Author Topic: Cyclist magazine reviews - bike weight, rolling resistence etc  (Read 7770 times)

Re: Cyclist magazine reviews - bike weight, rolling resistence etc
« Reply #25 on: April 20, 2016, 08:55:49 am »
A heavier bike will go down hill easier than a light bike.  That's important if you are an ace descender!
Sic transit and all that..

Re: Cyclist magazine reviews - bike weight, rolling resistence etc
« Reply #26 on: April 20, 2016, 10:20:57 am »
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 ).

Re: Cyclist magazine reviews - bike weight, rolling resistence etc
« Reply #27 on: April 20, 2016, 10:54:45 am »
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.

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.

Karla

  • car(e) free
    • Lost Byway - around the world by bike
Re: Cyclist magazine reviews - bike weight, rolling resistence etc
« Reply #28 on: April 20, 2016, 12:04:17 pm »
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!

Re: Cyclist magazine reviews - bike weight, rolling resistence etc
« Reply #29 on: April 20, 2016, 12:15:26 pm »
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.'

citoyen

  • Cat 6 Racer
Cyclist magazine reviews - bike weight, rolling resistence etc
« Reply #30 on: April 20, 2016, 12:19:28 pm »
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.

Cudzoziemiec

  • Waking up now, put the kettle on!
Re: Cyclist magazine reviews - bike weight, rolling resistence etc
« Reply #31 on: April 20, 2016, 12:54:55 pm »
Along with visibility, surface and balls/brain ratio!
I do not ride a great big Mercian, gangster tanwalls, fixed cog in the back.

Kim

  • Timelord
Re: Cyclist magazine reviews - bike weight, rolling resistence etc
« Reply #32 on: April 20, 2016, 01:08:32 pm »
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.
Careful, Kim. Your sarcasm's showing...

Re: Cyclist magazine reviews - bike weight, rolling resistence etc
« Reply #33 on: April 20, 2016, 04:19:36 pm »
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
Never tell me the odds.

Cudzoziemiec

  • Waking up now, put the kettle on!
Re: Cyclist magazine reviews - bike weight, rolling resistence etc
« Reply #34 on: April 20, 2016, 04:22:12 pm »
Which either reinforces your point about sprung vs unsprung weight, or shows that all those amphetamines gave him a different gravity field!
I do not ride a great big Mercian, gangster tanwalls, fixed cog in the back.

Re: Cyclist magazine reviews - bike weight, rolling resistence etc
« Reply #35 on: April 20, 2016, 04:39:38 pm »
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.
Never tell me the odds.

LittleWheelsandBig

  • Whimsy Rider
Re: Cyclist magazine reviews - bike weight, rolling resistence etc
« Reply #36 on: April 20, 2016, 04:42:59 pm »
Jean Robic used a lead-filled bidon to win the first post-WW2 Tour de France. The practice was subsequently banned.
Wheel meet again, don't know where, don't know when...

Cudzoziemiec

  • Waking up now, put the kettle on!
Re: Cyclist magazine reviews - bike weight, rolling resistence etc
« Reply #37 on: April 20, 2016, 05:32:25 pm »
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?
I do not ride a great big Mercian, gangster tanwalls, fixed cog in the back.

Samuel D

Re: Cyclist magazine reviews - bike weight, rolling resistence etc
« Reply #38 on: April 20, 2016, 06:56:33 pm »
The wonderful Eddy Merckx documentary, La Course en Tête, (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.

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: Cyclist magazine reviews - bike weight, rolling resistence etc
« Reply #39 on: April 20, 2016, 08:31:01 pm »
I grew up in a house called "Anquetil" !

My father was a cyclist, but insists the house was named before he bought it.
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

Cudzoziemiec

  • Waking up now, put the kettle on!
Re: Cyclist magazine reviews - bike weight, rolling resistence etc
« Reply #40 on: April 21, 2016, 11:14:17 am »
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
I do not ride a great big Mercian, gangster tanwalls, fixed cog in the back.

Re: Cyclist magazine reviews - bike weight, rolling resistence etc
« Reply #41 on: April 21, 2016, 01:03:38 pm »
POTD.

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: Cyclist magazine reviews - bike weight, rolling resistence etc
« Reply #42 on: April 21, 2016, 01:15:57 pm »
Uncanny!

(should I tell him the kids were actually called Eddy and Beryl at that time? Just details, really ... )
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

Cudzoziemiec

  • Waking up now, put the kettle on!
Re: Cyclist magazine reviews - bike weight, rolling resistence etc
« Reply #43 on: April 21, 2016, 01:30:02 pm »
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.
I do not ride a great big Mercian, gangster tanwalls, fixed cog in the back.

Samuel D

Re: Cyclist magazine reviews - bike weight, rolling resistence etc
« Reply #44 on: May 22, 2016, 01:25:55 am »
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.

A puzzler for the weight weenies!

Morat

  • I tried to HTFU but something went ping :(
Re: Cyclist magazine reviews - bike weight, rolling resistence etc
« Reply #45 on: May 22, 2016, 09:45:52 am »
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.

A puzzler for the weight weenies!

Extra battery packs? :)
Tandem Stoker, CX bike abuser (slicks and tarmac) and owner of a sadly neglected MTB.

TimC

  • Bike pilot
Re: Cyclist magazine reviews - bike weight, rolling resistence etc
« Reply #46 on: May 22, 2016, 10:15:52 am »
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.

Samuel D

Re: Cyclist magazine reviews - bike weight, rolling resistence etc
« Reply #47 on: May 22, 2016, 11:47:53 am »
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?

Re: Cyclist magazine reviews - bike weight, rolling resistence etc
« Reply #48 on: May 22, 2016, 12:13:57 pm »
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?

Samuel D

Re: Cyclist magazine reviews - bike weight, rolling resistence etc
« Reply #49 on: May 22, 2016, 12:28:11 pm »
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.