TwiggzSA Posted July 12, 2012 Share Priced carbon replacement parts and weight saving on the replaced parts. Obviously also depends on what base you're starting from but it's not an exact science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeepdude Posted July 12, 2012 Share must be talking about Barry Stunder downhill mtber Wet Ears 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RooiWillie Posted July 12, 2012 Share If you go from 200 to 18 kilos, I cannot see a difference. Maybe going from 10 to 8... I would like to agree with Ceres, if you can keep wheel and crank weight down, you'll need less effort to get it going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pieterg Posted July 12, 2012 Share Burry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackadder Posted July 12, 2012 Share Useless information but applicable here: A friend and I worked it out that per 1kg that you save on your bike it is equal to 5kg body weight. It works out to about R5000 per kg to reduce your bike weight but 1kg. When I was 10kg heavier, I'm now 70kgs, I noticed an improvement of about 2km/h average speed in a race situation. Priced carbon replacement parts and weight saving on the replaced parts. Obviously also depends on what base you're starting from but it's not an exact science. I understand how you work out the cost of replacement parts, how did you and your friend establish that every "1kg that you save on your bike it is equal to 5kg body weight." How do you get to this ratio? Not arguing, just interested to understand the science behind the arguments around weight and performance. Edited July 12, 2012 by Blackadder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ghost Posted July 12, 2012 Share Trying to save small amounts of weight should be left to the pro's and to the rich.For the average person I recommend they focus on comfort, components, affordability etc; hassling over 2kg's.... its lame, pedal harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camerons Posted July 12, 2012 Share Anyone who tells you a light bike doesn't make a difference doesn't have one. I've got a few bikes and the difference between a 11.5kg hard tail and a 9.5kg hard tail is massive. I guess the good quality components that the lighter bike will inevitably have also work towards making the difference. Andro and tunariaan 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ghost Posted July 12, 2012 Share Anyone who tells you a light bike doesn't make a difference doesn't have one. I've got a few bikes and the difference between a 11.5kg hard tail and a 9.5kg hard tail is massive. I guess the good quality components that the lighter bike will inevitably have also work towards making the difference. Of course it makes a difference, but is it worth the ton of extra money for the average rider? Hhmmmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camerons Posted July 12, 2012 Share I understand how you work out the cost of replacement parts, how did you and your friend establish that every "1kg that you save on your bike it is equal to 5kg body weight." How do you get to this ratio? Not arguing, just interested to understand the science behind the arguments around weight and performance. I once read 1:4 in a cycling mag. I can't remember the logic behind it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camerons Posted July 12, 2012 Share Of course it makes a difference, but is it worth the ton of extra money for the average rider? Hhmmmmm If that average rider has money and is in the market for a new bike then absolutely. Who knows he might become slightly above average. Andro 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ghost Posted July 12, 2012 Share If that average rider has money and is in the market for a new bike then absolutely. Who knows he might become slightly above average. As I said in an earlier post, its for pro's and rich people.Im not much of a cyclist, but if I was super rich I would have a moerse expensive bike, I guarantee it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clinton1 Posted July 12, 2012 Share Anyone who tells you a light bike doesn't make a difference doesn't have one. I've got a few bikes and the difference between a 11.5kg hard tail and a 9.5kg hard tail is massive. I guess the good quality components that the lighter bike will inevitably have also work towards making the difference. But is it not often the opposite? Lighter components may be less durable as a result of the nature of them being made lighter (ie more spaces and holes)? Of course it makes a difference, but is it worth the ton of extra money for the average rider? Hhmmmmm And I always argue about what the average rider is looking to achieve. He is surely not looking to win races but often is looking to get fitter. Surely pedalling that 12kg bike up the hill is going to achieve this quicker than doing so with a 9kg bike? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keep Pedaling Posted July 12, 2012 Share "And I always argue about what the average rider is looking to achieve. He is surely not looking to win races but often is looking to get fitter. Surely pedalling that 12kg bike up the hill is going to achieve this quicker than doing so with a 9kg bike?" If that were the case then people would purposely buy heavier bikes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clinton1 Posted July 12, 2012 Share If that were the case then people would purposely buy heavier bikes. Let's not twist things again. What I am saying is that the "average" cyclist should really not be worrying about 2kg as what they are hoping to achieve is actually better achieved with the slightly heavier bike. In saying that, of course, the absolute heaviest bike would not make sense as it would dramatically reduce the person's enjoyment of riding. The infatuation with weight by all those other than the pros is just silly. I'll admit to not even knowing the weight of my bike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotSoBigBen Posted July 12, 2012 Share Maybe hence the old saying 'train heavy, race light' ? T-Bob and Clinton1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTK Posted July 13, 2012 Share I must say. Being a noob and all I may be far off but to me the most important will be rotational mass and unspring mass. By that I would say that hoops/spokes and tyres need to be lightest. Front hub and your fork lowers should be light. Less worries about the stranctions and even steerer. On a hard tail you could probably get away without a problem by running it heavier on the rear hub/casette. On a susser it probably would need to be light there as well to get best performance from the sus. The crank needs to be light but will be less of an issue. Light crank arms and pedals probably more importnant. But no use running XTR pedals and heavy shoes . The rest of the bike components is to a degree attached to yourself and the closer this weight gets to the centre of the bike the less effect it will have on your performance. The only thing you want then is reliable components. So if you wanna spend money spend it on wheels and make sure the rest is relaible. All this of cource given that your sus cant do with better working parts. Loosing 10kg will have a vastly more profound impact than taking 2kg off the actual bike (wheels/crank arms/fork lowers excluded of course). Putting R5k into wheels/tyres will have a much bigger effect imo than a new xtr groupset Edited July 13, 2012 by JTK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now