tuxbailey

I am posting here since has more to do with respect to bike performance than commuting.

Author's conclusion: It is not about the bike.

https://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c6801.full.pdf

Shuke

Seems like there are a lot of variables that he didn't account for (wind, fatigue etc.) Additionally, if he's hitting 36mph without clipless pedals I'm going to make the conjecture that a lot of his riding is downhill where naturally the heavier bike would win.

banerjek

In his study, a 29.75 lb steel bike was actually faster by an average of 32 seconds on a 27 mile ride than a 20.9 lb carbon bike (WTF? sounds heavy). Average commute time for the 27 mile ride on the faster steel bike (equipped with fenders) was 1:47:48. Sounds like it's more likely there was a difference in fit or in how he was carrying his gear.

This guy looks very Fredly even compared to me.

badger1

Sorry, and (seriously) no disrespect intended, but this is old news. This article appeared in the BMJ at Christmas (geddit?) ... it has been discussed endlessly since: it was, and is, a Christmas 'joke.'

tuxbailey

Sorry. First time I read it and I haven't read it here (maybe I missed it or it didn't make an impression.)

Mods: Please feel free to delete.

pallen

Yeah, it was a joke. Its still mostly true for commuting. Wind and which light I hit red makes far more impact on my commute than the bike.

mazdaspeed

I think it's possible to estimate the effect of weight, but not by riding two bikes, there are too many variables. I think that all else being equal, the time saved by having a lighter bike relates to the overall distance, frequency and intensity of accelerations, and amount of climbing.