Cyclist magazine reviews - bike weight, rolling resistence etc

[velosam]

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?

[Kim]

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.

[hubner]

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.

[hellymedic]

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...

[zigzag]

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!

[Kim]

You'd never manage to get a bike more than 5kg lighter than your current steed...

That rather depends on your current steed...

[Karla]

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. 

[velosam]

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

[mattc]

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.

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.

[jamesld8]

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

[Cudzoziemiec]

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.

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.

[Biggsy]

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.

[nuovo_record]

Ride it, enjoy it...regardless of weight and any bike
snobbery that might come. Shouldn't it be that simple?

[Kim]

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.

[citoyen]

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.

[rogerzilla]

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.

[menthel]

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.

[Cudzoziemiec]

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

[Samuel D]

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 than they’d like you to think. Hence their rarity.

[Ningishzidda]

I have a Peugeot 531 from the mid 70s at 10kg; and a Spesh SWorks at 7kg.

Oh yes, there's a difference.

[Si S]

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.

[frankly frankie]

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'.

[Cudzoziemiec]

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.

[drossall]

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.

[Ningishzidda]

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.