I always see discussion about “bike weight” and how important it is to cut 500g here and there.
What real world effect does this weight loss make? Is bike weight loss any different than human weight loss? Say if I lost 10lbs would it be much different than getting a bike that was 10lbs lighter?
With all the aspects to consider when buying a bike I would think that weight would be well down on the list. Why all the fuss? Or am I just missing something again.
~Matt
interesting questions. i’ve been wondering the same myself, and am no weight weinie.
“Is bike weight loss any different than human weight loss? Say if I lost 10lbs would it be much different than getting a bike that was 10lbs lighter?”
No. And 500 grams isn’t that important. You can run models on this stuff at analyticcycling.com. It’s pretty interesting how overhyped weight and rotational weight is in the cycling industry.
<< It’s pretty interesting how overhyped weight and rotational weight is in the cycling industry >>
Well, it is their job to sell bikes, and for whatever reason, they have us convinced that light is right.
I “know better”, and yet I am still somewhat of a weight weenie. If offered the choice of 2 bike-related parts, I’ll almost always opt for the lighter of the 2, as long as cost isn’t ridiculously prohibitive.
<< Is bike weight loss any different than human weight loss? Say if I lost 10lbs would it be much different than getting a bike that was 10lbs lighter? >>
Bike weight loss is TOTALLY different. Here’s why:
At yer next group ride, or hanging around at the LBS, nobody is gonna pick you up with one finger and “oooh” and “aaah” about how light you are after knocking off 10lbs. 
No joke - my buddy who owns the LBS wants to get some Zipp 202’s, just because they will make his Seven lighter than it is w/ Ksyriums on it. He even said “I don’t want to ride it, I just want people to come in and pick it up and see how light it is.”
Besides weight that moves in a rotational fashion it doesn’t make any difference whether you have 5lbs heavier of a bike or 5lbs more on your body. Depending on where the weight is located, it can alter the center of mass and thus could affect bike handling.
You can go to http://www.analyticcycling.com and play around with numbers. The steeper the grade, the greater of a difference you will see. So yes, weight does matter. You might think that saving 200g on a set of aerobars isn’t that much. Correct, 200g isn’t much, but there are more than one component on a bike. Saving 200g on aerobars, 350g on a frame, 50g on brake calipers, etc. does add up. Does that mean you can simply purchase lighter components and get your fat ass up the hill faster. Yes. But at the same time it also helps the skinny person. When you look at weight though, you cannot say that if you loose 5lbs off a 20lbs bike that you reduced the weight by 25%. You have to look at the system (rider+bike).
yeah, like others have said. Bike weight matters very little once you “get going.” Less weight makes you accelerate into turns and climb a bit faster but more weight helps you almost as much in preventing you from de-accelerating down hills and through turns. But weight does play apart if you are racing and climbing continually upward in the mountains. But losing weight on your body helps a ton in running and swimming, more so in running. I know from experience.
It’s relatively unimportant compared to aerodynamics. Only makes a difference on steep hills and even then being aero may be better. Kraig Willet wrote a great article about this comparing aero equipment vs light on an uphill time trial.
I’ve noticed that those ultra light components tend to be very expensive. I’t’s a lot easier and cheaper to take a few lbs off your body than the bike.
Besides weight that moves in a rotational fashion it doesn’t make any difference whether you have 5lbs heavier of a bike or 5lbs more on your body. Depending on where the weight is located, it can alter the center of mass and thus could affect bike handling.
You can go to http://www.analyticcycling.com and play around with numbers. The steeper the grade, the greater of a difference you will see. So yes, weight does matter. You might think that saving 200g on a set of aerobars isn’t that much. Correct, 200g isn’t much, but there are more than one component on a bike. Saving 200g on aerobars, 350g on a frame, 50g on brake calipers, etc. does add up. Does that mean you can simply purchase lighter components and get your fat ass up the hill faster. Yes. But at the same time it also helps the skinny person. When you look at weight though, you cannot say that if you loose 5lbs off a 20lbs bike that you reduced the weight by 25%. You have to look at the system (rider+bike).
Losses due to rotating weight (think wheels) apply only when accelerating, and are so small as to be lost in the noise. For a display of this, put your bike in a stand, in a relatively large gear. With one hand and a single turn of the pedals, you can accelerate the rear wheel up to 20mph. Consider the relative strengths of your arm and your legs, and the relative weight differences between any pair of rear wheels (less than 500g or so) and the overall weight of bike and rider, and it is easy to see how trivial rotating weight is.
Unless you are climbing long 7%+ grades, even 500g doesn’t matter that much. For me (~88kg bike + rider, about 280W), 500g extra going up Alpe d’Huez would cost me about .5% in distance (about 70m over 14km). For triathlons, weight is almost irrelevant.
I would not let 1 pound or two prevent me from getting one bike over another…depending on price. Fact is Tri bikes weigh a couple pounds more than road bikes anyway. I would say a good race weight is 25lbs maybe a bit more (presuming your bottles are full and you have food) - if you put food in your pocket it is the same as taping it to the top tube, either way you need to pedal it around…
I would say weight on the bike matters less than weight on the rider since bike weight is essentially “unsprung” where most of the rider’s weight is “sprung”. Every time you stand up or shift your position on the bike, you have to deal with rider weight. Bike weight only comes into play during climbing/accelerations. Not to mention that a lighter bike isn’t going to help you at all on the run, where a body will help you loads. And then there’s the usual correlation between weight and fitness.
I’m still a weight weenie, though. I’d rather fool myself into buying speed than give up food I like.
I always see discussion about “bike weight” and how important it is to cut 500g here and there.
What real world effect does this weight loss make? Is bike weight loss any different than human weight loss? Say if I lost 10lbs would it be much different than getting a bike that was 10lbs lighter?
With all the aspects to consider when buying a bike I would think that weight would be well down on the list. Why all the fuss? Or am I just missing something again.
~Matt
Everything else being equal, a lighter bike that is less rigid could actually slow you down.
“Everything else being equal, a lighter bike that is less rigid could actually slow you down.”
That’s kinda my point. Everything else equal, change about anything and it seems that the “weight advantage” is lost. Seems that under most circumstances it would behoove most of us to go with “not quite the lightest”.
Price seems to be higher for lighter, frame longevity lower, stiffness generally less etc etc etc.
I can see Lance being nit picky but more than likely he has the resources behind him to KNOW that the weight advantage is a benefit and not a handicap. I don’t think that is likely for most of us. IOW wouldn’t most of us be better served by a slightly more “robust” bike that we can have a bit more confidence rather than simple shooting for the lightest?
~Matt
I’ve heard that 1 pound can be almost 1 min over a marathon…so lose 10 pounds = run 10 minutes faster. So not only does losing weight help you bike up steep hills but it helps the run even more! Swimming - doesn’t matter.
Bike weight in almost all triathlons = meaningless but I still like lighter stuff (its brain-washing - I’m convinced).
Dave
I read an article about the weights of bike that Moser used to break the hour record. As I recall Moser’s was something like 23 lbs. On other attempts, lighter bikes didn’t really seem to make much difference. The key component by far, is the engine.
Gotta disagree to some extent with some posts. Bike weight is always important, but a light bike is only an advantage when acceleration is of concern, and that means going uphill where you have to overcome gravity’s acceleration, and on technical courses where braking and getting back up to speed is critical. In both cases, it helps to have a fairly rigid bike as well. I have no use for light noodles.
On the other hand, I’ve always liked a heavier bike in windy conditions where decelleration is crucial. I have a 22 pound Zipp, and when it’s windy I can put big time into friends who ride light bikes. We have a TT series where it gets windy a lot, and I’ll hear guys say "I dropped from 26 mph to 18 in about 2 pedal strokes. With my Zipp’s weight and aerodynamics, I may only drop to 23 or so. Sure, it’s harder for me to accellerate, but I don’t have as much accelleration to do.
If you ride in varied terrain and want to maximize your performance, you need a couple of rigs. A light, rigid bike for hilly technical courses, and an aero monster for everything else. Some courses are so steep and technical that the extra couple of pounds really do become detrimental.
Same goes for wheels. I have an older HED disk that weighs about 40 pounds, but it is definitely faster on my Zipp than my brand new Zipp 909’s. Sure, it takes me 5 extra seconds to get it rolling, but once it’s rolling, especially on a flat course, I ain’t slowin’ down!!!
Light is not always best. It is when it’s hilly and or technical, but I’ll actually add weight for flat windy courses.
I vaguely remember people discussing weight in race vehicles, many years ago. I’m probably wrong but I thought it was the opposite…that it was more important to lower your unsprung weight, rather than sprung weight, for performance gains. Unsprung weight being things like wheels, tires, driveshafts, axles and lower suspension components.
Maybe there’s someone on the forum currently racing cars or motorbikes that could comment.
Greg.
Lose the 10 pounds. You’ll be faster on the bike and run and less hurt to your wallet.
I vaguely remember people discussing weight in race vehicles, many years ago. I’m probably wrong but I thought it was the opposite…that it was more important to lower your unsprung weight, rather than sprung weight, for performance gains. Unsprung weight being things like wheels, tires, driveshafts, axles and lower suspension components.
Yep - from a handling standpoint, you want to minimize unsprung weight (though I think it matters little when discussing rigid road bikes going at relatively low speeds on relatively smooth asphalt surfaces). It’ll allow the tires to track the road surface better. I was looking at it as more of an impact the the ‘engine’, though. With “sprung” weight being weight above the rider’s knees and elbows - extra weight on the rider would become something that would have to be delt with with each position readjustment and every pedal stroke taken out of the saddle. “Unsprung” weight on the bike itself wouldn’t have to be supported by the muscle ‘springs’.
Gotta disagree to some extent with some posts. Bike weight is always important, but a light bike is only an advantage when acceleration is of concern, and that means going uphill where you have to overcome gravity’s acceleration, and on technical courses where braking and getting back up to speed is critical. In both cases, it helps to have a fairly rigid bike as well. I have no use for light noodles.
On the other hand, I’ve always liked a heavier bike in windy conditions where decelleration is crucial. I have a 22 pound Zipp, and when it’s windy I can put big time into friends who ride light bikes. We have a TT series where it gets windy a lot, and I’ll hear guys say "I dropped from 26 mph to 18 in about 2 pedal strokes. With my Zipp’s weight and aerodynamics, I may only drop to 23 or so. Sure, it’s harder for me to accellerate, but I don’t have as much accelleration to do.
If you ride in varied terrain and want to maximize your performance, you need a couple of rigs. A light, rigid bike for hilly technical courses, and an aero monster for everything else. Some courses are so steep and technical that the extra couple of pounds really do become detrimental.
Same goes for wheels. I have an older HED disk that weighs about 40 pounds, but it is definitely faster on my Zipp than my brand new Zipp 909’s. Sure, it takes me 5 extra seconds to get it rolling, but once it’s rolling, especially on a flat course, I ain’t slowin’ down!!!
Light is not always best. It is when it’s hilly and or technical, but I’ll actually add weight for flat windy courses.
Bzzt. Acceleration is defined as a change in velocity over a change in time. “Gravity’s acceleration”? Sorry, but if you are going a constant velocity uphill, you are not accelerating.
So you are saying that, faced with a sudden headwind, a rider whose total weight is, say 85kg, slows down from 26mph to 18mph, while another rider (you), whose bike weighs, say 2kg less, slows down only to 23mph? Riiight…
Your credibility is in serious question.
Gotta disagree to some extent with some posts. Bike weight is always important, but a light bike is only an advantage when acceleration is of concern, and that means going uphill where you have to overcome gravity’s acceleration, and on technical courses where braking and getting back up to speed is critical. In both cases, it helps to have a fairly rigid bike as well. I have no use for light noodles.
On the other hand, I’ve always liked a heavier bike in windy conditions where decelleration is crucial. I have a 22 pound Zipp, and when it’s windy I can put big time into friends who ride light bikes. We have a TT series where it gets windy a lot, and I’ll hear guys say "I dropped from 26 mph to 18 in about 2 pedal strokes. With my Zipp’s weight and aerodynamics, I may only drop to 23 or so. Sure, it’s harder for me to accellerate, but I don’t have as much accelleration to do.
If you ride in varied terrain and want to maximize your performance, you need a couple of rigs. A light, rigid bike for hilly technical courses, and an aero monster for everything else. Some courses are so steep and technical that the extra couple of pounds really do become detrimental.
Same goes for wheels. I have an older HED disk that weighs about 40 pounds, but it is definitely faster on my Zipp than my brand new Zipp 909’s. Sure, it takes me 5 extra seconds to get it rolling, but once it’s rolling, especially on a flat course, I ain’t slowin’ down!!!
Light is not always best. It is when it’s hilly and or technical, but I’ll actually add weight for flat windy courses.
Bzzt. Acceleration is defined as a change in velocity over a change in time. “Gravity’s acceleration”? Sorry, but if you are going a constant velocity uphill, you are not accelerating.
So you are saying that, faced with a sudden headwind, a rider whose total weight is, say 85kg, slows down from 26mph to 18mph, while another rider (you), whose bike weighs, say 2kg less, slows down only to 23mph? Riiight…
Your credibility is in serious question.
Take a physics course nimrod, and you’ll find out that the force of gravity accelerates all objects at 32 ft/s2, or 9.8m/s2. To go uphill, you have to constantly accelerate, even to hold a constant velocity. Simple physics pal. Think, study, learn, then post. It’s not that tough.
Second, take a reading course. I said my bike was heavier, not lighter.
Your mental abilities are in serious question.