What makes a bigger impact on uphill cycling - bike weight or gear ratios?

[Nigelnaturist]

@Citius I don't know 3kg is a lot its 23% or lighter, even losing 3Kg takes some work, I reckon on about 50grms fat weight loss every 50km, so something like 3,000km for a 3kg weight loss with an equal energy intake to expenditure, and thats a conservative figure, changing your diet helps.

 

[Citius]

@Citius I don't know 3kg is a lot its 23% or lighter, even losing 3Kg takes some work, I reckon on about 50grms fat weight loss every 50km, so something like 3,000km for a 3kg weight loss with an equal energy intake to expenditure, and thats a conservative figure, changing your diet helps.

Agreed - it's a large % difference in bike weights, but not a huge % difference in overall (bike + rider) weight. That's what matters, I think...

 

[Debade]

Here is an explanation that I think answers part of your question if not all of it. It seems to say 'both' to me. The more weight, the more rolling resistance, the lower gear that might be required. http://www.explainthatstuff.com/bicycles.html

 

[Nigelnaturist]

Agreed - it's a large % difference in bike weights, but not a huge % difference in overall (bike + rider) weight. That's what matters, I think...

The point I was trying to make is that to lose 3kg is a lot of work, if I stick 3kg on my bike I notice it, not sure I could lose 3kg in weight, I am 6ft and 12st 2lb ish or about 77kgs, I don't do much hill work it being pretty flat here (about 40ft/mile is the usual max, and 35-37ft/mile being the norm) and like I said if I stick 3kgs on the bike I notice it, but if you have low enough gears and can keep turning them you will get up anything, which brings it back to fitness.

 

[Citius]

The point I was trying to make is that to lose 3kg is a lot of work, if I stick 3kg on my bike I notice it, not sure I could lose 3kg in weight, I am 6ft and 12st 2lb ish or about 77kgs, I don't do much hill work it being pretty flat here (about 40ft/mile is the usual max, and 35-37ft/mile being the norm) and like I said if I stick 3kgs on the bike I notice it, but if you have low enough gears and can keep turning them you will get up anything, which brings it back to fitness.

I don't think we're disagreeing though. You may indeed notice 3kg on the bike, but it isn't going to make a significant difference in terms of speed or ability to climb, is the point I'm making. You are right though, losing 3kg off the body is hard work. By the same token, losing 3kg off a typical bike might prove quite expensive..

 

[Fab Foodie]

I think it depends where you're riding.
For me decent gearing trumps bike weight. As stated the difference in overall bike weight as a function of body plus bike is minor. If you live in a hilly area then low gearing is a godsend when you're tired or having an off day. It's funny standing at the top of Ditchling Beacon during the L2B and see expensive superlight carbon bikes being pushed up hill by MAMILS whilsts a lass on a shopping bike with a cheap Shimano Megarange cassette goes twidling by ... (Yes, it really happens).
Weight is only an issue when accelerating or climbing, the rest of the time it's no big deal, in fact the extra inertia can be a slight benefit.
I can't say I notice the extra KG's greatly when I add a loaded saddlebag to my Audax bike.

So, to answer properly:
What are the 2 bikes you are considering?
Where will you be riding?
What kind of surfaces?
How far will you be going?

 

[swansonj]

I would go for the lighter bike it would feel more nimble climbing and 34/32 should climb pretty much anything if you have average fitness

No, no and thrice no (in a friendly and respectful sort of way, of course). That strikes me as probably the view of a fairly experience, probably male, road cyclist. It perpetuates (probably unintentionally, but it propagates it nonetheless) the view that (a) real cyclists push hard gears rather than spin low gears, so no-one really needs low gears and (b) that there is some scale of fitness where climbing "pretty much anything" on 34/32 requires only "average" fitness, so anything less than that is below-average fitness. Both of those may very well be true in road cycling club circles. But there's a whole world of cyclists out there - utility cyclists, tourers, timid beginners, older folk, younger folk - for whom the last thing they need is to be made to feel inadequate about their fitness or struggles with hills, and the last thing they need is to made to feel there's something wrong in appreciating lower gears.

 

[Drago]

The biggest factors are gravity and the gradient of the hill.

 

[Nigelnaturist]

@swansonj I agree, but with the demise of the triple above the Tiagra group-set, where are we heading but towards that, as I mentioned I can gear my bike how I want, it currently sports a 50/38/26 front chainset with a 12-13-14-15-16-17-19-21-24-27 rear cassette, and very nice it is too, however you would need a 34x36 or so to match my low gear, the close group cassette is great for spinning be it up hill or into wind, ever had those days you can't find the right gear into that headwind, its because the gap between the rear gears is to great.

@Drago not if you have the right gear, though I doubt many of us can climb 25% gradients for very long, most I do round here is about 15% which I can easily do on either the 38x24-27 or 26x17-19.

 

[Fab Foodie]

No, no and thrice no (in a friendly and respectful sort of way, of course). That strikes me as probably the view of a fairly experience, probably male, road cyclist. It perpetuates (probably unintentionally, but it propagates it nonetheless) the view that (a) real cyclists push hard gears rather than spin low gears, so no-one really needs low gears and (b) that there is some scale of fitness where climbing "pretty much anything" on 34/32 requires only "average" fitness, so anything less than that is below-average fitness. Both of those may very well be true in road cycling club circles. But there's a whole world of cyclists out there - utility cyclists, tourers, timid beginners, older folk, younger folk - for whom the last thing they need is to be made to feel inadequate about their fitness or struggles with hills, and the last thing they need is to made to feel there's something wrong in appreciating lower gears.

The voice of experience.
I wrote long ago something like 'The macho-bullshit culture of gearing' but I'm going to modify that to 'The macho-bullshit of bike weight and gearing'.
I find it interesting in the pub after club rides etc listening to the banter and the difference in opinions between those who've a long history of cycling compared to the relative newer and born-again guys. It's a triumph of experience over C+/Bike Radar.

 

[Thursday guy]

I think it depends where you're riding.
For me decent gearing trumps bike weight. As stated the difference in overall bike weight as a function of body plus bike is minor. If you live in a hilly area then low gearing is a godsend when you're tired or having an off day. It's funny standing at the top of Ditchling Beacon during the L2B and see expensive superlight carbon bikes being pushed up hill by MAMILS whilsts a lass on a shopping bike with a cheap Shimano Megarange cassette goes twidling by ... (Yes, it really happens).
Weight is only an issue when accelerating or climbing, the rest of the time it's no big deal, in fact the extra inertia can be a slight benefit.
I can't say I notice the extra KG's greatly when I add a loaded saddlebag to my Audax bike.

So, to answer properly:
What are the 2 bikes you are considering?
Where will you be riding?
What kind of surfaces?
How far will you be going?

Heavier bike: http://www.evanscycles.com/products/ridgeback/speed-2014-hybrid-bike-ec059645

Lighter bike: http://www.evanscycles.com/products/pinnacle/neon-two-2015-hybrid-bike-ec054677

I'll riding around the city a few times a week, just for getting to the shops, etc. There are steep hills around though

 

[Citius]

Heavier bike: http://www.evanscycles.com/products/ridgeback/speed-2014-hybrid-bike-ec059645

Lighter bike: http://www.evanscycles.com/products/pinnacle/neon-two-2015-hybrid-bike-ec054677

The Ridgeback has guards, a rack and a steel triple chainset, which probably adds up to 3kg or more. It's also only available in 15", which sounds pretty small. The Pinnacle looks a better bet - and the gearing can always be altered in any case...

 

[bpsmith]

I have about 1kg difference between 2 bikes. One Alu and one Carbon. Both Compact and 11-28. I can climb the same hills faster and with 2 gears to spare on the lighter, carbon bike. Weight certainly makes a difference, along with the stiffer more direct carbon frame.

 

[Dogtrousers]

I'd tend to agree with @Fab Foodie that appropriate (=lower) gearing is higher priority than bike weight but I only say that as something I feel, not a reasoned scientific conclusion.

But as someone who rides a relatively heavy bike with quite low gearing, I would say that, wouldn't I?

(I'd put bike comfort first btw)

Do you care how quickly you get up hills?

 

[Thursday guy]

The Ridgeback has guards, a rack and a steel triple chainset, which probably adds up to 3kg or more. It's also only available in 15", which sounds pretty small. The Pinnacle looks a better bet - and the gearing can always be altered in any case...

The 15'' frame does fit me though (I'm about 5'5''), and if those things add up to 3kg in weight, couldn't I take them off and it'll be the same as the other bike in weight?