MTB weight obsession - unnecessary?

[Mook]

1 hour ago, ChrisF said:

 

Dont confuse the maths guys ....

Which was first, the chicken or the egg 🤷‍♂️

I could not care less - have bike, will ride 🚲

[Jewbacca]

One only obsesses about bike weight if you are prone to such things and sometimes it's only for a while when you think you're good enough to call yourself a 'racer'.

Then you go to Belgium and get beaten by a mother of 3 on a 19 year old skiddonk bicycle who only gets to train at night, some 60 plus people and about 300 dudes who just race better than you after fighting your way to the front of the start line on a Wednesday night because you pulled the whole & group to a 2:55 at Argus a few times.

Then you realise that no matter what you ride, you aren't a racer, never will be, never was and it's ok to ride for fun and stop obsessing over weight, gear ratios, tire choices etc and just ride your bike and remove all the clutter, admin and wasted time and energy that comes with it.

Some people never get to experience that or never get past the obsession phase, but there really is something special in acceptance and clarity that riding a less than optimal bike is more than ok, you are pretty average anyway

[DieselnDust]

2 minutes ago, Jewbacca said:

One only obsesses about bike weight if you are prone to such things and sometimes it's only for a while when you think you're good enough to call yourself a 'racer'.

Then you go to Belgium and get beaten by a mother of 3 on a 19 year old skiddonk bicycle who only gets to train at night, some 60 plus people and about 300 dudes who just race better than you after fighting your way to the front of the start line on a Wednesday night because you pulled the whole & group to a 2:55 at Argus a few times.

Then you realise that no matter what you ride, you aren't a racer, never will be, never was and it's ok to ride for fun and stop obsessing over weight, gear ratios, tire choices etc and just ride your bike and remove all the clutter, admin and wasted time and energy that comes with it.

Some people never get to experience that or never get past the obsession phase, but there really is something special in acceptance and clarity that riding a less than optimal bike is more than ok, you are pretty average anyway

summed up, beer time!🍺

[DieselnDust]

1 hour ago, JayLow said:

I would argue the opposite from your example 😂.

You take a pretty extreme pair of bikes in different weight classes and compare them over a 75km long climb at 5% gradient (at 2000m altitude nogal), and the 55% heavier bike only needs 6% more calories and is only 6% slower. 

Would be interesting to see how much more average power the heavier bike would need to match the time of the lighter bike, don't think it would be much more than about 12W.

I wouldn't compare bikes in different weight classes, but even in this example the difference is less than what I expected.

Yes heavier bikes will accelerate at the same rate as lighter until it gets to its terminal velocity, which would be higher than the lighter bike.

F = mg (g=9.81m/s2) if gravity is the only resultant force on the object (no pedaling!). Since this force is higher for heavier bikes, it will push harder against friction and air resistance, and achieve a higher terminal velocity (when friction and wind resistance cancels out the gravitational force).

Heavier bike also has more momentum to maintain speed when rolling over obstacles, but will take more energy to turn around corners 

Agree! My whole point in starting this thread was to share the revelation I had of my folly in obsessing to find a bike that's 1 or 2 kg lighter!

the example is extreme intentionally. I read elevation as in gain, not altitude of the start point. 

your extreme example as you point is arguing the other way in terms of descending, a lighter rider is going to be at a disadvantage on several fronts; gravity and strength  but that works the other way when going up.

Parity in my example is about 14W ; 200W vs 214W

Thats a lot of extra average power

 

In the end it comes down to how do you see yourself? Weenkend warrior riding with mates or chasing podiums, provincial and national colours and off to olympics or young enough to make a career out of it. Difference priorities in terms of equipment unless you're #untamed, then nothing short of top of the range is good enough

Edited May 23 by DieselnDust

[JayLow]

29 minutes ago, DieselnDust said:

the example is extreme intentionally. I read elevation as in gain, not altitude of the start point. 

your extreme example as you point is arguing the other way in terms of descending, a lighter rider is going to be at a disadvantage on several fronts; gravity and strength  but that works the other way when going up.

Parity in my example is about 14W ; 200W vs 214W

Thats a lot of extra average power

 

In the end it comes down to how do you see yourself? Weenkend warrior riding with mates or chasing podiums, provincial and national colours and off to olympics or young enough to make a career out of it. Difference priorities in terms of equipment unless you're #untamed, then nothing short of top of the range is good enough

So 7% more power needed to lug a bike that's 55% heavier (if the rider is heavier this difference is  less).

The elevation in the calculator is altitude, and the grade is averaged for the entire distance, so your example's gain is 3750m. 

The disadvantage of the lighter rider on the descents only strengthens my resolve to not sweat about a couple of kilograms this way or that way. 

Sure, obviously, if you want to go pro, try to get as close to the best as you can. for the rest of us, don't sweat about a couple of kg's this way or that way!

Edited May 23 by JayLow
significant digits

[ChrisF]

1 hour ago, Jewbacca said:

One only obsesses about bike weight if you are prone to such things and sometimes it's only for a while when you think you're good enough to call yourself a 'racer'.

Then you go to Belgium and get beaten by a mother of 3 on a 19 year old skiddonk bicycle who only gets to train at night, some 60 plus people and about 300 dudes who just race better than you after fighting your way to the front of the start line on a Wednesday night because you pulled the whole & group to a 2:55 at Argus a few times.

Then you realise that no matter what you ride, you aren't a racer, never will be, never was and it's ok to ride for fun and stop obsessing over weight, gear ratios, tire choices etc and just ride your bike and remove all the clutter, admin and wasted time and energy that comes with it.

Some people never get to experience that or never get past the obsession phase, but there really is something special in acceptance and clarity that riding a less than optimal bike is more than ok, you are pretty average anyway

 

Was speaking to a SA lady cyclist that spent 6 months in Belgium last year.  One of the TOP riders here ..... whole different world on that side.

 

Okay, she knew that, as she was previously doing the circuit there.  Went over this time to expose a young SA rider to the realities of racing.

[DieselnDust]

9 minutes ago, ChrisF said:

 

Was speaking to a SA lady cyclist that spent 6 months in Belgium last year.  One of the TOP riders here ..... whole different world on that side.

 

Okay, she knew that, as she was previously doing the circuit there.  Went over this time to expose a young SA rider to the realities of racing.

I have that t-shirt. 

[Jewbacca]

45 minutes ago, JayLow said:

So 7% more power needed to lug a bike that's 55% heavier (if the rider is heavier this difference is  less).

The elevation in the calculator is altitude, and the grade is averaged for the entire distance, so your example's gain is 3750m. 

The disadvantage of the lighter rider on the descents only strengthens my resolve to not sweat about a couple of kilograms this way or that way. 

Sure, obviously, if you want to go pro, try to get as close to the best as you can. for the rest of us, don't sweat about a couple of kg's this way or that way!

'disadvantage' of a lighter rider though is nonsense. No one rides without pedaling, and keeping up while on a descent involves far less energy. 

It's only a 'disadvantage' if no one pedals and just free wheels. 

Then there is skill as well as the impact heavier things have on obstacles. Add to that a heavier bike will take more effort to handle as well.

In the real world, the only disadvantage one has with a lighter bike is reliability of components when put through stress. Less weight means less material which means less robust.

Brakes will also take more abuse if stopping a heavier object at higher speeds with more momentum.

The downhill thing is a ridiculous concept in the real world

Edited May 23 by Jewbacca

[Jbr]

of all the marginal gains, weight is the least important one. One should never sacrifice aero, rolling resistance, puncture protection (although that one isn't a "marginal" gain, as a puncture will lose you way more time than the 5 secs up a 10mins climb that a 100g weight gain will save you) to try to chase weight gains.

So yeah, stop obsessing about weight, although not completely irrelevant, it isn't of capital importance (of course speaking comparables, if you're going to race a 14kg alloy bike instead of a 10.5kg carbon bike, the weight difference is relevant). For example I have given up trying to remove my dropper post for hilly races because it's about 600g heavier than the stock lightweight carbon seatpost, or try to save a few dozen grams on sealant. In the end my bike is probably close to a kg heavier than what it could be, but it brings me peace of mind, also I don't prioritize MTB because I'm really average at it, I'd rather save the lightweight stuff for my other bikes (rotors, pedals, cassettes, etc..).

Edited May 23 by Jbr

[Mook]

35 minutes ago, ChrisF said:

 

Was speaking to a SA lady cyclist that spent 6 months in Belgium last year.  One of the TOP riders here ..... whole different world on that side.

 

Okay, she knew that, as she was previously doing the circuit there.  Went over this time to expose a young SA rider to the realities of racing.

I guess she's also cursing the mom of 3 ........................ 😈

[ChrisF]

56 minutes ago, DieselnDust said:

I have that t-shirt. 

 

More importantly ... you have that EXPERIENCE 👍

 

 

RESPECT to those that give it a try.

[DieselnDust]

2 hours ago, ChrisF said:

 

More importantly ... you have that EXPERIENCE 👍

 

 

RESPECT to those that give it a try.

Humbling.

 

 

[Spinnekop]

5 hours ago, Jewbacca said:

One only obsesses about bike weight if you are prone to such things and sometimes it's only for a while when you think you're good enough to call yourself a 'racer'.

Then you go to Belgium and get beaten by a mother of 3 on a 19 year old skiddonk bicycle who only gets to train at night, some 60 plus people and about 300 dudes who just race better than you after fighting your way to the front of the start line on a Wednesday night because you pulled the whole & group to a 2:55 at Argus a few times.

Then you realise that no matter what you ride, you aren't a racer, never will be, never was and it's ok to ride for fun and stop obsessing over weight, gear ratios, tire choices etc and just ride your bike and remove all the clutter, admin and wasted time and energy that comes with it.

Some people never get to experience that or never get past the obsession phase, but there really is something special in acceptance and clarity that riding a less than optimal bike is more than ok, you are pretty average anyway

Best thing I have read on this forum in a very long time.

👏