretty tight schedule - but sharp rollers and stiff climbs sap a higher % of speed of low powered riders than high powered riders, and weight works against the lower powered rider at a far higher percentage overall than the guy putting out a steady state of 200 watts.

again, it all adds up. small changes in numerous areas could affect the overall performance of rider, and these small changes have larger payoffs as the courses get longer...

One of my bikes must be 40 lbs, but you mknoiw what? it's a comfortable ride. I'm thinking about doing a century with it. It's also a quiet well-tuned ride and that has something to do with a bike's performance I think.

My relatively light sport touring bike provides a snappier ride than my mid-80's full-load touring bike which weighs more, but like I said in a previous post, it's a different kind of ride... and so the extra weight isn't really a factor when I'm riding it. I don't ride it the same way, and I never feel like competing with anyone or with a speedometer, nor do I expect to be drag racing with it. I just enjoy the slower-paced ride, and with the racks, full fenders, generator, etc. on that bike, the bozos who make a fetish out of passing or "dropping" every bike they encounter aren't interested in me anyway. So, it all depends on what your goals are, your personality, etc. I mean, look, nobody is going to deliberately go out and buy an excessively heavy bike, but there's no need to worry too much about a good bike's weight either.

I'm in the process of building a bike to go on 200k + rides. It will weigh about 19 lbs naked and cost me $2500 USD when I'm done. Just for kicks I used my excel file parts template to 'build' a money is no object equivalent (I like to dream about winning the lotto). It cost $9000 more and only weighed 2.3 lbs less.

When riding with a group, the difference between getting dropped on a climb and just barely being able to dangle on the back might be 5-10 watts or a couple of pounds. If you're dropped you slow down much more . . .

Climbing slowly up a hill of slope s with speed v and mass m, the amount of power required from the rider is is P0 = s*m*g*v0. Climbing up the same slope with mass m+dm going at speed v1 the power output will be P1 = s*(m+dm)*g*v1. Given that the rider outputs the same amount of power in each case then P0 = P1 so that V1/V0 = m/(m+dm).

For me, my rando bike and stuff weighs about 30lb, I weigh about 170 lb. Rando total = 200 lb.
Touring bike is 32 lb, touring stuff is 30 lb, I still weight 170 lb. Touring total = 232 lb.
Road bike is 18 plus water and small amount of stuff is 25 lb. Roadie total for me is 195 lb.

Relative velocities up the hill are roadie:rando:touring = 1:0.98:0.84. Just the touring bike with small load it's roadie:tourNoLoad = 1:0.93.

Based on this, for a ten-mile uphill at 10 mph, the roadie will take 60 minutes; The Rando will take 61 minutes; The fully loaded tourer will take 71 minutes; and the lightly loaded tourer will take 64 minutes.

The Spokester, that's an interesting analysis. It helps put some numbers on something that I've also had a feeling about - which is that for a smaller person, the difference in bike weight makes a bigger difference.

HOWEVER!!!!!!!!!! If my 13 commute is not uphill but rather a mix of ups and downs and even planes, then a bike that weighs 10 lbs more doesn't affect my overall time by much at all!

Just passing this on...

My steel framed Soma Double Cross comes in @ ~22.5 lbs without added gear, bags, water...

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll210/wildcat-bucket/IMG_0194.jpg

It weights in at ~26.0 with two bags, food, mini-tool, 1 folding tire & 2 tubes, camera, lock, spare gloves & socks, poncho...

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll210/wildcat-bucket/IMG_0195.jpg

The only problem is that the motor is 215 lbs :innocent:;):innocent:

A little off topic, but what kind of frame bag is that on the Soma?

It's a cheap $4.99 Nashbar pump bag: http://www.nashbar.com/bikes/Product_10053_10052_167578_-1___

and it's ideal to use.

The Spokester, that's an interesting analysis. It helps put some numbers on something that I've also had a feeling about - which is that for a smaller person, the difference in bike weight makes a bigger difference.

Yes. If one weighs only 100 lb then, under these circumstances, a 10 lb weigh difference translates into a 10% speed or time difference.

One can also couch this in terms of power-to-weight ratio: P0/m. Lighter people tend to have higher P0/m and the result is that they can climb proportionately more quickly.

HOWEVER!!!!!!!!!! If my 13 commute is not uphill but rather a mix of ups and downs and even planes, then a bike that weighs 10 lbs more doesn't affect my overall time by much at all!

Yes. This is true if you are riding solo. In fact, I have been tracking my time for a couple of years on a 40 mile return trip with 1700' of climbing which I do regularly on all three bikes...To my surprise, the average times for each of the three bikes are indistingushable within the variance. Thus, by observation, there are often a lot of random variables effecting average speed over a return course which will mask a few percent systematic speed reduction on the uphills.

Riding in a group is a different matter, though. As has been mentioned previously in this thread, the heavier bikes will struggle due to both slower acceleration and slowness on the hills and, being systematically and constantly left behind (except on downhills which don't weigh much in the average) will eventually miss the draft afforded by riding with a group.

Yes. If one weighs only 100 lb then, under these circumstances, a 10 lb weigh difference translates into a 10% speed or time difference.
When climbing. Just to be clear, it's the difference of the total weight (bike+gear+you).

The difference is going to be much smaller when "cruising" at a constant speed.

No matter what the weight, any decent road bike will do fine for long distance, because no matter what anyone says, long distance, as most people understand the term, means riding for endurance, not as a non-stop time trial... and endurance means pacing yourself so you last, not so you can drop anybody. A few pounds of weight is going to mean zilch, but a solid bike will, and so might having tires that resist having to make you spend time fixing flats, etc. And sticking with the long distance endurance ride context, so what if some guy on a stupid light bike gets up a hill a little faster than you do? It will only matter for that hill, not for the whole long distance ride.

Weight is actually going to matter even less for shorter daily rides, so, I would say that weight doesn't matter all round. Your riding position, your fitness, your own weight, the weight of your gear if any, etc. are all going to matter a lot more than the weight of your frame. Look at the late Ian Hibbell's accomplishments and then come back and tell us that weight matters for this kind of cycling. It's hard to imagine that any cyclist over the age of 12 wouldn't understand that.

one perspective that's been left out of this is simply the enjoyment of riding a really light bike : ) it's fun to be on a bike that always feels ready to accelerate and responds to every input from the rider. it doesn't have to impact your total time or total energy in the long run, if it's more fun then it's more fun right?

Hedonist.

one perspective that's been left out of this is simply the enjoyment of riding a really light bike : ) it's fun to be on a bike that always feels ready to accelerate and responds to every input from the rider. it doesn't have to impact your total time or total energy in the long run, if it's more fun then it's more fun right?

sure, so long as it doesn't rattle out my teeth or numb my hands. :thumb:

one perspective that's been left out of this is simply the enjoyment of riding a really light bike : ) it's fun to be on a bike that always feels ready to accelerate and responds to every input from the rider. it doesn't have to impact your total time or total energy in the long run, if it's more fun then it's more fun right?
1) Different people like different ride characteristics. Some people prefer bikes that are stable and cushy, some like a highly responsive bike.

2) Geometry and bike setup has almost as much to do with the "fast feeling" of a bike as does weight. A 25 pound bike with a short wheelbase, a minimal amount of trail, low handlebars and aero wheels (e.g. an 80s racing bike) will feel faster than a 20 pound bike with a long wheelbase, lots of trail, an upright position and high spoke count wheels (e.g. a modern cross bike).

3) If the lighter bike happens to be stiffer and/or transmits more road buzz, it is plausible this will beat you up more and negatively impact your performance after many hours on the road.

My brevet bike is a tank.

62cm Surly Cross Check with full fenders, SON hub, front rack and bag, Brooks saddle. If it's heavy, I've probably got it on my bike. Just checked it on my bathroom scale, and it's 33 pounds without water, and the front bag is empty.

Meh. I regularly ride a 40-lb. Schwinn Varsity and 50-lb. Raleigh DL-1 on longish rides (40 miles or so).

Not touring distances, but still....

How much does this matter, and what is generally a reasonable weight for an un-laden bike?? I believe the priorities surrounding equipment choices are not a matter of specific weight so much as a matter of the given event route and the cyclist's event goals.

So discussing the weight of a bicycle only matters within the context cyclist's chosen event, the route and any particular goals. That being said, a "long distance" bicycle and its cargo should be light enough for the rider to complete the route without straining in the hills and finishing within the time limits of the event.

Typically, this means that smart cyclists will choose a bicycle and equipment that is competitive or technologically sophisticated as the cyclists he/she intends to ride with or against.

This results with bicycle setups as light as 18lbs for a RAAM qualifier or as heavy as 40lbs for a casual Brevet. Typically an unloaded non-race bicycle is slightly heavier than a full out race bicycle. I would suppose this results in a weight of 16 or 17 pounds. Although there are economical bicycles under $2000 that weigh as little as 19lbs.

When I first started riding with my bike "beefed up" with rack, lights, hub generator, wider tires etc. it was frustrating when I got into any hills. I was used to being a good climber and 10 pounds of additional bike and more when you add gear really changed the effort that it took to climb. I was straining on hills that I'd have danced up before.

Passage of time, swap for a compact crankset, and many more long distance miles under my belt and the bike is perfect for those long rides. It's comfortable and mentally I'm prepared for the adjusted riding speed. I hit the road on a recent 1000k with a bike and gear that weighed around 38 pounds.

When I get on my lightweight bike -- one that I built up because I was getting frustrated with my "hummer" as I call the rando bike -- it's a treat. I can do a nice all-daylight 200k Permanent in a lot less time. It's comfortable enough to spend 8-10 hours in the saddle yet less than half the weight. I enjoy both bikes.

It's all about mental attitude, expectation and comfort. Having said that, the 1000k ride where I was carrying my gear for three days, i.e. no drop bags, is as close to touring as I'll ever get (I think). I cannot imagine loading up with 100 pounds of gear in panniers and a bike-trailer and crossing the country !

Yes. If one weighs only 100 lb then, under these circumstances, a 10 lb weigh difference translates into a 10% speed or time difference.

That's me, more or less. My perspective from the low end of the weight and power spectrum is that bike weight affects my ability to accelerate and climb more than anything else, it doesn't make much of a difference in cruising speed on the level. In fact, on rolling terrain a heavy bike is almost as fast as a light one for me because the weight helps me attain higher downhill speed. I notice extra weight on a bike most when starting up from stoplights and when powering back up to speed after a long climb.

When I get on my lightweight bike -- one that I built up because I was getting frustrated with my "hummer" as I call the rando bike -- it's a treat. I can do a nice all-daylight 200k Permanent in a lot less time. It's comfortable enough to spend 8-10 hours in the saddle yet less than half the weight. I enjoy both bikes.

Interesting, so what does the heavier bike offer that the light one can't? Has the light one been unreliable? Can't take a rack? I'm just curious as my everyday bike is 15 1/2 kgs (34 pounds) without any gear or water on it. It is comfortable and strong, has a front disk brake and dynamo hub light etc, but I'm only 60kgs (132 pounds) and I really do notice the extra weight on hills. I'm comtemplating building up a lighter bike in the future and would be interested to know why you kept the heavier bike.

My experience is the same as rnorris'. I'm 5'6" 140lbs with a very light build, and the only real difference I notice when switching between a heavy and light bike is acceleration, and the larger hills. Flat or light rolling terrain, doesn't seem to effect my cruising speed.

What I notice the most on long hauls is not the weight, but if I have a bag on the front of the bike, whether it's empty or not doesn't make any difference. With the bag I feel the air drag more, with the same size bag on a rack behind me, it doesn't seem to make a difference over a bare bike.

Ken.

^^^^ Interesting. Do you find your bike handling is affected a lot by the distribution of cargo weight? I carried a fairly heavy bag on top of my rack for awhile but found that it induced a scary front wheel wobble at higher speeds. The take home lesson seems to be that the gravity challenged have to pay more attention to weight distribution and aerodynamics on a bike than normal sized people do.

I don't often have a heavy load on, I prefer to travel light. But when I do carry weight I like to split it roughly 60/40 with more on the rear.

I think that the problem I feel with the bag in front, is that it's far enough ahead of my body that the airflow is able to close up a bit before it hits me, so I have to move the same air twice. with the bag behind the airflow is still 'open' when it reaches the bag.
I'd say bigger guys experience the same thing, but it's a smaller proportion of their frontal area and overall load, so it doesn't effect them as much.

So, I agree, little guys have to watch weight distribution and frontal area a bit more carefully.

Ken.

I think I only notice the difference in bike weight when I lift the bikes. My touring/commuter weighs quite a bit more. I wanted to ride it on brevets, but could never talk myself into it because of changing cranks and pedals. I've been getting stronger and losing weight at the same time, so it's hard to tell if my climbing is improving because of one or the other. I'm guessing that I could lose 5-10 pounds off of my bike if I spent enough money, don't know if it would really improve my times on long rides or not.

Interesting, so what does the heavier bike offer that the light one can't? Has the light one been unreliable? Can't take a rack? I'm just curious as my everyday bike is 15 1/2 kgs (34 pounds) without any gear or water on it. It is comfortable and strong, has a front disk brake and dynamo hub light etc, but I'm only 60kgs (132 pounds) and I really do notice the extra weight on hills. I'm comtemplating building up a lighter bike in the future and would be interested to know why you kept the heavier bike.

There is not much difference between the two bikes other than the rack, which is difficult to take off, the lights front and back etc. I was swapping stuff on and off and got tired of that. If I strip the heavy bike down and put on the lightweight wheels, it's about 2 pounds heavier than the light bike. The differences are: rack, lights, crankset (ultegra compact vs dura-ace), bottle cages, wheels. They are both Ti frames, both very durable. The Ouzo Pro fork on the heavy bike (Litespeed Classic) (with 1" steerer) is also heavier than the Easton 1 1/8" steerer on the Lynskey. When I say heavy, I'm talking about 26 pounds vs 16 pounds. Rando gear, food and water take it up to mid 30's.

I'm the same weight as you, give or take a pound and also notice the extra weight on hills.

It's just style and if you ride with others, and if so, what their style is. I came to rando from a group-ride background, and have always been dumbfounded to see people ride together on the flat, string out on a climb, and then not wait for each other at the top, even if they are only a few seconds apart. Many seem to prefer to just ride alone and do what they do. In which case, weight may not make all that much difference. Say as much as a couple hours on a 400. 20, instead of 18 hours. No biggie. OTOH, 25.5 hrs., vs. 27.5 hrs., big deal! So there's that.

If you want to have a fast time, though, it pays to work together, and if you're going to be a player you'll need to stay close on the climbs. This may mean a light bike, light gear, and dropping some belly.

I admit I don't get the whole heavy-bikes-are-great thing. As long as the bike doesn't beat me up or demand a lot of attention and goes where I point it, I'd rather have a light one.

An earlier poster said that light bikes are more fun. I have to agree with that because there are some long rides I just won't do on my commute combat bicycle, where I look forward to them on my Moulton. In general I find that it is never worthwhile to sacrifice comfort for weight. The bike also has to be dead reliable, and in my case it must also have very low gears. If the bike meets those requirements, then the lighter bike always seems less tiring over the long haul. In particular, the lighter steel or titanium bikes almost always ride smoother as they lose weight if you are using the same tires. A smooth ride counts for a lot on a long day in the saddle.

In general I find that it is never worthwhile to sacrifice comfort for weight.Wise advice. And the parallel philosophy is to "never sacrifice reliability for performance."

And in repeating myself again - the best advice is to use equipment similar to the type and quality of equipment selected by those cyclists you intend to ride with. It really is as is simple as that. End of story.

Wise advice. And the parallel philosophy is to "never sacrifice reliability for performance."

And in repeating myself again - the best advice is to use equipment similar to the type and quality of equipment selected by those cyclists you intend to ride with. It really is as is simple as that. End of story.

unless it is in the rain and everyone else forgoes fenders. :thumb:

did an impromptu solo 53 mile ride today on my converted hybrid and with 5 miles left got passed by a couple riding sweet light road bikes, it was fun to get motivated and stay with them, cruising along shifting and making turns etc. after they went a different way I slowed down again but thought how fun it would be to ride a light bike with a group.

did an impromptu solo 53 mile ride today on my converted hybrid and with 5 miles left got passed by a couple riding sweet light road bikes... thought how fun it would be to ride a light bike with a group.
Unless you were on a hill with a 7% grade, they were not passing you because of the weight of your bike. If anything, the upright position is slowing you down more than the bike weight.

Also keep in mind that if those riders were drafting, that alone will make them faster than you. I've seen some guys keep up with a fast group ride while riding a mountain bike with slicks....

Will riding slower on climbs conserve energy?

For a long duration mountain pass ride (RAMROD), I'm worried about energy, nutrition and hydration. I have an overall time limit I must meet, but I'm not otherwise concerned about being competitive and am willing to pace myself.

I feel it's important to have the bike fit comfortably for those 10+ hour rides. I'm also a bit of a boy scout when it comes to preparedness, carrying a couple tubes, pump and roll on puncture resistant tires. I probably could shed a pound or more between tires and gear, but not sure it'd make a material difference given my size (195lbs).

Will riding slower on climbs conserve energy?

I'm not sure if the net effect will be conserving energy or not. Even if the energy situation is a wash, my legs are less sore from a mild paced spin up a long climb, versus a short all-out hammer up the same hill.

Lemme tell ya, within the control times I'll be taking it easy on the Mt. Baker climb near the start of the 300k in a few weeks.

Will riding slower on climbs conserve energy?
That depends on your physiology.

You need to figure out your maximum heart rate. 60-70% of max HR is for recovery, 70-80% is aerobic (requires some effort), 80-90% is anaerobic (burning energy too fast), 90-100% is the "red zone" (burns lots of energy, difficult to maintain for long periods).

Ideally during an event you want to stay in the 60-80% range, and avoid going anaerobic. You can't feel it subjectively, but when you go anaerobic your metabolism changes and you will burn through your readily available blood glucose very quickly; your body also needs to recover from those efforts. So if you're climbing and hit 85% of your max HR, you're working too hard.

Training will not increase your max HR, but it will make it possible for you to do greater efforts for longer periods of time before going anaerobic.

Will riding slower on climbs conserve energy?

For a long duration mountain pass ride (RAMROD), I'm worried about energy, nutrition and hydration. I have an overall time limit I must meet, but I'm not otherwise concerned about being competitive and am willing to pace myself.A little OT, but yes, of course it will. Going hard will tap your glycogen stores, plus it'll make your legs tired! Your job is not to lose your legs until you get back to Enumclaw. I remember once hammering all the way from the Deli Stop to Mud Mountain with some racer boys, 4 of us trading pulls, way over LT. You want to feel that good at the finish.

They still don't know for sure what the route will be. On the traditional route, you want to make sure you eat and drink plenty before you get into the park. Follow the 250 cal/hr - bottle/hr rule. If you don't want to stop to refill, at least drink both your bottles. It'll still be cool. Most people can work pretty hard on that portion, but not too hard. You always want to feel comfortable, never stretched. If you do that first section right, the whole ride will be no problem.

If you're doing the Paradise climb, you want your legs to feel good the whole way up. No pain. HR will depend on your conditioning and ability to recover. I usually do that climb at 90% of MHR, but again, know your own strength. Eat and drink lots at the tops of climbs, not so much during the climb. Have fun and watch for the chocolate croissants!

I notice extra weight on a bike most when starting up from stoplights and when powering back up to speed after a long climb.

Yesterday's commute home really showed this. Another commuter and I started a long rolling climb of about 2 miles at the same time. He pulled ahead after every stoplight, but I'd catch up about a quarter of a mile later as my overall climbing speed was faster. He wasn't expecting that and hammered away, so it was a fun chase. Would have liked to keep it going but he turned off on a side road before the top of the hill.

Will riding slower on climbs conserve energy?I can't believe anyone answered "yes."

This is just too, too much. If ever there was reason for me to go ballistic - about stupid Internet advice -this situation certainly ranks high. First of all, the issue confuses "energy" with fuel.

Second of all, there is no way to account for the efficiency of anyone climbing any hill by simply stating something along the lines of "slower is better." The type and length of climb, the gear ratio selections, and the inertia or 'speed" of the cyclist entering a given climb all render the topic unanswerable.

The only usable advice, is that evenly pacing any ride, in general, results in a greater efficiencies, both metabolic and mechanical with respect to overall stress put on a cyclist.