# Preaching to the choir? ( long)



## Gnarly 928 (Nov 19, 2005)

We have all been told (endlessly)..."Taking weight from your bike is not very effective" You know the condescending jerks I have in mind. "Don't waste your money getting light expensive components and bikes, just work on your fitness"..Or "One pound off your bike is just...One pound off your total weight of 1XXlbs, an insignificant percentage of the total"

As I was climbing, out of the saddle on my fairly light Look yesterday, I started thinking about how much better it works than my slightly (%-wise of the total bike/rider package) heavier "retro" custom steel frame..Then, it occurred to me it was similar to one of my other aerobic excercise hobbies..rowing..

I've built a bunch of sliding seat rowing boats and plenty of high performance oars...Now, the difference in the weight of the oars...that is a huge factor in how effectivly you move yourself across the water...but as a percentage of the whole package...you, the boat, the seat and hardware, etc...Oar weight is not much... I think comparing a set of superlight oars to a superlight weight-weenie bike might make a nay-sayer pause and think...

As I was climbing, I was tossing the bike back and forth, to effectivly get my muscles into play, etc. That was when it struck me..the wheels are pushing against the pavement just like an oar blade 'pushes' against the water..but you need to move the end that is attached to the human for each stroke...pedal or oar..If your oar or bike is lighter, it won't make each 'stroke' any stronger, but it will make a big difference in how much energy you spend getting your equipment properly positioned to make each and every stroke.

I read somewhere that in the past before great riders had 'water-boys' and domistics, they would take their bottles off the frame and stuff em into thier jersey pockets during long hard climbs...No overall weight reduction, but less weight to 'push' back and forth with the bike itself...Kinda like my 15lb Look as compared to the 21lb Columbus custom..

So thinking again back to the rowing...a really good oar might weigh (using imaginary numbers, it has been a few years since I did any rowing) 2-3lbs and a crappy one might be 10lbs..Over all, not a large percentage of your total weight, but huge when you have to move it over and over, even if it just 'dips into the water and holds" as you pull yourself across the surface of the lake or whatever...similar to the bike tire that just grips the pavment while you pull yourself over the road...

Ramble, ramble...
Don Hanson


----------



## Forrest Root (Dec 22, 2006)

The point is what?


----------



## JohnnyChance (Dec 13, 2006)

Forrest Root said:


> The point is what?



that even though a a bikes weight is a small percentage when considering bike+rider total weight, you benefit from a lighter bike because of the way you actually ride the bike.


----------



## Juanmoretime (Nov 24, 2001)

Forrest Root said:


> The point is what?


Duh! If your going to take a set of oars with you on your bike make it a light set.

Don, I frequently am the butt of jokes about my weight obsession with both me and my bikes, neither have much that can be further trimmed without removing and leaving of parts. I find wheels to be the most noticable of parts when going lighter but I do notice the overall bike difference too. What I generally find is quicker acceleration and the bike just seem to react much quicker to respond to any input. More nimble? Let the flaming begin but I find great enjoyment and have noticed great differences when I took my Vortex from a 17 lb bike to a 12.73 lb bike and did it in stages. I can also tell the difference between climbing on my lightest clinchers verses my lightest tubulars. The tubulars are the better climbing wheelset and weigh over 300 grams less than the clinchers.


----------



## midlife_xs's (Jun 18, 2004)

If weight is not a factor, why would the Tour de France people put a limit on the weight of the bike? They must have a reason.


----------



## Forrest Root (Dec 22, 2006)

midlife_xs's said:


> If weight is not a factor, why would the Tour de France people put a limit on the weight of the bike? They must have a reason.


Not necessarily. And it's not the TdF people that have the limit. The limit is a UCI rule. There's no sense in the rule, now, especially since virtually all of the bikes on the ProTour are built to avoid coming in under the limit.

If the rules makers were really concerned about performance advantages as a result of weight, bike weight would be scaled/penalized according to rider weight since rider weight differences are far greater.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

I think body weight is more important than bike weight because of the metabolic costs of keeping the excess alive. BUT no matter how much I exercise or how much I eat my bike doesn't gain weight and if I spend some money it can still lose weight.

It's really just like the bozos who say you lose more weight going to the bathroom than buying a new part but ignore that you can do both. Sure body weight is more important by a small margin but that doesn't make the bike weight meaningless.

The only downside I can think of with a very light bike, other than the cost, is that if you aren't fast enough or light enough the bike will become terribly embarrassed about having you on board. I believe that may be the root cause of the spontaneous carbon bike explosions that are talked about on RBR.


----------



## JacksonDodge (Mar 26, 2006)

midlife_xs's said:


> If weight is not a factor, why would the Tour de France people put a limit on the weight of the bike? They must have a reason.



The UCI weight limit is based more on rider safety than performance


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

*Analogy*



terzo rene said:


> It's really just like the bozos who say you lose more weight going to the bathroom than buying a new part but ignore that you can do both. Sure body weight is more important by a small margin but that doesn't make the bike weight meaningless.


I think you missed the point of the analogy. You're right, any mass, regardless of where it is (bike, body, wheels, etc.) matters, and makes up a part of the total equation. The "lose more weight going the bathroom" analogy isn't meant to address that any reduction in mass matters, but rather the rider's perception of the change in performance. You often hear riders saying things like, "I just got lighter wheels, and boy can I accelerate faster!" - but even if the reduction in mass from going to the bathroom is identical, how often you hear anyone saying something like, "I just when to the bathroom, and boy can I accelerate faster!"

A full larger water bottle weighs nearly 1 kg. And yet, people will talk about how much better their bike handles when they change to a frame that weighs 1 kg less, and not even say anything at all about the difference between having a waterbottle or not having a waterbottle.

In bicyclesl just like everywhere else, people's perceptions are largely influenced by their expectations.


----------



## HammerTime-TheOriginal (Mar 29, 2006)

JacksonDodge said:


> The UCI weight limit is based more on rider safety than performance


The lead weights added to get bikes up to 6.8 kg contribute quite a bit to safety.


----------



## filtersweep (Feb 4, 2004)

Let me fix this for you:

In bicyclesl just like everywhere else, people's perceptions are largely influenced by HOW MUCH THEY SPENT.



Mark McM said:


> In bicyclesl just like everywhere else, people's perceptions are largely influenced by their expectations.


----------



## rogger (Aug 19, 2005)

An oar is several meters in length and the pivot point is right beside you leaving, yet again, several meters outboard. You tell me where you get that kind of leverage on a bike.


----------



## Gnarly 928 (Nov 19, 2005)

*Roll eyes..*



rogger said:


> An oar is several meters in length and the pivot point is right beside you leaving, yet again, several meters outboard. You tell me where you get that kind of leverage on a bike.


 "Several meters" and "Right beside you" Mmmmm...


Lessee, on a bike you have some large wheels.. moving you maybe about 85" per revolution. You have a little short crank on which your feet revolve perhaps 40" per revolution..Then you have some gears that change the amount of inches you can move the bike per revolution of your feet. Probably up to several meters...(grin) Similar leverage..

Back to the oars..When rowing a dingy or a rubber-duckey raft, it is about like riding a tricycle..
When you get into a lightweight rowing scull with a sliding seat, it is very much like riding a nice road bike...The pivot point of the oars are way out (on "outriggers") away from your hands, and your hands move much further than just in and out in front of your chest..

But the whole analogy that occured to me, it came from me standing on the pedals, 'rowing' my way up a climb. Moving the bike from side to side to side as I also climbed and moved my body uphill..You have to move the bike sideways, too, when climbing, move it side to side in order to best apply your force to the road..If it is a heavy bike, you don't get more force to the road. If it is a light bike, you don't get more force to the road, either...But you certainly get more tired tossing a heavy bike back and forth..

Back to the rowing shell and the oars...You don't have to lift the oars, but you have to move em back and forth to apply motive force to you and the water..You have to row and row and row..each time, every ounce of oar has to swing back and forth..A light oar isn't gonna give you more force per stroke, but you will probably be happier at the end of your workout.

.A lb or two off the "implement" that you must move repeatedly to provide motive force is BIG..A lb or two off whole package is less significant..Thats all.
Don Hanson


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

The oars on a boat are like the crank arms on a bike...

Removing a pound from a bike is like removing a pound from the boat.


----------



## CoLiKe20 (Jan 30, 2006)

JacksonDodge said:


> The UCI weight limit is based more on rider safety than performance


UCI mandate this rule b/c technology will continue to make bikes faster. UCI wants the sport to be more about human atheleticism than about technological advances. So when bike technology gets better, the bike is "restricted" to a certain weight/performance.


----------



## Gnarly 928 (Nov 19, 2005)

*more rambling..Long and not much bike content..*

A full larger water bottle weighs nearly 1 kg. And yet, people will talk about how much better their bike handles when they change to a frame that weighs 1 kg less, and not even say anything at all about the difference between having a waterbottle or not having a waterbottle. (quoted)

Actually, the "water bottle as mass " issue is relative to this topic. I recall reading about a fanatic Euro-climber or two who always took their water bottles out of the frame and stuck it into their jersey pockets before doing a difficult climb...Because they thought that having to 'row it' back and forth while climbing up an alpine pass was wasting energy. Which is what I was thinking. 

Sure, your total mass will be equal (bottle in cage-bottle in jersey..no difference) It *is* probably less expensive to drop a few lbs from your body (your center of mass)...But if you must have the weight and you can take the hypothetical weight off the bike and stick it back into your center of mass, like the pros and the water bottles, you will ride faster..
Aww crap! I didn't say that exactly right...

Another analogy..Sail Boat racing...Two boat with the same weight, same sail area, same shapes, same crew skills, same wind. The one that has it's mass more centralized will sail more effectivly, given the same energy input. Many factors involved, but one of the larger factors yacht designers take into account is "moment of inertia"...An extra pound at the top of the mast is HUGE..an extra lb at the base of the keel is nothing..An anchor or a crewman up on the very bow of the boat moves up and down a long way, maybe thousands of times per mile, sapping energy through inertia. So racing yachts are built with carbon fiber ends, mylar sails..all kinds of expensive materials to reduce the moment of inertia. Same total mass moving, but with the mass centralized better, it moves more effectivly.. A couple of hunderd lbs off the total weight of the yacht isn't very important..but if you take a couple of hundred lbs out of the ends of the boat and re-locate it into the center...it goes better..lots better..


Don Hanson


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

*Poor reasoning*



Gnarly 928 said:


> Actually, the "water bottle as mass " issue is relative to this topic. I recall reading about a fanatic Euro-climber or two who always took their water bottles out of the frame and stuck it into their jersey pockets before doing a difficult climb...Because they thought that having to 'row it' back and forth while climbing up an alpine pass was wasting energy. Which is what I was thinking.


What perceptions (or pre-conceptions) a pro racer might have and what the reality is may be completely different. There are a lot of things that pro racers have rejected as foolish (at least originally) that turned out be advantageous, and a lot of things pro racers thought were advantageous that turned out to make no difference.



Gnarly 928 said:


> Another analogy..Sail Boat racing...Two boat with the same weight, same sail area, same shapes, same crew skills, same wind. The one that has it's mass more centralized will sail more effectivly, given the same energy input. Many factors involved, but one of the larger factors yacht designers take into account is "moment of inertia"...An extra pound at the top of the mast is HUGE..an extra lb at the base of the keel is nothing..An anchor or a crewman up on the very bow of the boat moves up and down a long way, maybe thousands of times per mile, sapping energy through inertia. So racing yachts are built with carbon fiber ends, mylar sails..all kinds of expensive materials to reduce the moment of inertia. Same total mass moving, but with the mass centralized better, it moves more effectivly.. A couple of hunderd lbs off the total weight of the yacht isn't very important..but if you take a couple of hundred lbs out of the ends of the boat and re-locate it into the center...it goes better..lots better..


What a terrible analogy. If bike racers rode bikes that weighed two orders of magnitude more than the rider (a sailboat can weigh a hundred times more than the crew), than your analogy might hold - but today's racing bikes weigh about an order of magnitude _less_ then the rider. A small shift in the location of mass on a bike that is already a fraction of the total bike/rider mass makes no real difference.


----------



## Albino (Mar 24, 2007)

Are you trying to say that all in all, lighter bike parts, i.e. ore, requires less effort and therefore allows the person to perform the motion more efficiently with less fatigue?

Isn't this what we all should be shooting for? Less fatigue and becoming more efficient "machines" inside and out?


----------



## tyro (May 15, 2005)

I think that a lighter bike just means less that you have to haul up the hill with you. I'm just shy of 6'2" and weigh 153 lbs. I need as light a bike as possible. I am not trying to lose weight on my body, only on my bike. I'm not going to make my bike "stupid" light to the point where I feel as though I could have a catastrophic failure at any point. So, for me, bike weight is important and I do feel that I perform better on a lighter bike. Whether it is a mental advantage or a physical advantage, it's still an advantage, right? :yesnod:


----------



## Climbing_Clyde (Jun 16, 2007)

Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?


----------



## Bob Ross (Apr 18, 2006)

tyro said:


> I think that a lighter bike just means less that you have to haul up the hill with you.


Shee-it, I think that a lighter bike just means less that you have to haul up the freakin' STAIRS!


----------



## Swish (Jul 31, 2004)

the weight weenyism is largely about trying to reach a goal and the process of getting there; a lighter bike. The reason for a trying to put together a lighter bike is just the fun of picking fancy hightech components to get that weight down even more and aiming for that magic 12-13-14-or whatever mark. The marginal gains in efficience are a bonus.

It's a hobby and a way to spend your hard earned dollars, it's a cycling sub culture. Criticising it is like saying to a sports fisherman that there are easier ways to get fish. That doesn't mean the criticism doesn't make sense, it just means that it has different sources of validation.


----------

