Oh, c'mon. This is the roadie forum. Helpful comments are frequently incidental. Be that as it may, Racing Dan provided a calculator link in post 22. Run the numbers yourself, say for a 6% grade. Here's another good one: Bicycle Speed (Velocity) And Power Calculator

On my SS rides, I found that learning to pedal perfect circles while seated made the biggest difference in climbing long grades. Easy to pop up short ones standing, harder to keep that up for a couple miles. I used ~70" gear, topped out at 25 or so. A riding buddy of mine uses a 90" gear in the mountains. Beast.

The "physics" answer was succinctly given in post #2 . Correctly IMO. To be frank, the physical calculations are simple and don't leave much room for debate.

The article someone cited did not attempt to justify their experimental result with physical theory, but rather on a limited sample set rides by a single person. The reported result is exaggerated (considerably) from what you'd expect from a physical basis. I would hypothesize that the discrepancy could be explained by overlooked or disregarded confounding factors: training specificity, and completely different types of bikes. He should have used the SAME bike for all of his trials, with the ONLY change between trials some weight added, and only after enough training on BOTH configurations that he could be confident that his technique and physiological adaptations would be more optimal on either configuration.

In short, one would view his result with skepticism.

That said, as for the effect of losing 10 pounds (from your body, not the bike), I would expect the gain (in speed) to be a bit better than the percentage gain expected from theory, and precisely because of the adaptations in the body and technique. This is often observed and commented on, and there's no special reason to doubt those who do. For example, you may be able to power over a particular hill whereas before you'd tend to conserve energy because previously you know you're going to blow up taking it too fast. The effect on speed - overall including both ascent and descent - is amplified because if you transfer the power saved by going slower uphill to the downhill portion, you never make up the loss in time. Just one of the several adaptations from weight loss which could impact the speed more than the physics would suggest.

In my experience, each 10lb is worth an extra tooth in the back.

Don't dismiss the physics, though. 10 lb is about 5%, and each tooth is about 6%. Not a coincidence.

Train harder, ride faster. Lose the weight if you can ... But what if you Do lose the weight, and find that a few percentage points change is insignificant on those hills .... i.e. you have to get off and walk ten yards further uphill?

Train harder, or with better focus, .... do HIIT and hill repeats, maybe even add some leg lifts in the gym.

As for people hating fixies .... LOL a think-skinned New Yorker. Didn't know they made them.

Ride what you like, like what you ride. You want to climb hills, train to climb hills.

[MENTION=488210]bergerkjh[/MENTION]

I ride fixed gear on the road in hilly North Georgia. I've also lived and worked in NYC for 44 years (N and R from Queens Center) and know the terrain. I've also lost 32 lb this year which is 16% of my body weight. 5' 10" and went from 198 to 166.

Weight loss was the number one thing I've ever done to increase performance. There is no question.

Contrary to what others here say, you will definitely feel 10 lb. How much you will feel it is unknown but you will feel it, especially on hills. As a matter of fact, apart from the scale and how your clothes fit, hills will be the first place weight loss is evident.

I'm saying this from experience as one who has 178,000 feet climbing so far this year. This is not theoretical.


-Tim-

If I was doing 30 mph in a 48X19 (that's around 150rpm?) I wouldn't have anything left for a hill either. I agree, 10 lbs should make a difference.

In my experience also, this is about right. You have to take total weight into account, though. In my case, I weight around 200. 10lb loss is good for one cog, not any more.

A good example of what I meant with "(a gain) ... because of the adaptations in the body and technique. This is often observed and commented on, and there's no special reason to doubt those who do"

I also ride fixed gear on Georgia roads, in not so severe hills, and I have dropped about 15 pounds to under 150 this year, same height. My experience concurs - I don't float over hills but no question, there is a difference.

For what it's worth, the conditions that lead to building muscle tissue, and to burning fat, are almost opposite. Losing fat is easy, you just have to burn more calories than you eat. Building muscle is hard, you have to do progressive overload while eating enough carbohydrates and protein, and you almost need to be eating more calories than you burn. It costs a lot of energy to build muscle, and to maintain it, so the body doesn't like doing that in lean times. Most people will be better served taking the two goals you mentioned separately, one then the other.

Wowza, someone simply says "you could use some gears" and you flip out. Sore topic? Why are you posting in the 'spandex diaper' forum? Get some gears or train harder with what you have.

Nah. Plenty of ordinary folks manage Harlem Hill with a single gear. I figure a combination of losing a little weight and training a little more will have the usual multiplying effect and he'd do fine.

I don't think this is even close to being true. If you have a link to any study on this, I'd be interested in looking at it. I'm not sure I would believe 12lbs = 0.1mph.

If it's true, a typical pro cyclist would be 12 mph faster if they didn't exist.

For a guy asking OTHERS for help, you sure seem awfully angry and confrontational.

The physics of this is sexist. It's not possible for a rider lighter than 144 lbs to achieve the full 12mph speed increase by disappearing.

Exactly, which is why I'm saying that, if he's having issues as it is, using a geared bike is probably a more realistic solution than getting down to 9% body fat just to drop two teeth from the rear cog.

Unfortunately, only when you are climbing. I'm not saying you shouldn't lose the 10 lbs, but on a flat course the difference-- less than 5% of your body weight-- will probably not be very noticeable. You would probably notice a much larger benefit if you rode consistently, say, 15-20 miles every other day for a month or so. Fitness takes time to build, but diminishes much more quickly. Riding once every 5-7 days, for example, you probably will find that fitness improves slowly, and the longer the gap between rides, the slower it will be. But even if you ride with sufficient frequency to force your body to adapt, it has been wisely observed that "it never gets easier, you just go faster."

Reducing weight makes you faster, but only if it comes from the bike. Crabon is your friend.

Probably too late to the party, but from my personal experience: I used to lift weights regularly and ride, my body fat at the time was between 10-12%. When I dropped from 180 to 170lbs (was going through a stressful patch and lost some muscles), I started "flying" up the hills. The difference was unbelievable - wherever I was struggling before became super easy.
My biggest problem at the time was balancing between maintaining/gaining muscle mass while logging longer miles on a bike.

Interesting, I'm 6' and was 180lbs at my heaviest, always athletic and fit. I'm currently 147 and have noticed a lot when I dropped weight. Every 5lbs is a very noticeable difference, both performance wise on the bike and appearance wise in the face and body.

Even 10 lbs is an enormous difference, in my experience. Weight has a significant impact on accelerations, too, and when you're doing that repeatedly, it really adds up.

I'll give you a real-world example. I have lost about 4kg (~9lb) in about 8-10 weeks (just by cutting out my typical bread/chips/carb snacking, and really controlling portion size), and I've seen a difference. For some shorter climbing segments I do on Strava (anywhere from 5 to 15 minutes, 5-8%), I'm putting out roughly 20-30 watts less to get the same time, compared to when I was 4kg heavier. I've not PR'd any of my usual climbs yet, but I've come close, and again, the power output is about 20-30 watts less to achieve similar times as my PR.

Apart from comparing my actual power numbers, I don't know of any calculator. Real world results are more important anyway. I'd suggest you lose the weight and find out what happens!

LMAO

If you want to ride a fixie where there are any amount of hills being a reasonably light rider is critical.

Lots of people posting real world experience that 5 lb is noticeable and 10 lb has made a big difference. Most concur that it makes the biggest difference on hills, which is exactly what the OP is asking about.

[MENTION=392125]79pmooney[/MENTION] has the best reason to loose weight - fun.

I'm not sure 10 lb will get the OP from 48x19 to 48x17 but combined with some training it should help.

I lived on Long Island which is flat. Coming from the flatlands, riding over the 59th street bridge was a memorable climb and looking up at the Verrazano Bridge from the BQE on the 5 Borough Bike Tour was frightening.

I wish the OP luck and hopes he lets us know how he does.


-Tim-