How much weight is worth saving?

[Ken M]

I have been trying to come up with some ways of saving a bit of weight
on my hybrid. I have thought of several ways which ways should I try?

(1) Seat post - currently a suspension model (stock) weights 530 grams.
New / better rigid weights about 250 grams. Easy to change.

(2) Saddle - Currently stock Avenir sport type. Weight 668 grams. New /
better between 200 - 300 grams. Easy to change.

(3) Fork - Currently Suntour suspension model (stock). Weight ?? -
heavy. New / better steel / rigid weight - 1335 grams uncut. Harder to
change must change headset and stem.

What is your opinion?
Ken

--
Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy

[Bill Sornson]

Ken M wrote:
> I have been trying to come up with some ways of saving a bit of weight
> on my hybrid. I have thought of several ways which ways should I try?
>
> (1) Seat post - currently a suspension model (stock) weights 530
> grams. New / better rigid weights about 250 grams. Easy to change.
>
> (2) Saddle - Currently stock Avenir sport type. Weight 668 grams. New
> / better between 200 - 300 grams. Easy to change.
>
> (3) Fork - Currently Suntour suspension model (stock). Weight ?? -
> heavy. New / better steel / rigid weight - 1335 grams uncut. Harder to
> change must change headset and stem.
>
> What is your opinion?

Keep the hybrid as a hybrid and buy a nice light road bike as a nice light
road bike.

Bill "two cents please" S.

[Chris Zacho The Wheelman]

Date: Thu, Dec 8, 2005, 11:05am From: (Ken*M)

>I have been trying to come up with some
>ways of saving a bit of weight on my
>hybrid. I have thought of several ways
>which ways should I try?

>(1) Seat post - currently a suspension
>model (stock) weights 530 grams. New /
>better rigid weights about 250 grams.
>Easy to change.

>(2) Saddle - Currently stock Avenir sport
>type. Weight 668 grams. New / better
>between 200 - 300 grams. Easy to
>change.

I would change out the suspension seatpost for the lighter riged and go
for a sprung Brooks saddle. You will still shave off around 200 grams
yet keep some semblence of suspension.

>(3) Fork - Currently Suntour suspension
>model (stock). Weight ?? - heavy. New /
>better steel / rigid weight - 1335 grams
>uncut. Harder to change must change
>headset and stem.

>What is your opinion?
>Ken

Do you do any off-roading with your rig? If all you come up against is
periodic rough pavement, I would dump the MTB forks fand grab a riged
MTB or a touring fork. You may even be able to find one of these that
will work with your present headset.
--
Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy

- -

Chris Zacho ~ "Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

"May you have the winds at your back,
And a really low gear for the hills!"

Chris'Z Corner
http://www.geocities.com/czcorner

[Buck]

Ken M wrote:
> I have been trying to come up with some ways of saving a bit of weight
> on my hybrid. I have thought of several ways which ways should I try?
>
> (1) Seat post - currently a suspension model (stock) weights 530 grams.
> New / better rigid weights about 250 grams. Easy to change.
>
> (2) Saddle - Currently stock Avenir sport type. Weight 668 grams. New /
> better between 200 - 300 grams. Easy to change.
>
> (3) Fork - Currently Suntour suspension model (stock). Weight ?? -
> heavy. New / better steel / rigid weight - 1335 grams uncut. Harder to
> change must change headset and stem.
>
> What is your opinion?
> Ken

Counting grams on a hybrid seems silly. If you were talking about a
racing bike and your body fat was so low that you couldn't stand to
lose any more, then counting grams would make sense. Even if your
current fork weighed 3000 grams, you are looking at a total savings of
about 2,313 grams which is about 5 pounds. You can easily lose that
much weight in water on a long, hot ride.

Spend your money on making your bike more comfortable, not lighter. You
are more likely to lose more weight over a shorter period of time from
the overall package (you and the bicycle) if the bicycle is slightly
heavier and you have to work a bit harder. Oh yeah, don't forget that
you will save a bit of money in the process as well.

Wait until you are at a performance level that demands something
besides a hybrid before you focus on issues of bicycle weight. You will
spend a lot of money, gain little in weight savings, gain even less in
overall performance, and even may lose some durability.

-Buck

[maxo]

Chris Zacho "The Wheelman" wrote:

> I would change out the suspension seatpost for the lighter riged and go
> for a sprung Brooks saddle. You will still shave off around 200 grams
> yet keep some semblence of suspension.

As an owner of a Brooks flyer, I'll disagree. The springs are mainly
ornamental, and the saddle's not really more comfy than a leather
covered plastic saddle of good design. Now, it does look awesome, and
takes the edge off a few nastier bumps, but not enough to warrant the
weight. Makes the bike feel nasty and top heavy when climbing as well.
Good saddles for "tootlin'" though. :P

I say, go for a rigid post and fork, but don't drop the bank on it.
Nashbar's got their steel 700c fork on sale for $50 at the moment, so
I'd grab one of those, a discount seatpost, and some (on sale) 32mm
smooth tread tires to speed up that ride. Around $100 worth of parts
isn't something to get upset about.

I'd get those things for reasons other than weight: heavy saddles/posts
feel nasty when climbing out of the saddle compared to weight on the
frame or some place more central. Same goes for suspension forks on the
road: they make the bike "feel" slower and less responsive, even though
the weight isn't the hugest issue.

Get whatever saddle's the comfiest for you, be it Brooks or Flite,
that's the last place to even think about weight savings.

Dropping five pounds for $100 is a steal, dropping 500g for $1000
ain't. :P

[Ken M]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Ken M wrote:
>
>>I have been trying to come up with some ways of saving a bit of weight
>>on my hybrid. I have thought of several ways which ways should I try?
>>
>>(1) Seat post - currently a suspension model (stock) weights 530
>>grams. New / better rigid weights about 250 grams. Easy to change.
>>
>>(2) Saddle - Currently stock Avenir sport type. Weight 668 grams. New
>>/ better between 200 - 300 grams. Easy to change.
>>
>>(3) Fork - Currently Suntour suspension model (stock). Weight ?? -
>>heavy. New / better steel / rigid weight - 1335 grams uncut. Harder to
>>change must change headset and stem.
>>
>>What is your opinion?
>
>
> Keep the hybrid as a hybrid and buy a nice light road bike as a nice light
> road bike.
>
> Bill "two cents please" S.
>
>
Yeah a nice light road bike is nice but I have a storage issue, I really
only room to store ONE bike. And the last time I was on a road bike I
still had issues with my back pains.

Ken


--
Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy

[Ken M]

Buck wrote:


>
> Spend your money on making your bike more comfortable, not lighter. You
> are more likely to lose more weight over a shorter period of time from
> the overall package (you and the bicycle) if the bicycle is slightly
> heavier and you have to work a bit harder. Oh yeah, don't forget that
> you will save a bit of money in the process as well.
>

The bike is plenty comfortable. I road it 1100+ miles on tour.

> Wait until you are at a performance level that demands something
> besides a hybrid before you focus on issues of bicycle weight. You will
> spend a lot of money, gain little in weight savings, gain even less in
> overall performance, and even may lose some durability.
>
I found when I bought the lighter bike my fitness rides picked up in
intensity, so I figure dropping more weight would let me pick up
intensity again.


Ken

--
Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy

[Ken M]

Chris Zacho The Wheelman wrote:

>
> Do you do any off-roading with your rig? If all you come up against is
> periodic rough pavement, I would dump the MTB forks fand grab a riged
> MTB or a touring fork. You may even be able to find one of these that
> will work with your present headset.

No just on-road riding, around town, commuting, and fitness (training)
rides.

Ken
--
Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy

[Ken M]

maxo wrote:


> I say, go for a rigid post and fork, but don't drop the bank on it.
> Nashbar's got their steel 700c fork on sale for $50 at the moment, so
> I'd grab one of those, a discount seatpost, and some (on sale) 32mm
> smooth tread tires to speed up that ride. Around $100 worth of parts
> isn't something to get upset about.
>
Yeah that nashbar fork was the one I was looking at, but I don't know
anything about threadless headsets and stems, thats why I am a little
hesitant about swapping the fork.

> I'd get those things for reasons other than weight: heavy saddles/posts
> feel nasty when climbing out of the saddle compared to weight on the
> frame or some place more central. Same goes for suspension forks on the
> road: they make the bike "feel" slower and less responsive, even though
> the weight isn't the hugest issue.
>
True I don't like the way the forks feel while climbing "out of the
saddle" feels spongy.

> Get whatever saddle's the comfiest for you, be it Brooks or Flite,
> that's the last place to even think about weight savings.
>
> Dropping five pounds for $100 is a steal, dropping 500g for $1000
> ain't. :P
>
Well the seatpost and saddle can be had for under $50 to $75 and if my
calculations are correct I could save about 1&1/4 to 1&1/2 pounds.

Ken


--
Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy

[Bill Sornson]

Ken M wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Ken M wrote:
>>
>>> I have been trying to come up with some ways of saving a bit of
>>> weight on my hybrid. I have thought of several ways which ways
>>> should I try? (1) Seat post - currently a suspension model (stock)
>>> weights 530
>>> grams. New / better rigid weights about 250 grams. Easy to change.
>>>
>>> (2) Saddle - Currently stock Avenir sport type. Weight 668 grams.
>>> New / better between 200 - 300 grams. Easy to change.
>>>
>>> (3) Fork - Currently Suntour suspension model (stock). Weight ?? -
>>> heavy. New / better steel / rigid weight - 1335 grams uncut. Harder
>>> to change must change headset and stem.
>>>
>>> What is your opinion?
>>
>>
>> Keep the hybrid as a hybrid and buy a nice light road bike as a nice
>> light road bike.
>>
>> Bill "two cents please" S.
>>
>>
> Yeah a nice light road bike is nice but I have a storage issue, I
> really only room to store ONE bike. And the last time I was on a road
> bike I still had issues with my back pains.

Ah. (Also read your other replies.)

Well, the changes you're considering aren't THAT expensive -- and WILL shave
off quite a bit of weight -- so either go for it (you might need an LBS's
help with the fork swap) or sell your current bike as is and buy a lighter,
nicer "comfort bike" (hybrid or whatever).

If you have back pain issues, how about KEEPING the sus seatpost but get a
rigid fork and lighter saddle? Just a thought (depending on what issues you
have).

Strangely enough, I just put a new saddle on my bike, and my back is killing
me (and I haven't even ridden it yet!). I must have bent over funny while
removing/installing. SIGH...

Bill "old age sucks raw donkey protuberances" S.

[maxo]

Ken M wrote:
> maxo wrote:

> Yeah that nashbar fork was the one I was looking at, but I don't know
> anything about threadless headsets and stems, thats why I am a little
> hesitant about swapping the fork.

If you're the least bit mechanically minded, it's really super easy.
Hardest part may be getting the fork crown race off of the old fork and
seated on the new. You can use a special press or a length of PVC and a
mallet.


http://www.parktool.com/repair/readhowto.asp?id=65

To remove the race, tapping with a screwdriver and hammer can work.
Always the risk of fubaring it, so if in doubt, just add a new headset
to your order.

When done, you can replace the weight you lost with a nice set of 45mm
Freddy Fenders that will work great with your new fork. :P

[C]

In article >,
Ken M > wrote:
>I have been trying to come up with some ways of saving a bit of weight
>on my hybrid. I have thought of several ways which ways should I try?

Saving weight on a hybrid doesn't make much sense.

[Ed Sullivan]

Ken M wrote:
> Buck wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Spend your money on making your bike more comfortable, not lighter. You
> > are more likely to lose more weight over a shorter period of time from
> > the overall package (you and the bicycle) if the bicycle is slightly
> > heavier and you have to work a bit harder. Oh yeah, don't forget that
> > you will save a bit of money in the process as well.
> >
>
> The bike is plenty comfortable. I road it 1100+ miles on tour.
>
> > Wait until you are at a performance level that demands something
> > besides a hybrid before you focus on issues of bicycle weight. You will
> > spend a lot of money, gain little in weight savings, gain even less in
> > overall performance, and even may lose some durability.
> >
> I found when I bought the lighter bike my fitness rides picked up in
> intensity, so I figure dropping more weight would let me pick up
> intensity again.
>
>
> Ken
>
> --
> Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy



Dear Ken,

Lose five pounds and you may begin to feel a difference. All the bike
stuff probably adds up to less than a full water bottle.

[maxo]

C wrote:

> Saving weight on a hybrid doesn't make much sense.

Why? Are there different physics laws that apply to hybrids? Does the
OP need to get a high falutin' road bike in order for Newton to to step
back into the room? :P

Taking five pounds off a hybrid and switching to tires that shave 300g
off the rotational mass seems like a no-brainer, for what it's going to
cost.

I'd recommend that the OP switch the tires out to 28mm or 30mm if the
rim accepts something that narrow. Nashbar still has those Hutchinson
Flash tires for $5 a pop--good utility tires that roll reasonably fast,
can't argue with the price.

[Ken M]

Bill Sornson wrote:

> Ah. (Also read your other replies.)
>
> Well, the changes you're considering aren't THAT expensive -- and WILL shave
> off quite a bit of weight -- so either go for it (you might need an LBS's
> help with the fork swap) or sell your current bike as is and buy a lighter,
> nicer "comfort bike" (hybrid or whatever).
>
Well funny you should say buy a "better" hybrid, the one I have is just
about the top of the Raleigh line.

> If you have back pain issues, how about KEEPING the sus seatpost but get a
> rigid fork and lighter saddle? Just a thought (depending on what issues you
> have).
>
My back problems seem to spring up when I stay in an aero position for
too long.

> Strangely enough, I just put a new saddle on my bike, and my back is killing
> me (and I haven't even ridden it yet!). I must have bent over funny while
> removing/installing. SIGH...

Well I ain't old, just a bit out of shape. My weight is FINALLY starting
to come off at a decent rate.

Ken

--
Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy

[Ken M]

Ed Sullivan wrote:

> Dear Ken,
>
> Lose five pounds and you may begin to feel a difference. All the bike
> stuff probably adds up to less than a full water bottle.
>
Yeah, I know my weight makes a big difference, 14 pounds in the last
2&1/2 months. But my calculations say that I can easily take any where
from 1.5 to 5 pounds off the bike. Depending on if I replace the fork.
That would be a BIG bottle of water.

Ken

--
Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy

[[email protected]]

Ken M wrote:
> Ed Sullivan wrote:
>
> > Dear Ken,
> >
> > Lose five pounds and you may begin to feel a difference. All the bike
> > stuff probably adds up to less than a full water bottle.
> >
> Yeah, I know my weight makes a big difference, 14 pounds in the last
> 2&1/2 months. But my calculations say that I can easily take any where
> from 1.5 to 5 pounds off the bike. Depending on if I replace the fork.
> That would be a BIG bottle of water.
>
> Ken
>
> --
> Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy


Dear Ken,

Let's do the math. Say you weigh around 200 lbs and your bike (with
bottles) around 30. 5 pounds is just over a 2% difference in total
weight. Do you think there would be any difference in performance
given all the other factors that influence effort on a bike, such as
wind resistance? Make sure your bike is comfortable and just ride.

thanks,

Ed

[Zoot Katz]

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 20:11:52 +0000 (UTC), (C) wrote:

>In article >,
>Ken M > wrote:
>>I have been trying to come up with some ways of saving a bit of weight
>>on my hybrid. I have thought of several ways which ways should I try?
>
>Saving weight on a hybrid doesn't make much sense.

It could make a difference if one must carry the bike up a few flights
of stairs while nursing a broken leg.
I live at ground level and some days my 40-pounder made me wish I'd
ridden the fixie.
--
zk

[[email protected]]

maxo wrote:
>
>
> Taking five pounds off a hybrid and switching to tires that shave 300g
> off the rotational mass seems like a no-brainer, for what it's going to
> cost.
>
> I'd recommend that the OP switch the tires out to 28mm or 30mm if the
> rim accepts something that narrow. Nashbar still has those Hutchinson
> Flash tires for $5 a pop--good utility tires that roll reasonably fast,
> can't argue with the price.

I, too, was going to lobby for trading tires first. I don't know what
tires you have on the bike, but it's unlikely they're super-light.
Going to lighter (and perhaps narrower?) tires will reduce weight,
which is what you asked. Going to thinner tubes will also do that.
But both will reduce rolling resistance, and that's usually more
important than raw weight.

BTW, I don't think the "rotational mass" aspect is that important. It
applies only when you're accelerating in a sprint, and most hybrid
riders aren't trying to break away from the pack just before the finish
line!

Beyond the tires, I'd think of it as a dollars-per-gram problem. Do
what makes the most sense by that standard. Yes, changing a fork is
more complicated, but it's not _that_ difficult, and you'll learn while
doing it, and feel good about the knowledge afterwards.

But keep in mind that, unless you're already light weight yourself
_and_ doing a lot of climbing, dropping a pound or two off the bike
won't change your riding experience very much.

- Frank Krygowski

[Ken M]

wrote:
> Ken M wrote:
>
>>Ed Sullivan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Dear Ken,
>>>
>>>Lose five pounds and you may begin to feel a difference. All the bike
>>>stuff probably adds up to less than a full water bottle.
>>>
>>
>>Yeah, I know my weight makes a big difference, 14 pounds in the last
>>2&1/2 months. But my calculations say that I can easily take any where
>>from 1.5 to 5 pounds off the bike. Depending on if I replace the fork.
>>That would be a BIG bottle of water.
>>
>>Ken
>>
>>--
>>Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy
>
>
>
> Dear Ken,
>
> Let's do the math. Say you weigh around 200 lbs and your bike (with
> bottles) around 30. 5 pounds is just over a 2% difference in total
> weight. Do you think there would be any difference in performance
> given all the other factors that influence effort on a bike, such as
> wind resistance? Make sure your bike is comfortable and just ride.
>
> thanks,
>
> Ed
>
Well if you like math lets use the real numbers. I weigh 156. The bike
with bottles about 22. So I came up with just under 3%. Still not a lot,
but the goal of putting the bike on a diet was just to pick up a bit of
speed in the flats.

Ken


--
Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy

[maxo]

wrote:

> Let's do the math. Say you weigh around 200 lbs and your bike (with
> bottles) around 30. 5 pounds is just over a 2% difference in total
> weight. Do you think there would be any difference in performance
> given all the other factors that influence effort on a bike, such as
> wind resistance?

Taking away a sus fork is more than weight--it changes how the bike
rides and feels, makes it sportier imho. removing "high" weight such as
a pound of seatpost, really makes the bike feel nicer when out of the
saddle.

I'm not one to obsess about mass--heck my singlespeed weighs a burly
23#, but sometimes you can really feel it. When I dropped a pound by
going to a racing saddle (vintage & comfy one) from the old Brooks, The
bike felt totally different out of the saddle. Now if you added 5# to
the frame of my bike, I probably wouldn't notice till I tried to lift
it.

[Ken M]

wrote:


> I, too, was going to lobby for trading tires first. I don't know what
> tires you have on the bike, but it's unlikely they're super-light.
> Going to lighter (and perhaps narrower?) tires will reduce weight,
> which is what you asked. Going to thinner tubes will also do that.
> But both will reduce rolling resistance, and that's usually more
> important than raw weight.
>
Well tire will be on the agenda soon. The originals have over 2000 miles
on them and the rear is starting to show wear. According to a thread I
found using Google groups search I can mount down to a 23 tire on my
Alex ace-18 rims.

>
> Beyond the tires, I'd think of it as a dollars-per-gram problem. Do
> what makes the most sense by that standard. Yes, changing a fork is
> more complicated, but it's not _that_ difficult, and you'll learn while
> doing it, and feel good about the knowledge afterwards.
>
> But keep in mind that, unless you're already light weight yourself
> _and_ doing a lot of climbing, dropping a pound or two off the bike
> won't change your riding experience very much.

Well the point of putting the bike on a diet was just to pick up a bit
of speed in the flats.

Ken

--
Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy

[Gooserider]

"Ken M" > wrote in message
...
>I have been trying to come up with some ways of saving a bit of weight on
>my hybrid. I have thought of several ways which ways should I try?
>
> (1) Seat post - currently a suspension model (stock) weights 530 grams.
> New / better rigid weights about 250 grams. Easy to change.
>
> (2) Saddle - Currently stock Avenir sport type. Weight 668 grams. New /
> better between 200 - 300 grams. Easy to change.
>
> (3) Fork - Currently Suntour suspension model (stock). Weight ?? - heavy.
> New / better steel / rigid weight - 1335 grams uncut. Harder to change
> must change headset and stem.
>
> What is your opinion?
> Ken
>
How much do you weigh? If you're anything like me or the average American
male, you could stand to drop a few. It's cheaper to make yourself lighter.
:-)

[maxo]

Ken M wrote:
> wrote:

> Well the point of putting the bike on a diet was just to pick up a bit
> of speed in the flats.
>

If yours is the hybrid with the Kenda Cross tires, you can shave a
pound off the bike just by going to a 28mm tire. Wouldn't go any
skinnier, as 28mm is that magical width that's fast, rides nicely, is
light, and gets few pinch flats. I'm on my second set of cheap
Hutchinson Flashes from Nashbar--bought three sets at $4/tire. :P
Recommended if you want something that's skinny but reasonably durable
for rough and tumble city riding. There are faster tires at more dear
prices. Don't forget new tubes. ;)

Start with the tires, they'll make the hugest amount of difference.
Then the fork. You could even drop a wad on that carbon 700c fork
they've got for $150 if you want fancy. I'd probably stick with the
steel one myself. :P $50 is too good to pass up.

[Ivar Hesselager]

Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:05:26 -0500, Ken M > skrev:

> I have been trying to come up with some ways of saving a bit of weight
> on my hybrid. I have thought of several ways which ways should I try?
>
> (1) Seat post - currently a suspension model (stock) weights 530 grams.
> New / better rigid weights about 250 grams. Easy to change.
>
> (2) Saddle - Currently stock Avenir sport type. Weight 668 grams. New /
> better between 200 - 300 grams. Easy to change.
>
> (3) Fork - Currently Suntour suspension model (stock). Weight ?? -
> heavy. New / better steel / rigid weight - 1335 grams uncut. Harder to
> change must change headset and stem.
>
> What is your opinion?
> Ken
>

Saving body weight is always an option, no matter how much you have shaped
off your bike, so I will not consider it an alternative. I think the cost
of loosing body weight is considarable - in time, effort and modesty.

I have invested some energy in evalutating and calculating the value of
reducing weight on the bike - and I have come to the conclusion, that
for me and my purse one dollar per gram reduced weight is cheap, and one
Euro per gram reduced weight is a fair.

I know that many people would find that cost rediculously high, but it
will still keep you on a safe distance from most of the real leight weight
gear. For example it will make you prefer Shimano 105 to Ultegra.
Weight difference 70 grams. Price difference 200 Euros. = 2.22 Euros per
gram.

Choose your own economic limit - in dollars or euros - and it is easier to
decide, which weight saving investments are more favorable.

Ivar

[andy gee]

Ken M > wrote in
:

> I have been trying to come up with some ways of saving a bit of weight
> on my hybrid.

I used to think trying to save 1 or 2 pounds on a 225 pound bike-rider
system was silly. Then I realized that observed data doesn't support my
silliness hypothesis.

At the race track, the conditions of the race and jockey allow horses
weight advantages in, typically, 2 and 5 pound increments on a 1,200
pound horse-ride system. The most "unfair" advantage is the 5 pound
allowance given to a "single bug" apprentice jockey. This 0.4%
advantage makes the bugs look like they're burning up the track. So
just 400 or 500 grams saved on any bike could have a major effect.

Go for the easy ones -- seat and post -- and see if your time
improves, then think about the fork.

--ag

[mark]

"Ken M" wrote ...
>I have been trying to come up with some ways of saving a bit of weight on
>my hybrid. I have thought of several ways which ways should I try?
>
> (1) Seat post - currently a suspension model (stock) weights 530 grams.
> New / better rigid weights about 250 grams. Easy to change.
>
> (2) Saddle - Currently stock Avenir sport type. Weight 668 grams. New /
> better between 200 - 300 grams. Easy to change.
>
> (3) Fork - Currently Suntour suspension model (stock). Weight ?? - heavy.
> New / better steel / rigid weight - 1335 grams uncut. Harder to change
> must change headset and stem.
>

Since you've said that you don't like the way the bike climbs hills with the
sus fork, that's a good reason to change to a rigid fork. See how you like
the ride of the rigid fork before you mess with the suspension seatpost or
the big cushy saddle.

Since the tires are apparently showing some wear, you can save a little more
weight when tire replacement time rolls around (excuse the pun). A pair of
700x28 or 700x32 tires would probably be a good bit lighter than your
present tires. A pair of lighter weight tubes inside those tires would save
a tiny bit more weight. If you go this route, you will have to be more
diligent about maintaining tire pressure, unless you like dealing with pinch
flats. Tires narrower than 700x28 tend to ride rather harshly and require
even more diligence in maintaining tire pressure.

Loosing the suspension seatpost is an easy way to lose weight, as another
poster said excess weight up high tends make itself felt more than frame
weight.

Give some thought to comfort when you pick a new saddle. As you spend more
time in the saddle, you will come to appreciate more and more the virtues of
a thinly padded or unpadded saddle. You may even find yourself wanting a
Brooks B17, which has no padding but doesn't weigh a whole lot less than
your current saddle. Once your butt is broken in to a Brooks, you'll never
go back.
--
mark

[The Wogster]

Ken M wrote:
> I have been trying to come up with some ways of saving a bit of weight
> on my hybrid. I have thought of several ways which ways should I try?
>
> (1) Seat post - currently a suspension model (stock) weights 530 grams.
> New / better rigid weights about 250 grams. Easy to change.
>
> (2) Saddle - Currently stock Avenir sport type. Weight 668 grams. New /
> better between 200 - 300 grams. Easy to change.
>
> (3) Fork - Currently Suntour suspension model (stock). Weight ?? -
> heavy. New / better steel / rigid weight - 1335 grams uncut. Harder to
> change must change headset and stem.
>
> What is your opinion?
> Ken
>

What is the total weight of the bike? Are you gaining a little or a
lot? Any part on a bike can be replaced with a lighter part, providing
one has enough time or money. Now lighter weight parts may not be as
durable, as a heavier part of the same quality.

Seat post, yeah go for it, just remember to not count on the suspension
on rough terrain. As for the saddle, a heavy but comfortable saddle
beats a light weight "ass hatchet" any day, with saddles, YMMV.

The fork, most expensive to replace, be careful, a different kind of
fork, will affect handling considerably.

W

[[email protected]]

andy gee wrote:
>
> I used to think trying to save 1 or 2 pounds on a 225 pound bike-rider
> system was silly. Then I realized that observed data doesn't support my
> silliness hypothesis.
>
> At the race track, the conditions of the race and jockey allow horses
> weight advantages in, typically, 2 and 5 pound increments on a 1,200
> pound horse-ride system. The most "unfair" advantage is the 5 pound
> allowance given to a "single bug" apprentice jockey. This 0.4%
> advantage makes the bugs look like they're burning up the track. So
> just 400 or 500 grams saved on any bike could have a major effect.

I don't think the results are comparable. Here's why:

A horse (or any running animal, for that matter) has to lift its entire
weight off the ground each stride. That up and down work against
gravity eats energy.

One of the main reasons a bike moves so much faster than a runner is
that the bike & rider's weight does _not_ move up and down. Much more
of the power goes into forward motion, rather than into constantly
lifting and dropping.

I imagine this would be apparent if you went out for a run with ten
pounds in a backpack, and compared it to riding a bike with ten pounds
in a backpack.


BTW, I'd love to see how fast a horse could go if its weight were
properly supported by a saddle, and if all the power in its legs went
into some sort of pedal system!

- Frank Krygowski

[[email protected]]

Ken M wrote:
> wrote:
>
>
> > I, too, was going to lobby for trading tires first. I don't know what
> > tires you have on the bike, but it's unlikely they're super-light.
> > Going to lighter (and perhaps narrower?) tires will reduce weight,
> > which is what you asked. Going to thinner tubes will also do that.
> > But both will reduce rolling resistance, and that's usually more
> > important than raw weight.
> >
> Well tire will be on the agenda soon. The originals have over 2000 miles
> on them and the rear is starting to show wear. According to a thread I
> found using Google groups search I can mount down to a 23 tire on my
> Alex ace-18 rims.

I don't recall what tires you have now, if you did say. But most
hybrids have tires that are much wider (and slower) than that, so it's
a great opportunity.

But like someone else said, I'd be leery of 23s, unless you ride
glass-smooth roads - and glass free roads. I think the more critical
thing is to get tires with a thin, resilient carcass, and minimal or
zero tread. I also stay away from kevlar belts. They seem to add lots
of rolling resistance.


> > But keep in mind that, unless you're already light weight yourself
> > _and_ doing a lot of climbing, dropping a pound or two off the bike
> > won't change your riding experience very much.
>
> Well the point of putting the bike on a diet was just to pick up a bit
> of speed in the flats.
>

OK, then there's no benefit at all to reducing weight!

You can run some simulations at
http://www.analyticcycling.com/WheelsClimb_Page.html
If you're talking about time on the flats, put in a zero slope. Run it
with the default data - you should come up with 1200 seconds time for
5000 meters on that "default" bike on a zero slope.

Try running the model again, increasing the bike's mass from 8 kg to 18
kg (that is, adding about 22 pounds). I get exactly 1200 seconds.
IOW, the bike weight makes no difference on the flat!

On the flat, what eats your energy is wind resistance and rolling
resistance. You're simply not working against gravity. So the
question becomes, what can you do to reduce wind resistance?

If you're using straight bars, just adding bar ends can make a
difference. The "palms down" grip you use on straight bars tends to
rotate your elbows out, forcing you to punch a bigger hole in the wind.
Bars that allow your palms to face each other (like even the outside
of the top bend of drop bars) rotate your elbows down, and narrow your
front profile.

I have a friend with a bunch of bikes. One hybrid that he uses for
commuting has mountain bike bar ends mounted about 8" inboard of the
handlebar's ends, inside the brake and shift levers. That gets his
arms inboard and narrow. You might try a trick like that.

It sounds like back problems prevent you from getting low on the bike.
That's too bad, because a lower profile would help. But be sure your
jacket, etc. isn't big and billowing. Ditto pants. Snug clothing
helps measurably. Loose, flapping clothes slow you down.

- Frank Krygowski

[maxo]

The Wogster wrote:
> Now lighter weight parts may not be as
> durable, as a heavier part of the same quality.
>

Going to rigid fork and post saves grams *and is more durable. Win win.
:D

> As for the saddle, a heavy but comfortable saddle
> beats a light weight "ass hatchet" any day, with saddles, YMMV.

I'm a former Brooks maniac, but wouldn't think of riding one full time
now(still think they look cooler than snot) . I like firm saddles,
leather covered plastic ones--same concept as a Brooks, but the plastic
never loses its shape. More importantly, I like firm saddles that fit.
Many of those are super light, and some are indeed "ass hatchets" LOL
Those vintage Selle Royale Prestige saddles I posted about a while back
have not let me down, and are light as heck. Vintage Turbos and Rolls
saddles are killer as well, and cheap. You don't need a "love channel"
if your saddle is properly firm. ;)

At any rate, Brooks can be fantastic, but so can some of the lighter,
more minimal models. ;)


>
> The fork, most expensive to replace, be careful, a different kind of
> fork, will affect handling considerably.
>

subbing a rigid for a sus can only be a good thing if you're riding on
pavement.

BUT, now that I think about it, a rigid for might lower the front end
of the OP's bike as 700c steel forks aren't usually adjusted for
suspension length as 26'' sus forks are. :/

[David L. Johnson]

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:05:26 -0500, Ken M wrote:

> I have been trying to come up with some ways of saving a bit of weight
> on my hybrid. I have thought of several ways which ways should I try?

Slightly lighter components here or there will not change a hybrid into a
road bike. Keep the hybrid for city commuting (to which it is
well-suited), and get a road bike for a faster experience.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Deserves death! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve
_`\(,_ | death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to
(_)/ (_) | them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.
-- J. R. R. Tolkein

[Andy Gee]

wrote in news:1134100924.201292.313240
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

> I don't think the results are comparable. Here's why:
>
> A horse (or any running animal, for that matter) has to lift its entire
> weight off the ground each stride. That up and down work against
> gravity eats energy.
>
> One of the main reasons a bike moves so much faster than a runner is
> that the bike & rider's weight does _not_ move up and down. Much more
> of the power goes into forward motion, rather than into constantly
> lifting and dropping.
>

You are, of course, correct that this is not a perfect analogy. Weight on
a bike is really only a factor during initial acceleration and hill
climbing. But hill climbing is really, really important.

For the horse, there's a lot of acceleration in a brief race: the starting
gate, each turn, passing, and the final sprint. If you notice, a horse
does not move it's CG up and down very much, although it does cycle four
legs up and down a lot. The bounding horses are for the Hunt Club
(steeplechase) meetings, and those riders are a good 60 or 70 pounds
heavier than flats jockeys.

So, not a perfect analogy, but I think it's fairly equivalent. Trainers
put horses in races with the best weight allowance relative to the odds of
actually winning, and cyclists do anything to save a few ounces.

--ag

[Matt O'Toole]

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 14:37:03 -0800, frkrygow wrote:


> maxo wrote:
>>
>>
>> Taking five pounds off a hybrid and switching to tires that shave 300g
>> off the rotational mass seems like a no-brainer, for what it's going to
>> cost.
>>
>> I'd recommend that the OP switch the tires out to 28mm or 30mm if the
>> rim accepts something that narrow. Nashbar still has those Hutchinson
>> Flash tires for $5 a pop--good utility tires that roll reasonably fast,
>> can't argue with the price.
>
> I, too, was going to lobby for trading tires first. I don't know what
> tires you have on the bike, but it's unlikely they're super-light. Going
> to lighter (and perhaps narrower?) tires will reduce weight, which is
> what you asked. Going to thinner tubes will also do that. But both will
> reduce rolling resistance, and that's usually more important than raw
> weight.

Weight of tires doesn't matter nearly as much as rolling resistance.
Mountain bikers often make a big deal about weight, but the difference
between light but slow tires and fast but heavy ones is tremendous --
worth a gear or two. The difference between utilitarian road/hybrid tires
and performance oriented road tires is big enough to feel immediately as
well. These tires usually happen to weigh less, but that's not why
they're faster.

Good tires are a worthy upgrade though, and will probably enhance the
performance of a slowish bike more than anything else.

> BTW, I don't think the "rotational mass" aspect is that important. It
> applies only when you're accelerating in a sprint, and most hybrid
> riders aren't trying to break away from the pack just before the finish
> line!

I'm too lazy to do the physics right now, but weight matters only WRT
acceleration, and cyclists accelerate very slowly. If anyone here has
some appropriate figures handy, let's do the math.

Matt O.

[Matt O'Toole]

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 13:49:36 -0800, rbmrwb wrote:

> Let's do the math. Say you weigh around 200 lbs and your bike (with
> bottles) around 30. 5 pounds is just over a 2% difference in total
> weight. Do you think there would be any difference in performance given
> all the other factors that influence effort on a bike, such as wind
> resistance? Make sure your bike is comfortable and just ride.

I agree.

One thing that puzzles me is all these big guys fretting over bike weight,
while tiny little women happily pedal right alonside them on obnoxiously
heavy bikes. If anyone needs a sub-15 LB bike, it's a 100 LB woman. But
you don't see as many of them blowing their life savings on Calfees, etc.

Matt O.

[Matt O'Toole]

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 16:18:01 -0500, Ken M wrote:

> Well I ain't old, just a bit out of shape. My weight is FINALLY starting
> to come off at a decent rate.

That's because your motor is improving, so you're able to burn more fuel.
Just do whatever keeps you on the bike, and keep riding!

Matt O.

[Ken M]

Matt O'Toole wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 16:18:01 -0500, Ken M wrote:
>
>
>>Well I ain't old, just a bit out of shape. My weight is FINALLY starting
>>to come off at a decent rate.
>
>
> That's because your motor is improving, so you're able to burn more fuel.
> Just do whatever keeps you on the bike, and keep riding!
>
> Matt O.
>
Well "keep riding" is a definate. I was very happy when I got on the
scale and saw that I went from 170 to 156!

Ken

--
Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy

[Ken M]

Matt O'Toole wrote:

> I agree.
>
> One thing that puzzles me is all these big guys fretting over bike weight,
> while tiny little women happily pedal right alonside them on obnoxiously
> heavy bikes. If anyone needs a sub-15 LB bike, it's a 100 LB woman. But
> you don't see as many of them blowing their life savings on Calfees, etc.
>
> Matt O.

Well I don't want a sub 15 bike, but would like to get it sub 20.

Ken
--
Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy

[Ken M]

maxo wrote:

> If you're the least bit mechanically minded, it's really super easy.
> Hardest part may be getting the fork crown race off of the old fork and
> seated on the new. You can use a special press or a length of PVC and a
> mallet.
>
>
> http://www.parktool.com/repair/readhowto.asp?id=65
>
> To remove the race, tapping with a screwdriver and hammer can work.
> Always the risk of fubaring it, so if in doubt, just add a new headset
> to your order.

Probably a skill that would be useful, as these seem to be the trend for
most new bikes.

Ken
--
Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy

[Ken M]

maxo wrote:

>>Saving weight on a hybrid doesn't make much sense.
>
>
> Why? Are there different physics laws that apply to hybrids? Does the
> OP need to get a high falutin' road bike in order for Newton to to step
> back into the room? :P
>
He probably means because most hybrids are riding by more casual riders.

> Taking five pounds off a hybrid and switching to tires that shave 300g
> off the rotational mass seems like a no-brainer, for what it's going to
> cost.
>
> I'd recommend that the OP switch the tires out to 28mm or 30mm if the
> rim accepts something that narrow. Nashbar still has those Hutchinson
> Flash tires for $5 a pop--good utility tires that roll reasonably fast,
> can't argue with the price.
>
Since tires came into this thread, I have heard / read that tire
pressure plays an important part in rolling resistance. My current stock
Kendra tires are threaded and top out at 85psi. I have seen other more
"road" type slick tires that go to 100psi or even 120psi. How much
improvement would I see with tires like that?

Ken
--
Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy

[Peter Cole]

Ken M wrote:
> but the goal of putting the bike on a diet was just to pick up a bit of
> speed in the flats.

Won't make a bit of difference.

To go faster on the flats work on your position on the bike.

[Ken M]

wrote:

> I don't recall what tires you have now, if you did say. But most
> hybrids have tires that are much wider (and slower) than that, so it's
> a great opportunity.
>
The current tires are Kendra 700x35's kevlar belted that top out at 85psi.

> But like someone else said, I'd be leery of 23s, unless you ride
> glass-smooth roads - and glass free roads. I think the more critical
> thing is to get tires with a thin, resilient carcass, and minimal or
> zero tread. I also stay away from kevlar belts. They seem to add lots
> of rolling resistance.

Really? I would have thought it was the opposite. Thinking that the
kevlar would make the tire a bit stiffer.


> On the flat, what eats your energy is wind resistance and rolling
> resistance. You're simply not working against gravity. So the
> question becomes, what can you do to reduce wind resistance?
>
> If you're using straight bars, just adding bar ends can make a
> difference. The "palms down" grip you use on straight bars tends to
> rotate your elbows out, forcing you to punch a bigger hole in the wind.
> Bars that allow your palms to face each other (like even the outside
> of the top bend of drop bars) rotate your elbows down, and narrow your
> front profile.
>
> I have a friend with a bunch of bikes. One hybrid that he uses for
> commuting has mountain bike bar ends mounted about 8" inboard of the
> handlebar's ends, inside the brake and shift levers. That gets his
> arms inboard and narrow. You might try a trick like that.
>
> It sounds like back problems prevent you from getting low on the bike.
> That's too bad, because a lower profile would help. But be sure your
> jacket, etc. isn't big and billowing. Ditto pants. Snug clothing
> helps measurably. Loose, flapping clothes slow you down.

Funny you should bring up back pain. Yesterday just for laughs I put
myself into an aero position by resting my forearms on the top & center
of my bars (picture my bike with clip on aerobars) and found that it was
somewhat easier to get into this position than I remember it being
before. Perhaps because I lost some mass in the midsection.

Ken
--
Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy

[Ken M]

Gooserider wrote:

> How much do you weigh? If you're anything like me or the average American
> male, you could stand to drop a few. It's cheaper to make yourself lighter.
> :-)
>
>

Well I am down to 156 from 170 about 2&1/2 months ago. And still
steadily decreasing. Target is 145 give or take a pound.

Ken
--
Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy

[Ken M]

David L. Johnson wrote:

> Slightly lighter components here or there will not change a hybrid into a
> road bike. Keep the hybrid for city commuting (to which it is
> well-suited), and get a road bike for a faster experience.
>

Well I can only store one bike so I am stuck with the hybrid.

Ken
--
Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy

[[email protected]]

Ken M wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > I don't recall what tires you have now, if you did say. But most
> > hybrids have tires that are much wider (and slower) than that, so it's
> > a great opportunity.
> >
> The current tires are Kendra 700x35's kevlar belted that top out at 85psi.

Then there's lots of room for improvement. First, slick tires give
less rolling resistance and are best for road riding. Second, rolling
resistance does definitely reduce with increased pressure. And as I
said, in my experience kevlar belts add rolling resistance.

Some info on rolling resistance is at
http://www.physics.helsinki.fi/~tlinden/rolling.html

(BTW, those pressures translate to about 45 psi, 75 psi & 100 psi).

>
> > But like someone else said, I'd be leery of 23s, unless you ride
> > glass-smooth roads - and glass free roads. I think the more critical
> > thing is to get tires with a thin, resilient carcass, and minimal or
> > zero tread. I also stay away from kevlar belts. They seem to add lots
> > of rolling resistance.
>
> Really? I would have thought it was the opposite. Thinking that the
> kevlar would make the tire a bit stiffer.

ISTR someone saying that the chemistry prevented a perfect bond between
the kevlar and the rubber, so there was internal squirming. All I know
is I tried kevlar belted tires on my touring bike and couldn't believe
how dead it felt. The difference was obvious before I'd ridden 100
yards. I used them for a couple years anyway, then threw them away and
never tried again. Perhaps they've improved, but I don't get enough
flats to try them again.

>
>
> > It sounds like back problems prevent you from getting low on the bike.
> > That's too bad, because a lower profile would help. But be sure your
> > jacket, etc. isn't big and billowing. Ditto pants. Snug clothing
> > helps measurably. Loose, flapping clothes slow you down.
>
> Funny you should bring up back pain. Yesterday just for laughs I put
> myself into an aero position by resting my forearms on the top & center
> of my bars (picture my bike with clip on aerobars) and found that it was
> somewhat easier to get into this position than I remember it being
> before. Perhaps because I lost some mass in the midsection.
>

That can certainly help!

If your back is behaving, why not see what you can do to lower the bars
and narrow the width of your grip? I've sawed an inch or two off the
ends of mountain bike bars for that purpose. You may be able to test
the concept by just sliding controls and grips inward, depending on
your bar shape and type of grips. If you like it, make it permanent by
cutting.

- Frank Krygowski

[David L. Johnson]

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 07:26:54 -0500, Ken M wrote:

> David L. Johnson wrote:
>
>> Slightly lighter components here or there will not change a hybrid into a
>> road bike. Keep the hybrid for city commuting (to which it is
>> well-suited), and get a road bike for a faster experience.
>>
>
> Well I can only store one bike so I am stuck with the hybrid.

Well, that makes it harder. Personally, if I could only have one bike,
it'd be a road bike, maybe more of a touring style.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Let's not escape into mathematics. Let's stay with reality. --
_`\(,_ | Michael Crichton
(_)/ (_) |

[Roger Zoul]

Ken M > wrote:
:> wrote:
:>> Ken M wrote:
:>>
:>>>Ed Sullivan wrote:
:>>>
:>>>
:>>>>Dear Ken,
:>>>>
:>>>>Lose five pounds and you may begin to feel a difference. All the
:>>>>bike stuff probably adds up to less than a full water bottle.
:>>>>
:>>>
:>>>Yeah, I know my weight makes a big difference, 14 pounds in the last
:>>>2&1/2 months. But my calculations say that I can easily take any
:>>>where from 1.5 to 5 pounds off the bike. Depending on if I replace
:>>>the fork. That would be a BIG bottle of water.
:>>>
:>>>Ken
:>>>
:>>>--
:>>>Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F.
:>>>Kennedy
:>>
:>>
:>>
:>> Dear Ken,
:>>
:>> Let's do the math. Say you weigh around 200 lbs and your bike (with
:>> bottles) around 30. 5 pounds is just over a 2% difference in total
:>> weight. Do you think there would be any difference in performance
:>> given all the other factors that influence effort on a bike, such as
:>> wind resistance? Make sure your bike is comfortable and just ride.
:>>
:>> thanks,
:>>
:>> Ed
:>>
:> Well if you like math lets use the real numbers. I weigh 156. The
:> bike with bottles about 22. So I came up with just under 3%. Still
:> not a lot, but the goal of putting the bike on a diet was just to
:> pick up a bit of speed in the flats.

Get a road bike :)

[Roger Zoul]

Ken M > wrote:
:> Matt O'Toole wrote:
:>
:>> I agree.
:>>
:>> One thing that puzzles me is all these big guys fretting over bike
:>> weight, while tiny little women happily pedal right alonside them
:>> on obnoxiously heavy bikes. If anyone needs a sub-15 LB bike, it's
:>> a 100 LB woman. But you don't see as many of them blowing their
:>> life savings on Calfees, etc.
:>>
:>> Matt O.
:>
:> Well I don't want a sub 15 bike, but would like to get it sub 20.

3 lbs off bike weight won't make as much difference as losing 5 off your
body. :)

[maxo]

Roger Zoul wrote:
>>goal of putting the bike on a diet was just to
> > pick up a bit of speed in the flats.
>
> Get a road bike :)

I can't believe the nerve of all of youse. :P

"Weight doen't matter on a hybrid"
"get a touring bike"
"lose weight"
"get a road bike"

If somebody said "I can take five pounds off my road bike for $100",
ya'll would be more than eager to do the same thing.

A hybrid, if you take off five pounds, remove the doing, and add 28mm
tires is going to feel significantly faster. We're not talking about
500g or something insignificant. Five big ones makes the ride feel
nippier--especially when out of the saddle. Might not actually be much
faster, but the bike's gonna feel faster. :P

I don't like flat bars on a hybrid--would probably switch to something
like cork taped upside down North Road bars if it were my bike--but a
hybrid, with sporty tweaks, is a perfect bike for this time of year. :D
Especially a sub 30 pounder. ;)

[rs]

1. Once you get used to riding, you don't need the brick suspension
seatpost, go ahead and save a pound.

2. That's a tank saddle you have, you can easily shave 1/2 - 3/4s pound and
probably get a more comfortable seat.

3. Lose the suspension forks, who needs them once you get used to riding
around town. Save another pound?

Having said all the above, you may not notice the approximate 2.5 - 3 lbs.
You would notice better, lighter wheels because rolling weight is what counts
the most. Also going to a thinner higher preassure tire will be very
noticeable, but you'll start to lose comfort as you go up in tire preassure.
Its all a compromise.


In article >,
says...
>
>I have been trying to come up with some ways of saving a bit of weight
>on my hybrid. I have thought of several ways which ways should I try?
>
>(1) Seat post - currently a suspension model (stock) weights 530 grams.
>New / better rigid weights about 250 grams. Easy to change.
>
>(2) Saddle - Currently stock Avenir sport type. Weight 668 grams. New /
>better between 200 - 300 grams. Easy to change.
>
>(3) Fork - Currently Suntour suspension model (stock). Weight ?? -
>heavy. New / better steel / rigid weight - 1335 grams uncut. Harder to
>change must change headset and stem.
>
>What is your opinion?
>Ken
>
>--
>Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy

[Matt O'Toole]

On 8 Dec 2005 20:02:04 -0800, wrote:

>andy gee wrote:

>> I used to think trying to save 1 or 2 pounds on a 225 pound bike-rider
>> system was silly. Then I realized that observed data doesn't support my
>> silliness hypothesis.

>> At the race track, the conditions of the race and jockey allow horses
>> weight advantages in, typically, 2 and 5 pound increments on a 1,200
>> pound horse-ride system. The most "unfair" advantage is the 5 pound
>> allowance given to a "single bug" apprentice jockey. This 0.4%
>> advantage makes the bugs look like they're burning up the track. So
>> just 400 or 500 grams saved on any bike could have a major effect.

Don't forget horses accelerate faster than cyclists. Weight matters
only WRT acceleration, and cyclists accelerate slowly.

>I don't think the results are comparable. Here's why:

>A horse (or any running animal, for that matter) has to lift its entire
>weight off the ground each stride. That up and down work against
>gravity eats energy.

>One of the main reasons a bike moves so much faster than a runner is
>that the bike & rider's weight does _not_ move up and down. Much more
>of the power goes into forward motion, rather than into constantly
>lifting and dropping.

This is probably true, but on a steep enough hill the runner has an
advantage because he's not carrying 25# of bike up the hill. This is
apparent while riding mountain bikes up very steep trails and being
passed by runners, only to pass them again when the grade lessens.

But until the hill is really steep (>20%) this isn't an issue.

Matt O.

[Matt O'Toole]

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 18:26:59 -0500, Ken M > wrote:

wrote:
>
>
>> I, too, was going to lobby for trading tires first. I don't know what
>> tires you have on the bike, but it's unlikely they're super-light.
>> Going to lighter (and perhaps narrower?) tires will reduce weight,
>> which is what you asked. Going to thinner tubes will also do that.
>> But both will reduce rolling resistance, and that's usually more
>> important than raw weight.
>>
>Well tire will be on the agenda soon. The originals have over 2000 miles
>on them and the rear is starting to show wear. According to a thread I
>found using Google groups search I can mount down to a 23 tire on my
>Alex ace-18 rims.

I would start there too.

For speed, your best bet is a race-oriented tire, but not the
thinnest, fastest ones if you want a smooth ride and some
reliability/durability. Get the fattest ones you can find. Tires in
this class rarely come bigger than 25mm because they won't fit in
racing frames. A few come in 28mm, like the Continental Gatorskin and
Ultra 2000, Avocet, and maybe a few others. The 25mm Michelin Carbon
would be a good choice too. Tires fatter than these are usually
designed more for durability, which is a good thing but may take away
from ultimate speed. You are looking for speed, right?.

From any of the tires mentioned you can expect to get 3-4000 miles
before the cords show. All but Avocet are widely available, and those
you can get from Sheldon Brown or Peter White. Wire beads are cheaper
and just as good. The extra ounce or two won't matter.

The next thing I'd look at is your clothing. Do you have slim-fitting
shorts, jerseys, and windbreaker? How about shoes? Lightweight
Sidis, etc., can be a whole pound lighter than heavy MTB shoes.
They'll be more comfortable and give you better power transmission
too.

>Well the point of putting the bike on a diet was just to pick up a bit
>of speed in the flats.

It won't help you there. On the flats it's all about wind resistance,
and to a tiny degree, rolling resistance. Also make sure your
drivetrain isn't dirty.

Finally, the kind of hybrid you have is as good a bike as you'll ever
need, especially if you're not interested in drop bars. So a few
tweaks to make you feel faster is worth the investment, especially if
it makes you feel better about your riding. As with the sub-20#
wonders many of us ride, most of it is probably psychological, but
hopefully we can help you make some real improvements too, even if
they're small.

Matt O.

[Ken M]

Roger Zoul wrote:

> Get a road bike :)
>
>
Well at some point in the future this may be a possibility, but for now
I can only store one bike, and I just bought the hybrid 3 months ago.

Ken
--
Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy

[Ken M]

maxo wrote:
> Roger Zoul wrote:
>
>>>goal of putting the bike on a diet was just to
>>>pick up a bit of speed in the flats.
>>
>>Get a road bike :)
>
>
> I can't believe the nerve of all of youse. :P
>
> "Weight doen't matter on a hybrid"
> "get a touring bike"
> "lose weight"
> "get a road bike"
>
> If somebody said "I can take five pounds off my road bike for $100",
> ya'll would be more than eager to do the same thing.
>
> A hybrid, if you take off five pounds, remove the doing, and add 28mm
> tires is going to feel significantly faster. We're not talking about
> 500g or something insignificant. Five big ones makes the ride feel
> nippier--especially when out of the saddle. Might not actually be much
> faster, but the bike's gonna feel faster. :P
>
> I don't like flat bars on a hybrid--would probably switch to something
> like cork taped upside down North Road bars if it were my bike--but a
> hybrid, with sporty tweaks, is a perfect bike for this time of year. :D
> Especially a sub 30 pounder. ;)
>
Well the bike is great for riding, I have ridden it way over 2000 mile
more like 2500 by now. It's comfortable, I can ride, with cycling
clothing, all day. The thing that I really want is just this, I can ride
ALL day in good conditions between 12 and 13 mph, but to move that up to
14 to 15 mph and maintain that takes considerably more energy. And to
accelerate to 16 to 17 takes a lot more, and I can only maintain that
level for a few miles. So the goal is to make those speeds easier to
maintain.

Ken
--
Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy

[Ken M]

Matt O'Toole wrote:

>
> The next thing I'd look at is your clothing. Do you have slim-fitting
> shorts, jerseys, and windbreaker? How about shoes? Lightweight
> Sidis, etc., can be a whole pound lighter than heavy MTB shoes.
> They'll be more comfortable and give you better power transmission
> too.
>
Yeah when I go on one of my fitness rides (training) I always wear my
cycling clothing, skin tight all over. I use toe clips and straps, just
because I find these more convienent for around town and commuting.
>
>>Well the point of putting the bike on a diet was just to pick up a bit
>>of speed in the flats.
>
>
> It won't help you there. On the flats it's all about wind resistance,
> and to a tiny degree, rolling resistance. Also make sure your
> drivetrain isn't dirty.
>
> Finally, the kind of hybrid you have is as good a bike as you'll ever
> need, especially if you're not interested in drop bars. So a few
> tweaks to make you feel faster is worth the investment, especially if
> it makes you feel better about your riding. As with the sub-20#
> wonders many of us ride, most of it is probably psychological, but
> hopefully we can help you make some real improvements too, even if
> they're small.

I don't want to try to race or anything, which is one of the reasons I
choose a hyrid, I know it will never be as fast as a true "road" bike.
But then again I don't plan on riding it in the TdF.

Ken
--
Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy

[Ken M]

The Wogster wrote:

> What is the total weight of the bike? Are you gaining a little or a
> lot? Any part on a bike can be replaced with a lighter part, providing
> one has enough time or money. Now lighter weight parts may not be as
> durable, as a heavier part of the same quality.
>
Well in an earlier reply I answered that the bike was 22 pounds, this is
a mistake, it's 32 pounds.

> Seat post, yeah go for it, just remember to not count on the suspension
> on rough terrain. As for the saddle, a heavy but comfortable saddle
> beats a light weight "ass hatchet" any day, with saddles, YMMV.
>
I don't ride off road so terrain is mostly city / urban.

> The fork, most expensive to replace, be careful, a different kind of
> fork, will affect handling considerably.
>
> W

Ken
--
Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy

[Andy Gee]

Matt O'Toole > wrote in
:

> Don't forget horses accelerate faster than cyclists. Weight matters
> only WRT acceleration, and cyclists accelerate slowly.
>

Is this true? I think the power/weight ratio is about the same, and the
bike has the mechanical advantage of wheels and gears. A good runner is a
match for a horse at 75 yards, and human powered vehicles can get up to
twice race horse speeds. But i don't see a direct comparison on a web
search. I'll have to dig up some past performance quarter times and work
the math if there isn't anything definitive.

--ag

[Ken M]

maxo wrote:
>
> Going to rigid fork and post saves grams *and is more durable. Win win.
> :D
>
That was part of my thinking as well, not much to go wrong with a rigid,
no moving parts.

>
>
> subbing a rigid for a sus can only be a good thing if you're riding on
> pavement.
>
Thats the ONLY place I ride. I never go off road.

> BUT, now that I think about it, a rigid for might lower the front end
> of the OP's bike as 700c steel forks aren't usually adjusted for
> suspension length as 26'' sus forks are. :/
>
Well the LBS where I bought the bike from says "The new fork will go
right in with little handling change." I stopped there today to ask
about doing the work for me and they told me between $75 and $100. About
the same as I can get the parts for and do it myself. But I think I
would like to learn how to do it myself anyway.

Ken
--
Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy

[[email protected]]

Ken M wrote:
> maxo wrote:
> > Roger Zoul wrote:
> >
> >>>goal of putting the bike on a diet was just to
> >>>pick up a bit of speed in the flats.
> >>
> >>Get a road bike :)
> >
> >
> > I can't believe the nerve of all of youse. :P
> >
> > "Weight doen't matter on a hybrid"
> > "get a touring bike"
> > "lose weight"
> > "get a road bike"
> >
> > If somebody said "I can take five pounds off my road bike for $100",
> > ya'll would be more than eager to do the same thing.
> >
> > A hybrid, if you take off five pounds, remove the doing, and add 28mm
> > tires is going to feel significantly faster. We're not talking about
> > 500g or something insignificant. Five big ones makes the ride feel
> > nippier--especially when out of the saddle. Might not actually be much
> > faster, but the bike's gonna feel faster. :P
> >
> > I don't like flat bars on a hybrid--would probably switch to something
> > like cork taped upside down North Road bars if it were my bike--but a
> > hybrid, with sporty tweaks, is a perfect bike for this time of year. :D
> > Especially a sub 30 pounder. ;)
> >
> Well the bike is great for riding, I have ridden it way over 2000 mile
> more like 2500 by now. It's comfortable, I can ride, with cycling
> clothing, all day. The thing that I really want is just this, I can ride
> ALL day in good conditions between 12 and 13 mph, but to move that up to
> 14 to 15 mph and maintain that takes considerably more energy. And to
> accelerate to 16 to 17 takes a lot more, and I can only maintain that
> level for a few miles. So the goal is to make those speeds easier to
> maintain.
>
> Ken
> --
> Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy

Unfortuately Roger is right. A road bike will do it. Cutting down on
some weight won't hurt but a drop bars road bike will make a much
greater difference in your speed.

If you like the bike is an extra mile an hour that important?
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

[The Wogster]

Ken M wrote:
> The Wogster wrote:
>
>> What is the total weight of the bike? Are you gaining a little or a
>> lot? Any part on a bike can be replaced with a lighter part,
>> providing one has enough time or money. Now lighter weight parts may
>> not be as durable, as a heavier part of the same quality.
>>
> Well in an earlier reply I answered that the bike was 22 pounds, this is
> a mistake, it's 32 pounds.
>
>> Seat post, yeah go for it, just remember to not count on the
>> suspension on rough terrain. As for the saddle, a heavy but
>> comfortable saddle beats a light weight "ass hatchet" any day, with
>> saddles, YMMV.
>>
> I don't ride off road so terrain is mostly city / urban.
>

Yeah, hybrids and MTBs tend to be heavy, because they need beefy
components to put up with rougher terrain, my MTB is ~34lbs, and that is
with an aluminum frame! Considering your looking at mostly city/urban
riding, you might want to consider a road bike none the less. Contrary
to popular opinion, a road bike is designed for road riding, it's
lighter (sub 25lb road bikes are very common), and has the ability to
easily produce a smaller wind target, using the drops. They are
intended for longer distances as well, you can haul a 32lb flatbar
hybrid through an imperial century, but it's a tough haul, and speeds
tend to be slower.

To get the best out of your hybrid, first of all, get rid of the knobby
tires, since you don't ride off-road you don't need them, you can go
with a narrower profile slick, which has a lower rolling resistance.
Think about adding aero bars, and changing to clipless pedals.

Be careful with changes though, you don't want to all of a sudden
realise that you spent $1200 on a hybrid to get ... a $900 road bike.

Now I think there was a problem with a second bike, something about
storage space, but there are solutions for that, there are double height
bike stands that allow two bikes to use up the space for one.


W

[Zoot Katz]

On 9 Dec 2005 15:42:43 -0800, "maxo" > wrote:

>If somebody said "I can take five pounds off my road bike for $100",
>ya'll would be more than eager to do the same thing.

I can take five pounds off the joe-bike for free by leaving the lock
and water bottle at home. Then I could lose the remaining 35 lbs by
just leaving the bike unlocked.
--
zk

[Ken M]

The Wogster wrote:

> Yeah, hybrids and MTBs tend to be heavy, because they need beefy
> components to put up with rougher terrain, my MTB is ~34lbs, and that is
> with an aluminum frame! Considering your looking at mostly city/urban
> riding, you might want to consider a road bike none the less. Contrary
> to popular opinion, a road bike is designed for road riding, it's
> lighter (sub 25lb road bikes are very common), and has the ability to
> easily produce a smaller wind target, using the drops. They are
> intended for longer distances as well, you can haul a 32lb flatbar
> hybrid through an imperial century, but it's a tough haul, and speeds
> tend to be slower.
>
Yeah I thought it was lighter than it is. At 32lbs it's not a racer
thats for sure. I guess I should have checked the weight before I bought
it. I figured being an aluminum frame it had to be pretty light, and it
does feel light until you ride it more than 20+ miles. I might just have
to give in and buy a "road" bike. I have riden a century on it, and
averaged 12.8 mph.

> To get the best out of your hybrid, first of all, get rid of the knobby
> tires, since you don't ride off-road you don't need them, you can go
> with a narrower profile slick, which has a lower rolling resistance.
> Think about adding aero bars, and changing to clipless pedals.
>
Well like I said the tires, are going to need replacing soon, so a
thinner profile tire will be going on there. About aero bars, most of
the ones I have seen are made for the larger diameter drop bars, the
diameter on mine is smaller.

> Be careful with changes though, you don't want to all of a sudden
> realise that you spent $1200 on a hybrid to get ... a $900 road bike.
>
Yeah I don't want to drop another $500 on the $500 hybrid. If I can drop
the bike to the 27 to 28 lb range for a couple of hundred dollars that
would be okay.

> Now I think there was a problem with a second bike, something about
> storage space, but there are solutions for that, there are double height
> bike stands that allow two bikes to use up the space for one.
>
Well storage is an issue, I may just maybe be able to "clean house" and
make enough room for another bike.

Ken
--
Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy

[The Wogster]

Ken M wrote:
> The Wogster wrote:
>
>> Yeah, hybrids and MTBs tend to be heavy, because they need beefy
>> components to put up with rougher terrain, my MTB is ~34lbs, and that
>> is with an aluminum frame! Considering your looking at mostly
>> city/urban riding, you might want to consider a road bike none the
>> less. Contrary to popular opinion, a road bike is designed for road
>> riding, it's lighter (sub 25lb road bikes are very common), and has
>> the ability to easily produce a smaller wind target, using the drops.
>> They are intended for longer distances as well, you can haul a 32lb
>> flatbar hybrid through an imperial century, but it's a tough haul, and
>> speeds tend to be slower.
>>
> Yeah I thought it was lighter than it is. At 32lbs it's not a racer
> thats for sure. I guess I should have checked the weight before I bought
> it. I figured being an aluminum frame it had to be pretty light, and it
> does feel light until you ride it more than 20+ miles. I might just have
> to give in and buy a "road" bike. I have riden a century on it, and
> averaged 12.8 mph.
>

On the flats, bike weight doesn't really mean much, wind target size,
rolling resistance, gear selection, rider strength are all more
important, going uphill is where a heavier bike is going to be slower,
because you need a lower gear to move the bike. To the bike weight you
need to add accessories and rider, the combination is what you need to
slog up hill, in some cases MTB's are actually at an advantage, because
they tend to have a lower lowest gear. The chance of actually getting
to the top is greater because you have a lower gear, but with that lower
gear comes a lower speed as well. For me, my onroad weight is about
260lbs, so dropping 5lbs off the bike, isn't going to gain much dropping
40lbs off the rider, will help quite a bit, notice this is actually more
then the weight of the bike!

>> To get the best out of your hybrid, first of all, get rid of the
>> knobby tires, since you don't ride off-road you don't need them, you
>> can go with a narrower profile slick, which has a lower rolling
>> resistance.
>> Think about adding aero bars, and changing to clipless pedals.
>>
> Well like I said the tires, are going to need replacing soon, so a
> thinner profile tire will be going on there. About aero bars, most of
> the ones I have seen are made for the larger diameter drop bars, the
> diameter on mine is smaller.
>
>> Be careful with changes though, you don't want to all of a sudden
>> realise that you spent $1200 on a hybrid to get ... a $900 road bike.
>>
> Yeah I don't want to drop another $500 on the $500 hybrid. If I can drop
> the bike to the 27 to 28 lb range for a couple of hundred dollars that
> would be okay.

Yeah, that's probably reasonable, keep the old parts though, if you want
to sell the bike, you will probably get more for it with the original
parts reinstalled then you will for a Franken-bike.

>
>> Now I think there was a problem with a second bike, something about
>> storage space, but there are solutions for that, there are double
>> height bike stands that allow two bikes to use up the space for one.
>>
> Well storage is an issue, I may just maybe be able to "clean house" and
> make enough room for another bike.
>

My bike lives in the garage, but then I have a garage (BTW the bikes are
inside, the car outside, hows that for priorities :-). I would like to
buy or build a bike rack of some kind, so that the bikes can be more
easily parked in the garage, instead of just sitting so you can't use
anything else in there, without moving the bikes.

If you live in a house or small apartment building, it may be possible
to get one of those metal garden sheds, build or buy a metal bike rack,
to attach your bike to, and put the rack inside the shed. In a bigger
building, see if there are other cyclists interested in shared bike
parking, again a shed that takes up one parking space, can easily
accomodate several bikes (you can actually get about 20 bikes in one car
space, if you do it right). This could be accomodated in a parking
garage or structure as well.

W

[willarch]

The Wogster wrote:

Yeah, hybrids and MTBs tend to be heavy, because they need beefy
components to put up with rougher terrain, my MTB is ~34lbs, and that is
with an aluminum frame! Considering your looking at mostly city/urban
riding, you might want to consider a road bike none the less. Contrary
to popular opinion, a road bike is designed for road riding, it's
lighter (sub 25lb road bikes are very common), and has the ability to
easily produce a smaller wind target, using the drops. They are
intended for longer distances as well, you can haul a 32lb flatbar
hybrid through an imperial century, but it's a tough haul, and speeds
tend to be slower.

Yeah I thought it was lighter than it is. At 32lbs it's not a racer
thats for sure. I guess I should have checked the weight before I bought
it. I figured being an aluminum frame it had to be pretty light, and it
does feel light until you ride it more than 20+ miles. I might just have
to give in and buy a "road" bike. I have riden a century on it, and
averaged 12.8 mph.

To get the best out of your hybrid, first of all, get rid of the knobby
tires, since you don't ride off-road you don't need them, you can go
with a narrower profile slick, which has a lower rolling resistance.
Think about adding aero bars, and changing to clipless pedals.

Well like I said the tires, are going to need replacing soon, so a
thinner profile tire will be going on there. About aero bars, most of
the ones I have seen are made for the larger diameter drop bars, the
diameter on mine is smaller.

Be careful with changes though, you don't want to all of a sudden
realise that you spent $1200 on a hybrid to get ... a $900 road bike.

Yeah I don't want to drop another $500 on the $500 hybrid. If I can drop
the bike to the 27 to 28 lb range for a couple of hundred dollars that
would be okay.

Now I think there was a problem with a second bike, something about
storage space, but there are solutions for that, there are double height
bike stands that allow two bikes to use up the space for one.

Well storage is an issue, I may just maybe be able to "clean house" and
make enough room for another bike.

Ken
--
Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy

You would be better off swapping for a good lightweight road bike. If not, start with the wheels - remember the old adage that an ounce in the wheels is worth a pound in the frame (it's rotating weight whose inertia has to be overcome, and is heavier on your effort than fixed weight). Mountain bikes used on the road are grossly over-specified as far as strength and weight are concerned, and far bulkier than they need to be.

As for the back problems, having sciatica, I sympathise. Try to avoid too short a wheelbase or too stiff a frame. You would be better with a steel or carbon frame than aluminium, as both absorb road shock better than stiff aluminium. Of my stable, my newest, a short wheelbase 1990's Gios, is harder on the back than my earliest, a 1950's classic handbuilt Armstrong Continental with it's 41.5 inch wheelbase and very slender seat and chainstays (which coped admirably with off-road usage for much of its life, pointedly demonstrating that mountain bikes are much heavier than they need to be). A sprung seat pillar may be helpful if the back problems are bad, and could be worth the compromise with weight.

As for the saddle, remember that the saddle should be considered part of the rider, not the bike, and what is ideal for one rider's anatomy can be completely wrong for another. When I started cycling 52 years ago, we used Brooks leather saddles almost exclusively. These had to be worn in, but were very comfy when they had moulded to the rider. If we sold a bike, we kept the saddle and put it on the new one.

Basic guide to losing weight is that if the part doesn't earn its keep, take it off. And if it has to stay, reduce its weight as much as possible consistent with not being too frail for the job.

Finally, for anyone with a BMI over 25, then I would suggest that reducing their own weight would be the best staring point. None of us gain anything whatever from lugging lumps of useless lard uphill!

[gds]

willarch wrote:
>> Finally, for anyone with a BMI over 25, then I would suggest that
> reducing their own weight would be the best staring point. None of us
> gain anything whatever from lugging lumps of useless lard uphill!
>
Just a quick reaction to this last statement. I am not a big fan of the
BMI. BMI is unable to differentiate between fat and lean muscle mass
and thus can be a worthless measure when applied to to folks who are
muscular.
So, for example, my BMI is 25.5. However, my bodyfat as measered by
submersion testing is 11%. At 60 yo most folks would not call me
"mildly overweight" as the BMI indicates.
For more extreme examples look at NBA players for whom BMI indicates
they are overweight or even obese when they are running body fat levels
of less than 10%.

But your point that most folks culd easily lose a few pounds and that
is probably better for them and less expensive than losing the same on
the bike is correct.

[Peter Cole]

willarch wrote:
> not, start with the wheels - remember the old adage that an ounce in
> the wheels is worth a pound in the frame (it's rotating weight whose
> inertia has to be overcome, and is heavier on your effort than fixed
> weight).

That "old adage" has sold a lot of wheels, but hasn't made anybody faster.

> steel or carbon frame than aluminium, as both absorb road shock better
> than stiff aluminium.

Sorry, another "old adage".

[willarch]

willarch wrote:
not, start with the wheels - remember the old adage that an ounce in
the wheels is worth a pound in the frame (it's rotating weight whose
inertia has to be overcome, and is heavier on your effort than fixed
weight).

That "old adage" has sold a lot of wheels, but hasn't made anybody faster.

steel or carbon frame than aluminium, as both absorb road shock better
than stiff aluminium.

Sorry, another "old adage".

In response to the last two postings:-

Dead right on failings of BMI as an accurate measure. It is not the whole story, but I meant it as a quick though rough yardstick of when weight becomes a concern, not for more precise medical analysis.

On wheel weight, I have ridden a considerable number of wheels in 52 years, and am not just quoting an adage, but my own experience. The worst wheels I have ridden were steel rimmed, Sturmey Archer 3-speed hub gear, and heavy 1.75 inch tyres. They were "dead" to get moving and sluggish once rolling. The best pairs I rode were all lightweight sprint wheels with light tubular tyres - all nippy to accelerate, and easy rolling. I certainly went faster on them than on the steelies, particularly uphill. My first lightweight wheels were Fiamme rims on BH solite hubs with Dunlop No2 tubs (7oz weight). From my first Time Trial on them (in 1957) the steelies went in the bin and have never returned - a decision I have never regretted.

The basic science is that the kinetic energy contained in a moving object is equal to half its weight times the square of its speed. For a bike on the flat or uphill, all that energy has to be supplied by the rider converting energy from food into kinetic energy in the bike, so the lighter the bike, the greater its speed for the same input of energy, wherever the weight is located. On the wheels the greatest effect of weight is in the amount of energy needed to get them rolling, so the effect is felt most on acceleration. (Imaging replacing each of your wheels with a hundredweight of solid brass flywheel, and ponder the effort it would take to get them rolling - and the time it would take to brake them to a halt, to say nothing of the effort of lugging them uphill).

On a perfectly flat road with no turns, no hazards and no other traffic, wheel weight, once rolling, would have a flywheel effect and smooth out the ride. So if you always ride on perfectly flat roads and don't care how long it takes to reach speed, then by all means use heavy wheels. But for the rest of us mortals cursed with roads that go uphill, and having to use the brakes from time to time to waste large amounts of our precious energy by converting it to heat, lighter wheels have a great deal to recommend them.

The so-called "adage" refers to light wheels, not expensive ones - not necessarily the same thing. It's not a sales gimmick, it is well founded in the laws of energy and motion.

As to aluminium frames, size for size aluminium is weaker than steel, so to obtain the same strength an aluminium tube has to be larger section than a steel one. It is also a more brittle material than steel. It is this combination of larger section and less flexibility that makes an aluminium frame stiffer than steel - and one of the sales points of aluminium is that its stiffness means more of the riders power reaches the wheel, with less spent in flexing the frame. It's not an adage, it's materials science.

But when it comes to absorbing road shocks that stiffness becomes a disadvantage. The best combination is horizontal stiffness in the tubes supporting the drive train, with vertical compliance for absorbing road shocks, hence the move to aluminium main triangle and chainstays with carbon seat stays and forks.

I would agree that there should be some overlap in characteristics, with the stiffest steel frames, (short wheelbase and oversize downtube) probably stiffer than the most compliant aluminium frames (long wheelbase, narower tubes, large frame size) and I wouldn't want to generalise too much. For me it is telling that my riding pal, who has owned a craftsman-built Brian Rourke steel frame for some years, and recently bought an aluminium-framed bike, finds his Rourke less harsh to ride than the aluminium one.

Personally, having sciatica, I don't feel like risking wasting money on an ally frame which might turn out too harsh and painful to ride, particularly if it is only expected to have a five year life before risk of failure. Carbon fibre looks more promising for a less harsh ride, or titanium if the price comes down. Until then I shall stay with steel.

[Peter Cole]

willarch wrote:
> Peter Cole Wrote:
>
>>willarch wrote:
>>not, start with the wheels - remember the old adage that an ounce in
>>the wheels is worth a pound in the frame (it's rotating weight whose
>>inertia has to be overcome, and is heavier on your effort than fixed
>>weight).
>>
>>That "old adage" has sold a lot of wheels, but hasn't made anybody
>>faster.
>>
>>steel or carbon frame than aluminium, as both absorb road shock
>>better
>>than stiff aluminium.
>>
>>Sorry, another "old adage".
>
>
> In response to the last two postings:-
>
> Dead right on failings of BMI as an accurate measure. It is not the
> whole story, but I meant it as a quick though rough yardstick of when
> weight becomes a concern, not for more precise medical analysis.
>
> On wheel weight, I have ridden a considerable number of wheels in 52
> years, and am not just quoting an adage, but my own experience. The
> worst wheels I have ridden were steel rimmed, Sturmey Archer 3-speed
> hub gear, and heavy 1.75 inch tyres. They were "dead" to get moving and
> sluggish once rolling. The best pairs I rode were all lightweight sprint
> wheels with light tubular tyres - all nippy to accelerate, and easy
> rolling. I certainly went faster on them than on the steelies,
> particularly uphill. My first lightweight wheels were Fiamme rims on BH
> solite hubs with Dunlop No2 tubs (7oz weight). From my first Time Trial
> on them (in 1957) the steelies went in the bin and have never returned
> - a decision I have never regretted.
>
> The basic science is that the kinetic energy contained in a moving
> object is equal to half its weight times the square of its speed. For a
> bike on the flat or uphill, all that energy has to be supplied by the
> rider converting energy from food into kinetic energy in the bike, so
> the lighter the bike, the greater its speed for the same input of
> energy, wherever the weight is located. On the wheels the greatest
> effect of weight is in the amount of energy needed to get them rolling,
> so the effect is felt most on acceleration. (Imaging replacing each of
> your wheels with a hundredweight of solid brass flywheel, and ponder
> the effort it would take to get them rolling - and the time it would
> take to brake them to a halt, to say nothing of the effort of lugging
> them uphill).
>
> On a perfectly flat road with no turns, no hazards and no other
> traffic, wheel weight, once rolling, would have a flywheel effect and
> smooth out the ride. So if you always ride on perfectly flat roads and
> don't care how long it takes to reach speed, then by all means use
> heavy wheels. But for the rest of us mortals cursed with roads that go
> uphill, and having to use the brakes from time to time to waste large
> amounts of our precious energy by converting it to heat, lighter wheels
> have a great deal to recommend them.
>
> The so-called "adage" refers to light wheels, not expensive ones - not
> necessarily the same thing. It's not a sales gimmick, it is well
> founded in the laws of energy and motion.
>
> As to aluminium frames, size for size aluminium is weaker than steel,
> so to obtain the same strength an aluminium tube has to be larger
> section than a steel one. It is also a more brittle material than
> steel. It is this combination of larger section and less flexibility
> that makes an aluminium frame stiffer than steel - and one of the sales
> points of aluminium is that its stiffness means more of the riders power
> reaches the wheel, with less spent in flexing the frame. It's not an
> adage, it's materials science.
>
> But when it comes to absorbing road shocks that stiffness becomes a
> disadvantage. The best combination is horizontal stiffness in the tubes
> supporting the drive train, with vertical compliance for absorbing road
> shocks, hence the move to aluminium main triangle and chainstays with
> carbon seat stays and forks.
>
> I would agree that there should be some overlap in characteristics,
> with the stiffest steel frames, (short wheelbase and oversize downtube)
> probably stiffer than the most compliant aluminium frames (long
> wheelbase, narower tubes, large frame size) and I wouldn't want to
> generalise too much. For me it is telling that my riding pal, who has
> owned a craftsman-built Brian Rourke steel frame for some years, and
> recently bought an aluminium-framed bike, finds his Rourke less harsh
> to ride than the aluminium one.
>
> Personally, having sciatica, I don't feel like risking wasting money on
> an ally frame which might turn out too harsh and painful to ride,
> particularly if it is only expected to have a five year life before
> risk of failure. Carbon fibre looks more promising for a less harsh
> ride, or titanium if the price comes down. Until then I shall stay with
> steel.
>
>

I think BMI scales pretty well, I'm 6'10" and find the numbers reasonable.

Re: wheel weight & frame material -- both of these subjects have been
thoroughly discussed here before, you might Google the archives.

"An ounce on the wheel = a pound on the frame" is just silly. For
acceleration, an ounce on the *rim* is equal to approximately 2 ounces
on the frame, but accelerations have very little effect on cycling
performance (being small and infrequent). Other than acceleration, an
ounce is an ounce.

Aluminum frames are not harsh. All frames are harsh. Large tubed frames
are stiff. Aluminum allows larger tubes for a given weight of material
than steel (because of buckling limitations), it also allows small
diameter tubes -- designers choose large tubes because stiffness is a
desirable quality.

Lifetime of aluminum components (like steel or other materials) is
controlled by design parameters. In the only published report of frame
fatigue testing, aluminum out-performed other materials.

[[email protected]]

I think willarch is trying for the "myth and lore" award for 2005!


willarch wrote:
>
>
> On wheel weight, I have ridden a considerable number of wheels in 52
> years, and am not just quoting an adage, but my own experience. The
> worst wheels I have ridden were steel rimmed, Sturmey Archer 3-speed
> hub gear, and heavy 1.75 inch tyres. They were "dead" to get moving and
> sluggish once rolling. The best pairs I rode were all lightweight sprint
> wheels with light tubular tyres - all nippy to accelerate, and easy
> rolling. I certainly went faster on them than on the steelies,
> particularly uphill. My first lightweight wheels were Fiamme rims on BH
> solite hubs with Dunlop No2 tubs (7oz weight). From my first Time Trial
> on them (in 1957) the steelies went in the bin and have never returned
> - a decision I have never regretted.

If you want to make a fair comparison, you should change one thing at a
time. You can put "dead" (i.e. high rolling resistance tires) on light
wheels, or vice versa. You can put either style on an aerodynamic
racing bike, or on an upright handlebar utility bike.

On the flats, the tire rolling resistance and the aero drag are what
eat your energy. Wheel weight has essentially nothing to do with it.

> The basic science is that the kinetic energy contained in a moving
> object is equal to half its weight times the square of its speed.

Well, that should be mass instead of weight. But no matter.

If the object is rotating, there's also KE "contained" in its rotation,
= half its moment of inertia times its angular velocity squared. It's
the partial understanding of this last bit that leads to the worship of
super-light wheels. But the devil's in the details, as they say. It
actually doesn't matter much at all unless you're racing.

> For a
> bike on the flat or uphill, all that energy has to be supplied by the
> rider converting energy from food into kinetic energy in the bike, so
> the lighter the bike, the greater its speed for the same input of
> energy, wherever the weight is located. On the wheels the greatest
> effect of weight is in the amount of energy needed to get them rolling,
> so the effect is felt most on acceleration. (Imaging replacing each of
> your wheels with a hundredweight of solid brass flywheel, and ponder
> the effort it would take to get them rolling - and the time it would
> take to brake them to a halt, to say nothing of the effort of lugging
> them uphill).
>
> On a perfectly flat road with no turns, no hazards and no other
> traffic, wheel weight, once rolling, would have a flywheel effect and
> smooth out the ride. So if you always ride on perfectly flat roads and
> don't care how long it takes to reach speed, then by all means use
> heavy wheels. But for the rest of us mortals cursed with roads that go
> uphill, and having to use the brakes from time to time to waste large
> amounts of our precious energy by converting it to heat, lighter wheels
> have a great deal to recommend them.

The percentage of system's kinetic energy stored in the rotation of the
wheels is not large. For most riding, it gets recovered when you
transition from downhill or level riding to commencing an uphill.

For example: take two identical riders on two 22 pound bikes - one
with 19 pounds in the frame, etc. and three pounds in the wheels; the
other with 15 pounds in the frame and 7 pounds in the wheels.

The former would acclerate faster from a stop, or in a sudden sprint.
(Light wheels make sense for racers.) But the _latter_ bike would be a
bit ahead if the riders rode side by side and commenced climbing a
hill.

The difference would be small in either case.

I've got a copy of _Bicycling Science_ by Whitt & Wilson, 1st edition.
(I"ve got other editions too, but not at hand.) On page 121, the
author indicates we're talking about acceleration differences of
something like 1.5% to 3%.


>
> The so-called "adage" refers to light wheels, not expensive ones - not
> necessarily the same thing. It's not a sales gimmick, it is well
> founded in the laws of energy and motion.

The more accurate version of the adage is "an ounce in the wheels is
worth two ounces in the frame... during acceleration." Even that is an
overestimate, based on the simplifying assumption that _all_ the wheel
mass is in the rim. But at anything close to constant speed, it
matters not.


>
> As to aluminium frames, size for size aluminium is weaker than steel,
> so to obtain the same strength an aluminium tube has to be larger
> section than a steel one. It is also a more brittle material than
> steel. It is this combination of larger section and less flexibility...

Wait! "Brittle" and "Less flexible" are two different things.

> that makes an aluminium frame stiffer than steel - and one of the sales
> points of aluminium is that its stiffness means more of the riders power
> reaches the wheel, with less spent in flexing the frame. It's not an
> adage, it's materials science.

Depends on the aluminum frame. Surely you remember the Alan frames of
the 1970s and early 1980s?

>
> But when it comes to absorbing road shocks that stiffness becomes a
> disadvantage. The best combination is horizontal stiffness in the tubes
> supporting the drive train, with vertical compliance for absorbing road
> shocks, hence the move to aluminium main triangle and chainstays with
> carbon seat stays and forks.

Here - or even more in rec.bicycles.tech - we've had (ahem!) _very_
thorough discussions regarding vertical compliance of structures that
are essentially rigid. I'm talking about things like triangulated bike
frames. You'd do well to search the archives.

- Frank Krygowski

[willarch]

I think willarch is trying for the "myth and lore" award for 2005!


willarch wrote:


On wheel weight, I have ridden a considerable number of wheels in 52
years, and am not just quoting an adage, but my own experience. The
worst wheels I have ridden were steel rimmed, Sturmey Archer 3-speed
hub gear, and heavy 1.75 inch tyres. They were "dead" to get moving and
sluggish once rolling. The best pairs I rode were all lightweight sprint
wheels with light tubular tyres - all nippy to accelerate, and easy
rolling. I certainly went faster on them than on the steelies,
particularly uphill. My first lightweight wheels were Fiamme rims on BH
solite hubs with Dunlop No2 tubs (7oz weight). From my first Time Trial
on them (in 1957) the steelies went in the bin and have never returned
- a decision I have never regretted.

If you want to make a fair comparison, you should change one thing at a
time. You can put "dead" (i.e. high rolling resistance tires) on light
wheels, or vice versa. You can put either style on an aerodynamic
racing bike, or on an upright handlebar utility bike.

On the flats, the tire rolling resistance and the aero drag are what
eat your energy. Wheel weight has essentially nothing to do with it.

The basic science is that the kinetic energy contained in a moving
object is equal to half its weight times the square of its speed.

Well, that should be mass instead of weight. But no matter.

If the object is rotating, there's also KE "contained" in its rotation,
= half its moment of inertia times its angular velocity squared. It's
the partial understanding of this last bit that leads to the worship of
super-light wheels. But the devil's in the details, as they say. It
actually doesn't matter much at all unless you're racing.

For a
bike on the flat or uphill, all that energy has to be supplied by the
rider converting energy from food into kinetic energy in the bike, so
the lighter the bike, the greater its speed for the same input of
energy, wherever the weight is located. On the wheels the greatest
effect of weight is in the amount of energy needed to get them rolling,
so the effect is felt most on acceleration. (Imaging replacing each of
your wheels with a hundredweight of solid brass flywheel, and ponder
the effort it would take to get them rolling - and the time it would
take to brake them to a halt, to say nothing of the effort of lugging
them uphill).

On a perfectly flat road with no turns, no hazards and no other
traffic, wheel weight, once rolling, would have a flywheel effect and
smooth out the ride. So if you always ride on perfectly flat roads and
don't care how long it takes to reach speed, then by all means use
heavy wheels. But for the rest of us mortals cursed with roads that go
uphill, and having to use the brakes from time to time to waste large
amounts of our precious energy by converting it to heat, lighter wheels
have a great deal to recommend them.

The percentage of system's kinetic energy stored in the rotation of the
wheels is not large. For most riding, it gets recovered when you
transition from downhill or level riding to commencing an uphill.

For example: take two identical riders on two 22 pound bikes - one
with 19 pounds in the frame, etc. and three pounds in the wheels; the
other with 15 pounds in the frame and 7 pounds in the wheels.

The former would acclerate faster from a stop, or in a sudden sprint.
(Light wheels make sense for racers.) But the _latter_ bike would be a
bit ahead if the riders rode side by side and commenced climbing a
hill.

The difference would be small in either case.

I've got a copy of _Bicycling Science_ by Whitt & Wilson, 1st edition.
(I"ve got other editions too, but not at hand.) On page 121, the
author indicates we're talking about acceleration differences of
something like 1.5% to 3%.



The so-called "adage" refers to light wheels, not expensive ones - not
necessarily the same thing. It's not a sales gimmick, it is well
founded in the laws of energy and motion.

The more accurate version of the adage is "an ounce in the wheels is
worth two ounces in the frame... during acceleration." Even that is an
overestimate, based on the simplifying assumption that _all_ the wheel
mass is in the rim. But at anything close to constant speed, it
matters not.



As to aluminium frames, size for size aluminium is weaker than steel,
so to obtain the same strength an aluminium tube has to be larger
section than a steel one. It is also a more brittle material than
steel. It is this combination of larger section and less flexibility...

Wait! "Brittle" and "Less flexible" are two different things.

that makes an aluminium frame stiffer than steel - and one of the sales
points of aluminium is that its stiffness means more of the riders power
reaches the wheel, with less spent in flexing the frame. It's not an
adage, it's materials science.

Depends on the aluminum frame. Surely you remember the Alan frames of
the 1970s and early 1980s?


But when it comes to absorbing road shocks that stiffness becomes a
disadvantage. The best combination is horizontal stiffness in the tubes
supporting the drive train, with vertical compliance for absorbing road
shocks, hence the move to aluminium main triangle and chainstays with
carbon seat stays and forks.

Here - or even more in rec.bicycles.tech - we've had (ahem!) _very_
thorough discussions regarding vertical compliance of structures that
are essentially rigid. I'm talking about things like triangulated bike
frames. You'd do well to search the archives.

- Frank Krygowski

No particular disputes on any of this. But we are now getting very detailed and moving away from a generalised discussion. We could discuss this in much finer detail, of course, if time permitted.

But generally, lighter wheels give an advantage, even if only small (for racing even this smalll advantage could be crucial). To return to the main comment I was responding to, I am not aware of lighter wheels actually slowing anyone down.

Of course, the advantage may not matter in general cycling. Indeed, now my racing days are virtually over, I'm using somewhat heavier wheels, but this is an economic choice rather than an engineering one. Speed per se is less important, as I'm not in any particular hurry now - I live in attractive countryside, which is worth slowing down to look at. But I don't enjoy lugging heayweight equipment around, particularly since the said countryside is very hilly.

Yes I remember the Alan Frame. But this was a relatively immature technology, which has progressed considerably over the last decade or so, and I feel it would be a bit unfair to make comparisons with today's products.

You are right on the difference between brittle and flexible of course (a watch spring is both), and I concede the point - lazy thinking on my part. I would be a bit wary of aluminium springs, though.

Still, the devil is certainly in the details.