Calling all weight weenies, read and cry.....all that money for minute gains....suckers!!

[Prince]

The weight is not the issue. The more expensive stuff just looks wayyyyy better.

[DieVlieg]

Broke the 90Kg mark today for the first time in +-8 years. I recon at 183 cm I can aim to lose a whole bike just around my gut. I lost around 14 kg just since the start of the year. I recon the extra weight has also provided me some extra power training up to now. If I reach the 80 Kg mark I treat myself to a carbon bike.

[RocknRolla]

RocknRolla thread summary of the day:

 

"it's not about the bike"

 

my bike could be fast - but there is a problem with the engine....

[BarHugger]

 

if only....myne is klein maar stink soos n grote

 

[Skubarra]

 

I'm sure however that no one wants to race on a 15kg bike when you could have an 11kg bike.

 

Agree, I don't think the message though is that lighter isn't better. I think the message is relative to how much money & effort we put in to shave off weight of our bikes, the end result is disappointing.

 

Just from my own personal anecdotal experience, I was pretty disappointed few years back when upgrading to a significantly lighter mtb and then realising how little difference it made to my strava times on the open roads / climbs.

[blondeonabike]

RocknRolla thread summary of the day:

 

"it's not about the bike"

 

my bike could be fast - but there is a problem with the engine....

And even i f two people produced exactly the same watts and weighed the same and rode the same bike, they still would not finish at the same time. I think at the end of the day, how much pain you are prepared to suck up makes the difference. (Its in your head)

[Skubarra]

I think that even if you gain 7 seconds on the climb this can be make or break in many races.

 

Like at the all important Argus, if you lose 10 seconds and fall off the back of the bunch a the top of smits, you are going to either suffer in a very dark place to get back on and be cooked for later or never see that group again.

 

In the Argus a riding partner rode with me to Smits, he just fell off the back and lost close to 9 minutes, this was the difference between 2:52 and 3:01. So you may only lose 10 seconds on a climb but may lose more because you lost the group.

 

Agree that on the sharp end of the field a few seconds can make all the difference, but for a Sub4, Sub 5 + riders a few seconds on a climb is negligible. For those riders there are way more effective ways of improving their times than throwing money at a lighter bike

[SwissVan]

The weight is not the issue. The more expensive stuff just looks wayyyyy better.

 

And if you look better its easier to go better.... or conversly..... if you look "cheaper" its nicer to druk someone who looks "more expensive"...

[Prince]

 

 

And if you look better its easier to go better.... or conversly..... if you look "cheaper" its nicer to druk someone who looks "more expensive"...

 

Exactly. Pure logic.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Prince

[SwissVan]

my bike could be fast - but there is a problem with the engine....

 

 

Note the OP's moto

 

[rouxtjie]

And even i f two people produced exactly the same watts and weighed the same and rode the same bike, they still would not finish at the same time. I think at the end of the day, how much pain you are prepared to suck up makes the difference. (Its in your head)

Ahhhh in steps variable no 3.....aero.

[blondeonabike]

Ahhhh in steps variable no 3.....aero.

For the road definatley......On the mtb.......must count the pain/guts factor. Doesn't help me being light and climbing fast if I'm a bit chicken on downhills and pull the brake

[RocknRolla]

Ahhhh in steps variable no 3.....aero.

 

and when the programming on the engine management system is different, you will get different results as well.

Edited August 8, 2014 by RocknRolla

[Twombles]

What the article does not mention, is that carbon does not only make the bike lighter but also improves stiffness and energy transfer.

 

The difference between a bottom of the range wheel set and a top of the range one is not so many Kg, but the stiffness of the wheels makes the difference (rather than the weight). Too many parameters at play here to simply say that paying more for lighter stuff is not worth it.

 

Edit: spelling

Edited August 8, 2014 by Twombles

[Super Sywurm]

My personal preference, a heavier bike rides better than a lighter bike (even when climbing a hill). I had a +- 15kg Mongoose, now a ride a 11.7kg Raleigh. The Mongoose was way better than the Raleigh uphill. Also, the Mongoose was dual susp and the Raleigh is hardtail.

 

It's fine if you have a light bike for uphill, but for the downhill part, a heavier bike would theoretically go faster. More mass = more speed (don't remember the exact formula from school)!? But then again, you can say a lighter bike has less friction on the road when going downhill.

[rouxtjie]

For the road definatley......On the mtb.......must count the pain/guts factor. Doesn't help me being light and climbing fast if I'm a bit chicken on downhills and pull the brake

I hear you on the guts / tech factor...plays a role in mtb...but I honestly think races are won on climbs in the events we do. So although tech ability is a great skill to have...the mountain goats will almost always finish before the tech lads.

 

Wrt to pain enduring...the most I have suffered / endured pain was in road races....people often think its easy to stay in the bunch...it fooookin hard if your bunch is in a racing mood.

Edited August 8, 2014 by rouxtjie