It's a silly situation.
It's a silly situation.
I understand what you are stating...BUT... if a filled water bottle is being carried in the back of a jersey or in the cage you are stating that since the total weight stays the same it will not matter...even though the bike iteself will be lighter with the water in the jersey.
If 2 riders have a weight difference of 20 pounds and both race at the same level...They end up at the finish line at the same time. Does that mean that the lighter rider would be using a bike that is 20 pounds heavier... I know this sounds ridiculous but you stated that "all weight is the same in regards to climbing".. I am obviously exagerating here to make a point.
If both masses (rider plus bike and all add ons) were being towed up the incline by a rope attached to a car, only the rotating weight would make any difference to the force and power required to accelerate to a certain speed. But in real life the rider provides the motive force, so as I said, it is not so simple. Close but not quite. All the other stuff like empty and full water bottles, where the weight is on non-rotating parts, etc. is to no effect.
That is obviously not a realistic situation. IF the total non-rotating and rotating weights are the same, the acceleration and climbing characteristics (sans aero effects) should be too. If a bike is under UCI approved weight, it can be "handicapped" with added on weight. Just like a race horse. If a 20 lb lighter rider rode a 20 lb heavier bike (non-rotsting weight) the results should balance out, strenght factors being equal, of course. How many more ways does it have to be said?
And just to recap (again), aside from the obvious exception about that which rotates, weight is weight. Ten lbs. of non-rotating weight, regardless of origin, has the same effect.
Upon rereading I see that OP was asking a somewhat different question than I answered. He was asking if two riders of identical abilities, one 20 lb lighter than the other, arrive at the finish line together, does that mean the lighter one was riding a 20 lb heavier bike? Who knows why one did better than the other. Small differences in weight give small differences in resistance to acceleration and climbing. Larger differences in weight would result in larger differences in acceleration and climbing speed. But to say that weight must make up differences between identical riders is a far stretch. There is aero both of the bikes and the bodies, there is technique and how it is applied on any given day. There is hydration or the lack thereof, and on and on. I think OP has good answers to his good questions and no real answers to his bizarre questions. IMO, that is how it should be.
stupid thread.
You really need to ride a sub 14lb bike to appreciate the difference. Performance metrics are meaningless. I have 1 of my bikes down to 13.05lbs, ready to ride, and it's a blast, especially with the local hilly terrain. Makes my 17lb Roubaix feel like a lead sled.
hillbilly
I think you missed my point.
You had stated that total weight (Rider and bike) was what mattered (given the fact that rotational weigh is of utmost importance). The point I was trying to make was that if that statement was correct than a rider 20 points heavier riding a bike 20 pounds lighter..given the same ability, aerodynamics etc.... would end up together at the finish line with a rider 20 pounds lighter with a bike 20 pounds heavier.. Yes. it is an exaggeration but the principle is the same.
Losing 3 pounds of body weight or losing 3 pounds of bike weight (assuming non rotational) has the same effect on the effort you have to expend.
Yes, of course.
I'm not sure what you are asking. Not sure what the Roubaix weighs. What you mean by "perform". But that is not the point. Energy required to climb a hill or ability to accelerate won't be affected by where the weight comes from. But no matter what the rider weighs, a lighter bike will feel different than a heavier bike.
I haven't read the thread, but I don't agree with this. There is a metabolic cost to carrying more weight, and also a mechanical price to pay moving it around (over and above spinning the cranks), so other things being equal the three pounds on your body will consume more calories than three pounds on the bike. More energy means less available to pedal, which means less power.