Weight

Author
Discussion

williaa68

Original Poster:

1,527 posts

165 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
Please help me understand something. I was having dinner with a friend last night who is about to spend a lot of money on a new bike. One of the reasons was that it is about 2kg lighter than the old one. My friend is a big guy - I would estimate about 95-100kg. In good shape but he certainly could lose weight if he wanted to. I suggested dieting would be cheaper than a new bike but he seems convinced it isn't linear - is it isn't about (weight of bike + rider) but there is a multiplier on the weight of the bike - a bit like unsprung mass on a car used to sell carbon ceramics. Can someone please clarify / explain (or tell me this is BS, which is what it sounds like!). Thanks in advance,

Magic919

14,126 posts

200 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
I presume there was wine with the meal.

944fan

4,962 posts

184 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
BS. When cycling on flat the majority of your power is going to moving the air out of the way. Up hills you are fighting gravity. You and the bike are moving forward as one and your power has to move the entire mass up hill.

If you weigh 60kg then a 2kg bike might make some difference up hills, at 100kg it isn't likely to make much difference.

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
Ask him if he would carry a 25kg backpack for no reason, and whether it would slow him down. It's the same thing as weighing 100kg.

I was in the alps recently doing some kayaking, and the amount of ridiculously fat men in lycra, peddling ridiculously expensive carbon bikes was astonishing. They were all going slowly and sweating their balls off. I could have ridden the same track as them on my bike with the child seat on it.

People should buy the bike they want, because they want it and can afford it, not based on some ridiculous idea that shaving 900g off their existing bike will all of a sudden revolutionise their riding. I would have more respect for them then.

ChrisMCoupe

927 posts

211 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
Whilst I tend to agree with the comments above, 90-100kg is still a big lump to shift up hills and you can't cheat gravity. However, a lighter bike and more specifically, a lighter wheelset, will accelerate quicker feel more lively/snappier on the accents when you jump out the saddle.

At that weight though, he's better off trying to shift some weight off his own frame, this is coming from someone who was 94 and now 84kg (with a 7kg bike wink)

williaa68

Original Poster:

1,527 posts

165 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
Thanks everyone. I've told him to lose 10kg and buy the bike as a reward! And yes, there was the odd glass or two involved in the dinner!

louiebaby

10,651 posts

190 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
Things that help climbing ability in order of priority:
  1. Attitude. JFDI. Rule 5. HTFU. "Shut Up Legs" (etc..)
  2. Personal fitness.
  3. Personal weight.
  4. Bike and ancillaries weight.
However, I totally agree people should get whatever bike they want. However they justify it to themselves or their wives, I really don't care. I just want to see more people on the roads, there's strength in numbers.

I moved from London to Devon, learned to love climbing, and managed to lose about 30 kgs, in the process. I still have about 7 kgs to go, what with currently being 97kgs.

I was the quickest of my pals up every climb of the Devon Classic last weekend, despite being the tallest, heaviest, and riding an old Aluminium Trek noticeably heavier than the Di2 equipped Carbon loveliness my friend has.

MrBarry123

6,025 posts

120 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
hehe

This reminds me of a thread on a cycling forum a few years' back where a bloke was asking for suggestions about whether using carbon instead of aluminium headset spacers would lead to a recognisable weight reduction.

The general consensus - obviously - was "no" and that he'd be better served going to the toilet before leaving for a ride.

louiebaby

10,651 posts

190 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
MrBarry123 said:
hehe

This reminds me of a thread on a cycling forum a few years' back where a bloke was asking for suggestions about whether using carbon instead of aluminium headset spacers would lead to a recognisable weight reduction.

The general consensus - obviously - was "no" and that he'd be better served going to the toilet before leaving for a ride.
Indeed.

I did notice I still had a turbo trainer compatible rear skewer in before the ride, I checked, and the one that came with the wheels was lighter, so that got changed sharpish. wink

944fan

4,962 posts

184 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
I did a half ironman recently. The information on what energy drinks/gels etc that were given out at the race was sketchy at best. I decided I would carry everything I needed, so a bunch of gels in my belt and 4lts of energy drink.

Someone in transition commented that all that weight was going to impact my times. I pointed out that I myself weight 106kg at the time so the extra 4kg was going to make fk all difference. He wasn't convinced and thought I should bin the drinks.

MrBarry123

6,025 posts

120 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
louiebaby said:
Indeed.

I did notice I still had a turbo trainer compatible rear skewer in before the ride, I checked, and the one that came with the wheels was lighter, so that got changed sharpish. wink
laugh

louiebaby

10,651 posts

190 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
944fan said:
Someone in transition commented that all that weight was going to impact my times. I pointed out that I myself weight 106kg at the time so the extra 4kg was going to make fk all difference. He wasn't convinced and thought I should bin the drinks.
The time loss to dehydration / bonking would be way more than the difference the weight will make. Correct decision!

I run Continental Gatorskins Hardshell Double-Hard-bd tyres, mainly because I think the time lost to a puncture is likely to be significantly more than the rolling resistance and weight penalty.

There are folding and non-folding versions though, I got the (lighter) folding ones, obviously. wink

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
Technique is critical too, if you learn how to climb efficiently and effectively, you can offset a few extra kgs you might be carrying compared to a lighter bloke who is just wrenching the bars and always out of the saddle...

lukefreeman

1,492 posts

174 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
944fan said:
I did a half ironman recently. The information on what energy drinks/gels etc that were given out at the race was sketchy at best. I decided I would carry everything I needed, so a bunch of gels in my belt and 4lts of energy drink.

Someone in transition commented that all that weight was going to impact my times. I pointed out that I myself weight 106kg at the time so the extra 4kg was going to make fk all difference. He wasn't convinced and thought I should bin the drinks.
Flat course? Wouldn't worry about weight at all. Only thing that'll make difference is your frontal area and power.

944fan

4,962 posts

184 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
lukefreeman said:
Flat course? Wouldn't worry about weight at all. Only thing that'll make difference is your frontal area and power.
It was rolling, but no big hills. Yeah I knew it wasn't going to make any difference but also knew I wouldn't have to worry about water / energy or electrolytes.

The guy cam across as one of these know it all tossers, had a P5 with Zipp wheels but looked like he could have done with the odd salad every now and then. There is a video on Youtube called "st triathletes say" and he probably stars in that.

Black can man

31,816 posts

167 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
I weigh a tad under 18 stone & i can get up every hill in Surrey . ( barhatch i struggle )


Determination & a will to do it is better that a few 100gms here n there.


Descending with 18 stone is cool though, can't beat gravity ! just wish i was braver.

AyBee

10,522 posts

201 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
Your friend is right, not because of where the weight is lost from, but because everyone loves riding a new bike and nobody likes riding the old heavy one, therefore a new bike will get him out more often and being out more often will help him lose more weight tongue out

yellowjack

17,065 posts

165 months

Wednesday 27th July 2016
quotequote all
2 x 710ml bottles
1 x 500ml lucozade bottle in a pocket
2 x 37g ceral bars
2 x 30g cereal bars

We're over 2kg of added weight right there, without even considering the weight of the bottles themselves, the multi tool, spare tubes, etc. A CO2 dispenser and two cartridges is what? Another 150 to 200 grams maybe. Plus a cable lock and keys for cafe stops, phone, camera, map. We're getting into 3kg to 4kg territory for a self-sufficient all day ride.

I bought a Trek Emonda when my previous bike was written off. I bought an Emonda not because it was marketed as a "light weight climber's weapon" (seriously - that wording was used in the sales blurb), but because I liked it. It's a 7.5kg bike in it's 'undressed' state, but on a century ride day it's probably closer to 10.5kg with all my junk slung on it and stuffed into the seat pack.

The thing is, though, that regardless of how much weight I, or your mate, OP, could easily lose, losing weight is a slow process best done gradually over time. Buying a bike 2kg lighter? That's instant. And permanent. The bike won't gain weight because you didn't ride it for a few weeks, or had a few too many roast dinners. It will ALWAYS be that 2kg lighter than his old one, presuming that it's loaded with all the same kit.

I don't do the 'weight weenie' thing, but if I could afford to I probably would. But even then I'd probably still ride with st-loads of fluids and spares if I was planning a whole day out on rural roads with no idea where the nearest food and bike shops were. If the boy wants to spend his hard-earned on shiny lightweight bikes and bits, let him have at it.

Edited by yellowjack on Wednesday 27th July 13:23

okgo

37,860 posts

197 months

Wednesday 27th July 2016
quotequote all
Most people that weigh 100kg unless they're huge like louiebaby (from memory) could lose 2kg in no time at all.


louiebaby

10,651 posts

190 months

Wednesday 27th July 2016
quotequote all
okgo said:
Most people that weigh 100kg unless they're huge like louiebaby (from memory) could lose 2kg in no time at all.
To be fair, I could too. boxedin

I normally eat really well during the day, have my dinner with the kids at 18:00 and am then hungry again at 21:00. I see more value in the kids having regular, proper family meal times and a positive relationship with food from an early age than me losing a couple of kgs though.

(Also, I'm bloody starving at 18:00 too, after being good all day.)