Cyclist magazine reviews - bike weight, rolling resistence etc

[TimC]

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.

[mattc]

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.

[citoyen]

simply carrying a 50g gel would have saved his bacon.

Unlikely, unless he was carrying the gel inside the frame.

[Samuel D]

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.

[mattc]

Looks like Samuel's memory is better than mine and Citoyen's 

[citoyen]

Looks like Samuel's memory is better than mine and Citoyen's 

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.

[citoyen]

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.

[Biggsy]

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.

[mattc]

Looks like Samuel's memory is better than mine and Citoyen's 

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!

[zigzag]

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 and 2

[citoyen]

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.

[rogerzilla]

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.

[Brucey]

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
 

[rogerzilla]

These 8 grand disc brake road racing bikes weigh the same as my Boardman Team Carbon, and they have shit training tyres 

There must be some heatseekers out there in MAMIL land.

[Asterix, the former Gaul.]

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)

[quixoticgeek]

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

[quixoticgeek]

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

[quixoticgeek]

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

[rogerzilla]

Yes, I've heard of weights being added to reach the UCI minimum for years.

[dim]

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

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Is the rider position identical on both bikes?

[zigzag]

the measuring has gone wrong somewhere, i don't get such a difference between the road and aero tt bikes (measured with power meters)

[mrcharly-YHT]

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.

[Karla]

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.

[De Sisti]

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.