Originally Posted by
I_like_cereal
I read the articles and they sorta made sense.
In essence reducing weight is meaningless in return compared with lessening rolling resistance. Which now that I think about it makes sense because if you can't over come the friction then you stand still. Lessing the grip of friction reduces the energy needed to accelerate the object. Highschool physics is slowly coming back. Lessening rolling resistance comes in the form of a better rear hub.
Rolling resistance isn't friction but hysteresis energy. And even cheap hubs are amazingly efficient.
Better than my 1997 RX-100. Perhaps better tires. I am not afraid to drop money on those as the Armadillos are $60 per tire. The Armadillos were recommended by a friend that does a lot of Cycle Oregon Tours with goat head thorns and other nasty road crap.
My roadie is a Reynolds 853 steel frame. Probably 19 pounds?
@Furballi I wish I could ride that fast. My 10 mile commute one way is 50 - 55 min with no wind. However it is 90% hill climb. I start a 200 feet and climb to around 600'.
Ok... Your problem is a lack of power to weight. Trying to cut aero or RR to speed up a 10mph commute is, well, like trying to understand why people go to Star Trek conventions - futile. And it isn't bike weight that matters but vehicle weight - i.e. bike + you.
If you're fat, you need to lose weight. If you're not, then you need stronger muscles - unless you're getting out of breath, in which case you need better cardio. Do a search on "interval training" and another on "hill repeats."