I just picked up cycling a month back and I have to say I am loving it! One thing I am curious about though... I was practically given a fairly expensive all carbon bike with the latest and greatest gear system etc. I would never have bought it if it had not been a friend of mine just wanting to get rid of it (he has to much money...)

Anywyas... I don't think I appreciate the bike well enough, or understand why I need to have it! Why do "normal" people spend so much money on these bikes to get a fraction of a gram off? For instance, would a 10 pound lighter version of me on a bike with a frame that was 10 pounds heavier be equivalents?

On some parts, like tires, pedals etc that have a moment of inertia I understand how it could matter to a certain extent. And with frames I can see that stiffnes is important. But could someone explain to me why its worth paying a ton of money for a lighter frame though? Going uphill where it matters more, how "good" do you have to be before you notice a significant difference?

I am going to differ on this. I am considered, in cycling terms, "big fat lardass" at 290lbs. I can tell the difference between a bike that weighs <18lbs or a bike that is>20lbs. The lighter bike is much easier to climb especially on steep climbs over 5mi. I also do not get fatigued as much on longer rides as I would with a heavier bike. The lighter bike is much easier to toss around in very tight canyons.

I would agree however that a newbie my not notice the difference but as they gain experience they will be able to tell. As to how much experience, that is hard to say. I have been riding/racing for the last 33 years. It will depend on how in tune you are with your bikes and if you can pick up on the little things as well as the big things that the bike does wile riding.

I, until recently, considered myself a bit of a weight weenie. I have a 19 lb mountain bike,and a Pinarello that is just a bit over 15 lbs. I also just built up a 20 year old steelEddy Merckx frame and fork with Dura Ace parts and FSA carbon Cranks and bars and such it has still got to be 20 lbs. With the exception of initial acceleration, I can't say I can really feel a big diff when riding. Comfort aside, the Merckx feels just as fast and seems to climb about as well. If I had to say one felt lighter I would say the Pinarello but the difference is surely negligable.

I am rethinking my beliefs. A lot of riders will say this and that, but don't have 2 totally different bikes for an A to B comparison.

Recently I saw in Velonews a profile on the Jittery Joes/Kalahari Team bikes, and they were almost 17.5 lbs. That seems very heavy for a pro bike, considering that almost any company can produce a 15 lb'er.

Part of it is also just the pride of ownership that comes with a well-made or best-in-breed product. Nobody "needs" a Porsche or Ferrari but they still sell every one they make.

uh, the benefit of a lighter bike is its LIGHTER? How the hell do you not know why light bikes are better than heavy bikes? You dont need to be a physics major to know what gravity is.

How big of a difference does a couple of pounds really make? Has anyone ridden the same route with 2 different bikes, like a race bike and a touring bike, and recorded the time difference?

You're exactly right. The only difference in performance with a lighter bike is climbing. A heavy versus a light bike (within reason) are essentially the same in all other conditions.

Actually a HEAVIER bike may be better on a flat race or road because there is more momentum after it gets to speed. If you have every riden cosmic carbones (the original 2000 gram version) you will notice they seem to spin forever, thus the magical "flywheel" effect. Light bikes take more effort to keep going once they get going...

Wouldn't heavier bikes handle cross and head winds better as well? Be more stable at higher speeds?

I am a believer of lighter bikes though. Doesn't obsessing over lighter bikes promote the proliferation of OCP as well?

that doesnt make any sense. Sure there is more momentum. But how are you gonna achieve that momentum? Its heavier bike, so it takes longer to accelerate than a light bike. And once up to speed, you come to a steady state, vs air resistance and friction on a flat road. Heavier bikes = more friction. Heavier bikes = slower acceleration. If you are maitaining speed, momentum does not play any factor. Momentum is Mass*Velocity. If more momentum is better, by that definition, all heavy riders will dominate smaller riders. But thats not true, because guess what? with more mass, you need more force!


It doesnt matter on hills or flats. A lighter bike of the exact SAME build is going to be better. And dont say oh time trial bikes are heavy, and they do good on flats. Yes, but the thing is, they are more aerodynamic too, you are now comparing weight vs aerodynamics.

any chance I get to post this

firstly, Mr Sosenka just broke the hour record on 21.6lb bike (hee hee hee, cop that, weight weeines )
https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycling/125994-dare-i-say-55-11-fixed-real.html

and secondly, have a play around this calculator, and you'll notice that weight on flat ground means virtually NOTHING!! https://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm
According to this site, with an output of 250w on flat ground, an addittion of 10lbs is required to slow the bike speed by 0.1mph!!!!!!!!!!

While sudden acceleration seems to be noticeable on a lighter bike, I suspect it's barely quantifiable.

Let's say you're riding in the Tour De France and you spend 90 hrs = 5400 minute =324000 seconds in the saddle. If you beat your competitor by 30 seconds, that's worth worrying about to a pro rider. The ratio 30/324000 is about 0.01%. Shaving one ounce from a 15 lb bike is about 0.4%. So taking an ounce off a bike is a big deal to a pro rider.

Edit: I should actually be comparing taking an ounce off bike plus rider -- so that ratio is more like 0.04%. Still, an ounce is a big deal to a pro rider.

To a genetically inferior rider ( like myself ) worrying about ounces is silly.

um....... he coulda gone faster with a lighter bike. The only reason its 21 pounds is cuz hes 6 foot 7. Also, heavier bikes have "lesser" effects on flats.

and also, ur argument includes bike + the biker. That doesnt say anything about the bike itself. Superman could ride a 100 pound bike at 40 mph. Does that means 100 pound bikes owns?


Alan has a very good point. THe benefit could be slight, and sometimes "almost" negligible, but the difference is there. Less weight of the same geometry and build is ALWAYS faster, unless ur gears are rusted or you put some friction paste on your moving parts or something.

Oh really???

If only he had've known he could've used a lighter bike.
Silly him; it just didn't cross his mind

531aussie, You are stupid. STFU. REREAD the rest of my post.


BETTER IS BETTER. LIGHT BIKE IS FASTER THAN HEAVY BIKE. EVEN IF ITS 0.00000000000000000000000000001.

if you are going to argue, you have TWO OPTIONS
1) SAY THEY ARE SAME SPEED
2) SAY HEAVIER BIKE is FASTER

what are you gonna say? a heavier bike accelerates faster? A heavier bike is automatically more aerodynamic? A heavier bike climbs hills better? A heavier bike has less friction?


Your argument is this: "oh a heavier bike is negligibly slower than a light bike, and so therefore heavier bikes are faster!"

IDIOT

are you the guy with the soft, squishy, girls legs?

HAHAHAH GOING OFF TOPIC? HAHHA
thats wut I thought newbie, sit your ass down, and go home. You have nothing else to say.


and oh yeah. I was 15 pounds over weight on that ride because I have been taking whey and creatine. Most of it is water weight, and i still averaged over 20 mph. You should see me prior to me doing heavy upper body regimen. I was averaging 22-23mph soloing, for at least 60 miles.

hey, some to seattle, ill own you any day you would like.

hmmmm............. charming and classy!!

I'm reluctant to discuss anything with you because you're obviously young and stooopid, or just just stooopid (and you've got girls legs) -- either way.....

I said what I meant in my first post: "weight on flat ground means virtually nothing". I'm not sure if a lighter bike would've been slower; maybe. I don't have the engineering/physics knowledge to start sprouting, but, all I can say is that Sosenka has given us a fair indication (proven?) that 5 or 6 extra pounds won't impede performance for this particular (flat ground) circumstance. The Kreuzotter calculator backs this up, too.

For you to suggest that he would've gone faster on a lighter bike is laughable. The guy is a very well paid, professional bike rider with thousands and thousands of dollars worth of resources behind him, and do you think with all the "brains" behind his successful record attempt that nobody ever suggested they trial a lighter bike?

I think the question of weight is all relative and gets way too much consideration when choosing a bike.

If we are talking about a weight difference of two pounds than I would be very surprised if anyone could tell a difference....ie does your bike handle, climb or ride differently when your water bottles are empty vs full?

You might feel a two pound difference when you pick up the bike by itself but actually riding it is very different.

Now if you are talking about ten pounds than that may be a meaningful difference when you are climbing.

a lighter bike is way faster than a heavy bike- I have five bikes and would say that the single most important factor in minimising A-B time is the weight of the bike

it just depends what you want and your priorities

Not to discount your experience (as it's defeinitely more than mine) but rounding off the numbers, say a guy + his bike weigh 300 lbs (guy 280 + bike 20 lbs), you're saying that a .50 % change in that toal weight is a noticeable change during climbs? Maybe there's a difference in bike geometry or frame size which constitues to a better fit or ride quality but I would honestly be amazed if the difference could truly be noticed.

What is considered to be a "heavy" bike? Mine is about 26 pounds and is the lightest I've had.

I believe Mr Sosenka was riding on a track, which I believe is fairly devoid of hills. So yes, he epitomes the exact point of constant speed, zero slope, where indeed bike weight is irrelevant. He "only" had to accelerate initially from zero to whatever.

The wonderful calculator also assumes that flat is, er, flat. Thing is, in our normal life, most flat roads actually wind up going a bit up and down; and there are intersections where we (at least) slow down; and there is that bottle of water you slow down to drink; and there is that village sign you sprint up for. Every time you accelerate, the weight plays a factor, and every time you climb, it does as well. But if you weight 600 pounds, a 1 pound difference on the bike ain't going to be very visible; if you weight 90 pounds (and the hospital releases you for a few moments), you will see a lot of difference for 1 pound of bike, even on the "flat", knowing that flat is never quite flat.

so your only argument against my points is to call me unclassy? I dont care what you call me, I just know, you got owned. You have nothing else to say against lighter bikes are faster, other than calling me names, and attack my personality rofl. See, i called you an idiot, AFTER i proved you wrong.

you on the other hand, call me "Unclassy" after losing a blatantly obvious topic. If nothing else, heavier bikes take longer to accelerate, and that itself is enough evidence to show lighter bikes are faster.

Let me break it down for you newb
1) i never said, light bikes was MUCH faster than heavier bikes, especially on flats. I said it was fastER
2) Hes 6'7, and pretty heavy. a 15 pound bike might not support him.
3) Saying he won with a heavy bike, doesnt mean heavy bikes are faster, and i can give you many examples
a) a smoker can live to 90, and smoke every day. Is smoking good for you?
b) i can wear a green shirt, and I happened to get 1500 on the SATs. DO green shirts give better scores?
c) some atheletes can eat junk food and still be in shape. SO junk food makes you in shape?


you are obviously too stupid to realize you are incorporating multiple variables by incorporating the BIKER WITH the BIKE. If you put a 300 pound fat guy on a light bike, obviously its gonna go slow. Does that prove that lighter bike are slow? Again, you can put a really fit person on a heavy bike and still go fast, does that mean heavy bikes go faster? And the second problem you have is using 1 person as a reference to answer a fundemental question. How stupid is that? Even if you didnt take stats, or physics, you should know that.

yesh, im fat for your standards. I like it that way. I can jiggle my pecks, can you?

Ok smart A$$ - why didn't Sosenka use a lighter bike to set the record when he so obviously could have?

55/Rad