# Why do people want lighter bikes?



## beany_bot (25 Jan 2019)

Always this has confused me.

I run a pig iron heavy road bike I got off Amazon for £150 about 5 years ago, I've done well over 10,000 miles on it and love it. But fairly often people say to me "oh you want to get a new bike mate". I ask why. "well, that ones so heavy". 

Other than for actual racing, I just don't get this? 
For commuting & leisure riding surely you want a heavier bike?

Positives of a heavier bike


Makes you stronger than a lighter bike 
Makes you fitter than a lighter bike
Burns more calories than a lighter bike (more cake for me)
Slightly slower therefore more time riding. 
Cheaper than a lighter bike. 
Higher heart rate uphill than on a lighter bike.
Often more robust than a lighter bike. 
Less likely to be stolen than a lighter bike. 

Really the list goes on. 

So why is it the obsession with a lighter / more expensive bike for those who are not competitively racing?
The big one for me is fitness. I'm fitter and stronger commuting on my £150 bike than I would be commuting on a £2000 bike.


----------



## Sharky (25 Jan 2019)

Your arguments about making you stronger/fitter are flawed. On a lighter bike, you just put it into a higher gear, increasing the load and go a bit faster. The workout would be the same.
If you were to ride in a group though and you were able to keep up with riders on lighter bikes, then you would be working harder and would be making you fitter.


----------



## the snail (25 Jan 2019)

Hard to argue with any of your points, but if I had two otherwise similar bikes, the heavier one would probably be the one gathering dust in the shed.


----------



## MontyVeda (25 Jan 2019)

My MTB isn't the lightest but it's light enough... i wouldn't want to carry a heavy clunker up and down a flight of stairs every day.


----------



## Threevok (25 Jan 2019)

I own a light Kinesis single speed (avatar) and a very heavy On One Inbred 3x10.

For weight loss reasons, I am currently commuting on the single speed as I was getting lazy on the 3x10

As @Sharky said, you just change gears to accommodate


----------



## FishFright (25 Jan 2019)

beany_bot said:


> Always this has confused me.
> 
> I run a pig iron heavy road bike I got off Amazon for £150 about 5 years ago, I've done well over 10,000 miles on it and love it. But fairly often people say to me "oh you want to get a new bike mate". I ask why. "well, that ones so heavy".
> 
> ...



No


Makes you stronger than a lighter bike - No , you just go slower for the same calories burned
Makes you fitter than a lighter bike - No , see above
Burns more calories than a lighter bike (more cake for me) - Mmm cake but you get to the cake quicker on a light bike
Slightly slower therefore more time riding.  - You go further in the time
Cheaper than a lighter bike. - Usually true
Higher heart rate uphill than on a lighter bike. - Putting the same effort means the HR will be equal
Often more robust than a lighter bike. - BSO are heavy as lead and not at all robust
Less likely to be stolen than a lighter bike. - Sadly thieves steal whatever is handy

Really the fallacies go on.


----------



## Milkfloat (25 Jan 2019)

I commute on a converted 90's steel MTB. It is a short commute with no massive hills. I also have a fixed gear bike with panniers and guards if I want to go the long way round. However, for my weekend riding I prefer light sleek and chuckable. The right bike for the right kind of ride. Being honest, I have 7 bikes and am considering one more, after all you can never have too many.


----------



## gbb (25 Jan 2019)

A lot of what you speak of is unquantifiable (in a scientific sense)

I used to have a Raleigh Chimera, Cro-mo, straight steel forks, heavy but very sturdy, did many thousands of miles on it, sold it...probably still going now, marvelous VFM but quite jarring on the road.
Progressed to a Bianchi alloy (long since gone, now ride carbon)...but...the Bianchi was a revelation. Comfortable, infinately smoother and less jarring than the Chimera, nicer to look at, just all round a nicer bike to own and get pleasure from.

But (again)....when i look back at my ride times on say 30 to 50 mile rides, there was virtually no difference in times taken for the same ride...over and over again, so it wasnt wind, elevation, fitness etc etc that skewed the times.

In simple terms a lighter bike is simply more enjoyable to ride.


----------



## MichaelW2 (25 Jan 2019)

Light bikes are easier to carry and move, esp useful for smaller riders.
Light bikes accelerate more quickly for a safe getaway at lights and junctions.
Light bikes make climbing easier and more fun.
An everyday bike should weigh what it needs to but no more.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (25 Jan 2019)

Supertankers are great for going in straight lines and transporting oil. If I want to have fun on the ocean I get a lightweight sailing boat.


----------



## Dogtrousers (25 Jan 2019)

As noted above, you get out what you put in. You don't get more out of riding a heavier bike for the same input. But you can't ride it as far or as fast.

If you want to ride further/faster as part of your recreation - which I do (well, further anyway - faster is a bit of a folorn hope) then choosing the heaviest bike possible is not a good strategy.

That, in general, is why. There are, of course, other factors - like comfort and practicality. A very light but uncomfortable and impractical bike would be a crap thing to have. And at the extremes - people searching for special titanium bottle cage bolts, well - that's just because people get interested in stuff for no particular reason.

Balancing the above factors - lightness, comfort and practicality mean that my bike isn't actually particularly light. It wasn't particularly cheap either.


----------



## biggs682 (25 Jan 2019)

Milkfloat said:


> Being honest, I have 7 bikes and am considering one more, after all you can never have too many.



That's just being greedy 

@beany_bot as long as you are happy and enjoy riding your bike that's all that matters think and believe what you want people will always argue different .


----------



## vickster (25 Jan 2019)

Why make cycling harder and potentially less enjoyable than it needs to be? There are a lot of good light bikes between the £150 "BSO" and a £2k+ carbon race geometry bike

Lighter bikes are easier to carry up and down stairs at stations for example even with panniers on the bike


----------



## beany_bot (25 Jan 2019)

vickster said:


> Why make cycling harder and potentially less enjoyable than it needs to be? There are a lot of good light bikes between the £150 "BSO" and a £2k+ carbon race geometry bike
> 
> Lighter bikes are easier to carry up and down stairs at stations for example even with panniers on the bike


Why is harder less enjoyable? 
Don't we cycle at least in part for fitness? I run. Running is hard. I still enjoy it. 
As for carrying it up the stairs. Again. Fitness and strength. 

I'll bet there are people who buy a light bike for carrying up the stairs then proceed to go to the gym and lift very heavy weights.


----------



## beany_bot (25 Jan 2019)

A lot of people saying you go further for the same effort on a light bike. 100% true. 

On my commute? Yeah. I only go "x" distance. With the heavier bike I burn more calories doing it. or I burn the same calories but have more saddle time than the light bike. either way its a win for the heavier bike!


----------



## vickster (25 Jan 2019)

beany_bot said:


> Why is harder less enjoyable?
> Don't we cycle at least in part for fitness? I run. Running is hard. I still enjoy it.
> As for carrying it up the stairs. Again. Fitness and strength.
> 
> I'll bet there are people who buy a light bike for carrying up the stairs then proceed to go to the gym and lift very heavy weights.


Some of us have medical conditions that make pushing too hard and lifting heavy dead weights ill advised...and running forbidden

You can get fit riding a lighter bike further as above

How do you know you burn more calories, have you undergone scientific testing?

If it makes you happy doing what you're doing, go for it


----------



## Dogtrousers (25 Jan 2019)

beany_bot said:


> Why is harder less enjoyable?
> Don't we cycle at least in part for fitness? I run. Running is hard. I still enjoy it.
> As for carrying it up the stairs. Again. Fitness and strength.
> 
> I'll bet there are people who buy a light bike for carrying up the stairs then proceed to go to the gym and lift very heavy weights.


OK, we get it. You like your bike. That's good. It makes you extra virtuous. Good for you.

From the sound of it, I doubt that I would like it. That also is good because I have my own bike which I like.

People are allowed to differ.


----------



## beany_bot (25 Jan 2019)

Dogtrousers said:


> OK, we get it. You like your bike. That's good. It makes you extra virtuous. Good for you.
> 
> From the sound of it, I doubt that I would like it. That also is good because I have my own bike which I like.
> 
> People are allowed to differ.



huh? Of course people are allowed to differ? Why am I extra virtuous? How strange.


----------



## mjr (25 Jan 2019)

FishFright said:


> No
> 
> 
> Makes you stronger than a lighter bike - No , you just go slower for the same calories burned
> ...


Right answers but wrong reason IMO. This is in the commuting section, so going further isn't a concern unless their workplace is running around the countryside to be caught! However, going faster over a fixed distance means having to overcome air resistance which increases asymptotically quadratically IIRC, whereas carrying more weight only increases linearly.

In other words: to move a bike twice as heavy will only take maybe 10-12% more energy (because the bike weight is dwarfed by rider weight which is near constant) but moving a bike twice as fast takes much more than twice the energy (it's complicated, but there are graphs and calculators like http://americanroadcycling.org/articles/PSL/WiddersHump/WattsSpeed.htm online).

So all else being equal, it's better to increase speed than weight if you want to maximise the exercise.

Personally, I like a reasonably light bike, but I'm tall, so it's never going to be that light if I want it to be dependable and able to carry decent amounts of stuff like 20 litre bags of compost, bundles of logs for the fire or 3m ladders, to name but three things I've moved by bike (not for work).


----------



## derrick (25 Jan 2019)

beany_bot said:


> Always this has confused me.
> 
> I run a pig iron heavy road bike I got off Amazon for £150 about 5 years ago, I've done well over 10,000 miles on it and love it. But fairly often people say to me "oh you want to get a new bike mate". I ask why. "well, that ones so heavy".
> 
> ...


You would be fitter stronger and faster on a lightweight bike. Simple.


----------



## mjr (25 Jan 2019)

YukonBoy said:


> Supertankers are great for going in straight lines and transporting oil. If I want to have fun on the ocean I get a lightweight sailing boat.


But equally, you don't go out on the ocean on a blow-up lilo. Well, not if you've any sense.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (25 Jan 2019)

mjr said:


> But equally, you don't go out on the ocean on a blow-up lilo. Well, not if you've any sense.



Just stay local with the blow up lilo.


----------



## mynydd (25 Jan 2019)

I'm assuming you have a flat commute.......?


----------



## beany_bot (25 Jan 2019)

mynydd said:


> I'm assuming you have a flat commute.......?


Mixture. The hills are hard! but that's the point... you don't get fitter unless you get in the red zone. I'm willing to bet I am fitter and stronger than someone doing the same commute on a light bike.


----------



## derrick (25 Jan 2019)

beany_bot said:


> Mixture. The hills are hard! but that's the point... you don't get fitter unless you get in the red zone. I'm willing to bet I am fitter and stronger than someone doing the same commute on a light bike.


Check it on Strava, simple.


----------



## rivers (25 Jan 2019)

It's more fun to ride to ride my lighter bike. Although my new CX bike is also really fun to ride. But my old specialized, which wasn't heavy compared to a lot of bikes out there, but heavy compared to my carbon bike, wasn't as fun. It was sluggish and ehhhh in comparison to the others.


----------



## pawl (25 Jan 2019)

Lighter bikes.Obvious.So that you can find them in the dark.


----------



## ColinJ (25 Jan 2019)

For obvious reasons, I wanted a light bike for leisure routes with these elevation profiles ...











I would _NOT_ bothered about bike weight on these routes ...











I am riding my CX bike through the winter and that weighs 4 kg (9 lbs) more than my best bike. I can feel the extra weight every time I go up a big climb. It isn't a showstopper, but I'm looking forward to going back to the lighter bike in the spring!


----------



## mudsticks (25 Jan 2019)

beany_bot said:


> Always this has confused me.
> 
> I run a pig iron heavy road bike I got off Amazon for £150 about 5 years ago, I've done well over 10,000 miles on it and love it. But fairly often people say to me "oh you want to get a new bike mate". I ask why. "well, that ones so heavy".
> 
> ...



If you have a load to carry a lighter bike makes it easier.

I've just shed 2 kg by buying a new bike.
For me It tips the balance in favour of riding rather than driving, on a shopping or delivery trip.
Some if us alreafy have tiring / fittening enough work, without deliberately adding to the grind.. By riding a heavier bike.

If cycling is easier all round, then I'm more likely to take the bike, instead of the car, with all the benefits that flow from that.

Also means you can do steeper hills before having to give up and push (particularly when touring)
Pushing a loaded bike from one side isn't great for your back.


----------



## mynydd (25 Jan 2019)

I think there are too many variables.....
I commute every day, and have a very hilly commute home. I’ve a range of bikes ranging from my heavy trusty tricross, laden with panniers, mudguards and lights to my cf canyon endurance......
When I use the endurance I definitely work harder, and have a substantially harder workout.... whereas the tricross encourages me to sit back and spin.
But ultimately who cares as long as you’re enjoying it? We’re probably all substantially fitter than most people who drive to work


----------



## Markymark (25 Jan 2019)

beany_bot said:


> Mixture. The hills are hard! but that's the point... you don't get fitter unless you get in the red zone. I'm willing to bet I am fitter and stronger than someone doing the same commute on a light bike.


Nope. It’s all about the effort you put in. People on lighter bikes will not put less effort in, they’ll just go faster. They’ll also possibly do more miles. 10,000milrs over 5 years is small fry compared to people in clubs on lighter bikes. They’ll cycle further abs faster and be fitter than you.

If you’re not sure, borrow a lighter bike and go on a 50 miler with a club and keep up else go solo on 50-60 miles and keep a 17mph+ average speed.


----------



## DCBassman (25 Jan 2019)

Let's also at least put some ball park figures on light and heavy. My lightest is 23lb, my other two are both around 32lb. The heavier ones are way more fun for me, and MUCH more comfortable to ride.


----------



## Kempstonian (25 Jan 2019)

Some people will always prefer a heavier bike, just as some like to push their highest gear all the time. Others prefer a lighter bike and spinning a lower gear. Its all horses for courses.

The lighter the better for me...


----------



## kevin_cambs_uk (25 Jan 2019)

Easier to carry home when you can’t fix the puncture


----------



## Ming the Merciless (25 Jan 2019)

beany_bot said:


> Mixture. The hills are hard! but that's the point... you don't get fitter unless you get in the red zone. I'm willing to bet I am fitter and stronger than someone doing the same commute on a light bike.



When you get fit you will find the hills not so hard or you will go faster for same effort.


----------



## Racing roadkill (25 Jan 2019)

It’s because they want to be ‘well pro’ you can’t be ‘well pro’ without a super light bike.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (25 Jan 2019)

Positives of a heavier bike


Makes you stronger than a lighter bike - *possibly, especially if you have to heave it over anti-motorcycle barriers or carry it up stairs.*
Makes you fitter than a lighter bike - *will depend on factors like effort and gearing*
Burns more calories than a lighter bike (more cake for me) -* yes, for a given mileage*
Slightly slower therefore more time riding.  - *my speed riding in traffic is limited by safety considerations; i.e. keeping speed down to be able to react to hazards and stop in time instead of crash. I wouldn't ride a light bike any faster in traffic.*
Cheaper than a lighter bike. - *massive difference in cost, especially the further up the low weight scale you intend to go. *
Higher heart rate uphill than on a lighter bike. -* yes for the same gearing*
Often more robust than a lighter bike. - *generally true. I put a steel hack bike rim into a big pothole the other day and had to hammer the resulting bulge out of it. A lightweight rim would not have even survived.*
Less likely to be stolen than a lighter bike. - *depends a lot on how scruffy or tidy the bike looks as well. I deliberately run tatty looking bikes as hacks as they are virtually worthless secondhand. Mine also look distinctive and recognisable*.
Really the list goes on.


----------



## Drago (25 Jan 2019)

To answer the title question, because they dont have the gumption to put effort into losing weight off themselves.


----------



## Alwaysbroken (25 Jan 2019)

My slightly confused two penneth.

I’m from a motocross & mountain biking background & have spent the last couple of years in a fairly uneducated turmoil buying nice used road bikes that look pretty finding my way.

I still have a 2012 defy but have sold my Madone for £500 & built the old pig iron path racer weighing 33lb. I think I’m a quick on it but don’t do big miles and our roads are shite.

So I think the riding position suits me better, I feel more secure, I believe I’m more confident with the higher volume tyres over our poor quality roads and it gives me more confidence cornering and throwing it into corners, it’s worthless so I’m more aggressive as I couldn’t care if I ditch it. The weight feels more planted and less sketchy.

Maybe it fits me better? But I feel equally fast and strong up familiar hills as I did on the Madone.

So yes in town riding I believe I’m as fast and I’m enjoying riding so much more. 

I’m now on the prowl for an early 70’s Eddy Merckx


----------



## Pat "5mph" (25 Jan 2019)

@beany_bot how much does your bike weight, approx?
Who is telling you to get a lighter bike and have they said why you should?
Your question needs more contest!
I ride heavy bikes compared to club riders, but much lighter ones than, say, EBikes.
Still, I have been faster than an Ebike rider or a full sus bike rider.
Than again I have been left behind by riders of heavier bikes than mine.
It's all relative.
If you're feeling a bit pressurized to upgrade your bike by riding companions, only do it because you want to, not because you feel you need to keep up in speed.
There are many cycling styles and speed averages, join a group that you fit in.
You can still socialize in the pub with the faster ones


----------



## tyred (25 Jan 2019)

I don't worry too much about weight personally. If you are fit and at the peak of possible human performance then perhaps you may find a small advantage, for most of us, then probably not. Besides not everyone is chasing performance.

If you want to get faster or fitter, ride your existing bike more! If you want another bike because you simply want another bike and have the money to buy it, then go for it but don't tell other people what they should ride.


----------



## screenman (25 Jan 2019)

I have 6 bikes of different styles and weights, I like the fact I can ride the one I fancy that day. Anyway, what else do you spend your pocket money on.


----------



## mudsticks (25 Jan 2019)

kevin_cambs_uk said:


> Easier to carry home when you can’t fix the puncture



Or to lift over gates to access nifty camping spots..


----------



## DCBassman (25 Jan 2019)

Drago said:


> To answer the title question, because they dont have the gumption to put effort into losing weight off themselves.


Exactly. My overall system weight will be the same riding the 32lb Trek as the 22lb Scott, _when_ I've lost 10lb. When...


----------



## sleuthey (25 Jan 2019)

Ok, so some good points have been made about how bike weight affects performances such as calorie burn, fitness, journey time etc.......but, aren't we forgetting something? Which is that the weight of the rider/bike combined has a higher influence over these performances than the weight of the bike alone?

The average man in the UK weighs 84kg. My hybrid weighs 16kg. So the combined weight totals 100kg. So if you bought a £2000 bike weighing only 8kg, although the bike weight would reduce by 50%, the combined weight would only reduce by 8%. So would I pay an extra 500% in price for an 8% reduction in weight - no.

If I want to increase my heart rate without having to go faster then I'll eat a load of pizza and put on 5kg. If I want to get to work quicker without peddling harder then I'll go on slimming world for a month. I don't buy a different bike.


----------



## Markymark (25 Jan 2019)

More expensive bikes can also come with better components. Not just weight reductions.


----------



## HLaB (25 Jan 2019)

I commute on a relatively cheap and heavy Triban 500 (relative as other commuters think its light compared to their bikes). I wouldn't want to go for a heavier bike for my commute length I simply wouldn't have time and would take the bus and be less fit. A heavier bike would make me less fit. I'd probably want to ride a lighter bike so I could do my current commute faster/easier/go further/ make more enjoyable and get more fit (I used to commute to my old work on a lighter bike and saw all these things) but I wouldn't want a bike that so light its too expensive to lose to a thief just now as my current workplace is less secure.


----------



## 12boy (25 Jan 2019)

My 7 regular rides ( steamroller, 82 holdsworth, mini-velo, Xootr Swift, Brompton, centurion 1 speed winter beater bike, and 92 cannondale mtn bike are all 25 lbs or less and they are all good for different things. I enjoy riding them all. They are close in ave speed over the same route. But the 25 lb thing is only with street type tires. The 'dale with studded snows is probably 30 and the studded Schwalbes on the Centurion add a lot, probably 800 g over street tires. When those pounds are on the wheel is when I can feel them. Otherwise, I have traded lighter weight for low cost and durability and in the case of studded snow tires, safety. I do agree that a heavier bike over the same route will be more effort or time than a liighter one.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (26 Jan 2019)

DCBassman said:


> Let's also at least put some ball park figures on light and heavy. My lightest is 23lb, my other two are both around 32lb. The heavier ones are way more fun for me, and MUCH more comfortable to ride.



Mine range between about 24 lbs (531 drop-bar Dawes) and around 36 lbs (gas pipe Puch 3-speed roadster). The lightest one is the fastest, not by a massive amount, but the handling does encourage more spirited riding given the opportunity, whereas the heavier ones also have longer wheelbases and less sporty geometry, so tend to favour being ridden in a more restrained manner. So, whilst lighter bikes may be a bit faster due to having less weight, some of the difference is usually down to the design of the bike and the kind of riding style it rewards. You don't tend to see huge amounts of effort put into reducing weight on utilitarian bikes, but you do on those with more sporting pretensions. 
There's also the question of tyre fitment, my lightest bike runs 28mm Marathons, everything else runs various 1 3/8"/ 35mm/1 3/4" Delta Cruiser+ or 2" MTB knobblys. The rate of speed loss when coasting is noticeably different between my most draggy and least draggy tyres, which means a significant difference in rolling resistance which is not related to bike weight. It's over-simplistic to merely state that light bikes are fast and heavy bikes are slow; a gas pipe bike with sporty geometry and slicks would likely still be faster over relatively short distances than a very expensive lightweight machine designed for distance touring and fitted with M+ tyres.


----------



## Nebulous (26 Jan 2019)

I've a full carbon race bike at around 9kg, my audax bike at around 11 and commute on a Edinburgh Bike cyclocross which is over 15 with the racks and lights. In addition I can have 20kg in my pannier bags. I've a very short commute, but I've never liked the bike. It's a workhorse, does what I ask, I can coax it up to a reasonable speed over 25 miles or so if I'm working away and take it with me, but I've never really rated it. In contrast my previous work bike was an Edinburgh bike branded tourer, which I did like. 

The carbon bike is fast, twitchy and definitely climbs better than any of the others. The audax bike is more comfortable, has wider tyres, eats miles and has hydraulic discs and thru-axles. Both of these features have been a revelation. It would be the one I would keep if I could only have one. So for me it isn't only about weight, but a combination of comfort, features, gears, ride quality plus the fact I got an amazing deal in buying it.


----------



## Andy in Germany (26 Jan 2019)

It's a strange thing but I prefer my heavy Xtracycle to my relatively light commuter. 

Neither is super light because they're both steel framed but the Xtracycle is certainly a lump, but I find her a easier ride. Xtracycle marketed them as an "SUB" or Sports Utility Bike for a while, suggesting they were sporty and yet could be used for hauling stuff about, and I can see the logic: certainly I take corners faster on the longer Xtracycle.

The Bakfiets tips the scales at 35 kilogrammes. it's like driving a truck, or possibly a barge.


----------



## FishFright (26 Jan 2019)

beany_bot said:


> Mixture. The hills are hard! but that's the point... *you don't get fitter unless you get in the red zone*. I'm willing to bet I am fitter and stronger than someone doing the same commute on a light bike.



Nope wrong again. Have you come to cycling from a weight lifting background ?


----------



## Cycleops (27 Jan 2019)

FishFright said:


> Nope wrong again. Have you come to cycling from a weight lifting background ?


Maybe he has.


----------



## EltonFrog (27 Jan 2019)

Quite possibly the most pointless thread on cycling ever to be posted on the internet. Ever.


----------



## mudsticks (27 Jan 2019)

CarlP said:


> Quite possibly the most pointless thread on cycling ever to be posted on the internet. Ever.



Now there's a challenge!!

We _could_ try 

* "Why do some people insist on riding a red bike ; when I prefer riding a blue one ??" *


----------



## Grant Fondo (27 Jan 2019)

CarlP said:


> Quite possibly the most pointless thread on cycling ever to be posted on the internet. Ever.


It kind of is...but i still get the OP's original point, if you are cool with a heavy bike thats fine. As technology moves on why not reap the benefits would be one side of the argument so suspect the OP contained an element of honest enquiry. Good stuff.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (27 Jan 2019)

mudsticks said:


> Now there's a challenge!!
> 
> We _could_ try
> 
> * "Why do some people insist on riding a red bike ; when I prefer riding a blue one ??" *



Don't be silly we all know red bikes go faster. Look up red shift.


----------



## mudsticks (27 Jan 2019)

YukonBoy said:


> Don't be silly we all know red bikes go faster. Look up red shift.



Yeah, _I know_ ... But _what if_ i don't _want_ to go any faster - and its more about_ style_ in transit, pour moi ?? Huh ??


----------



## Ming the Merciless (27 Jan 2019)

mudsticks said:


> Yeah, _I know_ ... But _what if_ i don't _want_ to go any faster - and its more about_ style_ in transit, pour moi ?? Huh ??



Then you want wooden spoke wheels.


----------



## Andy in Germany (27 Jan 2019)

mudsticks said:


> Yeah, _I know_ ... But _what if_ i don't _want_ to go any faster - and its more about_ style_ in transit, pour moi ?? Huh ??



In that case a black bike is the only choice. Obviously.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (27 Jan 2019)

Andy in Germany said:


> In that case a black bike is the only choice. Obviously.



Ah but a black bike is lighter because it absorbs all the light.


----------



## mudsticks (27 Jan 2019)

Andy in Germany said:


> In that case a black bike is the only choice. Obviously.



Uhuh... Or as in my case, a sleek graphite grey, with black rims.



YukonBoy said:


> Ah but a black bike is lighter because it absorbs all the light.



And a grey one - particularly if its grey on account of being. aluminum - is even lighter still..

I think this utterly pointless one-upmanship argument may have legs yet


----------



## EltonFrog (27 Jan 2019)

mudsticks said:


> Now there's a challenge!!
> 
> We _could_ try
> 
> * "Why do some people insist on riding a red bike ; when I prefer riding a blue one ??" *





Grant Fondo said:


> It kind of is...but i still get the OP's original point, if you are cool with a heavy bike thats fine. As technology moves on why not reap the benefits would be one side of the argument so suspect the OP contained an element of honest enquiry. Good stuff.





YukonBoy said:


> Don't be silly we all know red bikes go faster. Look up red shift.





mudsticks said:


> Yeah, _I know_ ... But _what if_ i don't _want_ to go any faster - and its more about_ style_ in transit, pour moi ?? Huh ??





YukonBoy said:


> Then you want wooden spoke wheels.





Andy in Germany said:


> In that case a black bike is the only choice. Obviously.





YukonBoy said:


> Ah but a black bike is lighter because it absorbs all the light.





mudsticks said:


> Uhuh... Or as in my case, a sleek graphite grey, with black rims.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You lot arn’t taking this thread seriously are you?


----------



## mudsticks (27 Jan 2019)

CarlP said:


> You lot arn’t taking this thread seriously are you?



Personally, I'd say its being brought to a perfectly logical (ad absurdium) conclusion


----------



## Ming the Merciless (27 Jan 2019)

CarlP said:


> You lot arn’t taking this thread seriously are you?



I am attaching a lot of weight to the arguments put forward; but I can see the lighter side.


----------



## DCBassman (27 Jan 2019)

White reflects all light, therefore is not weighed down by it. Red bikes go faster. Mine is a red-white combo, therefore it is obvs best, no?


----------



## KneesUp (27 Jan 2019)

DCBassman said:


> White reflects all light, therefore is not weighed down by it. Red bikes go faster. Mine is a red-white combo, therefore it is obvs best, no?


I had a red and white road bike when I was in my mid twenties, twenty years ago. I am not as fast on my commuter now as I was on my red and white road bike then, thus I conclude that you are correct.


----------



## rogerzilla (27 Jan 2019)

As Eddy Merckx (may have) said: "It never gets easier. You just go faster."


----------



## mjr (27 Jan 2019)

Found a benefit to making the bike heavier with many kilos of screws and food today. The crosswinds moved me much less on the ride home!


----------



## Markymark (27 Jan 2019)

I think the op has a point. It’s the same as fat unfit people are fitter than thin fit people as it takes them longer to walk the same distance and they’re lifting more weight


----------



## EltonFrog (27 Jan 2019)

Markymark said:


> I think the op has a point. It’s the same as fat unfit people are fitter than thin fit people as it takes them longer to walk the same distance and they’re lifting more weight



Hahahahaha


----------



## mudsticks (27 Jan 2019)

mjr said:


> Found a benefit to making the bike heavier with many kilos of screws and food today. The crosswinds moved me much less on the ride home!



Without knowing the colour of your bike, I don't see how we are to benefit from this assertion ...


----------



## DCBassman (27 Jan 2019)

mjr said:


> Found a benefit to making the bike heavier with many kilos of screws and food today. The crosswinds moved me much less on the ride home!


Ah, but what colour was that crosswind?


----------



## mjr (27 Jan 2019)

DCBassman said:


> Ah, but what colour was that crosswind?


On the way there, I definitely turned it blue!


----------



## Blue Hills (27 Jan 2019)

mudsticks said:


> Or to lift over gates to access nifty camping spots..


mm - but if you are touring, and I have the impression that, like me, you carry a lot of stuff, the bike is the least of the problems when it comes to lifting it over fences and gates. For touring I'm more interested in how dependable the bike feels, how it rolls, how it carries the weight/mountain of junk I carry.


----------



## mudsticks (27 Jan 2019)

Blue Hills said:


> mm - but if you are touring, and I have the impression that, like me, you carry a lot of stuff, the bike is the least of the problems when it comes to lifting it over fences and gates. For touring I'm more interested in how dependable the bike feels, how it rolls, how it carries the weight/mountain of junk I carry.



I don't really carry much - i try to keep it down to about 12kg total - thats with the panniers themselves.

Add on 12kg for the bike- thats less than a sack of spuds total .

But yes dependable rollability is always key.

Oh and the _correct_ colour too - which i think we've just got properly started on - welcome to the party blue hills - what are your thoughts?? - i'd _imagine_ you're a British Racing Green kinda guy??


----------



## Blue Hills (27 Jan 2019)

er spooky mudsticks.

I imagine you know me from somewhere.

online - another place? for I think you are some distance away.

Yes one of my bikes is British Racing Green - been a favourite colour since childhood - but I do have getting on for 10 bikes.

I clearly got it wrong about your loading.

On the overall question of weight, while I have been mightily impressed by some uber lightweight modern carbon things (seem to weigh less than their bits) it's not important to me.

edit - or maybe you just sneaked a look at my gallery - but there's also a steely grey and a mango there.


----------



## dave r (27 Jan 2019)

YukonBoy said:


> Don't be silly we all know red bikes go faster. Look up red shift.



My fixed is a lovely shade of crimson, and is faster than its pilot.


----------



## mudsticks (28 Jan 2019)

Blue Hills said:


> er spooky mudsticks.
> 
> I imagine you know me from somewhere.
> 
> ...



Don't panic, @Blue Hills just a teensy bit of amateur personality profiling.
Can't help myself, there's really no existential threat to your person, or property.

But where would I peruse this picture gallery of your velicipedal delights, if I so chose??


----------



## MontyVeda (28 Jan 2019)

My nickel plated bike reflects more light than any pigmented colour... so from a scientific POV, will theoretically be fasterer.


----------



## mudsticks (28 Jan 2019)

MontyVeda said:


> My nickel plated bike reflects more light than any pigmented colour... so from a scientific POV, will theoretically be fasterer.



There we have it folks - a sciencey person, has used some sciencey wurds - so now we know the truth


----------



## Blue Hills (28 Jan 2019)

mudsticks said:


> Don't panic, @Blue Hills just a teensy bit of amateur personality profiling.
> Can't help myself, there's really no existential threat to your person, or property.
> 
> But where would I peruse this picture gallery of your velicipedal delights, if I so chose??


Click on my profile and then on the media tab.

It is of course possible that you don't have supernatural powers after all (phew!) and subconsciously remembered a post of mine about a serious ding I had given a bike - the gallery has a pic of the ding.

You won't find much there but there is a pic of the mango thing and the greyish build of mine.


----------



## Cycleops (28 Jan 2019)

Blue Hills said:


> You won't find much there but there is a pic of the mango thing and the greyish build of mine.


Here's a picture of a mango just to avoid any confusion.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (28 Jan 2019)

Always carry a ladder when touring. The extra weight gets you fitter and you can get over those five bar gates.


----------



## mudsticks (28 Jan 2019)

YukonBoy said:


> Always carry a ladder when touring. The extra weight gets you fitter and you can get over those five bar gates.



I find towing a portable trebuchet similarly useful and has far greater entertainment value. 



Cycleops said:


> Here's a picture of a mango just to avoid any confusion.
> 
> View attachment 449506



Thank you, 

We mustn't assume knowledge. 
Nor stupidity...


----------



## mjr (28 Jan 2019)

mudsticks said:


> I find towing a portable trebuchet similarly useful and has far greater entertainment value.


But you know what they say: you can't take it with you when you go!


----------



## beany_bot (29 Jan 2019)

CarlP said:


> Quite possibly the most pointless thread on cycling ever to be posted on the internet. Ever.


How incredibly rude! 
And obviously it's not that pointless as (for the first few pages anyway) it has encouraged some healthy debate and sharing of good thoughts.


----------



## Markymark (29 Jan 2019)

beany_bot said:


> How incredibly rude!
> And obviously it's not that pointless as (for the first few pages anyway) it has encouraged some healthy debate and sharing of good thoughts.


I'd say it's mainly people taking the mick.


----------



## mudsticks (29 Jan 2019)

beany_bot said:


> How incredibly rude!
> And obviously it's not that pointless as (for the first few pages anyway) it has encouraged some healthy debate and sharing of good thoughts.



Quite so - I think we've established that there could be _even more_ pointless discussions.

So discovering that in itself, is a net gain.

I'd say well done @beany_bot for getting us chatting - and better luck next time with crafting a truly and utterly inane topic for us to burble about.


----------



## EltonFrog (29 Jan 2019)

mudsticks said:


> Quite so - I think we've established that there could be _even more_ pointless discussions.
> 
> So discovering that in itself, is a net gain.
> 
> I'd say well done @beany_bot for getting us chatting - and better luck next time with crafting a truly and utterly inane topic for us to burble about.



Well! Really! How rude.


----------



## beany_bot (29 Jan 2019)

CarlP said:


> Well! Really! How rude.


Has a moderator not already had to delete your previous posts? Maybe you should stop trolling and derailing.


----------



## EltonFrog (29 Jan 2019)

beany_bot said:


> Has a moderator not already had to delete your previous posts? Maybe you should stop trolling and derailing.


No I deleted it. Get over yerself.


----------



## Moderators (29 Jan 2019)

Please cut out the bickering in here and get back on topic now.

Thank you.


----------



## Markymark (29 Jan 2019)

Moderators said:


> Please cut out the bickering in here and get back on topic now.
> 
> Thank you.


Excellent guidance. The hypothesis, as stated in the OP, is nonsense. Close the thread now?


----------



## beany_bot (29 Jan 2019)

Markymark said:


> Excellent guidance. The hypothesis, as stated in the OP, is nonsense. Close the thread now?


Have I done something to annoy you? The hypothesis is valid and a reasonable discussion point. Just so happens you dont agree with it. So what?


----------



## Markymark (29 Jan 2019)

beany_bot said:


> Have I done something to annoy you? The hypothesis is valid and a reasonable discussion point. Just so happens you dont agree with it. So what?


It had people trying to be reasonable which was then roundly dismissed, so quickly turned into irrelevance and ridicule. I can't see how sticking to the original topic is going to go any other way.

So the mods should either accept it will ultimately end up that way and allow it...or close it.


----------



## Biff600 (29 Jan 2019)

Just out of curiosity, I decided to weigh my bikes, with pedals, seat etc

The MTB (Specialized Stumpjumper FSR Elite) weighs 13.2kg, whereas the road bike (Pinarello Dogma) is only 7.1kg


----------



## Levo-Lon (29 Jan 2019)

Biff600 said:


> Just out of curiosity, I decided to weigh my bikes, with pedals, seat etc
> 
> The MTB (Specialized Stumpjumper FSR Elite) weighs 13.2kg, whereas the road bike (Pinarello Dogma) is only 7.1kg



The Dogma will still be crap riding Castor Hanglands ,but it will still look cool


----------



## Dogtrousers (29 Jan 2019)

I've skipped a few pages of this thread. Looks like I've missed some fun. I may go back and have a read.

Has the phrase "more money than sense" been bandied around yet? How about "proper cyclists"?

Edit. I've had a read. I was wrong, and I misjudged my fellow CCers. Instead of endless silly and repetitive wittering on the cost and weight of bikes there has been some solid discussion on the impact of bike colour on speed. I salute you.


----------



## Markymark (29 Jan 2019)

Dogtrousers said:


> I've skipped a few pages of this thread. Looks like I've missed some fun. I may go back and have a read.
> 
> Has the phrase "more money than sense" been bandied around yet? How about "proper cyclists"?
> 
> Edit. I've had a read. I was wrong, and I misjudged my fellow CCers. Instead of endless silly and repetitive wittering on the cost and weight of bikes there has been some solid discussion on the impact of bike colour on speed. I salute you.


Black bikes go faster. Logically you’d think white bikes would as they’d reflect more light thus absorb less heat so wouldn’t expand like a black bike does as an expanded bike having a larger surface area would create more drag. I can only assume that cyclists with black bikes are more awesome and therefore quicker.


----------



## Jenkins (29 Jan 2019)

Yesterday I wanted a lighter bike because the weather was dry & sunny with light winds. 
Today I wanted a heavier bike due to it being more stable in stronger (cross) winds and having mudguards for the wet conditions
Tomorrow, if the weather forecast is correct, I'll want an even heavier bike with chunky, wide tyres to cope with the snow/slush/whatever
None of them are black*, blue or red.

Or is that far too sensible an answer?

*Except for the forks


----------



## Ming the Merciless (29 Jan 2019)

Markymark said:


> Black bikes go faster. Logically you’d think white bikes would as they’d reflect more light thus absorb less heat so wouldn’t expand like a black bike does as an expanded bike having a larger surface area would create more drag. I can only assume that cyclists with black bikes are more awesome and therefore quicker.



Black bikes generate more heat, this creates a superheated layer of air next to the frame. Heat is a measure of how fast the molecules move about. It also creates a smoother boundary layer next to the frame reducing turbulence and improving aerodynamics. QED you go faster.


----------



## mudsticks (29 Jan 2019)

Markymark said:


> Black bikes go faster. Logically you’d think white bikes would as they’d reflect more light thus absorb less heat so wouldn’t expand like a black bike does as an expanded bike having a larger surface area would create more drag. I can only assume that cyclists with black bikes are more awesome and therefore quicker.






YukonBoy said:


> Black bikes generate more heat, this creates a superheated layer of air next to the frame. Heat is a measure of how fast the molecules move about. It also creates a smoother boundary layer next to the frame reducing turbulence and improving aerodynamics. QED you go faster.



Oooo fabulous - more convincing sciencey stuff.

i'm glad i have a dark grey bike though, so am only expected to be a teensy bit awesome - not the whole interstella deal


----------



## Markymark (29 Jan 2019)

mudsticks said:


> Oooo fabulous - more convincing sciencey stuff.
> 
> i'm glad i have a dark grey bike though, so am only expected to be a teensy bit awesome - not the whole interstella deal


Awesomeness is like uniqueness or pregnancy....you can’t be a bit awesome. You either are or you aren’t. Not everyone in London is awesome...but nobody outside London is ever awesome.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (29 Jan 2019)

mudsticks said:


> Oooo fabulous - more convincing sciencey stuff.
> 
> i'm glad i have a dark grey bike though, so am only expected to be a teensy bit awesome - not the whole interstella deal



Be careful it is not battleship grey as that weighs several tonnes. So heavy in fact that powerful fixie tug bikes have to pull them along to ensure they can be maneuvered round twisting town and city streets.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (29 Jan 2019)

Markymark said:


> but nobody outside London is ever awesome.


I am awesome


----------



## mudsticks (29 Jan 2019)

Markymark said:


> Awesomeness is like uniqueness or pregnancy....you can’t be a bit awesome. You either are or you aren’t. Not everyone in London is awesome...but nobody outside London is ever awesome.



I will have to take issue with you there Mr Mark 

I have, on_ more_ than one occasion been a _teensy bit_ awesome.

Never _totally_ awesome - as that would be immodest - thus nullifying the awesomeness.

Plus i definitely don't live in london ,so I guess mine is 'Provincial style awesomeness' not the true gritty urban deal 

But yes you certainly can't list a number of USP's for instance.

And shall we start of fewer or less ?

That can keep everyone going for a few rounds, i usually find ..


----------



## mudsticks (29 Jan 2019)

Pat "5mph" said:


> I am awesome



Indeed you are Pat - indeed you are


----------



## mudsticks (29 Jan 2019)

YukonBoy said:


> Be careful it is not battleship grey as that weighs several tonnes. So heavy in fact that powerful fixie tug bikes have to pull them along to ensure they can be maneuvered round twisting town and city streets.



Fret not, I'm generally a country cyclist so no mean streets - although Devon lanes can have their fair share of convolutions .


----------



## Ming the Merciless (29 Jan 2019)

mudsticks said:


> Fret not, I'm generally a country cyclist so no mean streets - although Devon lanes can have their fair share of convolutions .



Ah in that case a stopping distance of three villages will not be such a major issue if you plan ahead.


----------



## Banjo (29 Jan 2019)

My bike is quite light. Until I sit on it.


----------



## mudsticks (29 Jan 2019)

Banjo said:


> My bike is quite light. Until I sit on it.



Alas - Your bike remains the same weight - regardless of whether you sit upon it or not .

The additional mass is contributed by your personage - not the velocipide itself.

Sort-of-sciencey pedantry from the peasantry .

You're welcome


----------



## Markymark (29 Jan 2019)

mudsticks said:


> Alas - Your bike remains the same weight - regardless of whether you sit upon it or not .
> 
> The additional mass is contributed by your personage - not the velocipide itself.
> 
> ...


But as you sit on it your weight will ever so slightly cause the bike to compress thus lowering the centre of gravity of the bike pushing it ever so slightly closer to the centre of the earth thus increasing its weight due to the increase in gravity dut to the decrease in the earth and the bikes centres.


----------



## mudsticks (29 Jan 2019)

Markymark said:


> But as you sit on it your weight will ever so slightly cause the bike to compress thus lowering the centre of gravity of the bike pushing it ever so slightly closer to the centre of the earth thus increasing its weight due to the increase in gravity dut to the decrease in the earth and the bikes centres.



Dargnabit.. 
Youse got me right there. 

That meddling gravitational pull..
It just don't let up - no-hows it wont .


----------



## Dogtrousers (29 Jan 2019)

YukonBoy said:


> Be careful it is not battleship grey as that weighs several tonnes. So heavy in fact that powerful fixie tug bikes have to pull them along to ensure they can be maneuvered round twisting town and city streets.


My 1980s Dawes Shadow is battleship grey.

And you're right.


----------



## beany_bot (30 Jan 2019)

Thought of another point this morning while cycling in. Components.

I replaced my Cassette about a year ago and it cost me £10. Now if I had a bike with high-end (read "lighter") components, I would feel obliged to replace them like for like. If I had to buy a Shimano Dura Ace R9100 11-Speed Cassette it would cost me north of £150!! for the same part! Just lighter. What is the point in that when I am not racing?

Also serviceability. Many of the parts on a dirt cheap bike are fully serviceable by the user whereas on the higher end models they are sealed and or not serviceable.

It's a shame those who disagree or who seem annoyed with my suggestion seem determined to derail the conversation to the point a mod closes the thread (nice tactic by the way...). Very transparent.


----------



## Spoked Wheels (30 Jan 2019)

Isn't this a matter of horses for courses?

My light bike is about 7.5kg and I use it to keep up with other riders on club rides but otherwise it's not very practical for me as I can't carry anything, can't fit proper mudguards and can't fit fatter tyres for winter BUT I still love riding it when it is the bike for the occasion.

My 1990 Reynolds 531 weights about 12kg with mudguards, Schwhalbe Marathon tyres, triple crankset and a rear rack.... it's perfect for just about anything that I need to carry something where the Van Nicholas is not appropriate for.

My Surly Ogre is setup for touring ATM and weights about 14.5kg with touring Schwhalbe touring tyres, heavy duty wheels, mudguards, racks and suspension seatpost. This bike is for comfort and go anywhere. On club rides some riders go off rode for sections of the route to make rides more interesting to them and I can join them with this bike but also for comfort this is the bike I pick everytime.

So, I'd say, ride whatever you feel happy with, for me, there's no need to justify my gear in terms of fitness efficiency, I personally ride for the enjoyment of it and my bike selection is based on whatever fits the occasion to make the ride more enjoyable.


----------



## DCBassman (30 Jan 2019)

Spoked Wheels said:


> Isn't this a matter of horses for courses?
> 
> My light bike is about 7.5kg and I use it to keep up with other riders on club rides but otherwise it's not very practical for me as I can't carry anything, can't fit proper mudguards and can't fit fatter tyres for winter BUT I still love riding it when it is the bike for the occasion.
> 
> ...


That's the way to do it.


----------



## beany_bot (30 Jan 2019)

Spoked Wheels said:


> Isn't this a matter of horses for courses?
> 
> My light bike is about 7.5kg and I use it to keep up with other riders on club rides but otherwise it's not very practical for me as I can't carry anything, can't fit proper mudguards and can't fit fatter tyres for winter BUT I still love riding it when it is the bike for the occasion.
> 
> ...



I dare say you are right, In an ideal world I would have a bike for all occasions.
But realistically, talking specifically about commuting, ill take the heavier - more robust bike.


----------



## mudsticks (30 Jan 2019)

DCBassman said:


> That's the way to do it.





DCBassman said:


> That's the way to do it.



Yes but taking a reasonable, measured, and contextualised approach is pretty rubbish for generating heated online debate, isn't it?? 

Whither anti-social media then???


----------



## Spoked Wheels (30 Jan 2019)

beany_bot said:


> Thought of another point this morning while cycling in. Components.
> 
> I replaced my Cassette about a year ago and it cost me £10. Now if I had a bike with high-end (read "lighter") components, I would feel obliged to replace them like for like. If I had to buy a Shimano Dura Ace R9100 11-Speed Cassette it would cost me north of £150!! for the same part! Just lighter. What is the point in that when I am not racing?
> 
> ...



You are absolutely right on the price of high end components and just functional components, however, I think the new very cheap components are throw away stuff, at least is what I saw with some derailleurs.... I'm afraid this is going to be the trend.


----------



## DCBassman (30 Jan 2019)

mudsticks said:


> Yes but taking a reasonable, measured, and contextualised approach is pretty rubbish for generating heated online debate, isn't it??
> 
> Whither anti-social media then???


Rats, got serious for a moment!


----------



## Dogtrousers (30 Jan 2019)

beany_bot said:


> If I had to buy a Shimano Dura Ace R9100 11-Speed Cassette it would cost me north of £150!! for the same part! Just lighter.


Wow. Are you suggesting that Dura Ace isn't the best value for money for a commuting hack? What a profoundly interesting and useful insight.


----------



## Blue Hills (30 Jan 2019)

Spoked Wheels said:


> Isn't this a matter of horses for courses?
> 
> My light bike is about 7.5kg and I use it to keep up with other riders on club rides but otherwise it's not very practical for me as I can't carry anything, can't fit proper mudguards and can't fit fatter tyres for winter BUT I still love riding it when it is the bike for the occasion.
> 
> ...


I don't think that contradicts beanybot.


----------



## Blue Hills (30 Jan 2019)

Spoked Wheels said:


> You are absolutely right on the price of high end components and just functional components, however, I think the new very cheap components are throw away stuff, at least is what I saw with some derailleurs.... I'm afraid this is going to be the trend.


Genuine question - which range of shimano mechs do you consider throwaway?


----------



## Blue Hills (30 Jan 2019)

Dogtrousers said:


> Wow. Are you suggesting that Dura Ace isn't the best value for money for a commuting hack? What a profoundly interesting and useful insight.


Always interesting and informative to see the higher count posters put down the lower. Just the thing cchat needs to attract a wide range of new cyclists.


----------



## Dogtrousers (30 Jan 2019)

Blue Hills said:


> Always interesting and informative to see the higher count posters put down the lower. Just the thing cchat needs to attract a wide range of new cyclists.


I didn't check on the poster's post count I'm afraid. I'd reply in like kind if you made a similar statement of the bleedin obvious.


----------



## beany_bot (30 Jan 2019)

Dogtrousers said:


> I didn't check on the poster's post count I'm afraid. I'd reply in like kind if you made a similar statement of the bleedin obvious.


I deliberately took the example to the extreme. I OBVIOUSLY don't expect people to commute on DURA ACE components (although many do). Same point with a £20 cassette if you prefer...No need to be so literal.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (30 Jan 2019)

Nowt wrong with dura ace. I have dura ace bar end shifters, cost £50 for the pair, lighter than any dual control shifter setup, and will be super reliable for lifetime of bike. Nowt wrong with using them for commuting.


----------



## Spoked Wheels (30 Jan 2019)

Blue Hills said:


> Genuine question - which range of shimano mechs do you consider throwaway?



I believe it was Shimano Altus.... I saw them on a new bike recently.


----------



## Dogtrousers (30 Jan 2019)

OK ... final answer.

Bikes are chosen on many criteria other than weight. For commuting the criteria will be different to club riding, different to audax, to touring, to off-roading and so on.

Not everyone can, or wants to, own a huge stable of different bikes so we often end up with a compromise of the differing demands of practicality, comfort, fun and the user's budget.

As a result some people may commute on high end lightweight bikes, because that's what they own and that's what they enjoy. That's their business. Some people tour on Bromptons. Some people do Audaxes on fixed. It's all good. And it's nobody's business but theirs.

The OP is pushing an agenda that for commuting and leisure it's *better *to have a bike that's heavier, and proposes bunch of reasons: it gives a harder workout (no it doesn't); it's less likely to get nicked (no - thieves will nick anything not properly secured); it's cheaper (not if it means buying yet another bike it isn't) and so forth.

It's not _better _to ride one kind of bike or another. There's point in trying to justify the bike you ride, and there's especially no point in trying to argue that your way is _better_. Because it's a meaningless point to make. There is no "better". The whole idea is pointless.

Now, on a more serious point, I've noticed that my black bike is no faster since I had the wheels rebuilt with black rims. I find this puzzling.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (30 Jan 2019)

Black wheels on a black bike causes two opposing superheated layers of air. This causes strong eddy currents where the rim passes closest to the black frame. The effect is even greater with black carbon forks due to the electron arrangement and super conducting qualities in the graphite contained within. This causes the black wheels on black frames to encounter a force opposite to their direction of motion. Hence you go slower.


----------



## mudsticks (30 Jan 2019)

Well not to be contrary, but my new dark grey bike with black rims

(AND mango flashes)

Is definitely faster than my previous moonshadow bike with silver rims

I wonder could the mango flashes be a contributing factor??

It's so difficult to distinguish between causation and correlation.

Doncha find??


----------



## Markymark (30 Jan 2019)

Dogtrousers said:


> OK ... final answer.
> 
> Bikes are chosen on many criteria other than weight. For commuting the criteria will be different to club riding, different to audax, to touring, to off-roading and so on.
> 
> ...


All very sensible points but failed at the last two. Your black rims do make you faster but you’ve got older and fatter since changing them. 

And there is better. I am better then all of you.


----------



## mudsticks (30 Jan 2019)

YukonBoy said:


> Black wheels on a black bike causes two opposing superheated layers of air. This causes strong eddy currents where the rim passes closest to the black frame. The effect is even greater with black carbon forks due to the electron arrangement and super conducting qualities in the graphite contained within. This causes the black wheels on black frames to encounter a force opposite to their direction of motion. Hence you go slower.



Ha, so what you need for that, is counteracting fruit coloured decals.
They will sort out your electron thingummy wotsts


----------



## Ming the Merciless (30 Jan 2019)

mudsticks said:


> Ha, so what you need for that, is counteracting fruit coloured decals.
> They will sort out your electron thingummy wotsts



This may explain why the mango detailing makes the bike go faster. Hydrogen is the lightest element in the Universe, so having a bike containing it is obviously better. It is also to do with the spin of strange quarks disrupting the eddy currents in the graphite.


----------



## Dogtrousers (30 Jan 2019)

Markymark said:


> Your black rims do make you faster but you’ve got older and fatter since changing them.


Curse you and your faultless logic.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (30 Jan 2019)

Dogtrousers said:


> Curse you and your faultless logic.



Proof that black bikes make you fatter?


----------



## mudsticks (30 Jan 2019)

YukonBoy said:


> This may explain why the mango detailing makes the bike go faster. Hydrogen is the lightest element in the Universe, so having a bike containing it is obviously better. It is also to do with the spin of strange quarks disrupting the eddy currents in the graphite.
> 
> View attachment 449732



Aha yes I think you have it right there.. 

I have a friend who is researching graphene, in a local physics dept. 

I may ask her to run some tests to confirm your hypothesis..


----------



## Markymark (30 Jan 2019)

YukonBoy said:


> Proof that black bikes make you fatter?


...which according to the op makes you fitter and therefore faster. 

So getting fatter makes you faster AND slower at the same time. That reminds me, I must check on my cat.....


----------



## mudsticks (30 Jan 2019)

YukonBoy said:


> Proof that black bikes make you fatter?



Incontravertable I'd say...


----------



## Ming the Merciless (30 Jan 2019)

Markymark said:


> ...which according to the op makes you fitter and therefore faster.
> 
> So getting fatter makes you faster AND slower at the same time. That reminds me, I must check on my cat.....



Getting fatter makes you heavier which makes you work harder which makes you fitter. It all makes sense.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (30 Jan 2019)

Maybe we all need to ditch VO2 max and replace it with FatO2 Max.


----------



## beany_bot (30 Jan 2019)

YukonBoy said:


> Getting fatter makes you heavier which makes you work harder which makes you fitter. It all makes sense.


How old are you lot? Acting like giggling little school boys. Pathetic.


----------



## Markymark (30 Jan 2019)




----------



## Ming the Merciless (30 Jan 2019)

beany_bot said:


> How old are you lot? Acting like giggling little school boys. Pathetic.



Well we are not in our prams throwing the toys out.


----------



## mudsticks (30 Jan 2019)

beany_bot said:


> How old are you lot? Acting like giggling little school boys. Pathetic.



I was fifty last year.. 

According to many metrics, that's having crossed the Rubicon, in terms of never having to 'do grown up' if maturity has yet to be achieved... 

Sorry sir


----------



## Dogtrousers (30 Jan 2019)

mudsticks said:


> According to many metrics, that's having crossed the Rubicon, in terms of never having to 'do grown up' if maturity has yet to be achieved...


Really? Wahey. I have nothing to worry about then! (Pulls shirt over head and runs around making aeroplane noises)


----------



## mudsticks (30 Jan 2019)

Dogtrousers said:


> Really? Wahey. I have nothing to worry about then! (Pulls shirt over head and runs around making aeroplane noises)



Great 

You do that too???

Do you sometimes canter about making whinnying noises as well?? 

Or is that just me


----------



## Rickshaw Phil (30 Jan 2019)

Since the OP is clearly not appreciating the humour in the thread it's now time to bring this one to a close.

Move along folks.


----------

