jamesdak 

Ahh, this is just the point I go with a lot, especially with lighter wheels. You may not actually be faster but it feels faster and that translates (for me) into a better experience. Especially when the road points upwards.

That said, I run a slew of mainly steel bikes that run from 18-24 lbs equipped to ride minus full water bottles and saddle bag. On any given day one is just as fast, or slow, as the other. Different factors come into play according to the bike and the route.

seypat

Unfortunately, in today's society, the mentality is that there is no cheating anymore. There is just "interpretation of the rules," conformity or nonconformity, and the repercussions after. That goes for everything in life. That's just my opinion. I could be wrong. People are looking for every advantage they can get in life and they think they are entitled to it.

Look at your previous post. I'm not calling you out, you just stated the way it really is these days. It's now up to the official to enforce the rules, period. People are going to get away with what they can.

I have played many sports through the years and have seen so many forms of cheating, particularly on the golf course. Some are blatant, and some are really deceptive. Most are premeditated. When pointed out the excuses always come.

I'm old school like you. I think all of the variables in a competition need to be kept at a minimum so that the athlete/competitor can decide the outcome. That is really hard to do with an ever changing equipment/technology based competition.

Jarrett2

Bike weight is also relative. Lightweight bikes are for lightweight riders. Heavier riders need more sturdy bikes. A big clyde on a 13 lb "chinabomb" is not the best idea.

So (functional) light for one might not be light for another rider. I try to keep my bikes in the ~20 lb. range for feel and reliability.

scuzzo

dont know, bike is around 17lbs... and its the best riding bike i have ever had... i went to the bike shop today to see if there was anything that would turn my head from my Litespeed Vortex... yep... there were a bunch of bikes that were lighter... and even some that had those disc brakes... and some even had electronic shifting... but nope... still keeping my litespeed... hang the 2lbs... a nice bike is a nice bike and when you find YOUR bike... i dont think that 2lbs is enough of a reason to trade up to the next fad... this bike feels as fast as the fastest bikes i have ridden.. and as plush as the most mellow steel steed i have ridden.. so.. nope.. weight is not that important to me... but im a clyde.. standing 6,3 so i like durability above stealthy lite, wonder bikes..

timtak

I thought so but then I toured on heavy hired mountain bikes and found that weight mattered a lot less than I thought. Heavier means slower acceleration and climbing. Going up hill one can change down. Out of towns (and away from traffic lights) there are few stop starts.

Suspension and aerodynamics however matter rather a lot.

zymphad

I see a lot of overweight people riding equipment that claim to have weight limits, and yet seem to be fine.

Racing Dan

Play with this calculator:

Bike Calculator

At zero % slope a 3lbs difference is 0.02 mph. At 7% slope the difference grows to 0.12 mph. To make up for the weight related speed loss, you need to push 254w at 18 lbs rather than 250w at 15 lbs.

Silvercivic27

Jarrett2

That's cute Good movie.

ClydeTim

I've seen plenty of overweight riders on light equipment as well and they look fine. However, we never know how much and how they really ride. I have read some posts by Clydes recommending light weight wheels that have lasted them 3 years. They do fail to mention riding only 1000 miles per year.

I myself have done plenty of climbing at 230 and have snapped 2 frames of decent quality ($2000+ roadies). That's anywhere from 5,000-7,000 miles per year. SO a lightweight frame for me? Forget about it! I don't need a face plant at 40 MPH descending a mountain road.

As far as light wheels? They feel like noodles underneath my weight. If I stand to climb, it scares the snot out of me with the flex. Light weight rear wheels feel like a noodle under my seat. Give me a 32 spoke 30 mm deep rim any day.

A good stiff solid wheel feels more responsive to a big guy like me on a century with 10,000-12,000 ft of climbing. Give me a lightweight flexing wheel, I'll lose energy on the climbs and maybe eat it in fast switchbacks on the descent. I don't know about other big riders, but a light wheel feels like danger to me on a 40+ mountain descent.

The heavier stronger wheels have never felt like they were lacking to me at 230 lbs. But I will admit, I have to chuckle when a 290 rider posts a thread asking for suggestions about lighter faster wheels.

It ain't the bike man, not at our size! It's the engine and the training!

kbarch

This corresponds to my observations. I have seen some really big guys on superlight bikes, but they tend to be among the more casual riders - not that they are unskilled or won't do "epic" rides, but they tend to be cautious and are never in the aggressive group. The big guys in that group have sturdy bikes.

Jarrett2

This.

Big, fast guys have strong bikes.

bruce19

https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/s...5f&action=view

https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/s...22&action=view

GNC tests of the effect of body weight and bike weight on climbing.

Doge

I got my Nimble Fly that was 16 spoke and put it on the front of the tandem. I rode a couple hundred miles with it on the tandem and it looked fine.
Later a spoke broke when on my single. The stress of the tandem had something to do with that IMO.

Those uber light climbing wheels I bought for my kid have a max weight about my weight. I'm not about to use them as I believe the stress and bending all adds up.

Doge

You are mixing areas - society and rule/sports and cheating vs just how the sport is done. Many sports (esp the euro ones) existed before the rules. It is the wording of the rules that is a bit off. Cheating of course, exists. But many times something is against the written rules, done all the time by all/most the participants and well, that is how the sport is. If the authorities want it changed, they will start penalizing it. If they don't they are essentially saying it is OK. If someone just went by what the rules say (and as I mentioned, most pros don't read rule books) then they would be at a big disadvantage. I put the rule interpretations and enforcement on the authorities, not the participants. I actually am more bothered by the existence of rules no one knows about or wants to enforce. Cheaters exists as do crooks and criminals.

seypat

Sports and society are interconnected. Sports mirror real life. That is a good discussion for another thread, but we are straying off topic. Here is something that never gets discussed in these weight threads. The overall weight of the rider is a lot more important than the bike weight or the total weight. If you are out of the saddle, dancing on the pedals, you have to lift that body up with every pedal stroke. Think about that. Whether the rider is on a 10lb bike or or one that weighs 40lbs they have to press the body weight upwards. Losing 15lbs from the gut vs 3 from the bike will really help with the climbing. Not that important on flat land.

ClydeTim

'
Agree!

seypat

In my case, I am built like a track cyclist. 5'8" around 200lbs. Maybe 15lbs of fat. If I was lifting weights I would still be the same weight, maybe more but no fat. Rolling in a big gear on the flats is easy. If the terrain turns upwards I struggle no matter what bike I am on. If I am forced out of the saddle for anything but short under a minute bursts, the energy reserves will empty quickly. It doesn't matter whether I am spinning or mashing, the cramps are not far behind.

Doge

Those seem about the same to me. Esp if it was off the wheels.
I'd take the 15 on the gut to get 3 lbs off the wheels.

Sy Reene

Of course these kinds of observations can be self-selecting. Ie. how many overweight riders do you observe that used to ride light equipment and don't now due to a negative experience? How many overweight riders aren't riding anymore since their lightweight setup failed some time ago? etc..

Maelochs

The answer, as always, is yes, but how much, depends.

CliffordK

I'm not a "fast rider", but many of the Strava segments that I pound the hardest on puts me in the top 10%,and often about 10% behind the KOM (small city segments). Mostly flat, and a couple of hill climbs.

Picking up a few watts here and there. Lighter, more aero, less rolling resistance, etc. Each change may only be a few watts, but I'm convinced that they should all add up to some significant benifits.

What really is 10 Watts out of 300 watts? About 3% of your total (hard) effort.
Find 3 things you can do to save 10 watts each, and that comes up to about 10% of one's effort.

Nothing is quite linear, but a 10% change could be the difference between cruising at 20 MPH vs 22 MPH. 25 MPH & 27.5 MPH.
Climbing at 14 MPH vs climbing at 15.4 MPH.

How do you want to arrive at it? My old bike weighed in at about 25 pounds. I'm still dreaming of hitting 15 pounds, and may come close with different wheels and tires. So, maybe 10 pounds different in the bikes. Shave a few pounds in gear, and it doesn't take much to start getting a significant amount of hill climbing difference.

Yeah, one can talk about body weight. The trick is to lose fat without losing muscle. Or better yet, to convert fat to muscle. Many heavier people are actually significantly stronger than their lighter companions. But it also takes training, especially for endurance.

noglider 

I guess the premise behind the question is whether faster is better.

Maelochs

Deep Thoughts.

Oddly enough i had similar thoughts after reading Clifford K's post above.

How much would I pay to go a little faster? Zero. How hard would I work to go a little faster? However hard I felt like working.

For some folks speed is itself a goal ... For some, beating others on Strava. For weight weenies, low weight is a goal .... even if they don't ride their bikes, they feel all warm and fuzzy just to be able to weight them and see an impossibly low number.

For me, just getting in miles is a the goal ... whether it is ten or thirty or a ten-day trip or whatever ... anything more than a trip to the grocery store.

All valid uses and/or conceptions of the bicycle.

If the OP is a speed junkie who rides flats, get an aero bike. If he is a speed-junkie climber, get an ultralight. If he is a weight weenie, get an ultralight and drill lightening holes in the bar tape.

If like most cyclists a .i3 mph increase in average speed on the flats under perfect conditions or .7 seconds quicker to the top of a climb don't mean much ... that's how much weight means ....

.... says the guy who weighs twice as much as all of his bikes put together.

ptempel

I agree with the wheels (I also run 32-spoke front and rear wheels). But the frame failure sounds a little more unusual. I weigh the same as you but have only snapped a frame once not involving an accident. It was a LeMond malliot jaune but the guy that was going to repaint it recommended a plate under the BB. He felt that there was enough rust in the inner BB area that it needed the extra support. I told him to do that but about a year or more later I ended up breakig the seat tube right above the BB. I chalk that up to the extra heat needed to get the plate attached under the BB. So snapping frames should almost never happen if they are designed properly and its not an accident.