Bike weights.....

[Illaveago]

What are the wheels on your Holdsworth @Illaveago , Maillard; Weinmann?

Fiamm Campag hubs or one is the rear was a replacement.

 

[Tim Hall]

Do you believe this (ie what you say you've read somewhere) and if so, please explain what 'worth 4 times' means in reality, and how that 'worth' presents itself when riding?
If you lost 2kg of weight off your body weight, would you expect your older (2kg heavier) bike similarly to 'feel more responsive'?

The closest I can find is that weight lost from bike wheels costs you up to 4 times as much as weight lost else where as those weight weenie, minimum spoke count wheels are fearsomely expensive. They spin up well though and are incredibly responsive though. <runs away>

 

[nickyboy]

No, I don't generally believe most things I read with regard to improving cycling performance etc, as it's usually to try and sell something. However it's totally conceivable that the best way to shed weight in climbing terms would be from the parts of the bike that actually move. The '4 times' bit though is just something I read, not something I would take as factual.

Here's the deal with rotational mass v non-rotational mass.

If you aren't accelerating, rotational mass has exactly the same effect as non-rotational mass. So, climbing up a hill (I guess you're not accelerating!) a kg of wheel rim mass has exactly the same effect as a kg of, for example, bottom bracket mass

If all your wheel weight was in the rims, the effect of a kg off the wheel mass is about the same as 2kg off the non-rotating mass in terms of effect on your ability to accelerate...very little

The position of the mass on your bike only matters when accelerating or decelerating. Less mass on the rotating bits rather than on the non-rotating bits make acceleration easier (and deceleration less easy). But if you do the maths, unless you're one of those crit riders constantly accelerating and decelerating, the effect is so small as to be virtually unmeasurable. The actual rate of acceleration by a cyclist is glacially slow

 

[Crandoggler]

Buy what's that got to do with the weight of your bike?

You're literally spending thousands of pounds to gain an advantage that having a good clear out and removing your water bottle will achieve.

 

[Lonestar]

I think my bike has put weight on.

 

[Dogtrousers]

To get the bike above the UCI minimum, obviously.

Ah yes, the UCI. They're always nagging me to make my bike heaver.

 

[huwsparky]

You're literally spending thousands of pounds to gain an advantage that having a good clear out and removing your water bottle will achieve.

1. What are you taking about?

2. Why would that bother you IF I or anyone ELSE, did want to spend money on a nice 'lighter' bike?

3. I can't go very far without water so your point is kind of pointless anyway.

4. I suppose I could ditch the multitool, tubes and pump, enough of a 'clear out' for you? I don't know anyone who carries anything on their bike that doesn't need to be there anyway.

A lot of threads on this forum get taken on some complete weird tangent vaguely resembling what is supposed to be about. Why?

 

[Ajax Bay]

threads on this forum get taken on some complete weird tangent vaguely resembling what is supposed to be about. Why?

Because contributors are here to 'chat' - and for this thread (what does your bike weigh?) there are all sorts of 'so whats' and secondary lines of discussion. People even say they've read things, quote them, and then say 'oh no, I don't believe it'. Weird? No. Tangential? Probably. Vaguely resembling a fact? Possibly, but probably not in the case of your quote "weight saved on wheels and tyres is worth 4 times that of the rider/bike weight saving".

 

[Crackle]

Using the square root of inverse snobbery and multiplying by a factor of smug, it's proven that lighter bikes go faster, even when prime weight increases exponentially to the value of pie plus.

 

[Ajax Bay]

Far too chatty and tangential, and as for 'weird', definitely @Crackle

 

[huwsparky]

Because contributors are here to 'chat' - and for this thread (what does your bike weigh?) there are all sorts of 'so whats' and secondary lines of discussion. People even say they've read things, quote them, and then say 'oh no, I don't believe it'. Weird? No. Tangential? Probably. Vaguely resembling a fact? Possibly, but probably not in the case of your quote "weight saved on wheels and tyres is worth 4 times that of the rider/bike weight saving".

I don't think saying that not taking a water bottle or spares is of any contribution to this thread as you have to take them IMO.

Debating weather/what differences lighter wheels etc is of use to the thread as it's about weight, but we've all been taken away from that for some reason and moved on to not taking water bottles to save weight which is not really comparable.

 

[Jody]

A lot of threads on this forum get taken on some complete weird tangent vaguely resembling what is supposed to be about. Why?

Tinterwebz innit.

 

[Jody]

I don't think saying that not taking a water bottle or spares is of any contribution to this thread as you have to take them IMO.

I get the impression 'clear out' meant poo and not removing things from a saddle bag.

Could be wrong though.

 

[Jody]

Back to the OP. My push iron, full suss without tubes and with SPD's comes in at 27lbs

 

[si_c]

Using the square root of inverse snobbery and multiplying by a factor of smug, it's proven that lighter bikes go faster, even when prime weight increases exponentially to the value of pie plus.

In my case weight definitely increases due to pie plus. Usually chips and mushy peas.