WalksOn2Wheels

No, he's talking about the younger bikes. It's like you said, the weight is not significant considering acceleration, but imagine hitting a steep climb on a 70's steel frame and then hitting that same steep climb on a stiff, efficient carbon frame. It's what I said at the top of this page, all upgrades aren't solely about weight, things like efficiency and aerodynamics can play a huge role. Likely, the older rider has decently strong legs, but the flex in the older bike is wasting some of that energy he's laying down.

EDIT: Specifically, I have a Columbus SLX Bianchi circa 1990 that I've built up with modern campy. I was running a Record square taper crank for a while, found a cheap centaur carbon crank on ebay and bought it for the looks/weight-weenie-itus. I didn't think I would even notice a difference, but the first time I hit a steep hill, it was night and day from the old crank.

kingfishr

I have 3 steel Colnagos and two CF bikes, unless you are pushing 600+ watts and managing to flex the bottom bracket so that you hear the front derailleur rubbing the chain rings, as in a 30 second sprint I seriously doubt that you will be able to measure the time savings on a 7% grade during a long climb. I did a few 10 miles ascents this summer with an average 10% grade and I rarely exceeded 200 watts on those 1hour + climbs, and I passed plenty of CF bikes with my steel frame...

Rich Gibson 

It gets worse as time goes by. You'd think with the internet and Google and website text spelling features people might get their writing correct.....not. How about definately?

Rich

WalksOn2Wheels

I wasn't talking about seated, sustained climbs. Good technique will make a bigger difference in that case, regardless of frame stiffness or weight. I was talking about standing and putting in bursts of power for quick accelerations. This is also what I mean by "hitting" a steep climb, vs. just rolling into it. For me, a simple crank change was a pretty big deal that I didn't expect to make any difference at all. I've also ridden plenty of modern aluminum and carbon.

Regardless of all that, I maintain that not all upgrades are purely about saving grams.

Pedalocity

Rider weight and gearing plays also plays a big role in how much of a benefit you gain from frame and wheel stiffness.

As a ~285lb clyde, I can tell you from personal experience that I can feel the difference in hard efforts and especially climbs between an entry level carbon bike and badly made back wheel, and a much (laterally) stiffer carbon frame and (laterally) stiffer back wheel.

On my old bike I could feel a side-to-side rubber banding under intense pedaling efforts that I can no longer feel on my new bike with my new back wheel. In hard efforts I'm often a gear smaller on the cassette on my new bike compared to the old. YMMV.

BigJeff

I love your reply.

Since you passed a carbon bike on a steel bike, would there be any perceptible difference if you were on the exact same carbon bike as the one you passed? Or would your performance be no different?

kingfishr

I have been measuring my power and performance of garmin connect for several years and when I finally dug into the numbers comparing results with different frames I found no difference between steel and cf. But that is for normal group rides averaging around 20mph, but still with lots of sprints and climbs. For races I have used the cf, just for the stiffer frame, but I think it is mostly placebo effect... Of course there is going to be more difference for clydes and racers, but that leaves out most of us.

Leinster

When my number 1, AL 10-speed, bike was in the shop for repairs not too long ago, I rode my older backup, steel 8-speed. There's about 5lbs difference between the 2, and I could feel every ounce of it on the pretty small hills I did that day.

That said, on the AL I still haven't beaten a couple of the PRs I set on the steel.

BigJeff

We're the pr's downhill or uphill? Any other unique Circumstances such as perfectly timed lights, a tail wind or a draft from a fellow rider? A heavier bike will make you faster on a downhill and the geometry may be significantly different in erasing confidence.

BigJeff

So your point is you have not measured yourself as faster except that you are faster due to a placebo effect but you think this may only apply to smaller folk (sub Clyde... )

How much does your steel bike weigh vs your cf bike?

Why are the limits of variance not having an effect? 15lbs vs 30 lbs? 15 vs 20?

kingfishr

The steel frame Colnago weighs 20lbs, the CF Tarmac weighs about 17lbs. If I would race with the steel frame I might find that the results are identical to my CF results, I have never used my steel frame in a TT or official race, only in our weekly club rides 40-80 miles where we ride as a group with 5-6 sprints on Strava segments of a mile or less, I see no difference in my performance. I set new PR's with my steel frame as frequently as with my CF. But these segments are usually on flat or moderately hilly terrain, so maybe I am pushing 400watts for 1-2 minutes and the rest of the time 200watts or less. Nothing close to what a clyde or pro might do, but probably more than a lot of cyclists who hope to get performance gains out of CF.

I have nothing against supporting the CF cycling manufacturers, there is tons of nice hardware to be had, but at the end of the day for more speed, money is better spent on aerodynamic wheels than on a lighter CF frame...

KonaRider125

Only reason I bought a carbon bike is to make climbing 8 percent and higher gradients easier. I don't race, and don't do fast pace group rides, strictly ride for fitness and sight seeing. A 18-20 pound bike plus a 11-32 cassette and you can ride up any mountain.

Leinster

I was thinking of one 8-mile climb in particular, and yes there have been other factors involved (my slowest time up it was on my newer bike, but into a heavy headwind; I actually set my PR for the descent that day as it's a dead-end out-and-back ride), but there are no lights on that route. It's generally only the climbs that I pay attention to as flats or downhills can be affected by other factors.

The geometry of the bikes is different, but the biggest difference I notice between the 2 (other than weight) is the 5700 shifters on the newer one vs the pointy Campy 8spd ergos on the old one.

And a heavy bike will not necessarily make you faster on a downhill. A lighter bike will stop quicker under braking, allowing you to brake later into corners. I find that lighter bikes are easier to throw around on descents, and easier to control. If we're talking about a straight-ahead, constant gradient descent, similar to the theoretical climb in the OP, then maybe a heavy bike would help. The angular momentum of a solid disc wheel is definitely an advantage in a TT or on a track where maneuverability is not at a premium, but on a twisty, technical descent I'd say more riders would choose to go with the lighter 20-spoke carbon rims.

BigJeff

(Forgive the weird cApitalizations, iPhones suck for typing)


Your experience seems Accurate and makes sense.

In group rides, unless you are typically pulling the pack and like to stay out front, you will not be faster than the folk ahead of you since you can pull more weight in a draft.

Personally, I have fluctuated between 210-250 lbs, riding a 16.5lbs carbon bike with deep 50mm wheels. I try to keep a 80+rpm pedal rate. I haven't been climbing fast, so my ride average is usually around 18mph.

My previous alloy bike was 27 lbs, the weight savings both me and the bike has been huge and has improved my endurance and comfort.

I would like my next bike to be lighter, but I would like to get it with the SRAM red hydro-disc group so that I can increase stopping power.

I love going 50+ mph downhill but i do not want to melt tubes, tires or wheels.

Frontrow

This makes perfect sense.

Lugging an extra couple of pounds over a 50 to 100 mile ride--with or without climbs--is noticeable too. It may not affect the time it takes to cover the distance, but it sure does affect the overall energy expended and power needed (energy per time) in accelerations or climbs. Just try your regular training ride with a water bottle filled with lead fishing weight instead of water...

torque cyclist

bike weight is more important at lower speeds and on hills.