> >
>

# Weight Weenie calculation

Notices
Road Cycling “It is by riding a bicycle that you learn the contours of a country best, since you have to sweat up the hills and coast down them. Thus you remember them as they actually are, while in a motor car only a high hill impresses you, and you have no such accurate remembrance of country you have driven through as you gain by riding a bicycle.” -- Ernest Hemingway

# Weight Weenie calculation

02-17-16, 02:16 PM
#1
woodcraft
Senior Member

Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 5,746
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Quoted: 1695 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 753 Times in 460 Posts
Weight Weenie calculation

Contemplating upgrading shoes to save 200g,

& started thinking about what that would mean in terms of effort saved.

Does this make any sense?

- Ignoring smaller factors, Effort is saved from lifting less weight from bottom of pedal stroke to top of pedal stroke
- Crank length is equivalent to one stair riser, so one RPM= raising 200g one riser
- Flight of stairs~fifteen risers, so one RPM= raise 200g .0666/flight of stairs
- Ave. RPM=78, figure pedaling 3/4 of time (more?), so effective 58 RPM
- 58*.0666= 3.86 flights of stairs/min raising 200g
- Bodyweight= 74kg. 200g=.0027/bodyweight
- 3.86*.0027*60min.=.625 flights stairs climbed per hour
- So over 5 hr ride, heavier shoes is equivalent to climbing 3.13 flights of stairs extra work.
02-17-16, 02:19 PM
#2
PepeM
Senior Member

Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 6,841
Mentioned: 180 Post(s)
Quoted: 2723 Post(s)
Liked 101 Times in 49 Posts
Love it.
02-17-16, 02:30 PM
#3
rpenmanparker
Senior Member

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682

Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build

Mentioned: 106 Post(s)
Quoted: 6554 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 48 Times in 31 Posts
I don't worry about any weight except what is attached full time to the bike. There are too many other things to worry about re: shoes to even consider the weight...within limits of course.
__________________
Robert

Originally Posted by LAJ
No matter where I go, here I am...
02-17-16, 02:39 PM
#4
Danny01
Senior Member

Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Earth
Posts: 372
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
No. The weight saved on the shoe at the bottom of the pedal stroke is offset by the weight saved on the shoe at the top of the pedal stroke.
02-17-16, 02:42 PM
#5
kpotier16
Senior Member

Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 62
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Danny01
No. The weight saved on the shoe at the bottom of the pedal stroke is offset by the weight saved on the shoe at the top of the pedal stroke.
Exactly, its just weight, don't account for the lifting
02-17-16, 02:49 PM
#6
Danny01
Senior Member

Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Earth
Posts: 372
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Also, you forgot to take into account the aero drag (from all 360 degrees since the shoes are rotating) of the new shoe vs the old shoe.
02-17-16, 02:54 PM
#7
HTupolev
Senior Member

Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,804
Mentioned: 39 Post(s)
Quoted: 1741 Post(s)
Liked 855 Times in 421 Posts
Unlike being on-foot, the heavier shoe contributes usable power to the downstroke. For steadily cruising on a flat, I wouldn't be surprised if shoe weight has negligible impact, although it will certainly affect acceleration and climbing.
02-17-16, 02:54 PM
#8
Seattle Forrest
Senior Member

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,828
Mentioned: 72 Post(s)
Quoted: 14228 Post(s)
Liked 5,281 Times in 3,004 Posts
Originally Posted by woodcraft
- Ignoring smaller factors, Effort is saved from lifting less weight from bottom of pedal stroke to top of pedal stroke
Are you lifting the shoe with your right leg, or does pushing the pedal down with your left leg raise the right shoe without having to fight gravity for those 200g?
02-17-16, 02:55 PM
#9
Maelochs
Senior Member

Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 12,695

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 142 Post(s)
Quoted: 6083 Post(s)
Liked 976 Times in 549 Posts
I made a remark in an earlier thread, referencing the fact that serious riders need to cut off all their toes and their outer three fingers before I will take seriously any of their whining about equipment weight. Without toes, not only would your rotating mass be less, you could wear smaller, more aerodynamic shoes.
02-17-16, 02:58 PM
#10
GlennR

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Long Island, New York, USA
Posts: 7,987

Bikes: Trek Emonda SLR, Sram eTap, Zipp 303

Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Quoted: 2689 Post(s)
Liked 1,920 Times in 977 Posts
Maybe they add to the "flywheel" effect.

Or Maybe they don't.
02-17-16, 03:05 PM
#11
Doge
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 10,318

Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753

Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Quoted: 3309 Post(s)
Liked 292 Times in 208 Posts
You are looking at moment of inertia, not lifting. This is a rotation. It matters, but MOI is what you need to google.

We go real light on shoes - cleats - Ti hardware etc as it matters and there is no UCI limit on it.

Last edited by Doge; 02-17-16 at 03:25 PM.
02-17-16, 03:06 PM
#12
Seattle Forrest
Senior Member

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,828
Mentioned: 72 Post(s)
Quoted: 14228 Post(s)
Liked 5,281 Times in 3,004 Posts
Originally Posted by Seattle Forrest
Are you lifting the shoe with your right leg, or does pushing the pedal down with your left leg raise the right shoe without having to fight gravity for those 200g?
02-17-16, 05:50 PM
#13
Igualmente
Senior Member

Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 360
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Doge
You are looking at moment of inertia, not lifting. This is a rotation. It matters, but MOI is what you need to google.
I think this is incorrect. Cycling shoes do not rotate about an axis. Just because the shoes are helping to pedal circles, doesn't mean they are rotating like the crank or like wheels. Barring an accident, the tops of the shoes are always up, the bottoms always down. No rotation.
02-17-16, 06:05 PM
#14
Nachoman
well hello there

Join Date: May 2005
Location: Point Loma, CA
Posts: 15,212

Bikes: Bill Holland (Road-Ti), Fuji Roubaix Pro (back-up), Bike Friday (folder), Co-Motion (tandem) & Trek 750 (hybrid)

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 435 Post(s)
Liked 176 Times in 112 Posts
Forget about trying to justify it. Just go buy yourself a new pair of shoes.
__________________
.
.

Two wheels good. Four wheels bad.
02-17-16, 06:14 PM
#15
K.Katso
Gold Member

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Haarlem, Netherlands
Posts: 1,313

Bikes: Pinarello Dogma F8, Pinarello Bolide, Argon 18 E-118, Bianchi Oltre, Cervelo S1, Wilier Pista

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
A weight weenie friend of mine did exactly the same type of calculations. He really worked hard shaving grams off of all of his gear. Shoes were one of the biggest weight savings.
02-17-16, 06:27 PM
#16
Doge
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 10,318

Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753

Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Quoted: 3309 Post(s)
Liked 292 Times in 208 Posts
Originally Posted by Igualmente
I think this is incorrect. Cycling shoes do not rotate about an axis. Just because the shoes are helping to pedal circles, doesn't mean they are rotating like the crank or like wheels. Barring an accident, the tops of the shoes are always up, the bottoms always down. No rotation.
The axis is not the same as the cranks but if the ankle does not move (it does) it is still a circle. Just the axis is offset by sole/platform height.
Cycling stuff is very hard to calculate what is really happening in 3d, but the MOI principle was good enough for me.

I had these once (really) https://sheldonbrown.com/shimano1982/pages/15.html
In that case both circle were more nearly concentric. But it doesn't matter.

Last edited by Doge; 02-17-16 at 06:31 PM.
02-17-16, 06:50 PM
#17
Redbullet
Senior Member

Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 376
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Liked 11 Times in 9 Posts
The answer is obvious: Ride shoeless, attach plates to your feet with velco or Loctite. Save weight, save money and win races.
02-17-16, 07:34 PM
#18
DMC707
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 4,224

Bikes: Too many to list

Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Quoted: 1026 Post(s)
Liked 361 Times in 240 Posts
200 grams is a serious chunk -- like going from a winter mountain bike shoe to a carbon road shoe ---- Yes- you will feel it and it is worth it

The financial component ? Thats up to what your wallet can stand .

If i had the bucks , custom Bonts and Rocket-7's would be all i would run
02-17-16, 07:41 PM
#19
Bunyanderman
Senior Member

Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: California
Posts: 1,300
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
What goes around, comes around.
02-17-16, 07:52 PM
#20
kpotier16
Senior Member

Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 62
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Doge
You are looking at moment of inertia, not lifting. This is a rotation. It matters, but MOI is what you need to google.

We go real light on shoes - cleats - Ti hardware etc as it matters and there is no UCI limit on it.
Moment of inertia is close to irrelevant. As a ap physics c mechanical student, I calculated this in terms of power saved assuming a 175 mm crank (200mm center of mass) and 90 cadence. The watts saved due to rotational effects are .027, so nearly nothing.
02-17-16, 07:54 PM
#21
kpotier16
Senior Member

Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 62
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
As a comparison, saving 300grams on tires will save about 2 watts total (weight + rotaional effects)
02-17-16, 07:56 PM
#22
Doge
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 10,318

Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753

Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Quoted: 3309 Post(s)
Liked 292 Times in 208 Posts
Originally Posted by kpotier16
Moment of inertia is close to irrelevant. As a ap physics c mechanical student, I calculated this in terms of power saved assuming a 175 mm crank (200mm center of mass) and 90 cadence. The watts saved due to rotational effects are .027, so nearly nothing.
What rate of acceleration did you use? So as the cyclist increased from 90 to 130 - what was your time delta?
I guess I should also ask the mass of the shoe and foot you used.
02-17-16, 08:12 PM
#23
woodcraft
Senior Member

Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 5,746
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Quoted: 1695 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 753 Times in 460 Posts
Originally Posted by Doge
You are looking at moment of inertia, not lifting. This is a rotation. It matters, but MOI is what you need to google.

We go real light on shoes - cleats - Ti hardware etc as it matters and there is no UCI limit on it.

I'll check it out, but it feels like lifting to me. Rotation adds factors,

but you still have to raise your feet about 14" over and over again.

The 200g in question is in addition to 200g already saved going from

Sidis to S-works, for about \$100. As a side benefit, several women have commented favorably on the shoes,

so that may help the MOI in some subtle way.

02-17-16, 08:31 PM
#24
Doge
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 10,318

Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753

Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Quoted: 3309 Post(s)
Liked 292 Times in 208 Posts
Originally Posted by woodcraft
I'll check it out, but it feels like lifting to me. Rotation adds factors,

but you still have to raise your feet about 14" over and over again.

The 200g in question is in addition to 200g already saved going from

Sidis to S-works, for about \$100. As a side benefit, several women have commented favorably on the shoes,

so that may help the MOI in some subtle way.

You got it right. It is rather complicated. The mechanical system is not so much, but the human part is. And the mechanical becomes more complicated when you add change in speed - which is real.
You are primarily lifting your leg. More than likely, outside of a sprint the pedal is lifting your leg by the other pedal.

Waaay back in the 80s I was a no car Physics / EE student that sold my car to save the world and commuted on bike. I'd bring all this stuff into calculus class and general physics class and my CalTech (edit: I was not at CalTech - he was) professor basically said it was all too hard when you brought in real world stuff - like getting knocked off course by pebbles, stopping pedaling yada yada.
The problems are fun and the physics principles apply, but an educated experienced guess works as well - normally better.

If it moves - cut weight.
The farther it is from the axis - the more it matters.
People adapt to mechanical systems. Froome proves you can't calculate this stuff.
02-17-16, 09:23 PM
#25
kpotier16
Senior Member

Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 62
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Doge
What rate of acceleration did you use? So as the cyclist increased from 90 to 130 - what was your time delta?
I guess I should also ask the mass of the shoe and foot you used.
a=v^2/r (v is found using cadence and circumference), I did not find it for increasing from 90 to 130, only 90, because that is a typical cadence, therefore no time delta was necessary, also the mass of the shoes and foot are irrelecant, we are describing delta power, so only the changing variables are necessary (the power to accelerate a 200g mass at a radius of .2 meters)