Fifty Plus (50+) - Can a lighter bike help a heavier cyclist?

Each time I see or participate in a thread concerning cutting the weight of a bike there are always a number of comments about losing weight before cutting the weight of the bike.

Therefore, I am beginning to wonder if a heavier cyclists should bother with riding a lightweight bike. Are riders that carry any weight at all regulated to 20 plus pound cruisers?

Weight is weight and taking a couple pounds off of your bike will make climbing a little easier, at least in theory. Whether this small difference will be worth it to you is another story.
Wouldn't it be cool to lose weight off the bike and the body?

I think so. After years of riding a touring bike, a mtn bike and a recent fat tire bike, I finally got a carbon fiber road bike for my wife and I. Wow. Huge difference. It was one of those dramatic changes that you end up going, "Damn. I wish I'd done this years ago." We still have snow on the ground and ice on the roads so I'm still riding my mtn bike with studded tires and I am so very much looking forward to getting back on my road bike. I still need to drop another 30lb but regardless of who you are, there is a huge difference between a typical mtn bike and a lightweight full carbon bike. It's totally spoiled me. My wife and I both love the speed and feel. I recommend a lightweight road bike for everyone! :).

Get the road bike!

I lost 30lbs from April to August last summer. It made a huge difference. The biggest change was when riding in the drops and my knees did scrub on my belly. I'm 5'9 and was 200 when starting. Each 10lbs loss could be felt in acceleration and hillclimbs.

Get specific.

If you are cutting the weight in half, you're going to see a big improvement.

Most of the time, when people ask this, they want to go from 20 pounds to 18.

All things being equal, the least expensive way to shed weight from the bike is to shed weight from you . All things are not equal, though, and lighter frames may provide a faster ride, along with thinner tires . Lightweight road bikes are more responsive and quicker, and CF frames may be even more comfy . Way lighter and faster than loaded touring . You might look around, and see if bike dealers are having demo days as they do in the Spring ,and give one a try.

What late said. Obviously, if you weigh 200lbs and the bike weighs 20lbs, buying a 16lb bike is going to take less than 2% off the overall weight. Barely noticeable. But equally obviously, the difference between my 18lb road bike and my 35 lb expedition tourer is very noticeable indeed.

More important, buy a bike that feels like fun to ride. The more you like it, the more you'll ride it, and then there's more chance of the weight coming off the rider.

Get the road bike!

I lost 30lbs from April to August last summer. It made a huge difference. The biggest change was when riding in the drops and my knees did scrub on my belly. I'm 5'9 and was 200 when starting. Each 10lbs loss could be felt in acceleration and hillclimbs.

+1. I lost 50 LBS and it really improved my cycling... and everything else!

Spending $1500-2000 for a well-fitted and comfortable 18 LBS road bike with solid wheels is a good investment and can improve your cycling substantially. Buying a lighter bike might not provide much of an improvement for many cyclists.

You will notice the difference immediately if you get a better, lighter bike. You can always lose weight later, too!

I think to summarize the advice that has been given here and in other threads over the years, the answer is yes. I lighter bike can be an improvement for anyone. If you can shed body fat, however, you may notice a much bigger improvement. In terms of it being worth it, only the individual can decide that. We each have our own levels of income, sense of how much things are worth, etc. If it were me, I'd use losing weight as an incentive. Once I reached my goal, I'd treat myself to the new ride. Having done that, I can tell you that the first ride on the new, well-earned bike was spectacular.

not to mention that each pound of extra body weight has miles of blood vessels in it, and has to be supported by your heart too. do what I am doing: set a weight loss goal, then reward yourself with a new bike when you make the goal. it is motivating me.

Any weight loss is a plus. As a bicycle rep once told me: "How low do you want to go? It's only $$" :) . But it's a LOT easier to lose weight from you than the bike and you save money losing it on you. Eat less, it costs you less. Buy light-weight components and it costs you a LOT. For me it would only make sense to lose the weight from me until I reach the healthy minimum I should be, THEN cut weight on the bike. But if I had the $$ I'd certainly buy the lightest bike I could afford(which isn't the case).
When it comes down to it, the ultimate choice is your's.
But to answer your question, yes it would help.

Whats far more important than weight is geometry, bb stiffness, etc. And generally when you get a more aggressive design, lighter will be part of the equation. If you want to ride faster, get a bike designed for that purpose.

No mountains to climb in central Illinois so weight isn't the biggest factor. Lightweight wheels and tires will make a difference if you have to accelerate often because of the flywheel effect. For flat-land riders wind is the biggest enemy. Getting more aero pays huge dividends and the geometry to get there most often comes with a lightweight bike. I ride a Trek 4.5 Madone which is a compromise between comfort and lightweight. There's much more aero bikes out there but until the engine gets stronger it'd be a waste to move that direction.

When it comes to bikes, I'm all about the fun. Ask anyone. ;) Because I personally find lighter bikes more fun to ride than heavier bikes, I say go for the lightest bike you can afford (assuming it meets all your other criteria). Then have fun while you work to shrink yourself.

Malcolm Forbes once said "Everyone should get to experience driving a 12 cylinder car." The cycling equivalent is that "Every cyclist should get to experience riding a 15 pound bike." For the full experience, you also need a set of wheels in the 1,200g range. While weight is weight when you're climbing, and you can reduce your body weight more, a lighter bike just feels better all around, and is more fun to ride. It is more instantly responsive. People talk a lot about how quickly a wheel spins up, and frankly there isn't much scientific support for that. But there is a clear difference in turning moment as wheel weight is reduced, and that dramatically affects responsiveness. Ride a set of light aero tubulars, and heavier wheels feel like they are wallowing.

In other words: "Try it, you'll like it."

I did the "superlight carbon" thing last summer and loved it. AND-- I discovered I was motivated to lose some weight and do extra training just to be "worthy" of it. The result was a hugely noticeable improvement in speed and climbing, and the bike was sooo smooth and nimble. Sure, you can just lose a little weight, but I'd say go for it all!

But it's a LOT easier to lose weight from you than the bike and you save money losing it on you. Eat less, it costs you less.

If losing body weight was "easier" there wouldn't be 500 products and plans on the market to help you do it. And cheap food is often much more fattening than expensive food. Go buy a pound of 25% fat hamburg and then see what you can buy in a tuna steak for the same amount.

I can type out a 500 word piece in a couple hours, get paid, then saunter down to my bike shop and knock a pound off my bike with the money I earned. Pretty easy. Knocking off an couple of kilos to get ready for the Tour of the Gila is flipping hard by comparison.

It's a LOT easier to lessen the weight of a bike as opposed to a body , just WAY more expensive , since the first of this year I've
shaved approx. 1.7 lbs of my ride @ a cost in the neighborhood of 1350.00 dollars , bike is still around 18lbs. my bodyweight has dropped 5lbs.
and not nearly the fun of spending money and bolting on shiny new parts

No mountains to climb in central Illinois so weight isn't the biggest factor. Lightweight wheels and tires will make a difference if you have to accelerate often because of the flywheel effect. For flat-land riders wind is the biggest enemy. Getting more aero pays huge dividends and the geometry to get there most often comes with a lightweight bike. I ride a Trek 4.5 Madone which is a compromise between comfort and lightweight. There's much more aero bikes out there but until the engine gets stronger it'd be a waste to move that direction.

I spent this winter riding where it was flat and now recently, quite windy. I rode with guys who I would say were about at my fitness level, though of course that is a guess. But we all felt evenly matched on the flats with minimal wind and we all felt comfortable doing about the same mileage. I weigh about half of what any of them weighed, just because I am a small woman. I could go faster then they could going up hill, rare and short as they were. Downhill they always could pass me by. Not a surprise. What was interesting is that they did better than I going into the wind. I almost always had to ride one of their wheels to keep up.

I did the "superlight carbon" thing last summer and loved it. AND-- I discovered I was motivated to lose some weight and do extra training just to be "worthy" of it.

I understand what you're saying, and you're right - a nice bike can motivate you to work harder on the engine. But I really HATE the idea that someone isn't worthy of the bike they're riding. The only ones who aren't worthy of the nicest bike they can afford are the ones who use it for a bit of extra bling on top of their SUVs instead of riding it.

Light bikes don't get all emotionally distraught and go on binges sneak-eating french fries and gain #5.
I bought a nice very light road bike to replace a vintage 27# steel schwinn road bike and have never regretted the decision.
In 30+ years the schwinn got less than 1,000 miles on it. The "new" bike has almost 12,000 miles in about 3.5 years. It's that much more fun to ride.

You will notice the difference immediately if you get a better, lighter bike.

Once you get up to speed bike weight doesn't make much difference. HOWEVER, every single ride starts at zero miles per hour. The more often you find yourself accelerating from 0 to 10 MPH, the more you'll notice and appreciate a lighter bike.

Once you get up to speed bike weight doesn't make much difference. HOWEVER, every single ride starts at zero miles per hour. The more often you find yourself accelerating from 0 to 10 MPH, the more you'll notice and appreciate a lighter bike.
...or when climbing hills.

If losing body weight was "easier" there wouldn't be 500 products and plans on the market to help you do it. And cheap food is often much more fattening than expensive food. Go buy a pound of 25% fat hamburg and then see what you can buy in a tuna steak for the same amount.

I can type out a 500 word piece in a couple hours, get paid, then saunter down to my bike shop and knock a pound off my bike with the money I earned. Pretty easy. Knocking off an couple of kilos to get ready for the Tour of the Gila is flipping hard by comparison.To be fair, most people can't go out and work 2 extra hours and have the money needed to knock a pound off the bike.

Also, losing a pound of body weight really isn't that hard. You'll find that the product and plans on the market to help people lose weight don't say, "Lose 1 pound and keep it off!!" Really, not a big deal. For people who are able to maintain their weight (admittedly, not always the easiest thing itself), going down 1 pound and then maintaining it isn't a big deal, no products or plans or lifestyle changes needed. For most, I'm not sure losing 1 pound off the bike through money is easier than losing 1 pound of body weight.

The main thing, though, is that for most of us, it is "easier" to lose 20-25 pounds of body weight than it is to lose 20-25 pounds off the bike. It isn't easy, it is very difficult, but I know I can lose 20-25 pounds of body weight.

When we're not looking at 1 pound, but a lot higher numbers, it is easier to lose body weight than the same amount of bike weight, not because losing body weight is "easy," but because the "difficult" is always "easier" than the "impossible."

I started off with a heavy bike, but have lost more weight than the bike weighed, so I would have had to have bought a weightless bike to match the difference.

I think the point of the comments on losing weight off one's self versus the bike is that it can be a misleading approach. It is tempting to think that if I only had a bike like the pro riders, then I'd ride like a pro rider, and that isn't the case at all. I remember in the past on the photography forums, hearing a common misconception that "If I had a camera like that, I could take those pictures, too." Good gear is fine, but isn't a cure-all for being slow, either.

But good gear,
in cycling as well as photography,
can make the difference between
a good day and a great day,
don't care what you weigh.

Seems almost rediculous to me,,in a 50's plus forum guys are talking about how much faster a carbon fiber frame is lol. My brother took me in his garage and showed me hangin on the wall a 3500 dollar carbon frame bike and told me,,they are faster lol I said where are you going so fast at 50 years old lol?

I went from 193 to 155 riding vintage 60 pound bikes and sometime ride road bikes like my Schwinn Super Sport that I paid 40 bucks for. I am 58 and would bet I could keep up or out ride by 50 year old brother on his 3500 dollar carbon frame bike.

Saving a pound or 2 on an expensive bike while you have 30 pounds extra on your caboose is more than silly.

Howeee, if it was just about weight loss I'd think you were right. But cycling is about enjoying the ride, and garnering health benefits along the way. I'm lots faster at 50 than I was at 35 , BTW . And a Super Sport is a pretty darned nice vintage bike , whatever you paid . Some guys have carbon fiber bikes because they like the ride qualities better , some have carbon fiber bikes because they still race , some guys have carbon fiber bikes because of silly reasons . Dropping pounds from the bike can be expensive, dropping pounds from you can be cheap . But how a person goes about it varies .

You will notice a difference. If your budget allows then I'd say do it. I bought my Madone 4.6 5 years ago after setting a weight goal of 180. It replaced a 25 year old steel bike. Now, I'm cycling more then ever and weigh 190. I also now have a newer steel ride that I load down with bags etc. It is my late fall/winter/early spring ride and off road in summer. When I'm on my Madone I feel like a waterbug, all light and responsive. It is fun. Don't feel that you need to be skinny to have fun. Now, I'm not saying you'll be faster, just that you'll feel faster. You know when you're driving a fine car even when doing the speed limit don't you?

I occasionally ride with a 50+ group, I'm 50+ as well. THEY keep buying lighter and lighter and more expensive bikes, wheels, tires, etc. I focus on fitness, weight loss follows. Over the past 4 years the performance gap between us has grown and grown. I think focusing on the bike is a big distraction from what really matters.
I buy bikes that I LIKE whether or not they're the lightest available. Frankly, I find carbon bikes to be ugly.
I just got a neo-retro steel road bike with downtube shifters. I love it and love to ride it.

Only you can decide if the difference is worth it. Take a long test ride and see if you think the money is worth spending. If you don't notice a difference be thankful.

I went carbon fiber for the ride quality. The combination of stiffness and great vibration damping without any weight penalties are unbeatable . I grew up riding steel framed bikes that would flex like crazy under acceleration. While I still like the ride quality of steel, I'd still go carbon anytime. Like dbg, I found that I have an even bigger incentive to work harder each time I go out because a riding good high performance bike is so much fun !

The biggest difference is when climbing hills, lighter bikes use lighter wheels so there is less mass to spin up and so fewer watts are expended while moving what is basically dead weight over a vertical distance. While there is no replacement reducing the weight of the motor (you), any significant weight reduction (from 30 down to say 18) pounds in the bike is going to make a difference. As I can recall, lightweight road bikes back in the early 70's were about 21 pounds (somebody correct me if I'm wrong) but the frames were anything but rigid and some of them were pretty frail.

I have to vote with the pound off the motor crowd.

It's not the weight so much as it is the extra load on all your systems slowing you down. Not just the extra miles of blood vessels, but the fact that eating a greens and beans diet tends to clean out those vessels so they run smoother and give you more oxygen to power your bicycle with. Its a reduction of drag combined with an increase of horsepower. :D

The biggest difference I noticed when dropping 4-5 lbs off the bike was handling out of the saddle at very low speeds as in a very steep pitch. The lighter bike takes almost no effort to maneuver. Won't make you any faster unless you're a lightweight (when climbing, that is).

If you go to this site http://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesLessWeight_Page.html you can plug whatever numbers you like into the formulas and see just how much time you can cut off of a climb by removing a little weight.
In the example I did it shows a 4.3 second advantage by dropping about 5 pounds.

Lose the weight from the bike,
and it doesn't come back again

50+ guys on "crabon" bikes, my favorite victims. It's not about the bike.

About a year-and-a-half ago I bought a full carbon bike (Bianchi Infinito). My primary ride before that was a cro-moly Trek 720 (purchased new in 1983). The 720 was/is a reasonably nice steel bike, but I think the Infinito is more fun to ride. So in reply to "can a lighter bike help a heavier cyclist?", I'd say yes, because it can make riding more enjoyable.

So, A) lose weight, or B) get a lighter bike? Umm. I'll chose C -- both. And ignore the bike snobs who think only they deserve to ride nice bikes.

So, A) lose weight, or B) get a lighter bike? Umm. I'll chose C -- both. And ignore the bike snobs who think only they deserve to ride nice bikes.

How about also ignore people who think 50+ riders shouldn't ride what they want?

50+ guys on "crabon" bikes, my favorite victims. It's not about the bike.

Tool

Tool

Childish

Childish

Ditto

It's taken me all this year to drop 25 pounds off the engine. I've managed to hit 138, and I'm aiming for 135. I've managed to take a bit off the Roubaix Expert with lighter tires and latex tubes. But getting weight off the bike is a pain, and will make you crazy.

Because I ride in the real world with no team car, I carry a pump, a tube, a patch kit and two water bottles. Just the weight of the empty waterbottles and cages is enough to make any weight weenie cry. And if you worry too much you start weighing your sunglasses and powerbars.

On the other hand, the sad lack of California Zinfandel in my life sometimes makes me question whether losing weight is really worth the effort either.

I didn't read all the responses here, so forgive me if I'm repeating anyone. I have a 27lb "light" tourer with a triple crank. I also have an 18lb road bike with a compact double. I love them both. As for climbing, I enjoy the road bike, despite having a taller lowest gear. The frame is stiffer and more of the power going into the pedals makes it to the back wheel. If I want to carry a camera, lunch, extra clothes, I'll bring the tourer. i can do the same rides on it and often, my average speeds are almost equal to my road bike. Keep in mind that I'm a clyde, not a racer. My point is that the road bike is a bit faster, and much more responsive. If you've got a 20lb cruiser, it's probably at least a 30lb cruiser. The road bike will make a difference. Less due to scientific calculations, but more because you'll love it more and ride it more.

I store the light road bike upstairs, I ride the heavier bike Daily,
because the weight is premium components.. chosen for longevity.
Rohloff rear hub, Schmidt dyno hub, lights, racks ..
to carry things back from the shops, [& rain gear]
& etc.

My $.02, FWIW:

I am 52, 5' 10", about 240, trying to get down to 220 for the summer. I usually ride about 50-60 miles a week for fun, but since late last summer I have been trying to commute twice a week 32 miles round trip, this year I'm aiming at getting to 3x/week by June. If I'm doing a short group ride, I'm generally in the 18mph group, and I feel fairly fit, but the weight does affect me a lot on the hills. Bottom line, I'm a moderate rider well into Clydesdale territory. I have a 1988 Schwinn Voyageur for commuting, probably weighs about 26 lbs bare and a bit over 35 lbs loaded (laptop, etc...), a 1983 Trek 760 upgraded to 9-speed STI that weighs 20-21 depending on the saddle (Brooks Team Pro adds about a pound) and a 2000 Fuji Team aluminum bike that is about 18 lbs.

All that being said, for me there is a huge difference between the Schwinn and the other two, but not so much between the Trek and the Fuji. This may be due to geometry as much as weight, I'm not sure. Both "race" bikes are very responsive, the Fuji is stiffer and accelerates a little better, maybe a little better climbing - the Trek is a bit more comfortable on centuries. I've never ridden a 15 lb bike, so I'm not sure how much different one would be than my Fuji. I do know that I'm not likely to spend the money to find out. :) I have a lot of fun riding both the Trek and the Fuji, especially in a group, and feel that the Schwinn would be a little bit of a drag in those conditions. However, on long rides, my weight becomes the dominant factor, so usually by 70 miles or so, it doesn't really matter what bike I'm riding.

As the OP, I have not been reviewing the comments because I just finished a week long fully loaded tour ride. Great fun, even on a 30# bike carrying 60 extra pounds of camping equipment.
I did not mean for this thread to be about my weight or bike. I ride a 16 1/2 pound Cannondale Super Six on the road with a Gunnar Roadie back up road bike ( 18#). I am a little too heavy, but still I keep up quite nicely with the guys in my groups, including several 3 hour metric centuries last year along with 5 hours in the HHH.
The reason I asked this question was because a guy rode into the parking lot where we had just finished a hard ride. He was on a brand new Dogma, a beautiful bike. He was considerably overweight. A couple of us commented on the pretty bike. He started telling us how much better his bike handling was with this light and responsive bike. He was very happy.
Anyway, I believe a light, responsive bike does make any weight cyclist a better bike handler. Wanted other opinions.

Think you're right, BikeArkansas .

50+ guys on "crabon" bikes, my favorite victims. It's not about the bike.

We have a new center of the universe.