Weight

For discussions about bikes and equipment.
iandriver
Posts: 2375
Joined: 10 Jun 2009, 2:09pm
Location: Cambridge.

Re: Weight

Postby iandriver » 27 Jun 2014, 6:57pm

Interesting finding about weight just now. Had to replace an irreparable 105 5600 hub. Just picked up a 105 5700 hub, so 1 generation on. Both 355 grams on the kitchen scales without skewers. Obviously a different shape, but I wonder how far back you have to go before 105 hubs were not 355 grams.
If you bought it as an, I use the term loosely, upgrade, a weight weeny could be more than a little miffed.....

Image

PS, the cones are too tight :wink:
Supporter of the A10 corridor cycling campaign serving Royston to Cambridge http://a10corridorcycle.com. Never knew gardening secateurs were an essential part of the on bike tool kit until I took up campaigning.....

OnYourRight
Posts: 283
Joined: 30 Jun 2013, 8:53pm

Re: Weight

Postby OnYourRight » 27 Jun 2014, 7:13pm

profpointy wrote:
OnYourRight wrote:
profpointy wrote:Whilst a few ounces ain't gonna matter, I can certainly tell the difference if I carry my PC home rather than leave it in the office. I guess it's a kg or two.

Unless it’s a MacBook Air or something similar, it might be closer to 3 or 4 kg by the time you’ve added its bag, power adaptor, and any other clutter in the bag. Do you have any convenient way to weigh it?


. Look up a manufacturer's website if you're that bothered.

Er, I’m not “that bothered” – and if I was I could hardly look up the weight of your unnamed computer. And if I could, I would still be none the wiser as to the weight of its bag, power adaptor, and any other accessories (mouse? spare battery? extra hard drive?).

My point is this. You say you can tell the difference with an extra “kg or two”. I wouldn’t doubt that, but it’s possible your computer actually weighs a lot more than that, and that the difference you’re noticing is actually due to a weight change of 3 kg or even 4 kg.

beetroot
Posts: 82
Joined: 25 Sep 2010, 9:25am

Re: Weight

Postby beetroot » 27 Jun 2014, 7:41pm

Mick F wrote:
Brucey wrote:...... a 1% weight reduction might make for almost 1% increase in speed.

Almost?

1% ....

I weigh 75kg plus a bike of 10.5kg making an all-up weight of 85.5kg
I cycle at 7mph up the hill from the river into Devon for 1.5miles (2,650yds) and take 13mins

Say I swapped my bike for a light CF 7.5kg, my all-up weight would be 82.5kg - ie minus 2.5%

Therefore I'd climb into Devon 2.5% faster - ie 7.175mph.
This means I'd save ..... what? 5 seconds? 4 yards? .............. maximum?

What's the point unless I'm Wiggo?


LoL. Once you've honed your body shape and weight to a TDF winner, you can start on your bike!

niggle
Posts: 3423
Joined: 11 Mar 2009, 10:29pm
Location: Cornwall, near England

Re: Weight

Postby niggle » 27 Jun 2014, 7:52pm

reohn2 wrote:I don't own a solo bike that weighs less than 13kg.
I've long since forgotten to worry about weight or speed.
I ride at the effort I feel comfortable with,that would make a difference when climbing or accelerating on a lighter bike,flat and mildly undulating terrain there wouldn't be much difference.
Some folk like a light bike to make climbing easier,TBH if I climb two or three gears lower them it doesn't worry me at all,if I had to struggle to keep up with a group due to bike weight I'd wave them off.
The two Vaya's and Kona Dew Drop suit me fine,comfortable(in the case of the Vaya's extreeemely comfortable)handle well and will go any where I point them and point them down some unusual ''roads''.
I've no need for fancy pants lightweights to raise my average speed,it means nothing to me :)

My Genesis Equilibrium with 725 steel frame/CF fork weighs 10.6Kg (23lbs).

More surprisingly my Carrera Subway 8 with chromo steel fork that weighs over 1kg and 26x2" Schwalbe Landcruiser tyres that weigh about 1kg each, weighs 11.8Kg (26lb), but it has been converted to single speed and lost the mudguards.

Small frame sizes probably help.

profpointy
Posts: 518
Joined: 9 Jun 2011, 10:34pm

Re: Weight

Postby profpointy » 27 Jun 2014, 8:44pm

.[/quote]
Er, I’m not “that bothered” – and if I was I could hardly look up the weight of your unnamed computer. And if I could, I would still be none the wiser as to the weight of its bag, power adaptor, and any other accessories (mouse? spare battery? extra hard drive?).

My point is this. You say you can tell the difference with an extra “kg or two”. I wouldn’t doubt that, but it’s possible your computer actually weighs a lot more than that, and that the difference you’re noticing is actually due to a weight change of 3 kg or even 4 kg.[/quote]

It's only a PC, not a PDP11 - but you've got me curious now, so I'm off to the kitchen to weigh the bloody thing

Brucey
Posts: 41532
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: Weight

Postby Brucey » 27 Jun 2014, 8:51pm

iandriver wrote: .....I wonder how far back you have to go before 105 hubs were not 355 grams.
If you bought it as an, I use the term loosely, upgrade, a weight weeny could be more than a little miffed.....

PS, the cones are too tight :wink:


I reckon if you use the aluminium LH spacer from the 5600 hub on the 5700 hub (it appears to have a steel one?) then there is oooh about 5g weight saving for nowt.

Sod's law says it'll be the wrong width though.... :wink:

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

profpointy
Posts: 518
Joined: 9 Jun 2011, 10:34pm

Re: Weight

Postby profpointy » 27 Jun 2014, 9:44pm

profpointy wrote:.

Er, I’m not “that bothered” – and if I was I could hardly look up the weight of your unnamed computer. And if I could, I would still be none the wiser as to the weight of its bag, power adaptor, and any other accessories (mouse? spare battery? extra hard drive?).

My point is this. You say you can tell the difference with an extra “kg or two”. I wouldn’t doubt that, but it’s possible your computer actually weighs a lot more than that, and that the difference you’re noticing is actually due to a weight change of 3 kg or even 4 kg.[/quote]

It's only a PC, not a PDP11 - but you've got me curious now, so I'm off to the kitchen to weigh the bloody thing[/quote]

edit - it's 1.5kg. And it goes in my pannier )which I'd have anyway), so I don't carry its bag in order to put it in another bag

User avatar
NATURAL ANKLING
Posts: 12358
Joined: 24 Oct 2012, 10:43pm
Location: English Riviera

Re: Weight

Postby NATURAL ANKLING » 27 Jun 2014, 10:22pm

Hi,
Brucey wrote:Also don't forget that your pedalling stroke will have become habituated to the dawes; the slightest change in crank length or riding position may mean that you simply don't pedal so well on the trek.
cheers

I might normally agree with you, but I spent all winter 7 months training on the turbo & skip trainer which both have 170's.
The tourer which I did ride previously 8 months ago had just two outings (2 x 35 miles) then I rode it on my latest 12 hr marathon 168 miles in 12 h 30 mins (13 hrs with puncture) 10 hr 50 in the saddle, it has 175's.
I have predomantly rode 175's on my MTB & Tourer, for five years previous to that, I always thought that the 175's felt a little clunky for my legs but at an average 7 mph on Dartmoor treks over 120 miles average there's a lot of stop starting and heavy slow cadence.
The tourer I did use for fast training but cadence probably limited to 85 max.
So I thought I better check the seat height Tourer compared to the skip trainer, but did not bother before 12h ride, and I see now that the tourer on all other bike fit being similar was 5MM longer seat height (tourer 175) than the skip trainer 170, so my mid crank position is the same extension but 5MM further forward and back (more range) and higher knee (5MM) assuming that the ankle does not flex and extend further :?: Or does it..........

Having ridden 170's for most of my life then swapping to 175's in the last six years it might just be that I am flexible on crank length, I do have pretty supple ankles too, so it might be that the ankle movement through any natural ankling that we all have to a larger of lesser extent makes up for the crank difference :?: Or does the knee flex and extend further ? Or both :?:

My tendonitous of two years ago in long gone and only feel calf pulls with the daily isometric ankle exercises, the mild pulls do not affect my cycling one jot.
No specific muscle pain etc on the 168 & 215 mile rides 7 days apart so the late swap back to 175's was not a problem.
I noticed also that at the tail end of my 215 mile ride that I was still standing out of saddle on the flat as well as hills to relieve my weakening sit down muscles :?:
This I put down to training with the 23 kilo skip trainer on some very steep climbs where I purposely used the middle clanger at a very low cadence typicaly 30 - 35. Not previously been a fan of out of the saddle riding.

I.M.O. Lower body fit can only be assesed by feel if you press yourself hard, and if you do not have supple muscles it will be difficult to tell the difference between bad fit and jaded muscles.

Most of the bike fit queries sound like frustration in lack of improved performance, which is a long term slog not an instant fix.

As for weight, we become obsessed with light bikes, but I have proved heavy is a rapid path to increased performance, all on just 1860 miles training this year :?:

And its been said here that the biggest gain to be made is improved power, not reduced weight of cycle parts...........
NA Thinks Just End 2 End Return + Bivvy
You'll Still Find Me At The Top Of A Hill
Please forgive the poor Grammar I blame it on my mobile and phat thinkers.

User avatar
NATURAL ANKLING
Posts: 12358
Joined: 24 Oct 2012, 10:43pm
Location: English Riviera

Re: Weight

Postby NATURAL ANKLING » 27 Jun 2014, 10:36pm

Hi,
iandriver wrote:Interesting finding about weight just now. Had to replace an irreparable 105 5600 hub. Just picked up a 105 5700 hub, so 1 generation on. Both 355 grams on the kitchen scales without skewers. Obviously a different shape, but I wonder how far back you have to go before 105 hubs were not 355 grams.
PS, the cones are too tight :wink:

6 speed 105 hub is about 330 grams......................
NA Thinks Just End 2 End Return + Bivvy
You'll Still Find Me At The Top Of A Hill
Please forgive the poor Grammar I blame it on my mobile and phat thinkers.

iandriver
Posts: 2375
Joined: 10 Jun 2009, 2:09pm
Location: Cambridge.

Re: Weight

Postby iandriver » 27 Jun 2014, 11:27pm

NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Hi,
iandriver wrote:Interesting finding about weight just now. Had to replace an irreparable 105 5600 hub. Just picked up a 105 5700 hub, so 1 generation on. Both 355 grams on the kitchen scales without skewers. Obviously a different shape, but I wonder how far back you have to go before 105 hubs were not 355 grams.
PS, the cones are too tight :wink:

6 speed 105 hub is about 330 grams......................

So the things are getting heavier with age (deja vu). Gonna have to fill the tyres with helium (or hydrogen for a proper blowout...)
Supporter of the A10 corridor cycling campaign serving Royston to Cambridge http://a10corridorcycle.com. Never knew gardening secateurs were an essential part of the on bike tool kit until I took up campaigning.....

Brucey
Posts: 41532
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: Weight

Postby Brucey » 27 Jun 2014, 11:33pm

NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Hi,
Brucey wrote:Also don't forget that your pedalling stroke will have become habituated to the dawes; the slightest change in crank length or riding position may mean that you simply don't pedal so well on the trek.
cheers


I might normally agree with you....


some people are fussier/more sensitive than others.

But if all else is equal, lighter is still better/faster.

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

niggle
Posts: 3423
Joined: 11 Mar 2009, 10:29pm
Location: Cornwall, near England

Re: Weight

Postby niggle » 27 Jun 2014, 11:51pm

NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Hi,
iandriver wrote:Interesting finding about weight just now. Had to replace an irreparable 105 5600 hub. Just picked up a 105 5700 hub, so 1 generation on. Both 355 grams on the kitchen scales without skewers. Obviously a different shape, but I wonder how far back you have to go before 105 hubs were not 355 grams.
PS, the cones are too tight :wink:

6 speed 105 hub is about 330 grams......................

Yeah but that has no freehub and a shorter axle

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 50376
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Weight

Postby Mick F » 28 Jun 2014, 9:22am

Mick F wrote:What's the point unless I'm Wiggo?
beetroot wrote:LoL. Once you've honed your body shape and weight to a TDF winner, you can start on your bike!
Exactly. :D
Mick F. Cornwall

User avatar
NATURAL ANKLING
Posts: 12358
Joined: 24 Oct 2012, 10:43pm
Location: English Riviera

Re: Weight

Postby NATURAL ANKLING » 28 Jun 2014, 10:11am

Hi,
niggle wrote:
NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Hi,
iandriver wrote:Interesting finding about weight just now. Had to replace an irreparable 105 5600 hub. Just picked up a 105 5700 hub, so 1 generation on. Both 355 grams on the kitchen scales without skewers. Obviously a different shape, but I wonder how far back you have to go before 105 hubs were not 355 grams.
PS, the cones are too tight :wink:

6 speed 105 hub is about 330 grams......................

Yeah but that has no freehub and a shorter axle

Yes its a shorter axel 126, but it is a hollow bolt on Freehub :!:
NA Thinks Just End 2 End Return + Bivvy
You'll Still Find Me At The Top Of A Hill
Please forgive the poor Grammar I blame it on my mobile and phat thinkers.

User avatar
NATURAL ANKLING
Posts: 12358
Joined: 24 Oct 2012, 10:43pm
Location: English Riviera

Re: Weight

Postby NATURAL ANKLING » 28 Jun 2014, 10:22am

Hi,
Brucey wrote:
NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Hi,
Brucey wrote:Also don't forget that your pedalling stroke will have become habituated to the dawes; the slightest change in crank length or riding position may mean that you simply don't pedal so well on the trek.
cheers


I might normally agree with you....


some people are fussier/more sensitive than others.

But if all else is equal, lighter is still better/faster.

cheers


"Brucey Wrote - However overall, there are not huge gains to be made through lightness, low Crr tyres, and (within reason) aerodynamic bikes/riding positions. If you want to go faster you can get a small benefit from these things (about 0.5- 1mph each) but I'd suggest that there is probably a much larger chunk of extra speed to come from the 'engine".
You said it !

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 :)
NA Thinks Just End 2 End Return + Bivvy
You'll Still Find Me At The Top Of A Hill
Please forgive the poor Grammar I blame it on my mobile and phat thinkers.