Weight Watching - Worthwhile Worrying?
- Thread starter The History Man
- Start date
- Feedback
- View
Just of to Tewkesbury with SWMBO. Will look for some scales!Quite simply, my Merlin goes like a stabbed rat. It wrings every drop of energy out of you and then says "Is that all you have, puny human?"
It spins up to speed on tarmac faster than my kona work bike. The kona has slicks!
OK some of that is down to the XTR-level bearings on the merlin that the kona plain doesn't have, but the weight has its role too.
It's 20.7lbs with the pace RC31s on, and that's a pretty sturdy build.
It spins up to speed on tarmac faster than my kona work bike. The kona has slicks!
OK some of that is down to the XTR-level bearings on the merlin that the kona plain doesn't have, but the weight has its role too.
It's 20.7lbs with the pace RC31s on, and that's a pretty sturdy build.
doctor-bond
Feature Bike
Riding a heavy bike is like jogging in wellies. Sure, you can do it; it's cheaper, no need for extra kit and you'll burn more calories, but .....
I remain largely unconvinced that a lot of this isn't more about power of suggestion, than anything else. Yes I get the clichés about an ounce off the wheels and a pound off the frame, and all. And I don't doubt there's something in the notion that well built frames have a certain something.cce":kvsu956d said:
All the same, basic laws of science come to play, which is why I lean towards some of this being placebo - how many of those focused on the weight, build and quality of their bikes couldn’t easily stand to lose a few pounds in bodyweight too? Half a stone, maybe, even a stone?
Perhaps that quote by Kate Moss was ill advised for her demographs, but all the same I've always truly felt and demonstrated my best performances in the saddle when I've been on a decent bike, but just as importantly, if not more so, been in my best shape.
For all those who truly feel that a seriously light bike feels like nothing else, in my experience it pales into triviality compared to how being in serious condition feels.
None of that is advocacy of not having any consideration as to the weight of your bike - merely that most of it at least appears somewhat skewed and out of proportion. I'd rather feel at my fittest and fighting weight on a middling weight of bike, than a ways off my best in weight and fitness on some obsessively lightened bike.
Neil":356cm4l9 said:
I've ridden some genuinely awful light bikes, so there's definitely something in what you're saying. I had a cannondale series 3.0. a 3lbish frame and it was rubbish. My Lava dome was infinitely better despite the frame being the best part of 2lb heavier
I also really think that light components generally being expensive ones, often have better bearings etc, and all those tiny bits of less drag add up to give something too.
Chopper the ex Copper
Alpinestars Fan
^+1.
"Light" doesn't automatically mean "good", especially when it's at the expense of efficiency, durability or comfort.
"Light" doesn't automatically mean "good", especially when it's at the expense of efficiency, durability or comfort.
Chopper the ex Copper
Alpinestars Fan
A thought...
If light is so good, why do many racing classes, especially among road racing, having minimum weight limits to prevent people turning up on bikes so weak, so gossamer like, that they present a risk to the rider and other competitors?
Light per se is lovely, but no more lovely than the efficient tranamission of the riders pedalling effort, or a bike that doesn't snap when riding over a bump. This is why bikes tend to be a compromise, with builders trying to achieve the most usable combination of characteristics for a particular price.
I love light bikes, but if 2lbs heavier meant the frame flexes less and my pedal effort is more efficiently transfered to the Tarmac then is probably take the extra 2lbs.
And that's the problem - all things aren't equal, hence there not being a fairly uniform standard for weight, strength and durability for the average bike.
If light is so good, why do many racing classes, especially among road racing, having minimum weight limits to prevent people turning up on bikes so weak, so gossamer like, that they present a risk to the rider and other competitors?
Light per se is lovely, but no more lovely than the efficient tranamission of the riders pedalling effort, or a bike that doesn't snap when riding over a bump. This is why bikes tend to be a compromise, with builders trying to achieve the most usable combination of characteristics for a particular price.
I love light bikes, but if 2lbs heavier meant the frame flexes less and my pedal effort is more efficiently transfered to the Tarmac then is probably take the extra 2lbs.
And that's the problem - all things aren't equal, hence there not being a fairly uniform standard for weight, strength and durability for the average bike.
