Originally Posted by
Dr.PooLittle
I've heard it both ways. . . some people say that, if your not a featherweight, the weight of your bicycle doesn't really matter, because the combined weight is still rather high. I've also heard theories that your weight is like a baseline and the bike is something you carry with you, so its weight does matter. Lastly, someone once told me there's some kind of difference between suspended weight and weight beneath the suspension (the suspension being your legs). Anybody know enough physics to shed some light on this?
For a heavy rider a difference of a pound or two is insignificant when it comes to bike weight since it is such a small percentage of the whole. For a super fit and lean
racer that same two pounds could mean the difference between winning and losing. The problem is, we regular daily cyclists try to use racing logic when it comes to practical cycling and it doesn't hold up in the real world. A super light bike is a joy but when you weigh 260 pounds you risk breaking the dang thing and killing yourself. Big, heavy riders need stout frames, strong wheels and wider tires with more air volume. A heavy rider using a light race bike is just like taking a Ferrari and and expecting it to do the job of hauling a load of firewood.
