Weight

For discussions about bikes and equipment.
User avatar
al_yrpal
Posts: 8865
Joined: 25 Jul 2007, 9:47pm
Location: Cully
Contact:

Re: Weight

Postby al_yrpal » 28 Jun 2014, 10:56am

My experience is that being lighter does make you faster, especially up hills. But the point that interests me is that being lighter makes cycling EASIER. Less mass to accelerate, less mass on your tyres thus less effort to roll along, less mass to haul uphill, less bulk to displace air, less pressure on the saddle and your hands, thus more comfort. No belly to prevent you crouching, less personal weight definately makes for more pleasant cycling. Being overweight like I have been for many years is not a thing to be tolerated, being in the correct BMI range has improved my cycling experience and personal wellbeing. Hopefully with less weight you will feel like I do after 6 months of dieting, stronger, with greater endurance, less unexplained aches and pains and better breathing.
AND, a lighter bike is more pleasant to ride, it feels livelier, its easier to handle and thus a lot more fun. A bit like riding a thoroughbred rather than a nag. My Mercian is a lively pleasure to ride , so is my very lightweight Cannondale MTB, my touring bike, the Vaya is my trusty Dobbin :D, it handles the weight of my gear but its no way an exciting ride .
Regarding vehicles, whatever they are, power to weight ratio is the critical factor when considering performance, no question. AND, uniquely, on a bike you are the engine that is doing all the work. Argueing that weight of you or your bike makes little difference, seems to me like hyperbole.

Al
Touring on a bicycle is a great way to explore and appreciate the countryside and towns you pass through. Make a difference...

Brucey
Posts: 41440
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: Weight

Postby Brucey » 28 Jun 2014, 11:08am

NATURAL ANKLING wrote: The whole point is lighter does not make you faster unless you are in a race, and if you are not in a race then why do you want to go faster unless its just ego tripping or sticking your chest out.
I dream of going faster......and I do sometimes stick my chest out :)


like many other keen cyclists I have more than one bike.

Much of my riding is on bikes where weight and speed are both unimportant.

But remember that I said that
all else being equal lighter is better/faster


'Faster' means easier and that can mean that some rides are possible where otherwise they wouldn't be.

But 'better' is at least as important; some of my lighter bikes are just more pleasant to ride. More comfortable, better handling etc.

The problem is that all else is not normally equal, and there are compromises. And not all lightweight bikes are actually very nice to ride these days. [I'd rather eat worms than ride most aluminium framed bikes any distance with skinny tyres fitted... ].

An interesting thought process is to ask yourself the 'one bike' question, i.e. if you had to have just one bike, what would it be?

For many riding purposes there is no need to ride anything especially heavy; you can have a very durable bike with lights. mudguards and gears etc that will take a modest load and will take you anywhere you want to go on the tarmac and there is really no need for it to weight more than about 28lbs or so. Thus that is the 'one bike' I'd choose to ride. For 95% of my riding any more weight would confer no real benefit and perhaps be just be slightly masochistic.

But if you then ask the 'two bike' question, my second bike is probably a lightweight one. I'm sure other people would make other choices, but then they may have other priorities.

cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

reohn2
Posts: 40154
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Weight

Postby reohn2 » 28 Jun 2014, 12:44pm

al_yrpal wrote:My experience is that being lighter does make you faster, especially up hills. But the point that interests me is that being lighter makes cycling EASIER. Less mass to accelerate, less mass on your tyres thus less effort to roll along, less mass to haul uphill, less bulk to displace air, less pressure on the saddle and your hands, thus more comfort. No belly to prevent you crouching, less personal weight definately makes for more pleasant cycling. Being overweight like I have been for many years is not a thing to be tolerated, being in the correct BMI range has improved my cycling experience and personal wellbeing. Hopefully with less weight you will feel like I do after 6 months of dieting, stronger, with greater endurance, less unexplained aches and pains and better breathing.

I'm happy for you,if you've been over weight,and I have been,once back in shape it feels great,I can identify with your feelings of wellbeing.

AND, a lighter bike is more pleasant to ride, it feels livelier, its easier to handle and thus a lot more fun. A bit like riding a thoroughbred rather than a nag. My Mercian is a lively pleasure to ride , so is my very lightweight Cannondale MTB, my touring bike, the Vaya is my trusty Dobbin :D, it handles the weight of my gear but its no way an exciting ride .

Rising to the bait,I'd have to disagree with the 'Dobbin' label of the Vaya,yes it's no lightweight and it's no outright MTB,but labelling it a 'Dobbin' is a failing to realise the bike's potential.
At risk of repeating myself continually I'll mention tyres,again.Shod with a pair of Vittoria Hypers(I'm assuming you're still riding yours on Conti's or similar) the bike is transformed.
It'll never be a race bike or an outright MTB,but it's the best 'Jack' I've ridden so far and that's an understatement.

Regarding vehicles, whatever they are, power to weight ratio is the critical factor when considering performance, no question. AND, uniquely, on a bike you are the engine that is doing all the work. Arguing that weight of you or your bike makes little difference, seems to me like hyperbole.

Al

Agreed,but there are other considerations.What's the use of a race bike if it shakes your teeth out?
Or a full susser if it saps the available energy of an old engine?
There's more to an exciting ride than a lightweight bike IMO.
I've mentioned before on here how,personally I've found little difference in average speed between an 11kg Audax machine on 28s and a 13kg Vaya on 35s whatever terrain,but the comfort factor is another story especially on longer 70+mile rides.
I'm excited riding the Vaya for a number of reasons,comfort predominantly,and that comfort doesn't come at any other cost except perhaps a leettle slower climbing.But what the heck it's equipped with low enough gearing to cope with the Dobbin like engine providing the power.
It handles gravel forest roads at mid teens MPH on the flat,that a lighweight bike on narrow HP tyres would put it's rider on the floor if attempted.
For excitement,I regularly ride a section of wide flat gravel 'road' at 20mph it comes at the end of a ride and is great for testing how much I've left in the tank :)
It descends like a rocket on rails smoothing out some very bumpy tarmac at 45+mph that would see me hitting the brakes scrubbing 15 mph off that speed on any lightweight narrow tyred machine.
It'll haul a load should I wish.
Not bad for a 'Dobbin' with a 'Dobbin'like engine :mrgreen:

PS,the roads surfaces are getting worse,they're likely to worserer :wink:
PPS,as Brucey's mentioned a couple of times already,tyres play a huge roll(geddit) :wink:
Last edited by reohn2 on 28 Jun 2014, 1:02pm, edited 1 time in total.
-----------------------------------------------------------

reohn2
Posts: 40154
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Weight

Postby reohn2 » 28 Jun 2014, 12:51pm

Brucey wrote:
An interesting thought process is to ask yourself the 'one bike' question, i.e. if you had to have just one bike, what would it be?

cheers


I cheated,I got two of them :oops: :wink: :mrgreen:
-----------------------------------------------------------

User avatar
foxyrider
Posts: 5173
Joined: 29 Aug 2011, 10:25am
Location: Sheffield, South Yorkshire

Re: Weight

Postby foxyrider » 28 Jun 2014, 1:08pm

reohn2 wrote:
It handles gravel forest roads at mid teens MPH on the flat,that a lighweight bike on narrow HP tyres would put it's rider on the floor if attempted.
For excitement,I regularly ride a section of wide flat gravel 'road' at 20mph it comes at the end of a ride and is great for testing how much I've left in the tank :)
It descends like a rocket on rails smoothing out some very bumpy tarmac at 45+mph that would see me hitting the brakes scrubbing 15 mph off that speed on any lightweight narrow tyred machine.


How do you know? Have you tried it with a 'narrow tyred' machine? Or is it that you've no confidence you could ride anything with narrow tyres?

just curious :?:
Convention? what's that then?
Airnimal Chameleon touring, Orbit Pro hack, Orbit Photon audax, Focus Mares AX tour, Peugeot Carbon sportive, Owen Blower vintage race - all running Tulio's finest!

reohn2
Posts: 40154
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Weight

Postby reohn2 » 28 Jun 2014, 1:15pm

foxyrider wrote:How do you know? Have you tried it with a 'narrow tyred' machine? Or is it that you've no confidence you could ride anything with narrow tyres?

just curious :?:

Oh,I've tried,narrow tyres and gravel don't work well together,I have the scars :mrgreen:
They also beat me up like Mike Tyson might :shock:
-----------------------------------------------------------

User avatar
Trigger
Posts: 1459
Joined: 6 Aug 2010, 11:54am
Location: Derby/Notts

Re: Weight

Postby Trigger » 28 Jun 2014, 1:27pm

Surely lighter weight just makes the same ride at the same speed easier, requires less watts? so without going uber weight weeny and making the bike impractical, less weight is a nice thing to have.

User avatar
531colin
Posts: 13204
Joined: 4 Dec 2009, 6:56pm
Location: North Yorkshire

Re: Weight

Postby 531colin » 28 Jun 2014, 1:55pm

Al.....well done for the weight loss, it does make sense.

Not so long ago, you were riding a Subway as a road tourer, and complaining about a previous Galaxy because it was floppy with a camping load.
I seem to remember you had to change your packing habits a bit for the Vaya, and I wonder if you could magically ride all 4 bikes (Galaxy, Subway, Mercian, Vaya) back to back, how would you characterise them?

Tourer, fun bike, camper, pub bike?
Tank, hosteller, commuter, day bike?

reohn2
Posts: 40154
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Weight

Postby reohn2 » 28 Jun 2014, 2:27pm

Just to make the point.
Weight loss off the body is far more effective than weight off the bike.
-----------------------------------------------------------

User avatar
al_yrpal
Posts: 8865
Joined: 25 Jul 2007, 9:47pm
Location: Cully
Contact:

Re: Weight

Postby al_yrpal » 28 Jun 2014, 3:01pm

Sorry Reohn2 I know you love the Vaya. Mines a standard one though perhaps a bit heavier than yours and its now on Pasela TG 37s. I thought that would get you out of your pram! :D . Thanks for your comments.

Anyway Colin, looking back on all those bikes:

The Halfords Subway 2… .was a very solid tourer, perhaps too solid and uncomfortable with an extremely rigid aluminium frame. It was very stable and carried loads really well without a hint of instability. It was a good tourer, it would make a great commuter too. It did the job over thousands of miles, nothing wore out or failed. The Tektro shifters and Sram gears were absolutely marvellous so were the disc brakes. It was fantastic value for money. A great Tourer, Camper, Commuter. My only criticism is the length of the top tube which made me reach further tban I would like. Not so much a fun bike.

The 1971 Galaxy… was a great buy for fifty quid. Mine really needed the whole groupset updating rather than what I did to it, fitting a triple. They are lively bikes, a British Classic. What can one say, you can use one for anything and go practically anywhere on one. Tourer, Camper, Commuter, everything…

The Salsa Vaya 3… a great bike. You can just use it just for a ride or tour on it. I am still a bit unsure about camping, mine struggles with a big load that the Subway never even noticed. I think I may try a different rack, a stiffer one thats positioned further forward which might make it more stable. Off road its pretty good for smooth surfaces, but its not as good as any proper MTB. I did use my Galaxy and the Subway quite extensively off road and I would say that both were better. It has a fantastic saddle, the most comfortable saddle I have ever had, its a noname job? Tourer, fun bike, occasional off road for those who cant justify a MTB, … .camper..?

The Giant SCR 3… . a road bike, dont try touring on it unless you are a lightweight beanpole with very strong legs.. I was 15st+ on my first tour. Never got above 25mph because it went into death rolls.

Carrera Kraken MTB… great value entry level hardtail MTB. With the right tyres, a good little tourer too. I fondly remember falling off this many times including flying right over the handlebars when trying to cross a wheel depth ditch at right angles. Did a memorable tour of the Outer Hebrides and Skye on it. MTBs like this are very versatile things. Halfords Carrera bikes are excellent quality and value for money. MTB, commuter, tourer and great fun.

My other bike is a Cannondale Rush 2000 , a full susser with a carbon lefty and great combined brakes gears ( you flick the whole brake levers up or down to change gear). Supremely comfortable totally capable MTB that brings a sunny beam to your face. Loose stones, loose branches on a path, the suspension just deals with it. Very light weight. Makes a great change from riding on the road to be deep in the woods and mud..

The 1971 Mercian Professional I inherited from my brother… a real fun road bike, very quick, fantastically comfortable, makes you feel great to be riding a bit of history.

To sum up, 8 years of great fun, and at least another 8 or more to come I hope. I love getting to know different bikes and am very happy with the three I currently have, the Vaya, tbe Mercian and the Cannondale. I would like to try more, but the Mrs has a one in one out policy and I couldnt bear to part with any of them…?!

Al
Touring on a bicycle is a great way to explore and appreciate the countryside and towns you pass through. Make a difference...

reohn2
Posts: 40154
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Weight

Postby reohn2 » 28 Jun 2014, 3:51pm

al_yrpal wrote:Sorry Reohn2 I know you love the Vaya. Mines a standard one though perhaps a bit heavier than yours and its now on Pasela TG 37s. I thought that would get you out of your pram! :D .

It's a few years since I rode Paselas,but I would've thought they'de be a good tyre for the Vaya.
I've just checked and seen they're 100g heavier than Hypers so maybe a little more harsh.
Thanks for your comments.

You're welcome.
The Salsa Vaya 3… a great bike. You can just use it just for a ride or tour on it. I am still a bit unsure about camping, mine struggles with a big load

It's never been sold as a heavy tourer in the same way say a LHT has.
Have you ridden the Vaya loaded now you're down to your new skinny self?
The Salsa Vaya 3… ...Off road its pretty good for smooth surfaces... ..... I did use my Galaxy and the Subway quite extensively off road and I would say that both were better.

I had a '97 Galaxy from new for 12years,rode it quite a lot on the same type of tracks and gravel as the Vaya, it wasn't in the same class.
I can't speak for the Subway,but I've been riding Alu bikes(rigid MTB,Claud Butler,Cannondale T800, Kona DewDrop all with steel forks)for a good few years off and on,and I can't see the Subway getting near a Vaya on tracks and trails.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Ray
Posts: 974
Joined: 27 Jan 2007, 11:10am
Location: West Yorkshire

Re: Weight

Postby Ray » 28 Jun 2014, 3:56pm

You can cut down on the carbs, buy a boutique bike with hand-made tyres, and spend your holidays thrashing up and down Mt Teide with the Sky Team until your VO2 maxes out and your body fat percentage drops to low single figures . . . but nothing makes you go faster than serious motivation:

_75881711_lio-nbike-top.jpg


Who knows what dangers lurk alongside Sustrans routes :D

- see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazin ... r-28056499
Ray
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt - Bertrand Russell

Ray
Posts: 974
Joined: 27 Jan 2007, 11:10am
Location: West Yorkshire

Re: Weight

Postby Ray » 28 Jun 2014, 4:06pm

Ray wrote:You can cut down on the carbs, buy a boutique bike with hand-made tyres, and spend your holidays thrashing up and down Mt Teide with the Sky Team until your VO2 maxes out and your body fat percentage drops to low single figures . . . but nothing makes you go faster than serious motivation:

_75881711_lio-nbike-top.jpg


Who knows what dangers lurk alongside Sustrans routes :D

- see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazin ... r-28056499


edit: I now see this has been picked up in a new thread. Perhaps I might have posted it in the 'Wildlife' thread? -
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=88089&p=796308&hilit=wildlife#p796308
Ray
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt - Bertrand Russell

reohn2
Posts: 40154
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Weight

Postby reohn2 » 28 Jun 2014, 4:13pm

Ray
:lol: :lol: :lol:
-----------------------------------------------------------

cycle tramp
Posts: 952
Joined: 5 Aug 2009, 7:22pm

Re: Weight

Postby cycle tramp » 28 Jun 2014, 8:59pm

Brucey wrote:
recordacefromnew wrote:.... one can simply use the formula of kinetic energy (which is converted to potential energy stored in vertical elevation) to estimate the impact on speed. Since kinetic energy is directly proportion to mass but square of speed, an increase (say 10%) in rider+bike mass will be cancelled by a reduction in speed of only roughly 4.6%....


This isn't right at all. If you are going to neglect air resistance then power required for climbing is very simply proportional to speed.

cheers


CTC forum chosen to set maths questions for exams,
Part A

i) If rider A climbs a 15% hill measuring 5 km in length, on a bicycle which has a mass of 10 kilograms at a steady 10 km/hour what is rider A's potential energy at the top of the hill (show workings ) ?

ii) Using the potential energy figure arrived at, in answer to question i, what would be the mass of rider A's new bicycle if rider A wanted to reach the top of the hill, five minutes faster than they would have done in Question i (show workings) ?

iii) Working from question ii, the new bicycle that rider A has purchased is £750. Rider A earns £9.60 per hour. How many times would rider A have to cycle the hill (listed in question i) in order to save the time that rider A has used earning money for their new bicycle ?

iv) If the new bicycle wears at 5% of its cost every thousand miles whilst climbing the hill, how many extra hours does rider A have to work for ?

Part B
explain the simple equasion below;

(time spent travelling + (time spent earning money to cover the cost incurred of wear and replacement of parts, and financial depreciation (+ fuel if its a motor vehicle)) divided by distance = speed

Why do you think that car advertisers don't use this equasion?