Of Course Equipment Matters
 

The big question is, at what point does it no longer matter? There is a reason we don't see successful bike racers on 35lb bikes. However, is a 15lb bike a real world advantage over a 19lb bike or are there other things that negate the advantage that the difference in weight gives?
Most of us know the real answer, though it is fun buying things for one's hobby.

:popcorn: :popcorn:

****

I dunno. Winter hasn't really been all that bad this year, has it?
Materials threads; carbon wheel threads; now an "equipment thread"??
I think what we really need is a waving thread, or maybe a "how fast is your bike?" thread?

****

Seems like we haven't had a chain lube thread in ages.

My belief is there would be a difference between a 19 lb bike and a 15 lb bike provided one were already super lean (Froome size) and riding mountain stages. Could be the difference between winning and not winning. For a fat outta shape middle-aged bloke, such as myself, riding on the flats? Don't think so.

I hung my bike-- in riding condition, with tool pouch, water bottles, etc.-- on the scale at the LBS. 26.5lbs. I did almost 7500 miles on that bike in my first year of riding, with no random mechanical failures, just a handful of flat tires, and one crash. So equipment does matter... but it has absolutely nothing to do with weight.

A lighter bike won't make you a better rider. But it might make you think you are, so it will make you delusional. Then logically,

light bikes = mental illness.

Can't argue logic.

Depends who you are and what you are doing. Your 19lbs vs 15lbs matters for racers But most competitors ride very similar equipment, so brand X vs brand Y are pretty close. It matters in the riders head too. The head matters a lot. It matters in TTs which are core to so many races and often won in fractions of a second over several thousand seconds.
Does that mean it matters? Just depends on what is important.

Does a 15lb bike give a world class velodrome sprinter and advantage. Probably not. At some point equipment no longer is an advantage as other factors come into play.

No - because they all have 15 pound bikes. But it does over a 19 pound bike.
For the regular rider, it does not matter. For the racer - some races it does.
Using your Velodrome example...
You can get that bike for $2000, $4000 and $6000. I don't see much difference. But the $900 bike - there is a difference.
At no point at the world class level is a difference of 4 pounds insignificant. And likely not 1 pound. But, a moot point as that doesn't happen.

So the boys did national team pursuit last year - Carson velodrome. We had one rider that was a regular track rider. He had the nice stuff. The other guys didn't have that level stuff. The difference between the road equipment and those same riders and the velodrome equipment mattered. It mattered because winning is such a small margin.

If it matters in a velodrome where the given distance is probably less than 2 miles, then over a race of more than 30 miles, or crits that last more than 30 minutes, it would be highly probable that there is always a point where the weight aspect of a bike matters. Of course, the beauty in the sport is that it's more complex than that. This can be described through acknowledging the different factors at play. And, all things summed up as net forces, we could likely find various situations where the difference between a 15lb and 19lb bike are negligible or not as dominant as other factors.

I would assume that this is simply redundant review by now for most. Aerodynamics, rider skill and weight, racing conditions, bicycle characteristics, etc, etc..

Equipment certainly matters. But by equipment, at least in my definition, that also involves the engine.

I've seen 1996 Supras dust off some Lamborghini Gallardos at a rolling 60. The brand of car only told a very very minute part of the story. Same application here.

They put 2jz-gte's in everything...do you think it'll fit in my bike?

Nope. It'll fit in my Lexus GS300 though. :thumb:

What constitutes an "advantage"? If you are speaking in terms of competition, most people who ride do not compete in organized events, or do not ride primarily in organized competitions, so you would be asking a very tiny minority of riders about a very tiny minority of their riding.

The advantage of having a lighter bike is not a delusion. If I am struggling up a hill on a bike I know probably weighs 28 pounds with bags and bottles, I am pretty sure I would be struggling less with a bike which only weighed 18 lbs similarly equipped. ( I hope to test this theory eventually.) While one could point out that the lighter bike only cut two seconds off a two hour rider or whatever, the fact would remain that I suffered less/enjoyed more on that one hill. is that an "advantage"?

Sort of. it is also alright to reach a point where you have everything you need for a hobby, no matter how long your wish list. It is more than just buying things (which is a hobby in itself.) There is a point where having something as nice as you can justify logically and financially is its own reward.

Amusing, but inaccurate I think, when it comes to most riders.

I think most of us are smart enough to realize that only better riding will make us better riders, and most of us have probably found the balance between how we ride and how hard to push—that is, most of us have found how hard we like to work to improve.

We all have the option of devoting every waking hour to improving our riding—leaving our families, selling all our possessions, hiring the best trainer, riding and exercising like a rider from the WorldTour peloton. For most of us, a slightly lesser commitment brings greater overall satisfaction. We don’t do nearly everything we could to be better riders, because a large part of our goal is to also Enjoy riding, and to enjoy riding as a part of the rest of our lives, which we also enjoy.

“Better rider” isn’t therefore the goal. “Better ride” is. And here, it is indeed mental, though not delusional.

There is Pride of Ownership—people like having nice things. We each decide what constitutes the nicest “nice thing” we can afford and justify owning, and try to acquire it. For cyclists, that doesn’t mean the lightest or most expensive bike (not exclusively, at least.) It means something at the upper end of what is practical to own, even if a heavier, cheaper, less refined machine might be more practical to own.

We all know this. Few of us would enjoy cycling a lot less if the best bikes on the market all weighed a pound more ... we would all still have “aspirational” bikes, bikes we could not only dream about but practically consider possibly owning some day, as well as bikes we simply dreamed about owning but knew we never would or could.

“Better” doesn’t always mean “.001 seconds quicker” or “Strava KOM” or whatever. it could simply be a ride taken on a bike one longed for and has finally acquired. “Better” could mean several different things during one ride and several different things during the next.

I think the CV folks are an excellent illustration of the workings of the bike-buyer’s mind. To them, weight is really a small issue,. and the latest tech development is a non-issue, but they value their bikes at least as much as the guy buying the full Dura-Ace Cervello R5 or whatever. For a CV person, “Strava KOM” or “five grams lighter” means nothing—some of them ride bikes which probably weigh twice what the weight weenies ride, but they will spend their money buying something almost primitive and never consider something cutting-edge. Different "better.”

It is not about “better rider,” it is about “better ride.” And “better” has nothing to with numbers, or logic, but it also not a delusion.

Say, if light bikes = mental illness, does an heavy rider on a light bike average out to sound mental health?

How fast is your bike while waving ? Is there an optimal "aero wave" that won't slow me down ?

Depends on what you mean by "matters". If you are 00:00:01 out of first place on the sprint to the finish in the Tour de France, everything matters. If you're an average Joe enjoying a recreational ride through the countryside, then the minuscule difference between a 19# and a 21# bike probably won't mean diddly.

I'd like to put it to the test. Maybe I could ride a 19 pound bike for some stages and a 15 pound bike in other stages and report back on how it goes. Where do you submit your entry for the Tour de France. Anybody know what the entry fee is?

Well, what if we quantify it ?

Let's take a 170b rider non-professional rider. converted to a sane scale, that is 77.1kg. That rider has an FTP of 200.

So, a 19lb bike + a 170lb is 189 lb or 85.5kg. With an FTP of 200, that is power ratio of 2.34W/kg.

The difference between a 19lb and 15lb is 1.8kg.

Same rider on that 15lb bike is 83.7kg. Same power output, works out to 2.39W/kg.

So in terms of power to weight ratios, we are talking about a number of less than 1% (0.981) for a 170lb rider.

What happens when the rider weight changes? A 200lb rider + bike 19lb bike (99.3kg) has to produce 232 watts to maintain that 2.34W/kg. What happens when we take away 4lbs? the power ratio is no 2.38W/kg. Less benefit. Percentage, still less than 1% (0.983)

On the flip side, what happens when your rider is small? Say 125lbs + 19lb bike (60.8kg). Produces 142 watts for that 2.34W/kg base line, and when you remove that 4lb bike weight, you a 2.41W/kg. The percentage is less (0.97)

What does mean? from a pure power perspective, the difference is less than 1% in power output. What that doesn't quantify is how geometry, component, fit, and other factors play in. Those factors are what make the comparison of the numbers largely irrelevant, but yes, the raw numbers say you can 'buy' up to 1% of performance improvement in weight. You can probably buy another 1% in delivery to the pavement, and another 1% in aerodynamics. But at the end of the day, all the money in the world doesn't change the fact that the engine pushing the bike is still the engine pushing the bike :).

It made a huge difference in performance when my steel bike went from 23 lbs to 19 lbs.

Speeds went up, heart rate came down, climbs more bearable, smiles bigger, etc.

The truth is it makes a very modest difference, but not a meaningful difference for those of us here.

I am a 175lb intermediate level rider and I definitely notice the difference between a 19lb bike and a 15lb bike while climbing with same gearing and similar geometry etc. The rest of the time weight does matter...but stiffness does

Not that anyone will read this because this thread has already devolved to the point of amateur physicists positing theories with math that accounts for a few small variables that in reality are drowned out by multiple other variables that enter into the equation, BUT in terms of equipment, it's really hard to beat an Ultegra equipped bike with a good mid-level frame. Your choice of manufacturer and material. I feel like that's the sweet spot in terms of cost/benefit ratio for the average rider. Yes, nicer groups are lighter, and nicer frames are lighter, but past that midpoint you're usually dropping serious dollars for incremental increases.

From my personal experience, I'm nearly as fast over the same 30 or so miles on my 105 equipped Crockett as I am on my DA equipped Domane. But then again, I suck. :lol: But that's the point. If you're on this board, you're probably average. I know like one other person IRL from this forum and he's not fast either. All of the seriously fast riders I know have never even heard of this place. We're mostly bike dorks that like talking about bikes about as much as we like riding them, so here we are.

I am fastest on my red, steel bike while I am waving. That's due in part to the fact that steel is real.

You lost me at "in reality."

That's what I get for going over the twitter 140 character limit. :lol:

What's "twitter?" BTW...Up through and including "in reality" is 159 characters, not including spaces. 190 with spaces.

Confucius says "Man who counts characters ends up having character counted". :D