Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => The Knowledge => Topic started by: velosam on 16 April, 2016, 07:39:20 pm
-
I have been catching up on some reviews in this particular magazine and I find it astounding that can tell the difference between bikes weighting between 7 and 8kg (or thereabouts). They find some really expensive builds too heavy (my words not theirs) - sluggish up hills etc.
Can they really tell, and does it make a difference to the mere mortal?
-
Put a sufficiently light rider or a power meter on it, and possibly. I think I'd struggle to notice a difference of less than 5kg in bike weight without measuring things, unless it affected the handling.
Otherwise, apply the same hefty dose of sodium chloride that you'd apply to reviews in a Hi-Fi magazine: They can tell it's different, but 'better' is usually subjective.
-
I think most people if they were to pick up a 7kg bike and a 8kg bike, they would be able to tell which bike was lighter.
As for the weight of the bike when you're riding it, well that's the great thing about wheels, they make heavy things easy to push along.
-
Reducing rotating weight will make more difference to ease of handling than reducing frame weight.
I've never tried a really light bike though.
All in all, it's probably better use of your cash to reduce body weight than bike weight.
You'd never manage to get a bike more than 5kg lighter than your current steed...
-
when comparing two heavy bikes 1-2kg difference will be barely noticeable (if at all), but if you take two bikes one of them say 6kg, and another 7.5kg the difference is very obvious, i would even say massive!
-
You'd never manage to get a bike more than 5kg lighter than your current steed...
That rather depends on your current steed...
-
when comparing two heavy bikes 1-2kg difference will be barely noticeable (if at all), but if you take two bikes one of them say 6kg, and another 7.5kg the difference is very obvious, i would even say massive!
Yes. As well as the pure advantage of a light bike vs gravity going uphill, a lighter bike will also have the advantage that it's more chuckable, so if your natural pedalling style involves e.g. throwing the bike from side to side, less of your energy will be damped out by the bike.
-
when comparing two heavy bikes 1-2kg difference will be barely noticeable (if at all), but if you take two bikes one of them say 6kg, and another 7.5kg the difference is very obvious, i would even say massive!
Yes. As well as the pure advantage of a light bike vs gravity going uphill, a lighter bike will also have the advantage that it's more chuckable, so if your natural pedalling style involves e.g. throwing the bike from side to side, less of your energy will be damped out by the bike.
Thanks that is probably what they are referring to. Their price range is in the several thousands, so no chance of a purchase. Anyway I would just ruin it by sticking on marathons lol
-
I think most people if they were to pick up a 7kg bike and a 8kg bike, they would be able to tell which bike was lighter.
As for the weight of the bike when you're riding it, well that's the great thing about wheels, they make heavy things easy to push along.
;D Yay for the invention of the wheel!
Yes of course you could pickup 8kg and tell its >7kg; but by riding it? Hmmm ...
And then in the real world (i.e. not on a magazine photo-shoot) you'd add at least the weight of water-bottle(s), tools, pump etc 1kg gets lost very quickly in that noise.
If you then look what many of us _actually_ ride - with mudguards, lights, some more stuff (like spare clothes and food) attached to the bike; well, the difference between Dura-Ace and Tiagra weight is undetectable by the average bike reviewer.
-
I`d admit to being dubious about it all but it`s worth having a look at some of these youtube
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUdAMlZtaV11LAqXNLDr38oTXh9RuyiRY
Global Cycling network , semi scientific ie done under controlled lab conditions but just a few samples tested; light v heavy bike video 10 worth looking at.
And yes answer from their expt is even 2 kg makes a difference as measured by speed, effort measured and power criterion
-
I think most people if they were to pick up a 7kg bike and a 8kg bike, they would be able to tell which bike was lighter.
As for the weight of the bike when you're riding it, well that's the great thing about wheels, they make heavy things easy to push along.
;D Yay for the invention of the wheel!
Yes of course you could pickup 8kg and tell its >7kg; but by riding it? Hmmm ...
And then in the real world (i.e. not on a magazine photo-shoot) you'd add at least the weight of water-bottle(s), tools, pump etc 1kg gets lost very quickly in that noise.
If you then look what many of us _actually_ ride - with mudguards, lights, some more stuff (like spare clothes and food) attached to the bike; well, the difference between Dura-Ace and Tiagra weight is undetectable by the average bike reviewer.
In my observation these differences are self-enlarging, ie people with heavy bikes don't think twice about carrying lots of stuff round and using M+ or similar, people with light bikes ride with a water bottle and a gel pouch.
-
I believe fairly small differences in weight are genuinely dectable when riding, but when it comes to the detail of frame, wheel and tyre performance, etc., a lot of what journalists write is bullshit from their imagination. Much of it doesn't even make sense.
-
Ride it, enjoy it...regardless of weight and any bike
snobbery that might come. Shouldn't it be that simple?
-
Ride it, enjoy it...regardless of weight and any bike
snobbery that might come. Shouldn't it be that simple?
Depends on whether you're trying to get there as fast / using as little energy as possible, or not.
-
A couple of the Cyclist reviewers have ridden at Elite level, one as a pro. They test the bikes a lot harder than yer average rider and I can well believe are more sensitive than most of us to the nuances of difference between them.
-
I can tell the difference between bikes that are a few pounds lighter or heavier. It's not just the way they go up hills, they ride differently too, especially MTBs. Unless you sit in the saddle like a sack of potatoes, the bike is unsprung weight and your body is sprung weight. It doesn't take much change in bike weight to make a big difference to the ratio of sprung weight to unsprung weight. And heavy bikes are really hard to SPD-hop over things.
Rolling resistance is 99% down to tyres, though, and I wouldn't be put off a bike that was otherwise excellent, seeing as I could fit really good racing tyres for about £50.
-
I can tell the difference between my 11.5kg steel bike and 7.5kg carbon one. If the steel one was 8.5, probably not. Even when I had the 9kg alu bike, it was similar (although you could detect a difference) to the carbon one.
-
A different magazine and something that can't be quantitatively measured, but what the hell does this mean?
The shock absorbers mean that rather than getting rid of the bite of a bump, they just take the edge off it.
http://road.cc/content/review/186770-morgaw-trian
-
It’s magazine-review speak. See Biggsy’s post above.
If you have a clue about technical matters, bicycle reviews are almost unreadable.
Blind tests are more meaningful, but they have the unfortunate tendency to reveal the reviewers to be slightly less discerning (http://www.habcycles.com/m7.html) than they’d like you to think. Hence their rarity.
-
I have a Peugeot 531 from the mid 70s at 10kg; and a Spesh SWorks at 7kg.
Oh yes, there's a difference.
-
You'd never manage to get a bike more than 5kg lighter than your current steed...
Oh I dunno, I lost 5kg off my current steed on Sunday afternoon. I took all Mrs S' gear out the carradice.
-
Bike riding is highly subjective, and you're sitting on the thing all day. Things that have no measurable benefit, such as paint jobs, may well matter, may give pleasure. Likewise knowing you're on a light bike, even if you wouldn't actually detect it 'blind'.
-
Phartiphuckborlz posted to the effect that the weight saving from sawing off the excess length of seat post for a hill climb is good, but the knowledge that you went to that trouble is what really forces you to the top of the hill.
-
I too read these reviews with a whole pot full of sodium chloride. Different bikes do feel different, but it's so subjective, and I find that tyre pressure can make more difference than the frame.
Of course modern bikes are lighter and a bit faster than older ones, but fine differences between two similar modern bikes? Down to preference, I reckon.
I wish we could find a way to give a reviewer a 1950s Hetchins and make him believe he was on a Pinarello Dogma, and vice versa. Or, more revealingly, to believe he was on the Specialized that's 37g lighter when he's actually on the Cube that has their new carbon fibre design with the special weave.
-
The final proof of the pudding is “How many kCals does the rider burn for every mile travelled?”
A light bike, on a hilly route it might be lower than a heavy bike. On a flat course, the heavier bike might be less than the light bike.
What’s agreeable in both cases is the more aerodynamic bike wins over the less aerodynamic bike.
A specific TT bike 1kg heavier than a roadrace bike will win over a flat 10 mile TT course every day.
In a roadrace, if all the riders are travelling at the same speed, the cyclist using the least kCals per mile will also be using the lowest kCals per minute for the group of riders, thereby being the most efficient. A lighter vehicle will be easier to tow in the wash of the group.
In the days when getting a bike less than 18lbs was bordering on mechanical fragility, for a flat course, a heavier and more robust bike was a better option.
The discussion continues.
-
A heavier bike will go down hill easier than a light bike. That's important if you are an ace descender!
-
A heavier bike will go down hill easier than a light bike. That's important if you are an ace descender!
It won't if it's towing a parachute.
( it won't if the rider is wearing a loosefitting jacket and baggy shorts ).
-
It’s magazine-review speak. See Biggsy’s post above.
If you have a clue about technical matters, bicycle reviews are almost unreadable.
Blind tests are more meaningful, but they have the unfortunate tendency to reveal the reviewers to be slightly less discerning (http://www.habcycles.com/m7.html) than they’d like you to think. Hence their rarity.
That bike test is interesting reading! I have often wondered what the test write-ups would be like if the tester rode each bike with all branding and decals removed and no idea what they were on until after the test. Some bikes would still be obvious, Pinarellos for example with their wavy forks and chain stays, and I suspect that is the main reason for them as the "science" behind it seems a bit vague. I am sure that the manufacturers of high-end race bikes would be less keen on this idea than the budget brands, but then I guess I am missing part of the point behind the premium brands.
-
A heavier bike will go down hill easier than a light bike. That's important if you are an ace descender!
Not if it's a twisty descent and you have to steer your heavy battleship of a bike around lots of corners!
-
A heavier bike will go down hill easier than a light bike. That's important if you are an ace descender!
Not if it's a twisty descent and you have to steer your heavy battleship of a bike around lots of corners!
I think what asterix was trying to say was 'if you release the brakes on a heavy bike downhill, it might gain more speed than you expected.'
-
Pharti, you beat me to it, I was going to make the same point...
It depends on the descent (and the rider) but generally, bike handling characteristics are more important on descents than weight.
-
Along with visibility, surface and balls/brain ratio!
-
It's aerodynamics that matters most on descents, followed by sufficient sturdiness that you don't have to worry about the road surface unduly and enough braking to make high speed practical. Once you've got those, the weight takes care of itself.
A sufficiently aerodynamic bike will allow you to carry a meaningful amount of kinetic energy into the next climb, assuming a blind bend, junction or cattle grid doesn't rob you of it at the bottom, at which point that sturdy aerodynamic bike becomes a weight penalty.
Whether you break even depends on the specifics of the route. But you're only going to win if there's minimal climbing, at which point rolling resistance becomes more important.
There's a reason cyclists put up with all that arse pain.
-
There are urban legends about TdF riders being passed lead-filled water bottles at the top of mountains. Then again, Anquetil (I think) used to put his bottle in the back pocket of his jersey on climbs to make the bike lighter ;D
-
Which either reinforces your point about sprung vs unsprung weight, or shows that all those amphetamines gave him a different gravity field!
-
Anqeutil was a hard man and had some slightly unorthodox strategies. "Driest is fastest", he used to say, finishing races totally dehydrated. Standard food after a day's racing was lobsters and champagne.
-
Jean Robic used a lead-filled bidon to win the first post-WW2 Tour de France. The practice was subsequently banned.
-
Avoiding drinking was standard for the 1960s, I thought. The theory being that if you didn't drink, you wouldn't sweat, and sweating lost you energy.
As for the lobsters and champagne, or the preparation for a big race being a pheasant and a woman, he clearly didn't see the point of winning if you couldn't enjoy it. I guess cyclists, at least in France, were a bit like racing drivers back then. And why not?
-
The wonderful Eddy Merckx documentary, La Course en Tête (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hnLjiTzejo), (complete with a brilliant soundtrack of chamber music!) has many crowd scenes with Merckx in the middle, jostled from all angles and having his cap snatched. The people even then treated him like a superhero. People don’t treat anyone like that any more, much less cyclists.
Anquetil must have been seen as a demigod. No wonder it went to his head. But I think the bidon thing was him having a bit of fun with onlookers.
-
I grew up in a house called "Anquetil" !
My father was a cyclist, but insists the house was named before he bought it.
-
Saturday morning, a house somewhere in England, long ago. A small mattc is eating his puffa-puffa rice. His big sister is leafing through Jackie magazine while pretending to eat Shreddies. In strides their father.
Children, together: Good morning, father!
Mr C: Good morning, children. I'm glad to see you both up and ready in time for today's big race. Now, where's your mother?
Mrs C: Here I am, dear! And here's your special breakfast of racing champions. Guinea fowl for stamina, creme caramele for energy, champagne for speed, and a little extra for luck. [Dissolves small white pill in glass of champagne]
And these are for you, kids. Blue for Matty, pink for Mattina. [Gives children large pills from box labelled "Mattheson's Equine Pace Peppers"] I hope to see all three of with medals this afternoon. Lobster and Angel Delight for winners!
Matty: That's not fair, the pink ones are more powerful! Everyone knows that!
Mattina: I want a blue one as well! It's not fair I have to have a pink one just cos I'm a girl!
[Children start fighting. Cereal bowls crash to the floor. Mr C sighs and calmly takes both pink and blue pills, washing them down with a second glass of champagne]
End of Scene 1
-
POTD.
-
Uncanny!
(should I tell him the kids were actually called Eddy and Beryl at that time? Just details, really ... )
-
Uncanny!
(should I tell him the kids were actually called Eddy and Beryl at that time? Just details, really ... )
After the failure of the Merckx's writing career in collaboration with Engels and then the flop of his comedy partnership with Frank Spencer, he finally found success with the famous department store, Merckx & Burton's, offering a unique combination of groceries, men's tailoring and pedal-powered rhubarb-picking machinery.
-
This thread seems to be the most recent weight thread, so I’ll post this here.
The UCI weighed some bicycles after today’s stage at the Giro, to check they were over the 6.8 kg minimum weight limit. This was the queen stage so packed with monstrous climbs. How heavy was the bicycle of Sky’s Henao, a 57 kg specialist climber on the sport’s richest team? 7.320 kg. (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-carry-out-further-checks-for-mechanical-doping-at-the-giro-ditalia/)
A puzzler for the weight weenies!
-
This thread seems to be the most recent weight thread, so I’ll post this here.
The UCI weighed some bicycles after today’s stage at the Giro, to check they were over the 6.8 kg minimum weight limit. This was the queen stage so packed with monstrous climbs. How heavy was the bicycle of Sky’s Henao, a 57 kg specialist climber on the sport’s richest team? 7.320 kg. (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-carry-out-further-checks-for-mechanical-doping-at-the-giro-ditalia/)
A puzzler for the weight weenies!
Extra battery packs? :)
-
I have two 'best' bikes, both about 7.5kg in normal ride trim, and they ride very differently. One is a Boardman SLS carbon machine intended for sportive-style riding (looks like a race bike, but quite upright), the other is a Ritchey ti/carbon mix which, despite being demountable, is firmly of the race-bike persuasion. I'm not very quick, and I'm certainly not light, but I can easily discern differences in tyres, wheels and extra weight on those bikes - and the difference between those and my 11kg Kinesis in full rack'n'mudguard trim is huge, despite that being of very similar geometry to the Ritchey.
So, yes, I can absolutely believe that professional bike testers can tell and describe the differences.
-
So, yes, I can absolutely believe that professional bike testers can tell and describe the differences.
What about a 57 kg professional cyclist in the high mountains, riding for the team that popularised marginal gains? Would he be able to tell the difference?
-
So, yes, I can absolutely believe that professional bike testers can tell and describe the differences.
What about a 57 kg professional cyclist in the high mountains, riding for the team that popularised marginal gains? Would he be able to tell the difference?
Or might his judgement - or that of others in the team - have been that other factors outweighed the potential benefit of losing less than 1% of all-up weight, and the compromises needed to do so?
-
That’s certainly my interpretation, jsabine.
But when a 57 kg climber, riding for a team obsessed with tiny improvements, decides that half a kilogram isn’t worth saving on the most mountainous stage of a grand tour, it reveals how silly it is for far heavier amateurs doing non-competitive riding on flatter roads to worry about weight to the extraordinary extent that they often do. Particularly since the amateur’s many needs – durability, low cost, etc. – are in greater conflict with low bicycle weight than Henao’s.
-
So, yes, I can absolutely believe that professional bike testers can tell and describe the differences.
What about a 57 kg professional cyclist in the high mountains, riding for the team that popularised marginal gains? Would he be able to tell the difference?
I'm sure he can. Whether he thinks the difference is important is another matter. And whether there were other gains from the equipment used that were more important than the weight penalty might skew the equation.
-
That’s certainly my interpretation, jsabine.
But when a 57 kg climber, riding for a team obsessed with tiny improvements, decides that half a kilogram isn’t worth saving on the most mountainous stage of a grand tour, it reveals how silly it is for far heavier amateurs doing non-competitive riding on flatter roads to worry about weight to the extraordinary extent that they often do. Particularly since the amateur’s many needs – durability, low cost, etc. – are in greater conflict with low bicycle weight than Henao’s.
I'm always cautious to leap to conclusions from 1 data point, but this does look pretty damning for the weight weenies.
(There could be other explanations - e.g. some sort of cock-up that day by Sky.)
Of course Chris Froome may also be guilty - he got fined last year (IIRC), when simply carrying a 50g gel would have saved his bacon.
-
simply carrying a 50g gel would have saved his bacon.
Unlikely, unless he was carrying the gel inside the frame.
-
I’ve never heard of a Sky rider (or anyone, frankly), falling foul of the 6.8 kg limit. Mattc may be referring to the incident, not last year but three years ago, when Porte illegally gave gels to Froome in the last few kilometres of a stage after Froome bonked. But Froome wasn’t trying to save weight there; Sky just messed up. (Well, okay, Froome could ride every race with a three-course dinner in a pannier if he really wasn’t trying to save weight, but you know what I mean.)
It’s less likely that Sky messed up the weight of Henao’s bicycle. Every time the pros’ bicycles are weighed, many of them are well over the 6.8 kg minimum. Plenty are nearer 8 kg. Bicycle weight just doesn’t matter as much in reality as in the popular imagination. That isn’t to say it’s unimportant or that large weight differences (e.g. 5 kg) don’t make a meaningful difference. But amateurs worrying about the weight of their saddle or cassette, which is common in my experience, are probably better off worrying if it’s otherwise suitable.
-
Looks like Samuel's memory is better than mine and Citoyen's :thumbsup:
-
Looks like Samuel's memory is better than mine and Citoyen's :thumbsup:
I have no idea whether or not the incident you mention occurred, my point was that carrying a gel would make no difference anyway since a) bike is weighed without rider, and b) ballast is forbidden.
But I expect you weren't being serious about the gel anyway so ignore me.
-
Bicycle weight just doesn’t matter as much in reality as in the popular imagination.
Try telling that to Rafal Majka*, who rode today's Giro hill-climb TT with an unpainted frame!
*At least, I think it was Majka. Or might have been Zakarin. Certainly wasn't Kruiswijk though.
-
But when a 57 kg climber, riding for a team obsessed with tiny improvements, decides that half a kilogram isn’t worth saving on the most mountainous stage of a grand tour, it reveals how silly it is for far heavier amateurs doing non-competitive riding on flatter roads to worry about weight to the extraordinary extent that they often do. Particularly since the amateur’s many needs – durability, low cost, etc. – are in greater conflict with low bicycle weight than Henao’s.
The fact that pro bikes aren't always as light as they can legally be confirms what we all already know, that other things are more important in certain cases, like improving aerodynamics*, stiffness, comfort and functionality. It doesn't mean there's no point in the amateur saving small amounts of weight when it doesn't much spoil anything else. Their goal is for the multiple small amounts to eventually add up to significant totals, and they get a sense of satisfaction from doing what they can to optimise their bikes along the way. You don't have to take it terribly seriously. It's only the most extreme weight weeny who doesn't care about anything else.
* Even for professional climbing bikes to a modest extent, given how fast they are ridden even up hill.
-
Looks like Samuel's memory is better than mine and Citoyen's :thumbsup:
I have no idea whether or not the incident you mention occurred, my point was that carrying a gel would make no difference anyway since a) bike is weighed without rider, and b) ballast is forbidden.
But I expect you weren't being serious about the gel anyway so ignore me.
Froome didnt break the minimum weight rules - it was receiving the food that was verboten. [I suggest you google this rather bizarre incident if in doubt ;) ]
This has a tenuous (but valid) connection to the Subject On The Card, so - if the panel will permit it - I propose to:
- award myself 1 Debating Point, and
- move the discussion to more solid ground. (If possible.).
Good day Sir!
-
aerodynamics is almost always* more important than weight. it's fairly obvious from comparing my two recent rides** on the same loop, done on an audax bike and on a tt bike which is 1kg heavier - lower heart rate and still 1kph faster. aero wheels and tight kit would add another kph i believe.
*except for the steep climbs
** 1 (https://www.strava.com/activities/582446315) and 2 (https://www.strava.com/activities/584186689)
-
Froome didnt break the minimum weight rules - it was receiving the food that was verboten.
Ah, I think I understand your point now... I thought you were suggesting that carrying a 50g gel would have taken him over the 6.8kg weight limit. Which would be a preposterous idea even by your standards. ;)
It is quite possible that he wasn't carrying enough food because he wanted to reduce weight though, I'll grant you that, although his argument at the time was that the team car had a mechanical problem so he couldn't get the food at the foot of the climb, where it would have been legal.
-
I bought the current copy of this and read it, so you don't have to. Preposterous bike porn, cover-to-cover. FFS, there are only two things that really make a difference to how a road bike goes, and that's weight and tyre choice. I'd take a skip-found Raleigh 10-speed with Vredestein Fortezzas over a £3000 carbon bike with crappy training tyres on a flat route, and on a hilly route I don't care what it's made of as long as it's as much under 20lb as possible. What's the point in little aerodynamic tweaks on a bike with dropped bars (invariably ridden on the hoods 99% of the time these days) and a hairy monkey sitting on it?
There is an article on how to look good in a helmet and how to co-ordinate it with the rest of your gear. I'm not sure if it's a joke. I don't think it is.
The whole disc brake thing on road racing bikes (Cyclist of full of them) bemuses me. The pros use calipers and it's just the manufacturers that seem to be pushing discs. It's not as if rim wear is much of a problem on something used for summer racing and, as well as extra weight from unnecessary components, you have the problem of needing to beef up spindly race forks and stays just to take the brake forces. I can see the point on MTBs ridden in the mud, on all-weather commuters1 and *maybe* on touring bikes and tandems, but not on a greyhound racing bike.
1I went through a DT front rim in 18 months once. The rear lasted about six months.
-
I believe fairly small differences in weight are genuinely dectable when riding, but when it comes to the detail of frame, wheel and tyre performance, etc., a lot of what journalists write is bullshit from their imagination. Much of it doesn't even make sense.
Correct. I don't bother reading bike magazines any more. Most of the reviews either make me laugh or make me angry depending on my frame of mind at the time.
The thing which is most useful to bear in mind is that whilst the average bike magazine may appear to be for the benefit of the cyclist, it actually exists for the benefit of the publishers and advertisers. If that means employing lazy/incompetent journalists to write drivel, that'll be what will happen....
cheers
-
These 8 grand disc brake road racing bikes weigh the same as my Boardman Team Carbon, and they have shit training tyres ;D
There must be some heatseekers out there in MAMIL land.
-
when comparing two heavy bikes 1-2kg difference will be barely noticeable (if at all), but if you take two bikes one of them say 6kg, and another 7.5kg the difference is very obvious, i would even say massive!
Yes. As well as the pure advantage of a light bike vs gravity going uphill, a lighter bike will also have the advantage that it's more chuckable, so if your natural pedalling style involves e.g. throwing the bike from side to side, less of your energy will be damped out by the bike.
A long time ago I received a compliment from a guy who was an ace sportsman(international level) and was taking up cycling for fitness.
We went out cycling a few times and he said I had a very efficient style because I didn't chuck the bike around. He was one of those people who are naturals at the sports I am useless at, i.e. anything involving a ball, so I was rather pleased!
(I often wonder what happened to him, he went to the USA years ago and is/was of Muslim background)
-
Put a sufficiently light rider or a power meter on it, and possibly. I think I'd struggle to notice a difference of less than 5kg in bike weight without measuring things, unless it affected the handling.
Otherwise, apply the same hefty dose of sodium chloride that you'd apply to reviews in a Hi-Fi magazine: They can tell it's different, but 'better' is usually subjective.
Having recently discovered someone on a hifi forum claiming one version of memcpy() in the programming library sounded better than another version, I'm willing to say that hifi people will claim to be able to spot the difference in anything... Hifi quality ethernet cable anyone?
J
-
You'd never manage to get a bike more than 5kg lighter than your current steed...
Depends on the steed. My current steed is a Brompton M16R, it tops the scales at ~18kg. The new bike I'm looking at, the Genesis Croix de fer, or the Genesis Vagabond are between 11 and 12kg. That's over 5kg difference.
J
-
Surely the "does weight matter" thing is one of the easiest things you can test at home? Get a non transparent water bottle, that you can't see through, and get your partner to either fill it, or leave it empty, but not tell you. Stick that on the bike, do a 10k circuit. Recover, do the same circuit with the contents of the bottle inverted (fill if empty, emptied if filled). See if you notice the 500g difference...
There is a GCN video where they add 2kg to a bike and do controlled runs up a climb, to see what the difference is. Can't remember what the result was off the top of my head. But worth a watch.
There's comments about amateurs worrying about 50g on their cassette, or saddle etc... If you have a bike with 20 components, and you can find 50g saving on each one, you have saved 1kg. I find this with Ultralight Hiking. Sure I'm only saving 50g here, or 100g there, but over all I've gone from 16kg to 5kg, so it's been worth it.
On the disk brake thing, I'm a complete convert to them. Allows me to change wheels/tyres around a lot easier, The flexibility is worth any weight penalty as far as I'm concerned.
Dunno if it applies to high level pro bikes, but in things like Formula 1, they cars actually come in under the weight limit as standard, and so the teams add weight in certain places to move the balance around and improve handling. Can the pro's do this?
J
-
Yes, I've heard of weights being added to reach the UCI minimum for years.
-
so ....
I have 2 reasonably good bikes .... a Giant TCR and a Specialized S-Works transition E5
The Giant is full carbon with standard Giant wheels and 105 groupset
The S-Works is an aluminium frame, with carbon fiorks, carbon seatpost, carbon handlebars etc and has a Campagnolo Chorus Groupset
the S-Works is more than a kg lighter than the TCR ....
but the TCR is 3km/hr faster than the S-Works using the same tyres, the same effort and the same wind conditions.... and I've tested both bikes over the same coures with the same conditions over a long period
bottom line..... the TCR is a fast bike .... I need to try this bike with a pair of Specialized Turbo Cotton tyres and later upgrade the wheels
-
Is the rider position identical on both bikes?
-
the measuring has gone wrong somewhere, i don't get such a difference between the road and aero tt bikes (measured with power meters)
-
so ....
I have 2 reasonably good bikes .... a Giant TCR and a Specialized S-Works transition E5
The Giant is full carbon with standard Giant wheels and 105 groupset
The S-Works is an aluminium frame, with carbon fiorks, carbon seatpost, carbon handlebars etc and has a Campagnolo Chorus Groupset
the S-Works is more than a kg lighter than the TCR ....
but the TCR is 3km/hr faster than the S-Works using the same tyres, the same effort and the same wind conditions.... and I've tested both bikes over the same coures with the same conditions over a long period
bottom line..... the TCR is a fast bike .... I need to try this bike with a pair of Specialized Turbo Cotton tyres and later upgrade the wheels
You are saying that the full aero bike is much slower than the non aero frame?
I strongly suspect something is very wrong with your riding position on the aero bike. You are obviously getting more power out when riding the giant.
-
Is the rider position identical on both bikes?
Given that the TCR is a road bike and the Transition is a TT bike, I strongly suspect not.
-
a lot of what journalists write is bullshit ......... Much of it doesn't even make sense.
Most of the reviews either make me laugh or make me angry ......
The thing which is most useful to bear in mind is that whilst the average bike magazine may appear to be for the benefit of the cyclist, it actually exists for the benefit of the publishers and advertisers. If that means employing lazy/incompetent journalists to write drivel, that'll be what will happen....
I agree.
-
Froome didnt break the minimum weight rules - it was receiving the food that was verboten.
Ah, I think I understand your point now... I thought you were suggesting that carrying a 50g gel would have taken him over the 6.8kg weight limit. ...
I knew Froome had low body fat, but hadn't realised he was that light;)
Oh yes, the reviews are largely nonsense. Anyone with a vaguely technical perspective will laugh or cry, but just remember that their job is to sell stuff
-
Is the rider position identical on both bikes?
Given that the TCR is a road bike and the Transition is a TT bike, I strongly suspect not.
You understand why I asked the question. If anything, the speed difference should have been the other way.
-
so ....
I have 2 reasonably good bikes .... a Giant TCR and a Specialized S-Works transition E5
The Giant is full carbon with standard Giant wheels and 105 groupset
The S-Works is an aluminium frame, with carbon fiorks, carbon seatpost, carbon handlebars etc and has a Campagnolo Chorus Groupset
the S-Works is more than a kg lighter than the TCR ....
but the TCR is 3km/hr faster than the S-Works using the same tyres, the same effort and the same wind conditions.... and I've tested both bikes over the same coures with the same conditions over a long period
bottom line..... the TCR is a fast bike .... I need to try this bike with a pair of Specialized Turbo Cotton tyres and later upgrade the wheels
You are saying that the full aero bike is much slower than the non aero frame?
I strongly suspect something is very wrong with your riding position on the aero bike. You are obviously getting more power out when riding the giant.
forgot to say, the specialized transition has normal bars (not time trial bars:)
(http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/QSwAAOSwol5Y4Ruw/s-l1600.jpg)
The Giant TCR is also an aero frame:
(https://dgtzuqphqg23d.cloudfront.net/1t8e6dB6QrrZg9bq-kya09lcyjzmba06VsPXBSUdyj4-2048x1536.jpg)
-
The work you do in cycling up hill relates to the weight of the bike+rider+ kit. In my case saving a Kilo would be a 1% change so I doubt I would notice. That percentage change would be different if I was a skinny racing snake rather than 6 foot and 14 stone or if the weight saving on the bike was several KG's. The 1st factor requires more will power and the 2nd deeper pockets.
-
to me the bike setup (and thus riding positions) look different enough to cause a significant difference in power output. I doubt very much that you will be equally comfortable on both machines.
cheers